To ask the Minister of Justice to outline the impact of criminal barristers’ withdrawal from legal aided Crown Court cases on victims and witnesses of crime.

Mrs Long

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.

Mr O'Toole

Minister, it is important to put on the record that you said something on the record and on the airwaves about a barrister's earnings that was entirely inaccurate. That will have set back relations that have already been frayed between you and the Criminal Bar Association. The people who are suffering are victims and witnesses of crime who are awaiting the criminal justice process. Minister, it speaks to a deeper tendency that people have observed in you, which is a desire to win an argument rather than solve a problem. Will you commit now to entering into a process of mediation with the Criminal Bar Association, as suggested by the Lady Chief Justice?

Mrs Long

I note that, every time that the Member asks a question, he tries in some way to impugn my character or my integrity as part of his questioning. It can never simply be that there is a disagreement and that I am trying to resolve that disagreement. He always has to have a dig at me personally when he asks his question. That is not what I am here to answer. I have already put on the record my error in that quote. Let us be absolutely clear then, for the avoidance of doubt. One barrister — one barrister — received £3·98 million over a three-and-a-half-year period that ended in September 2025. That amount was just over the cumulative total paid to 53% of their colleagues involved in criminal legal aid work over the same period. Those are the facts of the matter, and people can make of those facts what they wish. It demonstrates the core point that I was trying to make, which is that the fact that young barristers are not able to earn a living is not down to the rates of pay but down to the poor distribution of cases amongst the Bar and the concentration of large numbers of cases with a small number of barristers. I am happy to correct the record where I have been wrong, despite what some people say, and I am not about winning an argument here. I am about protecting public money, and I have to be. Were I to come to the Chamber in the context of the budgetary constraints that we face having been profligate in my spending of public money, I am sure that the leader of the Opposition would be the first to his feet to suggest that that is a character trait of mine.

Mr Harvey

Minister, in your statement last week, you noted that 74% of legal aid expenditure went to just 22% of criminal defence counsel. What more can be done by all involved to ensure that funds and work are being better distributed?

Mrs Long

I thank the Member for his question, and I think that that is a key issue. We know that there are high levels of attrition in the criminal Bar, particularly with newly qualified barristers, and that it is very difficult for people to get, if you like, a foot on the ladder and to gain experience. There are competing tensions in this. Some people will say that they want to have the best possible and most experienced barrister, and that is, of course, everyone's right whether they are legally aided or not. Equally, we have to have a profession that is sustainable, and that relies on being able to give newly qualified barristers the experience that they need to be able to become those most experienced in their field and in the profession. With an ageing criminal Bar and with that deficit of young people being able to make their way, it is part of the overall review of enabling access to justice that we have been taking forward as a Department. Part of that will be around the issue of refresher fees. I do not intend to labour the issue of refresher fees again today, because I realise that it is complex and is subject to discussions with the CBA at this time. I believe that my officials are with the CBA at the moment; at least, they are meant to be if things have gone according to plan. Refresher fees will be incredibly important in redistributing some of the work within the criminal Bar, as will some of the reform that we are hoping to do on the various court tiers. I want to see a fairly paid, sustainable criminal Bar and solicitor profession, but I do not create all the conditions for that. My only leverage is around legal aid. The remainder, on sustainability of the profession, is a matter for the Bar Council itself and for the Law Society, but I will do what I can to support any action that they might take to make that more possible.

Mrs Long

At the moment, we spend around £44 a head on criminal legal aid in Northern Ireland. The equivalent in England, Scotland and Wales is around £22 a head. There are reasons why that may be the case in the Northern Ireland context, however there are significant differences.

One of my concerns in enabling access to justice, for example, is that the means test that applies for eligibility to legal aid is set so that the majority of people who do not qualify under that means test still do not find it affordable to access justice.

What I would like to do? I have described it as a funnel. I would like the means test to be broader and encompass more people: for example, those who are working but in low-income jobs and may not be able to afford legal advice. I want it to be focused on getting the right advice as early as possible, so that we avoid burdening the court system down the line. I also want to look at the types of cases that are funded to ensure that those are the ones that have the biggest impact on an individual or on points of public law, so that we do not fund anything that is not absolutely essential. There is a definite difference in Northern Ireland. I do not want to read too much into it, but, in fairness, we cannot neglect the fact that we spend more on criminal legal aid than other parts of these islands.

Ms Sheerin

Minister, will you clarify what meetings or conversations you have had with the CBA to try to bring an end to the strike? What engagement have you had with the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime regarding the delays felt as a result of the strike by those who have experienced crime?

Mrs Long

When I made my statement last week, I set out the engagement that I had had. I had written to members of the criminal Bar individually to apprise them, first, of the action that I had taken in respect of the request that had been made of me around what we refer to as the "16% uplift" in fees — actually, in some cases, it is more than 16%, but that was the broad sweep of uplift that had happened — and in respect of setting up the working group as requested under the chairmanship Judge Burgess. As I went along, I set out all the other asks that had been made and the progress on those. Members of the Justice Committee, who have perhaps been watching this more closely, will be aware that we postponed the issue of cases left on the books until the end of the process in order to give us more time to work with the criminal Bar to address that issue. I have also looked at interim payments, which are important for the cash flow of solicitors and young barristers. We have done lots of things. I met the criminal Bar last week, as I said, and it was a constructive meeting. In response to my letter of 5 January, I got a much clearer idea of what it was that the criminal Bar actually wanted to discuss at this stage. We were able to sit down and look at that ask. Not all of it will be achievable, and I think that they appreciate that that is the case. I sat down with them to look at how we could handle those issues in a way that would expedite a return to full service delivery in the Crown Court and to press with them that, as an interim measure, I would like to see the derogations that have been requested for the most serious cases to be dealt with as generously as possible. I also met last week the Public Prosecution Service (PPS), the voluntary and community sector support organisations —

Mr Speaker

Time is up, Minister.

Mrs Long

— and the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime.

Mr Carroll

Minister, it appears that you and your Department are now taking a different approach to the criminal barristers' strike, which is certainly welcome. Have you any concerns, Minister, that, if you do not adequately fund criminal barristers and do not meet their demands more generally, they may go after work in more financially lucrative areas of law, leaving working-class communities, in particular, without effective representation in the court system?

Mrs Long

I have always been clear that I am supportive of the criminal Bar and criminal solicitors and the work that they do. The solicitors' criminal Bar has provided me with evidence, as part of the working group, that has allowed us to move on a parole pilot and to increase PACE fees to ensure that people who are in the courts and need support immediately get it. What I will not do is pay additional fees to people who are already being paid particularly well, unless they can prove with evidence that the uplifts in those fees are justified. Tom Burgess said that there was justification for a 16% uplift on the basis of the evidence that was presented to him. He presented that to me, I accepted that, and I backdated it to December 2024. To be absolutely clear, there has been no change in my position. I have always said that, when given the evidence that there is a requirement for fees to be changed, I am willing to respond positively to it. I have done more than say it; I have done it. What I will not do, however, is depart from 'Managing Public Money Northern Ireland' and the accountability that is required of me as Justice Minister in that regard.