Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I welcome the Minister of Justice, Naomi Long. She is joined by Hugh Widdis, the permanent secretary of the Department of Justice, and Deborah Brown, director of the justice delivery directorate. It is nice to have you with us, and you are welcome to the meeting. We look forward to hearing what you have to say. After that, we will have some questions.

I will give you an idea of the subject areas so that you will know where we are coming from. We highlighted five areas of interest to you in advance: the criminal Bar's strike, the Creswell case, the Policing Board review, the Civil Service handbook and the Office of the Police Ombudsman. Some other issues will be raised, including the minimum age of criminal responsibility, reasonable chastisement, transformation bids, violence against women and girls, the Prison Service, remand and sentencing and some issues around domestic abuse in the Programme for Government (PFG). There is nothing there that will cause you any difficulties, I would not have thought.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): We will see. [Laughter.]

It depends on the questions.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): You will know that our aim in all of these things is to be as constructive as we can. Where we may disagree, that is fine, but we will do so constructively and respectfully. The domestic abuse waiver may also feature in there somewhere. I will hand over to you to make some opening remarks, and then we will go to questions.

Mrs Long: Perfect. Thank you, Chair and members of the Committee, for your welcome. We very much appreciate the opportunity to meet you today. I will keep my opening remarks brief, because I realise that there are quite a few things that you want to go through at this stage, a year into the mandate. Things are very different, and people have got their teeth into issues of interest. I know that officials have been attending the Committee regularly, and I trust that that has been helpful. We value your input into the Department's work as we seek to advance our priorities. Hopefully, that engagement with officials is helpful. You have mentioned the issues that you want to raise, so I will keep my remarks brief so that we can spend as much time as possible on those.

I want to touch on a few current issues, but, of course, we will be open to questions afterwards. First, I want to note the publication of the Programme for Government last week. That was an important milestone for the Executive and should not be underestimated. The role of government is to protect citizens, keep communities safe and help them to feel safe and secure and have the confidence that they need to live productively and engage fully in society. I am really pleased, therefore, that the Programme for Government includes a safer communities priority. While the Department's work largely supports that priority, it is not solely for the Department of Justice. We explored that earlier this week when we were talking about things such as drug misuse and substance abuse. It is important that we work in partnership with other Departments. That is why having that priority in the Programme for Government as opposed to its being simply a departmental priority is so important. We will continue to collaborate and work closely with other statutory agencies and voluntary and community organisations. That is critical if we are to achieve our shared objectives, such as reducing offending and reoffending.

I am very much aware of the narrative around police numbers. I concur with the Chief Constable's ambition to stabilise and recover police officer numbers to a more sustainable position. Members will, of course, realise that the two periods when police officer numbers fell most dramatically were when the Assembly was not sitting, meaning that we did not have the oversight of a Justice Minister or an Assembly Committee. That was true when I came into office in 2020: there had been a drop-off in police numbers to around 7,000. In the two years when we had an Assembly and an Executive established, we managed to raise that by 2,100 through budgetary allocations made during that time. However, then, with the suspension in 2022, those numbers dropped again to a considerably lower level of 6,300. I can explain that further if members want to explore how that came about.

What is really important now is that we have recognised collectively as an Assembly and an Executive that we need to look at the increase in police numbers and that that needs to be done with a degree of pace. It also needs to be affordable, so I have repeatedly raised with the Secretary of State (SoS), the Finance Minister and other Executive colleagues the need for a better financial settlement for the Department of Justice. That message is, perhaps, more clearly understood than it was. I am also pleased that, in the past month, a business case has been submitted to the Department of Finance to move workforce levels up to 7,000 officers and 2,572 staff over the next three years. That work has been done by the Department in collaboration with the Policing Board and the Chief Constable of the PSNI.

It is incredibly difficult. You will be aware of the figures that we have talked about to achieve that. It works out at about £40 million a year for five years to do the recovery work that we want to do. That is not guaranteed, and it will have to go through the normal Budget processes, but I am reasonably optimistic. It is a lot of money, and I do not make out that it is anything other than that. However, when compared with the potential harm caused by not taking action at this time, it will be good value for money, which is really important in where we want to go.

It is increasingly difficult, though, to see how we can continue the current trajectory of the justice system unless we get that injection of funding, without which there is a risk of significant deterioration in public services and lasting damage to our citizens. That is not unique to DOJ, of course, and many who sit on other Committees or talk to colleagues who do will know that. The severity of the justice system's financial position is exacerbated by the combined effect of historical underfunding compared with need, the demand-led nature of the majority of services that justice organisations deliver and, I would argue, the fact that, on so many occasions, justice is the service of last resort: when other services are creaking under the weight and pressure that are being applied, it falls to justice to pick up the pieces. That has led to an increase in the complexity and amount of the pressure on the Department.

Colleagues have updated you on the budget for 2025-26, and you will be aware that we face significant challenges across the justice system. It is important to bear it in mind that reductions in spend in one area just create pressures in another business area and will cause further damage to the system as a whole that will cost more to rectify in the future. With some Departments, were you to throw the entire Budget at them right now, you would still not get the outcomes that you desire, because there are dysfunctions that need to be addressed. Justice is not in that space, however. With measured investment in the justice system at this time, we can avoid reaching the point at which the system is so broken that it is almost beyond repair. Furthermore, where that money is invested, it will be spent wisely. The transformation allocations that the Department of Finance announced last week indicated that DOJ had made strong bids for transformation, and we are proceeding with some of the unsuccessful bids as business as usual, because the work needs to be done anyway.

I assure the Committee that I will continue to advocate strongly for those additional resources for the Department. I trust that I have the Committee's full support in that. I pay tribute to the Department of Finance and successive Ministers of Finance in that regard, because, had our settlement this year followed the trajectory of previous years, it would have placed us in a completely impossible position. That has been recognised, so, whilst our settlement is still challenging, we are in a better place than we were when we returned to the Executive 12 months ago and, certainly, a better place than I anticipated we might be had the trajectory continued unabated in that direction.

The Department's appetite for reform and transformation is undiminished. As I mentioned, two of our projects were successful in being funded through the Executive's transformation fund. That shows not only our commitment to transformation but our ability to produce a strong case and to show how that transformation will potentially lead to increased efficiencies and better service delivery down the line.

I will say a few words about the Criminal Bar Association's (CBA) withdrawal of services. You will be aware that we had considerable discussion about that earlier in the week. Since the services were withdrawn, I have been deeply concerned about the impact on victims and witnesses. Geri Hanna, the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime, echoed those concerns even this week. I reassure members that, notwithstanding the challenges that the Department faces, I have consistently reached out and will continue to reach out to representatives of the criminal Bar and to the Bar Council, because, as I explained, whilst the list of concerns has shifted, those that the Department can address effectively have diminished. It is therefore important that we keep those lines of communication open. All sides want to see a return to full service as quickly as possible, and that is what I would like to happen.

I updated Members on the enabling access to justice programme on Tuesday. I want to give reasonable, proportionate and timely remuneration for the work undertaken, but we need to have the evidence base. Never has that been more important, given a context in which I am, essentially, competing with Education, Health and all the other Departments for the resources to implement change. The CBA case has to be robust. If its case is robust, nobody will argue harder for it than I will. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that those people, who have invested in their career, their skills and their professional development and who provide a high-quality service are remunerated in a way that will allow them to continue doing that for the benefit of citizens. Ultimately and legally, legal aid is for and is awarded to citizens. It is awarded not to individual professionals but to ordinary citizens. As members will recall, I have said many times that I see that as part of society's wider welfare safety net. We have an opportunity to reset the framework for justice delivery. We want those services to return to normal so that we can focus on that work and do not end up having to expend resource on the justice system's recovery from the strike.

I know that you have received regular briefings on the Justice Bill. I hope that those are helpful in your consideration of the Bill. Obviously, there are other legislative reforms that I would have liked to bring forward. Initially, the legislative programme for the mandate was five Bills. That had to be reduced, so I had to prioritise, as you are aware, because of the lack of an Assembly and Executive for two years. That prioritising involved looking at the changes that we can make in this mandate to most support the most vulnerable. Come the end of the mandate, there will be things for which we will have done preparatory work that can be taken forward by whomever is Justice Minister in the next mandate.

There will also be work that the Department will want to do at pace. If there is a sustained period of a functioning Assembly and Executive, there are real opportunities for us not just to catch up on the things that need to be done because of the various suspensions but to get ahead of the curve. Some really good practice is happening in Northern Ireland that others are interested in adopting elsewhere. We should be proud of that, rather than hiding our light under a bushel. I have been engaging with my counterparts in London, Scotland, Wales and Ireland to ensure that, where we can, we learn from best practice elsewhere and that, where ours is best practice, we share our experience and knowledge so that they learn from it, which, hopefully, will lead to a good resolution for the citizens across these islands.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Thank you, Minister. We will work through the topics in order and come to the other subjects at the end. I have questions about the Criminal Bar Association from Justin, Deirdre and Stephen. Justin, will you kick off for us, please?

Mr McNulty: Thanks, Chair. Thanks, Minister, for your presentation. I welcome the news this week of the pay uplift for the Bar. Given the tone of your statement earlier this week, going forward, I have concerns about the relationship between the Department and the criminal Bar, in that it remains strained. Could a further deterioration of that relationship lead to more strike action? What assurances can you give to victims and witnesses, who are often the most vulnerable in our society, that they will not again become collateral damage? Have you considered mediation as a means to close the gaps on the issues outstanding between the Department and the Criminal Bar Association to ensure that this does not happen again?

Mrs Long: It is fair to say that the relationships are strained at the moment. That is certainly the view of the criminal Bar. I do not necessarily lay the fault for that at the feet of my officials, who have gone out of their way and above and beyond in the level of engagement that they have had with the criminal Bar and, more widely, the Bar Council. Although the criminal Bar is currently on strike, the rest of the Bar is benefiting from the changes that we are bringing forward through the enabling access to justice strategy. I have met the Bar and discussed my concerns directly with the criminal Bar. At the end of the day, relationships are a two-way street in all regards. I am willing to do what I can to reach a settlement with which it is satisfied and content, but it has to be based on evidence. Part of what we did to try to resolve the outstanding dispute with the criminal Bar was to engage Judge Burgess to undertake the work that he did. He came back with strong recommendations that we have accepted and are implementing as part of our overall enabling access to justice programme. From my perspective, we have gone a long way to meet those concerns.

When I met the Bar, perhaps its biggest concern was that I would not act at pace. I think that I have put that to bed, given how quickly we instigated the initial actions, which are those that are most impactful for the Bar. Its second concern was the lack of trust. I will say to the Committee what I said to the Bar: the only way in which we will rebuild trust is if it walks with me on the journey. We cannot rebuild trust by simply sitting on opposite sides of a table and engaging in a negotiation. I have shown my willingness to do that work at pace and to accept the recommendations of Judge Burgess. I have shown willingness to take cognisance of the Bar's concerns about the order in which we implement and consider other parts of the programme. We have looked at how quickly the Bar would feel the benefit of certain measures. You will be appreciative of the fact that solicitors would feel a more immediate benefit from an uplift in fees than would barristers, who often have to wait a longer time to be paid. We looked, therefore, at the issue of interim payments, which is an administrative issue. They would not be required to submit further bills or do further work; it would just be an administrative process that would allow them, for example, to receive 50% of their payment at the point of a case being 50% complete as opposed to waiting until the end of the case. We looked at all those things, and we set up the working group that Tom Burgess asked us to set up, which was to bottom out the remaining evidence base.

If you want to judge me, judge me on what I have done. When I was asked to do the 16% uplift — when the Department initially received that recommendation — you can imagine that eyebrows were raised, because it is a significant uplift. I have, however, agreed that it is necessary, given that it is the first uplift in 10 years. An uplift of 16% sounds like a lot in one go, but, through the working group and the work that we are doing now, we are trying to ensure that we do not have another 10-year hiatus before we next look at fees. That delay has been part of the problem, and a lot of factors contributed to it.

If we are to rebuild trust, there will need to be a two-way street. It is about saying, "Now that the main issues that were raised with me have been addressed, it is time to go back to full service". I will work through the remaining issues, such as concerns about complex cases, which a number of Members raised with me in the Chamber on Tuesday. I will work through that, and we will get the evidence that we require to substantiate any further uplift. It is not about placing hurdles in the way of resolving the problem; it is about being honest, because, Justin, you are absolutely right that it is the most vulnerable — victims, witnesses and, I have to say, defendants — who suffer. I know that we will talk about remand later: many of those defendants are in custody but have not been proven guilty of an offence. That is not a situation that we should countenance: it has costs attached to it that are to the detriment of the wider justice system. I want to see the issue resolved. If the CBA wants to see it resolved, we will be able to do that.

The final part of your question was about mediation. The reason why I do not believe that mediation is appropriate is that I am not the employer in this situation. There is a danger of entering into mediation as though this were a two-way conversation between the criminal Bar and me. I have to respect all parts of the Bar, not just the criminal Bar. I have to look at the immigration solicitors' issues and immigration payments generally, and I have to look at the family Bar and the civil Bar. I have to take all of those into account and consider them. Ultimately, however, I do not employ barristers. That is not my role. Their remuneration is a matter of their being employed by members of the public. I am trying to ensure that, through the legal aid system, members of the public are able to get a barrister to take their case. Ultimately, that is the role of the legal aid system. There is no mediation or halfway point at which we can meet, because I am not the employer in this situation. It is not like another remuneration dispute where I can simply enter into negotiation and reach a figure.

Further to that, this is not about asking how we reach a conclusion that satisfies everybody; it is about asking what the evidence base is. Legal aid is there to pay for work done. We have to understand the complexity and cost of that work and the time taken to complete it. We have to ensure that the process is open and transparent. Simply entering into a situation in which we barter over the figure does not tie it back to the key thing that comes through from Public Accounts Committee (PAC) inquiries and so on into the area, which is that it needs to be evidence-based. I have already said to the criminal Bar and other parts of the Bar that, where they can present evidence that their work has become more onerous and more complex, is taking up more time than it did and that the link between remuneration and effort has, in their view, been broken, we, as a Department, will take it on board and look to address the issue in the same way as we did with the 16% uplift recommendation, which was evidenced.

Put bluntly, being in a situation of not providing a full service does not change the vires of what I can do in the Department of Justice; I am confident of that. Therefore, there is no leverage to be achieved by continuing to withdraw services; that simply forces us to look at alternative methods of provision. That is not a route that we want to go down, because, first, it is a distraction from the Department's business, and, secondly, I fear that any change to how we do this — people being free to choose their own barrister in an open market and all those other things — would be deleterious to our objective, which is that everybody should have equal access to justice. I do not want to go down that route. I want to focus very much on resolving the dispute, but it has to be on the basis of hard evidence.

Mr McNulty: Minister, thank you for your long answer. Mediation is not just for employers and employees: in certain other situations, it can be used where two sides cannot meet in the middle, which is why you may wish to consider it. Given the strained relationship, can you reassure the Committee that submissions from the barrister profession on legal aid remuneration and the enabling access to justice delivery plan and through the independent working group will be assessed objectively?

Mrs Long: I can absolutely give that assurance. Of course we will do that. Remember: the working group is not something that is happening in the future; it is working now. Thankfully, the criminal Bar is at the table along with everyone else. That is already happening. We have our departmental economists and statisticians there providing input, scrutinising the figures and helping to find the evidence base that we need. I am not trying to deprive people of money that they have rightfully earned, and I want to see the profession flourish. It is important for the justice system that it does. I cannot do that alone. It requires the Law Society and the Bar to be partners in that. To be fair, the Solicitors Criminal Bar Association has been a partner in that and is working with us at pace to, for example, look at issues around Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) interviews and the cost.

To be candid, few of us would want to be called out of our bed at 3.00 am to go to a police station to deal with a case in custody for, I think, around £40 at the moment. Few of us would want to be in that situation, so we have to be realistic. If we want the profession to be sustainable, we have to pay people at a rate that is appropriate for the disruption to their life and takes account of unsocial hours and all those things that we expect. Those are all issues that we are dealing with at pace, and, as I said, if we can get that closed down in time, we will include any additional uplifts to the 16% in the secondary legislation that we hope to bring forward in May.

We are not putting it on the long finger at all. The sooner we can get it resolved and the sooner we can get the evidence bottomed out, the sooner we will get a completion to this. That, I think, is what everybody wants. I cannot give guarantees about whether the evidence brought to us will withstand scrutiny, but I can give guarantees that it will be given a fair hearing.

Mr McNulty: Thank you, Minister.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Minister, I am conscious that we have quite a list of members, so —

Mrs Long: Hopefully, the rest will be slightly less contentious.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): — I have everybody well warned about preambles.

Miss Hargey: Thanks for your update so far and the statement the other day. It seems to be a negotiation that is nearly playing out in public, and I think that we all want to see an end to the ongoing action. I know that you met the Bar on, I think, 18 February. Will you have a follow-up meeting to try to find a resolution — I am not saying that it is a mediation process — and to bottom out whatever issues are there?

Your statement the other day touched on alternative models, and I think that everybody was concerned about the fact that it was in the statement. Obviously, it is in the statement, so you have been looking at options. Can you give any flavour of which alternative models you are looking at?

Mrs Long: There are two parts to that. First of all, it is important that, now that Tom Burgess has agreed to take the working group forward, I put this in his hands. We have put a formal structure in place to deal with the issues around remuneration, and it would be inappropriate for me to engage in some kind of back channel, because that would undermine the work that Tom Burgess is doing. The profession asked for somebody independent to chair it. Initially, I suggested that one of our departmental economists or statisticians could chair the working group, and, for obvious reasons, including the lack of trust that I referred to, the profession was not particularly content with that. Therefore, I reviewed that position and spoke to Tom Burgess, and he was willing to take the work on. He is now chairing that working group independently, and that was one of the things that the profession wanted as part of this.

I now need to let him look at that evidence, and you are right: it is not a negotiation. I will continue to engage with the Bar on other issues, because there are many other issues beyond the dispute with the criminal Bar where we are on the same page and are trying to achieve the same objectives. I want to work with the Bar and the Law Society to deliver what they want, which is a stable and sustainable profession. Not all the levers are in my gift, but there are things that may be, and I am happy to work with them. We will continue to meet, but, on the issue of remuneration, we have now handed that over to an evidence-based process, and I need to let that run its course rather than engage in further negotiation.

You mentioned alternative mechanisms. I simply highlighted that possibility, Deirdre, because it is important that Members are aware of what could happen if this continues for a prolonged period. It started in December, and we are now in March.

We do not know what will happen for the rest of the spring and summer, and, if it continues for a sustained period, what that means for individuals and for the justice system is stark. We have to look at scoping out alternative ways of providing for defence in the same way as we have a Public Prosecution Service (PPS).

I am not enamoured with the idea of a public defender's office. I have always been really clear that one of the important things that we have is the freedom for an individual to choose their own defence and not be limited in how they do that. In our most recent meeting with them, criminal Bar representatives said that, in those category A and D cases and in retrials, the remuneration simply did not make it sustainable for them to continue that work. That goes beyond simply saying that we need the 16% uplift or the tweaks for more complex cases that we are currently talking about. If they are saying that it is unsustainable for independent barristers to do that work, we will have to look at a different delivery model. It would be reckless of me, frankly, as Justice Minister, not to ask officials to start to scope that out. However, that is in its very early stages, so we are not settled on models and on what options might be available. There may be hybrid options that are available, where we look at, as a separate issue, particular retainers for people who work in, for example, the criminal system.

There are also wider points. While some people in the criminal Bar are highly remunerated, as was drawn out during questions to the statement on Tuesday, there are those in the criminal profession who struggle to get work. It may be that some of those people would be willing to do the work if we had a different structure in place that allowed them to gain High Court experience and get a foothold in the profession. If there are mechanisms by which we can do that, we need to explore all options.

This is, I think, the fifth dispute that there has been with the criminal Bar. We cannot allow the justice system, either through this dispute or through future disputes, to have all of the positives with accelerating justice — there have been positives, so we are seeing justice speeding up — but then, every time we get to the point where it starts to speed up and we start to turn a corner, there is a dispute and we end up going backwards and having to invest money in recovery. That is not a sustainable model. If we can resolve the situation with the criminal Bar for the longer term, including the more regular reviews, I think that we can park any discussion on what else we might need to do. In the interim and until I have some sense that the Bar is intent on coming back to full service, I will have to scope out what alternative provision might be necessary. That could not happen overnight, but we will have to look at it to ensure the sustainability of the justice system as a whole.

Miss Hargey: There were no specifics or timelines on that in the statement.

I want to go back to the first point about engagement. It probably is about more than the remuneration, so I am keen to know what ongoing engagement the Department will have. The other day, the issue of reasonable adjustment during this period came up. Whatever time it takes — I would like it to be sooner rather than later — I would like a resolution to be found. If it is not, will there be proactive engagement between the Department and the Bar to look at the issues beyond remuneration to get a resolution as quickly as we can for everybody?

Mrs Long: At this stage, the dispute is solely about remuneration. The sole issue that the criminal Bar has raised with us is that it does not believe that criminal barristers are being fairly paid for the amount of work that they do. It says that the model is not sustainable in that regard. That is solely what the dispute is about. The work that Tom Burgess is doing may be able to deal with that more robustly. Tom Burgess looked at the criminal Bar specifically and came up with a 16% uplift. As a Department, we accepted that, if we were going to apply that to the criminal Bar, it should apply across the entire Bar because, whilst there are aspects of uniqueness to the criminal Bar, the same passage of time has affected other parts of the service.

We also need to look at the age and gender profile, for example, of those who work in different parts of the Bar. To apply the uplift in only one part of the Bar could be problematic unless there is a good and strong reason for doing so. That is where the evidence base that we are seeking with Tom is really important. If the criminal Bar can show us that there is a strong reason why certain fees need to be changed, we are open to that.

With regard to wider engagement and the sustainability of the profession, a host of things play into that. Many young barristers find it difficult to take cases and get cases. Many people are called to the Bar and end up not continuing with a career at the Bar because they simply cannot access enough work to be sustainable, and we need to look at that. Another problem that we have unearthed but not yet found a solution to and are engaging on with the Bar is that women who are at the Bar may find a case lasting for two years. They may do 18 months of work, find that they are pregnant and not be able to represent their client in court. Somebody else will take that case over and be paid for that case, but the person who did the preparatory work for a year and a half will get nothing. We are looking at that, and interim fees will help. They will not resolve the issue entirely but will help to ensure that, if you do the work, you will be paid for it, whether or not you make it into the courtroom.

Those are the sorts of issues that we are looking at because it is important that the profession is sustainable. However, it is also important that we have an evidence base on which to move forward. That is why I have said that we will continue to engage with the criminal Bar, the Law Society and others who provide legal advice and guidance in that space. Other organisations, such as Housing Rights, also provide advice and guidance to people through a different model and scheme. Immigration solicitors operate through a different model, so we need to look at how we ensure that the citizen is at the heart of the system and focus on that and on how we provide that service best. I want to do that in a way that sustains equality of access so that those who are reliant on legal aid do not get a second-rate service. One reason why I would like not to have to explore any other contractual arrangements is that there is a danger with them that that would not be the case. Secondly, I want to ensure that the profession is able to flourish. It is part of the justice system albeit that I am not directly responsible for it.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I am conscious of time as we have a lot to get through. I ask everyone — apologies, Minister, but you included — to be a succinct as they can, please.

Mrs Long: I will do my best.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Thank you.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Minister, for your evidence so far. I said to you in the Chamber during the week that you are treading a difficult path. You really are.

I am really concerned about the derogations that you tried to get in for the 17 most vulnerable cases that fell through. Have you considered taking any legal recourse against the Bar to help with the 17 most vulnerable cases?

Mrs Long: Ultimately, in those cases, the defendant has a right to choose their barrister, so that relationship — the contract, if you like, not that it is a contract — is between the individual and the person who represents them in court, so there is not that opportunity. Nor do I want to be in that space. Repeat litigation by the Bar against the Department or vice versa is not where we want to be, if we are to build relationships.

Even since Tuesday, there has been some progress on engagement. Seven cases that had to be adjourned because of the withdrawal of services are yet to be listed again. We do not have the reasons for that as yet, but those cases did not go ahead because of the action, and they do not have a new date. Three of the 17 cases that were of concern will commence next week, and about 10 of the 17 now have a date scheduled between March and September. However, those dates may be impacted on if there is future action. What we are looking for by way of a derogation is essentially a promise that, irrespective of any action taken, those cases will proceed at pace. That will mean that the cases will progress even if there is a break due to the Bar withdrawing services completely

I would rather that we did not need the derogation and that we were moving at pace with all the cases. To be clear, any victim and any witness can be vulnerable simply with the passage of time and the pressure that that creates. Some, however, are much more vulnerable than others, and those are the ones whose cases we are very much focused on addressing. Certainly, on the basis of our discussions with the Bar over the past couple of days, there seems to be some progress on the scheduling of those 17 key cases, so only seven are now outstanding and awaiting a new date.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Minister.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Minister, before we leave that subject, I have a couple of things to check with you. Are the family and civil Bar participating in the working group?

Mrs Long: Yes. The civil Bar is represented at it, I think, but the working group is focused on the criminal Bar at this time.

Mr Hugh Widdis (Department of Justice): The working group is all about gathering evidence in order to provide information so that we can analyse what must change. That is in a specific area: criminal legal aid rather than civil and family.

Mrs Long: That is the working group piece. The remainder of the Bar is content with the 16% uplift that we have offered, with the exception of immigration solicitors, as I said, and we are working with them on that.

If I may mention the work that I referred to in the Chamber on Tuesday in response to Ciara's question on my statement, I have corrected the record. You will get a letter from me, but the increase is about 125%. I undersold myself when I said that it was 30%. That was based on an original calculation, but it has since been worked out that the increase is about 125%. That is about £1 million per annum for that work. Although that sounds like a large increase, it is a relatively small amount of money for us to invest in that space.

There will be other parts of the enabling access to justice programme in which, when it comes to the wider ongoing review of fees, the entire Bar and Law Society will be involved. This is specific work that was recommended by Judge Burgess, and it is what we are focused on at the moment.

It is ultimately for the Law Society and the criminal Bar to decide whom they send to a working group; we do not dictate that to them. They would agree that, at the moment, representatives of the criminal Bar are the people who need to be engaged most closely in the working group because they are affected by the change in what has been described as "swings and roundabouts", whereby you get slightly more for some cases and slightly less for others but feel overall that you have been fairly remunerated. It feels as though, over time, with the complexity of cases, that has been broken. We feel that that work needs to be done to re-establish the basis on which we pay those people.

Mr Widdis: I reassure you that the working group has already met and started work. I understand that the first meeting was positive.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): We note that you have done away with your reference group and gone straight to a working group to save time.

I have two further points. Presumably, you will work on an evidence base for whatever alternatives you are scoping. It would be difficult to justify not dealing with the Bar on certain aspects because of the lack of an evidence base if you are dealing with others without an evidence base.

My second point is on the immigration issue that you have just raised. There is a considerable difference between 16% and 125%. How was that figure arrived at? The immigration practitioners had wanted a set fee of roughly £1,000, so what was the thinking behind 125%, and what does it equate to in hourly rates?

Mrs Long: I do not have the figure for it in hourly rates, but it was based on work that was done with immigration solicitors in England and Wales. That work informed our work in this space. To bring us into line under the proposed fee structure would require an uplift of 125%. That is a cost of about £1 million a year to the Department, which is affordable for us.

For advice and assistance in asylum and human rights cases, a fixed fee of £1,000 plus VAT or inbuilt hourly rates up to the base limit of that is one of the things that the immigration solicitors have asked for. They have three demands: eligibility for advice and assistance for persons held in Larne House immigration detention centre to be non-means-tested in the same way as it would be under PACE; for that advice and assistance to be remunerated as per PACE remuneration; and the doubling of tribunal fees to a fixed fee of £2,400, with inbuilt exceptionality provision for cases that go beyond 12 hours of preparation to be calculated at £90 per hour. That is roughly what they are asking for. We reckon that the cost of that would be somewhere between £800,000 and £1·25 million a year. What we had proposed with the 125% uplift would cost about £1 million. I think that we are in the same space, which is why I think that it will be resolved reasonably quickly.

The rationale for the change is that immigration law and cases have become much more complex over recent years than they were when the fees were initially set out. There have also been a lot of changes in the immigration structures. As you will appreciate, we do not have oversight of those, but they have led to that change. That was acknowledged in England and Wales, and they have looked at their fee structures, which is why we are looking at ours.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Does that require consultation, Minister?

Mrs Long: In what regard?

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): The uplift of 125%. The thing that slightly concerns me is that, for everybody here dealing with that stuff, it is 16%, and that uplift has not been compared with England and Wales at this stage.

Mrs Long: We have a more generous system, and the work is not necessarily like for like. That is why we cannot do a straight read-across. I can assure you that the rates in England and Wales were considered as part of Judge Burgess's work. We used England and Wales as a comparator for the starting point of the work with immigration because it is the same immigration system. It is a UK-wide process.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is fair enough. I just wanted to understand.

Mrs Long: Your point about consultation is a fair one. Obviously, we will bring it through as secondary legislation, so there will be an opportunity for consultation. The programme is out for consultation at the moment, as you know. People will have an opportunity to feed back through that process. We have asked the Bar and the Law Society to do so across the spectrum, not just for criminal cases. We will also have the opportunity through the secondary legislation process to get feedback not only from the Committee but from the Assembly and beyond.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Will you also look at the evidence base for alternatives as part of your scoping?

Mrs Long: We will have to look at that too. We will have to look at other systems, but you will appreciate that I would much prefer that we got the reassurance that we need now that we do not have to go down that route. My first priority to resolve the dispute so that we do not need to get into that space.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is fair, because you do not want to have to reinvent the wheel.

Mrs Long: Correct.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): If everybody is done with questions on the Criminal Bar Association, we will move on to the Creswell-Simpson case.

Miss Hargey: We have been communicating with the Department about that case, Naomi. Thanks for widening the scope of the review, because we all want to make sure that we prevent it from happening again. I have a couple of queries. The review's terms of reference talk about "offending behaviour". Can we get clarity on what constitutes offending behaviour? We are concerned about whether that is limited to convictions, because, in this case, it was the perpetrator's abusive behaviours. We want to satisfy ourselves that those behaviours are being picked up. It is not necessarily about looking at convictions. I want to get clarity on that. I am conscious that you might not be able to provide that information now, in which case a written follow-up would be good. There is also the issue of cooperation with other agencies outside the North. I am conscious that the perpetrator, as part of the equestrian world, went to the South of Ireland and across the water. If there was any cooperation, will the review's scope mean that that is looked at?

The other query is about the public protection arrangements. Jan Melia, who is doing the review, is an expert in the field in which she works, but will the Department work to give her the experience around public protection arrangements, particularly offender management arrangements? Will she be updated on how those things operate from a safeguarding point of view? Her expertise is in domestic violence, but that may not translate to managing offenders in the system. Are you satisfied that those issues will be looked at? As I said, you might not have all of that information today, but I am keen to get some follow-up on those issues.

Mrs Long: It is important, now that the review has commenced, that I do not provide a running commentary on it and its terms and conditions. It is important that I hand it over to Jan and allow her to say whether she needs further powers, a larger scope or whatever. She was content that the terms of reference were sufficiently broad to allow her to follow whatever path she needs to follow to bottom out what happened in that case. The terms are expansive, and they provide the reviewer with the scope to look at any and all issues that she considers to be relevant to the case.

I, as Justice Minister, cannot compel cross-border and cross-jurisdictional cooperation, but it is something that we expect to happen if that is where the investigation leads. Through my engagement with Jess Phillips, the Safeguarding Minister in England and Wales, Jim O'Callaghan, the South's Justice Minister, and his predecessor, Helen McEntee, we have strong relationships in that space. Also, I should acknowledge my counterpart in Scotland, Angela Constance. There are opportunities here. I do not imagine that barriers will be thrown up to cooperation in that space, because, when it comes to violence against women and girls and to domestic and sexual abuse, we are pretty much all trying to find ways to work together in a cross-jurisdictional space.

In respect of clarity on behaviours, the review will not be limited solely to looking at convictions; it will consider other information, such as that from health and social care trusts.

Your last question about was how the reviewer will engage with the system. It is important to say that, for example, the management of offenders is covered by the Probation Board for Northern Ireland, the PSNI, the social care trusts and, obviously, the prisons, through any input that they may have. The other organisations represented on the public protection arrangements Northern Ireland or on the multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC) can be invited to participate in that review at the discretion of the reviewer. As you rightly say, she is more than au fait with the need to have access to those. The organisations that have already been approached have responded positively to say that they are willing to engage.

Hopefully, we will be able to provide some useful learning across the system, because there is something inherently concerning not just about this case but about a number of cases over recent years, in that we have seen vulnerability exploited by individuals who have behaved in a predatory manner and the fact that vulnerable victims are often not aware of their previous conduct. It is something that we can all learn from. The Department of Justice and its agencies will take away any learning and act at pace to deliver on that.

Miss Hargey: This is a quick one, which, again, is probably one for you to take away. The review is looking at the Western Health and Social Care Trust, but my understanding is that Creswell and the victim lived in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust.

Mrs Long: Yes, that is correct.

Miss Hargey: It is just to make sure that there is —.

Mrs Long: There is no issue with that. As we said, we scoped it on the basis of what was already known, but we gave the reviewer the powers to go beyond that, expand it and invite other agencies. If, at any time, she is not receiving full cooperation, I have no doubt that she will make us, as the Department, aware of that, and we will ensure that she gets it.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Minister, we have written to you on that, because, as all of those things materialise and recommendations are forthcoming, our fear is that there will not be one place in which leadership is taken to ensure that the recommendations are implemented. We have written to you on that basis to highlight the fact that we are a bit worried, because dear knows where this could lead. We are aware that there are other cases working their way through the system that could feed into the review. We have written to you on that basis. You know that Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) makes recommendations and, when it goes back two years later, stuff has not moved on. We want to make sure that things do not fall down because there are too many cooks.

Mrs Long: I give you my assurance. As you understand, there is no legislative basis for a domestic homicide review in the normal circumstances because of the date of Katie's death; it did not fall within the purview of that. I initiated the review because the issues arising from it are significant and serious and warrant that consideration. I give you my guarantee that, when we get any review report, we will certainly follow up on the issues that are core to DOJ's functions, but we will also put pressure on other Ministers and Departments to do likewise, because, unless we approach it collaboratively, we will not succeed. Safeguarding, for example, is the responsibility of the Department of Health, but Justice has a key role to play in that and so on and so forth. We want to ensure that there is a cross-Executive approach. Before bringing forward the review, we made Executive colleagues aware of it. There has been a supportive environment at the Executive for the review, so I expect Ministers to want to ensure that they follow through on the learnings.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Lovely. Thank you. Deirdre, are you done?

Miss Hargey: I suppose that, when you have concluded the review process, you will meet the relevant Ministers. Health is one key area of concern, so as long as —.

Mrs Long: There may be others.

Miss Hargey: Yes, 100%.

Mrs Long: There may be learning in the space of sport and Communities. The case has also raised questions with us about things like abuse-of-trust offences, because, until now, we have always looked at specific categories. For example, at the minute, religious institutions and sporting organisations are covered by the abuse-of-trust legislation, but I am conscious that there could be other areas in which people are equally vulnerable that simply have not surfaced. We are looking at how we can strengthen that legislation to look at situations where, in particular, you have a difference in the power dynamic between adults and young people or, indeed, just between participants in any activity.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Thank you.

Right, members, we have 35 minutes and 11 areas to cover, so — [Laughter.]

Seriously, now.

Stephen, have you got a question on the Policing Board review?

Mr Dunne: Yes. Thank you, Minister, for your presentation. In January, on the back of the review, you said that you would take time to consider the report. I am keen to tease out how long that will be. What will be the next steps to make the Policing Board more efficient and effective for everybody, ultimately?

Mrs Long: The most important thing to say is that the review, as a health check, actually had a reasonably positive outcome in that it said that the board was, by and large, working well. That is not to say that it did not highlight areas for improvement, but we should all take comfort from the fact that the review did not find that the structure was either past its sell-by date or completely dysfunctional. That is encouraging. Obviously, we have published the report. If I can, I want to take the opportunity to thank the review panel, Paul Sweeney and Dr John Topping, for their work.

The Policing Board is considering the issues that are for it to consider; the police are considering the issues for them; and we in the Department are considering the issues for us. As you know, on 20 February, we had a tripartite meeting to discuss the review. We recognised immediately the content of the report in some areas and said, "Yes, that is something that we have heard or discussed before". There were other areas, perhaps, on which people had questions about what exactly was anticipated or what was meant by certain parts of the report. It was felt by all who were present that it would be useful to have a presentation from Paul Sweeney and John Topping. That will be on 7 April, and then we will continue to work beyond that to see how we go about implementing the recommendations that we accept. Of course, as is the case with any review, we may not accept every recommendation. We may not feel that every recommendation is appropriate. However, we know that we want to look at the areas that, we think, will enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the board's role in scrutinising, holding to account and supporting the Chief Constable in his work. I think that those are the areas that we will look at first.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Does anybody else have a question on the Policing Board review? No. Lovely. Thank you.

The fourth area is the Northern Ireland Civil Service handbook. Doug.

Mr Beattie: Minister, I have pestered you about this on a number of occasions. You will know that the levels of sickness absence in the DOJ are higher than they are everywhere else. That is due to the levels in the Northern Ireland Prison Service. Over the past 12 months, there were 96 assaults on prison officers. In the rest of the Civil Service put together, there were fewer than a handful. Can you honestly not see that what we really need is a Civil Service staff handbook — I know that it is not your remit, but we need to fight for this — that has an annex that covers our Prison Service specifically?

Mrs Long: There are a few things to take on board. First of all, it has to be said that assaults on prison officers, like assaults on police officers, are completely unacceptable. It is my view and that of the director general that we need to take a zero-tolerance approach to violence against prison officers. I have set out previously, in response to questions that Doug and others have raised, that people may not just be adjudicated on under prison rules for that violence; they may receive further criminal convictions as a result of it. It is important that people recognise that they are under a duty to cooperate with the Prison Service when they are in our custody and care and that violence is not acceptable. That is the first issue with regard to reducing the levels of sickness absence.

The other issue that we need to factor in is that it is not just about assaults. I know that you bottomed that out with the Finance Minister earlier in the week. The Prison Service is also a highly stressful environment in which people are exposed to trauma regularly.

As you know, I have done a lot of work on, for example, ensuring access for prison officers to the Police Rehabilitation and Retraining Trust (PRRT) support systems. When they go to open up a cell in the morning, they do not know what they will find on the other side of the door. Increasingly, they deal with people with complex mental health issues, addiction issues and complex needs. The stress of the job also has an impact on the prison officers' working environment. It is not just when there are instances of violence; their day-to-day work has become stressful and complex too.

The third thing, Doug, is that, when there are higher levels of sickness coupled with an increasing prison population, which has been the case over the past number of years, we will see sickness levels rise because people will suffer from burnout. That is a real concern of mine, and that is why I gave the go-ahead to the recruitment of more prison officers. Hopefully, by the end of the summer or the start of September, we will see those officers on the ground and able to implement that.

On the question about the Civil Service handbook, we have had the conversation many times about the need to understand the distinctive nature of prison officers' working environment with regard to exposure to trauma and violence. That is an entirely valid issue. The Civil Service handbook is not necessarily the only place where that can be addressed, however. There are HR people from the Department of Finance who are embedded in the Northern Ireland Prison Service who are able to understand those nuances. There is always room for improvement.

It may be best if I hand over to Hugh on this question. HR is Hugh's bailiwick, and it is not for me, as Minister, to dabble in that. It is probably better that the answer comes from you, Hugh.

Mr Widdis: Yes. I support what the Minister said. The handbook is intended to apply to the whole Civil Service, but it is negotiated centrally with representatives of all the trade unions, including the Prison Officers Association (POA) and so on. It is not as though it is closed off and applies only to some kind of traditional image of a civil servant — someone who happens to work in an office or come up with policy or whatever. It is intended to cover everybody. There are mechanisms in it as well that, to be fair, Mr Beattie, although applicable to all civil servants, deal specifically with injury. Where there is a case of injury, disease or assault, for example, that has happened as a result of a third party, there are ameliorations built into things such as the sickness absence periods, how long you might get sick pay and so on. It is not as though it is not dealt with: there are provisions in the handbook that are intended to deal with it.

Generally speaking, we are very conscious of issues of sickness across the service. We have a supportive environment for staff in which we try to ensure that everybody is looked after, while the taxpayer also gets value for money. Injury, stress and anxiety are common across the Civil Service, although injury is perhaps less common for civil servants other than those who work in the Prison Service. We recognise that the problems that cause sickness absence across the service are multifaceted, and we are working centrally and within the Department to resolve and improve those issues.

Mr Beattie: Hugh, I hope that the Minister does not mind me coming back to you. That raises a good point. The staff handbook talks about excusal of sickness absence, but it does not allow excusal of sickness absence for mental health issues, which is something that the Minister mentioned. It talks only about injury and disease. It does not take into account the uniquely stressful situation that prison officers face.

Not one of the Civil Service human resources (HR) team that is embedded in the Prison Service has ever been a prison officer, so they do not fully understand what those officers go through. I say again that we still use the word "inefficiency" in relation to officers who are off sick due to mental health issues. If I may say so, there is a huge piece about the fact that prison officers and staff are civil servants but their role is so divorced from and unique when compared with those in the rest of the Civil Service. They must be looked at somewhat differently from the rest of the civil servants.

Mr Widdis: Paid access and waiver on the extension is limited to issues of, for example, injury, disease and assault. That can include psychological injury, however, so, while the handbook does not specify mental health per se, if a psychological impact were to come from that environment —

Mr Beattie: Hugh, can I jump in, please? Sorry to jump in and drag this out. That is not the case. I asked about that, and the answer that I got from the Civil Service was no. It used the three key words that you just used. It would not allow us to use the combination of people who have mental health stress because of their role in the Prison Service. It specifically said no to that.

Mr Widdis: It is not saying that it is every mental health issue, but, if it is a psychological injury that falls within the policy, it should be covered. I do not want to get into any individual cases, but I am happy to follow up separately.

Mr Beattie: That is fine.

Mr Dunne: On the back of that, that links to the figures showing that assaults on prison staff have trebled in the past four years from 32 in 2020 to 96 in 2024. That is included in the pressures on the Prison Service. Linking that with the recruitment process, I am keen for an update on that, given that there are 150 vacancies for prison officers, I believe, yet you were seeking to recruit 75. Even recruiting that number will leave a significant gap. I am keen to hear more about that. Are there any solutions to that?

Mrs Long: The business case that was brought to me and the request from the director general was that we needed to recruit around 75 officers, and I was able to give the go-ahead to that. That is what the request that I received was. Of course, we could probably do with additional officers at some stage, and we can look at that as part of future Budget settlements. We have the resource to recruit those 75 prison officers, and some of them are already in training and some will be passing out. We have had a number of passing-out parades and attestation ceremonies in this Building.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I missed it with COVID.

Mrs Long: Yes, I know. There have been a number in this Building. Even over the past year, there have been a number of those attestation ceremonies. I am optimistic that we will get to a situation where we have, if you like, the right size of prison service.

There is a wider issue. Ten years ago, levels of assault and potential challenges in the prisons were higher. We went through a low period. If you compare now with the COVID years, for example, you will get completely different figures, because now, for example, we have significant numbers of prisoners who are doubling up in their cells where, during COVID, no one was doubling up. We had a much smaller prison population in 2020 than we have now. The comparator is not the same.

It is true to say that, as a prison becomes fuller and more overcrowded, it becomes a much tenser environment. People's lack of ability to withdraw, to find space and to manage emotions and tensions becomes much more acute. It is a more stressful environment, and we are acutely aware of that. That is one reason why we have invested so heavily in the mental health and well-being of the officers who are doing that job.

The reviews from CJINI show that our prisons are a much calmer and stabler environment than they were for many years. We should not lose sight of the fact that, even with an increased population, that remains the case, but that does not diminish the fact that every assault on a prison officer is completely unacceptable. We need to take a zero-tolerance approach to that, and, as you know, as part of the sentencing Bill that I hope to introduce, we are looking at other assaults on public workers. We need to take cognisance of the fact that, when someone is providing that service in the Prison Service, that has to be respected and they cannot go into work either expecting to be abused or feeling that, if they are, it is not taken seriously. I think that the service is clear in the way that it delivers that that is not the case, and I think that most prison officers will recognise that.

With respect to the issue of psychological injury, Doug, we can go back and get to the bottom of that with the Department of Finance, but it is certainly my understanding that, where there is psychological injury as a result of something that has happened in the workplace, that can be addressed through the current policy. We will get to the bottom of that and seek clarification on it for you.

Mr Beattie: Of course. I would not want to focus on one case. You are absolutely right on that. Thank you very much.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I will follow up on this finally. We visited Maghaberry, and we met people at round tables and moved around. At every table, that was the main issue. When we have met former prison officers, that has been the main issue. In many respects, they regard themselves as much more akin to the police than the Civil Service. The Committee's frustration has been that we flagged that up to the Committee for Finance and to the Department of Finance, and we were pretty much stonewalled.

The Civil Service is the Civil Service, but everybody, to a man, in the Prison Service, including, I think, the director general, will take the view that what is there does not take account of the unique environment that prison officers face and the unique risks that they face. People are leaving that employment, some of them in a bad way and at a much younger age than they should. Our concern is that, if everybody in that arena says, "This is not working for us", is it really OK for the Department of Finance to just say, "Well, tough, you're civil servants"? That is our view. Everybody seems to be stonewalling. Minister, we would like you and your permanent secretary to take that up with the relevant Minister and permanent secretary to say, "Really, we're not convinced that this is sufficient, and prison officers are not being treated appropriately given the risks that they face".

Mrs Long: There are two elements. Doug raised the issue of efficiency and people being dismissed for inefficiency due to absence. Those same phrases will be used when PSNI officers are on long-term leave, so it is not unique to the Civil Service handbook and Civil Service handling. Where PSNI officers, who work in an equally challenging environment, or members of the PSNI civilian staff are on long-term leave and are unable to return to their duties, the same approach is taken. The HR approach taken by the Civil Service is not unique.

I accept that the language is suboptimal, to be polite, and I accept that, for people who have been going through a lot, it can be hurtful. I do not in any way dismiss the fact that that language is difficult. However, there is a degree of legalese around some of the issues that has to follow due process.

I will ask Hugh to talk about the specifics of HR, because I am clear that there is a firewall between me and the service when it comes to HR, and I do not want to tread into that space.

Mr Widdis: I am happy to take that issue away, Chair, and discuss it with DOF colleagues. DOF is in charge of Civil Service terms and conditions, but it negotiates everything centrally with the trade union side (TUS). We have a people strategy that the Civil Service Board is pushing forward for the next five years. That includes regular review of all our policies. I am happy to talk to DOF colleagues about the prioritisation.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That would be helpful, because they are just too keen to shut it down, Hugh.

Mr Widdis: I am happy to take Mr Beattie's points about that as well, if that helps, Chair.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is helpful. Thank you. Is there anything else on this topic?

Mrs Long: We can provide you with statistics for prison officers who have accessed PRRT over the past year. That might be helpful in shining a light on the balance between physical and psychological issues, at least for the cohort that is accessing PRRT services.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That would be helpful. Thank you, Minister.

We will move on to the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (OPONI).

Miss Hargey: Minister, do you know how many investigation reports are outstanding and when they are likely to be published? My other question is about resourcing for the ombudsman's office. It is assisting with the Omagh inquiry, and there are additional resource needs there. Is the Department looking at or had any engagement on those issues?

Mrs Long: I believe that there is an April deadline for those reports —

Mr Widdis: The end of April for legacy-type reports.

Mrs Long: — and they have to be concluded by then. My understanding is that one report may be delayed beyond that point but with the agreement of the Northern Ireland Office (NIO). However, the remaining reports will be delivered on time. That is the most recent information that I have.

Miss Hargey: "May be delayed" or will be? At this point, do you know?

Mrs Long: I am not sure.

Mr Widdis: Ultimately, it is for OPONI to decide when it will release reports. There is a legal deadline for the legacy reports, if I can use the shorthand, which is 30 April.

Miss Hargey: Will they be delivered on time?

Mr Widdis: They have pushed hard internally to get the work done, and there is an intention to see what can be done to get them all out.

Mrs Long: My understanding is that there is no suggestion that the deadline cannot be met. When the ombudsman was absent through illness, I raised the issue, as did the ombudsman's office, of seeking a delay and extension to allow the reports to come out in a more orderly fashion rather than rushing towards a deadline, but that did not gain traction. My understanding is that it can be done. The challenge may be that a series of reports will come out over a short period. That is unavoidable, given the legislative deadline, but, ultimately, it is a matter for the ombudsman's office to manage rather than the Department.

In respect of funding for the inquiry, my understanding is that, as things stand, it will have to be dealt with as part of the ombudsman's budget. However, some approaches may have been made to us, if I recall correctly.

Mr Widdis: Once they are established, all inquiries result in the bodies that respond to them having extra costs and so on. It has been suggested that some money would come from the UK Government, but it simply does not normally work that way. We have continued to ask for further moneys in relation to lots of legacy things, and the Minister has been engaged in that before. In relation to the Omagh inquiry in particular, I am sure that the Office of the Police Ombudsman will approach us because we provide the funding and so on. If it can put together an evidential basis for that, it will be properly considered, as would any other business case for expenditure. Ultimately, for example, in this coming year, we still have a £60 million opening pressure. All sorts of other bodies, including the PSNI, for example, have to respond to it. We will look at that and help as and where we can.

Mrs Long: I do not think that we have received a request yet.

Mr Widdis: I do not think that we have.

Miss Hargey: There is nothing at this point.

Mrs Long: I do not think so.

Miss Hargey: You will keep it under review, then. OK.

Mr Widdis: Yes. Ultimately, it becomes a statutory duty that each individual participant must respond to the inquiry. There is a necessary cost to that of looking through old files or papers and bringing forward the information that you are asked for. No extra central money is delivered to the Department of Justice to help everybody with that, but the duty must be complied with, so we will do our best to distribute money.

Mrs Long: The continuing cost of legacy is a concern that I and the Chief Constable have raised on various occasions with the contemporary Department. No one involved in the transfer of powers in 2011 would have appreciated or anticipated the degree to which legacy would still be so high on the agenda, the processes not having been concluded, or that it would have cost as much as it has over the past number of years and continues to. It is a drain on the budgets of the ombudsman's office, the PSNI and others participating in inquiries or legacy investigations.

Even with the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) in place, there will be potential costs that do not fall within its purview because the cases fall outside the timeline that has been established for its work. We have said, however, that, where the PSNI has to provide information to the ICRIR or any of the other justice bodies, that is to be a separate accounting line so that it will be paid for by the ICRIR. My understanding is that it is funded under annually managed expenditure (AME) rather than departmental expenditure limit (DEL), so it makes sense that it should cover any costs that are attributable to the work that it does.

There is still, however, a cohort of cases that fall outside the ICRIR, and there is still a lack of clarity as to how, for example, that will interplay with the restarting of inquests and other things and how those will be paid for. At the moment, it is a case of "How long is a piece of string?", because we do not have the clarity that we need to do any cost estimates. It is an ongoing challenge, and we need to engage the UK Government on that, because legacy should not be carried by those institutions. It should be carried by the two Governments, if anybody is going to make a contribution in that space, when it comes to funding the work that needs to be done to provide truth and justice for the individuals who deserve and need it.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Minister, may I follow up on the issue around the deadline for reports? You will, no doubt, be aware of my involvement in the Kingsmills report and the deeply unsatisfactory response that there has been from the ombudsman's office with regard to that report. I will not get into the specifics of one case, but I want to check this with you: in the event that the clock is run down and people receive reports towards or at the deadline, do you anticipate that, where people have questions about reports that the ombudsman's office has written, that office will answer the questions as opposed to redirecting victims and recipients of reports to the ICRIR, which has had nothing to do with the report?

Mrs Long: I cannot answer that question because that would be a matter for the ombudsman's office to answer. I could not anticipate how it would handle enquiries regarding its own reports. I accept your logic that it would make sense for the author of the report to answer questions on the report. There is, however, a wider issue about whether those are questions simply about context and text or whether they are about "Where next?". The latter are more properly for the ICRIR, as far as I understand it, in the form in which, we are aware, it exists as things stand.

The running down of the clock and the fact that reports may come out very near the deadline was precisely the issue that I had raised with the Northern Ireland Office. I had two concerns, the first of which was that you would end up with the reports on individual atrocities coming out in an unseemly fashion, where people were not given the breathing space to acknowledge the content of the report and be able to come to terms with what was in the report and the findings and have the space to deal with that before the next report would be issued. My concern was that there would be something slightly unseemly about the rapid dispatch of hugely significant reports.

The second thing that concerned me, particularly because of the uncertainty about the ill health of the ombudsman and her return to work, was that we could end up in a situation in which, although there would be public commentary about the reports, the ombudsman might not be in a position to speak to them. That would be a very unsatisfactory situation for both the ombudsman and the families. I sought an extension to ensure that, when the reports came out, there would be space and time for people to engage with the office and the ombudsman and there would be an opportunity for the ombudsman to respond to any concerns that people had. However, as I said, that plea fell on deaf ears, so quite a few reports may come out back to back. That is unfortunate, but it is beyond my remit. I made representations, but they were not taken up.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): To be honest, I am appalled at some of it. The Kingsmills families were told that that report was completed, but that statement was retracted. They were promised that they would have it at the closure of the inquest, but, 11 months on, there is still no report. Regardless of the number of times that I write — I am well aware of how that office refers to me — there is still no report for those families. It is difficult to see that there is anything other than a running down of the clock.

I have a couple of questions about the ombudsman's office.

Mrs Long: Before we move on from the reports, the Secretary of State has, to be fair, said recently that he will keep the deadline under review. It is not beyond the bounds of reasonableness to think that he will move the deadline, if he feels that that is necessary to allow people to receive the information in a more timely and appropriate fashion. If the Committee has strong views, it may wish to convey those directly to the Secretary of State.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): My fear is that, if the deadline is extended, the ombudsman's office will take that time, and we will still end up in a circumstance in which, as you say, there will be an unseemly release of reports, one after another, and time and space will not be taken.

Mrs Long: My understanding — the ombudsman will, no doubt, be with the Committee at some stage and will be able to answer questions directly — is that they are programmed to be released in a more organised way, so that there is not a rush to a deadline. However, it may feel as though there is a rush to a deadline, simply because the deadline is so acute. It may be that, although nobody wants any unnecessary delay, a bit of breathing space gives families and those involved in the reports a little time to come to terms with their content and provides a bit of dignity in how they are handled. A bombardment of the reports in which they almost get lost in the enormity of what is happening more generally is not dignified and does not fully respect the sensitivities involved.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): There are grave issues about satisfaction with the Police Ombudsman, and that is borne out in her annual report. I mean the office. I will focus on the office. That report stipulates:

You will be aware that I have tabled a number of questions to you. I cannot get to the bottom of exactly how the ombudsman is accountable to the Northern Ireland Assembly, because none of us can get answers to questions.

I am involved in a present-day case in which a person made a complaint to the ombudsman in August and has yet to hear that the ombudsman has received it. We subsequently heard from the police that the ombudsman has it. I submitted evidence on that case. I have written to the ombudsman five times since October, including once a month since January. I have yet to receive an acknowledgement. That is what I, as an elected representative, am getting. I cannot imagine how people feel.

Look at the stats in the report regarding complainants. When it comes to those who were:

the figure is 43%. When it comes to those who:

there is another low figure. There were 61 complaints about the office. I suspect that, if people understood what the complaints process was and how it would be handled, there would be many more, because I suspect that we are all getting quite a lot. If we set aside the people who are, perhaps, discontent with an outcome that they did not anticipate, there are grave levels of dissatisfaction here, and there are no means that I can see to hold that office accountable for its service standards. I appreciate that the ombudsman sets its own target, and, apparently, the Department gives it guidance. I would like to have some understanding of the accountability mechanisms, the guidance that is given, what routes people have to express their dissatisfaction and what can be done to improve those statistics, because this kind of thing — not even acknowledging complaints — is a huge issue.

Mrs Long: First of all, you will appreciate that I cannot answer for the ombudsman's office, and there is a strong reason why that is the case. The Police Ombudsman was created entirely independently of government, as is the case with most ombudsman's offices, which are not accountable directly through Executive Ministers. That includes, for example, the local government ombudsman, the Northern Ireland Ombudsman and so on. It seems inappropriate that, if you are making a complaint about government, government would then hold the office that deals with that complaint accountable. It creates the frustration to which you refer and about which you clearly feel strongly that there does not seem to be the normal accountability that you have with other independent bodies.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): The report cites that the accountability mechanism is through the Northern Ireland Assembly, but no Assembly Member knows how that works.

Mrs Long: First of all, I will be clear about how the structure works. The Police Ombudsman is appointed by royal warrant on the recommendation of the First Minister and deputy First Minister in line with the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. It is set out in that Act how this is to work. Neither I, as Minister of Justice, nor my Department has any role in the appointment of the ombudsman. Despite the fact that the oversight is of policing and is in the justice sphere and despite the fact that the ombudsman's financial accounting lines are through our Department, we have no involvement in the appointment. The ombudsman operates completely independently. I know that that frustrates Members — it sometimes frustrates me, too, having to say it over and over again — but I have no role at all in the performance appraisal of the ombudsman.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Yes, you have indicated that to me, but could you outline this for us: what is the accountability, and what guidelines do you give the ombudsman?

Mrs Long: First of all, there is no provision in the ombudsman legislation or the management statement and financial memorandum for performance appraisal of the ombudsman or for a review of the effectiveness and efficiency of the ombudsman. Indeed, if the First Minister and deputy First Minister deem that the efficiency and effectiveness of the ombudsman has fallen short of their expectations, they can ask the ombudsman to retire. They cannot compel that. That is the legislative structure. Like it or loathe it, that is what it is.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Is that the height of accountability?

Mrs Long: Well, it is the height of accountability when it comes to the corporation sole that is the ombudsman. There is also no legal requirement or legal basis for us to, for example, carry out a review of the ombudsman's office outside our normal governance scrutiny process that applies to all arm's-length bodies. Each year, we will have an annual governance meeting with the ombudsman's office. That annual accountability meeting is with the ombudsman and her chief executive, and that looks at, for example, their performance, their current and future activities and any policy developments that the Department is aware of that may impact on their activities. That will take place on 18 March, which is next week. That will look at their operating plan and how they have performed against that. It will, of course, provide an opportunity for us to discuss such issues as customer satisfaction, but it is not for me to hold them to account, though there may be issues that we can discuss.

There is a challenge with those accountability structures. I can only imagine that, if it says that it is accountable to the Assembly, it is in the context of the office being accountable through the normal arm's-length body processes through the financial memorandum, as opposed to accountability for the ombudsman and the actions of the ombudsman herself.

It is a strange office in the way that it is constructed, and I can see that it is not widely replicated in other offices.

It was made in that context and constructed in that way for a particular purpose, which was to ensure that there would be no political interference in the work of the ombudsman's office. That work is directed by the ombudsman: that was the purpose of constructing it in that way. To the best of my knowledge — Hugh, you may wish to correct me — the office can be reviewed by CJINI, which has powers in that regard. It has for the PPS, for example, which does not fall within the Department of Justice. I cannot say that with confidence, however. You may wish to raise that with the ombudsman or CJINI.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is fine. Minister, I ask you, when you have your conversations with the ombudsman and the Office of the Police Ombudsman, to flag up the issues of customer satisfaction, the complaints process and accountability and transparency, because none of that is clear, and there is no means to address it. I would be grateful if you would flag that up, because there are massive issues with public confidence in how those investigations are taken forward.

I appreciate that it is now 3.30 pm. We have covered good ground, but it may be helpful for members, if they are content, to flag up their questions to officials, and the Department can then respond in writing. How do members wish to proceed?

Mrs Long: Chair, if it is helpful to members, I am happy to take a few more questions. I realise that you have a busy agenda, and I do not want to impose, but I am happy to take a few more questions. I can stay for another 20 minutes or so, if necessary.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): OK. We will whizz through them then. Thank you, Minister. That is great. Let me get my list.

Danny, you have questions on the minimum age of criminal responsibility and reasonable chastisement.

Mr Baker: Thank you, Chair. Minister, thank you for your time.

As a new Committee member, I have been looking at the Bill through the lens of better outcomes for children and young people. Why are reasonable chastisement and increasing the age of criminal responsibility not part of the Bill? Could they be part of it?

Mrs Long: First, as you will know, my position is that reasonable chastisement should end. It is not necessarily a matter that I can act on alone; it requires the Department of Health's cooperation, in particular, and wider, cross-Executive approval, because it is viewed as a contentious issue. It has been raised with me. I met the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and others, who made a strong case about the danger that reasonable chastisement presents to safeguarding and protecting children from violence and abuse, because it turns what should be the objective decision of a social worker or a healthcare professional into a subjective decision about whether something is reasonable chastisement and, therefore, whether it should be reported to the police or other safeguarding authorities. I want to see reasonable chastisement come to an end in Northern Ireland, and I have explored that with Executive colleagues. There has been no consensus on the matter, which is why it does not form part of the Bill.

The second issue that you mentioned is the minimum age of criminal responsibility. Again, I have explored that at length with all the other Executive parties, because it needs to be addressed. The vast majority of young people who face custody are 14 and above, because the policy in the youth justice system has been to avoid custodial responses to young people below the age of 14 in order to avoid criminalising those at that age through the juvenile justice system. In effect, raising the threshold for criminal responsibility to 14 would not have a massive impact on safety, security or the response mechanisms to juvenile offending; it would simply regularise how the policy is already being implemented.

There were various options. One was to raise the minimum age to 16, which is the case in a number of other European jurisdictions, mainly the Nordic countries. Another was to raise it to 14, which was my preferred option, because it strikes a balance between a young person's development and their recognition of the consequences of their actions. Raising it to age 12 as a starting point was explored by my predecessor, David Ford. All those options have been rejected in favour of retaining it at age 10. We have not been able to get consensus on it. We also looked at potential exclusions for serious crimes, such as serious sexual offences and murder. That would mean that a young person aged between 10 and 14 who committed a serious offence, such as rape or murder, would be able to receive a custodial criminal sentence. That option still did not provide sufficient reassurance for the parties that were not content with the change.

As a society, we need to look at the age of criminal responsibility. We have the lowest age of criminal responsibility in western Europe, equalled only by England. We need to look at how we can take a more informed approach to the issue, particularly considering child psychological and emotional development. Many in that very young cohort — between age 10 and 14 — who commit offences are themselves victims of abuse, coercive control or criminal exploitation. It is important that we do not criminalise those young people in a way that deters them from seeking help for what has happened.

We need to bear it in mind the fact that, if a young person at nine years old, which is below the age of criminal responsibility, were to commit a serious offence, be that murder, rape or a serious sexual assault, we would still deal with that situation. There would still be a public protection response. We would not leave a gap for those young people to be free to offend without consequence. Whether the age of criminal responsibility is 10 or 14, young people between 10 and 14 will be held accountable for their actions, but it will be done in an age-appropriate way that tries to prevent reoffending and protects them and members of the public. That should be the priority for that age cohort, as opposed to taking a criminal, punitive approach.

Mr Baker: For clarity, Minister, does raising the age of criminal responsibility fall within the scope of the Bill? I take the point about reasonable chastisement. How could we achieve that?

Mrs Long: Both of those issues are within the Bill's scope, because, as you will appreciate, it is incredibly wide. Yes, they would be within the Bill's scope, in my view, depending on how they were couched. The issue would be whether they would be consented to. As Minister, I recognise that I will not get consent from the Executive to move forward on either of those issues at this time.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Essentially, it would need to be taken forward by either the Committee, which is unlikely, or a party or a number of parties acting together.

Mrs Long: It is likely that it would fall to an individual Member or party to take it forward. On how we make progress, it is important that it does not become a contested space, because that can heighten concern among the public that, in some way, they are being left unprotected or there is a gap in the law. It is important that we try to bring people with us. We can do lots of things to improve the public's confidence. The Youth Justice Agency works with those between the ages of 10 and 14, which leads to few young people in that age category being sentenced prisoners in the youth justice system. That should reassure people that we can have lots of other diversionary disposals and engagements that keep people safe, do not criminalise young people and allow us to maintain integrity in the system.

We can also do work around reasonable chastisement and what it means. I approached the Health Minister first, because parental support is largely a matter for the Department of Health. Where work on reasonable chastisement has been advanced and has worked, such as in Scotland and Wales, it has been accompanied by extensive work on parental support and ensuring that parents do not feel that they will be criminalised simply for trying to correct their children in what they are doing. There is no evidence in Scotland or Wales of such a pattern. Instead, the fact that reasonable chastisement has been made illegal has sent a message, whereby parents are much more likely to seek assistance if they are struggling with their children. That assistance has been more readily available, because there has been investment in parental support as part of the overall package. The two need to go hand in hand.

No parent feels good about themselves after they have smacked their child. Let us be honest: it tends to happen when somebody has reached the end of their tether, and they often feel distressed about it. Parents do not want to place themselves in that situation. We need to have the right supports in place to show people alternative ways of dealing with bad behaviour and alternative ways of seeking the support that they need.

For me, the most important and compelling argument for removing the right of reasonable chastisement is the fact that health professionals say that reasonable chastisement is a cloak behind which abuse can take place, because it makes the decision as to whether something is reasonable chastisement a subjective judgement for the professional. Health professionals are often afraid to report an incident, if they are uncertain whether a bruise is because of a smack that has left a mark or whatever it might be. They are afraid of over-criminalising a situation. If, however, the standard was not subjective but completely objective, they would be able to pass that on to somebody who could look at it and say, "What support does the family need to help them in these circumstances?".

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I do not want our extra 15 minutes to be spent on just one question.

Connie, finally, go ahead on the transformation bids.

Ms Egan: Thank you, Minister. I want to ask about the transformation funding that your Department has recently secured. I hope that you can talk a bit more about the bids and how that funding will be taken forward and the unsuccessful bids that, as you mentioned in your presentation, you will take forward anyway.

Mrs Long: I am delighted that we got that transformation funding. Those are things that we intended to do. We were told to bring forward transformative things that we, as a Department, were going to do, rather than come up with isolated pilot projects that were not necessarily going to deliver, and that is what we did.

The speeding up and transforming the criminal justice system bid was cross-departmental. PPS was also involved in that bid. We are looking at financial sustainability and early engagement in the justice system. You will appreciate that we had a long and involved conversation about legal aid. One of the things that we are trying to do is to reset and recalibrate people's expectations. Not every dispute should end in court; in fact, it is a failure of dispute resolution when one ends up in court. If we are going to ask solicitors and others to do more early intervention through negotiated settlements, mediated settlements and so on, we need to ensure that the legal aid system pays them for that work. That is one of the recalibrations that we are looking at to speed up justice and to save the courts for the most contested and most serious issues. That is a really important issue.

The other work that we are doing in that area is on electronic monitoring. We are looking at how we can transform the way in which we monitor individuals on bail terms, which are set by the court after a person has been charged for a criminal offence but before they have been to trial or are part of a prisoner's conditions when they leave custody to serve out the remainder of their sentence in the community. You will understand that being able to use tagging in cases where somebody is released on licence or where somebody who, as part of an enhanced custodial sentence, serves part of it in custody and part in the community may provide the additional reassurance that the judiciary seeks to allow it to use those mechanisms, rather than remanding people in custody for longer. We have a serious issue with the number of people being remanded in custody and, in particular, the number on remand.

I mentioned the bid on the work by the Department for Communities and us to reduce reoffending and the prison population. That bid included a bail support scheme, diverting people from custody and the roll-out of enhanced combination orders through the Probation Board. That was not successful. We have to look a little bit at the bail support element. It is a critical element that we need to deal with in order to tackle the prisoner population. As well as that, we have to look at the enhanced combination orders — we are looking at further expansion of those in north Antrim — to see whether we are able to do something in the next financial year. That will continue but not as quickly as it would have done had the bid been successful.

We also made a bid for the tackling paramilitarism programme. A substantive piece of work on that was not funded in this round. We will take some of that into the next round of bidding, but we have decided on a piece of work with a cohort of people whom we have identified: people who have been involved with paramilitary and organised crime groups but who, at their first contact with the justice system, have not offended and may, if offered the right support, opt to exit those organisations at the earliest stage. We have done a lot of work on how we can divert young people from being groomed into those organisations. Really helpful with that will be the programme that is called — let me think through the acronym — Community Initiative to Reduce Violence (CIRV).

We had hoped to introduce a harm reduction hub, but we will take forward the CIRV part of that, whereby, when a person is arrested by the PSNI or questioned in relation to an offence, for example, and it is clear that they are involved with organised crime or a paramilitary group, they are offered specific support to allow them to exit that as an alternative to going straight into the custodial system. It has been operated for years in places such as Boston to deal with gang-related violence and coercion. It has also been used in Scotland with people who get involved with drug gangs and organised crime gangs, for example. Many of the people who come through the system will not necessarily recognise themselves as having been coerced or groomed into their activity, but, often, when presented with the reality of their situation and what their future looks like, they will want to exit that activity at the earliest point.

That programme is in addition to our diversionary work, and we are working on it at the moment. We hope to run a pilot that will start later in the year. As with everything that we do through the tackling paramilitarism programme, we want to test it, build up the evidence base and show that it works. If it does, we can consider it for further roll-out if, eventually, we get the harm reduction hub that we are aiming for.

Ms Egan: That sounds like really good work, Minister. Did you get feedback from the board on the unsuccessful applications that you could take forward in order, hopefully, to secure funding in the next round?

Mrs Long: Yes. In particular, we got really strong feedback from the board on the reducing offending bid. Officials will meet their counterparts in the Department for Communities to take forward a new bid in that space that will be, perhaps, more robust and more likely to succeed. The new round of bidding will be launched in summer 2025, and we hope to have the amended bid in that process.

We have been fortunate. I will not say "lucky", because a lot of hard work went in, but that is how luck works: it is 99% hard graft and 1% luck. We worked really hard as a Department to look at transformation opportunities. We have not always had the capacity and the money to deliver them, so the transformation funding has been a lifeline for us in allowing us to take forward things that, we genuinely believe, in five or 10 years, if they were to be rolled out across the Department, could find significant savings that we could reinvest in other parts of the justice system to deliver a much better service. I am excited about the transformation stuff.

Ms Egan: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Minister, thank you very much. We have Ciara, Stephen and Justin still to ask questions, but, because you have given us extra time, if members are content, we will put those questions in writing and get responses that way. I am conscious that the Forensic Science witnesses are outside and that the Minister has already given us an extra 20 minutes.

Mrs Long: I thank you genuinely for the opportunity. If Committee members have questions at any time and want to meet to discuss the issues, I am happy to do that: do not feel that it has to be done through the formal Committee Stage. If you want to come and meet me about any of the issues that you have not had a chance to raise this afternoon, get in touch with my private office — I am more than happy to do that. We could meet on a Monday or a Tuesday — on a sitting day — so that you would not need to go too far from the Building to have that conversation.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you. I would really appreciate that, because my question is about the family courts, and I know that you have had correspondence and were to meet officials this week. We have had lots of correspondence on it, so it is a key area.

Mrs Long: If it would be helpful, Chair, I would be more than happy to arrange a meeting with members of the Committee who have a particular interest in that so that we can have a proper discussion about it. It is a very involved issue, and we could not do justice to it this afternoon. It is, however, a very important area on which progress is being made in terms of the conversations that I have had with the Lady Chief Justice. We need to have a wider conversation about openness and transparency across the piece, including the family courts.

Ms Ferguson: That would be really helpful.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That would be helpful. I suspect that the whole Committee will be at that meeting. [Laughter.]

Thanks very much, Minister, Hugh and Deborah. That is probably the easiest Committee appearance you have had, Deborah.

Mrs Long: Before we came into the room, I said, "If they ask me anything really tough, I'm going to say, 'I think that's for you, Deborah'",

but I did not have to fall back on that.

Thank you very much. I really appreciate your time.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Thank you very much for your time. We appreciate it.