Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): We are limited to an hour and a half, so I ask members to be careful with their time and be sure to ask direct questions. We do not need statements or opinions; we just need questions and answers. Minister, that goes for you too.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): Thank you, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Without further ado, we will get through a good, productive session with the Minister of Justice, Naomi Long, and Hugh Widdis, permanent secretary, Department of Justice. You are welcome to the Committee. Maybe you want to make an opening statement.

Mrs Long: I would be grateful to do so, thank you, Chair. I thank the Committee for the opportunity to meet you today. I know that officials have attended the Committee regularly, and I trust that that has been helpful. My officials and I are keen to support the Committee in its important role of scrutinising and supporting the Department, and we are really grateful for your input to the work of the Department as we seek to advance our priorities.

I normally plan to keep my opening remarks brief to allow as much time as possible for questions. However, I ask you to indulge me slightly, because, given the events of recent days, I would like to provide information additional to that which I had originally intended to provide. I will touch on a few current issues and, of course, will take any questions.

I am pleased to report that, since I previously attended the Committee in March last year, progress has been made on a number of key issues. For example, I was particularly pleased to secure, in such a challenging financial environment, full funding of £7 million for year 1 of the PSNI workforce recovery plan. As you know, the recruitment campaign is ongoing.

The Department also secured £20·5 million in transformation funding from the public-sector transformation board earlier this year to support key elements of the speeding up and transforming the criminal justice system programme. The funding supports two priority projects: early engagement and out-of-court disposals. Both projects are key enablers for the wider programme and deliver their own benefits, including reducing avoidable delay, improvements in how cases are progressed and the more proportionate use of disposals. A public consultation on the expansion of out-of-court disposals concluded on 28 September. The findings have been compiled, and the next steps will be discussed with you at a meeting on 19 February.

I recently launched a review of sentencing policy that will consider the legislative framework for categories of crime including serious sexual crimes, drugs, fireworks and animal welfare. The use of good-character evidence and prison sentences for the unlawful killing of an on-duty emergency worker will also be considered as part of that review.

A children's sexual offences legal adviser pilot has been launched to support young victims of serious sexual offences to navigate the justice system.

A major challenge this year and, in particular, future years is finance, and that will severely impact on my Department's undertaking of initiatives. While funding allocations for the current financial year have been largely positive for my Department, we cannot forget that they are only slowly closing a gap that was created by significant and consistent underfunding over the past decade. That continues to have an impact on a range of areas, including policing, prisons, the courts, legal aid and probation services. All areas of the justice system continue to take action to bear down on costs in order to keep expenditure to a minimum. That will ensure that my Department does not overspend its budget allocation for 2025-26.

In considering future multi-year Budgets, I am conscious of the significant pressures facing all Departments and the difficult decisions that need to be taken by the Executive. However, I am particularly concerned about the proposed draft Budget allocations for the Department of Justice. My Department's finance director is due to provide the Committee with a detailed budget briefing on 19 February. At this initial stage, however, the Department's assessment is that business areas across the justice system will face stabilisation pressures for day-to-day running costs amounting to £101 million in 2026-27, £141 million in 2027-28 and £215 million in 2028-29. That would be catastrophic for the justice system in Northern Ireland. Considering the magnitude of the remaining pressures, it is difficult to see how my Department will manage to live within budget.

I will continue to work through the details of the proposed draft Budget outcome with my officials and business areas across the Department. We will be required to make some extremely difficult decisions on prioritisation and service provision in order to manage those remaining pressures. That will, inevitably, involve the consideration of issues such as services that can be delivered, staff numbers, pay awards and deferring major capital plans. I remain committed to working with the Minister of Finance and my Executive colleagues to ensure that we have a justice sector that is funded appropriately. I trust that you will be supportive of the need for investment in the Department, and I am sure that you have been hearing similar views from stakeholders.

I have also been taking steps to improve the use of resources and to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the justice system. However, that is not a straightforward or easy task, as the withdrawal of service by the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) has demonstrated. There is a clear mandate for change and support for it among most stakeholders, but, at times, there is also a degree of resistance to change, a lack of understanding among some about governance and legislative constraints and a lack of realism about the financial pressures that we face. It is disappointing that the CBA decided to increase pressures on the system. The action gives rise to additional costs, and costs will attach to recovery also.

More important, it is disappointing that the suffering of victims and witnesses is now being leveraged yet again, and they remain my primary concern. As I have said before, the impact of the withdrawal on victims and witnesses cannot be overstated. However, I remain determined to make progress; indeed, I was hopeful of a positive outcome by the time I would sit here before you. I had proposed an accelerated, independent review, investing additional funding and departmental resources once again, in order to address at pace the CBA's remaining concerns. The proposed review was conditional on a full return to service in order to remove the intolerable impacts that victims and witnesses are currently suffering. It was also to ensure that additional, unwarranted pressure was not being brought to bear on those who were leading the review, so that they could proceed without fear or favour and without the leverage of victims' suffering influencing decision-making.

Unfortunately, the CBA has rejected that proposal, suggesting instead that it should decide on a week-to-week basis whether any further derogations to service withdrawal could be allowed, subject to its assessment of progress. As you will appreciate, that is untenable. Moreover, I would argue that it is unethical. I cannot allow victims and witnesses to be blatantly used as bargaining chips in any process. I cannot allow the independence of reviewers to be compromised. The review needed clear and unambiguous commitment from all at the outset, and my commitment was clear. The offer of potentially considering allowing further derogations would also offer no degree of comfort to victims and witnesses. They would have no certainty as to if or when their case might proceed, nor would there be clarity as to the criteria that the CBA committee of unknown barristers making the decisions on derogations would apply in deciding which cases would go ahead.

Given that my offer was rejected, I cannot proceed with the accelerated review. Therefore, the Burgess review process will continue as originally scoped. I have also asked my officials to consider other options for resolution, and that work is ongoing. My officials are meeting again, this afternoon, with representatives of the Bar Council, so I cannot say much more at this stage. Please be assured, however, that that work is intensive and is proceeding at pace and that this is a priority for me. I am also working at pace to increase support for the victims and witnesses who have been affected by the service withdrawal. I am making additional resources available so that all possible assistance can be provided. My officials are liaising with the organisations that are providing direct support in order to ensure that the right individually tailored supports are provided at the greatest possible speed.

In relation to Justice Bill, I am grateful to the Committee for the positive engagement to date through written and oral evidence sessions with my officials across the range of areas, including proposed amendments. Members will be aware that I have secured Executive agreement for the progression of the majority of the proposed amendments, some of which have already been drafted. However, for now, that excludes the draft proposal on repeal of vagrancy, which has been parked temporarily by Executive colleagues to allow for further discussion on the matter. That includes further engagement with the Committee, which, I consider, is best placed to scrutinise the detail of the provision. I will, of course, continue to engage with Executive colleagues on the matter. In light of that continued engagement, the readiness of the draft provision and the broader interest already expressed on the issue, I believe that the matter should be progressed to Consideration Stage, when the Committee's final position can be shared with Assembly Members as part of that wider debate.

Since Committee Stage began in September 2024, additional policy areas have come to light where there is an urgent need for primary legislation. The Justice Bill is the only Assembly Bill in this mandate that has the scope to capture these further provisions, and, accordingly, as highlighted, I sought and secured Executive agreement for the drafting and inclusion of additional policy areas in the Bill. Members will be aware that that includes a provision for new offences to criminalise the creation or sharing of a sexually explicit deepfake image. I hope to be able to share the text of the draft provisions with the Committee at the soonest opportunity and, if possible, allow the Committee to consider and include the outcome of its deliberations on those clauses at report stage in the Committee. However, irrespective of that and given that drafting resources are outside my direct control, I intend to move the amendment at Consideration Stage.

With Committee Stage due to end on Friday 27 March, I am hopeful that the Justice Bill could complete its remaining Assembly stages before summer recess. Consideration Stage could take place at the end of April or the start of May, Further Consideration Stage in late May with Final Stage in mid-to-late June, subject to Executive and Business Committee approvals. If Royal Assent were then granted over the summer, the first of many of those long-overdue reforms would be able to come into operation in the autumn. Some, however, will require further time to enable preparation for their effective readiness in conjunction with our operational partners.

Following pre-legislative scrutiny of the proposed provisions included in the victims and witnesses of crime Bill, instructions have now been prepared for the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC), and work is progressing with the aim of introducing that Bill in late spring. I believe that the contents of the Bill are necessary, and I have focused on the reforms that will be most impactful in effecting real change for victims and witnesses of crime.

Following the Assembly debate on 8 December, Minister Kimmins and I met families and representatives campaigning for legislation to prevent the unauthorised recording and sharing of photos of road traffic collisions and, indeed, other sudden deaths in a public space. It was clear that the immense trauma that those families faced in losing a loved one was further compounded by the circulation of distressing and graphic images on social media. I consider that the victims and witnesses of crime Bill may provide a suitable legislative vehicle for such a provision. Whilst my Department does not have the capacity to consult on such matters in advance, my officials would be willing to support and work with the Committee to enable a Committee amendment to that effect, if members were minded to do so. I am interested to hear your views on that.

Members will also be aware of my intention to introduce a sentencing Bill. I intend to seek approval to introduce the Bill at the Executive meeting on 12 February, and, subject to approval, I intend to introduce the Bill during the week commencing 2 March. I understand that a briefing for the Committee will be arranged to follow shortly thereafter.

Finally, I want to address the story reported yesterday regarding names appearing on court lists. First, it is important to note that the Department does not accept that it is a personal data breach, and no information was released erroneously. Court details, other than those relating to family proceedings, are routinely listed publicly online unless an application is made to the court for anonymity in line with open justice principles. It is the responsibility of the legal representative or parties to proceedings to make such applications. A decision to grant anonymity cannot be made by administrators. Only a judge can make that decision. Prior to yesterday, there is no record of an anonymity application being received by the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service or granted by the court in relation to the cases that were listed. However, having been alerted by one of the parties to the cases, my Department, as a precautionary measure, took immediate action and made the decision to have public court lists online taken down from approximately 8.30 pm on 3 February 2026 until 6.00 am on 4 February 2026, when refreshed lists were available following the application of an interim judicial direction. That was done as a precaution and not as the result of it having been a mistake.

I am advised that the cases were listed before the court yesterday and that there may be similar cases in future. As I said, any applications relating to anonymity are a matter for the court. It is important to note that, other than, potentially, the description of the defendant by name, nothing on public court lists identifies an individual police officer. Others who are not police officers or police staff may also, on occasion, take action against the PSNI. There will continue to be cases taken by police officers or staff against the PSNI, and that will appear on court lists where there has been no application for anonymity. As I said, it is the responsibility of legal representatives or other parties to proceedings to make that application to the court and to make that case to the judge.

Some have asked why there is not a court process to prevent police officer names from being released through the courts. There is a well-established process. An application for anonymity can be made to the court by a legal representative or parties to proceedings, but it is the responsibility of the legal representative or the parties to proceedings to make the application. I hope that that clarifies the Department's position.

I will finish there, and I am happy to take questions on those or other issues.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you, Minister, for that presentation. You covered a lot of issues in it.

First, I think that we will all welcome the sentencing Bill coming on 2 March and, in the springtime, the victims and witnesses Bill. You talked about the Committee assisting you with an amendment on the issue that you raised on photographs. The Committee will be very willing to explore that with you. Would that then open up in scope the victims and witnesses Bill to cover other traffic-related offences?

Mrs Long: No, I do not believe so, Mr Chairman. First and foremost, we will want to narrow the scope. I do not think that we will want to narrow it so much that only road traffic victims would be incorporated. I have had other situations where there was a sudden death of someone in a public space or where there was some other form of accident or incident and similar photographs were disclosed on social media. Therefore, we will want to focus on those incidents rather than specifically road traffic issues. Also, because of the nature of the scope, we are looking at how we could draft that legislation to allow the inclusion of that protection for victims and witnesses as opposed to opening the scope more widely for additional clauses. We can work through that with the Committee if the Committee is minded to do so. As I said, for the Department to take that forward, we would need to undertake a massive consultation exercise for which we simply do not have the resources or time. However, for the Committee to do that, it would be much easier for it to scope the work, and the Department is more than happy to play its part in providing background information and assistance to assist with the drafting of any clauses.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): All of us will have had communications with the Bar and with you and the Department on the barristers' strike. There was hope of a meeting of minds, and you met the chair and vice chair of the Criminal Bar Association on 15 January. At that point, as you alluded to, you proposed an accelerated review. You say that the CBA has not lived up to the conditions on its side, and it would say that there were milestones that were included:

Minister, why is that, given that you met the CBA before those milestones, you have needed more time, and why have you not appointed the co-leads?

Mrs Long: First, I am aware of the correspondence that has been circulating. I have not had time to consider the most recent correspondence that has been circulated, so I do not want to try to rebut it on a point-by-point basis. However, it is fair to say that it is not, in my view, a fair recollection of the meeting that I attended, which was a positive and constructive one.

When you set down an offer, there are terms and conditions attached, and one of those terms and conditions was that the Bar would initially return to servicing the complex cases. That means, I guess, that it would revert to the position that it was at before full withdrawal of service, and then, when the swift justice review starts, it would return to full service. That is to ensure that no further damage would be done during the period but also to ensure that the Bar would not continue to use vulnerable victims and witnesses of serious, life-changing and life-ending events as bargaining chips and leverage in the process. From an ethical and moral perspective, that is important.

On 23 January, we had only received an initial response from the Solicitors Criminal Bar Association (SCBA) and the Criminal Bar Association, and therefore we were not in a position to set out the terms of reference (TOR) at that time. However, I wrote to the Bar the following week and explained the delay. We also set about appointing the joint leads. Tom Burgess was supposed to be one of the joint leads, and we sought a consultant either from the Strategic Investment Board (SIB) or someone on its recommendation to do the economic appraisal work. We struggled to get someone who was willing to take on that work, but we identified someone.

Fundamentally, the CBA did not agree on any structured phased return to work. The CBA said that it was willing to "possibly consider" allowing the derogation to apply to certain cases. I have no sight of the people making that decision, their expertise or skills. The derogations were sought by the Public Prosecution Service (PPS), the victims and witness care unit and the victims’ and witnesses’ support on the basis of vulnerability. It would be wrong to enter into a process where there is no reciprocity. If the argument has been that there is a lack of trust, I am willing to work to restore the trust, but the CBA has to meet me halfway. To invest further resources in an expedited process with no promise of a full return to service is something that I simply cannot countenance.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): What is the real difference between the Burgess review and any accelerated review, notwithstanding any negotiations or commitments you want from the barristers? Why would it not be better to go through an accelerated process?

Mrs Long: Firstly, it will cost time, resource and money that we have in very scarce amounts. The second reason is that it was going to look at a very small number of issues that concerned the Criminal Bar Association and a smaller group brought forward by the SCBA. I was clear from the beginning that I did not want to be in a situation where the baby who cries the loudest gets the feed and the other one gets ignored. The SCBA has complied with all the evidence and justification for its asks, and, as a result of working with us, while continuing to service their clients, we have been able to progress many of the issues it raised. However, it was important for me that equal time and attention would be given to take its issues forward in an accelerated process.

Other issues would still have been part of the normal track of the Burgess review, and it is a narrow number of points. It was indicated to me that, if those points could be resolved expeditiously, that would secure a return to full service. In the end, the return to full service was rejected by the CBA membership. Therefore, it is incumbent on me to continue with the process as was originally envisaged, because we only invested in the process to get people back to work to mitigate damage. The withdrawal of service will cost us money because of the recovery and the additional support for victims and witnesses. The purpose of taking some of the investment that we will need for that and putting it into the accelerated review was to get people back to full service, when we could then make those savings and recoup the investment in the accelerated process. I do not have the resources to run an accelerated process and deal with the recovery from the ongoing damage. It has to be one or the other.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Minister, it is fair to say that confidence in justice is at a low ebb. There is a lack of trust among the criminal barristers; the victims are devastated; and the general public seem to have a low opinion of justice and the procedures. What will you say to the families who have been impacted on by this, not least my constituents, the Mitchell family?

Mrs Long: I will meet the Mitchell family in the coming days. I have met many victims and witnesses, and I have been clear that I do not accept that what has happened as a result of the withdrawal of service is ethical or meets the barrister's code of conduct. The withdrawal of service from existing cases is not permissible under the Bar's code of conduct, and yet that is what is happening. The victims' pain, grief and trauma are being leveraged in order to try to extract more financial benefits for barristers from the Department. I cannot stand over a process that allows victims to be used as bargaining chips.

I have been clear all along that I want to resolve this. I have proven by my engagement with the SCBA that, where they can provide the evidence and work with us collaboratively, we can resolve issues. I have given examples of the parole pilot, the work that we have done on Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) visits and so on: all that has been resolved, even issues that may seem trivial to some but were significant for small companies; for example, the travel-to-court issues. All those have been resolved with goodwill.

I want to work with the CBA, but, unfortunately, now, on at least two occasions, I have sat with whatever the current leadership make-up was. We had a constructive and productive conversation. They felt that we were getting close to resolution, and I would hold up, for example, the issue of the decisions around refresher fees, and they have said in their latest correspondence that that has been resolved. That resolution has been on the table from the Department since last August and in the precise terms that have now been accepted.

All I can do is my best, but I need to be met in good faith by people who are determined to see the strike brought to an end in order to make real progress. The most recent offer, I thought, was eminently sensible and reasonable. It allowed barristers to continue to take on new cases and benefit from the refresher fee pilot, which they will not benefit from until they start attending court again. They would have done, of course, had it been agreed in August when we first proffered that offer.

I cannot account for the internal dynamics in the CBA and its committee. That is work that they have to do. I will work with my Department and officials to try to be reasonable. I am not about trying to deny people a fair day's pay for a fair day's work; no one in the room would expect me to say otherwise. Nor am I about trying to provide a second-rate service for those who require legal aid in order to access justice. I see legal aid as a valuable and essential part of our wider welfare provisions in this society. However, I have to ensure transparency, openness and accountability in how those fees are paid and for what.

We now have resolution. That is an example of where, when we were looking at the accelerated process, we took that further forward, out of the accelerated process, and resolved it within days of my meeting them. I would have thought that that would have built the confidence and good faith that we were serious about the accelerated review, but, unfortunately, it was not reciprocated with any seriousness about returning to full service. That is the sticking point.

I will continue to try to find alternative methods and put forward reasonable and rational ways forward, but, ultimately, I am concerned about the victims and, indeed, the clients of the barristers, many of whom are defendants in the cases and whose lives also face irreparable damage, if we cannot get those cases to court and proceeded with. Therefore, it is incumbent on everybody to do all that they can, but I can guarantee only that I will do all I can. It is for others to justify, in however many pages they wish, their decision to walk away and not reciprocate on that basis.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Minister, we had one of the biggest data breaches in history, probably, with regard to the PSNI. Then we have what happened over this week: the names in court listings of 41 police officers who are taking a challenge on that data breach. Is it fair to say that they were named because of normal court process? Should there not have been some foresight into how we would handle such cases, given the fact that the challenge is coming from police officers who are currently serving, who are under threat, whose lives can be in danger and who are challenging the PSNI?

Mrs Long: There could be no foresight because it was not known to us, for example, and would not be known to us at administrative level whether legal counsel had sought anonymity. The granting of anonymity is a judicial function. It must be applied for by the legal representatives of those attending court.

In the interest of open justice, we provide court listings as a matter of routine, and people are aware that, when they are in court, their names will be listed. The listings are pulled through on to the website in the normal way. We have legal representatives who are familiar with the process for seeking anonymity.

I make it clear that many police officers who appear before the courts — whether it is to give evidence in a case, whether it is to take a case against the PSNI or someone else, whether it is in a private or PSNI capacity — do not seek anonymity. There are others who seek anonymity and will be refused by a judge who does not believe that it is justified in the circumstances. There are many people who take cases against the PSNI who are not police staff or officers. Our administrators in the Courts and Tribunals Service have no means of knowing the individual nature of each case. That would involve an intrusion into people's private data and their case that would exceed the boundaries of what we are allowed to do. The process is absolutely clear.

When the matter was raised with me by one of the parties to the case, my officials immediately took action to protect those who were concerned about it and to limit any potential issues. We did not do that because we made a mistake; we made no mistake. The 41 officers listed on the court website had not sought and were not granted anonymity: that is a legal fact. In our response, we sought a judge to make an interim direction. When we realised that the system would not refresh until 6.00 am, I said, "Let's take the system down. Take it offline; that is as far as we can go". We did that not because we had made a mistake but because we were aware that people were concerned about the names being online. It was an extraordinary intervention by my officials, above and beyond what is required of them, in order to try to provide reassurance.

There was no data breach. Your name is not protected data in the courts system. Anonymity will be granted only if you officially seek anonymity from the court through the judge. There cannot be an automated procedure, because we do not know every officer. It would not be in the interest of open justice for every officer to be automatically granted anonymity in every court listing.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): What is the current state of the listings? Are they back up? Are the names back up?

Mrs Long: They were restored at 6.00 am, when they had —.

Mr Hugh Widdis (Department of Justice): The system refreshes overnight and comes back on at something like 6.30 am with all the lists for Northern Ireland. The names that were there previously are not there. The judge made an interim order.

Mrs Long: That was the judge's interim direction.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): To remove the names.

Mrs Long: Our officials approached the judge, who made an interim order granting temporary anonymity until such time as the legal team representing the officers was able to make a formal application.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Given that and given your intervention, how do we proceed in similar cases, of which there will undoubtedly be some, when it comes to the data breach? I understand what you said about police officers being in court for various reasons, but, specifically on the data breach, they may feel that they must challenge the PSNI because of what that breach has done to their lives. How will we proceed with similar cases?

Mrs Long: Chair, there are two things. First, we will not know from the listings whether such cases are to do with the data breach. We are not sighted on that — we are sighted on the complainant and respondent — so we would be guessing. Anyone can take a case against the PSNI, so we cannot be sure. We cannot pre-emptively assume that a judge would grant anonymity simply because it had been requested, which is the other part of it. The only way of resolving the matter is for legal representatives to make the appropriate applications at the appropriate time. Helpfully, the Chief Constable has today circulated to all PSNI officers a reminder, first, that the onus is on them and their legal representatives to seek anonymity if they so wish and, secondly, that there was no error on the part of the PSNI or the Department of Justice.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): This is my last question before I open it to members. Do you see this as having a chilling effect on people coming forward to have their day in court?

Mrs Long: I do not, because I think that people's legal representatives will be able to manage any concerns that they have about anonymity, and, as in the cases listed in which anonymity was granted, they will have the opportunity to seek that. There is no chilling effect. Ultimately, I can be held to account for the things for which I am responsible: what legal representatives do is not one of those things.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. Thank you, Minister.

Ms Sheerin: Thanks, Minister, for coming in. I go back to the questions that the Chair asked about the strike. You referred to potentially having to consider alternative methods if the strike continues. What things are you considering?

Mrs Long: At the moment, we are looking at how we navigate through the system. We have had to allocate additional resources to support victims and witnesses. There will be those who are fearful for their safety. There will be those who are still at risk from the alleged perpetrator of the abuse that has led to the court case. There are others who require additional support, counselling and so on in the interim. We are working with the people who work directly with the victims to ensure that they get the support that they need and to stave off any potential attrition in victims and witnesses through the process.

It is an incredibly painful process. Those people are not strangers to me. I sat in Natalie McNally's parents' home and met that family. I attended the vigil for Chloe Mitchell and met her family. I know what they are going through. It is unconscionable that their pain is being leveraged in this way. Without prejudice and setting aside the frustration and upset that I clearly feel about the plight of those victims, I need to find another way forward, because I want it resolved. I want barristers back at full service. I want those cases back in the court. Our most recent offer was rejected, but we will regroup and consider alternative ways forward so that we can get it resolved. That is my number-one priority.

In the longer term, we will have to look at alternative ways of providing legal advocacy services. We cannot be in a situation in which, periodically, cases and, in fact, the whole justice system are held hostage in this way by any one sector. People have a right to withdraw service, although that right is limited even by their own code of practice, in that you can refuse to take new cases but not refuse to service the cases that you already have. That was made clear when the Bar Council wrote to all members of the CBA, and it is for the Bar Council to enforce.

The situation cannot continue. It is damaging to the justice system. It is damaging to our work to speed up justice. Fundamentally, it is traumatic in the extreme for victims. What is almost worse — this is why I wanted a clean process to get back to full service with dates attached — is that, for many victims, their case is on review every two weeks. They will prepare themselves to go to court, hoping above all that that will happen, only to have their hopes dashed again. Having to go through that every two weeks is dreadful. I thought, if we could set dates and say, "This is when partial service will be resumed. This is when full service will be resumed", there would be certainty in that. Simply saying, "We may consider further derogations" offers no certainty to victims.

The victims whom I have met are desperate for certainty about when their case will be heard. The justice system is unpredictable enough without that additional unpredictability. I want to bring that to a close. I will re-engage. As I said, my officials will be with the CBA later today. I will personally re-engage, as I always have, in good faith to try to resolve it. That is my priority.

Ms Sheerin: OK, thanks. You outlined a lot there, as you did in your previous answers. Obviously, the relationships have broken down somewhat. You are aware that we have all received correspondence from the CBA in which it asserts that delays on the Department's side have caused a breakdown in trust and that that is why it felt that it could not engage. The CBA used the term "slippage".

You referred to a number of victims. We probably all have constituents to whom this relates. I am concerned that, perhaps, there is now a scenario in which one group of vulnerable people is pitted against another vulnerable group. I am particularly concerned for victims of crime. The people who are most likely to be victims of crime are people from minority communities, women, working-class people and people from areas of disadvantage. Those are the same people who struggle to enter the profession, given the low rate of pay in the early stages of a career and how difficult it is to break into it. The CBA explicitly referred to an answer that you provided to me in the Chamber around the "hoarding of cases" and how it feels that that was unhelpful. I wonder how we can —.

Mrs Long: If I may say, Chair, that was accurate.

Ms Sheerin: Well, the CBA has a different perspective on that. I acknowledge that you said at the outset that you had not had an opportunity to go through its points case by case and refute them all. I would love to see us take the heat out of it and look at mediation and how we can have a conversation in which everyone is taken at face value and we do not have the, "He said. She said" that we have seen a bit of, which is probably not helping.

Mrs Long: It is not about, "He said. She said". I can evidence that a small number of barristers hold the majority of legal aid cases. We have the evidence to prove that. It may not be helpful to the CBA for me to say that, but it is a fact. It is one of the reasons why young barristers, in particular, struggle to get experience.

One of the things that we have been looking at as part of the wider enabling access to justice reform programme is trying to change how we manage the different court tiers to allow more junior members of the profession to gain the experience so that they are able to earn a living. There are junior barristers who are afraid to submit bills for their work in case they do not get further work. Now, we cannot deal with that in respect of legal aid, but we can ensure that they are properly paid for the work that they do. Senior people take the lion's share of cases. The money that we spend on legal aid per head of population in Northern Ireland is far higher — it is twice the amount — than what is spent in other parts of these islands. This is really important: it is the distribution of that income across the profession that is the challenge for junior and, indeed, female barristers. That is what we are trying to resolve.

Part of the issue of refresher fee pilots, for example, is to ensure that more junior members of the profession get opportunities to gain experience. We have had the situation in which people who have a case in one court claim a full-day refresher fee in that court but are not in that court — they are in another court down the road and claiming fees there — and rush back in the last 15 minutes. First, the client is not getting the service that they have paid for and that, a judge decided, they needed; and, secondly, that is one barrister holding down two jobs at the same time that, otherwise, could provide work for another barrister. We have tried to set the refresher fee at a level that means that they do not need to run between courts and that work can be freed up for others to take forward.

We can also look at the other fees. I have said repeatedly that I am open to further fee increases. I did not make the judgement that the evidence was insufficient; it was His Honour Judge Burgess who said that all that he could substantiate on the basis of the work that had been done and the evidence presented by the CBA and SCBA was 16%. The SCBA has continued to work with us and provide further evidence, and we have made further increases in some of the areas of work where it was concerned. I note that the CBA said in its letter that it would take an afternoon to provide the evidence. That begs this question: why has the CBA not provided that evidence to date? We have been at the process for a considerable time. It is for the CBA to evidence the work that barristers do, its complexity and the time that it takes in order for us to work out what the right fee structure is. I am willing to do that.

I do not believe that relationships have broken down. That idea misrepresents the position. When I am in the room with the CBA, relationships are fine. The CBA said that it trusted that what I was trying to do was genuine. Likewise, I trusted the CBA: I said publicly that I thought that we had an opportunity to resolve it. When it comes to responsiveness, I get the point that the CBA makes. I am willing to concede that we were a couple of days late on the first deadline. We were waiting for the Solicitors' Criminal Bar Association to come with its asks, and that delayed things. We also have, as everyone has, some unsurmountable challenges. When we try but struggle to find a consultant who is willing to take on the work, there is only so much that we can be held accountable for. We eventually managed to find a consultant to do it. That meant some slippage in time: that I will accept. I had an offer on the table from last August, during which time the CBA signed up to continuing with the process and then withdrew full service. It has now accepted refresher fee pilots. If that is not slippage for no good reason, what is?

Ms Sheerin: You covered this at the outset of your answer, but I will come back to it: I think that the CBA's point of consternation was the use of the word "hoarding". The CBA has clarified the process as to how cases are divided out, whereby they are instructed by solicitors. That "hoarding" narrative is, perhaps, unhelpful. I am picking that up in the media and in how it is all being presented.

Mrs Long: I can stop calling it "hoarding" and do what I just did, which is to say that the distribution of cases across the profession is the fundamental problem and that young barristers, young women in particular, must receive a decent income as part of their profession. The problem is not the fee structure of the Department. If you do not have cases, you do not earn money. The fee structure is irrelevant if those young women and young men do not have cases. That is the bottom line.

I will give you an example of a problem. Say someone does preparatory work for court, they get pregnant and the trial happens when they are on maternity leave. That case will pass to somebody else who will be paid for that work. The person who did the preparation and initiated it will not be paid. That has to change, which is why we are talking about introducing interim fees whereby you get paid as you go along for what you have done. That is fair and will protect people in that situation.

These are all issues on which there is, I think, overall, wide agreement. The profession itself is concerned about the stability and future-proofing of the profession. As with all professions, as skilled people age out of the profession, you want to make sure that, coming underneath, there is a cadre of people who have those skills. The only way for people to gain those skills is for cases to be distributed across the Bar. The complex cases will always go to the most senior people, but there are, for example, senior counsel running into Magistrates' Courts for non-complex cases and getting fees for that. That is work that a very junior barrister could do to gain experience on which they could build. That is what we want to look at.

Despite the length of the letters being exchanged, it is not impossible to bridge the gulf between us. We can bridge that gap. We did it on refresher fees literally by the Wednesday of the week after I met the CBA — that is how quickly it happened — so there is no reluctance on my part. However, nobody will benefit from a refresher fee until they are back at work, because that is about Crown Court appearance. We have that in the bag. My problem now is this: does that unravel? This has been the history of the relationship: you think that you have pinned down exactly what people want, you deliver it and then it unravels.

I want to get back to the table, and that is where my officials will be this afternoon. I want to bottom it out. We now know what the issues are. We got a clear steer on that when I met the CBA on 15 January. I want to de-escalate this and get it resolved. I did not say anything after I made the offer. I did not disclose the nature of the offer or talk about it publicly. I said nothing about it. I let it sit with the CBA to talk to its members and see whether we could move it through.

At the end of the day I could express frustrations about the language that is used about my Department — the insinuation that the Department is dragging its heels or is lethargic in its responses. I could take issue with that, but that is not what this is about. It is about the victims who are suffering. It is about getting to a place where we have open, transparent payments; where people on legal aid get the service that they are paying for, albeit with public money; and where we know that we are getting value for money and, where it is within our gift to do so, supporting the sustainability of the profession. That is all we want to achieve. I will deal with the CBA and others again in the near future. That goal is too precious to be thrown away just because we have had a setback this month. We have to keep going.

Ms Sheerin: I have another question. I know that you are bringing forward the sentencing Bill. There has been some concern about misogyny not being included as a hate crime and about the definition of sectarianism, given the rise in the number of hate crimes, particularly those that involve those two aspects. We see the crisis of violence against women and girls, and we know that misogyny is the cause of that. What is the rationale for the exclusion?

Mrs Long: The consultation on phase 1 did not include those issues because they are more legally complex and, I would argue, more politically challenging. The initial work in the consultation on phase 1 covered the other aspects. Another part of Judge Marrinan's review related to what, I would argue, are more public order-type offences, such as hate speech and hate displays. Many of you will recall that there have been unsuccessful attempts to resolve those issues politically. That does not mean that it is not possible to resolve them politically, but it needs to be done more slowly, and we did not have the time because of the fractured mandate. We consulted on phase 1, and that is what we are bringing forward. We are not even bringing forward all of phase 1 at this stage. Given the shortened mandate, we are only able to bring forward two elements: the aggravator model and the special measures for victims and witnesses in court.

As you know, the issue of misogyny has been raised in Scotland. Helena Kennedy KC briefed the Assembly on it. Her view is that misogyny does not sit well in a hate crime construct and that separate legislation is required for misogyny. Scotland has explored that as part of its work. The difficulty is that most legislation tends to be gender-neutral, so framing misogyny in the Bill would be complicated. If that is not done properly, it could dilute what we mean by "hate crime". Everybody could be able to identify as something in the Bill, so everybody could be a victim of a hate crime. It is about how it is handled as opposed to whether it needs to be done. Scotland is looking at the model. We will be interested to see the outworkings of that to inform doing something specifically around misogyny.

There is, believe it or not, no official definition of sectarianism. We all know what sectarianism is — we know it when we see it — but defining it is really complicated. For some people, it is about their religious identity; for others, it is about their cultural identity; and, for others, it is about their political identity. For most people, sectarianism is an amalgam of all those things. Defining sectarianism in law is really complicated, as has been found in Scotland, where some of the sectarianism provisions are being repealed because they lack sufficient clarity on what it is. We could, I suppose, simply say — others, I think, have thought about doing this in the past — that sectarianism is a protected characteristic and leave it to the judiciary and the courts to fill in the gaps about what that means and looks like. However, that would be a lot to ask. We should not devolve making legislation and policy to the courts; we need to do that. It is a conversation that needs to be had.

Part of the reason for not consulting on that and going ahead with phase 2 is that I do not have the resources to drive forward the phase-1 elements of the Bill in this mandate and do the consultation on phase 2. The consultation on phase 2 will happen, but it will happen probably in the next mandate, when we have the resource. The same people will do that consultation as did the consultation on deepfakes and as are driving forward the three pieces of legislation. You will see that it will be the same officials who come to the Committee. There just is not the capacity to run another large consultation, and I suggest that it is likely to be lively. From our perspective, in this mandate, given the time and resources that we have, the priority was the areas that we have already consulted on and in which we have a substantive evidence base.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you. Members, we will try to get everybody in. Minister, everybody wants to ask you a question. I remind members to be concise in their questions, and, Minister, I remind you to be concise in your answers.

Mrs Long: I will.

Mr McGlone: Thank you, Minister, for outlining a number of issues. We have all been provided with a letter — the Chair referred to it — from the Criminal Bar Association and the Bar of NI. Can you confirm that you issued a letter on 16 January to describe the review and give some key milestone dates? Of course, we are all on the one page when it comes to victims. We have heard and seen some of the cases on the radio and in other media. They are heartbreaking, and we want to arrive at the point of having those cases move on and at least attempt to get justice for those people for what happened to them. I will read out what has been said, and you can say whether it is right or wrong or, perhaps, not properly phrased:

We are all politicians, and we know that the only way forward on these matters is dialogue. Can you give any commitment as to how those dates have adjusted and how they may be complied with in light of some of the delays? I recognise that it is hard to get a specialist consultant at the drop of a hat to deal with such issues, but can you give some indication as to how those dates might be fulfilled? I am sure that the message will go out to the barristers to say, "Look, if you guys want to engage in dialogue, we are genuine in our commitment to meet the framework and deadlines for that dialogue". It may be adjusted, or it may have slipped somewhat because of external factors that you had no control over, but, if we had some sort of commitment around that, dialogue could at least recommence and people could come back in with a genuine commitment to achieve the outcome that we need in everybody's interests.

Mrs Long: We met on 15 January, and I put a proposal to the CBA. On 16 January, I wrote in the terms that you described to the Law Society, the SCBA, the Bar and the CBA. We had hoped to know the scope on 23 January. That required us to get correspondence from the CBA to agree that the things that we had discussed verbally would be in scope. We also had to get correspondence from the solicitors. I think that we got that at around 5.15 pm on Friday 23 January. Therefore, we were not in a position to issue the letter immediately and say, "This is the scope", but we wrote the following week to say that that was the scope.

Mr McGlone: That bit is dealt with.

Mrs Long: OK. That is dealt with.

The second part is that, a week later, the intention was that we would agree the joint heads, and that is where, as I said, it was difficult for us to get somebody willing to take on the work. We had no difficulty in getting His Honour Judge Burgess, who has the patience of a saint with the process. He was willing to step in and be one of the chairs, which, again, is what was discussed. We then tried to get another through the SIB and, indeed, external consultants.

You can keep me right on this, Hugh. We tried to get someone, and we got someone. As we sit here, that has all been done. That was in the bag quite a while back.

Mr Widdis: It was certainly last week, when we got the final

done with the consultant.

Mrs Long: The issue is that there was no agreement from the CBA to honour its side of that offer.

What you read was my side of the offer. What I was requesting from them in response was that they would return to deal with complex cases — rape, murder and those cases — as they had done prior to the full withdrawal of service at the point where the terms of reference were agreed. They said no.

Mr McGlone: So —.

Mrs Long: Sorry, and then to return to full service at the point where the accelerated review was to start. They said no. What they said instead was that, if we proceeded with the review, they would consider possible further derogations on cases, which, as I explained, was not acceptable.

Mr McGlone: Can I just take you back? There is a wee bit blank there for me. I take you back to the terms of reference being agreed. Are you giving us to understand then that the terms of reference were issued and shared with the Criminal Bar Association and that it did not agree to those terms of reference?

Mrs Long: First of all, the scope: we had what was in the scope. That was the first point that was to be agreed. The second was the terms of reference, but the Bar indicated that it would not go back to full service until the end of the process —.

Mr McGlone: No —.

Mrs Long: Hold on, and that it was contingent — it intervened at that point and said that it would not go back to full service until the point where it had not just reported but I had accepted in full whatever was proposed.

Mr McGlone: Sorry. Can I just go back there? Maybe I am having a dull day, Minister. Did the Criminal Bar Association respond to you to say, "We reject the terms of reference"?

Mrs Long: They responded to say that, because of the delay in the start of the review and the slippage, they did not wish to proceed and that they were not going to restore service.

Mr Widdis: Forgive me: are you reading from the circular that just arrived this morning?

Mr McGlone: I am trying to establish this: there were terms of reference. They were sent to the Criminal Bar Association and, I presume, shared with it to ask, "What do you guys think of these? How do they fulfil or meet your standards?" or whatever phraseology was used. What I am trying to get in my mind is —.

Mrs Long: The terms of reference, ultimately, were going to have to be agreed between the joint chairs and the Department and the other parties. The process never started: that is what I am telling you. We did not get to the point of actually drafting terms of reference, because the CBA indicated that it was not willing to return to full service until the end of the process. The whole purpose of the process was to get it to return sooner rather than later.

Mr McGlone: They were never asked, along with the other key stakeholders, what they felt about the terms of reference. That is what I am trying to get at.

Mrs Long: Terms of reference would be agreed collectively, Patsy. You cannot agree them collectively if people have said that they are not engaging. The letter that I wrote on 16 January set out clearly the conditions on which this would go ahead. They indicated that they would not accept the conditions. Therefore, there was no point at which they sat down with the joint leads to discuss the terms of reference. That would have been the next stage. They had already said that they would not accept the basis on which the accelerated process was being taken forward.

Mr McGlone: Just to get it clear, at no point were they or the other stakeholders privy to or sighted on what those terms of reference or potential terms of reference would be.

Mrs Long: I am genuinely at a loss to understand what the question is, Chair.

Mr McGlone: Well, it is pretty clear from my point of view: they never got the terms of reference.

Mrs Long: The terms of reference were not something that I was going to impose. They were to be agreed with the partners and the joint leads, but the process ended because the conditions attached to this meant that they would have had to return to work for that to happen, so they did not.

Mr McGlone: Was it agreed by them that they would return to work?

Mrs Long: That was the basis of the offer that I put to them. It was not agreed by them. That is what I am telling you.

Mr McGlone: That is OK. I understand that now. I am getting somewhere.

Finally, the report with the findings and recommendations submitted: obviously, if you did not move beyond stage 2, you would not have a projected date to comply with for the production of a report. Was that included in the suggested TOR?

Mrs Long: No. There were no suggested terms —. Chair, I am struggling. I have said that there were no terms of reference produced. There were no suggested terms of reference.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Agreed.

Mrs Long: An offer was made to the CBA. That offer was a staged offer with dates attached. I explained the slippage in those dates. Because of that slippage, there was no engagement on the terms of reference with the CBA, the SCBA, the Department or the heads because they said that they were not willing to return to full service until the process concluded. We said that that was not acceptable to us.

Mr Widdis: Forgive me: we foresaw that the process, if it had gone on in the way in which it had, according to some of those dates, could have been concluded by March.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): By 20 March.

Mrs Long: Yes.

Mr Widdis: Part of the conditioning in going into the process to begin with was that there would be a return to work on a phased basis. It is quite right that, if that process had flowed, we would have been in the position, by the end of March, where there would have been recommendations coming out of that review.

Mrs Long: Correct.

Mr McGlone: I have to say that I am at a loss to understand why you had a blank sheet on the terms of reference. I am at a loss to comprehend that. Maybe we could move on then, please.

Mrs Long: In what sense is it confusing?

Mr McGlone: If you could give me a flavour of what the departmental thinking was, Naomi — that is what I am trying to get at.

Mrs Long: First of all, when it comes to things such as terms of reference, it would not be for me to negotiate those in the Committee, with all due respect. That matter would have been dealt with by the joint heads. The purpose of not imposing terms of reference from the Department on that was to ensure that there was no suggestion that we were setting terms of reference in a framework that would disadvantage any of the professions, so it would have gone to the joint heads to draft terms of reference and get agreement from all sides, with their input on what would be agreed. Therefore, it was not for us to come forward with terms of reference to impose on everyone else. That would have undermined the process immediately. We were trying to work collectively. We would obviously find the joint heads. That would have to be agreed by all those around the table. They would talk to us about what the terms of reference were going to be. We could agree the scope, because we had received letters from the SCBA and the CBA on what was in scope. One of the things that was in scope was actually a refresher fee pilot. We ended up taking it out of the scope because we solved it first. We were able to do that in a short time.

Perhaps, it is the process that is causing confusion. The bottom line is that, if people had worked with us — I accept that there was slippage on the dates, and I have been open in saying so — and had stayed on board and been willing to work with us, I still believe that, by March 2026, we would have concluded that review and had a report to the Department with recommendations. We would be in a much better position had that been able to move forward. As I said at the beginning, I am not going to rebut, line by line, what has been written by the CBA because I have only had sight of it in the hour before I came to Committee, and I had to deal with a number of other things. We will go through it, obviously, and look at it, but not, I have to say, to engage in a tit-for-tat retribution and slanging match.

In some ways, what is water under the bridge is water under the bridge. What matters now is where we go from here. That is what my officials will be focused on at their meeting this afternoon. That is what I will be focused on when I go back in, because, with respect, there will always be those who want to shift blame elsewhere. All that I can do is my best in this situation. I want to put that behind us. That did not work. It was an offer. It did not pan out, and now we have to look at what else we can do potentially to bring the CBA back to the table in a way that will allow us to conclude the process and get it back to full service.

Mr McGlone: For absolute clarity: I know how the process works. All that I was trying to get was where the Department was coming from, just to inform myself on what your response would be to the TOR. I know that they have to be agreed. I have been there often enough in other places — as you have been — to understand how TORs work.

I have one final, brief question —

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Quickly, Patsy.

Mr McGlone: — on proposed reform of legal aid costs. Can you explain how you intend to safeguard the independence of that process and reassure the Committee that those reforms will not result in the Department's effectively marking its own homework?

Mrs Long: I am unaware of where the Department would be marking its own homework in that process.

Mr McGlone: It would be doing so when it comes to the independent taxing master, who already has a statutory role to do that.

Mrs Long: The issue of the taxing master has been raised by the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) on a number of occasions because, particularly when you are dealing with appeals cases, the process is opaque.

It does not allow us to prove value for money or to demonstrate openness and transparency, and that has been due for reform for some time.

Under our review, the taxing master role will still exist; the taxing master will still make those decisions, but it will be within rates that are set. The taxing master will apply rates that are set by the Department. That gives the openness and transparency and ensures that they have an understanding of the cases and how they run and will be able to make proper decisions about the validity of claims. It will remain as an independent judicial function; the Department will only set the rates that can be applied in the various cases.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): That is quite helpful, but I am loath to get into the taxing master stuff.

Mr McGlone: That is OK. I am happy enough.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): We are doing that through the Justice Bill.

Mrs Long: I am loath to get into it as well, because it is sufficiently complex.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Your clarification is helpful, Minister, because we were debating that point before you came in.

Mrs Long: There will definitely be a taxing master at the end of the process. We are not eliminating the function.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): We are struggling for time.

Ms Egan: May I ask a procedural question, Chair?

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Yes.

Ms Egan: Was the letter that has been referenced throughout the process circulated by the Clerks or the Committee?

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): No. It came to us individually. I know that Brian and I received a copy. I do not know who else got a copy, but, going by the questions, I think that most people have the letter.

Ms Egan: That is interesting. I feel on the back foot, because I did not receive the letter.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): We received the letter yesterday.

Mr Beattie: I will send it to you, Connie.

Ms Egan: Thank you.

Mrs Long: You received it when?

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Yesterday. Last night.

Mr Beattie: Late last night.

Mrs Long: That is interesting. For those of you who are concerned about delay, I say that we received it at 1.00 pm today.

Ms Egan: Apologies, Chair. I did not know whether it was something that should have been in our tabled pack or whether I had missed it.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I hear you, Connie. I know that you read every line in your pack.

Ms Egan: They are extensive packs.

Thank you, Minister. If you do not mind, there are some other issues that I would like to ask you about. Thank you for coming before the Committee.

Can you outline any policy areas that you have not been able to progress due to blockage or obstruction at the Executive?

Mrs Long: There are a few areas where there have been challenges. As always, I have to navigate it carefully. For example, I mentioned that we hoped to bring forward the repeal of the vagrancy laws as part of the Justice Bill. We were not able to get approval at Executive level for that. It was not a final, "No"; it was more of a qualified, "Not now". I am still keen for the Committee to look at the vagrancy issue. I believe that the Committee, rather than the Executive, is the right place for those discussions to take place. The Committee can scrutinise the detail of what will be left when the vagrancy laws are repealed and the measures that the police will have to deal with antisocial behaviour and other things. That is one area.

The other area is one on which, frankly, it is unclear where we are at the moment. I wrote to colleagues a while ago and asked about the addition of transgender as a category for protection under hate crime. I received three positive responses within the deadline, and we issued instructions to OLC. We followed up on the correspondence, but we said to OLC that we would go ahead and draft on that basis. Subsequently, I received a negative response. It will be drafted for inclusion in the sentencing Bill, and it will be a matter for the Executive to make a decision as to whether it remains in the Bill as introduced.

Ms Egan: Thank you.

Can you outline how important it is for other Departments to have a role in the justice system? I was at an event in the Long Gallery earlier this week, and the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime advocated for more funding for justice, because it is about the safety of our whole society. How important is it that other Departments have a role in keeping our society safe and reducing reoffending? We often hear that people end up in the justice system because of failings elsewhere.

Mrs Long: There are a number of layers to that. First and foremost, many of the people who end up in the justice system have often fallen through multiple safety nets in other parts of provision, whether that is mental health, education, youth work gaps or other things. There is a real issue about the pressure that it puts on the Department. It is something that the PSNI feels acutely when it comes to interventions in crises where the primary intervention is not necessarily a crime. Eight out of 10 calls to the PSNI involve the reporting not of a crime but of a crisis. Those are not always policing matters, but the police will, obviously, always respond where there is a risk to life. Responding to a crisis can consume huge amounts of their time, not just in the initial intervention but often in accompanying people to hospital and other things and then waiting with them while they pass through the system and get treatment. Yes, pressures do arise from filling those gaps.

There are also areas where we do not have the vires to do the things that need to be done, for example, to ensure that we effectively tackle reoffending and desistance in the community. We know that the factors that affect that are employment; family connection; good health, particularly good mental health; and accommodation. Most of those fall outside the justice system. Once somebody leaves prison, they are no longer subject to our Department's rules and regulations, but there needs to be suitable accommodation — often, supported accommodation for those who are more vulnerable. Therefore, it becomes more complex.

The Executive have prioritised the reducing reoffending piece of work that we have been doing, as has the Department. Hugh, you might want to say something about that. We have had some quite positive engagement with officials from other Departments about health, housing, and so on, for those leaving the criminal justice system.

In the same way, for victims, much of the care and support that they will need will fall outside the justice system and to healthcare professionals and others. We have a history of working well with other Departments, but, as budgets become more strained and as pressures increase, there is a tendency for people to turn in on themselves and their Department to try to hold what we have, rather than pool our resources to be able to deliver better outcomes. It is really important that we try to maintain the focus on that pooling of resources, where we can, potentially, do more than perhaps our individual efforts would be able to deliver if we work collectively and collaboratively and reinforce the work that is being done in other places.

Hugh, you might want to say something about that at official level.

Mr Widdis: If I may, Chair. We have been progressing with other Departments. You will remember that there is a commitment in the Programme for Government that we will have a reducing offending and reoffending strategy during this Programme for Government period. We have been pushing quite hard on that with the other Departments, and we have done quite a bit of work on all sorts of levels and with arm's-length bodies (ALBs) as well. It has been promising and positive. All the Departments are positively engaged with it. We have no problem there. The task will be, first, to create a framework out of that, which we can bring out to get wider public views on, and so on; and, secondly, to translate that into the actual strategic approach, which we still intend to do by the end of the mandate. That will be the hard-edged bit, where we will need all the Departments and other participants to commit to what they will actually do to help to change all those criminogenic factors and reduce the likelihood of any individual coming into the system as a whole.

Ms Egan: I have one more, Chair, if you do not mind. Thank you.

Minister, I am concerned that you said that budgetary pressures could be catastrophic for your Department. We know how squeezed it has been over the past number of years. Will you speak more to that and, in that context, also talk about the transformation that DOJ has been able to deliver over the past decade?

Mrs Long: There have been huge changes in the justice system over the past decade. For example, 10 years ago, we were told that our prisons were failing institutions. Most recent Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) inspections of prisons have given them top scores — four fours — across the board, particularly Hydebank Wood, for example, which, previously, was a failing institution. It does not get better than that, in both the women's prison and the young offenders area of it.

There has been massive transformation in how we do business and in the quality of what we do. I am not just saying that here as Justice Minister; it is recognised internationally. Hydebank has literally just won an international award for excellence in rehabilitation. Those things rarely get publicised, but they are hugely important in the recognition of the huge amount of work that staff put in to all of that.

We have done lots of work around youth justice and on driving down the numbers of young people who are engaged in offending behaviour, particularly those who end up in custody. We are going further upstream and doing earlier interventions to try to deflect young people from the justice system. All of that has been really positive.

We are seeing innovation in the Department really take off. The challenge that we have had, particularly around tackling things such delay in the courts, which is an area in speeding up justice where we have been successful in our transformation bids, is that not all of that is in our gift. It requires each part of the criminal justice system to buy into that; to look at new processes, new procedures, different ways of working together; to consider things such as out-of-court disposals, in order to see whether what often ends up being a fine at the end of a very long and expensive process can be a fine at the start to cut out all that work in the interim. A lot of work has been done on how the PSNI and PPS work with each other and how the PPS and the judiciary work together. We continue to push that at the criminal justice board.

We have been successful in the applications that we have made to the transformation fund, and those bids are being applied. We are starting to see — we were starting to see that bear some fruit. Things such as the CBA strike risk undoing some of the progress around speeding up justice. It is going to be challenging.

As for the budget, I do not use words such as "catastrophic" often. I have said before that it is incredibly challenging; it is very difficult. I use the word "catastrophic" with a degree of seriousness and weight attached to it. If you look at the annual budget for many of our critical ALBs — probation, courts, Youth Justice Agency — you see that the savings and pressures that we have would exceed their entire budget. Given that around 65% of our overall finance goes to policing and we are left with 35% to run everything else, and given that we are trying to stabilise and grow policing numbers, you can appreciate just how catastrophic that could be for the other parts of the justice system. They are not less important than front-line policing, which is important. Prisons makes a massive contribution to public safety; probation is essential and generally underrated and undervalued as a service by the public, but it does incredible work in turning people's lives around, changing behaviours and supporting people who are reintegrating into the community to desist from offending. I have already mentioned the Youth Justice Agency. All of those are critical, and it is hard for me to see where I can find savings that will not do harm not just to programmes or initiatives but to the infrastructure to deliver those services at this stage.

Hugh, you, as our accounting officer, are obviously very conscious of how bleak it looks.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I am conscious of time, Minister.

Mrs Long: But it is important, because of everything else that we discuss here: this is it.

Mr Widdis: I can give you 60 seconds, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Yes. Good man, Hugh.

Mr Widdis: The Department's finance director, Richard Logan, will be here in a while. Out of the draft Budget proposals — remember that they are only draft Budget proposals — the pressures that we quantify just in stabilisation pressures for the three years of the period are £100 million in the first year and £140 million in the next year, rising to £250 million in the year after that. That is after the projected allocations that are in the Budget.

Remember, our resource budget is only £1·4 billion or thereabouts this year and how difficult it has been to live within that, which has been done only by a considerable amount of suppression of activity and holding vacancies and, indeed, with some assistance from the Department of Finance and the Executive as a whole. Those pressures are coming up. They do not even take into account the exceptional pressures, as we know, of data breach, McCloud and holiday pay, which are coming at us, and to all Departments, to some degree, but we bear a particular share in that. Nor does it take into account the Chief Constable's estimation of what he needs to settle civil claims in the legacy space, which is another exceptional pressure. If the draft Budget proposals translate, it will be an incredibly difficult task for the justice system to operate in that, and the Minister's description of "catastrophic" is entirely right.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK.

Mr Beattie: Oh, goodness. Minister, thank you for all the information that you have given us.

I want to talk about the Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001. The court sets a minimum term for a prisoner — that is the retribution; the deterrent phase — but the prisoner has no right to be released after that tariff has expired. Instead, it goes to a risk assessment phase, and the only thing that they look at is public protection. The Parole Commissioners can only direct release of an individual if there is no risk to the public. That is signed off by the Secretary of State. However, surely rule 27, which we use for pre-release testing, undermines that very principle, because we are letting people out before that tariff has finished and before the Parole Commissioners have said, "You are fit for release" for public protection. They are sometimes released for up to 48 hours unaccompanied without that coverage. Is there no way that we can look at that to see how that sits?

Mrs Long: It does not conflict. The two pieces of legislation are for different purposes. I have explained that in response to questions in the Assembly and, potentially, in written answers to you.

The benefits of pre-release testing need to be recalled. They are considerable for the wider community. I understand the concerns that people have about the idea of releasing prisoners and, on some occasions, where they breach the conditions of that temporary release or go unlawfully at large as a result of pre-release testing, particularly when that happens on more than one occasion. As you are aware, we are looking at that particular assessment process now.

Graduated release on a temporary basis does not equate to final release, which is what is covered by article 6 of the Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001. It states clearly in rule 27 that we can release people for a range of measures, one of which is rehabilitation. That rule is used to allow people to be released for short periods of either accompanied or unaccompanied pre-release testing during the period when they are serving their tariff. When they have served their tariff, they then have the right to apply to the Parole Commissioners to review whether they should be released. The Parole Commissioners will then ask the Department for evidence as to whether that person is fit to be released. On the basis of pre-release testing, the report from the Prison Service can be produced.

If there is a breach of temporary release conditions, there is the authority, first of all, to immediately return the prisoner to custody. No statutory formal recall is required. If a person is released on a life licence, a recall process and procedure has to be followed. With rule 27, they are simply returned immediately to custody.

There is no conflict or override between the 2001 Order and the 1995 rules. One is a temporary release for a specific purpose, and the other is the final release on a life licence based on the decisions made by the courts.

Mr Beattie: The point that I am making is that temporary release, even for 48 hours, unaccompanied — I am focusing on "unaccompanied" here — is not with the direction of the Parole Commissioners or the Secretary of State stating that they are safe to go out into the community. Nobody has made that declaration for them to go out into the community.

I will give you a live example, which you will know about. The Parole Commissioners got in touch with the family of Jim McFadden and told them that James Meehan would not be released. That means that he was not being released because he was not safe to be released into society. Two months later, he was released. How is that not a conflict? I am not talking about pre-release testing; I am talking about who has signed off to say that that guy is not a threat to the community when he is allowed out unaccompanied — not accompanied; I get that. None of rule 27 is about making sure that he is safe in the community. It is about re-establishing family ties, securing future employment, attending training, education, rehabilitation and reintegration. I am talking about the safety of the public here, not any of those things.

Mrs Long: Rehabilitation and reintegration successfully into the community are about public protection —

Mr Beattie: How do you measure that?

Mrs Long: — and public safety. There will be prisoners who fail their pre-release testing. That happens. It is unfortunate. It is not the majority of prisoners, but it does happen. When that happens, it will also form part of the report that is sent to the parole commissioner when they determine whether a person should be released on life licence; that is, their final release on life licence. However, if the Parole Commissioners decide not to release somebody on a final life licence, it does not eliminate the responsibility on the Northern Ireland Prison Service to continue to prepare that person for their eventual release.

In respect of reforming that, I have looked at how many times prisoners should be allowed to go around that hamster wheel, given the impact that that has on families. We are reviewing that, and I have set out why we are doing that, but we still have a duty to rehabilitate the person and to engage in a series of pre-release tests. Some of that testing happens in the prisons, with prisoners going through the progressive regime there, and some happens through assessments made by those who might be working with the prisoners in the prison system, such as those from probation. They will be released for short periods, first accompanied, and then, at testing, for short unaccompanied periods. That process has to continue. That will potentially go back to the Parole Commissioners, who may or may not decide that final release is required. That is the process by which we determine whether someone is safe for release. If someone is released from prison for a short period on those conditions unaccompanied and they meet the conditions and return successfully, the next stage may be to release them for a slightly longer period.

We try to measure the risks. For example, people with a history of absconding and others who have previously broken their release conditions will be looked at more carefully and assessed. The idea that the Prison Service is not capable of assessing the risks attendant to any prisoner is, frankly, an insult to prison officers, who have to assess the risk attendant to prisoners while they are in custody on an ongoing basis to keep both themselves and the other prisoners safe. That is the prison officers' job, and rehabilitation and reintegration are valid reasons for short periods of temporary release. It is for the Parole Commissioners, and only the Parole Commissioners, to decide when somebody will leave on final release. Where somebody has a fixed custodial sentence, that decision will be for the sentencing judiciary.

There is no conflict on the issue. I do not in any way wish to diminish or disregard the stress that it causes to families of victims — I am aware that there are cases — when someone is released and either absconds or is released when the victim was not expecting that to happen. However, our statutory duty has to be met, and that statutory duty is to provide evidence to the Parole Commissioners so that they can make a determination on whether or not that person should be released permanently.

Mr Beattie: Minister, there is nothing wrong with standing up for victims and promoting an issue that they have raised with us. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why you cannot do pre-release testing after the tariff ends. The Life Sentences Order clearly states that the prisoner has no right to be released at the end of their tariff. A risk assessment needs to be done. In the case of James Meehan, the risk assessment showed that he was still a risk to society, yet he was released. For somebody to tell me that the people we empower, including the Parole Commissioners and the Secretary of State, to say that a prisoner is safe to go out [Interruption.]

It is the Secretary of State who signs off on it —.

Mrs Long: That is incorrect, actually. The "Secretary of State" in that instance is now me.

Mr Beattie: OK, then you sign off on it. The bottom line is that those are the people who sign off on it, and you are telling me that the Prison Service can say, "No, they are not going to sign off on it. We are going to let him out". That absolutely undermines it. At Thomas McEntee's trial, the judge, when sentencing him, said:

He was released, and the family were not told. It is fair that I raise the issue, Minister. I absolutely accept the point that you are coming back with. I want to see people able to be released safely into society, but it is right and fair for me to raise an issue that is raised with me by victims when they see somebody released who should not be released and for whom there is no requirement to be released: in this case, that is James Meehan being released after the Parole Commissioners said that he should not be released, and Thomas McEntee being released after the trial judge said that he was a danger all the time. Who signed off to say that he was not a danger? You said that it was you.

Mrs Long: No, I said that, in law, the issues that fell to the Secretary of State pre devolution now fall, in the main, to the Department of Justice. Mr Chair, I am not sure that there was a question in that, but I will answer as best I can. First, I never questioned Mr Beattie's right to ask the question or the impact on victims. I also did not say that I discounted that; I was, in fact, at pains to make it clear that that was not the case. I have initiated a review of how it works in practice in order to ensure that victims do not end up being impacted on by the relentless hamster-wheel effect of somebody getting closer to release each time.

Mr Beattie quoted the judge. It was in the judge's gift to set a higher tariff, and he opted not to do so. I cannot comment on that. The judge decided what the tariff ought to be in that case, knowing full well, in approaching that tariff decision, that pre-release testing would have to be undertaken, because that is a statutory duty of the Department.

The judgement of the Parole Commissioners is different from the assessments of the Department of Justice and the prison. The Parole Commissioners decide whether somebody can be released on life licence, which essentially means that, to be recalled, that person would have to commit another crime or offence or, if their case is supervised, be judged by their supervising officer to be conducting themselves in a way that would require them to be brought back to prison. If they are a life-licence prisoner, I have to sign off on that, so it is me who signs to recall the prisoner — OK? I do that on the recommendation of the Parole Commissioners. They make that decision. I do not decide who is released, but I do decide, on the Parole Commissioners' advice, whether to sign off on the recall. That is what the law says.

I am loath to get into individual cases, because I recognise the potential pitfalls of doing so. Even prisoners, and particularly families, have a right to some privacy. It is important to say that what the Prison Service does through testing does not amount to release: it is a temporary release for a particular purpose. The Prison Service does not say that the individual can walk free, going wherever and doing whatever they want with no conditions — that does not happen, by the way. Under its statutory duty to test the person, it says what they should do. I say this with respect: I have set the statutory duties out clearly. I have answered the questions with courtesy and respect, and I have done so in a way that recognises the impact on victims.

Perhaps, before the session closes, Mr Beattie will take the opportunity to apologise to my officials for the erroneous narrative that he peddled yesterday and for the outrageous things that he said about the state of my Department and my officials' performance. With respect, Chair, I am more than able for political knockabout in these sessions. I am more than able to earn my stripes as Justice Minister and as a politician, but I will not have people drag my Department, and my officials, who work hard to keep this place safe, through the mud in order to score cheap political points.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK, Minister. Doug, do you want to come in? Briefly, because we have —.

Mr Beattie: I will come in briefly. You can deflect all you want, Minister, but the bottom line is that your Department is releasing prisoners into the community who have not been tested fully and are not safe for release. That is the reality, and you know it. You have not answered the question that I have raised on multiple occasions —

Mrs Long: I have.

Mr Beattie: — which is this: why, when the Parole Commissioners said that James Meehan should not have been released and that he was a danger to society, was he released for two days? He then absconded down South.

I will say this, briefly, if I may, because victims are important, and I am tired of them being ignored. I raised an issue with Hugh when he was in with the Committee previously. It was a good question, and he gave a good answer. We have various victim units and care units that deal with different things, which I fully understand, but people are falling through the gaps. I have raised the question with you before. Maybe it is time to have a single victim and witness care unit, so that nobody falls through the gaps, and to go back to an opt-out system for the victim information schemes, because, in the opt-in system, people miss key information. In a recent case that I know about, the family of someone who was murdered found out that the murderer was arrested in Portugal. They found that out not from the victim information unit but from a newspaper. That is not your fault; I am just making the point that people are falling through the gaps.

Mrs Long: I will try to answer those points. First, I note that you have not apologised to my officials. Secondly, you want people to be fully tested, but you do not want us to test them. You need to work through that conundrum in your head before you raise it with us again, because, to fully test people and judge whether they are safe for release, we are required to do staged testing. That is how we —.

Mr Beattie: Rule 27 does not do that.

Mrs Long: Excuse me —.

Mr Beattie: Rule 27 does not do that.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Let the Minister speak, and then we will move on.

Mrs Long: Mr Beattie has had quite a while to harangue us here, so it would be good to be able to answer.

For people to be fully tested, we need to do that testing in a progressive way, and we do that. It is measured, and they are risk-assessed by those who work with them in the prison. To suggest that they are not risk-assessed before release is nonsense. Secondly, there are good reasons why the victim information scheme is opt-in, not opt-out. Many victims, understandably, do not want any further contact with the justice system following a conviction. They do not want to know anything about the person who was convicted of a crime against them. They find such contact retraumatising. It is important, therefore, that we do not presume that they want that. Many victims of crime find that the agency that they have as an individual is taken from them and that they are deprived of choice in those situations. By having an opt-in system, we are fully informing people of the scheme, how it will work and the contact that they can expect from the system. We are giving them the agency to decide whether or not they want to know and to exercise that choice at any time. Some people may not want to sign up immediately but decide to sign up later. Some will sign up immediately, then decide that they no longer want to know and withdraw. That is acceptable.

There are failings in that system. I have held my hands up and apologised to victims whose names were not properly connected to the perpetrator and who were therefore not notified when a perpetrator was released — or when the perpetrator was being considered for parole, I believe it was, meaning that they were not able to make suitable representations. We are addressing that. We are also looking at the wider system to see how we can minimise the risk of that happening again. No system is perfect — human error is a factor in every system — but we are trying to make the system robust, transparent, effective and victim-centred.

With respect, given the amount of time that I dedicate to meeting, working with and promoting protection for victims in the justice system, I do not need lectures from anyone about the importance of being sensitive and trauma-informed in our practice with victims. Do all our justice partners and everyone in the Department get it right on every occasion? They absolutely do not. That is why my door is open to listen to the lived experience of victims; not the experience that I expect to hear about, given where I have directed that things should happen, but what it actually means for them in practice.

I understand your point about having a single victim centre that would deal with it all comes from. However, people need different forms of support at different points on the criminal justice journey. For example, the victim and witness care unit in the PPS does a specific job, which is to guide those who are going through the justice system who need particular support to understand that system, in the same way as sexual offence legal advisers are able to give tailored advice to people who are going through the courts. Many victims who report serious crime will decide not to go to court. Therefore, we have Victim Support, which offers people the ability to seek, as a victim, support and the proper care, irrespective of whether they decide to embark on a criminal justice journey. There is also a system that allows victims to be updated on progress with life-licence prisoners and other things. We are trying to make that more robust and put more fail-safes in place. That is why there is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

People need different support at different stages, from the point at which they first make contact with the PSNI, when they should know the officer whom they should contact, and through the system, where they might have specialist support from organisations such as Nexus and Women's Aid, and then through to the victim and witness care unit, which will prepare them for trial and support them through that journey. It is not a one-size-fits-all approach. It has to be tailored and dedicated to the individual victim at that point in their journey.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK.

Mrs Long: I will finish on this. I have not berated anybody for raising victims issues and never would, but I object to the constant tone of negativity when speaking about these issues and to the unwillingness to accept the factual evidence that is presented. I am willing to look again at issues where matters of substance are being raised and where, I believe, processes can be improved. I have never deflected from that journey and neither have my officials.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK, thank you. Aoife, I am sure that you will not harangue the Minister.

Ms Finnegan: Would I ever?

Mrs Long: We will see. [Laughter.]

Ms Finnegan: Thank you for your answers so far and for today's briefing. I will ask questions about the family court system. Time and again, women in particular have told me about how retraumatising the court system can be, particularly when the abuser uses it as a way to continue their abuse, whether that be through coercive control or financial abuse. They have told me about how it is allowed for the victims to be brought back to the courts time and time again and about the courts failing to recognise that pattern of behaviour. I understand that protections are in place that can stop that from happening, but, in the cases that I have heard about, those protections are rarely enacted.

I was lucky to be able to attend the recent launch of new research by the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime that outlines the fact that the family courts are used by abusers as a form of abuse. What plans do you have to take on the recommendations from that research?

Mrs Long: There are a couple of things to say about that. I am well aware of that issue, particularly given the work that we did on domestic abuse in the previous mandate. We are aware that those patterns of abusive behaviour extend beyond the end of a relationship and are often be pursued around contact with children and other things. In instances where people are being constantly recalled to court, a judge has to make a determination as to whether it is vexatious or substantive. As a Department, we cannot guard against that, because to do so would require us to interfere with the individual parental rights of all parents, preventing them from going back to court. What the threshold for returning to court should be will be judged by the judiciary when somebody makes such an application. Judges can decide that one particular party to the case is being vexatious and take action, but the Department could not deal with that.

We were keen to ensure that people were not abusing the legal aid process. We have had examples of people whose partner gave up work, got legal aid and was using the court process repeatedly and vexatiously. There was then a situation where that person could not afford representation and was being cross-examined by their former partner, who was an abuser. We introduced a domestic abuse waiver into the system, which is not means-tested — the means-testing can be waived. That waiver is available to people who are the respondent in a case in the family courts. The people who initiate contact do not get the domestic abuse waiver; it is for people who are being called back to the court. That was an attempt to avoid people abusing the process. As part of the work that we are doing, we have heard from the professions that that is quite complex to navigate. As part of the enabling access to justice reform programme, therefore, we aim to simplify the waiver application to make it more attractive for solicitors to offer to their clients as an option, when they are giving advice.

The complication with the family courts system is that the policy for that does not rest with the Department of Justice. Without wanting to sound trivial about it, we provide the buildings and the seats and everything else, but the policy rests with the Departments of Health and Finance. For example, marriage law does not lie with us but with the Department of Finance; family law does not lie with us but, mainly, with the Department of Finance or the Department of Health; things such as child contact and social worker reports lie with the Department of Health; and the policy around this matter lies with the Department of Health. Nobody seems willing to grasp the nettle, however, and that is why, on the back of the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime's work on domestic abuse, we will be convening a round table of officials from different Departments to look at what we can do better in the family courts.

I have already given some examples of things that we have tried to do to mitigate some of the challenges in the family courts, where the responsibility lies with the Department of Justice, because I recognise that that is an issue. The use of children as a means of abuse or coercive control, for example, is recognised in the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 as being an aggravator for those offences. We have made provision where we can in that space, but the detail of the family courts is, essentially, judicial-led, based on policy from two other Departments. Our role, as much as anything else, is to provide the court space and the court services that wrap around that, rather than to deliver policy change. I recognise the fact that there is a huge overlap between the people I meet who are victims of domestic abuse and the people I deal with who are concerned about the family courts. Rather than sit back and let the system fester, we want to take it forward and try to convene something that will, hopefully, be useful in looking at how we improve it.

There is also a judicial-led initiative from the Lady Chief Justice (LCJ) in relation to the family courts system. There are some things on which new legislation is not needed, but where a change of approach could be quite useful. The Lady Chief Justice is interested in the issue. She served for many years as a judge in the family courts.

Ms Finnegan: The Committee recently received a briefing from her, and she is due to share her research with us. It was a breath of fresh air to hear her take on the family courts. Given her history, it is evident that she knows the issues in the family courts.

I understand that some of this does not lie with you, but the family court system is a very unfortunate place for women in particular to find themselves in. When a perpetrator takes forward a case, which may be based on unfounded accusations, the women are cross-examined and are supposed to be able to answer questions. They are judged on their parenting and on any decisions that they have made. When that happens time and again, we have to recognise it as being a pattern of behaviour from the perpetrator. Is there any training available for those who work in the court system so that they can recognise those patterns of behaviour? I am aware of one particular case in which a non-molestation order for nine months was granted to a perpetrator one week — as we know, a non-molestation order is for no direct or indirect contact — and, later that week, that lady sat in court and was cross-examined in the presence of the perpetrator. It is mind-boggling that that could happen. Is training available so that, in those instances, people can say, "This is a victim of domestic violence"? You mentioned that there is legal aid for domestic violence. I am glad that you said that it is a very difficult system to go through, because solicitors say to us — they have said to me — "I need to be an accountant to do this".

Mrs Long: We are going to simplify that, particularly around the waiver. As part of that, we also want to expand the number of people who are eligible for legal aid under the means test. At the moment, the means-test threshold means that the majority of people, if they are in work but not necessarily earning a lot of money, are not able to access legal aid. We want to change that.

Judicial standards and training are a matter for the Lady Chief Justice. A variety of training will be worked through. Training has been done on a number of issues. For example, the LCJ recently issued a circular to judges to say that the issue of parental alienation was not recognised in the Northern Ireland courts. She issued clear guidance on that. There is also the issue of judicial training, which I have mentioned. You understand, however, that those are not issues for the Department; they are issues that come forward from the LCJ. We share information or resources that we use for our internal training. We pass those on to the LCJ and the wider judiciary so that they have access to them, where they feel that they are appropriate and helpful. We would be more than happy to raise this issue with them as well in the context of their potential plans for training judges in the future. There was some discussion, during Judge Gillen's review, whereby Sir John Gillen suggested that, given the complexities of sexual abuse, domestic violence and so on, there may need to be specialisms for people. That would also fall to the judiciary to consider.

Ms Finnegan: The last mandate saw lots of positive change around coercive control, stalking, strangulation and so on. It seems that some of that work has slowed down, particularly the work on introducing domestic abuse protection orders and notices. When will we see those being introduced?

Mrs Long: The issue of domestic abuse protection notices and orders is complex. In the previous mandate, the Committee added to the legislation deadlines for when those had to be introduced. We advised against that on the basis that operational partners needed to bottom out how the orders would operate and how effective they would be in the Northern Ireland context. Also, there was no clear path by which we would be able to obtain the resources that we would require to make that system operable. We were also aware, at the time that the orders had been introduced in Scotland but that they were not operating successfully there. We are therefore looking at a pilot approach to scope out demand and build the evidence base for Northern Ireland, so that we know that the model that we adopt will be operationally sound and bring additionality over, for example, a non-molestation order or a stalking prevention order.

We are trying to find out how we can do that. That is, obviously, part of our wider commitment to responding to domestic abuse and violence against women and girls. It is not that the work has slowed down: it has continued at pace, but it is very complex work that was never going to be completed in two years. Actually, the Executive were not in place for most of the two years that we had to do that, so we could not even progress it in that space. We want to get this right. I do not want to offer the veneer of some additional protections if they are only on paper and are not effective. We are trying to learn from experience elsewhere, so we have looked at pilots that are running in England and Wales. We are trying to look at a tailored model that will work in Northern Ireland. I was speaking to Assistant Chief Constable Beck in the last few days about some of the things that the PSNI would find helpful in making those orders useful to them and to the courts, which is one of the things that we want. They are police led at the moment, so that removes the requirement on victims to make an application. One thing that we want to consider is whether a judge should also have the right to apply one at the end of a court case. Whether there is a conviction or an acquittal, the judge may feel that there is enough evidence to justify a civil order to protect a person whom they feel is still at risk, even though the initial case could not be proven.

Those are some of the issues that we are looking at, at the moment. That pilot will depend on resources. We have invested significantly, this year, in scoping that pilot. We have also applied for transformation funding.

Mr Widdis: We have a bid in for the current round of the transformation fund. We reckon that it will cost something like £6 million or £7 million for the pilot over 24 months, but we have not yet heard back on the results of that application.

Mrs Long: We would still try to proceed, even without that funding, but that would potentially be at a much slower pace. It will be the same people who are looking to all the other things in the sector and bringing them forward. I am confident that what we have now is a workable pilot for what that system would look like. If we are successful with the transformation bid, I am hopeful that we will see that happen sooner rather than later. However, as I say, given the pressure that all operational partners in this space will be under, it will be difficult to deliver that without that additional resource.

Mr Kingston: I will try to keep my questions brief.

Minister, you have already spoken at length about the barristers' legal aid strike. You said that the CBA rejected your proposals but that the gap is not great. Is it fair to say that the current situation is a bit of a stand-off over whether the barristers should return partially or fully at the time of the accelerated review?

Mrs Long: No, it is about whether they will return at all — even partially — during the period of the review.

Mr Kingston: Has the CBA not said that it will recommend returning partially through a graduated response?

Mrs Long: No. It said that it would consider some additional derogations, which would mean that a committee in the criminal Bar would decide which individual cases make it to court. The CBA has only said that it will potentially consider that; it has not committed to it. That is quite a stretch from where we wanted to be, which is partial return and a reversal to the pre-January situation where barristers would only withdraw from complex cases and then, as the review progressed, go back to full service. That is the issue.

To be clear, Brian, the gap that I was speaking of is the gap between us on the substantive issues of dispute. I used the refresher fee pilot as an example, but we came up with a solution to the refresher fee pilot last August. That was rejected. There was continued negotiation throughout the autumn and into the new year, and then, in the new year, it was accepted.

Some of this is about communication within the criminal Bar on what the offer from the Department actually is, what it looks like and what it would mean. That is now agreed, but we agreed that within days of meeting on 15 January. It could have been agreed last August.

Look at the individual issues. For example, the CBA has raised issues regarding a pilot for additional written work, and that has also now been agreed. Those two things were part of the six asks, and they have already been resolved outside the accelerated process. There were another couple that were going into the accelerated process and couple that would just continue along the normal Burgess process. Of the ones that were coming into the accelerated process, I do not think that the differences between the Department and the CBA were insurmountable. The challenge is the refusal to return to service during the process.

In contrast, the SCBA has not withdrawn services at any time during the dispute. The Solicitors Criminal Bar Association has continued to meet and represent its clients, including in the High Court and has continued to do the work that it is contracted to do with its clients. We have continued to work with that group to make progress and to deliver on its asks. The SCBA has not withheld service in order to make that progress. In fact, bizarrely, I think that it has gained slightly more from the process even though its members have still been working.

The idea that I can do things that are fanciful simply because of the withdrawal of service is not true. If it is possible to find a solution, their being at work or not at work in the Crown Court is neither here nor there when it comes to the solution, because I have to justify the solution based on value for money, transparency, accountability and all the other measures. It is about managing public money. I cannot do something that does not fit within that, irrespective of whether the Bar is at work or not. That is the challenge.

I would like people to return to work in a graduated way. If the CBA had said, "We will go back to where we were in December and will review that at the end of the process", we could have had that conversation, but it actually said that it will not go back to the pre-January position or to full service for as long as the review is ongoing. You then get the situation where the cases are corralled. Victims and witnesses, the care unit and Victim Support are saying that these are extremely vulnerable victims, and then you have a kind of faceless group of people deciding whether or not they can have justice. That is not fair, because bear in mind that, in some of those cases, their clients will be defendants. How is it ethical for me to say that those who are defending the defendants in those cases will decide whether or not the cases proceed? That is contrary to natural justice.

Mr Kingston: I know that you have only just received the letter. It talks about recommending:

That can be tested. We are all concerned about long-awaited cases being unable to progress. You mentioned repealing certain provisions of the Vagrancy Act and whether that can proceed. You will be aware that some of us have spoken about concerns that repealing it could leave gaps in protection for the public and in police powers to deal with nuisance behaviour and proposals for legislation that exists in England, Wales and the Republic of Ireland on being found on premises with intent to commit an offence, begging, causing harassment, obstruction, public order concerns and the offence of organising, controlling or facilitating begging by others. Whether that proceeds at this stage, would you have been open to considering where those additional powers are needed by the police to protect the public?

Mrs Long: We considered that. We liaised with the PSNI before we made a decision. I started the liaison on it in the previous mandate, and the PSNI assured us that the only thing that it would not have power to deal with was what it described as simple begging. That is somebody asking you if you can spare a few pounds or a couple of pence.

Harassment, blocking of premises, intimidation or threatening behaviour, causing alarm and distress and public order offences are already on the books. The PSNI indicated that, for example, if somebody is blocking a doorway or is causing alarm or distress to people in a locality, it would still have the power to deal with those issues. Therefore, we considered that as part of our overall consideration.

In previous iterations of Bills in Westminster, we asked the PSNI for its views on additional powers that were available and whether it wanted them, and, at that time, it said that it did not feel that it needed them. Therefore, they were not sought at that point, on the advice of the PSNI.

To be honest, I am pretty confident that the issue that we need to deal with on vagrancy is not a criminal one. Poverty is not a crime; being destitute is not a crime and being desperate is not a crime. It is Dickensian that people could be threatened with arrest simply for sleeping rough or for asking for a cup of coffee or a sandwich in desperation.

I do not disagree that there should be interventions on that, but I am not sure that there should be police interventions. There should be health interventions and housing interventions. That is the space that we need to move into.

Where people are conducting themselves in such a manner that they are disrupting somebody else's business, where they are conducting themselves in a way that is causing a breach of the peace, there are laws in place to deal with that. Those are crimes and are genuine policing matters.

Vagrancy laws criminalise poverty. In this day and age, we should have better methods of addressing genuine poverty and destitution than criminalising them. Therefore, from my perspective, I do not think that it is right that people who are simply begging and nothing else — not harassing or frightening people, not causing a breach of the peace or disrupting someone's business — just begging, should be arrested or threatened with arrest.

Mr Kingston: Without rehearsing all the arguments, nobody is saying that you arrest your way out of the issue of rough sleeping or people begging. There are social issues there. However, many people experience intimidation or disruption of their business when those activities happen in a way that is causing disruption and intimidation. I have heard from the police that it has concerns about having sufficient powers, but that will be part of a process.

Mrs Long: We could provide the feedback that we got from the PSNI if it is helpful, but it did not raise those issues with us. It said that it would not be able to move somebody on who is simply begging by using the threat of arrest if they do not move. That is the only power that it would lose.

I want to address the points that you mentioned. First, we have spoken with the PSNI, and there is very little evidence of organised begging and that kind of abuse of poverty in Northern Ireland. However, it is something that we are very alert to, and the PSNI would have powers to deal with that.

Mr Widdis: We are happy to share some of that, Chair.

Mrs Long: Yes, we would. To be clear, it is a conversation that I am open to having. I would like to see it changed. I understand people's reservations. I have met businesses that are concerned because of their experiences. I hope, however, that that conversation could evolve to a point where we could repeal those pieces of legislation and look at how we respond in ways that support those who might feel intimidated, fearful or worried about their businesses.

Mr Kingston: I have one last question. You mentioned hate crime legislation. If someone refers to someone by their biological sex rather than by their preferred pronouns, is it your intention that that be a criminal offence that could result in prosecution?

Mrs Long: No. That is not a criminal offence. It may be impolite, and some people might find it offensive, but it is not against the law to be offensive.

Mr Kingston: It is not your intention that that should be against the law.

Mrs Long: No. We have done the aggravator model in the way that we have because we are not creating new offences. The hate crime legislation that we are introducing does not create a suite of new offences because I do not think that that is helpful. If you can be arrested for something right now, it could be aggravated if your motivation were hatred of a protected group. So, no is the answer, in short.

If you followed somebody round the town daily, abusing that person, that would be harassment. If you did that because that person was transgender or gay or from an ethnic minority or part of a religious group or whatever, that could be a hate crime, if it were proven that it was motivated by hate. It would have to reach the threshold of being a crime first. Referring to people by their pronouns, either chosen or otherwise, is not on the statute books as a crime anywhere.

This is not about criminalising people, either through error or principle, who will not use people's preferred pronouns. It is about protecting people who, for example, may face physical assault in the street because they present as transgender and somebody has a hatred of transgender people. It is not going to intersect with the majority of people who, frankly, want to get on with their lives and live peacefully and quietly with their neighbours.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I am now going to ask Ciara to come in. She is the last member to ask questions.

Minister, I thank you for your time. I have to go. I cannot believe that I will be out of the room before you.

Ms Sheerin: I can.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): My able Deputy Chairperson will take over.

I hand over to Ciara.

Mrs Long: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, for chairing things so well. I am sure that everything will be every bit as smooth in your absence. I promise that I will behave.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you, Minister, for spending the time with us today and for the detailed overview that you gave in highlighting the key areas of progress. I had three areas that I wanted to look at: the barristers' strike, legal aid and court reform, but I there has been lots of discussion on the current barristers' strike. I know that you do not take lectures, as you noted, and you, barristers, victims and we are all gravely concerned. We want it remedied as soon as possible. We hold our barristers in high esteem, and we want to retain that.

I know that you have not had time to digest the response, and I only got reading it myself just before the meeting. When you get to read it, I ask that some consideration be given to the reinstatement of the accelerated review, potentially, or to mediation, as recommended by the Lady Chief Justice. I note that, given the fact that you have not had the chance to read the response.

The core issue that I want to look at is something that I am passionate about. There has been a great deal of progress in the roll-out of problem-solving justice through the mental health courts, the substance misuse court and the domestic violence perpetrator programmes. Those seem to be enjoying success, particularly in problem-solving and reoffending. From your perspective in the Department, where is all of that at?

Mrs Long: Problem-solving justice is the best way forward in dealing with reoffending. If we can get people who, for example, have substance misuse issues into a position where those can be addressed as a precursor to considering sentencing and so on, there is an incentive for people to engage, which can often help. They are not a panacea for all woes, but they can be very productive. They do, however, come with an intensive resource requirement.

For example, when it comes to problem-solving courts for substance misuse, most of the substance misuse support — the health supports that were put in place — were commissioned and paid for by the Department of Justice rather than by the Department of Health in order that the pilot could be undertaken. By contrast, in Glasgow, where the Scottish Health Department runs the desistance programme and its Justice Department runs the courts, they sit side-by-side and work together. It is expensive for us to commission those services, largely from community and voluntary sector organisations, which have a lot of skill in that area. Ideally, I want to be in a position to say that that will continue. It is certainly our intention to look at it. It is challenging, resource-wise because we are, essentially, and for good reason, stepping into the space where other Departments are not. That will require some challenge.

We have also looked at enhanced diversionary options. We are looking at extended custodial sentencing and so on, in the ecosystem that you have all been briefed on. That has huge potential. Colleagues from England, Scotland and Wales were seeking updates from me on that because they are very interested in how it could work. One of the challenges is the ability to have positive requirements in the system, as opposed to simply limitations on what you can do. We would like to be able to do that as well.

The diversionary element of youth justice work is also helpful. The work on out-of-court disposals will come to you as well. The evidence is that when people are given a fine for a first offence, which is immediate and impactful, reoffending is quite low in comparison with somebody who, for a first offence, gets a custodial sentence. Similarly, probation tends to generate better reoffending outcomes than a short custodial sentence; you are comparing like with like. There are opportunities to do some work in that space as well.

All of that will require investment, but it could unlock resources further down the chain. We require a properly funded system in all parts. We need a properly funded prison system, a properly funded court system and a properly funded probation service as well as a properly funded police service. That will be challenging.

We are also looking at how we can better use electronic monitoring to deal with challenges facing us with remand, as well as the monitoring of higher-risk offenders. We are exploring that at the moment. At the moment, monitoring is not GPS-enabled, but it could be down the line, with the right resource implications for that. That would allow us to monitor, in real time, where people go and what they do. In particular, in the case of high-risk offenders, it would allow us to be certain that they are not doing things that they ought not to be doing. At the moment, we can only tell whether or not they are where they are meant to be, which is a limitation on the information that we can gather.

We are looking at all those options because, ideally, we want to take as many people as we can safely out of the prison system to rehabilitate them in the community. Where we do rehabilitate in the community, that sticks and tends to be much more effective. In some ways, it is easier for people to be rehabilitated in a prison environment, in the sense that their access to substances will be restricted. The regime will give them structure in their day, and many of the complexities of their life will have been dealt with by all of that. The challenge is in how they transition back into the community, where pressures, challenges and chaotic lives start to invade their space once again. Their medication might, perhaps, be properly managed in prison but not well managed when they are left to do that themselves in the community.

If we can rehabilitate people in the community and give them the skills to look after themselves and be more constructive and productive, there is often a much better outcome for them, their families and for the safety of the wider community. That will always be our approach.

The last one that I want to mention, which is quite important, is the pilot that is being run by the tackling paramilitarism, criminality and organised crime programme team based in DOJ but on behalf of the Executive. The pilot deals with young people who are at risk of being radicalised into paramilitary or terrorist groupings. That is, young people who are identified as vulnerable and potentially being groomed by paramilitary organisations for membership. Local police who see the risk and the danger refer them to the programme, where there is wraparound support for them and their families, education intervention and so on.

It has been running now for about six months, I think.

Mr Widdis: The pilot has been running for six months in two districts.

Mrs Long: At the minute, it is in south and east Belfast. I think that they are looking to roll it out to Derry and Strabane. It complements some of the work that you will know about with, for example, youth workers in emergency departments. We have that in the South Eastern Trust, and you have it in Altnagelvin. The pilot is about the continuum for young people having the right kind of intervention by qualified and well-trained youth workers, which can often be more effective than a direct police intervention. If is often more cost-effective as well, but it allows support to be put in place in the community, which can often help young people to desist.

So far, analysis of those who have been through the programme, and the reason why we are looking to expand it to another pilot area, is that it has worked well. Derry is a good example of where there has already been good cross-sectoral working between the Education Authority's youth workers, health facilities, mental health workers, the PSNI and others. We want to trial it there to see whether, if it is working in one place, it will work somewhere else or whether there are things that we can learn from the different experiences.

All those things that we are doing are potentially quite positive. I hate saying it, but it is all caveated by the resource implications. However, if we can divert people from the justice system, ultimately it is better for society. If we can find ways of helping people to live more productive and healthier lives, it is better for Health, Communities and Justice. Our focus is intervention at the earliest possible point because I genuinely believe that there could be cost savings if we intervene early. The difficulty and challenge is the firefighting at the other end that consumes so much of our resources every day.

Ms Ferguson: I appreciate the varied and ongoing work that the Department is doing with communities, and I welcome the pilot coming to Derry.

If you will indulge me, Minister, I have a question about the legal profession, and young students in particular. You will be aware of the scholarships that the CBA provides for working-class students, parents and carers. In places such as Derry and Strabane there are significant barriers to entering the legal profession, including the high cost of training, the substantial debt burdens, and the travelling, since the training is based in Belfast. What more do you and the Department intend to do to increase access to the legal profession, particularly for under-represented groups that are furthest from the training in Belfast?

Mrs Long: Legal training and the requirements for it do not fall to the Department of Justice at all; in fact, oversight of the profession is a matter for the Department of Finance rather than the Department of Justice. However, there are areas where we can lean in and be supportive of the work being done. I have talked about some of the reform to the enabling access to justice scheme to assist entry-level people by having staged and interim payments for newer solicitors and barristers.

You are right that there are huge barriers. I am pleased that, in my experience of dealing with the profession, I have found them very focused on removing those barriers and wanting more young people to come through to have a career in the law.

Part of the challenge, as we discussed earlier, is that solicitors select the barrister of their choice. Often, that will be based on the fact that they know them or have worked with them before, so it can be difficult to break through, make a name for yourself and be seen so that people will offer you work. That can be a real challenge. There are no simple solutions to that, but there are some things that we can do to ensure that there is better distribution of work across the profession and that people who want to learn and enter the profession can make a sustainable career out of it. Much of that will, however, lie with the profession itself. It sets the standards and is, ultimately, if you like, the gatekeeper of its professional standards, qualifications, and all those things.

In Northern Ireland, we are fortunate in having a talented, capable and professional cohort of legal professionals. Notwithstanding the challenges that we have with the CBA at this time, I do not want anybody to think that I am, in any way, disparaging the Bar, the barristers doing their jobs or solicitors who are working with their clients daily. That is not the case. We are fortunate to have some very skilled individuals. What I want to be assured of is that we have a sustainable legal profession. Although it is not directly within my remit, it is essential and critical in an effective justice system. Whilst I cannot dictate the terms and do not regulate the profession, it is really important, if we are to have justice, that you get access to legal advice and guidance, and representation and advocacy, where you need it.

There are lots of ways in which we can help with particular areas of specialist advocacy, where we can offer funding, and so on. We have pointed out things like the sexual offences legal advisers and similar schemes, where we can offer advocacy in a slightly different way. There are also opportunities through the enabling access to justice programme to look at access to the different court tiers for solicitors and others who want to do more advocacy work in addition to their regular work. Through all that, there will be opportunities for us to develop a more sustainable model.

However, it will never preclude the need for highly qualified and specialist legal professionals in the Bar and other places to deal with complex, sensitive cases, such as multi-defendant terrorism cases, rape, murder, for example. You will always need a cadre of highly specialised and highly professional individuals to deliver that, which is why, as I said at the beginning, I do not want to deny anybody fair pay for a fair day's work, nor am I trying to be in constant conflict with the professions. I have a very good relationship with the Law Society and with the Solicitors' Criminal Bar Association. Whilst there has been something of a hiccup in our relationship with the CBA, I hope that it is not terminal, because I still want to get back to the table to move matters forward as a matter of urgency.

I share your concerns with respect to victims and the impact that it will have on the courts. I am concerned about the cost implications, given the constraints that we face. However, I am also fundamentally concerned about public safety. Unfortunately, there is the potential that, as a result of this prolonged action, people who are guilty will go free and people who are innocent will remain in prison when they ought to have been freed. That is not justice. I want to ensure that that does not happen. I want to bring this to an end.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you, Minister.

The Deputy Chairperson (Ms Sheerin): Thanks very much for that marathon session, Minister. Thanks for coming before the Committee.

Members, I will give you a five-minute comfort break, if required, because we have more evidence to come.

Mrs Long: Thank you very much.