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
- 10 February 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 5435599
Read the official Assembly record
Text
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will address questions 3 and 10 together, as they speak to the same issue. I want to resolve the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) dispute. We have been engaged with the CBA since before the outset of its action in 2024, and I continue to engage with it. I made commitments and delivered, including on the 16% uplift in fees, which reached bank accounts at the start of the year, and on backdating that uplift to December 2024, at an overall cost of £6·15 million, £1·8 million of which went directly to barristers. I reprioritised my delivery plan, established a working group to consider other fees and appointed Judge Burgess to lead that work because that was what the professions wanted. We agreed a road map on 8 December to address the remaining issues, but the CBA withdrew its services, notwithstanding the fact that it had signed up to that agreement. It was in the CBA's interests that I proposed the accelerated independent review, investing additional funding and resources once again to address the CBA's remaining concerns at pace. The proposed review was conditional on a full return to service to remove the intolerable impact on victims and witnesses. That was to ensure that additional unwarranted pressure was not brought to bear on those leading the review, so that they could proceed without fear or favour and without the added injection of victim suffering. Unfortunately, the CBA rejected that proposal, suggesting instead that an additional derogation to the service withdrawal, unclarified in number and scope, might be offered on a week-to-week basis, subject to its assessment of progress. That proposal was obviously untenable. It offered no certainty to victims and witnesses and no clarity on the criteria that would be used in determining which cases could go ahead and which would be delayed. With the CBA rejecting the review, I am moving on and have asked officials to consider other options. That work is ongoing, so I cannot say more at this stage, but please be assured that efforts and intensive progress are maintaining pace. I believe that it is time for the CBA to start acting in good faith to deliver an end to the impasse. In the interim, I am working at pace to increase tailored support for victims and witnesses who have been affected by the withdrawal and to ensure that that support is provided at the greatest possible speed. I will, of course, keep the Chamber updated.
416 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 (0.89).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | 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 | 0.95 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.04 |
| 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 14:51 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.