Debate contribution: Criminal Barristers: Withdrawal of Services
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 30 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Criminal Barristers: Withdrawal of Services
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5653175
Read the official Assembly record
Text
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will address questions 2 and 4 together. For the sake of victims and witnesses, I am pleased that the unnecessary and unwarranted service withdrawal by the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) has finally come to an end. The CBA is finally following the example of its solicitor colleagues and delivering the services that its clients deserve rather than leveraging their suffering. However, the CBA action has caused untold damage to the system, and the ending of that action is long overdue. Members will be aware that I have taken many steps to address the evolving concerns of the CBA throughout the dispute and have met the asks of the CBA at every turn. My decision to accept in full the recommendations of the accelerated review follows the 16% uplift in fees that I implemented earlier this year, and which I took the unprecedented step of backdating to 2024 at a cost of £11·5 million. I reprioritised my programme delivery plan in response to feedback. I established a working group to consider other fee changes and appointed Judge Burgess to lead that work, as the professions desired, and, when the CBA reneged on our agreement and withdrew full services, I established the accelerated review. Implementation of the review is yet another act of good faith on my part. From the outset, I have been committed to providing fair remuneration on the basis of evidence to ensure that we provide quality service and that public funds are protected. The accelerated review produced the necessary evidence to support fees that will result in a further £4·94 million annual increase in legal aid expenditure, and I am happy to follow that evidence. The CBA’s decision to return to service and recognise the significance of the additional investment that I am making is a positive step. However, I trust that it will take the more constructive approach of its solicitor colleagues in future and engage in good faith with the Department without seeking to leverage damage to the system and the victims, so that we can collectively focus on delivering the justice system that citizens deserve.
356 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.89).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-qualifying 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 | 0.95 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.05 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:10 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.