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 Naomi Long on 14 May 2024.

MLA

Mrs Naomi Long

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

14 May 2024

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

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 4490170

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank all the Members who have contributed to the debate on the order. First, it is pleasing that there is broad consensus in the Assembly for the need to maintain the provisions in the temporary fashion that we have but also that there is broad consensus for us to put this on a firm legislative footing going forward, which is my preference. That consensus evidences the benefit of working towards a common purpose, reducing budgetary pressures, assisting the efficient use of available resources and meeting the needs of the Northern Ireland public, in particular those who come into contact with or need to avail themselves of the justice system. I thank Members for their contributions today, and I want to address some of the issues that have been raised. First, there was a valid question about the Communities and Finance Departments being able to bring forward statutory rules — subordinate legislation — to the House to achieve their objectives. We are unable to do that, as there is no primary legislation in place that would allow us to bring forward regulations in this space. Therefore, we have to have new primary legislation, which, as Members will be aware, is a longer process. That also needs to be accommodated against and alongside other legislative requirements. Members will remember that, towards the end of the last mandate, we had a mixed content Bill that dealt with disparate matters that were stripped back to create the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Bill. However, those disparate offences and other relevant items still need to be taken forward, and the intention is to wrap that into the new legislation that is coming forward alongside live links and other measures. Irrespective of personal preference, there is insufficient time and resource to accommodate a series of smaller Bills in this mandate. In fact, we have been told specifically, in advice from the Executive, that we can have, I think, one Bill a year on the basis of "One in, one out". If we were to do a small, focused Bill, we would lose the larger, mixed content Bill. We cannot afford to do that because of the pressing need for the other legislation to pass. We have a shortened mandate for legislation and a backlog of legislative changes from the last mandate. We therefore have a mixed content Bill at the start of the mandate, of which this measure will be part, and, hopefully, two further Bills will follow. The first of those will deal with sentencing issues and will be slightly more focused, and the last will deal with victims-based issues. I want to ensure that any legislation that we make in this space is robust and future-proofed and takes account of learning from the past few years. The Members who stated that live links should have been done years ago are beating the same drum as the Department has been beating for a considerable time. However, it took an emergency like COVID to convince all court users and participants in the justice system that live links would be a viable alternative. That was not without challenge, because it was introduced at pace in response to an emergency, but we have been able to learn from that experience. I am not proposing that the legislation that will come to the Assembly will simply replicate what was in the Coronavirus Act; we want to reflect on the feedback that we have received from court users and participants through our consultation and the targeted engagement exercise that we have undertaken.

It is an issue of drafting capacity in the Assembly. Mr Speaker has indicated similar restrictions on, for example, private Members' Bills. There is a limit to our drafting capacity. Clearly, in my case, having one Bill a year is also to allow the Committee not to have to deal with overlaps. Members who sat on the Justice Committee last time, when we did five Bills in, I think, two years, will know that there was considerable overlap. As we were reaching one stage of one Bill, a new Bill was being introduced for consultation. We had to do that in order to drive the Bills forward, given the urgency of the content, but it is not the ideal position. I would like the Committee to have the time to focus on each Bill in turn, sequentially. The process might have to become slightly more contracted towards the end of the mandate, but we are trying to do that in order to give the Committee as much capacity and space to scrutinise as possible. Members also raised the need to use the measure to address the backlogs in the system. Those will take time and resources to clear, and we have been open and honest about that. However, on the basis of the management information, the number of defendants in the court system at March 2024 in comparison with the number of cases across the criminal courts is 23% higher than it was in March 2020. This is about us not just improving on the situation and recovering from COVID but improving on the situation that predated COVID by speeding up justice generally. There are approximately 68% more defendants in the Crown Court and 52% more defendants in the Magistrates' Court in comparison with 1 March 2020. Live links are part of the picture of what we have been doing to deliver more speedy justice. That is good not only for defendants, victims and witnesses but for the resources in the justice system, and we are following other tracks, including looking at avoidable delay, to ensure that we save as much resource as possible in the system. The pathway that has been set out today to maintain access to the use of live links is, ultimately, victim-focused. Members who visited the remote evidence centre (REC) and saw what the remote evidence setting was, particularly for children but also for vulnerable adults and witnesses giving evidence in complex and sensitive cases, reflected, I think, on how impressive a facility it was. It has made a huge difference, not only in places where we thought that it would. For example, in a number of family law contest cases, the knowledge that the witnesses and victims would turn up to give evidence led to people pleading out on the day, which avoided people having to go through a traumatic trial process. Often, people will game the system in the hope that a victim or witness will drop out at the last minute due to the stress of appearing in court. Live links have eliminated that, and, therefore, we are getting better results, which is important. Ultimately, this is about delivering the right justice at the right time, and it is important that we are able to do that. Live links have also been critical in helping to address the challenges presented to the justice system until primary legislation can be made by the Assembly. The inability for us to do it by regulation is unfortunate, but the modernisation of justice Bill — hopefully, that primary legislation will begin its passage through the House prior to the summer recess — is the right vehicle. It will, hopefully, reassure Members that progress is being made in this regard and that I view these specific measures on live links and courts as purely a temporary holding position.

1,235 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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.

Challenge this classification