Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): We are joined by Jacqui Durkin, chief inspector, Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI), who will be familiar to most of you, and David MacAnulty. lead inspector, CJINI. They are with us to discuss their report, 'Transforming the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland: A Strategic Overview'. Jacqui and David, you are very welcome, and we are very glad to hear from you on the report, which has been a long time coming. It is timely, bearing in mind that responses were due back by the end of this month — or, at least, a way forward, potentially, was supposed to be back by the end of this month. We look forward to hearing what you have to say. I invite you to make some opening remarks, after which, I presume, you are content to take questions from members. Is that all right?

Ms Jacqui Durkin (Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland): Absolutely, Chair, thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I will hand over to you. Thank you, Jacqui.

Ms Durkin: Good afternoon, Chair and members, and thank you for the invitation to attend today's meeting. I hope that you have had the opportunity to read the briefing paper that we have provided. I will make some short remarks before your questions.

This inspection was led by David MacAnulty, who was supported by Maureen Erne, who is another of our inspectors. The inspection looked at the transformation journey for the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland and the strategic approaches to transformation that the Department of Justice, the PSNI, the Public Prosecution Service (PPS), the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service, the Northern Ireland Prison Service, Forensic Science NI and the Probation Board for Northern Ireland had taken at the time of the inspection. There had been many notable successes, including in organisational reform, digital services, technology-enabled data sharing, case processing, and video evidence and links. The absence of Ministers and an Assembly, however, and a limited legislative programme, annual budget allocations and the COVID-19 pandemic had an impact on tackling historic issues, including on delay, victim and witness care and reoffending rates.

The inspection team considered a significant number of strategies, programmes and projects that were considered to be transformative by the inspected organisations at the time of inspection fieldwork, including how those were led and governed. They looked at the Criminal Justice Board's five priorities, how those linked together and the intended outcomes; how transformation priorities were communicated across the criminal justice system to everyone who needed to know; and the intended outcomes that they would achieve. The competing demands on some leaders to be involved with partner organisations in order to design and deliver transformation projects, or in their own organisations, alongside "business as usual" roles, was also identified.

Inspectors found that transformation projects and investment in technology in one organisation did not always consider the domino effect or impact on other criminal justice organisations. Inspectors did not find clear evidence of an agreed strategic vision, prioritisation and control of how the end-to-end criminal justice system would be transformed. The strategic recommendation in this report is that:

It is fair to say that the inspection took longer to complete than I had hoped and had to be paused to accommodate other unanticipated and planned work and resource issues that needed to be prioritised. Of course, like any inspections, things can change and evolve during an inspection and after report publication. The Programme for Government, which was published in February 2025, provided clear priorities for the criminal justice system, including a focus on speeding up justice and the transformation of public services. When this inspection report was published six months ago, the Minister of Justice indicated that she wanted officials to take some time to consider the recommendations. Last Friday afternoon, I received confirmation from the Department of Justice that the strategic recommendation was accepted and that the development of a vision with a focus on the criminal justice system is at an early stage of development. The second operational recommendation was also accepted and actioned, with each inspected organisation asked to review their own areas and to advise the Department of Justice of any issues on completion.

The first operational recommendation was for the PSNI. I have been advised that that has not been accepted. The PSNI's strategic planning and transformation department notified the Department of Justice that that was because the terms of reference for the PSNI's strategic transformation board have it covered. That may be down to the passage of time since the draft report until now, but regardless, if it is working effectively and duplication is being minimised, that is what the recommendation intended and is welcome. That may be something that we may return to in order to evaluate it at a later date.

Transformation is about change for the better. It is never easy, and it is particularly challenging in the criminal justice system, with a diverse range of organisations, professions and individuals with operational independence, funding arrangements, workforces, budgets and governance arrangements that are involved. That does not, however, mean that it cannot happen or that it will not work. People who use and need criminal justice services, our citizens and the people who work in the system deserve a better criminal justice system. I am encouraged by the work that has been under way since the draft inspection report was provided to inspected organisations and now published. I look forward to the outcomes that the inspected organisations can achieve together.

I hope that these remarks are helpful to the Committee, and David and I are happy to respond to any questions or comments that you may have. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Thank you very much, Jacqui. David, do you have anything to add, or has Jacqui covered it for you too?

Mr David MacAnulty (Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland): No, she has covered it all, thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is great: thank you very much. Do we have any members indicating? Doug?

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Jacqui, as ever. It is a very clear and concise report, as they always are. It is a viewpoint, but, factually, you said that the inspectors did not find clear evidence of an agreed vision. That is not the first time that I have heard that. When the review of the Policing Board was undertaken, it was also said that there was no clear vision. It was like a two-legged stool or a parent/child relationship. Where do you think that it is falling down? Is it purely because the board is so disparate in what it is trying to achieve, or is there a leadership issue from the various factions? What can we pinpoint to try to bring it all together?

Ms Durkin: I do not think that the Criminal Justice Board is dysfunctional. If anything, it is probably operating better than it has been in a very long time. There are leaders on the Criminal Justice Board who are fixed with responsibility for delivering against each of the five priorities.

It is difficult because, as you know, there are uniformed organisations, organisations with bigger budgets and different reporting and governance and accountability responsibilities, and then you have some very Civil Service-based organisations. There are a number of organisations that are operationally independent of each other, but they are all funded by the taxpayer and mainly by the Department of Justice, other than the PPS, which, as you know, is funded by the Department of Finance.

It is timely. I am more interested in looking forward, to be honest, than looking back. There is an appetite now to do something with it. The Minister has confirmed that officials will work with organisations to do that.

You have mentioned before to me, Doug, about statutory time limits, in that we do not have them in Northern Ireland and the focus on what is really important here. There is a lot of discussion and debate about whether they are useful or not. In England and Wales, they are not without their problems, but I think that this is an opportunity, when there are tight budgets and it is very clear that historic issues in the criminal justice system, such as delay and really good victim and witness care, need to be tackled effectively.

Mr Beattie: I met the director of public prosecutions yesterday, and I think that the PPS is doing an exceptional job in really difficult circumstances. As an organisation, I think that it is exceptional. I can go to each organisation and say something similar. They are all exceptional. My concern is how we blend them together. What is the mechanism to make them all operate together so that one complements the other, as opposed to feeling like these disparate organisations all wanting the same thing but not necessarily working towards a shared vision?

Ms Durkin: David and the inspection team and I found through the inspection that there are a lot of competing priorities in the system. Organisations have their own budget and their own in-house priorities, and they are trying to act collaboratively and cohesively with other organisations. There is a bit of that silo mentality, but they have genuinely effective partnerships at a very strategic level. It is about how that filters down into an organisation that is managing to deliver business as usual every day, as well as playing its part in a real, true and authentic partnership where you consider what is happening at one end of the system, and if you bring in new technology or you invest in something, that could have a ripple effect when it gets to prosecution or gets into court.

Those are the sorts of things that, if there were an agreed vision with agreed priorities and funding available, it would be clear to everyone what is really important and what we are going to do.

Mr Beattie: Lastly, why do you think that there is not an agreed vision? Clearly, that is fundamental. You have to have a vision in order to set a direction so that everyone is in the same lane, aiming for the same thing. Why have we not had a vision? Is it historical? Is it the fact that Stormont was down for such a long time? Is it a combination of things?

Ms Durkin: It was because of the different governance and funding and organisational arrangements in place. Theoretically, in Northern Ireland, we are very fortunate. We have one police force and one prosecution service. The ability to do it in a jurisdiction this size was always there. Now, it is the focus. Maybe one of the lessons learned as a result of the pandemic was showing what can be achieved when you act together quickly and collaboratively in a crisis, and say, "Right, we're not going to be able do everything, but what can we do and what are we agreed on? What do we want this system to do and look like? What is really important to citizens?" This is an opportunity. It should have come along sooner, but this is where we are, and I am more interested in looking forward and at what can be achieved.

Mr Beattie: I want to look forward as well, and one of the big things is making sure that the people have confidence in the system that you are talking about. How do we create that confidence? That vision creates that confidence, which has waned over recent years. Is that a fair point?

Ms Durkin: It does not compromise anybody's independent decision-making in any organisation, whether they are operationally independent like the police or independent in their decision-making like the Public Prosecution Service or, indeed, the judiciary. Every organisation has its own governance arrangements and corporate and business plans or a policing plan and priorities. However, this is an opportunity for the system to really come together and explain to citizens and users of the criminal justice system — and, importantly, to the staff within it. Sometimes, you have leaders in organisation who, if they are not involved directly in transformation projects or on programme boards, feel as though they are a bit out of the room and not included. This is an opportunity to bring all key leaders together to say, "This is what's really important. This is what we've decided."

To be honest, we have felt the impact of not having had a new and refreshed Programme for Government for some years or the opportunity to bring forward legislation, some of it to support innovative work, but some of it boring but necessary to keep pace with what was happening in other jurisdictions. This is an opportunity with a new Programme for Government, a new Department of Justice corporate and business plan, and each organisation saying, "Right, that's the North Star. That's what we need to be looking towards and have an agreed vision." That is good for staff, and it is good for citizens. It is also good for everyone to know, "Right, that's what we're all working towards" and to be clear in the intent, not — if I dare say — a bit of waffle but something that is meaningful and will deliver high-quality services across the system.

Mr Beattie: Brilliant. Thank you, Jacqui.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you, Jacqui and David, for coming today, and for sharing the report in November.

I want to look at two areas, and it is about looking forward. I am conscious about bringing a collaborative approach. It takes time to build relationships and trust but what drives those is resources. John O'Dowd announced the successful DOJ transformation moneys in relation to speeding up justice and the electronic monitoring project. What conversations have you had with the Minister about that work and how those projects might help to address and drive forward collaborative working and shared visions?

My second question is about the prison population. There are serious concerns about the current prison population, particularly the fact that 79% are repeat offenders. We visited Maghaberry prison and saw some rehabilitation programmes. How will such programmes help to deliver transformational change? Also, what are your thoughts on the huge numbers of prisoners and possible prison overcrowding in the future? There are also the issues of staffing capacity and the complex needs of a lot of prisoners. I would like to hear your thoughts on that.

Ms Durkin: I will start and if I miss anything, David can elaborate.

I have not had a direct conversation with the Minister about the transformation projects, but I have had conversations with officials. In fact, officials came to a CJI team meeting to brief us on what was happening with some of the transformation projects. What is intended around taking out-of-court disposals is clear, and an inspection report will be published later this year, which looks at community resolution notices and the use of out-of-court disposals. We are looking at committal reform and how it has progressed to a degree and what else needs to happen. We are interested in the governance arrangements around that, and my understanding is that funding is dependent, year-on-year, on what you have actually achieved each year. It will be really important to have effective wrap-around governance arrangements to make sure that things are progressing as they should and that the money is spent well. That is what the Minister of Finance expects and what the Minister of Justice certainly would expect as well. We have regular meetings with officials to keep up to date with what is happening with those. I know that the director of reducing offending is leading the electronic tagging project. We certainly need to keep informed about what is happening with those, and if it is relevant to an inspection, we will engage with officials on that.

On the question of prison population, yes, absolutely. I was in Hydebank two days ago, and the female population, which has been a concern for some time, was sitting at 112 that day. There are issues with reoffending rates and issues with recall as well. For example, people who are out on licence and do not comply with their licence arrangements. It is not just about who the court is sending to prison; it is about recall rates. The Parole Commissioners also commented on that and the fact that work needs to be done to understand why that is happening.

I am aware that the director of reducing offending has commissioned a review of the prisoner development units, and, as far as I know, that review has not been reported on yet. That will be really important in understanding the model of provision, how people's needs are addressed and what it takes for them to be well supported when they return to the community so that they get access to programmes in prison, while they are in custody, to better equip them when they return to the community and give them a chance to make better choices or gain employment.

A lot of things are going on at the minute, but that is not to say that the challenges in wider society do not reflect what is happening in the prison population. You know that as well as I do. Where housing is an issue and the cost of living is an issue, if somebody does not get access to programmes to address addictive behaviours, you are setting them up for failure if they are not well supported in the community. They might have that support in custody, but the follow-through is really important. A couple of reviews have been commissioned by the Department of Justice, and we are looking forward to seeing those. We know that the prisoner development units in all prisons have suffered from abstraction because of the numbers on the wings and the need to maintain security. It is a bit like neighbourhood policing, and where you go to get additional resources when you need them. The review that is coming up, I hope will say that it is a model that you need to maintain because there are ramifications, for example, if prisoners do not get access to that work before they leave, then you are heightening the risk of their returning to custody.

Ms Ferguson: With regard to rehabilitation, did you see any major gaps where it currently does not exist in the Prison Service for the particular needs of people?

Ms Durkin: There is a big waiting list for access to addiction services, and that is well known and reported on. There is a wider piece about resourcing the model of provision and who gets access to what when they are in custody. The Prison Service knows that; it needs people because of the volume of people in detention, and, as we know, some have very complex needs. I could see that for myself in Ash House during the week, where there are some really complex individuals who, if not really well supported in the community, unfortunately, there is a heightened risk that they will return to custody because there is nowhere else for them to go. People who have quite obvious learning challenges, such as neurodiversity or addiction issues, find it difficult to cope in a prison environment. It is also very difficult for the staff, and we recognise that.

Ms Ferguson: Finally, given the range of complex needs that the staff are faced with when trying to do the best that they can to support those individuals, were there any glaring capacity issues as regards staff or their training, development and support in the Prison Service?

Ms Durkin: In all honesty, not that I could see in Hydebank Wood Secure College and Women's Prison. However, as you know, it is something that we will always be aware of when looking at Maghaberry and Magilligan — Maghaberry, because of the sheer scale and size of it and because there is a very high remand population. When you talk about the ability to engage prisoners in behavioural programmes or programmes to address offending behaviour, those are the sorts of things that, if resources are really tight, can be paused because you need to deploy staff elsewhere.

Ms Egan: Thank you for coming in today. On the recommendations that you have outlined for us, my first thought was that a lot of them are very high-level recommendations. You have the strategic recommendations, but even the operational ones mention strategic priorities and project boards. I would be really interested to hear a bit more about how you feel that impacts on people in the criminal justice system, particularly victims of crime. I am also interested to know whether you do any work with organisations that support people in the justice system, such as Victim Support or the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime.

Ms Durkin: I will let you answer that one, David.

Mr MacAnulty: I will start with the high-level recommendations. It was a high-level look across the justice system. You can imagine that it is quite a complex area of work. We were looking across all the strategic directions of each of the organisations. To distil that down, we wanted to see what was the best way that we could offer assistance to them to help them to improve. We came across a lot of strategies, a lot of meetings, a lot of people and a lot of duplication. A lot of it was internally focused.

When it came to the recommendations, we wanted to make sure that they had tried lots of things, but we are not seeing the outcomes change that much. In fact, you could argue that the rates have got a bit worse in terms of the length of time for end-to-end processing as well as the experience of victims and witnesses commensurately. Therefore, we asked what strategic recommendation we could offer that would improve the entire system. That means reducing the number of areas that you are going to be looking at. Let us focus on the main targets that you can identify that will improve the justice system. That will mean, through transformation, working together.

Everyone whom we spoke to at a senior level was very keen to transform. Everyone is aware of the benefits of working together and transforming. The difficult part is bringing them together. It was an attempt, at a strategic level, to bring them together as best we could to ensure that it is better for victims and witnesses. There are some tangible benefits for everybody. If delay is one of the big issues that you are going to target, what are the things that you can work on together? Instead of working independently at a strategic level, let us work together strategically.

Ms Egan: When you publish your reports and do your inspections, what is your working relationship like with the Department of Justice to ensure that the recommendations are taken forward but also evaluated? Do you do that in between inspections? How does that relationship work?

Ms Durkin: I will add to what David said. Victim Support and the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime were mentioned earlier. We are grateful for having really positive relationships with them and with other organisations that can help to inform inspection evidence through lived experience. That is vital.

When we are doing inspections, there is a direct impact on victims and witnesses, no matter what the subject. It is really important that we try to get that voice in a sensitive way. We are always conscious that, sometimes, speaking to inspectors is not an option, but Victim Support and the commissioner designate can give us real-time issues that they are hearing and examples of cases and things that have happened or systemic issues that they want to bring to our attention.

Certainly, through the annual consultation on the inspection programme, I speak to each of them, as well as to a range of voluntary and community sector organisations. They have contemporary information about the experience of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system. They are key stakeholders. We value the time that they give us. Women's Aid, the NSPCC , the Men's Advisory Project and the Older People's Commissioner are go-to people who give us authentic information about what is happening and what they are seeing.

Sorry, what was your other question?

Ms Egan: How do you ensure that any recommendations that you make are taken forward by DOJ? How does that relationship work? How do you evaluate their implementation?

Ms Durkin: We have positive and professional working relationships, but we do not agree on everything, which is OK: that is how it should be for an independent inspectorate. We sometimes do not get responses to recommendations in a time frame that works for us, so, after a report, we ask for an action plan that shows which recommendations an organisation is accepting and what action it will take on foot of them. Sometimes, if we receive an action plan and think, "Well, you might want to have another look at that. It doesn't really address the recommendation", we follow up on that. We do that when we need to.

You asked about ongoing monitoring. We do a small number of follow-up reviews. I, in discussion with the team, consider and decide where the higher-risk areas are and which things we really want to go back to in order to see what's happened. The Department of Justice carries out its own annual monitoring of report recommendations, but it is based on self-reporting by the inspected organisations on what they deem to have been achieved or implemented and what has not been implemented. Sometimes, it is obvious to us that we want to find out a bit more information about what is happening, which we can do. I want to pilot something in the next business year around looking at more in-depth self-assessment to see where that takes us, rather than our doing a full follow-up review, which can be quite time-consuming. Perhaps there is something that we can do in the meantime. We cannot possibly follow up on every inspection report and recommendation. Indeed, when we do prison inspections, we look back at previous recommendations or key concerns that were raised to see what progress has been made against those. We then report on that in those sorts of inspection reports.

Ms Egan: Thank you, both.

Miss Hargey: Thanks very much for your evidence so far. I will touch on the key recommendations that you laid out, starting with the strategic one: you said that, within six months of the publication of the report, the Criminal Justice Board should start to have that shared vision and strategic priorities at that level. From my estimation, that was to have been completed by May. Is there an update on the recommendations that you made?

Ms Durkin: Yes. When we received permission to publish the report, the Minister indicated that she wanted officials to take some time to consider the recommendations. Obviously, she needed to speak to other criminal justice organisations to do that. Last Friday, I received confirmation that the strategic recommendation had been achieved and that the one operational recommendation was relevant system-wide. We anticipate seeing something around that, hopefully. The Department is working on a new corporate plan and business plan. It has indicated that it has started work on the development of a vision and priorities, so I am hopeful that we will see that soon, but the finished product is not yet available.

Miss Hargey: My other point follows on from that. You and David talked about a silo approach. That is a concern. The Committee has looked at that not just in the broader justice system but across Departments. There is a correlation between Health and Justice pertaining to the prison population in particular. There is a concern that there is not enough joined-up, collaborative working between teams. It is about not just communicating but doing more. Is there still too much of a focus on strategy rather than outcomes?

Ms Durkin: You cannot have one without the other. To achieve outcomes, you need to be very clear through your strategy what it is you are trying to do and how you will get there. There is a lot of activity, but is it all channelled and geared towards a clear outcome? Otherwise, what we are trying to do?

There has been huge delay in the system — some would use the term "backlog" — since the pandemic. I think that it is more the case that this is the workload, so what will we to do to reduce it and reduce delay for not only victims and witnesses but defendants? People are on remand for long periods. Some may end up with a custodial sentence; others may not or may have time served taken into account. Therefore, when they are on remand, you cannot work with them to meaningfully address their offending behaviour.

That is just one part of the system. The report remarked that much was being done by the few. We are a small constituency of senior leaders with the expertise to inform and make decisions, so, when there are a significant number of programme boards and working groups, the same or similar people are usually fielded to sit on them. Often, those leaders, particularly in smaller organisations, are doing a day job as well.

If we cannot do everything, there needs to be a prioritisation of what is really important, what is to be focused on, how it is to be done and with whom you are to do it. That is something for organisations to consider, and the operational recommendation backs that up: do that horizon scanning, and ask, "Right, if we have a clear, agreed vision and a priority, how will we resource it? If funding is available, where will it go?"

There can be a domino effect. Something might be hugely important to one organisation, but that organisation may not have engaged in a meaningful and detailed way with other organisations and asked them, "If I invest in this piece of technology, what will it mean for you further down the line?" There is huge churn in the criminal justice system as a result of adjournment levels and cases that are waiting for way too long. How do you reduce that churn without one organisation potentially passing on cost and delay to another organisation? You will never eradicate it, but how do you reduce it? Working together meaningfully is an important part of that, and there are lots of opportunities to do that. The Courts and Tribunals Service is working on its new Themis system, which has involved engagement with a wide range of stakeholders. There is a new procurement for the Causeway system. It is about looking at the art of the possible in future investment and at what you want those systems to do to support the criminal justice system.

Miss Hargey: You are saying that there should be a sharper focus on outcomes and that organisations should streamline and look at achievements rather than just strategy. We would like to see that reflected in the business plan. Departments are preparing five-year budget plans. With the comprehensive spending review, we will, hopefully, move to a three-year Budget cycle, so that should give certainty over a longer period, rather than there being year-on-year funding. Money is one part of it, but my concern is that it is not the overall issue, which is the silo approach. What areas will you come back to in order to see how the Department is progressing this and trying to sharpen the focus at the outcome end?

Ms Durkin: I am looking forward to seeing the vision and priorities that are developed, and we may well comment on those. I imagine that, if those are agreed, they will become a reference for us with regard to the declared strategy and governance approach. Where does that fit into the Programme for Government and support its outcomes? Therefore, we absolutely will look to that. At this stage, I do not know whether it is something that would benefit from a follow-up review.

In some ways, it is totally understandable. The Programme for Government has been published. The Department wants a bit of time to consider what the vision might be, but there is a sense of, "Right, now that we have that, we need to get on with it". The Department's new corporate and business plan is an opportunity to demonstrate the commitment to that.

Miss Hargey: Has the Department given a timeline for that to come back? Have officials said that it will be within three months or six months?

Ms Durkin: No, there is no timeline, but officials indicated that work was in progress.

Miss Hargey: The Committee can probe into that.

Ms Durkin: Yes.

Miss Hargey: That is great. The other issue is the figure that Ciara quoted: 79% of the prison population are classified as repeat offenders, which is an obvious concern. We are aware of the pressures on the system. We have seen the largest increase, certainly in almost a decade, and that number is at its highest. We had a concurrent Committee meeting with Health, and, again, it is that siloed approach.

Is there a breakdown of that 79% between remand prisoners and those who have been sentenced? Do you have that information? You touched on the point that those on remand do not get rehabilitation, and their not having to engage in that is part of the concern. With the delays, we are seeing huge numbers on remand, many of whom have mental health issues. It is not just about the Department and all the justice partners having a vision. In the work that you do, do you see enough joint work being done with other Departments, Health being one of the main ones?

Ms Durkin: There are a couple of things there. I do not have the breakdown of that 79% and how many are on remand. Certainly, I can say that roughly half — 40% or so — of the prison population at Maghaberry are on remand. Magilligan, as you know, is not a remand prison. There are very few, if any, remand prisoners in Magilligan. In Hydebank Wood Secure College and Women's Prison, about half the women are on remand, so the number of young men is slightly lower, although I could be wrong. Why is that, and what is available?

From working with Health, we know that there are very few alternatives to custody where someone is a danger to themselves or a danger to others, so people are remanded in custody sometimes for lack of having an address that they can be bailed to, there may be a concern or there is no provision. We know that it is an issue, particularly for children, but also for adults. Where are the options? There are no bail hostels in Northern Ireland. If a person cannot go home because the offence with which they are charged relates to the home environment, there is no provision, so where will they go? It has been very obvious to me for some time, having been in and out of different prisons and having been in approved premises, that there are people who might have additional needs or special educational needs that have never been picked up in the community, yet they end up in prison. The starting point there is trying to get them to self-declare, if they can, or to get them the support that they need. Also, when people are in on short sentences, or maybe they eventually get bail, it is very difficult to get to those issues and ask, "How do we make sure that you do not come back here? What sort of supports do you need in the community, and are those supports available?" It may be family support that may or may not be available or other types of support to make sure that they stop offending and do not come back to detention.

There absolutely are connections to Health, Education and Communities. At the end of the day, as we often say, the vast majority of people are usually in prison for a short time. They are coming out into the community: they go to your GP surgery, and their children go to your children's schools. The issues that they have and the help that they need are apparent to many people, but it is not always available.

Miss Hargey: For me, it is about that pathway before they are released and making sure that that is done, rather than just releasing them one day and having none of those issues resolved. If there is not that coordinated approach across the different Departments, there is increased potential for people to find themselves back in there again, so I would be keen to look at the preventative piece.

Ms Durkin: To be fair, it is better than it was. You might be aware that the Lady Chief Justice changed the High Court bail hearing day from a Friday to a Thursday so that people would not be left in limbo when they are released from prison, because no access or contact with services over the weekend creates lots of risks and vulnerabilities for them.

Support and advice are available in prison for people on release. I am not saying in any way, shape or form that it is perfect, but it is better than it was. There is more awareness of what happens after release, but it is about making sure that people are willing to engage in that process.

Miss Hargey: I am trying to understand the discussions, changes and ongoing conversations around the three key recommendations. You have produced your report, and you said that you will keep a watching brief on the strategic stuff and may do a review. Would that be a follow-up review of certain areas or a review of other areas? I just want to get a sense of what is next and what that ongoing engagement with the Department and the broader criminal justice family looks like.

Ms Durkin: On the operational recommendation relating to the PSNI and its strategic transformation board, the intention is that it will provide the governance and oversight to reduce or eradicate duplication of transformation projects in different parts of the PSNI. We can explore that in future inspections with the PSNI, if it is on a relevant subject. I would not necessarily go in to do a follow-up review of just that.

I hope that having that vision and the priorities will mean that, when we look at any issue that is related to strategy in the criminal justice system, it will become very apparent to all of us where that fits in, the outcomes that are being achieved against it and how resources are being mapped to it to make sure that these are not just words but that there are actions attached to it and successes arising from it.

Miss Hargey: Thank you. My final question is on children and young people. It is a big concern. We are looking at the Justice Bill, which will make some changes to bail and custody. Do you feel that the system is working in the interests of children and young people?

Ms Durkin: The short answer is no. We have repeatedly reported that Woodlands should not be used as a place of safety, and we have raised the issues of the presumption of bail and the availability of alternatives. Those alternatives are not yet available. I do not think that it is necessarily a child-centred approach. That is where really good, strong connections to social services and alternative options for children are essential, but we are not there yet.

Miss Hargey: NICCY has made some recommendations around youth disposals and looking at statutory time frames. Have any of those issues come up in any of the work that you have done?

Ms Durkin: We speak to Chris and his team periodically and are aware of some of the issues that they are dealing with. We are in the course of an inspection of child criminal exploitation and a follow-up to our child sexual exploitation review. Some of those issues are becoming apparent, particularly with children who are in care. We will publish that report in due course, and I expect that the Committee might be interested in that as well.

Miss Hargey: On the back of that and going back to the siloed approach and joined-up working, is the Children's Services Co-operation Act 2015 used enough in that collaboration?

Ms Durkin: To be honest, it would be really difficult for me to make an assessment of that. It is well known among inspectors who are engaged in inspections that that cooperation is an issue and that the sharing of information has been an issue for a long time.

We ran a safeguarding children pilot in the Southern Trust area. It is about making sure that everybody knows that the safeguarding of children is paramount. Everybody who should know that has to know about acting in a timely way so that those children are protected.

There is no doubt that how the Act is being used needs to be more apparent.

Miss Hargey: OK. That is great. Thanks very much for that.

Mr Bradley: Thank you very much for your presentation. You mentioned, a few minutes ago, the small pool of talent that you have. How do you think that that might translate to delaying the transformation of justice or meaning that there is a stop-start approach to it? Will you be able to second other members to your team from other agencies or, indeed, through cross-agency placements?

Ms Durkin: My comment about the small pool of talent was about the organisations that we inspected and looked at. At times, leaders were spread thinly and were involved in not only the strategic direction and governance of their own organisation but those cross-criminal justice system issues. Obviously, David is sitting beside me, and I would not imply for one second that we have a small pool of talent. We are a very small team. Where we need additional support for inspections or expertise, whether that is forensics or support from other inspectorates, we try to get those people involved and funded where we can.

The inspection report points to the fact that, in criminal justice organisations, people were spread thinly. They were involved in a lot of different programme boards, working groups and project teams, but they also had a day job to do. It is about prioritisation through the vision and the priorities that the Criminal Justice Board agrees, and it should follow that it is about where that resource can be used and used well. It should be used on what they can do, rather than trying to do everything at the same time.

David, do you have anything to add?

Mr MacAnulty: Yes. It was about getting more of a streamlined approach and using the talent that you have well. From our viewpoint, we are fortunate to have a talented and very experienced inspection team. I would say that, of course. We are exceptionally good at what we do because we have been doing it for so long. We have a broad range of experience, and, because we go into each of the organisations, we are good at picking up these things. We are unique in that we can see each from a different perspective. Whenever we make strategic recommendations, we are looking at the bigger picture. When you have a small cadre of professionals who can make real change, it is important to encourage them — we really want to encourage them — and provide a platform for them to have some sort of accountability: set a direction whereby you can have some sort of outcomes linked to your direction.

Mr Bradley: Thank you very much. I have one more minor question, which is about evaluating and reporting back. Will you provide regular reports to the Committee so that we can perform our scrutiny role?

Ms Durkin: The Chair will be aware that we always offer to brief the Committee on any specific report or any issues that you have about Criminal Justice Inspection work. We are very happy to do that on an individual report or on any wider issues that you want to speak to us about. Whether at the Committee or by briefing individual members on a particular report, we are more than happy to do that.

Mr Bradley: Thank you very much.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Usually, I come in at the end, but I have to say that I think that this is one of the most damning reports that I have ever read. I really welcome it. It is incredibly useful for the Committee to see this broad overview of what is going on holistically in the system. I have a number of points that I want to make and a number of questions to ask. Bear with me, because I was writing things down as both of you were speaking.

First, when was the last time that you conducted such an inspection?

Ms Durkin: We have never —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Was this the first time that there has been an overview of the entire criminal justice system?

Ms Durkin: In relation to transformation, yes.

Mr MacAnulty: We have looked at various areas of how each of the organisations runs strategically but not as a combined overview.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): It has been incredibly useful, and it was vital for the Committee to read this.

There are a couple of points that I want to read out so that they are on the record. Paragraph 4.3 of the report provided to us states:

The next paragraph is equally difficult. It states:

I think that we have all witnessed that. It continues:

It is really important that that is included in your report, because it is also what we have been hearing from some of the organisations, perhaps not in this formal setting but in the conversations that we have offline. That paragraph continues:

Paragraph 4.7 states:

As you say, Jacqui, we hear, "Oh, we are moving to improve committal reforms". We have been moving to reform committal for 10 years, and we are no further on. Here, they talk about the COVID backlog. I think that you are absolutely right that it is about workload. At this stage, to be honest, seeing an increase of more than a couple of hundred days is not symptomatic of a system that is improving.

There are a couple of points that I want to make, and there are others that I have written down. I am disappointed that, although you heard from the Department of Justice last Friday, you have not heard about an action plan or even a time frame. I do not believe that that is acceptable, and the Committee will want to drill down into how things are working together. We will speak to that later. The Department gave you no action plan or time frame despite having agreed that it would come back within six months.

Ms Durkin: The indication from the correspondence was that work was under way, but there certainly was not a definite time frame. I suspect that it is linked to the Programme for Government and a new Department of Justice corporate plan and business plan, but, obviously, the Department's officials are the best people to respond to that. There is a difficulty when you have a board that is a collection of individuals who all have different priorities and operational independence — all those things, as you well know. You have the judiciary, the police, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the permanent secretary and departmental officials, and you have the director in the Courts and Tribunals Service on the Criminal Justice Board. I am not saying that it should not have been done before now, but this is where we are at. There is now an appetite, which was not there before, to do something about it. I am choosing to remain positive and say, "This is an opportunity to do what probably should have been done quite some time ago". It is about moving forward.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is fair enough, but, going forward, in order to learn, we need to look at what has gone on for the past 15 years. I am not prepared to just move into the, "I am going to look forward" space; I want to understand what has gone wrong and why it has taken 15 years to reach this point. I cannot believe that there has not been anything done on it thus far, especially given that we have reports in front of us today on the economic impact of crime.

Crime costs Northern Ireland £3·4 billion a year, and the cost of reoffending was £373·3 million a couple of years ago. It strikes me as astonishing, especially when there is a mechanism such as the Criminal Justice Board, that the Department has not got itself by the scruff. Even in one Department, they are not pulling in one direction and do not have agreed strategic priorities, never mind across the organisations.

We have an expectation that there will be collaboration with Health. We had a report with us last week that indicated that there were so many strategies; a whole raft of them. It was about mental health provision in the criminal justice system. It demonstrated that they did not have the resources to take through a number of the recommendations, and therefore they were superseded by strategies that came further down the line. More importantly, there was so much bickering between Departments over which was and should take the lead that a whole raft of those things were not progressed. In the meantime, the victim, the witness, the defendant and people who work in the system suffer. That is what concerns me. Therefore, I am glad to see your work.

As you progress through it all, I think, you need to go back. You say that you anticipate that it will become apparent through the PFG. I am not so sure, because, in the previous 15 years, there have been a number of PFGs. Therefore, we need to look at that. If you go in and look at doing future inspections, either in the broad brush of the entire system or in each individual organisation, will you look at collaboration as part of that to see what is going on further up the chain to give you the means of assessing it?

Ms Durkin: In every thematic inspection that we undertake, regardless of the topic, we always look at strategy and governance. We look at that organisation and its governance and accountability arrangements. We look at what it has publicly declared that it will focus on and achieve and at its targets, actions or outcomes. That is one of the tenets that we consider in every inspection. We look at strategy and governance, delivery and outcomes. Our inspection reports are structured around that.

We will always look to the highest point or the most overriding collaborative strategy that is in place. The Programme for Government for Northern Ireland is obviously key to that. Following from that are the corporate plans in the criminal justice system. In the Department of Justice, the Police Service or whatever organisation it happens to be, we are looking for linkages as to how what it is doing contributes to the Government's agreed priorities and the outcomes that they intend to see. We look at that in any topic or inspection. We always look for that framework of strategy and governance when we do an inspection.

Mr MacAnulty: In every thematic inspection, that is the place that we go to as an inspection team. We ask what was in place beforehand. If I go in to do a thematic inspection, I look at whether I have done that inspection before and how it feeds into what I am looking at now. We have reported consistently since the inception of the CJI that what it requires is interdepartmental and inter-organisational working and teams working better within teams. We have been saying that all along. This is just a bigger, strategic version of that. We look at it all the time.

Ms Durkin: We also cross-reference to other inspection reports. If we are doing a particular inspection and there are relevant recommendations from another inspection report, we cross-reference to those as well. That is why I said that I think that this will feature again in the future when it becomes apparent. If this is the stated intent for the criminal justice system, it is something that we would always be live to in future inspections.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Since you mention that, you made recommendations in your report, 'An Inspection of the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland's Investigation of Abuse of Position Concerns and Complaints'. I have asked the Department about this and am still waiting for an answer. You made this strategic recommendation:

Is that something that is particular to the ombudsman's office, or did you see evidence of that throughout the other organisations during this inspection?

Ms Durkin: As you said, that inspection was relevant to the Office of the Police Ombudsman. That was the finding of that inspection. Partnership agreements involve organisations that have an arm's-length relationship with the Department. We found that the clarity around what the Department would do and what the Police Ombudsman's office would do could be improved. That inspection was published relatively recently. We may return to that issue in a follow-up review.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): There were some difficulties, and you felt that a partnership agreement would be beneficial in those circumstances. In the course of this inspection, did you see any similar themes or patterns of where you think that relationships need to be worked on or where it would be beneficial to have a partnership agreement?

Ms Durkin: A partnership agreement is like the old management framework: you state very clearly, "This is what the Department will do and expects from you, and this is what you, as an arm's-length body, will do with the public money that we're giving you. This is what you're expected to do with it, and these are the governance standards that you're required to work to". This inspection was about making sure that all the leaders in the key organisations in the criminal justice system were informed about what had been decided was a priority and why. When I talked to some of the leaders, I thought that they felt as though they were a bit out of the room: they knew that things were happening, but it was about how they heard or how they were involved. There was a previous structure through the criminal justice issues group. It had some challenges as well with how it was operating. It is about providing a space for all of those key leaders, who will be mindful of what that agreed vision is and what the priorities are and of how they feed into it. However, that was not to do with partnership agreements; it was more to do with really good communication, clearly stated priorities across the criminal justice system and making sure that key leaders were aware of them.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): The issue is that the Criminal Justice Board is where the strategy, the vision and the decision makers are, and everything else flows from there. It has a series of work strands. From what you saw in the course of the inspection, were any of those work strands further behind than they should be? Is there any particular organisation with the lead on a work strand that is falling behind? Are those progressing as they should? Are there issues in that regard?

Ms Durkin: You need to ask the Department that. We did not get into that level of detail of those five agreed priorities in the course of the inspection. Departmental officials are well placed to tell you where they are now and what progress has been made against them.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is fair enough. I think that we will follow up on that. It is important that they indicate how they are collaborating with each other on the operational aspects.

Ms Durkin: It is important to say that, while it is called the Criminal Justice Board, it is not a board that you or I would traditionally think of. It does not have executive decision-making powers across the criminal justice system. They each have their own leadership responsibilities. Ultimately, the Department and the Minister fund the vast majority of the organisations and individuals around that table, but, as I said, the Public Prosecution Service is funded through the Department of Finance. Sometimes, that is not really helpful, because the Director of Public Prosecutions does not have a Minister to speak for them on the issues that they can speak for in relation to the workings of the criminal justice system and their resources. I know that you have had good conversations with Stephen Herron about the challenges that he faces, but there is that scratchiness. You want and need the Chief Justice to be in the room to inform about what is happening from their perspective, but that does not in any way impact on their leadership role or what they do in relation to the judiciary in Northern Ireland.

It is not a board. I am sure that officials are better able to explain that than I am, but it is not a board in the formal sense that it has a budget, governance arrangements and executive decision-making powers. I would not describe it as fragile, but it is certainly something where you are reliant on leaders doing the right thing by thinking connectedly where they can across the system in saying, "Right, how can we collectively make sure that we have agreed that this needs to happen?", whether that is better victim and witness care or about reducing avoidable delay. "How are we going to do that through the five key priorities that we have identified?". "How are we going to make this happen, and how will we know that it has been successful?". It is not a board in the traditional sense of what you would expect an executive board to be.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I think that we get that. Our issue is that we have an expectation that they will all pull in the same direction because they are all working towards the same end. I appreciate, however, that it is difficult for some heads of function. There are organisations of different sizes and which have different accountability mechanisms. Furthermore, I imagine, because it is human nature, that there are elements of protectionism, where to give up something or to compromise on something impacts on your organisation. People are reluctant to do that or to effect change.

From our point of view, we want to see the system working better. We want it to be more efficient and effective, and we want to see all the organisations pulling in the same direction, rather than duplicate. As you mentioned, David, there was a lot of activity, but whether or not the outcomes were bearing fruit from that was another question. The issue of strategies and the number of strategies becomes overwhelming. In the Chamber this week, I mentioned the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime (EPPOC). A couple of years ago, with regard to paramilitarism, that team took a look at the strategies across Northern Ireland and found that there were at least 89 strategies across the Departments — not all Departments — that had an impact on paramilitarism. None of those strategies was held centrally. The extent of the duplication of all that and even of monitoring the outcomes, achievements and attainments from those strategies is almost impossible to determine.

Given the financial constraints that exist within Northern Ireland's Budget, a lot of that needs to be stripped away and streamlined, as you have highlighted. The great thing about your coming to the Committee now means that we can also keep an eye on this and have conversations about the intent, the action plan and how they propose to follow through. That is our job. It is our job to see that the organisations are pulling in the right direction.

I have one last question, which relates to the corporate plan. The Department has produced a new corporate plan for 2024-28, but that was published after your inspection. From what you have seen of that corporate plan — I do not know whether you have looked at it — is there anything in it that addresses some of the issues that you have raised prior to the Department taking on that work?

Ms Durkin: We have not seen the new Department of Justice corporate plan or the business plan for 2025-26 yet.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is fair enough.

Finally, then, is there anything that the Committee can do that would be helpful in progressing some of this work?

Ms Durkin: We really welcome the Committee's interest in this work. This is the right space. While I have responsibilities as chief inspector for deciding what follow-up reviews we do, the oversight and challenge and support from the Committee is essential. What I would say is that Northern Ireland is probably better placed than many other jurisdictions because of its size and the connectedness between organisations. With a relatively small pool, there is a professional network that people can rely on. The difficulty, as you said, is that, if everything is important, nothing is important; if everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. We wanted to point — we have done so clearly in the report — to the fact that there are opportunities to look across and say that, if we are truly committed to transformation — not simply tinkering or making a single service improvement — and to making sure that we drive out some of the avoidable delay and unnecessary use of resources or the passing of a problem to another organisation, we need to be clear about what it is that is really important to all of us and what we are going to do in order to get there. In Northern Ireland, given the leaders we have and their good working relationships, we are as well placed now to do it as we ever have been. We all know that resources are tight — they are tight in every organisation — but it is about what you do well with what you have.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is absolutely it. Thank you.

Does anybody have anything further? No. Thank you very much for your time, Jacqui and David. It is a very useful report. Thank you for providing us with a summary of it; that was helpful. Thank you for taking our questions. We look forward to hearing from you about the other reports. Thank you very much indeed.