Debate contribution: Sexual Offences Legal Advisers: Children's Service
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 22 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Sexual Offences Legal Advisers: Children's Service
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4608410
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Cases involving sexual crime are obviously some of the most intrusive and difficult for victims to endure. The impact on children is understandably far more intense. I have met young victims and their families who have told me directly how challenging the criminal justice process can be. The adult sexual offences legal adviser (SOLA) service was launched in April 2021, but there was recognition that, due to the greater complexity of child sexual offences, more time was required to develop an equivalent service for children, young people and their families. The additional preparation time has allowed us to engage with children and young people to seek their views on what a child SOLA service can deliver for them. It has also allowed us to learn lessons from the adult scheme.
Preparations to launch a specific SOLA service for children and young people are now well advanced. In September, Victim Support NI launched a process to recruit child SOLAs. The application process closed on 1 October. I anticipate that, subject to applicants being successful at interview and completing the required training, the new service will be operational early in the new year.
191 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: 0.02 (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 (0.71).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.71 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 0.53 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.38 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.08 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:27 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.