Assembly and Executive Review Committee Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters Volume Two Together with the Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee Relating to the Report, the Minutes of Evidence and Other Relevant Documents
Ordered by the Assembly and Executive Review Committee to be printed 25 February 2010 Report: NIA 42/09/10R (Assembly and Executive Review Committee)
UNDER EMBARGO UNTIL 9 MARCH 2010
Session 2009/2010
Powers and Membership Powers and Membership
Powers The Assembly and Executive Review Committee is a Standing Committee established in accordance with section 29A and 29B of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and Standing Order 59 which provide for the Committee to: ■■ Consider the operation of Sections 16A to 16C of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and, in particular, whether to recommend that the Secretary of State should make an order amending that Act and any other enactment so far as may be necessary to ensure that they have effect, as from the date of the election of the 2011 Assembly, as if the executive selection amendments had not been made; ■■ Make a report to the Secretary of State, the Assembly, and the Executive Committee, no later than 1 May 2015, on the operation of parts III and IV of the Northern Ireland Act 1998; and ■■ Consider such other matters relating to the functioning of the Assembly or the Executive as may be referred to it by the Assembly.
Membership The Committee has eleven members including a Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson with a quorum of five. The membership of the Committee is as follows:
Mr Jimmy Spratt (Chairperson) * Mr Raymond McCartney (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Alex Attwood Mr Nigel Dodds **** Mr Simon Hamilton *** Mr Danny Kennedy Mr Alex Maskey ** Mr Alan McFarland Mr John O’Dowd Mr Declan O’Loan ***** Mr Ian Paisley Jnr ***
* Mr Jeffrey Donaldson resigned from the Committee with effect from Tuesday, 26 February 2008 and was replaced by Mr Jimmy Spratt on 4 March 2008.
** With effect from 20 May 2008, Mr Alex Maskey replaced Ms Caral Ni Chuilin.
*** With effect from 15 September 2008, Mr Simon Hamilton replaced Mr Ian McCrea and Mr Ian Paisley Jnr replaced Mr George Robinson.
**** With effect from 15 September 2009, Mr Nigel Dodds replaced Mr Nelson McCausland.
***** With effect from 26 January 2010, Mr Declan O’Loan replaced Mrs Carmel Hanna.
Declaration of Interests In any proceedings of the Committee when devolution of policing and justice matters were being discussed, Members declared the following interests: ■■ Mr Jimmy Spratt, Member of the Policing Board for Northern Ireland ■■ Mr Alex Attwood, Member of the Policing Board for Northern Ireland ■■ Mr Alex Maskey, Member of the Policing Board for Northern Ireland ■■ Mr Nelson McCausland, Belfast District Policing Partnership ■■ Mr Ian McCrea, Cookstown District Policing Partnership
i Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
■■ Mr Declan O’Loan, Ballymena District Policing Partnership ■■ Mr Ian Paisley Junior, Member of the Policing Board for Northern Ireland
Observer Status On 27 January 2009, the Committee agreed to re-extend observer status to those political parties represented in the Assembly, but not represented on the Committee, when the devolution of policing and justice matters were being discussed.
ii Table of Contents Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations v
Volume 1 Executive Summary and Conclusions 1
Introduction 2
The Committee’s Approach 4
The Financial Implications of the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters 6
The Category Two List of Issues, to be resolved by the Committee, pre-devolution, but which might require wider consultation and consideration (excluding the financial implications of the devolution of policing and justice matters) 8
Appendices
Appendix 1 The Category Two List of Issues, to be resolved by the Committee, pre-devolution, but which might require wider consultation and consideration 15
Appendix 2 Minutes of Proceedings relating to the report 19
Appendix 3 Papers relating to the financial implications of the devolution of policing and justice matters ■■ Specialist Adviser 139 ■■ Correspondence from the Prime Minister 150
Appendix 4 Agreements, Concordats, Protocols and Memoranda of Understanding underpinning the devolution of policing and justice matters 159 ■■ Agreement Between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and The Government of Ireland on Co-Operation on Criminal Justice Matters ■■ Concordat Between Her Majesty’s Government and the Northern Ireland Executive on the Independence of the Judiciary in Northern Ireland ■■ Protocol on the Policing Architecture ■■ Agreement Between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland on Police Co-Operation ■■ Concordat between Her Majesty’s Government and the Northern Ireland Executive on the Independence of the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland (Including a Protocol between the Attorney General and the Prosecuting Departments) ■■ Memoranda of Understanding on Sex Offenders
iii Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
■■ Handling Arrangements for National Security Related Matters after Devolution of Policing and Justice to the Northern Ireland Executive ■■ Agreement at Hillsborough Castle
Appendix 5 Correspondence to, and from, OFMDFM 213
Appendix 6 Correspondence to, and from, NIO 277
Appendix 7 Other Correspondence 361
Appendix 8 Summary of Recommendations from the Report on the Inquiry into the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – 22/07/08R 437
Appendix 9 Summary of Recommendations from the First Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – 22/08/09R (which deals with some of the Category One List of Issues to be resolved, within the Committee, pre-devolution) 445
Volume 2
Appendix 10 Minutes of Evidence 3
Appendix 11 List of Witnesses 375
Appendix 12 Written Submissions 379
Appendix 13 Research Papers 615
iv List of Abbreviations List of Abbreviations
AG Attorney General
AME Annually Managed Expenditure
CICAPNI Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel Northern Ireland
CJINI Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland
CSR Comprehensive Spending Review
DEL Departmental Expenditure Limits
DFP Department for Finance and Personnel
DPP District Policing Partnership
ERINI Economic Research Institute for Northern Ireland
FMDFM First Minister and deputy First Minister
FSNI Forensic Science Northern Ireland
HMT Her Majesty’s Treasury
NICtS Northern Ireland Court Service
NIJAC Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission
NIJAO Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Ombudsman
NILSC Northern Ireland Legal Services Commission
NIO Northern Ireland Office
NIPB Northern Ireland Policing Board
NIPF Northern Ireland Police Fund
NIPS Northern Ireland Prison Service
OFMDFM Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister
PBNI Probation Board Northern Ireland
PPS Public Prosecution Service
PRRT Police Rehabilitation and Retraining Trust
PSNI Police Service Northern Ireland
RUCGC Royal Ulster Constabulary George Cross Foundation
SoS Secretary of State
SOCA Serious Organised Crime Agency
YJA Youth Justice Agency
v vi Appendix 10 Minutes of Evidence
Minutes of Evidence — 27 January 2009
27 January 2009
Members present for all or part of the Committee. We also intend to call some proceedings: of the organisations at various points as we get that information. Mr Jimmy Spratt (Chairperson) Mr Raymond McCartney (Deputy Chairperson) 7. I know that Mr Hewitt has already been Mr Alex Attwood briefed and will bring the Committee Mr Simon Hamilton up to speed on where we are, and take Mrs Carmel Hanna some questions after that. Mr Alex Maskey Mr Nelson McCausland 8. Mr Victor Hewitt (Economic Research Mr Alan McFarland Institute of Northern Ireland): Thank Mr John O’Dowd you, Chairman. My task is to assist the Mr Ian Paisley Jnr Committee as much as possible, in order to help you to understand what Witnesses financial position you are liable to inherit Mr Victor Hewitt Economic Research when these matters are brought into Institute of Northern Ireland the Northern Ireland public expenditure block. In the past, some elements of the policing and justice system have been 1. The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): As is within that block, but the proposals customary, I invite members to declare at the moment are to include further any interests. I declare that I am a elements, such as the Court Service, member of the Northern Ireland Policing which was never part of it before. Board. In some respects, you are entering 2. Mr McCausland: I am a member of the unchartered territory in doing that. Belfast District Policing Partnership. 9. My experience of this, going back to the 3. Mr Paisley Jnr: I am a member of the 1990s, is that matters such as security Policing Board. and law and order have a way of working themselves up the priority list once they 4. Mr A Maskey: I am a member of the are in place. Since the block is fixed Policing Board. overall, you will find that those matters tend to squeeze out other things. 5. The Chairperson: There are no members from any other parties present. I invite 10. I have been looking at the overall figure Victor Hewitt to join us. You are very work for the NIO. Typically, the overall welcome, and we are very glad to have budget had been rising until the last you on board. spending review. The future projections from that are on a downward track. 6. There is no doubt that a lot of people At the time of the negotiations a year on the Committee are worried about or so ago, I mentioned to the parties various budgetary shortfalls. Some of that they must not forget about the that has been in the public domain. comprehensive spending review out-turn The Committee has agreed that it will for the NIO, because that was something visit some of those areas, because we that would be coming down the track. have to be satisfied that we have the The temptation in the Treasury is always full picture before us. We have also to put pressure on. indicated that we will continue with the complementary process, despite 11. A range of issues has been identified. what the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) For example, the NIO faces a 5% has said. As we get information back, efficiency cut, as opposed to the 3% we intend to pursue that path as a efficiency cut in the Northern Ireland
3 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
Civil Service. That will impact on us in the Barnett formula. Therefore, when two ways. First, it will mean a general a spending review takes place, the reduction in the baseline of the block as standard formula is that we get a share a whole. Secondly, you will find that of comparable spending in the rest of there will be less money in the the UK. If, for example, health spending organisations when they are taken over rises, we get a share of that extra than there appears to be at the spending. moment. Land sales have more or less dried up, so the financing of the capital 15. Comparability is usually around 100% programmes is under some pressure. If — most of the things done in the UK these bodies are brought in, they will be are also done here. The proportion, made part of the overall civil service based on population share, is about reform programme. I can see no 3%. Law and order expenditure will be provision within any of the NIO bodies no different. There will be law and order for incorporation into the reform elements in the spend in England, of programme. There are issues such as which Northern Ireland will get a share. Account NI and so on. However, any extraordinary elements in our block that do not have counterparts 12. There is a growing bill for legal claims in the rest of the UK will create a on the police side. We have seen pressure on the block as a whole. A some quantification of that in the last classic example of that is the water few days. It may have been somewhat service; there is no comparable spend exaggerated, but it is a very substantial in England. amount of money. The legal-aid budget itself is under considerable pressure. 16. Those are some of the preliminary There is no provision for additional issues that the institute has identified. payouts for victims at the moment. We are going through the figures and Prison costs here are running well ahead have, on occasion, been less than of the equivalent in GB. Those are just happy with the arithmetic that has some of the issues which will bring their emerged. I saw a freedom of information own pressures with them. request submitted to the PSNI about overtime. The cost was broken down 13. Our task at the moment is to go through into civilian and police overtime as such figure work as we have available. percentages of the total bill, and the The various bodies have been written total had been calculated by adding the to requesting further information. When two percentages together. That is only we get that, we will trawl through it to correct if the same overall total is being see how it stacks up. I have had some used. Therefore, an answer of 16% was difficulty in reconciling the figures that given, when the true answer was 10%. we already have. There seem to be Little things like that worry me. some substantial changes between the figures that we were given by the 17. Mr Paisley Jnr: Is that called cooking Secretary of State some months ago the books? and the updated figures. There are 18. Mr Hewitt: In fact, that is shooting quite large changes in the underlying oneself in the foot, by stating that more budgets. None of them seem to fit than the actual amount of overtime is against the departmental reports being worked. either. That may be simply the result of internal monitoring exercises, moving 19. The Chairperson: Thank you. I know that money around, but we need to get to the it is early days and that there is a lot of bottom of that. work ahead of the Committee. Members have already identified many of the 14. The other point that you will need to issues that you have raised. bear in mind is how you are going to fund policing and justice in the future. 20. Mr Paisley Jnr: You posed the question The Northern Ireland block is effectively of future funding, which is a matter that tied to expenditure in England through will exercise the Committee. Have you
4 Minutes of Evidence — 27 January 2009
identified any models or frameworks the finances are concerned, the budget for funding, or is it simply a Barnett is driven by the really big bodies such as exercise? the PSNI and the Prison Service.
21. Mr Hewitt: It is very much the latter. 26. Mr Paisley Jnr: Have you started to The Treasury is very much wedded to consider legal aid? I think that that is the Barnett formula — although it may where the big black hole will be. become unwedded, given the present financial crisis. The standard procedure 27. Mr Hewitt: I have seen some very large is that once a baseline is established, figures that I have been unable to verify. it is adjusted through the various It is well known that the UK system components of the Barnett formula. of legal aid is generous, and Northern There are actually a large number of Ireland tends to be top of that list. At subprogrammes that aggregate up into the moment, I feel that the legal aid the overall departmental allocation. If budget is in substantial deficit. that is to be the case, it is important that the baseline starts from the right 28. Mr A Maskey: I want to caution myself position. If you start with a deficit you — and, at some point, the Committee will continue to have a deficit. — as we progress through this exercise. I am conscious that we do not want 22. Mr Paisley Jnr: You have obviously to end up with a series of reports and started work on identifying that baseline, figures and budget projections from but, if the figures that you have at the various agencies that are trying to put moment do not add up, is it possible to themselves in a negotiation position. get even a ballpark figure of where the We must determine the real need. If the baseline is? Committee is to play a significant role 23. Mr Hewitt: The figures add up in that in the process during the time ahead, they provide totals, but reconciling those we need to know what is really needed totals to other published information rather than what might be worthwhile or is not particularly easy at present. As a good idea [Inaudible due to technical I said, we are at only the beginning difficulties.]. How can we ensure that of a process that will be studied in we do not end up as someone else’s considerably greater detail. I have not advocate by default? found much information about some of the gaps that have been mentioned, 29. Mr Hewitt: You are really talking about and the computation of that is quite what are technically called needs important. assessment exercises, which are difficult to do. The basic idea is to take 24. Mr Paisley Jnr: I imagine that finding some benchmark — usually expenditure projections for expenditure by the Police in England — and look at the objective Service is slightly easier because of factors that drive that expenditure, such the voluminous publications on policing as population figures, the distribution compared with other Departments. Have of the population among various age you delved into that yet? groups, and other factors that are not 25. Mr Hewitt: Yes, we have been collecting easily changed by human intervention. the annual reports of the relevant Then you look at Northern Ireland’s bodies in order to get a handle on objective factors relative to those in their spending. However, the general England to determine how far away principle that applies in these matters from that benchmark we are. That will is that about 80% of the actual spend is take you a certain distance, but there generated by around 20% of the bodies. will always be special factors. Given In other words, there are large spending Northern Ireland’s historical background, bodies that must be looked at, and the special law-and-order factors will be smaller ones that, given the time and substantial. It is doable, but it is not an resources, can be looked at. As far as exact science — I wish it was.
5 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
30. Mr McFarland: Along with others here, I but was unable to. If it will be helpful, was a member of the Policing Board for I can take that issue up and establish its first five years, and I sat on the what the arrangements are. finance committee. It is clear to everyone that there are a lot of legal 37. The Chairperson: We want to be clear bills, claims bills and legal aid. An that we are running a complementary enormous chunk of money goes towards process. The letters that come in should various legal expenses, on which it is be copied to Mr Hewitt. Do members sometimes difficult to get a handle. I agree? suspect that, although we can address Members indicated assent. broad-brush issues, we need to go into the figures to work out whether we can 38. The Chairperson: Does the Committee remove any of the impediments to good note the letter from the Court Service? use of finance. Members indicated assent. 31. Some impediments may not be moveable. For example, during my time 39. The Chairperson: The Clerk will speak on the Policing Board, a constable to Mr Lavery about the issues that were took the police to court about overtime raised. Thank you very much, Mr Hewitt. allowances. The judge ruled that, It has been short today. I think that we because the constable had received will be seeing each other on a fairly £9,000 a year in overtime in previous regular basis. You are very welcome to years, he was entitled to expect £9,000 stay on or to escape. a year as part of the settlement. These 40. We now move to the category-two list of weird, esoteric things happen, and, issues. therefore, we need to mine into that area in due course. 41. Mrs Hanna: I apologise for being late. I presume that you received Mr 32. The Chairperson: That was a comment Attwood’s apologies. I think that he is in rather than a question. the Chamber, which is where I am also 33. Mr Hewitt, you will, undoubtedly, examine supposed to be. the papers. We have a letter from David 42. The Chairperson: I think that Simon Lavery of the Court Service, in which Hamilton has probably escaped as well. he indicates that he is happy to reply I understand that today is particularly on behalf of four other agencies: the busy. I will note the apology from Mr Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeal Attwood. Panel for Northern Ireland; the Northern Ireland Legal Services Commission; the 43. I remind members that these Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments proceedings are being recorded by Commission; and the Northern Ireland Hansard. I intend to go through the Judicial Appointments Ombudsman. We category-two list of issues in the same have already indicated that we are happy way that we did previously — by going enough that he replies, but we made round the different parties. Obviously, it very clear that we may also seek we are not going to hear from the SDLP. information from the other individual We will deal with the issues in the order organisations. that they appear; I will read them and 34. Mr Paisley Jnr: Does he bid for those then ask the parties to make their initial organisations in the comprehensive comments. Issue A is whether there is a spending review? need to endorse recommendation 22 of the Committee’s original report — that 35. The Chairperson: I assume that he the post of Attorney General should be a does. full-time role, at least initially.
36. The Committee Clerk: I do not honestly 44. Mr Paisley Jnr: I am content with that know. The letter only arrived yesterday. I proposal. I think that the role of the tried to reach him to have a discussion, Attorney General should be full time
6 Minutes of Evidence — 27 January 2009
for the initial period and the set-up official appointment. Presumably, that arrangements. is why the role of making the official appointment was to be transferred 45. Mr A Maskey: I endorse that position. to OFMDFM. What are the legal 46. Mr McFarland: I am also happy with that implications of a sudden change being proposal. made to the effect that the body that undertakes the selection procedure also 47. The Chairperson: I think that there is makes the appointment? That would be consensus on that proposal. The a different system from elsewhere in Committee is content that the post of the UK. Also, who appoints members of Attorney General be a full-time role, at NIJAC? least in the initial period. We move to issue B, which concerns who will be 54. Mr Paisley Jnr: NIJAC is already responsible for appointments to the appointed. judiciary. 55. Mr McFarland: There is concern about 48. Mr Paisley Jnr: Edward Gorringe — I judges being appointed by OFMDFM, but think that he is the chief executive of the my understanding is that the people who Judicial Appointments Commission sit on NIJAC are appointed by OFMDFM. (NIJAC). I think that NIJAC should be responsible, and I also think that some 56. Mr McCartney: Only five of its members of the appointments are the are political appointments. responsibility of the Prime Minister. I 57. Mr Paisley Jnr: I think that there are 12 cannot envisage when those altogether. arrangements would change. 58. Mr McCartney: Yes; but only five are 49. Mr A Maskey: The matter was addressed in the letter from the Office political appointments. of the First Minister and deputy First 59. Mr McFarland: I would like that to be Minister (OFMDFM) on 18 November examined further. 2008. I am happy with the way that the matter was addressed. 60. The Chairperson: A briefing paper will be drawn up to deal with the points that you 50. The Chairperson: We will refresh our have raised. I think that it is around five. memories on that. 61. Mr Paisley Jnr: NIJAC is a balanced 51. Mr Paisley Jnr: I am not proposing commission; it has five political anything different. There is no political appointments in addition to professional role as such, so NIJAC is the obvious commissioners. The commission could body to undertake the role. be in place for a considerable period of 52. Mr McFarland: I would like clarification. time, with people needing to be replaced I understand the letter dated 18 as they die or retire. It is not a case of November to say that, although the block appointments being made every proposal was that OFMDFM would so often. appoint the judges, it was always going to be NIJAC that selected them; 62. Mr McFarland: I would still appreciate OFMDFM would merely make the official clarification on the matter. appointment. OFMDFM then said that 63. The Chairperson: In relation to the point it would take no further role and allow that Mr Maskey raised, the letter states: NIJAC to appoint the judges. What is the legal position on that? “In order to ensure the independence of the Judiciary responsibilities … the appointment 53. Traditionally, NIJAC has done all the and removal of judicial office holders sifting, assessing whether people are would rest with the Judicial Appointments adequately qualified and so on. It was Commission.” then the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State or whoever who made the 64. Does that provide clarification?
7 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
65. Mr A Maskey: Yes. 72. Mr McFarland: It is most unfortunate that Alex is not here as this is his 66. The Chairperson: Do members agree favourite topic above all else. that we should park that subject until we have a look at the research paper? 73. Mr Paisley Jnr: I am delighted that he is not here. Let us get it sorted. Members indicated assent. 74. Mr McFarland: As Ian said, these are 67. The Chairperson: The next item is national security issues. However, I the relationship between the Serious believe that there is an issue – and it Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) and is the same issue that we had on the the security services, the Minister, the Policing Board when it was transferring Department and the Assembly. this stuff from Special Branch to the security service, which is that there 68. Mr Paisley Jnr: The security services needed to be in place protocols and should be available to give regular memoranda of understanding on briefings to the future Minister and people’s rights with regard to the access Committee, if necessary. The Policing of information. One could argue that Board receives regular briefings from although national security is a case of SOCA and the security services. just national security, other issues will That should be the be-all and end- arise through SOCA, whereby organised all of the relationship; as a devolved crime issues that are quite within the administration, we should have only a remit of our Police Service and Courts briefing relationship. National security is Service here — although handled by national security, and the administration SOCA — are not national security and direction of national security starts issues per se. It would probably be quite and stops with the Prime Minister. useful if we had a clear idea of what those issues were before they were 69. Mr A Maskey: We do not currently transferred here, and how information have any control or authority over the will be handled by our Minister and our relationship. Therefore, it will probably Department and, therefore, our Police rest, as Ian Jnr said, with a briefing role, Service. and we will probably have to develop 75. I understand that some of the issues that. Is this really a category-three regarding the Police Service are already issue? In a sense, our party is easy, in place — they were put in place at the because I suspect that there is not time of the transfer. However, it would be going to be a change in the relationship useful for us to satisfy ourselves that we between now and the transfer of power. are not missing a trick as regards having Rather than return to this question next the matter tied up before it comes week or the week after, I suggest that it across, because it may not be possible might really be a category-three issue, to tie it up afterwards. Therefore, it although I am not moving that formally would be useful to get some idea, this morning. perhaps from the Policing Board or the Chief Constable, and perhaps even 70. The Chairperson: Are you putting that the Courts Service, as to what sort of formally? things might need to be tied up before 71. Mr A Maskey: I am trying to look at the we transfer. Issues are involved that are outside national security, but which realpolitik of it. We will not change the are handled by those organisations and current relationships as they are set out, will impinge on our system here after and Ian Jnr is also making that point. devolution. Therefore, at least at this point, we would probably defer it because we are 76. The Chairperson: With regard to the not going to change it. However, it will be memoranda, perhaps that is a point that on the basis that there will need to be the Committee might also like to take some understanding. up with the NIO when it appears before
8 Minutes of Evidence — 27 January 2009
the Committee, which we want to do and policy and operational direction of reasonably quickly. the security service would rest with the Prime Minister. That is the way that it 77. Mr McFarland: We have asked for those should be. already. 81. Mr McFarland: I agree with that, but 78. Mr A Maskey: That is obviously the that is not what I am talking about. I way to go in the short to medium term. understand that the NIO has agreed However, our view in the longer term memorandum protocols as to how those would be that some of the data-related organisations will link in with any new matters perhaps need to be dealt with Department, and that has been part by being transferred into the Police of the ongoing discussion. For some Service. That is another discussion time, the Committee has asked for sight for another time. Sinn Féin’s view on of those in order to understand how that will not change tomorrow, or this that relationship is to work. I am not side of the transfer of powers. We may proposing that we discuss this every never change it. Therefore, further week, and certainly not the operational consideration will be given to those side of things. However, I am keen to matters. That is why I am suggesting see that for which Alex keeps agitating: that memoranda may be the best for the NIO to come to the Committee that we will get in the short term, and and update us on the position and we have already started that in train explain how that relationship will work with the NIO. Given that we are taking after devolution. It would be useful the matter forward on that basis so to get that issue clear in our minds far at least, I am not so sure that before policing and justice matters are we will get much more out of having devolved. Clearly, there will be further more discussions on that every week. discussion afterwards. Therefore, I am suggesting that it might be a category three matter. 82. The Chairperson: In that case, the Committee agrees that it will take that 79. Mr Paisley Jnr: I take the point, and we issue up with the NIO, and defer it in the should caution against constantly going meantime. It is not for discussion on a to an issue that has already been at weekly basis, but we will raise some of an operational level. I will not use the those points with the NIO. word “satisfaction”, but there has been satisfactory progress and there is now a 83. Mr McFarland: Excellent. settled relationship between the Policing Board and how it interacts with SOCA 84. The Chairperson: We now move to issue D: and the security services. Some of us “What needs to be done to ensure the are satisfied with that and others might maintenance of existing North/South policing want to change it. However, the fact is and justice agreements?” that there is a settled relationship, and that is an operational issue. Why would 85. Mr Paisley Jnr: My party is very we want to bring those operational supportive of appropriate co-operation matters, over which we would have no between this jurisdiction and any other jurisdiction anyway, into week in, week jurisdiction with which we have to have out discussions in this forum? I do not a good security relationship with regard think that that is necessary. to sharing of information about, for example, sex offenders, drug dealing, 80. That is why I believe that if we can we serious crime and people trafficking. settle on the view that if a regular briefing There needs to be good, genuine co- is established between the Minister and operation in place. the Department and the security services and SOCA, that regular briefing satisfies 86. Further to the previous question, on a knowledge basis. However, as protocols are established. Let us see regards a policy and operational basis, what they are. If we are satisfied with operations would rest with the police, them, so be it. If we think that more
9 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
work needs to be done, then let us Committee what arrangements exist. develop that debate after we have Some members know some of the explored the protocols. However, we arrangements and co-operation that do not think that simply establishing exist. I believe that those are matters another formal tier in the North/South that the Committee needs to tease out. Ministerial Council will address that; it will merely amount to creating another 98. Mr McFarland: I agree with you. The tier. It should be dealt with appropriately operation of it is fairly good, but, as by examining the protocols that exist I recall from previous discussions and see whether there is work to be on these issues, a number of legal done. If there is work to be done, we are systems will collapse on the devolution prepared to do it. If there is no work to of policing and justice matters. I believe be done, which I doubt, then so be it. that the Committee already decided that we should replicate those systems, 87. The Chairperson: We have joined because they were important. Perhaps together issues D and E, because they we can refresh ourselves, today or in are related. What do members think? due course, on what those systems are and what the Assembly needs to do 88. Mr Hamilton: That would be sensible. in order to re-establish them. It would 89. The Chairperson: Do members agree be useful, too, to get another briefing that issues D and E fall into each other? on the North/South justice sector with Issue E asks: regard to what exists and what we need to do in order to maintain that. “Is there a requirement for a Justice Sector of the North/South Ministerial Council?” 99. I believe that the Committee also talked about what other developments had 90. That has been addressed by Ian. Are occurred. As you will recall, the two members happy to join those two Governments set up a group, which issues? It seems to me to make sense. was made up of civil servants, to take forward discussion on areas of mutual 91. Mr Hamilton: We could say that we cut interest. The last time that we met with down on our issues by one. NIO officials, I think that they ducked 92. Mr A Maskey: From Sinn Féin’s point the issue, or their answer was not quite of view, we would certainly want clear. Therefore, the next time that NIO to maintain and continue with the officials appear before the Committee, agreements that already exist. We perhaps we could re-examine whether believe that it is necessary to have there are any other areas that are at a justice sector in the North/South present unseen — that were, so to Ministerial Council. [Inaudible due to speak, cleared away before devolution, technical difficulties.] but that may, in fact, impact on us afterwards. 93. The Chairperson: I do not think that any of us are 100% clear on what the 100. The Committee Clerk: The issue was agreements are in relation to some of raised during deliberations on the the issues. category one list of issues, and it was suggested that, when the Committee 94. Mr Paisley Jnr: We know that they do became involved in category two list of not cover parking fines. issues, it would be useful to have an 95. The Chairperson: We will not go into that. early session with the NIO on the whole range of memoranda of understanding 96. Mr Hamilton: Ian is an expert on them. protocols.
97. The Chairperson: That will obviously 101. It is also worth pointing out that, in come up in the protocols about which reflecting that issue in correspondence we will be talking to the NIO. Members with the Secretary of State, he may want to ask the Chief Constable suggested that such information when he next appears before the could be shared only after it had been
10 Minutes of Evidence — 27 January 2009
provided to the two Administrations. be trying to get to the point whereby we That assertion by the Secretary of State can sign off on an arrangement entered was challenged in the most recent letter into at the point of devolution between from the Chairperson of the Committee, the Dublin Administration and the North and we have not received a reply to that. Administration. That is the up-to-date position. 107. It would be worthwhile asking not just 102. The Chairperson: Given that the what the agreement says, but what is Committee is calling in the NIO, and the programme of work that is being given the wider context surrounding taken forward at an official level between the financial issues, I presume that we the respective justice Ministers, so would want to keep them two separate that we can get a sense of all the work issues, as opposed to everything being that they do, and a sense that it is not combined into one briefing. a threatening mandate, but rather it is commonsense work that is necessary 103. Mr McFarland: For the record, the Ulster for the welfare of the citizens North and Unionist Party does not see any need South. for a North/South Ministerial Council meeting on policing. 108. There are proposals to extend that justice agreement and to have a justice 104. Mr Attwood: I apologise for arriving late, sector of the North/South Ministerial but I had to speak in the Chamber. Council. All of that can be outlined 105. The arrangement in respect of North/ during the course of our conversations. South policing is between the PSNI and For now, however, we must get our the gardaí. Therefore, that does not fall, heads around whether we can agree to in part or in full, with the devolution of continue those elements that will fall justice and policing. We can certainly on the day of devolution, and then take have a meeting with the police to forward from that the other elements on discuss what that means and what more which we might potentially agree. could be done, but it will fall outwith the 109. Mr A Maskey: To return to Alan’s point: responsibility of the Assembly. relevant, ongoing structures already 106. The second issue is that there are exist, and I suppose that it would be elements of the justice agreement possible to work around them. With between the British Government and regard to issue E, we believe that the Irish Government that will fall at a justice sector of the North/South the point of devolution, and there are Ministerial Council is needed. It would elements that will continue, because probably be helpful to identify what they fall within the responsibility of currently exists within those structures. the British and Irish Governments. I suppose, therefore, that the specific However, the area that is not within their question is what needs to be done. Do sovereign responsibility, and which is a we need legislation? Do we need to North/South element, will fall. That is ask for legislation? We need to work the end of it, unless some arrangement out exactly what currently exists. Let us is put in place for it to continue. Given answer that question, because it may that most of this is important but well be answered very simply. [Inaudible politically neutral, if I may put it that due to technical difficulties.] way, it seems to me that the Committee 110. The Chairperson: I sense that the should, at least, be saying that those Committee needs to have further are the elements that will fall, and will discussion on that matter. We are pretty it cause us any difficulty to renew them much agreed that we want to speak to in order that there is not a gap in, for the NIO about protocols, and so forth. I example, protections on a North/South ask you formally whether we agree that basis, which might otherwise happen. If D and E are joined as one issue. that part of the justice agreement falls, the Committee should, as a minimum, 111. Mr Hamilton: Agreed.
11 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
112. The Chairperson: Perhaps around the 121. The Chairperson: OK. We will arrange middle of February, given our work for the Committee office to start to deal programme, we can schedule an early with that matter. meeting with the NIO on the specific 122. We shall now proceed to issue F: issue that we just discussed, and take it from there. Therefore, we will park “What is the extent of the financial provisions the issue in the meantime until those for a department which would exercise the arrangements are made. The Committee range of policing and justice functions?” Clerk’s office will go ahead and make those arrangements for a convenient 123. Mr Hamilton: Think of a number and time in the not-too-distant future. multiply it by 100. 124. Mr McFarland: That is Victor Hewitt’s 113. Mr Attwood: I propose that if this is area, is it not? We discussed that a North/South justice arrangement, already. it seems to me that we should invite officials from the Department of Justice, 125. The Chairperson: Yes, the Committee Equality and Law Reform, because it is discussed that at an earlier stage and not a one-sided issue. They might have decided that we would deal with it as a a view about what should or should not separate issue. Letters were sent out happen on the far side of devolution. It after the briefing that we received from seems to me that in order to complete our specialist adviser. I do not see any the circle, we should invite the other real value in a round-table discussion partners in the current arrangements on the matter now. We are waiting on without prejudice to whatever future advice and on letters to come back. arrangement we might propose. 126. Mr Paisley Jnr: Issue I in the category 114. Mr Paisley Jnr: I have no objection to one list, to which a reference is that in principle, as long as it carried out appended to issue F, asks: separately. I hope that they do come. “How, and when, should the financial They did not come the last time the negotiations with the NIO be conducted, and Policing Board invited them. It would be by whom?” interesting to see if they could come. 127. I think that members need to cast 115. The Chairperson: But that would be their minds with regard to how that separately? would function. Would that involve, for 116. Mr Paisley Jnr: Absolutely. example, the justice Minister working up his bid, taking it to the Minister 117. Mr Attwood: Separately on the same of Finance and Personnel, and the day, or around the same time anyway? Minister of Finance and Personnel then making a proposal? That is how other 118. The Chairperson: We will see what Departments operate. Is it the same arrangements can be made. I am not sort of arrangement that we envisage, going to be tied down. I want to give because we may have a different the Committee staff some flexibility to arrangement for justice money? It might arrange an appointment, and I will not be funny money. How do we conduct tie them down to dates. those negotiations — [Inaudible due to technical difficulties.] 119. Mr A Maskey: Can we ask the NIO to provide us with some of that information 128. The Chairperson: That might be an in writing before its officials appear issue that the Committee might want before the Committee? I believe that the to take up with the First Minister and Committee would find that useful. deputy First Minister, too.
120. Mr Hamilton: It would be useful in every 129. Mr McFarland: OFMDFM told us in its case for witnesses to provide a written letter that it and the Finance Minister will briefing. be negotiating with the NIO and the
12 Minutes of Evidence — 27 January 2009
Treasury for that first tranche. Thereafter, 135. The Chairperson: Does the Committee presumably it becomes a normal function agree to reallocate issue L to issue G? of government. Money will come in Issue L now reads: accordance with the Barnett formula and, “Is there a need for further clarity of the presumably, the Finance Minister, in powers to be devolved, and, if so, should discussion with the Minister for justice, they include matters relating to the Public will then talk to OFMDFM and, once it is Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, flags in place, it will become a part of the and symbols and recruitment to the PSNI?” normal budgetary process. I understood, however, that OFMDFM and the Finance 136. Mr Paisley Jnr: I believe that we are slightly ahead of ourselves on issue Minister will negotiate for the initial tranche. G and that we really need to await the 130. The Chairperson: Can we then defer publication of the Ashdown report and issue F and come back to it? see if there are any significant changes to what we assumed would be in it. 131. Mr Attwood: I would like to comment Therefore, I think it may be premature to on the point that Ian made — which, discuss that item. if I understand him correctly, is a valid point. Whatever negotiations are going 137. Mr McFarland: Have we a timescale for on between OFMDFM and the NIO, there the publication date? may be some point in the Committee 138. Mr Paisley Jnr: I have no idea. It might be thinking through some of the overarching worthwhile the Committee Clerk trying to issues. Therefore, the question posed, find out how long is a piece of string. for example, by issue J in the category one list of issues — “Should any budget 139. The Chairperson: We can do that. be ‘ring-fenced’?” — is something 140. Mr Paisley Jnr: Simon Hamilton is that the Committee might want to interested in issue L. consider in its deliberations. I suspect that the London Exchequer will try to 141. Mr Hamilton: I know that there has been bend OFMDFM to accept that, in order controversy about some aspects of to get some financial guarantees up issue L, and we have discussed whether front, OFMDFM might begin to send out we should be even delving in to them. signals as to, for example, what the As with some of the Committee’s other total size of the Police Service might discussions, it will, perhaps, take time be in due course. I can envisage the to reach a definitive position on that. Committee — not, perhaps, now but in The point was made previously that the four or five weeks’ time — wanting to subject of flags, for example, is difficult converse generally about overarching enough without lumbering it with issues such as that and ring-fencing additional problems. Having received a hospital pass to talk about issue L, I budgets, along the lines that Ian outlined. would like more time to reflect on that. 132. The Chairperson: Can we park that in 142. Mr A Maskey: The point has already the meantime? The finance issue is, been made that we cannot deal with obviously a big one and one to which the the Ashdown report on parading until it Committee will return, and I imagine that is published. The other two things that we will return to issue F frequently. Sinn Féin is content to include are — 133. Let us now turn to issue G: [inaudible due to technical difficulties.]
“What, if any, consideration should there be of 143. The Chairperson: I am not sure that the Ashdown Report on Parading?” Simon did not indicate that he had a query on the category three list of 134. Mr A Maskey: On a minor procedural issues. He said that we needed to see matter: could issue G not just as easily the Ashdown report first in order to see be included in issue L? what emerges from that.
13 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
144. Mr McFarland: The parading issue 149. Mr McCausland: It has been extended needs to be sorted before devolution. for a year. Uncertainty cannot remain around the issue of parades because, if 150. Mr Attwood: When was that disagreements were to take place on announced? it every year, it is the one issue that 151. Mr McCausland: It was announced very would put the policing and justice quietly. Towards the end of 2008, the budget into orbit. The issue needs to current term was extended for a year. be sorted for good. Given that, among other considerations, it is not clear 152. Mr Attwood: Has it been extended until whether Ashdown will recommend that May 2010? the remit of the Parades Commission be extended, we should park the issue. 153. Mr McCausland: I think that it was due to run out in December 2008, and it 145. The matter of flags and symbols, has now been extended until December which is set out in issue L, was dealt 2009. with some time ago. It is covered by legislation, and it was part of the original 154. Mr Attwood: Even at that, if new agreement; and system of recruitment legislation were to result from to the PSNI is sorted out in 2010 Ashdown’s report — and I hope that when the current system will return to there is not much — December 2009 normal. Therefore, those are, in a way, might yet be the time at which justice non-issues, and I am not sure who is devolved or not. There needs to be raised them in the first place because some certainty about where they are, that are not directly related to our when they will be published and what considerations. the Government might do. I suspect that those questions will be met with a very 146. The Chairperson: I believe that they loud silence; however, I think that we came out of one of the party leader’s must find out where things are. letters and party submissions. Most of the issues that were raised came out of 155. The Chairperson: Would it be more party submissions. appropriate for me to write to Lord Ashdown and ask him exactly what 147. Mr Attwood: Given that the Committee the position is at the moment? Is the has reached this stage of its Committee in favour of that? discussions, the NIO and the Ashdown report team owe it to us to provide Members indicated assent. some certainty about their progress on 156. Mr McCausland: We talked earlier the issue of parading, which, to some about finance, and now we are talking degree, is hanging over the debate. Ian about parades. Every year, the cost of — cryptically — talked about where the policing protests is astronomical. It Ashdown team might be in respect of would be helpful if the PSNI could give its proposals, and I suspect that it will us a sense of the cost of its policing dilute its proposals as time goes on. operations. There is clearly a connection 148. In the run-up to devolution, one of the between the financial issue — which is first questions that people will be asked, considerable — and reaching a proper after questions on finance, is how resolution on parades and protests. parades will be managed if there is a 157. The Chairperson: The police have a bad season. That is part and parcel of breakdown of costs. the financial discussions that might take place, so the Committee should ask the 158. Mr McCausland: It would be useful to NIO when it expects that Lord Ashdown have that. will publish his report. As I understand it, the membership of the Parades 159. The Chairperson: Those questions can Commission is due to be advertised this be asked; the figures can be made year as its term has concluded. available.
14 Minutes of Evidence — 27 January 2009
160. Mr McCausland: It is worth getting a General-designate has a view. This issue global figure. has been neuralgic for some time now, and it is worth getting more advice from 161. The Chairperson: We move to issue H: those involved in order to get it right.
“In the context of Recommendation 26 of 170. Mr Attwood: Ian’s comments confirm the Committee’s original report, to which one of the issues around that, namely Department should the Public Prosecution that the height of accountability for the Service be attached?” PPS will be around administration and 162. Mr Paisley Jnr: In order to keep the finance. Although that is significant strapline of the Public Prosecution in itself, I do not think that it is the Service — to provide an effective range of accountability that it should. prosecution service — it should be That is why one of the post-devolution attached to the Department of Finance issues will be how we can get a and Personnel (DFP). Essentially, the better accountability culture around relationship will be about ensuring that the PPS without interfering with its the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) independence. I think that that can be is properly financed and resourced, done, and I think it essential that it is but ultimately independent of the done. Government. 171. I may have misunderstood Ian, but 163. The Chairperson: This came from the Minister and the Committee will category one. have a very particular role around the administration and budget of the 164. Mr Paisley Jnr: The rationale is that PPS. It is not that that independence there is a financial relationship with will mean that you cannot touch the that agency. [Inaudible due to technical agency; it is that the agency will have difficulties.] There is no ministerial role. to account for how it spends and administers the money. I do not think 165. Mr A Maskey: We think that it should that DFP is the right place for that; the be linked to OFMDFM. [Inaudible due to justice Department would be a much technical difficulties.] more appropriate home. The nature of the business that that Department 166. Mr McFarland: I am curious as to how will be carrying out will mean that it this is handled in Scotland, which is will have a much better knowledge of the closest mirror of our system. At how the justice pound is being spent. a previous meeting, the Republic of If it has responsibility for all of the Ireland’s Court Service and the Scottish justice agencies, then it will bring to Court Service briefed us; however, the accountability function an insight I cannot quite remember how they borne of the fact that it lives in that handled this matter. They had changed world. In my view, it would be very their systems to try to protect the useful to ensure that one of the biggest agency and to ensure that there was no budgets in the justice system — that of question of any perception of political the PPS — is spent and administered interference or budgetary constraints on appropriately. I do not think that it would the PPS. Can we park this until we find compromise its independence by being out how it is handled in Scotland? placed there. 167. The Chairperson: We can return to it 172. The Probation Board is an independent next week. body, as is the justice agency; a whole 168. The Committee Clerk: Would it help if range of organisations are independent — [Inaudible due to technical difficulties.] bodies, but will be part of the justice family and the justice Ministry. The PSNI 169. Mr McFarland: Yes; it is worth reminding will be so more than any other body. ourselves what they said. The head Whatever its level of accountability of the Public Prosecution Service has to the Assembly, subject to the role a view on this; perhaps the Attorney of the Policing Board and the district
15 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
policing partnerships, it will be in the 179. The Chairperson: Recommendation 27 justice family. No one is saying that, states that: because it will be in the justice family “The Committee recommends that and there will be a justice Minister and the independence of the PPS and its a justice Committee, it will be any less accountability to the Assembly should be independent. In parallel, I think it is self- examined before, and following, the devolution evident that the PPS should go into the of policing and justice matters to produce justice Ministry arrangements. recommendations which would, in turn, be considered by the Assembly.” 173. I do not understand why, given all of the evidence, the PPS should be any 180. Mr Paisley Jnr: What do you think that different. Why should the PPS be taken means? out of all of that and given to DFP? It 181. The Chairperson: I thought that you is the first time that I have heard that were going to tell us. suggestion, but I understood that there was to be a conversation between Sinn 182. Mr Paisley Jnr: It is a recommendation Féin and the DUP around the function of our Committee, but it is open to staying with OFMDFM. It is the first time interpretation. It is a reporting function, that I have heard that DFP is going to be but it not as though it is just an annual the preferred home, as the DUP sees it, report. It is more than that. I would like for the future of the PPS. to park the issue.
174. The Chairperson: I think that that issue 183. Mr A Maskey: We are happy enough to has been looked at a previous meeting come back to this. However, we think on the category-one list. That is my that it sits more readily with OFMDFM. recollection. 184. Mr McFarland: This is the issue that 175. Mr McFarland: Was the original Alex has just raised, as to how these NIO recommendation that it went to organisations should be accountable OFMDFM? to us. There are two aspects. One is the provision of administration and 176. The Chairperson: Maybe we can finance for these organisations; we come back to that in the additional are paying their bills. The Assembly information. We are not going to should be interested in how they spend resolve this today because there their money and should have the ability are three different views on where it to question whether they are doing should be, and at least one party has it wisely. There is the administration asked for more information. There is side — are they working well? We more information coming back. Is the look at everything else through the Committee agreed that we park this Departments. issue for the moment? 185. That is one aspect; the other is more Members indicated assent. difficult. As you know, we were warned off this issue by a number of senior 177. The Chairperson: We move then to legal figures — I leave it at that — who issue I: did not want politicians anywhere near any of this. However, if the public is “In the context of recommendation 27 of the paying the bills, and our constituents Committee’s original report, about examining complain about how badly things are the independence and of accountability of working, the Assembly will want to the Public Prosecution Service, before, and have the ability, not to question the following devolution, what consideration should be given to this matter, pre- judgement of judges, or the PPS on its devolution?” decisions as to whether to prosecute, to hear the evidence. There is an issue 178. Mr I Paisley Jnr: Can you read of broad policy which will interest the recommendation 27 to the Committee? Assembly and its Committees.
16 Minutes of Evidence — 27 January 2009
186. The question is how we do that. The such a management board would reflect original proposal was that the Attorney a range of interests and inputs on how General would turn up every so often in the PPS can best be managed. the middle of the Assembly, sitting on a little dais, and be open to questions. 189. We should begin to probe into some The issue is whether the Committee can policy areas at this stage, because they speak to the Lord Chief Justice or the are very important. For example, during chief executive of the Court Service, and discussion on either the Preparation for how all that is to work. This question Government Committee or the is related to that. One can argue that Programme for Government Committee that will go live on devolution. Post- — I cannot remember which one — devolution, we may want to have these there was a unanimous agreement that people talking to the Committee and we were unhappy with the current PPS Assembly and so on. These issues have policy in relation to giving reasons for to be discussed. They are extensive and, cases collapsing or prosecutions not politically, potentially fraught. Perhaps being pursued. That arose from a particular, prominent case in which we should park them and refresh prosecutions were withdrawn that were our memories as to what the various very relevant to this Building and to organisations said to us, using our neighbouring buildings. At that stage, the original report, which contains a lot of Committee unanimously agreed that we evidence from senior legal figures about should look at the policy for instances this. We can discuss it in due course, when cases collapse or are not pursued but not today. and that, within reason, more should be 187. Mr Attwood: When the original done by the PPS in respect of that. That recommendation was proposed, the is a critical policy issue. word “before” was not included. 190. In our negotiations with the British I proposed that that should be Government at Hillsborough, when the incorporated, and I had reasons for British Prime Minister agreed to a range doing so. of SDLP proposals, the one that he, 188. I will characterise what I have been Jonathan Powell and the then Lord looking at. Over and above the fact that Chancellor resisted was to do with the there is going to be some relationship giving of reasons. That was the one to a Northern Ireland Department, issue that provoked most resistance there remain issues about how the and opposition from the British systems, PPS conducts its own internal affairs. A both legal and political. There is a management board should be created to reason for that. We agreed unanimously, manage the internal affairs of the PPS and we should look at the issue of giving because of the extent of Assembly and reasons in order to determine whether ministerial responsibility for its finance we can develop that policy further, and administration. However, that is because it is very restrictive at the different from hands-on management moment. It would be useful to look at responsibility. A management board that as a representative issue. should be created, and it should 191. I am looking at the structural matters be structured out of the current to do with the PPS and relevant policy management of PPS. I do not say that I areas around the PPS. Given that recommend that model but, one way or we have a number of months before another, we have got to a point where policing and justice powers are devolved, responsibility for managing the police we should probe into those areas without compromising its operational now. It might be useful if parties were independence comes through a Policing to prepare very short papers on the Board made up of politicians and matter. The SDLP is certainly prepared community representatives. There to produce a paper, in indicative terms, is a need for a management board, on what some of the issues might be in composed of appropriate people — I do relation to that. not prejudge who they should be — to be responsible for managing the Public 192. Mr Paisley Jnr: Alex has opened up a Prosecution Service. I anticipate that real can of worms. Creating a board or
17 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
quango to look at the Public Prosecution 196. The Chairperson: My sense is that Service, which is a non-departmental parties may be given more time to organisation would be, to put it in the discuss the issue, and we will come kindest terms, overkill. It is fraught with back to it. Parties need to go off and so many dangers. The strapline for the reflect on what has been said this Public Prosecution Service must be that morning and come back on this very it is independent; it is very difficult to serious issue. Are members agreed? understand how a board could be created that would not, in some way, upset that Members indicated assent. independence. That is especially true if that board were to examine issues, as 197. Mr Attwood: I will prepare a paper the Policing Board does. anyway.
193. If there was a disagreement at a board 198. The Chairperson: A thesis? meeting about what cases are and are not pursued, it is easy to imagine 199. Mr Attwood: Just a paper. the disarray that would result within 200. The Chairperson: I thought that the Public Prosecution Service. How someone referred to a thesis. about a discussion about sentencing arrangements for some particular 201. Lunch is available outside the door. We person? Take any recent case that has still have two or three issues to deal with. not been prosecuted — for example, the case against Nuala O’Loan for 202. Mr Paisley Jnr: I propose that we come breaching section 63(3) of the Police back to those issues next week. There (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. The Public is a debate in the Chamber, which is due Prosecution Service said that the to last for three hours, and I am going to evidential test for prosecution had been be called into the Chamber. met but that it was not in the public interest to prosecute her. Imagine what 203. Mr A Maskey: [Inaudible due to technical a political football that would be at a difficulties.] meeting of the PPS board. 204. The Chairperson: Are members happy 194. The issues that that proposal would to adjourn the meeting and call it quits? open up are incredible. Alex has put Lunch is available to members outside some ideas on the table, and we all the door. I hope that it has not got a need to go away and reflect on the parking ticket. implications of those but, for the record, 205. We are stopping at item I. That leaves I believe that a board such as that items J, K and M to deal with. I suggest proposed by Alex would be fraught with that when we start with those issues real danger. next time. Are Members agreed?
195. I am not opposed to getting explanations Members indicated assent. as to why a prosecution is, or is not, being pursued. Indeed, that happens with victim conferencing. When the victims are brought in, they usually meet the senior prosecutor. They can see, and have read to them, the senior counsel’s decision as to why a case has not gone to prosecution. I have seen that happen. There is an explanation role, and it does tend to work. However, there is the odd case where it does not work, and those cases usually become problematic. By and large, however, it does work. We must be very careful about entering into a situation where we start — [Inaudible due to technical difficulties.]
18 Minutes of Evidence — 3 February 2009
3 February 2009
Members present for all or part of the have to question or be questioned by proceedings: the ombudsman.
Mr Jimmy Spratt (Chairperson) 208. Mr A Maskey: Sinn Féin’s preference is Mr Raymond McCartney (Deputy Chairperson) for the matter to reside with the Office Mr Simon Hamilton of the First Minister and deputy First Mr Alex Maskey Minister (OFMDFM). I take Ian’s point, Mr Nelson McCausland and, at the centre of the issue, we Mr Alan McFarland must consider the independence of the Mr John O’Dowd system. However, that is built in, and is Mr Ian Paisley Jnr being built in, by the provisions and the recommendations that we are making. 206. The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): I remind Therefore, given the cross-community members that this part of the meeting, nature of OFMDFM and the importance which is on policing and justice issues, of that function, our preference is for is being recorded by Hansard. I intend that matter to reside with OFMDFM. to proceed in the usual manner. Last week, the Committee agreed to resume 209. Mr McFarland: Where did this issue lie at issue J, which has now become in the expectations of the NIO on its new issue I on the category two list famous chart? I understood that, under of issues. I sometimes think that we the current legal remit, the ombudsman should have started by discussing the answers to Parliament and that that was last issue before moving to discuss not due to transfer across when policing issue I, but we will take them in the and devolution is devolved. order in which they are laid out. New 210. The Committee Clerk: Perhaps there is issue I states: some confusion. The specific question “In relation to Recommendation 30 of the is about who should give the advice Committee’s original report, who should on who should be appointed as the undertake the advisory role in relation to the Police Ombudsman. The Committee appointment of the Police Ombudsman?” has already agreed on the financial allocation of the Police Ombudsman, so 207. Mr Paisley Jnr: As I believe I said last you are now considering only the issue week, I am happy to consider and of the appointment of the ombudsman. hear suggestions on how that should be taken forward. My gut instinct is 211. Mr McFarland: Where is the that, because the role of the Police ombudsman to go? In the past, that Ombudsman is supervisory and issue has been kept well away. We over-arching, the Secretary of State discussed the matter with the Policing Board last year, and the view was that, should make that appointment. My as Ian said, the Police Ombudsman was reason for suggesting that is so that to be so independent that it had nothing the Police Ombudsman has a level of to do with us here. It would, so to speak, independence from the institutions be on a link into Westminster rather here. However, neither I nor my party is than into us. hard and fixed in that view, and we will consider any other suggestions that are 212. The Committee Clerk: The proposal made and come to an arrangement of which, I believe, the Committee the matter. We think that there is merit endorsed was that the Office of the in ensuring that that appointment is Police Ombudsman would be an seen to be transparent and outside of executive non-departmental public the influence of parties here that may body that would be answerable to
19 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
the Department of justice. However, well; there was no advertisement that is not the issue that we are now previously. considering. 221. The Chairperson: I think that there was, 213. The Chairperson: We should be Alan. considering the appointment of the Police Ombudsman. 222. Mr McCartney: It was advertised.
214. Mr McFarland: I presume that the 223. The Chairperson: It was a public appointment of the Police Ombudsman advertisement; but we will check that, will be similar to that of judges and because I suspect that there are the Judicial Appointments Commission different opinions on the matter. We (JAC). need to do more research and find out the criteria when Al Hutchinson was 215. The Chairperson: It has been suggested appointed, and how that was done. That that OFMDFM undertakes the advisory should provide us with some assistance role in relation to the appointment of in making our decision. Are members the Police Ombudsman, and Ian Paisley content? Jnr has suggested that the Secretary of State deal with it. Ultimately, we Members indicated assent. are considering who should play an 224. The Chairperson: We proceed to new advisory role on the appointment. It will issue J: fall within the remit of the Department of justice, and the role will, therefore, “What procedures and protocols will there be scrutinised by the associated need to be between the Minister, an Assembly Committee. Committee and any newly established department and its associated agencies?” 216. Mr McFarland: The selection procedure will be sensitive, as is the case in the 225. Some of that was relocated from issue appointment of judges. The judges O in the category one list of issues on were put out to the JAC so that it would 25 November. It is, probably, bound in not be possible to prevent or allow with issue K. That is where I felt that favoured candidates to be successful. issue K should be discussed before That is less of an issue now, because issue J. However, we agreed on the the rushing round that was part of the order, and it must be followed — unless ombudsman’s remit previously will I am directed to deal with issue K first. transfer elsewhere, so he or she will be Are members happy to proceed with the dealing with police officers only — as issues as they appear? we thought would be the case originally. 226. Mr Hamilton: We could deal with them It is, therefore, likely to be less of a simultaneously, but discuss issue K first. neuralgic issue. 227. The Chairperson: I will have to read 217. The Chairperson: The position of Police issue K. Will we discuss issue K first, or Ombudsman will be advertised publicly, will that be confusing the issue again, I believe. The Committee is trying to because we did separate them? establish from where the advisory role will come. 228. Mr Hamilton: In that case, keep them separate. 218. Mr McFarland: I thought that the appointment lies with the Secretary of 229. I will address issue J. There is a State. relationship between the resolution of issue K and issue J. As discussed 219. The Chairperson: The Secretary of State previously, we should see how day-to-day does make the appointment at present. relationships between the Committee, 220. Mr McFarland: I understood that his Minister and the Department work in Department makes the selection as other jurisdictions.
20 Minutes of Evidence — 3 February 2009
230. Scotland, for example, had to increase and the Policing Board. There are also the number of its justice Committees issues of sensitivity, and that creates from one to two so that different a different perspective. By and large, aspects of the work could be carried I think that it would operate in exactly out. I am not by any means proposing the same way as any other scrutiny that we have two Committees, but Committee. it would be interesting to see why 236. Mr McFarland: The Committee has, Scotland had to do that and how it I believe, built a fairly good working operates on a day-to-day basis. We relationship with the Policing Board should also examine how the system and the Chief Constable. When we operates in the Irish Republic and other first approached the matter, it could places with similar systems. We can well have been an issue, but it has learn lessons from other jurisdictions. ended up not being an issue. From our That is why there is a benefit in going previous experience on the Preparation to the jurisdictions to see how their for Government Committee, there was systems work. an issue with the judiciary and the level 231. Mr A Maskey: The same procedures to which politicians should be involved. that apply to Ministers, their Depart It was made clear to us that politicians ments and agencies will, by and large, should not go anywhere near Court apply to the new Department of justice. Service matters. Some exploration must be done in linking in with that part of 232. Mr McFarland: If there is to be a normal the Court Service, because, clearly, Department, it should be treated as a there are sensitivities – perhaps for normal Department. The only slightly very good reason – and the worry is confusing issue is the business of the that politicians will start interfering with Policing Board. judicial decisions.
233. The Chairperson: That has been dealt 237. The Court Service itself is fairly easy. with already. When David Lavery appeared before the Preparation for Government Committee, 234. Mr McFarland: It is the same issue: he was quite open to the idea of coming how the Committee links in with the to talk to a Committee. Therefore, we agencies. The Policing Board is an have some exploration to do with the agency and part of the Department. Part more formal structures of the criminal of the overall picture is how the different justice system. organisations will operate. Logically, they would operate on the same basis as a 238. The Chairperson: For the purpose of the Committee — if it has an interest in an Hansard report, I state that the SDLP is issue, it calls forward interested parties, not present. Alex Attwood has left the such as the chairman of the Policing Committee to go to the Chamber. Board or the Chief Constable, and is 239. There is a fair degree of consensus on able to have a relationship with them how we will deal with this issue. The and have a chat with them to find out only provision is that we will probably what is going on. want to look at what is happening in 235. Mr Hamilton: I failed to make that point other places. We are agreed that it will earlier, and other members have. I work on the same basis as any other cannot see any radical difference in the Committee. Are members agreed? structure or operation of a Committee Members indicated assent. scrutinising the Department of justice than any other Department in the 240. The Chairperson: We will do some more Executive. However, Alan has made a work on that issue when we have looked reasonable point. There is a difference at Scotland, the South, and whatever with the Policing Board, which is unique, other places we hope to examine, and and we will have to construct our own add a few more bits and pieces to it. lines of demarcation between ourselves That will also include a paper on the
21 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
PPS, on which the Committee Clerk is working and which should be ready in a couple of weeks’ time.
241. The Committee Clerk: If that is not ready for next week, it will certainly be ready for the following week.
242. The Chairperson: We now move on to the final issue – new issue K in the category two list of issues:
“What would be the status of the Minister’s position in, and relationship with, the Executive Committee; and would the Minister be required to bring significant, or controversial, matters to the Executive Committee?”
243. Mr Hamilton: This matter is extremely important, and the Committee is committed to resolving it. However, the issue will require further discussion, and my party would like some time to do that.
244. Mr A Maskey: We are still considering the matter. It is an important issue, and we have not finalised our view on it.
245. Mr McFarland: Our view, as you well know now, is that it should be a normal relationship, a normal Minister, identified in the normal way, and who has a normal ministerial relationship with the Executive.
246. The Chairperson: Although the SDLP are not present, I assume that they would echo what you have said.
247. Mr A Maskey: Just as a matter of interest, what is a “normal” Minister?
248. Mr Paisley Jnr: If you find one, point him out. – [Laughter.]
249. The Chairperson: More work, therefore, needs to be done, and there needs to be more discussion. So, we are parking that issue in the meantime. That brings us to the end of policing and justice matters for today.
22 Minutes of Evidence — 17 February 2009
17 February 2009
Members present for all or part of the 256. Mr Victor Hewitt (Specialist adviser): proceedings: Thank you, Chairperson. We have received most of the returns from the Mr Jimmy Spratt (Chairperson) various agencies to the letter that was Mr Raymond McCartney (Deputy Chairperson) sent to them. However, we are pursuing Mr Alex Attwood a couple of stragglers. We had only Mr Simon Hamilton a few days to have a preliminary look Mr Alex Maskey at the responses. We have tried to Mr Nelson McCausland put the information that they provided Mr Alan McFarland on to a common format, and we have Mr John O’Dowd translated some of it into a graph index, Mr Ian Paisley Jnr on which it is easier to see the trends in expenditure. Witnesses: 257. We have been sifting through the papers Mr Victor Hewitt Specialist adviser and making other enquiries. We detect that the various bodies are keen to have Mr Stephen Pearson Economic Research the opportunity to put their case to the Institute of Northern Committee, but, indirectly, they also Ireland want to lodge bids for resources. We are not just receiving information; they 250. The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): I welcome are making a plea to their sponsor body, Mr Victor Hewitt and Mr Stephen which is the Northern Ireland Office Pearson. Victor has been before the (NIO). Committee before, and both he and Stephen will be speaking to us over 258. We have attempted to sort out those the next number of weeks as we delve bids, and we have still to complete into the task that we have been given. I that work, but we are trying to put the bids into three categories. The first remind you that the evidence session is category is “major pressures”, which being recorded by Hansard, although the are clearly not covered at present and record of the proceedings will not appear are inescapable. Money that has yet in the public domain for the time being. to be identified will have to be found to 251. I ask Committee members to declare address those pressures. The second any interests. I declare an interest as a category is “other pressures”, which may become inescapable and appear to member of the Northern Ireland Policing be difficult to cover. The third category Board. might be best described as “aspirational 252. Mr Paisley Jnr: I am a member of the issues”, and that category covers Northern Ireland Policing Board. bodies that are bidding for resources that, in the normal course of events, 253. Mr McCausland: I am a member of the they may be expected to absorb using Belfast District Policing Partnership. their own funds, such as pay and prices pressures, to which all bodies are 254. Mr A Maskey: I am a member of the expected to make a contribution. Policing Board. 259. At present, we have identified four areas 255. The Chairperson: If you are leading the of concern under “major pressures”. The discussion, Victor, we will go over the numbers in those areas keep moving information that you have given us and around, but the first issue is legal aid, ask questions afterwards. which is experiencing a substantial
23 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
shortfall in its budget — I will return to Commission’s sponsor department — the numbers in a moment. The second to try to establish a clearer view on issue is the cost of inquiries. The third that. Certainly, over the next year, and issue is hearing-loss claims against possibly over the next two years, one is the Police Service of Northern Ireland looking at a shortfall of somewhere in (PSNI). The fourth issue is the knock-on the region of £36 million, although an effect of the equal-pay claim, and the upper limit might be almost £60 million. Northern Ireland Civil Service is dealing Obviously, clarification is needed. with that issue. I will explain how that interconnects with the NIO element — it 263. Mr Paisley Jnr: You say that you are comes in through the PSNI. looking at a figure of £36 million, but that figure could be as much as £60 260. We asked for information across the million? entire comprehensive spending review (CSR) period; that is, starting from 264. Mr Hewitt: If one looks at its returns, 2008-09 and going through to 2010- the Legal Services Commission starts 2011. We asked for information from off with a very large amount of money, all three years because, in a sense, we but that covered everything in year one. wanted to see how the bodies coped The figure remains at £60 million for the with any pressures that they identified next two years. Figures that I obtained in the first year — 2008-09. With only from other sources suggested that that one month of 2008-09 to run, 2008-09 might be a slightly large figure, so I need is almost completed. Any pressures to sort out with the Court Service exactly that were identified in 2008-09 have what its overall — been dealt with in some way or other. 265. Mr Paisley Jnr: That would be the Therefore, it is only 2009-2010 and 2010-11 that are now particularly original £24 million on the £200 million relevant. When looking at the figures, to which your paper refers? one should focus on the final two years 266. Mr Hewitt: Yes. of the CSR period rather than the entire CSR period. Somehow or other, the first 267. The cost of inquiries is an interesting year of that will have been covered, vehicle. Essentially, the NIO has been and the Committee may wish to raise meeting the cost of inquiries on an with any witnesses that are called how ongoing basis but meeting it from the they dealt with the pressures that were shortfall in its expenditure each year. identified in the first year of the CSR That carry-forward is more or less period. exhausted, so the NIO faces a pressure of around £46 million for the remainder 261. The main driver of legal-aid costs has of the CSR period. Again, that figure variously been described as expensive is an estimate, because the cost of cases or complex cases, and legal- inquires tends to grow, and the NIO aid provision has consistently fallen would not expect to have available end- short. During the current year, a Legal year flexibility to cover that pressure, so Services Commission bid to the NIO it is a genuine one. for approximately £20 million was successful. To that, another £4 million 268. Mr Paisley Jnr: Is that for the five was added from the Legal Services specific inquiries, which are Wright, Commission’s own reserves and various Finucane, Hamill, Bloody Sunday and other pots of money. Therefore, £24 Rosemary Nelson? million was made available on top of its provision for this financial year, more or 269. Mr Hewitt: Those are the ongoing less ensuring that this year’s bill was met. inquiries, as far as I understand.
262. The future years are always speculative. 270. The next two major pressures are It is a bit of a moving feast, and I hope pressures on the PSNI. One is an to have an opportunity to speak to the inherited claim on hearing loss that Court Service — the Legal Services goes back quite a number of years.
24 Minutes of Evidence — 17 February 2009
I understand that ear protection for unions about the size of that claim for training on firearms ranges was not the entire Civil Service. available in the 1970s or the 1980s, and, when it did become available, 282. The PSNI is caught up in the situation it was not mandatory. By the time it because a number of the civilian became mandatory, it was nearing the personnel of the PSNI was recruited end of the relevant period. A substantial through the same Civil Service mechanisms. There is a feeling, number of individuals have potential therefore, that if the Civil Service is claims. The estimate that I have for liable for its low-paid personnel, the claims is somewhere in the region of PSNI should be liable for its low-paid £98 million, but, again, that figure is a personnel. That bill is a moving feast, moving feast. potentially, although not to the same 271. The Chairperson: There is only a 50% extent as that for inquiries. It would be uptake at present, so that figure has the prudent to imagine something in the potential to increase dramatically. We order of £20 million in back pay. To that, must be careful about that and ensure one must make provision for an ongoing that we quantify accordingly. cost, because salaries that had not been expected to increase, will increase. 272. Mr Paisley Jnr: I assume that you received that figure from the police. 283. Taken together, those pressures will amount to around £200 million. We 273. Mr Hewitt: We received it from the NIO. regard those as inescapable pressures that will have to be met, one way or 274. Mr Paisley Jnr: Did the NIO mention any another, and for which there is not other pending inquiries or claims? Were adequate provision at this time. flak-jacket claims mentioned? 284. One can identify at least as much again 275. Mr Hewitt: The NIO mentioned in other claims, but we are still in the equipment claims for injuries to backs, process of sorting the wheat from the for instance. chaff over what claims are inescapable 276. Mr Paisley Jnr: I hear that the total and what claims will be absorbed could be twice the amount that you normally by the body. mentioned. 285. I want to take the Committee’s mind on how one might proceed with the financial 277. Mr Hewitt: It is difficult to say, inquiry. The Committee will have a range because few of those affected have of options. First, it could act merely as come forward. There will be some the recipient of information provided by environmental claims as well. the bodies and collate it into an overall 278. Mr Paisley Jnr: Are those claims picture, or, secondly, it might wish to anything to do with Sammy Wilson? take a more active and probing approach to the information that it has been given, 279. Mr Hewitt: They are not related to your in order to challenge, to some degree, colleague. the validity of some of the claims that are made. 280. None of the environmental claims has crystallised to the point where it is 286. I am not sure as to how the Committee possible to put a figure on their value. will wish to proceed on that, because it However, you should be aware that other creates two different costing situations claims are in the pipeline. for us. There is a difference in the Committee’s having a role in an inquiry 281. The equal-pay claim for low-paid civil and in its merely collating information. servants is another interesting issue. You will have heard Department 287. It is up to the Committee to decide of Finance and Personnel (DFP) whom to call, but I suggest that the announcements on the ongoing groups associated with the inescapable negotiations between itself and the pressures are candidates to be
25 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
interviewed. Beyond that, groups with and decide how we will do that over the a substantial budget should be given next few weeks. some priority by the Committee — even 291. Mr McFarland: If representatives from if they are not identified as being a the Court Service are appearing to talk major pressure. Therefore, that is where about financial issues, presumably we are at. I am now happy to take we can also discuss their thoughts on questions. the structures in the Court Service, 288. The Chairperson: Thank you for that, because, when its director, David Lavery, Victor. You mentioned the policing budget, appeared before the Committee, he had which the Committee has discussed to some interesting thoughts on the way some degree. However, those of us who forward. We could therefore take the sit on the Policing Board will be aware opportunity to discuss structures with that some of the pressures are being witnesses from the Court Service rather pushed. That budget must be signed off than call them back to appear before by the end of March, and it is now being the Committee a second time. frantically worked on. It is already in the 292. The Committee Clerk: I do not see public domain that some of the pressures any reason why we cannot do that. I are being pushed into next year’s budget, can inform the Court Service of our which leaves the PSNI in an even worse intentions. position as its moves into the next budgetary period. The budget will be 293. Mr McFarland: We will get only one go more than £30 million, and we will have at negotiations with the Treasury and the to tease that out. Therefore, we need to NIO between now and the end of March. bring organisations along, and we need If we do not get those negotiations right, to put on record some of the substantial we will suffer further down the line. pressures that are being placed on the Equal-pay claims, for example, should Budget. be left to the NIO to sort out before the matter transfers across to us. Their 289. Issues concerning the Court Service and messing-around led to the inequality the Prison Service also need to be in the first place, so it seems silly to considered. A document on newbuilds expect us to resolve the issue. for courts is out for consultation, and I am not sure whether the NIO has costed 294. Elements of the proposals from the that, but we need to get some idea about Eames/Bradley Consultative Group on it. There are also pressures on the prison the Past might be adopted. The whole establishment for new prisons. The business of the inquiries and the work Criminal Justice Inspection Northern of the Historical Enquiries Team (HET) Ireland has made recommendations on should remain within the NIO’s budget. Hydebank Wood young offenders’ centre. Presumably, costs will not come out of our policing budget. I will leave that There could be substantial spends in matter to be dealt with. some of those areas, and we need to get an idea of those spends. 295. On the subject of hearing-loss claims, Committee members who are on the 290. I will open up the floor to questions on Policing Board will know better than I do, the various papers, but, first, we need but I sat on the Policing Board’s finance to decide on the order in which we can and general purposes committee for begin to contact people, because, when several years, and there was a great today’s meeting has finished, we will tendency to simply agree on issues have to notify potential witnesses for without challenging them. our evidence sessions. I am not sure whether we can get any witnesses in 296. I spoke to the chairman of the Policing time to attend next week’s meeting, Board the other day. I wonder whether but we need to start planning for the we are being robust enough about meeting on 3 March. We need to schedule hearing-loss claims, but colleagues on the people whom we are going to see the Policing Board will know whether
26 Minutes of Evidence — 17 February 2009
we are. For a long time, the board aid is to analyse the previous year’s automatically paid out on claims on the costs. Is it possible to cap legal aid? grounds that it was cheaper to pay out There was an argument in England than to fight them. recently because the legal-aid budget was capped as a result of its getting out 297. Mr Paisley Jnr: The board does not do of hand. Is that the case here? that any more. 303. Mr Hewitt: I am not entirely familiar with 298. Mr McFarland: I know that. When the the process, but legal aid is clearly a Policing Board began to fight claims, rising cost. I understand that solicitors the number of claims made decreased. consider people’s circumstances and I understand that the situation started what resources are available to them with firearms instructors, who, given when deciding whether to grant legal their job, are more likely to submit aid. However, once legal aid has been hearing-loss claims. Age affects people’s granted, it appears to be difficult to standard of hearing, and, in fact, my control. However, as I said, I am not hearing is deteriorating. Therefore, if entirely familiar with the procedures, so I everybody jumps on the bandwagon, will look into that matter. anyone who was ever a police officer will receive compensation. Is the board 304. Mr McFarland: In a busy year, if the likely to fight that type of situation or will legal-aid budget is used, is it impossible it simply put its hands up and accept to grant legal aid thereafter? Or do we that, at the moment — identify that the budget will run out and cap the level of legal aid to ensure that 299. The Chairperson: At the minute, everybody receives some aid but not the board is putting up a fight. It is examining cases, and it intends to as much as is required? It is useful for continue to do so. the Committee to understand that black hole in the system. 300. Mr McFarland: Therefore, the board is looking at claims case by case? 305. Mr Hewitt: I will enquire about that matter. 301. The Chairperson: Some work is currently in the judicial system, and 306. Mr Paisley Jnr: The Committee must the Committee cannot get involved or be careful about how it approaches the ask questions about that, because the matter. I understand Alan’s view that board will not discuss the matter with some people in various organisations us, the police or anybody else. When are over-egging the pudding and inflating representatives from the board appear their bid, and so on. It is not the before the Committee, they will not Committee’s job to analyse how much discuss details of specific cases. Some money each body receives. We should cases are driven by the legal profession, deal with facts, and consider how much which is, in effect, advertising and telling money bodies receive and for how much people who served as police officers they bid. Moreover, as is outlined in within a certain period that they are Victor’s paper, we must determine what likely to have suffered hearing loss. we believe they need for the remainder Everybody trundles along and submits of the current CSR period. We proceed a claim, and it creates, as Alan said, a on the basis of expected costs and snowball effect. I mentioned the 50% whether we can achieve sufficient supply uptake, because the figure of £98 in order to meet that cost. That is one million could turn out to be much more. level that we should take it at, but it is a very short-term level. 302. Mr McFarland: May I ask a question about legal aid? Legal aid is, technically, 307. The paper provided does not address unending. Is the budget for legal aid the longer view, and it is essential that limited, or does it continue limitlessly the Committee get to grips with long- each year? The only way in which to term issues. What will the policing and estimate budget requirements for legal justice budget be after summer 2012?
27 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
Assuming that the devolution of policing different over a period of a couple of and justice powers continues, that there weeks, simply because there was a row are no hiccups and that it rolls on with at the Policing Board. I was very angry political support, how will we make a about that process. reasonable and fair calculation when submitting a bid to the Northern Ireland 312. I do not simply want to pass on Office? Should we consider the current somebody else’s wish list. Alternatively, budget and estimate £200 million, plus I do not want to pass on very deserving 2% for inflation? bids.
308. How do we make a longer-term guess? 313. Mr Paisley Jnr: We will have a tab on that over the next 10 years. When the NIO transfers powers, we should inform it that not only should the 314. Mr A Maskey: In order for us to put a moneys come across, but that it should tab on what we think is realistic, we use a formula for transferring money to will have to conduct a certain amount supply the very needy, and very greedy, of robust scrutiny. It is about achieving bodies in the longer term. We need to a balance, because I do not want to take that approach. give somebody the opportunity to tell the Committee how much they want 309. We should not analyse how much money and need. What that person says may each body receives, but not because be 100% legitimate, but it may not be. we do not have the appetite for doing Some of that may be a good idea, but so. We would all be very old men by the we could do it next year, or in a different time that we assessed all the bodies to way. ascertain whether they were wiping our eye or were bidding for too much. That is 315. Mr Hewitt: Both points are well made. not our role; that is the role of a scrutiny I am particularly concerned about the Committee. Let us get to grips with longer term. We envisage that a position the ballpark figure of what the process will be reached at which those functions will cost. We could then identify where will be transferred along with a budget. the gap is, plug that gap and then take Thereafter, they will fall within the a longer-term view of how we receive purview of the Northern Ireland block — moneys from the NIO to meet bodies’ into the assigned budget, as it is called. needs. We should take that approach. That assigned budget is driven by the Barnett formula. For policing and justice 310. Mr A Maskey: That is fair enough, but in future years, Northern Ireland will the difficulty is that, in order for us to receive a share of what is being spent understand what needs to be sorted additionally on the policing budget in out, we must perform some robust Great Britain. scrutiny. I do not want to spend the next year going through each body’s 316. If the baseline at which the powers budget either, because that will take are transferred is not right, there will considerable time. From my experience be very substantial deficits and very of the Policing Board, it is like smoke little additional moneys coming across. and mirrors. It is a most unsatisfactory It is a very rough rule of thumb, but process. considering the numbers in this area in Northern Ireland, a 2:1 ratio would 311. We could not hope to conduct that level not be far off the mark. In other words, of scrutiny. However, Victor spoke about we tend to spend twice as much, on aspirational issues, of which that is one. average, as is spent in Great Britain on We must be mindful that we are not a many policing and justice issues. sounding board, or somebody else’s negotiator. The figures that have been 317. This is an expensive area. I suggest presented may not be realistic. They that the Committee may want to work may be, but when the police presented towards a statement of principle with figures in different papers to the the Treasury. At the time of the 1998 Policing Board, those figures were vastly comprehensive spending review, it
28 Minutes of Evidence — 17 February 2009
was envisaged that the Prison Service been presented is benign. The situation would be downsized and that certain is going to deteriorate generally, not arrangements would be made. The least because, I presume, there is going documentation for that comprehensive to be a further demand for efficiency spending review included an expression measures by the London Exchequer, about making provision for all known which will work its way across the Irish pressures. It is very important to know Sea to here. the pressures for which one should make provision before moving to a 322. I was attracted to the idea of a different financing regime in future. As statement of principle that Victor I said at our first meeting, those issues outlined. The Committee might be tend to push their way up the priority overreaching itself if it were to try list. They are very difficult to avoid, yet to create that, but I hope that some the resources would have to be found statement of principle will be agreed from elsewhere in the block. elsewhere between the NIO and other people who are negotiating these 318. I remember when the policing of parades matters. The NIO and London have drove up overtime hours to astronomic to acknowledge, in order to help the levels, and in those days, provision North to become even more stable, that for that had to be found by removing policing and justice arrangements must money from capital projects, because be kept stable for a significant period that was the easiest way to make that of time. Previously, those arrangements provision. Given the nature of the public- were such a point of friction in our expenditure regime that we have now, community that it is important now to money cannot be moved from capital ensure that, one way or another, that is into current. Money can be moved from not the case in the future. Therefore, current into capital, but not from capital when it comes to these matters, a into current, so that route is closed political statement of principle must be off. Other areas of current expenditure accepted by London. would have to be raided in order to meet those pressures. Those are some of the 323. Having said all that, I believe that the longer-term options that could, perhaps, people whom you suggest that the be thought about. Committee should speak to are the right ones. If speaking to those people will 319. In relation to the other point made by help us to identify where the hard issues Mr Maskey, I believe that — for the are and where the real bottom line is, credibility of the Committee, if nothing that is as good a place as any to start. else — it would be wrong to for the Therefore, I agree that the Committee Committee to be a sounding board for should speak to the organisations that organisations. The Committee should you recommend. ask some questions of those people and require them to justify their budget 324. This may be beyond the scope of your claims. That is my personal view, of involvement to date, but in your contact course. with the relevant groups, are you getting any sense that the budgetary issues 320. Mr Attwood: Thank you for the are getting resolved? The First Minister presentation. If nothing else, the and deputy First Minister have said that evidence that we have heard this they hope — that is the word that they morning and all the documents that we used — that by the end of the financial have seen have given us a snapshot year, which is now six or seven weeks of the budgetary position for all these away, the budgetary issues between the organisations, or at least the significant devolved Administration and London will ones. That allows us to look at the issue be resolved. with our eyes wide open. 325. Given that you have identified a £200 321. My own view is that when all the figures million budgetary pressure, are you are extracted, the situation that has picking up from those organisations
29 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
that those issues are part of the that the financial aspects be resolved discussions? If those matters are part satisfactorily before those matters of the discussions, are you getting any are taken forward. In that sense, a sense that they are getting resolved? In parallel operation is taking place to the particular, are you picking up anywhere Committee’s inquiry. along the line an indication that a conversation is occurring between the 335. I am not aware about the issue of NIO, the devolved Administration and personnel other than the issue of the the police about reducing the police full-time reserve being phased out. numbers, as has been proposed by That is now the subject of a security HMSC and the NIO? review. According to the Patten Report, the budget is predicated on the full- 326. The Chairperson: I do not think that the time reserve being phased out, but if issue of police numbers is relevant; we the security review came to a different are dealing with financial issues. conclusion, that would bring an additional pressure. That is the only 327. Mr Attwood: It is relevant because personnel issue with the police of which 80% of the police budget is spent on I am aware. staff costs and thus relates to police numbers. Therefore, it is relevant to ask 336. The Chairperson: Efficiency measures whether, in respect of the police budget, and the fall in receipts of the sale of you are picking up on a side discussion land and properties because of the fall going on about a reduction in police in prices must have an impact on the numbers. some the budgets.
328. Mr McCartney: I do not think that that 337. Mr Hewitt: That has had an impact, but is an appropriate question to ask Victor. I am not sure that that is an enormously 329. Mr Attwood: Of course it is. large problem in the NIO area. The fall in property prices is clearly a large problem 330. The Chairperson: No; I do not think that in areas such as social housing. I do it is. Those are points that we can raise not have the exact numbers, but I can legitimately with the police. find out the amount of capital receipts that was budgeted for. Such matters are 331. Mr Attwood: People are looking at considered over the course of a single the financial figures and are having year. conversations at some level, and it is fair to ask whether they are picking up 338. To take an example from outside the on what those conversations are about. NIO, the collapse of the Workplace 2010 scheme meant that a receipt of £175 332. The Chairperson: There is no suggestion million did not come in this year. That is from the submission by the Police an in-year pressure. It is not that £175 Service that any such discussions are million does come in every year; that going on. It is unfair to draw the advisers needs to be dealt with for one year, and into that. once that year is past, one is in clear 333. Mr Attwood: There are other questions blue waters. There is a similar situation that they can answer. with the police estate. One can see that the police are under pressure to 334. Mr Hewitt: I will give a partial answer. dispose of property and that this is not Clearly, the major axis will be between a particularly good time to do that. DFP and the NIO when settling the overall Budget Estimates for the 339. The efficiency savings are not only a NIO responsibilities that might be matter for the police. The Chancellor transferred. The Treasury will be has indicated that he wants to raise the the other major party in that. Those target for efficiency savings from 3% engagements are actively proceeding; to 5% for UK Departments, including it is no secret that the Minister of the NIO. Those efficiency savings are Finance and Personnel is determined effectively cuts, because they are
30 Minutes of Evidence — 17 February 2009
cash-releasing savings from Whitehall to the justice Department or would they Departments. The consequence for go to the Treasury? Northern Ireland is that they will be translated through the Barnett formula, 347. Mr Hewitt: That depends partly upon which works both ways, up and down. what has been negotiated between That will result in a “down” to the the bodies, and partly on the size of Northern Ireland Budget and to the the receipt. If it is a very large receipt Scottish Budget. I understand that that — probably over £10 million — the is being resisted, and the Minister of Treasury would take a particular interest Finance and Personnel said that in in it. However, in the first instance, the Chamber. That would be a further the receipt would go back to the body pressure on the overall Budget for that owns the property and, normally, Northern Ireland. be used within its budget. We must distinguish between planned receipts 340. Mr McFarland: Given that the Policing and unplanned receipts. Usually, Board is responsible for people and planned receipts are built into a budget; buildings and that the budget is for example, a body is given a certain devolved from the NIO to the Policing amount of money, and it is assumed Board, is there an issue of propriety that it will generate a certain amount of or potential for a row with the Policing additional money from the sale of the Board over why the Committee is talking property. Combined, those two things to directly to the police, and not to the will fund that body’s operations. If, Policing Board, in the first instance? It is during the course of a year, something a question of how the issue should be is identified as being surplus to handled. requirements, but was not built into the 341. The Chairperson: We will be talking to budget, that is an additional receipt, the Policing Board. and, quite often, it comes down to negotiation between the two bodies. 342. Mr McFarland: So, we do not see the Policing Board getting in the way of the 348. Mr Paisley Jnr: Can we get absolute list of three? clarity on that point? It will probably take some good work from Victor, but as I 343. The Chairperson: There will be another understand it, the PSNI is planning to list, and I anticipate that we will call the close around 50 or 51 stations. Even Policing Board fairly early. if it decides to do that, the decision of when to dispose of those stations, if 344. Mr McFarland: So, the Policing Board ever, remains entirely with the Policing will not get upset about not getting Board. One assumes that they would called before the police? want to dispose of those stations; 345. The Chairperson: We will work that out however, the timing of the disposal — in a minute or two. Once we get the involving as it does market place offers, list, we will work out the order in which and so on — would be crucial. If the we should call witnesses. Perhaps we Policing Board decides to dispose of should group witnesses, so that they are those stations, up to, or after, 2012, called on an ordered basis. who gets the benefit of that money? It might help us with our calculations if we 346. Mr Paisley Jnr: I wish to return to the factor in that a number of the receipts issue of disposal of the police estate. from closed and sold stations could The police may take an operational come back to the Department or go decision to close a building, but the directly to policing. building would remain the property of the Policing Board. The Policing Board 349. Mr Hewitt: I will look into that for you. can decide when to dispose of it. To Most of the information about receipt whom do the receipts go, and to whom lines should be within the Policing would they go in the future? Would they Board budget; however, I will make the go to the Policing Board, would they go necessary enquiries.
31 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
350. The Chairperson: The forensic science 358. Mr Paisley Jnr: I want you to propose laboratory feeds off the policing budget. something, Alan. It is something of a moveable feast from year to year, depending on the cases, 359. Mr McFarland: The bill for the Legal and so on; however, it needs a set Services Commission is not due to budget, too. As an agency, it charges the its functioning. Have we a bill for the PSNI for its services; therefore, in order administration of that body? It is difficult to make a projection, we need to tease to estimate: we have talked about it out with the PSNI what the spend has already, and it could be up, down or all been in that area over the past number over the place. The £65 million is made of years. up mainly of legal aid costs. 360. Mr Hewitt: Yes. Legal aid accounts 351. Are there any other questions? We will for the bulk of that figure. The try to put our questions into some sort administration costs are a fraction of it. of order, and work out a table as a result of that. Two issues are, I assume, the 361. The Chairperson: We need clarity as PSNI and the Policing Board. There is to that figure. I heard it mentioned a table of spend for each Department, this morning that it may be as high as which might be helpful. £80 million. You have a figure of £38 million and other figures have been 352. Mr McFarland: The Ad Hoc Committee talked about: we need to tease out of on Criminal Justice looked at the them exactly what the sum is. In other changing role of the Probation Board, parts of the United Kingdom, budgets which was mightily expanding its role to have had to be capped as a result of look after prisoners from the moment spiralling costs. that they appeared in the dock until the moment that they left prison. One 362. Mr Hewitt: I have given some additional of the points made by that Ad Hoc figures, but the sum varies a great Committee was that there had to be a deal. We covered those costs in 2008- proper budget allocated to that. Given 09 by bidding for £22 million from the that that is in the process of happening, Department. They brought a £2 million it is worth keeping an eye on whether transfer from Court Service funds and that is factored in somewhere. If it is not they used a £2 million cash balance. factored in until after the devolution of That made £24 million, which covered policing, suddenly, an extra budget will that pressure. However, the pressures have to be found. built up again in the final two years, and according to the table, they amount to 353. The Chairperson: This is a bit of a £60 million in the final two years. Later lottery now. We will try to group them this week, I will meet with the Court after that. Service and go through these figures 354. Mr McCartney: Many of those groups with the officials in some detail, if the feel that their budget is satisfactory. Committee agrees. I assume that we can rule them out 363. The Chairperson: We will call them, immediately. anyway. Alan, do you wish to call any 355. The Chairperson: I imagine that there others? is no point in calling a group that says 364. Mr McFarland: I would like the its budget is satisfactory. I am looking Committee to call the Ombudsman’s for recommendations as to whom we office, if the Eames/Bradley report should call. is accepted. The bulk of the Police 356. Mr Paisley Jnr: I will start the bidding Ombudsman’s office now deals with then. On this list, you have already historic matters, and it has taken on proposed 1, 2, 3 and 4. I propose: 5, 6, many extra staff and detectives from 7, 8, 9, 10 and 13. all over to deal with them. However, they will be hived off into the Historical 357. Mr McFarland: Not the Policing Board? Enquiries Team area, so that the
32 Minutes of Evidence — 17 February 2009
Ombudsman will be left dealing with 374. Mr McFarland: If the Eames/Bradley current policing matters. Presumably, report is implemented — and I do not an enormous swathe of his budget know whether it will be — an entire and personnel will go off with them. If chunk of the Police Ombudsman’s that happens, and the historic stuff is office will go to the Legacy Commission left with the NIO, these budgets could and the Historical Enquiries Team. change quite a bit. Presumably, that will mean that the Police Ombudsman’s office will come 365. The Chairperson: Should we call any to us with a much leaner cost base of other organisations? about £9 million.
366. Mr Attwood: OFMDFM and the NIO want 375. The Chairperson: That is one of the to have this matter concluded. We have issues that we will raise with the NIO. five or six weeks before the end of the There is also an issue with the RUC GC financial year and we need to move Foundation. It was promised a museum quickly. Therefore, we should consult many years ago, and the NIO was with a very short list of organisations. supposed to be involved in negotiations I agree with Victor’s recommendations. concerning a sum of between £4 million We should call the Legal Services and £5 million. We need to tease out Commission, the Court Service, the exactly what is happening between Northern Ireland Office and the PSNI. the NIO and the RUC GC Foundation, That is where the budgetary pressures because that may be a pressure that lie, and given the time frame in which we emerges. I will not die in a ditch over have to work, that is the way that we can whether the RUC GC Foundation is best direct our energies. called before the Committee, but the issue needs to be raised with both the 367. Mr McCausland: The organisation that foundation and the NIO. was left out earlier was the Policing Board. 376. Mr McCartney: The RUC GC Foundation has raised the issue. 368. Mr Hewitt: Will the Committee ask the Policing Board about its own costs or 377. The Chairperson: My understanding is about its responsibilities for the wider that a promise was made to the RUC GC budget? Foundation. When policing and justice is devolved, I do not want us to suddenly 369. The Chairperson: We will research the find a £5 million promise that we did not possibilities for the wider budget. know about beforehand.
370. Mr McFarland: The Prison Service is 378. Mr McFarland: In the Ad Hoc an enormous expense, and the cost Committee, an issue was raised per prisoner here is completely out of about the rapid expansion of the Life kilter with that in the rest of the UK and Sentence Review Commissioners. Do elsewhere. Why it costs something like you remember that that system was £58,000 to keep a prisoner for a year changing? Does the budget figure for the here is going to become a major issue. Life Sentence Review Commissioners relate to the new organisation or the old 371. Mr Hewitt: The figure is closer to one? £84,000. 379. Mr McCartney: It relates to the old 372. Mr McFarland: Either way, the figure is organisation. enormous compared with that in GB. The Prison Service is a big spender, and 380. Mr McFarland: Do you remember that we may need to have a chat with some there was discussion about those of its representatives. commissioners increasing in number?
373. The Chairperson: Did you also mention 381. Mr McCartney: They were to become the Police Ombudsman, Alan? sentence review commissioners
33 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
rather than Life Sentence Review 392. We will need a week in which to notify Commissioners. these people; we have to give them the opportunity to appear before the 382. Mr McFarland: That is right. The Committee. That will be at the meeting commissioners were to dramatically on 3 March. increase in number and have more staff, premises, and so on. I wonder about 393. The Committee Clerk: It will be on 4 the figure listed there, because I am not March. sure whether all that has happened yet. 394. The Chairperson: Yes, 4 March. Those 383. Mr Attwood: That has happened, and sessions will take place in the Senate the paper states that the figure listed and will be public. relates to the new organisation. 395. Mr A Maskey: Is there a way of asking 384. Mr McFarland: Is that the new figure? I some of them to be here next week, have not read the paper in detail. because people such as David Lavery —
385. The Chairperson: We will clarify that. 396. Mr McFarland: The witnesses will be expecting to come, because we have 386. Mr Attwood: Alan’s wider point already told them that we are likely to questions whether the Prison Service call them. Some of them may well be has enough money to do all that it is able to come earlier, and if they can do meant to do in respect of prisoners so without inconveniencing — who may come before the parole commissioners. Big money is needed for 397. The Chairperson: If any of the witnesses that, and it is unclear whether the Prison is available to appear before the Service has that money. Committee — if we can get a couple of them to attend next week — the 387. The Chairperson: We can ask that Committee office will notify members by question to representatives of the Prison email about who will appear. We have a Service when they are here. short meeting planned, but if we can get 388. Mr McFarland: The Probation Board some of the witnesses to come along, is also tied in with that issue. It is that will be some of the work done. I supposed to be delivering a lot of those imagine that getting some of the bigger things, but it is unclear how much of players might be difficult without giving that is in its budget. them some notice; we will have to give a reasonable period of notice to people 389. The Chairperson: Meetings with those such as the Chief Constable. organisations need to be worked into a schedule, and the Committee office 398. The Committee Clerk: I gathered from will do that. If an issue that is raised the discussion earlier that it would be requires people to be brought before better to have witnesses appear before the Committee towards the end of the the Committee on a single subject. If process, we will do that. We have still representatives from the Court Service not been given any information on the and the Legal Services Commission state pathologist. were invited to appear on the same day, that would allow the structure of the 390. The Committee Clerk: We have not questioning to run with a theme. If the received a reply; therefore, I have no Chief Constable and the Policing Board idea on that one. were to be invited to appear together, I may then have some scope to slot 391. The Chairperson: We will keep the in the other witnesses around those pressure on, and we will pass that arrangements. information on to you as soon as we receive it. The figure involved is 399. The specialist adviser has said that he almost £2·2 million, but we can make plans to have discussions with the Court a decision once we receive the relevant Service later in the week. There may information. be a question over how soon the Court
34 Minutes of Evidence — 17 February 2009
Service would be in a position to come of areas to cover. The other meetings along. If we could manage it that way, I will be in public session, so issues will would have some flexibility to organise a be coming into the public domain as we programme, which would then be issued question people. Are there any other to members as soon as possible. issues?
400. The Chairperson: Are members 409. Mr McCartney: Can we have the satisfied with that approach? That is a completed list of whom we are calling? reasonable approach. 410. The Committee Clerk: One through to 401. Mr Hewitt, are there any other issues 12 are: the Legal Services Commission; that you want to cover? You will be with the Northern Ireland Court Service; us at the sessions — the Northern Ireland Office; the Police 402. Mr Hewitt: Yes, we had planned to Service of Northern Ireland; the provide the Committee with briefings for Northern Ireland Prison Service; the those sessions, provided that we can Public Prosecution Service; the Youth get some advance notice of whom the Justice Agency; the Probation Board Committee is going to see. I take it that for Northern Ireland; the Forensic the Committee has no objection to our Science Agency of Northern Ireland; the speaking to the organisations to clarify Compensation Agency; the Northern detail beforehand? Ireland Policing Board; and the Policing Rehabilitation and Retraining Trust. 403. The Chairperson: I do not think so. You There may be more clarification from the will be available if there are questions on the day; the Committee Clerk tells RUC GC Foundation by correspondence me that the system can allow for that. or through our specialist adviser.
404. Mr Hewitt: Yes. 411. The Chairperson: Clarification on the museum issue. 405. The Chairperson: You will be with the Committee anyway, and you will 412. Mr McFarland: Why is the Police be able to feed questions through to Rehabilitation and Retraining Trust on members. Although you will not be able the list? to ask a question directly, you can feed questions through to anyone through the 413. The Chairperson: The Police Committee Clerk if there are issues. Rehabilitation and Retraining Trust is based at the Maryfield complex in 406. Mr McFarland: Do we all get earpieces? Holywood. There is an issue around the Forensic Science Agency’s laboratory, 407. The Chairperson: We can talk into our and a section of the NIO is in some sort sleeves. of discussion, but we do not know — 408. I ask members to bear in mind that the Committee felt it important to have this 414. Mr McFarland: If there is a reason for discussion in closed session today. that, that is fine. We are not hiding anything; everything 415. The Chairperson: The reason is that will be revealed as witnesses are there would have been a £5 million brought along to the various sessions. pressure on the NIO had the Police I ask members to bear in mind the Rehabilitation and Retraining Trust confidentiality of the discussions this morning, and I ask that there is been moved from Maryfield to re- no speculating in the press. I do not accommodate the Forensic Science think that that would be helpful to this Agency, which is currently located at process. We are trying to get the best Seapark, Carrickfergus. The Seapark deal possible for the eventual devolution site would have required an entire of policing and justice issues. It is a big rebuild had the Police Rehabilitation area on which there could very easily and Training and Trust been relocated to be speculation. There is a whole range there, which, obviously, is an issue.
35 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
416. Earlier, we mentioned other issues attending the Committee and when. That around the Court Service, such as will also help you to sort your diary. The the consultation document on the IT Committee appreciates your help and equipment that has to be installed into assistance with the matter, but much various courts around the Province. The work remains to be done. document mentions six, seven or eight courts. Obviously, there is spend there, 423. Mr Hewitt: Thank you, Chairman. and we must get to the bottom of that.
417. The Committee Clerk: As regards Mr McCartney’s question, I wish to clarify that, at present, the Office of the Police Ombudsman is not included on the list. The Committee will want to pursue, with the Secretary of State, the question about the Historical Enquiries Team and whether that budget will transfer across to result in a leaner Office of the Police Ombudsman, and whether, at this stage, the Committee wishes still to call it the Office of the Police Ombudsman.
418. The Chairperson: On the financial issue, the Committee must talk to some of the players — from the Police Service of Northern Ireland and some other bodies that members mentioned already — before we bring in the NIO. Once we have clarity on some of those points, we will raise them with the NIO.
419. Mr Paisley Jnr: I thought that we were leaving the NIO until near the end.
420. The Chairperson: I know that the Committee wants to speak to the NIO about other issues, but I am merely talking about the financial issues. It may well be that some of those other issues will arise when the NIO officials are before the Committee.
421. We agreed that the Committee is open to suggestions as to who should be called to give evidence. We can do that once we have held a meeting to clarify certain points on some issues. Are there any other issues?
422. I thank Victor Hewitt and Stephen Pearson for attending this evidence session. I hope that from your point of view, this has been a helpful exercise. I know that your work is ongoing, and I understand that the Committee Clerk will review the list as soon as he makes arrangements with the various bodies. We will keep you up to speed with who is
36 Minutes of Evidence — 24 February 2009
24 February 2009
Members present for all or part of the 428. The Chairperson: Alex Maskey, who is proceedings: absent, is also a member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. Mr Jimmy Spratt (Chairperson) Mr Raymond McCartney (Deputy Chairperson) 429. You are very welcome. This is a crucial Mr Alex Attwood issue for us at the moment. We are Mr Simon Hamilton dealing particularly with the financial Mrs Carmel Hanna aspects of the devolution of policing and Mr Danny Kennedy justice, and I am sure that members will Mr Alex Maskey have quite a few questions. Mr Nelson McCausland 430. Mr Robin Masefield (Northern Ireland Mr Alan McFarland Prison Service): Thank you. We very Mr John O’Dowd much appreciate being given the Mr Ian Paisley Jnr opportunity to appear before the Committee, and we thank you for allowing Witnesses: us the time to do so. I will keep my Ms Anne McCleary Northern Ireland remarks very brief. I am grateful to my Mr Mark McGuckin Prison Service colleagues, who have been introduced Mr Robin Masefield already. Mr Max Murray 431. Mr Gary Boyd, who is our chief accountant and head of financial Also in Attendance: services, is here along with my head of Mr Victor Hewitt Specialist adviser press office. However, the four of us at this table will aim to deal with all your questions. 424. The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): I welcome representatives of the Northern Ireland 432. On 6 February 2009, I responded Prison Service. I welcome Robin in writing to the Committee Clerk’s Masefield, the director general, Mark questions. I am conscious that that McGuckin, the director of finance and was a slightly shorter and crisper personnel, Max Murray, the director of response than some other organisations operations, and Anne McCleary, the might have provided, but I do not wish director of services. We anticipate to eat into the Committee’s time for questioning. having up to an hour for the meeting, during which time the witnesses will 433. Four key issues face the Northern give a brief opening statement, leaving Ireland Prison Service. I am also time for Committee members to ask conscious of yesterday’s debate in questions. the Assembly. The first issue to face the Prison Service is the Criminal 425. First, I invite Committee members to Justice Order (Northern Ireland) 2008. declare any interests. I declare an The previous time that some of my interest as a member of the Northern colleagues and I appeared in the Ireland Policing Board. Senate Chamber, we were questioned on our views on and preparedness for 426. Mr Paisley Jnr: I am also a member of implementing the draft Order. the Northern Ireland Policing Board. 434. Secondly, the Northern Ireland Prison 427. Mr McCausland: I am a member of Service estate has had a fair amount Belfast District Policing Partnership. of investment over the years, but it is
37 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
still deficient in a number of key areas. staff such as psychologists and the I imagine that you may wish to pose gearing up of the offender-management questions on that. That has implications model, which we think is the right way for capital expenditure and for resource- forward. In the light of those demands, revenue costs thereafter. we believe that those additional moneys will provide us with the funding that we, 435. Thirdly, the service devotes a lot of along with the Probation Board and the attention to organisational development Northern Ireland Office, require to play issues such as staff development and our part in implementing the draft Order. human resources. That is one strand of modernisation 436. Finally, we are conscious of the against which we can put a tick. pressures that the wider economic and 441. My colleague, as head of personnel and financial climate in which we operate finance, will address the staffing issue. place on the Prison Service, the wider Northern Ireland Office and Government 442. Mr Mark McGuckin (Northern Ireland more generally. Prison Service): The Prison Service is a staffing-led organisation, and it delivers 437. The Chairperson: I know that several its function working with and through projects are ongoing at present, people. There is a significant resource particularly where modernisation requirement for staff. A couple of years is concerned. What is the current ago, we looked at the overall staffing expenditure position with those projects, position and the reliance that is placed and, as a result, what might be the on highly paid and highly skilled prison possible pressures on funding in the officers to carry out a whole range of years that lie ahead? functions across the system. 438. Mr Masefield: There are perhaps three 443. We identified a range of opportunities areas that I could discuss on that point. for efficiencies. We put together I shall talk about the Order, and my and agreed a package with the staff colleague will speak about the human associations that addressed the overall resource dimension, about which we staffing complement — the overall have particularly impressive stories numbers that are involved — and the to tell about the changes that we are type of staff. As a consequence, we introducing with staffing. Thirdly, we had a 10% pure efficiency reduction in will talk about the development of the the overall number of staff that were estate, which covers capital, as well as required, and we brought in support revenue, issues. grades to carry out functions that are 439. A range of pressures was identified not directly related to engagement with across the Northern Ireland Office family, prisoners. For example, the contact that as I might call it, in the preparation of some staff had with prisoners was as the draft Order a year ago. I remember court escorts. However, maintaining the being asked whether the Prison Service security of the environment is the key could afford to implement the Order. consideration. I answered then that we could, and I 444. In addition, and with the agreement believe that that remains the position. A of the Prison Officers’ Association total of £4·7 million is set aside for the Prison Service to implement its share of (POA), we introduced a support grade. the Order. Staff in that grade carry out peripheral functions in secured areas around the 440. We are on target with the progress establishments in question, such as that is being made this year, and, in maintaining the fabric of the building the final year of the comprehensive and so forth. There is a range of spending review (CSR) period, we will posts in that grade and over the next have £2·6 million in additional moneys. two or three years, we will gradually Many demands are being placed on us, bring more support grades on stream, including the recruitment of additional thereby replacing prison officers that
38 Minutes of Evidence — 24 February 2009
have left through natural wastage. Pure undoubtedly, created some pressures efficiencies and the use of different for us. types of staff have created total efficiency savings of approximately £25 451. The truth is that in the last year of the million or £26 million over the period. SR04 period, as our accounts show, our out-turn was several million pounds That helps us to address some of the below the initial opening budget. We other pressures that we face. were able to return money to the central 445. Mr Paisley Jnr: Thank you for coming fund, which was excellent, because it today, ladies and gentlemen. contributed to the end-year flexibility.
446. To cut to the chase, we are trying to 452. Mr Paisley Jnr: Was that capital money secure the devolution of policing and that was returned? justice powers to Northern Ireland. To 453. Mr Masefield: No, it was revenue. do that, we need to know how much We brought forward a small amount the Prison Service costs now and how of capital because of our successful much it is likely to cost us until 2012 spending against it on new and beyond. We need that information in accommodation. This year, as the end order to inform our negotiations with the of the financial year approaches, we Northern Ireland Office, which normally will break even or perhaps, we hope, likes to negotiate with people who are come in slightly under budget. We do not in the dark about such matters. By deny that we will struggle to continue to having that information, we can agree a take the service forward in the next two figure with the Northern Ireland Office years. through which the Prison Service can be sustained, not only at its current 454. On 1 April 2009, we will enter the level, but efficiently and effectively in third year of the pay-and-efficiency the future. Thus, the Prison Service will agreement to which my colleague be able to grow and develop and do referred. Therefore, we can anticipate what is expected of it. It will be able to the budget levels and the salary costs in look after people properly and meet the that agreement. We can also get a good expectations of the twenty-first century handle on the staff who will replace public in Northern Ireland. those who left through the natural wastage — Mark referred to them 447. Robin, I am asking you for a ballpark already. figure: in order to sustain the Prison Service and to develop it in the way that 455. I single out the implications for the I suggested, how much money should development of the estate as presenting we request from the Northern Ireland perhaps the biggest single challenge to Office? the service; you may wish to question us further about that. I am conscious that I 448. Mr Masefield: I could give you a number did not come back to you on that, Chair; of answers to that. it was the third element of your opening question. The estate, undoubtedly, 449. Mr Paisley Jnr: I just want the truthful requires development in two strands. and the real answer. In addition to the capital cost, to which you referred, revenue costs will tail 450. Mr Masefield: You will always get from thereafter. Those comprise the capital me, sir, a truthful answer, and indeed a charge, which is currently 3·5%, and real answer, in the context of the role of depreciation. the agency as a member of the Northern Ireland Office family. Very broadly, the 456. For example, if, as we hope, Magilligan result of the comprehensive spending Prison were to be replaced with a new review settlement was that we were redeveloped facility, that new facility provided with a flat real settlement of a would cost more, because, over the 2·7% increase across the board for year- 50-year period, we would be paying a on-year inflation costs, and that has, capital charge and a higher level of
39 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
depreciation for a new asset than for 464. Mr Masefield: That is an additional cost the current facility. Therefore, within our in the budget that we have — it is an budget for the coming year, we will seek additional pressure that we will need to to contain the increasing costs incurred meet within our budget. as a result of our progress in developing accommodation to meet the increasing 465. Mr Paisley Jnr: I understand the word prisoner population. We hope to offset “pressure”; however, in a year to 18 those costs against any savings that we months, at the very outset, you guys will may be able to make. be totally answerable to the Assembly. Do you want to be here, in a year to 18 457. Mr Paisley Jnr: That is very interesting. months, explaining that you should have However, can you answer my question: told us how much was really needed? how much money do you actually Now is the time to put that on the table, need? How much should we be asking tell us what you need, and perhaps the Northern Ireland Office for, for a we can get a sustainable budget for sustainable period, up to 2012 and the future. We are trying to help. At beyond, to allow the Prison Service, not the minute, your political master is the to struggle through — as you put it — Northern Ireland Office, but that will not but to sustain itself and grow? be the case for very much longer. You have to make a judgement call today: 458. Mr Masefield: The specific figure is will you give us the full picture or only £13 million, which is the cost that is part of the picture? I hope that your call associated with the estate development. is that you will give us the full picture. That is the combined revenue cost for the year in which we are starting, 2009- 466. Mr Masefield: My clear response is that 2010, and then for 2010-11. to an extent, we are flagging up that £13 million pressure, and we flagged up 459. Mr Paisley Jnr: Is that £13 million on earlier that we were struggling to contain top of the £134·9 million that you will that with the resources that we have. bid for under the resource budget? That is the business that the four of us 460. Mr Masefield: With respect, clearly an appearing today seek to do, and there element of those capital costs, and the are a number of offsetting means by associated revenue costs, is included in which to do that — it can be done while our budget. The centre — the Northern living within the pressures. Ireland Office — will look to us to 467. Mr Paisley Jnr: In January 2001, the manage and produce a balanced budget, prison population was 800; in 10 years, notwithstanding those pressures, which it has practically doubled, which as are largely, but not exclusively, the an unfortunate reflection of today’s result of modernising the estate, trying society. Nonetheless, you have to to produce a prison service that is fit manage that population, and you do for the twenty-first century, and some so under very difficult circumstances. inescapable consequences from the We commend the very capable people continually rising prisoner population. who are working on the front line. From 461. Mr Paisley Jnr: I will ask that again, what you know, and indeed, from the because I need to get this in plain changes in Government policy that English — I am a wee bit stupid when are being announced and that seek to it comes to these things: is that £13 keep people in jail for longer, without million on top of the £134·9 million that releasing them — because that is what you are budgeting for in the years 2008- the public demands — do you envisage 09 and 2009-2010? that population growing by another 100% over the next 10 years? 462. Mr Masefield: As you will appreciate, I am not going to give you a direct answer 468. Mr Masefield: We do, frankly, yes. Two saying yes — years or three years ago, as part of our strategic development programme, 463. Mr Paisley Jnr: Why not? a lot of work was done on population
40 Minutes of Evidence — 24 February 2009
projections, and those figures were next few weeks we hope to publish a independently quality assured by strategic outline case for projections Queen’s University law department. The the female prisoner population, which projection is for roughly a 5% growth has increased significantly. For example, in the initial years and a 4% growth when we transferred from Mourne House thereafter. That did not take into account at Maghaberry in June 2004, there were the changes in the Criminal Justice just 17 female offenders in custody; (Northern Ireland) Order 2008, which there are now 55. had not come through at that time. As you are aware, the hope is that the 475. Mr Paisley Jnr: Therefore, that figure Order will provide properly for diversions has more than doubled. from custody those who do not need 476. Mr McCausland: Thank you. Can you to go to prison, but who may now be clarify some of the points that Ian sent there as a result of a lack of an made earlier? You said that there have available alternative. been costs of £134·9 million and an 469. Just yesterday, there was a very additional £13 million associated with welcome development with the the estate. You talked about pressures announcement of the women offenders’ and how you cope with and contain strategy, which is putting in place, for them. I like to approach these things example, a probation facility that did not very simply — you either add £13 exist previously. Good progress is being million on to the £134·9 million, or you made in providing an alternative. This make savings within that £134·9 million morning, Max Murray was present when for some or part of what you need. the Minister announced the introduction Which is it, and how would you do it? of electronic monitoring — or tagging — 477. Mr Masefield: I will give you as simple which is another alternative. Until now, a response as I can as head of the the courts would have been obliged to organisation, bearing in mind my fellow send people to custody, so that step is directors. It is our job to manage the welcome. It is our hope that the prison budget within the resources that we population will roughly balance out over are given. We strive to do that, and time. we are about facing the period in the 470. My personal belief is that probably in the annual cycle where we are producing longer term, as you said, we will end up the business plan for the next year — with more of those individuals — people 2009-2010 — when we will be working serving long-term, indeterminate and with our governors and colleagues on extended custodial sentences — who the basis of our improved financial will find it very difficult to satisfy the strategy to address that very question parole commissioners that they have and to begin to make some of the hard reduced the risk of serious harm that choices. they pose to the community. 478. It may interest the Committee to know 471. Mr Paisley Jnr: Does that mean that by that in England and Wales, what they 2018 we could have a prison population call a core day was introduced. That in excess of 3,000 people? has made a fundamental change to the working week. That is because the 472. Mr Masefield: We would not go that far; English prison service did not have our calculations are that in 15 years, the sufficient resources. It means that adult male prison population will have the regime now closes down on Friday risen to 2,200. lunchtime and prisoners no longer go to 473. Mr Paisley Jnr: What about the female workshops or receive education classes population? on Friday afternoons, and evening association is also curtailed. That is 474. Mr Masefield: We have not completed the hard choice that was made in order the work that would take those that they could live within their budget. calculations to the same level. In the I am not suggesting anything as radical
41 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
for the Northern Ireland Prison Service, 484. Mr McCausland: In the figures that but we will be taking a hard look at all are included in the members’ papers, aspects of cost. you referred to administration and programme costs. I assume that 479. If you were to ask me whether we could administration relates entirely to the make more efficiencies, I would say salaries — is that what that means? that undoubtedly we could. Some of those are within our gift, and some are 485. Mr Masefield: It is principally a not necessarily so. Mark McGuckin distinction, though it is a bit over- described some of the detail of the simplistic. “Administration” is largely longer-term process that we are engaged the headquarters staff, whereas the in, and we are making further progress “programme” is about front-line delivery, in capping the ceiling for the pay and it also covers services to the progression of staff that are now joining prisoners, such as food, utilities or as main-grade officers. There is a wide running costs. strategy in place to progress that and to 486. Mr McFarland: Thank you. I am keen reduce costs over time. to explore some of the challenges that 480. We have made real progress. A you face. Your critics would say that the comparatively short number of years ago Prison Service has not made the same — five or eight years ago — we were journey that the PSNI has made, in that three times as expensive as the English the experience of most of its officers prison service on the costs for each lies in the dark days of the Troubles. The prisoner in place. We believe that we prison officers were outstanding in the are now less than twice as expensive. way that they dealt with the Troubles. As The English prison service no longer you know, when we discussed the draft publishes its figures precisely, and the Order, there was a suggestion that there costs are not exactly comparable, but are new prison techniques and new we are on a reducing glide-path on the methods. The Prison Service’s critics annual costs for each prisoner place. say that its officers are fairly elderly — by and large, they are at the top end 481. The Chairperson: Regarding the £13 of the age scale — and that they are million of additional costs for the prison not necessarily at an age when they estate, can you clarify that those are can be retrained for all those modern non-cash costs representing additional techniques. Presumably, you will be capital charges and depreciation? faced with that issue. What is the value of the estate that the charges apply to? 487. The service is attached to a powerful union, which is famed for its strength. 482. Mr Masefield: I can confirm the former. Indeed, it is very protective of its On the latter point, the current value of members. From the point of view of the estate is around £200 million — unions, that is as it should be; however, it is expensive for the service. 483. Mr McGuckin: It is around that, but the additional charges are based on 488. Under the draft Criminal Justice Order the accommodation that we have (Northern Ireland) 2008, the Probation been building in recent times, such Board was to take over much of the as the new house block that opened training period when prisoners are in at Magilligan recently, and the new jail. That service takes an interest from house block that we are building at their first appearance in court, and it Maghaberry. It also includes additional monitors them until they are released accommodation at Magilligan. For from prison. Those duties were carried clarification, the sum is a total of £13 out formerly by prison officers, but they million across the next two years, as are to be transferred to the probation opposed to £13 million in each of the service, as I understand it. That is next two years. another issue.
42 Minutes of Evidence — 24 February 2009
489. At our previous meeting, you talked staff, many of whom are already in the about the fact that a substantial system, meaning that they will not all percentage of those who are in prison be new staff. They will operate what we should not be there, because they are call the offender-management model. fine defaulters who ended up in prison There are two key elements to that: a when they should have been dealt with case manager and a sentence manager. in the community. The case manager will be a probation officer and will have responsibility 490. How will all that work out? We are trying for the individual prisoner, from the to think not just about the budget for pre-sentence report that goes to the this year and next, but to make sure court, through to discharge, making that we have an accurate picture of the process seamless — much as we what will happen in five years when the discussed at our previous meeting. We prison population has risen. Ian Paisley see that as a positive improvement. mentioned this, and my sense is that when we get control, politicians will be 496. There will also be a sentence manager, less tolerant of the current bail system. who will be a prison officer — one of The Chief Constable appears repeatedly our own staff — whose job will be to before various Committees saying that ensure that the individual in question he is fed up with encountering prisoners is working to his sentence plan for the who are due for their ninth appearance time that he is with us. He will ensure in court but who, each time they arrive that the prisoner’s needs are addressed, in court, are given bail yet again instead his offending behaviour corrected of being locked up. That is yet another and that he is getting on the relevant issue. programmes, such as enhanced thinking skills, cognitive self-change, or sex 491. The Chairperson: Please ask your offender treatment programmes. That question. officer will ensure that progress is made 492. Mr McFarland: It is important that we and that the individual is prepared for get this right first time, because we will potential release and for the judgement not get another go at it. It is important as to whether they can go back safely that the Prison Service has a projection into the community. We have recruited of what it will cost in five years, or 20 additional psychological assistants else we in the Assembly will be left already to help us with that element of looking silly because we did not ask the the programme. questions when we had the chance. 497. Therefore, the picture has changed 493. Can you tell us what the situation slightly since we spoke previously. The with all this will be? How large will the probation service is playing a slightly increase in the prisoner population be? bigger role, but we will probably do more Some will be released because they are of the programme work ourselves, partly fine defaulters. Technically, the service as a result of our subsequent decision should change the style of its officers, to bring in psychological assistants. and I presume that that will reduce the The probation service is providing some cost, making it more comparable with additional support, but our staff will the service England. Will you give us a largely be responsible for such matters. picture of where you see all that going? That will place additional requirements on the staff on the landings, who will 494. Mr Masefield: I will respond first, and liaise with the sentence managers about my director of operations will answer on the progress of individual prisoners. changes affecting staff training. 498. Mr Max Murray (Northern Ireland 495. Referring to your point about the draft Prison Service): The big emphasis, Order, I want to give you an idea of the particularly as regards public-protection future scale of the service. By year sentences, is on satisfying parole 3 — 2010-11 — we will have about commissioners as to somebody’s £2∙6 million. We will have roughly 200 suitability for release. The only way to do
43 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
that is to ensure that significant risk- prisoner to avoid any instances of re- assessment procedures are in place offending in future. and that what will be called sentence planning is in place, whereby a sentence 502. As I said, the programme was delivered plan is drawn up. Interventions must be over two days. It had a significant in place, and subsequent and further impact to the extent that, last year, risk assessments must be completed when prison officers were being by psychologists after a dossier, as we interviewed by line managers for their call it, is prepared. That dossier is then personal development plans, 600 of passed to the parole commissioners, them identified the need for further after which an oral hearing is held at interpersonal training skills and de- which the parole commissioners, in the escalation skills. For the first time in presence of legal representatives, will many years, we noticed a move away explore suitability for release and then from the old traditional requirement [inaudible] make an evaluation. That is for control and restraint (C&R) skills, a challenge for the service, and we will which are the basic use-of-force skills. have to step up to the mark to meet it. Thus, the service is moving forward and changing, albeit gradually. Certainly, the 499. Inherent within that process is the demand is there, and there is a need to need to ensure that our prison officers implement the new arrangements under similarly understand the environment in the Criminal Justice Order (Northern which they operate today. You are right in Ireland) 2008. what you say about our prison officers; the previous recruitment campaign for 503. The Chairperson: I remind members that prison officers was held in the early we must try to stick to financial matters 1990s. Many of our prison officers had — that is really our task today. worked in the Maze Prison or Belfast, and their experiences were largely of 504. Mr Attwood: Robin, I thank you and your working with paramilitary prisoners team for coming along today. where the emphasis was mainly on 505. In one sense, the policing and justice disengagement rather than engagement. budget is very vulnerable. My view is 500. The expression “culture change” is not that the Exchequer in London will try to one that we use lightly; in fact, it is an claw back money from the North, given expression that we do not particularly that, for all the obvious reasons, there like, but it encapsulates everything that has been such an extravagant policing we are about at the moment. A major and justice budget over the years of culture change programme is under way conflict. I do not think that London will in the service. For example, we sent all appreciate the need to maintain policing our principal officers, senior officers, and justice budget lines in order to help first-line managers and second-line maintain stability in the North. managers for a full week’s training at 506. In the event of the devolution of policing the Prison Service College. Last year, and justice, the budget for it will be we ran a two-day training programme for part of the devolved pot. In those all prison officers, which 70% to 80% of circumstances, and given the higher prison officers attended. cost base here — for example, the 501. The programme’s emphasis was higher cost for each prisoner place — largely on learning from the previous we can see the politics of this place programme that we delivered to principal beginning to probe how every pound and senior officers, in which victims is spent in the Prison Service and talked on DVD about their experience elsewhere in the criminal justice family, of crime and what they expect of the as you put it. Therefore, I believe that Prison Service when an offender goes there is a little, for want of a better word, into custody. It is not about locking up vulnerability around the budget lines for a prisoner; it is about working with the the Prison Service. That will not go away;
44 Minutes of Evidence — 24 February 2009
it will be a political theme for the next which look impressive on paper, will be five, six or seven years. adequate? Given what Peter Smith and the Probation Board told us about those 507. Given that the Prison Service is still matters, I am concerned that even those part of the NIO, and in the light of what impressive figures may underestimate back-room people in London have been what will be required. saying about achieving more efficiency savings, have you, or has the NIO, been 512. Mr Masefield: I shall be broadly given a heads-up to produce additional reassuring, in line with the response efficiency savings when powers are that I gave the last time. The financial devolved? Even the Minister of Finance provision that we have made should and Personnel accepts that such pretty well cover what will be required. savings would, in fact, be straightforward Nevertheless, it is difficult to anticipate top-line budget cuts. Have you had any the future, and the measures introduced indication that you are about to be hit in by Paul Goggins — whereby prisoners such a way? who need not be in custody can be diverted elsewhere, whereas others may 508. Mr Masefield: To answer your question be staying longer with us in future — slightly differently, I can truthfully say have created tensions in rebalancing the that we have had no indication of how criminal-justice system. big our slice of that potential efficiency cake might be. Nevertheless, in the light 513. As I said on the previous occasion that of the overall economic climate, central I appeared before the Committee, there Government is flagging up the need are two types of resources. One can to make further savings. However, the have all the money in the world, but, in Prison Service has yet to be informed of order to do the business, one must have its allocation. the right people with the right skills in the right place at the right time, and that 509. Mr Attwood: As you know, they are is hugely difficult for the Prison Service, coming. Indeed, they may come and, to a lesser extent, the Probation tomorrow, when the various Finance Board and others. Ministers and others will meet the Prime Minister in London. 514. Obtaining a report from an accredited psychologist is a particular bottleneck 510. I am impressed by the fact that you have through which every prisoner must put a budget line in place to deal with pass. However, those professionals are the consequences of the Criminal Justice in short supply, and, to some extent, Order (Northern Ireland) 2008. Your the prison services in Northern Ireland, office will be responsible for ensuring Scotland, England, Wales and the South that much of the resultant work in prisons are all competing with one other for their is carried out, but I am concerned about services. In order to bring people on, whether the culture in the Prison Service there has been ongoing engagement will allow for, or whether enough of your with the universities. For example, the officers have the necessary experience University of Ulster has been working to do, that sort of work. with Skills for Justice, and Queen’s 511. When Peter Smith, the head of the University Belfast has been considering Parole Commissioners, gave evidence opportunities for postgraduate courses. to the Committee, he took great We have taken short-term remedial pains to talk about the enormous action by bringing in psychological financial consequences of the 2008 assistants, but we are still finding it Order, and Robin Masefield appears difficult to attract individuals with a full to acknowledge that. Given what you master’s degree in forensic psychology, said about the increasing number which, perfectly understandably, is the of prisoners, and so forth, are you level of accreditation and experience satisfied that even the budget lines that is required to satisfy the Parole that you have been able to put in place, Commissioners.
45 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
515. Mr Attwood: First, are you saying 522. Mr Attwood: Is there not a target of, that the criminal-justice regime is for example, £70,000, £65,000 or not in a position to provide the range £55,000? of information and reports that is necessary in order to put people forward 523. Mr McGuckin: It would take a for parole hearings? considerable amount of time to reach such targets, and, in the meantime, 516. Secondly, can you confirm whether the there are so many variables that would unit cost for prisoners is £87,000 per interfere that it is unrealistic to set annum per prisoner? Over and above targets now. The idea is to keep the what you said about changing your downward pressure on the overall officers’ profile, how do you intend costs in line with the other factors that to reduce that figure to make it more intervene at any particular time. consistent with prisoner costs in 524. Much of our existing accommodation Britain? is inefficient. Although the houses 517. Mr Masefield: I shall deal with your in Maghaberry are of reasonably second question first. The current target good quality, they are, in staff terms, is a spot over £80,000, and next year it inefficient. It will take time to replace is projected to be approximately £78,000. those houses with more cost-effective and staff-efficient accommodation, 518. Therefore, we are seeking to reduce that and the associated costs — capital figure. More significantly, over a year costs, depreciation in the value of ago, the Select Committee on Northern the premises, and so on — will also Ireland Affairs produced a report, increase. Therefore, we can reduce which said that cost per prisoner-place the unit cost of staff by improving the comparison was outdated and should be accommodation, but we also face other moved away from, because England no challenges. longer calculates on the same basis. 525. Mr Masefield: It is a challenge that 519. The unit cost per member of staff is, in we must address. However, HM Prison some ways, a more accurate measure of Service and the Scottish Prison Service efficiencies. It is decreasing much more face similar challenges. significantly, and Mark referred to the £25 million reduction for the three-year 526. Mr A Maskey: I want to approach period, and that is as a result of the the matter from another angle. I am efficiency savings. slightly alarmed that you have no early projections on numbers of female 520. Mr Attwood: What are your target prisoners, given the backdrop of costs? some serious indictments, which I do not need to explain now, of female- 521. Mr McGuckin: At this point, we do not prisoner management systems in the have a target cost as such, because Prison Service. Those reports and the there are so many variables, not least rectification of the problems must have the number of cell spaces and the capital-arm-revenue cost implications. number of prisoners therein. The steps Therefore, without projections of the that we have taken over the past couple numbers, how will we project figures of years through the efficiency package and search for a proper budget? We are will continue to deliver further cost here to try to establish a necessary and reductions in the unit costs of staff. appropriate budget. Staff profiles change over time, and some more highly paid prisoner officers will 527. If I were a Minister or a representative leave the system and will be replaced by from the Treasury, I would be interested people who are on a new capped salary in your opening remarks to the effect from 2002. It will take time to feel the that you were able to return revenue effects of that replacement, but it will money — you did not give a figure, and reduce overall costs. I would be interested to hear it — in
46 Minutes of Evidence — 24 February 2009
the first year of the comprehensive about the extent of that increase and spending review. In the second year, the impact of some of the diversionary you might break even and, in the third measures, such as the women’s year, you might struggle. As a Minister strategy that was published just or representative of the Treasury, I would yesterday and the tagging system that say that, in the third year, I will squeeze was introduced today. you, and you will struggle, but you will come in on budget. 532. I am conscious that the female-prisoner population is significantly skewed, in 528. I want to get a handle on the level of that 20% of women in prison are there revenue that was returned, because I as the result of one arrest operation. can understand capital’s being returned In principle, we remain absolutely if, for a variety of reasons, it was not committed to providing a better long- utilised. However, revenue is entirely term facility for women than Ash House different, and, therefore, I am interested at Hydebank Wood, which has serious in the revenue figure that was returned, limitations. In recent months, numbers and in how was that figure calculated, in Ash House have been between 55 because it is obviously erroneous. We and 60, which is nearing even the try to base our calculations on realistic increased capacity. figures, should we decide to lobby later, and what I have heard so far does not 533. We are looking at developing a business encourage me much. case to progress the matter in both the short and longer term. I anticipate that a 529. Mr Masefield: I will deal with your strategic outline case for the women’s question about finance first. To the best facility will be produced within a month. of my recollection, the figure is somewhere That will be the same as what we did for between £3 million and £4 million. That Magilligan Prison a year ago and will is partly because the centre in the provide clearer answers to your question. Northern Ireland Office has the level of allocation that it gets from the Treasury 534. Mr Murray: I was involved in the through the CSR. However, it is also in decision to move women prisoners from the business of trying to build backup, Mourne House at Maghaberry Prison to or contingency, capacity and subsequently Ash House after there were a couple of fund developments such as the powers tragic deaths in custody at the former. legislated for in the Criminal Justice At that time, I received projections, Order (Northern Ireland) 2008. which I still have on file, that numbers were likely to increase from 17 to 530. It is in all our interests to find out where approximately 34, but to no more than we did not need to spend that money. 40, by 2009. That shows the reliability Perhaps the prisoner population did of projections — we need to be careful not rise, for example, or we had been not to rely on them. funded for things that we did not need. The money could have been put back 535. Many of the women in custody should into the centre and funding issued not be there and should instead be dealt collectively, and the Probation Board may with through support systems, such as have benefited from that to an extent. mental-health treatment on the Health Service. Indeed, much work is being 531. I will return to the second point about done with the Health Service to look at women prisoners. I am conscious that personality disorder, for example. Many I did not quite give a full answer, and I females have personality disorders, and want to give full and honest answers to we must manage those women correctly. all the Committee’s questions. I have The intention is to have dispersals and a meeting with Minister Goggins at diversions rather than to rely on their lunchtime today to discuss the issue being taken into custody all the time. of prison numbers. We anticipate that the number of women prisoners will 536. The female prison population is increase, but there is a slight debate particularly difficult, because it contains
47 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
some seriously damaged and abused Forsyth, in that we are encouraging you prisoners. However, when the original to go higher and higher. Thus far, you decisions were made in 2004, no have given us a figure of £13 million. statistician in the world could have foreseen that there would have been 545. Mr Masefield: With respect, the annual an increase to 61 last year. That was figure is £7·5 million — it is £13 million simply not on the cards. over the two years.
537. Mr A Maskey: Can you give an 546. Mr Hamilton: OK, so it is lower. indication of the degree to which you will [Laughter.] struggle with shortfall in the third year of 547. Mr Masefield: I would be in even more the CSR? trouble if the figure of £13 million were allowed to gain currency. 538. Mr Masefield: I would hate to leave you, Mr Paisley or anyone else with 548. Mr Paisley Jnr: It is now out there — the impression that the shortfall is this meeting is being broadcast live. £13 million year on year. That figure is a composite of a little more than 549. Mr Hamilton: To be fair, Robin made it £5 million in the year that we about clear that the figure of £13 million is to go into and around £7·5 million the over two years. We are almost transfixed following year. Therefore, the shortfall with the comprehensive spending review in year three of the CSR will be in the period, as is evidenced by many of our region of £7 million or £8 million. That questions. To make predictions about is predominantly, but not exclusively, 10 years into the future is almost like as a result of the required estate asking how long is a piece of string. If development and the associated you are saying that the potential exists resource tail. for the prison population to grow at a rapid rate — almost doubling over a 10- 539. It is possible that there will be a change. year period, which is not a long time — This is speculative, but my finance have you any projection of the possible colleagues think that the Treasury may cost of that worst-case growth? revisit the capital charge that it levies, which used to be 6% and which was 550. I also wish to ask about the capital reduced to 3·5% a couple of years ago. budget. I am aware that you spoke It is sometimes difficult to project how about the resource pressure on capital, UK-wide changes will affect us. because there is a tendency for people to say that capital is the cost of the 540. Mr Murray: The devolution of policing bricks and mortar, while forgetting about and justice powers will bring a major the resource costs. The capital budget benefit in that we will not have to pay has increased impressively since 2005, VAT on the new facilities. and it will reach £26 million by the end of the CSR period. Is that sufficient to 541. Mr Paisley Jnr: Pay VAT? cover the cost of the planned capital 542. Mr Masefield: Yes, we pay VAT at expenditure, and does it take into present. account the need to cover the potential growth of the prison population over 543. The Chairperson: I will be leaving the the next 10 years? Are those projects Chair shortly, because I have to speak sufficient? in a debate in the Assembly Chamber. The Deputy Chairperson, Raymond 551. Mr Masefield: It is always nice when McCartney, will take over in the Chair. one can answer a question fairly simply. The answer is yes, it should be sufficient 544. Mr Hamilton: We are almost for the capital, partly because there is a encouraging you to come up with limit to the rate at which one can spend negatives, and I envisage that will be it. There is an estate-development a characteristic of these evidence strategy that has been well worked sessions. We are almost like Bruce out. Anne and her team in estate
48 Minutes of Evidence — 24 February 2009
management are excellent in that area, encourages interaction between staff and I want to pay tribute to them. and prisoners.
552. There are plans for some additional 558. If, for example, any of you were to visit accommodation, to which Mark referred. Magilligan Prison, Halward House will be There will be another 120 places formally opened in a couple of weeks’ opening in Mourne House at Maghaberry time. That is a state-of-the-art facility. Prison later this year, and there are Representatives from the English Prison plans for further development on a Service have visited and peer-reviewed similar scale elsewhere at Maghaberry the programme for opening that unit. in order to meet the needs of the prison Halward House is extremely effective. population. What is important is that Prisoners are eating on the landings there will be an opportunity to decant outside their cells and interacting with to make much-needed, sequential staff, which is exactly the model for improvements to the square houses developing the service at Magilligan and at Maghaberry, which also need to be Maghaberry prisons as we want to. brought up to date, as the inspectorate regularly tells us. A range of other, 559. Mr Hamilton: Do you feel that any slightly smaller-scale projects will also elements of your expenditure duplicates be advanced. work that other agencies in the justice family carry out, or could be better 553. Specifically, the big two projects are carried out by other agencies? Magilligan Prison and, as is briefly referred to in the draft strategy for the 560. Will the implementation of the 2008 management of women offenders that Order have the potential to remove some was published yesterday, the plans of that duplication and, therefore, ease for a female facility. There is scope in some of the pressures on your budget, that figure of slightly over £70 million or will it have the contrary effect? capital over the three years of the CSR to do the preparatory work, including its 561. Mr Masefield: At a legislative level, we exemplar design and business case, and hope that there will be some advantages the programme management thereafter. coming from the 2008 Order; for Of course, the Treasury does not get into example, the introduction of electronic discussions about what the position will tagging, which was announced today. be at the end of the CSR period. It is a slightly longer piece of work, because it also involves the devolved 554. Mr Hamilton: You are content that the side and the Court Service. Therefore, it capital budget is sufficient? is a three-way system.
555. Mr Masefield: Until March 2011, yes. 562. Real opportunities exist for dealing 556. Mr Hamilton: Have any projections been with fine defaulters. A quarter of all carried on the cost associated with receptions into prison are individuals the rising prison population, and how who have failed to pay fines, and they far that is beyond any extrapolation of are in custody for an average of four and current budgets? a half days. One must query whether that is an efficient use of the taxpayer’s 557. Mr Masefield: Yes and no. I briefly money. It is very important that the referred to taking on business-case fines get paid, but there are possible advisers, for example. The project at alternatives, such as the attachment of Magilligan Prison will go out to tender earnings and other mechanisms. shortly, and at that stage the detail can be considered. As my colleagues have 563. A real tension is evident concerning already said, it is crucial to ensure that wider efficiencies and back office. The the future generation of establishments Prison Service prides itself on how many and replacement accommodation is units operate extremely effectively on designed efficiently and effectively, their own, and procurement is an area as we are doing already, so that it in which one particular individual has
49 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
assisted us and undoubtedly achieved Therefore, we must ensure that we significant savings. first create a society that does not automatically have a 4% increase year- 564. For larger procurement operations, we on-year in its prison population. There work across the Northern Ireland Office will always be people who have to go to family and with the Central Procurement prison. I have no difficulty with that, but Directorate in the Department of we must invest in our society and in our Finance and Personnel, and to do so justice system. is right and proper. However, there is some tension as one moves towards 568. Simon touched on the issue of using centralising back-office functions. It money wisely, but the Youth Justice can mean that one loses that flexibility Agency and the Probation Board offer and ability to meet immediate needs services to offenders, as does the proactively. Especially in the Prison Prison Service. Therefore, if there any Service, one needs to have operational duplication, we can fine-tune that, or flexibility in order to move fast and to we can remove one of those agencies meet changes, whether they be changes from certain services and better use the in the nature of the population, or even money. at a more immediate level, such as issues about food and other aspects of 569. Mr Masefield: I am glad that Max referred procurement. to mental health. He is absolutely right — we are at last making progress in 565. Mr O’Dowd: On the first point about achieving a closer working relationship how much money the Prison Service between the criminal-justice sector and needs, your response was that you were the health sector. That is hugely looking at a 4% year-on-year increase important, and it is something that I in the prison population. I have said have made a priority. We transferred to you before that if we achieve those lead responsibility for prisoner healthcare figures, politics and society have on 1 April 2008, which is excellent, and failed. For example, if the entire Health we have a very good, close working Service budget were to be invested in partnership with the South Eastern acute services, it would be a waste of Health and Social Care Trust, and it is money, because one would be investing now bringing in additional staff. repeatedly. Therefore, when we are looking at the policing and justice issue 570. The Department of Health, Social and at the Prison Service, we will be Services and Public Safety has asking the various sectors over the published its personality-disorder coming months about their budgets, and strategy. We had a workshop with the we will have to take a collective view on Department and with the Probation where is best to invest money. Board last Friday on working together, and we have another session this 566. Although I have no difficulty in ensuring Friday. You are right to say that real that the Prison Service is properly opportunities exist. One of my opposite equipped, funded and resourced, any numbers in England and Wales said section of the justice system that comes a few years ago that care in the through these doors may tell us that it community has become care in custody, wants, for example, another £13 million, and there is a real danger of that £20 million or £50 million. However, happening here, unless one focuses on should we then not collectively say that that issue very much. that £20 million or £50 million should be invested in prevention measures or in 571. It may not necessarily be for me to mental-health services? comment on the latter point. There is a certain architecture in the Northern 567. You said that some female prisoners Ireland Office. It has an unusually wide come from a background of abuse. If range of satellite bodies — arm’s-length that is the case, they should not be in bodies — and a figure of over 40 is prison but being cared for elsewhere. probably identifiable, which seems to be
50 Minutes of Evidence — 24 February 2009
quite a lot. Intuitively, there is scope for 575. It is not appropriate to make clear some efficiencies to be made. Whether comparisons between here and one would specifically want to make there because of the nature of the those savings in the areas that you establishments that operate in England mentioned —the Youth Justice Agency or and Wales. There are approximately the Probation Board — is questionable, 140 prison establishments there. They because I think that my colleagues range from the very open, which will would agree that those are huge have very low staffing ratios, to the strengths. The Probation Board certainly high-security establishments, which has huge strength and credibility will have very different staffing ratios. in all the areas with which it deals, Effectively, we have three prisons, and because it has been independent of the we take all comers. Unfortunately, we Northern Ireland Office, and has its own are not allowed to turn anybody away at management board and ethos. the gate.
572. The Youth Justice Agency has also done 576. We must manage a very diverse extremely well. Its models of restorative population in those establishments. justice are a worldwide example of Some of the differences have been good practice. We are assessing those discussed today. Therefore, we will models to determine whether we can always have a slightly different, and slightly higher, ratio of staff to prisoners. develop more of our own restorative With modern building techniques and practice in the Prison Service. In answer modern accommodation, we can make to your question, there is probably some further inroads. Over time, the ratio scope for financial savings to be made. should decrease a little bit more. However, to an extent, that would mean that those organisations would lose 577. The Deputy Chairperson: I have a some of the ethos that they had built couple of questions before you finish. up. That may be a judgement for others What percentage of the revenue budget to make in years to come. is paid out in staffing costs?
573. Mr Kennedy: I welcome the 578. Mr Masefield: In straight pay costs, it is representatives from the Prison Service. 66%. If I understand it correctly, however, Thank you for your presentation and that excludes some of the staff-related your answers. I have a question about costs, such as training, travel and the issue of what are called efficiency subsistence, and other issues. If those savings. With the potential of a rising costs were included, it would certainly prison population, do you have any be more than 70%, and perhaps nearer concerns that the ratio of prisoners to 80%. prison officers will become distorted? How do we compare with other parts of 579. The Deputy Chairperson: You said earlier that a new wage cap had been in the United Kingdom in that respect? place since 2002. What was the average 574. Mr McGuckin: For a variety of reasons pay before 2002 and post-2002? I am not concerned that the ratio would 580. Mr McGuckin: Before 2002, the average become distorted. First, if the prison salary was about £35,000. The top of population increases, more prison the scale is currently around £28,500, buildings will be needed. We will, post-2002. Nobody is at that level yet. therefore, build accommodation that is A few people are probably earning close efficient from a staffing perspective. We to that amount, but that is the top of the can make better use of the resource scale. That demonstrates the difference, that is available. In recent years, because, pre-2002, many staff were at, the ratio of staff to prisoners has or near, the top of the old scale. decreased. The ratio is probably slightly above one member of front-line staff to 581. The Deputy Chairperson: What was each prisoner. In England and Wales, the the pre-2002 make-up of 66% of the ratio is lower than that. budget?
51 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
582. Mr McGuckin: The 66% covers Prison 587. The Deputy Chairperson: As part of the Service grades, general service grades, NIO, the Prison Service currently pays administrative staff, and so on. I cannot VAT. What implications will there be for give you a percentage breakdown. VAT at the point of transfer of policing However, of the staff who are in that and justice powers? Will the British category pre- and post-2000, probably Treasury make savings as a result? around 25% are on post-2002 scales. That does not include the support 588. Mr Masefield: As we understand it, on grades that we discussed earlier, which devolution, we would no longer be liable we are building up gradually. Currently, for VAT. out of 1,800 Prison Service grades, 589. The Deputy Chairperson: Before we there are around 500 support grades. finish, you have an opportunity to raise That balance will continue to increase. any points that you feel that you have The current projection is for the number not covered. of support grades to rise to around 700. 590. Mr Masefield: Thank you, but I do not 583. Mr Masefield: The average annual think that we have any more points to salary for those grades will be around raise. £20,000, or less. 591. Mr O’Dowd: Has VAT been taken into 584. The Deputy Chairperson: The point was account in your future budget? made that accommodation can have an impact on staffing levels. At present, 592. Mr Masefield: No. what major impediments are there to reducing staffing? Are they the building’s 593. Mr Paisley Jnr: For completeness, design or already-established custom you gave us a projection for the male- and practice? prisoner population. You will soon have a projection for females. Have you got a 585. Mr McGuckin: Both. The building’s projection for young offenders? design has a key impact, because of lines of sight, staff safety, and the 594. Mr Masefield: No. Young offenders number of staff that needs to manage is an interesting area, because it is small areas and landings. There is different. During the past four or five also the issue of moving away from the years, its figure has largely flatlined and security culture of the past and from remained remarkably consistent. There reliance on physical security and staff can be fluctuations, particularly among numbers. Therefore, an organisational- juvenile offenders. Their figure tends to development issue must be addressed if be between 10 and 20, or even 30. I we are to make more efficient use of our believe that there were 14 when we last resources. Ratios must also be reduced counted. Interestingly, the number of in order to deal with the increasing young offenders, who are aged between population of the present. 18 and 21 —potentially up to 23 years of age at Hydebank Wood — has stayed 586. Mr Masefield: If I may comment briefly, broadly between 180 and 200 for the a third factor, which is not unimportant, past four or five years, with the majority is our relationship with the Prison of them on remand. Officers’ Association. Traditionally, during the past 10 years or so, we 595. The Deputy Chairperson: Thank you, have negotiated to reduce significantly Robin, Mark, Max and Anne for your staffing levels. Certainly, the number presentation. I am sure that we will see of man-hours in Magilligan Prison, for you again in future. example, where you were governor some years ago, Max, has reduced. A proportion of those staff savings has gone into the annual pay round or to make efficiencies.
52 Minutes of Evidence — 24 February 2009
24 February 2009
Members present for all or part of the accountable to the Minister through the proceedings: NIO’s departmental sponsor. We do not develop policy, as that is a role of the Mr Jimmy Spratt (Chairperson) NIO’s criminal-justice directorate. Mr Raymond McCartney (Deputy Chairperson) Mr Alex Attwood 601. We have a chief executive, Dr Bill Mr Simon Hamilton Lockhart, who sends his apologies Mr Danny Kennedy for not being able to appear before Mr Nelson McCausland the Committee today. We also have Mr Alan McFarland four executive directors and two non- Mr Alex Maskey executive directors. There are four Mr John O’Dowd directorates in the agency. The first is Mr Ian Paisley Jnr the community-services directorate, Witnesses: which is responsible for the supervision of young people in the community and Mr Gareth Bell Youth Justice Agency for contributing to the prevention of Mr Phil Tooze of Northern Ireland offending by children and young people. Mr Davie Weir The community-services directorate supervises some 700 young people in Also in Attendance: the community at any one time.
Mr Victor Hewitt Specialist adviser 602. The second directorate is the youth- conference service, which is responsible 596. The Deputy Chairperson (Mr for diversionary youth conferences for McCartney): I welcome Mr Davie Weir, young people who are referred by the Mr Phil Tooze and Mr Gareth Bell from Public Prosecution Service (PPS) and the Youth Justice Agency. for court-directed youth conferences for those referred by the courts. The youth 597. Before the witnesses give their conference service processes between presentation, I ask Committee members 1,600 and 1,800 youth conferences a to declare any interests. year.
598. Mr McCausland: I declare an interest 603. The third directorate is custodial as a member of Belfast District Policing services, which includes the Woodlands Partnership. Juvenile Justice Centre in Bangor. The centre caters for children who are 599. The Deputy Chairperson: I remind committed, remanded and those who Committee members and our guests are subject to the Police and Criminal to switch off their mobile phones, Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). It is staffed because they interfere with the recording to cater for 36 young people, although equipment. the numbers fluctuate widely. 600. Mr Davie Weir (Youth Justice Agency 604. The fourth directorate is responsible of Northern Ireland): The Youth Justice for corporate services, including Agency was created in April 2003, human resources, finance, planning, and it is an executive agency of the communications, and so on. Northern Ireland Office (NIO). The agency’s aim is to reduce youth crime 605. The recently completed Woodlands and build confidence in the youth justice Juvenile Justice Centre in Bangor is system, and it caters for the needs of widely regarded as a state-of-the-art young people aged 10 to 17 who are facility. It cost £16·8 million to build, in the criminal-justice system. We are which was funded entirely from the sale
53 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
of land around the building. The centre 611. Our key strategic areas in the delivery costs £7·8 million a year to run, and of justice are: the supervision and it is staffed by 169 people: care staff; completion of orders; the involvement education staff; security staff; and of victims, particularly in the youth- support staff. conference service; measures of satisfaction by victims and by young 606. The community-services directorate people; the objective of facilitating the maintains 17 centres across Northern reintegration of young people into the Ireland to try to provide access for all community; reducing offending through young people in the jurisdiction. That assessing risk, planning, intervening costs £5·5 million a year to run, of and reviewing; linking young people to which £1 million is devoted to funding education, training and employment external bodies that contribute to the opportunities; and contributing to the work of the agency. reduction of antisocial behaviour.
607. The current staffing level is 111. That 612. On safety, we implement a policy of no is made up of people with a background escapes from the juvenile-justice centre. in social work or in youth work, We aim to reduce our already low level administrative staff and support staff. of restraint employed in the centre, and we aim to screen all young people for 608. The youth-conference service runs mental-health needs. from five administrative centres across 613. We aim to stay within budget, to Northern Ireland, many of which are publish our audited accounts, to retain shared with community services’ our Investors in People status and to facilities. It costs £2·8 million a year to continue to monitor the development of run and has a staff of 42 professional training for staff. social workers, youth workers, educationalists and people with a 614. Our key operational issues are to reduce background in restorative justice. offending and to provide models to support the introduction of the Public 609. Corporate services is housed in the Protection Arrangements Northern headquarters building in Waring Street Ireland (PPANI). We are working on the in Belfast. Its costs are £4·8 million, development of a priority-offending team but that includes a number of costs that for young people who are at highest risk, are simply allocated there for central on improving our IT network, and we are purposes. It has a staff of 30 civil working for staff health. servants. 615. The Chairperson: I am sorry that I have 610. Our resource departmental expenditure only just been able to join you, but I was limit for 2008-09 was £21·5 million in the Assembly Chamber. I declare an in total. We anticipate that it will be interest as a member of the Northern £21·7 million in 2009-2010. We have Ireland Policing Board. had five years of unqualified accounts, 616. Mr O’Dowd: In your comments, you and we have survived within budget in said that, as part of your service, you each of those five years. Last year, a screen young people for mental-health Criminal Justice Inspection of corporate illnesses. Screening is good, but what governance gave us a clean bill of happens after that, and what budgetary health. A Criminal Justice Inspection commitment do you have to assisting also took place at the juvenile justice people with mental-health illness? What centre at Woodlands in Bangor and resources are in place for assisting at the youth-conference service. young people with an illness such as a Independent valuations by a number of personality disorder? bodies of various strands of service that are being delivered have taken place. 617. Mr D Weir: I shall answer part of your question, and Mr Tooze will answer the (The Chairperson [Mr Spratt] in the Chair) other part. We have a tiered assessment
54 Minutes of Evidence — 24 February 2009
model for the young people whom them. Some 70% of our population are we supervise in the community that remanded rather than sentenced. We presents criminogenic needs and the must work with our community-services risks that they pose to themselves and team in order to ensure that there is a others. Our strategy is to develop closer link with those who plan services in the links with child and adolescent mental- community. health services in the community. 622. Mr Hamilton: I want to ask about your 618. The principle is that, because we are capital budget. The Woodlands Juvenile responsible for supervising them, that Justice Centre is your major capital does not reduce children’s entitlement programme, and it does not appear to services from other mainstream that you envisage anything significantly services. There is always a struggle beyond that in the forthcoming years. I for resources for child and adolescent just want to confirm that that is the case mental-health services, but our link and that there is nothing else in the is to provide access for the children pipeline, even on a smaller scale. whom we are supervising where a need is indicated to the community-based 623. Mr Gareth Bell (Youth Justice Agency mental health services. The situation is of Northern Ireland): We will adopt a slightly different for young people who new case-management system next are in custody. year, which will involve the procurement of software and some IT equipment that 619. Mr Phil Tooze (Youth Justice Agency will enable us to transmit information of Northern Ireland): Yes, it is slightly across our network. That will cost different. We screen every young person £690,000, as we explained in our letter who comes into the centre on reception. to the Committee. Our baseline capital We do a fairly thorough risk assessment budget is £200,000 a year, which is of all the needs of the young person, spent on replacement IT, vehicles, because we are dealing with young plant and equipment. The one potential people rather than adults. To meet those problem, which we highlighted in our needs, we have four psychiatric nurses, letter, concerns the recommendations one of whom is usually on the rota at all of the recent review report on the use times in the centre. of constraint. We may require security 620. We have a full-time forensic equipment costing £250,000, which psychologist, and a consultant is obviously in excess of our baseline psychologist who comes into the centre budget. weekly. Those staff meet our everyday needs. In conjunction with that, all 624. Mr Hamilton: While we are on that our staff are trained as care workers grid, there is an estimated £1 million rather than as prison staff. There is a in capital receipts for the most recent difference between our centre and a comprehensive spending review (CSR) prison-type establishment. We try to period. Can you tell us what that amount meet the needs of many young people relates to, and whether, in the current that way. climate, it is an achievable and realistic figure? If it is neither, what pressure 621. Many young people who come into would that put on your budget? custody have significant mental-health needs as a result of a range of causes, 625. Mr Bell: That figure relates to the such as substance abuse, self-harm or Whitefield House site at Blacks Road in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder Belfast, which is an old 1970s building. (ADHD). We tend to meet that side of It is still operational, and we still have keeping young people in custody without people working there, but it has been too much difficulty. Young people are identified for disposal along with two often with us in the centre for only a other NIO properties. A project team matter of days or weeks, so it is very from the criminal-justice directorate will difficult to predict what will happen to be responsible for those three sales.
55 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
626. We had originally planned to sell increased efficiencies in the model. We Whitefield House this year, but it has are working closely with the Probation been subsumed into the forthcoming Board on that front. project. For the purposes of our finances, that sale has been re-profiled 632. Mr Tooze: The custody system in to the final year of the CSR. The latest Northern Ireland is probably far more efficient than in anywhere else in the information on the value of the property UK. We take the majority of juveniles reveals that we may not realise the full in the system; the only juveniles who £1 million, and that will have an impact go to the youth court now, or who have on the budget of the future justice to go to the youth court, are those with Department. We may retain Whitefield cases in which, statutorily, they cannot House and transfer it to the Department come to us. There are certain 17-year- when we leave it, but it will still be an olds who cannot come to the juvenile- issue for the Department as a whole. justice centre because of legislation. 627. The Chairperson: Will you declare an That usually happens if they have had interest, Mr Paisley Jnr? a juvenile-justice-centre order, are 17 and cannot come to us, or they are 628. Mr Paisley Jnr: I am a member of the remanded over the age of 17 and Policing Board. cannot come to us.
629. Mr McCartney: Thank you for your 633. We now take all young women under presentation. In your response to the the age of 18, so there are no young first question, you said that your budget women now placed in Hydebank Wood was adequate, which is sound. In your at all. The vast majority of 15-year- experience, is there any duplication olds in England and Wales is held in among yourselves, the Probation Board Prison Service custody. Currently, no and the Prison Service, and have you 15-year-olds are held in Prison Service identified any areas in which any such custody in Northern Ireland, and very duplication could be reduced? few 16-year-olds. There is not really an overlap of prisons. As regards 630. Mr D Weir: There is a legislative overlap efficiencies, our set-up is comparable to between our organisation and the the system in England and Wales. Probation Board, which is responsible for the preparation of pre-sentence 634. Mr Attwood: I have just one question. reports to the youth court and for the The specialist adviser to the Committee supervision of young people, as are we, told us a week or two ago that, when in the 10- to 17-year-old age group who one examines the range of submissions are subject to probation orders. We are from the various policing and justice working to address that situation by way organisations, quite a number of them, of a pilot project in greater Belfast, in understandably, are trying to make a which the Probation Board team that pre-emptive bid for additional resources, focuses exclusively on the young people given that the focus of our investigation in the 10- to 17-year-old age group is is the financial arrangements after working with us. devolution. In your submission from Mr Lockhart, you are definitive in saying 631. We often have situations in which a child that you do not see the need to raise is subject to both a youth-conference any specific requirements for additional order and a probation order. The funding within or beyond the current objective is to have greater efficiency CSR period allocation. You did not have in the supervision of that young person any unsuccessful bids in the spending and to ensure that the various orders review, and you were lucky in that regard. or plans that he or she is subject to are You convey a high level of certainty managed coherently. The pilot scheme that your budget is fit for purpose over will kick off on 6 April and run for two the next two years. Can you confirm years. During the second year, it will be that there is no issue, as you see it at reviewed to identify whether there are present, contrary to that assessment?
56 Minutes of Evidence — 24 February 2009
635. Mr D Weir: We do not identify any part of our role is to prevent young issues concerning capital spend. The people from entering the criminal- centre is very new, and that is our one justice system. Demographics show large capital investment. As regards that Northern Ireland’s youth population staffing and resources, we feel that we is not growing. Therefore, unless there are adequately equipped to deal with is a massive upswing in the numbers the young people who are referred to us. admitted into custody, we are well within Our premises, and so on, are leased, capacity. and we have long leases, so we know our expectations. 642. Mr Tooze: Even then, it is not significant. We are limited in our capacity. We are 636. Mr Bell: I shall expand on that. The a 48-bed centre, and we are already one issue for us at an agency level staffed and resourced to look after 36. is the proposed capital expenditure The highest level that we have reached — if we have to do it — which is to in the two years since we opened install security equipment and CCTV is 42. At present, we can cope with coverage at the centre. However, we fluctuations within that sort of range have spoken with the NIO and, on the fairly comfortably. Therefore, even if the scale of things within the NIO’s overall worse came to the worse, and courts capital expenditure budget, £250,000 changed their sentencing culture to give is not a lot. That is why that has not more custodial sentences, there would gone forward as a bid from us, because be some, but not an enormous, impact. the NIO feels that it can meet that expenditure. 643. Mr Paisley Jnr: I am very impressed by the Youth Justice Agency and the work 637. The other point that I will make about that it has put into reviewing services our current budget is that, had we been over the past couple of years. sitting here two years ago, we would have been saying that yes, we are 644. I agree with some of Alex’s points about under funded, because we were rolling the agency’s living within its budget out youth-conference services across and appearing to be fit for purpose. the Province, but we were still getting When the draft Criminal Justice Order funding as a service that was rolling out. (Northern Ireland) 2008 takes full However, we did get quite a reasonable effect, will it have an impact on the role uplift in the current CSR period, and that that your organisation plays and the is why we are confident, more or less, pressures that it faces? that we have enough money. 645. Mr D Weir: The agency is preparing 638. The Chairperson: Mr Alex Maskey, will for that through, for example, the way you declare any interests? in which we respond to pressures that may come from young people who are 639. Mr A Maskey: I am a member of the subject to electronic monitoring. We Policing Board. are looking at what that may mean if there are, for example, call-out costs 640. Mr McCausland: You said that you are at weekends. We do not anticipate that adequately staffed, which is the current that will involve enormous numbers, situation. Looking ahead to the next few and staff have demonstrated that they years, do you anticipate any substantial are flexible. Therefore, we can respond rise in the number of young people whom you will be dealing with, and, as a to those sorts of pressures. We have result of that, any impact on staffing? also set up pilot local-risk-management panels. However, those panels involve 641. Mr D Weir: A significant rise in the the same staff, with the same young numbers in custody would have an people. We are simply employing a impact. However, we are investing slightly more sophisticated model time, energy and some resources in of assessment and supervision. At prevention. Sorry, I know that I am not present, we do not anticipate that that quite answering your question, but will have a big impact or that it cannot
57 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
be accommodated in the existing instance, that £885,000 will be around system. £900,000. The rest of it will be in the running costs. The breakdown was not 646. Mr Paisley Jnr: I do not want to compare available when the spreadsheet was chalk with cheese, but the message being prepared. that the Committee has picked up in a written submission from the Probation 652. Mr Hamilton: How secure is that Board is that the draft Criminal Justice external funding? Order will have quite a sapping effect on its role. Why will it be different for the 653. Mr Bell: That external funding is funding Youth Justice Agency? that we provide to bodies outside our agency. It is not external funding that we 647. Mr Tooze: Part of the Probation Board’s receive. problem is caused by changes involved in the ending of 50% remission. 654. Mr Hamilton: What programmes receive Therefore, the draft Criminal Justice that funding? Order, when it becomes law, will have 655. Mr D Weir: There are a number of a significant impact on adults. In the programmes. We have a contract with juvenile-custody population, a juvenile- the Extern organisation, which provides justice-centre order requires six months intensive support for young people. It in custody and six months’ supervision, can take up to 10 young people, and which means that that change will not it provides 15 hours supervision a affect the majority of young people who week for each young person. There are get sent to our centre. also contracts in place with a range of 648. Remand accounts for 70% of our voluntary youth organisations, which centre’s young people. The two or provide individual mentoring to young three who are subject to section 42 people as a component of their youth- detention orders under the Criminal conference order or plan. For example, Justice (Children) (Northern Ireland) we make a small contribution to the Order 1998 are already dealt with by Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, because a lengthy sentences, which means that number of our young people registers the Probation Board would probably with it. We are in partnership with become responsible for their supervision Barnardo’s, Action for Children, the on release. That aspect does not impact Northern Ireland Association for the on us. Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO) and Extern in the delivery 649. Mr Hamilton: The spreadsheet of of services and in the promotion of spending areas in the papers presented employability of young people who are to the Committee refers to “agency our clients. We access their services programme expenditure external in order to secure and strengthen their funding”. That funding has grown fairly position in the community, and we significantly, from under £1 million to contribute to efforts that are made to more £5 million, towards the end of prevent young children aged 10 to 13 period to which the spreadsheet applies. from offending. We contract out those What does that relate to? How secure services. and fundamental is that funding to the agency’s work? 656. The Chairperson: Does your agency, as part of the NIO, pay VAT? That question 650. Mr Bell: For clarification, the £5 million was also asked of the Prison Service. referred to should have been bracketed, because it covers all four items and 657. Mr Bell: The agency pays VAT on the is carved up each year as part of the majority of its expenditure. There are agency’s internal budgeting exercise, certain contracted-out services on which during which we decide on our priorities. it is allowed to reclaim VAT, but there will be a reduction in our overall expenditure 651. We will soon complete our budgeting with the move to the Northern Ireland exercise for next year, and, for Civil Service VAT regime.
58 Minutes of Evidence — 24 February 2009
658. The Chairperson: No other member has expressed a wish to ask a question. Earlier, we heard from representatives from the Prison Service, who peddled the Treasury/NIO line on budgets, and so on. If the devolution of policing and justice powers were to be happening in a short time, would you be informing us of any pressures that you are under — pressures that you have not told us about already. If you come along here in 12 or 18 months’ time and tell us of another £1 million or £2 million that you have not informed us about today, you will not find the Committee well disposed to you. Can you assure us that your agency is not peddling an NIO/ Treasury line? It is a serious question.
659. Mr D Weir: We have no skeletons in our cupboard.
660. The Chairperson: Are you saying that there is nothing hurtling down the track for which you will be coming looking for money in the foreseeable future?
661. Mr D Weir: We are equipped appropriately to deal with what is coming to us.
662. The Chairperson: Thank you for your evidence. We may want to correspond with you or speak to you again after the Committee has had more considerations.
59 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
60 Minutes of Evidence — 24 February 2009
24 February 2009
Members present for all or part of the 668. Before you begin, Ronnie Spence, proceedings: chairperson of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland, has tendered an Mr Jimmy Spratt (Chairperson) apology. He is unable to attend the Mr Raymond McCartney (Deputy Chairperson) meeting because he has another Mr Alex Attwood engagement this afternoon. However, he Mr Simon Hamilton said that he is happy to address, at a Mr Alex Maskey later stage, any issues that the Mr Alan McFarland Committee might have. Mr Ian Paisley Jnr Witnesses: 669. Once again, I ask members to switch off their mobile phones, because they Ms Maura Canavan Probation Board interfere with the recording equipment. Ms Cheryl Lamont for Northern I also remind members that Hansard is Mr Brian McCaughey Ireland recording this session, and therefore, Mr David van der Merwe everything that is said is on the record.
Also in attendance: 670. Mr Brian McCaughey (Probation Board for Northern Ireland): Thank you for the Mr Victor Hewitt Specialist adviser invitation to give oral evidence to the Committee. The Probation Board for 663. The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): I welcome Northern Ireland is a non-departmental representatives of the Probation Board public body that is answerable, at for Northern Ireland (PBNI) to this oral present, through an independent board evidence session of the Committee; on to the Northern Ireland Office. thank you for coming along. The Probation has existed as a public Committee is examining the financial service for more than 100 years and issues on the eventual devolution has been provided in Northern Ireland of policing and justice issues to the through a non-departmental public body Northern Ireland Assembly. I declare an since 1982. Our mission is to make interest as a member of the Northern communities in Northern Ireland safer by assessing and managing the risk that Ireland Policing Board. offenders pose. 664. Mr A Maskey: I also declare an interest 671. We aim to reduce crime and the as a member of the Northern Ireland harm that it does by challenging and Policing Board. changing the attitudes and behaviours 665. Mr Paisley Jnr: I, too, declare an interest of offenders. We are one of the smallest as a member of the Northern Ireland organisations in the criminal justice Policing Board. family, albeit that we are centrally involved in the assessment and 666. The Chairperson: When the other management of offenders. members arrive, I will also ask them to declare whether they have any interests. 672. We provide 9,500 reports to judges and parole commissioners annually, 667. I welcome the director of probation, including 6,000 pre-sentence reports to Brian McCaughey, and David van der assist judges in determining sentences. Merwe, Cheryl Lamont and Maura Additionally, the Probation Board Canavan. You are very welcome. I ask supervises 4,000 offenders who are that you give a short opening address, subject to court orders, 3,200 of whom after which Committee members can are in the community and 800 of whom ask you questions. are serving sentences and awaiting
61 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
release. As measured by reconviction represents 7%, as opposed to 20%, of rates, we are among the most effective the budget. probation bodies in the UK. 676. In conclusion, PBNI is one of the 673. The comprehensive spending review smallest organisations in the (CSR07) provided PBNI with the additional criminal justice family; nonetheless, resources to assist in the implementation we are central to assessment and of new legislation and sentencing. We management, supervising most very much welcome having that extra offenders within the system. Our money to assist us in carrying out the focus is on achieving positive change additional responsibilities, and we in offenders, thus reducing crime acknowledge the effort that the NIO and the harm that it does. We, as an made to secure those resources. organisation, balance care and control, However, the outcome fell short of what and we always prioritise public safety. we requested. More significant is the Uniquely, we deliver our services locally, very large gap that has emerged over in offenders’ homes, in a family context, the past decade or so in spending on in his or her community, and along with probation in England and Wales in voluntary, community and statutory comparison with Northern Ireland. partners.
674. I refer members to a paper that was 677. We apply Northern Ireland standards and service requirements in an published in December 2008 by the individualised case-management Centre for Crime and Justice Studies approach to supervision. Independent at King’s College, London — ‘Criminal reconviction data demonstrate that Justice Resources Staffing and that approach is highly effective, but Workloads: An Initial Assessment’ the overall allocation of resources has — which reported a 160% real-terms historically not adequately reflected our increase in spending on probation responsibilities and is significantly out between 1999 and 2005 in England of line with spending patterns in England and Wales. In Northern Ireland, the and Wales. increase was 13% over the same period. It is always difficult to be sure that 678. Mr Paisley Jnr: Thank you. At the outset, one is comparing like with like, and I I will say that I admire your guts and understand that, given the differences in candour in spelling out a very clear structures, systems and staffing grades, written report to us, which clearly shows but I am wholly confident in concluding where you have pressures and where that probation in Northern Ireland has you need money to be spent. It also not enjoyed the similar increase in gives us a reasonably good steer as to resourcing as experienced in England what we should be asking the Northern and Wales, and indeed by our colleagues Ireland Office for. Thank you for not in the South of Ireland. giving us any fancy verbiage or footwork on this. Your presentation was straight 675. Another significant area where we to the point, and I admire your candour. believe that we are underfunded is in our capacity to work in partnership with 679. If I am correct, you said in your report the voluntary and community sectors in that the probation service’s budget preventing offending and re-offending. is £18 million a year below what you We work in, with and through the believe is required. Over the CSR period community, and we wish to address of three years, that is £52 million short that area for the future. In the past, of what you require. Is that correct? some 20% of the PBNI budget was 680. Mr McCaughey: Yes. devoted to that vital work, but other budget pressures have meant that it 681. Mr Paisley Jnr: Secondly, I want to ask has been gradually squeezed throughout about delays in the implementation of the decade, with the result that it is the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) now around £1·2 million a year. That Order 2008. As you know, the NIO has
62 Minutes of Evidence — 24 February 2009
indicated, and many of the wise and 686. Mr Paisley Jnr: That is very interesting. the good have told us, that this is the twenty-first century way of doing things 687. I also want to ask you about one of the under the Order. You are saying that specific projects that you mentioned in if you are not resourced properly, you your paper, which is the integration of will not be able to implement the Order the case-management system with the properly or that there will be significant Causeway Programme. Potentially, that delays in its implementation. That could cost just over £1·25 million. I, as would obviously create a backlog in the a member of the Policing Board — which system, putting more pressure on the I have already declared as an interest — prisons and so on. am aware that we have been following the Causeway Programme for nearly 682. If you were to get that additional money, six years. What is the timescale for the would that mean that other money would Probation Board’s being integrated into be released and given to the other parts that programme? of the justice portfolio? For example, do you think that less money would have 688. Mr van der Merwe: Currently, it is to be given to the Prison Service, or, if estimated that the Probation Board we were able to feed that money into will come online to the Causeway that service, would a saving made be Programme in autumn 2011, given that elsewhere? Realistically, do we need the current phase that integrates the that money as well as that which we are Court Service and the Prison Service getting? into the Causeway Programme is about to go live imminently, just before the 683. Mr David van der Merwe (Probation summer of this year. Planning will Board for Northern Ireland): It is then begin for the next phase, which anticipated that there will be savings brings the Probation Board and further across, as you say, the entire criminal functionality for the Prison Service into justice system, particularly in respect of the system. those sentenced for fine default. It is proposed that such people should be 689. Mr Paisley Jnr: If you spend the ballpark made to do supervised activity orders or figure of £1·25 million, will you save community service, thus freeing up money ultimately? Will that help to save prison spaces. Electronic monitoring will money, or can you explain why that enable some individuals who are expenditure is necessary and why we currently on remand awaiting sentence should be drawing up a bid that includes to be released on bail, which would that cost? again free up prison places. There is also the conditioned early-release 690. Mr van der Merwe: That expenditure scheme. However, we are not in a will bring about savings in the paper- position to make any judgement on intensive nature of the current system. whether the Prison Service can make Currently, any pre-sentence reports that any savings, given the structural nature we prepare are printed out and hand of the facilities that it manages. delivered to the Court Service, which Certainly, there is an intention to move must then read those papers into its people out of prison and into the electronic system. The programme also community, reserving prison for the most improves security and data protection dangerous. considerably, as it makes it possible to submit reports electronically via a 684. Mr Paisley Jnr: Therefore, if you get secure network from the Probation money and are able to do your job in Board to the Court Service, as well the way that you want to, could major savings potentially be made at the as facilitating other data exchanges expensive end of the delivery of the between the Probation Board and the justice system? Prison Service on the management of offenders. Therefore, there are two 685. Mr van der Merwe: Potentially, yes. benefits: one is on the security of data
63 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
and data protection; and the other is on concerns the capital cost of integrating the efficiencies that it will create. our case-management system with the Causeway Programme’s IT system. 691. Mr Hamilton: I echo Ian’s opening comments about the frankness of both 697. Having said that, the announcement last your presentation and the papers that week of the withdrawal from Workplace you have given to us. I am sure that the 2010, and the potential signal that Chairperson will not be asking whether that sends about a change in the these witnesses are trotting out the Government’s intention as to whether orthodox line from the Treasury or NIO. they wish to own or rent property, has implications. Our budget was drawn up 692. The Chairperson: I think that they have on the basis that we would be selling escaped from the clutches of NIO and off all our estate and renting back the Treasury. property, albeit not at a private finance 693. Mr Paisley Jnr: You may have lost their initiative level, because the facilities Christmas card, but you have ours. are too small. A rethink is required, given that we are not sure whether we 694. Mr Hamilton: Such candour makes our can realistically sell the properties that job much easier — we are not having we currently own. There are around to hoke about looking for problems £1·3 million of presumed proceeds because you are very open and honest. in that capital funding — effectively In comparison with recent years, you an element of self-funding — that we have a fairly hefty capital budget going are no longer confident that we can forward. What does that entail, and achieve. Therefore, an additional £1·3 is it sufficient? Is there a belief in million may be required over and above the service that that capital budget is the £1·2 million that we have already sufficient to meet the capital demands flagged for the Causeway Programme that are being put on you, aside from the integration. IT project, which has been touched on? 698. Mr Hamilton: Had the service intended 695. Mr van der Merwe: There are two main to completely change its estate and elements to that project. The first is the move away from current accommodation physical facilities from which we operate. to entirely new accommodation? Being a community organisation that operates in the community, we need to 699. Mr van der Merwe: Our estate is have facilities in most regional towns currently around 60% owned and 40% throughout Northern Ireland. Over the leased, and we intended to phase out years, our estate has suffered as a the remaining owned properties. result of a lack of investment, so the 700. Mr A Maskey: Thank you for the first element of the project concerns presentation. Brian, you said that under refreshing the estate. In particular, we CSR07 you got additional resources need to provide interview facilities and to cope with the further requirements group-work facilities for offenders, which, on the service, and, obviously, you by their nature, must ensure that any welcomed that. However, you are conversations that take place in them still £18 million a year short. The are private, and there must also be a presentation listed a number of areas certain consciousness about the personal in which that deficit has had an effect, safety of our staff. It is not just a question including the fact that: of renting open-plan office space. “frontline service delivery will be reduced.” 696. The second element concerns the ongoing investment in IT facilities, a 701. That sentence is repeated for two areas. significant chunk of which includes the Some of those pressures are self- refresh of our own case-management explanatory; however, I am trying to get system, as well as the general upgrade a handle on what the real pressures are. of IT facilities, which continues each In other words, what needs to be done year. The shortfall that we highlighted in those areas?
64 Minutes of Evidence — 24 February 2009
702. Mr McCaughey: For us, the pressures that simply do not work because of the are in the number of offenders that deficit that you described? we require one probation officer to supervise them. Given that the new 706. The Chairperson: Before you answer, legislation is primarily about public- Mr McCaughey, I inform the Committee protection sentences and sexual and that I must leave the Chair. That is no violent offenders, as director of the reflection on the answer that you are board, I want to ensure that that is at about to give. I am due to speak first in a manageable and doable level. That the Chamber when the debate resumes is the reason that my ideal world was after lunch. The Deputy Chairperson, outlined in the presentation, and I Raymond McCartney, will take the Chair. understand that that has to be balanced against realism. However, I felt — and (The Deputy Chairperson the Committee has obviously understood [Mr McCartney] in the Chair) — that that presentation should 707. Mr McCaughey: I can answer that describe my ideal world, along with the question fairly quickly. We have four additional areas that have been Northern Ireland standards and service identified. In answer to your question, requirements for the supervision the major pressure concerns the number of offenders. However, if we had of offenders that one probation officer insufficient staffing or resources, we would be expected to supervise. would have to move away from those 703. Mr van der Merwe: As the director standards and service requirements. said, probation staffing is structured It is not simply by chance that the around an individual case-management Probation Board for Northern Ireland approach. We need to cut according to has a high success rate; the standards our cloth; however, in reality, a probation and service requirements that we apply officer would supervise more offenders are of a high order, and we supervise than is perhaps ideal or would be offenders very thoroughly. However, if considered best practice. We cannot cut resources were insufficient, we would out areas of service altogether because have to step back from those expected every offender needs attention. The standards. degree to which we can give adequate attention to each offender and challenge 708. Mr Attwood: Thank you for the detail, and change their behaviour is important as well as the tone, of your submission. — I think that that is where we may lose I have two or three questions to ask. some of our benefit. Some of the figures that you outlined project beyond 2010-11. It is important 704. Mr McCaughey: I can respond to that; that we anticipate that, especially in indeed, I touched on this point earlier. respect of the outworking of the Criminal Our approach, historically, has been to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008. work in partnership. Everything that we do is in partnership; however, our ability 709. As regards the current spending period to support community and voluntary up to 2011, I remember that the groups and to get them to work with us Probation Broad was offered funding will be reduced greatly by that budget for implementing the outworking of the pressure. Order, but it indicated that it was content 705. Mr A Maskey: You gave figures for the with the funding that it received as a considerable number of reports that the result of the negotiations with the NIO Probation Board provides for the Court and Paul Goggins on its budget lines Service, for example. Are there any and work on the Order. Subject to what examples — and these may be difficult you said, that is my recollection. What to provide — of when work has fallen has changed in the past year to make down because the appropriate level of the Probation Board realise that it needs staff was unavailable? In other words, more money to carry out its work in are there any elements of the system following through the legislation?
65 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
710. Mr McCaughey: I understand your Probation Service, or any other service, question, and you are correct. However, are simply not sufficient to fulfil the the Probation Board and I approached expectations of the legislation. The this evidence session as an opportunity evidence from England and from the to update the Committee on our current parole commissioners supports my and future situation and to reflect on the concern. Within two or three years, past. when prisoners say that they want to be released, will it be the case that the 711. We made our submission under the regimes to facilitate that, or even to get Criminal Justice Order (Northern Ireland) them a hearing of any weight before the 2008; however, we did not get our full parole commissioners, will not be in submission, yet we were content that place because of a lack of funding? what we got would allow the board to move forward. That has been the approach 715. Mr McCaughey: We were content that that the organisation has adopted. We we could deliver a service based on the have never, ever received our full requests. allocation that we received. The main Our organisation has a “can-do” approach difference is that the presumption of — we have cut our cloth accordingly and dangerousness that exists in England moved forward positively. and Wales must be determined by the courts here. In Northern Ireland, 712. Mr van der Merwe: An element of that there is no automatic presumption of £600,000 for the sentencing framework dangerousness set against a schedule was not delivered. The Northern Ireland of offences of a violent or sexual nature. Office agreed to that by delaying the In England and Wales, an individual who implementation of certain aspects of the was convicted of such an offence would legislation, in particular, the roll-out of automatically go to prison. However, as the bail-information scheme. We had that is not the case in Northern Ireland, proposed a certain roll-out timetable; I do not envisage as many people going however, the Northern Ireland Office to prison here. extended that timetable, and, consequently, the Probation Board had 716. The member raised an important point, to operate with fewer resources. but I stress to the Committee that some Therefore, there was an agreed individuals will still go to prison for approach to rolling it out. We got violent and sexual offences. It is everything that we had asked for, but the imperative that programmes in prison timing was sometimes delayed beyond are available to allow those individuals the CSR07 period. to evidence the reduction in the risk that they pose. Otherwise, the parole 713. Ms Maura Canavan (Probation Board commissioners will left be with the for Northern Ireland): When we were dilemma of how on earth to evidence a carrying out the exercise on the CSR07, reduction in risk that would allow them we reviewed the baseline for our ongoing to decide whether to release those work, excluding all the new work under prisoners. the sentencing framework, and our baseline budget was cut. Therefore, 717. Mr Attwood: It may interest you to although we received the money for the know that the director of the Prison sentencing framework according to the Service gave evidence that it has had timings, the overall requirements that we to set aside parcels of money to create submitted were reduced. the new regime over the next couple of years. He also flagged up the issue 714. Mr Attwood: Is there an adequate that being able to recruit qualified staff budget line for the business that the to carry out the work in prisons was Probation Board does in respect of the another matter. Order? I am concerned that, in general, the budget lines that relate to the 718. You make a big play for extra funding in consequences of that Order, whether order to decrease the ratio of officer to for the work of the Prison Service, offender and, usefully, you provided the
66 Minutes of Evidence — 24 February 2009
figures for comparable jurisdictions. Is assessment, case-management and the ratio in Northern Ireland decreasing? evaluation (ACE) tool, which is what we call our validated instrument, is 719. Ms Cheryl Lamont (Probation Board more user-friendly than the offender for Northern Ireland): That ratio has assessment system (OASys) tool that is remained steady for a period. Perhaps used in England and Wales. Therefore, I could take the liberty of describing in my view, the caseload has remained briefly the work of a typical probation fairly similar in some ways, but there officer. I am a probation officer in is a complexity to the work across the Dungannon, and my caseload of 24 range, which, hopefully, I have explained cases includes those that range through to you. low-, medium- to high-risk offenders. I also prepare four court reports each 723. Mr Attwood: My concern is that your month. As Brian McCaughey, the head of community budget is getting squeezed the organisation, said, probation officers from 20% to 7·5%, and it may get operate standards of practice that squeezed further, which is not good. provide both an effective mechanism for There is an increasing number of the supervision of offenders and public prisoners, so attempts must be made to assurance. reduce the ratio of offenders to probation officers. Robin Masefield said 720. I must also provide a service to the that the number will increase by up to court, probably for a couple of mornings 5% per annum over the next number of each month. In addition, I co-deliver years. There is also the Order to an anger-management programme. I consider, which is very expensive to stress the fact that probation officers implement. Therefore, for those four are not office based. We deliver our reasons, there will be serious budgetary work in the streets and communities pressures over and above anything that of Northern Ireland. To that end, we might arise either because of the connect with local community and general budgetary situation or because voluntary groups, and we represent the the Exchequer is going to get very mean organisation in various fora, such as about the budget for the devolution of in domestic violence partnerships and justice generally. child-protection panels. A probation officer does all that work and is also, 724. Looking ahead two or three years, there quite rightly, expected to attend team will be some difficult situations, meetings on the internal communication because, in the current budgetary of the organisation. environment, I do not know how those four objectives can be attained in the 721. The Probation Board employs qualified current and likely budgetary environment. social workers as the main deliverers of I am on the same page as Brian on this the service, and they will be expected issue, but, for the purposes of the report to adhere to, and to continually develop, — their professional expertise. Therefore, a lot of demands are placed on them. 725. Mr McCaughey: I understand the I stress that, as we go forward with member’s comments, and I look forward the complexity of the work, when I to engaging in those challenges for the was a front-line worker, I took notes future. Those are the real challenges. I with a pen and paper, which David am not so sure about an increase in alluded to. However, we now have case- prisoners over the next number of years, management systems in which we input and it will be for the Assembly and the our work. Department of justice to promote use of our prisons for the most dangerous, 722. I also stress that the tools that we — violent people who will cause hurt and thankfully — now use in the assessment harm to our families. If that is the and management of offenders require strategy, how, therefore, should we time to complete. Furthermore, in manage all the others? Surely, the comparison to the time taken, the numbers of people going to prison for
67 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
non-payment of fines cannot be right; saved days and the effectiveness of the surely, in Northern Ireland, we can think decisions in order to ensure that people of a more effective, worthwhile way to can take up community service. allow those offenders to make good the harm that they have done to society and 730. Mr Paisley Jnr: How that progressing? Is to make some payback to society by way it too soon to say? of specified activities or some sort of 731. Mr McCaughey: It is improving. community service. However, as you suggested, we are 726. I should have mentioned earlier that attempting to change custom, practice perhaps we could do more about and culture. prevention and diversion to determine 732. Mr McFarland: Thank you for your whether people actually enter this briefing and answers. I want to examine system of ours, because once they join the ratios and cost of supervision. It is the system, it is very hard to get off the clearly important that high-risk offenders rails. I wonder whether there are other are supervised properly, and the same ways of managing people — and female argument could apply to medium-risk offenders in particular — before they are offenders. Although it is ideal by your brought into the court system. We are standards, would it make an enormous developing a new strategy, which is out difference if more low-risk offenders for consultation, on how we can engage were allocated for each individual with female offenders and deal with all officer? Although reoffending rates are the issues and reasons why they might lower here than in England, they are offend and, if at all possible, prevent still enormous. There are questions them from having to go to prison. We about the effectiveness of the system, can then deal with the issues that are because some individuals are career involved, particularly where parenting criminals who will continue, even under issues, children, mental health and supervision, to be criminals. How addictions are concerned. effective and cost-effective is that? 727. I would also look at specific sentence 733. What is the role of the Northern Ireland reports, as opposed to full reports to Association for the Care and Resettle court, in the context of savings. I am ment of Offenders (NIACRO)? Am I right not sure that we need 6,000 reports to in saying that it is a separate court, because I believe that I could tell organisation? The voluntary sector, very quickly whether someone needed including community restorative justice, a full report or an initial assessment, and other agencies manage offenders which would direct the court. Savings when they are released from prison. In could be made in those areas, so I the longer term, will an issue arise about do not see the world as being totally how well money is being spent, either by negative. In fact, we have a great those groups or by organisations that opportunity. look after people when they leave prison? 728. Mr Paisley Jnr: On that issue of reporting, The system seems to involve an enormous I am not trying to set you up against the number of people, and money is being people with whom you work. However, is drawn from different sources. Is that a there a culture in the courts system good way to spend money in the longer whereby people want all paperwork and term when budgets start to tighten? reports before they will pass sentence or make a determination, or is there a 734. Mr McCaughey: That is a great willingness to take guidance and direction question. As director of probation, on an expert or a directed report? I believe that if we are tasked to give a lead on the assessment and 729. Mr McCaughey: We are piloting a new management of offenders in Northern arrangement for the provision of specific Ireland, we should at least have a say as sentence reports in order to evidence to which groups that work with offenders the reduction, delay and increase in receive money. That is not fully the case
68 Minutes of Evidence — 24 February 2009
today. Our submission outlines the sorts of matters. Is there an issue in funding and budget that my counterpart trying to get the police, the Probation in the South of Ireland receives. All Board and youth justice into some common money for engaging with offenders in agreement over who should do that work the voluntary and community sector and who should be funded to do it? in the South is channelled through the probation service. The Committee 738. Mr McCaughey: I appreciate the should consider that. question. In our submission, we put a figure on where we believe 735. Mr McFarland is absolutely right. Based that additional moneys should go to on NISRA’s independent research on community development to work with the matter, Northern Ireland is more adjudicated offenders. That is for us effective in this field than anywhere to engage further with the community else. Three out of four people on our in order to engage with adjudicated community-service scheme will not offenders. That is based on our have been reconvicted within two years. knowledge and experience over the past Moreover, seven out of 10 people on 27 years and on the reduction in budget community supervision will not have that has been mentioned. been reconvicted in two years. Those figures are unmatched elsewhere 739. However, I am a realist, and it would be because of how we do our business a decision for the future as to whether in, with and through the community that money would come to the Probation and because of our high standards on Board, which has responsibility for the service requirements. assessment and management of risk that is posed by offenders, or whether 736. That leads me on to the future, when there would be some other mechanism policing and justice powers will be that a Department of justice would wish devolved. In order for the community to to look at to co-ordinate and better understand and have confidence in target that funding. As the body that is criminal justice, they need to be involved responsible for the supervision of 4,000 in its delivery. I am seeking, through our offenders, 3,200 of whom are in the submission and through the additional community, that is the uplift that I would moneys that we have requested, to require to seek to enrich the community increase our community-development and voluntary sector to work with me. budget in order to allow us to engage further with community groups on the 740. The Chairperson: I wish to clarify a management of offenders, particularly couple of points on the figures that you lower-risk offenders. I want the Probation presented. The CSR shortfall for 2008- Board for Northern Ireland to return to 09 to 2010-11 is £4·1 million. There is the world of diversionary activities and a shortfall beyond the CSR period for the engaging with communities. I do not want Order of £4·85 million. From 2011-12 to only deal with one son in a family who onwards, there is a shortfall of £11·07 has been in trouble, but deal with the million from the revision of offender second son who is at risk of becoming ratios. The shortfall from the case- involved. Quite frequently, parents ask management system integration with the for help with him because he is going Causeway Programme is £1·29 million, along the same lines as his brother. and there is a shortfall of £2·6 million from community development. That is a 737. Mr McFarland: Earlier, we heard from total shortfall of £23·91 million, minus the Youth Justice Agency of Northern £1·02 million from 2008-09, which has Ireland, which has an enormous budget passed already. That gives a total figure and sees itself getting involved again in of £22·89 million. How does that figure that sort of activity. There is an effort to fit with the figure of £18 million that you find more money for youth diversion in highlighted? the policing world and in youth justice. A number of different agencies see them 741. Mr van der Merwe: Some figures are selves as being the deliverer on those annual figures. The case-management
69 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
system figure is a one-off amount of that the Committee is as informed as it £1·2 million, as opposed to the revision possibly can be. ratios, which are an annual amount. There is almost an element of double 748. I also reiterate that the Probation Board counting in the way that you have is one of the smaller organisations in analysed the figures. the system. However, our track record provides strong evidence of our value 742. The £4·8 million for the Order going for money and creativity. I hope that we beyond 2011 is an annual figure. We have demonstrated our positivism and have disregarded the actual shortfall in can-do approach. We have adopted a the current CSR period in calculating the localised and individualised community figure for the year as £18 million. We response to the management of have only worked on the Order figures offenders, and we have a strong history going forward of £4·8 million a year, of working in partnership in local the revision of supervision ratios of communities with the voluntary and £11·1 million a year, and the community community sectors and in a North/ development figure of £2·6 million, South and European context. Above all which gives £18·2 million. The capital else, our performance and results stand money for the Causeway Programme is up against anyone else’s, and I ask the separate from that. Committee to look at that.
743. The Chairperson: I have one more 749. The Probation Board is a growing and question about the board’s agency vibrant organisation that pursues status. Does the board pay VAT as part excellence in everything that it does. of the NIO arrangements? We look forward to working with all Departments on all the issues that 744. Mr van der Merwe: The board is not have an impact on offending. We registered as a VAT vendor. We have believe that in Northern Ireland we have to pay VAT on all our invoices, but we an opportunity to set a standard for cannot claim it back. criminal justice for others. We believe that we can give a lead for the future. 745. The Chairperson: Thank you for that. Do As director of the Probation Board, I members have any further questions? want the Committee to know that the 746. Thank you for coming along. Are you organisation wishes to play a full and aware of any other issues that could central role in assisting the Assembly in have a material and inescapable its aspirations for the future of criminal consequence for your budget in future? justice. It is refreshing to see that, as was 750. The Chairperson: Thank you for being so shown in the first presentation, you are frank and upfront with us. We may seek not in the clutches of the Treasury or the written clarification on certain points or we NIO. You have given us an honest and may ask you to speak to the Committee upfront presentation, which is a good again directly. I wish you well. news story. I assume that if policing and justice powers were to be devolved in the near future you will not trundle along with cap in hand, saying that you wanted a few million pounds that you did not tell us about.
747. Mr McCaughey: I reiterate that we have approached this event — and our submission — by outlining as best we can to the Committee exactly what the situation is for the Probation Board. We do not have a world of surprises for the future. I am telling you as I see it so
70 Minutes of Evidence — 3 March 2008
3 March 2008
Members present for all or part of the 26 February, which provided an overview proceedings: of the legal-aid system in Northern Ireland and the financial pressures to Mr Jimmy Spratt (Chairperson) which that system has been subject. Mr Raymond McCartney (Deputy Chairperson) Mr Alex Attwood 754. Other aspects of the Court Service’s Mr Simon Hamilton financial position — apart from legal Mrs Carmel Hanna aid — are dealt with in the letter Mr Nelson McCausland of 9 February, which we sent to the Mr Alan McFarland Committee Clerk. We shall draw Mr John O’Dowd particular attention to what we said Mr Ian Paisley Jnr in that letter about the court-building Witnesses: programme in Northern Ireland, inquests and, perhaps, judicial costs. Mr Paul Andrews Northern Ireland Mrs Jacqui Durkin Court Service 755. Apart from those brief introductory Mr David Lavery remarks, Chairperson, I do not propose Mr David Thompson to make any other formal statement. We are pleased to assist the Committee in any way. 751. The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): I welcome the representatives from the Northern 756. The Chairperson: Before I begin, I Ireland Court Service, and I thank them declare an interest as a member of the for coming here today to help us with Northern Ireland Policing Board. I invite our inquiry into the devolution of policing Committee members to do the same. and justice powers, and, in particular, to answer questions on financial issues. 757. Mr Paisley Jnr: I am a member of the Policing Board. 752. I welcome David Lavery, the director of the Court Service; Jacqui Durkin, 758. The Chairperson: There is no one else its head of court operations; David present who is required to declare an Thompson, its finance director; and Paul interest. Andrews, its head of publicly funded 759. Can you outline some of those costs, legal services, which deal with legal aid. Mr Lavery, particularly the court-building I anticipate that the session will last costs? for up to an hour and will mostly involve questions from members. I invite you 760. Mr Lavery: The Committee has invited us to make a brief statement, and then I to provide an overview of the budgetary will ask you to leave yourselves open to pressures to which the Court Service questions. will be subject for the remainder of the comprehensive spending review (CSR) 753. Mr David Lavery (Northern Ireland period and beyond. We have identified a Court Service): The Court Service number of such pressures, of which the welcomes the opportunity to assist most significant by size and challenge the Committee with its deliberations. is, of course, the immediate legal-aid As the Committee will be aware, we pressure that has preoccupied the wrote to the Committee Clerk on 9 Committee today. We estimate that it will February 2009, providing an overview of cost £60 million over the next two years. the Court Service’s financial position. Together with colleagues in the Northern 761. We have also brought to the Ireland Legal Services Commission, we Committee’s attention the fact that submitted a joint memorandum, dated there is a build-up of demand for
71 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
improvements to the court estate in That situation must be addressed Northern Ireland. We have projected a under devolution in order to place all total capital cost of the order of £100 the money for judicial salaries into the million of work that lies ahead of us but Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. It for which we have not been funded in is simply a means of underscoring the the current CSR round. We thought it principle of judicial independence. appropriate to draw to the Committee’s 764. However, we have also identified attention some other pressures that will some judiciary ancillary costs. For arise over the next couple of years. example, in the past couple of years, 762. The only one that might be described some concessions were made on the as explicitly devolution-facing is taxation treatment of judicial pensions, assimilation costs for staff who will which were funded at the time but join the Northern Ireland Civil Service. have not been funded for new judicial The Northern Ireland Court Service is posts. Therefore, as new judges are technically a separate civil service, and appointed, the costs associated with there are some slight differences in the adjustment to the taxation of judicial our terms and conditions around salary pensions fall to the Court Service. That scales and grading structures. Clearly, amount is building up over time, and if we become part of the Northern we have identified it as part of the £7·5 Ireland Civil Service on devolution of million judicial costs. justice powers, our staff will cease 765. We have also identified the need to to be Northern Ireland Court Service take up some additional responsibility civil servants and become members for judicial transport. As the Committee of the wider Northern Ireland Civil is aware, during the Troubles, and up Service instead. Should that happen, until now, many judges who have dealt there would be a need to assimilate with criminal cases in Northern Ireland our grading structure and our salary have received police protection and structure. We have projected a cost of have been driven around in police cars. approximately £400,000 over the next However, part of that infrastructure is two years in order to achieve that. There likely to change this year. There will be are some slight differences in some a consequential impact on the Court of our pay scales that would have to Service’s budget as we take up the be addressed. We can examine that slack and provide travel allowances. In in greater detail if it would assist the some cases, if a judge were travelling Committee. a very long distance over many days to preside over a trial, we might have to 763. In my letter, I also identified a pressure provide a car-pool facility, in the same of £7·5 million for judicial costs, way as — dare one say it — Ministers even though those have not been and senior public officials have such a created by the proposed devolution of facility. Therefore, we have also factored powers. I tried to explain that there is in that cost. a constitutional principle that judicial salaries should be paid out of the 766. We have also identified an estimated Consolidated Fund. In other words, it figure of £2 million for inquests. should not be in the gift of an Assembly There are around 20 so-called “legacy or a Parliament to vote money to inquests” going back a number of years, judicial salaries. For largely historical and those will now come before the reasons, the amount of money in the Coroner’s Court in Northern Ireland. Consolidated Fund for judicial salaries Those cases gave rise to issues in Northern Ireland has been capped, or concerning the European Convention has marked time, at a particular level on Human Rights and were the subject that is no longer sufficient to cover the of litigation that has been before the totality of judicial salaries and other courts for many years. A backlog of costs. In practice, we are making up the cases in which the European Convention shortfall from our departmental budget. on Human Rights is relevant has built
72 Minutes of Evidence — 3 March 2008
up. With some recent decisions made by years. Therefore, it would be remiss the Appellate Committee of the House of of us, at least, not to declare those to Lords, those legacy inquests are now in the Committee so that members are a position to proceed, and they will be aware of the level of pent-up demand for expensive cases to administer. expenditure in some areas.
767. The complex nature of the cases is such 771. The Chairperson: The £100 million that the coroners will almost certainly figure for new courts is out to require additional legal support, by way consultation at present. Does that of appointment of counsel, to assist amount include expenses for high-tech them in the preparation of their cases, IT equipment and other specifications? and in the presentation of the cases at the inquest. Therefore, we have included 772. You were present to hear the Northern an estimate of up to £2 million, which Ireland Legal Services Commission’s includes a figure for the appointment evidence to the Committee. Have you of an additional coroner. We have any comment to make about the fact temporarily appointed one additional that legal-aid costs in Northern Ireland coroner to build up the capacity of the appear to be higher than those in coroner system to deal with cases that other parts of the United Kingdom? It are, by their nature, complex, and are appears that high costs here are down likely to last many weeks or months. to legal costs and payments to legal professionals. It seems that our pay 768. We have also declared a very small scales and billing scales differ from amount in our pressures for tribunal those operating in other parts of the reform. As the Committee may be aware, United Kingdom. Have you considered the Northern Ireland Executive agreed reforming that policy, or has any work in principle that the Court Service been done to bring our costs into kilter would assume responsibility for running with the rest of the United Kingdom? Northern Ireland’s tribunals, and one of the steps that we propose to take 773. Mr Lavery: You said that the court- is to bring together administrative building programme was the subject staff. There is a multiplicity of small of a public consultation. At present, tribunals in Northern Ireland, and we we are consulting about a proposal to think that we could achieve efficiencies change the way in which we operate a by bringing some of the staff together number of the smaller courthouses. We into a common back office, but are suggesting that five courthouses accommodation and staffing costs are become hearing centres. Rather than associated with that. open from Monday to Friday to provide office facilities but have court hearings 769. We have declared total resource on only one or two days a week, we pressures of around £70 million, and a are suggesting that they become capital pressure, primarily for building limited-opening courthouses, which new courthouses, of £100 million. we call hearing centres. Therefore, the courthouse would open only on days on 770. To conclude, the legal-aid pressure, which a court hearing was taking place. which has preoccupied the Committee The office would be open for normal today, is an inescapable pressure. business on court sitting days, but the Those liabilities exist, and they are in office facilities would be provided from the system. Bills will have to be paid, other larger courthouses in the same but funding has not been provided in locality on the other days of the week. the legal-aid baseline to do that. The only other inescapable pressure is the 774. Our proposal applies to the five smallest devolution assimilation costs for staff, courthouses. We have published a which amount to roughly £400,000. All consultation paper on that type of the other elements are matters that rearrangement at Bangor, Limavady, the Court Service will want to do, or Larne, Strabane and Magherafelt will be obliged to do, in the next few courthouses.
73 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
775. The Chairperson: Would that create the Committee, our budget is about efficiencies? £21 million in capital spend over 2008- 09, 2009-2010 and 2010-11. That 776. Mr Lavery: It would, but they would is something of which the Committee be fairly modest. It would not be should be aware. It is something necessary to heat and light the building about which we will return to the on the days on which it was closed, proposed Department of justice and the nor would security and the associated Department of Finance and Personnel. paraphernalia be required. The staff would continue to work, but they would 781. The Chairperson invited me to comment be relocated on non-court sitting days on the issue of legal aid, and we heard to another court office, from where they the observations of colleagues in the would perform their duties. Legal Services Commission. The legal- aid system in Northern Ireland was 777. The £100 million, about which we have established in 1965, and it provides notified the Committee, is to improve access to justice for many people. We the court estate, which is an estate of must not lose sight of that. More than variable quality. Recently, we opened 70,000 received support in dealing with some modern courthouses in Belfast legal problems last year; therefore, legal and in Dungannon, and they are among aid provides an opportunity for people the best in Europe. However, we have to address legal grievances or to have some old buildings as well, some of representation in court proceedings which date back to the nineteenth that they might not otherwise be able to century. They are difficult to adapt to afford. Legal aid is an important service modern expectations. For instance, it is that provides people with a great deal of difficult to provide disability access to assistance. those buildings. 782. However, in some areas, expenditure 778. We also must face such issues as is unquestionably higher than it is population and business growth in some in comparable regions of the United areas, so that figure comprehends a Kingdom or Ireland. There is a number range of expenditure, the most pressing of reasons for that. First, there is of which is Ballymena courthouse. It will a relatively high degree of social need to be closed for major refurbishment, deprivation in Northern Ireland. The because it needs a roof replaced and a Committee knows, and Mr Daniell great deal of remodelling work. from the Legal Services Commission explained, that entitlement to legal aid 779. We have also identified the need — civil or criminal — begins with an to replace courthouses in Lisburn, assessment of the person’s ability to Newtownards and Bangor. Lisburn has pay for his or her legal representation. In outgrown the capacity of its existing order to obtain legal aid, a person must building. We hope to develop a new and satisfy the appropriate authority that he better courthouse for Lisburn. The Court or she does not have the means to pay Service believes that Newtownards and for the case. Bangor courthouses could probably be replaced by a new and better courthouse 783. Serious criminal-legal-aid cases serving north Down. There is also that end up in Crown Court, such as considerable pressure on Londonderry those discussed earlier, begin in the courthouse. Derry has a very busy court, Magistrate’s Court, where 80% of and we have plans to redevelop the defendants charged with indictable administrative block in order to provide offences qualify for legal aid. Thus, additional court capacity there. a substantial proportion of people who appear before criminal courts, 780. Our projection, including for courtroom particularly on serious criminal charges technology, is a total capital spend of rather than for minor offences, such as the order of £100 million. That simply motoring offences, is eligible for legal is not in the budget. As I explained to aid under the current scheme.
74 Minutes of Evidence — 3 March 2008
784. The criminal-legal-aid scheme is a free 788. No one knows how much those cases scheme, not a contributory one. Once will cost, or how much the Legal someone qualifies for criminal legal aid Services Commission will have to pay, in Northern Ireland, legal representation until the case is concluded and an is paid for by the taxpayer. Unlike assessment of costs has been made. civil legal aid, which may require a That has been the cost driver that has contribution, if a person qualifies for confronted the legal-aid system in the criminal legal aid, he or she is provided past year or so. with solicitor and barristers free of charge. 789. The additional £24 million that had to 785. A third factor that has a bearing on be provided for legal aid in the financial all of this is the volume of cases. year that is just ending, 2008-09, is Although the number of civil cases almost entirely attributable to that going before the Northern Ireland greater incidence of very-high-cost courts has declined, there has been a criminal cases. We have had more of steady growth in the number of criminal them, and they have cost us more in cases. In the period for which we have legal fees than we would have expected. provided statistics to the Committee, 790. The Chairperson: You say that you may there has been a 29% increase in the need to look into those cases. Should number of Crown Court cases, which are not you be looking into them? the most serious and tend to require the greatest amount of work and legal 791. Mr Lavery: We will certainly address representation. Hence, the volume of your further question as to whether cases before the courts acts as a driver any planning has been done in order to for legal-aid applications. address that.
786. I must also concede that there has 792. If I can refer members briefly to the also been a growth in the average cost memorandum that we submitted, it of cases. It is not just a case of more states that there is a very substantial cases costing more money — the disparity between the average cost of average cost of criminal cases has been criminal legal-aid cases in the Northern growing. A particular growth area that Ireland Crown Court in comparison with the Committee has already discussed that in England and Wales. The Chair with our colleagues from the Legal person earlier drew attention to the fact Services Commission is that of very- that we have projected an average Crown high-cost criminal cases, which are the Court case cost of more than £13,000 most expensive Crown Court cases. — almost £14,000 — compared with We have been surprised at the number £6,300 in England and Wales. of those qualifying as very-high-cost 793. I do not believe that the Scottish figures criminal cases. That is something at would enable us to compare like with like. which we may need to look. The figures for what are known as solemn proceedings there, which are the more 787. We thought that the threshold would be serious criminal cases, are much higher. such that we would have one third of the number of cases that has been coming 794. In sticking to the figures that we can through the system. There is clearly stand over, it costs almost £14,000 something there for which we have not for a Crown Court case in Northern planned. We are getting a higher volume Ireland and £6,300 in England and of very-high-cost criminal cases, and Wales. In his evidence, Mr Daniell stated once a case is certified as being a very- that £13,887 is on the high side. He high-cost criminal case, it is not subject explained the way in which that figure to a system of prescribed standard fees. had been calculated, which was to The remuneration for the lawyers who take the average cost of a Crown Court work on those cases is assessed by a bill and multiply it by three. That was judicial official known as a taxing master done on the assumption that every after the case is concluded. Crown Court case involves a solicitor, a
75 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
barrister and a senior barrister, or QC. decides then whether to grant a certificate That average has been calculated by for one or two counsel. Therefore, right taking into account the fees that QCs, at the very beginning of a case, when it ordinary barristers and solicitors charge. is starting on its way along the If we could calculate more exactly the production line as it were, a judicial average cost of each case — rather figure decides to allocate a QC to a than the average cost of each bill — it case; however, that may change later. would be somewhat lower than that, but it would certainly not be £6,300. 798. I think that you are looking for ideas or suggestions about that this morning. 795. The Chairperson: I am sorry to interrupt, There may be a case for deferring the but you say that the cost of the bill is decision to bring in senior counsel to a multiplied by three to represent the fees much later stage, when the Crown Court of a solicitor, a junior barrister and a judge who will try the case has read the QC. Do court cases in other parts of the papers and has had an opportunity to United Kingdom involve a solicitor, junior decide the case’s level of complexity barrister and QC? Is that the norm, or and, indeed, whether it is going to trial. does Northern Ireland have, because Although every case starts with the of the Troubles, and so on, a culture intention of going to trial, many are of dealing with cases differently from resolved by way of a guilty plea and do England and Wales or from Scotland? Is not proceed to a fully contested trial. it possible that their court culture does Therefore, there may be a case for not require a solicitor, junior barrister deferring that decision. and QC in every case? Are we paying through the nose? 799. The Chairperson: I have to say that I am becoming more and more worried about 796. Mr Lavery: I was trying to reach that what you are saying. point. The level of legal representation in cases is one of the cost drivers in 800. Mr Lavery: I mean to reassure you. Northern Ireland. In criminal cases, the norm is to have both senior and junior 801. The Chairperson: You tell me that counsel, as well as a solicitor. By a judicial figure decides the level of comparison, in Crown Court cases in representation at a particular stage of England and Wales, many more cases the production line. To me, that smacks are dealt with adequately by a solicitor of jobs for the boys the girls, and it and one counsel, rather than by a solicitor therefore needs to be examined. You and two barristers. We intend to address said that the commission and Court that, because it is clearly a cost driver. If Service intend to address that. the average bill had simply to be multiplied 802. The situation has become very worrying. by two rather than by three, the result We will have to consider this matter would be a lot closer to the English seriously in relation to devolution. There figure — it would be perhaps £8,000, is now a need to examine it, because rather than £13,800. Clearly, the level of spiralling costs and the growing cost of representation is a cost driver and legal aid, which seems to be a year-on- something to which we have regard. year pressure, have obliged you to go 797. At present in Northern Ireland, the level to the Treasury annually. The time for of representation that there will be in a addressing it has passed: to be blunt, it Crown Court case is a judicial decision. is now time for action. The defendant appears for the first time 803. Nelson McCausland has joined us. Do before a Magistrate’s Court on the you have any interests to declare, Mr preliminary charges before the case is McCausland? eventually transferred to the Crown Court for trial. As I explained in my 804. Mr McCausland: I am a member of the introductory remarks, 80% of defendants Belfast District Policing Partnership. qualify for legal aid at that point and receive it free of charge. The magistrate 805. The Chairperson: Thank you, Nelson.
76 Minutes of Evidence — 3 March 2008
806. I am sorry to have interrupted you, Mr as up to and perhaps including, the first Lavery, but some of the things that you day of the case. said worried me. 810. Early in the new financial year, we plan 807. Mr Lavery: I am trying to reassure you to introduce a new fee regime for the somewhat. You invited us to address very-high-cost criminal cases, and that what can be done about this, as you will be based on the level and structure did Mr Daniell. Some of the areas that of remuneration for England and we are addressing involve changing Wales. That will be an immediate way to having a more robust system of of introducing a greater degree of cost standard fees for cases, for example. control and budgetary predictability. Any system that leaves assessment of the cost of the case to the end of 811. However, I cannot pretend that it will proceedings brings with it an element of have any impact on the cases that are unpredictability. in the system already, because I cannot change retrospectively the basis on 808. We have started a process of introducing which those cases have been taken on. a regime of standardised fees for criminal Some of them have been completed cases. Many Crown Court cases are already, and the bills are waiting to be subject to standard fees already, where paid. However, it is intended that from the fee is set through legislation — by April onwards, cases for which criminal the Lord Chancellor at the moment and, legal aid has been awarded, which in the future, by the Northern Ireland become very-high-costs cases, will be Minister for justice — so it is clear at remunerated at the same rates as in the outset how much a case will cost, England and Wales. That seems to us irrespective of how long it lasts. We to be an immediate way to address cost think that that is a clear way of introducing control. cost control and efficiency. It seems safe to assume that if lawyers know that 812. More generally, I would offer standard the case will attract a particular set fee ised fees as a response. Standard, and that that fee will not get any bigger, predetermined fees, where one knows in regardless of whether the case lasts advance what one will get, and prompt longer, that will act as an incentive payment of those fees to give people toward efficiency. predictability and cash flow, is the right road to go down. That will gradually 809. However, in the past year or so we close off those other avenues where the have had a problem in that we have assessment of the fee is at large and is not, as yet, introduced standard fees. an ex post facto assessment. The fewer The very-high-cost cases are, by their of those situations that there are, the nature, assessed ex post facto by a better. Our overall objective is to achieve judicial figure, and there is no sufficient cost control and budgetary predictability, predictability in the way in which those as well as value for money. fees will turn out. We have been in consultation with the legal profession 813. I am sorry that I am monopolising the regarding immediate reforms, and we discussion, but I should say that the plan to introduce a new system of fees Committee should be encouraged not for very-high-cost cases. That will be to look solely at criminal legal aid. based on the corresponding rates of Civil legal aid has also seen quite a remuneration in England and Wales. lot of growth, particularly in the area That will require solicitors and barristers of matrimonial and children’s cases. to account for the amount of work that Again, it seems to us that the single they do and the time that they spend biggest cost driver is the level of doing it, rather than the traditional way, representation; the number of lawyers whereby counsel marks their fees. That that are used in each case has gone is based on what is called a brief fee, up significantly. In children’s cases, it is which is a composite fee that includes quite common for many of the parties all the preparatory work done, as well — not only the child, but the parents
77 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
and, perhaps, grandparents — to have 822. The second issue concerns your their own separate legal representation. comments about trying to drive costs That is one of the explanations for the down. What will be the practical significant growth in that area of civil outcome of your suggestions on how to legal aid. Again, we intend to address that. do that? Will the legal profession accept that radical change? Would there be 814. I am sorry if I have monopolised the any impact? I suggested to the previous discussion on that point, but I wanted to witnesses that there may be a strike. give the Committee some sense of what What are the real, nitty-gritty, down-to- we are looking at. earth repercussions of pursuing what you suggested to us? 815. The Chairperson: Just before I invite members to speak, for the record, will 823. Mr Lavery: You are encouraging me to you clarify that you said that, over the speculate. However, a recent example entire CSR period, you have £20 million is the disruption to the work of the of capital available, and that the annual Crown Court towards the end of last amount is £4·8 million for next year, year and at the beginning of this, when £8·8 million for the following year, and counsel refused to appear in cases. the capital spend of £100 million is Their complaint — which was shared completely uncovered at present? Is that by solicitors — was about the length of correct? time that it was taking to pay for very- high-cost criminal cases. 816. Mr Lavery: Yes. Our capital allocation for 2008-09, 2009-2010 and 2010- 824. Mr Paisley Jnr: You cannot argue with 11 was, I think, £21·8 million. That money. allows us to maintain our court estate 825. Mr Lavery: Part of our difficulty was and begin the repairs to the Ballymena that we were not funded to pay those courthouse, which was referred to cases; we had to secure additional earlier. However, as far as building a new funding to pay the bills that were in courthouse anywhere is concerned, that the system. However, the Bar Council sum would not look at it. We thought passed a resolution stating that counsel that it was appropriate to at least alert need not accept or retain instructions the Committee to the fact that there is a on any matter about which they were bit of a pent-up demand for that type of not satisfied that they would be paid a remedial work. reasonable amount within a reasonable period of time. 817. Mr Paisley Jnr: Thank you for your very helpful presentation and for the letter 826. One might view that as a bit of a shot that you forwarded to us on 9 February. across our bows. However, I think that First, I would like some clarification the authorities in the legal profession — on a figure that is listed on page 5 of the Bar and the Law Society — realise that letter. A summary of the budgetary that we are moving into a different world pressures is provided, and a figure of where they are negotiating for fees, £60 million is identified for legal aid. ultimately, with the Northern Ireland Is that the same £60 million legal devolved Administration rather than with aid pressure that the Legal Services the Treasury in London. They realise Commission talked about? that they will be just one of the many sectors of our community competing 818. Mr Lavery: Yes. for finite resources. We have had those conversations with those organisations. 819. Mr Paisley Jnr: Does that mean that it is In future, there will be no blank cheques, not a separate figure? which was a term that somebody 820. Mr Lavery: Fortunately, yes. used earlier this morning. If we want an increase in the legal aid budget 821. Mr Paisley Jnr: You are reassuring us in Northern Ireland post-devolution, with that answer. anything that is allocated will be money
78 Minutes of Evidence — 3 March 2008
that cannot be spent on schools, as Mr Daniell explained, the legal aid healthcare, housing or social welfare. system is designed to be demand led; it helped 70,000 people to access justice 827. Mr Paisley Jnr: We want to ensure that in 2008. Given how it is now structured, we know the consequences of seeking it probably costs about £80 million a this money. You are telling me that what year, rather than the £65 million that is is desirable is possible, but that there in the system. It will ultimately be for may be a few bumps in the road. those in the devolved Administration to decide how much they want to spend 828. Mr Lavery: I do not think that any on publicly funded legal services. The practitioner would embrace any system is there to help people — not to Government initiative that would restrict help lawyers. either the number of opportunities to undertake publicly funded work or the 832. Mr Paisley Jnr: Make no mistake about rate of remuneration that is paid for it — my personal objective is to achieve it. However, we have been very clear an outcome where devolution delivers a with both professional bodies — the system that is better, not for the lawyers Bar and the Law Society — that there or the courts, but for the people. We are, will inevitably be a need to reduce the ultimately, the people’s servants, and we cost of publicly funded legal services in must ensure that what we get out of this Northern Ireland. process is better.
829. The Chairperson invited me to explain 833. I want to ask about judicial salaries what we were doing. One thing that expenditure. You said that that amounts we need to do — and that we are to £7·7 million per annum, the lion’s considering — is having what one might share of which comes from the call smarter procurement. We are one Consolidated Fund. The Court Service of the bulk purchasers of legal services has to fund almost one third of that in Northern Ireland, as is the Public total, and by next year, the figure will be Prosecution Service and perhaps the almost 40%. Is that a strike at judicial Central Services Agency (CSA) and one independence? It seems to me that it or two others. It ought to be possible is a real blow to judicial independence, for the bulk purchasers to co-ordinate bearing in mind the saying “he who pays activities somewhat better than has the piper”. been done in the past so that the cost 834. Mr Lavery: It is wrong in principle, of legal aid does not drive, say the PPS, and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to increase the fees that are paid to more or less obliges us to reposition prosecutors or vice versa — that the judicial salaries into the Consolidated fees paid to prosecutors do not drive the Fund. It states that for that reason, cost for defence lawyers. the control of judicial salaries is 830. I think that we need to work in a more reserved or excluded from the devolved joined-up way. Personally, I believe Administration. It is a constitutional that the devolution of justice to principle in the South of Ireland, Northern Ireland will not only provide Scotland, England and Wales that judges the opportunity, but it will present the do not have to wait for the Parliament to necessity to do that. As you speculated, vote on their salaries each year. there will be bumps along the way. 835. I pay a substantial sum of money 831. In case I do not get the chance to say annually from my departmental budget — this, I should point out that one has to 836. Mr Paisley Jnr: You should not be paying acknowledge that there has been an that. element of historic underfunding of the legal aid budget in Northern Ireland. It 837. Mr Lavery: I should not be paying it. is an incomplete picture to simply ask However, I have to, because the Treasury how the Court Service let the situation froze the amount of money that is get out of control. At the minute, and available for judicial salaries.
79 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
838. Mr Paisley Jnr: We need to examine that Court and Magistrate’s Court level matter at the point of devolution. operate on that basis for years.
839. Mr Lavery: The Treasury will look at 843. Just as in any other walk of life, although the matter by moving the money from someone cannot claim motor mileage the Court Service budget into the or travel and subsistence for journeys Consolidated Fund, with the result that I between their home and their base, will be £2 million worse off. they are entitled to claim mileage for business travel. Part of that figure is a 840. Mr Paisley Jnr: I understand your point. reflection on a calculation of how much You also mentioned that the sum for we think judges would be entitled to transport arrangements will amount to claim for motor mileage at Civil Service £800,000 in 2009-2010. I understand rates. If, for example, a peripatetic that, historically, when a judge was under threat — which all of them were, wrongly, judge who is based in Belfast is sent to for a considerable period of time in our Antrim courthouse, he would be able to country’s history — they received a threat claim mileage for the distance between assessment and were given a police Belfast and Antrim. Otherwise, he would escort. If such a threat has been removed, bear that at his own personal expense. which I understand has happened for a That is considered to be business travel. considerable number of judges, that would 844. You referred to a “perk”, although I mean that they would no longer need would not describe it as such. We police protection. Therefore, that would have also factored in that it may be mean that in addition to their pay, they reasonable, on hardship grounds, would receive the perk of a driver and to have a car-pool arrangement; for vehicle. I have no difficulty if that aspect example, when a coroner has to go to of the job is outlined upfront. However, there appears to have been some sort Enniskillen for three days to carry out an of sleight of hand whereby one day the inquest, he could be driven there and could Police Service is paying for the transport work on his papers in the car on the way because of the threat, but when that threat there and on the way back. is removed, the Court Service pays for it 845. Mr Paisley Jnr: Would access to that because the police can no longer afford car-pool arrangement be standard for to. How did that state of affairs arise? all judges? Would it be cheaper to have Does every judge or magistrate in that arrangement? England and Wales have a driver? 846. Mr Lavery: It would be controlled. The 841. Mr Lavery: No. Those costs are proposals on which we are consulting modelled on comparable jurisdictions. require the Lord Chief Justice, as head We have looked at the situation in of the judiciary, to effectively act as England, Wales, Scotland and the South of Ireland, and we have developed gatekeeper. Our current suggestion proposals that we are discussing with is that a judge who routinely travels a judges. If judges no longer require police round trip of more than, for example, protection, we expect them to make their 130 miles on two or more consecutive way to court under their own steam, as days may be able to apply for a pool car is the case in other jurisdictions. and a driver. That is, ultimately, at the Lord Chief Justice’s control. However, 842. However, as you will appreciate, a you can see that it is a way to address judge may have to be assigned on a wear-and-tear issues. I am not sure that peripatetic basis in some cases, which I would describe it as a perk. It is not means that instead of being assigned unlike other aspects of public service to Laganside Courts in Belfast, for where similar facilities are available. example, from Monday to Friday, some judges are a floating resource that can 847. Mr McFarland: Would a peripatetic judge be deployed all over the place. Indeed, who travels back and forth regularly from on appointment, all judges at County home in north Down to work in Belfast,
80 Minutes of Evidence — 3 March 2008
but who is considered to be able to work that there would be merit in looking at anywhere, get any mileage? how the courts in the South of Ireland are run, and at what is planned for 848. Mr Lavery: No. That is a matter for Scotland, where the Scottish Court Revenue and Customs. Its advice is Service will be put more at arm’s length that that travel is regarded as normal from the Scottish Government’s justice commuting, for which people are not directorate. As is the case with the entitled to business expenses. Courts Service in the South of Ireland, 849. Mr McFarland: Can you bring me up to the Scottish Court Service will be a date with the situation as regards the non-ministerial Department — a civil reorganisation of the Court Service? My service Department that will be run as understanding is that it is due to become a board, rather than as an agency of the an agency. The Committee discussed Scottish Justice Department. That board previously the possibility of the service would be chaired by the chief justice becoming some form of board that is in Scotland and would comprise public run by the Chief Constable. Can you representatives and executive members. indicate the sort of costs that are involved in that? The other area that we are 856. It is interesting that the issue of where curious about is the cost to the DPP and the courts and the judiciary fit into the where it might fit into the system as justice system in Northern Ireland is regards how it will be looked after. being examined alongside a similar process in Scotland. The Scottish Court 850. Mr Lavery: I am not an expert on the Service began as an agency of what latter point. I believe that the Committee became the Scottish Justice Department, will take evidence from the Public but it was decided that that was not the Prosecution Service. Without wanting best arrangement, and they looked to dodge the question, the matter is consciously at the system in the Irish probably best raised at that meeting. Republic, where the Courts Service is 851. When the Committee was kind enough run by a board that is chaired by the Chief to invite us to give evidence in September Justice of Ireland and that comprises 2007, we explained that on devolution, judicial, legal and lay and business the Northern Ireland Court Service would representatives. It is thought that the cease to be a separate public service in benefit of that arrangement is that it its own right and that it would initially be puts the courts and the judiciary at an agency of the new justice Department, arm’s length from the Irish Department like the Prison Service, the Probation of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Service and other associated parts of that it is more compatible with the the justice system. However, during that principle of judicial independence. It is session, the Committee took evidence also felt that that is a better space in from the Lord Chief Justice — and, I which to place that aspect of the must say, I hope that it will be the Lord delivery of a public service. Chief Justice and not the Chief Constable who heads the Court Service. I believe 857. The Committee’s reports have indicated that that was a slight slip of the tongue. that it intends to return to that issue at some point. On day one of devolution, 852. Mr McFarland: It was; I am sorry. however, we in the Court Service will have to be an agency, because primary 853. Mr Lavery: That is unless you have legislation will be required to reposition something planned for me that I have us in the way that I am talking about. not anticipated. 858. Mr McFarland: Are there more costs 854. Mr McCartney: Back to the old days, attached to the Court Service becoming Alan. an agency under devolution than there 855. Mr Lavery: When the Lord Chief Justice would be if it were moved over in its gave evidence to the Committee, he said current state?
81 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
859. Mr Lavery: Not that I have identified. million, and staff devolution costs, which The costs that I referred to, such as we have projected will cost £400,000. those attached to the assimilation All the other matters will have to be of our staff into Civil Service grades, attended to whether devolution happens would be the same either way. In a or not — they are not, in that sense, previous evidence session, I suggested devolution-dependent. For example, I to the Committee that it would be of identified £2 million that I project to real benefit to our staff to become be the cost of dealing with some of employees of the Northern Ireland Civil those inquests. If devolution were not Service, because they are a small and to happen, I would still have to find isolated mini-service at present. Joining £2 million to pay for those inquests, the wider Civil Service would have many because they are not devolution-specific. benefits for them, such as broader career opportunities. 863. Mr Attwood is absolutely right to invite me to summarise the two inescapable 860. Mr Attwood: I apologise to the financial pressures of devolution, which Committee and to the witnesses; I are legal-aid costs at £60 million and have had business to attend to on the staff-assimilation costs on devolution at Floor of the Assembly, and I have been £400,000. The judicial costs, which is in and out of the Committee meeting. in the grey area closest to devolution, As you know, Mr Lavery, the reason for become an issue on devolution simply these evidence sessions is to create because, as I tried to explain, it is certainty about the financial issues on inappropriate for judicial salaries to the subject. Therefore, I have a couple be paid out of a departmental budget. of questions to ask in that regard, and Therefore, at the very least, the money then I will ask a broader one. that I will use from my budget to pay judicial salaries this year needs to be 861. First, I wish to create certainty about repositioned within the Consolidated what you consider to be the inescapable Fund. I would much prefer it if new resource pressures. In the paper that money were put in — a proposal that you submitted to the Committee, you Mr Paisley encouraged me to agree highlighted four or five matters, and you with — because the payment of judicial emphasised two as being inescapable salaries out of the Court Service pressures. Although you say that all budget is a disadvantage to me. The the matters that you referred to were two inescapable financial pressures of inescapable pressures, you repeated devolution are legal-aid costs and staff- that assertion for two particular issues. assimilation costs. Yet, in the evidence that you gave today, you said that the inescapable pressures 864. Mr Attwood: Can you confirm that were staff costs and legal aid. In order you are not making a case to the for us to have certainty, given that this Committee, or to others, for some process has a wide audience, including flexibility around the £10 million the representatives of at least two or of pressures that you identified for three Governments, and in order to 2009-2011, the final two years of the inform negotiations that are going on current CSR period, to address those elsewhere and to inform our report, can pressures? you tell us what you believe will be the inescapable pressures over the next two 865. Mr Lavery: We certainly identified those years? Are they legal aid and staff costs pressures, and every department in the only, or are there more from the other justice system will do exactly the same. menu of issues that you identified in We must draw the line somewhere; your submission? it cannot turn into a Dutch auction at which everybody produces everything 862. Mr Lavery: I will deal with that first. To that they want to do. avoid any possible misunderstanding, the two inescapable devolution-specific 866. I hope that I have not misled the costs are legal aid, which will cost £60 Committee. What I have tried to do is
82 Minutes of Evidence — 3 March 2008
to encourage you to carry out a bit of 871. Nonetheless, it would be helpful if due diligence before you take this on, you could indicate what you think so that you know that there are some the average cost of criminal legal aid inescapable costs — legal-aid costs and in Northern Ireland will be once the staff costs — and, so that you aware new regime starts in April. Will it be that there is a build-up of demand in the somewhat higher than £6,300, which is system. Whether devolution happens the average cost of legal aid in England or not, the courthouse in Bangor needs and Wales, or will be closer to £13,887, replacing, because it is not fit for which is the average cost in Northern purpose. Therefore, the process is more Ireland at present? Answer those two akin to due diligence. I have reflected questions, and I will return to my final those pressures in some of the pre- point in a minute. devolution discussions that have taken place. I draw a line under legal-aid costs 872. The Chairperson: Do you have another and staffing costs as the points at which question? those pressures become inescapable. 873. Mr Attwood: I will wait until I hear 867. However, if policing and justice powers David’s answer. are devolved, I will ask the justice 874. Mr Lavery: On the first point about Department for £2 million for those inquests, I also acknowledge that that is inquests and £100 million for court a projection, which may prove to be right buildings, just as I would in the normal or wrong. Of the £2 million attributed bidding environment in government. to the inquests, I am confident about 868. Mr Attwood: One of the useful benefits £400,000 of that, which I know to be of this evidence session and the previous the cost of the additional coroner and one is that people will be able to move coroner’s staff that I have put in place to forward with their eyes wide open to build capacity in the Coroners Service. I what some of the cost consequences of know that there will be an influx of new the devolution of policing and justice cases, and that there are at least 20 powers will be, whether they be for the legacy cases. I know that those will take Court Service, the Prison Service or up a great deal of the senior coroner’s elsewhere in the system. time, so I have backfilled the system by asking the Judicial Appointments 869. I have a passing familiarity with the legacy Commission to appoint an additional inquests, and I am a wee bit surprised coroner. at the fact that the pressure point for those may be as little as £2 million. Given 875. The balance of £1·6 million is a projection the complexity of the issues raised by of how much I think that I will need in those inquiries, I would have thought the remainder of the current CSR period that the sum might have been higher. to pay towards those cases. However, I You can hold that answer for a second. am not overly confident, given the pace at which they are being dealt with, that 870. It seems that, unless the legal those cases will not spill into the following profession demonstrates some flexibility CSR period. Those cases may have a with ongoing very-high-cost cases, we longer tail, and, if so, further funding will are where we are in respect of legal-aid be required from 2011-12 onwards. costs. This Committee cannot run from the consequences of that. We might 876. I can offer a fair degree of certainty not like where we are and how we got about the £2 million for 2009-2010 and here, and we may like the new regime 2010-11, but I am not sure whether the that the Court Service and the Legal job will be done by then, or whether a Services Commission will introduce proportion of those cases will extend from April. However, it seems that we into future years, for which funding will cannot escape the consequences of the be required. I can see in front of me only matters that have been outlined today. the first two years of the cases.
83 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
877. On very-high-cost criminal cases, it is jointly with the commission, it is stated transparent from the figures we have that we want to develop some strategic provided to the Committee that the options for the incoming Minister to problem is not just the £60 million for consider. 2009-2010 and 2010-11 but the £45 million to £50 million in the next three 883. Mr Attwood: As you see it at the years. As Mr Daniell explained, and he moment, in five or six years’ time, on used the analogy of the oil tanker, until current costings, the budget line would those legacy cases are out of the system, be at least £80 million. Is that correct? there is an accumulated liability in the 884. Mr Lavery: Yes, I believe so. legal-aid system. Even if all the reforms that I have mentioned are introduced 885. Mr Attwood: Thank you very much. from this April, they will not have an impact until much later. I believe that it 886. The Chairperson: It is not just the will be the third year of the next CSR inescapable pressures resulting from cycle before costs come down. devolution of policing and justice powers in which we are interested but the 878. Mr Attwood: Five years’ time? inescapable pressures for which we do not yet have money to meet, regardless of 879. Mr Lavery: At the current rate of reform, whether devolution happens. and given the cumulative liabilities, it could be the fifth or sixth year. 887. Mr McCartney: Thank you for your presentation. I shall ask questions 880. You asked me how much the cost could similar to those that I asked the Legal be decreased. I do not think that it can be Services Commission representatives decreased to £65 million, which is the about the process of resolving budgetary legal-aid system’s baseline as it currently pressures. What process do you currently operates. There is an irreducible value use to deal with those pressures when or around £80 million at present. they have been identified? What are the 881. To reduce that to £65 million would strengths and weaknesses of that require some radical surgery. One would process, and what do you envisage as either have to stop certain types of legal being the ideal process for the future? aid or go much further than we suggest Furthermore, what impact will the is currently possible, and redesign the transfer of policing and justice powers to system. It may simply have to be decided the Assembly have on that process? that nobody gets senior counsel in certain 888. Mr Lavery: Those are important questions. categories of work, or that, in children’s I want the future process to be some cases, not every member of the family what different from the present one. needs a solicitor and a barrister, and perhaps a senior barrister. The system 889. The 2009-2010 financial year begins would have to be radically redesigned. in April, and, although I have already been allocated £65 million for legal 882. That is why I also have an appetite for aid for that year, I know — we all know Mr Daniell’s view, whose contribution I now — that that will not be sufficient. watched on a monitor in the Great Hall, Therefore, Mr Daniell, the chairperson having left the Senate Chamber. He of the Legal Services Commission, and spoke of the need for a fundamental I will begin the year in the knowledge re-examination of how legal aid should that there is not enough money in the be supplied in this country. Whether system to discharge all liabilities. We almost £7 million should be spent on a must, therefore, begin a dialogue with non-departmental public body (NDPB) to the Treasury in London, with which we run the legal-aid system is a legitimate currently deal directly for funding. question, as is whether legal aid should be delivered in the way in which it is at 890. In conjunction with the Legal Services present. That is why, at the end of the Commission, we will begin the financial paper that the Court Service submitted year by telling the Treasury that there
84 Minutes of Evidence — 3 March 2008
are insufficient funds in the legal-aid protracted discussion throughout the baseline to discharge the accumulated year in order to get top-up funding. The liabilities and that we will require an best outcome would be to have a proper, injection of additional funding. proportionate and sustainable budget Unfortunately, such discussions tend to at the beginning of the financial year, drag on throughout the year, in the course based on which everyone could plan of which they are elevated to ministerial their business, instead of constantly level. My Minister is the Lord Chancellor having to go back throughout the year and Secretary of State for Justice, Jack with what Mr Hamilton called the Straw, who, in the past year, wrote to the begging bowl. Chief Secretary to the Treasury to seek additional funding for legal aid. Last 894. Mr McCausland: I apologise for not year, correspondence began in the being here earlier, but I was attending middle of the year, and the matter was another Committee. You said that, only resolved in the fourth quarter. in many cases, people here are represented by a solicitor, a junior 891. I do not mind whether Hansard reports barrister and a senior barrister, and that I believe that beginning the year that that would not be the case across knowing that there is insufficient the water. What is the difference in the funding, and having to wait until the size, per head of population, of the legal fourth quarter to resolve the problem, profession in Northern Ireland compared is no way in which to run a business. Furthermore, the system generated with that in Great Britain? Do we have a some of the problems that we much greater proportion of barristers? encountered at the turn of the year, 895. Mr Lavery: I shall hand that hospital when the Bar, in effect, went on strike pass to my colleague. We have the — it knew that there was not enough figures, and, given that I do not wish to money in the system to pay the bills. mislead the Committee, whoever finds The arrangement created a great deal of them first can answer. disruption for the courts as well. 896. The Chairperson: I ask everyone to 892. I hope that, under devolution, we might check his or her mobile phone, as I can have a much more transparent process, whereby setting the legal-aid budget would clearly hear that one is switched on. be based on more appropriate dialogue 897. Mr Paul Andrews (Northern Ireland with the Department of Finance and Court Service): England and Wales Personnel, the Department of justice and and Northern Ireland are two very the Legal Services Commission. Using different marketplaces. Anything that I that process, we could agree a realistic say will already be in the public domain, budget for the next three years, ensuring because it formed part of my evidence cost-control budgetary predictability and to Sir George Bain’s review. My analysis value for money, thus allowing the Legal is, therefore, a matter of public record. Services Commission to plan for the year ahead, rather than have it know that by 898. In Northern Ireland, 30% of solicitors the third of fourth quarter it will run out work in firms with five or more partners. of cash. Consequently, all the energy that In 1986, there were 276 qualified must be devoted each year to to-ing and barristers in Northern Ireland, but, by fro-ing with the Treasury in order to get 2006, that number had risen to 560. more money would not be wasted under The Law Society of Northern Ireland said the new arrangements. We would be better that a relatively high percentage of its served devoting our energy to reducing members were undertaking low-margin costs or to redesigning the system. publicly funded legal services, together 893. That may be a rather anecdotal with a range of pro bono work. It was approach to answering your question. suggesting that there was a high level of Nevertheless, as Mr Daniell and I dependence on legal aid, and that there said, the system basically involves a was wide coverage of that in towns and
85 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
villages throughout the jurisdiction where if I can provide any empirical evidence to legal aid was available to individuals. the Committee, I undertake to do so.
899. The preponderance of significant 903. The Chairperson: As with the Northern commercial multi-partner firms in Ireland Legal Services Commission, London means that there is a significant there are a number of areas on which number of solicitors there. Therefore, we will want to come back to you, the same read-across to a commercial and we will want to raise a number of base in Northern Ireland does not exist. questions with you in writing in the not- Although certain information is available, too-distant future. that is distorted by the commercial 904. For clarification, are you currently able to ventures of solicitors’ firms in England reclaim VAT? and Wales, which perhaps do not do legal-aid work as we know it. A good 905. Mr Lavery: At present, the Legal majority of firms in this jurisdiction does Services Commission pays legal-aid at least some legal-aid work. bills. VAT is paid on top of the fee as a dispersement and is not reclaimed. 900. Mr Lavery: We have hesitated to One would want to address that, and introduce some of the changes that devolution might provide the opportunity have been introduced in England, such to do so. VAT is a significant additional as contracting for legal services. In cost. If one looks at a typical block bill England, the Legal Services Commission for a case, it comprises the fees for a awards contracts to firms of solicitors to solicitor plus VAT, the fees for a barrister do a certain amount of legal-aid work in plus VAT, the fees for a QC plus VAT and, a particular geographical area. possibly, the fees for an expert witness or two. 901. The structure of the legal profession in Northern Ireland is that there tend to 906. Many people get paid in a case, and VAT be smaller firms in country towns that is a significant additional dispersement are dependent on a mix of work. Those that we cannot at present recoup. firms provide a community legal service, and even people in rural areas can 907. The Chairperson: Finally, is anything access a choice of legal representatives, hurtling down the track about which which we think is important. Now is not you have not told the Committee? the time to do something too radical For instance, if devolution of policing on that, because small firms depend and justice powers takes place in the on conveyancing, probate and a bit of not-too-distant future, is there anything legal-aid work. There is currently no that might lead to your coming along, conveyancing work, and some of those cap in hand, to the Committee, to the firms are much more dependent on the Department of Finance and Personnel or to the justice Minister to say that, throughput of their legal-aid cheques to although you appeared before the sustain their viability. Committee, there is a requirement for 902. In answer to Mr McCausland’s original £10 million or £20 million that was not question, I am not sure whether there mentioned but the Court Service should are too many lawyers here, but I have foreseen? undertake to write to the Committee if 908. Mr Lavery: That is a bit like encouraging we can extract any empirical information the defendant to have other offences on that. The structure of the Bar is taken into consideration before different; it operates not from chambers sentencing. but from a library system, and it has comparatively lower overheads. I have 909. In its letter of 9 February, the Court a hunch that the growth in the Bar in Service tried to avoid surprises Northern Ireland has been so great over emerging under devolution. That is why the past 20 years that we are top of the we had the debate about what is or is league for lawyers per capita. As I said, not an inescapable pressure. Certain
86 Minutes of Evidence — 3 March 2008
things are driven by devolution about which the Committee must know. There are also things that the service must do, and about which the Committee must be aware, if, as we hope, a devolved environment is achieved. That is what I call the due-diligence element of the exercise.
910. Nothing has occurred to us that has not been disclosed to the Committee. It is clearly not in anyone’s interest not to disclose something.
911. The Chairperson: David, I thank you and your colleagues for coming along, for being frank and open with the Committee, and for your presentation and the papers that you have supplied to Committee members. The Committee appreciates that, and we will probably come back to you.
912. Mr Lavery: Thank you very much for your time.
87 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
88 Minutes of Evidence — 3 March 2008
3 March 2008
Members present for all or part of the merit. For criminal legal aid, it is the proceedings: responsibility of judges to determine when someone should be in receipt Mr Jimmy Spratt (Chairperson) of legal aid. In that sense, therefore, Mr Raymond McCartney (Deputy Chairperson) expenditure is very much demand-led, Mr Alex Attwood from the commission’s perspective. Mr Simon Hamilton Mrs Carmel Hanna 917. The quantum paid in particular cases Mr Alan McFarland is determined in a range of ways. Mr John O’Dowd For example, the very-high-cost case Mr Ian Paisley Jnr category on the criminal side, which Witnesses: accounts for a significant amount of our expenditure and is not particularly Mr Jim Daniell Northern Ireland Legal predictable, is a matter for the taxing Mr Gerry Crossan Services Commission master, who is a member of the judiciary. In other areas of criminal 913. The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): I welcome work, we work to scales that the Court Mr Gerry Crossan, the chief executive Service sets for us. Similarly, on the of the Northern Ireland Legal Services civil side, although we set some fees Commission, and Mr Jim Daniell, its after discussion with representatives of chairman. I ask members to declare any the legal profession, others are set on interests that they have. I declare an a statutory scale in the County Court interest as a member of the Northern by the judiciary. At High Court level, Ireland Policing Board. again the taxing master plays a key role. Therefore, there is a limit to the amount 914. I invite Mr Crossan and Mr Daniell to of direct leverage that we have on the make a short presentation based on the amount of expenditure. papers that they have submitted to the Committee, after which members will 918. I must also mention the level have an opportunity to ask questions. of expenditure over time, which is particularly significant in this 915. Mr Jim Daniell (Northern Ireland Legal conversation. Very often, a certificate Services Commission): I shall keep my for legal aid might be granted and the remarks brief so that there will be plenty bill presented for payment some years of time for questions. The Northern ahead. Therefore, in some cases, for Ireland Legal Services Commission certificates that we are granting now, welcomes the opportunity to discuss the payment will be made in three or four issues at hand. We recognise that we years’ time. Obviously, that makes are responsible for a significant amount prediction of financial requirements of expenditure, which is increasing. That quite complex. It also means that any is an important issue in the context of actions that are intended to have an devolution. impact on the amount of money spent 916. I wish to stress a few points from on legal aid are likely to have that the commission’s perspective. The impact some way ahead. I would go expenditure that we have described in so far as to say that, for the current the papers is, to a large extent, demand- comprehensive spending review period led, in the sense that we work to a (CSR), the figures that the Committee legislative framework that, for civil legal has been given are for expenditure aid, requires us to grant certificates for that has, more or less, already been civil legal aid in circumstances that are committed. Therefore, there is a limit prescribed by financial eligibility and as to what can be done in the current
89 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
CSR period to reduce the funding, the 14 compares net expenditure per head of figures for which have been presented population, but I will answer the question to the Committee. Even going into the about average costs as best I can. next CSR period, it is like turning a big ship around — it would take time to 925. I ask members to note that this make changes that have an effect on illustrates the difficulty of comparing expenditure. cases. The figure of almost £14,000 for Northern Ireland is presented as 919. I know that the Committee has been an average cost for each case, as is presented with a supplementary paper the figure for England and Wales. We to provide a bit more background — it is keep records that are based on average a joint memorandum by the commission cost, not for each case, but for each bill and the Northern Ireland Court Service issued. In some of the more serious — in addition to the letter of 9 February criminal cases, for example, one might 2009 that we sent. However, I advise find that three bills have been issued: a slight note of caution about making one to a solicitor; one to a junior comparisons with other jurisdictions. barrister; and one to a senior barrister. Obviously, in legal-aid cases, there is The final figure is arrived at by effectively an issue concerning whether one is multiplying the average cost of each comparing like with like. Indeed, one bill by three. Those calculations were of the reasons why we did not include made rather quickly, and the figure that I figures for the Republic of Ireland is that quoted may have slightly overstated the the system there is so different. Any situation. I do not wish to overdo that, attempt to compare overall expenditure but not every case in the Crown Court per capita with that jurisdiction involves a solicitor, a junior barrister and would not work and would be fairly a senior barrister. That figure should be meaningless. slightly lower, therefore. I hope that we can find time to explore that issue in 920. That is all that I want to say by way of more detail. introduction. I welcome questions, and we will deal with them if we can. 926. There is an important point to make about the Crown Court in Northern 921. The Chairperson: Thank you for your Ireland. A different court structure presentation, and for the papers that operates in England and Wales to that in you supplied. Northern Ireland. Full-time district judges 922. I will go straight to the point that you sit in Northern Ireland’s Magistrate’s made about cost in Northern Ireland in Court, which takes more serious cases comparison with other jurisdictions. In than its equivalents in England and paragraph 15 of the joint memorandum, Wales. The result of that is that some of there is a dramatic difference in the the less expensive cases, which would figures for the cost per capita of criminal go through the Crown Court in England legal aid. For instance, the Northern and Wales, do not go through the Crown Ireland Crown Court gives a figure of Court in Northern Ireland. There is no £13,887, compared with £6,300 for question that the fees for criminal cases England and Wales, and £2,824 for in the Crown Court in Northern Ireland Scotland. The average cost of civil legal are more expensive, but we must be aid in England and Wales is slightly careful not to exaggerate them. The higher than that for Northern Ireland. figures that we have presented, if taken at face value, may slightly overplay the 923. We want some explanation of the difference. reasons why the cost of criminal legal aid in Northern Ireland is dramatically 927. The Chairperson: When we compare higher than it is in any other part of the England and Wales with Northern Ireland, kingdom. we are not comparing like with like.
924. Mr Daniell: First, we are talking about 928. Mr Daniell: We are not comparing like average costs. The table at paragraph with like; that is correct.
90 Minutes of Evidence — 3 March 2008
929. The Chairperson: In land mass and as they are in England and Wales. For everything else, we are comparing obvious reasons, there is a relationship ourselves to a much larger area. between fees paid to counsel by the PPS Therefore, the comparison with England and those in legally aided cases. and Wales is not reasonable. It begs the question: what can be done to 934. I can only speculate as to why the issue reduce those costs? If devolution of has not been addressed more rigorously policing and justice powers takes place, over the years. It is possible that, during Northern Ireland plc — for want of a the Troubles, it was thought prudent not better expression — must pay for it. to rock the boat with major reform that would affect the legal profession. There 930. The costs are higher. Has that been may have been some thinking along the tradition over the years? Has that those lines. system been allowed to creep in here, yet not in other parts of the United 935. Another issue, which is particular to Kingdom? We do not know the legal-aid Northern Ireland, relates to the costs costs for the South, so we cannot make associated with the nature of the legal a comparison with that jurisdiction. We profession. When it comes to accessing need an explanation, because the issue justice, there has always been a feeling that costs appear to be going up and in Northern Ireland that individuals up, even against the backdrop of a more should be able to choose the solicitor peaceful situation in Northern Ireland, whom they wish to choose rather than is one that is raised regularly. We need have it determined for them by the sort serious answers. I am sorry to put you of contractual arrangements that exist under pressure, but do you believe that in England and Wales. It may be that the a review of the cost of the legal-aid feeling has been that we want to sustain system is required? Northern Ireland a legal profession throughout Northern seems to be totally out of kilter with the Ireland close to where people live, for legal system in the rest of the United instance. That carries some inevitable Kingdom. costs. 931. Mr Daniell: I will make a number of 936. I will talk about reforms and control comments in answer to your questions. mechanisms in a minute, but we must The annual expenditure on criminal bear in mind that incidence of very- legal aid in the Republic of Ireland high-cost cases has mushroomed in is approximately €50 million, which, Northern Ireland in recent years. That per capita, is a very much lower level must be looked at carefully. Those cases of expenditure than that in Northern are complex criminal cases in which the Ireland. commission has a role. If it is expected 932. I will not simply leave it at this simple that the trial for those cases will last answer, but, from the commission’s more than 25 days, they are certified point of view, the simple answer is that as being very-high-cost cases. In those we make payments on the basis of circumstances, the bills are referred to fees on the criminal side that the Lord the taxing master for determination. Chancellor and the Court Service set for us. I know that representatives from the 937. It is fair to say that the present regime Court Service are appearing before the of very-high-cost cases that came in Committee after us. with the Legal Aid for Crown Court Proceedings (Costs) Rules (Northern 933. Between 18 months and two years ago, Ireland) 2005 was expected to produce there was an inspection of the Public around 20 or 30 cases a year. It has Prosecution Service (PPS), and reference produced substantially more than that. was made to the fact that fees that the Since 2005, there have been around PPS paid — particularly counsel fees in 250 to 280. certain types of serious criminal cases — are approximately twice as high here 938. The Chairperson: Why is that the case?
91 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
939. Mr Daniell: It is an interesting subject. the way in which that is administered There is an element of speculation in allows far more people through the gate this, but Northern Ireland benefits in to receive legal aid than is the case some ways from having a falling crime on the civil side. It may be a question rate, and, in many areas, it has lower of tightening up the financial-eligibility levels of crime than England and Wales aspect of criminal legal aid. have. I stress that I am speculating, but I do not think that that applies in cases 944. There may be questions around of extremely complex fraud, money- representation; for example, the extent laundering and organised crime. Those to which junior and senior counsel are the types of cases that tend to represent defendants in a Crown Court become the very-high-cost cases, and and whether that is always necessary. they are extremely expensive to run. All those issues are currently being More research in that area would probably considered, and they would help to bring demonstrate that that is the case. overall costs under control.
940. The Court Service representatives will 945. The Chairperson: Your comments on the speak for themselves, because this is costs include much speculation. Does its area on which I am trespassing. A the commission do any solid research great deal of work is ongoing into how on those matters, or is that a matter for costs can be brought under control. the Court Service? The Court Service is consulting on, 946. Mr Daniell: We have worked with the and we are working towards, the Court Service to do a considerable future introduction of a system in amount of research on our budgetary which contractual arrangements will needs, and that is the basis on which be entered into with practitioners for the figures that we presented to the very-high-cost cases. The commission Committee have been worked out. For will want to ensure that it receives case example, we have an idea of how many plans, that it can cost plans in advance very-high-cost cases are in the system, and that payments are made on the and we can come to a view on when basis of those plans. We feel that that bills might be likely to be presented on will help bring costs under control. those. The same goes for all categories 941. There are also issues concerning fee of case. levels, and the Court Service will talk 947. By working on past patterns and by about those. There may be scope for considering very-high-cost cases, we can reductions in the determination of come to an educated view. However, it is Crown Court fees. Fixed fees may be no more than an educated view. At last considered for non-Crown Court work. Tuesday’s Committee meeting, the Prison 942. Another area that may be considered Service said that expected to have x in future is the requirements for number of prison officers in post in three qualification for legal aid in criminal years’ time and that it needed x amount cases. It is very noticeable that, in the of capital spent on prisons, but our Republic of Ireland, there is a strict position cannot be as definitive as that. requirement that legal aid will normally 948. Looking ahead, we must bear in mind be granted in circumstances in which someone’s liberty is an issue. that the very-high-cost-case area is extremely difficult to predict, but we 943. In Northern Ireland, the judiciary can also must consider other factors that use a number of criteria to determine may affect the take-up of legal aid. For whether criminal legal aid should example, the recession will inevitably be granted. On the merits side, it increase the number of people eligible is considered whether that is in the to receive legal aid. The recession may interests of justice. Although defendants cause an increase in acquisitive crime, are required to present a statement of an increase in matrimonial problems means to the judge, I understand that and housing difficulties, all of which
92 Minutes of Evidence — 3 March 2008
could lead to an increased demand for the year. I have been at the commission legal aid. I hope that the Committee will for only just over a year, but we were appreciate that it is difficult to come to in the middle of that process when I a clear view on what that will mean for joined, and I am told that it as regular an the numbers. occurrence as day following night.
949. The Chairperson: Ian Paisley Jnr has 954. Although it is understandable that joined the meeting. Will you declare allocations are set as stringently as any interests for the purposes of the possible, in order to seek value for witnesses? money, the amount of time and effort that is spent by the management of both 950. Mr Paisley Jnr: I am a member of the organisations in arguing for more money Northern Ireland Policing Board. could be better spent on considering 951. Mr Hamilton: The Chairperson’s how to manage the budget in future. We questions initiated a discussion on how cannot avoid spending the money — very-high-cost cases can be resolved there is no question of that — yet we in the longer term. However, I want to still spend weeks and months trying to touch on the extremely stark financial find ways in which to secure it. pressures that you face. You said 955. Mr Hamilton: You have only been there that the commission is a demand-led for a year, but you are already battle- organisation, but that demand seems scarred by going back and forward to very high. For the remaining two years of address financial pressures. the CSR, you face an estimated shortfall of £60 million, which the Court Service, 956. The table in paragraph 6 is alarming: your sponsor department, described it shows that you required an additional as being “inescapable”. You were open 50% to meet costs in 2004-05, and in saying that funding is insufficient to even in the current year you require an address the values of bills that will be additional one third. The Assembly is presented. Such openness is useful but used to Departments requiring a small paints a worrying picture. This year, you additional percentage from the in-year received an additional £22 million from monitoring processes, but that is a the spring Supplementary Estimates. How substantial chunk in addition to your regularly do you receive that kind of “dig- existing allocation. out” just before the financial year’s end? 957. I presume from much of what you said in 952. Mr Daniell: I refer you to paragraph 6 response to the Chairperson’s questions of the supplementary paper. The table that you were talking about long-term depicts a graph with three lines. The changes being required, and you blue line illustrates allocations in the compared the situation to an oil tanker various CSR periods since 2000-01; that takes a long time to turn around. the yellow line shows the amounts Therefore, we could expect this scenario that we needed to meet the demands to continue indefinitely. on us; and the red line shows the supplementary allocations that we have 958. Mr Daniell: “Indefinitely” is a big word, had to request. but I agree with the Court Service’s view that it is extremely unlikely that, for the 953. It is worth stressing that almost year in, remainder of the current CSR period, year out, the commission and the Court we will be able to make significant Service expend an enormous amount inroads into the projections illustrated of time and effort trying to find ways in the table. The only point that I want in which to boost our in-year funding to stress, and I made the same point through negotiations with the Treasury in the letter of 9 February 2009 that I and securing funds from elsewhere. sent to the Committee, is that the costs That usually happens in the autumn of ordinary civil and criminal business when it appears that we will not have are much more predictable and would fit sufficient funding for the remainder of within our normal allocation. However,
93 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
it is difficult to predict what will happen the remainder of this CSR period, and with the very-high-cost criminal cases probably into the next period as well. that, to a large extent, take us far above our allocation. Perhaps £60 million 962. Mr Daniell: That is a fair description; over the next two years will be an that is what the commission has done. overestimate, but I cannot be certain. If, looking beyond the current CSR period However, the taxing master could make into the next one and beyond that, I were determinations that are appealed and, told now that there was only £65 million for some reason, increased. If that a year available, and that there was happens, it is not inconceivable that no conceivable way in which that could £60 million could be an underestimate. be increased, the commission would We have been quite conservative — £60 consider more fundamental changes. million is a realistic figure. I would hope However, I am not sure that even those that that figure would not increase. changes could take effect in the first year of the next CSR period. 959. By implication, you may be suggesting that the measures that the commission 963. Mr Hamilton: Thank you; that is very takes will deal with the problem in the useful. next CSR period, which will take place 964. Mrs Hanna: You described the between 2011-12 and 2013-14. I am commission as being a big ship that very cautious about that. We have would take time to turn around. With estimated that, if the commission were that, you implied that you expect to continue being allocated £65 million changes — we are, after all, talking in cash per annum over the three years of the next CSR period, that would leave about finances. There is a public a shortfall of around £50 million. The expectation that the ending of the commission does not consider that the Troubles would lead to a reduction changes that I have been describing, in legal-aid costs. I am not talking which are being examined at present — about the historical cases, because I a similar exercise is also being carried appreciate that we are speaking mostly out on the civil side, which I have not about the criminal side: fraud; extortion; mentioned yet — would be sufficient to and so on. eliminate, or even to eat into, that £50 965. I know that a fairly public discussion million. took place a few months ago about 960. I hate to say it, but I am in the business reducing the legal-aid bill. Were those of speculation. I do not think that the people just talking about the civil type of changes that we have been side of the legal service? There was discussing would eliminate more than discussion among barristers and the £10 million to £15 million of that public, and on the radio, and the public shortfall. However, that is to suppose had an expectation that that would that the present patterns of demand make sense. You said that it would take remain the same. time to turn the ship around, but it is the Legal Services Commission and 961. Mr Hamilton: It is probably even more the Court Service that set the criteria troubling that that scenario is likely and guidelines. However, the taxing to continue at that scale into the next master appears to have influence. When CSR period. You are telling us today policing and justice powers are devolved, that, other than some of the measures we will also have input. In your opening that you have been speaking about remarks, I thought that you were talking that will take a long time to realise any about turning the ship around, but, in benefit, the only approach available to response to questions, you seem to be the commission to meet that shortfall is saying that that will not happen in the the begging-bowl approach — asking for near future. additional cash to fill that gap. That is what the commission has always done, 966. Mr Daniell: Rather than turning the and that is what it is likely to do for ship around, it will be a case of veering
94 Minutes of Evidence — 3 March 2008
from the course, through making the 969. The programme will introduce measures sorts of changes that I have mentioned. such as a simplified approach to Obviously, after devolution, the Assembly financial eligibility and a statutory charge will have the opportunity to legislate, to enhance our ability, when people win and that is entirely a matter for the cases and are given property or a share Assembly. However, a great deal of the of property, to place a charge on that expenditure after devolution has already to reduce our expenditure. Therefore, been committed through the granting of things can be done now, but a sea legal-aid certificates. The commission change would require a new approach. works within a legislative framework, which, up until now, the Lord Chancellor 970. Mrs Hanna: That is a bit like a patient has set. The commission has to grant going to A&E and paying a cover charge. legal aid in the circumstances that are The issue really boils down to placing provided for by legislation. The way in qualifications on whether a case is which bills are paid is also provided taken on, and we all accept that people for by legislation. There will be an need legal aid to get justice in cases for opportunity for that to be examined. which they cannot afford representation. However, it is fair to say that there is a 967. If there were a clear desire to reduce certain amount of cynicism among the substantially the amount of money public about the amount of legal aid that that is spent on legal aid, legislation is granted and the level of lawyers’ fees. would be needed, as would a major change in approach to how legal aid 971. Mr Daniell: An example on the civil is distributed. The only ways in which side is an undefended divorce. In such to cut expenditure are either to reduce cases, I suggest that there might be the number of cases in which legal aid limits to the amount of legal aid that it is granted or to reduce the fees that would be sensible to pay. However, in a are paid to practitioners. There may case of a freeing order for a child, which be other ways of looking at the issue, results in a child’s links with his or her such as changes to the legal system. parents being removed, that represents For example, could the legal system an extremely serious change to that be operated in a manner that requires child’s status, as well as a big change less expenditure? On the civil side, for the parents and others involved. the commission is keen to look at In such cases, there is a degree of alternative means of dispute resolution vulnerability, which suggests that the and collaborative family law, and at case should be made a high priority for whether there are ways to prevent cases help. The funding code will enable the from getting to court, and, therefore, establishment of high-priority cases, being less costly and probably better for in which the merits test will work on the people concerned. Such measures the presumption that legal aid should could be considered. be granted, whereas it may not be in lower-priority cases. In fact, the code will 968. It is worth making the point is that we enable some types of case to be taken are engaging in a reform programme out of the scope of legal aid altogether. on the civil side, and that programme contains a number of components, 972. You mentioned the quantum of fees. one of which is the introduction of a On the criminal side, fees are set by funding code, which will enable us to others, as they are in a substantial take a much more rigorous approach proportion of cases on the civil side — to the merits test that decides when the level of fees set is not entirely within is it is justified to provide legal aid. For our control. In some areas, we are in example, is it sensible to give legal aid discussion with the Bar and the Law in a case that there is not much hope Society of Northern Ireland about fee of winning? We will be able to take levels, because we are very conscious of decisions based on the funding code. achieving value for money.
95 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
973. The Chairperson: How far in advance of the Court Service and the Treasury cases are legal-aid certificates issued? about how to secure the funding through Supplementary Estimates. An element 974. Mr Daniell: Legal-aid certificates are of end-year flexibility was involved, and issued to establish that people can a small amount of money was also secure legal aid when their cases come secured from Court Service funds. to court, and that could mean a couple From the commission’s perspective, of months or, in some cases, a couple the process tends to be rather hand to of years. The other complication is that mouth. sometimes there is good reason why the bill is not presented until long after the 978. As for what it should be, I can present case has concluded. only the ideal, which is that a realistic approach should be taken to what our 975. That might be because in some of the requirements are likely to be in advance, very-high-cost cases, it may take some and a realistic sum is then allocated in time for very complex cases to be the CSR period — or at least in advance assessed. For one or two cases, one of the year in question, rather than might be talking about a year or two leaving it so late in the day. We have for that to happen. On the civil side, it the means to say that we know that we might be that the solicitor wants advice will require more than £65 million next on how to present the claim, and that year and the year after; therefore, it is may also take time. I have seen one far better to resolve that now. It is not case where the bill was presented six or a question of our having the ability to seven years after the case. reduce that amount. We know that we 976. Mr McCartney: I have three or four are going to have to spend it; therefore, questions to ask, but I hope that they it would be much better if the system will run into one another and that they enabled us to resolve such issues can be answered easily. Once you have now. If the system then wanted to go identified a pressure on your budget, on and say that we must ensure that, what process is involved in trying to along with the department concerned resolve it? What has been your degree — which is the Court Service and the of success — in other words, what are Lord Chancellor, but in future it will be the strengths and weaknesses of the the Department of justice — we had current process? From your perspective, better look for ways to make substantial what do you think that the process savings for the next period, that would should be in future? Finally, how do you be an acceptable way forward, as long see the transfer of justice having an as people understood what those impact on the Assembly, and how should savings might mean. If the savings are it have an impact? to be substantial, it would mean making significant inroads into the system of 977. Mr Daniell: What seems to happen with legal aid as we know it. the budget and the process of resolving it is that an allocation is determined for 979. I have a few general thoughts about us during a particular CSR period, but the transfer of justice powers to the most people will probably feel that it is Assembly. I think that it will be of not enough. Then, on an in-year basis, enormous benefit to the commission, by about the sixth or seventh month, and I will give a couple of examples it is apparent that, given the rate of of what I mean. The complexity of spend, we will not have enough to meet legislation is one reason that legal the bills for the remainder of the year. aid increases over a long period. New We then enter into negotiations with legislative requirements can increase our sponsor department — which is the the number of times that someone Court Service — about how to meet might have to go to court, in relation to the shortfall. My experience is limited, either the Government or for another but on the occasion in question, there reason. One positive example of that were extensive negotiations between is the children’s legislation, which was
96 Minutes of Evidence — 3 March 2008
a very good piece of legislation that legal profession and the way in which was introduced in the 1990s; however, they are regulated — both of which have it increased substantially the amount an impact on the availability of services of consequent court appearances that to the public, and so forth. I assume people made and, therefore, expenses. that in a devolved environment, all that If we are part of a devolved Department will be looked at in a coherent fashion of justice, which in turn is part of the in one Department. All those issues will family of Northern Ireland Departments, have the capacity to affect the quality it will be a lot easier to conduct legal aid of service that we can provide and its impact assessments in order to under costs. Furthermore, it will be possible to stand the consequences of decisions examine them holistically, which will be that are made about policy and about an enormous benefit. legislation for spend on legal aid. 984. Mr Paisley Jnr: Thank you for your 980. I can give one specific example that evidence. You understand clearly why might help. We are not talking about you are here; we want to devolve policing millions of pounds, but there is the and justice, and we have to know how potential for hundreds of thousands of much it will cost us. Today, you told us pounds. The Criminal Justice (Northern that it will cost a heck of a lot of money. Ireland) Order 2008 was agreed by the From what I have heard today, I do not Northern Ireland Office Ministers and know whether we can afford you — you passed by the Westminster Parliament, are a high cost. However, I welcome your and a substantial sum of money was candour. made available for its administration. That money covered the need for 985. Your starter-for-10 question: are you additional probation officers, prison hiding anything else of which we should facilities and psychologists, for instance. be aware? If you return to give evidence Nothing additional was provided or — as to a justice and policing Committee far as I can see, even thought about — in a few years, will you be telling us in relation to legal aid. something that you should be telling us today? Is there anything else that we 981. Following the passing of The Criminal should know? Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008, the required number of parole 986. Mr Daniell: Not to my knowledge. As I commissioners was increased, because said earlier, this is not an exact science. there was going to be a lot of hearings We do not know what is over the before the parole commissioners. Those horizon. hearings will require representation by a solicitor and probably a barrister. 987. Mr Paisley Jnr: I have got that. Having As things stand, that will cost. It will read some of your material, I can probably not impinge on the current understand why, come the revolution, comprehensive spending review period, lawyers will go to the wall first. Your but it will impinge on the next. evidence provides figures on very-high- cost cases. It is important that I read 982. Had we had a devolved environment one sentence into the record, because it in which we were much closer to a relates to a substantial payment: Department of justice and were part of the Northern Ireland Administration, “While every effort has been made to produce I would make certain that when a realistic forecast of the costs of VHCCs changes of that sort are made, proper based on what we know about cases already consideration would be given to the in the system and the likely incidence of impact on the spend on legal aid. I think such cases in the future, the actual funding that it will help us enormously in that requirement could vary significantly from the context. figures given in the table above; this particular cost head will be monitored closely and the 983. There are bigger issues about such projected spend kept under review to ensure things as the number of people in the that the figures are as robust as possible.”
97 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
988. You are projecting for £65 million for 998. Mr Paisley Jnr: Does some quantum very-high-cost cases in the current not exist, given that this situation has comprehensive spending review, and mushroomed since 2005? We can look the figure for the current financial year at other trends and see that cases that — 2009-10 — is £26 million. What were typical in Northern Ireland in the percentage of that goes on lawyers’ fees? 1970s and 1980s have clearly declined since 2005. It is incredible that those 989. Mr Daniell: Almost all the very-high-cost- types of cases have mushroomed from case spend will go to lawyers. 2005 onwards. 990. Mr Paisley Jnr: Are you saying that £26 999. Mr Daniell: We do not have sufficient million will go to lawyers in this financial research capacity to go into this year? subject in great depth; however, that 991. Mr Daniell: Yes, including VAT. is something that we — or a new Department — may need to do. I said 992. Mr Paisley Jnr: Does any of that money go that certain types of cases, such as to forensics, or is it all for lawyers’ fees? those involving money laundering, organised crime and fraud, are extremely 993. Mr Gerry Crossan (Northern Ireland expensive. Those cases have continued Legal Services Commission): The main at a rate since the end of the Troubles, expenditure will be for lawyers, but some and they attract those sorts of fees. of it will be for fees for expert witness. 1000. Mr Paisley Jnr: Although your 994. Mr Paisley Jnr: You used the word submission is very nicely written, I am “mushroomed” to describe what has worried that you are basically saying happened over the past number of that we need a blank cheque to cover years; you said that in the noughties, those costs. I am not criticising you for there have been 280 cases since 2005. that, but that is essentially what you are Would it be unfair to suggest that since saying to me. To ask politicians, who the end of the terrorist war here and the are trying to cut up a budget, to leave end of the Troubles, lawyers have been a blank cheque for these purposes is incredibly ingenious in finding new ways completely unacceptable. to make a heck of a lot of money out of this place? Would that be an unfair 1001. You said that fundamental changes characterisation? may need to be considered. The sort of fundamental changes that you are 995. Mr Daniell: That would be a little unfair, talking about, which would allow you to yes, because — run your part of the Department for the 996. Mr Paisley Jnr: How is it unfair, and ballpark figure of £65 million to £70 when is it accurate? million a year, are not just fundamental changes; they are root-and-branch 997. Mr Daniell: It is unfair to the extent changes. That would have an impact on that prosecutions in very-high-cost people’s mentality, on their expectations cases in particular are brought by of justice, on the expectations, rightly or the Public Prosecution Service. It is wrongly, that lawyers have of the system, obviously critical in any democracy and on how justice is dispensed in this that people have the ability to defend part of the United Kingdom as compared themselves in such cases. Lawyers have with England, Scotland and Wales. Can to be available to defend cases, and the root-and-branch change that you are very-high-cost cases almost certainly advocating be achieved, or is it a lullaby involve solicitors as well as junior and or a siren call for such change so that senior counsel. It is reasonable that when we arrive at the next CSR period, defendants should have the opportunity we will be shafted again with a request to defend themselves. Whether there is for £80 million? I am sorry to be so blunt. an issue about the amounts of fees that are paid in those circumstances is not 1002. Mr Daniell: There is not a lot to disagree something that I should speculate on. with in what you said. I will go back
98 Minutes of Evidence — 3 March 2008
to your point about a blank cheque, there be a much stricter means test? because I do not agree that we are One option I have wondered about for asking for that. We are making an some time is whether more could be educated assessment of what we are done in some of the very-high-cost likely to need over the remainder of cases, so that if someone is found the CSR period and, indeed, beyond. guilty, they should pay money back into However, we do not have the levers that the fund for the cost of the defence. enable us to guarantee that we can live Issues such as that could be examined. within that amount. The amount that we There are also issues about levels of need may turn out to be less, or it may representation, which could be looked at be more. radically, and that would have to be done 1003. Mr Paisley Jnr: Imagine that your wife in conjunction with the PPS. came to you at the end of the month 1010. On the civil side, we have a reform and said, “Darling, I need slightly more programme already that will give us money than I got last month to balance some tools that will help us in that area. the budget”. You would ask for a However, I do not pretend to say that ballpark figure, and she could say that the reform programme as it stands will the amount could vary significantly but make an enormous inroad into the levels that she would take a closer look and of funding that we are talking about. let you know. However, she would still be However, one might have to think about clear that she needed more money. That going down the same road as England is a blank cheque. and Wales and have a contracting 1004. Mr Daniell: If you are describing a blank arrangement whereby solicitors tender cheque in the context of demand-led for contracts. That will mean that they expenditure, which would be the same will undertake to run so many cases a as social security expenditure, in which, year on the basis of that contract. One under legislation, you are required to may have to think about whether that acquire liabilities, I suppose that it is a contract would be solely with solicitors, blank cheque. and they would have to decide whether they wanted to employ barristers. That 1005. Mr Paisley Jnr: Does this stuff not make would come out of a standard fee that Mr Goodwin look modest? would go only to the solicitor. However, 1006. I have one more question to ask, not only the legal profession, but other Chairperson; I do not know whether you groups, have made strong arguments have asked it already. Do you pay VAT against taking that route. It would mean back to the Government? a major change and would probably begin to change the nature of the legal 1007. Mr Daniell: Yes. We pay solicitors so profession in Northern Ireland. that they can pay VAT. 1011. Mr Paisley Jnr: Devolution has to be 1008. Mr Paisley Jnr: We have discussed this seen as something that is at least point generally, and that may be one equal to, if not better than, the previous area of change. arrangements under direct rule. What 1009. Mr Daniell: I will answer the second you say would scare me, in that the part of your question, which was about arrangements would get worse, because the root-and-branch review. I stress that the system may not function in the that will not help in the current CSR way that the public wanted it to. That period. If, when we become part of a would be an absolute kick in the teeth Department of justice, we were asked for those of us who wanted to devolve what we would have to do to really bring those powers. When one accepts the the expenditure down, on the criminal argument about who should get legal aid side, I would suggest looking hard at and one goes down the road of having the extent to which legal aid is granted a means test, etc, as Carmel Hanna in the first place. For example, should quite rightly said, people who have an
99 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
expectation that they need justice would happens already. When it does, does be penalised as a result. that money go back in to the system? If, for example, the criminal were to receive 1012. I like what you said about making the legal aid, and then £15 million, his guilty pay; I am very happy with that sort ranch in Spain and his cars were taken of suggestion, certainly as regards my from him, would that money be credited own personal arrangements. I would also to the legal aid budget, or would it go to like to find out how much it would cost. the Treasury? How much can barristers, solicitors and the legal profession make out of the 1020. Mr Daniell: It goes to the Treasury; we system? Would some sort of capping do not benefit from that. arrangement be a way to bring down the 1021. Mr McFarland: Clearly, that needs to be costs? looked at. My second question concerns 1013. Mr Daniell: The contractual the size of your administrative budget. arrangements that exist in England and Could others do areas of your work Wales that I have described would be an easily, and are there areas of duplication effective means of capping what would between your work and that of others? be paid. Could how all that is dealt with be streamlined if we had more control of it 1014. Mr Paisley Jnr: If we started to do that, here? would the legal profession go on strike? 1022. Mr Daniell: I do not think that there 1015. Mr Daniell: I cannot answer for the legal is a large amount of duplication. profession. The Social Security Agency, on our behalf, determines whether people are 1016. Mr Paisley Jnr: What is your gut entitled to civil legal aid, because that reaction? If you were a lawyer in determination is largely connected with Northern Ireland expecting to make whether people receive benefits or £26 million in the coming year, and you not. Of course, we need to look at our were then told that, as of the next CSR administration expenditure. There may period, you can expect to make — as a be scope for making some reductions collective group — £10 million, would after the reform period that we are about you go on strike? to enter, but that would possibly be £500,000 or £1 million, not the sorts 1017. Mr Daniell: The only comment that I of sums that would make the difference will make is that the Bar has withheld that is being discussed. briefs in a couple of categories of case; therefore, there is the possibility of 1023. Mr McFarland: What size is your current that happening. However, we are in the budget? realms of severe speculation. If there is a reality about what money is available, 1024. Mr Daniell: The administrative budget is there may be a limit to the extent to about £7•5 million. The more that the which people may be prepared to go system is simplified — for example, by down that road. the use of standard fees, as opposed to fees that are based on an hourly rate 1018. Mr McFarland: Thank you for your — the more we can begin to think about briefing. I have two questions to ask. how things can be done more efficiently and how more savings can be made. We 1019. First, following up on the issue are very conscious of that. In future, we of organised crime, the Serious may have to think about the possibility Organised Crime Agency deals with that certain areas will be removed areas where there can be no criminal completely from the scope of legal aid, case, and it then goes after assets. and that would reduce our amount of My understanding is that, under the administrative expenditure. current system in criminal cases, the judge can order the seizure of ill-gotten 1025. The Chairperson: We wanted to cover a gains and assets. I presume that that whole range of issues, but time is not
100 Minutes of Evidence — 3 March 2008
sufficient to allow us to do so. We will 1031. I will give you some examples of write to you, so you can anticipate quite the sort of thing that I have in mind. a few questions hurtling down the track The commission is responsible for on issues that have arisen from your the development of policy and the paper. setting of fees on the civil side of legal aid. A small unit that comprises 1026. I have two or three questions to ask only a handful of people in the Legal on efficiency savings. Are effort Services Commission is working on a and spending being duplicated by, major reform programme. There are for example, the Legal Services also people in the Court Service with Commission, the Northern Ireland whom that unit has to relate and agree Court Service and tribunals? What certain things. In those areas where steps are being taken to eradicate any the commission is responsible for the duplication? setting of fees, it develops a business case for a certain fee level, which the 1027. In the context of the Deloitte report, do Court Service then has to agree. The you envisage efficiency savings being commission then goes back to negotiate made as a consequence of a joined- with the profession, and then back to up approach being taken between the the Court Service. There is a lot of toing commission and the Court Service? and froing. If so, what is the timescale for those efficiency savings, and how significant 1032. On the criminal side, although the Court will the savings be? Service is responsible for fees and policy, there is an argument that it could 1028. Your submission advises that the be a lot closer to the operational side of commission was actively seeking ways the commission. Given the constraints, to maximise value for money. Will those things work very well between the two examinations lead to efficiency savings organisations, but there is a case for and a reduction in spend, and what improvement. progress, if any, has been made on that to date? 1033. In England and Wales, for example, the Legal Services Commission and the 1029. Mr Daniell: To be fair, I did not answer Ministry of Justice are co-located — they the previous question as fully as I should effectively work as one, which is how have done, and you have sparked a I think we ought to work in Northern thought in my mind about duplication, Ireland. The chief executive of the the Deloitte report and our relationship commission in England and Wales is on with the Court Service. I do not think the management board of the Ministry that there is duplication in our internal of Justice, which means that they processes and in how we process effectively work together as one. payments, but I think that there is an element of duplication with the policy work 1034. Speaking partly personally, although I that we and the Court Service carry out. know that the commission agrees with most of what I say, I think that there is 1030. That is a difficult but important area. case for saying that we ought to look at Northern Ireland is obviously a much the architecture of the delivery of legal smaller jurisdiction than England and aid, the relationship between the its Wales. The commission has set up operational delivery and the sponsor structures to handle legal aid that Department, and whether the current effectively mirror those in England and degree of separation is right or whether Wales. There may be questions about the two organisations should be much whether that is the right approach in closer together, with less duplication in the future. Indeed, the commission policy. has pressed the Court Service and the Northern Ireland Office, which have 1035. There are elements of legal aid that agreed to review those issues over the must retain its independence; for next few months. example, in matters such as judicial
101 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
reviews against Government, or care orders in cases involving children, where private individuals might be taking a case against public authorities. On the criminal side, the essential independence of decision-making in individual cases is critical, therefore, it must be retained. However, subject to that, there is a case for reviewing structures and architecture and for saying that perhaps new systems might be developed in the future. Whether a non-departmental public body is the right model is open for discussion.
1036. The Chairperson: Thank you. As I said, you will probably receive some communication from the Committee in the not too distant future. I thank both of you for coming along today; you have been very frank and straight with us. There are obviously pressures, and work needs to be done to try to reduce some of those pressures.
1037. Mr Daniell: I would like to make one brief comment; I do not want there to be any misunderstanding of an answer I gave about people who have been found guilty in court reimbursing the commission. In short, the guilty should be made to pay. Obviously, a large number of people who are found guilty in court do not have the means to pay for their defence. However, I was referring to those cases where people who are found guilty clearly have access to resources. There may be a case for those sorts of people paying either a contribution or the full cost of their defence.
1038. The Chairperson: Thank you.
102 Minutes of Evidence — 10 March 2009
10 March 2009
Members present for all or part of the 1043. We do not accept all claims. At present, proceedings: we deny liability in around 60% to 65% of claims. That percentage can go up or Mr Raymond McCartney (Deputy Chairperson) down, and that will affect the amount of Mr Alex Attwood money that we pay out. It may be some Mr Simon Hamilton time before a claim is paid. Our current Mrs Carmel Hanna average is 12 to 14 months between Mr Nelson McCausland application and payment. However, Mr Alan McFarland some cases can take much longer. For Witnesses: example, we have cases on the books that are more than 10 years old. Again, Mr Robert Crawford Compensation Agency that creates some difficulty for us in Mr Ray Jones for Northern Ireland predicting when money will be spent. Mr David Whitcroft Either way, we need to make provision for those cases in which we accept Also in attendance: liability and anticipate accepting liability.
Mr Victor Hewitt Specialist adviser 1044. There are two classes of claim. We take resource cover for all the claims that 1039. The Deputy Chairperson (Mr we receive, and we either put a price on McCartney): I welcome Mr Robert each of those, or estimate how many Crawford, Mr Ray Jones and Mr David of those claims we are likely to pay, Whitcroft from the Compensation Agency and apply an average price. Currently, to the Committee. Thank you for coming. we hold around £62 million for all the claims that the agency has received. We We are behind schedule, so I thank you have attempted to estimate how much for your patience. funding we will need in the remainder 1040. Before Mr Crawford makes his of the 2007 comprehensive spending presentation and I open up the meeting review (CSR) period, and that figure for questions, I ask Committee members is based on the number of claims to declare any relevant interests. that we anticipate receiving — not an exact science — the number that we 1041. Mr McCausland: I am a member of the anticipate paying, and the amount that Belfast District Policing Partnership. we anticipate paying out for each claim. There is around £23 million remaining 1042. Mr Robert Crawford (Compensation for that purpose in the two remaining Agency for Northern Ireland): With me years of the CSR period. are Mr Ray Jones, who is the director of operations at the agency, and Mr 1045. I emphasise that the figures that I am David Whitcroft, who is the agency’s giving are non-cash-resource figures accountant. They will assist me on any — they are not cash. Essentially, the technical matters that may arise. I will agency’s work is about getting funding to cover liabilities — that is the challenge say a few words about the work of the that we face. Usually, cash is much Compensation Agency for Northern easier, in the sense that once one has Ireland to set the context for our resource cover, it is a matter of profiling discussion. The agency is demand-led. the cash and controlling that year on We receive claims from people who have year. suffered injury or damage as a result of violent crime. Our work, therefore, 1046. Unlike our counterparts in England, depends on the level of violent crime. Wales and Scotland, we are managed
103 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
by departmental expenditure limit already factored that into our current (DEL) rather than by annually managed budget. expenditure (AME). That means that we operate on a three-year cycle, unlike 1051. The calculations that we have made may AME, which operates on a one-year be wrong — there may be more claims, cycle. I do not know why it is the case, or fewer claims of a high value. We but AME is much more flexible and cannot predict that accurately. We used easier to manage. We have not been a conservative figure in making that able to find any reason as to why we calculation, but if that figure were to be differ from our colleagues. As a result of less than we estimated, we might make our being so, however, we must do more savings of £1·5 million or £3 million over the next couple of years. However, forecasting and planning, and we are I must point out that at the end of the involved in more controls. current financial year, we have seen an 1047. As a final comment, I will build on that increase in the number of claims that we and say that it is difficult to predict have received for criminal damage and the future level of payments. We have criminal injury — those types of claims attempted to improve our predictions. were up by about 10% for criminal In the past year to 18 months in damage and 2% for criminal injury. If particular, we have done a great deal of that trend were to continue, meaning work on forecasting, and we think that that we receive that number of claims we are in a much better position now. every year from now on, that would For example, since April last year, we involve an increased cost of several have been able to move to a three-year million pounds. business plan for the first time, and that 1052. We are looking at how we can manage has been a big help to our planning. our money better. We have entered into 1048. The point that I want to leave the one agreement so far and are looking for Committee with is that we have no other agreements with health trusts on crystal ball that will help us to determine long-term residential care. We anticipate the number of claims that will come saving several million pounds over the through the door next year or the year next couple of years if we can get those after. With that caveat in mind, we will agreements in place. That is related to seek to help the Committee as much as the fact that, particularly for some of we can with our future funding. our older claims, we must pay all the money out to an applicant for, perhaps, 1049. The Deputy Chairperson: Thank you. the next 25 years of care. However, On your final point, are there any if we can get agreements with health developments in the criminal-justice authorities on the provision of that care, system that might place a financial we can pay the money in instalments. burden on, or create financial pressures That arrangement is outside the existing for, your agency? constraints of the scheme, so we are not yet certain whether it will be 1050. Mr Crawford: Several things are possible to get the kind of agreements happening, but I would not say that they that we seek. However, we have one will all necessarily create pressures. For in place already that has saved us a example, with effect from this April, we considerable sum of money. That is an are introducing a new criminal-injuries example of the sort of things that are scheme, which will change a number of happening. the headings under which compensation is paid. There are about 400 descriptors 1053. Most fundamental to this is the fact that that are applied to injury types, and we we have seen an upturn in the number have made a calculation that is based of claims, particularly in this financial on the experience of colleagues in year. Claims have been falling for the Great Britain and on the way in which past five years. Therefore, it is not clear compensation rates are changing. That to us whether the increase represents a will affect our payments, and we have change in that trend or a blip. We have
104 Minutes of Evidence — 10 March 2009
alerted the Northern Ireland Office to staffing complement, and the budget to the fact that we might need to consider bring in staff if we need to. However, in obtaining further resources. However, if practice, we have been able to operate we were to do that, we would be looking well under our complement. at the resources for year three, because, as I said at the start, we already have 1059. The Deputy Chairperson: I will ask one final question before I invite questions £23 million provided in the current CSR from Committee members. Is there any period for future claims, and that will duplication in other parts of the system certainly cover us for next year. that you feel you could cover, or vice 1054. The Deputy Chairperson: If there were a versa? drop in case numbers, would that have 1060. Mr Crawford: During the year, we staffing implications? helped out on a short-term basis 1055. Mr Crawford: Our framework document with AccessNI work. We were able to already commits us to reducing staff accommodate that within our existing numbers by five, so we will go from budget without seeking staff or funding having 80 staff to 75 staff. If there were for us to do so. Agency staff are a reduction in caseload, and the number excellent caseworkers, so we have the of claims that we receive decreases, we skills to do casework. I am not sure would certainly look at whether we could whether, in the long term, it would be make further reductions. sensible to mix our work with other work. However, as I said, we provided 1056. We are in the middle of a staffing review, short-term assistance for AccessNI because we need to create our business projects, so we know that we can plan for next year, and we want to build provide it. One difficulty is that we also our staffing requirements into that. A set targets for ourselves, and anything number of other factors needs to be that we bring into the mix prejudices taken into account; for example, the our staff’s ability to meet those targets. grade-C issue has not yet been resolved. The way in which the agency is driven We have quite a number of staff at that is through managing cases. Our level, so that will have an effect on framework document requires us to agency staff. seek to reduce the average time that it takes to process claims, and that is our 1057. To give the Committee some examples fundamental objective. We make modest of figures, for approximately the past improvements on that year on year. five years, we have been operating with That objective could be at risk if more is five fewer staff than our full complement added to the agency’s workload. allows, meaning that we have given approximately £150,000 back to the 1061. Mr McFarland: Thank you. I have Northern Ireland Office this year. We did several queries, but I will give you so because it has been possible for us them all together. Will you differentiate to manage with fewer staff than we have for me between the Criminal Injuries money for. The budget figures that are (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) provided do not take account of the Order 1988 and the Criminal Injuries planned reduction in the number of staff Compensation (Northern Ireland) by five. Therefore, by the end of the CSR Order 2002? Each has a figure of £13 period, we expect to be running at around million or £14 million attached to it. £122,000 under the budget figure. Presumably, there is a difference of some sort between them. How many 1058. I should mention the fact that we have cases have you in total for your 75 got very good staff and many very staff? Will you take us through the experienced staff, as well a very low amazing fluctuations in capital that are sick-leave record, which stands at about outlined in your submission, which vary 2·9%. That means that we do not have from £30,000 and £830,000? I am not to plan on the basis of having many staff sure what you are at there. The table at out sick, and we do not. We have the paragraph 4 of your submission shows
105 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
budgeted expenditure of £430,000 for under the 1988 Order each year, mainly 2008-09, which rises to £830,000 for for sex-abuse cases, for which there is 2009-2010, and then falls to £70,000 a longer time limit in which to make a for 2010-11, yet it was at £30,000 in claim. Any minor who has been injured 2006-07. can claim up until the age of majority plus three years, which is essentially 1062. Mr Crawford: I will ask Ray Jones to let 21 years of age. We are managing out you know the number of cases. He will those cases. We have had about 12 new look that up while I answer your other claims under the scheme this year, and questions. the number of claims falls each year, 1063. There are two different criminal-injury as one would expect. We cleared about schemes. The 1988 scheme is court- 275 of those cases this year, and, over based and is the old way of handling the next three years, we will clear the criminal-injuries claims. By court- remainder — except for possibly a rump based, I mean that it is adversarial. of cases. The applicant submits an application 1067. Mr Ray Jones (Compensation Agency and hires a lawyer, and the agency for Northern Ireland): The total number tests his or her position. The eventual of cases that we have in hand is settlement is approved by the court, approximately 7,500. The average intake and, if necessary, it goes to appeal. It is for tariff is about 5,000. The current all court-based, and there are many legal intake for damage is around 700 or fees to be paid. A good publication is 750 cases. Technically, we still have the available on that. Sir Kenneth Bloomfield capacity to take very old cases under headed a review of the first criminal- the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) injuries scheme, as set out in the 1988 (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. Only Order. He reported in 1999 and made a 12 cases were submitted under that number of recommendations. legislation this year, on a very limited and 1064. One of its recommendations was to restricted basis. introduce the tariff scheme, which 1068. Mr Crawford: In precise figures, the 10% came in under the 2002 Order. It is so increase in damages that I mentioned called because it is based on specified involves a rise from 663 to 720 cases in amounts for each criminal injury. In the current year, and we predict a future other words, if an individual breaks an figure of about 700. In the tariff cases arm, a certain amount is paid out, or if to which Ray referred, we predict that we an individual sustains hearing loss in will come in at a little more than 5,000 both ears, £8,500 is paid out. That is — at 5,006 — and we predict a figure how it works — it is not court-based. of around 5,000 for the future. We also Legal fees are not paid, and, on appeal, have those old cases to manage out. cases are heard by an independent appeals panel. 1069. Mr McFarland: What about the capital element? 1065. We differentiate between them because the schemes are fundamentally 1070. Mr Crawford: The capital figures that we different. We can manage the money have provided do look as if they are all between them because all the money over the place. However, that is simply that the agency receives is programme because our main capital expenditure money. It is not like votes for different is on computer systems, which we are types of expenditure — we can mix and refreshing. The profiled expenditure match. However, we must manage them, relates to when we anticipate spending in a management-information sense, as that capital. two separate schemes. 1071. In fact, the figures have changed a little 1066. The 1988 scheme is now closed. Some since they were provided, because we 560 cases under it remain outstanding. have pushed some work back into next We receive a small number of claims year in order to get the computer system
106 Minutes of Evidence — 10 March 2009
for the new tariff scheme definitely up 1078. Mr Attwood: I can imagine what the and running by the start of April. Work answer to my second question will be, on our website, for example, will not and I do not want you to cause yourself be completed by then; therefore, some unnecessary grief. However, I get the of that expenditure will fall into the impression that the Compensation following year. Agency is pretty tightly run and knows 1072. Mr Attwood: What is the explanation for what it is doing. It has said in its criminal-damage compensation in 2007- framework document that it can reduce 08 rising to more than £25 million from staff by five. Is it not the case that you £920,000 in 2006-07? could reduce staff by another five?
1073. Mr Crawford: It is helpful to have the 1079. Mr Crawford: The agency has already opportunity to explain that, because it reduced staff by five. It currently also explains some of the forecasting employs 69·8 full-time equivalent difficulties. Much of that rise relates permanent staff. The framework to a series of criminal-damage claims document requires the staffing level to for firebomb attacks in the dissident get to 75 in two years. We have one republican campaign, specifically on vacancy to fill, which was occupied large commercial premises. There is a by a supernumerary member of staff. time lag with large claims before money Therefore, the agency does not have five is paid out, and the agency makes vacancies that it is seeking to fill; it is provision for those claims. running at five under its complement.
1074. First, a loss adjuster is sent out within 1080. However, we have cover if the workload 24 hours. An ongoing debate then pressure on staff were to increase. That takes place between the applicant is why we gave £150,000 back this and the Compensation Agency. Many year — we did not use it, and I do not professionals are involved in judging the anticipate our using it over the next two size of the loss, including financial loss years. of profit, and so on, and that explains the time lag. 1081. At present, we are carrying out a staffing 1075. Mr Attwood: I appreciate that, but there review, and, as I mentioned earlier, there is a consistency and a pattern in all the are a number of issues to be bedded other claim lines. If one examines them, into that. The next framework document they do not vary much year on year. review is due in 2010, and I would However, there is a huge variation in not be surprised if, in that, the figure criminal-damage compensation year on goes down further. What I am saying year. Is the fact that claims were in the is that we do not use all the resource system that took a long time to process unless we must. Providing that we keep and that converged in that year the only reducing the time taken to process reason for that? claims, which is the big driver, it is much more prudent and proper that we give 1076. Mr Crawford: Yes, because the incidents the money back so that it can be used happened within a certain period, and elsewhere. Certainly, we could employ the time lag to clear the claims was the extra five staff and make a bigger about the same in most of those cases. dent in our budget; however, at present, 1077. Much of that work involves related we are achieving our aims with the claims. In other words, one incident may existing structure. That is the long way generate eight or 10 claims, in which of answering yes. case the agency runs them together as far as possible, because the issues are 1082. Mr Attwood: Out of the four or five the same, and because doing so cuts agencies from which we have heard down on administrative and legal costs. evidence up until now, yours is the only It is quite common for a number of large organisation that has given us evidence claims to be paid at the same time. to that effect.
107 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
1083. Mr Crawford: A caveat is that if there one’s insurance. We cannot, however, were to be a change in circumstances substantiate that with fact. and a large number of claims made, we would want that cover. 1090. What we have done is to ensure that our staff are fully aware that we do not pay 1084. Mrs Hanna: Good afternoon; you are claims on uninsured vehicles. There is a very welcome. Have you any ideas as clause in the legislation that allows us to why there has been an upturn in the not to pay for damage if the vehicle has number of cases this year? been on the road unlawfully or without tax. We have tightened up to ensure 1085. Mr Crawford: We have tried very hard to that staff know that. However, we have figure that out. We have looked at the not noticed any change in the claims crime figures, and, for most classes, that we are denying for that reason. they are going down. There are a couple The explanation probably is that people of areas, such as violent crime, in which consider claiming from us as being a there have been increases. better option than going through their 1086. Mrs Hanna: You do not see a common insurance. trend in the cases? 1091. Mrs Hanna: You stated that your 1087. Mr Crawford: Not really. I would like to emphasis is on strengthening the carry out more work into that, perhaps process and in getting the claims with NIO statisticians and others who processed within a certain time limit. may be able to help. The 2% increase in Did you say that the average processing claims for criminal injury might correlate time was 12 to 14 months? with some areas of violent crime; however, 1092. Mr Crawford: Yes, 12 to 14 months. claims for offences against the person have gone down. What we find more 1093. Mrs Hanna: Did you say that some odd is the number of criminal damage cases have taken 10 years to process? claims, because there has not been an upsurge in damage, nor have there 1094. Mr Crawford: Yes, we have such cases been big incidents during the year that on our books, and perhaps I should say resulted in damage to many properties. a little bit about that, because it does sound really rather bad. In some very 1088. We do have many vehicle claims. It serious injury claims, it can take years strikes me that people who previously to establish the extent of the injury; for would have claimed from insurance, example, brain damage can take years and therefore not bothered submitting to assess. Very often, the decision to a claim to us, may now be claiming let the claim continue to run is made from the agency, or there may be a between the applicant, or the applicant’s better information system in place. representative, and the agency. What However, we have never before noticed we can and what we do do, at the information provision to be bad in request of applicants, is to make interim Northern Ireland, because we get about payments. three times per capita the number of claims as are submitted in GB — people 1095. Mrs Hanna: My next question was about do know about the schemes. interim payments, particularly for such cases. 1089. However, that is only speculation. People may now be thinking of claiming from 1096. Mr Crawford: We do that. You will us, where previously they would have probably be familiar with the Green Book claimed off their insurance. The amounts method of assessing compensation. for criminal damage would facilitate that, We use that largely in the old cases. because we pay everything but the first Post-2002, of course, the method £200. Many insurance rates are better used is different. However, in the old if one has an excess that is higher than cases, the Green Book is very much the that. Therefore, it becomes sensible starting point. There is a point at which to claim from the agency rather than off we decide that, as we will be paying
108 Minutes of Evidence — 10 March 2009
more than X, we make X as an interim 1102. Mr Crawford: That is the budget that we payment so that applicants are not have allocated for this year. The actual disadvantaged. Some applicants do not expenditure will be around that figure, want interim payments, but, for the most but we have not finalised it as yet, so we part, we find that they are helpful. cannot give you a final total.
1097. In other cases, such as criminal- 1103. Mr McCausland: What is your budgeted damage cases, we have real difficulty in figure for next year? establishing the scale of the loss. For example, if a property were damaged 1104. Mr Crawford: Again, we have not broken and records were not kept, and an that down yet. We have included the issue were to arise about the amount “resource non-cash” totals in the table. of profit or income that a business Those are the available amounts that we earned, we would have real difficulty have to set against the various areas. We with establishing the scale of the loss. may need to draw forward some money Indeed, a few cases have lingered from year three to cover that, but we because of that issue. have not broken it down yet. When we draw up our business plan, which we are 1098. Mrs Hanna: Do you try to recreate in the process of doing, the amount will that record rather than its being the probably look similar to that figure, because applicant’s responsibility to do so? the expected number of claims on our projection will be similar to this year. 1099. Mr Crawford: It is the applicant’s responsibility to keep that record. At 1105. Mr McCausland: There is a changing some point, we seek to close a case trend, which ranges from £10·3 million up by making an offer, on the basis of to almost £18 million. our assessment of the earnings of a particular business, and we have a 1106. Mr Crawford: I have just been reminded forensic accountant who does that for that there is a point that I need to make. us. However, if the applicant were to You referred to the 1988 Order figure. choose not to accept that offer, there However, what I have just said applies would be some arguing back and forth, to the 2002 Order figure. We have now and, sadly, sometimes that can create provided for the remaining 560 claims an impasse. that apply to the 1988 Order. There are only 12 new claims, and we have not 1100. Therefore, that is how things operate. made provision for them, because we However, ultimately, there is always a assess them individually as we receive point at which we will make an offer, and them. Indeed, all the claims have we will not hang on, waiting for more been assessed individually. That is the evidence. Therefore, to conclude, unless amount that we expect to spend, so that we are unable to trace an individual, is the provision that we have now taken we will make an offer. There may be for them. 30 such cases in which we have made offers, and we are in negotiations with 1107. Members will notice that the “total those people. resource non-cash” figure for 2008-09 is almost £51 million, whereas it appears 1101. Mr McCausland: I am going over ground that we have projected relatively small that has already been covered, but I figures for the next two years. The want to get clarity. Under the 1988 reason for that is precisely what I have Order, your table shows that expenditure just said. In the past year, we estimated increased from around £10·3 million, the value of all old criminal-injury claims to £11·4 million, to £14·2, to £17·8 and all existing criminal-damage claims million between 2005-06 and 2008- in the system, and we made provision 09. Considering that it is nearly the for those. Therefore, almost £31 million end of the financial year, is it your of that £50 million is essentially an understanding that the figure will be adjustment, because we improved our £17·8 million for this financial year? forecasting and planning. Therefore,
109 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
the figure is £17·8 million, and, strictly, NIO’s relationship with the Treasury as there could be around a dozen new one of the risks in which the Treasury claims. Our expected figure for that would allow the NIO to seek extra is £100,000 for the next two years. funding. I imagine that that should carry However, the 2002 Order figure for on, because it is already built in. 2008-09 will be almost £14 million for the next two years. In fact, it will be less 1113. The Deputy Chairperson: I thank Robert, than that, because the 2009 scheme Ray and David for their presentation and will come in in April, so we will have to patience. factor that into the figure. 1114. Mr Crawford: Thank you. 1108. Mr McCausland: Between 2005-06 and 2007-08, the criminal-damage figures jumped from £15 million to £25 million because of arson attacks. Therefore, for future years, it would take only one such arson attack to add a further £10 million to that figure.
1109. Mr Crawford: That is a very good point, and one that I wish to clarify. We do not carry provision against one-off attacks, which would prove to be very expensive. We have an estimate based on the level of criminal-damage claims this year, and that estimate did not include that large jump. We value all criminal-damage claims as they are received. We are looking at a 12-month rolling average, and, therefore, our current prediction is based on the past 12 months.
1110. The sort of calculation to which you refer is not built into our budgeted expenditure. However, we have an agreement with the Northern Ireland Office and, indeed, through the NIO, with the Treasury that we will seek extra money in that event, because it simply cannot be predicted. That would be an advantage if we were in an AME environment rather than in one that concerns departmental expenditure limits, because, in AME-type accounting, it is expected that one may need to seek additional funds year on year.
1111. Mr McCausland: Currently, you can go back to the Treasury and say that you need £10 million. Would that arrangement remain if policing and justice powers were devolved?
1112. Mr Crawford: That would need to be negotiated between the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Treasury. However, it is explicitly annotated in the
110 Minutes of Evidence — 10 March 2009
10 March 2009
Members present for all or part of the complement for the coming year is 214; proceedings: 179 of those, including 136 scientists, are directly involved in service delivery. Mr Raymond McCartney (Deputy Chairperson) Our main customer is the PSNI, but Mr Alex Attwood we also carry out work for the Police Mr Nelson McCausland Ombudsman, the Historical Enquiries Mr Alan McFarland Team (HET), the state pathologist, Mr John O’Dowd defence representatives and other Mr Ian Paisley Jnr customers both here and further afield. Witnesses: 1122. Despite its small size, FSNI is a complex Mr David Brooks Forensic Science NI organisation that plays an important Mr Stan Brown role in the criminal justice system. The Mr Peter Connon complexity arises from our broad range Mrs Janet Kirkwood of scientific disciplines, the legalities of expert witness in court and the detailed Also in attendance: quality assurance throughout the end- to-end process from the crime scene to Mr Victor Hewitt Specialist adviser the court. We are accredited to stringent quality standards for that process. 1115. The Deputy Chairperson (Mr McCartney): I remind everyone to 1123. We are a net-funded agency. Our switch off their mobile phones as, resource cost for next year will be even on silent, they interfere with the £11·1 million, of which cash funding recording equipment. is £527,000. Customer revenue, at £9·5 million, will cover 86% of our 1116. I welcome Mr Brown and his delegation. total costs. Matching resources to I apologise for the delay and thank you customer demand is a complex matter for your patience. I hope that it has not in an organisation such as a forensic been too disruptive for you. science laboratory. However, the biggest challenge facing the agency is the need 1117. Mr Stan Brown (Forensic Science for new accommodation, which I will Northern Ireland): We got a free lunch return to in a moment. at your expense, so there was no problem with that. 1124. In the past, the agency’s focus was on effectiveness and getting things 1118. The Deputy Chairperson: By the end of right. More recently, the creation of a the meeting you will know that there is forensic-science market in Great Britain, no such thing as a free lunch. the police imperative to ensure value 1119. Will members please declare any for money and the need to reduce interests? delays in the criminal justice system have required an increased focus on 1120. Mr McCausland: I declare an interest efficiency as well as on effectiveness. as a member of Belfast District Policing Partnership. 1125. Therefore, we are in a period of rapid change: we are redefining our entire 1121. Mr S Brown: Thank you for the product range and restructuring our opportunity to appear before the service level agreements to a three-year Committee. Forensic Science Northern horizon. Those initiatives need a close Ireland’s (FSNI) mission is to provide focus on business processes and effective, impartial forensic science customer services. The Perseus in the support of justice. Our staff management information and business
111 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
change programme will be vital in driving on how much the police decide to put that forward. The agency has ongoing in the direction of forensics. There is capital requirements for equipment, and some expenditure that should naturally we are content that current funding is belong to the Department, such as adequate for that purpose and for the research and development, which, initial phases of the Perseus programme. under HM Treasury rules, should be an allocation from the Department that we 1126. Similarly, our resource funding from recoup through product sales. Therefore, the Department is generally adequate, sustainability is a question of what our although a number of one-off pressures total costs and total revenue will be. may arise with regard to the recent Those figures are currently somewhat European Court of Human Rights unpredictable, by the nature of the beast. ruling on DNA databases, possible new regulatory requirements from the 1131. The Deputy Chairperson: What impact forensic regulator on DNA contamination will the proposed increase in costs have control, and facilities projects required on the budget of the PSNI? to maintain our current premises. 1132. Mr S Brown: The major cost increase is 1127. We have been in a temporary, and probably due to the depreciation charges increasingly unsuitable, facility since and capital charges on the new building. 1992, which inhibits our efficiency If we build a building for £50 million with substantially. The proposed new a 25- to 30-year lifetime, there will be laboratory is a specialist building, and a depreciation charge of between £1·5 much work has already been done million and £2 million per annum, which on the specification. The Strategic will need to be folded into our total Investment Board is closely involved, costs. Ostensibly, we should recoup because the project will straddle two that from our customers, but we are not comprehensive spending review (CSR) sure how the Department intends to periods and, probably, the devolution of treat that. The programme to deliver the criminal justice. The total cost for the new accommodation is a departmental building is in the region of £50 million; project, not a project of this agency. £25 million has been set aside by the Department within this CSR period. 1133. Mr McCausland: You mentioned that the Project delays may require some rollover income from the police was dependent of that into the next CSR. on how much they requested. Does that mean that the amount of work that they 1128. The alternative to new accommodation give your organisation is determined is refurbishment of the existing by their budget, rather than by the premises, which would be very requirements of the cases? problematic operationally, would cost £26 million and would yield an inferior 1134. Mr S Brown: There is always a finite solution, both operationally and in the amount of resources available to the physical independence of FSNI from the police and therefore, ultimately, to us. police. Without new accommodation, the There is always a greater demand for agency will gradually become technically our services than we can normally fulfil, non-viable. so it is a question of prioritising and trying to get ahead of the game. It takes 1129. The Deputy Chairperson: Your paper quite some time to ramp up resources states that FSNI will be self-sustaining in a forensic laboratory in order to meet by 2011-12. How much investment will demand fluctuations. For example, it you need to achieve that? takes two to three years to train a new 1130. Mr S Brown: Being self-sustaining reporting officer up to the competency depends very much on what customers required to go to court. There is also are prepared to pay for our service. investment in equipment and so on. As most of our revenue hangs off the Getting that right and strategically police budget, we very much depend aligned is the complex part of it. We are
112 Minutes of Evidence — 10 March 2009
working very closely with the PSNI on discussion about whether that would that at a number of levels. remain with the NIO. Clearly it makes some sense that it should not continue 1135. Mr McFarland: These charts that you to affect the current policing budget. have provided — do they represent What sort of contracts does your outcomes, or do they represent the organisation have at the moment, and budgets for the three previous years? how would those be affected if, in fact, 1136. Mr Peter Connon (Forensic Science the NIO continued to deal with those Northern Ireland): They represent the historic cases, presumably under new budgets. contracts? If your organisation were to move across with the estate, as it 1137. Mr McFarland: How far off are they from were, presumably you will be contracting the outcomes? separately. 1138. Mr Connon: The resource figure, at £1·9 1148. Mr S Brown: There would be no problem million in 2007-08, can be compared to with contracting with any organisation. the final outcome of £1 million in that For example, our organisation has some year. I do not have the other figures to hand, but I can provide them. contracts with laboratories and partners in England, and even with some police 1139. Mr McFarland: That is almost a 50% forces in England. We also have an underspend. Is that what you are saying? agreement with the HET. It would be a standalone agreement, which we would 1140. Mr Connon: In that particular year, yes. negotiate with the NIO. 1141. Mr McFarland: Is that the norm? 1149. Mr McFarland: Is there much spare 1142. Mr Connon: No, it is not necessarily capacity in your organisation? It is a normal. Look quite closely at the bit like a research area in a university. subsequent funding years — there were If there are a group of extremely various reasons in that year for perhaps experienced scientists — which, by and not being able to utilise the spend large, one usually has to be to do your towards the end of the year. sort of work — there are tons of kit sitting around that does magical things. 1143. Mr McFarland: The budgets for the two If the organisation is fully utilised by previous years were £1·4 million each. the police, then it does not have spare What were the outturns? capacity. The logic is that if there is 1144. Mr Connon: I will have to come back to spare capacity you might look at starting you with those figures. some commercial venture with that capacity in order to bring more money 1145. Mr McFarland: I am curious to see in, and presumably help to buy new those. If one is handing back money all equipment, etc. Does that feature in of the time, there is a great tendency your view? for the Treasury to assume that it is not needed. It is useful for us to know those 1150. Mr S Brown: It does indeed. Capacity sorts of things. is a complex issue, in that there are around 14 different specialist teams, 1146. Mr S Brown: It is one of the complexities of lab work that it can and each team has to be a certain take quite a lot of time to specify and minimum size in order to function. It procure an investment. Sometimes the is conceivable that that minimum size permission arrives too late for us to do inherently has some spare capacity in it in that financial year. some areas. We are actively looking to sell that spare capacity. 1147. Mr McFarland: The Eames/Bradley group has made a proposal to ring- 1151. Mr McFarland: Are you allowed to fence the historic cases into a separate keep the money from that, or does the organisation, and there is some Treasury claw it back?
113 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
1152. Mr S Brown: The money is clawed 1156. Mr Attwood: I found your submission back at the end of the year, but our to the Committee somewhat neutral; framework agreement is currently being it did not give me any meat. You may renegotiated with the NIO, and we are have heard the evidence that the Public looking for some more freedom on the Prosecution Service and others gave ability to retain receipts and roll them earlier — they gave a lot more insight forward. That would be very helpful into their financial situations. It may be and would enable investment and that what is outlined in your submission development in the business. is the height of it, but I would like to see if it is. Is it going to be the case that you 1153. Mr McFarland: If you were encouraged are self-sustaining by 2011 and that, to do that, what sort of income do in the event that we have devolution of you imagine achieving? For example, justice by that time, there will be no call if the new justice Minister were very on the public purse in respect of the impressed with this all-singing, all- Northern Ireland budget? dancing service and was eager to make 1157. Mr S Brown: A lot of the money that use of the scientists and decided to get comes to us from the Northern Ireland some money in by doing a deal with the public purse is circular money. Treasury that would allow the money to be kept, what level of activity would 1158. Mr Attwood: Yes, I know that. that involve? If you were freed up to do 1159. Mr S Brown: It is our goal to achieve that sort of thing, what level of financing that by 2011-12, but there are a number might that raise? of unknowns. One unknown is how the 1154. Mr S Brown: That is the $64,000 question; new accommodation will proceed and perhaps even more than $64,000. how the financial treatment of that Some forensic science is easy enough occurs. Another unknown is how much to export, in the sense that exhibits can research and development should be be moved from another country to here funded centrally from the Department, and another is how much we need to and we can work on them and get the spend on our current accommodation results that we need. Other services before the new accommodation is ready. need close scene attendance and close A further unknown is the effect of the interaction with the police on an hourly European Court of Human Rights ruling or day-to-day basis. Some exhibits are on DNA — that could have a big impact very small and can be moved easily; on the work that we do. We are also some are bulky and very expensive to investing in a major business change move. Therefore, only some aspects of programme called Perseus, which is what we do are exportable. scalable. We will get benefits as we start to roll that out, but we are not yet 1155. We can export products and do work sure how far it could actually go. for other countries or customers, or we can export consultancy services. 1160. Mr Attwood: You have named five For example, there is a big potential unknowns, and there are only two years demand for our services in many parts before we reach 2011. I would conclude of the world because of our experience that certainty around all those unknowns over the last 30 years. I do not have is not going to arise between now and a figure for how much we could raise, then. but it could be quite sizeable — at a 1161. Mr S Brown: I would not bet my house guess, it could be 10% or 15% of total on our reaching it by 2012; it is a goal turnover. However, our top priority must that we are trying to get towards. It be to serve the criminal justice system focuses the mind and helps us be more in Northern Ireland. If we were to do businesslike. business elsewhere, that would be done in order to bolster our capacity and 1162. Mr Attwood: Whatever about how money maintain our home capability. from the public purse moves from one
114 Minutes of Evidence — 10 March 2009
agency to another, if there is devolution things like that. The final cost looks like of policing and justice powers by 2011, being around £50 million. there will be a call upon public funds to directly grant-fund your organisation, 1172. Mr Attwood: In view of what you said but we do not know what the amount is earlier about being self-sustaining by going to be. 2011, how much of that will have to come from our funds? 1163. Mr S Brown: Yes, but I still think that the vast majority of our moneys will be 1173. Mr S Brown: I imagine £26 million or customer revenue. £27 million. I have not discussed it with anyone, but my guesstimate is that just 1164. Mr Attwood: There is a budget line of over half should be coming in the next CSR. £25 million in the last two years of the 1174. Mr O’Dowd: I want to ask about your CSR for your new accommodation. Given current income; specifically, your current that no new site has been identified yet, contracts with the PSNI and other will that money just go back — bodies. What is the format of those 1165. Mr S Brown: We have identified a site contractual obligations? How safe are — it is not absolutely confirmed yet, but they over the next few years? Are you it has been identified, and a lot of study confident that they will be renewed? has gone into the location of that and You said that you might be taking on the various options around that. further contracts; are you confident of your present contracts as a source of 1166. Mr Attwood: You may have identified a income? site, but there are still procedures to go through, so it is unlikely that that money 1175. Mr S Brown: We are confident that the is going to be spent in the next year. Do PSNI wants us to be its local provider you expect that the £25 million that has of choice. It is under legal pressure been allocated for the next two years to ensure value for money in its own will be spent by the end of 2011? procurement, so it will have to test us against other providers in England and 1167. Mr S Brown: We have checked that with Wales. We have to become businesslike. the consultant architects. They feel that We are competitive, for many different the vast majority of it probably will be reasons. We can compete with English spent within that time, if we have the providers, and we have the substantial approval for the outline business case advantage of local responsiveness. If shortly. The programme has taken much and when we have our new laboratory, longer than we anticipated. If we can we will have the finest forensic get approval this summer, then there is laboratory in Europe, a very experienced a good chance that we will be able to team of people and a good, competitive spend most of that money. cost base. Therefore, we should be able to retain the vast majority of the PSNI’s 1168. Mr Attwood: So your best guess at the business. Senior police officers have moment is that that budget line will be told me that that is what they would like exhausted by the end of 2011? to see happen. We are open to the fact 1169. Mr S Brown: Or there will be some that they have the right to compare our rollover from it. costs and service levels with what is available elsewhere. 1170. Mr Attwood: How much is needed after 2011? 1176. Because there is a market in England and Wales, and because PSNI is a 1171. Mr S Brown: Roughly the same again. part of the Association of Chief Police The total cost will be about £50 million. Officers, there is a market aspect to We have been rigorous on the design of this whole provision. There is also the the building, with regard to size, scope, criminal justice system here which, I specification and so on. We have taken would argue, is more important than full cognisance of optimism bias and the marketisation. We are confident
115 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
that we will do it. We have a business Scotland. Scotland already conforms to development directorate, whose sole the European Court’s ruling. responsibility is to ensure that we provide customer satisfaction and 1181. The impact on cases is that there will be that customers want to stay with us. fewer hits on people who might turn out However, where there is a market, there to be of interest in an investigation. In will be no 100% guarantees. the case of sex offenders, I understand that DNA will be retained whether or not 1177. Mr O’Dowd: Is it simply based on best they are subsequently charged. value for money? Does the PSNI go to the open market, and suppliers bid for 1182. The Deputy Chairperson: Are there their business? any other developments in the criminal justice system that will have a similar 1178. Mr S Brown: Yes and no. It is best impact? value, but not just in terms of unit price: there is much more to it than that. 1183. Mr S Brown: Yes. The other example It is a complex, wrapped-up service that I mentioned was the Forensic with respect to responsiveness. We Science Regulator, who controls all are confident that we can be highly forensic science in the UK. Partly in competitive in our home market because response to the Omagh bomb trial, of our physical proximity to our customer the regulator has been looking at the and to scenes. It would be very hard contamination-control measures around for any provider based outside this the end-to-end process of DNA samples. country to match that. We may also be He may come out with requirements competitive in taking some business in for an enhanced way of controlling DNA England and Wales. We also partner with handling, and in order to comply with other laboratories in Europe and further that we may need to invest in facilities afield, as well as across the UK and and consumables, and allow more time. Ireland. There is potential for partnering with competitors and adding some of 1184. The Deputy Chairperson: Does value our services to theirs as they compete added tax (VAT) have any impact on you? for business. Forensic science is a very 1185. Mr S Brown: We are VAT-registered collaborative area. in our own right, separately from the 1179. Mr O’Dowd: You mentioned the ruling of Department. the European Court on the preservation of DNA evidence. What are the 1186. The Deputy Chairperson: A question implications of that ruling? Can we have that the Committee has asked of all a little background? witnesses is whether there is any issue that you have not raised here that may 1180. Mr S Brown: This is a ruling known as S emerge further down the line to put and Marper. Two people were arrested, additional demands on your budget. and samples of their DNA taken. Later, they were released without charge. The 1187. Mr S Brown: We need to maintain European Court ruled that their DNA our capabilities. The broad scope should not be retained on the DNA of capability that we have is very database. At that time, DNA profiles of good indeed for the size of our lab. anyone who was arrested were retained. Maintaining those capabilities is very We have to go through all our many, important, because they synergise with many thousands of DNA profiles — and each other. The issue may arise about physical samples, which we hold in whether — in case of future need — we deep freeze — isolate those belonging wish to maintain a capability that is to people who were not subsequently particularly underused. There is also the charged or convicted and remove them fact that science changes constantly, from the system. The administration and one is never quite sure what will of that will be quite time-consuming. It come along. As recently as 12 or 15 affects the whole of the UK, except for years ago, DNA testing was not standard
116 Minutes of Evidence — 10 March 2009
practice; that has had a huge impact on 1196. Mr S Brown: It will be a gradual laboratories such as ours. process. The first thing that we will have to do if the Forensic Science Regulator 1188. Mr Paisley Jnr: For the record, I declare rules that DNA contamination-control an interest as a member of the Policing procedures must be ratcheted up even Board. higher will be to spend money on the 1189. One of the pressures that you identified existing accommodation. It might cost was that you are in temporary accommo £500,000 to bring that lab up to a dation. Will you outline some of the satisfactory condition. Those things problems that you face as a result? are very important in validating and supporting evidence for the courts. 1190. Mr S Brown: We are based in a converted cigarette factory; most of our staff work 1197. Mr Paisley Jnr: That is certainly true of without seeing daylight from morning until recent trials. If there is any question at evening. In winter, we never see it at all. all about the forensic evidence, it can The other accommodation consists of affect the result. Portakabins outside. That creates a workflow problem. We have to keep our 1198. Mr S Brown: That is right. Quality is exhibits separate — for example, of a absolutely critical. suspect and an injured party — in order to avoid creating a false connection. We 1199. Mr Paisley Jnr: That is one fairly must decontaminate the inspection significant cost for you. From what I rooms between cases. Those flows, and gather — do not pull any punches, being stuck for space, mean that it because it is better to know early on — takes us longer to do that. Processing it will be an immediate pressure. material would be much easier and decontamination quicker in a new 1200. Mr S Brown: It becomes an immediate building, because there would be pressure if and when the regulator reserve capacity that would obviate rules that those additional standards those bottlenecks. are required. For other operational reasons, we may choose to gradually 1191. Mr Paisley Jnr: How far down the line move premises ahead of the regulator’s are you towards achieving a newbuild project? decision.
1192. Mr S Brown: We have a conceptual 1201. Mr Paisley Jnr: Do you have a location in design; we have sized out the floor mind? spaces that we need for each of the 1202. Mr S Brown: We have a putative specialist forensic areas; we have location, which we are not 100% certain specified the high-level finish and that we will get. However, we are equipment that we need; and, based on that, we have done an analysis of what reasonably confident that we have a site the building will cost. that meets our purposes.
1193. Mr Paisley Jnr: Which is how much? 1203. Mr Paisley Jnr: Will you have to spend money purchasing that site? 1194. Mr S Brown: Roughly £50 million. The outline business case is currently being 1204. Mr S Brown: No, it is a publicly owned site. prepared and will hopefully be submitted in the next two or three months. We will 1205. Mr Paisley Jnr: It is a land swap. Thank then go into full design. We will have a you. tendering process for architects to quote 1206. The Deputy Chairperson: Thank you against that particular specification. for your evidence and your patience. 1195. Mr Paisley Jnr: At what point do you We hope that the lunch in some way foresee being under real pressure over compensated for your long delay. Thank accommodation? you very much.
117 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
118 Minutes of Evidence — 10 March 2009
10 March 2009
Members present for all or part of the director, who has responsibility for proceedings: finance.
Mr Raymond McCartney (Deputy Chairperson) 1210. My service made a submission to the Mr Alex Attwood Committee in response to the specific Mr Simon Hamilton issues raised about the finance that Mrs Carmel Hanna is available to the Public Prosecution Mr Alan McFarland Service. I hope that you will find Witnesses: it helpful if I explain a little of the background to the Public Prosecution Sir Alasdair Fraser Public Prosecution Service. The service was established Mr Ian Hearst Service for Northern in June 2005 by the Justice (Northern Mr Jimmy Scholes Ireland Ireland) Act 2002, which defined the statutory duties and commitments Also in attendance: and the legislative framework within Mr Victor Hewitt Specialist adviser which it must provide its services. It is the principal prosecuting authority in Northern Ireland and is responsible for 1207. The Deputy Chairperson (Mr all criminal cases that the Department McCartney): Before I welcome the of the Director of Public Prosecutions witnesses to today’s proceedings, I for Northern Ireland and the Police apologise on behalf of the Committee Service of Northern Ireland prosecuted for the delay. I am sure that everyone previously. At present, our total caseload can appreciate that the events of is just under 56,000 cases. Saturday night and last night have disrupted business. A number of 1211. Since 2005, we have been building a members of this Committee, including regional service. We have established the Chairperson, have had to attend a headquarters in Belfast and regional an emergency meeting of the Policing offices in Lisburn, Ballymena and Board. Omagh. Yesterday, we received a new 1208. I welcome Sir Alasdair Fraser, Mr Ian office in Londonderry, and I am very Hearst and Mr Jimmy Scholes from happy that, after a number of years, the Public Prosecution Service to we are able to return to Derry. I am today’s proceedings. You will be aware anxious to secure premises in Newry. from previous evidence sessions Funds have already been committed to that we expect you to make a short achieving that, and I contend that those presentation, at the end of which I will funds should remain available so that, invite members to ask questions. if premises become available, we can fulfill our desire to open premises in 1209. Sir Alasdair Fraser (Public Prosecution that city. Along with the development of Service for Northern Ireland): Thank the estate, and in line with the roll-out you very much, Chairperson. We of the service, we have carried out a fully understand the exceptional recruitment exercise, which has resulted circumstances that have sadly arisen. I in an increase in our staffing levels from welcome the opportunity to speak today 170 to 570 — our full complement will on the work undertaken to address be in and around 610 persons. the financial implications of devolving policing and justice powers. With me 1212. I hope that the background that I have today are Jimmy Scholes, the acting provided goes some way to explaining deputy director of the Public Prosecution the year-on-year increase in expenditure, Service, and Ian Hearst, an assistant including revenue and capital, as set
119 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
out in the table at section (D) of our 1215. The submission also provides details of submission. Now that we have reached further pressures anticipated to arise in what might be described as an almost future but for which a bid at this time steady state concerning accommodation has not been made; namely, the service’s and staffing, the service can accurately response to the Saville Inquiry, the findings predict and control 75% of its costs. of which are now due to be published in The remaining 25% of costs relate to 2009, and new work that will arise from expenditure on counsel fees. the Serious Crime Act 2007.
1213. I understand that, last week, the 1216. In conclusion, I seek to assure the Committee heard evidence from the Committee that, although the Public Court Service and from the Legal Prosecution Service is a relatively young Services Commission on the pressures organisation approaching a steady state, that they face owing to mounting legal the underlying costs and pressures that costs and the unpredictability of those contribute to its funding requirements costs. My service is not immune from are now better understood and quantified. those pressures either. We have sought 1217. In giving evidence, I am fully aware of to address the issue of counsel fees the financial constraints that apply and in the context of a challenging 2007 that lie ahead. I have sought to identify comprehensive spending review (CSR). the significant issues that we will face, That review introduced a number of and to disclose fully to the Committee measures, including restricting the use any concerns that I hold. I am grateful of senior counsel to a limited number for the opportunity to speak to the of cases; using our own staff in the Committee. Magistrate’s Court and, increasingly, in the County Court; and the careful 1218. The Deputy Chairperson: Thank you. management of counsel fees paid, I note that no Committee members particularly in high-cost cases. in attendance at present have any interests to declare. 1214. We have had to meet a number of other pressures, and, in order to do 1219. In your submission, you mention so, we have had to freeze vacancies measures to limit senior counsel in among administrative grades. By not certain cases. Can you give me some recruiting 40 staff when vacancies impression of what that will cost to arose, it was possible for the service achieve, and what will be the quality of to meet a pressure from counsel justice be as a result? fees of £1·15 million. That pressure 1220. Sir Alasdair Fraser: At the beginning will continue during the current CSR of the financial year — looking at what period. In our submission, we have I described as the challenging budget identified other pressures, including that we face — our management costs that may be awarded against the committee decided that it was important prosecution, and costs associated with that the Public Prosecution Service preparing the service for its status as took immediate steps to ensure that it a non-ministerial department. We have could live within budget. One of those included a bid of £150,000 to assist factors was a decision to restrict and with the resource implications of the limit the use of senior counsel. It was latter. That money would cover the the experience here over many years anticipated costs arising from our having that senior counsel was engaged, both such status and would go towards, by the prosecution and the defence, for example, establishing a private in cases in which they would not be office, reinforcing our finance team instructed in England. I suspect that that and securing internal audit services to practice grew by reason of magistrates support the Public Prosecution Service being willing to issue a certificate for as it faces the increased scrutiny that two counsels to defendants, and the will arise on devolution. prosecution’s wishing to present itself
120 Minutes of Evidence — 10 March 2009
as treating the case in an equal way in 1226. A number of variables may or may not instructing senior counsel. arise in each case. For example, an expected plea may become a contest, 1221. I consider that no longer to be appropriate. and an expected contest may become I have sought to limit the instruction of a plea. There may be unanticipated senior counsel to various categories of difficulties in cases, or an extraordinary case, which include murder, manslaughter, event may cause slippage. Recently, for serious sexual offences such as rape, example, the profession was concerned and serious motoring offences such as about the level of remuneration that was causing death by dangerous driving. I being paid, and a number of serious have chosen those cases because, cases that perhaps should have been principally, they encapsulate the more tried this year were moved into next year. serious cases that proceed to trial, and they also, in my experience, are cases 1227. All those factors may influence costs, that cause considerable concern across and they are not included in the 75% of the community. costs that we can master. Those other costs are much more fluid. 1222. I am not in a position to give the Committee a precise figure on savings. 1228. The Deputy Chairperson: What impact However, I am certain, by reason of has the Criminal Justice Order 2008 fact, that the Public Prosecution Service had on your workload, and how do can live within budget, having not filled you envisage it will affect the Public Prosecution Service? a number of vacancies, as a result of which we have made significant savings. 1229. Sir Alasdair Fraser: If you have the I can provide the Committee with a Serious Crime Act 2007 in mind, figure at the end of the financial year. two matters arise from that piece of legislation, the more serious of which 1223. The Deputy Chairperson: You for us is that Parliament has given us a have talked about your budget’s statutory responsibility for civil recovery. unpredictability. Do you feel that there When deciding whether to prosecute, will be an increase in the very-high-cost the prosecutor may conclude that the criminal cases, and what pressure would evidence is insufficient to support a that put on your budget? prosecution but sufficient to support 1224. Sir Alasdair Fraser: The fundamental a civil action against the putative problem is that my service is demand- defendant. In those circumstances, driven. It does not have the facility to we must acquire the skills of a civil use the normal budgetary techniques of practitioner in order to pursue that prioritising or cutting down work. That action through the High Court. option is not available to us. I suspect 1230. The possibility of such an arrangement that the Public Prosecution Service is is an unusual development, and only rather like the Fire and Rescue Service two agencies are empowered to act in — if there is a fire, we attend it. It is such a manner: the Serious Organised difficult to predict in a year’s time what Crime Agency (SOCA); and the Public the number of high-cost cases will be. Prosecution Service. At present, SOCA pursues civil recovery. However, within 1225. As matters stand, and as the sad a limited period — we have not been events that have occurred in the course informed of its duration — responsibility of the past few days demonstrate, it for what, in effect, the Assets Recovery would be reasonable to assume that Agency was doing will pass to the Public the present level of high-cost cases will Prosecution Service. continue. Our problem is in providing accurate accruals in order to provide 1231. Serious crime prevention orders is reasonable costings to the Treasury another aspect of the 2007 Act. It is or, on devolution, to the Department of now open for the prosecution to apply Finance and Personnel. for such an order in the High Court as
121 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
a civil matter, or, on conviction, in the fees in the form of an order. Obviously, Crown Court. The orders, which cover we are now aware what the defence a range of conduct, are a significant pays, and I accept that that may have development. We recently applied for, had an inflationary effect on prosecution and obtained, the first such order in the fees. The Bar would contend that the United Kingdom. We obtained a second position has always been that the order relating to persons involved in the prosecution, historically and currently, smuggling of fuel, and the court ordered pays less than the defence is paid that that person, or persons, could not out of the legal-aid fund, despite the become involved in the purchase, sale, fact that public moneys are furnished possession or transmission of fuel for a through both organisations. period of five years. That is a new area of work that will develop over two or 1237. This legislature may wish to consider three years. whether the current arrangements are desirable or whether an opportunity 1232. The Deputy Chairperson: We may return exists for a more radical approach to be to that subject at the end. taken, perhaps with a central authority’s taking responsibility for fees. However, in 1233. Mrs Hanna: Good morning and welcome. this rather lengthy answer, I am seeking What reform is necessary to control to explain how we assess individual fees counsel fees? For instance, is there at senior level and take decisions, and a cap on fees? Will you explain the to outline the difficulties that we face. charging scale for counsel? We have in hand a working party — of 1234. Sir Alasdair Fraser: I have been director which the Court Service is an observer for 20 years, and there has never been — to prepare a graduated scale of fees, a year in which there was not a difficulty if that is the system that we wish to adopt. in settling fees with the Bar. My service 1238. We are looking closely at the Crown has acted quite properly, and it settles Prosecution Service in England to fees largely on a case-by-case basis. ascertain whether we consider its Scales of fees are applied to about 15% arrangements to be effective and of cases, and there is a read-down from affordable. If we adopt its arrangements, that scale. However, the remaining 85% that will bring a new transparency to the of cases are examined individually by a basis on which fees are calculated and senior member of the department, who paid. Of my own volition and without being may be in discussion with counsel. asked, I have decided to publish annually 1235. It is a distinguishing feature here the earnings of counsel whom I instruct. that counsel negotiates directly on The public should be able to reassure its fees, whereas in England the itself that there is openness and account clerk to chambers carries out those ability, and that what is being done is negotiations. Owing to the fact that not being done behind closed doors. counsel negotiates directly here, I have 1239. Mrs Hanna: Thank you very much. always required those negotiations to I was going to ask you whether you be conducted by a senior member of planned to take a different approach, staff on my behalf, in order to ensure but you have answered that question to equality of arms and that my staff are some extent. However, I am still unsure not overborne in their responsibility to whether you feel that adopting England’s protect the public purse. arrangements would be more financially 1236. We consider that we pay fees that are efficient. affordable, fair and reasonable for 1240. Would you ever consider capping fees? work done, and it is on that basis that we approach the formulation of a fee 1241. Sir Alasdair Fraser: The idea of capping in each case. Extraneous factors may fees is not something that one can rule influence that decision; for example, out. However, as a prosecutor, I would 2005 statutory rules for legal aid set out say to the Minister responsible that
122 Minutes of Evidence — 10 March 2009
that action would be more appropriately to be devolved on 1 April 2009 — the taken by a Minister. start of the financial year. What have you identified as your top-line pressure 1242. The figures that the Committee received over the next two years, and what will last week on the average cost of the your top-line pressure be if you are to fill defence that is funded by legal aid are the 40 vacancies on which there is, at of some interest. I understand that you present, a moratorium? have received evidence that the average cost is £13,887 per case in Northern 1246. Sir Alasdair Fraser: I understand the Ireland and £6,300 per case in England question. We have sought to present our and Wales. I must be cautious in what I response in answer to the particularity now say, because I am not certain that of the questions raised. However, to the factors that I have weighed, in rise a little above that, the CSR 2007 calculating that equation, are exactly the was challenging, particularly so on same as those that the Legal Services counsel fees. Our bid was not accepted, Commission used in making its and we received a reduced bid of calculation. Equally, I must recognise around £6∙8 million, which we knew that, in a case in which I am paying immediately was not enough. Therefore, counsel to prosecute, I should not pay, we initiated a moratorium on the filling for example, for five separate sets of of vacancies. Those vacancies arose in counsel and five separate sets of solicitors a rather haphazard fashion and could to defend. Therefore, it may be that I am not be predicted, nor could the range not comparing like with like. However, of skills that we lost be predicted. The the average cost that we have calculated moratorium was a rough but necessary for criminal court cases for this financial means of ensuring that we could pay our year, 2008-09, is £5,800. The financial bills at the end of the year. year is not yet over, however, so that remains a provisional figure. 1247. Our spending in this financial year has demonstrated that, with additional 1243. Whether or not the calculations are funding of around £1·15 million for comparable, there is clear blue water counsel fees, we will be able to live between what we appear to be paying within budget. We have identified the and what legal aid appears to pay. There resource implications of the devolution is a complicating factor, however. It is a of justice powers. The financial side will Government precept that there should have to be beefed up somewhat, and be equal or like pay for equal or like a private office will have to be provided work. There may be an argument that, if and a more focused internal audit the figures are comparable, too great a conducted. gap exists. 1248. Taking into account the additional bids 1244. Mr Attwood: I have two or three to cover counsel fees, costs awarded questions. Mr Scholes may be able and the resource implications of having to help me with the first one. From non-ministerial department status, the the useful paper that you gave the total devolution funding bid for 2009- Committee, I am unable to work out 2010 is £1·6 million. That figure rises your ideal top-line requirement in the by a small amount for the third year years 2009-2010 and 2010-11. You of the CSR period. Those figures are have given us figures for the devolution- founded on a rigorous approach, as a funding bid and for total anticipated result of our experience this year. If we pressures, but then there is a separate were to be allocated funding for those figure given for a shortfall in counsel additional bids over the next two years, fees for this year, and so on. we could end the moratorium on filling vacancies. 1245. This is an evidence session to determine the funding that is required 1249. My approach is to be as forthright as for the devolution of justice powers. I possibly can be. I understand that if Let us assume that those powers are policing and justice powers are devolved,
123 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
there is little purpose in my telling the budget and excluding staff costs for Committee in 12 months’ time that I filling 40 posts, is £4·5 million. On the cannot remain within budget. issue of the moratorium on filling staff vacancies, in your submission, you state 1250. In our submission, I also included the that a shortfall of 40 posts represents civil-recovery issue, which we are not yet a 10% reduction in the overall staff ready to bid for, because the specific complement. Therefore, does that responsibilities for that have yet to be determined. The Attorney General has reduction not — these are my words not yet issued advice as to who should — have a disproportionate impact on do what and when, and SOCA has not your efficiency and effectiveness? That yet indicated its intentions. Therefore, suggests to me that you must be getting we have not dealt with that issue yet. close to that stage. However, I put that down in good faith as 1255. Sir Alasdair Fraser: Through hard work a marker. and good will my colleagues have carried 1251. I also put down as a marker the issue an extra burden. It is my judgement of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry report. In that that is a short-term commitment, previous years, we have tried to work not one on which I can rely in the long within our resources, but we are now term. We did it because we had to do stretched financially. In the scheme it. I would like, at the beginning of the of things, the amount of money that next financial year, to begin to fill those is involved is not huge; however, it is vacancies. The moratorium has had a significant amount of the taxpayer’s an adverse effect. For example, we money. I thought it wise to inform the have been the subject of criticism from Committee of the actions taking place in Criminal Justice Inspection about the respect of that. The Committee should work of notifying witnesses and victims also be made aware of other matters, of their requirement to go to court and such as the Historical Enquiries Team the assistance that we as prosecutors and incentivisation. There are streams should give them. The cuts have of funding that assist that. exacerbated the problems in an area in 1252. Mr Attwood: Your explanation is much which we were found to be not perfect. appreciated, because, in previous evidence sessions, some of the 1256. Mr Attwood: I have a lot of sympathy witnesses from other organisations with your view on that. I do not think it is were a bit polite in setting out their true sustainable to continue the moratorium budgetary position for the next couple of on the hiring of staff for, for example, years. You have not been impolite, but the next two financial years. You and I, you have been explicit. However, what and your colleagues, have had enough is the bottom line? You spoke about a conversations about how the Public bottom line of £4·5 million, before the Prosecution Service (PPS) might be. We costs of filling the 40 vacant posts are have to face up to the issue of the 40 included. Assuming that there is no unfilled posts. further issue around counsel fees, is that figure accurate? 1257. I think that the Committee heard last week that the amounts spent on 1253. Sir Alasdair Fraser: Yes. If I were to enter defence fees — £14,000 here and into a process of negotiation, I would £6,000 in Britain — were for high-value advance what the bottom line was from cases, not for the general run of cases. the start. However, I am not in that Are you saying that the PPS’s payments position. to counsel amount to less than £6,000 1254. Mr Attwood: For the purposes of the for high-value cases, or are you saying Committee’s report, the bottom line for that the payments to counsel in the the next two years of the current CSR general run of cases amount to less period, over and above your current then £6,000?
124 Minutes of Evidence — 10 March 2009
1258. Sir Alasdair Fraser: I am saying the what we are biting off, as it were, I intend latter. That underlines the caution with to move during the course of 2009-2010. which I introduced the subject. I anticipate that we will start slowly in each of the four regions and that we 1259. Mr Attwood: I appreciate that. What will increasingly use the senior public do you think is the average payment prosecutors once they have completed to prosecuting counsel in high-value their training. The experience in England cases? and Wales is informative; by using in- 1260. Sir Alasdair Fraser: I am not certain house lawyers in the Crown Court, they whether an average in that sense is have reduced their reliance on counsel useful. by 11%.
1261. Mr Attwood: Comparing the figures — 1268. It is important that there be a strong, healthy, vigorous Bar. It is equally 1262. Sir Alasdair Fraser: I would be important that, where we have rights hypothesising, which I do not wish to do. of audience in the Crown Court, we use them to take advantage of 1263. Mr Attwood: If you can give the figures the experience that senior public in respect of the general run of cases, prosecutors will achieve, create career why can you not give some indicative opportunities for them and raise figure in respect of high-value cases? the significance of the job of public 1264. Sir Alasdair Fraser: There is, on the prosecutor in the public estimation. That defence side, a clear definition of what is something to which I am wedded, but a high-cost case is. I think — and I want to move carefully. my colleagues will correct me if I am 1269. Mr Attwood: The financial impact of that wrong — that every case that exceeds in year one might be a 1% reduction in 25 days falls into that category. The expenditure on counsel’s fees. PPS has a system of scale fees and special fees. Special fees make up 85% 1270. Sir Alasdair Fraser: I do not want to of our business and are the subject of use the word seedcorn, but I will. I do individual negotiation. I could certainly not want to find that by designating a prepare a costing that related only to small number of experienced lawyers I special fees, taking out the 15% — am losing timeliness. In an ideal world, that would cover all of the work of the I would like to replace the senior public Magistrate’s Court, but as we are mainly prosecutors with other lawyers to carry doing it, there would not be much there. out their casework, train the senior It would also include the less serious public prosecutors and get them into indictable cases. We can do that, and court. When they are in court, there if it will be of value I will write to the should be savings in counsel fees. Committee with that information. 1271. Mr McFarland: The Court Service told 1265. Mr Attwood: It would be interesting us that the time between the end of a to compare and contrast, subject to case and the bill filtering through the the general warning about figures and system could be up to two or three statistics. years. Does that also affect your 1266. When will the High Court advocate budgeting? It makes things difficult if system be in place? The Court Service you have to wait two years to know what said last week that its proposals in money is coming down the line. respect of reducing costs in very-high- 1272. Sir Alasdair Fraser: It does, and that has value cases might take a number of been an issue. Counsel have differed years to take effect. Is the advocate system a short-term proposal, or will it be in the speed with which they have three or four years before it is in place? provided my service with the necessary information for an assessment of what 1267. Sir Alasdair Fraser: Once we have fees should be paid and an audit trail. completed our costing and we know My regional prosecutors, who have a
125 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
delegated notional budget for counsel’s might suggest that we can fund any fees, know exactly what accruals are particular problem from that money, in existence each month, and they are it is an unreliable source of funding under pressure to take steps to ensure because it depends entirely on whether that the bills are paid at the earliest a confiscation order is made at the end possible time and that the accruals do of criminal proceedings. At present, not distort our budget. there are not, as I understand it, arrangements in place for civil recovery. 1273. You are absolutely right that there is Applying the logic of the scheme, it an issue. However, as long as we are would seem desirable that the same calculating fees in the manner that I sort of arrangement might be made. described, and until we move to a more However, there might not, perhaps, arithmetic or mechanical method, that be such a significant part paid to the problem will remain. investigator, because with civil actions we would be taking it forward. 1274. Mr McFarland: There is a function by which you can recover 22·5% of assets 1278. Mr McFarland: The Assets Recovery in criminal cases. Is that negotiable with Agency — now part of SOCA — deals HM Treasury? If you were stuck, could with civil cases. If no criminal case you increase that to 40%? How will that is pending, and none is likely to be, affect things when you take on the civil it pursues the assets of organised cases? Presumably, a similar system will crime and criminals. Presumably, its exist. Is the percentage in civil cases investigators produce a case, which you likely to be 22·5% as well, or are we then prosecute. likely to see a different system? 1279. Are you saying that that entire 1275. Sir Alasdair Fraser: The incentivisation investigation side will become more like money has a tendency to be notionally it is in the United States, in that the PPS allocated to every purpose. If we raise will have detectives with surveillance an issue of funding, we will likely be told assets to find the evidence and drum up to use that money. As a matter of fact, the case that you will prosecute, or will there are limitations on what we can do SOCA continue to do that bit, with you with the money. The immediate cut is just conducting the prosecution? I am 50% to HM Treasury. Of the remainder, not sure what is going to happen in civil 45% goes to my service — which, as cases. you rightly said, is 22·5% of the total. Another 45% goes to the investigating 1280. Sir Alasdair Fraser: You have raised a body, and the other 10% to the Court difficult issue. There is a serious crime Service. task force, which seeks to co-ordinate strategy in the investigation of the 1276. As you will see in our submission, sort of offences that you have in mind. we have around £1·1 million of Nonetheless, there remains a clear incentivisation money in 2008-09. The distinction between the investigator and Home Office has rules to guide the use the prosecutor. We have followed the of that money; it must be used at least approach that was set out by the Royal in part to promote and secure further Commission on Criminal Procedure, confiscation proceeds. Therefore, I will which is to maintain a difference willingly allocate part of that money for between prosecution and investigation. that purpose. I will increase by one, Others favour what you have described; perhaps, the numbers of staff available a much closer working relationship to do the work. However, that will not between investigator and prosecutor. deal with everything. The money is ring- fenced for three years; I have to use it 1281. Under current arrangements, we are during that period. required by the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 to give prosecutorial 1277. On the downside, although Treasury advice to the investigator. I am happy or other Government Departments that investigators are increasingly taking
126 Minutes of Evidence — 10 March 2009
advantage of that. We provide advice, question of where the Public Prosecution perhaps, even before someone has Service should be based. been arrested, as long as that falls within the remit of prosecutorial advice. 1287. The Deputy Chairperson: If the question is one of efficiency, the Committee can 1282. Perhaps it is a judgement for other proceed. people to call. My view is that, as matters stand in the society that we 1288. Sir Alasdair Fraser: At an early point, serve, it is better to have a clear line of and to underline the independence of distinction between the investigator and the service, we considered that the best the prosecutor. There is always a risk location would be in the Office of the that, if those roles are melded together, First Minister and deputy First Minister. I the prosecutor begins to lose objectivity recognise that this is a decision that will in the pursuit of the chase. be taken by others — I can offer only my own views. 1283. Mr McFarland: Under the current proposals, you will come across as a 1289. In a financial context, it is important that non-ministerial Department. Traditionally, the Public Prosecution Service should it is vital that the Public Prosecution not depend on a sponsor Department Service be independent and be seen to for its finances; rather, it should be be beyond influence. Is there scope for placed in the position that it negotiates more co-ordination between the broader a settlement with DFP, perhaps with the Court Service and your administration, support of a Minister. Someone will which would save money without certainly have to look after the interests impinging on the service’s prosecutorial of the Public Prosecution Service at impartiality? meetings of the Executive which discuss finances and the like — and, perhaps, in 1284. Another question that we have been the Assembly. asking for some time is where the Public Prosecution Service should be 1290. There are so many issues there that based. Does it need a home? Logically, are not issues for me as director of the service would be attached to a the Public Prosecution Service. They Department, and the Committee has are clearly political and procedural discussed whether that should be the matters that it will be for the Assembly Office of the First Minister and deputy to determine. For my part, I would be First Minister or the Department of content to be in the Office of the First Finance and Personnel (DFP). Have you Minister and deputy First Minister. any thoughts as to where your home Without wishing to appear unduly might be? negative, I am not particularly attracted to the justice Department, which I 1285. The Deputy Chairperson: That is getting think will essentially be an operational away from the subject of finance. Department that will not truly meet my needs in taking quasi-judicial decisions 1286. Mr McFarland: Yes, but when the independently and dispassionately. Committee discussed the advantage of having the Public Prosecution Service 1291. On the matter of administrative costs, in front of us, that was the only Mr McFarland’s suggestion is good. outstanding question from phase 1 of If there are services that can be the policing and justice discussion. I purchased in a common way, it makes thought that the Committee might take sense to do that. To an extent, we are advantage of Sir Alasdair being here in already in that position, because a order to ask it, rather than bring him number of Departments and agencies back in another three or four weeks’ avail themselves of a range of services time. Since he is here to discuss the from HR Connect, for example. effective and efficient co-ordination of Therefore, that suggestion is very much administration, it is fitting to raise the in the service’s mind.
127 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
1292. There is also the common pursuit of 1296. Sir Alasdair Fraser: Under the Finance the Causeway project, which will link Act 2008 we pay VAT to counsel, but the various agencies in a very close that VAT is recouped and has no effect and direct way in sharing information. on my budget. It is money that we pay, That sort of approach is the future. and it is money that is brought back. It Resources will not increase; we must is governed by the 2008 Act. The VAT make the most of what we have and returns are managed by the financial have the confidence to work more services division of the NIO; presumably, closely and effectively while maintaining on devolution, that will transfer to DFP. our respective independence. There are arrangements in place to address that. 1293. Mr Hamilton: The matter has been well aired, but I want to go back briefly 1297. The Deputy Chairperson: Do financial to the issue of counsel’s fees and the considerations enter into the decision deficit of £1·1 million over the next two on whether to proceed with a years, which Alex and other members prosecution? were talking about. That problem is not going away any time soon. Over 1298. Sir Alasdair Fraser: That is a very the CSR period, there is a gap, but difficult question. It is not something that gap is likely to continue. The PPS that I have experienced, and I cannot faces a perennial problem. Is it a fair recall a single case where that was a assessment to say that, without the factor. However, if the witnesses were swift and successful enacting of some 10,000 miles away, and if the case was of the measures that you talked about, very minor and, perhaps, of a technical the problem will be with us for the nature, the prosecutor would have to foreseeable future? consider whether the public interest required that expenditure to meet that 1294. Sir Alasdair Fraser: The instruction prosecution. In any event, alternatives and briefing of independent counsel to prosecution might be available. To will always be akin to a marketplace. answer your question, it could be a There will always be some debate public interest factor that would be and discussion as to what the market relevant, but it has not happened. rate should be. For my part, the future lies in settling a scheme that is open, 1299. The Deputy Chairperson: Finally, are transparent, accountable and applicable there any issues that you have not to cases, and that brings a greater touched on that may confront you in certainty to the settling of them. If the future, and which might have some we can achieve that, then the rubbing impact or pressure on your budget? I points — which do exist — will be have asked the same question of all reduced. I do not want to place the Bar witnesses. in a position that it would view as wrong. 1300. Sir Alasdair Fraser: This is a hostage to It is vital for our society that there be a fortune. I have sought to be as forthright strong, vigorous and independent Bar, as I possibly can. None of us has the and that public funds be available for ability to predict events that have not the Bar to provide services; to prosecute occurred. and defend. I do not think that any of us here would contend otherwise. However, 1301. The Deputy Chairperson: The within that context, I will be working to Committee may have some additional ensure that there is a reduction in the questions, but it will put them in writing rubbing points. and seek responses. Thank you.
1295. The Deputy Chairperson: Does your agency pay value added tax (VAT), and what will the application of that be at the point of transfer?
128 Minutes of Evidence — 24 March 2009
24 March 2009
Members present for all or part of the Treasury guidance and other guidance proceedings: on governance issues.
Mr Jimmy Spratt (Chairperson) 1306. The trust was established following a Mr Raymond McCartney (Deputy Chairperson) 1994 internal review of policing. That Mr Alex Attwood review identified the need for changes to Mr Simon Hamilton the police service in subsequent years. Mr Alan McFarland Research was conducted among serving Witnesses: officers, and they identified four main areas in which they felt that they would Mr Eddie Gaw Police Rehabilitation need help and support in the event of Mr Sheamus Hamill and Retraining Trust a change in policing in Northern Ireland and a downsizing of the service. Those 1302. The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): I remind four main areas were: careers guidance members to turn off their mobile phones and personal development support; because they interfere with the recording training and education; psychological equipment. Hansard is recording today’s therapies; and physiotherapy. evidence session and, therefore, every 1307. In essence, those areas break down thing that members say will be recorded. into two main streams. One focuses on developing vocational and employment 1303. I welcome Eddie Gaw, chief executive of opportunities for officers with particular the Police Rehabilitation and Retraining emphasis on redeployment, self-help Trust (PRRT), and Mr Sheamus Hamill, and self-reliance and the other aims chairman of the board of directors. You to relieve the distress and hardship should make a short presentation, after of officers who have been physically which members will ask questions. The injured or psychologically damaged in Committee is running close to quorum, the course of their policing service. Until but I hope that other members will join two years ago, that is what the trust had soon. done since its establishment. 1304. Mr Sheamus Hamill (Police 1308. Over the past two years, we have sought Rehabilitation and Retraining — with the approval of our sponsoring Trust): The Police Rehabilitation and Department — to expand our services Retraining Trust is a company limited by to other areas. We now provide psycho guarantee that was formed on 2 March logical and physiotherapy services to 1999. Therefore, 2009 is our tenth former military personnel in Northern anniversary. The trust is funded by the Ireland. We also offer services to serving Government through grant aid, which, police officers through their occupational this year, amounts to £2·2 million. We health and welfare unit, and we provide must find our revenue and capital from services to the Prison Service Trust, that sum — it is one funding package. which came on stream from Christmas 2008. We also formed a subsidiary 1305. Our sponsoring Department is the company called Futures (NI) Ltd, which is policing policy and strategy division a wholly owned company that has the of the Northern Ireland Office (NIO). A potential to provide our services to other management statement and financial elements of the public sector. We may memorandum is in place between the say more about that company during the trust and the NIO. The trust is non- question-and-answer session. profit making and is what is known as an arm’s-length body. It has rigorous 1309. In fulfilling its purpose, the trust governance structures and follows aspires to be a centre of excellence
129 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
for the provision of services in the field officially of that, in writing or otherwise? of rehabilitation, careers, education, If so, when were you notified? training and employment, and in supporting those with psychological or 1314. Before you say anything, I declare an interest as a member of the Northern physiotherapy needs. The trust’s model Ireland Policing Board. I do not think that is very successful in handling the people there are currently any other interests in issues that relate to the downsizing of the room. the Police Service, and in treating some major health issues associated with 1315. Mr Eddie Gaw (Police Rehabilitation former and serving officers. and Retraining Trust): At the moment, the formal position is that the Northern 1310. As a provider of services, we see the Ireland Office, our sponsor Department, necessity for the trust’s work continues has written to inform us that, with effect post-2011. Moreover, the model that from March 2011, we should no longer PRRT has developed can be used be at the Maryfield site. That letter across the entire public sector, either arrived late in the last calendar year. On to manage sickness absence and allow that basis, we undertook some initial people to return to work sooner, or costings of alternative accommodation, through outplacement support during which is where the figure of £5 million any subsequent reorganisational or came from. structural change. Our services could also be accessed by victims’ groups or 1316. That amount is probably a ballpark similar groups. figure for replicating, at a basic level, what we have at Maryfield. We have 1311. The trust has two concerns. As with since undertaken some further work to many other groups, we are concerned replicate what we are doing and expand about funding post-2011, because, at it in relation to new IT and further staff. the moment, we have been notified of We came up with a figure of about our funding only until 31 March 2011. £8·5 million for a new building on a Our other concern is that we may have greenfield site. The figure of £5 million to leave our current site at Maryfield. can probably now be translated to about £8·5 million for a greenfield newbuild. 1312. The Chairperson: The estimated costing of relocation from your present site 1317. The Chairperson: There is an indication by 2011 is £5 million. That appears from the Northern Ireland Office that to be in order to facilitate a rebuild of there are buildings that might be suitable Northern Ireland’s forensic laboratory and that it would help you to relocate. on your current site at Maryfield. Would that allow for all of the costs that are 1318. Mr Gaw: The Northern Ireland Office is involved in relocating? Would it be liaising with Land and Property Services to assess what buildings are available. necessary to have additional staffing? We had a meeting with our sponsor Would it also allow for improved or Department as recently as last week. updated IT equipment, given the Despite a number of reminders from our facilities that you have on the site to sponsor Department, Land and Property carry out some of the functions that Services has not, as yet, identified any you mentioned during the opening buildings. presentation? 1319. The Chairperson: The figure of £8·5 1313. I understand that you already pay rent to million is in relation to a newbuild. the Northern Ireland Office. Therefore, However, if another building were the Northern Ireland Office gives you a located, the figure would be £5 million. grant, but it takes money back off you Is it correct that what is being suggested for rent, and so on. Can you give us an is a relocation figure of £5 million? idea of what that figure might be? Have any discussions about the relocation 1320. Mr Gaw: The £5 million figure was taken place? Have you been notified based on our initial findings. We viewed
130 Minutes of Evidence — 24 March 2009
a couple of buildings, and it was based (DDA). We are not DDA compliant at the on what we would need to do to turn moment and, as you might guess, that one of those into a clinical, medical and has practical implications for a number rehabilitation centre. of our clients. In addition, there are implications for our reputation, so I have 1321. The Chairperson: My understanding is been speaking with the Northern Ireland that the PSNI buys in other services, so Office about an additional capital budget there is a possibility of picking up any to make PRRT DDA compliant. Initial slack. In relation to physiotherapy to get soundings from our sponsor Department officers back on duty, do you pick up have been very positive regarding some of the work of the occupational additional capital availability for the DDA health and welfare services branch? work.
1322. Mr Gaw: Very much so. We are working 1329. Mr Hamill: In addition, we are at full with the occupational health and welfare capacity on our present site. If we services branch on the physiotherapy were to take on additional work, we side and the psychology side. We are do not have enough space within our formalising contracts with the branch existing building’s footprint for further in relation to those areas. The focus is consultation, treatment or, indeed, about getting people back to work. As training rooms. We would either have Sheamus mentioned, it has made us to resort to some type of temporary give some thought to working with other structures or consider building a public-sector bodies on the absentee- permanent, purpose-built structure. management side of things. 1330. Mr Gaw: We have looked at the cost of 1323. The Chairperson: In relation to the leasing spare capacity in, for example, figures, you are basically selling your health centres, but that would be a services to other people as a provider. hugely expensive way in which to go What sort of ballpark figure, on a yearly about our business. basis, do you bring in from those other organisations, including the PSNI? 1331. The Chairperson: You said that you have identified possible opportunities to use 1324. Mr Gaw: As Sheamus said, there are your expertise with victims’, and other, different contracts. We work with the groups at other centres. I assume that Royal Irish Aftercare Service, which is that would be cross-community work a separate contract, and we bring in a with groups outside the security forces? significant amount of money from that. In relation to the PSNI, we bring in only 1332. Mr Hamill: Very much so. The model enough to cover one psychologist’s that we have developed and refined costs and half of a physiotherapist’s is applicable to any group in Northern costs — perhaps between £70,000 and Ireland, and we would be prepared £100,000. to provide our services — either in retraining or, more particularly, with 1325. The Chairperson: What would the other respect to psychology and physiotherapy significant sum be with respect to the — in any part of the Province to any Royal Irish Aftercare Service? group that fits the spirit and criteria 1326. Mr Gaw: That contract brings in £400,000 under which we work. a year. 1333. Mr Hamilton: I commend you for the 1327. The Chairperson: Are there any good work that you do in difficult legislative proposals or refurbishment circumstances. The £8·5 million capital needs that might put your budget under requirement that you mentioned is pressure n the foreseeable future? obviously the most significant pressure on your budget. If you were to have that 1328. Mr Gaw: The big forthcoming pressure facility, in order to sustain yourselves in will be with respect to the requirements the future, how confident are you about of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 the contracts that you have outlined,
131 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
such as those with the police and the 2011 will be provided with up to two Royal Irish? I understand that it makes years’ support. We regard our business good business sense to work with as being 50% training and careers victims’ groups in order to expand your guidance and 50% psychological and pool of clients, but, in light of the level of physiotherapy services. investment required, are you confident that your existing contracts are secure 1339. Mr McCartney: Is the cost split fifty-fifty enough to sustain your organisation for or does it cost more to deal with the the lifetime of any new premises? physical and psychological side? 1340. Mr Gaw: The cost is probably about fifty- 1334. Mr Hamill: In order to answer that fifty. We have more staff on the clinical question, I must break it into a number side, but we buy in training expertise of parts. Our contract with the Royal and academic expertise. Irish is to provide services for three years, with an option to renew for a 1341. Mr McCartney: Do the psychological further two years. Obviously, we do not and physical services extend to the know whether it will take up the option wider family or is it confined to former to renew — that is a matter for it. personnel?
1335. Everything that we do is based on cost 1342. Mr Gaw: The services extend to the wider recovery. For example, although the family. Royal Irish contract is for £400,000, the regiment gets £400,000 of services. 1343. Mr McFarland: The original idea behind We are a not-for-profit company. The the organisation was to see police occupational health and welfare services officers through the retirement process branch contract is a contract in the by helping with training and looking after sense that it is has time-renewable those who had been damaged, which points at which the PSNI can, quite will go on for some time. The trust is rightly, review the arrangement to ensure now contracting out and becoming a that it is getting value for money. private company.
1336. If we were to develop any other new 1344. In GB, for example, military veterans business streams, it would be very have priority treatment on the NHS, much around a cost-recovery type of which is illegal here. The Minister business arrangement. That means that cannot offer ex-military people here if someone wanted to buy our services similar treatment because it is against and we needed to buy in extra staff human rights and equality legislation. If then that cost is charged as part of the the trust is moving outside its original contract. One of the advantages that we structure and design — to see police see is the non-profit-making part — we officers through the retirement phase are there to provide the services and — how does offering UDR, Royal Irish clients are buying precisely that service, Regiment and ex-police officers, in with the associated expertise and effect, a separate private health service support mechanisms developed by PRRT fit in with equality legislation? If the over the past 10 years. Health Service here is not allowed to treat military personnel in the same way 1337. Mr McCartney: Thank you for your as the rest of the UK, how come ex- presentation. Is most of the trust’s police and UDR can access PRRT as a current work on the psychological and special private health service? physical rather than on career and employment opportunities? 1345. Mr Hamill: I do not necessarily agree that we are a health service. Elements 1338. Mr Hamill: At present, it is split fifty-fifty. of what we do certainly constitute There are still quite a number of officers healthcare in the sense of the leaving the Police Service each year, and psychology and the physiotherapy. The that will continue until 2011. Even after trust was set up by Government in order that, the officers who leave on 31 March to provide those services to the police
132 Minutes of Evidence — 24 March 2009
and, in particular, to officers who were each year, and, although no one knows retiring or leaving the service. There why and when psychological trauma was a recognition that certain needs manifests itself, our figures support the existed within that police community. assertion that we see 350 new people For example, if police clients did not, or each year. We have not seen any tailing could not, access psychological services off in those numbers — if anything, the from us, they would have to access numbers have climbed, albeit slowly, them through the National Health each year. Service or some other route. 1350. Our prediction for the next number of 1346. The Royal Irish Aftercare Service years is that there will be a cadre of procures services from us. We former officers who end up with some responded to a procurement process type of psychological disorder that will that it issued and were successful in require an intervention. We provide that securing the contract, so we provide intervention in what many people see as those services. a secure environment. Many ex-officers are reluctant to discuss their condition 1347. Mr McFarland: Again, that is part of the or even their former occupation with process of downsizing the Royal Irish GPs. Referrals to us are down to the Regiment — those organisations were individual — the individual usually set up to see people into civilian life. self-refers, although we will see some The question is one of viability: can we people who have been referred to us justify the service when 70 officers by their GPs. Our clients know that they leave a year, many of whom do not have can come to our organisation on their psychological problems? How do you own without having to tell anyone else see the service going forward and making about their condition or what they may money, unless organisations such as the be experiencing. RUC Benevolent Fund and the UDR Benevolent Fund buy services off you for 1351. With regard to the physiotherapy aspect, their ex-members? However, that is no we obviously see people who have been longer part of the downsizing process. I involved in very traumatic incidents, wonder about the legality of that. such as bomb explosions. However, quite a lot of the people we see are 1348. Mr Gaw: We are mandated by legislation officers who suffer from the wear and to provide the services that you tear of the occupation that they had. mentioned. We are in dialogue with our For example, many officers spent long sponsor Department about broadening periods of time on foot patrol walking our services. Sheamus Hamill spoke cross-country with the military, so we about the establishment of a sister see people with lower-limb difficulties organisation called Futures (NI), which and hip problems. We see people with will go into the market on a non-profit- back problems, because they wore body making basis. I have held meetings with armour or had to sit for long periods in the Civil Service and local councils to vehicles that were not ergonomically talk to them about any services that adapted for that purpose. We do not we can provide on the health side of see any diminishing of that need as the absentee management. We will get retired police population grows and gets the legislative side sorted out with our older. sponsor Department and then broaden our services — we will not be taking on 1352. Mr McFarland: Can the UDR people, like any contracts beyond the vires of what the Royal Irish Regiment, self-refer, or do we are doing at the moment. they —
1349. Mr Hamill: Taking psychological care 1353. Mr Hamill: They come through a different as an example, in the trust we see route. somewhere in the region of 350 officers a year, most of whom are former 1354. Mr McFarland: Are there are no regular officers. We do not see the same people Army personnel here at all?
133 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
1355. Mr Hamill: No. 1363. Mr Attwood: I am mindful of what you said about your workload increasing as 1356. Mr Attwood: There are two points more recently retired people cross your that I want to clarify. The biggest door with the range of problems that you pressure after 2011 will be the new identified. Is it not the case that your accommodation. I am not clear as to other core business — giving advice to whether you expected that, through NIO officers who retire or take severance — processes, alternative accommodation will decline with the ending of severance would be identified, rather than looking in 2011, subject to any potential future for a budget line to acquire or build what scheme? That core business would you have at the moment. Is there any decline while the other core business clarity on that? would clearly expand. 1357. Mr Gaw: NIO has asked us for an 1364. Mr Hamill: You are quite right; after indicative budget to put in its budget 2011, the numbers of officers leaving line. We go through NIO on this. the police will not be anywhere near 1358. Mr Attwood: I appreciate that, but the current numbers. When we considered Chairperson indicated that the NIO the matter a few years ago, we took the might look internally to see whether view that we had a pool of expertise that there was alternative accommodation could be put to use across the public to relocate the service. Does that seem sector. Whether it be the psychological the more likely outcome at the moment, or physiotherapy side of things or as opposed to looking for a newbuild careers guidance, those services are budget, a new purchase budget or already there and are already being paid whatever other alternative there might be? for by the public purse. We feel that they have an adaptability across the public 1359. Mr Hamill: Our preferred choice is to sector. remain on the site that we currently occupy. It is obvious that, if we do 1365. I accept your point that the number of remain there, some remedial work will police officers needing guidance on have to be done to the building; it is careers and retraining will decline quite getting quite old and has not had any a bit. However, there is no reason why maintenance for quite some time. If our service could not be offered to other we have to leave the site, and there is elements of the public sector. another suitable publicly owned building 1366. The Chairperson: Given that you work or location for us to move to, we will with serving police officers, what impact require approximately £5 million to make do you feel the recent upturn in terrorist such a move. activity will have on your current and 1360. A lot would depend on the building that future budgets in both areas of your we get in that instance. We might get a business? building that does not require an awful 1367. Mr Hamill: Some of this can be a lot of work done to it; the two or three little unpredictable. Certainly, we have sites that he have looked at have all received evidence in the past week that been sitting vacant for quite some time some retired officers are anxious and and are in a sad state. To turn them into the type of accommodation that we need pessimistic about what the future might would require approximately £5 million. hold. However, it is difficult to know what A brand-new building on a brand-new site effect that is likely to have on serving would cost £8·5 million or thereabouts. officers. To extrapolate the situation with the retired police community, it might 1361. Mr Attwood: Do you anticipate being be that serving officers might feel more served with a notice to quit Maryfield? under pressure than they have done in the past. 1362. Mr Gaw: We have been served with a notice to quit with effect from March or 1368. It is one of those things and, as I said April 2011. earlier in reply to another question, it is
134 Minutes of Evidence — 24 March 2009
difficult to know what triggers psychological landlord’s responsibilities are — the difficulties in particular. We have lease seems to be lost in the mists of commissioned a piece of academic time. In the past year, I have had to start research, which is under way, that we some capital work that I would have hope will answer some of those questions thought should be the responsibility of in about nine months’ time, when we the landlord. Rather than getting into an have done our work. We are looking at ongoing debate — there are health and whether there are certain triggers. safety issues — we have taken the hit and paid for that work. I do not want to 1369. For example, some academics believe dip into money for front line services to that retirement itself acts as a trigger for spend on capital projects. psychological difficulties. When officers leave the Police Service, they leave the 1376. The Chairperson: Are you telling me that comfort of their colleagues and their the NIO is treating you like squatters in work environment. They end up at home the Maryfield complex at the moment? or doing a new occupation and new things; however, sometimes that is not 1377. Mr Gaw: I could not possibly say that. enough to help them deal with problems 1378. The Chairperson: I will not press you on that have been dormant for some time. that one. Some officers have been retired for 10 years with absolutely no difficulties. One 1379. Mr Hamill: We pay our rent, and, to be example is a former officer who drove fair to everyone, a lot of work has been past the scene of a road traffic collision ongoing to try to sort the problems and suddenly, for no reason whatsoever, out. However, we pay our rent, and for all types of events came together and an that we get nothing. The trust pays for intervention was required from us. everything else, from the grass-cutting to any other work that may need done in 1370. The Chairperson: I will ask a couple of relation to the building. As I said earlier, questions that I have asked the other unfortunately the building is getting organisations that have appeared before quite old and tired, so as time goes on it us. Does your agency, as part of the will soak up more money. NIO, currently pay value added tax (VAT)? Are you able to reclaim that or does it go 1380. Mr Gaw: We are in debate with the NIO directly to the NIO? about the responsibilities of the lease, and who does what, but, as I said, there 1371. Mr Gaw: We pay VAT, but because we are certain issues on which one just has are a clinical, medical and educational to bite the bullet and pay, otherwise they establishment, a number of our will be ongoing for the next two to three purchases are VAT-exempt. We pay VAT years. of approximately £140,000 a year; we can claim back about £10,000 a 1381. The Chairperson: You say that you year. Therefore, we pay approximately have to cut the grass; my recollection £130,000 net. is that there are fairly big grounds at Maryfield. You could perhaps think about 1372. The Chairperson: I am not sure whether getting a few sheep in, or letting the we got a figure for rent. On the one land as conacre and making a few quid. hand, the NIO gives you money and, on [Laughter.] the other hand, it takes money away for rent each year. What is the figure for rent? 1382. Thank you for those answers. Are you aware of any other issues that 1373. Mr Gaw: The rent is £110,000 a year. could have a material or inescapable 1374. The Chairperson: Does that move up or consequence for your organisation’s down? budget? Is there anything that you have not told us about that you suspect may 1375. Mr Gaw: It tends to be stable. The be hurtling down the train lines at you, problem in and around the issue of rent and which could have an impact on your is that it is difficult to know what the budget? I suggest that if policing and
135 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
justice is devolved, and you come back associate group. There are things like in six or nine months’ time to tell us that that would help us to expand. that you forgot to mention £2 million or £3 million, you might not get a good 1386. If the public sector were to see PRRT reception at this Committee. If there is as a model that could be put to use anything, now is the opportunity to put in helping the wider public sector to that on the record. address the levels of sickness absence, or to address some of the needs of 1383. Mr Hamill: As a trust we have always the other victims’ groups throughout lived within the budget that has been the Province, then we would need allocated. Until quite recently we only some flexibility in relation to our grant got the budget on a yearly basis; last allocation to allow us to at least start up financial year was the first time that some of those new initiatives. I do not our budget has been allocated for three imagine that that would involve much years. We work with the allocation that more than around £500,000 on top of is given to us. Like many others who what we are already receiving. may sit in this chair, if we had more money we could do more things. 1387. The Chairperson: I assume that you are referring to Futures (NI). Are you saying 1384. We feel that, with the £2·2 million that you need an additional figure from allocated this year, for example, we can Government for whatever work you want do probably about 70% of what we want to do, that you are already discussing to do in relation to providing services it with the NIO, and that that figure is to our clients and responding to our around £500,000 in addition to your clients’ needs. If we were allocated current budget? something in the region of another £500,000, that would probably allow 1388. Mr Hamill: Yes. If we had that flexibility, us to do 90%-95% of what we feel we it would allow us take the services for need to do. However, it is difficult to our client base from providing 70% of make predictions about the needs of the what we want to do to over 90%. That retired police community and the serving would enable us to cut waiting times police community if we continue to do — which are very good at the minute, some business for them. If there were al though we could do more work on capacity for something in the region of that. We could expand our associate another £500,000 per year, that would practices throughout the Province, give us a certain amount of flexibility. and the extra money would give us Even with our current budget we have flexibility to provide new specialisms if increased the number of psychologists we needed them for dealing with other in the organisation from three to 11. aspects of business. For example, with That in itself says a lot about some of respect to victims’ groups or sickness the problems and issues that there are. management issues, it may well be that we need counsellors, rather than 1385. In addition to those 11 psychologists, psychologists. We would have to acquire we have a range of associates who are the services of people with those skills distributed throughout the Province. so that we would be in a position to It is unfair to ask someone to drive dispense the services that a future from Enniskillen to Maryfield to receive customer might wish for or need. a service, so there are associate psychologists who are paid to provide 1389. The Chairperson: At what stage are your that service. We do the same with discussions on Futures (NI) with the physiotherapy. Again, if we had a little Northern Ireland Office? more flexibility we might be able to provide one or two more centres across 1390. Mr Gaw: We have put a business case the Province. By centres I do not mean to the Northern Ireland Office. It is buildings; I mean people who are discussing it with its finance people. already in business and can provide There are certain financial obligations the service that we need through our to be met and tweaks to be made to the
136 Minutes of Evidence — 24 March 2009
business case. However, the ball is in the court of the Northern Ireland Office at the moment. Shortly, there should be a meeting with some of the senior finance people.
1391. The Chairperson: The figure involved is £500,000?
1392. Mr Gaw: Yes.
1393. Mr Hamill: We see that sum as covering the start-up costs. As I said, any service that we would provide from then would be self-funding. If a Department were to take up our services, the charges would pay for the services. From my point of view, there is an advantage in that there is a non-profit element in that.
1394. The Chairperson: Thank you both for coming along today and making your presentation to the Committee. We may want answers to some additional questions; we will write to you in due course if that is the case. We wish you well.
1395. Mr Gaw: Thank you very much.
137 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
138 Minutes of Evidence — 24 March 2009
24 March 2009
Members present for all or part of the 1399. Mr Paisley Jnr: I think that a message proceedings: should go out loud and clear from the Mr Jimmy Spratt (Chairperson) Committee in line with your comments. Mr Raymond McCartney (Deputy Chairperson) If the Northern Ireland Office thinks that Mr Simon Hamilton it can facilitate the devolution of policing Mr Danny Kennedy and justice a lot quicker than this Mr Alan McFarland Committee — well, we have seen the mess Mr John O’Dowd that it has made of that over the years. Mr Ian Paisley Jnr 1400. The Committee is working strenuously Witnesses: in a hard, robust and diligent way to examine the figures that are brought Mr Adrian Donaldson Policing Board to us, not figures that we invent. If Mr Barry Gilligan Mr Sam Hagen Departments that are answerable to the Sir Desmond Rea NIO complain properly to us, we have a duty as public representatives to take 1396. The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): In case that on board. there is any doubt, and in relation to 1401. If there is to be devolution of justice certain comments that have been made and policing, we will take on the elsewhere, I want to make it clear that responsibilities, but only if the money is the Committee is presently undertaking there to match those responsibilities. very important and absolutely necessary The NIO will not be getting off cheap work around the financial implications on this one. The Secretary of State can of devolving a range of policing and answer those issues when he comes justice matters. I also want to dispel any suggestion, speculation or rumour before the Committee. that might exist about “talking up” the 1402. The Chairperson: Those who have been figures. making those comments will well know 1397. The fact is that the Committee has the who I am referring to. authority of the Assembly to undertake 1403. Mr Paisley Jnr: I think he is called this work, and has asked for written Shaun, is he not? submissions from over 20 organisations providing a range of policing and justice 1404. Mr Kennedy: No clues, please. services. The purpose of the oral evidence sessions with some of these 1405. Mr Paisley Jnr: That is your starter for 10. organisations is to explore further and 1406. The Chairperson: I will not go any further to probe the extent and reality of the pressures on the policing and justice on that matter. I will leave you to make budget. up your own mind.
1398. The Committee has not yet reached any 1407. We move now to the Policing Board oral conclusions about the evidence that evidence session. I welcome Professor it has heard so far. That is a matter Sir Desmond Rea, chairman of the to be considered — and which will Northern Ireland Policing Board; Barry be considered — later. I expect that Gilligan, the vice-chairperson; Adrian it will form a significant part of the Donaldson, the chief executive; and Sam Committee’s report to the Assembly in Hagen, director of corporate services. due course. You are very welcome.
139 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
1408. I ask members to declare any interests. opening remarks, I, along with my vice- I am a member of the Northern Ireland chairman, the chief executive and the Policing Board. director of corporate services, will be happy to answer members’ questions 1409. Mr Paisley Jnr: I am a member of the and to provide any information that Northern Ireland Policing Board. might assist with the Committee’s work. If we cannot answer any questions, we 1410. The Chairperson: There are no other will do the necessary work to come back declarations of interest; if anyone else with an answer. arrives I will ensure that they declare their interests. 1417. The board is an executive non- departmental public body, and I note 1411. We expect the session to last for up that that status is recommended to to one hour, and I understand that you remain following the devolution of will begin by making a short opening policing and justice powers to the statement. We know that there are two Assembly. The role of the board is to sides to your evidence this morning, so secure the maintenance of an effective, perhaps you will keep the two matters efficient, impartial and representative separate — the budget for the Northern policing service and to hold the Chief Ireland Policing Board, and, secondly, Constable to account for the exercise the policing budget and the board’s of his functions and those of the police relationship to that. and police staff. The board carries out 1412. Sir Desmond Rea (Policing Board): its role in an open and transparent way. Thank you for your words of welcome. As 1418. In addition to holding the Chief I look around the room, I am mindful of Constable to account, which we do at the importance of treating people well, monthly meetings, in public session because there comes a day when one and in private session, the board has gets one’s comeuppance. a number of statutory responsibilities 1413. Mr Paisley Jnr: Why are you looking at which require specific resources. Those me? [Laughter.] responsibilities include, as you all know, support for district policing partnerships 1414. Mr Kennedy: He is looking directly at the (DPPs), community engagement — Chairperson. encouraging the public to co-operate with the police in order to prevent crime, 1415. Sir Desmond Rea: Yes. As you rightly including community safety partnerships said, I am joined by Barry Gilligan, the (CSPs). board’s vice-chairman, Adrian Donaldson, who recently joined us as chief executive, 1419. I am mindful of the fact that a and Sam Hagan, the board’s director of consultative document on our corporate services. Lorraine Calvert, relationship with DPPs and CSPs has who deals with our public relations, is been issued to all interested parties. It sitting behind us. On behalf of the board, has not, as yet, gone out to the public. I thank the Committee for its invitation I have read the report, and, personally, to attend. The Committee will have I welcome it. The board has yet to received a copy of the board’s submission, consider the report, but I believe that which was considered and agreed by the we will find it to be a positive document, board at its meeting on 5 February. because many of the arguments put forward by the board concerning those 1416. The board welcomes the opportunity bodies and their functions have been to attend today. Our aims are, first, to incorporated into it. provide the Committee with information about the board’s finances, secondly, 1420. The board also monitors the PSNI’s to expand on the information provided compliance with the Human Rights Act in the board’s written submission, and, 1998 and assesses the level of public thirdly, to address the board’s role in satisfaction with the performance of relation to PSNI finances. Following my the police and DPPs. In addition, there
140 Minutes of Evidence — 24 March 2009
are a number of areas of the board’s prioritise those needs and input them remit which the Committee may not be to the policing plan; they monitor the aware of. For example, the whole area of performance of the district commander selected medical practitioners accounts against the plan; and they engage with for approximately £315,000 of the the community in the prevention of board’s budget. Members may wish to crime. The relationship with CSPs is in ask questions about that, and we will be that latter area. delighted to answer them. 1424. As regards the board’s capital budget, 1421. Chairman, you and members of the the board is not a capital-intensive Committee will have received the board’s organisation. The majority of the fixed response to your questions about the assets are furniture and fittings and board’s finances. You will note that computer equipment; accommodation is the total estimated budget for the year leased. As assets are depreciated on a 2008-09 is approximately £8,660,000, straight-line basis over five years for IT and that the board has set its business assets and five to 12 years for furniture plan in line with the funding available. and fittings, there is a planned capital Members may find it helpful if I provide expenditure in 2010-11 to refresh the a summary of some of the detail that board’s computer facilities. underpins those figures. 1425. The board has a history of staying within 1422. Salary costs account for approximately its budget. In 2007-08 it delivered within 30% of the board’s programme budget, 3% of its allocated budget, and we are which covers both staff and the nine confident that we will deliver within independent members of the board. this year’s budget. The board develops The board has 10 MLAs and nine and delivers its business plans in line independent members. Approximately with its allocated budget. As the role 33% of the board’s non-staff budget is of the board is to remain unchanged used to pay for typical running costs following devolution, I as chairman do — rent, rates, postage, stationery not anticipate any significant additional and courier services — and, secondly, requirements in future years. Neither do expenditure to carry out its work plan. I anticipate any significant easements Some of the key elements include: that could be delivered by adjustments research and surveys; human rights to existing plans and priorities. advice; the selected medical practioner side of the work, which I have already 1426. This statement does not take into referred to; advertising; and community account the consultative document engagement. that has come out this week in respect of DPPs and CSPs, to which I have 1423. The board also funds 75% of the costs already referred. The only area outside of the 26 DPPs, one in each district the normal business areas that has council area. The overall cost to the the potential to become a significant board this year is £3·15 million — pressure: the discussions in relation approximately 36% of the board’s total to the equal pay claim for junior civil budget. The remaining 25% of the servants could have a significant impact DPP funding is raised and provided by on the board’s budget. As I said earlier, councils. Most DPPs attract funding of we will be happy to take questions on between £100,000 and £120,000, with any aspect of the submission. Belfast attracting estimated funding of £383,000 in 2009-2010. DPPs are 1427. I turn now to the finances of the PSNI. important because policing with the Chairman, you and the Committee community was at the heart of the members will be aware from our Patten recommendations. DPPs are an submission of the board’s statutory essential element in delivering policing obligation to provide the Chief Constable with the community. They relate to the with funding for police purposes. local district commander; they relate The Chief Constable will provide the to the needs of the local area; they Committee with a detailed input later
141 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
today. However, I wish to reinforce the discussions on the financial settlement board’s concern about the availability in the next comprehensive spending of sufficient resources for front line review begin, there will be a focus on policing. Much of the financial pressure the financial sustainability of retaining experienced by the PSNI recently is a an establishment of 7,500, which was direct result of issues over which the the number of officers recommended by Chief Constable has no control; it is not Patten. an issue of due diligence. 1431. The current security threat is placing 1428. The Chief Constable will cover the detail further operational and financial pressures of the figures, but the pressures relate on the PSNI. The murders of the two mainly to what can be termed legacy soldiers in Antrim and of Constable issues, such as the maintenance of the Carroll in Craigavon are stark reminders Historical Enquiries Team; claims for of our dark and difficult past. The Chief hearing loss, the estimates for which Constable and his officers are pursuing continue to rise significantly; support the investigations into those murders for public inquiries, and the associated and have had to make a separate bid for legal fees; and pension costs. All those additional money to pay for those; of pressures place a significant burden course, the board fully supports that bid. on the PSNI and make it difficult for the On the back of the three murders, I Chief Constable to continue to deliver an spoke to the Northern Ireland Office and effective, efficient and modern policing drew its attention to the pressures that service. the police are under. Should the current threat level remain, it will have a 1429. Indeed, those significant pressures have significant impact on the PSNI’s finances meant that the PSNI has not been able and its ability to provide the style of to take forward projects that are community policing that the service and important for the delivery of policing with the board would wish to provide. the community. In reaching a balanced budget for next year, the Chief Constable 1432. Due to the hard work of many communities has had to defer and set aside plans to and public representatives, there has modernise the facilities for receiving and been great success in delivering more dealing with calls for assistance — call peaceful marching seasons in the last handling, in other words; to continue to few years. The board hopes that the significantly reduce overtime; to introduce current security threat will not lead to police community support officers increased tensions at that time of year, (PCSOs) — an issue which the board because such tensions all too often spill sees as particularly important; and to over into public disorder that requires a develop or modernise the police estate. police response. The costs of such a response would have to be met from the 1430. I wish to draw members’ attention Chief Constable’s ever-decreasing pot to the relative inflexibility in the PSNI and, therefore, detract from normal finances due to the maintenance of the policing. I urge you all to use whatever establishment of 7,500 officers. The influence you have to continue to deliver associated costs account for around more peaceful summers. In the past two 80% of the total PSNI budget, and, or three years, local representatives of therefore, only the remaining 20% can the different political parties have used be played around with. The commitment their best efforts, and they have secured to retain 7,500 officers means that more peaceful marching seasons. The any financial pressures must be met board and I hope that that continues. from 20% of the budget, which is approximately £200 million. Significant 1433. The Chairperson: In your submission, pressures such as hearing-loss claims you stated that as a result of legislative must be dealt with from within that changes and staffing issues, the £200 million and not the overall £1 Northern Ireland Policing Board billion budget. That puts the current adjusted its current work plan to stay difficulties in clear perspective. As within its budgetary allocations. Will
142 Minutes of Evidence — 24 March 2009
there be a knock-on effect for future 1439. In order to reach a balanced budget budgets as a result of those actions? for 2009-2010, the PSNI proposed Can those adjustments be monitored that internal bids for funding should and managed, on an ongoing basis, to be rejected; PCSOs should not be relieve the pressure on budgets? proceeded with, as I outlined to you; a 5% cut should be imposed across 1434. What additional pressures, if any, will transport, telecoms, supplies, etc; arise in relation to the budgeted police staff overtime should be reduced by grant for 2009-2010? You identified 8% — incidentally, the projected figure some of them, but I do not think that for the following year is 20%; and police you provided figures. It would be helpful recruitment in 2010-11 should be if the Committee had some idea of the stopped. If those cuts are implemented, figures that you and your colleagues will there will be a remaining pressure in be considering. 2009-2010 of £13·8 million and a surplus in 2010-11 of £13·8 million. 1435. I remind you that the proceedings are NIO approval would have to be sought to being reported by Hansard staff. transfer budget provision from 2010-11 1436. Mr Sam Hagen (Policing Board): The back into 2009-2010. Northern Ireland Office sets our budget, 1440. Those are the figures with which and we draw up our business plan to you are playing. I am sure that you live within that budget. Our submission will want to ask the Chief Constable states that our business plan reflects further questions about those. Given the budget that we have been given. You our role regarding the maintenance of asked whether that will have a knock-on the Police Service of Northern Ireland, effect in the future; we are given a CSR we, as a board, have been working settlement over three years, and we plan closely with the Chief Constable and our corporate plan every three years and his team — particularly David Best, our business plans on a yearly basis. who is responsible for finance. When We do not foresee significant problems we have approached the NIO, we have living within our budget and fulfilling our done so jointly. I have no doubt that you, business plan. as a Committee, are concerned about that. The resources and improvement 1437. Sir Desmond Rea: In respect of the committee monitors expenditure against policing budget, a funding gap was budget on a continual basis. Board identified. First, we had pressures in the members regularly meet David Best and last four months of the current financial the Chief Constable in order to question year. Considerable efforts were made them about expenditure against budget. by the police, and by the board working with the police, to seek to resolve those 1441. Mr Barry Gilligan (Policing Board): pressures. We managed to do that by Overtime is an area of pressure in the pushing some of this year’s obligations budget. Members and former members into next year. However, that means that will be aware that a lot of work has been there will still be problems coming down done with the PSNI over the lifetime of the track. this board to reduce the average daily overtime hours, which were certainly out 1438. A funding gap of £101 million was of kilter when compared to other police identified in 2009-2010, and £75 services. million in 2010-11. In discussions between the board, the police and the 1442. Members need to be aware of the very Northern Ireland Office, it was agreed direct correlation between overtime and that we should set aside the pressures the policing of the community. On a visit emerging from hearing-loss claims and to Lisburn, I was informed that £5,000 equal-pay claims. As a consequence, the had been made available to deal with residual funding gap identified in 2009- the specific problems of underage 2010 was £43·7 million, and, in 2010- drinking and youths causing annoyance. 11, it was £29·4 million. That was very effective. When I asked
143 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
where the £5,000 went, I was informed 1449. Mr Hagen: It is about provision that it went directly to pay for overtime. accounting. The figures that are Our chairman mentioned the possibility being used relate to providing for of a difficult marching season. If that future bills. Cash will not actually be was to happen, or there was dissident going out the door, but it has to be activity, it would impact on overtime accounted for when it is known about. that would ordinarily have gone into the Our understanding is that hearing-loss policing of the community. claims are increasing. The money is provided for on the basis of the number 1443. The Chairperson: Is the board aware of of claims that are received. The number any figures in relation to overtime due to of claims being received each month is the pressures of the past few weeks? increasing.
1444. Mr Gilligan: I am not currently aware of 1450. Mr Kennedy: Good morning, Sir the specific figures. However, from my Desmond. You are welcome, and so are conversation with the Chief Constable, all of your colleagues. Thank you for there is no doubt that practically all of your presentation and for your personal the overtime that is available is going commitment to policing as you prepare towards addressing the present security to step down as chairman over the threat. coming months.
1445. The Chairperson: Just so that it is clear 1451. The Committee has no difficulty in for the record, Sir Desmond, in relation finding common cause with the Policing to what you said regarding equal pay Board in ensuring that adequate and the hearing-loss claims, does that resources are provided for policing amount to more than £100 million over in Northern Ireland. The Committee the next two years? Figures of £90- must, however, also be sure that odd million have been bandied about every possible efficiency saving is in relation to the hearing-loss claims. made without reducing the service or Are we saying that the combined figure impacting adversely on it. You were strong in your defence of DPPs and for equal pay and hearing loss is in the CSPs. There is a general view that they region of £100 million over a two-year are sometimes seen as expensive period? talking shops that produce little or 1446. Sir Desmond Rea: There has been nothing, and their cost-effectiveness is considerable conjecture in respect of questioned. the hearing-loss claims. However, as a 1452. Do you plan to streamline those result of the discussions with the Northern partnerships as part of the review that Ireland Office, it has been agreed that was indicated? Will there be savings, or given that those are legacy issues — are you content that they will continue particularly the hearing-loss claims — to operate as at present? There is also the only sensible way in which we could a strong suggestion that there is some proceed was to take it out of the consider duplication between DPPs and CSPs ation. The NIO agreed. In other words, it that could be addressed. said that it would discuss those two areas with the Treasury. It certainly 1453. Sir Desmond Rea: The chairman of the accepted the rationale for the way in community engagement committee is which we jointly approached that issue. Alex Maskey and his vice chairman is Barry Gilligan, who is also vice chairman 1447. The Chairperson: Is it fair to say that of the Policing Board. Barry will answer that is an increasing sum, particularly on those questions. the issue of hearing loss? Is that figure rising on a monthly basis? 1454. Mr Gilligan: The board’s view is that DPPs have contributed significantly 1448. Sir Desmond Rea: That is what I to increased confidence in policing. understand. That view is shared by many visitors
144 Minutes of Evidence — 24 March 2009
who study the whole new policing 1459. Mr Kennedy: On the issues of police arrangements here. resources and of the police reserve, the current security climate and the 1455. I will not bore the Committee with situation on the ground have caused statistics, but the board’s surveys concern, particularly in light of the indicate a very strong level of confidence potential closure of quite a number in policing. We are not complacent about of local police stations and, almost it, but the Chief Constable has pointed automatically, a reduction in the out time and time again that Northern number of police reservists. Where is Ireland is one of the safest areas in the Policing Board on that issue? Is it these islands in which to live. The board looking at it? What projections do you attributes that in many instances to the have in relation to police resources on very close working relationship that the the ground, that is, actual police officers local community has with the PSNI. — as opposed to members of DPPs or community activists — who can respond 1456. There are undoubtedly some areas to criminality and all its associated where that does not work as effectively problems? as in others; however, the board has a mechanism that enables it to compare 1460. Sir Desmond Rea: I will deal with the the efficiency of DPPs. I believe that part of the question that refers to the the board’s investment of £3·15 million closure of police stations. As you are in DPPs represents very good value for politicians and you deal with people’s money, but we are not complacent about concerns, you will no doubt be aware that. that there were proposals for the closure of 16 police stations. However, the 1457. In respect of savings, I would like to see board did not feel that sufficient account investment in DPPs going up as a result had been taken of the alternatives of the document that Desmond talked that were being proposed for policing about at the outset — it describes the communities in those areas, alongside closer working relationship between those proposals. Coincidentally, the DPPs and CSPs. I would see that very board also felt that the documentation much as the DPPs taking on a bigger did not take sufficient account of the role; however, there should be a net dissident threat and the policing of that saving to the public purse. If you add threat — and that was before the recent together the amount of money that killings. The board asked the Chief we currently spend and the amount Constable, and we sent the document currently spent on CSPs, there should back and said that we would not be a net saving, albeit that the board consider it until he came forward with believes it should have a bigger budget reasoned proposals in both those areas. to deal with that. 1461. We have yet to receive a reply to that, 1458. Sir Desmond Rea: A further point that but that is not a criticism. The PSNI emerged in the consultative document will come back to us at the appropriate issued by the Northern Ireland Office point in time. They may well come back with proposals in respect of six or seven is that the reconstitution and reduction stations and leave a second tranche in number of local councils in 2011 to a later date. In other words, we affords a possible opportunity to asked the hard questions, and we told reduce the number of DPPs. However, them that we would not consider the in reducing the number, DPPs become document, and the meeting has been more distant from rather than closer to postponed. the community. Nevertheless, that is a possibility. In other words, coterminosity 1462. Bearing in mind the constituency that will become an issue. I have no doubt you represent, I think that your question that the board will discuss that and about police officers relates to the make its wishes known to the Chief full-time reserve, and you wrote to me Constable at the appropriate time. about that issue. I have written to the
145 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
Chief Constable about it, but I have not 1466. Sir Desmond Rea: I cannot remember received a reply from him. I wanted his definitively whether that is the case. risk assessment to be part of that reply. Therefore, I had better not answer. However, I will take the matter to the board and reply to you on the back of that. 1467. Mr Gilligan: I will put the matter into context. I put the Policing Board and 1463. Mr Paisley Jnr: I welcome the delegation DPP costs at £3·15 million, 35% of from the Policing Board, as Danny has which is spent on DPP managers and rightly done. I want to go back to the other staff. Common sense says that, issue about there being no requirement at the very least, we could achieve a for significant funding beyond what you common secretariat, which would enable are getting as a board. Let us look at an immediate saving. board funding first of all. In the answer to Danny’s question about DPP versus 1468. Mr Paisley Jnr: I am trying to suggest CSP funding, there appears to be an that a budget pressure might arise if the anomaly in respect of competition, as matter is not addressed. organisations are doing some of the 1469. Mr Gilligan: There might be. same work, or some of their work is overlapping. Can I take from what you 1470. Mr Paisley Jnr: The other issue is that have said that there is potential for a you are tasked by the Policing Board to budget pressure if that anomaly is not deliver an efficient and effective Police dealt with immediately? Has the board Service by, essentially, securing a budget come to any conclusions about how that that is fit for purpose. In the past year, might be addressed, so that we can how difficult has it been to deliver a streamline the funding and then do, as balanced budget? Mr Gilligan has suggested, that is, direct more targeted resources to it? 1471. Mr Gilligan: I want to reiterate the chairman’s words from the start of 1464. Sir Desmond Rea: First, I do not wish the meeting. Our budget is generous to do any injustice to the report. It will, but not very flexible. It amounts to no doubt, come to the Committee, approximately £1 billion, 80% of which and the Committee will make its own is allocated to wages and salaries and judgement on it. What is basically being 20% to other costs. With a given of said in the document is that the Minister 7,500 officers, if we are told to find believes that there is a reasoned case a 3% efficiency saving on our entire for bringing together DPPs as and when budget, we cannot touch 80% of it. the review of public administration Therefore, on a balance of £200 million, takes place. There are financial issues a 3% efficiency saving becomes a 15% in there, and that is one of the things saving. We have been there; we have that he says need to be looked at. In done that through the Gershon review. the meantime, he is saying that he has We did it several years ago, but we been out there — and I attended a can only go so far. At a police finance DPP meeting with him, along with the meeting, someone asked me, as a CSP, in Craigavon, where the two senior businessman, what to do during difficult administrators share an office — and times. First of all, we should turn to the that there is evidence of good practice. reserves. The PSNI has no reserves, In the meantime, he would like to see and it has not been allowed to carry over movement — he is correct in saying reserves for the past couple of years. that — and he would like to see people Therefore, the well is pretty dry. voluntarily moving to come together, and implicit in that is that there could be 1472. Mr Paisley Jnr: You said that 80% of savings. the budget cannot be touched. However, there is an indication that you, perhaps, 1465. Mr Paisley Jnr: That sounds like some might have to consider reducing the carrot, but there will have to be stick as number of recruits or the number of well. Is there stick in the document — or officers from 7,500. Given the current baton? climate and the current pressures
146 Minutes of Evidence — 24 March 2009
caused by the dissident threat to police in the summer period came to an end, officers, what sort of message, in your and assuming that criminality in both view, would that send to the community? identities is contained by effective and efficient policing, there are prizes to be 1473. Sir Desmond Rea: My recollection is won. Ultimately, following the devolution that there is no intention to reduce the of policing and justice, the Assembly will number of recruits in 2009-2010. be responsible for that budget, which 1474. Mr Paisley Jnr: Yes; but what message will be competing with education and would that send? health.
1475. Sir Desmond Rea: I am not sure that 1479. Mr Paisley Jnr: I understand the public- reducing the number of recruits sends relations message; it is a very powerful a good message. That is my personal message and one that I do not want view, because the board has not to diminish. However, as the longest discussed the matter. It is important serving chairman of any major policing to retain that number until there is authority in these islands, you have significant reason for change. As Barry a fair grasp of what is going on, and said, the total budget, including capital, what the political appetite is, what the amounts to approximately £1·2 billion. political stomach is. In your view, is there the political appetite, is there the 1476. Mr Paisley Jnr: I agree that cutting community appetite and is there the recruitment would not be good. What ability to deliver policing in Northern do you think about reducing the total Ireland, as it currently stands, with a number of police officers? If the Policing reduced number— I think you mentioned Board agreed to or recommended a figure of 6,100 — of police? Is that a reduction in numbers, would that possible? send a message to the effect that the community has been depleted of a 1480. Sir Desmond Rea: It is not possible as service? long as the threats continue.
1477. Sir Desmond Rea: Patten asked what 1481. Mr Paisley Jnr: I stress again: we police should be the size of a police service in the situation as is. Northern Ireland if the population of 1·5 1482. Sir Desmond Rea: You are correct. million or 1·6 million was transferred to However, I am pointing out that there are a similar geographical area in England. prizes to be won. We must not forget that, at that stage, the RUC had a total of 13,000 officers. 1483. Mr Paisley Jnr: I accept that, and I think That figure comprised 9,000 full-time that that is a positive point to have on officers, and the remainder were full- the agenda. time Reserve and part-time Reserve. Patten decided that 4,300 officers 1484. The Patten Report suggested that there would be required, against the reality of should be a police academy or college. 9,000. However, he acknowledged that I understand that money has been set Northern Ireland is not a normal society aside for the bricks and mortar to build because of the continuing terrorist that. Are there any medium- to long-term threat from both identities and the civil pressures on delivering that ideal, that unrest in the summer period. goal? Can that be delivered under the present police budget? 1478. If one were to take the typical norms today — in other words, for example, 1485. Mr Gilligan: I think that the capital can the number of police for every 1,000 be delivered because the capital has people in the population in England been set aside for it. There is no doubt and Wales — the figure of 4,300 would that training costs will go up when the be more in the region of 6,100, as I new college opens in 2012. Those understand it. In a sense it is obvious: increased costs, which are probably if the dissidents went away, if the around £5 million a year, will have to be loyalists decommissioned, if civil unrest found from the existing police budget.
147 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
1486. Mr Paisley Jnr: Where do you imagine Police Service spend. He also presents that that money will be found if the the policing budget to the committee. budget does not increase? The budget, as prepared by the Chief Constable, is presented in draft form. 1487. Mr Gilligan: To be fair to the PSNI, I have After the budget has been considered looked at its budget over the past few and scrutinised by the committee, years, and I have looked at the work that it is then presented to the parent has been done in securing efficiencies, Department in final form. Therefore, the and I sometimes ask myself: could the Policing Board’s role is between the draft same not be done in every Government form and final form of the budget. That Department in Northern Ireland? Over is the process that we use. the years, the PSNI has managed to achieve a balanced budget. I am sure 1494. Mr McCartney: If any part of the budget that the money will be found, not least is overstated or understated, does the because, in my view, training is hugely Policing Board have a role in bringing that important. The cost of not training could to the attention of the PSNI? be significantly higher than the money 1495. Mr Hagen: The committee goes through that we are talking about. Specifically the budget in detail, comparing the where that money will be found, Mr figures with those of previous years and Paisley, I do not know. However, I am examining the assumptions that have confident, given the importance of a new been made. Therefore, the committee training facility, that it will be found. goes through the budget in quite an 1488. Mr Paisley Jnr: I set that against amount of detail. your earlier answer that there are 1496. Mr McCartney: This morning, Sir 80% of costs that we cannot touch. Desmond outlined the pressures that The money has to be found from the legacy issues — the Historical Enquiries remaining 20%. It does not readily Team, hearing-loss cases and public come to mind as to where you would inquiries — place on the budget. If find the additional money, within that those pressures were removed and 20%, unless there is an increase in the realised, or satisfied, in another way, budget. You are a business man. Do you what relief would that bring to the not agree? budget? What is your appraisal of those 1489. Mr Gilligan: There will certainly be pressures on the budget? significant pressure on the budget. 1497. Sir Desmond Rea: That is an interesting 1490. The Chairperson: Perhaps you could question, because we have been arguing quickly just clarify a point that Mr with the NIO that legacy issues should Kennedy made. Is the policy of the be removed from the current policing closure and disposal of police stations budget. We believe that that is an driven by financial pressures as much argument that, above all, should be as by operational requirements? taken up by the Assembly and by the First Minister and deputy First Minister 1491. Mr Gilligan: No, it is not driven by in their negotiations with the Northern financial pressures. Ireland Office and the Treasury. We have argued strongly that that should be the 1492. Mr McCartney: Thank you very much for case. What was the other part of your your presentation. What role does the question? board play in scrutinising the validation process of the budget for the PSNI? 1498. Mr McCartney: Would removing those legacy issues relieve overall pressures? 1493. Mr Hagen: The Policing Board has a number of committees, one of which 1499. Sir Desmond Rea: If those pressures is the resources and improvement were removed, there would be committee. The director of finance and considerable relief. One of the most support services for the PSNI presents substantial sums has not been figures to the committee each month on mentioned. Do not forget pension costs;
148 Minutes of Evidence — 24 March 2009
historically, we had a complement the UK and the Garda Síochána by of 9,000 police officers, which is a benchmarking how much overtime they sizeable number. have and what sort of office space they use. That has been one of the factors in 1500. Mr McCartney: Do you consider the driving down overtime hours, which were pension issue to be a legacy issue as totally out of kilter. well? 1507. Mr McFarland: Thank you for your 1501. Sir Desmond Rea: We have argued that presentation. On a housekeeping point, it would be better if that issue were I struggled for some time to work out tidied from a particular date and time. how you were being given £8 billion 1502. Mr McCartney: The Committee heard to run the Policing Board. That figure evidence, either directly or indirectly, must either be written as £8,666,000 about an approach that was used at or £8·6 million. At present, however, in corporate level whereby hearing-loss your paper it appears twice as £8,666 claims formed class actions and were million. I understand what is meant, settled. Is there a new approach, or but it would be difficult for an outsider could there be a different approach, coming cold to Committee records. It whereby such claims are contested would, therefore, be useful to have an more rigorously? accurate figure in your paper.
1503. Sir Desmond Rea: It might be better if 1508. Sir Desmond Rea: That is a valid you leave that question for the Chief criticism. Constable, as he will be able to give 1509. Mr McFarland: Both you and the PSNI you a definitive answer. David Best commission consultants to carry out is with him, and he will give you the studies. Is there any scope to co- authoritative answer in respect of that. I ordinate the studies, so that you do not am aware of the fact that there are cons each spend what is, I suspect, quite of a class action. Therefore, a different a lot of money over the years on such approach has been adopted. However, consultations, studies, and so forth? the Chief Constable and Mr Best are the authoritative sources on that issue. 1510. The devolution of policing and justice powers will involve some 21 MLAs, 1504. Mr McCartney: Do you envisage that including those on an Assembly there will be improvements in the role Committee overseeing the Minister and that the Policing Board has in the the Department, which has a link to you. process of securing a proper budget for The Policing Board already oversees the the PSNI, which to date has been carried PSNI. Given that all those people will be out with the NIO? What would be the involved and there is only a single pot best scenario for the Policing Board: to of money available from the block grant, continue with that scenario or to have a how long can the funding of £8·6 million justice Department that would negotiate be justified and continue? the budget? Which process would be the most advantageous for you? 1511. Mr Gilligan: In answer to your first point, the question of duplication and 1505. Sir Desmond Rea: All of us are realists. value for money is examined by every If the transfer of policing and justice Policing Board committee: for example, occurred yesterday, we would operate in exactly the same way as we have at a recent meeting of the community operated with the NIO, and we would engagement committee, chaired by expect our reasoned arguments to be Mr Maskey, proposals were put to us respected by whoever it was. that we spend £60,000 on a survey. A particular survey was under discussion, 1506. Mr Gilligan: Another point that I should and the committee was unanimous in add is that, obviously, we do not look at its view that a number of surveys had budgets in isolation. We take account already been carried out on a similar of the 43 other police services in theme. The committee, therefore,
149 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
decided not to proceed and tasked ask for a copy to be sent to each and officials with studying the results of every member. It addresses an essential those other surveys. We are, therefore, problem in society and represents constantly mindful of duplication. money well spent.
1512. Was your second point about how long 1520. I noticed in some of the papers that will we continue to receive funding of £8 there has been recent scrutiny of the million? PSNI’s use of consultants, some of it by the Northern Ireland Audit Committee. 1513. Mr McFarland: Yes, and it is based The Policing Board is continuing that on the amount of people who will scrutiny. be involved: a total of 21 MLAs, 11 on this Committee and 10 others, a 1521. Mr Hamilton: The issue of the closure Minister, and an entire Department. This of police stations was raised. The other Committee will oversee the Department side of that is the sale of the property and Minister and hold them to account and the realisation of some receipt. on the Floor of the House, and so forth, What happens to receipts for the sale of and the Policing Board holds the police police stations or other elements of the to account. Given the constrained police estate? Are they retained by the financial position in the current police, or do they go, in all or part, back recession — and that will become worse to the NIO or the Treasury? —how long will the luxury of £8 million for the Policing Board last? 1522. Sir Desmond Rea: There are issues about that in the current economic 1514. Mr Gilligan: I do not consider £8 million climate. to be a luxury. 1523. Mr Hagen: The PSNI has a 1515. Mr McFarland: Consider that amount in capital budget which is set for the the great scheme of things. comprehensive spending review period. 1516. Mr Gilligan: During the years of its It has an amount to spend and an existence, the board has proven to amount that it says that it will receive, be extremely effective. From your from, for example, the sale of police past experience as a member of the stations. The difference between Policing Board, you will know that the the two is met by the grant that it level of accountability and the policing receives. If it gets less for the receipts structures that are in place are the envy than estimated, then it has to meet of many. I argue that £8 million is money the difference. If it gets more than well spent, and I suggest that there are estimated, the surplus is handed back many other areas at which you might to the Department. However, in that look to make savings of £8 million, case, the PSNI can bid for that, along rather than at the Policing Board. with other elements of the Department.
1517. Sir Desmond Rea: Perhaps Sam will 1524. Mr Gilligan: In respect of the college, tell the Committee what consultancy the projected disposal of sites currently exercises have been conducted in the used for training is directly offset past five years. against the capital expenditure on the college, so the PSNI will get the benefit 1518. Mr Hagen: Our main consultants are of that. advisers on human rights, and that is our main cost. 1525. Mr Hamilton: If a decision is made to close a station on purely operational 1519. Sir Desmond Rea: I would like to add grounds, and the PSNI does well out of a point on human rights advisers. At it, that is almost a disincentive. If it sells 10.00 am this morning, we launched a a lot and does well, it acquires a surplus thematic inquiry on domestic abuse. I to which it does not have 100% access. have read that superb piece of work. I commend it to the Committee, and I will 1526. Mr Gilligan: Those days have gone.
150 Minutes of Evidence — 24 March 2009
1527. Mr Hamilton: Yes. I understand that. the Committee. Does the Policing Board [Laughter.] currently pay value added tax (VAT) and, if so, can it be reclaimed? 1528. Sir Desmond Rea: Tears in his eyes. 1536. Sir Desmond Rea: The answer to that is 1529. Mr Paisley Jnr: Let us give a pocketful of yes and yes. sympathy here. 1537. The Chairperson: Is it a significant sum? 1530. Mr Hamilton: Say we were back in the good times again, and the PSNI was 1538. Mr Hagen: It is not significant for the doing well: the system does not provide board. much of an incentive. There may be good operational reasons to close a 1539. The Chairperson: You do pay VAT, facility or to sell off a piece of land. however? The police have identified significant pressures in their submission. 1540. Hagen: We pay VAT, and then we claim it back. We are allowed to keep what we 1531. Mr Gilligan: This comes back to the reclaim. answer that I gave the Chairman: financial issues do not drive the closure 1541. The Chairperson: Are you aware of any of stations. other issues that could have material or inescapable consequences for your 1532. Mr Hamilton: I fully appreciate that. budget in the future? Again, everybody However, where there is a capital has been asked that question. In other problem and a gap and a deficit, selling words, is there anything that you are off pieces of land is one way to fund not telling us about at present? It will that, if the decision has already been be a sad day if, after the devolution of made to get rid of the land already policing and justice, you return to us in for operational reasons. If the PSNI 18 months’ time and say that there is does not retain all the proceeds, that does not help it to meet other deficits. another £2 million or £3 million that you A mechanism might be looked at to knew about, but omitted to tell us about. encourage the wise disposal of assets. I suggest that should that happen, you will not get a good hearing. 1533. Mr Hagen: There is an argument that, where we estimate the proceeds of 1542. Sir Desmond Rea: In respect of the the sale of a police station or piece board, the answer to your question is of land correctly, and need a mobile no. However, there is major concern station to fill the gap left by the closure, within the board that the window of the cost of that mobile station should opportunity could be missed in signing be included in the estimate. The gap, up to devolution of policing and justice then, would not include the spending on without securing a settlement that, above another mobile station. all, takes into account legacy issues and enables the PSNI and the board to move 1534. Mr Hamilton: Certainly, retention of forward on a level playing field. anything over and above the estimate would be useful for the policing budget. 1543. The Chairperson: OK. Thank you very That goes without saying, and this might much indeed for the evidence that you be worth looking at. have given us. I know that there are a 1535. The Chairperson: I am conscious that number of other issues. An hour is not we are now running out of time. The really long enough to cover all of the Chief Constable has arrived, and he areas that we wanted to probe into. We has another engagement to attend. hope to send you a number of additional I do not wish to detain you too much questions this evening. We would ask longer. However, I have a couple of you to reply to most of those questions, final questions which we have asked if possible, before the Secretary of State everyone who has appeared in front of appears in front of us next week.
151 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
1544. Sir Desmond Rea: If we can answer any questions that will facilitate your programme, we will be delighted to do so.
1545. The Chairperson: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for coming along today. We will talk to you in the not-too-distant future.
1546. Sir Desmond Rea: Thank you.
152 Minutes of Evidence — 24 March 2009
24 March 2009
Members present for all or part of the 1551. The first point I would like to make is proceedings: that the PSNI has focused on efficient financial management during the Mr Jimmy Spratt (Chairperson) six and a half years in which I have Mr Raymond McCartney (Deputy Chairperson) had the privilege of commanding the Mr Alex Attwood organisation. By way of example, in the Mr Simon Hamilton last three years over £71 million has Mr Danny Kennedy been saved through Gershon efficiency, Mr Alan McFarland the target being £62 million. We are Mr John O’Dowd certainly committed, and hope to make Mr Ian Paisley Jnr similar savings in the next three years. Witnesses: We are aware of the importance and the high cost of policing in Northern Ireland. Sir Hugh Orde The Chief Constable 1552. The PSNI has consistently come in on Mr David Best Police Service of budget in the last six or seven years. Mr Mark McNaughten Northern Ireland Its accounts have never been qualified by its oversight bodies, and, as I said, 1547. The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): I it has delivered efficiency savings. welcome Sir Hugh Orde, the Chief That being said, we face significant Constable, David Best, director of funding pressures this year and looking finance and support services, and Mark forward. It is right to point out to the McNaughten, the strategic financial Committee that the funding currently manager of the PSNI. You are all very available in the system is not sufficient, welcome. To clear up one piece of in my judgement, to sustain the current business before we move any further, level of police numbers — 7,500 — I declare that I am a member of the into the future, with the appropriate infrastructure to move towards 2011. Northern Ireland Policing Board. We are looking to fully recruit 440 new 1548. Mr Paisley Jnr: I am a member of the officers in the next financial year. The Policing Board. year after that it will become difficult. That could, of course, be the first year of 1549. The Chairperson: Thank you. There are devolution — the Committee should be no other declarations of interest at the aware of that. moment. Chief Constable, during this session there is a possibility that we 1553. There is no mechanism to further reduce the number of officers other may have to leave the meeting in order than by natural wastage. There is to vote in the Chamber; if that happens, clearly no more money, and there is I apologise, but there is nothing we can clearly no “Patten II”, for want of a do about that. I know that you have time better description. We are limited pressures as well, and we will try to in how quickly we can downsize our deal with that as quickly as possible if it organisation, as we anticipate no more happens. than 70-100 officers leaving the service per year. 1550. The Chief Constable (Sir Hugh Orde): Thank you, Chairman; I will keep my 1554. The current funding is based on all full- opening comments brief. It will be more time reserve (FTR) officers leaving the useful if I answer the questions of the service by March 2011. Members will be Committee, rather than say what I think fully aware of the current threat, which you would like to hear. I am on record as declaring to be of
153 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
major concern over the last 16 months, with, and proportionate to that terrorist and which sadly led to three murders threat. recently. That level of threat is currently being reviewed, and we are already in 1559. The Chairperson: Regarding the historic discussions with Government should our hearing-loss claims that you mentioned, and the pension commutation payments, assessment be that we need to retain the current PSNI budget has a deficit of some of those individuals. Any delay, of £24·4 million. Do you envisage further course, will incur additional costs. scenarios which would have an extreme 1555. There are significant pressures from impact on the budget? In relation to the legacy issues; in particular, hearing-loss dissident threat over the past weeks and cases, and the Northern Ireland Civil the horrific murders which have taken Service equal pay claim. The recent place, can you tell us whether there is policing budget could only be agreed any indication in monetary terms of any through the agreement of the Government pressure that that may bring? to set those issues aside in our current 1560. As regards future pension liability, is budget planning. The hearing-loss cases the PSNI treated any differently to other increase week in, week out; there seems police services throughout the United to be a concerted advertising effort among Kingdom? It is important that we get certain firms of solicitors encouraging that on record. claims, and they are reaching in excess of 150 per month. That is a significant 1561. The Chief Constable: As regards the pressure, continuing into the future, of terrorist threat, we have significantly and which the Committee needs to be aware. consistently reduced our overtime budget by around 50% over the past six 1556. On the issue of pension costs, because years, from around 14,000 average daily of the way we are treated with pensions hours to around 7,000. That is the right — which, in essence, are uncontrollable thing to do, because we were high on — in my judgement there has to be a overtime, and we needed to make sure system whereby our pension liabilities that it was being used appropriately. There are prevented from impacting on current is, without doubt, a direct relationship police expenditure. That would be in between the situation that we are currently keeping with the rest of the United facing, the activity that we are undertaking, Kingdom, where pensions are collected and the expenditure on overtime. and paid for centrally. Overtime is far more flexible; it enables us to disrupt activity. Investigations are 1557. In addition, the other legacy issues working flat out, 16 hours a day to solve we continue to face in relation to these crimes, so there is a spike in funding of public inquiries and inquiries overtime at the minute. from outside sources are simply not sustainable. My current focus is on 1562. We have spoken to the Government, policing the present; policing the past and are looking at a number of areas. is a significant drain on current police We have asked for additional help in expenditure, which is allocated for relation to helicopter top cover. Of service delivery now. In the prevailing course, we have no military helicopters security situation there is a direct at all. We have a plan to purchase a impact from any costs that I cannot put new helicopter in the system, about 18 into front line policing. months down the line. That is simply the lead time to purchase it: we have an 1558. As a result of the current increase airframe. in terrorist activity, I have been to speak with the Government. We are in 1563. We are looking at additional money for discussion over significant additional armoured vehicles. We have downsized funding over the next two years to enable our armoured fleet quite appropriately, us to continue to deliver an effective and are now having to review that to give level of service against, commensurate our guys the confidence to go out and
154 Minutes of Evidence — 24 March 2009
deliver community policing in vehicles then than now. I think that we can prove that look like police vehicles and are not that we can make savings — what we Land Rovers, so it is in a consistent and need now is the right amount to deliver appropriate style. against the current threat.
1564. We are also looking at overtime in order 1571. Mr Best: The area of claims for hearing to bridge the funding gap so that we loss is very difficult. Last year, we were can provide the right level of cover to receiving between 20 and 30 a month. our guys in order that they can deliver At the start of this financial year, the an effective service and an effective figure jumped up to 60, and during the investigation in these particularly horrific summer and the autumn there were and complicated crimes. You will be about 150 a month. In the last couple of aware that one person was charged months, the figure has grown further; we last night, and I am confident that we received 346 claims in January and 187 will make further progress. However, in February. The figure for March is likely prisoners are expensive, and have to to be in the region of 250. When we be looked after — quite properly — in issued our budget a couple of months accordance with relevant legislation and ago, we made an assumption that we human rights principles, which is also would receive 150 claims a month and hugely expensive. allocated £98 million for that purpose over the next two years. We will probably 1565. In dealing with the terrorist issues have to revise that figure upwards. If we over the next two years, a conservative made an assumption of 250 claims a estimate of costs would be in the region month, which is possible, our provision of £50 million. would have to rise to about £68 million per annum. The issue is very difficult. 1566. Mr David Best (Police Service of Northern Ireland): If you include the 1572. A question about class action was FTR, that comes to around £76 million asked. Our legal people have consulted over two years. on that issue and, to date, have advised us not go down that route, because 1567. The Chairperson: What does the it would give every police officer an reduction of 14,000 average daily hours entitlement; 7,000 officers could to 7,000 equate to in monetary terms? potentially claim. We have taken legal I know that that is a difficult question advice on the issue, and that is our because people are on different pay current position. As claims rise, that scales, but can you give us a ballpark position will be reviewed, and class figure? action is a potential option. 1568. Mr Best: One thousand average daily 1573. The main issue with regard to pensions hours equates to over £6 million per is that we are treated differently from annum. other police services. That has been 1569. The Chief Constable: I think that it is raised with the Policing Board over the absolutely right that we made those last two years. If we have an overspend significant cuts. Overtime had almost on elements of our pensions, or an become institutionalised to some actuary does a valuation in response to extent. Devolving the budget — over a change in the financial markets, there 80% of our budgets are devolved — has could be an extra liability or a credit. If allowed us far more local control and there is an extra liability, that can hit our inventive and sensible use of resources. main police grant budget, which would not happen with any police service 1570. In facing this type of issue, you have across the water. We are in discussion to be realistic, and there may be some with the NIO and the Policing Board and shift backwards. I do not see the hope to reverse that situation, but there situation going back to the way it was in is a potential cost. The latest figure is 2002, with 14,000 average daily hours £64 million per annum. Therefore, it of overtime. Bizarrely, it was a lot quieter is very important that that additional
155 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
funding is secured. In other words, if 1581. Mr McCartney: OK. Sir Desmond listed the actuaries change their figures, the four categories of legacy issues: the Government should pick up the bill as Historical Enquiries Team (HET), the they do for the Northern Ireland Civil hearing claims, public inquiries and Service and all the police services in the pensions. If those costs were removed United Kingdom. from your projections, how would you appraise the pressure on your budget as 1574. Last year, the Home Secretary announced a result? a change in pension commutation, providing for an entitlement to a lump 1582. The Chief Constable: It would make my sum when an officer retires from a police budget manageable, in the sense that it would be predictable. The big problem service. There was an additional liability that we have with pensions is that if an of £11 million for each of the next two actuary gets out of bed on the wrong years. Last week, the outcome of a side, we may find ourselves potentially judicial review led to that period being £30 million overspent and with no way extended backwards, and we now have a of catching up. potential additional liability of £20 million. Those are a couple of pressures 1583. On the legacy issues, individual judges that we need to take on board as we run public inquiries as they choose, look over the next couple of years. which is entirely in keeping with the legislation under which they operate. As 1575. The Chairperson: During the evidence all inquiries are different, they require from the Policing Board, a figure of about a bespoke response, and finding the £100 million for hearing loss and for the information that the retired judges need Civil Service pay claim was mentioned. is hugely labour-intensive; I cannot You are talking about a figure of about control it, in that sense. I also have to £100 million for hearing-loss claims, provide legal representation to all past and my understanding of what you said and serving officers at those inquiries, was that that figure had almost doubled including for example, from the RUC from your previous estimate. or independent investigators such as the Chief Constable of the Avon and 1576. Mr Best: The Policing Board got figures Somerset Constabulary. That runs to from us about a month ago. We have tens of millions of pounds, which, again, revised those figures, and the cost of I cannot really control. hearing-loss claims is now estimated at £98 million over the two years. The 1584. The HET is slightly different. We secured cost for Civil Service equal pay is now a red-circled amount of money — £32 estimated at £50 million, which is the million, if I remember correctly — to run that over five years. That is a predictable result of a recent valuation that included spend, and we have that money. The some other staff, including EO2 officers. problem with that was there was a dispute, That is new information that the Policing or a discussion, with the NIO about Board would not have had, because it is previous years in which we came in so recent. Therefore, the figure for both underspent and the NIO said that we over the next couple of years is about could use that money to fund the HET. It £150 million and rising. is a complicated argument akin to robbing 1577. Mr McCartney: You were in the Gallery Peter to pay Paul, but it can contribute to the unpredictability of trying to run a when I asked about the hearing-loss budget in a professional way. claims. Does the projected cost of £98 million include legal fees? 1585. Pensions are the biggest problem, simply because of volume. The hearing- 1578. Mr Best: Yes, it does include legal fees. loss claims are out of my control, in that 1579. Mr McCartney: From the PSNI side or — I cannot constrain people who have a right to take an organisation to litigation. 1580. Mr Best: From both sides. We have a right to defend where we
156 Minutes of Evidence — 24 March 2009
can do so, and we examine robustly within the remit of the Committee to go every single case; that is the right into the length of detentions — and I approach. When we settle, we settle do not want to go there this morning. at a figure that is as low as it properly However, criticism has been made can be. However, some cases are hard about the holding centres in the police to defend. If I could get rid of all those estate. What impact will that have on issues, I would have a lump of money the future? that I knew could be used to deliver policing in Northern Ireland, and I could 1590. The Chief Constable: In a general be held to account by the Policing Board sense, the problem with the police for that expenditure. estate is that we wish to invest in what we want to keep and we want to lose 1586. Mr Best: The issue of the FTR could what we do not want to keep, and Des also be brought into that debate. Given made that point. Toome is an example. that we have not provided for any FTR It is costing us a substantial amount expenditure beyond 2010-2011, if we of money. If we sold it, it would have a were to retain half of the FTR beyond negative impact on our balance book. that point, we would have a liability of Therefore, it would be crazy to sell it £10 million a year. If they all stayed, we because we would be costing ourselves would have a liability of £20 million a real money. year — if the security situation required it. 1591. I do not want to get into the detail of 1587. There were a number of questions about certain observations made by an individual police stations in the discussion of on the radio this morning. As a custody legacy issues. Station closures can be suite, Antrim is not in the plan for expensive, because some stations were refurbishment, because it is one of our built with a great deal of infrastructure. most modern suites. I was there and In the current market we could lose money spoke to all the staff the Sunday before by closing a station, because the sale Professor McWilliams visited it. It is one value is low. In addition, we have put a of the holding centres that would be lot of costs into some of those stations, seen as very much fit for purpose in the and they are sitting on our balance current sense of the word. If there were sheet. To write down those costs, if we recommendations for refurbishment or sell stations, is an additional cost. It is something similar, it would be a very driven by operational need, but there expensive operation and would increase are financial implications that influence the costs. For example, if I wanted to whether a station is closed or not. rebuild the custody suite at Antrim, it could cost around £10 million to £15 million, 1588. Transferring the policing budget to the which is a substantial amount of money. Assembly does have risks. Policing has risk attached, such as the occurrence 1592. Mr McCartney: Would that be the of disorder. For example, the Chairman case even if you were only to make referred to the high overtime in 2002- adjustments? 03. We put in a bid for approximately £30 million in overtime in that year. 1593. The Chief Constable: It is hard to adjust We have had a couple of good years such a building. By definition, it is there recently in which we have lived within our to deal with extremely serious crimes. overtime budgets. However, things can That is why it was built. It was built go wrong; hearing-loss claims and other in 2003 to the highest specification legacy issues can arise. The pressures available at the time. If people are now can come and go quite quickly, and that saying that it needs to be refurbished, is a risk that must be managed. then that is a debate we would take back to the Policing Board and put into 1589. Mr McCartney: Sir Desmond and Barry our budget projections for future years. Gilligan both referred to issues regarding the impact of the legacy costs, including 1594. Mr McFarland: I have three points. modernising the police estate. It is not The first refers to the Eames/Bradley
157 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
Consultative Group on the Past’s report budget. Having said that, even if it does and the legacy issues. The sense one move across, it will not remove the got from that was that the historic cases responsibility from my organisation to needed to be packaged up and left with search for material and to do all the the NIO. Have you had any indication of research work, which we sometimes whether that is likely to happen? Clearly, still have to do, even for the Historical if the past were to be taken out of your Enquiries Team. Therefore, in essence, budget and you could police the present, there is a transfer cost. it would make quite a difference to your budget. Where are we on that issue as 1602. We think that we have recovered most regards discussions with the NIO? of the material in relation to murders, but Eames/Bradley group report goes 1595. The Chief Constable: I am unsighted on far wider than that. It is a one-stop where the debate on the Eames/Bradley approach; victims of the Troubles can group report has gone. [Interruption.] come and see the commission to find out where the best solution lies for 1596. The Chairperson: The Committee will them. However, inevitably, there will suspend for about 10 minutes. We will still be a cost on my organisation to resume with Mr McFarland’s question. supply whatever we can to bring some Committee suspended for a Division in form of resolution to those families, so, the House. notwithstanding the move to implement the proposals of the Eames/Bradley On resuming — group, there will still be an impact on the policing budget. 1597. The Chairperson: I reiterate to everyone to turn off their mobile phones, because 1603. Mr McFarland: Presumably that is they interfere with the recording unquantifiable, given that it depends on equipment. That includes Ian Paisley Jnr, how many people come forward. of course. 1604. The Chief Constable: Absolutely. It is 1598. Chief Constable, I am sorry that your utterly dependent on demand. evidence was interrupted. The best thing to do is to start again. Alan, will you put 1605. Mr McFarland: My second question your question again? relates to the police college. As I recall, the original business case contained a 1599. Mr McFarland: What discussions have clawback, in that the college was going you had around the Eames/Bradley to be used by international police services group recommending that past issues that would fly in to use our state-of-the- should be bundled up and perhaps left art college, which would pay for a chunk with the NIO? of it. What is the situation with the 1600. The Chief Constable: I am unsighted incoming money from the sale and use with regard to any developments on of the police college when it is built? the Eames/Bradley group’s report, 1606. The Chief Constable: I will ask David apart from the fact that the £12,000 to deal with that question. The bigger idea is no longer in the thinking. I have picture is that there is still huge interest said on record that I have no difficulty in what has been achieved in policing in with the HET moving into the proposed Northern Ireland. Only last week, I spent structure under the three-commissioner a whole 36 hours in America, and some system recommended by the Eames/ key officials are very interested in the Bradley group, provided that there is no way that this organisation has worked drop in service to victims. The HET was towards the resolution of a difficult a PSNI idea, which was supported by Government, and we are very proud of conflict. There is still a likelihood what it has achieved. that they will seek training and other things here — people will be looking 1601. The financial issue will not really affect to here as a centre of excellence. It is us in the sense that it is a red-circle unquantifiable, but I think that it may be
158 Minutes of Evidence — 24 March 2009
small money compared to the overall Patten envisaged at all. Those 500 are cost of running the college. It will be an absolutely embedded in neighbourhood add-on, rather than something we can policing. We saw the 400 PCSOs as predict. a critical add-on to that, but it is not happening because of lack of finance. 1607. Mr Best: The business case prepared The only way to move on is to look at for PSNI made no assumptions about our overall budget and the mix of sworn income from that source. There is an officers, PCSOs and support staff. At expectation, but we do not want to the moment, we are committed to 7,500 anticipate it. Who knows where the for all sorts of very good reasons, but, security situation will be? Hopefully, as I said in my opening comments, it improves as time passes, but no after next year we will recruit to full assumptions have been built in. capacity. After that, it becomes hugely difficult. To achieve that, we will have 1608. I listened to the earlier discussion with to do something else within the current the Policing Board. Some £90 million structure. is set aside, £52 million of which is in the current CSR period, but £38 million 1612. Mr McFarland: You will recall that, early falls into a future CSR period. We need in the Policing Board’s life, we had a to make sure that that funding is clearly visit to Chicago. There, they use 1,000 identified in the future period. I wish to volunteers on a voluntary basis — often confirm, with respect to Barry Gilligan’s retired officers. Do you see something comments, that there will be additional like that being brought in to cope with running costs for the police college. The rising costs? figure of £4 million to £5 million is the best estimate that we have. 1613. The Chief Constable: Sadly, I did not go to Chicago. That must have been a Policing 1609. Mr McFarland: My third question is Board trip, rather than a police trip. about the part-time reserve that was to form the final 10% of the Patten issue to 1614. Lots of forces do that. In Sussex and raise it from 30% to 40% of the current Surrey, they open police stations on a population. That was clearly diverted volunteer basis. I have no issue with early on. We then had the plan to bring looking at all such ideas, but to add in the police community support officers service, rather than to provide essential (PCSOs). Can you update us as to where service, and although it would be nice to we are with that, with respect to costs, have, it cannot be predicted. Continuity personnel, people and changes? and health and safety issues all have to be considered. However, I have no 1610. The Chief Constable: The harsh reality difficulty in having a serious debate is that we do not have the money for about the matter. It is not something PCSOs. That is a shame as I think that that we have dealt with, quite frankly. it would have been a real step forward. We get huge support from volunteers for We wanted only 400, and they were policing generally, but not for opening to be focused on the very front end of stations, and so on. community policing, with no mission- creep, which some forces have been 1615. Mr Paisley Jnr: Thank you for your guilty of. They would have been working presentation, Chief Constable. In your to local sergeants to deliver community letter to the Committee of 6 February policing. It is a shame because it was 2009, you indicated that, in order to an opportunity that we would like to have achieve the breakdown plan in the taken up. current financial year, it was necessary for the Police Service to implement 1611. As long as we have an establishment budget cuts totalling £15∙3 million in the of 7,500, our flexibility is limited. last three months of the financial year. However, I recognise that there is no To achieve that, the NIO had to transfer more money. Part-time officers are £9∙1 million from the budget allocation down to about 500, which is not what of future years. You say, quite rightly,
159 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
that that is not a sustainable solution. about hearing-loss and equal-pay claims You used the phrase “robbing Peter from the permanent secretary, and I am to pay Paul” in your presentation. The hopeful that those issues will be dealt bottom line is that this cannot go like with, and likewise the pensions issue. this for much longer, and we accept that. 1619. I would like all the things that we should 1616. I have checked my hearing of what we not be dealing with in the first place to were told earlier. Mr Best said that be taken out of our budget. That would there are four pressures, respectively give us a sensible bidding process so totalling £70 million, £60 million, £50 that, through the Policing Board, we can million and, potentially, £20 million. You come to the Assembly with our proposed are essentially telling us that, in order budget. Then we can deliver policing. to continue to deliver policing as it is David may be able to talk about the and address the relevant pressures, figures in more detail. you need a budget comprising what you currently get plus an additional £150 1620. Mr Paisley Jnr: You have set out the million for every year of the current numbers very clearly this morning. Your spending round. If the NIO granted us settlement has been described as a that sort of settlement — and that is a generous settlement, and, realistically, it huge “if”— could we deliver policing? is a generous settlement. However, the fact of the matter is that the NIO has 1617. The Chief Constable: We will deliver not distinguished between legacy costs policing with whatever budget we get; and policing costs and has lumped it is a question of how effective that those costs together. You have to make policing will be. As an organisation, we calculations of service delivery on the must ensure that we provide value for basis of how it is handed to you, and money and drive all possible efficiencies you do not choose the cloth to be cut out of the money that we are given. The that way. chairman and the deputy chairman of the Policing Board talked about how we 1621. If any of us successfully persuade the are held to account in that regard, and it NIO to separate legacy costs from is right and proper that that is the case. policing costs, we could consider a As w touched on in our opening remarks, reduced settlement because the NIO we can deliver savings without impacting would be responsible for settling legacy on front-line services. issues. However, rightly or wrongly, legacy issues are currently contained 1618. The NIO has been very fair in trying to within policing costs. Would £150 resolve issues such as hearing-loss and million in each year of the current equal-pay claims, but those pressures spending round and the succeeding are not to deliver policing but to deal spending round be sufficient to deliver with legacy issues. My frustration is policing and meet those pressures? that the money that we are allocated, through all the bidding processes, to 1622. The Chief Constable: Given all the deliver policing now is being eroded pressures, including the bid that has by trying to deal with things that are been made for extra funding from outwith my control. I cannot refuse to Government to deal with the rise in provide information to a public inquiry; terrorism, the short answer to that that is a civil offence followed by a question is no. A settlement of £150 criminal offence under the Inquiries Act million each year would be at the bottom 2005, and I would not want to commit end of an estimate. Rather than £300 that offence. I have to put huge effort, million over two years, the amount of resource and expertise into doing work money required is probably more likely that is not built into the budgetary base. to be somewhere between £300 million Hearing-loss claims, equal-pay claims, and £400 million. and so on are nothing to do with us, but they impact on our budget. We received 1623. The other option is for us to be treated some very helpful correspondence like other forces and for pressures
160 Minutes of Evidence — 24 March 2009
such as pensions to be taken out of my 1628. The Chief Constable: Politically, budget. We have far more pensioners advocating a drop in police numbers is than serving officers, and a police probably — force that did have 13,500 officers is now being funded by the pension 1629. Mr Paisley Jnr: Suicide. contributions of 7,500 serving officers 1630. The Chief Constable: It would not be who only pay either 8% or 11%. More seen as a good thing. police officers are retiring early, so pensions are an ever-increasing 1631. Mr Paisley Jnr: It is like asking to cut pressure on our budget. Pension the number of nurses. payments take up about 36% of my budget, and another 45% of my budget 1632. The Chief Constable: That said, from a goes towards paying serving officers. professional basis, I will deliver policing There is pressure on me to save money, with whatever number of officers I have but that is only relevant to a very small to the maximum of my ability. We are amount of money; the rest of my budget unique in the sense that we have this is predetermined expenditure that pays notional establishment. Every other current and retired police officers. force turns on and off the recruitment tap in order to manage expenditure. 1624. I would be much happier to have a Many forces are currently turning off the smaller budget that recognised that recruitment tap because budgets are pensions and legacy issues are not our going in the wrong direction. responsibility. That would mean that we could be held to account for the money 1633. Mr Paisley Jnr: If you did that, you would that we are given to deliver policing. upset the 50:50 balance. Is that right? There would then be interesting debates about how many police officers, PCSOs, 1634. The Chief Constable: No, it would not. If part-time officers and police stations numbers are cut, the 50:50 balance will we want to have. It would mean that be maintained. Patten’s view of 30% was we could control the business; I cannot his top end of optimism. We will achieve control a business in which so many 30%, even if recruitment stops. That things are simply outside my influence. does not add up, simply because the retiring officers would be skewed in one 1625. Mr Paisley Jnr: Do you agree, however, direction and the number of new officers that it is not realistic to talk about — however many come into the force reducing police numbers in the current — will be 50:50. The debate is about policing climate? Do you accept that? what is the best policing mix to deliver 1626. The Chief Constable: One can certainly effective community policing. have a conversation about the policing 1635. The harsh reality — which I referred to mix. If you want to build community at Stevie’s funeral and, last night, when confidence through community policing, I spoke to my colleagues in the Police there is a serious debate to be had on Superintendent’s Association of England the value for money of, say, a community and Wales — is that if you respond in officer versus 1·6 PCSOs who are London to a call about criminal damage, utterly focused on delivering community as that officer was doing, the maximum policing with the local sergeant. Frankly, number of officers that you will send that debate must be had. is two, instantly, even in the tough 1627. Mr Paisley Jnr: That is at the micro areas of London. In the same situation, level. At the highest level, there are we had to send a minimum of five 7,500 officers. Let us be honest; it is officers, and that still did not work. The not realistic for politician in this room to increased cost of policing in the current go out and advocate that 1,000 fewer environment is, therefore, very high. We police officers are needed in the current can deliver that. We can also deliver it in climate. different ways.
161 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
1636. The numbers argument, therefore, is “To achieve the shortfall of £38.5m in a red herring. What I want is clarity on capital budgets, a number of planned what my budget is, and certainty that developments were delayed, including I can influence that budget and that Cookstown, Ballymoney, Downpatrick, Armagh, nothing will suddenly appear from 20 Castlereagh, and the purpose built Call Management facilities and new facilities to years ago that I will have to fund. That is store forensic exhibits.” where the pressures are. It was hearing loss this year, and — notwithstanding I do not ask in order to trip you up, Sir; the support from the NIO — all of a I ask because Forensic Science told sudden, claims go up. The potential us that if they do not get that facility, impact of that on our budget in 2009 is that will affect their ability to deliver another £3 million. In essence, had we forensic science in a way that lawyers not had that support from Government, cannot pick apart — which, if they do, that £3 million of notional money — lets guilty people go free. They will because it will never be spent in 2009 have huge problems unless that matter — would have gone into my balance is addressed. I wonder whether you book. I cannot pay it, so I must claw it have started to feel that pressure, not back from real money in 2010. That is necessarily in a financial sense, but £3 million out of overtime. That is no from a practical point of view. way to run a business. 1643. The Chief Constable: Put it this way: 1637. Mr Paisley Jnr: That is a crazy way to new facilities would, certainly, enhance run a business. capacity. In recent cases, exhibit storage 1638. A couple of weeks ago, Forensic Science in the past has been severely criticised. NI made a helpful presentation to the That was many years ago. Just last Committee about the modern require Sunday, as I have mentioned, I visited ments of forensic evidence and about the murder investigation unit. No one how its facilities are almost at tipping brought to my attention any concern point. It urgently requires a new facility. about storing the mass of exhibits that Are there any pressures as regards relate to current inquiries. The issue is storage of forensic materials which about enhancement and the right way of place an additional pressure on policing? going. I am not sighted. I will get back to the Committee if there is a specific 1639. The Chief Constable: None that has issue causing a problem between us been brought to my immediate attention. and Forensic Science. I happen to be We have reviewed all our property going there next Tuesday to discuss storage. The forensic laboratory, quite current cases. I will seek clarification rightly, needs be an independent and get back to the Committee. organisation and institution. I understand that there have been plans 1644. Mr O’Dowd: I apologise for being to rebuild it. Conversations have taken absent from the meeting for a while; I place in that regard. In essence, we had to attend another meeting, which, probably supply 98% of its business. thankfully, did not last too long. Chief Constable, I want to return to a point 1640. Mr Paisley Jnr: I will put it another way: that my colleague raised with you earlier is there any pressure on the police with about the Antrim detention centre and regard to storage of forensic material? your forecasts for future budgetary matters. Given the concerns raised this 1641. The Chief Constable: Nothing has been morning by Monica McWilliams, the brought to my attention that we cannot Human Rights Commissioner, and the cope with. I am happy to come back to the Committee if there is something concerns raised by other groups and specific. political parties, including Sinn Féin, about 28-day detention — which in itself 1642. Mr Paisley Jnr: In you submission, to is a debate for another day, and you are which you referred earlier, you have aware of Sinn Féin’s opposition to it — if highlighted that as a pressure: the British Government and the PSNI
162 Minutes of Evidence — 24 March 2009
continue to use that legislation, surely process, and we would look at it. If a you will have to plan for and provide decision was reached that a new build humane, adequate detention centres. was required — as I suspect would be The Antrim centre was built for 7-day the case — we would build it. We could detention, which itself is an abnormality come back to the proposed costs. There in domestic law. You are now holding is nothing to benchmark it against, people in that centre for 28 days, and because we have the most modern it does not have adequate facilities. facility in the United Kingdom. Surely, you will have to plan for proper facilities in the future. 1648. Mr O’Dowd is right in that the law was different when the Antrim centre was 1645. The Chief Constable: As a matter of built. However, that does not mean that record, nobody has been held for 28 I have any intention of keeping people days. I had a conversation with the in custody a day longer than they should Human Rights Commissioner this be in custody. That has been evidenced morning, and a number of points spring by the way in which the recent cases to mind. Monica rang me last night have been dealt with to date. People and I gave her instant access, within have been charged; some have been an hour of her request; she did not released, and some are being retained, rely on any legislation to get access. subject to judicial oversight. Her observations this morning relate, in part, to her organisation’s objection 1649. I am happy to have that debate. If it to 28-day detention, which, as you say, means that we have to build something is a debate for another day. As police else, it will have to become part of the officers we will use the legislation that bidding process. The Committee will is enshrined in United Kingdom law, want to reflect on how that could be which we are entitled to use, subject done. Perhaps it would have to come to massive judicial oversight. That was from schools or hospitals, or something else, if it was within you overall budget evidenced by one of the hearings before allocation. I think that that is how it the judge, which lasted for 12 hours and would work: it would go into the bidding ran to 1.30 am. I do not think that there process. was any debate around whether the detention was lawful. 1650. Mr O’Dowd: I acknowledge that Monica McWilliams did state — 1646. There is a debate to be had about the conditions, and I await with interest her 1651. The Chairperson: John, I am reluctant to report on that this afternoon. She told allow — me — and stated publicly — that no prisoners had complained about the way 1652. Mr O’Dowd: I am not going to go into it in which they were being treated or the too much. compliance with human rights legislation by officers. Those officers are independent 1653. The Chairperson: We are here to from the investigation. It is inappropriate examine the financial implications and to link an objection to current enacted issues. legislation to particular cases where my 1654. Mr O’Dowd: One of the questions — officers are charged with investigating three of the most brutal murders in the 1655. The Chairperson: I have given you some unfortunate history of Northern Ireland. flexibility. It is a complicated mix. 1656. Mr O’Dowd: We always ask witnesses 1647. I have no difficulty with looking at whether they are going to return to us any report that comes out from any in the future and tell us of costs that organisation — be it the Humans Rights are required for some project or other. Commission, lay visitors or my own That is why I am exploring this issue. officers — that says that detention I acknowledge that the Human Rights facilities need to be enhanced. That Commission stated that there are no proposal would go into the bidding complaints against any of the officers
163 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
involved in the Antrim centre. The 1660. Mr Hamilton: It is clear that the current Chairperson has told all witnesses that, budget within which you operate is, in if they come back in the future saying many respects, crippled by — [Inaudible that there is £6 million that they thought due to mobile phone interference.] they might have to spend, but did not tell us about, that will be looked on 1661. That is not my mobile phone. dimly. If there are concerns, we need to 1662. Mr Paisley Jnr: Guilty! acknowledge them and we need to plan for them into the future. 1663. The Chairperson: I always look in one direction, and I just happened to be 1657. The Chief Constable: On the looking in your direction. recommendation of the Police Ombudsman, we routinely respond to 1664. Mr O’Dowd: Action should be taken. concerns about detention and find the necessary money from with the budget. 1665. Mr Paisley Jnr: There is the man to do it. The ombudsman was concerned, for 1666. The Chief Constable: Section 44 example, about ligature points — that is always available to us in these certain parts of police cells could be circumstances. [Laughter.] used by someone in custody to hang themselves. We are finishing our 1667. Mr Hamilton: Your budget is clearly refurbishment of every single cell to crippled by costs relating to legacy remove that risk. We always respond issues and policing the past, and you to such issues, but we do so within our have outlined some of those issues in budget and our allocation for capital detail. At present levels, what percentage expenditure. of your budget is being spent on legacy 1658. Part of the pressure on our capital matters and the policing of the past? stems from legacy issues — as 1668. The Chief Constable: That is an extremely members know, some buildings in the good question, and quite hard to answer. police estate are in an awful state of disrepair. Also, there is no longer any 1669. Mr Best: A couple of significant issues additional money available from Patten. have arisen recently, and a figure of Over time, we will have to manage between £300 million and £400 million certain legacy issues by selling what we to fix those up has been mentioned. The do not need and keeping what we do. big ones have come recently. The legacy The other day, we were offered £60,000 costs, including the HET investigations, for one building because of the current are projected to be £15 to £20 million economic climate — that is crazy. per annum, over the past couple of years and projected forward. However, if 1659. Some buildings have a book value members study the new figures for the of several million, simply because of next couple of years, there is a bigger their security infrastructure, but that is problem, and the figures mentioned are worthless to anyone else. To sell those a fair reflection of that. buildings, we would hit our bottom line to the tune of £1 million, £2 million or 1670. Mr Hamilton: Upwards of £400 £3 million and would, therefore, have million out of £1·2 billion represents to find another £3 million. We are in approximately one third of your budget. negotiations with central Government to get that pressure removed. The 1671. Mr Best: The Policing Board referred unique situation here means that is not to the cost of reinstating overtime. sensible to penalise my organisation by Potentially, if one includes the bid that stating that the book value of a certain was submitted recently in response to building is £5 million when its real value the current security situation, a large to anyone, even in the current economic part of which was to reinstate overtime, climate, is probably 20% of that. those figures will be accurate.
164 Minutes of Evidence — 24 March 2009
1672. Mr Hamilton: That is fairly sizeable submission. However, I would like some — [Inaudible due to mobile phone clarification. I think that the Secretary of interference.] State adjusted his position somewhat on the Eames/Bradley proposal to 1673. The Chairperson: Will everyone check make a financial acknowledgement of their phones again to ensure that they people. He made a comment — I think are switched off? It is interfering, as you that it was in a parliamentary answer can hear. during Northern Ireland Question Time 1674. Mr Paisley Jnr: I think it is Eamonn — in which he opened the door for that Mallie. possibility. You may want to check that.
1675. Mr Hamilton: Before the interruption, I 1682. You said that you got a letter from the was expressing shock about how one permanent secretary which was quite third of the budget is being taken up. helpful. Was it helpful because he gave you some reassurance in respect of 1676. The Chief Constable: So much of this the additional costs around pensions, is unpredictable. On hearing loss, we hearing loss, legacy issues and so on? do not know how many cases will be Or did he reassure you that those costs settled and how many will go to court may be separated out from your annual each year, how many will be contested budget and dealt with under separate or uncontested, or how many we will win. budgetary arrangements outside Similarly, we do not know when, or if, the PSNI’s annual framework? What we will have to pay out on the equal-pay reassurance are you getting? claims. It is in there somewhere. It is foreseeable, so it is right that it appears 1683. Mr Best: We have been reassured that in our accounts, and we are obliged to the PSNI, the Policing Board and the include it. NIO will agree to set the sums of money aside. Currently, there are no guarantees 1677. The figures are, to some extent, as to where that funding will come from. projections, and that is what makes it There is the potential that all those so difficult for me, as Chief Constable, costs will still have to be recovered from to manage the budget. One minute my the police budget. budget looks good, and suddenly I am looking at a £15 million overspend, or 1684. Mr Attwood: Those are just the current whatever it is. That amount of money pressures that you are talking about. cannot be clawed back in the last six to You have been reassured that the eight weeks of a budgetary year. pressures which have arisen will be met. However, we do not yet know where the 1678. Mr Hamilton: The figure of £50 million funds are coming from. was mentioned in relation to the current dissident threat. What duration does 1685. Mr Best: Currently, we do not know that amount cover? where they are coming from.
1679. The Chief Constable: Two years. 1686. The Chief Constable: Without that letter, we could not have balanced the books 1680. Mr Best: It covers a two-year period. It this year. is £49 million plus FTR, plus some close protection unit (CPU) projected costs 1687. Mr Attwood: Is the permanent secretary because the CPU is going to be retained giving you any reassurance around the longer. Therefore, it is £50 million plus. demands which you might anticipate over the final two years of the CSR period? 1681. Mr Attwood: I apologise to the Chairperson and to Sir Hugh; I had a 1688. Mr Best: One of the big pressures meeting upstairs which meant that referred to earlier was pensions. If we I could not be here for the Policing were to move to a similar scheme, there Board’s presentation. I hope that I is a potential pressure of £64 million am not going back over issues that each year over that two-year period. That may have been covered in the opening is under discussion at the moment.
165 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
1689. Mr Attwood: Potentially, therefore, however, I think that the year after that, there is some reassurance for this there is still a debate to be had. year. Somebody said that they hoped to have the financial arrangements 1693. Mr Attwood: I agree that the HMIC around the devolution of policing and assumptions were flawed on a lot of the justice confirmed by the end of the criteria, but, prior to the recent situation financial year. Given that there are still that has arisen, had the NIO asked you issues around pressures over the next whether it is time for you to say that we two years of the CSR period, are you can get to fewer than 7,500 officers in a position to say that you have been within two, three or four years? reassured in respect of those matters? 1694. The Chief Constable: As I said in my Are you telling the Committee that that opening remarks, and as I have also reassurance has not materialised? told the Policing Board, we cannot fund 1690. Mr Best: Certainly, from the perspective 7,500 officers next year or the year of the PSNI, at this point in time, we after. It is unlikely that we can deliver have not received assurances on that with the available funding. Likewise, those issues. Those issues are under as you pointed out, there is no plan or discussion. mechanism to reduce numbers more quickly than natural wastage. When the 1691. Mr Attwood: My second question is on a severance scheme ends in 2011, we slightly broader point, but it does arise predict that the natural wastage will be from what you said, Sir Hugh. There somewhere between 70 and 90 officers is a debate to be had around police a year. That is assuming the current numbers. Are you currently having that economic climate. People might stay conversation with the NIO, subject to, longer, so it will be a very slow process and mindful of, the security situation in terms of legal obligations. We cannot that has now arisen? In general terms, make officers redundant. That is not a given what the NIO and Her Majesty’s situation that I want to be in, and it is Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) not one that is available to me in law recommended in respect of overall anyway. police numbers, has there been a conversation over recent months 1695. Mr Best: My understanding is that the concerning the longer term? NIO’s position is that 7,500 officers will be retained for 2009-2010 and 2010- 1692. The Chief Constable: I think that 11; after that, it will be subject to further that is a discussion for the Policing debate. Board, in the sense that we have to produce a balanced budget for the 1696. The Chairperson: Final question, Mr board’s approval. However, we have Attwood. Before you came in, it was reassured the board that next year, indicated that the Chief Constable has we are committed to recruiting 440 time pressures. We are beyond our time, people, which will keep the numbers at and Danny Kennedy has not got in yet. around 7,500, give or take the normal 1697. Mr Attwood: I will be very quick. Given churn. The HMIC’s report on police what John O’Dowd said about future numbers — which came up with, I think, accommodation costs in respect of the figure of 6,026 — made a number Antrim police station, and subject of assumptions which have not been to what you might hear from Monica met. Indeed, if one looks at the Patten McWilliams, do you feel that the programme, some of his assumptions accommodation facilities at Antrim are around normalisation have not been fit for purpose, regardless of whether met. It is a debate that currently rests they are for a detention period of seven between us and the Policing Board, and days, 14 days or 28 days? that is the right place for it to be. We have to look at our budget and make 1698. The Chairperson: I am not going to allow those hard decisions. We are clear that that question. That answer has already next year we can balance the books; been given to Mr O’Dowd. We are
166 Minutes of Evidence — 24 March 2009
discussing purely financial issues here. I in inadequate and squalid conditions, it made that clear earlier. is not the best environment from which to expect them to go out and provide 1699. Mr Attwood: It is a financial issue. a high-quality service. That is a really important debate. 1700. The Chairperson: I am sorry, but I am not going to allow that question. You can 1707. The reason for closing a police station read the transcript of evidence. relates to whether it is needed to provide an effective policing service. 1701. Mr Kennedy: I welcome the Chief There is an inevitable economic benefit Constable and his colleagues. I to so doing, and common sense dictates apologise for my unavoidable absence, that I can only invest in a certain which might be welcomed by others. amount of estate. Therefore, there is an 1702. Mr McCartney: It is. economic element to it, but the primary reason is whether we need a particular 1703. Mr Kennedy: With regard to the station to provide a front line service to question of ongoing pressures on police community policing. The frank answer resources due to the current level of is that we have far too many police threat, is it prudent to restrict personal stations. protection weapons (PPWs) to current or former members of the security forces? 1708. The Chairperson: I have a couple of final There seems to be a widespread points. In relation to parading, which has campaign. It might have a benefit in not been touched on, there is evidence one sense, but, in another sense, surely in your submission of a downward trend it will increase the costs of providing in the cost of policing parades. We are adequate cover to people who feel more thankful for that and hope that that vulnerable as a result of that threat. Do trend continues. However, do you project you have any comment on that? some stability in the cost of policing parades, or will it continue to be a 1704. Secondly, the Policing Board told us volatile item in relation to the budget? earlier that the closure of police stations was in no way connected to saving 1709. The Chief Constable: That is very hard money. Do you share that view? to predict. The challenge of policing in Northern Ireland — certainly during the 1705. The Chief Constable: There is no parades season — is unlike any other financial implication to the PPW issue. policing practice. I have experience Deputy chief constable Paul Leighton of policing the Notting Hill carnival: is reviewing some of the issues around predictably, year on year, disorder that policy, but, frankly, the biggest dropped from 1977 onwards. It went danger a PPW has is to its owner. Sadly, from a public-order situation to a public- since I have been here, more owners safety situation in a clear, definable of PPWs have committed suicide using trend. The 2007 marching season them than have died from shots fired in was an extremely bad year, but it was anger or protection, and it is a matter preceded by a good year, and the past that we are looking at. two years have been good.
1706. With regard to the closure of police 1710. All other things being equal, and with the stations, we have a huge police estate. amount of engagement that I am getting, It is about 170% of the size of that of things are looking good. However, any comparable police service. However, developments can move very quickly. much of it is in disarray, falling down, Consequently, planning is unpredictable. not compliant with health and safety, My current best guess is that I think that and needs to be got rid of. In the more we will be OK this year. Public support recent past, selling it gave us a financial for policing is increasing and the amount benefit, and we could invest that in the of community engagement is increasing. police stations that our officers worked The responsibility of the leadership in. Frankly, if police officers are working shown around loyalism in relation to
167 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
the current attacks, from top to bottom, biggest worry is the uncontrollability of suggests that there is an increasing legacy issues that impact on our current grip that can be used in other ways. All policing budget. other things being equal, I would like to think that this marching season will 1715. Mr Mark McNaughten (Police Service be very peaceful. However, I am not in of Northern Ireland): We pay VAT as a the business of second-guessing the service, but we also reclaim it, so there situation this far down the line. Sadly, it is no net cost to the service. will run to the wire. 1716. The Chairperson: Quite a number of 1711. The Chairperson: Everyone who has areas have not been covered, because given evidence to the Committee has we have not had the time in this been asked about value added tax (VAT). session. As with other witnesses, we Does the PSNI currently pay VAT and, if it have several questions that we will does, is it reclaimed and retained within send to you before close of play today. the budget? We would be grateful if we could have answers to some of those questions 1712. Finally, there is another question that before the Secretary of State gives everyone has been asked — and John evidence next week. I understand that O’Dowd has mentioned it already. Are there may be pressures, but, if it is there any other issues that you are possible, we would appreciate it if we aware of that could have a material could have answers to some of those or inescapable consequence on the questions, even though you may have to budget in the future? Is there anything come back to the Committee at a later hurtling down the tracks that could stage with more details. cause alarm and that might well have financial implications in the future? If 1717. Thank you, Chief Constable, and your there is, this is an opportunity to give colleagues for giving evidence to the the Committee some idea of what it Committee today. We will be talking to might be. you again.
1713. The Chief Constable: I will ask 1718. I remind members that the media has Mark McNaughten to deal with the had access to both the visual and audio technicalities of VAT. As regards anything feeds from the Committee’s proceedings else that could happen, there is nothing today and the session in the Chamber. that I can think of, currently. However, We have no plans to issue a press to be frank, I did not see the hearing- release. I remind members of their loss issue coming. You may remember responsibilities when issuing press the post-traumatic stress class action releases or giving interviews on what that was won by the organisation. At the has been discussed with the witnesses time, I was far more concerned about here today. Thank you very much. that, because it was costed at hundreds 1719. The Chief Constable: Thank you. of millions of pounds. The hearing-loss issue was a different issue, and I did not see it. Is there anything else like that? Heaven only knows. I cannot see anything huge or out of the ordinary as regards the routine issues that could suddenly hit us and knock us sideways.
1714. By way of reassurance, we will deliver policing with whatever budget we are given. We will deliver efficiency savings with whatever budget we are given, and we will do our best to maximise front line service to the communities and drive the efficiencies out of that. My
168 Minutes of Evidence — 31 March 2008
31 March 2008
Members present for all or part of the most members will have questions for proceedings: you. Welcome again, and I ask you to make your opening statement. Mr Jimmy Spratt (Chairperson) Mr Raymond McCartney (Deputy Chairperson) 1727. The Secretary of State for Northern Mr Simon Hamilton Ireland (Mr Shaun Woodward): Thank Mrs Carmel Hanna you very much, and thank you to all the Mr Alex Maskey members of the Committee for being Mr Nelson McCausland here this afternoon and continuing your Mr Alan McFarland extremely important work. I shall begin, Mr John O’Dowd Mr Chairman, by referring back to the Mr Ian Paisley Jnr events of the last few weeks and the Witnesses: last day.
Mr Shaun Woodward The Secretary of State 1728. Very clearly, people in Northern Ireland for Northern Ireland were deeply and rightly concerned about the two terrible criminal attacks that Mr Anthony Harbinson Northern Ireland took place: the pre-planned attempt Ms Hilary Jackson Office at mass murder that succeeded in killing two very brave young men at 1720. The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): Good the Massereene Army barracks; and afternoon, Secretary of State. I welcome the murder of the very brave police you to the Committee. I understand constable two days later in Craigavon. that you have time constraints this What has been demonstrated very afternoon, and that you will be able to clearly — if there is anything good that stay with us for 45 minutes to an hour. can be found out of the terrible tragedy Your colleagues Hilary Jackson, political for all the families involved — is the director; and Anthony Harbinson, director strength of the political process that you of resources, are also very welcome. have all established here. The criminals 1721. Before we start, I ask Members to who wanted to bring about a shaking of declare interests. I declare that I am a confidence have been shown that not member of the Northern Ireland Policing only are the political institutions — of Board. which this is a very important part — stronger, but the roots of the political 1722. Mr McCausland: I am a member of process are deeper and reach far wider. Belfast District Policing Partnership (DPP). 1729. Members of the Northern Ireland 1723. Mr Paisley Jnr: I am a member of the Policing Board who had the privilege Northern Ireland Policing Board. of travelling, as I did, to the United States the week before last, will have 1724. Mr A Maskey: I am a member of the discovered that people there looked at Northern Ireland Policing Board. what happened in Northern Ireland and 1725. The Chairperson: I ask members to saw two things. They saw real shock make sure that mobile telephones are that those events could have happened, switched off; that also applies to the but they also saw the people of Northern Public Gallery. Ireland unite. They saw all the political parties and their leaders come out 1726. Secretary of State, I understand that you together to condemn the attacks and will make a short opening statement, send a very clear signal to the world that and that you will then be happy to take the small group of criminals who may be questions from members. I think that capable of launching and carrying out
169 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
those cowardly attacks cannot succeed 1733. I know that the Committee wanted in disrupting the extraordinary political to raise a number of issues and one progress here because it is so deeply of those concerns protocols and rooted. concordats. We are still in process of finalising those, but we are very 1730. I observe that because one of the things close to completing them. There are I feel even more strongly than I did the two protocols: one is on policing last time I came before this Committee architecture; the other is on national is that, rightly based on the principle of security. There are two concordats: establishing confidence and carrying one each on judicial and prosecutorial out confidence-building measures in independence. Within weeks, I will be the communities of Northern Ireland, able to share them with this Committee the real answer to the criminals who and I will be happy to do so. You will find tested the political institutions and the no surprises in them, but it is important people of Northern Ireland the week that we get them right and, as we are in before last — and tried again yesterday the process of finalising them, I should with 37 hoax incidents — is to continue just say to you that I will bring them to the political progress and the work on you as soon as they are ready. There is devolution. It is, of course, precisely nothing mysterious about their not being because this work is succeeding ready: we just need a few more weeks. that these criminals carry out such acts. They fear the consequences of 1734. I know that you are keen to test me devolution being completed, of the on the area of resources for the politicians here sharing power of all Department of justice. The Assembly Government Departments and policing has yet to decide whether to set it up, and justice being transferred from me, what model it wants and when it will as Secretary of State. choose to request the transfer of power.
1731. Politicians here have rightly responded 1735. I have four things to say about in stating their commitment to continue resources. The first is that I stand with the political progress that is being by the statement that the settlement made. It will be built on confidence and achieved in the comprehensive spending clear principles, and I hope that, by review was a fair, reasonable and good answering your questions this afternoon, settlement for policing and justice in I can help with that. I firmly believe — as Northern Ireland. It is worth saying two does the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach, things in relation to that. and the President of the United States — that the completion of devolution 1736. The first is that you would not find a is the best answer of all to the threat police service or a chief constable that is posed by those criminals, albeit anywhere in the United Kingdom who a small number, who refuse to move got as much as they wanted in the out of the grip of the past, and who settlement. You would find several masquerade with some political project who would point to Northern Ireland as that clearly has no place in Northern having got a settlement that was, in their Ireland today, as was demonstrated so eyes, particularly generous. That does firmly in the very courageous words of not mean that I do not understand why the deputy First Minister and others, every single member of this Committee, and in the very strong words of the First and every single member of the Policing Minister. Board who sits on this Committee, would like to have had more. However, 1732. The best answer that we can all give is that is something that everyone here the completion of devolution. Having would have in common with every police said that, the work that this Committee service and force throughout the UK. I has done has been extremely important believe that it was a good settlement. in helping that process achieve the level of confidence that is required in 1737. The second issue is about some communities. pressures that are genuinely additional
170 Minutes of Evidence — 31 March 2008
to those forecast in the CSR settlement. Service, the Chief Constable wishes to The Chief Constable and others have make some additional demands, about identified a pressure in relation to which I am currently in discussion with claims for hearing loss. That involves the Treasury and the Prime Minister. a substantial level of claims: a number of been made and more are expected. 1741. It is very important that the situation It is not clear how many will be made. is seen in context. It is not about going However, to give you some sense back to the past; it is about dealing with of quantum, in the police service in a very real and very dangerous threat. the constituency that I represent, St That threat is from a small number of Helens South in Merseyside, at any dangerous criminals who have little or one time there might be up to 100 no community support. It is important officers armed. However, in Northern that they get a clear political response Ireland, those numbers go into several to the problems that they wish to pose thousand. to security issues here. That political response is the united response by the 1738. Northern Ireland has had to deal with party leaders and the politicians in the a very different kind of problem, and Assembly, and it is important that the I recognise that. That is one reason police have the resources that they need why I wanted to set up the Heywood to continue with normal, neighbourhood committee, which is looking at a whole and good community policing in the series of issues. I must tell you that face of that type of challenge. I am I would not recognise some of them determined to help the Chief Constable as additional pressures: they are and the Policing Board in seeking to pressures which must be managed meet those aims. within resources, just as for any other police force in the UK. However, 1742. That is a brief outline of where we are. there are some that go beyond that, Good progress is being made on the such as the hearing loss issue. The legislation. Westminster provided for issue of inquiries has understandably the additional eighth model for the preoccupied people and the Heywood devolution of justice and policing, which committee will look at that. deals with a number of technical issues. The Assembly, through the work of your 1739. I know that you want to raise some Committee, asked us to do that, and issues with me about the future of that is now back with the Committee. the Northern Ireland Office, and Hilary If it chooses, the Assembly will shortly Jackson might be particularly well- begin to discuss the work of which qualified to deal with that, as we have model it would wish to choose for a worked on a number of those issues Department of justice. together. There are the issues that I would not regard as business as 1743. Assuming that confidence continues to usual in respect of the reallocation build in the coming weeks and months, of priorities, which have arisen as a the Assembly will be in a position to vote consequence of the problems that on whether it wants those transferred we have seen in the last few weeks powers to be effected. I believe most in relation to the activities of a small sincerely that the best answer to all of number of criminals who, nonetheless, the problems that are posed in Northern have the capacity to cause massive traffic Ireland is the completion of devolution disruption on our streets. stage 2 sooner rather than later. If I can help you today or in the coming weeks, 1740. The activities of those criminals must I am happy to be at the disposal of the be seen in the context that there Committee. is no substantial, and almost not any, community support for them. 1744. The Chairperson: Last week, we heard Nonetheless, those activities make a from the Chief Constable and the demand on the Police Service. To ensure chairperson of the Policing Board about that we continue with a normal Police the very real pressures that they are
171 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
under. Secretary of State, you also aim is to have achieved a resolution to mentioned that, particularly in respect of those issues by 6 May 2009. the hearing loss claim. That claim has substantially increased and continues 1749. The Heywood committee will deal with to do so monthly. The figure of £90 some issues. Realistically, others million for that has risen to around will take longer than the committee £130 million. There is also considerable timetable allows, and those could be concern about historical enquiries and used by some as a reason to delay other legacy issues, and the equal pay stage 2 of devolution. One such issue claims in respect of the Civil Service. that comes to mind is pensions. Debates on several issues could continue 1745. An additional pressure, relating to the indefinitely: whether they are included commutation of police pensions, has in the departmental expenditure limit or emerged in the past two or three weeks. annually managed expenditure (AME); We understand that, as a result of a how much would be included in AME; court hearing, the Home Secretary will or how they compare with other parts announce that an additional period of of the UK. However, if that issue were pensions will be paid across the United precipitated more quickly, it might not be Kingdom. We understand that that will in the long-term interest of the stability result in an additional pressure of £22 for which the Chief Constable is arguing million over a two-year period. Pensions in wanting to transfer pensions from the are treated differently in other parts of departmental expenditure limit to AME. the United Kingdom than they are in Northern Ireland, and we want you to 1750. One would want some issues to be consider that issue sympathetically. resolved on principle, and as a matter of urgency, in the context of the Heywood 1746. I appreciate that you provided some committee: for example, points were insight into that. At what stage are the raised about understanding historical discussions with the Treasury on the enquiry issues and an understanding pressures that are on the PSNI, and about issues of hearing loss. Although is there likely to be an announcement some issues may persist beyond that on that? As the issue rumbles on, it time, that should not in any way be creates unease and difficulties for the confused with any lack of good intent Committee and for the Assembly. We by the Government. They want to do need some reassurance on that. what is right for the people of Northern Ireland within the broad parameters of 1747. The Secretary of State for Northern a settlement that can be UK-funded. Ireland: Let me be very clear with The Government want a settlement that the Committee. In the event that the is not based on people simply trying to Assembly asks for the powers of re-present arguments from the run-up to policing and justice to be transferred the last comprehensive spending review to those who are elected here, it is and making another pitch to gain a not the intention of the Government to higher figure than the one for which they pass over an underfunded and under- settled at that time. resourced Police Service of Northern Ireland. 1751. There are difficult issues, but much good progress has been made by 1748. However much people may have wished Jeremy Heywood’s committee, and the for more, my strong view is that the Prime Minister and I are keeping a close CSR settlement, set in the context of eye on the process. On 6 May 2009, a policing settlement in any other part or shortly thereafter, we hope to have of the United Kingdom, is good. The concluded the discussions on financial Heywood committee is not yet halfway issues, specifically those relating to through its work on the additional pensions and commutation. pressures. At least two more meetings will take place: one in the coming weeks 1752. Mr Anthony Harbinson (Northern and one at the beginning of May. The Ireland Office): The point is that all
172 Minutes of Evidence — 31 March 2008
pension costs throughout the rest of in support of the way that the political the CSR period are fully funded. Money parties responded to the events of the set aside with the Treasury has funded past few weeks is arguably the greatest commutation issues. For the period of measure of all. I do not want to confuse the CSR, therefore, I do not see that a simple weighing of cash against genuine there is a pension problem. If we move commitment to the Police Service of from a departmental expenditure limit Northern Ireland and to the people of to a completely AME-based pension, Northern Ireland. Particularly in the that might raise some issues, but those current economic climate, that will be — are being dealt with, as the Secretary 1758. Mr Paisley Jnr: That commitment and of State mentioned, as part of the rhetoric will not pay the bills. It will not Heywood discussions. build the prisons, it will not fund the 1753. Mr Paisley Jnr: Secretary of State, thank lawyers and it will not finance the Police you for your opening remarks; I know Service. that they were made sincerely. 1759. The Secretary of State for Northern 1754. Let me cut to the chase: there is no Ireland: With huge respect to the doubt that politicians here want the lawyers, it may be that they need to earn devolution of policing and justice, and slightly less. it is taken as read that we are on that 1760. Mr Paisley Jnr: I have no difficulty with page. However, that statement has that. consequences, and your seriousness in wanting us to take on policing and 1761. The Secretary of State for Northern justice will be measured by the financial Ireland: I am glad that we can at least package and what that delivers, and you agree on that. I caution you, because said as much. We should recognise how we will do our best for the people in serious you are about that, and perhaps Northern Ireland, and we will do our you will tell us. best for the Police Service of Northern Ireland. However, it would be extremely 1755. Our investigations over the past six foolish to imagine that any supplement weeks show a shortfall, or serious can be made regardless of the fact pressures, on policing and justice that that we face arguably the biggest amount to approximately £660 million global recession that any of us have over the period of the CSR. That is about faced in our lifetime or which has been one third of the amount that we currently faced at any other time. Therefore, not receive. Have you gone to the Cabinet only a financial commitment must be and said that that is a ballpark figure for made, but to the institutions and to the settlement to enable you to deliver the other kinds of commitment that your commitment on the devolution of the British Government are prepared to policing and justice? You may say that make as part of your virility test of our you will hand over to us a fully funded commitment to the process. service, but “fully funded” may not cover that shortfall of £660 million. 1762. However, I have made it clear that the CSR settlement should not be 1756. The Secretary of State for Northern dismissed as a zero-sum game whereby Ireland: Let me take you back a the achievement of arguably one of the stage. Perhaps I should bank those strongest settlements for any police compliments now, because I suspect force in the United Kingdom now does that my next comments will not earn not matter. It does matter, because it is any plaudits. One should not judge the an important baseline. settlement as a virility test whereby more money demonstrates greater 1763. That baseline, however, has met some commitment. additional challenges, which is precisely why I set up the Heywood committee 1757. To be frank, the commitment that we and precisely why it is not helpful to all, including the Prime Minister, showed provide a running commentary on the
173 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
discussions and negotiations that are 1770. The Secretary of State for Northern taking place. As you know, civil servants Ireland: With huge respect to the from Northern Ireland are represented question, I do not put the Cabinet on on that as well as the Treasury, Number notice, because that is simply not 10 and other senior civil servants, with how Cabinet works. It does not work a view to honouring the Prime Minister’s by putting the Cabinet on notice. One commitment to do the best that we creates a sensible process in which can should the Assembly request the people can sensibly discuss the issue, transfer of powers. It is important to negotiate the numbers and identify allow that committee to do its work. The the real pressures from those that are issue should not be judged only by the expected to be absorbed from the CSR number that is produced at the end. settlement.
1764. When stage 1 and stage 2 were 1771. Mr Paisley Jnr: Have you done that? conceived at St Andrews, the Prime Minister felt that it would have been 1772. The Secretary of State for Northern possible to produce a substantial Ireland: I have done that by establishing amount of additional financial help the Heywood committee, which senior for the Executive and the Assembly civil servants attend, including those at the end of 2008. The financial from Northern Ireland. I am sorry if you circumstances were very difficult, and had not noticed that we had done that, that additional financial help was not but we have done it. What matters is requested at the time of St Andrews. that the committee rationally discusses Nonetheless, the Prime Minister felt that the issues and achieves, if possible, he would be able to provide that help. I a settlement that recognises, and ask that the situation be seen in context can distinguish between, legitimate and in the round, and not by pitting one additional pressures and those that area against another and measuring are expected to be reordered priorities success by whether one part achieves a within an existing CSR settlement greater sum than another. — which is exactly what you would expect from any other police force. It 1765. Mr Paisley Jnr: Have you put the Cabinet is important for Northern Ireland to on notice — live in that space: it is the same space that everybody else occupies, and it is 1766. The Chairperson: You are stretching your a good space to live in. However, that time, Mr Paisley. does not mean to say that I do not 1767. Mr Paisley Jnr: I appreciate that, and I recognise additional pressures, and that do not want to stretch your patience any is why I set up the committee. further. 1773. Mr A Maskey: I thank the Secretary of 1768. Have you put the Cabinet on notice that State for his presentation and I thank the settlement package could result in for his colleagues for joining him. a significant requirement for additional 1774. It is unfortunate that people are funding? You do not want that to come bandying around figures, because the as a shock to the Cabinet. It is not about virility; it is about commitment. Committee has not agreed any figure. Commitment will be measured by It is still in the midst of the important our ability to deliver on this. Do not task of reviewing the overall financial underestimate our desire to deliver, position it expects to be in. Following on but if we are short-changed, we will from Ian Og, obviously we are concerned not be able to do so. That is the issue, that we get an appropriate budget for Secretary of State. the forthcoming Department. I welcome the Secretary of State’s assertion, and I 1769. The Chairperson: Mr Paisley, I will accept that the Government will want to not allow you to come back on that ensure that there is a proper budget in point, because I have to be fair to all place for when the new Department is members. set up.
174 Minutes of Evidence — 31 March 2008
1775. It is a bit premature to be having this it is not entirely clear what the final discussion, in that the Committee is number will be. Indeed, it is not entirely still in the midst of an inquiry and is clear whether some of those who could carrying out its assessment on the make a claim in the future might have finances. Another important factor is a hearing-loss problem for a different that the Heywood committee is currently reason. carrying out its work. There is still a lot of work to be done and agreements to 1779. Again, it is important to look at the be reached. Hopefully, it will be on the matter on a case-by-case basis. We better side of the budget requirements, must recognise that there will be such whether they are pressures or pressures and the situation might inescapables. It is unfortunate that change, which is one of the reasons why figures are being bandied about. we should not produce a number too quickly — and, in some cases, a formula 1776. I want to put on the record that the might be better than a number. The Committee does not have a position Heywood committee may be establishing on what the shortfall might be at this points of principle, rather than numbers. moment. Suffice it to say that we are However, I say that, not because I know anxious that we get an appropriate where the Heywood committee will be on budget. We are clear in our own minds 6 May, but because I have approached that there is a need to deal with what Heywood with an open mind: we have a are inescapable pressures and budget set of issues to resolve, and the best requirements, as opposed to what we place to resolve them is in a process would want to see. Obviously, all of that brings together people who can the parties that represent the wider genuinely bring their best intentions to community want to have the maximum the table with the objective of doing their budget at their disposal to ensure that best for people in Northern Ireland. they can deliver the best, most efficient and effective criminal justice system 1780. In relation to that, the questions that when they are duly charged with that must be asked are: will Northern responsibility. Ireland have a budget for the policing service that will maintain the levels of 1777. Will the Heywood committee consider confidence that are — and I remind the ongoing questions around efficiency the Committee of this — the highest of savings as a factor that might impact any police service, anywhere in the UK; on a future Department? Efficiency will it have the money to fund its 7,500 savings are necessary, and it is officers; and will it be able to meet the important that we continue to do that. challenges that it faces on the streets However, sometimes efficiency savings — such as those encountered in the become further cuts. Will the Heywood last few weeks? I am confident that the committee look formally at what the process will produce an answer to all consequences may be as regards three of those questions. expectations around efficiency savings? 1781. Efficiency savings are being examined 1778. The Secretary of State for Northern in every area of public services in the Ireland: Thank you for your comments UK, and we must remind ourselves of about numbers. It may be helpful to the purpose of those efficiency savings. lay before the Committee an example They are not implemented to make of why I think it is important to be cuts, but to realise whether we can be flexible about the issue. The original more efficient about what we do. If it assessment by the PSNI on hearing-loss is possible to be more efficient, more claims was £68 million. However, in a money will be available to redistribute short space of time that became £98 back into public services. million, and, to quote the figure that Mr Paisley used, it is now £130 million. So 1782. A very good example of that is the far, the PSNI has received around 2,900 money that the Prime Minister delivered potential claims. For obvious reasons, for Northern Ireland last year, which the
175 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
Executive used to assist with those in current problem of legal aid here and the greatest difficulty — for example, in the long-term issues behind that. relation to water. That money would not have been available to people here had 1787. There are issues around efficiency and legal costs that concern the public. For the Government not been consistent in example, the legal fees involved in the its drive for efficiency savings. However, Saville Inquiry have fuelled concern in I repeat that efficiency savings and Great Britain. I make no apology for that value for money should not be confused inquiry because I believe that it was with making cuts; instead, they are absolutely the right thing to do, and it concerned with whether we can be more was absolutely right that it should be efficient about what we do. For those of independent. Indeed, one could never us who depend on the money that we place a value on that inquiry, because take from taxpayers for our livelihoods, of the confidence that it built, and the it is good that we are always seen to be fact that it demonstrated that the British mindful of looking for value for money Government were prepared to hold the and efficiency, but not at the expense of mirror up to everybody, including itself. services. However, when more than £100 million 1783. Mrs Hanna: Good afternoon, Mr of what may end up being a total spend Woodward; you are very welcome. of £190 million was spent on legal The financial climate has certainly expenses, and when newspapers such as ‘The Daily Mail’ list many lawyers who changed; there is no doubt about that. have now been remunerated to the tune That makes it all the more worrying of seven figures, it undoubtedly throws that some of the identified pressures, up the question of legal fees in Great particularly those around hearing loss Britain. and pensions, are so far out. 1788. You might ask what the price of justice 1784. I want to ask you about the Legal Services and the best legal representation is, and Commission, because I cannot get my that is a perfectly legitimate question to head around the figures, particularly ask. Again, I would counsel against with respect to the legal-aid bill. That simply saying that the alternative must bill, as we know, is more than twice as be to set a price for counsel at the lowest high here than in other parts of the UK. possible figure. I am not suggesting that That is despite the fact that there is a those views would apply to any member higher number of legal representations of this Committee, but I would counsel there. Has the Northern Ireland Office against that because it may not always examined those figures in detail? be in the interest of attaining the degree 1785. The Secretary of State for Northern of justice that we want. Ireland: We have indeed examined 1789. There should be some caution about those figures. The Lord Chancellor is how it is approached, but the Committee responsible for a number of dimensions should be reassured that we recognise within the legal service here, and he the problem now. We have had to fix is as concerned as I am about those it out of spending reserves, for this issues. That is why he is examining year. That situation cannot continue them in the round. indefinitely, and I am mindful of that, as is the Lord Chancellor. That is why it 1786. As the Committee will be aware, we have is one of the issues that the Heywood managed to meet the shortfall in legal- committee is looking at, not only in the aid pressures for 2009, but clearly there short term, but the long term. is a problem for the coming years that remain inside the CSR. I am very mindful 1790. Mrs Hanna: Thank you for that. I was of that, which is why if I had to say that not thinking of the lost fees for the hearing loss was the first issue, I would lawyer, but a cap on the fees. It is put it before the Heywood committee. taxpayers’ money, and, as you said, Furthermore, we must address the Secretary of State, we are in a different
176 Minutes of Evidence — 31 March 2008
financial climate now; the money is not but on a system and a body of law that there. is fair and just. Therefore, that has to be part of the way forward. 1791. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland: I think that you would find a lot of 1795. I am aware that those costs pose a public support for that. problem for the PSNI. However, the priorities for how the police deal with 1792. Mr McFarland: Thank you, Secretary its budgets are a matter for the Chief of State, for appearing before the Constable and the Policing Board. I Committee. I want to talk about the think that the Eames/Bradley group has legacy issues. The Chief Constable said begun to offer some interesting thoughts that a substantial part of his budget about how we might move forward. I that he might reasonably expect to made clear my position on the idea of spend on current policing is, in fact, recognition payments. It was right to spent on dealing with the past — as remove that proposal from the table has been the case for some time. so that the other 30 recommendations You will be familiar with the Eames/ could be looked at more carefully. Bradley Consultative Group on the Past and its recommendation that we 1796. There is no question that when the should parcel up a lot of those legacy current funding for the Historical issues and, perhaps, leave that with Enquiries Team runs out in two years’ you so that policing and justice transfer time, the work will not be done. It is might continue with money spent on almost certain that the team will not live, current policing rather than on have opened half the cases, and it will continually dealing with the past. What not have been able to conclude even a is your thinking on that? fraction of those. That work has to go on, and one must ask whether there is 1793. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland: I accept the problems that a better way of continuing that work. dealing with a particular burden of It may be done in exactly the same the past poses for the PSNI. The way way, but inside a different body. In the in which the PSNI has to deal with coming weeks, I will try to begin to lay Northern Ireland’s past is different from out a way in which it may be possible to the way in which other police services move forward on some of those issues, elsewhere may have to deal with which, perhaps, would include some their pasts. The work of the Historical of the work in respect of the Police Enquiries Team is one example. It has Ombudsman. 3,000 cases to work through and, 1797. Equally, I want to enter a note of as we know, it has begun work on caution. That work can only be done by barely more than half of those. That consensus. This is not about the British demonstrates the scale of the problem Government laying down a system for in Northern Ireland, which is why, I think, Northern Ireland — I wish to underline everyone appreciates that it is different. that. Most people in this room will I appreciate what the Chief Constable know that I will work on those issues says and the amount of time that his only if there is consensus. If we can officers spend dealing with the past. find consensus on some of the issues 1794. I do not want to confuse what I may say — not only with regard to the policing about the need to deal with the past budget, which will be important, but for with any sense of wanting to draw a line, the benefit of everybody in Northern and not deal with the past. In the future, Ireland — it will be important to begin to part of the success of Northern Ireland find mechanisms that may help us deal will be judged on how it gets out of the with some of the issues of the past. grip of the past, but is able to live with There may be better ways of doing that it in a way that helps people reconcile than the way in which we are doing it themselves with it. The future should currently, as Eames and Bradley have not only be built on aspiration and hope, shown on a number of fronts.
177 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
1798. It may be a good idea to try to try to and the ongoing dissident republican bring some of those things together terrorist threat in our midst. to be looked at by some type of commission. However, those are infant 1802. Having said that, am I correct in sensing a more positive attitude from you and ideas at present; they are not fully the Government to dealing appropriately developed. It would be inappropriate and satisfactorily with those legacy for me to go further than that this issues? I refer to the hearing loss afternoon, except to say that I would claim, which will be inherited by this like to pay tribute to what Eames and Administration — and which is very Bradley did. As well as potentially substantial, as the Chairman has helping to relieve the police of some pointed out — and issues connected of the burden they currently shoulder, with the policing of the past. If there may also be proposals in their devolution is to be successful when report that will help communities to it happens, those issues have the find it easier to become reconciled potential through their cost to drive us in what have been extremely difficult into a position where it is very difficult to circumstances. make a success of it. 1799. Mr Hamilton: I want to underscore 1803. The Secretary of State for Northern the fact that there is a desire to have Ireland: Let me start by saying that policing and justice powers devolved. it is not about your detecting a more Many reasons for that have evolved positive attitude. If I look at the work during the course of our Committee of my predecessors in achieving work over the last number of weeks on the comprehensive spending review financial issues and systemic problems. settlement, I conclude that everyone It would be nice if local politicians could has always been very positive and has have a stab at doing a better job than always wanted to do their best. That you and your predecessors have done. is why the settlement for the policing 1800. I must also emphasise that, if you want service in Northern Ireland was as it was. It is not strictly comparable with the devolution of policing and justice other police services elsewhere. You and the whole devolution project itself are right, that is a genuine recognition to be a success, there is a price to pay. — not a bonus — of the extra levels As a Committee, we would be foolish not of work that are required in Northern to attempt to extract that price from you Ireland as a consequence of the and the Government, on behalf of the difficulties that have been faced. people of Northern Ireland. I do not want to put an exact figure on that because 1804. It is not that I am more positive this the Committee has not taken a view afternoon about recognising the hearing- on the validity of the bids; but a large loss claim than I was a year ago. A year number of them seem to be valid and ago, the estimates on hearing loss were worthy, on the face of it. exactly half of what they are currently. Therefore, I point out that I am doing 1801. You have said that you do not want to precisely what I always would have done. hand over an underfunded and under- Genuine new pressures emerge and resourced policing service, but you have have to be distinguished from those that also said that you consider the CSR may be genuine but are not new, and settlement for the police to be good, there may be a case to look at things and to be viewed as such by other police again. That is why, as a part of the forces in the United Kingdom. Those Heywood process, I have done that. other police forces do not deal with the history that our police force has 1805. The other thing that it is important to to deal with; they do not deal with the say is that, if we are not careful, there consequences of that history and its is a danger that we could do two pieces impact on, for example, the Historical of damage. The first is to suggest that Enquiries Team, the hearing loss claim the Police Service of Northern Ireland
178 Minutes of Evidence — 31 March 2008
is underfunded, when it is not. The question: do we want power to be in the Police Service of Northern Ireland is well hands of people from political parties funded. Could it use more? Yes. But that share power in Northern Ireland, can more be obtained? That is difficult, are elected in Northern Ireland, and, but we are trying. It is important to therefore, are seen to be fair to every recognise the context, as I discussed community in Northern Ireland? That is a with Mr Paisley, of a global financial really important issue, and one on which situation in which many millions of everyone here has worked very hard. people are losing their jobs, many businesses are going bust and many 1809. As we move toward what might be the people are having difficulties paying a final hurdle, I think that it is important mortgage and keeping their homes. not to lose sight of that. It is precisely the strength of that commitment, trust 1806. In all that, we have to keep a sense of and representation which is allowing this proportion. That does not mean that to work. It is not working simply because we will not do what is right for people in we are able to dangle large bags of gold Northern Ireland — of course we will. in front of people’s eyes. The people However, that cannot simply be done who came out onto the streets of Antrim despite what is happening in London that Sunday morning after two soldiers and despite what is happening in Dublin. were murdered came out because they Within the island of Ireland, look at the wanted to show people the value that Republic and see what is happening, they placed on a peace process, which and then understand the difficulty of is a political process. simply wishing to meet a set of needs by saying that we can give you the money 1810. In understanding the questions that and that that proves how committed the Committee is asking me, one must we are to you. That money has to come not lose sight of the value that we all from somewhere. It has to come from still attach to devolution. It is not just taxpayers. There are now a million fewer about bringing in more cash, but about people paying tax than a short time ago, truly bringing power back to the people. for reasons that are perfectly obvious. It about those elected in Northern Ireland being accountable to the people 1807. That leads me to my second point. I of Northern Ireland. That, above all, remind you that I will make the best seems to me to be the greater benefit possible case that I can. However, of devolution — greater than the amount there is a very important — I would of cash involved. However, I do not argue even more important — issue underestimate how important that cash at stake, and one that has not been is to everyone in the room. talked about much this afternoon. You mentioned devolution in the context of 1811. Mr McCartney: Thank you for your a price. Devolution, I think, needs to be presentation. My questions are about understood for what it is. It seems to the Heywood committee’s findings and me that devolution in Northern Ireland how those findings will be framed. Will is not about getting, or not getting, more those findings be about the cost and the money. Rather, it is about power being in realistic projections that some of those the hands of people who are elected in issues are going to mean; or will they Northern Ireland. make recommendations as to who should be responsible for carrying things forward, 1808. There is a danger if the discussion is particularly in respect of the legacy issues? only about money. Of course money Some of the other justice agencies have is important. However, it becomes given presentations to the Assembly and fetishised to the extent that one loses Executive Review Committee, and have the point, which is — if the Assembly talked about their views on underfunding. asks for it — the powers that I currently Are the committee’s findings just about hold. I believe that devolution should costing or will recommendations be not be seen only in the context of made as to who should carry forward the getting more cash. It is about asking the resource work?
179 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
1812. The Secretary of State for Northern 1816. However, I do think that issues such as Ireland: Ultimately, the Heywood hearing loss claims are in a completely committee will reach its deliberations different league. Clearly, if there were and a report will be submitted to the no capacity to find additional help and Treasury. That report will be seen by resource for issues such as hearing-loss me and by the Prime Minister. It is a claims — regardless of what is said safe bet that the Prime Minister will not about the value of devolution as regards be short of representations, which will the transfer of powers to the people continue to be made when the Heywood here — it would be extremely difficult committee concludes its work. However, for the police service to deliver normal I think that you have identified a number policing. That is a view that is shared of areas that the Heywood committee is in London. It is not a view that is to be likely to look at and report on. You are sold in London; it is one that is shared right to ask those questions because I in London. The Heywood committee believe that the report is likely to move is looking at how to deal with that. in a number of ways, rather than in Therefore, I am not saying that this is an one single way. It may not be possible, open-and-shut case, and I am not saying on some of those issues, to reach a that it has been dealt with — it has not. conclusion, because a formula may be more sensible. For example, the issue 1817. We are genuinely trying to reconcile around pensions may be not decided yet. those issues within a difficult economic envelope; however, you should never, for 1813. Again, it may be that a formula will be one moment, doubt the Prime Minister’s more appropriate than a number in commitment and mind to doing the best dealing with the issue of inquiries for possible deal that we can for the people one good reason. I write to Lord Saville of Northern Ireland, because we want on a regular basis to ask him when he this to work and we will do everything will be finished, and he cannot tell me. that we can to help. That is the value of an independent judicial inquiry. Everybody in this room 1818. The Chairperson: Will the findings or must also feel that frustration. There is the recommendations of the report be some common sense that it might not referred to Northern Ireland at some be sensible to simply tie this up with stage, or is it an internal Cabinet report? numbers or formulas as an alternative. 1819. The Secretary of State for Northern 1814. I expect that the Heywood committee Ireland: At this stage, the report is an will be quite tough on some issues, internal document for the benefit of the and it is right that all those issues are Treasury and for us to try to achieve a looked at. For example, this Committee resolution to the financial issues, with a has taken evidence from the Probation view to genuinely trying to separate out Service, which is an excellent body the additional financial pressures from that has delivered an excellent service, what might be described as the slightly and it has had its largest ever increase. regurgitated pre-CSR pressures. The However, it said that it wants £18 million report also attempts to deal with some more. That is quite hard to grapple with of the other issues that have come on in these financial circumstances. to the table in the meantime. I doubt that we will bring together the issues 1815. Again, I have no doubt that that issue raised around the additional burdens will have found its way on to the table. placed on police by the work of criminals That is exactly the type of issue that over the past few weeks in the Heywood we realistically expect to be dealt with report; however I am not ruling that out, in a comprehensive spending review because it may become sensible to do so. settlement that has already been made. As I said, I am not running the 1820. This is really an attempt to get a grip on Heywood committee; rather, I am waiting the precise numbers in order to identify for its report. Therefore, this is not a new needs from old needs, as those conclusion; it is just my judgement. might be distinguished. I cannot say that
180 Minutes of Evidence — 31 March 2008
we will publish the Heywood committee 1826. The Secretary of State for Northern report because it may amount to only a Ireland: I am happy to come along again. couple of pages. Could those couple of pages be published? I am not Jeremy 1827. The Chairperson: Thank you very much. Heywood, so I cannot answer that. He has done the work for me, so that we are able to achieve this. Those numbers are being shared with members of the Heywood committee with whom everyone here has contact.
1821. However, in so far as I can give you an undertaking, I am happy to discuss with Mr Heywood whether some, if any, of what he may produce can be shared with the Committee at a later stage. I would not hold my breath in expecting that to happen, because, in the end, the report may be a private memorandum between Jeremy Heywood and the Treasury. However, I am happy to raise that question with him to see whether the report can be shared in some form.
1822. The Chairperson: We are out of time; I know that you must be away in one hour. However, a number of other questions have not been answered.
1823. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland: I am happy to write to the Committee in response to those questions.
1824. The Chairperson: We were going to ask you do that. The Committee has received a lot of evidence on figures. We have not come to any conclusions about those at this point in time, and there have no discussions about them. Obviously, some of the figures that have been raised are aspirational, and we intend to look at those before we commit to a final report.
1825. Thank you very much for coming along today. We appreciate your time, and we appreciate the answers that you have given. Perhaps not everyone appreciates the answers but, at the end of the day, I am sure that we will have further discussions on this issue before we have the final report. I understand that you do not rule out the possibility of coming along to this Committee at some stage before the final report is due.
181 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
182 Minutes of Evidence — 21 April 2009
21 April 2009
Members present for all or part of the 1835. Mr A Maskey: Sinn Féin also believes proceedings: that issue B has been dealt with in legislation. Mr Raymond McCartney (Deputy Chairperson) Mr Alex Attwood 1836. Mr McFarland: For the record, may we Mr Simon Hamilton remind ourselves of what that is again? Mrs Carmel Hanna If someone is reading Hansard, it may Mr Danny Kennedy be useful to know exactly what — Mr Nelson McCausland 1837. The Deputy Chairperson: Issue B asks: Mr Alan McFarland Mr Alex Maskey “Who might be responsible for appointments Mr Ian Paisley Jnr to the judiciary?”
1828. The Deputy Chairperson (Mr 1838. Mr McFarland: No. What does the McCartney): The Committee will legislation state exactly? now discuss matters relating to the 1839. The Deputy Chairperson: I am sorry. My devolution of policing and justice apologies. powers. We shall work through the category-2 list of issues. Will Committee 1840. Mr Paisley Jnr: I do not have a copy of members please declare any relevant the legislation on me, Alan. interests? 1841. Mr McFarland: If someone reads the 1829. Mr McCausland: I am a member of Hansard report of this meeting in three the Belfast District Policing Partnership to four years’ time, and a Committee (DPP). member has stated that issue B is covered by the legislation, it may be 1830. Mr A Maskey: I am a member of the useful were the report to show exactly Policing Board. what the legislation states.
1831. The Deputy Chairperson: In Ian Paisley 1842. Mr Paisley Jnr: We should agree to Jnr’s absence, I declare that he is also a attach an annex to the Hansard report member of the Policing Board. that details what the legislation is. That would save us from having to read it into 1832. Issue A was resolved on 27 January the record now. 2009, so we shall begin with issue B. 1843. The Deputy Chairperson: If anyone I shall ask each party to comment in is reading the Hansard Report of this turn. I shall then take further comments, meeting in three or four years’ time, before we move on to issue C. Issue B questions may be asked as to why. asks: 1844. Mr McFarland: Out of interest, is a copy “Who might be responsible for appointments of the legislation available? to the judiciary?” 1845. The Committee Clerk: I do not have a 1833. I invite the DUP to make its position copy of the legislation with me, but I can known. supply copies to members later today, if that helps. 1834. Mr Hamilton: In order to be consistent with the principle of keeping the judiciary 1846. Mr McFarland: Can the Committee free from political interference, the DUP be refreshed on the legislation by believes that the issue has been dealt someone who is familiar with it? Are with satisfactorily in legislation. appointments to the judiciary currently
183 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
the responsibility of the Northern Ireland on issue C until we have received all Judicial Appointments Commission that information. (NIJAC)? 1861. Mr A Maskey: Sinn Féin adopts a 1847. Mr Hamilton: Yes, in part. general position on the likes of SOCA, in that those matters should be dealt 1848. Mr McFarland: Who is responsible for with by a democratic and accountable the rest of the appointments? policing service. Therefore, the work of 1849. Mr Attwood: The Judicial Appointments SOCA should be mainstreamed. Commission will make all judicial 1862. Mr McFarland: The UUP presumes that appointments in the North, save for the the system for the new Department will position of Lord Chief Justice, whom mirror the system that was introduced the Queen will appoint, on the Prime among SOCA, the security services and Minister’s recommendation. the policing system. That system has memorandums of understanding and 1850. Mr Hamilton: I was about to say that. protocols in place. [Laughter.] 1863. Mr Attwood: What is the current 1851. Mr Attwood: I was simply trying to help position with the memorandums of the words out of your mouth. understanding? Are they still being 1852. The Deputy Chairperson: What is the hidden from the Committee? position of the Ulster Unionist Party? 1864. The Committee Clerk: When the 1853. Mr McFarland: We are happy with that. Secretary of State gave evidence to the Committee before the Easter 1854. The Deputy Chairperson: What is the recess, he indicated that the various SDLP’s position? memorandums of understanding were still being worked on, but that 1855. Mr Attwood: I refer the Committee to those would be supplied to the the SDLP’s previous position. Committee. The Committee took the 1856. Mr McFarland: Which was what? Secretary of State at his word at that stage, and I have not had any further 1857. Mr Paisley Jnr: Happy with nothing. correspondence to indicate that the [Laughter.] memorandums of understanding have now been finalised. 1858. The Deputy Chairperson: OK. We shall move on to issue C, which asks: 1865. Mr Attwood: Have they been supplied to the Office of the First Minister and “What should be the relationship between SOCA and the Security Services and the deputy First Minister (OFMDFM)? Minister/Department/Assembly?” 1866. The Committee Clerk: I am not aware 1859. That issue is linked to issue N in the of that. category-1 list. Issue N asks: 1867. Mr Attwood: Can we enquire as to “What needs to be done to ensure that whether OFMDFM has had sight of the attention is given to having appropriate memorandums of understanding? measures in place to address issues such as the role of the security services?” 1868. The Committee Clerk: The Secretary of State originally indicated that he wanted 1860. Mr Hamilton: This is a matter on which to share them with the First Minister we await Government indication, as well and the deputy First Minister before as memorandums of understanding, sharing them with the Committee. and so forth, that the Secretary of State However, the Committee wrote back made a commitment to share with the and said robustly that it wanted them to Committee in due course. Therefore, in be shared simultaneously. That is the many ways, we cannot take a firm view formal position.
184 Minutes of Evidence — 21 April 2009
1869. Mr Attwood: That is our formal position, “What needs to be done to ensure the but is it his? maintenance of existing North/South policing and justice agreements, and is there a 1870. The Committee Clerk: I cannot answer requirement for a Justice Sector of the North/ for the Secretary of State. South Ministerial Council?”
1871. Mr Attwood: That is why we should ask 1877. Mr Hamilton: Obviously, there are OFMDFM whether it has had sight of existing North/South relationships. Did the memorandums of understanding. not we ask to get more detail on what The memorandums of understanding those relationships are? If we have not have long been available, and they have asked already, I suggest that we do so, been long refused to us. I am curious in order that the Committee might have to know, and it would be interesting to a better understanding of what those know, whether OFMDFM has them. If it agreements are, and how they currently has, it would create leverage for us to operate. The DUP is not convinced of be able to say to the Secretary of State the need for the issue to be dealt with that we want them. That would put the through the North/South Ministerial Committee in a very strong position. Council (NSMC).
1872. Mr Paisley Jnr: We had a very helpful 1878. Mr A Maskey: Sinn Féin believes that debate on that before. Roles, and the existing arrangements should be the standings of people in each maintained and continued under a new role, were recognised. I realise that Minister and a new Department, and Alex is anorakish on the issue of that a justice sector of the North/South memorandums of understanding, and Ministerial Council is required. he is entitled to be so. However, a 1879. Mr McFarland: The Ulster Unionist reasonably good understanding of where Party is comfortable for the existing the issue lies came out of previous arrangements to continue. It would be meetings. useful to know in some detail exactly 1873. Mr Attwood: We should still ask, in what those arrangements are, and we order to find out whether we are being asked for that information some time kept somewhat in the dark while a bit of ago. We, too, are not convinced of the light is being shone elsewhere. If we do need for a justice sector of the North/ so, we can see what the consequences South Ministerial Council. are. It is only when we see what the 1880. The Committee Clerk: As has been memorandums of understanding say or agreed, a letter is to go to the Secretary do not say that we can judge whether of State about the memorandums of the relationship in issue C is, as the understanding. As I understand it, the SDLP views it, structured appropriately. justice agreements are protocols, and 1874. The Committee Clerk: Do you want the the Secretary of State also promised Chairperson’s letter to be sent only to to provide the Committee with those the First Minister and the deputy First protocols. Therefore, both issues can Minister, or do you want a follow-up be addressed in the letter that the letter to be sent to the Secretary of Committee will write to the Secretary of State, given that he indicated in his oral State. evidence that the Committee would be 1881. Mr Attwood: The SDLP believes that furnished with the memorandums of there should be a North/South justice understanding? sector. A mechanism now exists for that 1875. Mr Attwood: I want a letter to be sent matter to be opened up for discussion to the First Minister and the deputy First through the second phase of the review Minister and to the Secretary of State. of North/South arrangements, which OFMDFM has said is scheduled to 1876. The Deputy Chairperson: We shall move report by the end of 2009. I am highly on to new issue D, which combines dubious about whether it will report by original issues D and E. New issue D asks: then; nonetheless, it represents another
185 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
mechanism by which such a proposal 1885. Devolution of justice powers may be can be advanced. The SDLP has written four, five or six months away, so we need to the relevant people to say that a to be satisfied that arrangements for North/South justice sector is one of that day will be in place. On that day, it the outcomes that we will look for from will require the agreement of a justice the second phase of the North/South Minister, a justice Department, or the review. Executive to have the arrangements in place; otherwise, we will let down the 1882. The Committee should try to push the citizens of the North and the South. boat out a bit, because the North/ South element of the British-Irish 1886. These are common-sense observations, justice agreement will fall once justice not highly political ones. Therefore, powers are devolved — that is what will we should ask the British and Irish Governments, and the Executive, at happen. If no new North/South justice what stage they are at in having in place agreement is in place for elements North/South justice arrangements that that are North/South as opposed to take into account matters that will fall British-Irish, on the day of devolution on devolution. That is just common of justice powers, gaps will exist in the sense. Therefore, we should write to justice arrangements and protections all three Executives — Dublin, London on the island of Ireland. Those gaps and Belfast — to ask whether the may extend to understandings between arrangements will be in place on that justice structures in the North and the day and whether the protections under South over, for example, protection of the current justice arrangements will children or vulnerable adults. I do not continue to be in place on that day; think that anyone will have an issue otherwise, a message will be sent out with ensuring that arrangements for to the people that they will be more the protection of vulnerable adults or vulnerable as a consequence. We children are in place, but, at present, the cannot send out that message. North/South parts of the current justice arrangements will fall on devolution day. 1887. Mr Paisley Jnr: We must be careful not to invent a bogeyman. I understand what 1883. The Deputy Chairperson: To inform Alex is getting at, but the arrangements us on that issue, we need to see the are less bureaucratic and more protocols. practical. There is now practical co- operation between the Police Service 1884. Mr Attwood: Those papers have been and the guards. Information is shared before the Committee on a number of daily without there being the need for occasions. Simon Hamilton’s request legislation. is nothing new. We have received that information on numerous occasions, 1888. We need to set a safe parameter for and we have questioned officials on the some of Alex’s concerns, as they may protocols on a number of occasions. not be as real in practice as they are The fact is that part of the North/South in theory. Nevertheless, we should justice arrangements will no longer keep a cautious eye on the issue, exist on devolution day, because they but, at the same time, we should not allow ourselves to get into a whole are in the gift of the Northern Ireland flap or create a concern that, suddenly, Assembly. On that day, on the island of paedophiles will be rampant on the day Ireland, people will be less protected as of devolution of policing and justice a consequence. If we are serious about powers. There are issues that should our business, we should state that we always warrant watchful concern. cannot have a situation whereby, on the day of devolution policing and justice 1889. Mr Attwood: Ian is talking about the powers, people, North and South, are arrangement between the police, North less protected than they were on the day and South, but that is a separate issue. before devolution. The North/South policing agreement will
186 Minutes of Evidence — 21 April 2009
not fall on devolution day, because that we are to devolve policing and justice is an arrangement between the PSNI powers, the sore that is parading must and the gardaí. However, what do fall are be dealt with. We need to assess the the elements of the justice agreement consequences in the context of the that was signed off between the British new issue E, which concerns financial and Irish Governments. On devolution provisions. It is important that we clarify day, elements that are relevant to the the current status of the Ashdown British and Irish Governments will Report, because I do not know whether continue to be in place, but elements any attempts have been made to do on the justice side that are relevant that. However, the report will have a between the North and South will fall. bearing on our conclusions, so we Therefore, the policing side is already should chase that matter up. taken care of. As such, it is none of our business, because it is the responsibility 1895. Mr A Maskey: How does Simon suggest of the Garda Síochána Commissioner that we chase that up? and the Chief Constable. 1896. Mr Hamilton: The Chairperson or the 1890. However, arrangements on the justice Committee Clerk should contact the side will fall. We should consider Ashdown review body and the Parades whether we are satisfied that the Commission to clarify when a report is necessary arrangements are in place expected. The Committee should then for the day on which justice powers will consider the report’s ramifications, be devolved. I understand that that is because it will have a bearing on future not the case. However, as an NIO official policing: the role of the police; the told the Committee, it will not be difficult impact on resources; and so on. to put the necessary arrangements in place. Therefore, we must ensure that 1897. Mr A Maskey: I consider that to be a the arrangements are in place. We can category-3 issue, but I have no problem send some letters, which can be gently with our making a call or writing a letter. written, to ask what is being done about 1898. Mr Hamilton: The matter can be dealt those elements that may fall. By doing with. The ball is not really at our foot. so, we will ensure that the necessary arrangements are in place on the 1899. Mr McFarland: The parading issue relevant day. must be sorted out. We cannot devolve policing and justice powers yet leave 1891. Mr A Maskey: I do not see that being the parading issue twisting in the a problem, but I do not object to our wind. I understand that the Parades writing a letter. Commission will exist until December 1892. The Deputy Chairperson: New issue 2009. We need to discuss the Ashdown E will be dealt with at next week’s Report and how to deal with parading. meeting, at which the specialist adviser Agreement on flags and symbols was will present a paper based on a previous reached in 1998 and should be left evidence session. alone, and the current system of PSNI recruitment ceases in 2010, when 1893. We now move on to new issue F, which the Patten arrangements finish. At asks: that stage, I presume that a normal “What, if any, consideration should there be of recruitment pattern will be followed. the Ashdown Report on Parading, and is there 1900. Mr Attwood: Four or five weeks ago, a need for further clarities of the powers to be devolved, and, if so, should they include somebody said that the Ashdown Report matters relating to the Public Processions would be published this month, and I (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, flags and disagreed. In fact, the Ashdown Report symbols and recruitment to the PSNI?” should not be published ever.
1894. Mr Hamilton: The Ashdown Report 1901. The Deputy Chairperson: We recall your is important for policing in general. If wisdom.
187 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
1902. Mr Attwood: I hope that that will 1908. Mr Hamilton: The use of the word transpire. However, I am sure that people “attached” is somewhat misleading. It will eventually feel an obligation to Lord is not really “attached” but independent Ashdown to publish the report. I felt that and separate. However, there is it would be published at this stage, obviously a budgetary issue to consider, because it would simply become another and the DUP’s position has been stated feature in the forthcoming election. before. We believe that the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) would 1903. I agree with Alan that we need to bore be a possible place to put the Public into the matter. Simon is right when Prosecution Service (PPS). There have he says that we need to contact Lord been suggestions about putting it into Ashdown, or somebody, to determine the justice Department, but the DUP’s the report’s current status and the position is that it suggests DFP as the time frame in which it may or may not place to put the PPS. be published. We should consider new issue F further in the near future. 1909. Mr A Maskey: Sinn Féin’s view is that it would be better placed in OFMDFM, 1904. The Committee Clerk: There is a handling because that would provide some issue to consider as to whether the symmetry with the position of the Committee can engage directly with Attorney General. Lord Ashdown, because the Government commissioned Lord Ashdown to produce 1910. Mr McFarland: There must be a report. The Committee might be a perception of some sort of better to write to ask the Secretary of independence, and it would be useful State what his understanding is of the if a non-involved organisation were report’s status and when he expects to to administer it. It is just a matter of receive it. Any letter should reflect the budgeting and looking after the PPS, fact that there is potential implication but one would not want people to chop for the financial aspects of devolving budgets, or be perceived to be chopping policing powers, and the Committee budgets, or to interfere with the PPS. has always appeared to recognise that. The Ulster Unionist Party is probably Obviously, depending on the report’s also comfortable with putting it in DFP. recommendations, those implications could be greater or lesser. Given that 1911. Mr Attwood: The SDLP prefers for it the Committee wishes to write to the to go into the Department of justice, Secretary of State on a number of other as that is the natural place for it to issues, all could be captured in one reside. The evidence of the director of letter to the Secretary of State, rather the PPS does not stack up. He said than its trying to engage with Lord — as far as I recall and subject to the Ashdown. Hansard report — that if it went to the justice Department it might, interfere 1905. It is fair to say that the Chairperson had with the PPS’s independence. I do not a brief telephone conversation a couple understand that argument, given that of months ago with Lord Ashdown that the Committee agreed for a huge range did not reveal a great deal. I imagine of justice agencies to be attached to the that there may be more prospect of getting justice Department, yet nobody from any something from the Secretary of State. of the other organisations said that that would give rise to any interference with 1906. The Deputy Chairperson: It will be a its independence, or to its freedom to long letter. act as it deems appropriate. That was 1907. We now move on to new issue G, which a curious argument from the director of asks: the PPS.
“In the context of Recommendation 26 of 1912. It is equally curious that people want the Committee’s original report, to which the PPS to go to DFP, because that Department should the Public Prosecution is not a natural place for it to reside. Service be attached?” Nobody has made the argument that
188 Minutes of Evidence — 21 April 2009
other justice agencies should go to DFP. 1917. Mr A Maskey: I am not sure what else When Simon Hamilton mentioned DFP can be done about that matter. There is as a possibility in a previous Committee a lot of information available, and when meeting, it struck me as being a curious we resolve the accountability issue, the proposal, and I wonder who knew about matter will have been dealt with, in my it in advance. The SDLP’s preferred opinion. option is for the PPS to be attached to 1918. Mr McFarland: This is a key issue, along the justice Department, but definitely with the relationships with the judiciary. not to DFP. It is absolutely correct that politicians 1913. The Deputy Chairperson: We move on to should not try to second-guess individual new issue H, which asks: court cases. However, there are some in the judicial system who do not want “In the context of Recommendation 27 of the any oversight in respect of their policies Committee’s original report, about examining and how they carry them out. In due the independence and accountability of course, the Assembly will wish to talk to the Public Prosecution Service, before, and key players in the PPS and the judiciary following devolution, what consideration about why — in broad terms, rather than should be given to this matter, pre- in respect of individual cases — they devolution?” follow particular policies.
1914. Mr Hamilton: It may be worth giving 1919. I appreciate that that is a very sensitive some consideration to that matter, area. Other legislatures have sentencing although I am not sure about the advice committees that steer the practicalities of doing so. Perhaps we judiciary. However, it is early days for should commission some research in us, and we are likely to end up with an order to arrive at options. Has any such agreed system whereby the Attorney research been done? General reports to the Assembly. However, we should put down a marker 1915. The Committee Clerk: Substantial that, as the situation evolves, we are amounts of research were likely to want to have robust discussion commissioned previously by the with key players about major issues Committee. Those pieces of research, of concern to the electorate. That which have been distributed to might include the Director of Public the Committee from time to time, Prosecutions talking to Committees. particularly at Mr McFarland’s request, deal with the relationship between 1920. The Deputy Chairperson: How that will the Public Prosecution Service and evolve after devolution is a separate the Assembly. For example, they matter. In this instance, we are talking include some comparisons with other about the situation pre-devolution. legislatures. The distinguishing feature 1921. Mr McFarland: At the moment, I in this case is that the Attorney General, understand that the Attorney General who would be responsible for reporting answers for the DPP on the Floor of the to the Assembly, is not an elected House. I am just putting a marker down. member of this legislature. There are My guess is that the political parties some differences, and the comparative will want to hold discussions with the analysis does not provide much help in Director of Public Prosecutions, perhaps this instance. However, the matter of the in some other format. independence of the PPS is rehearsed in those research papers. I am happy to 1922. Mr Attwood: Given what Simon and redistribute those materials to members Alan have said about research and if they wish, but I know that they were the importance of this matter, we given out at least once before. should schedule an early meeting for a discussion on it, so that each party can 1916. Mr Hamilton: I will reflect on those scope out the relevant issues, as they papers. see them, in respect of the future of the
189 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
PPS. It is impossible to do that in any 1927. Mr McFarland: That is a useful idea. It detail by going through the list of issues would pay us to do a bit of homework that is before us, but perhaps we could and return to a discussion about that take some time to scope out, as parties, issue with more time allocated. what we believe the issues to be. 1928. The Deputy Chairperson: We will return 1923. It may be that we could agree that that to that issue. We could also discuss the there are two, three or four issues on format of such a discussion. which we could do some early work. We 1929. Mr Attwood: The Committee Clerk could should do that work because, over the schedule an agenda within two or three past 10 years, although attention has weeks that is dedicated to — been on the Police Service, no similar attention — despite various people’s 1930. Mr A Maskey: Why not just deal with efforts — has been given to the Crown it in the same running order as it is Prosecution Service or the Public appears today? I am not stopping Prosecution Service. anyone from having a 45-minute conversation today. 1924. Devolution could allow us to do much in the short term to improve the speed and 1931. Mr Attwood: I am certainly prepared the administration of justice, and public to have that discussion now, or any confidence in the Public Prosecution day. I am just being courteous to the Service and the administration of other parties that may not have done justice. We have a lead-in time of a preparation on that specific issue before number of months, or longer, before today’s meeting. devolution, allied with the oversight of 1932. The Deputy Chairperson: We will return SOCA and the security services, North to that issue. As outstanding matters and South. Therefore, that is one of the condense, we will have more time to key areas on which we could do some discuss it. useful work. 1933. We turn to new issue I, which is: 1925. We have done some useful work on the financial side, about which we will “In relation to Recommendation 30 of the Committee’s original report, who should hear in the near future. This is a priority undertake the advisory role in relation to the area, and, in order to grapple with it, we appointment of the Police Ombudsman?” should schedule a Committee meeting during which parties could scope out 1934. Mr Hamilton: I reiterate our previously what they regard as the relevant issues stated position: given the sensitivity and and assess whether a programme could the need for independence in respect be worked up. of that post, the advisory role should be taken on by the Secretary of State and 1926. Mr A Maskey: I have no difficulty with the NIO. that sentiment, but we need to be careful, because it is not our job to 1935. Mr A Maskey: We believe that it is overhaul the PPS. We are considering appropriate that OFMDFM undertake lines of accountability, and so on. I that role. would not stop anyone from having a 1936. Mr McFarland: Much depends on the 45-minute conversation today, but I have outcome of the Eames/Bradley process. no difficulty with coming back to that If the Police Ombudsman performs issue in more detail. In any of these the original role of the office — which discussions, it is my understanding that is to examine serving police officers we should take as long as we need. I and investigate the past if they are caution that we are not here to overhaul accused of something — that would the PPS — much as I or anyone else probably fit with OFMDFM. If a role of may want to do that, or may have to do it rooting around in the past in a one- at some point. sided truth commission remains with
190 Minutes of Evidence — 21 April 2009
the Ombudsman, the Secretary of State legislation. As far as I am aware, so far, needs to have some control over that. no one has said that that legislation should be revisited. Therefore, if 1937. Mr Attwood: We also believe that Ian’s point is that we are diminishing OFMDFM should have input. We are the role of the Police Ombudsman, unaware of another model within the on the basis of his argument — if I devolved arrangements that could take understand it correctly — that role is care of that issue. The matter must being diminished under law, because the be taken care of within the devolved Police Ombudsman would report here and arrangements; it cannot be an issue not over there. that is left to the residue of the NIO. 1946. The Deputy Chairperson: The issue is 1938. Mr Paisley Jnr: It may be helpful to the advisory role. expand on the reasons for that role to be left to the Secretary of State — it is 1947. Mr McFarland: That is directly related not out of any love for the Secretary of to the sensitivity of the post. My State, or to give him something to do. understanding is that the Assembly Ombudsman, Mr Tom Frawley — who 1939. Members should reflect on the fact is responsible for the Departments that the Police Ombudsman is a — reports to the Assembly. Logically, parliamentary office. If it is decided if policing and justice powers are that that office should be appointed, to be devolved, and the Police overseen, scrutinised, or run by the Ombudsman will be fulfilling a similar, Northern Ireland Assembly — by the non-controversial role, examining Office of the First Minister and deputy current police officers and whether First Minister — it must be recognised they are behaving themselves, it does that that would diminish the role of the not seem unreasonable that the Police Ombudsman. If people wish to diminish Ombudsman should report here too. that role, and remove provisions If we are left with an Ombudsman that concerning independence, etc, that is an carries out a role of dealing with the issue for the Committee. past, which is a very sensitive matter, 1940. Our reason for wanting to maintain a that should be left to the Secretary of role for the Secretary of State, and State. Parliament, is to allow the office to be 1948. The Deputy Chairperson: New issue J independent. The intention is not to was resolved on 3 February. Therefore, diminish the office. Those are issues we will move on to new issue K: that members should reflect on. I am not saying that to create a debate, “What would be the status of the Minister’s but perhaps members could come to position in, and relationship with, the our next meeting with a view on those Executive Committee; and would the points. Minister be required to bring significant, or controversial, matters to the Executive 1941. Mr Attwood: Can we just check if Committee?” Ian’s point is right? As I understand it, following devolution, the Police 1949. Mr Hamilton: That issue requires some Ombudsman will table her report to the further work. Northern Ireland Assembly. 1950. Mr Maskey: We are happy to come back 1942. Mr Paisley Jnr: His report. to that another day.
1943. Mr Attwood: His report; sorry. 1951. Mr McFarland: It is our belief that the justice Minister should be a normal 1944. Mr Paisley Jnr: Those were the halcyon Minister, and have a normal relationship days, Alex. [Laughter.] with the Assembly and the relevant Committee. 1945. Mr Attwood: The Police Ombudsman’s annual report will be tabled to the 1952. Mr Attwood: Our view is that the Assembly, and that is provided for under Minister should have full status and
191 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
equality with all other Ministers, and the full responsibilities that arise thereunder.
1953. Mr Maskey: That is not different from our position, but we are happy to come back to it another day.
192 Minutes of Evidence — 28 April 2009
28 April 2009
Members present for all or part of the 1958. The summary of pressures is in the form proceedings: of a table in order to keep it compact, because there is a great deal of Mr Jimmy Spratt (Chairperson) Mr Raymond McCartney (Deputy Chairperson) information floating around. This is still Mr Alex Attwood a moveable feast: the information keeps Mr Simon Hamilton coming out, even since our last session. Mrs Carmel Hanna For example, another £20 million has Mr Alex Maskey come on the table as a backdated PSNI Mr Nelson McCausland pension commutated cost for 2008-09. Mr Alan McFarland That figure was not brought out at any of Mr John O’Dowd the evidence sessions. Mr Ian Paisley Jnr 1959. Another factor that is also a moveable Witnesses: feast is the low-pay claims for the Civil Service as a whole, whereby those Mr Victor Hewitt Specialist adviser numbers have essentially quadrupled. I do not think that people are quite aware 1954. The Chairperson: The Committee of the size of those claims, which are welcomes back Victor Hewitt. now very large. Again, that is something 1955. Mr Victor Hewitt (Specialist Adviser): that could continue to grow in the Thank you, Mr Chairman. By the context of this document. conclusion of the Committee’s last 1960. Using the “unavoidable” classification, evidence-gathering session, we the really big pressures are the hearing- had trawled through a great deal of loss claims; the equal pay claims; the information through oral presentations cost of public inquiries, to which I will and written submissions. The purpose return; and legal aid. Other issues, such of the paper that I present to the as the PSNI pensions, are being looked Committee today is to try to trawl at with regard to switching them from through and impose some order on that, being a pressure on the departmental particularly in classifying “unavoidable expenditure limit to being covered under pressures” and “other pressures”. the annually managed expenditure 1956. If a Department is asked how important heading, as would be the case in the a particular pressure is to it, it will say rest of the UK. There would be some that it is very important indeed. Therefore, cost in making the switch, but that is not there needs to be some criteria by which a cost that could be unsupportable. one can effectively say: “That is a totally unavoidable pressure.” The normal 1961. I will just run down the list of “key criteria that finance officers would use unavoidables”. The PSNI hearing-loss to do that is that it constitutes a legal or claims are growing almost every time contractual commitment. That is the that we take further evidence on them, starting point. All other pressures have and their size increases. There is to be judged on other criteria, be they £131.3 million of claims, and that figure political or otherwise. may well increase.
1957. Therefore, the bulk of this paper is 1962. We have an estimate of £50 million over about trying to classify “unavoidable two years for the equal pay claims, which pressures” on that definition, and “other will be unavoidable. I have just referred pressures”, about whose priority the to the overall bill for the Civil Service, Committee will no doubt wish to debate which is growing rapidly, although the in due course. figures have not bottomed out yet.
193 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
1963. There was also a claim from the NIO 1967. I will leave it there, Chairman, and take that its junior staff would not be affected any questions members may have. by equal pay claims. That may or may not be so. The trade unions will certainly 1968. The Chairperson: Mr Hewitt, can you be pushing for junior staff in the NIO to clarify the pension commutation costs come within the same remit as regards — the £20 million you referred to? My back pay, and I have no figures for that understanding was that the money came at the moment. out in the evidence. I questioned the NIO on pensions, and those costs were 1964. The other matters relate to public fully funded. The commutation figure inquiries, which could be any amount of is £22 million: £11 million each year money, depending on the number of additional. That came out during the inquiries, and legal aid, which has been evidence and during the Policing Board’s running at £30 million a year light on its presentations at some point. The ready budget year after year, and it has had to reckoner shows a figure of £924 million, go back and fight for money from the and often the figure talked about for the Treasury. The public inquiries money has police budget is £1·2 million. However, I been funded by using up the end-year understand that the difference between flexibility that the NIO had built up — the £924 million and the £1·2 million unspent money that it has been carrying is that the difference — whatever the forward. It has, effectively, exhausted figure is — comes under annually that as a source of money for public managed expenditure (AME), which inquiries. That was a contingency, and relates solely to pension costs. unless that is rebuilt, the NIO will be unable to meet any of those other claims 1969. We need to establish whether that £22 that are on the table. The inquiries are a million of additional money, which was key element of the package. the result of an announcement made by the Home Secretary that affected the 1965. We ran across claims from the Probation police service throughout the whole of Board — about £18 million — which is the United Kingdom, comes under AME. a good example of where we need to be I understand that the Government pick careful about comparing like with like. up any additional costs that would be The operations of the Probation Board involved. Is that your understanding? in England are rather different from the Probation Board here, in that some of 1970. Mr Hewitt: Not from the evidence that the things that are covered within the was given. Members will recall that the Probation Board spending in England Chief Constable expressed concern are covered within the Department of that his budget was being hit by those Health, Social Security and Public Safety pension costs, which suggests to me spending in Northern Ireland. We are that they are not currently covered by not exactly comparing like with like, thus AME. I will go back and check that, that £18 million is a little suspect on because it is an important issue. those grounds. According to the available evidence, the £22 million pension commutation was 1966. I do not want to go through all of the for the next two years. The additional figures in detail, although I will pick £20 million that I mentioned was for the up any questions members may have. past year and was backdated. The additional money for the dissident activity will be an unavoidable cost, 1971. The Chairperson: That is what I wanted but we expect that to be picked up as to find out. in-year costs by bids on the Treasury in the year in which they arise, rather than 1972. Mr Hewitt: That looks like an additional as an addition to the PSNI baseline pressure. That will be covered in-year, going forward indefinitely. They are so only the £22 million will have an unavoidable: they are not of the same effect on the budgets. Negotiations are character; they are not a baseline issue, taking place with the Treasury about as opposed to an in-year pressure. attempting to switch those pressures
194 Minutes of Evidence — 28 April 2009
from the departmental expenditure limit 1978. If we do not know what is going into (DEL) process to the AME process. I those budgets in future years, we cannot expect that to happen, but I do not have calculate a consequential. However, we any further information about that at could calculate a consequential on the present. I will go back to NIO and check assumption that, within the most recent that. comprehensive spending review (CSR) period, we had been in a Barnett regime, 1973. The Chairperson: Those figures will have and would therefore know what had gone to be clarified so that they are crystal into those particular categories in England. clear. We could compare that consequential with the actual amounts of money that 1974. Mr Paisley Jnr: Thank you for your draft went into NIO at that time. The historical report, Mr Hewitt. I have a three-point amount for the most recent CSR would question. First, can you extrapolate figures give us an idea of the discrepancies that show the consequences of applying between the two amounts. the Barnett formula on the figures that you have? Quite rightly, you said that 1979. Mr Paisley Jnr: It would be useful to see there would be a widening of the gap those figures. between the need and resources and 1980. Mr Hewitt: Yes, it would. We will have that those factors should be recognised. a go at calculating that consequential. What does that look like in real terms, I have the subprogrammes that are given the figures that you have? used for that purpose. It should not be 1975. Secondly, you do not appear to have difficult. mentioned the issue of the ability to 1981. We did not address the VAT issue in the reclaim VAT on the relevant services. report because we expect that issue Perhaps you have covered that to be resolved. If a Northern Ireland elsewhere. If that were to happen, based Department takes on that responsibility, on the figures that I saw, we would save it will be able to reclaim VAT just like somewhere between £150 million and any other Department. It will not be a £200 million. Can that be worked into significant issue. the report? Have you looked at that possibility? 1982. Mr Paisley Jnr: If we are blowing our own trumpet should we not claim that 1976. Last week, after the Budget, Shaun responsibility and take ownership of Woodward said that he had got some it? It was this Committee that put that additional money for policing, and that it issue on the agenda. was a wonderful thing. I took that with a 1983. Mr Hewitt: If you are suggesting that pinch of salt, because I was not entirely where we pay VAT currently, we would sure exactly how much money we got simply retain that VAT payment and not for policing, or into which cavity it was have to make it, the Treasury would going. Have you been able to analyse probably take the view that the Depart his comments following the Budget ments were funded because they needed statement? to pay VAT, and if they do not need to pay 1977. Mr Hewitt: I will answer those points VAT they are not funded for that. one at a time. Under the Barnett 1984. That is how they currently treat the formula, we receive what is known as a Northern Ireland block. In the funding consequential — a population share of rules there is a discount for VAT. That any comparable expenditure in GB. For is certainly a debating point; however, our purposes, comparable expenditure I am not sure that it will carry the day. would be spread between policing and I have not gone over the Budget with local authorities that hold policing Sean Woodward. Unfortunately, I was out budgets. We have to sort out like for of the country last week. However, I will like when it comes to the underlying certainly go back and look at that to see subprogrammes. in detail exactly what they got. Budget
195 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
figures are often sleights of hand, so we 1992. Mr McCartney: Is there an estimate need to look at that carefully. specific to this?
1985. When considering what proposals 1993. Mr Hewitt: There is an estimate of you would like to make, the general around £50 million. issue of the Barnett formula, as I have 1994. The Chairperson: That figure could said before, is that we are running increase. Did you say that there is a an operation that is roughly twice as possibility that the NIO could come expensive, on a per capita basis, as in under that claim? England. Therefore, whatever money you get through Barnett, over time, it 1995. Mr Hewitt: The trade unions in is not going to be able to sustain that particular will want to try to bring people sort of lead. One of the ideas that you in the NIO within the remit of any back might want to explore, for at least a CSR pay claim. Whether that works or not will period, is whether to look for a “Barnett depend on the terms under which those plus” settlement. That would allow you people were recruited. to phase in whatever changes are going 1996. The Chairperson: That could have a to be necessary to accommodate this — knock-on effect if it is not sorted out I would not describe it as a cuckoo, but prior to devolution. it will become one — cuckoo in the nest, which will consume other resources very 1997. Mr Hewitt: Yes, of course it could. rapidly indeed. 1998. Mr McCausland: On page 3, “historic” 1986. Mr McCartney: Thank you very much for issues are mentioned, including the the paper; it was a useful summary of equal pay claims. You spoke about the evidence to date. Our party is now a figure over a two-year period. That considering it, and it is something that money, I presume, is to pay money that we will come back to in the future. The is due to people because of issues paper will be better informed when we from the past. Will all those issues be address who is going to be responsible addressed over the course of two years? for the legacy issues. Therefore, we 1999. Mr Hewitt: There will be two elements await the outcome of the ongoing to that. First, obviously, is a lump sum discussion between the First Minister to compensate for earnings which they and deputy First Minister and the British should have been getting and were not. Treasury. Is there an estimate of what Secondly, following that, the earnings the back pay will affect? level will have risen, and that will be an ongoing pressure into the future. At the 1987. Mr Hewitt: Which back pay claim is that? moment, the really big money is in the 1988. Mr Hewitt: The Civil Service back pay. lump sums.
1989. Mr McCartney: The people affected 2000. Mr McCausland: Will the lump sum issue are those who were, essentially, be addressed inside the next two years? recruited into the policing bodies 2001. Mr Hewitt: It should be. through Northern Ireland Civil Service recruitment procedures. As I mentioned, 2002. Mr McCausland: On page 3, the other that is a claim which is growing very issue is that: “Similarly the extra costs rapidly. I do not know what figure you of dissident activity are too uncertain to have, but the figure that I have for a estimate fully but are unavoidable”. potential back pay claim is something in 2003. Later, however, the figure of £76 million the order of £480 million. is given to cover dissident terrorist 1990. Mr McCartney: Is that across the Civil activity over the next two years of the Service or specific to this? CSR. On the one hand the paper states that it is too early to estimate that 1991. Mr Hewitt: It is across the Civil Service. cost, and on the other, there is a figure
196 Minutes of Evidence — 28 April 2009
of £76 million given. Is that the Chief devolved Administrations on a footing Constable’s estimate? at which they can supply the same level of services, taking some account of 2004. Mr Hewitt: That is the Chief Constable’s the need level through the size of the estimate from his evidence of 24 March population. 2009. We view those pressures as being dealt with in-year, as is done with 2009. I do not expect the Barnett formula the monitoring rounds in our system. to be changed or abandoned in the An additional £31 million a year will not short term. There is too much of an be built into the baseline and carried investment in that system, and not forward for ever and a day thereafter, but only in the formula, which is a simple depends on the level of the activity with one. It is embedded in a whole set of which the PSNI will have to deal. When rules called the funding rules, which are the Chief Constable appeared before the available from the Treasury. One needs Committee, his best estimate was £76 to see the workings of the formula in million over the next two years of the relation to the underlying rules. current CSR period. 2010. For example, Northern Ireland lost £123 2005. Mr McFarland: I understand that a million in last week’s Budget because major review of the Barnett formula is there were cuts in comparable taking place at Westminster. Is there any programmes in the UK. That was done indication about where that might lead? If the basis of all our funding is likely to through the Barnett formula, but the change, that is likely to have an effect funding rules would have allowed that to on how we view the policing element of have been done as a straight, across- budgetary pressures. the-board cut. In the past, we have had interesting experiences in which a straight, 2006. Mr Hewitt: An ad hoc committee of across-the-board cut was made to the House of Lords is considering the programmes that were then selectively Barnett formula. It does not have a restored in England. The Treasury Government imprimatur behind it; it is attempted to return the money to Northern not an official committee as such. The Ireland through the Barnett formula, but, committee was across earlier in April given that the across-the-board cut was 2009, and I gave some evidence to much more than what Northern Ireland it. A paper containing our analysis of would get back through the Barnett the Barnett formula is available on our formula, one must look at the entire website. range of the funding rules and how they 2007. My experience of talking to that operate. That is a rather long answer. committee is that its chairman was 2011. Mr McFarland: It is worth keeping an keen on a procedure that is used in eye on that issue. In 1999, OFMDFM did Australia called the Commonwealth a study because there was a received Grants Commission. Australia has a wisdom that Northern Ireland would federal system, and that body sits each year and allocates money to the states. be better off moving to a needs-based I would not be surprised if the House of system. When the number crunching Lords committee recommended a move was done, it was so frightening that it away from a formula-based system, was decided that we should hold on to which is adjusted at the margins, to a the Barnett formula if possible. needs-based system, which is more akin 2012. Mr Attwood: Thank you, Victor, for your to the Australian system. report. I am sure that your assessment 2008. My view is that the two systems are that £400 million of budget pressures is entirely different. Australia has a federal unavoidable in the next two years of the system in which tax availability to the current CSR period is hard to swallow states is equalised. Our system is not a and very stark. My questions may go federal one; it is concerned with putting beyond your responsibility.
197 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
2013. You identify an additional pressure on reconfigure all of that. However, it the Legal Services Commission of £50 will be 2014 or 2015 before a new million in the next CSR period. arrangement will be in place. There will be many hangover cases from the 2014. On the basis of the evidence, and current CSR period that will have to be independent of any other budgetary funded under current mechanisms. issues that might arise, did any other justice agency anticipate budgetary 2021. There are one or two areas of your pressures in the next CSR period, draft report where there are potentially similar to that identified by the Legal other unavoidable pressures. I will not Services Commission and outlined in go into detail, except to say, that the your report? Public Prosecution Service should be restructured and its conduct reviewed. 2015. Mr Hewitt: All bodies will face pressures We heard evidence that, on recruitment in the next CSR period. of staff, it is approaching a critical-mass 2016. Mr Attwood: As you say, it is situation. Given that the administration unavoidable of justice — how cases are progressed, how quickly they are progressed and 2017. Mr Hewitt: The reason why we high managed — is such a big issue, lighted the Legal Services Commission politically and publicly, the Public pressure was because it has a systemic Prosecution Service needs to recruit the problem. It has been consistently staff that it has not recruited until now. underfunded, in relation to its base line Its representatives said that close to 8% for the costs of legal aid. or 9% of its staff complement has not been recruited: that is close to critical 2018. The Chairperson: That is an issue that mass. There are one or two areas where needs to be explored. By comparison there may be additional unavoidable to other parts of the United Kingdom, pressures to be faced sooner, rather the costs of legal aid are much higher than later. in Northern Ireland. It was explained to us that, for Northern Ireland, one has 2022. What you said about the regional rate is to multiply costs by a factor of three. useful, but however we used that power Whereas in Scotland and England, one — if we ever got round to using it — it is represented by a single individual, in will not fix the problem. It will deal with Northern Ireland, one is represented by the margins of it, but not the big issues. three: solicitor, junior counsel and senior counsel. The system needs fixed. 2023. Your remarks about the Historical Enquiries Team and the Police 2019. Mr Hewitt: Absolutely. Too many cooks Ombudsman for Northern Ireland are spoil the broth. One of the driving forces interesting. The time will come, over here is the certificate issued by the the next couple of years — before judge. It authorises representation at the British Government does or does some level: one counsel, two counsels not respond to the Eames/Bradley or more. Once that is issued, there Consultative Group on the Past — when is nothing that the Legal Services the Historical Enquiries Team and the Commission can do: it must live with the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland consequences of that. In this respect, will have to get additional funding or autonomous bodies operate in this they will be in breach of their obligations area, creating repercussions for one under European law with respect to another. Primary legislation is required taking cases forward. There could be to clarify who decides what the level of a further pressure there, independent representation should be and how it will of what may or may not happen to the be funded. Eames-Bradley Consultative Group on the Past . 2020. Mr Attwood: The Legal Services Commission and the Court Service 2024. Finally, is it not the case that the indicated that they were trying to additional constraints that last week’s
198 Minutes of Evidence — 28 April 2009
Budget has placed on the Northern the inflation rate and such areas as Ireland budget in the next CSR period health are massively beyond that. I know have cast a huge shadow over this that everyone quotes the retail prices paper? We have anticipated what index (RPI) and so on, but the real rate additional savings will be required in of inflation in such areas as healthcare Northern Ireland in the next CSR period. is massively above that. Therefore Those calculations are based on the there will be enormous pressures on current budget and do not account for programmes here in the future. a justice and policing budget. I will not provide the figures, because they will 2028. I apologise if that sounds pessimistic, alarm people. Whatever the unavoidable but that is the reality of the situation. pressures are in the next two years, is 2029. Mr Attwood: I agree with your it not the case that the pressures in the assessment. next CSR period will make some of this stuff look minor? 2030. Mr Hewitt: My experience of the Treasury is that it will settle with us on 2025. Mr Hewitt: I will begin by answering your what it can identify as being genuine last question. The Budget estimates and unavoidable pressures. The other that I have seen look totally unrealistic, issues, which they will see as day-to-day because they are predicated on rates housekeeping, will have to be operated of growth beyond next year, which no by ourselves, and we will have to decide commentator will accept. If those rates what areas need a little bit more money of growth do not manifest themselves, and what areas can make do with less. the hole in the UK Budget will grow even larger, and, inevitably, the Government 2031. The Treasury will not give you an open- will have to look at their spending ended commitment to keep coming back programmes. So far, they have avoided again and again on those issues. making major spending cuts; they have made changes to the taxation side. 2032. We devised a useful formula during However, delivery on the changes to the CSR period at the time when the taxation requires a buoyancy in the Prison Service was being shaped. That economy, and that does not exist now. formula stated that we would cover all foreseeable pressures and get that 2026. If the Government are to keep the into the agreement as a statement borrowing requirements, which are of principle. That left the door open probably beyond bearable at the moment, for claims to be made on foreseen within bearable limits, they would, almost pressures, in principle. However, the certainly, have to cut major spending Treasury will not give you a blank cheque programmes. That would have major ongoing. repercussions for us if those spending programmes had comparable components 2033. The Chairperson: Does any other here. For instance, we would suffer if the member have a question on the paper? Health Service was no longer going to 2034. There is a number of questions to which be protected and had to make major we will require answers. There needs savings. We are in the hands of the to be some discussion about the paper gods for the next few years. and about where we go from here, 2027. Even on present plans, the overall because work needs to be done. I know public expenditure levels will grow by that Victor is going to raise some of the only about 0·7%. If we get everything issues, but there are some questions comparable through the Barnett formula, that we need to ask. we can sustain growth of about three 2035. Your paper refers to the “key quarters of that percentage. For every unavoidables”. I would be reluctant in 1% growth in England, we can sustain any final paper to have, as your paper about three quarters of a per cent, and states: that is not sufficient to sustain our existing programmes. Costs related to “Legal Aid [unlikely that HMT will fund?]”
199 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
We need to go down the route of saying 2038. Mr McFarland: Two areas could do that that is money that is required and with being refined. The first is to it will be for others, particularly the First have rough agreement on the areas Minister and deputy First Minister and that the Committee would see as the Minister of Finance and Personnel, being historical, and, therefore, being to go to the Treasury or wherever reasonably left to the NIO, and how to seek funding. We need to have a the situation would look if they were discussion about whether, at the stage removed. The second is whether it is at which we now are or when we get possible to change the legal system with more answers, we need to have the First regard to support for legal aid sooner Minister, the deputy First Minister and than 2015. Members spoke about the Minister of Finance and Personnel making changes in a number of areas around the table specifically to discuss that would improve things. It would be the Committee’s findings and, perhaps, useful to refine some of those areas so to present them with a final paper to that we know what can be achieved and allow them to comment . in what timeframe. That might help us in our decision-making. 2036. There is also the Heywood Committee, 2039. The Chairperson: Is that possible, from which the Secretary of State Victor? I know that you have been indicated that he is expecting a report reluctant to do that so far in your to himself and the Prime Minister paper, but is there enough information around the end of the first week in from what the police and others have May. There is a question of when the provided about historical matters? The information from that will be shared. Secretary of State recognised that there There is also the Ashdown Report, were historical factors, and he indicated about which the Committee has just that he wanted an equitable policing and written to inquire about its financial justice budget to reflect those. I suspect implications. That report might make that it would do no harm to have recommendations for policing and that aspect separated, and a line or justice that have financial implications. paragraph in the final report suggesting There has been speculation about that, that there are historical areas that need but we do not yet know. The report might to be taken out of the budget equation. well ease pressures on policing, but there is, obviously, always pressure on 2040. The Chief Constable always makes that the policing budget from contentious argument. He talks about policing the marches and suchlike. The Committee here and now as opposed to policing the needs to see the recommendations past. Given the resources and amounts of the Ashdown Report in order to involved, that has a fairly big effect on know that there are no possible major the police budget. It might be helpful to financial implications for the devolution take that issue away from the main in of policing and justice. some sort of silo.
2037. There is no inkling of that report being 2041. Mr Hewitt: It can be done. On paper, it could be moved to another category. published. The last time I inquired, I was told that it would be out in three 2042. The issue should be left with the NIO to or four weeks’ time, but it has still not fight with the Treasury about the figure. appeared. As a result of a discussion It would no longer be a concern of the at last week’s Committee meeting, a devolved Administration. I reiterate letter has been sent inquiring about its the practicalities of dealing with the progress, and a copy of that letter is in Treasury: it dislikes intensely making members’ information packs. There are, open-ended commitments and much therefore, a number of matters that the prefers to pay people off with a lump Committee needs to flesh out. Perhaps sum. However, we can put those legacy members might like to suggest what the issues to one side, and say that the Committee’s next move should be. NIO, not the devolved Administrations,
200 Minutes of Evidence — 28 April 2009
will deal with those matters in the that we our draft report can be adjusted, future. Of course, there will need to be a we need to have that conversation as mechanism for that. Some sort of board soon as possible. could be set up in the NIO to deal with claims against the police, which, at that 2047. It is six months since the First Minister time, will be devolved. It could cause and the deputy First Minister met the some complication. Committee. Therefore, their attendance would be timely. However, if they do 2043. The Chairperson: That point may be for not meet the Committee immediately, others to argue. It is not our job. we might, potentially, go down some dead ends, make some mistakes, 2044. Mr McFarland: As the Eames/Bradley or be so unsighted about relevant group recommended, it is time to conversations that we cause damage. establish a principle to deal with live All those scenarios have political policing from now on and leave the past consequences. Moreover, our parties, at in the past. I understand that the House some level, need to consider the draft of Commons Committee will report report, because some of the issues in early September and expects the are graphic. The report is detailed, and Government to produce a statement on Committee members’ eyes are wide the Eames/Bradley report in September. open about some matters. That might provide more direction as to whether they accept that those matters 2048. Therefore, as regards general manage should be packaged and separated. As ment, I believe that it would be useful the Chief Constable and the policing to have a conversation with our own board have said, if we continue to parties; certainly, with our party be dogged with historical issues, the leaderships. situation will be open-ended and could bankrupt the police in two or three years. 2049. Mr Paisley Jnr: There is a great deal of merit in that suggestion, not only 2045. Mr Attwood: Alan’s point about trying because it would broaden discussion; to differentiate between historical and it would create a stalling point at which current issues is useful. Putting all we could ensure that we are absolutely unavoidable issues into the historical clear on the competences of what we section would be even more desirable. are engaged in and on what the thing As the Chairperson said, in order to should actually look like. manage the paper, we need to have a conservation with either the Department 2050. It would also be interesting to get a of Finance and Personnel or the First quick update or indication, whether it is Minister and the deputy First Minster from the First Minister and the deputy soon. We have drawn up a paper, but First Minister or from the Secretary of half those matters — or, perhaps, none State, on where his Haywood Committee — may have been addressed in ongoing is at present, because, you are right; conversations outside the Committee. that argument could promote and We do not know. accelerate the devolution of policing and justice: equally, it could stop it for 2046. Therefore, given that OFMDFM said that ever. We need to realise exactly what it hoped to conclude budgetary issues the consequences are; to address those by the beginning of April — presumably issues; and to ensure that all parties that has not happened — there is a risk are content politically. Everyone knows that our paper could interfere negatively where we want to be. Now, we need to with ongoing conversations elsewhere if ensure that we can get there. it is known that an Assembly Committee thinks that there will be £631 million 2051. The Chairperson: Do members agree, of budgetary pressures in the next two therefore, that we suggest a round-table years on justice and policing alone. That discussion with the specialist adviser? might scare some horses or jeopardise Clearly, there is more work to be done current negotiations. Therefore, given and questions that have already been
201 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
discussed to be answered. Obviously, 2061. We should take it step by step. The first given the work that is ongoing, the meeting step should be discussion between with the First Minister, the deputy First Committee members and their party Minister and, say, the Finance Minister leaderships, after which we will come would be held in closed session. back to the Committee and start the process. We will not rule anything out. 2052. I agree with Alex that there also needs to be discussion within parties. However, 2062. The Chairperson: Are we happy to go more work must be done beforehand. down that route? Do you want us to We are working from a draft document. start the process and suggest that that Some issues need to be clarified. I have might happen, subject to the diaries no doubt that parties will have their own of the First Minister, the deputy First discussions. Minister, and the Minister of Finance and Personnel? Members can go off and 2053. Mr McFarland: Certain members who have discussion — are present are also members of the Policing Board. My party’s two Policing 2063. Mr Paisley Jnr: Should we not have the Board members are not Committee discussion first and come back to the members. It will be quite useful to have Committee afterwards? a discussion with them because they, like the Policing Board members who 2064. The Chairperson: I am happy to do it are present, will have a more in-depth whatever way the Committee wants. knowledge of policing than, perhaps, the 2065. Mr Paisley Jnr: Ultimately, the two rest of us do. parties that will have those discussions 2054. The Chairperson: I do not see a need to with their party leaders are those that widen the discussion beyond Committee will fill those roles anyway. members. I am reluctant to bring in 2066. The Chairperson: OK. Let us do that and other MLAs. come back. Victor, is there any other 2055. Mr McFarland: I am just saying that if information that we might be able to assist we agree to talk to our party leaders, in getting or are you relatively happy? which we just have done, those parties 2067. Mr Hewitt: I am happy as long as who have Policing Board members on the Committee is happy that I have the Committee have a distinct advantage discussion on an official level with DFP over me and Danny, as neither of us sits and NIO in order to keep on top of figure on the Policing Board. Our party’s Policing work, because, obviously, it moves Board members are unsighted on all of around. That figure is roughly 10 days that because they have not been old, and may well have moved on in the included in discussion thus far. If other meantime. Therefore, as long as the parties’ Policing Board members are Committee is happy enough that I do included — that, I will proceed. 2056. Mr Paisley Jnr: Please do not bring Basil 2068. The Chairperson: Do we put historical into the discussion. stuff into a silo on its own? 2057. Mr McFarland: I do not mean that I will 2069. Mr Hewitt: Yes. We will redraft it bring him to a meeting. I mean that I will and I will have a go at the Barnett talk to him, rather than bring him to the estimations, and so on. Committee. 2070. Mr O’Dowd: We should be conscious 2058. Mr Hamilton: He will bring the whole that although there are major financial thing down. All progress will be reversed. obstacles ahead with policing, if we take 2059. The Chairperson: I am not getting the view that we should not deal with embroiled in that particular discussion — policing because of finance, we would not have devolved health or education 2060. Mr Paisley Jnr: Please, we beg you, do either. By the end of budgetary period, not bring Basil — for your own sake. we will wish to ourselves that we had
202 Minutes of Evidence — 28 April 2009
not devolved any of those matters. We will all be up the Suwannee without a paddle because finances will be tight. Therefore, although financial consider ations are important, they are not —
2071. Mr Paisley Jnr: They are not the be all and end all.
2072. Mr O’Dowd: That is correct.
2073. The Chairperson: We have been able to tease out some points that, perhaps, were not in the public domain at the start of the meeting. That is a scary figure. I appreciate what you have said, John. Certainly, it is not be all and end all.
2074. Thank you, Victor, for your helpful presentation. I understand that you have to get your head around quite a lot of figures. We appreciate the work that you have done thus far. We will, undoubtedly, have further discussions in coming weeks. Thank you very much indeed.
203 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
204 Minutes of Evidence — 28 April 2009
28 April 2009
Members present for all or part of the how, when and by whom the financial proceedings: negotiations with the NIO should be conducted, and whether a budget should Mr Jimmy Spratt (Chairperson) be ring-fenced. A number of those Mr Raymond McCartney (Deputy Chairperson) issues are currently being dealt with. Mr Alex Attwood Mr Simon Hamilton 2081. Bearing in mind the discussion that we Mrs Carmel Hanna had during the closed session of the Mr Nelson McCausland meeting, the specialist adviser will carry Mr Alan McFarland out some additional work on a lot of Mr John O’Dowd those issues. It may be putting party Mr Ian Paisley Jnr representatives on the spot to ask for views now, given that we are awaiting 2075. The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): We will some answers on those matters. Are now discuss the devolution of policing members content to park that issue? and justice. I declare that I am a member of the Northern Ireland Policing Members indicated assent. Board. 2082. The Chairperson: New issue F asks what, 2076. Mr McCausland: I am a member of the if any, consideration there should be of Belfast District Policing Partnership. the Ashdown report on parading, whether there is a need for further clarity on the 2077. The Chairperson: Ian Paisley Jnr has left powers to be devolved, and, if so, the room. whether they should include matters relating to the Public Processions 2078. We will now discuss the category 2 list (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, flags and of issues. The original issue C relates symbols, or recruitment to the PSNI. to the Serious Organised Crime Agency Again, that issue has been raised with (SOCA) and the security services. I the Secretary of State in the letter of 22 remind members that a letter was sent April, and we await a reply on that. Are to the Secretary of State on that issue, members agreed to park that issue? and we are awaiting his response. Are members happy to park that issue? Members indicated assent.
Members indicated assent. 2083. The Chairperson: We will move on to discuss new issue G. In the context of 2079. The Chairperson: The position is similar recommendation 26 of the Committee’s with regard to new issue D, which deals original report, to which Department with the North/South policing and should the Public Prosecution Service justice agreements, and the question (PPS) be attached? of a justice sector of the North/South Ministerial Council. A letter was sent to 2084. Mr Hamilton: My party’s position on that the Secretary of State in relation to that issue has not changed from that stated on 22 April, as was the letter in relation last week. It is a non-ministerial body, to the previous matter. Are members so the only issues are budgetary ones. content to park that issue? I reiterate our suggestion that the PPS should be attached to the Department Members indicated assent. of Finance and Personnel (DFP).
2080. The Chairperson: New issue E questions 2085. Mr McCartney: Our position remains the extent of financial provisions for that it should be attached to the Office a Department that would exercise the of the First Minister and deputy First range of policing and justice functions, Minister (OFMDFM).
205 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
2086. Mr McFarland: Our party’s position 2091. The persuasion of its own parent is that it should be attached to DFP. Department on budgetary matters However, we were hoping to receive may be more straightforward than some further guidance from the Republic might otherwise be the case. I am of Ireland and Scotland after visits to happy to examine and explore the idea ascertain how it was done there. Subject further, and look at it in the context of to any dramatic changes, our position experiences elsewhere. remains the same. 2092. Mr Attwood: It might be useful to spend 10 or 15 minutes doing that some time, 2087. Mr Attwood: I would like to ask because the Chief Constable has not Simon Hamilton why the PPS should made any point of that nature in respect be attached to DFP. Why is the PPS of his responsibilities — for instance, such a different creature from all the that the funding Department of the PPS other justice agencies that will be the being the justice Department represents responsibility of the justice Department? a conflict of interest, interferes with his Why is the prosecution service unique, responsibilities or compromises him in and why must it be attached to DFP some way. The Chief Constable does not as opposed to another Department, make that point at all; it does not even such as the justice Department? register on his radar. The Probation Board, the Policing Board, nor the PSNI have raised any 2093. No one has raised any issue so far problems with being attached to the about where policing should be placed justice Department. Given the range of in terms of its funding authority. I find it responsibilities, and the sensitivities unusual that the PPS should be treated differently and separately. I understand around those issues, why must the PPS that there may be some issues among be attached to DFP, whereas the police one or two parties that the PPS funding and the Policing Board need not be? authority would be OFMDFM. 2088. Mr Hamilton: I understand the points 2094. We had that problem before when one raised that Alex raised, and I am happy party raised an issue about the appoint to further explore those issues. ment of judges, and a residual power that fell to OFMDFM. I could understand 2089. I recall from some of the evidence, and if that was the point that was being made, some of the suggestions in the PPS but that point has not been made. That submissions, that concern has been is why I am even more curious why the expressed in the past about potential PPS, of all bodies, should go to DFP. conflicts of interest. Our argument for There is no precedent for that. There is the PPS being in DFP is that if, in the no compelling organisational or future, it is a non-ministerial body, and management argument for it. It seems there is an argument over budgetary to me that if we explore that matter a bit matters, the persuasion of its own more, we could possibly convince people parent Department, for want of a better that if there are objections in respect of phrase, would be easier than taking the the PPS going to OFMDFM, it should go more convoluted route of going through to the justice Department. another Department or office. 2095. Mr Hamilton: We are happy to discuss 2090. We are happy to seek the experience that at a later point if some issues are of others on how that has worked in clarified. I certainly would not close my practice, as Alan mentioned, but we are ears to that discussion. not hung up on how it is done. Placing 2096. The Chairperson: Are we happy, then, to the PPS in DFP is a neutral suggestion. have that discussion at a later stage? That would solidify the aspect of its being non-ministerial, and get away from 2097. Mr McFarland: Part of the reason that any confusion that there might be over this issue has arisen is that there is any conflict of interest. sensitivity over it. As I recall, Alex has
206 Minutes of Evidence — 28 April 2009
been very sensitive in the past about in the prosecution of cases is a fair one, whether people were being prosecuted, except, obviously, that responsibility and whether there was interference and for those cases of concern is not going public statements being issued. The to be devolved to a Northern Ireland Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) justice Minister or the Executive anyway. expressed fairly strong reservations Responsibility for all the terror cases is when he appeared before the Committee going to be retained by London. The PPS — not the last time, but on the previous responsibility for such cases will be to occasion — about the need for the London through the Advocate General, absolute independence of that body; to not to us through the Attorney General. have a home where there was no chance of anyone interfering with its budget or 2101. The Chairperson: OK. Perhaps parties influencing matters by cutting back on can hold some discussions and come its administrative support. That was one back to explore the issue further. Are of the points that were made, and I am members content with that? sure that that is included in the report of Members indicated assent. the meeting. 2102. The Chairperson: We will now move to 2098. Given that sensitivity, there is an issue issue I: in relation to recommendation about whether it might be possible 30 of the Committee’s original report, to influence where the PPS is placed. who should undertake the advisory role We think that it should initially be put in relation to the appointment of the somewhere where no one would have Police Ombudsman? a reason to interfere with it, which they would not if it were an administrative 2103. Mr Hamilton: I restate the DUP position area within DFP. It is possible that as outlined last week, which is that our visit to Scotland and Dublin may there is a need for sensitivity and show us a better place to put it. independence, and that the role should Possibly, with a bit of experience, it be retained by the Northern Ireland might go somewhere else. To ensure Office and the Secretary of State. its independence, as the DPP himself initially said, it seems sensible to put 2104. Mr McCartney: My party’s position is it in DFP to remove all accusations of the same as it was last time — that the influence or interference with it. responsibility should lie with the Office of the First Minister and deputy First 2099. Mr Attwood: But the DPP is in a minority Minister. of one. None of the other heads of justice agencies in the North raised 2105. Mr McFarland: It depends on where any issues about their responsibilities the Eames/Bradley process ends up. If or about the funding responsibilities the role of rooting around in the past is falling to the Department of justice. The removed from the Police Ombudsman, Director of Public Prosecutions seemed it can sit with OFMDFM. If that role is to make the point that he was unique retained — the idea of a one-sided truth among the chief executives of the commission — the responsibility to justice agencies in the North. Therefore, decide who should give advice and who I would draw conclusions about what should get it must lie with the Secretary everyone else seems to be content with of State. rather than what the Director of Public Prosecutions is content with. 2106. Mr Attwood: That function should not be retained by the NIO. It should fall to 2100. In any case, going to DFP does not solve the devolved institutions in the form of the problem. Why, if there was going OFMDFM. However, we are prepared to to be an attempt to interfere with the be convinced as to whether it should PPS, would it be more or less likely to pass to the Department of justice or not. come from DFP than from the justice Minister? The point that was made in 2107. The Chairperson: According to my respect of concerns about interference adding up, there is no consensus.
207 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
Are members agreed that there is no 2116. Mr McFarland: Presumably, the reason consensus and that we should return to that there has not been a final stamp that issue? of approval is that, as Alex has said, it depends on the outcome of issue K. It Members indicated assent. could be argued that how the Minister 2108. The Chairperson: We will now move to will operate within the Executive has a issue J: what procedures and protocols direct relationship with how the Minister will there need to be between the will operate with the Assembly and other Minister, an Assembly Committee and agencies. I presume that the issue has any newly established department and been provisionally parked due to the fact its associated agencies? that it is logical to deal with it and issue K together. That can happen when we 2109. This was an additional question, which receive clarity on parties’ position on was introduced to the category 2 list issue K. following a decision on 25 November 2008 to relocate it from the category 1 2117. The Chairperson: Could we return to and list as issue O. agree that issue after our visits to the various legislatures? 2110. Mr Hamilton: We provisionally agreed a position on that matter, did we not? This Members indicated assent. is issue J, which concerns Committee 2118. The Chairperson: We now move to issue relationships. I believe that we agreed K: what would be the status of the that the relationships would be of the Minister’s position in, and relationship regular order. with, the Executive Committee; and 2111. Mr McCartney: That is agreed. would the Minister be required to bring significant, or controversial, matters to 2112. Mr Attwood: It is provisionally agreed. the Executive Committee?
2113. Mr Attwood: May I ask Mr Hamilton 2119. Mr Hamilton: If the Committee agrees, another question? Why does the DUP I am happy to take more time to resolve believe that the Minister should have issue K. exactly the same relationship with the Assembly and the Committee as every 2120. Mr McCartney: The Minister’s position other Minister, when it has been arguing in, and relationship with, the Executive that the Minister would not be a fully- should be the same as those of all other fledged Minister on a par with every Ministers. However, we are willing to other Minister at the Executive table? return to this matter. To treat a Minister in the same way as other Ministers for one purpose, but 2121. Mr McFarland: Our party’s view is that treat him or her differently for another the Minister should operate in the same purpose, would create a lot of tension. way as every other Minister.
2114. Mr Hamilton: I am not sure that Alex’s 2122. Mr Attwood: I refer to the position characterisation of my party’s position that our party has outlined previously, is accurate. I do not see any reason why which is that the Minister should be a justice Minister’s relationship with a a fully fledged Minister with all the Committee would be any different in entitlements that that brings. I wish to an operational sense from that of any ask Simon another question: why have other Minister. His comments about the we not — Executive are not an entirely accurate 2123. The Chairperson: This session is not a reflection of the position that my party cross-examination. Each party should has put forward on that matter. state its position on each issue. I 2115. The Chairperson: That issue has largely am not going to allow any more such been sorted, but there has not been a questions. I ask you to state your party’s final stamp of approval. position on issue K.
208 Minutes of Evidence — 28 April 2009
2124. Mr Attwood: The Committee will run to receive. We have sent the relevant out of credibility if, week after week, we letters, and it may be easier to resolve rehearse exactly the same positions some of the issues when the replies on exactly the same issues. We get no to those letters arrive. I do not accept further insight from the main parties, the that there has been no progress. There DUP and Sinn Féin, on the outstanding has always been a process by which matters of the deal on the devolution each party is invited to state its position of policing and justice. Frankly, it is on each issue until those are cleared no longer good enough that we spend from the agenda. I have done that week after week rehearsing well-worn systematically. It is also my job to keep positions without being given any clarity issues on the agenda that need to be from other parties on when those kept on the agenda, and it is for parties matters may be resolved. to indicate their positions, and they have done so. 2125. It is disrespectful to the authority of an Assembly Committee that, week after 2130. Mr Hamilton: I agree that progress has week, we have to listen to people saying been made. That is a well-recognised that they wish to revisit certain issues. aspect of our discussions on the That is not a credible position for us to devolution of policing and justice. There be in six months after the DUP and Sinn are inherent difficulties, but progress Féin worked out a deal on the devolution has been made. The issue may not be of policing and justice. That may well progressing at a pace that everybody be the position that the DUP and Sinn likes, but many of the gaps have been Féin want to be in, and those parties will bridged, and a lot of progress has been have to answer for that. However, I do made on areas where many “wise folk” not see why other Committee members might have thought that it would have should have to sit here, waiting until the been impossible. cows come home, because no cow ever 2131. Alex may not agree with that analysis, comes home. but my party shares the view that there 2126. With all due respect to you, Chairman, are great sensitivities around many of it is absolutely right that I, on behalf these issues, including this particular of the SDLP and the people that we point. He may not agree with that, but that is the position that we take, and it democratically represent, ask other is the position to which we hold, and, parties questions to which we have not if it takes some time to resolve those yet received any answers. Equally, it is issues to our satisfaction, we will take your duty as the Chairperson to bring that time. That may not be to Alex’s that to the attention of other parties. satisfaction, and it may not happen at It is not good enough that, after six the pace that he wants it to, but it is months, we are revisiting the same much better for the Assembly that the issues without having been given any issues are resolved to our satisfaction, clarity or answers. It is not a proper way rather than rushing them and getting for business to be conducted. them wrong. That is our party’s position. 2127. Mr Hamilton: I am happy — Work is ongoing, and, as I said at the start, there are issues of great difficulty 2128. The Chairperson: Let me answer first, inherent in the whole exercise. That Simon; I am happy to let you in after that. is why some issues will take longer to resolve than others. We will take that 2129. A great amount of progress has been time, and we will get it right, rather than made, and it is wrong for Mr Attwood rushing it and getting it wrong. to sit there and portray that that is not the case. There was a fair degree 2132. Mr McFarland: Progress has been of movement even in the financial made, albeit slow, so I sympathise with discussions that we had in closed Alex. However, there is an issue around session today. Some of the issues now how fast the issue can progress. It is hinge on replies that we are waiting slightly confusing, but it is clear that
209 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
there is negotiation going on outside clarified that. I hear what you are saying, the Committee involving Sinn Féin, and I have heard you saying it before. which wants a non-DUP Minister — it does not want a “half Minister” under 2140. Mr Attwood: I will conclude my point, so control — and “Lord Ford” and the that you can fully understand what I am Alliance Party over whether it will take saying. There are six or seven issues the post and how it is all going to work. in the category two list of issues in The Committee is not part of that, and, appendix 1. Since 27 January, we have presumably, we are obliged to wait until not got to the green-ink-handwriting point those discussions have taken place and of resolving those issues. One of those the white smoke appears. matters touches on the financial issues. We have a lot more information, which 2133. The Chairperson: Nelson McFarland — Nelson referred to, and it will be very sorry; Nelson McCausland. interesting how that information now gets handled. 2134. Mr McCausland: Can I sue you for that? [Laughter.] I am also interested 2141. However, five or six other non-financial in the fact that Mr Ford has now been issues — involving decisions about elevated. where authority resides, the Minister’s powers, relationships with the 2135. The Chairperson: I saw white smoke Committee, and so on — have not been outside and was wondering whether resolved in the past four months. I do that announcement has been made. not believe that they will be resolved in [Laughter.] the next four weeks. Given the current financial figures and wider economic 2136. Mr McCausland: I am interested in the environment, it would not surprise me if fact that Alan McFarland has elevated that becomes an even bigger hurdle to Mr Ford and given him a peerage. He the devolution of justice and policing. rejected David Trimble’s peerage, but nevertheless. The point was well made 2142. Why can there not be some clarity that there is huge sensitivity around the and closure on even one or two of issue, and nobody is more aware of it, those five or six matters? What is or should be more aware of it, than Alex the big impediment? Why is that so Attwood. The issues are also complex. difficult? The Committee knows that it We received a financial statement and is a sensitive area. For 153 days, the other information this morning, and it Government was suspended because is clear that the scope and scale of of that sensitivity, and other issues. the problems that we face are only too Why are we now, almost 153 days later, apparent. Therefore, I take the view that apparently no nearer closure on those we are making progress, albeit slow, but matters? That is not credible. we should just keep at it, rather than getting irritable about these things. 2143. The Chairperson: It has already been stated, with the support of members 2137. Mr McCartney: Every week, we come to of the Committee, that matters have the Committee and put our position on moved forward, and continue to do so. the table, and we will continue to do so. Mr Attwood says that he keeps hearing the same things, but I keep hearing the 2138. Mr Attwood: There are six or seven same thing from his end of the table. issues under the category 2 list of issues in appendix 1 on which, for more 2144. There is certainly no consensus on the than four months, we have made no matter of issue K. Therefore, does the progress at all. Committee agree to park issue K and return to it later? 2139. The Chairperson: I do not accept that. Progress has been made, because the Members indicated assent. relevant letters have been sent, and we have agreed to examine the financial issues and other matters. I have already
210 Minutes of Evidence — 5 May 2009
5 May 2009
Members present for all or part of the maintenance of existing North/South proceedings: policing and justice agreements, and is there a requirement for a Justice Sector Mr Jimmy Spratt (Chairperson) Mr Raymond McCartney (Deputy Chairperson) of the North South Ministerial Council?” Mr Alex Attwood 2154. Mr Hamilton: We are still waiting for the Mr Simon Hamilton response from the Secretary of State. Mrs Carmel Hanna We remain to be convinced of the merits Mr Alex Maskey of a justice sector of the North/South Mr Nelson McCausland Ministerial Council (NSMC). Mr Alan McFarland 2155. Mr McCartney: Our position is the same 2145. The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): We move as it was last week. We argue that there to policing and justice matters. I declare should be a justice sector. an interest as a member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. 2156. Mr McFarland: We are awaiting the response from the Secretary of State. 2146. Mr McCausland: I am a member of We do not see any reason to have a Belfast District Policing Partnership. North/South justice sector. 2147. The Chairperson: Alex Maskey has left the room for the moment, but he is a 2157. Mr Attwood: There is a need for a new member of the Northern Ireland Policing North/South justice agreement and a Board. He will rejoin the meeting shortly. sector of the NSMC for justice matters.
2148. We move back to the category 2 list of 2158. The Chairperson: OK. We will park that issues. I will not go through the procedures issue. because members know what they are. I 2159. Issue E asks: will read out each issue, after which parties may state their position. We “What is the extent of the financial provisions move to the original issue C: for a justice department which would exercise the range of policing and justice functions?” “What should be the relationship between SOCA and the Security Services, and the 2160. That has been parked. The Committee Minister/Department/Assembly?” will be receiving papers and information from the specialist advisers. Work is 2149. Mr Hamilton: I do not think that anything ongoing on that issue. We are certainly has changed since last week — which not at the end of that. There is no point may be a recurring theme throughout the in gauging the opinion of parties until session. We are still awaiting protocols and memoranda of understanding. When we have fuller information. Some of the we receive those, we can advance the questions that we would pose to the issue further. specialist adviser on that work will be done in closed session. 2150. Mr McCartney: Our position has not changed. 2161. Issue F asks:
2151. Mr McFarland: Our position has not “What, if any, consideration should there be changed. of the Ashdown Report on Parading, and is there a need for further clarity of the powers 2152. Mr Attwood: Our position is as before. to be devolved, and, if so, should they include matters relating to the Public Processions 2153. The Chairperson: We move to issue D: (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, flags and “What needs to be done to ensure the symbols and recruitment to the PSNI?”
211 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
2162. Members are aware that a letter was 2171. Following last week’s discussions, forwarded to the Secretary of State on I reviewed all those papers and I 27 April. There has been no reply to that have picked out an extract from the letter, and the issue has been parked report of Sir Alastair Fraser’s oral on that basis. I do not consider that presentation of 16 October 2007 on there is any point in discussing that the prospective roles and relationships issue until we receive some substantive of the Attorney General and the Public replies. Are members agreed? Prosecution Service. One of the subsequent research papers — which Members indicated assent. is contained in the pack that has been 2163. The Chairperson: We move to issue provided to members for the work G: “In the context of Recommendation that they are doing now — restates 26 of the Committee’s original report, that the responsibility for the funding to which Department should the Public of the PPS should lie with the Office Prosecution Service be attached?” of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, because it was Sir Alastair 2164. Mr Hamilton: To restate our position, Fraser’s understanding at that time for the reasons previously stated, we that OFMDFM would be responsible for believe that it should be attached to the appointing the Attorney General. Those Department of Finance and Personnel. specific extracts have been selected to 2165. Mr A Maskey: Our position is the same save members trawling through all the as it was previously. documents that they have, and might inform consideration of the issue at a 2166. Mr McFarland: There is no change in future meeting. our position either; we believe that it should be attached to DFP initially, with 2172. Mr Hamilton: If we are to revisit issue H the possibility of looking at another at some length in future, I will reserve Department later. comment until then.
2167. Mr Attwood: We believe that it should 2173. Mr A Maskey: We are happy to leave our go the justice Department along with all position on the record. of the other justice organisations. 2174. Mr McFarland: Issue H should be 2168. The Chairperson: OK. There is no properly discussed at some stage, but consensus on that issue, so we will park our visits to other jurisdictions will be it for now. useful. We will be able to see how other 2169. We will move to issue H: people do things.
“In the context of Recommendation 27 of the 2175. Mr Attwood: It is my understanding Committee’s original report about examining that we agreed to put an opportunity the independence and accountability of to look into those matters on the the Public Prosecution Service, before, and agenda for a future meeting. It would be following devolution, what consideration better to do that before we visit other should be given to this matter, pre- jurisdictions, because we could scope devolution?” out where our conversation might go. 2170. The Committee Clerk: The Committee That might help us to probe the other has examined issues G and H from jurisdictions about the structures that time to time, and they have been they have established around their intermingled during those conversations. prosecution services. We need to have Members have previously asked for a conversation some time between various research papers on issue H now and the end of May about the and have reflected on evidence that issues that are outlined in the research was presented during the Committee’s excerpts so that we can, at least, original inquiry into the devolution of ask some of the hard and immediate policing and justice matters. questions.
212 Minutes of Evidence — 5 May 2009
2176. The Chairperson: Alan has suggested Minister, an Assembly Committee and that we discuss those issues after our any newly established department and visits to the various jurisdictions. its associated agencies?”
2177. Mr McFarland: I do not mind having that 2188. Some of that came up in conversation discussion before we embark on our during our closed session this morning. visits. We just need some time to argue Again, we need to have a look at the out all of the issues, because several replies from the Secretary of State. Do of them will be key elements in the members want to state party positions success of this process once devolution or are you happy to park the issue until takes place. We may as well get it right. we receive the relevant information?
2178. The Chairperson: Shall we schedule 2189. Mr Hamilton: Mr Chairman, there are that issue for discussion at a future issues that need to be resolved, and meeting? that will take some time. I do not want to go into those now, but we need Members indicated assent. to take more time on some of those 2179. Mr Attwood: Before the end of May? specific matters at a later juncture.
2180. The Chairperson: Yes. 2190. The Chairperson: I am reluctant to get into a conversation that could lead to 2181. We will move on to issue I: the discussion that we had in closed session. Those points were well made in “In relation to Recommendation 30 of the the session that has just ended. Committee’s original report, who should undertake the advisory role in relation to the 2191. Mr Attwood: Who prompts or takes appointment of the Police Ombudsman?” ownership of those issues? I said that those “rubbing” issues would arise 2182. Mr Hamilton: As I have previously sooner or later. We should anticipate stated, given the sensitivity of the them and work out how they might be position and the need for independence, managed — if we can. Who will be that role should be retained by the NIO. responsible for identifying and working 2183. Mr A Maskey: We have already indicated out the Committee’s authority and rights our preference for the advisory role to of access to information? Who will do be undertaken by OFMDFM. that work? It was clear from the director that he felt that he could not go any 2184. Mr McFarland: As I said before, further. it depends on the Eames/Bradley recommendations. If the role of the 2192. The Chairperson: I want you to be careful Police Ombudsman to wander around what you say. I do not want to breach in the past as a one-sided truth a private conversation. I suggest that commission is retained, that role should I might write a confidential note to the stay with the Secretary of State. If that director, highlighting the points that were goes off with the NIO, as has been raised with him. I might also write to the recommended by Eames/Bradley, then Secretary of State in relation to some of we do not have a problem with OFMDFM. the issues that were raised.
2185. Mr Attwood: Our position is as stated 2193. Mr McFarland: Regarding the issue before. about rubbing points between the NIO, as there will be, and any potential 2186. The Chairperson: There is no consensus Committee in relation to national security on that issue. Do members agree that — which is what Alex was talking about the issue should be parked? — we will receive memoranda of under standing from the Secretary of State, Members indicated assent. which will tell us how the NIO proposes 2187. The Chairperson: We move on to new to deal with a Committee. That is not a issue J: “What procedures and protocols matter for much discussion. The issue will there need to be between the is how this Committee will relate to the
213 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
Department of justice and the Policing Minister be required to bring significant, Board. My guess is that it will fall to us or controversial, matters to the Executive to take the lead on that further down the Committee?” line. 2202. Mr Hamilton: I would like the Committee 2194. The Chairperson: It is important for the to revisit issue K at a later point. Committee to see the memoranda. Shall 2203. Mr A Maskey: We are happy to come we park the issue until we receive the back to that. memoranda? 2204. Mr McFarland: We believe that the 2195. Mr Attwood: It might be useful to write relationship should be normal and akin to the Secretary of State to say that to any other Minister’s. However, we can the issue of what a justice Committee revisit that. has access to has been identified, and that we await the memoranda of 2205. Mr Attwood: Our position is as stated understanding, which we presume will before. address that matter. 2206. The Chairperson: The consensus is 2196. The Committee Clerk: To answer that the Committee park issue K. That the strategic question about who concludes our discussion on policing should take the lead or who has the and justice matters. responsibility, effectively this Committee was charged by the Assembly to give consideration to any matters relating to the devolution of policing and justice and has identified that particular issue as one of the category 2 issues for such consideration. To all intents and purposes, this Committee has all the authority that it needs to delve into that matter to the extent to which it wishes to delve into it.
2197. The Chairperson: We intend to do that. There is no suggestion that we are not going to do that.
2198. The Committee Clerk: The Committee could also explore that matter in respect of the visits to other legislatures. However, members may wish to write to the Secretary of State in the meantime.
2199. The Chairperson: I believe that the pertinent issues have been raised. Does the Committee agree to proceed by writing those letters?
Members indicated assent.
2200. The Chairperson: Hopefully, the memoranda will arrive in the not-too- distant future. That deals with issue J.
2201. Issue K asks:
“What would be the status of the Minister’s position in, and relationship with, the Executive Committee; and would the
214 Minutes of Evidence — 12 May 2009
12 May 2009
Members present for all or part of the 2217. Mr McCausland: People want time proceedings: to digest the letter’s contents and to Mr Raymond McCartney (Deputy Chairperson) receive supplementary information. My Mr Alex Attwood party’s position has not changed. Mr Nelson McCausland 2218. Mr A Maskey: My party’s position Mr Alan McFarland remains the same. Mr Alex Maskey Mr John O’Dowd 2219. Mr McFarland: As I understand from the 2207. The Deputy Chairperson (Mr latest letter, the policing part will continue McCartney): We will now discuss unaffected and the justice part will be matters that relate to devolution of subject to an exchange of letters that policing and justice. I ask members to will set up a relationship between the declare their particular interests. Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government, which, theoretically, solves 2208. Mr McCausland: I am a member of the first part. My party’s view is that there Belfast District Policing Partnership. is no requirement for a justice sector.
2209. Mr A Maskey: I am a member of the 2220. Mr Attwood: I refer to questions that Policing Board. were asked earlier in the meeting about 2210. The Deputy Chairperson: We shall follow what the Secretary of State’s letter the same procedures as previously. If means. anything has changed, members can 2221. The Deputy Chairperson: I now make the Committee aware of it. I refer members to the original issue C: “What turn to new issue F: “What, if any, should be the relationship between consideration should there be of the SOCA and the Security Services and the Ashdown Report on parading, and is Minister/Department/Assembly?” there a need for further clarity of the powers to be devolved, and, if so, should 2211. Mr McCausland: My party will revisit they include matters relating to the that matter when it gets an update. Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, flags and symbols and 2212. Mr A Maskey: My party’s position remains the same. recruitment to the PSNI?”
2213. Mr McFarland: So, too, does my party’s 2222. I again refer members to the letter that position. is dated 8 May 2009.
2214. Mr Attwood: My party’s position also 2223. Mr McCausland: Again, until we see remains the same. what Ashdown produces, it is difficult to come to a position on that matter. 2215. The Deputy Chairperson: I refer members to new issue D: “What needs 2224. Mr A Maskey: I have nothing further to to be done to ensure the maintenance add to my party’s previous position. of existing North/South policing and justice agreements, and is there a 2225. Mr McFarland: My party’s position has requirement for a Justice Sector of the not changed since last week. Have we North South Ministerial Council?” skipped new issue E, which deals with finance? 2216. I refer members to the British Secretary of State’s recent letter, which is dated 8 2226. The Deputy Chairperson: Sorry. That is May 2009. my mistake. We will return to it.
215 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
2227. Mr Attwood: I refer to what we said 2239. Mr Attwood: We have nothing further to previously, but I am surprised that the add. Secretary of State has given a shot in the arm to Ashdown. Ashdown was 2240. The Deputy Chairperson: New issue quietly going to sleep — not Ashdown H: “In the context of Recommendation himself, but the impetus behind his 27 of the Committee’s original report, strategic review of parading. In his letter about examining the independence and to the Committee that is dated 8 May accountability of the Public Prosecution 2009, Mr Woodward said: “I am however Service, before, and following devolution, confident that when the Report is what consideration should be given to published it will offer a sustainable long this matter, pre-devolution?” term solution to the issues surrounding parading in Northern Ireland.” 2241. Mr McCausland: We have nothing further to add. Although, at some point, 2228. I see that as the British Government if possible, we would like to listen to giving a shot in the arm to the Ashdown the views of the prospective Attorney review to get the DUP lined up for future General. developments. The Ashdown review should have been history by now, but the 2242. Mr A Maskey: We have nothing further British Government are lining that up to to add. accommodate DUP interests in the near future. 2243. Mr McFarland: We have nothing further to add. 2229. The Deputy Chairperson: OK. I will return to new issue E: “What is the 2244. Mr Attwood: We have nothing further to extent of the financial provisions for a add. department which would exercise the range of policing and justice functions?” 2245. The Deputy Chairperson: Are we going to set a time to have a discussion on 2230. Mr McCausland: Is that about whether that issue? Perhaps the Committee the budget should be ring-fenced? I have Clerk could slot it in over the next couple nothing further to add to that today. of weeks.
2231. Mr A Maskey: We have nothing to add. 2246. Mr McFarland: That should happen after we have received the updated 2232. Mr McFarland: We have nothing to add. report that we have just asked for, and 2233. Mr Attwood: We have nothing further to after the visits. The idea is that we add. should sit down with all the available information on how the system works in 2234. The Deputy Chairperson: We will move other places. Only then can we have a on to new issue G: “In the context of proper discussion and, presumably, take Recommendation 26 of the Committee’s decisions. original report, to which Department should the Public Prosecution Service 2247. Mr Attwood: I do not agree with that. be attached?” There will be a lot more conversation after the visits, because whatever we 2235. I remind members that we will visit other legislatures to inform our decision on pick up on will concentrate minds. We new issue G. need to have a stocktaking session on the issue of the Public Prosecution 2236. Mr McCausland: We are waiting until Service (PPS). Much of what we learn the visits are out of the way. from the other jurisdictions will be of a structural and operational nature, 2237. Mr A Maskey: We have nothing further which is a good thing, but we also need to add. to bore into some of the fundamental 2238. Mr McFarland: We have nothing further issues about the management and to add. practices of the PPS.
216 Minutes of Evidence — 12 May 2009
2248. Mr McFarland: I stand corrected, and I have nothing further to add at this apologise. We had agreed to do that stage. before the end of May. 2258. Mr A Maskey: We have nothing further 2249. The Committee Clerk: Do members to add. have a preference as to whether that discussion should take place next week 2259. Mr McFarland: We have nothing further or on 26 May 2009? I remind members to add. that 26 May is the notional date on 2260. Mr Attwood: We have nothing further to which the special adviser will come back add. to the Committee to present a paper in closed session. I am not saying that 2261. The Deputy Chairperson: New issue we cannot deal with both issues on the K: “What would be the status of the same day, but the special adviser is Minister’s position in, and relationship scheduled to be here on that date. It is with, the Executive Committee; and a matter of whether members wish to would the Minister be required to bring discuss the matter next week or defer significant, or controversial, matters to it until 26 May, bearing in mind that it the Executive Committee?” was decided that it should be discussed before the end of May. I suspect that 2262. Mr McCausland: We are still considering it will not be the final discussion on that matter. the matter and that we will be better 2263. Mr A Maskey: We have nothing further informed after next week. to add. 2250. The Deputy Chairperson: Are members 2264. Mr McFarland: We have nothing further content to schedule that discussion for to add. next week? 2265. Mr Attwood: We have nothing further to Members indicated assent. add. 2251. The Deputy Chairperson: New issue I: 2266. The Deputy Chairperson: OK. That ends “In relation to Recommendation 30 of the session. the Committee’s original report, who should undertake the advisory role in relation to the appointment of the Police Ombudsman?”
2252. Mr McCausland: We have nothing further to add.
2253. Mr A Maskey: We have nothing further to add.
2254. Mr McFarland: We have nothing further to add.
2255. Mr Attwood: We have nothing further to add.
2256. The Deputy Chairperson: New issue J: “What procedures and protocols will there need to be between the Minister, an Assembly Committee and any newly established department and it associated agencies?”
2257. Mr McCausland: We will revisit that matter after the visits, and so on. We
217 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
218 Minutes of Evidence — 19 May 2009
19 May 2009
Members present for all or part of the given that we were to mine into the proceedings: issue, it is slightly strange that the person who wanted to do the mining is Mr Raymond McCartney (Deputy Chairperson) not here. Mrs Carmel Hanna Mr Nelson McCausland 2275. Mrs Hanna: His neighbour died two days Mr Alan McFarland ago, and he had to go to the funeral this Mr Alex Maskey morning. He did pass his concerns on Mr Ian Paisley Jnr to me, so we can discuss the issue if members want. Alternatively, I am happy 2267. The Deputy Chairperson (Mr McCartney): to defer the discussion. We will now discuss issues about the devolution of policing and justice. Rather 2276. Mr McFarland: I was not having a go than read through the list of category two at him. I was simply saying that he was issues, if no one has anything to add, we adamant that he wanted to get down will proceed to the discussion about the into the issue. independence and accountability of the Public Prosecution Service (PPS). Are 2277. Mrs Hanna: I think that he does. members content to do that? 2278. Mr McFarland: My point is about Members indicated assent. whether it is worth holding off on the discussion until Alex is present. 2268. The Deputy Chairperson: As this session is being recorded by Hansard, 2279. Mr Paisley Jnr: I am happy to go ahead members should declare any relevant with it. interests. 2280. The Deputy Chairperson: Carmel, what 2269. Mr Paisley Jnr: I am a member of the do you think? Policing Board. 2281. Mrs Hanna: I do not mind either way. It 2270. Mr McCausland: I am a member of is up to members of the Committee. Belfast District Policing Partnership. 2282. Mr A Maskey: I am happy either way. 2271. Mr A Maskey: I am a member of the However, as I said last week, I am also Policing Board. mindful that we have a number of site visits arranged over the next couple of 2272. The Deputy Chairperson: Members may weeks. I have nothing further to add on remember that on 12 May 2009, Alex behalf of our party. I am content to let Attwood requested that the Committee the matter sit. If Carmel wants to raise should spend some time discussing the issue from her party’s point of view this matter. As per the agreed format, I or from Alex Attwood’s point of view, I will ask a representative of each party am happy to listen to it. whether they have anything to say about the issue, after which we can have a 2283. Mrs Hanna: If it is going to be dealt with discussion if required. on another day, that is fine. However, if it is not, I want to raise the issues today. 2273. Mr Paisley Jnr: I am happy to hear Alex’s views on the matter. 2284. The Deputy Chairperson: Are members content to defer the discussion until 2274. Mr McFarland: The discussion about next Tuesday? this issue was instigated by Alex on the grounds that he had a great deal to say 2285. The Committee Clerk: The special about it. Perhaps he has managed to adviser will be present next Tuesday. pass all the details to Carmel. However, However, that meeting can go on for
219 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
as long as it takes. If necessary, I can organise lunch. Alex Maskey made a point about the planned visits, and there is an issue about whether those visits will better inform the Committee’s discussion. There may be a question about whether it should be rescheduled for discussion next week or for after the visits. I want to be clear about that to enable us to put it on the agenda at the most appropriate time.
2286. The Deputy Chairperson: Does anyone have any comments about whether we should have a brief discussion next week or defer it until after the visits?
2287. Mrs Hanna: I am content as long as it goes back on the agenda.
2288. Mr A Maskey: It will have to be on the agenda anyway, because it has to be discussed.
2289. Mrs Hanna: Yes; it does need to be discussed.
2290. The Deputy Chairperson: OK.
220 Minutes of Evidence — 26 May 2009
26 May 2009
Members present for all or part of the is useful that many of the returns hinted proceedings: at expenditures in those forward years. Mr Jimmy Spratt (Chairperson) Mr Raymond McCartney (Deputy Chairperson) 2294. All the figures in the paper were taken Mr Alex Attwood from the returns, with a couple of Mr Simon Hamilton exceptions. Obviously, some pressures Mrs Carmel Hanna will carry over from the current CSR Mr Danny Kennedy period into the next CSR period. One Mr Alan McFarland example of those pressures is the Mr John O’Dowd hearing-loss claims, which will not be cleared within the next two years. Witnesses: Another example is the pressures on Mr Victor Hewitt Specialist Advisor the Compensation Agency, which has previously indicated that it is running approximately £30 million light every 2291. The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): We will year. I have indicated where I thought now receive a presentation from the it prudent to put in an estimate for the specialist adviser, Victor Hewitt. Members forward years when it had not been have been provided with a pack that given to us formally by the bodies contains the replies from the various involved. I am happy to take members’ organisations that we gave a final questions about that process. chance to in order to provide information on any additional expenditure. 2295. A degree of re-phasing of expenditure 2292. Victor, you are very welcome. I assume has taken place since the last time, that you will brief the Committee on your especially in respect of capital spend. paper. Thank you for the additional work Some of that capital-spend money has that you have done. I know that it was been pushed out of the 2007 CSR done from afar, but it has worked out period, which runs until 2011, and into very well. We appreciate you doing that the next CSR period. A good example of work during your break, and we hope that can be seen in the £100 million that it did not interrupt your holiday too that was allocated for the refurbishment much. Without any further ado, I invite of the Court Service estate. Some £15 you to proceed with the presentation, million of that £100 million is now thought after which I assume you will be happy to fall within the 2007 CSR period, with to take questions. the remaining £85 million pushed into the future. Capital spend is always liable 2293. Mr Victor Hewitt (Specialist Adviser): to be pushed forward, particularly if Thank you, Chairman. I trust that a other pressures are to be met. copy of the paper has been circulated to all members. We are trying to get 2296. The other assumption that is being an update on the information that was made from the returns is that relatively previously given to the Committee. small new pressures will effectively be Although we had a lot of information absorbed in the CSR 2007 period. A about the remaining two years of the number of new pressures will appear 2007 comprehensive spending review over the next two years, but the (CSR) period, namely this year and assumption is that the bodies that next year, I was concerned that we had will be affected by that will live within comparatively little information about their existing budgets. They are not forward pressures into the next CSR being registered as inescapable new period. The paper refers to post-CSR pressures to be met. If that assumption 2007, which is the period up to 2014. It were to be violated, the figures would, to
221 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
some degree, change again. I can deal year on the police on the basis of with the individual figures in response to between 200 and 250 cases a month. questions that members may have. 2302. Mr Kennedy: Thank you for your 2297. The bottom line is that the totals are presentation. Were the post-CSR reasonably substantial. From the 2007 figures that you presented estimates or revised period, there is £571 million, guesstimates? which, because of the re-phasing, is down from the previous figure of £631 2303. Mr Hewitt: They are based on million. There is a substantial indication extrapolating trends. For example, we for the post-2007 period of £463 knew that the Compensation Agency million, which is probably something of had been running £30 million light per an underestimate. That £463 million annum for a considerable period. At the does not cover the cost of new prison beginning of each year, it knew that it facilities. Those were mentioned when did not have enough money and it had we took evidence from the Prison to go back to the Treasury. In that case, Service and in its further return. The we took the figure of £30 million and Prison Service merely said that it was extrapolated it over three years, so a constructing a business case, and it has figure of £90 million appears against not put a figure on that. the Compensation Agency.
2298. The figure of £250 million for a new 2304. The costs for the prison have not been prison and new women’s facilities is included in the main calculations, also an estimate. It is probably not because, to some degree, that is a an unreasonable estimate, but I have guesstimate of what a new prison and not included it the main body of the prison facilities would typically cost. I do calculations. It is there as an additional not have the firm business case from factor to be taken into account. With the Prison Service, so I have not put that as background, I am happy to take that into the main figure work. I have questions. merely noted it as a potential additional pressure. 2299. The Chairperson: Thank you very much, Victor. You said that the police hearing- 2305. I have also put a couple of question loss claim will go beyond the CSR marks in one of the columns. A figure period. Do you have an indication of of £27 million was mentioned for a what that figure might be? new laboratory for the Forensic Science Service. However, having experience of 2300. Mr Hewitt: When the Chief Constable capital projects, I feel that that figure gave evidence, he said that the pressure seems to be light for the type of facility from hearing-loss claims was estimated that is being talked about. Laboratories at £69·5 million for 2009 and £61·8 are specialist facilities, and they tend million for 2010-11. That was based on to be relatively expensive. I have not there being 200 new cases each month. altered the figure, but I have put a That has now been revised to 275 question mark against it. No figure was cases emerging each month, and, as a supplied in the further update, but a result, the estimated cost for hearing figure of £27 million was given in the loss claims has risen to £93·9 million original estimates. for 2009 and to £84·2 million for 2010- 11. Those costs will all be included in 2306. The Chairperson: I remind people who the current CSR period. have just arrived that this is a closed session, and the figures that are being 2301. Potentially, approximately 20,000 people discussed are confidential. may or may not have a claim for hearing loss. That is running between 200 and 2307. Mr McFarland: A number of non- 300 a year, so it could run for a consider governmental organisations (NGOs) able period. I asserted an additional receive funding for criminal justice pressure of approximately £80 million a matters and policing work. Where do
222 Minutes of Evidence — 26 May 2009
they fit into these figures? Are they issues. Therefore, we are still not clear included in the NIO’s budget? on a key area, which is whether some of it will be taken off us and will remain 2308. Mr Hewitt: No; they should have their with the NIO and the Government. own budgets. There are approximately 30 bodies within that family, and they 2314. The Chairperson: That is a fair are grant-aided by the NIO. The bodies comment. were contacted individually, and they made individual returns. 2315. Mr McFarland: Is there no indication of when we may hear about that? 2309. Mr McFarland: Where do they fit into this document? 2316. The Chairperson: No; there is still no indication of when we might hear about 2310. Mr Hewitt: The bodies that made that. There are no replies that I am aware submissions about new pressures of, and I certainly have not received any appear in this document. Other bodies replies on that matter. We were told that said that they had no trouble with their the Heywood report would be published existing budgets. What we are looking at soon. A number of meetings have taken here is additional pressures. place, and the Secretary of State said that he expected to receive a paper, but 2311. Mr McFarland: I understand that, but a he indicated that it would go to him and plethora of NGOs get funding for criminal to the Prime Minister. At the meeting, we justice work, and some of them get it asked about sharing that paper, and he from the NIO. Presumably, when policing said that it would be a matter for the and justice is devolved, that funding will Treasury and the Prime Minister. He go to the Department of justice, and it made clear at that meeting that the will issue all the grants. Is that what is Department of Finance and Personnel likely to happen? (DFP) and others were involved in that 2312. Mr Hewitt: Yes. The NGOs will have a process. I hope that we will get some baseline within the existing funding from indication when that becomes clear, but the NIO, and that baseline will transfer there is no indication that that has to the new devolved Administration. We happened yet, and I have not heard understood that the Committee was anything to that effect. interested in whether that baseline would 2317. Do you have any indication as to what be adequate for existing and future is unavoidable, and what would be pressures. That is why we focused on desirable or aspirational in the figure whether there was anything new coming of £571 million from the 2007 revised along that the existing baseline would period and particularly the £464 million not be able to meet. That is where the beyond that period? Obviously, some evidence has fallen. I could find no capital work may well spin out over a mention in any previous or current returns number of years. There are aspirations of the expense of setting up a Department to build and, for some of those projects, of justice. However, clearly, it will be an it may be some time before that will be expense. The NIO carries that at the granted. moment, but there is no estimate of what a Department of justice will actually 2318. Mr Hewitt: In a previous paper, we tried cost. It will need the usual finance for to use a classification based on the staffing, private offices, and so on. rather strict definition of inescapability, which was legally or contractually bound. 2313. Mr McFarland: From reading Secretary Taking that as a starting point, anything of State’s letter, there appear to be to do with the hearing-loss claims would some unresolved issues. He said that be inescapable; whatever the figure may the Heywood committee is dealing turn out to be. with a number of those issues. We have no idea what that committee will 2319. Anything to do with the Legal Services recommend about the setting up of Commission’s legal aid figure will be the new Department and all the other inescapable once the judge has issued
223 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
the certificate for legal aid. It may be 2325. Mr Attwood: Thank you, I apologise manageable in the longer term, and that I missed the earlier part of your there are indications of developments presentation. I have some questions in the longer term, but for the moment, that are probably simple to answer. that is not in the control of the Legal The only organisation that you have Services Commission. It simply has to commented on about equal-pay costs is take what comes. the Policing Board. Does that mean that the equal-pay costs are covered from 2320. Other inescapable expenses could within other Civil Service budget lines for result from low-pay claims, which would all the other organisations and do not affect the PSNI and any other bodies have to be found as a separate funding that recruited through the Civil Service stream? recruitment service. There may also be knock-on effects on their budgets 2326. Mr Hewitt: The information that we from those claims. The low-pay claim have is that people who were recruited would take the form of a lump sum to through the Northern Ireland Civil pay back what people should have been Service recruitment procedures fall paid in the past, but it will also raise within the low-pay claim bracket. Some their forward pay. That would be an people who work for the Policing Board inescapable commitment in the future. and the PSNI as civilians were recruited in that fashion. The NIO has said that its 2321. You are quite right about the capital; recruitment procedures are outside that that is always somewhat moveable, and system, and therefore the low-pay claim facilities can be maintained over time at does not apply to it. However, trade a cost, rather than be replaced. Facilities unions will press the point that the low- such as the forensic science lab could pay issue should be extended to anyone consistently be pushed forward, as employed in Northern Ireland, be that by could any newbuilds such as prisons, the NIO or anyone else. but there would be a growing cost to maintain the system. 2327. However, that is the basis on which the low-pay claim is currently restricted to 2322. The Chairperson: You mentioned legal a limited number of bodies within the aid. One indication was that the system competence. would probably need to be changed to help to reduce that. Amazingly, they were 2328. Mr Attwood: Will it be difficult to saying that it would take until 2015 to determine whether people will fall inside sort that out. I would have thought that or outside the equal-pay claim award, if a Department was set up, that could if and when it comes? It could be that be done a lot sooner than 2015. Do you 20 other organisations that are involved have any views on that? with justice in the North will have equal- pay responsibilities to their staff. That is 2323. Mr Hewitt: I know that anything coming still a possibility. from m’ learned friends tends to go slowly at times. One of the problems 2329. Mr Hewitt: It is a possibility. The current is that there would probably be cases advice is that equal-pay legislation affects in the pipeline, which might run on for people who were recruited through the some years. Civil Service’s recruitment process. If the trade unions are able to press the 2324. I am certainly no expert on the structural matter beyond those people, the number changes that would be necessary for of people that will be affected will, the legal aid system, but that would obviously, grow. The underlying amount involve negotiations with the judiciary. of money associated with Civil Service The judiciary has the independence to and public service equal-pay claims is say how many counsels a particular becoming very large; it is approaching defendant is entitled to depending on £500 million. Originally, it involved £100 the nature of the case. I would not be at million; however, that figure is now all surprised if 2015 is the target date. approximately £470 million.
224 Minutes of Evidence — 26 May 2009
2330. The Chairperson: Most of the people 2337. Mr Hewitt: It has not given any who are employed by the police are civil indication of where the savings will be servants who simply transferred. At an found. However, making £17 million earlier stage, some of them may have of savings would place considerable been specifically recruited, but it was pressure on HQ. I imagine, therefore, only in the latter part of last year that that it will probably try to spread the staff members were given the option of savings out. either staying with the Civil Service or fully transferring to the Policing Board. 2338. Mr Attwood: So, that £17 million is Although those people work for the an added pressure, over and above police, they are still civil servants and everything else? have always had the option of going back to other parts of the Civil Service. 2339. Mr Hewitt: Yes, it has come about as a The situation was only finally sorted out result of the Budget. this year. 2340. Mr Attwood: Figures are being bandied 2331. Mr Attwood: The point that I was about regarding savings to be found by making is slightly different. Northern Ireland Departments, which amount to millions of pounds a year for 2332. The Chairperson: You are probably right; four or five years. Do the figures that there are probably people in other parts organisations have identified as post-07 of the justice family who fall into the CSR pressures take account of those same category, so I imagine that an additional and significant savings to be equal-pay claim will be made on their behalf. made by Departments, or do they refer only to post-2011 pressures that were 2333. Mr Attwood: I have not seen the already anticipated? papers, but the NIO might be stretching the point by saying that because the 2341. Mr Hewitt: The latter; they are merely people who are employed in all those indications of things about which they other organisations went through a know. Other factors will depend on the different recruitment process, they have Budget at the time. somehow ended up not being entitled to equal pay. I presume that equal-pay 2342. Mr Attwood: Do you have a view, or provisions apply to everyone in the even a broad indication, of the justice public sector. One cannot differentiate pressures that will arise in 2011 and between people based on the interview annually thereafter as a result of wider procedure that they underwent. My Budget considerations in London? sense is that the unions might be right 2343. Mr Hewitt: That very much depends on when they say that equal-pay provisions apply to everyone in the public sector the operation of the Barnett formula and one cannot differentiate or pick and at that particular time. We are used choose between various categories. to the Barnett formula increasing the Budget here when there are increases 2334. As a result of Alistair Darling’s in comparable spending areas in the emergency Budget, Northern Ireland rest of the UK. However, if there cannot Departments must find £123 million of be reductions in the baseline spending cuts or savings. What is the NIO’s share in those comparable areas in the next of those cuts or savings? You said that CSR, we would take the consequential, the NIO has identified new efficiency which would be a negative. The £123 savings, but what are they? million calculated this time was 2335. Mr Hewitt: £17 million. calculated as a negative consequential through the Barnett formula. 2336. Mr Attwood: Is that all? Did it say that it will achieve those savings within NIO 2344. Mr Attwood: Are you saying that you HQ, or will it spread them between all have no idea what it might be but you the other organisations? feel that it will be very large?
225 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
2345. Mr Hewitt: It could be substantial. We outside my remit to include any other will not know until we see what the information. reductions are across the water. 2350. The Chairperson: That is exactly the 2346. Mr Attwood: Last week, someone — I way that it should be; it is not for any of cannot remember who it was — flagged us to make speculations. If the Police up to me the fact that they felt that the Ombudsman says that he does not have cost of a new justice Department would additional pressures, we must accept be significant, because there is no that. Thank you very much for your culture or experience here of how to run presentation, Victor. such a Department. 2351. Mr Hewitt: At a previous meeting, Mr 2347. I am surprised that the Police Paisley Jnr asked us to perform some Ombudsman has written back stating calculations that would demonstrate that the pressures are currently non- what would have happened if the identified. That is based on the Police NIO had been funded through the Ombudsman doing nothing further Barnett formula in the last CSR. We with respect to examining the past. have completed those calculations, However, there is uncertainty as to and I will send a short paper through what is going to happen as a result of to the Committee for information the Eames/Bradley report. If anything purposes. The results are actually quite does happen — which I hope is not the interesting. case — it may not be for two or three 2352. The Chairperson: OK. Thank you for years. However, the Police Ombudsman that, Victor. has an obligation to investigate certain matters from the past, and it does 2353. We have received the additional not have the budget to do so over the information and the figures that were next two years, never mind thereafter. required. The Committee is due to meet Therefore, I am a bit surprised that the again on 9 June 2009, when Victor will Police Ombudsman has not flagged up be making a presentation, but we still the fact that he will require funding to have no indication of whether the First fulfil his statutory responsibilities over and deputy First Ministers are available the next two years, independent of what to attend. However, the Finance Minister may or may not happen as a result of has indicated that he would be happy to the Eames/Bradley report. attend that meeting, if his diary permits.
2348. The letter — which is from Al 2354. If the First and deputy First Minister Hutchinson, the Police Ombudsman, can attend the meeting on 9 June not the chief executive of that 2009, it will include that presentation; organisation — says nothing about if not, it will be a normal meeting. The that. That surprises me because the Committee has no meeting next week; legal requirement to investigate certain therefore, do members agree to the matters must be met one way or the Committee sending a short reminder to other, and that could be a somewhat the First and deputy First Ministers to additional pressure, over and above the ascertain whether they will be available? other pressures that we have identified. 2355. Mr Attwood: I am sure that we will get a 2349. Mr Hewitt: I am constrained to work reply after the 4th. with the material that I have received from the different bodies. I have not 2356. Mr Hamilton: Of July? included in my report any information 2357. The Chairperson: I am sure that we that I have may have garnered from will, but I am not going to get into that other sources, because it has no official debate. [Laughter.] provenance. Some of the responses are surprising in that they have not flagged 2358. Mr McFarland: Will we share the paper up issues that might occur, but it is with the Finance Minister and OFMDFM
226 Minutes of Evidence — 26 May 2009
before they come before the Committee, work Victor has done in the margins or will we keep it as a surprise? in uncovering other areas that their Departments might not have volunteered 2359. The Chairperson: Are members agreed to them, or making sense of it in a way to the Committee sharing the paper? that their Departments might not have It would probably be in our interest to suggested. do so. It would also allow them then to feed into the Heywood committee and 2366. Logically, therefore, there is nothing what might be happening there. The here that they will not already have, if Committee can question them on the they have done their job. However, there day about whether they know where might be angles that Victor has come the Heywood committee stands and across that they might not have spotted whether a report has been made. Would and that might make our discussions members be happy that the Committee with them more useful, if they were to shares that paper with them prior to the have a heads up on what the Committee meeting? Ministers need to be briefed will be asking them. On the other hand, beforehand. they might have done none of this or, judging from our history with some of 2360. Mr McFarland: It might be quite fun to those Departments, they might not have see their surprise, but that is not a terribly quite got around to it yet. Therefore, constructive approach to getting results. that information might be very useful 2361. Mr Attwood: I am concerned about the to them and might facilitate productive principle of a Committee sharing with discussions. other people confidential information 2367. I appreciate the point made by Alex, and that it has not shared with the Assembly, there is an issue here about whether we which gives us our authority. share confidential information. However, 2362. The Chairperson: We will be sharing the we are trying to find some common information with the Assembly when we ground, whereby the Committee and make our report. those Ministers pressure the Treasury and the Prime Minister to provide a 2363. Mr Attwood: It seems to me that, on solution to the problems that we have principle, it is to the Assembly that the identified. We cannot go to the Assembly Committee answers and with which we until we have constructive suggestions share intelligence and information. Can on the matter, and we cannot have the Committee Clerk inform us whether constructive suggestions until we know this is a new precedent of sharing what is happening with the Heywood confidential information from a Committee committee, the Ashdown report, inquiry with Ministers in advance of the OFMDFM and the Finance Minister — if Committee agreeing a report, or a report that all makes sense. going to the Assembly Floor? 2368. The Chairperson: Almost. 2364. The Committee Clerk: I think that there is a precedent, although it is unusual. 2369. Mr McFarland: Therefore, it would be more productive for us if we were to 2365. Mr McFarland: The problem is that have a discussion with OFMDFM that OFMDFM has, I believe, asked the is based on a common starting point, Committee to look at this matter. The and Victor’s paper could be that starting Office of the First Minister and the point, if we were to share it with them. Deputy First Minister and the Finance Minister were supposed to be having 2370. Mr Attwood: There are two issues. discussions with the Treasury and The first is to establish what is the the Prime Minister on the issue. They right convention. I am prepared to be will have all the information that we guided by precedent. I would like to have, because it has come from them. share as much as we can as long as it Therefore, there should be absolutely is appropriate to do so, because we can nothing new, other than whatever good then have a better conversation.
227 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
2371. The Chairperson: The First and deputy When the First Minister and the deputy First Ministers have indicated that they First Minister gave evidence in closed have had discussions with some of session last autumn, they talked about the groups. The Heywood committee is a parallel process and stated that the ongoing. It has already been indicated Committee’s work would complement that DFP is involved. Therefore, my work being done elsewhere. On that guess is they are aware of 80% or 90% basis, the Committee pressed on and of the information in the paper; one or challenged the Secretary of State’s two matters might have been picked assertion that the Committee should not up on as a result of the Committee’s be involved in the process. probing. It is in all our interests that all the financial issues are out in the 2376. It is also fair to say that, once the open so that others can argue for the transcripts were cleared, the oral deal that is needed to bring about the evidence sessions with witnesses devolution of policing and justice. have been published. Therefore, that information is in the public domain and 2372. Mr Attwood: I am not opposed to the is accessible to everyone. That brings us principle of sharing material, provided to the position posed by the confidential that doing so is appropriate and is paper that Victor Hewitt presented this covered by a convention. However, there morning. As far as I am concerned, as may be wider political points, as Alan the Committee Clerk, and in respect of McFarland hinted. the Committee’s responsibility to the Assembly, it appears difficult for the 2373. The NIO and the Secretary of State tried Committee to do anything other than try to stop the Committee doing this work. to participate in the parallel process and Already, NIO types are trying to give to share that information. briefings to the effect that these figures are not as credible as the Committee 2377. At some point the Committee must believes them to be. There is a lot of present all its investigations and politics at play. The Office of the First findings in the form of a report. Minister and the Deputy First Minister However, that report is to address may have had the conversations, but all the category 2 issues and given it has not taken evidence in the same that a number of those has yet to be way that the Committee has done. It resolved, the Committee might want to may be that the qualitative nature of the consider publishing an interim report on Committee’s work is different from that financial matters. If the report on all the done by OFMDFM. I do not know whether category 2 issues is to be the means that is the case, because the Committee by which the Assembly will indicate that has not had sight of what OFMDFM has devolution should proceed, it seems to done, and none of its representatives me that the report will be published too has come to the Committee to inform us late to inform the negotiations on the about it. required financial settlement.
2374. There are a lot of issues around this 2378. That is an unprecedented dilemma. inquiry; the NIO does not like it and Ordinarily, a Committee report is brought OFMDFM may have held conversations to the Chamber for debate, is adopted that were intense but not as extensive and is then referred for ministerial as the Committee’s. Therefore, I am action; however, because we are dealing anxious for the Committee to protect with reserved matters, that course the integrity of its work, because some cannot be followed. In some respects, people will want to say that it does not the approach has been different present the true picture or that it has because new ground is being broken as been talked up, or whatever. part of a parallel process in which the Committee decided to engage. 2375. The Committee Clerk: The Committee is in an unusual situation, one aspect of 2379. Mr McFarland: We are missing key pieces which was flagged up by Mr McFarland. of the jigsaw. We do not yet know the
228 Minutes of Evidence — 26 May 2009
outcome of the Eames/Bradley report, We will go ahead: we will share that we are missing the conclusion of the information with the Departments; we will Heywood committee, and one could also invite the Ministers before us next week; argue that we are missing the Ashdown and we will proceed from that point. report. Until those pieces of the jigsaw are fitted in, we will not know what our 2384. The Chairperson: It is not next week; report will say. The difficulty is that it is the following week — 9 June. They those areas are outwith our control. We have got the invitation, and we are will not know what the final policing and awaiting confirmation. justice Bill will include until those pieces of the jigsaw are available and are slotted 2385. As the Committee Clerk has indicated, into the appropriate places. It could be most of the information in the report that if a chunk of this is taken back and came out in the evidence sessions, kept with the NIO, the drop will be fairly which were held in public session. dramatic. On the other hand, if it is Furthermore, most of the additional being left with us, it could be even worse information that has come in — such as than we currently think that it is. Until that relating to the capital projects — is we find out the missing information, it is also in the public domain already. Are difficult for us to do anything. members happy that the information is shared, to enable us to have some sort 2380. The Chairperson: Due to the time frame of constructive discussion with the three for the Eames/Bradley report,it will not Ministers, after Mr Hewitt makes his be included in our report; it falls outside presentation? our time frame. 2386. The Committee Clerk: In case there is 2381. Mr McFarland: The Secretary of State any doubt, I do not believe that there is said that the Government are due to a precedent for sharing this type of take a view on the Eames/Bradley report by the end of June. That will not information. We are in an unusual give us an indication of when things will situation. I do not know whether the happen, but it will inform us of whether Assembly would be offended if a something will happen in this CSR Committee were to share information with period, the next one or the one after the First Minister, deputy First Minister that. If the Government are categorical and the Finance Minister before presenting about not revisiting any of the historical that information to the Assembly. However, issues, we are, at least, a stage further I return to what I said before — the on. We will know not to expect any Committee engaged in a parallel process, change in respect of the costs for the and implicit in that was the knowledge Historical Enquiries Team and the Police that the time would come when the Ombudsman, for instance. Committee would share information with the First Minister, deputy First Minister 2382. Mr O’Dowd: We are getting into the and the Finance Minister. realms of that famous speech about things that we know that we do not know 2387. If it would help the Committee, I will and things that we do not know that check whether there is a precedent, but we do not know. In all forward-looking that will require me to report back to the political or financial programmes, things Committee, so we will need a special will arise for which one cannot plan. meeting before the 9 June meeting and At this stage of the process, we have before the release of any information tasked ourselves with completing the that is included in Mr Hewitt’s report. It report and presenting it to the Assembly. is up to the Committee to decide what 2383. The original question was about whether to do, because I do not think that there we could divulge certain information to is a precedent in the Assembly for the the Departments. If the Committee Clerk circumstances in which the Committee says that there is a precedent for doing finds itself. If you want me to try to get so, we have no difficulty with doing that. advice, I will do so.
229 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
2388. Mr Attwood: The Committee Clerk not share with a Minister a working draft anticipated my question: where was the of an inquiry report into an issue that precedent? There appears not to have especially concerned that Minister. We are been a precedent. Therefore, I do not in an area where there is no precedent; know how the Assembly will react. therefore, we need to be mindful and be sure that we set a correct precedent. If 2389. Secondly, there has been a parallel this sets a precedent, and this is a process, but those are merely words; parallel process, we will share only if there has not been any sense of sharing they share. We want to share: are they between OFMDFM and the Committee. prepared to do the same? At best, it has been minimal; at worst, it has been non-existent. So, yes, we have 2392. Mr O’Dowd: I do not know where to a parallel process, and the processes start. There is a difference between may eventually converge at some point. having negotiations and preparing a For that process to be credible, we must report. The Office of the First Minister build in some requirements. Despite and the Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) all our correspondence with OFMDFM, is involved in negotiations with the it has never told us anything about Treasury and others to secure a financial its negotiations with NIO in London package for the establishment of a other than that it “hoped” that those Department of policing and justice. negotiations would be concluded by the We are involved in preparing a report end of the last financial year. Since then, that will reflect the financial pressures we have heard nothing from OFMDFM created by any new justice system. about what has happened over the last There is a difference between sharing two months in its part of the parallel those two types of information. process. 2393. I am easy, one way or the other. If the 2390. Will OFMDFM share with us information Committee is minded not to share the on where it is? If there is a parallel evidence, so be it. It will not make a process to the point of sharing, and whole lot of difference to the debate. this Committee is to decide to share One way around it, as Raymond has information with other Departments said, is to share the Hansard report of prior to sharing it with the Assembly, the evidence sessions with OFMDFM. is OFMDFM similarly obliged to share Those hearings were held in public; if with us what it knows? If it is, will it OFMDFM wants to, it can find out what do that before we meet on 9 June? was said by referring to ‘The Irish Times’, If OFMDFM is going to have sight of the ‘Newsletter’, or ‘The Irish News’. It what we know, we should have sight is not highly classified information. If of what it knows, so that we can have that is a way around Alex’s concerns, we a proper conversation. That would be can do that. However, a bartering session a fair outcome. The parallel process with OFMDFM would not be a useful way is meant to stack up; there is meant of spending the Committee’s time. If to be sharing to facilitate a better nothing else, taking the attitude of “you understanding of where things are. That show us, and we will show you” is is the basis on which we should share immature politics. There are a number information with OFMDFM. of ways to move the debate on. The important thing is to get OFMDFM and 2391. Having said all that, I do not know that the Finance Minister before the we should share at all. If there were an Committee to discuss the issue of finance. inquiry by another Committee, would that Committee share some of its draft 2394. Mr McFarland: I am a great defender report with a Minister if that Minister of Committees and their rights, but I was to be called to give evidence to that think that Alex is not quite on the ball inquiry? I think not. The Committee on this issue. The idea that Committee might indicate the terms of reference or members from Sinn Féin, the DUP, or provide a list of questions that the any party will not share the Committee’s Minister might be asked, but it would findings with their Ministers, albeit
230 Minutes of Evidence — 26 May 2009
illegally, before those findings are through the Chairperson and Deputy presented on the Floor of the House, is Chairperson. not realistic. 2403. The Chairperson: There is no meeting 2395. We are in a unique position: the next week anyway. We have still not devolution of policing and justice is received an indication from the First the last brick in the wall of the Belfast Minister and the deputy First Minister. Agreement. This is a unique Committee; We have received one only from the it is not a departmental Committee. Finance Minister. We agreed earlier that we would check their availability for 9 2396. However, Alex does have a point: if we June 2009. are going to share — and I believe that we should — it is not unreasonable to 2404. Are members happy enough that the ask them to give us a heads-up as to Deputy Chairperson and I share some where they are in their discussion so of that information and indicate to them that we can have a better conversation that it would be helpful if they could with them when they appear here. advise us as to the position of their discussions with the Treasury? Perhaps 2397. I am aware that there is no precedent the Finance Minister could give us some for doing so and that they have been indication as to what is happening with obstructive all along. However, if we are Heywood. It was made clear to us at an going to share, and in order to have a earlier stage that DFP was involved in proper conversation, it would be sensible that discussion. to find out what discussions the Finance Minister and OFMDFM have had. 2405. Mr McFarland: That would be useful, Chairperson. 2398. My understanding from another meeting that party leaders had is that there has 2406. The Chairperson: Given Alan’s indication been little agreement with the Treasury. of the party leaders’ meeting and that It will almost certainly come down to a discussions with the Treasury were negotiation with the Prime Minister. difficult, are members happy enough Therefore, we will probably not get a that we receive some verbal indication great deal of information from them. as to the position of those discussions? However, they must have discussed that Members indicated assent. issue, and it would be useful if they could share those details with us at the same 2407. The Chairperson: Thank you very much, time that we are sharing with them. Victor. I am sorry that you had to sit through all that discussion. 2399. The Chairperson: I am happy either way. What is the Committee’s view? We will now review the outstanding issues on the devolution of policing and 2400. Mr Attwood: I do not want to be justice. I declare that I am a member of unhelpful. However, I will be difficult. the Northern Ireland Policing Board. If 2401. The Chairperson: We have had a fair no other members have any interests to discussion on the matter. declare, we will move on to the category two list of issues. Rather than my 2402. Mr Attwood: If we share the Hansard reading out the issues, members should report and the Committee Clerk speaks indicate whether their parties have any to the relevant official in OFMDFM updates on the previous proceedings. about Victor’s paper, I hope that they extend the same courtesy to us by way 2408. Mr Hamilton: I have nothing further to add. of sharing information so that we have 2409. Mr McCartney: I have nothing further to some prior notice about where they add. believe the situation to be. I am relaxed about whether the information is shared 2410. The Chairperson: Mr Attwood, perhaps through the Committee Clerk or, indeed, when your private meeting with Mrs
231 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
Hanna is finished, you could let us know your party’s position.
2411. Mr Attwood: What was the issue?
2412. The Chairperson: Does your party have any updates on the category two list of issues regarding the devolution of policing and justice? While you were having your private meeting, the representatives of the other parties said that they had nothing further to add.
2413. Mr Attwood: We were discussing whether we wanted to share any update with you, but we have decided not to.
2414. The Chairperson: Thank you. As there are no updates, are members content to park those matters?
Members indicated assent.
232 Minutes of Evidence — 9 June 2009
9 June 2009
Members present for all or part of the proceedings: Mr Jimmy Spratt (Chairperson) Mr Raymond McCartney (Deputy Chairperson) Mr Alex Attwood Mr Simon Hamilton Mrs Carmel Hanna Mr Alex Maskey Mr Alan McFarland Mr John O’Dowd
2415. The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): Moving to the devolution of policing and justice matters, I declare an interest as a member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. Do any other members wish to declare any interests?
2416. Mr A Maskey: I am also a member of the Policing Board.
2417. The Chairperson: A number of issues in the category 2 list remain to be clarified. Therefore, before I go through them one by one, I will ask the parties to indicate whether there are any changes from their previous positions.
2418. Mr Hamilton: No.
2419. Mr A Maskey: No change.
2420. Mr McFarland: No.
2421. Mr Attwood: No.
2422. The Chairperson: Given that there is no change, I do not propose to go through the issues for the sake of having a discussion. We discussed issue K, but members will be happy to learn that that was not recorded for the Hansard report.
2423. However, I stress that we need to return to the category 2 issues in the not too distant future, once the Committee has visited other legislatures.
233 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
234 Minutes of Evidence — 23 June 2009
23 June 2009
Members present for all or part of the is higher than in any other part of the proceedings: United Kingdom, was also discussed. The Lord Chancellor listened to the Mr Jimmy Spratt (Chairperson) points that we made about that. He also Mr Raymond McCartney (Deputy Chairperson) made it clear that the Ministry of Justice Mr Alex Attwood was ready to facilitate the transfer of Mr Simon Hamilton justice-related functions at any time. Mr Danny Kennedy Mr Alex Maskey 2427. We appreciate the work that was put Mr Alan McFarland into arranging the meeting, and I thank Mr John O’Dowd the Committee Clerk and his staff who Mr Ian Paisley Jnr facilitated the meetings in both London 2424. The Chairperson (Mr Spratt): On Tuesday and Edinburgh. Committee members 16 June, the Committee travelled to appreciate the work that went into London and had a meeting with the Lord that; those meetings were not easy to Chancellor and Secretary of State for arrange, and quite a few changes had Justice, Jack Straw. The meeting lasted to be made along the way. That covers much longer than had been anticipated, the points that were raised with the and it was a very good and frank Lord Chancellor. Do members have any meeting. A fair amount of information observations to make? came out of it, which will, eventually, 2428. Mr Paisley Jnr: I also thank the officials make its way back to the report. and the Committee Clerk in particular. I 2425. We discussed rubbing points in relation was only there for the London meeting, to the listing of cases. The Lord but it was beneficial because of Jack Chancellor explained that cases are to Straw’s complete candour and the fact go to court and are then taken off the that he was so open with Committee list at short notice, and he talked about members. I am sure that the notes that the problems that this creates in the the Committee Clerk and his staff took system. It is a problem that exists in all on the relationship and balance that the jurisdictions. We discussed that has to be struck between the Executive problem and the working relationships and the judiciary, and how to get that that are required between the Attorney balance right, will give us an incredible General, the Home Secretary and the insight into how the job is done and Justice Committee. We had a frank how the Department is run. The issue discussion about that, and the Lord of fees was set out in an accurate, yet Chancellor offered various pieces of colourful, way. The meeting that we advice. had with the Justice Committee later in the day was also beneficial, because 2426. The Lord Chancellor talked about his it gave us a useful insight into how workload when something goes wrong in the Committee can stay on course the system. He made it clear that if that with its own issues instead of getting happens, it is important that he takes waylaid and sidetracked by irrelevant responsibility for it. He indicated that issues. Perhaps that is a lesson for our that is the way that anyone in charge of Committees. It was a worthwhile effort. justice should approach the job. He was very frank about that. There was also a 2429. Mr Kennedy: I thought that the meeting discussion about high-cost cases, which with Jack Straw was insightful and have implications for the financing of useful. He talked about getting involved the justice system. The cost of the legal in individual cases, and about how it aid system in Northern Ireland, which was necessary to have separation.
235 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
Jack Straw is clearly in control of his all of the policing issues. It was a good brief; therefore, it was important to take meeting. the opportunity to meet him. I thank the Committee Clerk and his staff for 2434. We then met the Justice Committee in arranging those meetings. Edinburgh, and discussed issues around legislation and new laws that were going 2430. The Chairperson: As Ian said, we had through. There was so much work in the a meeting with the Justice Committee, beginning that two Committees were which was chaired by Sir Alan Beith. formed in Scotland to deal with that He and the Committee members volume, because it was impossible to be highlighted the sensitivities that exist proactive given the amount of work that between Parliament, the Attorney they needed to get through. General and the prosecution service with regard to independence and the 2435. The Committee made a very helpful slide Attorney General’s accountability for the presentation that explained the whole prosecution service. There was a frank justice system. We picked up on that at discussion around that area, and they a very early stage, and the Committee were very willing to offer advice. They Clerk has been tasked with doing the had quite a number of papers, which same thing here. Sometimes, there the secretariat now has. I assume that are so many strands within the justice some of those will be part and parcel system that it is difficult to understand of the report. The Committee also where you are with various bits and answered questions, which we found to pieces in the Northern Ireland system. be very helpful. That presentation is being prepared and will be shared with members as soon as 2431. We travelled to Edinburgh on Wednesday it is sorted out. morning — 2436. We had two sessions with the Justice 2432. Mr Paisley Jnr: Sorry to interrupt, Chair, Committee, one in the afternoon and but I think that an interesting point had one in the evening. Those sessions were been lost, in that the Westminster very worthwhile, and a lot of questions Committee has responsibility for justice and issues were discussed that were of issues in Northern Ireland, yet it has not mutual benefit. The following morning, explored many of the interesting things we had a discussion with the Solicitor that have arisen recently. For example, General for Scotland, Frank Mulholland. even since we have been sitting, the He took time out of his busy schedule, Ombudsman’s report into deaths in and gave us considerably more time that prison custody has taken place, yet such had been allocated. He is in the Lord investigation would normally be right up Advocate’s Office, which is separate street of that Committee. The Committee from the Parliament, although they sit on members recognise that there has the Executive. perhaps been a bit of a gap in the work that they could have been doing. 2437. The Committee Clerk: They are Ministers, but they do not take their place in the 2433. The Chairperson: The Committees in Cabinet under the Government arrange London and Edinburgh were at pains to ments this time around. point out the volume of legislation that has to go through a justice Committee. 2438. The Chairperson: They answer questions That debars them from doing essential from the Government Front Bench in work that they might want to do with relation to some justice issues and the police service and within the can make ministerial statements justice system. Some of the other work to the Scottish Parliament. That is that they feel they should be doing, done infrequently; it is not a regular scrutinising various issues within the exercise that is conducted, particularly justice system and the police service, making statements. Those would be on actually falls by the way, although the serious issues of major importance to Home Secretary in London deals with Scotland. They can also open debates
236 Minutes of Evidence — 23 June 2009
on legislation in the Scottish Parliament. particularly useful, as it has a very good Therefore, the Solicitor General may approach to issues. We could learn well open the debate on a piece of much from them, and regular contact legislation, dealing with the professional would be useful. elements from a totally legal stance. They also provide the Government with 2443. The Chairperson: Do members have any confidential legal advice that is not questions? We proceed to the devolution published. of policing and justice. I declare an interest as a member of the Northern 2439. We had an interesting, frank and free Ireland Policing Board. meeting with the Minister for Justice, Kenny MacAskill. He told us that it was 2444. Mr Paisley Jnr: I am a member of the important to get the structures right. Policing Board. They take a pragmatic approach with the 2445. The Chairperson: We move to the police and the authorities. The Scottish category 2 list of issues. Before I go Parliament are more in favour of giving through the issues, has there been advice and warnings to prisoners, as movement on any of them? opposed to making arrests, etc. They acknowledge that Scotland is a small 2446. Mr Hamilton: No. place and that it is inevitable that, as with Northern Ireland, people will know 2447. Mr O’Dowd: No. one other. However, Mr MacAskill was at 2448. Mr Paisley Jnr: Considering that we are pains to point out that, from a Minister’s, the Lord Advocate’s and an MSP’s meeting the First Minister and deputy point of view, it was important that First Minister on 29 June, it might be they respected one other’s roles and useful to inform them, by letter or by that there should not be any lobbying head, that there are a couple of areas or questioning on specific issues. They in which we have not made significant meet socially on occasions, but that is progress, and ask them to comment on part and parcel of everyday life, given those issues. the nature of Scotland being a much 2449. The Chairperson: I will come to that. smaller place. However, they were able Does anyone else want to declare an to work that professionally without it interest? impinging on anyone’s professionalism. 2450. Mr A Maskey: I am a member of the 2440. Mr MacAskill was at pains to point out Policing Board. that it is absolutely necessary to have, and make use of, efficient resources 2451. The Chairperson: We have received as regards budgets and everything else the DUP and Sinn Féin positions. What within the systems, and one needs about the Ulster Unionists and the to do that continually, along with the SDLP? systems in the police service. There are eight chief constables in Scotland, and 2452. Mr McFarland: There have not been any the Minister for Justice meets regularly changes since our previous discussions. with the chief constables of the various 2453. Mr Attwood: We have no further forces. comments. 2441. Mr MacAskill was adamant that the 2454. The Chairperson: I am keen that we prison service should be staffed by have a discussion prior to the next public-sector employees and that there meeting, as has been suggested. It is should be no privatisation of the staffing of prisons within the Scottish system. important that we go through the list. He was open to receiving questions and I intend to go through the entire list it was a worthwhile meeting. during the public session of the next meeting; I do not intend to do it today. I 2442. Mr Kennedy: The meeting with the want colleagues to provide updates on Scottish Justice Committee was the outstanding issues.
237 Second Report on the Arrangements for the Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters – Volume Two
2455. Item 6 on the agenda relates to the differentiated from other elements, and financial implications of the devolution those elements can be heard in public. of policing and justice matters. In keeping with arrangements for a similar meeting 2460. The Chairperson: My understanding last autumn, for which the Committee is that the Committee agreed with agreed that Hansard would not be the Ministers that the meeting will be required, the meeting will be held in in closed session. The main issues closed session. Are members content? for discussion are financial issues. However, if there are other issues Members indicated assent. and there were agreement, the public could be facilitated. However, the 2456. The Chairperson: I confirm that the financial issues are the main issues for meeting will begin at 11.00 am and that discussion with the First Minister, the the specialist adviser will be available deputy First Minister and the Finance for a brief discussion with the Committee Minister. before the First Minister and deputy First Minister arrive. We understand that the 2461. Mr Attwood: — [Interruption.] Finance Minister will join us at 11.30 am. We do not yet know how long the 2462. The Chairperson: Let me finish. I will Ministers will be able to stay with us, be happy to have a discussion on the but we will remain in closed session for matter at the end, rather than doing it as long as they are able to be with us. piecemeal. It might be easier to do it We will try to confirm the times to that way, because we might cover some facilitate anyone who wishes to be in the of the points that you want to raise. public gallery for the public session. 2463. The First Minister and the deputy First 2457. Ministerial officials will attend with Minister were invited to supply a paper the respective Ministers, as is normal on their involvement in discussions on practice. Are members content? the devolution of policing and justice by 25 June 2009, in time for inclusion Members indicated assent. in the pack, which will be issued to members on 29 June 2009. That is still 2458. Mr Attwood: I return to the issue of the position, and we expect to get a whether the meeting should be held in paper. The Secretary of State was also public or private session. I recall the invited to comment on the emerging discussion on the previous occasion. findings of the special adviser by 25 2459. It seems to me that part of the meeting June 2009. Again, that paper is due for should be in public. I appreciate that inclusion in the pack for the meeting on we should be in private session when 29 June 2009. I anticipate that after the the Finance Minister attends for the special adviser’s presentation, there will financial part of the meeting. It is very be scope for discussions and questions welcome that he is attending, because it with the First Minister and the deputy will give us a much better idea about the First Minister in relation to the paper. comparison between the Committee’s The paper had gone to members, and I financial assessments and those of the must say that I am most disappointed Executive. However, the First Minister that a confidential paper has been and the deputy First Minister appeared leaked to the press at some point. before the Committee in November Yesterday evening, a journalist held up 2008, and there was a fanfare about a copy of the paper, which is a working their proposals, but it is now seven paper: I did not see it but I understand months later. In November, they outlined it to be the case. In fact, information a 37-step process in their proposals, in the paper has now been clarified, and the wider community, as well as and figures in it have now changed. the Committee, will be interested in Therefore, it is most unhelpful that such hearing some of that. Therefore, certain papers are leaked to the press. There sections of what we discuss can be will be an updated paper, which changes
238 Minutes of Evidence — 23 June 2009
figures, and that will be available to on the Chairperson’s part about that, members prior to next week’s meeting. particularly as he indicated that we need to return to those issues and 2464. I am sure that we can ask the First discuss them further, presumably next Minister and the deputy First Minister week. However, given that we have been about the other issues. However, first, treading water on a number of important we have to find out about timings and matters and part of the reason for about their availability. They indicated, at that — which Alan articulates better the meeting that the Deputy Chairperson than me — has been that other people and I had with them, that they will be might have greater influence than prepared to answer questions on some the Committee in determining those of the other issues. Therefore, we will matters, it seems appropriate to ask raise the issues that you highlighted, OFMDFM questions about the particular Mr Attwood, when we are clarifying the matters that have been lying unresolved timings with them. Is that OK? on the table for months.
2465. Mr Attwood: That is useful clarification. 2469. The C