Committee for Justice
OFFICIAL REPORT (Hansard)
Draft Programme for Government 2016-2021 and Delivery Plans: Department of Justice
10 November 2016 NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY
Committee for Justice
Draft Programme for Government 2016-2021 and Delivery Plans: Department of Justice
10 November 2016
Members present for all or part of the proceedings: Mr Paul Frew (Chairperson) Mrs Pam Cameron (Deputy Chairperson) Mr Alex Attwood Ms Clare Bailey Mr Doug Beattie Mr Roy Beggs Ms Michaela Boyle Mr Sammy Douglas Mr Declan Kearney Mr Trevor Lunn Mr Pat Sheehan
Witnesses: Ms Louise Cooper Department of Justice Mr David Lavery Department of Justice Mr Steven McCourt Department of Justice Ms Karen Pearson Department of Justice
The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I welcome to the Committee David Lavery, director of access to justice; Steven McCourt, head of community safety division; Karen Pearson, head of protection and organised crime division; and Louise Cooper, deputy director of rehabilitation and reducing offending directorate. They are all from the Department of Justice. You are all very welcome. I advise you that the session will be recorded by Hansard and the transcript will be published on the Committee web page. Without further ado, David, you will be leading off, I am sure.
Mr David Lavery (Department of Justice): Thank you, Chair. With your permission, I will make some introductory remarks. My colleagues and I are grateful for the opportunity to brief the Committee this afternoon on the Department's role in delivering the commitments set out in the draft Programme for Government. As you said, Chair, I have colleagues with me who lead on the three indicators for which the Department is immediately responsible. Steven McCourt leads on indicator 1, which is the prevalence rate of crime. Karen Pearson leads on indicator 38, which is the average time to complete criminal cases. Louise Cooper leads on indicator 39, which is the rate of reoffending.
In addition to explaining our commitments under the Programme for Government, I would like to take the opportunity to outline our problem-solving justice approach and why we think it is pivotal to the successful delivery of our commitments. The Committee will, of course, be aware that the Programme for Government has been developed using an outcomes-based accountability (OBA) approach that
1 encourages cross-departmental, collaborative working and external stakeholder engagement to successfully deliver the desired outcomes. Outcomes-based accountability will challenge us to measure our success by looking at the impact our programmes have on people's lives. As the Committee will know, the draft Programme for Government consists of 14 high-level outcomes that describe the societal impacts that the Executive want to make, and, under each outcome, there are a number of associated indicators that will be used to monitor whether the desired change is happening. Delivery plans have been developed that set out what will be done during the mandate to achieve these outcomes.
Chair, you have already read out to the Committee the text of outcome 7, which is a commitment to:
"a safe community where we respect the law, and each other".
It was encouraging to us that, when the Programme for Government framework was consulted on over the summer, there was strong support for that commitment. Below that, we have five primary indicators, and the Department of Justice leads on three of them. They are the three that I mentioned: indicator 1, the prevalence rate of crime; indicator 38, the average time taken to complete cases; and indicator 39, the rate of reoffending. Draft delivery plans for each indicator were provided to the Committee at the end of August, and since then, they have been updated and published alongside the draft Programme for Government for public consultation. The delivery plans outline what the Department of Justice, in collaboration with others, will do to bring about measurable improvements.
In addition to the three primary indicators that we lead on, the Executive Office has developed delivery plans for the remaining two indicators that are relevant to outcome 7. These are indicator 26, which is concerned with a respect index, and indicator 35, which is about the percentage of the population who believe that their cultural identity is respected by society.
In approaching the challenges at the heart of outcome 7, we intend to place a particular emphasis on problem-solving justice. Problem-solving justice is a person-centred approach and will be familiar to the Committee from the report on 'Justice in the 21st Century', published by its predecessor at the end of the last mandate. Problem-solving justice recognises that the causes of much offending behaviour lie outside the immediate justice sphere. Poor parenting, educational underachievement and mental health problems are just some of the factors that can predispose some individuals to offending behaviour.
In collaboration with colleagues from the Department of Health, the Department for Communities and the Department of Education, we intend to adopt a problem-solving approach to our Programme for Government commitments. Problem-solving justice is therefore at the heart of our delivery plans, and our aim is to divert people away from offending but, where they do offend, to offer them the appropriate support to turn their life around.
As part of that approach, we have identified a portfolio of initiatives, including domestic violence courts; multi-agency concern hubs, which offer support to vulnerable individuals and families; an enhanced combination order sentencing option, which will provide community alternatives to prison; and substance misuse and family, drug and alcohol courts. Initial discussions on the use of problem- solving justice have been extremely positive. The judiciary and the wider justice family in Northern Ireland are supportive of the approach, as are colleagues from other Departments.
We are now at the stage of engaging directly with the public to ensure that the Programme for Government and associated delivery plans reflect the wider views of society. The Department will arrange a number of stakeholder events to gather feedback from as wide a range of organisations and people as possible. In addition, we will use an online survey to gather views from individuals who cannot attend the public events.
That is all that I wish to say at this stage by way of an introduction. I and my colleagues will be happy to answer your questions.
The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. David, thank you very much for, as always, being clear and concise in your presentation. That is very helpful as we are always struggling for time.
Whilst I know the new format of the Programme for Government and support the idea of it being outcomes based, it is still hard to read across to the indicators, outcomes and methods used in and between. Whilst we want and have a holistic approach from the Executive, it is, again, still hard to read across to who is responsible. Usually, when it is everybody's responsibility, it becomes nobody's
2 responsibility. So, I am glad that we are able to attach this to Departments and to individuals in Departments. I think that that is a very good move and step forward. I will go straight into questions. What specific changes have been made to the draft action plans as a result of the responses that were received during the last consultation?
Mr Lavery: There has been quite a lot of refinement and sharpening up. To some extent, I think that the earlier versions might have reflected the fact that they were almost like a prefabricated structure built in different places by different groups. We have done a lot of work to try to synthesise them and make them more consistent. You will now see, for example, the problem-solving watermark, if you like, running through all of them. So, we have tried to make them at least resemble a single voice, if you like, or the product of a single voice.
The responses varied considerably, and we were encouraged by both the extent and the quality of the responses we received. We are trying here to strike a balance between people who want to have something very specific, in which they invest a particular importance, up in lights in the programme and those who want something that, at this stage, has to be necessarily pitched at a higher level. What is different is maybe less what is on the page but what has been happening below the surface. We have set up groups to look at some of the pathfinder problem-solving justice projects. Colleagues, including Steven in safer communities and Ronnie Armour, the chair of the Courts Service, are working on the development of the substance misuse court and are talking to the relevant agencies that can support us with that. I know that there is to be a meeting shortly, if not next week, to start to focus in on what the evidence suggests would be the appropriate location for that.
It is a work in progress. I am not sure that it would look exactly like this, even if we came back in six months' time. As you might expect, other things may emerge from the next eight weeks of consultation. We thought that it was important to go around with the delivery plans and try to engage with people on the ground, and we decided to use the policing and community safety partnerships as the mechanisms. We have asked them to arrange meetings for us in a number of areas, where we will ask them to tell us what is relevant to their communities and what those aspirational priorities would mean for them in their locations. It is a work in progress. We talked about it crossing this mandate, and I imagine that in reducing crime, reducing reoffending and improving effectiveness there will be enduring challenges, perhaps into the next mandate as well.
The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Whilst we will look at and concentrate on outcome 7, which states that:
"We have a safe community where we respect the law, and each other", we have both quoted it, coming out of that, there are five indicators — 1, 26, 35, 38 and 39. Is there anything else in the Programme for Government, or any other indicators, that fall to the Department to lead on?
Mr Lavery: I am what is called the senior responsible owner or senior responsible officer (SRO) for outcome 7, and I report to the permanent secretary on that. We have met under the auspices of the Executive Office with all the SROs to try to identify the linkages. We are explicitly recognised as a delivery partner for another five outcomes. Those are outcome 8, which is:
"We care for others and we help those in need".
Outcome 9, which is:
"We are a shared society that respects diversity".
Outcome 10, which is:
"We are a confident welcoming, outward-looking society".
Outcome 12, which is:
"We have created a place where people want to live and work, to visit and invest", and outcome 14, which is:
3 "We give our ... young [children] the best start in life".
The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Sorry, what was the last outcome?
Mr Lavery: It was outcome 14, which is
"We give our ... young [children] the best start in life".
We are looking to Health, Communities and others to be delivery partners for some of our priorities. The relevant leads in other areas are looking to us to similarly support their work; they should complement each other.
The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Are you responsible for a specific indicator?
Mr Lavery: I think that I would be right in saying that our focus has been on the specific indicators in outcome 7, but they are meant to be complementary to the other outcomes. A number of cross- departmental groups have looked at how we can make that a reality and not just an aspiration. A group called Narrowing the Gap has been set up specifically to do that. As everybody knows, we are very good in working in our silos and we need to work in a more collaborative way on this. That is why I put so much emphasis on problem-solving justice in my introductory remarks. If we were just talking about reducing crime or reducing reoffending, we might find people being reluctant to get out of their silos to join us. If we approach it by looking at what interventions are appropriate to prevent people offending in the first place or to encourage desistance from offending, you will immediately find that other agencies, local government and others are quite enthused about it. It almost gives you permission to tackle some of those apparently intractable challenges in a different way.
The Chairperson (Mr Frew): That is good and reassuring, and I can see where you can really do good in breaking down that silo mentality. I make the comment that that will also be a challenge for Committees in scrutinising, advising and supporting measures and actions that cross over, but we, as Departments, an Executive and scrutiny bodies, need to get there.
Mr Lavery: Yes, I entirely see the point. We are sort of structured with regard to our statutory responsibilities and departmental structures, but these are cross-cutting thematic issues, and I guess that a degree of flexibility is required. The Committee can certainly look to us to produce statistically robust information on whether we are turning the curve, as they say, on the specifics of which we are taking ownership. However, if you were, say, looking at a substance misuse court initiative, you might well expect that Health colleagues or someone from a third-sector organisation would be at the table with us to explain the support that they are providing for it.
The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. There was some concern among respondents with regard to reducing crime, the prevalence rate. People were concerned that it did not measure all types of crime. With everything that has to be measured, it all depends on the measuring tool that you use. There were obviously concerns about the crime survey, which shows that antisocial behaviour, which is a massive issue, may be coming down but is still a massive issue out there and affects how people feel. Fraud was also not calculated in the Northern Ireland crime survey.
I suspect that there are gaping holes there. While some antisocial behaviour is of a low level, we know that it can lead to young people becoming involved in more serious crime. Also, we had briefings today in Ballymena and in this Building about cybercrime, and a lot of that is, of course, fraud. Are we missing a trick? Is there a blind spot in the Programme for Government?
Mr Lavery: I will ask Steven to comment specifically, but we acknowledge that the crime survey gives partial coverage. Like you, Chair, I was struck, when listening to the press coverage this morning on cybercrime, that it is not within the scope of the current survey. We have undertaken to review the scope and, indeed, scale of the survey, because the sample size was reduced over time to a point that colleagues in the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) would say is getting to an irreducible minimum. We need to look at the scale and the scope of it. Similarly, it does not address young people under the age of 16 or those living in care or other types of non-household accommodation. Steven might want to expand a little bit on the scope.
4 Mr Steven McCourt (Department of Justice): Yes, certainly. The Northern Ireland crime survey and recorded crime are national statistics and use robust evidence gathering in relation to the delivery of statistics that focus on crime. One of the strengths of the Northern Ireland crime survey is very much that it also captures unreported crime, which recorded crime naturally does not.
At the start, we looked at population statistics in relation to turning the curve on outcome 7. The focus in the Programme for Government is very much on looking at one population measure in which, to capture the rich picture of crime and unreported crime, the focus is on the Northern Ireland crime survey, but, as David said, there are limitations. There are two aspects to that. On the limitations, when we look at the performance measures on outcome 7, we will report on the Northern Ireland crime survey and recorded crime to the Committee. You will have that rich picture. Separately, as David has already outlined, in relation to the limitations of the crime survey, we are looking to see how we can have a data development exercise to look at the survey's current areas of weakness to see if we can enhance those. We also want to see whether we can increase the sample size of the survey. Doubling the sample size will make it an even more robust measure. We are also looking at the wider picture of reporting on indicator 1 to see how we could, in future, do a data development exercise on harm and vulnerability. The two measures that we are going to use are national statistics. That is something that will be a data development exercise over the next year plus to see how we could measure that.
Mr Lavery: There is a group called the technical assessment panel, which NISRA looks at to make sure that we are measuring the right things in the right way. The four of us had quite a good opportunity to talk through that with the panel. There are some issues there that we definitely intend to follow up, as Steven has explained.
The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I hear what you say, but I think that the most unreported crime that there is at the moment is antisocial behaviour. Its nature is that it happens at a low level and sporadically and then disappears. Whilst there is a lot of fear and concern among people, young and old, it needs to be clamped down on for the reasons I have given. It does not just cause fear and alarm to the people affected; it can also lead on to young people being involved in more serious crime. It creates a cycle. I am still alarmed at the measuring of that, and we must make sure that we encapsulate it in everything that we do.
Mr McCourt: I will give you some reassurance in that regard. As you rightly said, the overall level of antisocial behaviour (ASB) is going down. However, we will capture incidents of ASB, so we will be reporting to you in that respect. Obviously, even though it has reduced by 40% since measurements were introduced, we are looking to review ASB legislation to see whether there are any gaps and whether we can bring forward various different measures in relation to it. We will be coming back to the Committee about that in terms of the Programme for Government.
Mr Lunn: I want to ask about outcome 7, indicator 39, which deals with reoffending. In the briefing paper, you state that you will:
"develop and implement new policies and strategies to reduce inequality, [and] increase respect".
The statement that interests me is that you will:
"Continue to facilitate integrated education including through consideration of the recommendations from the Review of Integrated Education".
What is the level of the Department of Justice's input into facilitating integrated education?
Ms Louise Cooper (Department of Justice): There has been no engagement to date on indicator 39. To be perfectly honest, I am not sure what the level of engagement is going to be going forward. It is certainly something that we can discuss with colleagues.
Mr Lunn: The Department of Education has the obligation, as you know, to facilitate but also to encourage. The word "encourage" is more forceful than "facilitate", so I am a bit surprised that "encourage" is not there. Beyond that, I am slightly at a loss — you have just confirmed it, Louise — as to how the Department of Justice can possibly facilitate or even encourage integrated education. In what circumstances could this possibly crop up? It is not your Department.
5 Mr Lavery: Forgive me, Mr Lunn, because I am in the remedial class on this. Could you repeat which section you read that text from?
Mr Lunn: It is under indicator 39 at "What will we do?" It is on page 98 of our pack.
Mr Lavery: That is a problem. The pagination is sometimes a wee bit different.
Mr Lunn: Number 1 reads:
"We will intervene early to reduce crime... "
Number 2 is to "strengthen legal protection". Number 3 is the one that contains that —
Mr Lavery: I am thrown slightly, simply because I am not quite sure that we are looking at the same text.
Mr Sheehan: Would it be page 100?
Mr Lavery: I could not be 100% sure that our numbering is the same. Yes, I have got that bit. You are at number 3.
Mr Lunn: Yes, I am curious as to what particular recommendation from that review you are pointing to.
Mr Lavery: Honestly, I do not have a good answer for you, so I will not give a bad answer. May I undertake to write to you about it? I am genuinely not sure. It may be that we are simply looking to the Department of Education to contribute. Some of this was to do with a process for sharing outcomes and associated indicators with other Departments, and I am not entirely sure I can stand over every particular aspect of it at the moment. You have made a perfectly legitimate point, and I will not pretend that I know the answer. In the time available to put this together, it was a bit like a bus stopping: a lot of people got on board, but I am not sure they all got on the right bus.
Mr Lunn: I may be able to help you. The heading includes "increase respect". Clearly, integrated education would have a part to play in increasing respect between communities. That has been recognised for 40 years. If the Department of Justice, as part of its work on that theme, can influence the Department of Education to live up to its obligations, which it has signally failed to do over the last 30 years, that would be very helpful.
Mr Lavery: I note your observations, but I am not entirely convinced that I could stand over that this afternoon. I invite you to note that this is a draft, and we will discuss. Because it is under "respect", it may have come through colleagues in the Executive Office, but that is a takeaway from this meeting.
Mr Lunn: I hope there is not a lot more in there that you cannot stand over.
Mr Lavery: I am not a betting man, but I am not entirely sure. A draft is, of necessity, a work in progress. I apologise that I could not answer your question.
The Chairperson (Mr Frew): By extension, we need to find out the recommendations from the review of integrated education to see if there are any for the Department. There might be obvious things that need to be in a line on their own in the draft or Programme for Government to take away that ambiguity.
Mr Lunn: I cannot remember, Chair, but there may be some reference, as you say, probably along the lines that the furtherance of the integrated education movement might eventually have an effect on the activities of the Justice Department in offending and reoffending in general.
The Chairperson (Mr Frew): It is very clear. I understand what it means. I understand why you did not realise it was there or could not find it. The aim is to:
"to continue to facilitate integrated education including through consideration of the recommendations from the Review of Integrated Education"
6
To me, the kernel there is what the review of integrated education says and what is directed at the Justice Department. It may be that we need to take that line out and insert the specific recommendations for the Justice Department, if there are any.
Mr Lavery: That must be right. To be perfectly honest, our attention has been focused principally on the associated delivery plans, which we have much more explicit ownership of. This was part of the earlier attempt to show linkages, direct or indirect, but we should not say that we are doing it if the "we" in that sentence is the Department of Justice as opposed to the Executive. I think that it is meant to be the Executive, but I need to have some substance for that. Words on a page will achieve nothing, I recognise that. Unless Mr Lunn is warming to his theme, can we take that away and have a chat with colleagues in relevant Departments about it?
Mr Lunn: I am warming to it, but I cannot think of anything else to ask you. [Laughter.]
The Chairperson (Mr Frew): We can seek clarification on that.
Mr Lavery: Thank you. It is good to have this opportunity so early in the consultation process, but that one has thrown me, I have to confess.
Mr Lunn: It takes a lot to throw you, David.
The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Is that you finished, Trevor? Have you all your throwing done?
Mr Lunn: Yes, thank you.
Mr Beattie: David and Steven, thank you for presentation. I want to go back to something that Paul brought out, which is the crime figures. The crime figures that we are working on in this draft Programme for Government are based on the Northern Ireland Crime Survey, which is a sample of 2,000 people. That has been reduced from 4,000 people the last time it was done; so, it has been halved. You were saying that we are at the absolute threshold of what it should be. It is just 2,000 people; let us bear that in mind. The survey shows a steady decrease in crime, yet the other statistic, which is a PSNI-recorded crime statistic, shows that there is an increase in crime year on year. If we look at the last three years, we will see that there were 100,000 incidents in 2012-13; 102,000 in 2013- 14 and 105,000 in 2014-15. There has been an increase. Is there not a chance that the figures being used for the Programme for Government are slightly misleading? You are saying that crime figures are going down but the PSNI statistics are saying that they are going up. We all admit that 53% of crime in Northern Ireland goes unreported, so I am slightly concerned that this Programme for Government is giving a rose-tinted view of our crime figures when the PSNI is saying something completely different.
Mr Lavery: Again, I will ask Steven to speak on this, but the obvious point is that, as you have noted, the table showing the attitudes survey shows people's experiences and perceptions. As Steven mentioned earlier, this is not recorded crime but people's response to someone calling at their door to invite their comments. Recorded crime is quite a different thing. So, we are measuring two different things. We want to encourage the reporting of crime, and the police are quite clearly on record that they want to encourage that. One of the perverse things of this is that success might look like recorded crime is going up because people are more confident to report crime and have it recorded. The two sets of statistics are not contradictory.
It is an issue that we have struggled with. We did feel that, if we simply dealt with the crime survey response, we would all leave feeling quite complacent and reassured that things are getting so much better. There is a truth that lies behind it, which is that we think that people have a perception that they are living in a safer community, and I think that that is not an unreasonable thing to note. It is also good that the police are encouraging people to come forward and report crimes that have in the past been notoriously underreported. I do not see an increase in recorded crime as necessarily an indication that we are living in a society where there is more crime. It may be that people are more confident to come forward. Steven, you have thought long and hard about this. Is there something that you want to say to Mr Beattie about it?
Mr McCourt: From our perspective, that I why I said earlier that we were slightly nervous about going with the Northern Ireland Crime Survey as being the population measure of success. It is why you will
7 see that we have set out both sets of statistics to give you that rich picture in the delivery plan in your pack. When the crime survey came out in 1998 it showed a prevalence rate of 23% and, in the last report, 2014-15, it was down to 8·8%; so it is down by 62%. Recorded crime is down from 138,000 crimes in 2002-03 to 105,000 in 2015-16, a decrease of 24%. That is not to say that there are not blips along the way in relation to recorded crime and, as David has rightly pointed out, we want to increase the recording of certain crimes, such as domestic violence etc. That is why we want to give as rich a picture as possible. Increasing crime reporting and recorded crime is not necessarily a failure in relation to what we are trying to achieve. That is why, in looking at how we can make the crime survey more robust, we are looking at proposals to go back to using a sample size of 4,000 to see how we can increase that data development need. We are taking the necessary steps to make sure that it is the rich picture rather than what some may perceive as regards looking at it through rose-tinted glasses.
Mr Beattie: That is the problem: it is perception versus reality. My perception is that I am not going to walk out of here and get mugged. However, if I do walk out of here and get mugged, that is reality, and it is a crime. The Programme for Government really needs to drive home where an issue actually is as opposed to where the perception of it is. If there is an increase in crime, then it has to be said that there is an increase in crime. I am thinking about everything that follows on from that. If we look at PSNI numbers, we will see that they are now 300 short of where they were, because we have not been recruiting and training due to the closure of the training facility. That must be built into the plan that comes from the Programme for Government, if we are saying that crime is increasing and our police numbers are decreasing. I am concerned that we are not giving enough credence to the actual figure as opposed to a perceived figure.
Mr Lavery: The point is well made. That is twice that I have fallen into the trap. You are looking at outcome 7 and the chart published there while I am looking at the associated delivery plan, where we make a virtue of the fact that there are two stories, both of which are true. It is also true that recorded crime has fallen significantly since 2002 and that recorded antisocial crime has also fallen. There are variables in all this.
We have a steering group and, at almost every meeting, Steven and I have had a debate about what we should be measuring. Our conclusion is that we have to measure recorded crime and people's perception of crime. We have to recognise that, in a very simplistic world where people might want to see a curve turning down, we might have to explain that success may involve an increase in people's willingness to report crime. That would be a good thing, and we are seeing some of the benefits of that in relation to domestic violence and other things. If you take the delivery plan away from this meeting, I think you will see that we have been quite honest about this; we have said that the crime survey is selective and has gaps, so we have set out what recorded crime looks like. We then explain that crime is under-reported in a number of notorious respects, such as domestic violence, sexual violence, cybercrime and hate crime, and that, therefore, we want to put a focus on the harm caused by crime and people's experience. Do they feel safe in society? Do they feel confident reporting if they are a victim of a crime? If they are in a relationship with the person who perpetrates the crime, are they confident to report it, and do they feel that they will receive the support that they require?
These are both statistically robust. People's perception has been that we are in a progressively safer society, but there has been some increase in recorded crime in the last two or three years for which we have figures. We think that that is not discouraging because it may show confidence in the justice system and in policing in particular.
Mr Beattie: David, thank you. I get that completely. It was a good, frank and full answer; I have no issue with it. I have to finish by giving a strap line: the perception of crime has decreased, but actual crime reported has increased. That is what we are saying.
The Chairperson (Mr Frew): That is a very good question, Doug. You gave a very good example. You may go out from here with the perception that you will not be mugged. However, if you go out from here with the perception that you will be mugged, then that will affect your life. It is a very powerful —
Mr Lavery: Certainly, if an elderly person is afraid to go out at night, their quality of life is completely different.
The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I assure you that you will not be mugged in that corridor. I cannot say anything about what will happen when you get past the gates.
8
Mr Sheehan: Thanks, David. In regard to indicator 39, especially around prison reform, one of the issues identified is leadership. At the minute, we are lacking leadership in terms of a director general of prisons. I know that we have correspondence in the pack that we will deal with later today, but can you give us an update on where things are with that recruitment process?
Mr Lavery: It has now been published and the Minister is giving careful attention to what she feels the nature of the role should be. I am not sure if Louise wants to say anything specific on the timescale for this.
Ms Cooper: As far as I am aware, it was published on Monday of this week with a closing date at the end of the month and interviews to happen before Christmas.
Mr Lavery: Our colleague Phil Wragg is acting director general for reducing offending at the moment and so there is leadership in place; but the departure of our colleague Sue McAllister leaves a significant gap, even though the role is being fulfilled. I know that the Minister is anxious to see that recruitment take place promptly and is putting a particular emphasis on the significant leadership challenge that it represents.
Mr Sheehan: How widely is the job being advertised?
Mr Lavery: It has certainly been publicly advertised. I do not know whether it is in the national press. I would be very surprised if I do not see it in 'The Irish Times' on Friday or something like that. I am genuinely not dealing with it, so I am not quite sure. It is certainly on the Civil Service public website. It is public-facing and is a public recruitment, but I do not know the modalities and whether there is a search dimension to it or anything like that. I am afraid that I do not deal with that side of our Department's work.
Mr Sheehan: I have no great experience of recruitment processes. I was involved on the Policing Board in the recruitment of a chief executive and some senior executive team members in the PSNI. I have never seen it stated in the job description that the successful candidate will live within a close commute of where they will be based. Does that not, in a sense, narrow down the field?
Mr Lavery: I cannot really speak to how that was arrived at but it will be any Minister's expectation that someone working in such a challenging environment would be accessible effectively 24/7. I know that the previous director general lived in the Province, certainly during the working week, and was regularly in touch by IT and other means when an episode occurred when she was across the water for domestic reasons. I speculate that it may illustrate the degree of attention and emphasis that the Minister, Claire Sugden, gives to visible leadership on the ground in Northern Ireland in what is one of the Department's priority responsibilities. It is not just the Prison Service; it is the reducing offending directorate and all that that brings with it. I am speculating. I am not privy to those conversations, I confess.
The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Trevor, do you want to ask a supplementary on this issue?
Mr Lunn: Yes, it is about the same thing. It is OK to say that somebody can be accessible by IT or electronic means but, frankly, they could live in Alaska and still be accessible. Surely, after the experience of the last 20 years, it should be possible to make it a condition of the job that the person resides in Northern Ireland. Would that be outside the normal criteria or is it reasonable? It is a problem.
Mr Lavery: I am not sure whether advice has been taken on equality or other issues. I simply do not know. I declined to give you a speculative answer on something that I should have known about earlier, so I will not give you one on something that I know nothing about in this instance. I confess that I do not have information to assist you with that. I am certain that the Minister wants visible leadership on the ground for what is one of her priorities for the Department going forward. It is an area of the Department in which she invests a lot of attention, and she brought particular interest to the position of Justice Minister from her experience as an independent MLA and beyond. I am sure that she will be acutely interested in the nature of the leadership.
Mr Lunn: If we were appointing a Chief Constable, there would be a condition that they had to live in Northern Ireland. I do not see those jobs as spectacularly different. They are both very onerous and
9 carry a lot of responsibility. I cannot keep pressing you, David. Should it be a condition that the person appointed has to be resident in Northern Ireland?
Mr Lavery: It is undoubtedly a 24/7 responsibility; there is no doubt about that at all. I might be able to go home on a Friday night and not expect too much to happen until I come back on a Monday but, self-evidently, that is not the case for the jobs that you mentioned. I have no doubt that it is the expectation that the senior leader of that particular directorate will be available as and when required. How that quite works its way through the selection process, I will not speculate. I am quite sure that the Minister's approach to this is informed by the experience of the last few years, what has worked well and less well, but this is a priority area for her and I have no doubt that she will want to see the appointment made quickly. She wants a person of appropriate experience; someone who can give the 24/7 coverage that is required.
Unfortunately, I think we have strayed a wee bit away from the Programme for Government.
The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I am nervous because I see a run of hands from members who want to speak, but I am not sure whether it is on this specific issue. Declan, you were first to raise your hand. Is it on this specific issue?
Mr Kearney: It is, and I will be quite brief. David, if it were possible to get some more information, it would be helpful, please. If you live in Garrison in Fermanagh, it takes the same time to get to Belfast as it does if you live in Dublin, given the quality of infrastructure and road networks. The specific point in the correspondence relates to close proximity to the base in Stormont. I absolutely agree with the Minister, and you, that it is about visible leadership and being on the ground and accessible. It is absolutely imperative that that is the case. It is also an extremely important position that is going to have to be filled and, in that sense, it relates to the Programme for Government. This has been a very controversial role in recent years. It has been quite vexed at times; so it is essential that we find the right candidate who can provide visibility and ensure that we address the rehabilitation priority that, I know, the Minister has identified and I absolutely concur with that. In that sense, we must find the right candidate. We should not narrow the field. We should have a good scope for finding the optimal candidate.
I just offer that as an observation, and if you could provide us with some information, I would be grateful. I know that you have been blindsided slightly in this, David, but some additional information about the framing of the criteria would be useful.
Mr Lavery: I will certainly communicate your points, and those that other Committee members have made. I suggest that the appropriate way forward is that the Committee Clerk writes to our departmental Assembly liaison officer. We will endeavour to provide a prompt response, given that this recruitment is now in flight.
The Chairperson (Mr Frew): It is coming up on our agenda, as Pam said, under correspondence. Do you see what you started, Trevor? I am nervous about this because I know that it may be taking you out of your area of expertise, David.
Mr Lavery: I have not been in my comfort zone since I came in. [Laughter.]
The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Let me add that, with the questions that the Committee members are asking and the way you answer them, you are making a great argument for splitting that directorate, because it is the directorate of reoffending and prisons. To me, one is an operational function, the other is strategic. Whilst you may need a presence in and around a prison, you may not need that presence in and around a directorate of reoffending. I have never been easy with the merging of those two roles in the first place, because I think that prisons and reoffending are each big enough and can be better placed in the Department. I know that you do not mean to do it but you make a very good argument for splitting that directorate. We will leave it there because I know that you will be uncomfortable even in answering that, so I do not ask you to answer it unless you want to add something.
Mr Lavery: No, I am not volunteering another answer. I am actually waiting for the permanent secretary to come in and physically remove me from my chair.
The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I understand; I would not want to put you in a difficult position.
10
Mr Lavery: Even more so.
Mr Beggs: I will pick up on your last comment to start with, and I will pass this to David. Would there be a danger with two people being in charge of the one role? If someone were in charge of reoffending but a different person ran the prison, you would potentially have two different people trying to take decisions. That is never any good, and it would be a danger. What is your view of it?
Mr Lavery: It would be a free-for-all, obviously. It is self-evident that the job is not about locking people up. There is a dimension of giving effect to custodial penalties, but we in the Department are acutely aware that custody alone achieves relatively little, and the evidence suggests that short custodial penalties, in particular, achieve very little. At an intellectual level, for want of a better description, I acknowledge that, if you had two strong leaders — one leading on custodial services and the other on rehabilitation — they could not do their jobs in silos; otherwise, there could be the contradictions. Louise, I sense, has more sense than I have and is not going to volunteer anything on this, but I know that the work she does as deputy director of rehabilitation begins with someone's arrival in a custodial environment, and the two must go in tandem.
Mr Beggs: OK. Thanks for that.
Mr Lavery: That is the sum of what we are saying here about indicator 39. It is important that people leave prison with satisfactory mental health, wherever possible, employment prospects and housing, otherwise you are just showing them the door and possibly returning them to a chaotic lifestyle where they are set up for failure. The work must be joined up and coterminous. We are hopefully in a society where we acknowledge that there is a whole raft of dimensions to managing offenders and reducing reoffending, and the custodial environment is simply a delivery opportunity.
Mr Beggs: I want to go back to the issue of outcome 7, which a number of members spoke of. Certainly, I find it very strange that the number of actual crimes is not being used as an indicator. I can understand that it is important to have an indicator that picks up unreported crime. I also understand why you may give some weight to the Northern Ireland crime survey, but I fail to understand why the number of actual recorded crimes is not being used. I particularly highlight the fact that the crime survey only uses a sample of 2,000, as my colleague highlighted. If you look at the last three years, you see that the survey shows a drop of a third, from about 12% to 8%. Does anyone think that actual crime has dropped by a third over the last three years? Have you identified what is wrong? That is not my experience on the ground in dealing with constituents and on hearing of events in my community. I think that there has to be a huge level of concern if that is solely used as an indicator. It is also an indicator that has consistently gone down. You could say, "Do nothing" and still expect it to continue to go down. You would get your box ticked and get a green light, but it is not recording the actual crime. In the figures that you have presented to us today for that same three-year period, there has been, I am guessing, a 6% or 7% increase in recorded crime. So, why are you not using recorded crime as at least one of the indicators?
Mr Lavery: Steven will amplify this: we have debated that at every meeting. I chair a Programme for Government steering group in the Department, and we have had plenty of meetings at which we did debate it. We will be measuring and publishing both. We have a data development request for the harm caused by crime. So, it is not that we will just be reporting against the household survey or the crime survey, which, as your colleague Mr Beattie and you said, Mr Beggs, probably has a reduced numerical minimum. We are in discussion with NISRA about the need to have a much bigger sample.Sorry, I am being repetitive. It is telling us that people feel safer. We are also recording and publishing the recorded crime statistics. I simply make the point that they certainly do not show a dramatic reduction. They do not show any reduction in crime in the period to which you have referred, but part of the explanation for that may be that people are much more comfortable about reporting crime. Steven, do you want to speak a little on what we will measure and report against?
Mr McCourt: I will amplify what David said: that is why we will report on both national statistics. Across the Programme for Government, there is one reporting mechanism or population measure for each outcome. That is why, on the crime side, our indicator focuses on the crime survey. A positive in the crime survey is that it looks at unreported crime, an aspect that recorded crime does not deal with that at all. That is why we want to amplify this by looking at both performance measures. With cybercrime, hate crime and domestic violence, one of our main thrusts is the increased reporting that
11 we want to achieve. It is not that we are trying to hide anything or give a misleading picture. We will report to the Committee on both.
Mr Beggs: You are more likely to tick a box by using the measure that has been declining consistently and going against the figures recorded.
Mr McCourt: We currently report to this scrutiny Committee on the community safety strategy, which covers both sets of indices, and it will be clear on the prevalence of victims of crime. Hopefully, by making it more robust and increasing the sample size, we will get an even clearer picture of victims of crime. We will also look at increasing the number of fraud areas and other areas where there are gaps to see how we can improve the Northern Ireland crime survey.
Mr Beggs: One of today's headlines is the Consumer Council estimate that about 300,000 people have been scammed. That is a huge figure. Another estimate is that 21% of the older population have been scammed. Are you putting in specific measures that will capture the very genuine concern caused when vulnerable individuals become victims, many of whom suffer in silence, perhaps because of embarrassment?
Mr McCourt: Across the range of our current interventions, we are looking at how we address harm and vulnerability. We are working with a large range of organisations on how we address that, whether it be the Age Sector Platform or a range of agencies. I reassure the Committee that in reporting the crime types that we focus on, we will address the crimes that may increase. That is the reason why we want to have that rich picture: so that we know exactly what the status is.
The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Doug, do you want to come in with a supplementary?
Mr Beattie: I do not want to labour this at all because I think that you have been very clear, but I think that it is really important. The Northern Ireland crime survey estimates that, in 2014-15, 134,000 crimes were committed, which is a higher number than even the Police Service believes. Clarity is really important, and I just want to make sure that people understand that, even in the crime survey, they will see an increase in crime, not a decrease. That is an important headline for anybody, even if it is only a measurement used so that people understand that crime is still increasing. It drives resources to tackle crime. Certainly, 134,000 crimes in 2014-15 — an increase of 11,000 on the previous year — is important.
Mr McCourt: You are right. The incidence of crime may focus resources, but we have to be very careful. Resources might then be focused on certain areas of crime that do not require the most resource, and antisocial behaviour may be overlooked. We have to get the balance right in relation to harm and vulnerability.
The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Measuring is a massive issue. You can measure reported crime, but you cannot measure unreported crime, and that may lead you down a path of developing resource. Crime comes from criminals; it does not come from the PSNI, an agency or a Department. A massive issue is that the reporting of crime can be affected by the performance of police: if people do not have faith in the police, they will not report crime. The other element that must be added is the harm created by crime. There may be one million crimes that do not create as much harm as 100 crimes of a different type that do massive harm. Harm must be a measure, too.
Michaela has been sitting very patiently.
Ms Boyle: Thank you, Chair. On the back of our discussions on the importance of intervening early to steer young people away from antisocial behaviour, my question is about the problem-solving justice approach. David, you talked about children getting the best start in life and about good parenting. You talked about the importance of early intervention and making sure that we break the cycle because, if we do not break it early, it becomes very difficult later. When we are talking about young people, how young is young? I do not see the Department of Health listed as one of the key partners. Where does it come into this? The Department of Education is there, but the Department of Health is not one of the key delivery partners.
Ms Cooper: I will start. One of the key issues that we are looking at under indicator 39, reducing reoffending, is how we deal with young people in the justice system. We know from evidence in other jurisdictions, particularly in Scandinavia, that taking a welfare-based approach to a child can often be
12 very successful, as measured by their outcomes and behaviours, so we are specifically looking at how to take a welfare-based approach, and the Department of Health is a key partner in that element of our delivery plan.
Ms Boyle: That is good to hear. I see that the current pilot of the concern hub has been rolled out. Is there any update on that and how it is working? Has it been evaluated?
Mr McCourt: It has just started, so it is very new. The delivery plan looks at place-based approaches. We are conscious that we have not populated the delivery plan with what we do currently. We are trying to look at what else we intend to bring in to enhance it further, and the Department of Health, through the trusts, are front and centre of a place-based approach, particularly in relation to the concern hubs. I had a quick look at our action plan to see why the Department of Health is not mentioned, and it is there only as one of "other Executive Departments" under place-based approaches. We will evaluate our concern hub to see how we can utilise that learning, and we recently met the police to see how that could be replicated elsewhere as a place-based approach.
Ms Boyle: David, you mentioned children getting the best start in life and good parenting. From my experience of being a young mother, I know that parents often think that they know what is right for their child. It is not until you sit down with a group of people to talk about the issues that you realise that you do not understand exactly what, in some circumstances, is right or wrong. Those are the key early intervention approaches that we need to make, be they through Sure Start, Barnardo's or other organisations. Good parenting programmes are key to breaking the cycle.
Mr Lavery: We recognise that. Although the Department of Health may not be quite the right Department for this, or not as explicitly as others, we have learned a lot from its particular expertise in early intervention and the significant benefit that can flow from that. I will meet colleagues responsible for the concern hub next week. There were some difficulties in exchanging information among different agencies. That, obviously, is crucial to this. As you know, the concept is to identify individuals and families who most regularly present, whether to social services, police or whatever, to see what interventions and support are appropriate. Some time ago, when OECD was visiting to do a case study on the domestic violence court, we visited Foyle Women's Aid, which, as I understood from its presentation, is putting a lot of emphasis on supporting young women with childcare responsibilities to understand what that meant. It was —
Ms Boyle: That it is not OK to have your child of five years of age running around the streets at 10.00 pm. Those are the —
Mr Lavery: It may be that we need to look to the third sector, charities, churches and others as more appropriate points of delivery of intervention than the justice system, where it tends to be somebody in a uniform when something bad has happened.
Going back to my original remarks, I think that key to all of this is that we learn to understand the underlying causes and behaviours that manifest themselves in the criminal justice space or social services. We need to find out how we support people to change and how to avoid giving rise to those problems at the beginning. It tends to be the case that the problems recur in adulthood. Some of the figures that Louise published in her delivery plan are very striking: the level of reoffending among young men in particular is quite a striking statistic. We acknowledge that and are very keen to work with other partner agencies.
When I came into the room, you all had outcome 7 of the Programme for Government in front of you. I came in wanting to talk about — I did not quite realise what was happening — the delivery plans. We would like to discuss the delivery plans with you in the coming weeks and months. That is where we can unpack some of the detail. That is where, Mr Beattie and Mr Beggs, you will see more measurements of crime than just experience of crime; you will see recorded crime. You will eventually see a harm indicator. That is where you will see more detail on early interventions for children and parenting skills. The delivery plans are really what we should be talking about as we come back to talk to you over the future weeks and months. That is where the detail has to be worked out, and that is where you need to ask us three questions: what are you doing differently, who are you partnering with, and what difference is it making? If we cannot show you any of that, we are just going in round in circles, to some extent.
Did you have another question?
13 Ms Boyle: Yes, a brief one. In prison reform, which was touched on earlier, one of the future priorities is the modernisation of the estate. What is the situation with the women's prison at Hydebank?
Ms Cooper: That is part of the scheduled work on the estate and one of the five key priorities for the further modernisation of the Prison Service. I do not have the exact detail, but that is scheduled to be probably in the next four to five years. I can get you further detail on the exact timings.
Ms Boyle: I would appreciate that.
Mr Attwood: First, I thank David for suggesting to the Committee what he thinks our questions should be, but these are the questions that we have: what is the legislation that you are planning; how do your proposals really measure up to turning the curve; and will you have the money to do what is needed in order to turn the curve? Those are the three questions, rather than the questions that David suggested that he thought the Committee should ask.
I agree with David that at the critical end of this presentation are the proposals to shift the curve. Curiously, in some places, it is proposed to "shift the curve"; in other places, it is proposed to "turn the curve". There is inconsistency. Although the intention is the same, for some reason, different words are used. That is where the hard end of this work is. That is why I am surprised that in some places — for example, on the respect element — very precise timelines are given. Similarly, for law reform and administrative improvements, there is a precise time. On a welfare-based approach, a problem- solving approach and restorative justice, it is all to be confirmed (TBC). In some places, we are given very clear indications of when, not what, but, in other cases, we are being told that it is TBC. On problem-solving approaches, five of the seven proposals to turn the curve are TBC. We are six months into the mandate and, at the end of six months, on the one critical element — I want to ask some further questions about that — it is TBC.
Mr Lavery: Are you referring to the delivery plan on indicator 39 or to the text of the Programme for Government?
Mr Attwood: I am dealing with the pages under "Proposals to turn the curve". There are so many pages that that is where you have to go in order to find out what is, or is not, happening. I am pointing out that under the proposals to turn the curve, a welfare-based approach; a problem-solving approach and restorative justice, which Michaela touched on; improving access to opportunities for education and employment, which is what helps to rehabilitate, and that is what we are meant to be about, a lot is yet to be confirmed. You can note that.
The Chairperson (Mr Frew): It is indicator 39 on page 9.
Mr Lavery: Thank you, Chair. I note that there is more on that indicator than on the other delivery plans. As I explained earlier, meetings are taking place in the next couple of weeks to try to arrive at a location and a target date for the pilot substance misuse court. My understanding is that the target is the beginning of the business year 2017-18. That is TBC because it was TBC when this was written, but we can give you a date on that quite soon.
Mr Attwood: That would be useful. For anything that is TBC, we need to know the timescale and whether there is now a timescale for the pilot substance abuse court. I would have thought that there would be much more definition of that, given that the previous Committee, the previous Minister and this Minister are so committed to problem-solving approaches.
Mr Lavery: There is an aspirational timescale of when that will start. Maybe we could have been a little bit smarter by putting that in, but you will see something on that quite soon. We will write to the Committee once we have those plans in place.
Mr Attwood: Personally, I am not interested in aspirational time frames. I am interested in when this will happen. If what is happening in Derry and Dungannon in relation to domestic abuse is such a worthwhile intervention, and if this mandate is to be defined by problem-solving approaches, something more than aspirational is needed.
Mr Lavery: What I meant by aspirational was simply that there is a target to bring in the pilot substance misuse court at the beginning of the 2017 financial year. It is not aspirational; there is a concrete target that I have asked Steven and my colleague from the Courts Service to work to. Maybe
14 I should have put it in there, but we will have a delivery plan for that specific thing quite soon. Going back to your earlier remarks, I would not presume for one moment to suggest what questions this Committee should ask.
Mr Attwood: It was tongue-in-cheek.
Mr Lavery: I understand that. What I was trying to say, though, was that this is the sort of conversation that I want us to have now about the delivery plans. You are quite right to say that TBC is not good enough. You want action, and that is where the emphasis should be rather than at the very aspirational level.
Mr Attwood: The Committee was previously advised that there were no plans to table legislation before June 2017 — those were the words used. Subsequently, and properly, that was changed, in that the Minister now has an intention to have new legislation on coercive behaviour in place in 2017. Does the Department now have, in order to put meat on the proposals to shift the curve, a draft legislative programme for any and all possible legislation that might be planned? Clearly, things have changed in the Department on one level, which is good. Do you now have a draft legislative programme?
Mr Lavery: The answer is yes, or we will have in about a week's time once the Minister approves it. What we reported to the Committee previously was the early return that we were asked by the Executive Office to give to it and to the Office of Legislative Counsel (OLC). At that stage, we in the Department had in mind at least two Bills in this mandate: a criminal justice-type Bill reasonably early in the mandate; and a much more significant access to justice Bill towards the end of the mandate. As you will be aware, there is stuff emerging from the Gillen review of civil and family justice and so forth. That did not stand up to too much analysis by our new Minister, who wanted much more action much sooner in the mandate. Hence her commitment to bringing in early legislation on coercive behaviour in relation to domestic violence and so forth.
Mr Attwood: Are you free to say what might be in the earlier Bill — the criminal justice Bill?
Mr Lavery: I chair, because we need to organise this in a programmed way, the Department's legislative programme board. We are meeting next week to finalise this. It is a bit like landing planes at an airport: you can land only one a time. There is a limited capacity in OLC to draft, limited capacity in the Assembly and a limited capacity even here to deal with several Bills at once.
I should be able to inform the Committee, if not next week, within the next few weeks, about our revised legislative programme. It is likely to include a Bill on committal reform, perhaps as our first priority. Then, I think, there will be a Bill that includes domestic violence/coercive behaviour. However, depending on the timing of the Committee's work on stalking — I know that you are looking at that — we need to have a delivery vehicle for that. That could be a third Bill, or we could bring the two together, depending on the timing of our separate pieces of work.
Where there was one Bill, there will now be two, if not three. I hope to be in a position to update the Committee. It would be our intention to do that anyway, but I will do it. We are drawing up new plans that are a lot more pacy than we had envisaged. The only other thing I want to say — I am sorry to protract this — is that I do not think that the answer to everything we want to achieve here is legislation. Sometimes, enacted legislation does not make any difference or we cannot afford to implement it. We need to be smarter about this, and that is why these pilots on drug and alcohol courts or whatever are also a good weapon to have in our armoury.
Mr Attwood: I agree. It is about getting to the right place as quickly as possible. It would be interesting to hear some time what the legislation is that made no difference. I think that, as a legislature, we should know where the Department thinks that which this Assembly has legislated for has made no difference whatsoever.
Mr Lavery: I probably spoke rashly. I am thinking more of legislation that has taken a lot longer to implement than we had anticipated.
Mr Attwood: You can come back to us on that.
15 Mr Lavery: Again, I am suggesting what questions you might ask, so you might reasonably ask for a list of the legislation enacted in the last mandate and how much of it is in force. That is a question I ask myself occasionally.
Mr Attwood: That is also an interesting question.
Mr Lavery: Forgive me; I am warming to my theme now. Occasionally, we have enacted something and then found that we do not have the training, resources or IT systems in place to deliver it. What I am trying to do by setting up this legislative programme board is plan the work properly so that we know what training implications there will be, what funding we will need and whether we need to change the Causeway IT system. That is where the legislation is. A symbolic statement is an empty statement if you do not deliver on it, so we are trying to be smarter on it.
Mr Attwood: I will ask you about this matter, otherwise I suspect you will kick it into the long grass. There is a commitment that states:
"We will review and strengthen our legislation on race, disability, religion and political opinion".
I know what Steven is about to say. That is a commitment to review and strengthen our legislation on all four elements, which I think would be very good.
Mr McCourt: I think that is the responsibility of the Executive Office.
Mr Attwood: It is a curious one that the Executive are entering into a commitment to strengthen legislation on race, disability, religion and political opinion but that that is not reflected in the proposals in the curve. It is in writing that they will have strengthened legislation across all four elements. I am certainly anxious to see that because I think all that could be very powerful.
Mr Lavery: That goes back to the Chair's point about how this Committee holds people to account for that because it sits in the Executive Office's space. That is a business issue that maybe we need to think about as well.
Mr Attwood: Do you think your Department has a responsibility to count in any of or all that?
Mr Lavery: We are not the lead Department legislatively for those issues, and we do not intend to legislate on those areas.
Mr Attwood: You spent a long time talking about prisons. There has been a lot of conversation about them. Is there any intention to reconfigure the funding in the Department so that there is a significant uplift in moneys to prisons, resulting in a reduction in moneys to other business areas, not least policing?
Mr Lavery: The distribution of the funding is the responsibility within the Department of its strategic resources committee, chaired by my colleague the permanent secretary. I think we are waiting to see the outcome of the 23 November autumn statement by the Chancellor, which will inform and directly shape the Northern Ireland block and then our allocation within it. I know our Minister has had conversations with the Minister of Finance about the funding requirements of the Department of Justice going forward, but even the Minister of Finance must await the outcome of the autumn statement. We are asking ourselves these questions: do we have the right amount of money in Justice and is the amount of money in the right places? I think there has been a recognition that there are areas of the Department that perhaps require further investment, but I cannot answer your question today because no one could. Once we know our allocation, we will look at that.
Mr Attwood: To answer your own question, are there areas of the Department that require further investment subject to the financial environment? What is the answer the Department is coming forward with on that?
Mr Lavery: We think that, undoubtedly, there are areas that are carrying unfunded pressures. For example, my directorate is carrying a pressure of about £1·2 million for work on inquests and legacy issues. We are carrying that expense at risk. As the Committee will know, we have been asking for the release of the funding to be made available under the Stormont House Agreement for that
16 purpose. I am not going to presume to wing it here at the Committee and talk about something that, really, the director of finance should be speaking about.
Mr Attwood: We can come back to that. I will ask you two final questions. You previously advised the Committee that there are two streams of work being undertaken: implementation and legislation. In one way, those are referred to in what we propose to do on shifting the curve on one of the elements of work, which is outstanding legacy issues. Which one did you chair, David?
Mr Lavery: I am responsible for delivering the Justice Department's input to the Stormont House Agreement implementation Act. I am leading on the legislative work stream, and implementation is being led by my colleague Anthony Harbinson. He is responsible for the safer communities directorate.
Mr Attwood: Are the implementation issues restricted to HIU?
Mr Lavery: Yes, the bit that Anthony is leading on is restricted to the HIU. My colleague in the Court Service is responsible for the implementation of the legacy inquest unit, which is, as you know, the Lord Chief Justice's proposal, for which legislation is not required.
I am not aware that the Department has any direct responsibility for the implementation — in fact, I am quite satisfied we do not — of other institutions that are to be established under the Stormont House Agreement, such as the Oral History Archive or the IRG. We are responsible for the Northern Ireland input to the legislation to establish them, but we are not responsible for their implementation. For example, the Oral History Archive would ultimately fall to the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI).
I have to do the Northern Ireland bit of the legislation that will provide for a Stormont House Agreement Bill, and I am doing that in partnership with the Northern Ireland Office. The action points arising from that legislation include setting up an Historical Investigations Unit, and, as I said, Mr Harbinson is leading on that. The non-legislative action point for me is the legacy inquest unit, which I can do without legislation.
Mr Attwood: Where are you with the legislation?
Mr Lavery: Since you last asked me about this some weeks ago, there has been a further draft of the Stormont House Agreement Bill provided to us by the Northern Ireland Office, and we are —
Mr Attwood: Have Ministers had sight of it?
Mr Lavery: Yes, I am quite sure she has.
Mr Attwood: Have any other Ministers had sight of it?
Mr Lavery: I genuinely cannot speak beyond Justice, but we are working with NIO colleagues on the bits we are responsible for in the Department of Justice, such as the HIU. As you recall, there is an interaction between the HIU and the coroners, where the HIU might undertake some investigative work for coroners. That is one of the aspects we discussed at the Stormont House implementation group many months ago.
Our focus is to make sure that the legislation, when introduced into Parliament and enacted next year, as is the plan, is operable and will work. Our focus is on looking at draft legislation to see whether it will work properly, and we understand the Secretary of State's intention remains to have a public consultation stage, beginning perhaps before the end of the calendar year, with a view to introducing the Bill at Westminster early next year for enactment next year.
Mr Attwood: So, as far as you are aware, there is no Department in Northern Ireland liaising with the NIO on any matter other than the HIU?
Mr Lavery: No, I am quite satisfied that the Executive Office is, because it has responsibility for, say, the Oral History Archive and those other institutional proposals under the Stormont House Agreement that do not fall to Justice.
17
Mr Attwood: Is there somebody in the Executive Office doing your job?
Mr Lavery: I could have answered that question when we were all meeting in the Stormont House implementation group because you met the same officials. Those officials are their successors that were talking to that group about the Oral History Archive — I am using that as an example — and are presumably still looking at the planning for that.Whether they are sitting down with the Bill in front of them, I do not know. I think some of that work has moved, probably across to practical planning — budgetary planning and that sort of dimension. Certainly, it is no secret. I have a revised draft Bill, and I am working on it with one or two legal colleagues to make sure it is workable and provides an effective investigative mechanism that will be article 2 compliant.
Mr Attwood: But the instructions on that Bill are coming from the British Government, and you are working with them on tuning it.
Mr Lavery: We provided some instructions on the HIU, but this is drafted by parliamentary counsel in London, as you know, not our Office of the Legislative Counsel. The instructions went, ultimately, probably through the Home Office legal advisers branch, which is the way Westminster legislation is developed.
Mr Attwood: I am not going to pursue this line any more because it has probably been exhausted, and I recognise that David has been usefully forthcoming. However, the fact that this is happening over the head of all or some of the parties, when we are now being told there is going to be a consultation before the new year and legislation early next year and when there is still a lot of unfinished business in Stormont House, is not a way, in my view, to build confidence, not least among many victims and survivors. I find that unsatisfactory, and I am personally very unhappy.
Mr Lavery: The handling of this and the timescale, as Mr Attwood will know, are obviously the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who —
Mr Attwood: No, it is not. He has responsibility at Westminster. He does not have sole responsibility overall.
Mr Lavery: In the sense that the parties agreed that this legislation would be introduced at Westminster, he is responsible for the legislation and its introduction at Westminster. So, whether there is pre-legislative consultation and what form that takes is a matter for which the Secretary of State has lead responsibility. I am only reflecting back to you what we have all heard him say at, say, the British-Irish Association and in one or two other public speeches he has made.
I have no reason to think that that is not the intended trajectory, with the Bill being introduced next year. My job is to make sure that the bits that will impact on policing or the Court Service are technically correct and work. We have had the opportunity to input to that. That is really as much as I could say. I am not withholding information; it is just that that is where it is.
Mr Attwood: Thank you.
Mr Douglas: Thank you for your presentation. There was a report out recently that said that Belfast is the second safest city in the world, with, I think, Tokyo, at number one. David, do you see your targets here?
Mr Lavery: Yes.
Mr Douglas: Your targets helped to make Belfast the number one city.
The Chairperson (Mr Frew): You are being very parochial, Sammy.
Mr Douglas: Yes, but how does that relate through Belfast to the other cities in Northern Ireland?
Mr Lavery: I feel Steven is really anxious to answer this question, so I am going to ask him to do that, as our community safety guru.
18 Mr McCourt: Certainly, I will say that the work that has been undertaken on delivering the community safety strategy is working. I am not saying that there are not blips and serious issues that we have to deal with in terms of ASB and others in particular hotspots. That is why I mentioned to the Committee that the approach we have set out in the delivery plans is to not stop what we are currently doing but build upon the approach that is taken in a more collaborative way to deal particularly with the causation factors of crime, which we touched on.
That is why, through approaches such as the place-based approach and the concern hub approach etc to looking at harm and vulnerability and how we address them, the emphasis will be on those areas to see how we can build upon this and bring it forward to address it in Belfast and other areas.
Mr Douglas: Doug Beattie made the point that the PSNI recruitment has been put on hold. Have you factored that into your targets? I am sure it will have an impact if, because of the recruitment, you have fewer police on the ground. Has that been a factor in these targets?
Mr McCourt: Certainly, the operational requirements in terms of what the Chief Constable needs is his operational responsibility for delivery. In the plans we are bringing forward, the police are front and centre in the delivery of the revised community safety strategy. I have no doubt about resourcing and costing certain aspects of what we are proposing to bring forward on domestic violence and other areas. One of those costings will be on the impact on policing moving forward, so that will be covered.
The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Costing is a massive issue, and when the finance people from Justice were here, we asked them, "Have you costed the Programme for Government?" They were not on that page at that time. We are asking you this now, as architects of the Programme for Government, if you like, and the delivery plans: have you costed them?
Mr McCourt: I will touch on some of that, and my colleagues will be able to add to it. We will be costing those aspects, particularly for domestic violence. We will look to see how the place-based approaches can be taken forward. Certainly, there is a much wider cross-Executive approach on this. Those may not necessarily have additional cost, but it is just a different approach to identifying those people much earlier to try to prevent them coming into the criminal justice system.
The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Do you take my point that, if we go through a Budget process that is alien to or is aloof from the Programme for Government, it will not work? The Programme for Government will not work, and the Budget will not work. One has to be aligned with the other, and you have to be able to flip them over.
Mr McCourt: Chair, I certainly agree, and that is why — David mentioned some of the pressures in the Department — we will bid for what we require for, for instance, domestic violence.
Mr Lavery: It has not been a problem as yet, because, for example, Steven has put funding in place for probation to provide an offender programme for domestic violence offenders. That is a relatively small amount of money that we can move quickly. Something like the substance misuse court, which Steven and Ronnie Armour are designing, will not go forward until there is a costed business case, because we have a very structured way of making investment decisions. Again, as it is a pilot, it should not be, I hope, an insuperable issue. Mr Attwood asked whether the money is in the right place and is moving to the right places. That is one of the big challenges for the Programme for Government. To go back to Ms Boyle's point, it may be that early interventions with, say, children and parenting require money to be dispensed to somewhere other than the justice system, even though those will have benefits for justice later on.
The Chairperson (Mr Frew): You either trust the Programme for Government or you do not. The point is that, if you do not take it seriously and Finance does not take it seriously, it is going to fail.
Mr Lavery: Yes, I acknowledge that. In some areas, though, such as Karen's area of improving the speed of the justice system, I have to say that it is not necessarily that you need to spend more; it is that you need to work in a different way. The Ards pilot, which you heard about, is a good example of that. In other areas, you might be able to pilot an intervention with a relatively small amount of money, but if you want to make it sustainable and scale it up — Mr Attwood asked, "If you are doing this in Derry, why are we you not doing it somewhere else?" — that is when you need to get into a serious conversation about investment. We have not costed this. I have not costed the total commitment of the Department of Justice under the Programme for Government delivery plans. I am not in a position
19 to do it, but I am going to make sure I deliver what I am committed to delivering, which is, at least, preliminary pilots as a proof of concept. The strategic resources committee of the Department will then have a big decision to make if we decide, "Yes, the pilot worked, so now we need to do it Province wide". That is where investment decisions will have to be made.
The Chairperson (Mr Frew): You have been here a long time. Thank you very much for your presentation and for answering questions.
Mr Lavery: Thank you, Chair, for giving us this opportunity and for your forbearance when, in the case of Mr Lunn's question, I was literally not on the right page. There are some things we need to revisit. This is a draft Programme for Government, and there are three draft delivery plans, so we will try to learn from your comments and, in the next period when we are doing the road shows, see what we have and have not got right. Where there is a request for further information, whether on the matters that we came to speak about this afternoon or on some other matters that are of interest to the Committee, I am sure Christine will write to the departmental Assembly liaison officer (DALO) about them. We will endeavour to make that information forthcoming. Thank you for your attention this afternoon. It was very kind of you.
The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thanks very much.
20