Debate contribution: Remuneration: Criminal Bar Association Negotiations
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 24 March 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Remuneration: Criminal Bar Association Negotiations
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4865108
Read the official Assembly record
Text
What I said was that the remainder of the Bar had not taken action in response to the 16% offer and that we had applied it across all sections of the Bar. Remember that the 16% was originally recommended only for the criminal Bar. I made the decision to do the uplift across the entire Bar to ensure that all parts were treated equitably.
I doubt that there is anyone in the Bar who would not welcome a 16% uplift, but there will, of course, be other opportunities through the reform process for us to look at other significant and distinct parts of the Bar, if they are able to make their case based on evidence, as was the case for the criminal Bar.
We had already looked at things that we could do regarding immigration solicitors. We have moved ahead with that and are working with those immigration solicitors to resolve their issues, because their cases have a particular complexity that the 16% does not fully reflect. I have shown myself to be fair and equitable in how I have applied the 16%, and to be open to listening to a case where it is evidence-based.
197 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 (0.73).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.73 | 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 | 0.60 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.39 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:12 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.