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 Ciara Ferguson on .
- MLA
- Mrs Ciara Ferguson
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 6 May 2025
- 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) 2025
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4929532
Read the official Assembly record
Text
We support the extension of the current live links provision as a short-term measure. Longer term, we need to deliver robust permanent provision and enhance participatory rights, particularly for victims of crime. The Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime has, rightly, raised the importance of the issue. Whilst it is critical that that access be maintained, the Justice Bill will provide a comprehensive framework for the provision in primary legislation. We recognise the benefits for children and other vulnerable victims of being able to remain in a safe place and provide evidence in a child-friendly and neutral environment. We want to work collectively to support the delivery of a fit-for-purpose and modern legal system and Courts and Tribunals Service and speed up access to justice. Important concerns for consideration in the wider debate are the provision of adequate safeguarding for vulnerable individuals; technological reliability; the guarantee of adequate understanding; the provision of consent; access to good legal representation; upholding fair trial standards; and protecting the rights of individuals.
168 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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.94 | 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 | 0.44 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.27 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.10 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.08 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.07 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:26 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.