Debate contribution: Criminal Bar Association: Withdrawal of Services
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 20 January 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Criminal Bar Association: Withdrawal of Services
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5348502
Read the official Assembly record
Text
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to address questions 2, 8 and 12 together, as they speak to the same issue. As I previously advised the House, engagement to resolve the CBA's concerns has been ongoing since before the outset of its action in November 2024. I remain committed to continuing constructive dialogue. My focus very much remains on solving the dispute in the interests of victims and witnesses, who are suffering very real harm as a result of service withdrawal. That impact cannot be overstated. Last week, I had the opportunity to meet representatives of some of the organisations that are providing support to those who are affected. I commend those organisations again for their efforts to provide information, advice and support. I am, of course, working with them to identify any further assistance that could usefully be provided to victims and witnesses while we continue to strive to end the damaging service withdrawal. To that end, I held a constructive meeting with CBA representatives again last week, and I have proposed a means of navigating the impasse that builds on the work that has been done to date by the working group and that, I believe, would allow the CBA's concerns to be addressed at pace and fulfil our requirements to appropriately manage public money. Crucially, the proposed approach will also involve the Solicitors' Criminal Bar Association, which has remained engaged and committed to the agreed process, and which has continued to deliver services to its clients throughout. As the proposed approach is a matter of ongoing discussion with the CBA membership, it would not be appropriate to elaborate further at this stage. I will, however, keep the Chamber updated.
283 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 (0.84).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.84 | 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 | 0.96 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.03 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:13 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.