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 4774288
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As the Member demonstrates in his question, many of the issues that will prevent offending are not the responsibility of the Department of Justice. They fall to other Departments, whether that is the Department for the Economy, the Department for Communities or, indeed, other Departments beyond that. It is important, however, that we take a trauma-informed approach. We recognise that our women's prisons and those people in our women's prisons are a different category of offender, often driven by different motivations and behaviours. Therefore, it is important that we factor that in to the rehabilitation of the women who come into our care. That is something that the Prison Service has been leading on, in addition to all the work that goes on while people are in prison, to ensure that, rather than recycling people through the system, we can successfully rehabilitate people outside the prison system by finding them accommodation before they leave prison and by assisting them with access to, for example, key services such as the health service, the Housing Executive and others whilst they are still in prison, to set up a path for success rather than a cliff edge for failure.
196 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 (0.87).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.87 | 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 | 0.68 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.31 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| 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.