Debate contribution: Justice: Stalled Policy Goals
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 10 February 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Justice: Stalled Policy Goals
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5435656
Read the official Assembly record
Text
In seeking to raise MACR, we are not saying that children's offending behaviour should be ignored or that they should get away with it. Changes would need to be accompanied by the development of new arrangements to identify the underlying causes of concerning behaviour in younger children and to provide support, guidance and help to those children and their families. Often, children who display challenging behaviour have themselves been victims or experienced multiple levels of adversity and trauma and have multiple unmet needs. Some have been groomed, some have been coerced and some have been exploited. We know, however, that the provision of targeted support to address the underlying issues at the earliest opportunity is an effective way of addressing offending behaviour, reducing the number of future victims and preventing lives being blighted by a criminal record. Currently, if there is concern over a child's offending behaviour, they can be referred to multi-agency panels called children's diversion forums. Those or similar partnerships could be considered as a model to work with under the new age of criminal responsibility if we increase the minimum age. That would reinforce the message that young children who offend need help and support to desist.
200 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 (0.95).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | 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 | 0.55 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.36 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.08 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:52 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.