Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on 15 June 2026.

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 5614909

Text

I am not saying that it does not happen. The Member is right: we have special dispensation in our criminal justice system. Those of us who are familiar with what it does recognise the good job that the Youth Justice Agency does. However, the public have their own views. I have spoken with parents of children who have gone through the youth justice system who find that they and their other children are ostracised in the community because one of their children has ended up in the youth justice system or the police have come to the door or whatever it might be. It is not only the child who has done something wrong but the entire family who are stigmatised and ostracised by the community. The Member will recall that we talked about coercive control in adult relationships. There are some young people who, when they go off the rails, see the person who is coercing them as a boyfriend, a friend or someone who has taken care of them, and they are afraid of getting that person into trouble. They are afraid of the consequences for themselves because they know that they have done something wrong, but they are also afraid of getting that individual into difficulties. Therefore, we need to maximise the opportunities, particularly at the younger end of the spectrum, for young people to come forward, make those disclosures and share that information without fear of repercussions on themselves. Sadly, the one area where, I think, we are failing — it is not solely the Youth Justice Agency or the PSNI but across the board — is the small number of young people who are involved in criminal activity as the result of grooming by adults who end up not being referred to the national referral mechanism, which we talked about earlier, because they are not seen as victims of trafficking or modern slavery but instead are seen as what? They are seen as criminals, because that is how they present in the first instance to the Police Service.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.07 (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 (0.91).
No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.06	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.04	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.02	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.07	No
Controversy escalation	0.04	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.91	Yes
Overall judgement	0.07	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing (chosen)	0.99
Reports or questions it	0.00
Criticises or condemns it	0.01
Adopts it	0.00

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups	0.52
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues	0.37
No identity-related subject	0.10
Another identity-related subject	0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials	0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:57 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