Debate contribution: The Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Provisions Relating to Live Links for Courts and Tribunals) Order (Northern Ireland) 2024
Debate contribution by Mrs Ciara Ferguson on .
- MLA
- Mrs Ciara Ferguson
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 14 May 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- The Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Provisions Relating to Live Links for Courts and Tribunals) Order (Northern Ireland) 2024
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4490160
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I, too, welcome the extension of provisions, under the Coronavirus Act 2020, relating to live links for courts and tribunals. We support the motion. Although our preference would have been to include the live links provision in primary legislation in the Assembly, we support this continued short-term measure. We welcome the fact that the Minister has made a commitment to ensuring that this will be included as part of a wider Bill that will be introduced. We understand the importance of live links pleas for the criminal courts, and, in particular, the stress and anxiety that they remove for victims. The extension of live links is essential for victims of crime, and that is why we need to see legislation that includes this as soon as possible. Live links allow children to give evidence in safe, child-friendly environments, which is critical. Live links in courts and tribunals also play a critical role in protecting victims. Like my Committee colleague, the previous contributor, I had the opportunity to visit the live links facility in Belfast. It is an absolutely fantastic facility that we should look to extend to other areas across the North, so that more people can benefit from it. I, too, commend the staff, who are very dedicated and are committed to providing that service.
216 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: 0.02 (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 (0.87).
- 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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.87 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.73 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.14 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.08 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.03 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:23 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.