Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): Joining us for this evidence session are Steven Allison, deputy director of the enabling access to justice division; Bronagh O'Reilly, programme manager; John Bradley, head of civil and legal aid reform; and Chris Barry, head of taxation review. You are very welcome to the Justice Committee. I will throw it open to you, Steven, for your opening statement and comments, and then we will open it to members.

Mr Steven Allison (Department of Justice): Thank you, Chair. I will keep my remarks very brief. I am conscious that the Committee has had a lot of papers.

Good afternoon, Committee and Chair. I am very grateful for the opportunity to brief the Committee on enabling access to justice and, in particular, the associated delivery plan. I take this opportunity to thank the Committee for enabling us to come today; I know that there was a bit of a last-minute change, so thank you for making the arrangements, and apologies for any inconvenience.

As you said, Chair, I am joined by my colleagues Bronagh, John and Chris. When we last appeared before the Committee in May, we outlined a range of reviews that were ongoing to inform the development of a reform programme to enable and enhance access to justice. That included the call for evidence that launched in April this year, and it concluded in July. We got a significant response to that.

The independent review was ongoing at that point, and it was commissioned by the Department and led by Judge Burgess. The review concluded on 23 August with Judge Burgess presenting the report. Other inputs to the reform programme include the ongoing review of taxation, which Chris Barry is leading, and that continues to be taken forward. The benchmarking exercise is the reviews of various other data sets, and we have set that out in various reports.

We did not mention the review in May because it was not in place, and, in late July, we jointly commissioned a review, alongside Geraldine Hanna, the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime, which was led by Professor Lagdon, Ulster University and Queen's University colleagues, to inform a rapid priority-setting exercise to help us decide what we should focus our time and energy on in order to support domestic abuse victims further. A copy of that report is in the pack that we provided to the Committee last week.

I put on record my thanks to everyone who participated in the reviews, from the academics, the legal profession, the voluntary sector to all the organisations that presented lots of evidence for us. I particularly thank those individuals who have gone through the system as victims, defendants, survivors and witnesses and who contributed.

I am conscious that we have provided you with a large volume of information. That information is a distillation of everything that we received, and it has informed the development of our programme and the associated prioritised delivery plan. As we set out in the written brief, we plan to issue the delivery plan next week for public consultation.

Essentially, the consultation asks for society's views on the sequencing in order to help us understand if we have the right running order. For example, I do not want to flood public consultations into one quarter, with the result that we do not get qualitative information. The voluntary sector organisations are stretched, and we appreciate that. I do not want the voluntary sector to say that we must spread our plan for five public consultations in a quarter.

I want qualitative information to inform our policy.

We consider that, in view of the increasing pressures and the need to ensure sustainability, there is a strong case for reform at pace in the interests of enabling access to justice. To that end, we invite the Committee to agree to an eight-week consultation period for the delivery plan. That is simply about sequence and not necessarily content. Each proposal in the delivery plan will be subject to its own discrete and specific consultations. We recognise that the reform programme is ambitious, both in scale and pace, but we think that it is realistic, subject to the usual caveats of funding and resource availability.

I promised that my opening remarks would be short, Deputy Chair, so this is probably an opportune moment to thank you again for the opportunity. We will take your questions.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): Thank you very much for that. I will throw the meeting open to members' questions, if you just want to indicate, members.

Mr Beattie: Thank you for the short brief. I looked through most of the Burgess report, and I tried to understand it as best I could. I find the whole legal aid piece extremely complicated, but it is what it is. I looked at some of the recommendations. They include increasing remuneration by 16%, refresher fees by 25%, King's Counsel by 25% and an increase in travel allowance. We have a legal aid budget of £114 million this year for a population of 1·9 million, and Scotland, with a population of 5·5 million, has a budget of £151 million for legal aid. All those increases in fees have been recommended, and it is recommended that they be put through at pace. Do we know how much that would cost? Has a costing been done on that?

Mr Allison: Yes, there has been a high-level costing. We are not moving beyond 16%. One of our reports sets out what we have and have not accepted. It is fair to say that we have accepted most of the fees that Judge Burgess recommended, either in full or in part. We have extended that, as the Minister set out on Monday, widening it to cover not just criminal but civil and family, because we feel that it is important that we also address concerns on the fee structures for those.

The high-level estimate at this point is about £9·5 million for that uplift. However, the business case, Mr Beattie, will be on a programme base. In the totality of the programme, there are areas in which we look to amend delivery mechanisms and to potentially amend scope and the certification process. The programme has themes, and there is one key theme on managing public funds and a number of actions into which we look to put controls in order to target the spend to the most vulnerable. That is the clear message that I want to impart today. I want to protect the most vulnerable and give them access to justice.

The short answer is that it will cost about £9·5 million, it is high-level, and it will be distilled further as we go through the business case, which we are working on with finance colleagues and the Department of Finance.

Mr Beattie: Steven, just to be absolutely clear, I am with you on this. For those who need access to justice and legal aid, it must be there and available to them. As part of that, the value for money piece is certainly in the report. The report also says that a working group with an independent chair should be set up, there are projects to be undertaken, there should be a legal aid advisory board and a code should be set up. How many of those recommendations are you likely to take on board?

Mr Allison: I will break those down, Mr Beattie. The working group will look at creating data and will use that data to inform fee structures, as Judge Burgess set out. We are taking that in two parts. The first, immediate part is that there is an absence of data to inform the evidence base for the reform of fees at specific levels. At certain parts of Judge Burgess's report he says, "I did not have data", so this element needs to be moved into a different space.

One of our first priorities in the new year will be to establish the reference group in order to identify and start collating and validating the data. That will be chaired by either a statistician or an economist from the Department, because it is about data and they know more about that than I do. We have not entirely ruled out establishing a working group after that that would be led by an independent chair or other, but we want to establish the reference group and get the data so that we can see what we are working on.

We have taken the view that we need to step back in relation to the legal aid advisory board, because there is an awful lot of oversight at the moment across the justice system, whether it be the criminal justice board or programme boards for all those things. There is also the shadow family justice board and the shadow civil justice council. Before we establish another body, we want to step back and ask, "Where does it all fit in? Can we look at that, and are there overlaps?". We have not ruled that out, but we are not sure about just where that board fits into the landscape at the moment.

Mr Beattie: I tend to agree with you, and that is why I raised it in the manner that I did. It seems to be adding more layers on top of the layers that we already have. It is recommended that a working group with an independent chair be set up, but that, in the meantime, without recommendations from that independent chair, we should go ahead and increase the fees and do that at pace. May I ask about increasing the fees at pace? What is your time frame for doing that, because the report says that it should be done as quickly as possible. Do you have a time frame yet?

Mr Allison: We do. We are seeking to consult on the delivery plan that we have set out. That is subject to funding, so we still need to pursue that in parallel. I have to say that, because if we do not have the funding, we will have to pursue that. In parallel with that and along with the legislative timetable, if we get everything in place, we plan to issue proposals early in the new year for public consultation. Those will be presented to the Committee for scrutiny before the consultation document goes out. There will be a 12-week consultation, and we will need to amend the legislation through subordinate legislation. With a fair wind and if all the dominoes fall in the right order, we will be looking at April or May to enable legislation. If the funding is made available at that stage, we can introduce those new fees by April or May next year.

Mr Beattie: Perfect. I have one more very quick question, Chair. Are the people who it affects the most, which means those who deliver the legal aid services, reasonably happy with that figure of 16%? Where was that generated?

Mr Allison: That is a difficult one for me. The report was published on Monday of this week. Hopefully, I will meet the Law Society and the Bar next week, subject to diary commitments, and we can get a better sense check on that then. I hope that it will be recognised that Judge Burgess has recommended 16%. He has an evidence base that, we feel, provides a good, persuasive case. We have added some evidence to that in order to try to get the argument over the line. The figure of 16% is what Judge Burgess suggested, but there are some other areas for which he suggested 25%. We are saying, "We will go to 16%, but we need evidence to support the difference". I am not able to say at this point what the sense check is from stakeholders. That will be in front of me next week. I hope that they will see that there is an absolute willingness to look at the report and give it the best possible run, but it comes down to whether we can secure the funds.

Mr Beattie: Steven, thank you to you and your team. Thank you for your indulgence, Chair.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): Thanks very much, Doug. No problem.

Mr McNulty: Thanks, Steven, Bronagh, John and Chris, for your evidence. A social worker visited my office this week and outlined her concerns about what she sees as a troubling issue. A huge number of women are engaging with social workers, because they have been subjected to coercive control, domestic violence and abuse and harassment at the hands of a partner or ex-partner, but they have no means to pursue a non-molestation order and do not qualify for legal aid. Those women feel that they are being left without any recourse to justice. What assessment has the Department undertaken to gauge the number of women who are being affected by that, and how does that factor into the Minister's commitments to enable access to justice?

Mr Allison: Mr McNulty, thank you. In our conversations with Women's Aid and other organisations and in their submissions, that point has been really well made, and we have taken it on board. The delivery plan has identified a number of vulnerable groups. We have to look at the structure of legal aid, the eligibility thresholds and the application process so that we can make sure that someone gets a decision that legal aid is available to them at the most vulnerable point in their life and that we can support them as quickly as possible without the bureaucracy that, I freely admit, exists at the moment. I will check with John to see whether there is any answer to the question about the figures that we have.

In global terms, this is an area that we want to focus on. We very clearly set out in the delivery plan that domestic abuse victims are a group for which we want to build and develop further protections into the legal aid space on eligibility. In our experience, people who are in the domestic abuse space will move to the criminal space, and they will also be involved in civil and family orders, including children who are looking for support for housing and so on. We want to get to the point whereby you make an application once for legal aid and that will passport you through, and you will not have to keep applying if you are in that space. That will makes the process speedier. I hope that it will also help people in the profession so that they do not spend as much time as they have to now putting the application process together. I will stop there, because I promised to go to John in case he can give you more detailed metrics.

Mr John Bradley (Department of Justice): I will give metrics perhaps, but there are two points that I would like to make, Steven. One is that we have heard consistently that the current protections in the access to justice and legal aid system do not adequately address the needs of domestic abuse victims in all cases. There is, therefore, a strand of work in the delivery plan that looks specifically at what additional supports we can usefully put in place for those people.

The other point is one that I make as often as I possibly can. A discretionary waiver is available to the Legal Services Agency (LSA) to set aside a person's means when they are applying for representation to seek a non-molestation order. That waiver is granted in all circumstances where someone seeks one, so anyone who needs a non-molestation order, regardless of their means, will be eligible for legal aid to pursue it. The uptake of that waiver has been consistently poor, because people are not aware of it. Some people, therefore, often pay privately for non-molestation order proceedings when they need not do so. As things stand, if someone is otherwise ineligible for legal aid but needs the protection of a non-molestation order, they can get a legal aid certificate for representation. They will be liable to make some contribution towards their own costs, but that will be substantially less than the cost of paying privately.

As I said, those protections have not addressed the needs of all domestic abuse victims. We have heard that consistently through the call for evidence and through the priority-setting exercise, so we will have a strand of work beginning at an early stage in the delivery plan in which we will speak directly to those who work in the sector in order to seek to design additional supports to better meet the needs of domestic abuse victims.

Mr Allison: To add to that, Mr McNulty, yesterday I accompanied the Minister to Omagh, where we met solicitors' associations from Omagh, Enniskillen and Strabane. It was a really informative session, and, again, resonating with what you are hearing from your constituents, we heard that non-molestation orders involve a difficult process and are challenging. Yesterday was helpful, because the solicitors agreed to start developing some metrics on how long the process takes and what the difficulties are. I will engage very early in the new year with those solicitors again to help us to develop the solution together. We are very alive to the issue. We want to protect and support the most vulnerable at the most vulnerable point in their need. That is a major thrust in the programme.

Mr McNulty: Thanks, folks. That is somewhat reassuring, but alarm bells are ringing here, and we need to address the issue. Thank you so much.

Ms Ferguson: I would like to come in on that. I have spoken to many women who have been through the process, and, yesterday, I made a visit to the courthouse and spoke to some solicitors.

I am gravely worried about the reduction in the number of solicitors who will even provide a legal aid service. The situation is becoming dire in some areas. A waiver was mentioned. You said that there may be a lack of awareness of its availability, but I am finding it to be the opposite. The waiver is not worth the paper that it is written on, because the length of time that it takes to complete the paperwork means that doing so is not cost-effective. I am glad, Steven, that you highlighted the fact that it is something that the Department is looking at. There is no point in providing a service when, for the amount that it saves, it is not worth a solicitor's time to spend four or five hours completing the paperwork.

Mr J Bradley: A separate strand of work in the delivery plan is to look at simpler and fairer eligibility rules in general. We are aware that the application process, whether for domestic abuse issues or for legal aid generally, is acting as a barrier to people getting access to services. For domestic abuse victims, and for people more generally, we will be looking to improve the system in order to remove some of the barriers.

Ms Ferguson: The work is therefore more on the administrative side.

Mr J Bradley: Absolutely.

Ms Ferguson: I know that you always have to ensure value for money. It is public money, so it needs to be accounted for, but if the work that is required to be done is not covered, it defeats the purpose of having a waiver. You may increase the number of people who are aware of the waiver's existence, but, given the scale of the work involved, no solicitor will help complete the paperwork and send it in, as it is not cost-effective to do so. I am highlighting that issue because it was raised with me.

Mr Allison: That is very helpful, because your point does resonate with us. In looking at all our systems, we also have to look at the input costs in order to ensure value for money. If seeking a waiver is costing £x more than the benefit from seeking one is, we should not be offering it. As John said, there is an ambition to simplify the process.

Ms Ferguson: Yes, there has to be an easier way.

Mr Allison: We should not be having solicitors spend half an hour or an hour going through forms at the expense of giving people advice. Equally, there is a balance to be struck. We need some qualifying metrics and criteria, but the ambition is definitely to simplify the process. It has to be. In this day and age, we should be able to do that.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): That is a key point. On the one hand, barristers just submit a fee, whereas solicitors have to jump through different hoops. You are right when you say that it is about how we can streamline the process to reduce the administrative burden. You still must be accountable for the use of public money, but you need streamline the process a bit more.

Ms Dolan: I thank the officials for coming in. This is my first Justice Committee meeting in this mandate, so please bear with me. I do not know whether I picked this up right. Are you saying that you are setting up a body in the new year to collect the data and then a working group in 18 to 24 months to analyse the data? Is that correct?

Mr Allison: No. We are saying that our first priority is to get the data sorted. That is the one thing on which we are working. At some point after that, we will have to make a decision anyway as part of the reform programme. We need to look at the current review mechanisms. We have statutory obligations to undertake reviews. I personally do not think that reviews function that well. We spend more time on debating their scope than we do on conducting them, which is to the detriment of making a difference.

The simplest way in which to answer your question is to say that the priority is to identify data that we can all agree is relevant to informing decisions and then to collate that data in such a way that the statisticians and economists can help us build a case. When we are doing that, we can then ask, "What is the best way in which to work together to use that data to inform decisions to make the case for change?". We have not ruled it out, but, at this stage, we are not establishing a working group with an independent chair. We are creating a reference group just to collect the data to get us into that space, because that is the urgent need. If we were to create a working group now, with what would it be working? There is not yet any data. The working group would be sitting waiting for the reference group to provide it with the data.

The priority is to work with stakeholders, and with the profession in particular. Let us get around a table and identify the data that we need. Let us identify what is relevant and not relevant, what is available and what needs to be built, created and collated. Let us identify how are we all going to be satisfied that the data is validated and absolutely robust. How we use that data is a separate discussion for further down the year.

Ms Dolan: It will be later next year, is that right?

Mr Allison: It is a chicken-and-egg situation, because the quicker that we can get the data, the quicker that we can move to use it. I do not want perfection to be the enemy of the good. If we can get the data on certain areas and coalesce it, and if doing so is relatively straightforward, meaning that we can move on it, we will. I am certainly not going to wait until we have a perfect bundle of data, because there is no such thing as perfect data.

Ms Dolan: That is perfect. That answers my question. Thank you.

Ms Ferguson: May I come back in, Deputy Chair?

Miss Hargey: Yes.

Ms Ferguson: What data are you looking for? What data sets will you be using in your analysis? Are there any challenges to accessing the data that you require in order to have a robust baseline?

Mr Allison: We would like to understand what the input costs are for solicitors and barristers. What are they trying to cover in order to run their firm? What is the hourly rate? We need some evidence in that regard. We have to pay a fair rate. What are we asking them to do in the system? How long does each transaction take? We need to understand what we are asking of them. If you are in the Magistrates' Court and are making an application for bail, or if you are running a defence in an assault case or a murder case, what are the points of distinction? What time frame is involved? What are the building blocks of the work? We then need to translate that information into input costs to determine what we need to pay as a fair going rate.

As to the barriers, I have said before that I have no idea of how a brief fee is made up. We will continue to engage with the Bar to understand the structure. It is very difficult for us to create a fee structure if we do not know what the underpinning blocks are. I would like to learn from solicitors exactly what is involved. We have lots of fragmented data, but we need to come together rather than argue about what is relevant, which, to be candid, we have spent a lot of time doing over the past couple of years during previous reviews. I imagine that the professions would agree that our not agreeing on what a relevant data set is is to the detriment of making progress.

Ms Ferguson: Do you think that you will? I am conscious of the role of the taxing master at the moment. We have been made aware of the Judicature Act 1978, which set forth the role. We subsequently had the Legal Aid and Coroners' Courts Act 2014, which was to look again at legal aid and change it, but nothing happened. We are now 10 years on from that Act, and you are looking again at whether you can get the right data to see how charging should be done. It did not happen in 2014, so why are you confident that it will happen this time? What is being done differently, or how are you going to go about it? I just cannot get my head around it. The taxing master is independent, knows the profession and the work that is done and does assessments of costs. What information are you going to receive that is different from that which the taxing master already utilises?

Mr Allison: I will invite Chris to speak in a second, because he has done sterling work in the past 12 months on that. It is easier to answer the question about what is different. For the first time, through the good graces of the previous taxing master, we have been able to access the files that the taxing master receives, which include bills, brief fees and everything else that is sent in by solicitors. We have never had that opportunity before, because the taxing master has an independent function. That is not a criticism. In the past 12 months, Chris and his team have therefore been able to do that. I am really grateful to the taxing master for that. Chris, I will let you speak to that in a second. That is therefore a big point of distinction, because we have really granular data. In that granular data, we still have brief fees coming in from barristers that we would like to understand. We are working with the Bar to understand what the building blocks are of a brief fee. If we are to translate that into a standard fee structure and an hourly rate function, it is important that we understand what is being built in. That is the biggest point of distinction when it comes to the taxing master.

Ms Ferguson: Sorry to cut across you, but does the taxing master not have that data already when he assesses costs? He reassesses costs and then makes deductions if he thinks that the costs are not appropriate. What data has he therefore been using?

Mr Allison: To be fair, the only difference is that the taxing master receives the bills, including the brief fees, from solicitors. The taxing master does the assessment, but when we get the final bill — the order to pay — we do not have all the papers that back it up. We have not had access to them before. Now we —.

Ms Ferguson: Do you have access to how he does his assessment?

Mr Allison: Chris is the expert in that area.

Mr Chris Barry (Department of Justice): As Steven said, we now have a greater insight into the current process as it operates. Before we start to reform something, we want to understand the current position as best we can.

We have gone to the taxing master's office and reviewed the submitted documentation. As you will know, solicitors provide a more detailed bill of costs. They break everything down to the hour. We get that information from the legal aid management system (LAMS). It is a resource-intensive exercise. It is not just about gathering the data but about determining the quality of the data and its accessibility.

I have a small team, and it has taken us a long time to trawl through the pages of bills that practitioners have submitted. It is therefore about looking at what the position is now. For how we do things under 'Managing Public Money Northern Ireland' ('MPMNI'), is it fit for purpose? Is it accountable and transparent? If it is not, what can we do to make the system more transparent and accountable? We have been doing that, and, as I said, it is about the quality of the data. We know more now.

As Steven said about the brief fee, we have seen counsel report on cases, but it is a narrative report on a case. It states what it involves and the complexities in play, but there is no breakdown of the work in the way in which a solicitor would do it. Would we replicate that? It would be very difficult to replicate if we reform the system to take it under the purview of the accounting officer. Would we replicate the solicitor uplift that is in play at the minute? Yes, solicitors break everything down, but there is a 33%, 40%, 50%, 65% or 150% uplift, which is the profit element of what they have done. The hourly rate is there to cover their running costs, or their break-even point, if you like. The uplift is on top of that, and that is the profit element. Would we replicate that? That is therefore what we have been doing.

Ms Ferguson: Have you a time frame for completing the task to arrive at a baseline?

Mr Barry: The delivery plan for taxation reform will show that we aim to consult on proposals for High Court bail applications in March 2025. We will then look at the remuneration for judicial reviews and for the criminal division of the Court of Appeal. We aim to introduce proposals for the criminal Court of Appeal in December 2025 and for judicial reviews in March 2026. There are three elements involved, and taxation covers a range of other types of cases. We have, however, identified those three areas as areas in which we have a good opportunity to instigate reform in the remainder of the mandate.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you, Chris.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): It is an issue and concern that is beginning to emerge in aspects of the first Justice Bill. I am keen to know what engagement there has been with the key stakeholders. On the one hand, it is almost like a power grab by the Department. What engagement have you had on what it could look like? Steven said that the taxing master currently provides an independent function. If the Department therefore were to have the power, and I understand the data and figures, because I ask such questions, would there be fairness among the different areas of the legal profession? What would people be required to do in order to draw down their expenditure? From your analysis of the role of the taxing master, how can you ensure there will be that level of independent function? What protections might be built in? I imagine that we will pick up that point in the oral evidence sessions in the new year, but I am keen to see what level of engagement, if any, you have with interested parties and stakeholders on the issue.

Mr Barry: We have engaged with the Lady Chief Justice and the taxing master. Steven and I are meeting the taxing master next week. As I have said, we have a good relationship with his office. We have been in the office and been given information that we have not previously had access to. We have also engaged with the Bar and the Law Society. We have had useful engagement with the Law Society, specifically on High Court bail, and we have provided it with data that was gleaned from our work. We held a round-table discussion with the Law Society, at which it made some useful suggestions on what we might go away and look at in more detail. We have not yet had the opportunity to do that with the Bar, although we are trying to do so.

We have also engaged with other stakeholders. For example, cost drawers are involved in drawing up the bills of costs that solicitors provide. It will obviously be of concern to them. We have met several cost drawers, and we are keeping them apprised as we go forward. We have met the courts. We have also met the LSA, because, if this falls within the LSA's remit through its having an assessment role, it will need to be geared to do that. We need to make sure that anything that we come up with can be operationalised, so the LSA needs to be involved early to help shape that, as do the professions and everybody else involved.

You mentioned independence. The taxing master is an independent judicial figure and routinely reduces bills. There is nothing new in what we are looking at. It has been done in other areas. The Crown Court has a standard fee regime that would have been previously assessed by the taxing master. The master retains an appellate role in the Crown Court, which means that, if the LSA assesses something, and the practitioner is not content with or disputes that assessment, that practitioner has a route by which to appeal to the taxing master. We do not envisage anything different with taxation reform. We do not envisage not retaining some of that. It is about scrutiny and having a transparent process for assessment. If practitioners who go through that process are not satisfied, they have recourse to an appeal function. We do not imagine that there will be any change to that.

Mr Allison: Subject to discussions with the taxing master and the Lady Chief Justice, I hope that the taxing master's appellate role is maintained, because it provides independence and is an avenue for appeal if someone is unhappy with or unsatisfied with the internal assessment.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): Thank you. I was going to ask whether the delivery plan will be made public, but you have answered that, Steven. The letter from the departmental Assembly liaison officer (DALO) to the Committee mentions a consultation period, which you mentioned. Do you hope that the plan will be published next week —

Mr Allison: Next week, yes.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): — in order to start an eight-week consultation? The issue of consulting over Christmas or similar periods has come up in Committee. I am sure that you have factored that in. Considering that we in the mouth of Christmas, are you satisfied that eight weeks will be adequate for the sequencing of the reform programme overall?

Mr Allison: I think so. We will also commence some of the reform options in the programme —

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): Yes. Further consultation.

Mr Allison: — as we go through the consultation so that we do not create a domino effect. We really want to get into it. The question that we will ask in the consultation is not, "Do you think that we should be doing this?" but, "Are we doing things in the right order?", because, to be candid, the reform programme has been heavily informed by what people have already told us in the call for evidence. As I said earlier, we want to make sure that people and organisations are given the chance to say, "Look, that doesn't sequence. It doesn't work for us. Why are you doing that one first and not this one?" or, as importantly, "Don't send five of those out in that quarter, because we will not get a chance to respond". The short answer is that, given the discrete nature of the consultation, eight weeks will be more than sufficient.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): As you say, there are strands of the delivery plan that you will want to start hitting in quarter 1 and quarter 2. When you have assessed the consultation responses, in advance of their going live, will you highlight to the Committee any concerns about or support for the programme or elements of it? Will you update the Committee even if the report is not completed?

Mr Allison: Very much so, Chair. As we said in our written brief, that is really important for me and my team, and certainly for the Minister. This is the first time that we have

the delivery plan. We will keep the Committee updated as we progress, not least because we want to hear your views and because there is an awful lot in the delivery plan that will come before you as consultation proposals and, subsequently, potential legislative amendments. We want to give you a fair wind on that.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): That is the bit that we are looking at, particularly the taxation elements that are going to be the first Justice Bill. We are doing the call for evidence as well. That is another engagement piece.

The Chair, Joanne, is not here today because she is not well, but I want say to you that we are aware that stakeholders were told that you were coming to brief the Committee in advance of our being told.

I highlight that as an area of concern. There is no problem with your engaging stakeholders — that is a good thing — but you should give the Committee its place in advance. We are glad that you are here, however.

My next question Steven, is on legal aid and the delivery programme. There have been noises around the Burgess review over legal aid and interim payments. We have in our pack today correspondence that was sent to the Minister first and subsequently sent to the Committee. You talked about doing a 12-week consultation. Is that on the interim payment? You also talked about potentially introducing fees in April and May. Did you mean that the mechanism would be introduced then, or is that when the payments would start to be made? Is that dependent on the budget for next year, or have you priced it in? May I have a wee bit more info on that, please?

Mr Allison: The April and May timetable is for the enabling legislation to be in force. When the enabling legislation puts the new fee schedules in place, those will apply to any new cases from that date, but that is contingent on the underpinning funding. If the funding is not there, we will not be able to introduce the legislation.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): Do you have a ballpark figure for that? At the moment, you are going through the budget process for next year.

Mr Allison: Yes. As I said to Mr Beattie, the figure for the totality of the uplifts that we are looking at, including for mileage, the interim payment, the refresher fees and so on, is between £9 million and £9·5 million. That is at a high level. We are working to progress it, but DOF colleagues and the Finance Minister will be asking for a very detailed business case. We think that we have a persuasive case, but we do not know whether, in the current climate, it will be funded.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): I touched on the correspondence that we got that had gone to the Minister first. Has there been ongoing engagement with the key stakeholders? There was protest action a month ago, and there is potential for more, depending on the sequencing. What engagement has there been? What engagement will there be over the next short period?

Mr Allison: There was engagement at ministerial level with Bar Council and Law Society officials and with various associations. That was followed up with briefings to explain at a high level where we are going, what may be coming through, and what the shape and themes of the delivery plan may be. I spoke on Monday and Tuesday of this week with the chief executive and the deputy chief executive of the Bar Council and the Law Society respectively to see whether we can get a date in the diary for next week.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): I saw that in the pack.

Mr Allison: The Bar and the Law Society are organisations in themselves. The Solicitors Criminal Bar Association is, I understand, an independent organisation made up of about 60 or 70 firms. I therefore want to take advice on the best way in which to engage, because I do not want to create divisions in the Law Society. Not that I think that there are divisions, but I just want to make sure that I land in the right way. As I said, I am waiting for a diary date next week with the Law Society and the Bar.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): OK.

We want to get into the space of launching the delivery plan and establishing the reference group first, after which we will start to engage with not just the Law Society and the Bar but all the other key stakeholders that will inform the shape of the plan.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): OK. On delivery, do you have a day in mind for going live with the public consultation and publishing the report?

Mr Allison: We hope to do so early next week. My being ambiguous is about wanting to make sure that the delivery plan is accessible in all formats. We are double-checking everything —.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): By next week, anyway.

Ms Bronagh O'Reilly (Department of Justice): By early next week.

Mr Allison: Definitely early next week. We are doing the final checks and double checks to make sure that the delivery plan is accessible in all formats.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): No bother. That is fair enough. No members have any other questions, so that is us for now. We will keep in contact with you at each stage. Thank you very much for coming to the Committee. Safe home.