Debate contribution: Child Sex Offenders
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 24 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Child Sex Offenders
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5046771
Read the official Assembly record
Text
We are trying to progress a number of work streams that will address sexual offending and the harm that it causes. I have already strengthened the law in that area through the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act 2022, which includes among others new offences of upskirting, downblousing, cyberflashing and pretending to be a child for the purposes of child grooming. I propose to strengthen the law further with the extension of a number of the provisions of the UK Crime and Policing Bill — as the Member will be aware, the first of two legislative consent motions (LCMs) was agreed by the House yesterday — including strengthening and streamlining the sex offender notification requirements, because it is important that the authorities know where a sex offender is. That Bill also provides for notification requirements for sex offenders who wish to change their name and get a replacement identity in a new name. It brings the "paedophile manual" provisions into line with modern technology and deals with AI-generated images. At Consideration Stage of the current Justice Bill, I hope to table amendments that we are due to consult on shortly on deepfake image offences. Unfortunately, the opportunity to do that via a Westminster Bill changed because the Government removed those clauses from the Crime and Policing Bill on foot of a private Member's Bill being introduced, so we will do that with the consent of the Committee through the Consideration Stage of the Bill. Significant work is happening. We are also looking at a public protection arrangements and multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC) review. Good work is being done, but we always keep a watching brief on what is a serious issue.
283 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 (0.83).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.83 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.66 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.22 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.09 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:52 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.