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 5638952
Read the official Assembly record
Text
In developing the proposals, we took account of the feedback that was received from the Law Society and the Bar Council. We also engaged with the Lady Chief Justice and the taxing master. To be clear, the Department already has those powers. What we are seeking to do in the amendment is to formalise that in primary legislation to allow us to make the regulations that will come to the Committee. Even if the Assembly does not agree to put those in the Bill, we will still have to look at reform. We believe that we have the powers to do so, but we felt that, on this occasion, given the likelihood that there will be a challenge, it was better to do it via an amendment to the Bill. It is not something that we entered into without consultation and engagement with the profession or with the taxing master and the judiciary more widely. It is an important point, though, that, as the Member will know, we often raise queries about our accounts with the LSA, and much of that relates to the parts of our accounts where we cannot detail where the expenditure has arisen.
Will the Member give way?
My colleague asked a really pertinent question. If there is no fee framework and there are no means to determine how many hours were worked, at what level and on what issues to constitute the brief fee, how could fraud possibly be proven? It would literally be putting a finger in the wind to decide the brief fee, and then the taxing master would look and say, "Does it seem high? Does it seem low?". That is fine for entertainment purposes, but it is not good for accounting and public money. If people could literally pick the brief fee at will and submit it and rely on the taxing master to either lift it or drop it, we would be in a situation where there would be no clarity, and proving fraud would be incredibly difficult unless you had a pattern of information where somebody was consistently putting in bills that were being reduced. Even then, it would be difficult to prove.
364 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 | 0.03 | 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 16:11 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.