Debate contribution: Sex Offenders
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 12 May 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Sex Offenders
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5528510
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Member asks a question to which there is no answer. Unfortunately, no one is in a position to consent to who else will live in their neighbourhood. Bear in mind that there will be sex offenders living in every neighbourhood who have never been convicted or discovered but are living in those communities. The issue is how we manage registered sex offenders in the community and ensure that families and young people are cognisant of the risks from sex offenders and able to report any concerning behaviour directly to the police as it happens. Automatic disclosure could lead to members of the public being wrongly identified as sex offenders. It is a significant risk, particularly given that inaccurate or untrue information can spread on social media. Vigilante action, which, as we have seen, is on the rise, can drive people, including registered sex offenders, from their homes. That makes it harder for those people to be managed safely in the community and for the risks attendant on them to be managed. It is important to have a proportionate approach to disclosure in order to ensure that people are safe, and child safeguarding has to be a priority. The police and other agencies proactively disclose information about offenders to members of the public where it is necessary to do so to keep children safe from harm. Additionally, the child protection disclosure scheme allows individuals to apply for information about offenders. That information will be disclosed where it is necessary. I know of significant examples where the PSNI has gone the extra mile, such as to notify a separated partner that their other half is living and consorting with someone who is a sex offender, when they have part custody of their children.
The system is not infallible, but it works well, is proportionate and, at the same time, creates no false sense of assurance in areas where there are no registered sex offenders that there are no sex offenders in those neighbourhoods.
332 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: 0.06 (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 (0.92).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.06 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.70 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.18 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.08 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:36 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.