Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance 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 5624918
Read the official Assembly record
Text
First, I was not here 15 years ago; I was elsewhere. Over the past five years and during the Member's time in office and that of my predecessor David Ford, within the constraints of the MACR being 10, we have been deflecting people away from the justice system; providing a more trauma-informed approach; engaging with young people who are at risk of offending, as opposed to waiting until they have offended; and moving upstream to provide child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS), in conjunction with the Department of Education but paid for by the Department of Justice in certain circumstances, for young people who are suffering from trauma and who may offend as a result. The idea that nothing has changed in the 15 years since the report on this issue first recommended 14 as the minimum age of criminal responsibility is not true. To say that nothing has changed since David Ford proposed that we move to 12 is not true. To say that nothing is changing and that that situation will continue, irrespective of what happens with the amendments, would also be untrue. Progress is being made. The problem is that progress is limited by the fact that the children, ultimately, will be criminalised. Members are either in favour of that or against it.
217 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: 0.05 (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 (0.90).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.38 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.33 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.25 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:56 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.