Debate contribution: Sexual Offences Legal Advisers: Roll-out
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
- Sexual Offences Legal Advisers: Roll-out
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4774193
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Member will be aware that I am keen to extend the service to young people. I am delighted to be able to update Members on that: later this week, in partnership with Victim Support NI, I will officially launch the children's sexual offences legal adviser scheme. The scheme has been specifically designed to meet the needs of child complainants in serious sexual offence cases and will run for an initial two-year pilot phase. The new children's service will run in tandem with the adult SOLA service until March 2027, when both pilots will be fully evaluated to inform the development and procurement of mainstream services. The new pilot will provide support to some of the most vulnerable of children and marks another important step towards improving victims' experiences in sexual offence cases and helping them to navigate the criminal justice system. One key benefit is that free advice on the criminal justice system will be available even prior to any offence being reported, which will help victims to make informed decisions and may help to increase reporting.
178 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).
- 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 | 0.58 | No |
| 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 | 0.62 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.31 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.07 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:52 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.