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 Mrs Naomi Long on 4 November 2025.

MLA

Mrs Naomi Long

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

4 November 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) (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2025

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5216927

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and thanks to those Members who contributed to today's discussion. I have a couple of things to say. In addition to enabling access to justice, which is absolutely critical, this legislation has a role in speeding up justice and in bringing some economic efficiencies to bear on the system, so it has been very important for us to get this right. It is a complex area. Necessity drove the process forward. I understand the point that the Chair makes in asking why nobody had thought of it before, but, of course, we had, and we had sought to engage with our justice partners. That engagement was slightly slow and tenuous in the beginning, but necessity drove engagement on it, and it had to be implemented to sustain court business during the COVID period. That experience of using live links and remote access is something that we can learn from. Very often, people allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good, and we look for everything to be completely tested and thoroughly driven before we are willing to step out and give it a go. In this case, we did not have that luxury, but we found that it worked incredibly well. The issues that arose as a result of live links were ironed out pretty quickly in the courts. When it comes to wider reform around the delivery of justice, we also have to bear in mind that it will require us to have a greater risk appetite than, perhaps, we have had in the past if we want to make real change to the speed with which we can deal with issues in the justice system. It is incredibly important that live links are available so that people have the opportunity, often through no fault of their own, to be compelled to engage in the justice system. The pressure that that puts on them and, often, on their legal representatives, can be very challenging. Live links can provide an avenue of communication that may reduce that stress or reduce the other pressures that participation in court hearings might bring. We did take advice on the six-monthly rolling review. Unfortunately, it would not be proportionate for us to do it in a longer block. The six months is all that is allowed for in the original Coronavirus Act, so, unfortunately — speaking as the realist that I am — even if the Committee were to take great haste on its way through the rest of the Bill, we will have still have at least one more rolling review to face, if not, two. However, at least we do it secure in the knowledge that primary legislation on live links is proceeding and that the Committee will have an opportunity, as will the House, to properly scrutinise the basis upon which we will take that forward. Knowing that we had the experience and tested it thoroughly during the COVID period, I would certainly like to see the uptake of live links start to go up again, their having fallen quite dramatically after COVID. I would love to see them being more widely used, because the potential for efficiency savings, in both time and money, would be significant to court users, the system itself and all our justice partners. It is something that I feel quite passionate about. I hope that that addresses all —. Well, I will not say "all" the issues that the Member had, because I know that the Member has many, many issues with the coronavirus legislation that are way above my pay grade. However, I hope that that has answered the main questions in relation to this particular legislation, and I thank the Members who engaged in the debate this afternoon.

631 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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.

Challenge this classification