Debate contribution: The Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Provisions Relating to Live Links for Courts and Tribunals) Order (Northern Ireland) 2025
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 6 May 2025
- 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) 2025
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4929520
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I seek the Assembly's approval for the Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Provisions Relating to Live Links for Courts and Tribunals) Order (Northern Ireland) 2025. That is SR 2025/61. 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 video conferencing systems, which are commonly referred to as live links. It is primarily video systems that are utilised to facilitate the attendance of persons participating in any court or tribunal hearing remotely. The provisions are in addition to legislation that allows the use of a video link for a specific witness or defendant with all other participants attending in the courtroom. The extension will allow us to maintain access to a digital tool that has proved to be an essential element of the toolkit for addressing the backlog of cases accrued during and since the pandemic until 24 September 2025. Members will recall, from the debates on similar motions for approval in 2024, that we are planning to put in place new primary legislation to provide a long-term legislative solution for live links in our courts and tribunals. The Justice Bill was introduced last year and is currently at Committee Stage. Meanwhile, this further extension will allow us to maintain efficacy in the system. It will continue to offer an avenue for wider access to participation in the courts, where a judge is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice. I am conscious of the concern expressed in past debates on similar motions about relying on emergency-related legislation. I remain keen to have the new legislation in place as soon as reasonably practical, but that now rests with the Committee, as it takes forward the Committee Stage of the Justice Bill. I wish that there was a practical alternative to continuing to rely on those provisions as temporary measures, but it cannot be denied that, despite all the efforts made within the resources available to my Department, there remains approximately a quarter of cases that have been with the Crown Court and the Magistrates' Court, adult and youth, for more than three years. I am equally conscious that improvements in case processing times have levelled off after a period of successive improvement, despite the efforts made to increase throughput. The average time from an offence being reported to a case's completion in court is now 191 days. It has remained broadly at that level for a while, in contrast to 149 days pre-COVID. There remains support from court users, particularly those who advocate for victims of crime, for this avenue of participation to be available, subject to judicial approval, to those who would prefer not to attend court in person. I believe that the use of the provisions aligns with the commitments made or reflected in the Victim Charter. I commend the approval of the order to the Assembly and thank the House for taking the time to debate it.
508 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 (0.78).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.78 | 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 | 0.95 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.03 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:25 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.