Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on 16 June 2026.

MLA

Mr Paul Givan

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

16 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5624472

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Of course, the younger you go, the fewer incidents there are. The numbers are relatively low, but that is not a reason to change the law on the age of criminal responsibility. Each year, around 50 children up to the age of 12 are identified in our schools by way of intervention. That number rises to 700 children per annum up to the age of 14. Obviously, the numbers for eight-year-olds and nine-year-olds are significantly lower. Given how small those numbers are, I would not want to remove the access to youth justice services or the PSNI in supporting resolutions to such issues. If we do not have robust alternative arrangements, raising the age would risk creating uncertainty for schools, families and victims about how serious incidents would be managed. It risks shifting responsibility without providing the necessary tools and placing additional pressure on an already stretched education system. We also need to be alert to the risk of inconsistency. Those organisations bring their expertise and apply it in a uniform fashion. In the absence of that, without a clear, shared framework, there could be inconsistency of practice in how we deal with challenging behaviour in school settings. It is not just about whether a child can be held criminally responsible. The focus must be on ensuring that harmful behaviour is identified early, that effective interventions are in place, that victims receive appropriate support and that schools have confidence in accessing the multi-agency assistance that they need.

I fully accept that many young people who display harmful behaviour require support, not punishment alone. Support and accountability are not mutually exclusive, however. They are most effective when delivered together in a clear and structured system, so early intervention must go hand in hand with mechanisms to ensure accountability, risk management and victim protection. Before any change to the minimum age is even contemplated, there must be confidence that the alternative arrangements to be put in place are legally robust, properly resourced and capable of responding effectively to serious incidents that affect pupils, school staff and the wider community. Those include access to mental health services, specialist behavioural support and strengthened safeguarding systems. Our priorities should be to strengthen prevention, invest in early intervention, enhance safeguarding and ensure that schools are fully supported to manage complex and serious behaviour. I therefore urge the Assembly to reflect carefully on the process by which the issue is being considered. In my view, making those changes through amendments to the Justice Bill is not the right way in which to make them. Given the significance and complexity of their potential impacts, it is essential that any such proposals be subject to a fuller and proper level of scrutiny rather than be dealt with through amendments. Later, I will —.

Yes, of course.

467 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:53 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification