Debate contribution: Enabling Access to Justice

Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on 11 March 2025.

MLA

Mrs Naomi Long

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

11 March 2025

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Ministerial Statements

Heading

Enabling Access to Justice

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4855258

Read the official Assembly record

Text

There are two separate issues. The first is that I have to keep the House apprised of the progress that has been made. That is part of my duty as Minister, and that is why I am making this statement today. I said that I would develop the proposals and move at pace. It is important that people are aware of that, of the progress that has been made and of our direction of travel. That is important. That does not preclude my engagement with the Criminal Bar Association. That continues, and my officials continue to engage with the Criminal Bar Association, so there is no stand-off. I am simply setting out the facts as they are. I said twice in my statement very clearly that representatives of the Criminal Bar Association attend the working group, that I welcome that and that I hope to work through the issues. What I cannot excuse, however, is the continued withdrawal of services, because I do not believe that that was justified when it was announced in December, and I certainly do not believe that it is justified at this point when so much progress has been delivered — not simply promised but delivered. People need to be balanced in their views on that. On the wider piece, I do not think that anyone wants us to be in conflict, but when it comes to the derogation, to be clear, there were 17 cases identified not by the Department but by the Public Prosecution Service and its victim and witness care unit (VWCU). People spent a lot of time identifying those 17 cases. The first and most serious — I cannot emphasise enough how grave a situation this is — was taken to the Criminal Bar Association for consideration, and it was refused. It is a matter for the PPS how it uses its resources, but given that the most serious case was refused, there is a strong argument that further work on the derogation may be simply throwing good money after bad. Unless there is some give on the derogation issue, it is very hard to see how it will happen. We are not talking about hundreds of cases; we are talking about 17 cases in which the victims or witnesses were identified as being particularly vulnerable for very specific reasons. The fact that the most vulnerable of those was brought to and rejected by the Criminal Bar Association does not create confidence that it is serious about its on-paper commitment. If it changes its mind and decides to take those cases forward outside the rigour of the withdrawal of services, we will all welcome that. What I would rather see is a return to full service.

The earnings of barristers will vary greatly, depending on their workload and their level of expertise. We can only account for those elements of their pay that come from the legal aid system, because, of course, all barristers are also free to undertake private work and to operate outside the criminal aspects. This is only for criminal legal aid. Between 1 April 2024 and 31 December 2024, the Legal Services Agency (LSA) paid 5,064 bills to 199 barristers, with a value of £20,412,043, for work in the Crown Court. During that period, two barristers received a total of £1·7 million. Sixty-five barristers — 33% — received at least £105,000 per annum. Thirty-three per cent of barristers received an equivalent annual gross salary of around £60,000, which equates to the top 10% of full-time annual gross pay in Northern Ireland. Thirty-eight per cent of barristers received at least £85,000. That is an annual gross salary of £48,600, which is in the top 20% of full-time annual gross pay. As I said, that is only for work in the Crown Court and criminal work. That does not cover the much wider work that barristers will take on, whether that be private work or work in other parts of the court system: it covers only the legal aid work through the criminal Bar. I have accepted that, despite that, we still need to introduce that uplift because there has not been an uplift over a sustained period. However, it cannot be lost on many in the House that some people are earning significant amounts of money and still saying that their work does not pay. I find that there is an incongruence between those two facts.

That is one area that we can consider. Of course, there is a wider issue about regulation of the profession, which does not actually fall to the Department of Justice. It currently falls to the Department of Finance and the legal services ombudsman, along with the professions themselves. There is a conversation to be had about basic standards of delivery. To be clear: most people — the vast majority — who engage with the legal profession in Northern Ireland are pleased with the work that it has undertaken. They find that the people whom they engage with provide them with high-quality services, professional courtesy and quality advice. We should not lose sight of that. We have a strong legal profession here in Northern Ireland. I want to ensure that we can sustain that legal profession, whilst ensuring that the money that we spend on legal aid is directed to those who are in need at their point of greatest need. That is the purpose of the public funds that are engaged in that profession. Of course, there will be other opportunities for talented barristers and solicitors to earn money through professional fees in the private sector. I want to ensure that, when a member of the public needs to access justice and could not otherwise afford to do so, the safety net of legal aid is there to ensure that they can and do access the justice that they deserve.

First of all, that is not accurate. The uplift for immigration fees is different in that we have decided to take a read across from work that has been done in England and Wales. We are currently in discussion with immigration solicitors. The figure that we were looking at is significantly higher than the 16% that was actually listed because it came from a study that was done in England and Wales. I am not here to reinvent the wheel. If a study has been done that says that immigration cases are more complex now than they were 10 years ago, we will look at that evidence, because it will be no different here in Northern Ireland from anywhere else that operates through the same immigration system. The profession has come forward with three specific asks of the Department. We are now engaging with it on those asks. I actually think that what we have offered potentially is more generous than the ask that it has come to us with, which is specific. I think that we can agree one element of it reasonably quickly, but I am hopeful that, through our engagement with the profession, which has been quite constructive, we may be able to get a resolution to that ahead of actually bringing the secondary legislation to the House in May, which will allow that uplift to be applied from that point on. I am hopeful that it can be resolved. As for the complexity of criminal court cases, if there is evidence that the work that the criminal Bar is doing does not pay, I ask that it be brought to the working group. The profession had the opportunity to provide that evidence to Judge Burgess. He concluded that 16% was the right amount of uplift for the criminal Bar. Remember that his review was based only on the criminal Bar. We extended the 16% across the rest of the Bar. He looked only at a fundamental review of criminal legal aid. He said that 16% was the right amount. Whatever evidence the profession had clearly did not convince him, but, if it wants to come back with further evidence now and present it to me, I am open to that. Where it is evidenced, as it is, I believe, with the immigration solicitors, we are open to paying that money. I have said that I want fair and transparent remuneration. However, I also want evidence and accountability.

1,389 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:13 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