Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on .
- 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 5638917
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Minister for the intervention. I take her point. That is the dilemma and the question for tonight about what we do. The taxing master in their current role strips millions off those bills yearly, so there is a massive gap between what barristers apply for and what they receive. The question is how we make that more accountable. The Minister has gone down the policy route and is within her rights to do so, but that is the question that faces us. I will continue with my speech. Before making the necessary remuneration orders, which the Minister hopes to implement by the end of the mandate, consultation with the Lady Chief Justice, the Law Society and the Bar, and, if necessary, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) will be required. They would also be subject to public consultation. The Department reiterates that is has only a finite budget. Its aim is to set a rate that is reasonable and enhances accountability for public expenditure, which is not currently available with brief fees. The Committee noted the update from the Department in response to the concerns of the Bar and the Law Society. As I said, however, because of the time that the matter was brought to us, the Committee does not have a formal agreed position on amendment No 91, which is the Minister's new clause 27A regarding the taxing master.
I will now speak in my capacity as DUP justice spokesperson. My colleague Brian Kingston will speak further on the amendments, so I will not take too much longer, you will be glad to hear, Mr Deputy Speaker. The DUP has been frustrated with clause 28: with what it meant; with how new clause 27A was arranged with clause 28; with whether new clause 27A was compatible with clause 28; with what would happen to clause 28; and with whether new clause 27A would be a new clause or would amend clause 28. When the Committee met the Lady Chief Justice and the taxing master, it became clear that there was a difference between our understanding of clause 28 and new clause 27A, which we had not seen at that stage, and what the Lady Chief Justice thought was coming. I am talking as the DUP spokesperson, and Committee members from other parties will talk about other aspects of the meeting, but it was really uncomfortable to be put in that position. As members of the Justice Committee, we did not know what was ahead of us and what we were meant to be scrutinising in new clause 27A. We had the text of clause 28, as it was in the blue pages, but we were not sure how the Minister was going to proceed with her new clause. We were not sure whether it would be a stand-alone clause or amend clause 28. We now know about the Minister's intention to oppose the Question that clause 28 stand part of the Bill, and we have new clause 27A. The issue is something that we will have to grapple with tonight. We cannot keep going on as we are. There needs to be further accountability when it comes to legal aid. Our books are qualified every year because of it, so it is a massive issue. I do not know how we will do legal aid better. New clause 27 might be the way, but I am really nervous and concerned about what the regulations might state and mean and how legal aid remuneration will be stepped if amendment No 91 passes tonight.
Yes, I will.
600 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 (0.91).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | 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 | 0.93 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.04 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 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.