Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Ms Connie Egan on .
- MLA
- Ms Connie Egan
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 2 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5584938
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the group 2 debate, which focuses on Part 2 and Part 3 of the Justice Bill. It is vital that our justice system works for everyone, and that includes the children who enter into it. First, I will address the Democratic Unionist Party amendment No 44 regarding aligning the age range for new youth custody and supervision orders with the age of responsibility in Part 2 of the Bill. I and my party feel uncomfortable with the idea of potentially leaving children aged 13 and under within the scope of that new order as we do not wish custody to be used for that younger age group for anything other than very serious offences. There are other sentencing options available to the judiciary when significant custodial time may be needed, and that was reflected in strong public and stakeholder support for the threshold that the Department proposes. With that in mind, we will not be supporting the amendment. The Committee for Justice has tabled three amendments, amendment Nos 41, 42 and 43, that introduce vulnerabilities as a relevant consideration alongside age, maturity and needs when a decision to impose bail conditions is being taken by the police and courts. Alliance welcomes that and supports the intention of the Committee to ensure that the needs of young people are met when bail is being considered. I will now address the Minister of Justice's amendments regarding the use of live links and broadcast in court settings, which the Alliance Party will be supporting. Live links, otherwise known as audio and videoconferencing technology, have now been established in courts for years as a result of the pandemic, and I welcome the opportunity for us to put that into primary legislation instead of regularly revisiting the regulations via the Coronavirus Act 2020. That is not practical or sustainable governance for tools that are now so embedded in the infrastructure of our courtrooms. They provide access to justice in a number of senses, including where cases are deemed to be in the public interest and could be deemed appropriate for broadcast. Those benefits are reflected in the support given for retaining the facility of remote hearings through using live links in responses to the Department of Justice's public consultation on the matter. The amendments will allow a live link direction to be given for any person's participation in proceedings. Importantly, the proposals include protection for the solemnity and integrity of proceedings no matter how a person is participating in court. I welcome the addition of amendment No 60, which give courts and tribunals powers to vary or rescind a direction if it appears to be against the interests of justice. It is an incredibly important clause that ensures that the legislation is workable in all courts and tribunals scenarios. I turn to amendment Nos 49 to 51 from Sinn Féin. From our understanding, those are all matters relating to the operation of the provisions that will be addressed in updates to PACE codes, and in that vehicle would be subject to consultation with bodies such as the Human Rights Commission and the Commissioner for Children and Young People. For that reason, we will not be supporting the amendments. Amendment No 65, from the DUP, suggests a review within three years of section 21A coming into operation. That is not necessary when so much of the legislation has been in use for six years. What Alliance will support, however, is amendment No 52 from the Committee, which brings in a new clause to place a requirement on the Department of Justice to nominate a body to carry out a review of the use of live links by the police.
620 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: 0.04 (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 (0.96).
- 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 | 0.05 | 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 | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 | 0.72 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.25 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:46 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.