Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on 22 June 2026.

MLA

Mr Paul Frew

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

22 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5638886

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Yes. I thank the Minister for her intervention, and I acknowledge that there is a difference between the Bar and the Law Society. The Law Society also expressed concern that clause 28 aimed to remove the role of the court, which would have a significant impact on the independence and fairness of the taxation process. It failed to see how the proposed change could improve accountability and predictability over legal aid fees in relation to the fees of solicitors and said that it would be a significant departure from current practice and could reduce judicial oversight and undermine the fairness and independence of the process. The Committee had further meetings and correspondence with the Department to seek to gain an understanding of the detail and implications of clause 28. The Department advised that it was not anticipating that changes caused by clause 28 would negatively impact on access to justice for citizens. The restrictions on the ordering of taxation of legal aid costs would only commence when alternative remuneration orders, to be made by delegated legislation, would be in place. The Department added that, with regard to a review mechanism for any new remuneration framework that it anticipated, the taxing master would still have an adjudication role in respect of requests for redetermination of decisions made under the framework, as is currently the case with criminal remuneration in the Crown Court. In November 2025, the Committee received a policy briefing on the enabling access to justice programme. During that session, the Committee heard that the Department proposed to expedite its approach to taxation reform following a recent increase in fees. The Department proposed to therefore table an amendment to the Justice Bill to make provision for the Department to set legal aid fees and arrangements for the taxing master to apply when assessing legal aid bills. The Committee subsequently received oral evidence from the Lady Chief Justice and the taxing master, Master Moore. Whilst the judiciary does not comment on policy, it provided evidence on the role of the taxing master and what it believed the impact of taxation reform on the role might be. That session was informative and helpful to the Committee. However, as it progressed, it became evident that there was a lack of clarity around the table about whether the amendment that the Department had advised the Committee of in November would make changes to clause 28 or whether it would be a new stand-alone provision. A few weeks later, the Department wrote to the Committee to inform it that the provisions in clause 28 no longer reflected the new policy direction and that therefore the Minister would seek to remove clause 28 from the Bill. In noting that position during our formal clause-by-clause consideration, the Committee agreed that it was not content with clause 28 as drafted, and I put that on the record. Amendment No 91 proposes a new clause 27A. The text of the amendment that we had been advised that the Minister would table was only received by the Committee on 3 March 2026. We therefore did not have time to consider it in detail or reach a Committee position on it before the end of the Committee Stage. Since that time, in order to help inform Members before the debate on the amendment, the Committee heard evidence from the Bar of Northern Ireland on this further change to the taxation process and, as per the previous views, it is not content. In evidence to the Committee, the Bar described the amendment as a "legislative blank cheque", which I think that we can all agree is a fairly blunt viewpoint. It considers new clause 27A to be skeleton legislation, with little detail on the substance of the changes being made to remuneration or the factors being taken into account when making those changes.

It also commented on the timing of the further amendment and said that it has:

"seriously limited the opportunity for meaningful scrutiny, stakeholder engagement and detailed consideration of the new clause's implications."

It contended that new clause 27A was:

"the product of a disjointed programme of taxation reform that has been foisted on family and civil publicly funded services without that robust evidence base, as well as having been done on the basis of shifting policy objectives".

It reiterated the same concerns about judicial independence and said that a dangerous precedent would be set if:

"the Assembly"

were to

"give consent to the Department to curb judicial independence".

The Committee also heard from the Law Society on the new clause. It, too, was not content with the proposal. It repeated its earlier view:

"It is unclear how the new proposals would improve accountability or cost predictability for legal aid cases."

It also expressed concern that the new amendment would undermine the role of the taxing master. It advised that it could not support the amendment. The Department subsequently wrote to the Committee to address the points raised by the Bar and the Law Society. The Department disagreed that it was a legislative blank cheque or skeleton legislation. The Department advised that fees and rates in relation to proceedings in the lower courts are set out in remuneration orders and that claims are assessed by the Legal Services Agency. It went on to say that remuneration in the Crown Court is based on a framework where fees and rates are set by the Department in secondary legislation. It argued that the new clause would simply clarify that fees and rates set out in secondary legislation can apply to anyone assessing legal aid costs, including the taxing master. The Department advised that that would be more open to scrutiny by the Committee, given that recent fees were uplifted without any recourse to the Committee or the Assembly. Before making the necessary remuneration orders —.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:08 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