Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 22 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5638913
Read the official Assembly record
Text
It is not a fear but a fact. Of course, the budget settlement will have an impact on how much we can spend on legal aid and how we set the fees, because I have a duty, as does the permanent secretary in my Department, to live within the budget that is set. That requires us to say how we will remunerate people for doing the work. It also requires us to have a level of transparency and clarity so that the public can properly scrutinise what is being spent.
At the moment, people submit their brief fee. It can be reduced; in some cases, it is reduced by up to 50%. That begs the question of whether we are getting value for money, if people get into a habit of inflating a bill knowing that it will be reduced, but we have no ability to scrutinise that. To be clear, while this was accelerated due to the recent significant uplift, because it brought home the fact that we were going to have a significant additional expense that we had not anticipated, it is not about that. I announced in December 2024 that the enabling access to justice reform programme would reform the taxation process, so it is about expediting that so that we regain control of that portion of the legal aid budget, which is now around £30 million, so it is not an insignificant amount of money. It is only to bring it into line with how we pay solicitors for the same work.
256 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 (0.93).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 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.