Debate contribution: Crime and Policing Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
Debate contribution by Mr Patsy McGlone on .
- MLA
- Mr Patsy McGlone
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 2 February 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Crime and Policing Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5356387
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Minister for detailing the provisions that are included in the legislative consent motion, and I thank the Chair of the Assembly Committee for covering the Committee's scrutiny of it. It is, of course, Westminster legislation. Some of the provisions were changed at Westminster while the Committee was deliberating on them, which is less than ideal. I note that there may yet be a third LCM on the Bill. We would, of course, prefer to be dealing with primary legislation in the Assembly. That having been said, the SDLP is broadly content with extending to the North the provisions of the Crime and Policing Bill that are set out in the legislative consent motion. Those provisions include important measures that provide greater protections for everyone in our society, particularly women and children. The provisions will make it an offence for any adult to attempt to involve a child in criminal activity. The criminalisation of the possession or publication of pornography that portrays strangulation or suffocation is a step forward in addressing the harm that extreme pornography can cause, and we welcome the protection for victims of stalking, including new guidance for the PSNI on disclosing information about the identity of the abusers in those cases. Those are welcome measures that will have long-term benefits for society. We have concerns, however, about the implementation of some of them. The new provisions to enable the Department for Infrastructure to introduce legislation to restrict access to replacement driving licences for registered sex offenders are reasonable, but we expect the Infrastructure Minister to introduce the required legislation promptly when that power is enabled, and to address the issues raised by Mr Beattie. We hope that the new offence of child abduction, where a child is kept abroad without appropriate consent, will act as a deterrent. However, it is less clear how useful it will be when a parent or guardian is attempting to have a child returned from abroad. There has been much publicity around at least two such cases in the North and, indeed, in the rest of the island. In the absence of an extradition treaty, the resolution of those cases may ultimately depend on diplomatic pressure, as is the case now. Similarly, the provisions regarding the suspicious sales of knives may sound reasonable, but it remains to be seen how those will operate in practice and whether they will actually reduce knife crime. We are disappointed that there is no new offence to criminalise the creation of deepfake sexualised images. I am sure that the Minister will address that. I would be interested to find out, too, Minister, what representations the Department made to the Home Office on that specific issue to see whether amendments can be introduced to the Bill at Westminster. My colleague Cara Hunter, as we heard, has been campaigning on that issue for some time, and we and she will continue to do so. We welcome the provisions in general. We have concerns, as I outlined, about how some of the measures will operate in practice. As with all powers, their effectiveness will depend on their implementation and the allocation of resources by the relevant Ministers.
531 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 (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.54 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.44 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
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.