Debate contribution: Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Provisions Relating to Live Links for Courts and Tribunals) (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2024
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 4 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Provisions Relating to Live Links for Courts and Tribunals) (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2024
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4625380
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek the Assembly's approval for the Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Provisions Relating to Live Links for Courts and Tribunals) (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2024. Article 2 of the order extends the provisions allowing courts and statutory tribunals in Northern Ireland to receive evidence wholly or in part using audio- or videoconferencing systems but primarily video. Those systems are commonly referred to as "live links" and facilitate the attendance of persons participating in any court or tribunal hearing remotely where the judge is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice as opposed to the use of a video link's being restricted for a specific witness or defendant with all other participants attending in the courtroom. The extension will allow us to maintain access to live links provisions that have proved to be an essential element of the toolkit for addressing the backlog of cases accrued during and since the pandemic to 24 March 2025. Members will recall from the debates on similar motions put forward for approval in March and May 2024 that we are planning to put in place new primary legislation while the extensions allow us to maintain efficacy in the system. Since the previous debate, we have published details of the proposed way forward for the future use of live links in a report available on the Department's website. The recognition by Members in those debates of the clear need for the temporary provisions to be maintained while my Department continues to manage the effects of the pandemic in the criminal courts, especially at a time of scarce resources, is much appreciated. I share the concerns that Members have expressed about relying on emergency legislation and remain keen to have the new legislation in place as soon as reasonably practicable. From the contributions of Members in previous debates, I believe that they recognise and accept the reality that there is no practicable alternative to continuing to rely on the provisions as a temporary measure while there are cases across the criminal justice system that have been active for over three years. The length of time that they have been before the courts and the time required to complete them can, in part, be directly attributed to the actions required to be taken in the criminal courts in response to the pandemic. The Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime and nearly all the 41 other respondents to the Department's 2023 engagement exercise supported continuing to extend the live links provisions. Their responses highlighted the multiple benefits, including reducing the impact on those involved in court proceedings when going through what is already a stressful event, avoiding children and their parents having to be in separate locations while waiting to give their evidence and saving time and resources, particularly for expert witnesses, while contributing to reducing the carbon footprint. The use of the provisions aligns with commitments made or reflected in the Victim Charter. Therefore, I commend the approval of the order to the Assembly.
509 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 (0.84).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.84 | 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 | 0.91 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.06 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:27 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.