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 55 of 151.
“During my short time as an MEP, I witnessed first-hand the level of knowledge, interest and commitment to ensuring that Northern Ireland was protected from the worst excesses of Brexit that existed in the Parliament, the Council and the Commission. That interest in our affairs and the success of our institutions remains strong among my former colleagues. We should make every effort to continue to foster that interest and understanding and to build deeper and stronger relationships, as there is a huge opportunity for us in doing so and it assists us in identifying the issues that are coming down the tracks and helps us to prepare for the changes that may impact on us directly or indirectly. <BR /> <BR />Of course, it is not just politicians who have a role in resolving outstanding issues.”
“<BR /> <BR />Acting collectively, with the best interests of Northern Ireland as our compass, it is not beyond our capacity to navigate all the post-Brexit complexities together. That is our collective responsibility to those who elected us. While this juncture will expose a clear difference in opinion today, it is important that we quickly move beyond that by working together. I remain optimistic that our best days are ahead of us, and I am wholly committed to us getting there. That is a project that is for us collectively to deliver. <BR /> <BR />Alliance is proud to be strongly pro-European. We maintain close links and positive relationships with parties across the EU and will always seek to use whatever influence we hold to the benefit of our community in Northern Ireland.”
“<BR /> <BR />By contrast, a hard Brexit was pursued by the DUP in collaboration with the Conservatives, whom they propped up. There is no point denouncing the British Government for their treachery. I agree that they treated unionists appallingly, but you let them. You propped them up and helped them. That type of Brexit was always going to necessitate special arrangements for Northern Ireland to manage those tensions and frictions. While the Windsor framework is far from perfect, it clearly provides for the softer landing that we need. It is also, frankly, the only game in town, as the new Labour Government have made clear. Of course, my hope is that, over time, that can change and evolve and become less bureaucratic and more flexible, but it will, nevertheless, be the starting point for that evolution.”
“People in this jurisdiction interact, and businesses have supply chains and sales both North/South and east-west. Brexit, particularly a hard form of Brexit, was always going to cause friction and create barriers, particularly with the UK's decision to leave the customs union and single market as part of the Brexit process. It created an interface with the EU that had to be managed somewhere, and, as I said, while it was not my choice where it was to be handled, it was logical and apparent to anyone who considered the options available where it would end up, out of convenience and pragmatism alone. That is why Alliance opposed leaving the EU and advocated the softest possible Brexit to minimise the friction and tensions when the UK decided to leave.”
“<BR /> <BR />We have a choice today, a choice about how we present Northern Ireland to the rest of the world. Are we a place committed to tackling the most difficult challenges head-on, finding creative solutions and building stability and prosperity for the people we represent, or are we to be for ever defined by uncertainty, chaos and instability, allowing Brexit to be a constantly open wound, suppurating and poisoning our economy and our body politic? The attritional war about Brexit has done enough damage. We need to look now at how we move forward. <BR /> <BR />As a divided society, we know all too well that Northern Ireland works only when we recognise our interdependence in our communities, across these islands and beyond with our European and global partners.”
“Leaving the EU made a level of friction, barriers and bureaucracy inevitable. The only question remaining was where that would occur, not whether it would occur. To be clear, I said at the time in studio after studio with members of the DUP that the most pragmatic and likely option — not my option of choice — to be pursued, because of its simplicity, was that those frictions would happen at the seven ports and airports rather than along 300 miles of border. That is just logic, but that was never applied during Brexit. However, if we rebuild trust and apply creativity, we can and must lessen the impact of Brexit. We know that challenges remain and, indeed, that further challenges will emerge, and with that at the forefront of our minds, we should now consider our options moving forward.”
“<BR /> <BR />You will be relieved to know that I do not intend to stand here today and rehearse all the harm that has been caused by Brexit over the last eight years to our finances, our economy, our politics, our international relationships, trust between political partners and government and even the functioning of the institutions in which we stand. There simply would not be time to do so, although some people have challenged that notion, but more importantly, it would not be a productive use of the time we have this afternoon. Instead, I want to focus on the future and the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead, as well as the need to focus on solutions and stability. <BR /> <BR />Alliance has always been clear that it is simply not possible to entirely square the circle of the challenges and contradictions posed by Brexit.”
“<BR /> <BR />Today's democratic consent motion, when we decide whether to continue with articles 5 to 10 of the Windsor framework, marks another important moment in our long journey towards some kind of stability post Brexit. In the eight years since the UK voted to depart the European Union, a lot of time, energy and resource have been spent navigating the choppy and uncharted waters into which that decision launched us all — a lot of time, energy and resource that might have been better spent by investing in our communities are making life better for the people we represent.”
“After listening to Mr Buckley, you would almost think that the DUP had lost the Brexit referendum. You won, guys. Cheer up. <BR /> <BR />I must be the only person who was bothered before by the phrase "Not available for sale in Northern Ireland" when I was ordering things online. It used to happen regularly before Brexit. It was often linked to the cost of postage, the size of the item and lots of other barriers. I am not sure that is as simple as saying that, because those things exist today, they are all a result of the Windsor framework. However, I get a sense that the entire debate feels a bit like, "Hello, actions. Let me introduce you to consequences".”
“No, I fundamentally do not agree, because I do not believe that parallel consent is the only way to achieve cross-community consent. It can be done by weighted majority voting, and, indeed, that is allowed for under the agreement. Furthermore, Alliance has always been clear that we saw that agreement as a foundation on which to build, not as the ceiling of our ambitions for this place. Also, one cannot retrofit in Parliament institutional arrangements that were made in this House, and I do not imagine that the Member would wish to do so.”
“Hopefully, you will have learnt something useful, then.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I am presuming that he has read his party's manifestos from 2016, 2017 and 2022, all of which called for reform of the institutions. In fact, the earlier ones actually called for voluntary coalition. Does the Member now demur from those positions?”
“There is no appetite for divergence from England and Wales amongst practitioners, and I want to ensure that businesses here, especially those that operate in both jurisdictions, will also be able to avail themselves of a legislative framework for arbitration that is modern, fair and efficient. I therefore commend the motion to the House.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank Members for dealing with the motion so expeditiously, and I thank the Chair and members of the Committee for giving the Bill and the legislative consent motion their support. <BR /> <BR />The Arbitration Act 1996 is over 25 years old. The proposals that arise from the review carried out by the Law Commission of England and Wales that are being taken forward in this Bill will modernise the legislative framework to ensure that it remains fit for purpose and that the UK remains an attractive seat for domestic and international arbitration.”
“However, Members will appreciate that the Arbitration Bill is relatively technical in nature, and, hopefully, they will agree that, in this instance, the extension of the Westminster Bill to Northern Ireland is the most efficient and expedient way to legislate for those matters. The Bill will simply modernise and clarify an existing legislative framework that already extends to Northern Ireland. No issues specific to this jurisdiction that would require a different approach from that in England and Wales have been identified. It would be disadvantageous to parties and practitioners here were the changes to be made by the Bill to the 1996 Act not to apply to Northern Ireland at the earliest opportunity. I hope that the legislative consent motion will have the support of the House.”
“That will enable rules of court to provide that such applications should involve no new evidence or new arguments. That is to avoid such challenges becoming a full rehearing in court, thereby preventing further delay and expense. In addition, the Bill makes some technical amendments, including clarifying that parties must exhaust arbitral appeal or review processes before bringing matters to court and that a party may appeal a decision of the court to stay legal proceedings in favour of arbitration and streamlining the process of applying to the court for certain preliminary rulings on jurisdiction and points of law. That concludes my overview of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />As Minister of Justice, it is, of course, my preference to legislate for devolved matters through the Assembly.”
“That replicates the powers of summary disposal that are available to courts in litigation. The Bill enhances the effectiveness of emergency arbitration to deal with urgent matters, such as preservation of evidence, by clarifying that any orders made can be enforced by the court. The Bill also enhances the powers of courts in support of arbitration proceedings, clarifying that the court may make orders against third parties; for example, in relation to the taking of witness evidence and by providing for greater consistency in the remedies available where a tribunal award is challenged by one of the parties in court. <BR /> <BR />The final targeted reform proposes a revision of the framework for applications to the court on the ground that the arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction.”
“It will also strengthen arbitrator immunity against liability for costs arising from resignation or applications to court for removal. That will help to ensure that arbitrators can make robust and impartial decisions. In relation to challenges to an arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction, the Bill clarifies that, where the tribunal has ruled on an issue, a further challenge to a court can only be brought after the tribunal has made its final award. The Bill also clarifies that, even where it has been determined that a tribunal does not have jurisdiction, it can, nevertheless, award the cost of the arbitration proceedings up until that point. <BR /> <BR />The Bill introduces a new express power for an arbitrator to dispose summarily of an issue that has no real prospect of success.”
“<BR /> <BR />I now turn to the main reforms that are proposed. The Bill introduces a new statutory rule on the law governing individual arbitration agreements, providing that that will be the law expressly chosen by the parties and otherwise will be the law of the seat: that is, where the arbitration is taking place. There is also one change to the previous Bill to clarify that that new rule does not apply to arbitration agreements that are derived from standing office to arbitrate, which may be contained in treaties or foreign investment legislation. Such arbitration agreements will therefore continue to be governed by international law and foreign domestic law. <BR /> <BR />The Bill will codify the common law duty for arbitrators to disclose circumstances that might give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality.”
“Reflecting the view of stakeholders and practitioners that the 1996 Act generally works well, the Law Commission for England and Wales concluded that substantial reform is not required but recommended a number of targeted reforms to update the legislative framework and provide greater clarity. The then Government agreed to implement all the commission's recommendations and an Arbitration Bill was introduced in Parliament in November 2023. However, it fell when the general election was called. The new Government introduced the current Bill in the House of Lords in July 2024 and it is awaiting its Second Reading in the House of Commons. With the agreement of the Ministry of Justice, the time for obtaining legislative consent has been extended to the final amending stage in that House.”
“Before I outline the Bill's provisions, it may be helpful to Members if I briefly provide some background. In 2021, the Ministry of Justice asked the Law Commission for England and Wales to review the 1996 Act to ensure that it remained fit for purpose and continued to promote the UK's position as an international arbitration leader. The Law Commission for England and Wales began its review at the start of 2022. It carried out two public consultations and engaged extensively with experts and practitioners in the sector, including key stakeholders in this jurisdiction. <BR /> <BR />A Northern Ireland perspective was provided by Mr Justice Scoffield in his role as Chair of the Northern Ireland Law Commission. The final report of the Law Commission for England and Wales, together with a draft Bill, was published in September 2023.”
“The Bill would amend the Arbitration Act 1996, which governs arbitration in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The 1996 Act predates devolution. However, arbitration is now a devolved matter within the legislative competence of the Assembly. On 7 November, the Executive agreed to a legislative consent motion (LCM) being progressed. My officials provided oral and written briefings on the Bill to the Justice Committee, and it agreed, through its report to the Assembly, which was published on 21 November, to support the motion. I thank Executive colleagues and Justice Committee members for their support and timely consideration of the matter. <BR /> <BR />I now seek the Assembly's legislative consent for the Bill's provisions to be extended to Northern Ireland.”
“Arbitration is used for the resolution of domestic and international disputes in a wide range of fields, including construction, infrastructure, shipping and international commercial contracts. The sector is estimated to be worth at least £2·5 billion to the UK economy each year.”
“I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about the Arbitration Bill, which is progressing through Parliament. Arbitration is a form of dispute resolution that offers an alternative to court. Parties can agree to appoint a third party or to resolve a dispute between themselves privately and issue an award.”
“We do not have that in Northern Ireland, so, unless you have the money to go up against those big corporations, you have no chance of ever seeing justice done.”
“For example, some people will automatically be allowed legal aid for their defence. They may be very wealthy people who could have paid for that themselves. If they are convicted, it is right that we should seek redress. When it comes to other options for private financing, we are not talking about bringing in companies that will run the process as a private enterprise. I was clear in saying that I wanted to ensure that people get the same quality of service whether they have means or gain access through legal aid. That has to be the baseline. There are certain mechanisms available to people in other parts of these islands that allow them to take on big corporations, for example. No win, no fee claims, for example, allow people to take on big corporations and win.”
“I hate to break it to the Member, but private finance is the standard approach in most civil cases. If I want to take a defamation case against somebody, I have to pay for that, unsurprisingly. If I were to win damages, I would cover my costs out of them. It is not unreasonable to expect somebody who wants to take a case and has the means to do so to pay. The purpose of legal aid is not to fund every exercise in the courts. It is to fund access to the courts for those who could not otherwise afford it, so it is not at all unusual that private finance options are available. <BR /> <BR />One of the principles of 'Managing Public Money' is that public money should not displace private money where private money is available. We need to be careful that that does not happen.”
“We also need to make sure that we do not fall foul of our commitments under the Aarhus convention, which is environmental legislation that the Government have signed up to to ensure that the public have a right to challenge decision makers on environmental issues.”
“We are looking at a number of elements that would deal with some of those issues. First and foremost, access to justice allows the ordinary citizen to challenge the decision maker, and it is right and proper that they should be able to do so. In the case of what the Member describes as potentially vexatious applications, however, it is important that, in addition to a means test, there is a merit test: would a person take this case if they were paying for it themselves, or are they taking it solely because someone else — namely, the public purse — is picking up the bill? We intend to look at that carefully because, if we are to protect the most vulnerable, we need to make sure that our legal aid spend is targeted at the most vulnerable.”
“The current levels of remuneration for cases in the Crown Court were agreed in 2016, following discussions with stakeholders, including members of the Bar Council and the Law Society. That followed changes in 2015. Those discussions helped to identify where rates needed to be amended to reflect the complexity of cases that were then being brought forward. The Bar Council and the Law Society supported the Burgess review and provided detailed supporting evidence that has helped to shape the reform programme. Their input into delivering it will also be incredibly important, and I look forward to their continued engagement.”
“Since the devolution of justice, the Department has, in line with legislation, kept the scheme under review. Reviews have led to nine amendments to supporting legal aid legislation, with the latest, in 2019, being to bring forward remuneration for referral hearings in the Crown Court. The proposal to uplift fees here is based on evidence in the various reports that are available and is designed to help to arrest the fall in numbers of solicitors and barristers taking on cases that are supported by legal aid. <BR /> <BR />The reform programme will, as part of its outworkings, necessitate the setting of new remuneration rates that will reflect the complex operating environment and the specialist skills needed in some cases.”
“My statement is about enabling access to justice through the legal aid system and its corollaries. It is not specific to individual cases. I have, however, had the opportunity to make representations to the Secretary of State about his plans, particularly on the ICRIR. I have been clear that I think that it needs to be replaced, not merely reformed. I have also been clear that, if they decide to do so, the Department of Justice will not stand in the way of any families wishing to avail themselves of its services or try to frustrate their processes. However, it is, I believe, a fundamentally flawed process, and the Secretary of State should go back to the drawing board, with the Stormont House Agreement, to which many Members signed up, as a starting point.”
“I am very clear that the standards of legal representation in Northern Ireland are high, and the vast majority of stakeholders reported that the services that they received were helpful, necessary and provided with care. I am concerned, however, that some expressed concerns about the ability to make an effective complaint about their representative when they need to. I am also keen to explore how the governance structures around legal aid can be used in combination with the vital roles of the Law Society, the Bar Council, the Department of Finance and the commissioner to increase confidence in the system.”
“Some other Members pointed to the reviews that have been undertaken, and a further report has been published on how clients viewed the legal services that they received. It has to be said that that report is a mixed bag and not entirely glowing in its output. The regulatory framework for the legal professions is not a matter for me as Justice Minister but a matter for the respective professional bodies, the Finance Minister and the Legal Services Oversight Commissioner. I want, however, to work with Minister Archibald, the Law Society and the Bar Council to see whether there are ways in which we can collectively increase confidence for service users.”
“For example, many people do not want to operate as criminal solicitors, and that is because they find doing so difficult because of the amount of out-of-hours work and inconvenience involved compared with working for, say, a corporate legal body, where they may not have to work outside normal office hours. I will therefore consider what steps I can take to try to increase viability. Initially, I will consider extended rights of audience in the courts to increase capacity and then consider whether interim payments might aid financial viability, particularly, as I said, that of smaller firms, and career progression for women and younger members of the profession. Others also need to take action on those matters. I am aware, for example, that the Law Society is looking at making potential changes to its model for training young solicitors.”
“Responsibility for the viability of the legal professions is a matter for many different people. Proper, proportionate remuneration is critical in order to ensure an enduring profession and effective access to justice, but it has to be acknowledged that a robust and enduring profession is not solely contingent on fees. Legal aid is only one income stream available to practitioners. Professional bodies have to ensure that there is a proactive approach taken to succession planning. They also have to ensure that their training models build capacity, support inclusivity and nurture talent.”
“My reason for not publishing the Burgess report is that it was one of a number of inputs to the document that we are sending to the Committee, and I did not think that its consideration in isolation was the right process to follow. When my road map goes to the Committee, however, the supporting documentation will also go to it and will then be published in full.”
“The current rules around the way in which the taxing master works do not allow for that openness, accountability and transparency, and whatever we end up with at the end of the process has to achieve that end. It is an issue that the PAC raised and is therefore something that needs to be followed through on.”
“There is a duty on me to ensure that there is transparency, openness and accountability.”
“There were two questions. On the first, when it comes to legacy specifically, separate arrangements are being considered by the Northern Ireland Office and Treasury. It is a UK Government policy, not a DOJ policy. Therefore, the legal support that will or will not be offered to people going through, for example, the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) cases will not fall within the legal aid framework. <BR /> <BR />On the taxing master, what we are doing is not unique. We already have standardised fees, and, for example, in the appeal courts, around 80% of people opt to go through the Legal Services Agency because it is quicker to go through that than to go through the taxing master. The issue here is one of managing public money.”
“Therefore, as you can see, the eligibility can be widened considerably and it can still provide better value for money than we do in Northern Ireland.”
“It is important, as I tried to do earlier, to highlight the scope of legal aid and that how legal assistance is provided to citizens will vary across jurisdictions. On the basis of the available data for 2022-23, about 25% of the adult population in Northern Ireland is eligible for legal aid. The average spend on civil and family legal aid per adult is about £34. By comparison, 23% of the adult population in England and Wales is eligible for legal aid, with an average spend in civil and family legal aid of £19 per adult. Seventy per cent of the adult population in Scotland is eligible for legal aid, with an average spend in civil and family legal aid of £10 per adult. Fifty per cent of the adult population in Ireland is eligible for legal aid, with an average spend of £8 per adult.”
“In 2022-23, the average spend on legal aid per adult in Northern Ireland was £67. By comparison, the average spend per capita in England and Wales was £37; in Scotland, it was £26; and in the Republic of Ireland, it was £20.”
“Of course, dependent on the outcome, the project is scalable in that we can do the bits that we can afford whilst working on other pieces in the background until we get the resources for them. Overall, we need to ensure that the system is sustainable. The rapid increase that we have seen over the past five years is not sustainable, and the profession is saying that the profession is not sustainable. This is our opportunity to reset things.”
“For example, we know that final payment has led to many women who enter the Bar not being paid for work that they have done: because the court was scheduled during a period of maternity leave they get paid nothing for all the preparatory work that they have done. Interim payments may help in that space. Other parts of what we are trying to do, for example early resolution and alternative dispute resolution, may take more cases away from the court, but we should all welcome that as it may speed things up and allow the courts to spend more time on more serious issues. <BR /> <BR />On access to funding for the programme, we will have to produce a business case. I believe that we can do so and that we have a robust argument. We will put that to the Department of Finance, as we do with all our business cases.”
“There are a number of questions in that. First, we have had regular ongoing contact with the legal profession. There will be parts of this that some parts of the profession like, and there will be parts of it that some parts of the profession do not like. That is the reality with any proposal for reform. We are trying to come at this not from the position of those who, if you like, earn their living through the legal aid system but from the position of those for whom legal aid is designed, namely those who are in need of legal advice. <BR /> <BR />We are here to provide a service, which is access to justice, and we need a thriving profession to be able to do that. I want to work with the legal profession to ensure that the reforms are practical and do not provide a barrier to people entering the profession.”
“We want to make sure that, when we talk about access to justice, we include that within the confines of what we are trying to address.”
“<BR /> <BR />We recognise that there will be vulnerable people, particularly those fleeing domestic abuse, who would currently be ruled out of legal aid by the means test but may have good grounds for needing legal aid because, due to domestic abuse, they do not have access to the means that they ought to have. It is exactly those sorts of things that have driven us in the direction of looking at alternative provision. It is also why I mentioned not just the Bar and the Law Society but community and voluntary sector partners. For example, services such as Housing Rights, the Children's Law Centre and Women's Aid will often provide legal advice from fully qualified legal advisers, but they do that at the point of need and do it effectively.”
“Today, I have set out a road map to where we want to get to in the broad direction of travel. Each of the individual elements of this will be designed and brought forward for consultation, so there is work to be done on each element. However, to use a funnel analogy, we are conscious that the entrance to the funnel in Northern Ireland is small, so the number of people who are eligible for legal aid is small. However, once you are eligible, the merit test of what you use legal aid for is quite broad. In England and Wales, more people would be entitled to legal aid, so the funnel neck is much wider, but the number of cases that would reach the merit test, in terms of being of value, would be much smaller.”
“That can create a bit of a skewed idea that, if somebody works in the legal aid sector, they may get higher levels of payment; somebody who declines to work on a legal aid basis would then get lower levels of payment but would not then be representing clients who are entitled to legal aid. I think that it is less straightforward than that. <BR /> <BR />The Member mentioned transparency. I have no issue with transparency, and it would be helpful if we were to get to the point again, when those figures are meaningful, where we can disaggregate the different levels of payment that people receive but also, importantly, how those payments are arrived at. In some ways, that is much more important than how much individual law firms earn. What they earn it for matters much more to me.”