Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mrs Ciara Ferguson on .
- MLA
- Mrs Ciara Ferguson
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 22 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5639059
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Minister. It is great to hear that payments are now being made more swiftly. A few years ago, they were not being made swiftly, and we were heavily dependent on legal professionals waiting for six months before they were paid. On the timely provision of legal aid funding, I once again mention the low fees and high operational costs that come with associated risks to the sustainability of our small companies and legal professionals, particularly those in rural areas. Those run in tandem with the ongoing closure of Magistrates' Courts in certain localities, which creates additional risk for economically disadvantaged and rural areas. We do not want an exodus of legal talent and local services in specific areas of law, such as child custody, care, immigration, housing and social welfare. Clause 27A in amendment No 91 was drafted to replace clause 28, which was debated at First Stage and Second Stage. Clause 28 would have removed the role of the taxing master from the assessment of certain legally aided fees. Clause 27A was received during the latter part of the Committee's scrutiny. Its practical effect would be that the taxing master, when determining costs, must do so in line with the relevant fees, rates and arrangements set out in an unknown remuneration order to be set by the Department at a later stage. The Bar raised concerns about clause 27A with the Justice Committee. The current taxing master is an independent, evidence-based judicial office holder.
Yes.
Minister, if you can recall, you will know that, for over two years, I have been asking departmental officials what the remuneration orders are and how they will be set. They were to liaise with the solicitors and the barristers. I still have not received that information, and I still am not aware of what those will look like. It is not that we oppose an open, fair and transparent process, but it is hard when you do not have the evidence base for why it is being done, plus the fact that we do not have in front of us what this will look like and what impact it will have on the current legal aid system and on local people.
Yes.
372 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 (0.96).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | 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 | 0.78 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.18 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 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.