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 5625036
Read the official Assembly record
Text
We covered those issues yesterday. The early intervention would not be affected. I listened to what Paul Givan said today. I sought confirmation on the engagement at school level. It would not be affected; the role of the children's panels and the work done there, for example, would not be affected; and the accountability for victims may, in fact, be increased on the basis that they may get restorative practice in place, which would be more beneficial.
We have said what the alternatives might look like, and we have said what can be done. I feel that the Member is searching for reasons not to support this as opposed to genuinely scrutinising what is in front of us. That is fine.
I am not indignant if she does not support the amendment. I am just frustrated that she will not say that she does not want the age to be raised from 10 and be done with it. It just seems to me to be a weird construct to say that, on the one hand, she thinks it is dangerous but that, on the other hand, she thinks that it is not. On the one hand, she wants to go with it, but, on the other hand, she does not think that the Executive will deliver on it. The only thing that we can really do tonight is decide whether we go ahead and do it or not. If we are not going to do it, we accept criminalising children at 10. If we are going to do it, we accept that we will have to make different provision for them between that age and whatever age the Assembly chooses.
It is aye or no.
285 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: 0.09 (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 (0.71).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.71 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.09 | 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 | 0.49 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.41 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.05 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 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.