Debate contribution: The Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Provisions Relating to Live Links for Courts and Tribunals) (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2025
Debate contribution by Ms Connie Egan on .
- MLA
- Ms Connie Egan
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 4 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- The Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Provisions Relating to Live Links for Courts and Tribunals) (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2025
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5216921
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I put on record my support, and that of my party, for the extension of the regulations relating to the use of live links for courts and tribunals. As all Members across the Chamber will be aware, the renewing of the regulations is an item of business that has come to the Assembly on multiple occasions, modernising our legislation for practical and effective use in the 21st century. Live links play a key role in addressing case backlogs and ensuring access to justice in the most timely and appropriate way possible. The provisions are important in ensuring that those with accessibility requirements have an option to engage in justice in a way that best represents them. The regulations also have adequate safeguards in place: the judiciary must be satisfied that receiving evidence via live links is in the interests of justice and will provide a fair hearing. I look forward to supporting, in 2026, Minister Long's Justice Bill, which will aim to enshrine the important provisions in primary legislation. That is another reason that we must progress the Justice Bill swiftly and effectively through its Committee Stage. I urge all Members across the Chamber to vote in favour of further extending those successful regulations.
204 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 (0.68).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- 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 | 0.68 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.84 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.16 |
| 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 13:45 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.