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
- 16 March 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Crime and Policing Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5449012
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As the Minister said, the Committee and the Chamber have scrutinised a number of LCMs that pertain to the Crime and Policing Bill. Like the Member who spoke previously, we have concerns about elements of the Bill. That shows why we would ideally want to legislate locally in the Assembly, but there are circumstances in which we need to consider legislative consent motions, and this is one such circumstance. The LCM that we are considering is narrow in focus. As has been said, it looks at the important area of age verification requirements, particularly for online sales, which is an issue that we continually hear about in Committee and elsewhere in our role as MLAs. The legislation that we are considering by way of the Minister's LCM is essential and important. Following our party's scrutiny of it and the Justice Committee's scrutiny and having considered it in the Chamber today, we are content with the LCM.
156 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).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.44 | No |
| 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 | 0.69 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.24 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.05 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:13 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.