Debate contribution: The Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Provisions Relating to Live Links for Courts and Tribunals) Order (Northern Ireland) 2024
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- 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 4490162
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I rise on behalf of my party. Our justice spokesperson — the Justice Committee Chairperson — is not available today. I speak on behalf of the party, in her absence. I have had experience on the Justice Committee: pushing, fighting, scrapping and enquiring about the modernisation of our court systems. To me, this is an absolute no-brainer. The Assembly and the Executive absolutely could and should have been pushing for this provision, maybe 10 years ago. It would have been seen as a very good idea then, not only to modernise the courts but to halt the delay in justice and speed it up. We know that justice delayed is justice denied. Many people suffer needlessly through a court process because of the lack of speed in our justice system. I do not think that anyone in the House could argue against this statutory rule. We should all support the rule and the provisions that it lays out. However, it is nearly by default that this really good advancement has been progressed. The vehicle that is being is used for this is the Coronavirus Act 2020. In my eyes, and the eyes of many of the public, that legislation is horrendous and harmful. These provisions are connected to the harmful and horrendous restrictions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 and the undemocratic nature of it all. That Act placed the Assembly in a zombie zone, where the Health Minister, in particular, had the power to dream up provisions in his sleep, have them drawn up in the morning and enforced in the evening. That is the stigma that is attached to the vehicle that is the Coronavirus Act 2020. We would like to get that Act removed as quickly as possible. I am glad that the Justice Committee has applied pressure on the Department over that, just as the Finance Committee has applied pressure on the Finance Department. I praise the work of the Departments of Finance and Justice: they now know that they must now move on and have bespoke regulations and law. The Finance Minister brought forward SL1s, which will come online in September, to have bespoke legislation for the registration of deaths and stillbirths.
That is to be welcomed, because that is the way that it should have been done in the first place. They are good ideas that this legislature — the Executive and the Assembly — should pick up and run with anyhow.
I am glad that the Department of Justice is bringing forward bespoke legislation, albeit in a wider justice Bill. I have concerns about that, and I hope that the Minister will be able to address some of them. The fact that it is part of a wider Bill might mean that the Executive will have to take more time to look at it, and that will mean that the Committee will take longer to scrutinise it. That means that things could change in the wider piece. I ask this respectfully of the Minister: would it not have been better to have a bespoke SL1 for this one provision, which could have been moved quicker, as the Department of Finance has done with regard to the registration of deaths and stillbirths? Could that have been an option for her, and might it still be an option, especially if her wider Bill gets bogged down in some way? Having said all that, I support the fact that live links can be used. They can help to reduce delays and speed up justice and can help to lessen the enormous burden on everyone involved in the judicial system, in particular the victims of crime.
608 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: 0.03 (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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.87 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.97 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.03 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
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.