Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): We have at the meeting Deborah Brown, who is the director of justice delivery; Richard Logan, head of financial services division; and Andrea Quail, head of financial planning, strategy and support. You are all very welcome. I invite you to give your presentation, and then we will have some questions. Thank you.

Ms Deborah Brown (Department of Justice): Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to update you on the Department's budget. As the Chair said, I am joined by Richard Logan, who is the Department's finance director, and Andrea Quail, who is our head of financial planning and strategy. We want to provide the Committee with an update on the Department's 2023-24 annual report, accounts and final out-turn, as well as the 2024-25 urgent in-year exercise and the imminent October monitoring. We will also provide you with an update on the 2025-26 future year exercise and the current status of the Department's transformation proposals.

It is important to emphasise at the outset the ongoing budgetary challenges that face Justice organisations. The Committee is very aware of the previous briefings that we have provided which have outlined the very challenging budget to date for the Department that is going to require, and has required, very careful financial management and, in the future, some very difficult decisions in order to reduce the risk of an overspend in the current year.

The issues and concerns have been widely documented in the media and debated by the Assembly, particularly in respect of the financial pressure which is facing the Police Service. We very much value and appreciate the constructive engagement and support shown by members of the Committee in continuing to highlight and discuss with Assembly colleagues the issues facing Justice and the critical need for additional funding. The Committee will be very aware that the severity of the financial position facing Justice is exacerbated by the combination of historic underfunding compared to need and the demand-led nature of the majority of the services that are delivered by the Justice organisations. In addition, the Department's business areas are having to manage inflationary costs and increased pension contributions, as well as the full-year impact of the pay awards from 2023-24 and the new pay awards for 2024-25. Despite the erosion of the Department's budget over the last number of years and the growing demand for services, the Department has been proactive in taking difficult decisions to reduce and manage the pressures where possible. However, we are now at the point where all options have been exhausted in terms of the Department's ability to absorb any future pressures and still keep within that budget. Richard will give us more information on the budget later.

I will give you the position on the 2023-24 annual report and accounts. On a very positive note, we are pleased to confirm that the Department's annual report and accounts were successfully laid in the Assembly by the summer recess deadline of 5 July. The accounts received an unqualified audit opinion from the Comptroller and Auditor General. This was a significant achievement, given the additional complexity and the volume of work involved in consolidating the accounts of 15 organisations within that departmental boundary in order to comply with the new requirements that are set out in the review of financial processes.

On another positive note, our 2023-24 financial outturn was submitted to the Department of Finance on 19 September. On our main budget of £1·26 billion of resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL), the Department achieved an underspend of only £37,000, which is less than 0.003% of the budget. This is the Department's smallest underspend in both monitoring and percentage terms since its formation in April 2010. This result reflects the strong and effective financial management which is exercised by the Department in maximising the limited budget that it has available. However, it also clearly demonstrates how finely balanced the Department's financial position really is and supports our position on the Department's requirements to properly fund the Justice system. The Department spent all its budget and it has no scope to absorb any further costs in the absence of additional funding being provided.

I will now pass across to Richard, who will give the overview of the budget.

Mr Richard Logan (Department of Justice): Thanks, Deborah, and I thank the Committee for the opportunity to provide this briefing.

I turn to the 2024-25 financial year. The Department of Finance commissioned an urgent in-year information gathering exercise on 5 August. The information provided will be used to inform Executive decisions on managing the overall level of forecast departmental overcommitments. The Department's return was submitted to DOF on 30 August, and a copy was shared with the Committee on the same day. The return showed that we are currently forecasting an overcommitment for stabilisation pressures of £47 million, compared to the £86 million previously reported to the Committee on 8 July, following the outcome of June monitoring. The stabilisation pressures relate to the day-to-day operational costs of all our organisations, including their pay. The level of pressures remaining needs to be viewed in the context of prison numbers at an all-time high — 27% higher than in 2021; increasing legal aid demand; the recovery from COVID; clearing backlogs in courts; and the pressures facing PSNI.

Whilst recent focus has been on the PSNI budget pressures of £37 million, significant pressures of £9 million still exist in legal aid costs, which are truly inescapable. Every effort has been made and continues to be made by the Department's business areas to reduce the pressures. That has not been achieved without adversely impacting on the justice system, particularly but not solely the Police Service. In addition, the Department has reported exceptional pressures of £227 million in respect of legal claims, holiday pay, McCloud injury to feelings cases and the PSNI data breach. The cost of settling those claims will not be affordable within the Department's existing budget under any circumstances. In the absence of sufficient additional funding being provided to DOJ following the urgent in-year exercise, there is a real risk of an overspend by the Department in 2024-25. The seriousness of the Department's financial position was again raised by the Justice Minister at a bilateral meeting with the Finance Minister on 17 September. That was one of a series of bilaterals that were held with all the Ministers to discuss the in-year financial position ahead of the Finance Minister bringing recommendations for allocations to the Executive.

The October monitoring round has not yet been formally commissioned by DOF. The timing of the urgent in-year exercise in August pre-empted some of the normal aspects of the October monitoring round. As a result, it is likely that the exercise will focus on technical items such as transfers between Departments and transfers between business areas within the Department of Justice. I will ensure that a copy of the Department's return and the outcome of the October monitoring round is provided to the Committee as soon as possible.

I turn to the 2025-26 future-year exercise. DOF commissioned the exercise on 22 August, with a return date of 4 October. The exercise seeks to capture information for the next three years in order to assist the Executive in considering the longer-term implications of spending decisions. DOF advised Departments to use the Budget 2024-25 position, announced on 29 May, as a starting point in their planning assumptions for all three years. DOJ's planning will therefore be based on a budget of £1·218 billion for the next three years. As advised by DOF, that excludes earmarked items of £31 million for the additional security funding for the PSNI and £13 million for the tackling paramilitarism programme. The funding for those areas will be confirmed by DOF in due course. Crucially, the planning budget also excludes the £35 million allocation that the Department received in the June monitoring round and any subsequent monitoring round allocations. Those are non-recurring allocations and do not form part of our baseline.

We are reviewing the returns received from business areas and drafting the Department's consolidated return. It will come as no surprise to the Committee that, from our initial review, the financial pressures for Justice organisations show no sign of relenting. A key element of those pressures is pay costs. It is estimated that the Department's pay bill for 2024-25 will be in excess of £900 million. That means that every 1% pay award will cost approximately £9 million. For example, a 3% pay award would cost in the region of £27 million a year. We set that against a planning assumption of flat cash budgets for the next three years, which would result in an annual pay pressure of more than £81 million in 2027-28 if pay awards were set at 3% each year.

In addition to pay costs, significant pressures have been reported across many business areas, including legal aid, prisons, courts and, of course, the PSNI, in order to stabilise policing in the immediate term and increase police numbers over the course of this mandate. Without additional funding, however, the reality is that it will not be possible to address those issues from our current budget. We have reached the point where, in the absence of sufficient additional funding, the Department will no longer be able to absorb the additional costs that will inevitably come in future years. The level of future Budget allocations will also have implications for our ability to deliver the Minister's priorities, set out in the departmental business plan, and the Executive's Programme for Government priorities. We are still going through the details of the returns from business areas before we submit a return to DOF. As with the October monitoring round, I will ensure that a copy is shared with the Committee as soon as possible.

On a more positive note, we have received encouraging news that three of the Department's transformation programmes were successful in moving to the next phase of assessment by the interim public-sector transformation board. The programmes that have been taken forward for further consideration are electronic monitoring, the prisons proposals and the speeding up justice proposals. We will keep you updated on those as that process continues.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Richard, can I check that there are three programmes, not four? Our paper said that there were four.

Mr Logan: Four went to the first step. There was then a series of presentations, last Wednesday —

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): There has been an update since our papers —

Mr Logan: Yes.

Ms Brown: The tackling paramilitarism programme did not make it to the next stage. We understand that there will be an opportunity to further develop it and that, as the transformation fund runs over five years, we can resubmit next year.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Thank you. Sorry.

Mr Logan: That is OK.

I trust that we have provided a candid but helpful overview of the financial position. We continue to operate in a very uncertain financial environment, and the Department's position remains extremely challenging on living within the budget that has been made available to us. I thank you again for the opportunity to brief you today. As Deborah mentioned, we very much value your role and views, and we are happy to take any questions.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Thank you very much.

Mr McNulty: Thank you, folks. Who is the chief accounting officer of the Department of Justice?

Ms Brown: The chief accounting officer is Hugh Widdis.

Mr McNulty: Where is he?

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): He is the permanent secretary.

Ms Brown: Where is he? He is in the office, working.

Mr McNulty: Should he not be here to present the budget information on behalf of the Department?

Ms Brown: It is usually the finance director who comes along with colleagues to present the budget position.

Mr McNulty: OK. You stated that the budget will impact on ability to deliver the Minister's priorities. Is policing not one of the Minister's priorities?

Ms Brown: Policing is absolutely one of the Minister's priorities. She has said that on the record.

Mr McNulty: You have outlined how the seriousness of the Department's financial position was set out by the Justice Minister in bilateral meetings with the Prime Minister. I do not quite understand how that aligns with the Department's chief accounting officer admonishing the Chief Constable for seeking a better budget position from the Prime Minister.

Ms Brown: As per 'Managing Public Money', accounting officers must live within their budgets and are not allowed to overspend. That is why our accounting officer wrote to a sub accounting officer — the Chief Constable — to outline those responsibilities and highlight the proper process, which is for us to engage with the Committee and others and to put forward our proposals to the Department of Finance, which, in turn, engages with Treasury on those issues. That is the proper process.

Mr McNulty: Is it the chief accounting officer's role to admonish the Chief Constable, with or without the support of the Minister?

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Justin, I am not sure that the officials can answer that. These officials sit below that person: you are asking them to comment on their boss. Some of those questions are political in nature and need to be answered at a political rather than an official level.

Ms Brown: Thank you, Chair.

Mr McNulty: Thank you, folks.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Do you want to ask anything else? I do not want to shut you down on some of this stuff. Honestly, the issues that you have raised are valid. I am just not sure that the officials here are in a position to speak to them. Is there anything else on the budget that you want to raise?

Mr McNulty: There has been an element of backslapping about the Department's annual report and accounts being laid in time and its coming in £37,000 under budget, yet the Department's future financial position is not stable or secure, especially on policing, such that the Chief Constable comes out and says that he does not have enough money to keep people safe. I am a bit worried about the two positions being taken here; it does not make sense to me.

Ms Brown: The two issues are completely separate. The 2023-24 accounts were prepared across 15 organisations, and we succeeded in meeting the deadline. That is a reporting mechanism, which is different from the budget issue. I absolutely agree with you that we have a difficult and challenging budget in 2024-25.

Mr Logan: That also highlights the fact that there was no wasted money in 2023-24: we maximised the budget that we had last year. We were able to bring forward some spend and pay bills in legal aid and compensation services in the last few weeks and days of the financial year, which took pressures out of this year; otherwise, we would have had even bigger pressures this year.

It was trying to maximise what we had available. We will deliver in budget this year, but, if the budget is not sufficient, that creates the other issues.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): The issues to which Justin refers are difficult. We are all aware that the Chief Constable is in a position of having to balance two statutory obligations. One is to keep people safe, and the other is to balance his budget. At present, it looks like those are incompatible. The issues that Justin raises are valid, and I do not want to shut him down, but you have also outlined that they are separate and distinct processes, so that is fair enough.
Justin, do you have anything else?

Mr McNulty: No. That is good, thanks, Chair. Thanks, folks.

Ms Ferguson: In relation to the transformation proposals, we have a value of £91·6 million in our papers, which, I assume was for all the proposals that were submitted. Four were successful for the second stage, and three are now moving to the final stage. Will you give some insight into those projects and their financial value?

Ms Brown: Speeding up justice and transforming the criminal justice system is a bid for £40 million. We provided presentations to the interim transformation board last week and got some feedback on each of those.

The challenge is that 11 proposals got through to that stage, and there is only a limited pot of funding, so the board has asked us to go away and look at whether that particular bid can be scaled in any way. That bid has a number of different elements to it, but some of the first stages of it are around work on early engagement and out-of-court disposals. The Department will go away and look at its overall bid to see whether it can break it down into different elements to see if that would be successful.

The ending violence and harm hub bid was around £16 million. That has not got through to the next stage. It needs to be further developed, but it was about looking at all the initiatives across the board and addressing the issues at source.

There is obviously still work ongoing on the tackling paramilitarism programme. That programme continues until March 2027. There is current engagement going on with the UK Government to see if they will continue with match funding for the further two years beyond March 2025 where they have committed to it. There is still an opportunity for us to further develop that bid, strengthen it and refine it. When the bids open next year, we will potentially put that forward again.

The reducing reoffending and prison population transformation initiatives bid is around £9 million. That is looking at bail support, which would help to keep people out of prison, and some other elements around enhanced combination orders (ECOs), etc. Again, feedback on that was just to strengthen the bid in some way. I do not have any more detail on the feedback on that particular one.

The third proposal that has gone through to the next stage is electronic monitoring. At the moment, we have a system in place, but it is just for 12 hours when someone is in their own home. This one would have GPS, it would have a more sophisticated system and would take pressure off the police and other areas. That bid is for about £2 million, and has gone through to the next stage.

The next stage is to refine the bids that were originally put forward within a three-week period, and then they will be reconsidered at that point.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you. It would be useful to get an update, as and when they are refined, on how to go forward. It is great to see additional investment. Transformation is important. In relation to the digital landscape element, there were no bids submitted from the Department.

Ms Brown: The digital element in the speeding up justice programme is the Causeway system. At the moment, we are upgrading it. There are opportunities in speeding up justice that will allow us to take that forward.
Among the transformation bids, there were a number of specific digital bids. They are looking at pulling them all together, so we made representations to say that elements of our bids have digital aspects to see how those could be incorporated. We have not had any feedback on how that might work.

Mr Dickson: There are number of things around the budget pressures. Of course, the elephant in the room, if you like, is the big issue around the way that the Department of Justice has been massively underfunded, basically, over a number of years. Even if money were to come in tomorrow, one of the questions would be about how the Department would manage an increase in funds, bearing in mind all the potential issues around procurement and so on that you would have to deal with.

I turn to two aspects of the programme that you are undertaking to improve certain areas. One relates to electronic monitoring. The Committee addressed electronic monitoring in the past and has strong support for it, because we can see its value not only to the police in reducing the requirement for their attendances but in enabling much more sophisticated monitoring of the people who are tagged.

I have a concern about the priority of ending violence against women and girls. Given the high rates of violence and, sadly, murders that occur, it appears to me that we have a strategy in place to deal with the issue but no funding — or minimal funding — with which to deliver it. It is an area of extreme concern that any projects to deliver the strategy need to get through those processes.

I want to comment on the way in which the professional staff of the Department have delivered the accounts. Unfortunately, in the public sector and across government, all too often we see areas of finance where reports come in late or accounts are completed late, inaccurate or sent back. It is important that we thank and congratulate the professional staff on the delivery of the accounting processes, virtually down to the Department's last penny, and on the effective and efficient way in which bills, for example, were paid in the last few weeks and days of the financial year in order to relieve the burden in the next year. While that is good, right and proper, in truth, it highlights yet again the extreme difficulty of the unbelievably tight budget — the impossible budget — within which the DOJ has to operate.

Ms Brown: Thank you for those last comments. I pay tribute to Richard and his team. They have done a sterling job in getting it all done in time and meeting such a quality and standard.

I will work backwards. I absolutely agree with your points about the ending violence against women and girls piece. It is a TEO-led initiative, and, whilst we had a transformation bid around domestic abuse, it did not get through to the stage that the other four bids got to. We take some comfort in the fact that a paragraph at the end of the section on ending violence against women and girls in the draft Programme for Government references domestic abuse. We anticipate that budgets will be in line with the Programme for Government, so perhaps some funding might come our way in that regard. I will just put that out there.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Wish it and make it so.

Ms Brown: On the issue about dealing with more money, at the moment, our pressures are £48 million. The majority of that — £36·7 million — sits with the police. All the money relates to pay and other inescapable costs that the police have outlined. We know that that can be spent and potentially will be spent. It could result in potential overspends. That is a concern.

Of that, £6 million relates to legal aid, which we absolutely can get out the door before the end of the financial year. Indeed, that would only mean that the legal aid delays in payments will be similar to where we ended in March 2024. That would make sure that we were no worse than March 2024, meaning a 12-week delay. We have pressures that are greater than that, of course, because there is that 12-week delay. Based on our demand, and if we had wanted to get down to four weeks, we should have been bidding for £15 million. However, now that we are six months into the financial year, we could not get that money out the door, so we bid for only what we could legitimately put out the door, so I can guarantee that that money will be spent.

The remainder is around legacy, of which approximately £3·5 million is legal aid-associated legacy. Again, that will absolutely go out the door. At the moment, £1·5 million of that is certain, and we anticipate another £2 million. Of course, it is demand-led but those are our projections at this point. The remainder is also associated with legacy, so there is a little bit of uncertainty around that, but I think you can see that that full £48 million is needed, and will be spent if provided. If it is not provided in full, the risk of an overspend is significant.

I think that those are all the points that you needed covered, Stewart.

Miss Hargey: I want to reiterate what Stewart said about the accounts. It does show how close to the bone you are in managing the money, and the likelihood of an overspend in the Department. We will want to keep up to date on how that is going and being managed. If we do get the multi-year funding, it is not going to be the panacea, but will that help in some regard, and, if so, how?

The other issue is the transformation bids. I would be keen, even outside a financial point of view, to get more information on the electronic monitoring element. Are those capital costs for just that GPS system or for other things? Those bids are about transforming the Department, being more streamlined and looking at the budgetary pressures or the pressures in the system in terms of numbers. If you are successful, how will the effectiveness be monitored in monetary or outcomes-based terms? If we could get some follow-up information on what framework is in place for monitoring the effectiveness once those go through. Also, are any of the bids one-off, or do you see a requirement to go back next year — they are being phased — for any of the three that have got through to the next stage? Like Stewart, I am concerned about the hub but you said that more work was needed on that, so are you looking to put in a bid for that again next year?

Ms Brown: Adele Brown is away to look at the harm hub and develop that further, so work is definitely continuing on that. With regard to the plans moving forward, we are, obviously, going on to the 2025-26 exercise in the future years. We are a demand-led organisation, so that is quite difficult to predict, but we are underfunded in so many areas. In legal aid, for example, the £94 million baseline is nowhere near meeting the annual demand of £115 million, so the money that we get we will absolutely be able to spend.

On measuring and monitoring, we have our business cases, which outline clearly what is going to be achieved and what the outcomes are supposed to be. There are mechanisms in place for how that is measured. We have programme boards and oversight to ensure that those things are being delivered, and we will have milestones to measure to make sure that we are delivering the savings. All those transformation bids are invest-to-save proposals. They will save money within not just the DOJ but within the justice system and, more widely, within health and other areas. Our challenge will be how to get that data and those metrics. We are working with our economists and statisticians to see what evidence base we have. In a climate where we are projecting an overspend, we are having to stop all discretionary spend. That means that you cannot do the evidence-based research that you want to do. That is an unfortunate position.

We have so many opportunities in this organisation to make massive change, to make a real difference to citizens on the ground and to streamline and make the system more effective, but there needs to be upfront investment before we are able to achieve that, because, at the moment, unfortunately, we are just keeping the show on the road — just about.

Miss Hargey: On that point, then, are there other areas like that, where you may be managing the money well, but it is still a lot of money. Does it need to be that much? There was an example of that when we were discussing the legislation earlier and we talked about the Taxing Master and legal aid. There may be inflated costs within those budgets, even though they are being managed and they could be spent out before the year end in order to justify getting the same money next year. Are you doing an exercise to identify that across the Department?

Ms Brown: There are lots of initiatives across the Department where we have identified that. Steven Allison has a five-pillar programme for legal aid, and taxation is just one strand. We have just finished our call for evidence on civil work, which we are looking at. There are lots of opportunities within that, and there is engagement with groups on the ground to understand individuals' experiences and how to keep people out of the courts system and get a better outcome for them and their families. There are lots of opportunities within that.

We have just got Judge Burgess's report on criminal legal aid. There is a lot in that, and we are working our way through its recommendations. There are a number of strands in a number of areas across the board. I can give you some more information on what DOJ is doing as a collective.

Miss Hargey: Yes, across the Justice family, including the judiciary and other areas?

Ms Brown: Yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That would be really useful.

Miss Hargey: Thank you.

Mr Logan: The transformation proposal funding is all resource. We would want to do all of those programmes and initiatives anyway, but because of our tight budget, we do not have the spare money now to invest in them. If we can get extra investment from transformation, that will open the door and let us make future savings and cost reductions.

Miss Hargey: OK. I will be keen to come back once we know which programmes are going ahead, just to look at their impact.

Mr Logan: We do not yet have a definitive timeline from DOF as to when we will know the result or when the money will flow through. We are already six months into the financial year and the funding was to start this year for five years. We will need to see whether any of that will be reprofiled in future years so that all the Departments can get the full benefit of that funding.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Understood. Thank you, Richard.

Mr Bradley: Thank you very much for your presentation, folks. It does not make good reading in places, but anyway. The projected overspend concerns me, especially when there has been historical underfunding of policing and justice. For quite some time now we have had inadequate numbers of serving officers and recruits. There is a philosophy of being able to do more with less, which adds a burden of stress on serving officers. Something, somewhere along the line, is going to break. My concern is this: what services will the Chief Constable cut in order to stay within budget? We have heard that the chief accounting officer has a budget, and he must stay within that. He has come out publicly and said that he cannot stay within it, so something has to give. What is it?

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That may be an issue for him.

Ms Brown: That is an operational issue for the Chief Constable.

Mr Bradley: An operational issue: I knew you were going to say that. [Laughter.]

Mr Logan: There are things that he has done so far, such as closing some local offices and things like that, and pausing recruitment or not increasing numbers. Those sorts of decisions on pure numbers are happening, which will have an impact on certain services that the police are providing.

Mr Bradley: I know that it is an operational matter, but perhaps you could bring that up with the Minister. I will leave it at that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): There are a couple of things. I want to reiterate our concerns around the fact that what have become priorities in the PFG are not necessarily reflected in the bids that the Department has made. We are disappointed about the bid around abuse and so on, and we share that disappointment with you.

You were not in the room at the time, so I also want to flag up something else. We note that in your memo, you state that you are having to look at cutting services and provision, and that is the position that you are facing. I trust that you know that we have advocated for you thus far. However, a raft of new proposals is coming through, and we are being told that those are going to be paid for through existing resources. We are struggling to square that circle, given that you are saying that you do not have the money to do what you are already charged with doing. We have been given some explanations, but we will have to withhold our position on that because none of us is convinced.

The other thing that I want to flag up is the kitchen at Magilligan, which is not a small amount of money. My concern around this is that £13·3 million is being spent on a kitchen when the Department cannot give me a breakdown of costs, tell me whether there has been any change in spec and has not outlined what the change in scope has been to reduce the cost from £16 million to £13·3 million. I put this to you in the context of social housing in my constituency. In one project, a considerable number of people were to be housed, and the spec on that has changed three times, and they still cannot get a contractor to do the work. Costs have increased, but the spec has reduced and reduced, and I am not seeing that here. Also, add a few million pounds to that, and £5 million or £6 million more will get you an entire school. I think that there needs to be a justification for a spend of £13·3 million on a kitchen and a café.

I want to clarify this. I have been to Magilligan and have seen the need. I know what needs to be done there, so I do not dispute that there is a need at Magilligan. What the rest of us want clarification on is this: how did we get to £13·3 million for a kitchen and a café? To be honest, I do not believe that that is an unreasonable question from the Committee, from me as Chair of it and as an individual MLA or, indeed, for the general public to want to know. I would be grateful if you would come back to me on that. I note that business cases have not been considered by the Department or the Department of Finance, but then how have you reached a figure of £13·3 million when you are not able to give us any detail on it? You understand where we are coming from there. Is that all right?

Mr Logan: Yes, certainly. At the moment, it is a high-level estimate probably based on square footage. It has not gone out to tender, and it is not even at the stage of procurement or anything like that. We are not sitting with quotes coming in for that. This is preparation work on the business case to see what the range of costs would actually be. As you said, there is a need, and that is where we, as a Department, compete against schools and hospitals. There is need, and people want to see that justified.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): There is need. You understand that £13·3 million for what appears to be a kitchen and a café leaves people thinking that this kitchen is for Gordon Ramsay.

Ms Brown: The kitchen is supposed to be finished to the same standards as those in Maghaberry and Hydebank. I am not sure how the £13 million has appeared because they are still working their way through the business case, which will have a range of options. It is also important to note that, in Magilligan, the facility was not fit for purpose, and they had to bring in alternative arrangements at one point, if you recall. They now have 500 prisoners in there, where they only usually had 300, so the capacity is clearly not there for the population they have. The age of it is a factor, and there are health and safety issues around that. Again, absolutely, we will try to get you some more information, but, as I say, the business case is not developed fully yet and the options are not there, so the £13 million, as Richard has said, is an estimate of some description. It will be subject to a proper business case, proper options and proper challenge by us and by our economist, before anything goes forward.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I understand that. In my question to the Minister at the time, I understood that and I specifically asked whether there is an intention to increase the number of prisoners at Magilligan and you have to be ready for that. No matter what way you cut this cake, £13·3 million for a café and a kitchen needs to be justified. That is all we are asking for there. The dispute in Magilligan and the conditions there are not in question here, all right?

Mr Logan: In the café, there is an element for the training of students and everything to do with that. It is the sort of training that happens in Hydebank. It is that type of facility, so that training and services can be provided there as well, but we will come back to you on that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Again, Richard, none of that is in dispute. What we want to drill down into is how that will cost £13·3 million, potentially.

Does anybody have anything else? No.

I thank you all once again. You have been inordinately patient, and we are grateful to you. Thank you very much.