Debate contribution: Criminal Legal Aid Fees: Uplift
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 13 October 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Criminal Legal Aid Fees: Uplift
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5175608
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I remain committed to delivering the uplift to remuneration that I set out in the Chamber in December last year. Officials across the Department are continuing to progress the business case with the Department of Finance that covers the wider enabling access to justice programme, not just the increase in legal aid fees. Progression of the business case was delayed to enable further amendments to legal aid fees that have been developed through the criminal legal aid working group that was established in March to be included in this round of change, and it was further impacted on by the fact that officials had to react to the impact of some emerging issues on the wider reform programme. However, I expect the legislation to be brought forward immediately once the business case is completed and to come into effect within six weeks, respecting the legislative process. In anticipation of the introduction of those new rates, the Legal Services Agency (LSA) has updated its case management system to ensure that the increased fees can be claimed as appropriate from the date on which the fees come into operation. It is also looking at how it will then be able to process, without requiring application from the practitioners, the additional back payments that I promised to the date in December last year.
220 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: 0.02 (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 (0.75).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.75 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 13:27 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.