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 5639074
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I think that the Member is in danger of putting the cart before the horse. The first thing that we want to do is to clarify in primary legislation the power that we already have to create remuneration orders. If the Member wants examples, there are examples already that apply to solicitors. That is how the taxing master works when they are doing taxed work with solicitors' involvement. They have a remuneration order that gives them the direction, and they seem to be able to manage that fine, and it is no encroachment on their independence. Therefore, I do not see why this would be different. Why would we go to the trouble of producing the regulations? That is secondary legislation. You do primary legislation first, and then you do secondary legislation afterwards. That is what we are trying to do. We are trying to put this into primary legislation, and then we will produce the remuneration order. That remuneration order, as with every other piece of secondary legislation, will go to the Committee for scrutiny; scrutiny that you were not allowed to have when the taxing master made a decision to raise fees. That was not the question that I asked the Member. I asked the Member whether, if she agrees that there is a need for evidence to substantiate the claims and what the Department is doing, she can set out for me the evidence provided to her by the Bar on how a barrister calculates a brief fee. I know that the Committee wrote and asked. I have seen the response, and it certainly was not evidence-based. I ask the Member, if she is confident that it is an evidence-based process at the moment and she is standing in the way of us trying to introduce an evidence-based process, to explain to me how they do it.
Will the Member give way?
315 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 (0.89).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | 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.