Debate contribution: Crime and Policing Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
Debate contribution by Miss Deirdre Hargey on .
- MLA
- Miss Deirdre Hargey
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 23 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Crime and Policing Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5045911
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Minister, who gave an outline of what is included in the LCM, and the Chair, Joanne, who gave a breakdown of the scrutiny that the Committee tried to apply within the time frame that it had. As Members have highlighted, the Bill creates new offences for which consent is sought through the LCM, including the cuckooing offence in particular. It also includes guidance on child sex abuse, greater provisions to strengthen the notification requirements for sex offenders on the register and the new offence of spiking. The Committee looked at those issues. As part of our deliberations, we looked at engaging the Human Rights Commission in order to have a local understanding of the provisions. Subsequently, there were questions for the PSNI on the implementation of the provisions once the Bill passes in Westminster. It is also important to put on record, as we did in the Committee report, that the legislation covers a number of reserved or excepted matters over which the Assembly has no oversight. We cannot properly scrutinise them. The Human Rights Commission here raised concerns about those excepted matters, and I take the opportunity to put those concerns on the record.
198 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 (0.71).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.71 | 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 | 0.38 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.35 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.23 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.04 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:50 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.