Debate contribution: Youth Custody and Supervision Orders
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 10 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Youth Custody and Supervision Orders
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5224697
Read the official Assembly record
Text
We can do a number of things. For example, we can look at the practice that already happens in the youth justice sector. Very few young people are now held in a custodial environment other than those who choose not to make their bail conditions, which some do because they do not feel safe returning to the community, or those who have committed potentially very serious offences that would require a public protection response. That commitment has been shown by making sure that we do the earliest possible intervention. You will be aware of the work that youth justice does in, for example, providing supplementary work in child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) for young people at risk of offending and working with those who are right on the boundary between getting themselves into serious trouble and not doing so. That is a measure of the commitment of the people who work in the Youth Justice Agency to ensure that, insofar as we can, we divert young people from the criminal justice sector and, crucially, from criminality. We are trying to protect those young people from becoming involved in activities that will mark them potentially for the rest of their lives, because we know that people graduate through the system, and that is not good for them or their community. It is in all our interests to support that.
230 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 (0.88).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.02 | 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 | 0.88 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.53 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.31 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.12 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:42 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.