Debate contribution: Child Protection Disclosure Scheme: Applications

Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on 10 November 2025.

MLA: Mrs Naomi Long
Party at the time: Alliance Party
Date: 10 November 2025
Type: Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business: Oral Answers to Questions
Heading: Child Protection Disclosure Scheme: Applications
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5224617

Text

The first thing to say when it comes to points of order on this is that the data is not held by my Department, and there is an extant ruling from the Speaker that, when it comes to operational PSNI matters, I am not required to seek that data or to present it here as though it were my own. The second thing to say is that, possibly with the sole exception of the Member who asked the question, I have been one of the few MLAs who, when others have asked for disclosure of the names and addresses of all sex offenders, has repeatedly raised in the Chamber the fact that those disclosure schemes are available, the public can use them, the PSNI has a right to tell and the public have a right to ask. I do not have a budget to be able to promote the scheme. If the PSNI believes that the scheme is being underutilised, it can, of course, choose to prioritise some of its resources, but, given what we discussed during the last question, I think that I have made every effort throughout the past 18 months to make people aware of the scheme and to promote it. I encourage other MLAs to do so as well, because the scheme works well for public protection.

221 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.07 (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).
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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.03	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.03	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.01	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.04	No
Controversy escalation	0.04	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.51	No
Overall judgement	0.07	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
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 area (top five)
Subject	Probability
No identity-related subject	0.58
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues	0.37
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups	0.03
Another identity-related subject	0.02
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials	0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:42 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.

Challenge this classification