Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Brian Kingston on 22 June 2026.

MLA

Mr Brian Kingston

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 5639022

Read the official Assembly record

Text

As a DUP member of the Committee for Justice, I will comment in particular on amendment No 91 on legal aid and the role of the taxing master. As my colleague Paul Frew MLA said, we had considerable engagement in Committee on that amendment, which proposes new clause 27A as an amendment to the Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003. That would enable the Department of Justice to include provision about how the taxing master should determine the amount of legal aid that is to be awarded to solicitors and barristers who are working on eligible cases. In particular, we received representations from the Bar of Northern Ireland, which represents barristers here, and the Law Society of Northern Ireland, which represents and regulates solicitors. They welcomed the fact that the Minister had indicated that she will not proceed with clause 28 on taxation, meaning payment, of legal aid costs. Indeed, I confess that I found it difficult to understand clause 28. However, it is now proposed that we replace clause 28, which took up a page and a half in the Bill, with the much shorter new clause 27A. Whilst that new clause is just 10 lines, the representatives of the legal profession were concerned that clause 27A would have huge significance. Clause 27A would bring in an enabling power for the Department to make unspecified provisions for the setting of legal aid payments. The legal representatives' greatest concerns were that there was uncertainty about the consequences and that the overall purpose of clause 27A was to reduce legal aid payments, though they accepted that the legal aid budget was under huge pressure. Their concerns were that the discretion and insight of the taxing master, who receives those legal aid claims and decides what amount should be paid in each case, would be significantly diminished; the taxing master would have to determine payments strictly in line with relevant fees, hourly rates and arrangements —

— let me finish this section — that would be set out in a remuneration order dictated by the Department; and that the role of the taxing master would be reduced to just counting the number of hours that were spent working on a case, with payment based on a fixed hourly rate without due regard to the complexity of the case — I am presenting what was presented to us — and they feared that brief fees would no longer be recognised, which, I understand, is a fixed amount that applies to every case for producing the report that is sent to the taxing master. They said that that was a clear encroachment on the independence of the taxing master as a legal officer. I will carry on for another wee bit. The Bar and the Law Society said that they were not opposed to a wider package of reform. They were, however, deeply concerned by the uncertainty over how that change could end up and the unintended consequences that it could have.

The Bar and the Law Society asked that the Department carry out a review with them as active participants. They claimed that the Department had already indicated its intention to move to an hourly rate, which, they said, would be a huge shift. Nevertheless, I was left with the impression that solicitors are more used to detailing their claims by way of time spent and hourly rates, whereas barristers, it seemed to me, tend to use the Comerton scale, if I understand it correctly, with less detail provided.

The Bar and the Law Society said that the taxing master, as the protector of the legal aid fund, was not previously accountable to the departmental accounting officer. Indeed, the proposed new clause 27A was described as a power grab by the Department. In reply, I pointed out that, as elected representatives, having responsibility for public expenditure and taxpayers' money, we believe in accountability for public funds and that, in general, good value for money for the public purse is a positive. Our primary purpose is to represent the public interest, to represent the taxpayer and to uphold fairness. Equally, those who provide a publicly funded service should be paid fairly for their service. We must avoid a situation where there is a shortage of solicitors and barristers who are willing to take on legal aid cases because of the poor rate of return, similar to what has happened with NHS dentistry. The Law Society said that solicitors who take on private cases typically charge at two or three times the rate paid for legal aid work, and that a higher rate is charged for private work that is more complex. The Law Society said that solicitors had already withdrawn from legal aid work in some rural areas, which they described as becoming like "legal aid deserts". I will give way to the Minister.

811 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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.

Challenge this classification