Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): I welcome Hugh Widdis, permanent secretary at the Department of Justice. I also welcome, from the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service, Karen Ward, acting chief executive; and Astrid Hamilton, director of tribunals and corporate services. Thank you for observing the initial session. I hope that you found it helpful.

Also with us are Dorinnia Carville, Comptroller and Auditor General; colleagues from the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO); and Stuart Stevenson, the Treasury Officer of Accounts.

Thank you very much to the three of you for being with us. You will be aware from what was said earlier that a lot of concerns were raised by members. You will be aware of what the Comptroller and Auditor General outlined in her report. You will also be aware that the findings were clear and robust, but they did not have the seal of approval from the chief commissioner of the Planning Appeals Commission, which we will touch on later.

In this session, we will examine whether the Department of Justice and the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service fulfilled their respective responsibilities in relation to the commission, particularly in respect of resources and workforce capacity and governance and accountability. The commissioner outlined to the Committee a range of circumstances that had contributed to delays and backlogs in the system. Both the commissioner's evidence and your written submission both indicate that improvements have since been made, and the Committee wants to establish whether those improvements have addressed the underlying issues or whether further action is required.

The commissioner also told the Committee that the commission had been seeking a structural review since 2021, which is five — nearly six — years ago. That raises important questions about what action was taken in response to those requests and why the need for a structural review remained outstanding. The Committee will, of course, have a number of important questions for you, but before we do that, Hugh, I will allow you to make some opening remarks. Thank you.

Mr Hugh Widdis (Department of Justice): No problem, Chair. Thank you so much. It is nice to be back, as ever. Thank you, as ever, for the opportunity to appear before the Committee.

As ever, we welcome the NIAO report and the opportunity to discuss it with the Committee. We have accepted all the findings and recommendations, as you know. I absolutely acknowledge the significance of the issues in the report. A well-functioning planning system is vital for Northern Ireland in many ways — economic development, housing delivery, infrastructure investment, environmental protection, public confidence and any other number of ways. We absolutely understand that.

The Planning Appeals Commission plays a very specific and important role in that system. It is an independent tribunal non-departmental public body (NDPB) that performs quasi-judicial functions as an appellate body, and it operates independently from any ministerial or departmental influence. That makes it distinct in nature from most other NDPBs, and I am really happy to get into some of that today, if that helps. The independence is fundamental to public confidence and the proper administration of justice, and we recognise that the Department and the Courts and Tribunals Service have a role to play in that.

As a wider point, I say that we do not just do this to support the Planning Appeals Commission. Almost the entire operations of the Department of Justice are about providing a safe, fair and just community where economic activity can be built and where educational, social and cultural activity can proceed. That is very much what the Department is about more generally.

As sponsor Department of the Planning Appeals Commission, we have responsibility for ensuring that appropriate governance and accountability arrangements are in place and that public resources are used effectively. The Department has already started work to implement the report's recommendations where they apply to us. Most significantly, we are planning a fundamental review of the commission's status, its statutory structure and its governance, oversight and accountability arrangements. Terms of reference have already been drafted. We are moving to identify and appoint an independent reviewer, and we aim to commence the review in January. The review will engage closely with the Courts and Tribunals Service, the commission and key stakeholders, including DFI. It will consider whether the current tribunal NDPB model and statutory framework remain suited. We expect the review to identify any reforms required to support the effective operation and accountability of the Planning Appeals Commission in the future.

Pending the outcome of that review, we are not sitting on our hands. We are taking a number of practical steps alongside the review of the Planning Appeals Commission to improve performance and accountability. These include the development of plans by the commission to address long-standing cases and backlogs — some of that has already occurred — strengthened performance reporting and monitoring; a planned review of fees and charging arrangements; enhanced engagement with other stakeholders in the system; and a review of the governance and oversight mechanisms available to us within the current statutory framework.

I reiterate that there have been significant improvements in the Planning Appeals Commission's capacity and performance. We have reported some of that to you, and it is also reported in the Planning Appeals Commission's 2025-26 annual review. That has been supported by the Department and the Courts and Tribunals Service. The improvements include, for example, development of new administrative targets; investment in a new digital case management system; additional commissioner recruitment and resource allocation; training and development of new appointees; PAC relocation to new accommodation; and strengthened engagement between the commission and the Courts and Tribunals Service. As a result of that and the work that the Planning Appeals Commission has itself done, the Planning Appeals Commission is reporting to us that the historic "hear and decide" backlog is now substantially reduced. You have the figures there. It has come down from a peak of 379 cases in 2023 to 126 in the equivalent month in 2026, with median decision times returning to about 22 weeks.

The Department will continue to work closely with the Planning Appeals Commission, DFI and other stakeholders to support delivery and ensure that emerging pressures are identified early and that future changes to the planning system are understood and impact assessed by respective parties, including us, at an early stage in order to make work smoother for the Planning Appeals Commission and everybody.

To conclude, Chair, as ever, we take the findings of the report and every Audit Office report seriously. More than that, I hugely value the work of the Audit Office and this Committee in helping government improve. Our focus is on implementing the recommendations, strengthening accountability and oversight, and supporting improvements in performance for the Planning Appeals Commission while fully respecting its independence. Chair, that is me. I kept that as brief as I could. We are happy to help with any questions.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Thank you very much for that, Hugh, and thank you for the update on a number of positive steps that your Department has taken following the publication of the Northern Ireland Audit Office report. I also appreciate your recognition of the important work of the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General and the importance of that function for public service, government and value for public money.

The treasury officer of accounts, Stuart Stevenson, rightly pointed out a concern that the Committee had last week that the commission's response to the report was about it not having its "seal of approval". We felt that that was not appropriate. From your comments, without actually asking you to give your judgement on it, I imagine that that would not be your view. It is important that these bodies that are funded by public money understand the importance and role of the Comptroller and Auditor General and, indeed, the Committee. Stuart clearly outlined the principles around this last week. For the record, Stuart, do you want to do that now?

Mr Stuart Stevenson (Department of Finance): I certainly will, Chair. As part of our work in the public audit process, we will issue a series of alert notices ahead of the publication of a report and ahead of an evidence session. It is a standard, recurring piece of correspondence. In the case of the Audit Office report, the notice was issued two days beforehand. We remind all stakeholders of the importance of media protocols in particular. To reiterate the key point, the general guiding principle is that it is inappropriate to comment in detail on NIAO reports when being published. Comments should be restricted at least until the audit is complete and, where relevant, the Assembly process is complete. As I said last week, we are still in the Assembly process while live evidence sessions are being heard and the Committee is reflecting on the findings and concluding its recommendations.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Thank you for that, Stuart. Do you want to comment, Hugh?

Mr Widdis: I might comment from the Department's perspective, Chair. It is not for me to interfere with the independence of the Planning Appeals Commission or the commissioner. From the Department's perspective, on no occasion that I am aware of, and certainly not on this occasion, has the Department in any way not complied with the guidance respecting the general position of the Assembly as the body that appropriates money to us to spend — you as the Public Accounts Committee, given our accountability to you, and the role of the C&AG and the Audit Office in particular when it comes to assisting you and the entire system in making that better. I hope that you do not think that the Department is —.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): No. I understand completely. It is widely accepted that that was a highly irregular approach to take. Hopefully, that message has been heard loud and clear.

Hugh, a number of thing. Will you outline to the Committee what it means in practical terms to have governance over the Planning Appeals Commission while safeguarding the quality and independence of the commission's quasi-judicial decision-making?

Mr Widdis: I will do my best, Chair. A tribunal NDPB is an unusual entity. It is the only one that we have within our departmental boundary. To be fair, it derives from the statutory framework that is set for the planning system as a whole and the Planning Appeals Commission in particular. Broadly speaking, that means that we are responsible for supporting it and providing it with advice and assistance on how it spends its money. Ultimately, however, it is up to the Planning Appeals Commission how it spends its money, if that is about things such as progressing cases, listing cases, deciding who hears cases or the kinds of things that I understand the Committee discussed with the chief commissioner, such as when people are ready to hear cases and so on. We will support it in that.

We have done a lot to support it in that regard. Ultimately, we are the sponsor body. We have regular liaison meetings with it. We have a memorandum of understanding (MOU), rather than a management statement and financial memorandum or partnership agreement, and I am very happy to explain why that is. We have all the tools to allow us to drive positive governance up to the door of independence, if that is the right way to put it. Beyond that door, it would not be right for me, Karen or anybody else to interfere with the commission and commissioners' exercise of their independent functions.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): I think that members stated that there was almost an element of the Planning Appeals Commission's hiding behind its quasi-judicial role and, as Mike put it, isolating itself from any form of accountability. Is that fair, Mike? Is that how you would put it?

Mr Nesbitt: It has turned independence into isolation.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): That is a concern that we have had. Given what we have heard so far, that still seems to be the situation.

Mr Widdis: I will not comment on whether the commission has turned its independence into isolation, but I will assure you of what we have done to support it. We provide the sponsorship role. We provide administrative and financial support. Where necessary, we challenge performance. We support it on governance liaising and reporting arrangements. We do not go anywhere near individual cases and so on. We have an MOU agreed, which we have recently revised. That is all intended to provide the necessary support, and the assurance to me, as principal accounting officer, and to Karen, as accounting officer, that governance and assurance matters facing into the commission are sound.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): When did you revise that memorandum of understanding? You said that you revised it recently.

Mr Widdis: The MOU was concluded in December last year. It would have been undergoing development work for a period before that.

Ms Karen Ward (Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service): Work on strengthening the arrangements in the MOU probably started around 2023, but we then went into the audit. On the ground, we were continuing to improve processes. That was formalised in the MOU in December 2025.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Thank you.

Hugh, this is a similar question to one that we asked our previous panel: if the Committee were to recommend a fundamental review of the commission's governance and accountability arrangements, would that be welcomed by your Department? What would be the priority for the Department in such a review?

Mr Widdis: I will not state whether I would welcome that, because that might influence what the Committee does. However, if it is of any reassurance to the Committee, we have already moved on, and we intend to have a fundamental review. We have taken the Audit Office recommendation and the whole situation into account and decided that we are going to proceed with it. We have it under development at the moment. Terms of reference are being drafted. We will make sure that we involve relevant stakeholders. It will be a fundamental review. We are thinking not just about the governance piece of our servicing into the Planning Appeals Commission; it will look at the statutory arrangements for the Planning Appeals Commission and how it fits into the wider planning system. We are not independent, isolated or whatever; we contribute to a much wider system across government, so we will work with the permanent secretary of the Department for Infrastructure and colleagues in order to make sure that they have their say. Everybody will be able to feed into the fundamental review, and it will come up with some recommendations. We are intending to do it very promptly. We anticipate getting that started in January and the report stage concluded in July, which, I am sorry to say, will be in the new mandate, but we will have a good platform to move on from there and implement any recommendations.

Karen, do you want to say any more?

Ms Ward: It is important that we move promptly to get the review done, but also that we take the time to get it right, including the scoping of it. As Rosemary mentioned in the previous session, the commission was established in statute in 1972. There has been a significant period in which we have not had a fundamental review, so there is an excellent opportunity to look at how we can contribute to the improvement of the planning system as a whole. It will be about looking at the statutory functions, the organisational status, the sponsorship arrangements, the opportunities to learn from the strengths of the governance models that operate in other jurisdictions, engagement and resourcing. Do we have the resourcing model right? The DFI perm sec mentioned peaks and troughs. How do you build that agility, flexibility and responsiveness into the system? This is a fantastic opportunity to really address some of those huge issues.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Those are positive steps. We welcome the proactiveness that followed and the update.

Mr Nesbitt: Thank you for attending. The Audit Office report identified a deterioration in the Planning Appeals Commission's performance over a sustained period. Speaking with the chief commissioner last week, I illustrated that through median times for "hear and decide" cases. She took up post in 2017 and at that time the median was around 20 weeks. Three years later, those times started increasing year on year, and by 2024-25 it was over 70 weeks, so it had trebled in a six-year trend. What would have been a reasonable time before somebody raised the alarm, and who should that someone have been?

Mr Widdis: If by "raising the alarm" we mean moving in and saying, "Something is happening here, what are we going to do about it?", in the first instance it would have been for the commissioners and the chief commissioner to do that. Our supporting and governance roles include a challenge function, which is support but also challenge when necessary. As I understand it, we moved in 2021-22. That is the earliest that we have on record when colleagues were saying, "There's a bit of a dip in performance. What are you going to do about it? Can we help you do something about it? What do you need?", and continuing from there.

Ms Ward: I will provide a bit of context. There were challenges for the chief commissioner during that time. There was the emergence from COVID, and there had been a significant loss of experienced commissioners. We fully supported the recruitment competitions to get people into post. I think that we have made 21 appointments over the past 10 years. With regard to the scale of the loss of experience and its impact, since 2020 there have been eight departees. That represents 131 years of commissioner experience, and, in an organisation that small, that is significant. That does not remove our responsibility in challenging accountability and making sure that we are working with the organisation on a succession plan and recruiting in a timely way.

Mr Nesbitt: You said that you first became aware and intervened in 2021-22 but it got worse in 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25.

Ms Ward: Yes, that is factual. The challenge has been recruitment. The chief commissioner told us that it can take between 12 months and two years for a commissioner to be fully effective in post, so there is a time lag. Someone might go after a short notice period, but there is a lag between their leaving and a replacement becoming operationally effective. We would have challenged how the hard resource available was being utilised. We supported the processes by putting in a new IT system and taking out some of the churn and heavy administrative processes. In that period, the median time and age of cases were continuing to increase. The chief commissioner advised us that when someone was in their training period for those 12 months plus, they were getting through only 50% of a caseload, so they were not eating into the full programme of work that was going into the commission.

Mr Nesbitt: You mentioned recruitment. The Committee was told something last week that I cannot get my head around, which was that if a commissioner retired, they had to wait until the retirement was completed before starting to recruit, and that that needed a business case. Why would you need a business case?

Ms Ward: I will clarify some of that. A business case is needed only when the commission's complement is being increased. A business case was done in 2020 on local development plan (LDP) work and the impact that it was having, and at that time we uplifted the complement by three. The only time a business case is needed outside of that is to cover the administrative costs of a recruitment competition. I think that the cost of the current competition is £12,000, and we move on to the recruitment.

Mr Nesbitt: Sorry, is that about a commissioner who retired or left in March? Is that right?

Ms Ward: A commissioner left in March. There were a couple of issues with that particular recruitment. Two of the three commissioners for which we had increased complement were for LDP work, but such work has not been referred to the commission since 2023. Out of the three additional commissioners, two left, but one was still there, so there was additional capacity in the commission for that. There was also uncertainty around the budget position at that time. There were real affordability concerns for us. Over the past six years or so, the commission has been operating with a staff complement that is anywhere between 80% and 100%. That is fairly comparable to other areas in the organisation that are carrying vacancies.

We are moving to recruitment. That is ongoing for the vacancies, now that we have budget clarification. There was also a timing issue with the LDPs. We now know that LDP work is likely to come back in 12 to 18 months, so now is the time to recruit a person so that they are ready and operational when that new LDP work comes through.

Mr Nesbitt: If your KPIs included urgency, flexibility and agility, how would you score?

Mr Widdis: If I may, Chair, I will assist a little bit. There are two strands to that. One is the recent vacancies that arose in March due to a resignation. The other is the fact that this year is unusual because of affordability constraints in the absence of a Budget. There was uncertainty about that in the early part of the year, so there was a difficulty in deciding whether further posts were affordable. I have vacancies across all of the Department and the departmental boundary. Having those posts vacant is one of the few ways that we can hope to live within the financial targets of both this year and last year.

It is not precisely that we have to wait until someone walks out of the door into retirement to start recruitment. We have to wait until we are certain through what are effectively legal arrangements between the individual and the employer, or, as it is here, the appointee and the commissioner. We have to know that somebody is actually going. No one is ever compelled to retire because we do not have a statutory retirement age any more. We have to get to that point of certainty. It is only when an individual finally confirms their retirement and it becomes fixed that they are going to go that we are in a position to commence recruitment, because, otherwise, we would run out of budget to pay for all the people.

Ms Ward: We do not, however, wait until they have left.

Mr Widdis: Yes, we do not wait. Forward planning and regular informal liaison activities go on, but we try to plan for those things at regular liaison meetings. We absolutely accept that, between us and the Planning Appeals Commission, we can do those things better, and we will do that as one of the early improvements.

Mr Nesbitt: Presumably, if you have a letter from the individual that says, "I am going to either retire or resign on x date", that would be enough.

Ms Ward: That triggers the process.

Mr Widdis: Yes, we do not then wait for the person to actually go.

Ms Ward: No. We act as soon as we know.

Mr Widdis: Part of the problem is that the notice period for a commissioner is only one month. In principle, if a commissioner wants to resign and go off to do something else, we may only have one month's notice. That is a forward work planning issue, and we hope to get into more detail on that with the commissioners.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): That is not how the chief commissioner portrayed that last week.

Ms Ward: I cannot speak on behalf of the chief commissioner; I can only tell you about the process that we follow when we know that a vacancy is likely to emerge.

Mr Nesbitt: Who decided that it is a month's notice?

Ms Ward: It is in the commissioner's terms and conditions.

Mr Widdis: It is set in their terms and conditions.

Mr Nesbitt: Who sets the terms and conditions?

Mr Widdis: Ultimately, we do.

Ms Ward: We would have done that.

Mr Nesbitt: Why make it so difficult for yourselves?

Mr Widdis: I would be very happy to have a look at that.

Ms Ward: We can take that away to look at.

Mr Widdis: To be fair, usually, commissioners are appointed on terms and conditions that mirror those of civil servants.

Ms Ward: They are.

Mr Widdis: That is the standard period for a civil servant. To be fair, I will not get into the independence of the Planning Appeals Commission and what the commissioners decide etc. That can work in the Civil Service, which has over 20,000 people, because you can arrange sideways moves. I know that the Committee is very interested in capability and capacity, but, in principle, a merit list would be available for the large-scale deployment of people. It can work better in the circumstances of a large organisation than in a small one, perhaps.

I have worked in small teams, so I know that it can be incredibly destabilising and unexpected when one or two people go off, a few people fall ill or more people than anticipated retire. It can be very destabilising, so I have a lot of empathy for the notion that it would reduce performance for those periods.

Mr Nesbitt: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): It certainly is destabilising, given where it is at. There is a bit of confusion on the matter. Is there anywhere else in your Department where you recruit staff into a role and give them 24 months to get up to speed.

Mr Widdis: The Planning Appeals Commission is not within the Department, in that sense. I know of some places in the Civil Service, and, indeed, the Department, where people are expected to do a bit of learning to get up to speed on the job.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): So, they are in a fully paid commissioner's position for two years before they are in a fully active role?

Mr Widdis: I think that the chief commissioner's view is that it takes 12 months.

Ms Ward: Based on the current recruitment, the commissioner has indicated that the training period is likely to reduce from 24 months to 12 months. We work with the commissioner to look at the person specification for the recruitment to try to reduce the period of time needed for training. We have introduced an additional assessment as part of the recruitment process in order to expedite the training period. Ultimately, however, it is the commissioner's call when it comes to ensuring that she is satisfied that people are operationally effective. She will give them the full caseload at that point.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Does that mean, Karen, that commissioners who have been employed in the past have not been fully effective during their first two years in post?

Ms Ward: They would have been through their training period at that stage and would have been asked to manage a 50% caseload. That is my understanding.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): "Effective" is probably the wrong word to use, because it seems that they are not effective even after two years' training. That needs to be included in the review.

Mr Gildernew: My question is on the same theme. Is it that there is a training period and then a 50% caseload for two years?

Ms Ward: No, that is part of the training period. My understanding is that they are allocated a 50% caseload by the commissioner and have mentoring and supervision during the training period.

Mr Gildernew: That will take away from someone else's effectiveness.

Are they not recruited as planning professionals, with the essential skills for which they have been recruited, who are ready to do the job? I am astounded that somebody would have a 50% caseload for the first year. I am sure that there is a professional contest to get the post. It is not alchemy — surely it is a professional role. Why does it take that long?

Mr Widdis: Different posts will be different in different places. Inside the boundary of the commission, it is for the chief commissioner and commissioners to decide how and when that person is effective. I cannot interfere with that, although I can do so in the Department. Many Committee members will know that my previous role was head of the Departmental Solicitor's Office (DSO). In DSO, we had a pretty rigorous expectation of people when they came in, but we also invested in them and did a lot of training with them to, for example, convert them from a private practice lawyer to a government lawyer. That takes time and effort.

That person may have a 50% caseload, but it is not that they are doing 50% of their work; it is not that they are there for only two and a half days a week. They work the other two and a half days but are being developed into being able to take the full caseload.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Is that on full salary?

Mr Widdis: Yes, inside the commission it certainly is. To be fair, however, when we train people into our business, whatever part it might be, we pay the same salary at the start of the year as at the end of the year.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): With respect, Hugh, and being realistic, that is a protracted period. When a permanent secretary is recruited into their role, he or she is not given 24 months to settle in; they are thrown in at the deep end.

Mr Widdis: If they were, they might be gone by that stage. I take the point.

Ms Ward: I will add one thing. That is not necessarily happening at the direction of the current chief commissioner in particular. It seems to have been a long-standing training arrangement that predated her, and it exists in other Departments as well.

Mr Gildernew: When I started as a social worker, the first year was an assessed year in employment with a full caseload. You are employed initially at a band lower than the role is determined to be, but you have a full caseload and are assessed throughout that year. I do not understand this situation. You are not necessarily able to comment on the commissioner's decisions, Hugh, but do you have anyone on similar terms in the Department of Justice?

Mr Widdis: We have people on similar terms, in the sense that everybody is on the same terms as a civil servant and so on. Do we have people who are given the expectation of the equivalent of a lower caseload while they are developing in post? I dare say that the answer to that is yes, but whether that is a full 50% lower, I do not know. I could probably go back to the Department to see what I could find. Given my previous experience in DSO — that one is a professional role, but it applies in many roles — we accept that it takes some time to be able to deal with the same cases as everybody else. We support that, however, and we invest in it and help people with training, mentoring and buddying etc.

Mr Gildernew: Does the essential criteria not mean that you are recruiting a person who is capable of the role? I have to say that I am flabbergasted by this.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): It speaks to the culture in the Planning Appeals Commission, to be honest. If you are starting off in that way, how does that speak to the effectiveness of the overall body when you are not in a fully effective position? It incentivises the opposite.

Mr Widdis: Again, ultimately, those are timetabling and developmental issues inside the commission. However, I can see it making sense. The exact duration is not my area of expertise; I would not know, because I am not a planner. If I am passionate about one thing, it is something else. Whether people need exactly that amount of time, ultimately, has to be left to the chief commissioner and the team of commissioners to decide.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): I am like Colm; I am stunned by that. If I am elected on a Monday, I am up here on Thursday, and I have to know everything about everything by Friday. I would argue that to open a recruitment process with clear criteria and then allow people to drift for that length of time, given the challenges in the system, is not value for public money.

Mr Nesbitt: Have we ever seen a recruitment pack with essentials and personal specifications?

Ms Ward: Yes.

Mr Nesbitt: Has the Committee seen one?

Ms Ward: I can share that with you.

Mr Nesbitt: Will you share that with us?

Ms Ward: Absolutely.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Is that something that is included in your fundamental review?

Ms Ward: It is.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Yes, it is of concern. Mike, if you are looking for a handy number when you retire next year, there might be a position going.

Mr Gildernew: I want to move on to overall governance, accountability and performance oversight. A central finding of the report is that the current governance arrangements and the commission's status as a tribunal non-departmental public body (NDPB), as you mentioned Hugh, limit meaningful scrutiny of its operational performance. The Department provides the commission with significant public funding, yet the report states that its ability to oversee the commission's operational performance is significantly constrained. How do you reconcile that, Hugh, with your responsibility as accounting officer to ensure value for money in your Department?

Mr Widdis: I go back to the body's underlying status as a tribunal NDPB. It has a layer of independence with which I cannot interfere. It would be wrong of me to interfere, for example, to tell them to decide a particular case in one way or another, or even to prioritise one case over another or to timetable it in a particular way. However, when it comes to the sum out of the total — this year it is a £3·5 million spend, of which £2·1 million, from memory, goes towards commissioners' salaries — we assess, from time to time, the total number of commissioners that are needed. Similarly, administrative staff account for about £700,000 worth of salaries, while accommodation and other supports make up another £700,000. That is all the money that is going in. In areas where we have fairly direct control, such as in making sure that accommodation is sound or making sure that the commission has the right number of administrative staff, the correct complement and so on, while that will ultimately be agreed with the commissioners, we can ensure that there is value for money in relation to that directly.

When it comes to the actual spend on performance and the way in which the commission operates, we can push and challenge. We do push and challenge and when we observe, for example, that performance seems to be dropping, we ask whether we can assist with that. Is that about, for example, not having a good case management system? We can push for that, and we will do a value for money assessment, as with any investment in, for example, a case management system or, in the case of the commission, alternative accommodation etc, in order to facilitate it doing its work. We will test the value for money of all of those things before they are ever invested in. That will be designed with the commission in order to do what it needs it to do, but we will make sure that the product meets those tests.

Mr Gildernew: Given that so much of the cost is salary-based, how many staff on average are on reduced caseload contracts at any given time? What is the average of that?

Mr Widdis: I am not sure that I know that. I would not say that there are reduced caseload contracts. I imagine that the chief commissioner satisfies herself that the person is ready for a certain category of work. That is my understanding of it.

Ms Ward: The last appointment concluded in May 2024, but the commissioner has confirmed that [Inaudible.]

Mr Gildernew: What do you mean by the last contract?

Ms Ward: The last appointment — the last competition.

Mr Gildernew: OK. The rest were all in post pre that.

Ms Ward: Yes, pre that.

Mr Widdis: Forgive me. Karen's point on the commissioner has confirmed to us that —

Ms Ward: — everybody is now operationally effective.

Mr Gildernew: How many commissioners are there, on average, at any given time?

Ms Ward: The complement is 20, and we have operated with anywhere between 87% and 100%. It fluctuates with resignations and retirements. However, there has been a minimum of 80% of the complement in place.

Mr Gildernew: Thank you.

Ms Murphy: I will stay on the area of performance and monitoring. Hugh, you set out in your earlier remarks that steps have been taken to improve monitoring. From the Department's perspective, how do the Planning Appeals Commission's performance and financial accountability compare with other bodies in the broader departmental group? In that sense, to what extent, if at all, has DOJ's approach been influenced by the fact that planning is not a core function of the Department?

Mr Widdis: In the broader departmental group, the PSNI is at one end of the scale, which has roughly £900 million in resource spending a year plus a capital allocation, and then we have other bodies, such as the Planning Appeals Commission, the Water Appeals Commission and the DPP. The Planning Appeals Commission is unusual because of the way that it has been established. We account for it inside Karen's accounts, and the full amount of money is ultimately accounted for within our departmental boundary, but it is spent by the Planning Appeals Commission on salaries etc. The scale of the Planning Appeals Commission is different. It is important to remember that the Planning Appeals Commission is supported in a different way. You might see other tribunals that are supported by the Courts and Tribunals Service, but they are supported in a different way. For example, simply because the DPP is not a tribunal, another tribunal might be more supportive of case management, which is done by Astrid's colleagues, rather than being in the independent space. For example, we have some fee-paid tribunal operations where we, essentially, design the day for the tribunal member, give them the pack and say, "You need to sit and hear these cases". Astrid, do you want to describe that a bit more?

Ms Astrid Hamilton (Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service): As Hugh said, we have tribunals that are staffed by my team, and they do the scheduling and prepare the bundles for fee-paid members. It is a slightly different way of operating from the Planning Appeals Commission, which sits as a body.

Ms Murphy: There are a lot of different facets. I will go back to my previous question, which was about the extent to which the DOJ's approach is potentially influenced by the fact that planning does not sit specifically in the Department's remit or as a core function of the Department. Does that influence the DOJ? I will not say whether the monitoring is lax or not. Given the fact that the Planning Appeals Commission is, in effect, removed from the DOJ, does that influence the Department's approach?

Mr Widdis: It certainly would not influence our approach in any way to value for money, governance or accountability. There is a system that we operate for everybody, and that will be the same across all Departments, because it all comes from 'Managing Public Money NI' (MPMNI) and the constitutional rules on how to deal with public bodies etc. If we can manage to strengthen it through the fundamental review, we will do that, as well as make sure that there is ever better cooperation. One of the critiques in the report is about — I am probably paraphrasing: forgive me, Comptroller and Auditor General — the flow through the system and making sure that people have a dialogue with each other about what is coming and when. That allows us to plan, and it stops money being wasted by having things ready when a case will not go ahead. So, similarly, we will look at whether we can improve anything in relation to that.

Forgive me: that was not about our taking a different approach because it is a different body. It is about accepting that there is a big and complicated system that has lots of stakeholders and players, and we will always talk to the stakeholders and others engaged in any system that we have a hand in to try to make it better and smoother. We are doing similar things in other areas. Members will be aware that there is a certain amount of unnecessary delay in the criminal justice system, which is a very complicated system involving not just the DOJ but the PPS, the courts, the PSNI and various other bodies. We always work in partnership with people, whether or not it is within our departmental boundary. I am not sure whether that answers your question.

Ms Hamilton: I will add to what Hugh has said that planning is not the only subject matter that falls outside the natural boundary of Justice. There are lots of other tribunals: those that deal with mental health or special educational needs, for example. As Hugh said, we work with others to ensure that we understand. If your question was about whether we are less interested in it because it falls outside of the Department, the answer is no. The reason why they are housed with Justice at the minute relates to access to justice and ensuring that it is open to people across the system.

Ms Murphy: As you say, Astrid, there are lots of different interfaces there, with a lot of agencies working on a cross-departmental basis. Thank you.

Mr Dunne: Thank you for your presentation. I will just go back a wee bit to resource and capacity, which is a key part of the report. The report highlights workforce pressures and funding challenges. Has your Department assessed whether the commission's past performance and delays were caused by resource constraints rather than by management and governance weaknesses?

Mr Widdis: I will ask Karen to support me on that, as someone who is closer to it. We accept the finding of the Audit Office that value for money was impaired during those years. The causes, as we understand them, were things such as COVID and a reduction in the number of commissioners in the commission. As Karen mentioned, there was the substantial removal of some 130 years of experience in a very short period. The maximum number of commissioners was only 20. We have done all that we can to increase their number to that level of 20. For example, when LDP work was beginning to flow, we assessed that again as part of the value-for-money exercise and agreed to increase the total complement from, I think, 17·5 to 20 and make the necessary investment in that, which is not just a one-year investment but an ongoing cost. We will keep all those things under review.

I will go back to what you were really asking about, which was —. Forgive me, Mr Dunne: I have forgotten what you asked me about because I waffled so much.

Mr Dunne: I asked whether there were management and governance weaknesses as well. Do you accept that there were those issues?

Mr Widdis: The causes, as we understand them, were COVID and a lack of expertise — not a lack of expertise but the loss of expertise —

Mr Dunne: The COVID thing, to be fair —.

Mr Widdis: — and a lot of retirements. Recruitment had to be done.

Mr Dunne: COVID impacted on everybody. It was not just the Planning Appeals Commission and your Department that were impacted on by COVID. It is worth pointing that out. I appreciate that it was a fact and a reality, but we all had to deal with the impact that it had.

Ms Ward: We have really taken the NIAO report to help us to look again at governance and accountability to see what we want to put into the structural review and whether there are opportunities. We also need to look at whether the tribunal NDPB status is the right one. That is important for the review. We have taken the opportunity over a number of years to strengthen the governance relationship and accountability arrangements there. That has culminated in the updated memorandum of understanding. We have, however, continued to look at and take on board the Audit Office findings: for example, in looking at the administrative targets that could be put in place. We have worked to develop those as well. We are on a journey of continuous improvement. There is no doubt that other recommendations will come out of the structural review that will strengthen the governance and accountability arrangements even further, albeit it may or may not be on a different statutory framework.

Mr Dunne: Last week, the commission told us that its staffing difficulties were escalated to DOJ many times and were, in fact, compounded by the time that was taken by the Department to approve business cases and then recruit replacement commissioners. I know that you touched on that briefly earlier. The Committee is keen to know whether the Department contributed to the commission's resourcing difficulties and resulting delays. Specifically, why have your processes not improved in the past 10 years? The 24-month training period is the same duration as an apprenticeship. The big difference is that it is an apprenticeship on full pay. That is alarming. Will that particular issue be part of the review?

Ms Ward: I will try to step through each of those questions.

Mr Dunne: I know that there is quite a lot there. I appreciate that, yes.

Ms Ward: Come back to me if there are elements that I miss. Certainly, when it comes to how we have supported the commission in the recruitment efforts, we have made 21 appointments from 12 recruitment competitions to address the challenges that it has had through retirements and resignations, and also to enable it to increase its complement so that we are adjusting the complement to reflect the additional work that is coming in. Another aspect is that we will run those recruitment competitions through NICS shared services, so we are competing with other Departments for the capacity that is available. Typically, a recruitment competition takes about six months. That is not atypical for the Civil Service as a whole, and, sometimes, it can take longer than that. Is there part of your question that I have not answered?

Mr Dunne: No, I think that you have covered most of it. Do you have anything further to add on the difficulties escalated to the Department being compounded by the time taken for business cases and so on?

Ms Ward: Resource planning and workforce planning form part of the quarterly liaison group meetings. In addition, we have regular engagement outside that. The Audit Office report recognised that senior engagement was happening fortnightly so that we could respond at the earliest opportunity to those issues.

Mr Dunne: On the 24-month training period, will the full pay issue be up for review?

Ms Ward: We will need to look at that as part of the full structural review, which will look at performance management, workforce planning and all those aspects.

Mr Dunne: It is probably unusual to have that arrangement.

Ms Ward: I reiterate that we worked to try to reduce that period. We amended the recruitment approach to try to reduce our training period, which the commissioner has confirmed is now in operation.

Mr Honeyford: Karen, you said that there was a sudden loss of experience and that a lot of people left at one time. Was there a review of that? Do we know why that happened?

Ms Ward: The loss of experience did not happen all at once. Between 2020 and 2024, there were eight departures. Over the last —.

Mr Honeyford: Did you not say that the loss happened in the short two-year period from 2020 to 2022?

Ms Ward: No, there have been eight departures since 2020, and that was a loss of 131 years of experience. In the longer period, there have been 14 departures: seven retirements and seven resignations.

Mr Honeyford: Is that normal?

Ms Ward: It was an aged organisation when it first transferred over to the Department. Hugh mentioned that we do not have absolute certainty about when someone will retire, because there is no compulsory age for retirement. There seems to be a better age profile now, and it is less likely that that pressure will re-emerge. It was a manifested pressure that the organisation has come through.

Mr Widdis: May I supplement that? I mentioned small teams earlier. There is a complement of 20. Back in that period, it was probably a complement of 17·5. It does not take a lot of unexpected events or unpredictable changes to make it look as though it is a lot in one period. It is a relatively small team.

Mr Honeyford: Yes, I get that. I was just wondering why.

We listened to the commissioners' evidence last week, and we saw the chief commissioner's challenge to the C&AG's conclusions before and after their publication. Do you believe that there is sufficient recognition by the leadership team of the scale of the problems identified by the Audit Office?

Mr Widdis: Yes. The evidence over the past three years is that the Planning Appeals Commission, with support from the Courts and Tribunals Service, has managed to improve its performance quite dramatically.

Mr Nesbitt mentioned the drop from 79 weeks to 21 weeks. That shows recognition. Action plans have also been implemented to improve that lack of performance. To me, that is evidence that it is being taken seriously.

Mr Honeyford: You are confident and we can be assured that the leadership team will take ownership of any changes that are needed.

Mr Widdis: I can absolutely assure you that, insofar as we can move up to the independent line, we will do that. We will always do that, because that is our role. It is not for me to speak for the chief commissioner or the commissioners. Ultimately, that has to be left to their independence, in the same way that, if the High Court is underperforming, we can assist the High Court in getting better, but, ultimately, it is for the judges to do that themselves.

Mr Honeyford: You mentioned seven resignations. What period were those in?

Ms Ward: I do not have the exact years to hand, but it will have been between 2016 and 2026. I can follow up with the Committee on that, if that is helpful, and give you those dates.

Mr Honeyford: It would be really useful to know that information, because those are people who did not retire. They are resignations from the service, and those years of lost experience are what I was getting at. Do we know why that happened? It would be useful if we could get that information.

Ms Ward: That is absolutely no problem at all.

Mr Honeyford: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Given that seven commissioners resigned, I am keen to see what period that was in. We have heard — it has not been confirmed — about a challenging working environment in the Planning Appeals Commission. Have you anything to say about that?

Ms Ward: As part of the structural review, the areas that we are including within the scope of its focus — we would do that regardless of the organisation — are resourcing, the workforce and organisational culture. As part of that review, we expect the reviewer to engage with the commissioners across the organisation. If there are such challenges, they will naturally emerge as part of that review. However, I have no evidence that those seven resignations were an indication of a cultural problem.

Mr Wilson: We struggled a wee bit last week, in that I felt that there was an attitude from the Planning Appeals Commission to owning its failures, if you like. By virtue of the fact that you are here at the Committee, do you accept ownership of the huge delays in process and of staff departures? That, to me, points to some type of cultural issue in the workplace. Looking at what we have learned about the 24-month bedding-in period, I do not think that that is terribly onerous on people. In my view, it conjures up quite a comfortable working environment per se. Yes, there is a workload to get through, and we understand that, but it is a very gradual journey that people are on when they join the Planning Appeals Commission. It does not strike me as an organisation that will change the world overnight. It does not have that urgency attached to it, from what I have learned during this entire process. What are you taking away from that to try to improve what is an integral part of the planning system?

Mr Widdis: We will keep doing that. On an ongoing basis, we will encourage the commissioners and assist them in knowing how to manage business. They know that themselves, but we can always push and challenge. When we identified that performance was dropping, we offered suggestions, such as asking, "Would a case management system help?", and, "Can we do some more recruitment for you?". There is action on that. We also asked, "Can we help you in any other way?". Ultimately, whether it is 24 months —. I must say that my briefing says that it is 12 months; that is the chief commissioner's assessment. I just want to clarify that for the Committee. Ultimately, it has to be within her decision-making parameters and her independence boundary as to when she thinks that an individual commissioner is suited to taking an individual case. We can assist with that. We will provide the money to invest in the training, but —.

Mr Wilson: Are there instances of that journey having taken place and that person leaving shortly afterwards, thus negating the entire process?

Mr Widdis: I do not have that data to hand, but, subject to protecting individual identities and data protection requirements, I am very happy to look at that and get back to the Committee.

Ms Ward: When it comes to how quickly someone leaves the organisation, if eight people leave and there is 131 years of experience lost, that does not indicate to me that they are coming in, being trained and then leaving the organisation quickly, but I am happy to share any information that we can on that.

Mr Wilson: Finally, are you clear about the oversight improvements that you have made following what we have learnt? Can you point to any individual action that will prevent this from happening again?

Mr Widdis: We moved to the fundamental review as rapidly as possible after getting the Audit Office report, and we are ready to go with it. We have also taken really seriously continuous improvement and the other recommendation in the report, which was to make immediate changes. We have made a number of immediate governance and oversight changes. To be fair, the Planning Appeals Commission has done so as well.

Ms Hamilton: In developing the management response to the Northern Ireland Audit Office report, we have worked closely with the commissioner and DFI to agree an action plan to implement the recommendations. There is a keenness to move forward, and there is ownership of those recommendations and actions.

Mr Boylan: Welcome back, Hugh. I was listening to the questions there. Some of the stuff that I wanted to raise was brought up. I can see why some members asked about how long it took to recruit and all of that. As you have heard, some of them were a wee bit shocked. We did a report on capacity and capability five years ago, but I do not know whether it looked at job specs or terms and conditions.

I noted a few things down, because I want to be correct. You are starting a review in January, yes?

Mr Widdis: Yes.

Mr Boylan: Will it be independent?

Mr Widdis: We intend to appoint an independent reviewer. We will get the terms of reference agreed in advance with the Minister, but it will be delivered by an independent reviewer.

Mr Boylan: Sound. I am not going to argue about the terms and conditions, but the review will give you an opportunity to look at them. You have answered the questions that were asked in that regard. Things were also brought up last week. When you do that review, you need to look at the terms and conditions, the job spec and the training. I am not saying that people do not need training, but you heard what some of the members said as they interrogated that process. It is astounding. You heard us all talk about how the Planning Appeals Commission has a big role to play in the planning pyramid, as I call it. I just hope that you learn from past reports. The terms of reference are key to what you do when it comes to pay and conditions and all that. That is my main focus.

I have been around the planning system and the legislation for a long time. Hugh, you have been around this Building for a long time, so you will have seen the legislation. I was a wee bit taken aback by some of the responses that we received last week. Thankfully, you have clarified some of that stuff today. There are serious questions to be asked. It is not about apportioning blame; it is about how we thoroughly investigate exactly what has taken place. That seems to stand out more than anything else.

Mr Widdis: Ultimately, it is still in development, but I anticipate there being what we describe as a fundamental review. I think that, taking the recommendation of the Audit Office into account, it will absolutely include things such as workforce planning and how terms and conditions, recruitment and development and so on could feed into that. It will also include the kind of core statutory functions of the body in its own right. What is it there for, and how does it fit into the rest of the system? Could that be made smoother in any way? It could even address the question of whether it should be a tribunal NDPB in principle. If you put that into a fundamental review, it could come out the other end with a whole other set of recommendations about how you do the appeal function and the hear-and-report function in the much wider planning system. I anticipate there being a lot of scope in that fundamental review for some serious thinking about how the system as a whole in the Planning Appeals Commission unit wants to go ahead.

Mr Boylan: Karen, you talked about workforce planning. When the powers transferred to local authorities, we looked at what is called the workforce model to deliver it. That is very important. We are talking about the number of full-time positions and all of that, which is very specific. We need to look at an actual workforce model. It is very hard to deliver on that, but it is something that you need to consider.

Ms Ward: I agree, and the structural review is a fantastic opportunity for the planning system as a whole to reset. Short, sharp reviews predating the transfer to the Department of Justice looked at staff complements at different times, and adjustments were made. That has to be part of the fundamental review. If you are setting up an organisation that is able to flex and respond to delivering, there needs to be a workforce model that operates. The review provides the perfect opportunity for us to take that forward.

Mr Boylan: My final point is about respecting the independence of the body but also marrying it to its responsibility. You heard in the last two presentations that the Planning Appeals Commission has a major part to play in the planning system, and we need to separate the independence but also allow it to play its part. Mike spoke about isolation, and that is what came across in some of the responses that we got last week: the Planning Appeals Commission sits apart. Its independence should be respected, but it should not sit isolated. Hopefully, that will be addressed through the review.

Ms Ward: Even outside the review, we have good, close working relationships with colleagues in DFI. If there are things that we can do to help the relationship with the Planning Appeals Commission as part of that, we are absolutely up for that. I have been a public servant for over 30 years. You get things done only by working together, and that is at the heart of what we want to be taking forward.

Mr Boylan: I will leave it at this, Karen. I have been on this Committee a long time, and we have done a lot of inquiries. To be fair, the capacity and capability at that time shone a light right through it. I hope that we have learned from some of that, but there are clearly issues here with planning. That was clearly highlighted over the past couple of sessions, and that is part of the scrutiny role of the Committee. Hopefully, we will get to some solution and recommendation. Thanks for your responses.

Mr Nesbitt: I want to be clear, Hugh. We had the resignation of a commissioner in March. Are you saying that, without a budget ,you are not in a position to endorse a recruitment campaign?

Mr Widdis: I am saying that the result of a combination of not having a Budget and the severe pressure on the Department of Justice budget is that everybody is being cautious across the Department as a whole. I expect that to be [Inaudible.]

The recruitment has gone ahead now. We have confirmed —

Ms Ward: It has been initiated.

Mr Widdis: — that it is not not going ahead Therefore, it is going ahead — forgive me. [Laughter.]

It is not being stopped by the current situation.

Ms Ward: No. There was a pause because of with affordability and whether it was a vacancy that we needed to carry among other vacancies that we needed to carry, but we know our assumed indicative budget.

Mr Nesbitt: All things being equal, will a successful candidate be appointed?

Ms Ward: That is the intention.

Mr Widdis: Yes, that is in train. I am not sure whether there was a long delay.

Ms Ward: It was a couple of months, just to let that settle and see where we were.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Congratulations on your new job, Mike. [Laughter.]

Mr Boylan: John Lewis and all the big stores are coming next.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Does anyone have any other questions? Dorinnia?

Ms Dorinnia Carville (Northern Ireland Audit Office): No, thank you, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): You are content, OK. Stuart?

Mr Stevenson: I will just make a brief comment. Mr Widdis spoke about the destabilising impact of working in a small team and losing key staff. It is worth connecting back to the Committee's evidence session in September and the impact that we clearly saw of similar issues in the Northern Regional College. That ties into Mr Boylan's comments about capacity, capability and the importance of effective workforce planning and reducing the risks around that. There is now a people strategy in place, and a lot of work is being done around the professions and job families. My Department is identifying critical posts, and the sooner that exercise works through, the better for identifying issues and then recruiting at pace. That is important for us moving forward.

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Thank you, Stuart. Is there anything further that anyone wants to add, or are you content?

Mr Widdis: I will put in a plug for Anti-Slavery Day. I encourage everybody to spread the message, but, apart from that, no.

Ms Ward: I was not sure where you were going with that. [Laughter.]

Mr Boylan: Neither was I. I thought that he was going to say, "Getting out of Dodge".

The Chairperson (Mr McCrossan): Thanks very much to the three of you for being with us and taking questions. We have a keen interest in fixing the problem. Hopefully, as we progress with our evidence sessions and findings, we will see positive outcomes. I welcome the fact that you have been taking essential and necessary steps to try to remedy some of the issues. We look forward to the review that you are carrying out and to further engagement. If there is anything that the Committee needs to follow up on, we will be in touch. For now, thank you.