Debate contribution: Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Provisions Relating to Live Links for Courts and Tribunals) (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2023
Debate contribution by Ms Joanne Bunting on .
- MLA
- Ms Joanne Bunting
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 11 March 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Provisions Relating to Live Links for Courts and Tribunals) (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2023
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4269533
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am grateful to the Minister for her clarification and assurances, because the issue caused the Committee some consternation. No doubt, we will return to that discussion at a later stage. As you will appreciate, Minister, I will make some remarks on it as I continue. In the interim, on behalf of the Justice Committee, I support the motion. I now turn to my remarks in my capacity as an individual MLA. First, I extend my best wishes for a speedy recovery to Mr Long. We served together on Castlereagh Borough Council and worked well there for many years. I was very sorry to hear of his recent ill health. I trust that the Minister will pass on my good wishes to her husband. While, on a personal level, I support the principle and the requirement for live links and audio links, my issues are more around process. I remain concerned about the continued extension of emergency powers long after the pandemic, particularly since, by their nature, they were not rigorously scrutinised. Having been assured that provision would be made in the first Bill, some of us were somewhat taken aback to discover that the intention was only to bring forward such provision at Consideration Stage by way of an amendment. Again, I am grateful to the Minister for her clarification on that. There are some issues around live links that should be properly scrutinised to better inform guidance and practice, improve consistency of application and use, and consider equality of arms issues. In addition, when one calculates the time frame involved to scrutinise and progress what, I anticipate, will be a sizeable first departmental Bill, one sees that it is inevitable that yet further extensions of the emergency coronavirus provisions will be required. It begs the question as to why a smaller, stand-alone Bill is not being brought forward and why, as a result of their inclusion in another sizeable Bill, in a most unusual step, the provisions will not be included in the Bill as printed and so will not be included in any calls for evidence. However, the Minister has clarified that. It is important that we move away from reliance on emergency legislation deriving from the pandemic. Where legitimate and beneficial changes have been found that can be built upon and legislated for properly, we should do that at the earliest opportunity. I have made my point about my preferences. Nevertheless, I understand the need and the requirement for live links to continue. In that circumstance, I support the extension.
424 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.87).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.87 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-qualifying 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.75 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.19 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:47 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.