Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 15 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5614583
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way. The issue is not about depriving people of a safe place but about looking at why, for example, when Professor Ray Jones did his review of children's services, he said that the Youth Justice Agency was doing an excellent job but highlighted the flaws in secure care facilities in Northern Ireland and how they needed to align more closely with the way the youth justice facilities operate. There are ways to assure young people and members of the public that there are secure alternatives to prison. However, what none of us should want is to find that a young person of between 10 and 13 years of age is either becoming reliant on the justice system for support — we know that that happens, where young people see it as a safe space and commit offences in order to go there — or is normalising that in their life so that they think that being arrested, charged and processed through the justice system and ending up in Woodlands or, when they are older, Hydebank is the normal course of life. It should never be normalised for anybody. It should be reserved for cases that are extraordinarily serious and cases where no alternative is available. That is what at least some of the amendments are trying to do. I do not think that any of us wants a child as young as 12 and 13 to be making the calculation that they would be better off in the Juvenile Justice Centre than they would be in a care home, secure care or their family home, because that failing is much wider than the child's; it is a failing of society as a whole.
289 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.04 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.67 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.25 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.07 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:55 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.