Debate contribution: Prisons: Increase in Female Prisoner Numbers
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 3 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Prisons: Increase in Female Prisoner Numbers
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4774284
Read the official Assembly record
Text
There are a number of reasons why there are more women in prison today as opposed to during the pandemic. First of all, there was a concerted effort to remove people from the prison system during the pandemic, and many people have brought cases forward post pandemic that might otherwise have happened during that period. That is one reason: delay. The second reason is the economic crisis. Many of the women who are committed to our care will be guilty of acquisitive crime. It may be drugs-related or it may be out of desperation, but it will often lead people to be in the criminal justice system. Therefore, the increase in numbers, I suppose, tallies with that. However, there is a wider issue that the Member hints at, and that is the number of people in the prison system more generally who are on remand. The Criminal Justice Board is doing a bespoke piece of work to look at the reasons for remand, because the numbers seem to be incredibly high. They are incredibly high throughout the UK, but they are higher in Northern Ireland. We need to look at the reasons why people are committed to prison rather than given community-based sentences, and, as a Department, we are also looking at how we can build more confidence in community-based sentences that will allow judges not to send people to prison where a potentially better alternative rehabilitation measure may exist in the community.
243 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: 0.03 (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).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.60 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.27 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.13 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:53 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.