Written by Emma Murray, Policy and Public Affairs Officer at the Children’s Law Centre

Reframing the Debate

Public debate about children and the digital world constantly swings between two poles: protection and participation.  But from a children’s rights perspective, both are equally important, and policymaking must move beyond this unhelpful binary. 

The UK Government’s recent consultation on growing up in the online world recognised both elements of this, acknowledging the risks children face as well as the benefits they gain from digital participation. Yet the announcement of a social media ban for under-16s is a much less nuanced approach. 

While it is right to recognise the harm children face, if the problem lies with social media platforms, then the solution must be to make those environments safe, not to exclude young people from them. Resorting to reductive, blanket restrictions in isolation is a hallmark of fearful, reactionary policymaking.  

Over the past six months, I have worked with our youth advisory panel, Youth@CLC, on issues relating to their digital rights. Their message is clear: young people’s online lives are complex, interconnected and deeply embedded in their social worlds. Any policy response that flattens this undermines positive efforts to ensure both participation and protection. 

The current debate is stuck in an unhelpful binary. A rights-based, young people centred approach is essential for countering this and enacting meaningful change. 

Challenging the Binary Approach

Proponents of bans insist that shielding children form harmful content is the only responsible path. Opponents counter that bans undermine children’s rights to information, expression, connection and play. 

The central question that runs through this debate is whether we should protect children online or empower them to freely explore the world around them. But this binary is false. 

Children and young people should be able to access digital spaces and be safe while doing so. In fact, regardless of age, we all deserve online spaces free from violence, harassment, and unwanted content. Addressing harms requires an approach to digital environments that upholds safety and dignity while enabling full, meaningful participation. Protection and participation are not competing priorities, and policies that treat them as such miss the point entirely. 

Political Expediency, Moral Panic and the Rush to Regulate

To understand why restrictive and blanket measures are gaining traction, we must consider the wider political and cultural context. Currently, policymaking around children’s technology use is being shaped by political expediency, media driven moral panic and a desire for quick, visible action.  

While governments are right to respond to online harms, the speed at which bans are being proposed risks oversimplifying a highly complex issue. In focusing primarily on restricting access to digital spaces, these approaches fail to adequately grapple with the full range of issues shaping children and young people’s online experiences, including the wider social, economic and structural factors that influence wellbeing.  

Policymakers are over relying on child protection narratives, echoing historical patterns like book bans, abstinence-based sex education, or anti-LGBTQIA+ policies. These approaches have always been rooted in fear rather than evidence and desperately need to be counteracted.  

Experts working at the intersection of technology and children’s rights have identified that the current discourse surrounding children’s technology use has been significantly influenced by Jonathan Haidt’s book The Anxious Generation, which argues that smartphones have created a mental health crisis in children and young people as they ‘rewire’ children’s brains. 

However, as has been widely pointed out by those in the field of adolescent psychology, Haidt is not an expert on child development or online harms, and his claims have been widely challenged for sensationalism and reactionary undertones. Research consistently shows that structural issues such as poverty, inequality and access to services, have a far greater impact on wellbeing than technology alone. 

This is not to suggest that use of digital technologies and social media are not having an impact on young people’s wellbeing. Rather, policy responses are relying on an overwhelmingly negative and one-dimensional picture of young people’s online lives. 

However, research from Dynamic Interplay of Online Risk and Resilience in Adolescence (DIORA) found that being online is seen as having just as many, if not more, positive effects than negative by young people. Yet restrictive policies continue to emerge, often without sufficient consideration of proportionality, evidence, or unintended consequences for children’s rights. 

The pattern is similar across the world. Academics at the University of Sydney found that support for Australia’s social media ban was heavily influenced by sustained media coverage, high profile publications such as Haidt’s book and parent led advocacy campaigns that called for a ban.  

Researchers concluded that the media’s behaviour met the criteria for a moral panic, reinforcing narrow constructions of childhood and creating a supportive environment for age-based restrictions. This constrained alternative policy approaches that could have better accounted for the diversity of young people’s experiences and maturity, and offer ways to create safer online environments for everyone. 

Meanwhile, political focus on online safety is increasingly divorced from young people’s wider lived realities, which risks distracting from the broader policy failures that significantly impact children’s wellbeing. Persistent cuts to education, mental health services, youth provision and social care continue to shape young people’s experiences and opportunities, yet these issues are receiving far less political attention than calls for social media bans. 

Why a Rights Based Approach Matters

A children’s rights-based approach offers a more comprehensive way to assess the impact, effectiveness and appropriateness of social media bans. It requires policymakers to consider the full range of children’s rights and recognise that no right exists in isolation or is inherently more important than another. This will help move discussions beyond moral panics and politically expedient responses towards more evidence based, proportionate, effective, and nuanced policymaking.  

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) sets out a wide range of rights that apply equally online and offline, including: non-discrimination, freedom of expression, privacy, access to information, protection from violence, education and play, leisure and culture. 

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child’s General Comment No.25 on children’s rights in the digital environment reinforces this. States who have ratified the Convention – as the UK did in 1991 – must protect children from harm without imposing overly restrictive measures that limit participation, expression, or access to information. 

Instead, governments should focus on creating safer digital environments, improving digital literacy, ensuring platform accountability, and addressing structural inequalities that shape children’s experiences online. Critically, General Comment No.25 states the importance of involving children and young people in the development of legislation, policies, programmes, services and training in relation to the digital environment. 

A rights-based lens makes clear that “ban-solutionism” (the assumption that restricting or banning access will resolve online harms) is not the answer. It oversimplifies the problem, drives harmful behaviour further underground and away from support, and heightens the risk of violating children’s rights. 

Designing Solutions with Children and Young People

The most important – and most overlooked – element of effective digital policy is listening to children and young people. Child rights and digital rights experts have repeatedly stated that the best approach to addressing the crises that young people face is to simply ask them. Children are not passive or disempowered; they know what works, what doesn’t and what needs to change. 

Article 12 of the UNCRC states that children have the right to share their views and have those views given due weight in all matters affecting them. This is a cornerstone of the UNCRC and applies to all aspects of policy and all levels of decision making. 

Across all my conversations with Youth@CLC on their digital rights, they have repeatedly highlighted how adults dismiss their views. As one member put it:  

“There’s a lot of hypocrisy on this. Young people have a better awareness of how much social media and online activity plays a role in real world activities. We understand the benefits and opportunities, and how much online stuff facilitates our real lives. It’s so interchangeable at this stage and is such a big part of our lives. We need to learn to live with it and use it responsibly. And young people already do use it responsibly, and have the skills to do so, much more so than adults do. They just need to actually listen to us.” 

Too often, even when adults acknowledge children’s views about the online world, it’s followed by doubt about whether young people really know what’s best for them. Yet young people are skilled navigators of digital spaces, often far more fluent than the adults making decisions on their behalf. Their lived experience means they are uniquely placed to judge whether proposed changes to technology policy are useful and workable. 

Where Do We Go From Here?

Although the decision on a social media ban for under 16s has already been announced in the UK (we’re yet to see if it survives a change in Prime Minister), debates about children’s online lives will continue. We can continue down the path of fear driven, restrictive policymaking, or we can choose a rights-based, evidence informed, young person-centred approach that recognises the complexity and diversity of children’s digital lives.  

Young people deserve policies that reflect their lived realities, respect their rights and support their ability to participate safely and meaningfully in digital spaces. Protecting young people and upholding their digital rights are not competing aims; effective policy must do both. That means resisting moral panics, challenging simplistic narratives, developing evidence-based responses that address root causes of harm, and, above all, listening to children and young people. 

For a more in-depth exploration of young people’s experiences of the digital environment, read the write up of Youth@CLC’s participation in the UN’s “Our Digital World, Our Say” consultation. You can also read their policy recommendations in their response to the UK Government’s consultation on ‘Growing Up in the Online World’.

The Ten is Too Young Coalition, made up of children’s rights organisations and community and voluntary sector groups working directly with children and young people, expressed profound disappointment that the amendments to the justice bill seeking to raise the age of criminal responsibility have been scuppered by the use of a Petition of Concern.

“It is therefore incredibly disappointing that the Petition of Concern was used to block the tabled amendments. The triggering of a Petition of Concern in this context represents a misuse of a mechanism designed to protect minority rights. It should not be used to block progress on fundamental issues facing disadvantaged children and young people.”

MLAs in the Northern Ireland Assembly chamber were debating a range of amendments to the Northern Ireland Justice Bill that would likely see the age of criminal responsibility raise to the highest in the UK and Ireland. A vote was expected to take place on Tuesday 15th June. However, on the evening of Monday 14th June, a group of 30 MLAs tabled a mechanism called a Petition of Concern to block progress.

The Petition of Concern is a measure that was designed as a way to safeguard minority rights in Northern Ireland’s power sharing assembly. The Ten is Too Young Coalition described the use of the petition in this case as “incredibly disappointing” and “a misuse of a mechanism designed to protect minority rights”.

The coalition said: “Reforms to increase the age of criminal responsibility would be a step forward to deliver real and lasting change in Northern Ireland by addressing our unacceptably low age of criminal responsibility and ensuring alignment with international children’s rights standards.

“The evidence indicates that early intervention, support and diversion are more effective at reducing harm than criminalising children at a young age. Raising the age of criminal responsibility represents a logical and evidence based step in strengthening long term community safety.

“It is therefore incredibly disappointing that the Petition of Concern was used to block the tabled amendments. The triggering of a Petition of Concern in this context represents a misuse of a mechanism designed to protect minority rights. It should not be used to block progress on fundamental issues facing disadvantaged children and young people.

“To continue to criminalise children as young as ten is unacceptable. Our children deserve a system that recognises their developmental capacity, upholds their rights and allows them to learn from mistakes without being criminalised. Approaches must continue to be prioritised that reduce reoffending, prevent future victims and give children the chance to turn their lives around.

“We would urge the MLAs who used the Petition of Concern in this case to seriously reconsider. It will be our most disadvantaged children and young people who pay the price.”

The Ten is Too Young Coalition is made up of:

• The Children’s Law Centre
• Children in Northern Ireland
• Include Youth
• NIACRO
• The Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People
• Voice of Young People in Care (VOYPIC)

For more information on the campaign, visit https://tenistooyoung.com/

The Children’s Law Centre has said that the announcement of a social media ban for under 16s risks increasing, not reducing, online harm. While concerns about safety are real, blanket bans ignore the root causes of harm, potentially push children into less regulated spaces and make them less likely to seek support. 

Emma Murray, Policy and Public Affairs Officer at the Children’s Law Centre said: “The UK Government has also failed to meaningfully engage with children and young people ahead of this announcement. The views of children and young people must not be ignored when making a decision that affects their lives. Throughout our engagement with children and young people, including our youth panel Youth@CLC, young people have clearly stated that the onus should be placed on platforms to protect children and young people, rather than using the blunt tool of a blanket ban. 

“A blanket ban does not reflect the complexity of children and young people’s online lives. The digital world is both a vital space for creativity, learning, identity and connection, while also being marked by inequality and risk. Ignoring this dual reality ignores children’s lived experiences. 

“Participation and protection are not competing priorities. Approaches grounded in safety by design, platform accountability and co-design with children and young people can deliver both.  

“CLC envisions an online world where children are not excluded or restricted. The UK Government should therefore seek to ensure that children are able to participate in the digital world safely, confidently, and with the complete range of their rights fully realised.”

The Children’s Law Centre (CLC) has submitted detailed evidence to the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Education Committee on the proposed Education (Special Educational Needs) Regulations (NI) 2026.

While recognising the need for reform and acknowledging years of engagement between stakeholders and the Department of Education, CLC warns that the current proposals risk weakening protections for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) if significant concerns are not addressed before the regulations proceed.

CLC’s submission concludes that the information provided to the Committee is currently “not sufficiently accurate” and “incomplete”, and that there is a strong possibility of unintended consequences for children and young people.

A Weakening of Children’s Rights

CLC’s submission warns that parts of the proposed SEND framework could unintentionally weaken existing legal protections for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities.

A major concern relates to proposed changes to the format and content of Statements of SEN. CLC argues that amendments to how special educational provision is recorded could reduce the level of specificity in statements, weaken health provision within statements and make support less clearly defined and potentially harder to enforce in practice.

Parental Voices Being Removed

CLC also raises serious concerns about the proposed removal of parental “advice” from the statutory assessment process. Whilst parents will still be able to provide evidence, the submission argues that parental advice is often essential in ensuring a child’s needs are fully understood and accurately reflected within statements of SEN.

Reducing the formal role of parental advice risks weakening the quality of assessments and provision planning, while also diminishing the voice of families within the SEND process. CLC notes that the High Court has previously warned against the dangers of devaluing parental evidence in SEN decision making.

Weakening and Delay of Support to Children

The submission warns that the current trajectory of the wider transformation changes may conflict with the clear intention of the Northern Ireland Assembly when passing the SEND Act (NI) 2016, which sought to strengthen co-operation between education and health services and improve the specification of provision for children with SEND. It also fails to address significant criticisms in numerous reports, including operational failings around early identification, intervention and assessment, with heavily bureaucratic systems creating barriers when accessing support.

The Risk of Judicial Review

CLC raises concerns that some elements of the revised Regulations and Code of Practice may unintentionally undermine rights and protections contained within primary legislation, including the Education (NI) Order 1996 and the SEND Act (NI) 2016. Regulations cannot lawfully frustrate the purpose or intention of legislation passed by the Assembly and notes that failures in this regard could leave aspects of the framework vulnerable to Judicial Review.

Concerns over implementation

CLC also questions whether the education system is in a position to implement such extensive reform by September 2026, particularly given ongoing workforce pressures, existing delays within the SEND system and concerns raised by trade unions and sector organisations.

The submission states that introducing the revised framework in its current form could “increase bureaucracy and undermine existing legal rights and legal thresholds”.

Additional concerns raised include:

• Outdated impact assessments which do not reflect current pressures on schools and services.
• That professional recommendations are being restricted which conflicts with the professional duty of care.
• Concerns that responsibility for SEND provision may disproportionately shift from the Education Authority onto schools.

Recognition of positive engagement

Alongside its concerns, CLC acknowledges that the Department of Education has accepted and implemented several recommendations made during previous consultations. These include changes designed to strengthen access to justice and improve safeguards for young people.

Call for Further Scrutiny

The submission further highlights concerns that aspects of the revised SEND framework are already being introduced operationally, including through the Education Authority’s Graduated Response Framework and related processes, before the Regulations and revised Code of Practice have completed Assembly scrutiny and approval processes.

CLC argues this risks pre-empting democratic scrutiny and creating confusion across the education sector, particularly given the scale and complexity of the proposed changes.

CLC is urging the Education Committee to carefully scrutinise the proposals before they are laid before the Assembly. It further states that it is not possible to scrutinise such a high volume of documentation properly within a short time period and the Committee should consider recommending that the Department pause or withdraw the regulations until further work is completed.

The full submission outlines detailed legal and operational concerns across the proposed regulations and revised Code of Practice, focusing on ensuring that reforms strengthen, rather than weaken, children’s rights and access to support.

CLC remains committed to working collaboratively with the Department and Education Authority to ensure reforms genuinely improve outcomes for children and young people with SEND.

Children’s Law Centre calls for halt on “potentially damaging” revised SEND framework

Legal experts criticise approach that risks undermining strong legal safeguards for children and young people

Serious concern raised at “break with due process” and lack of transparency

The Children’s Law Centre has published an open letter, raising alarm around significant and potentially damaging changes to the system that provides support to children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND). The open letter, published on Wednesday 22^nd April and endorsed by 14 other organisations – including unions – states that the new direction undermines decades of work with expert stakeholders, fails to address the issues around capacity and resources and places increased pressure on schools. This is despite repeated critical reports highlighting failures within the Education Authority, which will not be properly addressed.

Specialist SEND Legal Adviser at the Children’s Law Centre, Rachel Hogan, BL said: “The Children’s Law Centre is seriously concerned that the current reform to the support for children with special educational needs and disabilities is repeating the failures of the past. Rather than address the issues that have been well researched and articulated over past decades, the proposed reforms run the risk of undermining the legal framework that supports children, compounding the current failures.

“The Children’s Law Centre and others have committed many years of work to the Education Authority and the Department of Education to ensure the SEND system provides the proper support for children and young people. However, this sudden change of direction has abandoned that work and risks rushing through reforms that potentially make the situation worse, with very little scrutiny.

“These changes do not reflect what has been recommended in numerous reports and by expert stakeholders, including the Children’s Law Centre, other specialist organisations, teaching professionals and parents. They seek to shift the responsibility to schools and water down children’s individual rights. The implementation of the revised SEND framework must now stop”.

The letter has been endorsed by:

• CiNI
• SENAC
• Angel Eyes NI
• National Autistic Society
• The Fostering Network
• ADD-NI Children’s Charity
• The Centre for Children’s Rights, Queen’s University Belfast
• Northern Ireland Teachers’ Council
• NASUWT
• INTO
• UTU
• NEU
• NAHT
• UNISON
• Action for Children

To add your organisation’s name to the list of endorsements, please contact Rachel@childrenslawcentre.org

The Children’s Law Centre (CLC) is seeking passionate, committed individuals to join our Board of Trustees and help shape the next phase of our organisation’s development.

This is an exciting time to join us. We are currently developing our new strategic plan and in 2027, CLC will mark 30 years of championing children’s rights in Northern Ireland. We are looking for people who share our vision of a society where all children and young people have their rights respected, protected, and fulfilled.

How to Apply

To apply, please submit:

• Your CV.
• A cover letter outlining why you are interested in becoming a Trustee and what you would bring to the role.
• A completed monitoring form.

Applications should be sent to: reception@childrenslawcentre.org

The Children’s Law Centre (CLC) has presented evidence to the NI Assembly Committee for Communities as part of its scrutiny of the implementation of the Children’s Services Co‑operation Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 (CSCA).

During the session, CLC outlined the significant gap between the promise of the CSCA and the practical reality experienced by children and young people a decade after the legislation was enacted. While there has been some progress, including the adoption of a children and young people’s strategy and examples of effective joint working, CLC maintains that these developments are not yet embedded as a consistent, system‑wide approach to improving well‑being.

CLC’s Written Evidence Highlights Several Key Issues:

Lack of consistent, outcomes‑focused co‑operation

Reports on the operation of the Act show that cross‑departmental co‑operation is still often ad hoc, reactive and not clearly driven by the statutory duty set out in the CSCA.

Insufficient measurement of impact on children’s well‑being

Despite the intent of the Act, government has yet to demonstrate, through data, shared metrics or transparent reporting, how children’s well‑being has tangibly improved. The system remains stronger on describing activity than evidencing outcomes.

Barriers to pooling resources and aligning systems

Departments remain unclear or hesitant about the CSCA’s enabling powers and opportunities for deeper collaboration are being missed. Guidance exists, but it is under used in practice.

Need for meaningful engagement with children and young people

Comments from young people reinforce that children do not feel genuinely involved in shaping decisions that affect them. Participation remains inconsistent and often tokenistic.

What’s Next for the Children’s Services Co-operation Act?

The second decade of the CSCA must focus on implementation, measurement and accountability, with a renewed commitment to co‑operation rooted in children’s rights. This includes:

• Establishing shared indicators of well‑being
• Transparent data collection
• Stable long‑term planning
• Co‑designing improvements with children and families.

CLC will continue to work with decision makers, duty bearers and young people to ensure the Act reaches its full potential as a system wide driver for improving the lives of all children and young people in Northern Ireland.

The Children’s Law Centre and South Tyrone Empowerment Programme (STEP) have jointly responded to the UK Government’s consultation on A Fairer Pathway to Settlement, raising serious concerns about the impact of the proposals on children and families.

In responding, the organisations describe the government’s proposals as “wrong, harmful and dangerous” and call for them to be withdrawn in their entirety.

CLC and STEP have warned that the proposals fail to meaningfully consider the UK’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The principle that the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration is not reflected in measures that would:

• Lengthen and prolong routes to settlement for many families, potentially across the entirety of a child’s childhood;
• Introduce or expand “no recourse to public funds” conditions, increasing child poverty and homelessness;
• Restrict family reunion routes;
• Apply changes retrospectively, penalising families for having lawfully accessed support; and
• Create additional barriers to children registering as British citizens.

Deirdre McAliskey, Policy and Engagement Manager at STEP said: “We firmly reject the concept of ‘earned settlement’. Tying settlement to income levels, volunteering requirements or past use of public funds risks creating a discriminatory, two-tier system that disproportionately harms children from low-income households, single-parent families and those with insecure immigration status.

“Children have no control over their family’s income, migration journey or immigration applications, yet would bear the long-term consequences of extended insecurity and restricted access to support.

“Settlement is not a reward to be earned but a necessary foundation for safety, stability and full participation in society.”

Fergal McFerran, Policy and Public Affairs Manager at the Children’s Law Centre said: “Longer and more complex routes to settlement such as those proposed by the UK Government will increase the risk of destitution, homelessness and exploitation.

“We urge the government to abandon the current proposals and replace them with fair and safe processes that uphold children’s rights and provide clear, timely routes to settlement. Fairness must mean protecting children from poverty, insecurity and discrimination – not embedding those risks into law.

“Children seeking safety in the UK deserve stability and dignity, not a childhood defined by uncertainty.”

The Ten is Too Young Coalition has welcomed the tabling of an amendment to the Justice Bill that would raise Northern Ireland’s minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) from 10 to 16 years old, without exception.

The Coalition has once again reiterated its position that at 10 years old, Northern Ireland’s age of criminal responsibility is too young. It said the latest amendment that has been tabled is the most evidence-based and rights compliant, and marks an historic opportunity to finally end Northern Ireland’s status as having one of the lowest ages of criminal responsibility in the world.

For more than 30 years, children’s organisations, experts in child development and human rights bodies have been calling for meaningful reform, with victims’ advocates now also joining the calls. The support to raise the age is now widespread.

Chris Quinn, Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People, said: “We strongly welcome the tabling of the amendment setting the age at 16 with no exceptions.

“For over 30 years, organisations working with children have been clear, Northern Ireland’s current age of 10 is indefensible. It is out of step with international standards, out of step with science and out of step with the values we claim to hold about protecting children.

“This is a once in a generation chance to make our justice system fairer, safer and more effective. We cannot look back in years to come and realise we missed it.”

Fergal McFerran, Policy and Public Affairs Manager at the Children’s Law Centre, said: “Raising the age of criminal responsibility to 16 is not only the most rights compliant option – it is the approach that provides the best opportunity to deliver better outcomes for children, families and communities.

“Over a decade of scientific evidence tells us that children under 16 simply do not have the cognitive maturity to be held criminally responsible in the same way as adults. Criminalising them at 10 years old is wholly inconsistent with what we know about child development, and how we treat children with respect to other laws.

“What’s more, criminalising children simply doesn’t work. We know that 10 is too young, and MLAs now need to grasp this opportunity to support the most child rights compliant change to legislation as possible.”

The Ten is Too Young Coalition stressed that while it welcomes all efforts to raise the age, 16 without exceptions is the only option fully aligned with international children’s rights standards, including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and General Comment No. 24, which encourages states to move towards 15 or 16 in line with developmental science.

The Coalition also cautioned against introducing exceptions for certain offences, citing clear UN guidance that exceptions are not grounded in evidence and undermine the purpose of the reform.

The Ten is Too Young Coalition is urging all MLAs to:

• Recognise that 10 is too young, and that criminalising children does not work.
• Maximise this opportunity by supporting the strongest amendment available.
• Recognise that children in conflict with the law are overwhelmingly vulnerable children, and those in need.
• Prioritise approaches that reduce reoffending, prevent future victims and give children the chance to turn their lives around.

With multiple amendments now tabled – seeking to set the age at 12 in some cases, 14 in some cases, and most recently to 16 – the Coalition is urging MLAs to ensure this long overdue issue receives full and serious debate in the Assembly chamber.

At 10 years of age, Northern Ireland (NI) has one of the lowest ages of criminal responsibility in the world. Despite repeated, longstanding calls, internationally and nationally, no legislative progress has been made.

On Thursday 29th January, the 10 is too Young coalition, published their latest joint briefing, providing the evidence for raising the age in NI to 16, with no exceptions, holding a briefing event for stakeholders and organisations on why this must be raised as a matter of urgency, and encouraging organisations to support this key change.

The group, made up of  Children in Northern Ireland (CiNI), the Children’s Law Centre, Include Youth, Niacro, the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY) and the Voice of Young People in Care (VOYPIC) have said that the Justice Bill presents the opportunity to finally deliver reform that has been promised, consulted on and supported for well over a decade. Failing to act now would mean knowingly continuing a system that does not wholly work in the best interests of our children and young people.

The 10 is too Young Coalition is encouraging Members of the NI Assembly to support an amendment to the Justice Bill to raise the age, with no exceptions, as a necessary, proportionate and principled reform to our justice system.

The briefing paper published is now available to download.