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
- 2 February 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Crime and Policing Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5356379
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Minister for bringing this important LCM to the House. As she rightly points out, we are dealing with the devolved elements, including enhancing safeguards for people and communities here, particularly on child criminal exploitation, and looking at issues such as restrictions on the driving licences of registered sex offenders, enhanced stalking protection orders and advice to the PSNI on the important issue of disclosure. I know that there has been good engagement with the Infrastructure Minister on the second LCM. I am glad to see that those provisions have been included. There has also been good engagement with the Human Rights Commission, and that has been important work, as we have moved through the iterations of the LCM, particularly where it pertains to the code of practice. We raised that issue in our Committee engagements with the Minister and the Human Rights Commission. I am glad that we have assurances that safeguards need to be in place. In particular, the code of practice needs to be in place before the powers are commenced. That will be important for ensuring that we have those safeguards. I commend the LCM.
191 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 (0.84).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.84 | 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 | 0.47 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.26 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.24 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:18 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.