Naomi Long
East Belfast · Alliance Party · Northern Ireland
“Underneath the Facebook posts to say that he had passed away, people speculated with such comments as, "Probably high on drugs", "Probably drunk", and, "Typical boy racer". There was all of that speculation. It was hurtful to the family, and it was inaccurate.”
“There are circumstances that we need to consider and be careful of. I was told, for example, that, when the issue of good character references at trial was being looked at in New South Wales — Committee members may wish to look at this for themselves — one of the groups that opposed their removal was representative of domestic abuse victi…”
“It sets out the strategic direction adopted by the Department and key partners to tackle those appalling crimes and protect vulnerable victims of exploitation.”
“The provision seeks to provide protection, via legal advice and representation for complainants, against the use of non-relevant personal material and evidence of previous sexual history being used in the court process.”
“<BR /> <BR />On the wider issue of ensuring that a withdrawal of services never happens again, I think that most of us agree that, although everyone has the right to take industrial action, no one has the right to derail and hold to ransom the entire justice system in that way.”
“Those measures will go some way towards helping to support complainants and enable them to have input into the decision-making process about what records containing their personal and sensitive information are required to be shared with the defence.”
The complete record
Every one of 7,548 lines we hold for Naomi Long, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 151.
“I find the idea that I would behave in such a vindictive and reckless manner fundamentally offensive. It runs contrary to the point that we have made repeatedly, which is that we can disagree without impugning the character and integrity of other Members.”
“In the main, the debates in the Chamber on the Justice Bill have been reasonable, temperate and good-humoured. This is the first time, however, that somebody has accused me of taking a policy position based on dislike of a Member. I do not know what kind of vindictive person would imagine that any Minister or, indeed, any politician would come to the House and take a position based on their like or dislike of the individual who proposed it. <BR /> <BR />First, I assure the Member that I have no strong feelings either way. With respect to him, I do not know him well enough to have formed such. Secondly, irrespective of my views on any Member, I treat their approaches on the basis of the substance of the issue and the policy and advice that I receive.”
“The Member persists with misrepresentation. At no point did I say that the Supreme Court judgement was entirely irrelevant or without merit. Indeed, I have made the point now on a number of occasions that I respect the Supreme Court judgement, and no one is arguing against it. It is impossible, Mr Deputy Speaker, to have an orderly debate when Members deliberately misrepresent what other Members have said.”
“The Member is quoting statistics on whether people agree with the Supreme Court judgement. That is not the issue for debate this evening. The issue for debate this evening is the amendment that the Member has tabled. Whilst he may be of the view that the Supreme Court judgement applies in a Northern Ireland context, that can be disputed. Therefore, the figures are irrelevant to the discussion that we are having.”
“Our primary source of consultation at the time when the guidance was produced was that the director general engaged with the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, which is the statutory adviser on such matters.”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Member to suggest that I, as Justice Minister, or, indeed, any Member of this House is "defying" a ruling of the Supreme Court when I have previously stood at the table and accepted the Supreme Court ruling and never once said that I would act contrary to the ruling of the court? We are waiting for a declaratory judgement by our local High Court in terms of interpretation.”
“There is really no need; it is available to everybody.”
“What I am saying is that there will be people who are in for non-violent offences, such as fraud, default on fines and a range of other non-violent offences. Again, can we try to dial down the hyperbole and focus on the issues?”
“Actually, you did. You said precisely that. You stated, "have a propensity to commit crime" and "commit sexual and violent offences". That is what you said.”
“The Member stretched the definition of crime when he said that everyone in our prisons is a violent or sexual offender.”
“Therefore, it is also possible—. With respect, I heard the Member interject with "rape". Rape is sexual assault by penetration, and, therefore, it is possible for somebody to commit that offence. Bear in mind that some people are post-operative and can commit those offences. Again, I caution Members against generalising about those issues, and I encourage Members to deal with these matters in a sensitive manner because we are dealing with individual circumstances that are highly personal and highly sensitive.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. The issue is about understanding how people transition. Many trans men will have taken testosterone and will have significant strength because the hormone changes determine their strength. Indeed, when they start hormone therapy, trans women will often remark on their shock at the loss of the strength that they were used to in their previous life. It is possible for a trans man to commit a sexual assault; it is simply not true to say otherwise.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Some Members were not in the Chamber when we had the discussion with the Chair last night, but the ruling is specifically on the policy that pertained in Scottish prisons, which was a bright-line policy, where anyone who was a trans woman was automatically housed in the female estate and anyone who was a trans man was automatically housed in the male estate. That is not the approach that we take. Therefore, the court ruling does not necessarily read straight across to what we do in Northern Ireland.”
“<BR /> <BR />At Hydebank, for example, while there are different prisons on the estate, there are shared facilities there. There are reasons why people can be accommodated safely in that context that may not pertain in other facilities in Northern Ireland.”
“We in Northern Ireland do not apply a bright line rule. We take each case and assess it on the basis of risk and how to best manage the safety and dignity of the individual prisoner and other prisoners on the estate. There is an issue with simply reading across the judgement made in the Scottish system, which is a bright-line system, that says, "This is how we will do it. Trans women will be housed with women in all cases". We have not taken that approach, and it would not be right for us to do so. We have to handle the issue sensitively, but safety always has to come first. The current assessment that we make of prisoners' safety and dignity, both for the trans person and for other prisoners who will be held alongside them, is really important.”
“— that is the statutory scheme in Scotland —”
“It goes on — this is the bit that I want to draw attention to:”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I am sure that he has read the detail of the ruling that was made with regard to the Scottish Prison Service. He will recall that part of the issue with the Scottish Prison Service's approach was that those in receipt of a gender recognition certificate were considered as women for the purposes of the legislation and were therefore automatically housed in a women's prison or, depending on the issue, in the male estate. As the Member rightly said, the ruling states:”
“Therefore, from our perspective, the fact that we have that warning, which is because those individuals tend to be serving longer sentences, and can prepare in advance means that people are less likely to face the kind of challenges that the Member has suggested.”
“I have already said that we support the amendment. The Member will be aware that the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 sought to remove remission in respect of offences that are subject to Probation Board supervision and recall to custody. That was done for very good reason. The key, however, is that those who are under Probation Board supervision will often have their release planned weeks in advance. They will have had time to prepare, and they will have support from probation to find accommodation and resettle. There is not the gap that occurs with the other adult sentences that the Member is identifying.”
“Maybe we can have a chat afterwards about whether it is possible to extend it beyond that, but I think that that might be more problematic.”
“I think that there would be some challenge for the Department in being able to do this more widely. First, there are potential unintended consequences of making changes. As you know, we consulted the Department for Communities and others who have statutory responsibilities, and, given the number of people involved, they have said that, whilst it will put pressure on services on Wednesdays, it is not insurmountable for them to deal with. However, were we to apply that to a wider cadre of prisoners, we would end up in a situation where it could become a cross-cutting issue, and we would then need to get formal agreement from the Department for Communities and so on. What we have at the moment is workable. We have been able to determine that, and we will support the amendment this evening.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. The Member will be aware of the work that the Lady Chief Justice has done to look at review of remand at earlier points in the week to, essentially, do the same thing for remand prisoners who may be released on bail, to avoid the same cycle that the Member is trying to deal with in the amendment.”
“We have to ensure that there is clarity about how taxpayers' money is spent, and we need to prove to the public and our constituents that value for money matters.”
“I look forward to working with Committee members and the wider Assembly when they come to scrutinise the new remuneration framework for legal aid expenditure that is subject to taxation. Members have not had an opportunity to do that before, and I believe that they should. <BR /> <BR />The approach to reform addresses concerns from the Bar and the Law Society about removing the taxing master, addresses concerns from the Audit Office and the PAC about transparency and value for money and combines accountability with judicial expertise. I believe that we are strengthening governance but not compromising independence, and I encourage Members, before we vote on the amendments next week, to consider carefully what I have said about the escalation in taxed work and the escalation in fees.”
“<BR /> <BR />Legal aid expenditure on barristers in civil cases subject to taxation has tripled since 2015. We spend more on legal aid than we ever have done and rightly so. Provisional figures for 2025-26 show expenditure at almost £121 million, but £30 million of that, which is subject to taxation, should and will be subject to the same scrutiny as the other £91 million. That is incredibly important. <BR /> <BR />If the House rejects inserting the clarification from the 2003 Order, so be it. We will, however, still need to move ahead with reform, as articles 12(3) and 24(3) provide us with the statutory powers to set remuneration arrangements for all legal aid expenditure, including for the High Court and the Court of Appeal.”
“If two barristers with the same qualifications are acting in the same case, the one paid from the legal aid fund gets, on average, nine times more than the one paid by the PPS. KCs are paid, on average, six times more than their Public Prosecution Service equivalents. We talk a lot about equality of arms, and part of the point of legal aid is to have equality of arms, but how can we have equality of arms if one side is being paid, on average, nine times the fee of the other side? Are we getting value for money if we see no economic appraisal and no budgetary approvals or scrutiny, unlike the case for everything else to do with legal aid, of a 53% increase in solicitors' hourly rates? Is that value for money? Can we stand over that? I do not think that we can.”
“The Audit Office said that legal aid frameworks should be reviewed to ensure that value for money is achieved. The Public Accounts Committee said that expenditure subject to assessment by the taxing master needed to be brought under the purview of the departmental accounting officer. This is the only way in which we can do that. We have evidence — this is important — that legal aid expenditure on appeals from the Crown Court to the Court of Appeal, which is assessed by the taxing master, is significantly higher than corresponding costs paid by the PPS under its fee framework, through which it sets the fees and rates paid to prosecution barristers. Is it value for money if barristers paid out of the legal aid fund are paid on average nine times more than their equivalent who is representing the PPS?”
“Remuneration orders will be made under articles 12(3) and 24(3) to set out the legal aid rates and fees to be applied by the taxing master when assessing costs. It will simply give us more budgetary control and scrutiny.”
“In setting rates and fees, we are simply asserting budgetary control. The taxing master will continue to be free to make the changes that they wish to make. <BR /> <BR />I am genuinely surprised at the level of opposition or scepticism on a minor amendment that clarifies that remuneration arrangements made under existing powers conferred by the articles in the 2003 Order would apply to anyone in assessing remuneration to be paid from legal aid. It is not a matter of curtailing judicial discretion, and it does not do away with the taxing master — we are retaining the taxing master — but it is a restatement of our power to implement a structure for how fees should be calculated. It is important to restate that at this time.”
“The Bar, instead, highlighted the established practice of simply applying inflationary increases to interlocutory fees. Secondly, the terms of reference for the working group do not mention brief fees. Brief fees were not considered by the working group and were therefore not subject to any transparent, evidence-based approach. Therefore, it was not transparent, and it was not accountable. <BR /> <BR />I have a finite budget, and funding decisions are rightly scrutinised by the Committee and the Assembly. My decisions about legal aid fees are subject to affordability considerations and economic appraisal. However, in the case of the most recent increase to the rates and fees by the taxing master, the decision was subject to none of that. All our public services will ultimately be affected if we continue to allow that to happen.”
“I am offering in the amendments the protections that, the Member says, she wants. <BR /> <BR />Given the potential implications for the public purse of any increase, officials attended the working group but in an observer capacity only. The officials confirmed with the chair that the Department could not be bound by or endorse any outcome of the review. <BR /> <BR />I have heard representations that it was an evidence-based and transparent process, but that is interesting in two respects when it comes to transparency. Initially, the Bar queried why we needed such a working group at all. The Bar did not want a working group, and it had "significant difficulty understanding" why the DOJ would be involved at all in applying inflationary increases. Even though it is DOJ money, the Bar could not understand why the Department was involved.”
“However, no regard was paid to the impact on the public purse, nor was any consideration given to value for money. There was no public consultation. I have to consult publicly in order to increase the fees for any of the professions. There was no engagement with any democratically elected representative in the House about the decision to have a 53% uplift, and no statutory or regulatory impact assessment was carried out. <BR /> <BR />The Member spoke passionately at the beginning of her speech about the need for the rural impact to be taken into account and for people's human rights to be protected. None of that is protected under taxation, where no statutory or regulatory impact assessment is done. That would be done in this place were the amendment to go through.”
“There are precedents for the taxing master to apply hourly rates in that way; it is not a departure from normality. For example, under previous Crown Court remuneration frameworks, hourly rates were set by the Department for the taxing master to apply when assessing the costs for solicitors and barristers involved in what were termed "very high cost cases". There is a precedent for it. We are not introducing it with no experience of operating the system. We are not doing something that we have not done before. We are simply trying to recover the accountability and scrutiny that have been lost in recent years. <BR /> <BR />Members said that the decision to increase the hourly rate for solicitors and barristers' interlocutory fees had not happened for 10 years, so we could have seen it coming: that is absolutely true.”
“That is 7% versus 200%. <BR /> <BR />Is it an attack on judicial independence? No, it is not. I get mocked regularly for saying that I respect the independence of the various parts of the justice system, and I do, because I believe that an independent judiciary is essential to the functioning of justice. When it comes to making decisions in the courts, sentencing, judicial reviews and all those things, it is right that the judiciary should not have to come cap in hand to me, as Justice Minister, or to listen to me opining on the role that it plays. Therefore, I will not attack judicial independence. The taxing master will continue to assess the costs claimed, but my Department has a legal obligation to manage its budget and to ensure that value for money is achieved when public money is spent.”
“With respect, we have the evidence. There was a 160% increase from 2020 to 2024. That was 60·2% of the overall increase in legal aid spend. We know that the cases that go through taxation are seeing greater uplifts than the rest of the legal aid system. The majority of cases do not go through taxation; they are not eligible for taxation. That is to the detriment of the rest of the legal aid system. We have the evidence to back that up. <BR /> <BR />Between 2016-17 and 2023-24, the average barrister bill for a taxed case increased by approximately 200% when adjusted for inflation, but we cannot identify why. The bills and the brief fees are so opaque that there is no way of telling where the increased costs came from and whether they were justified. The increase for solicitors when adjusted for inflation was a somewhat more modest 7%.”
“The fact that people so openly said that they could finish earlier if they had some incentive to do so suggests a degree of heel-dragging that has to do with the fee structure rather than the necessity of delivering justice in a particular case. <BR /> <BR />I will give way.”
“I will in a moment. <BR /> <BR />The Bar has a vested interest in the system. It is not simply a group of professionals offering advice. It is offering advice in the same way as people would argue that MLAs should not be involved in setting their own salaries. I would argue that the Bar has a conflict of interest if it is telling us how to pay barristers and what the fee structure should be. We need to be wary. <BR /> <BR />It was interesting that the Member for North Belfast picked up on the fact that the Bar said that, if there were incentives for getting cases done more quickly, it might be able to do something about it. Surely, the incentive is that that is justice — that is the incentive. In many cases, justice delayed is justice denied.”
“Absolutely. We are doing this so that not only the Department but the Assembly will have proper oversight of where public money is spent. That is vital. <BR /> <BR />There is some suggestion that we are trying to cut legal aid or work some kind of a move around it, so let me make this clear: taxed expenditure has increased by 160% from £23·2 million in 2020-21 to £37·7 million in 2023-24. That is 60·2% of the overall increase in legal aid spend during the period. <BR /> <BR />People may think that the Bar will say, "Yes, let's reform it so that we can no longer go down the taxation route, which is more lucrative, and we will go for time and line, which may, depending on the figures, be less lucrative", but it will not agree to that.”
“At the minute, we have no oversight whatever of about 30% of our legal aid expenditure. If any other Minister else were to come to you and say, "There is £120 million in my Department, and I do not know where 30% of it goes or how it is calculated", you would rightly say that that Minister was being derelict in their duty. I am telling you that we do not and cannot —.”
“All Members have to take some responsibility for the fact that that has not perhaps proceeded in the way that I and others would have wished. <BR /> <BR />It is not just the Department that has concerns about the current situation. Those challenges were reflected in the Public Accounts Committee's report in 2019, in which concern was expressed that a large proportion of legal aid expenditure did not come under the purview of the Department and lacked any scrutiny by the Assembly. The Northern Ireland Audit Office has also raised concerns about how the process was not open to proper scrutiny. We have provided data to support the reforms.”
“<BR /> <BR />My question was about whether the Bar Council was able to explain to Members in a way that was open, transparent and accountable how it calculates a brief fee. The answer to that is clearly "No", because it was not able to provide that to the Department either. That is not acceptable. It is really important that we are able to understand how brief fees are calculated and that the process is transparent and accountable to the public, because it has a significant impact on the expenditure on legal aid. It also ensures that the data that we have will be more helpful in the future, which is important, because I agree with the Member for Foyle that we need more regular reviews. I have to say that it is difficult to do reviews every three years when the Assembly is suspended every three years for some reason or other.”
“Again, that is not the same point. What the Member was just talking about and what she said earlier is that she had tried to get clarity from the Department on what the regulations would look like. We have not engaged the taxing master on the regulations. Why would we? We are not doing the regulations. That will come later. <BR /> <BR />We engaged with the taxing master, but remember that the taxing master has changed. I suggest, therefore, that, before the Member gets too indignant, it may simply be that they met one taxing master rather than the other. The taxing master changed midway through the process, and I assure the Member that my officials have met the taxing master.”
“We are not here to make life difficult for people who are working hard and providing a vital service, but we want to have transparency. The new system will have an hourly rate set for solicitors that covers the cost of production and allows for reasonable profit. Currently, barristers submit a brief fee with no breakdown. I asked the Member for Foyle how a brief fee is composed, and the Member did not answer the question, because, despite the Committee asking the Bar for details of how brief fees are made up, nothing that was sent to the Committee provided any clarity on that. It is a completely opaque process, and, from my perspective —.”
“It brings a uniform approach to the composition of bills submitted by barristers and solicitors and so removes the lack of transparency around uplifts and brief fees as well as the risks of escalating and unpredictable costs. The amendment simply clarifies the wide powers conferred by articles 12(3) and 24(3) of the 2003 Order to make provision about remuneration to providers of services under legal aid that can apply to anyone, including the taxing master, who is assessing the remuneration to be paid. <BR /> <BR />Currently, hourly rates for solicitors include significant percentage profit uplifts for all bills. We have been able to prove through data that, on average, that rate is around 64%. That is a significant profit account.”
“That neutralises the risk of the scheme being undermined by the taxing master exercising a discretion outside the regulations. It also reduces the risk of legal challenge if the Department makes a remuneration order to set legal aid fees and rates for proceedings in the High Court and Court of Appeal to be applied by the taxing master. It enables the Department to increase transparency, accountability and budgetary control, all in relation to legal aid expenditure subject to taxation, and it expedites reform, as the taxing master is retained in an assessment role, negating the need, at this stage, to establish any assessment function in the LSA.”
“Part of the challenge that we have had in resolving the dispute with the criminal Bar is lack of evidence because of the departure from "time and line" billing in previous reform. <BR /> <BR />The amendment clarifies that any fees and rates and associated administrative arrangements set by the Department in secondary legislation can be applied by the taxing master when assessing costs to be paid out of the legal aid fund.”
“There is an issue with NHS fees, for example, not allowing practices a profit margin. They do not even allow the overheads to be factored in. Things such as staffing costs are not remunerated as they ought to be, which is why so many people have departed the NHS system. <BR /> <BR />Billing information will be captured on the legal aid management system. That means that the LSA will be able to build a comprehensive dataset on the time spent on and the nature of the work. That will be accessible for internal and external audit and for accountability mechanisms, so we will be able to manage our budget better, and it will inform future policy development such as the development of standard fees and rates, which we have talked about.”
“If I were to pay someone to do work for me, I would want to know how many hours they spent on it and the nature of the work that they sent out. I would certainly want to know that before parting with my cash. Equally, on behalf of the public purse, I want to know what that looks like. An hourly rate will be set for solicitors that, in line with the statutory criteria that have been set out, will cover the cost of providing the service and include a fixed, reasonable profit margin. <BR /> <BR />This is not about trying to put solicitors out of business. We recognise that there are overhead costs to be factored in. The Member for North Belfast talked about dentistry. I will declare an interest before I speak further, because, as he knows, my husband is a dentist.”
“That will ensure that fees and rates are subject to legislative scrutiny by the Assembly — the Justice Committee — as well as proportionate economic appraisal through value-for-money and affordability measures as is required for the expenditure of public money. That is not challenging. We have to provide a business case for police pay, prison officer pay and any other expenditure in the Department that changes, so that does not seem unreasonable, unusual or novel. <BR /> <BR />Hourly rates will be introduced for barristers in line with article 47 criteria, and counsel will be required to document the time spent on and the nature of the work carried out. Again, for professional people, that is not a big deal.”