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 5639086
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The two things that we will get from what I have proposed are transparency and accountability, neither of which we have under the current system. Within the legal system, solicitors are content with the proposal. The reason that barristers are not content is that it is they who have a blank cheque. They can write their brief fee and submit it to the taxing master; and the taxing master can move it up or down by as big or small a percentage as he wishes, depending on his view of the case. It is not a blank cheque for the Department. The Department would bring the remuneration orders to the Committee for scrutiny and consult the Bar, the Lady Chief Justice, the taxing master and everyone else as part of that process. We already have the power, so that is the bit that is confusing me slightly. That power exists in secondary legislation, but we would prefer to put it in primary legislation for clarity, because we feel that it would be good practice to do so and then have the remuneration orders in secondary legislation. The amendment is not a major departure from what is already in legislation. It will simply place the power in primary legislation to ensure that we have transparency and accountability. The taxing master may well have a duty to the legal aid fund, but he does not have a duty to assess value for money or affordability, and he has no duty whatever to report on the rationale for his decision-making. That is contrary to what applies to me, because I have to give reasons for why I want to do something. If I want to uplift legal aid fees, I have to provide the Member's colleague in the Department of Finance with a business case that will justify that uplift. None of that is true under the current system. I do not see why those who are not accountable financially on the issue should be able to spend that element of the Department's budget. Judicial independence matters. This is about financial accountability.
349 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | 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 | 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.