Debate contribution: Pre-recorded Cross-examinations
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 24 March 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Pre-recorded Cross-examinations
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4865074
Read the official Assembly record
Text
My Department has been working with partners and stakeholders to develop arrangements to test pre-recorded cross-examination (PRCE) in response to the Gillen review report recommendation. Significant progress has been made through a cross-organisational PRCE working group. For example, a draft process map has been developed, a broad approach to pre-agreed questions has been agreed, including by defence representatives, and much of the detail has been worked through on how sessions will be managed and recorded, although the technical aspects of recording and editing are yet to be finalised. Progress has also been made in the area of disclosure, which is a key PRCE consideration. PRCE also has linkages and interdependencies with other child-focused work streams, and planning is ongoing to deliver a PRCE pilot, which will complement and support those initiatives. An impact evaluation of similar work in England and Wales has recently been published. My officials are considering the findings of that report to gather any insights for Northern Ireland. The launch of a pathfinder project will, however, be subject to the agreement of partner organisations and the securing of relevant funding.
183 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 (0.62).
- 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 | 0.62 | 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 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.05 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:12 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.