I welcome the opportunity to speak as Chairperson of the Committee for Justice, and I declare that a member of my immediate family works in the legal profession.

The permanent secretary of the Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime, the Law Society, the Bar of Northern Ireland, the Lady Chief Justice, the Probation Board, the Chief Constable of the PSNI, the Courts and Tribunals Service and the Public Prosecution Service are just some of the people and organisations from whom the Committee for Justice has heard since the return of the Assembly. One common theme was apparent throughout the evidence sessions: budgetary constraints are having a massive impact on the ability of justice sector organisations to deliver vital, essential services.

On 13 June, the Committee received an oral briefing from departmental officials on budget 2024-25. During that briefing, the Committee was informed that the Executive had around £1 billion to put towards pressures of £3 billion. We were told that the Department of Justice had been allocated 9·9% of the available amount, despite its pressures representing 14% of the pressures across the block. That is of concern, especially because, as I said in previous financial debates and as is evident from the Bill, the vast majority of the Department's budget is demand-led. It is taken up by the PSNI, the Prison Service, the Courts and Tribunals Service and through legal aid spend. As a result, there is little, if any, scope to reduce spend without impacting severely on the delivery of vital services.

That message was reinforced to us by the permanent secretary during the briefing on 13 June. He stated:

"Without additional funding ... there is real potential for lasting damage to the justice system".

At the same briefing, a senior departmental official informed the Committee that, under the current Budget settlement, the Department will be facing pressures of £349 million, which, we were told:

"broadly equates to the combined spend across prisons, the Courts and Tribunals Service, legal aid and the core Department".

Such sentiments echo what the Committee has been told in various evidence sessions with justice-sector stakeholders. We have heard many times, for example, that front-line police officers spend a great deal of time, sometimes entire shifts, dealing with people who have mental health issues. There is no doubt that such people would be much better served by mental health professionals. For various reasons, however, it is often the police who are called.

Indeed, we were advised by the Chief Constable that the PSNI is undertaking 500 ambulance calls a month. This is at a time when police officer numbers are at an all-time low of under 6,400, when the recommended number in the New Decade, New Approach agreement is 7,500. The current numbers are clearly unsustainable.

During an evidence session with Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI), the Committee was told that the CJINI budget has decreased by almost 10% in 10 years and:

"if the budget remains similar to what it is at the moment, we will not be able to do a prison inspection in 2025."

That is most concerning, especially given the fact that the prison population continues to increase at the same time, as there are ongoing issues with prison officer numbers. As I have said in previous financial debates, the current staffing levels are for a prison population of 1,450 prisoners, yet there are more than 1,900 people in custody at present, and that number continues to increase.

It is a similar story for victims of crime. During an evidence session with the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime, the Committee was told:

"Despite our numerous strategies and fine words, the sad reality is that, when the system is stretched and staff and budgets are under pressure, it is victim care that suffers."

Again, it is deeply concerning that victims of crime are suffering because of the financial situation.

Likewise, during an evidence session with the Law Society and the Bar of Northern Ireland, the Committee was told that slowing down the payment of legal aid fees as a budget management tool has forced professionals to leave the Bar or firms to shift from doing legal aid work. Indeed, it may result in the closure of firms. In no other area of work would a 12- to 16-week payment delay be acceptable for work that is sometimes carried out up to a year previously. We were informed that that disproportionately affects younger professionals and women and that it could threaten access to justice for many across Northern Ireland.

When briefing the Committee, the Lady Chief Justice, Dame Siobhan Keegan, in reference to the Department's budget, stated:

"there is now a significant risk to the ability to deliver services to support the administration of justice, which will have ramifications ... for the provision of fair and expeditious justice for citizens."

In an evidence session with the Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI), it was highlighted to us how important a partner for the board the community and voluntary sector is. It was stated, however, that, owing to the lack of a multi-year budget, organisations in that sector reach what was described as a "cliff edge" every six months.

The lack of multi-year budgets was another key theme during various evidence sessions. We recently heard from the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) that its budget has not been increased in line with the increased demand for its services. For example, we were told that the impact of new legislation to tackle coercive and controlling behaviour, stalking and non-fatal strangulation has, without an increase in funding, led to more delays in the system. That is unfair on already traumatised complainants, and we were advised that workloads for PPS staff have become intolerable.

As I said at the beginning, it is clear that financial constraints are having a massive effect on justice-sector organisations. Department of Justice officials painted a pretty bleak picture, based on the budget allocations.

The Committee does not, however, see its role as simply being to hold evidence sessions and then come to the Chamber to cheerlead on behalf of the Department. We are determined to consider ways in which the system and service delivery can be improved. That is why, for example, the Committee has commissioned the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe) to conduct a piece of research into the interaction between mental health services and the justice sector. That may well highlight areas in which greater collaboration may be necessary or, indeed, identify areas of duplication in services. Furthermore, the Committee hopes to hold a concurrent meeting with the Committee for Health in the next parliamentary session after recess in an effort to consider areas of collaborative working. Hopefully, we will be in a position to update the Assembly on that work in due course.

The £35 million in additional funds that was announced yesterday is undoubtedly welcome, but, as a result of timing, the Committee has yet to learn where and how it will be allocated and prioritised.

From the DUP's perspective, the worries and pressures raised by stakeholders in the sector with regard to the impact on essential services are shared by the Democratic Unionist Party. We are strong believers in law and order and a justice system that is blind and fair for all who find themselves dealing with it. We have lobbied to ensure better and more efficient services for those who come into contact with it in any way. DUP members on the Committee are exceedingly and increasingly concerned about the extent to which Justice stakeholders are alleviating the pressures that should, in reality, properly be borne by Health. That is not sustainable and is far from ideal given the nature of some of the issues at hand. We are far removed from the right person, right care scenario, and the fact that justice is becoming a first resort rather than the last should be of concern to all. The repercussions are not to be taken lightly. It does not merely impact on the person in crisis; there is a consequence for those who witness and have to address grave and difficult situations for which they are neither trained nor equipped. Thus far, we have been unable to fully grasp the extent to which people are put through the justice system when it is neither the right nor the best place for them. I am therefore glad that the Committee agreed to my request to inquire into the matter, and I look forward to exploring and understanding the issues more fully.

Whilst it is right that there should be cooperation and collaboration, it must be strategic and not reactionary. To do otherwise is not always in the best interests of the individual or the person providing the service. On learning from the tackling paramilitarism programme that no single Department even holds a list of all the strategies in Northern Ireland, many of which duplicate each other on cross-cutting subjects, I have repeatedly sought to establish the extent of strategic cooperation and even discussion at ministerial level between the Departments of Health and Justice and at the highest levels in each of those Departments, thus far without success. We have certainly been furnished with lists of ongoing collaborative work, some of which has been under way for a number of years, which is valuable and helpful. However, given the current budgetary status, surely now is the time to refresh the thinking and see what more those Departments can do collaboratively, as they are increasingly interdependent.

We touched on the issue earlier, but I would be remiss were I not to mention press speculation that the Minister is "minded to appeal" Mr Justice Humphreys's recent ruling. On Thursday, the Committee was advised that a decision had not yet been taken, and the Minister confirmed that today in the House. As the matter has been sub judice, we have not discussed it in full. Many current members did not sit as part of the predecessor Committee and are not fully au fait with all the considerations. Speaking on the subject the last time that there was a question for urgent oral answer, I expressed my view that this was a matter of reputational damage for the Minister, her Department and the House. It is now becoming something of a festering wound as we await the decision.

In the aftermath, the Committee will undoubtedly seek to establish what went wrong and how for the Department, the Committee and the House, because there are lessons to learn for all. For now, I will say: when you are in a hole, stop digging. The law has been struck down, and we must weigh up the issues and whether a challenge involving significant amounts of public money is of merit and likely to succeed at a time of essential services being cut to the bone. We are in politics, and none of us likes to be wrong or face criticism, but wisdom and good stewardship are essential. Before there is any doubling down and spending of money that could be used for front-line essential services, the question must be asked, as I asked: is the principle worth it? Is it of greater merit than simply spending money on existing need?

Finally, I will move away from the subject of justice and on to an issue of significance in my constituency: the proposed closure of Belfast Met's Castlereagh campus, or Castlereagh college, as it is known locally. I will not rehearse the arguments that I cited in the Adjournment debate that I secured a few weeks ago, except to reiterate the utter folly and lack of vision of such a proposal. I suggest again that it sends a poor message to inward investors. It begs the question of whether Northern Ireland is really open for business. It flies in the face of the 10X strategy and ill serves those whose skills should be developed and valued just as much as an academic route for education. Moreover, I submit that it is an appalling measure to suggest in that particular area, given the glut of reports that promise to tackle the educational underachievement of working-class Protestant boys and the provision of opportunities for them.

I have heard Minister Murphy say that it is a matter for the Met. In the short term, it may well be, but, in the bigger, long-term picture, to even consider shutting down the college at a time such as this means that it is an issue for Northern Ireland plc and the rebalancing of jobs and the economy. Again, for the good of Northern Ireland, East Belfast and my constituents, I implore the Department for the Economy to step up and step in to prevent such a short-sighted, discriminatory and ill-conceived scheme, and to bid for the money necessary to secure the campus's future.

That having been said, we support the Bill.