Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mrs Ciara Ferguson on .
- MLA
- Mrs Ciara Ferguson
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 16 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5624924
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As someone who worked in this area from 2009, I can say that there has been loads of progress. I was not working in here but in the heart of communities with the most vulnerable kids. Back in 2009, family support hubs were set up. We have 29 family support hubs. We recently saw an announcement of £60 million. We have Sure Start programmes. We have joined-up services. Our organisations at a local neighbourhood level are way ahead of the Assembly, because they collaborate. They work together, look at all the programmes and use whatever resources they can to target the most vulnerable. Look at the Executive programmes under tackling paramilitarism: I ran a series of programmes under the tackling paramilitarism programme. We took the kids who were most at risk, were not attending school and were in low-level crime, pulled them out of school, educated them, supported them and basically gave them a granny who would look after, nurture and care for them. Some of those young people are now employed and are some of the best employees that companies have in the community. That work has been done over the past 15 or 16 years across all Departments, to give them their dues. That is from someone who has worked in the heart of the community, supporting children and young people who are most vulnerable and who, if not supported, will end up in the criminal justice system for the rest of their days.
Who is creating that risk?
Who is in the Northern Ireland Executive?
258 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: 0.19 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
- Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.06 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.13 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.09 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.45 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.19 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.83 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.14 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
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.