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 4929536
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank Members for their contributions on the order. The importance of making live links available to those who find themselves, often through no fault on their part, engaged or compelled to engage in the justice system should not be underestimated. They can provide an avenue of communication that may reduce stress or other pressures that participation in a court hearing might bring. That has been reflected in what has been said during this short debate. It is important to recognise that, unlike other Departments, the Department cannot change that provision by regulation; it requires primary legislation. That is why it is written into the Bill that is before the Committee. I look forward to that being brought forward with the rest of the content of the Bill. I hope that Members are satisfied that this is very much an interim measure and that more detailed proposals lie in the Bill that is with the Committee. Hopefully, we will now be able to move forward with this temporary provision. We will, of course, need to renew the provision later this year, because it will expire towards the end of September. We will continue to do that — hopefully, with the cooperation of the Committee — until such times as the primary legislation is passed in the House.
223 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).
- 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 | 0.56 | No |
| 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 | 0.96 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.04 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
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.