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 5653191
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As I said, none of us, including the CBA, wishes to be in that position again. There are a number of things that we can do.
I spoke earlier about the more regular and routine review of legal aid fees and delivery of the enabling access to justice delivery programme. If we can work together on those issues to ensure that citizens get the best possible access and that the taxpayer gets value for money, we will be in a much better position.
I am, however, making enquiries into what we can do to ensure that witnesses cannot be used as a form of leverage in such a situation. The way that some victims were treated throughout the recent period was particularly distasteful. We can deploy a range of measures to that end, including, as I said, enhancing solicitors' rights of audience and the alternative delivery models that I have previously mentioned. We are at an early stage, but I will, of course, keep the House updated. The important thing now is to rebuild some of the trust that has been damaged throughout the period and to, hopefully, move forward more constructively and positively.
194 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: 0.04 (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 (0.89).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.73 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.26 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 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.