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 5639032
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Member has talked about a couple of things since I first indicated that I wanted him to give way. The first thing to say is that there is no evidence of legal aid deserts in Northern Ireland. We heard that from the Law Society previously, but when I went out to the west to meet practitioners, they raised some issues with me that were causing them problems but have now been resolved, including remuneration for travel when courthouses were operating only as temporary hearing centres and so on. They raised issues that were causing them concern and which I did not feel were fair. The Member hit on the point that solicitors submit the amount of time that they spend on a case and they detail the complexity of the case. They rely on the taxing master to look at that and say, "Yes, that seems like a reasonable amount of time and a reasonable allowance for the complexity of the case". The taxing master has discretion, if they feel that solicitors have not properly accounted for their time, to be able to increase or reduce the amount paid. The problem with the brief fee is that it is a number. It is a figure that the barrister puts on their value in a case. It is not broken down by hours or by the complexity of the case; all of that rests with the taxing master to make the decision. It is completely opaque. I do not know another line of work where that would happen. Let us be honest; even in this place, you used to be able to come here or not come here and still draw your salary, and there was no accountability over that. Part of the reforms that were made in light of the public demand for change included that people had to swipe in and out and give an account of their time. There is an expectation, when you are earning significant amounts of money in a privileged position, and particularly when that money comes from the public purse, that you can account for the time that you spent. As things stand, however, that does not happen. I am not trying to restrict access to legal aid, nor am I trying to underpay those who are doing the work. However, I want to know exactly what we are paying for and how it is calculated, and to have the transparency to know whether people are being properly remunerated. When we tried to sort out the recent dispute, which has now been resolved, part of the challenge was that the Bar could not give us the data that we needed. We were reliant on economists and others to provide that data for us. There is a fundamental issue here, which is that with time and line billing, we will at least have the data through which we will then be able to assess other things. When it comes to blank cheques, just to be absolutely clear, all of this will come back to the Committee for scrutiny. That is something that does not happen with the taxing master. With respect, I respect judicial independence, and when it comes to making decisions about individual cases and sentencing, I do not cross-examine, cross-question or challenge. However, this is public money from my Department, from the same budget that has to fund policing, prisons and everything else that goes with Justice. I have to account for that, and I believe that I have a responsibility to do that. It is not a power grab; it is a reassertion of powers that we already have, and which we are putting in primary legislation in order to have clarity.
621 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 (0.96).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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.