Debate contribution: Enabling Access to Justice Programme

Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on 2 December 2024.

MLA

Mrs Naomi Long

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

2 December 2024

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Ministerial Statement

Heading

Enabling Access to Justice Programme

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4686489

Read the official Assembly record

Text

There were two questions. On the first, when it comes to legacy specifically, separate arrangements are being considered by the Northern Ireland Office and Treasury. It is a UK Government policy, not a DOJ policy. Therefore, the legal support that will or will not be offered to people going through, for example, the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) cases will not fall within the legal aid framework. On the taxing master, what we are doing is not unique. We already have standardised fees, and, for example, in the appeal courts, around 80% of people opt to go through the Legal Services Agency because it is quicker to go through that than to go through the taxing master. The issue here is one of managing public money. There is a duty on me to ensure that there is transparency, openness and accountability.

The current rules around the way in which the taxing master works do not allow for that openness, accountability and transparency, and whatever we end up with at the end of the process has to achieve that end. It is an issue that the PAC raised and is therefore something that needs to be followed through on.

My reason for not publishing the Burgess report is that it was one of a number of inputs to the document that we are sending to the Committee, and I did not think that its consideration in isolation was the right process to follow. When my road map goes to the Committee, however, the supporting documentation will also go to it and will then be published in full.

Responsibility for the viability of the legal professions is a matter for many different people. Proper, proportionate remuneration is critical in order to ensure an enduring profession and effective access to justice, but it has to be acknowledged that a robust and enduring profession is not solely contingent on fees. Legal aid is only one income stream available to practitioners. Professional bodies have to ensure that there is a proactive approach taken to succession planning. They also have to ensure that their training models build capacity, support inclusivity and nurture talent. For example, many people do not want to operate as criminal solicitors, and that is because they find doing so difficult because of the amount of out-of-hours work and inconvenience involved compared with working for, say, a corporate legal body, where they may not have to work outside normal office hours. I will therefore consider what steps I can take to try to increase viability. Initially, I will consider extended rights of audience in the courts to increase capacity and then consider whether interim payments might aid financial viability, particularly, as I said, that of smaller firms, and career progression for women and younger members of the profession. Others also need to take action on those matters. I am aware, for example, that the Law Society is looking at making potential changes to its model for training young solicitors.

Some other Members pointed to the reviews that have been undertaken, and a further report has been published on how clients viewed the legal services that they received. It has to be said that that report is a mixed bag and not entirely glowing in its output. The regulatory framework for the legal professions is not a matter for me as Justice Minister but a matter for the respective professional bodies, the Finance Minister and the Legal Services Oversight Commissioner. I want, however, to work with Minister Archibald, the Law Society and the Bar Council to see whether there are ways in which we can collectively increase confidence for service users. I am very clear that the standards of legal representation in Northern Ireland are high, and the vast majority of stakeholders reported that the services that they received were helpful, necessary and provided with care. I am concerned, however, that some expressed concerns about the ability to make an effective complaint about their representative when they need to. I am also keen to explore how the governance structures around legal aid can be used in combination with the vital roles of the Law Society, the Bar Council, the Department of Finance and the commissioner to increase confidence in the system.

My statement is about enabling access to justice through the legal aid system and its corollaries. It is not specific to individual cases. I have, however, had the opportunity to make representations to the Secretary of State about his plans, particularly on the ICRIR. I have been clear that I think that it needs to be replaced, not merely reformed. I have also been clear that, if they decide to do so, the Department of Justice will not stand in the way of any families wishing to avail themselves of its services or try to frustrate their processes. However, it is, I believe, a fundamentally flawed process, and the Secretary of State should go back to the drawing board, with the Stormont House Agreement, to which many Members signed up, as a starting point.

Since the devolution of justice, the Department has, in line with legislation, kept the scheme under review. Reviews have led to nine amendments to supporting legal aid legislation, with the latest, in 2019, being to bring forward remuneration for referral hearings in the Crown Court. The proposal to uplift fees here is based on evidence in the various reports that are available and is designed to help to arrest the fall in numbers of solicitors and barristers taking on cases that are supported by legal aid. The reform programme will, as part of its outworkings, necessitate the setting of new remuneration rates that will reflect the complex operating environment and the specialist skills needed in some cases. The current levels of remuneration for cases in the Crown Court were agreed in 2016, following discussions with stakeholders, including members of the Bar Council and the Law Society. That followed changes in 2015. Those discussions helped to identify where rates needed to be amended to reflect the complexity of cases that were then being brought forward. The Bar Council and the Law Society supported the Burgess review and provided detailed supporting evidence that has helped to shape the reform programme. Their input into delivering it will also be incredibly important, and I look forward to their continued engagement.

We are looking at a number of elements that would deal with some of those issues. First and foremost, access to justice allows the ordinary citizen to challenge the decision maker, and it is right and proper that they should be able to do so. In the case of what the Member describes as potentially vexatious applications, however, it is important that, in addition to a means test, there is a merit test: would a person take this case if they were paying for it themselves, or are they taking it solely because someone else — namely, the public purse — is picking up the bill? We intend to look at that carefully because, if we are to protect the most vulnerable, we need to make sure that our legal aid spend is targeted at the most vulnerable. We also need to make sure that we do not fall foul of our commitments under the Aarhus convention, which is environmental legislation that the Government have signed up to to ensure that the public have a right to challenge decision makers on environmental issues.

I hate to break it to the Member, but private finance is the standard approach in most civil cases. If I want to take a defamation case against somebody, I have to pay for that, unsurprisingly. If I were to win damages, I would cover my costs out of them. It is not unreasonable to expect somebody who wants to take a case and has the means to do so to pay. The purpose of legal aid is not to fund every exercise in the courts. It is to fund access to the courts for those who could not otherwise afford it, so it is not at all unusual that private finance options are available. One of the principles of 'Managing Public Money' is that public money should not displace private money where private money is available. We need to be careful that that does not happen. For example, some people will automatically be allowed legal aid for their defence. They may be very wealthy people who could have paid for that themselves. If they are convicted, it is right that we should seek redress. When it comes to other options for private financing, we are not talking about bringing in companies that will run the process as a private enterprise. I was clear in saying that I wanted to ensure that people get the same quality of service whether they have means or gain access through legal aid. That has to be the baseline. There are certain mechanisms available to people in other parts of these islands that allow them to take on big corporations, for example. No win, no fee claims, for example, allow people to take on big corporations and win. We do not have that in Northern Ireland, so, unless you have the money to go up against those big corporations, you have no chance of ever seeing justice done.

1,557 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:36 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