Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): I welcome Trása Canavan, senior policy and public affairs lead at Barnardo's; and Orlaith McGibbon, chair of the British Association of Social Workers (BASW) UK Independents' Committee. A warm welcome to the Committee. Thanks very much. I will allow Trása to go first, if that is OK, Orlaith? [Inaudible.]

Ms Trása Canavan (Barnardo's Northern Ireland): We have a plan. [Laughter.]

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): You are flexible. Orlaith will introduce herself first, give an overview and then take comments, questions or queries, and then it will be over to you, Trása. Thanks very much, Orlaith.

Ms McGibbon: Thank you, everyone. Good afternoon, Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to present to the Committee today on the Justice Bill. I will represent the views of BASW Northern Ireland and share my experience as a social worker in the youth justice system.

BASW Northern Ireland is part of the British Association of Social Workers, which is the largest professional body for social workers in the UK. It has 22,000 members employed in front-line management, academic and research positions in all care settings, including probation and youth justice. I am an independent social worker, but I was formerly the chair of BASW Northern Ireland, and I am the current chair of the BASW UK Independents' Committee. I have been a social worker for almost 30 years. I have worked as a probation officer, a youth justice coordinator and assistant director and director of policy for the Youth Justice Agency.

I have worked internationally and have extensive experience in New Zealand, the Middle East and eastern Europe, where I practised and provided training for criminal justice professionals. Mostly notably, from 2022 to 2024, I provided training for social work professionals, police and prosecutors in the Kingdom of Bahrain on the implementation of the Promulgating the Restorative Justice Law for Children and their Protection from Maltreatment.

As Committee members are aware, the Justice Bill is detailed and large in scope. In line with BASW Northern Ireland's written evidence, I plan to speak about the Bill's provisions in relation to the retention of biometric data for under-18s and bail and custody arrangements for under-18s. I am also keen to outline why BASW Northern Ireland supports raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 14. I aim to keep the opening statement short, and I look forward to your questions.

I will start with biometric testing. BASW Northern Ireland welcomes the Justice Bill's focus on the retention of biometric data. However, there remains some way to go. The association is particularly concerned that, in the case of young people aged under 18, data can be retained for five years following the commission of a first minor offence and for 25 years following a second offence. It is vital that consideration is given to what constitutes a non-serious/minor offence. For example, there is a danger that children living in residential care settings who cause damage to residential homes receive convictions and a criminal record as a result. That outcome is unlikely to be replicated in situations where a child living with their family causes damage to the family home. Often, children in the care system have experienced adverse childhood experiences, disadvantage and trauma. Offences of damage to property or assault in those settings are often born out of trauma, and retaining biometrics will see many such children into adulthood feeling labelled by the fact that the state, which was unable to protect them, now views them as a future offender.

BASW Northern Ireland welcomes the focus of the provisions for bail and custody for under-18s, especially given that the Bill ensures that, following sentencing, young people under the age of 18 can be held only in a juvenile justice centre. However, there remain factors to consider concerning the arrangements that will determine when a child is moved to a young offenders centre (YOC) following their eighteenth birthday. Allowances need to be made when a young person is due for release shortly after turning 18. There is significant potential for disruption associated with such a move, particularly when positive work has been completed in the juvenile justice centre in preparation for release.

It is essential that new custody supervision orders ensure that all necessary opportunities are afforded for practitioners to work with the child, their family and their community in order to support them and avoid a return to custody. That is needed to address the situation, often referred to in our profession as the "revolving door syndrome", in which, shockingly, young people return to custody, in some cases to access care, having deliberately committed offences to achieve a return to a place of safety.

BASW Northern Ireland is concerned that the Bill does not go far enough to legislate for alternative bail accommodation for young people under the age of 18. It is vital that early intervention approaches inform the support provided to children and young people on bail, including the provision of bail fostering or beds in safe facilities. In many cases, children and young people who offend have social needs that have not been fulfilled, which has led to their involvement with the criminal justice system.

BASW Northern Ireland supports raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 14 in line with the recommendations of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). I mentioned the legislation that was introduced in the Kingdom of Bahrain, which raised the age of criminal responsibility to 15. That is a huge departure for the country and a significant step forward in protecting children's rights. BASW Northern Ireland recognises that the Justice Bill does not address raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility but would support a rise to 14 years of age via an amendment to the legislation.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): Thanks very much. I said that I would take questions, Orlaith, but I will hold on to the end to do that, because the issues will be pretty similar, so you can decide between yourselves who will respond. I will hand over to you, Trása, to present from Barnardo's perspective.

Ms Canavan: Thanks to the Committee for having us here. My name is Trása. As Deirdre said, I am the senior policy and public affairs lead for Barnardo's Northern Ireland. We are the largest children's charity in Northern Ireland. Over the past year, we worked with approximately 18,000 children, young people and families in about 40 services across Northern Ireland. Our services range from providing family support and early intervention to working directly with children and families who have experienced adversity and need our support. The evidence that we submitted to the Committee in writing and that I will share at the meeting today has been informed by that work.

We welcome the Justice Bill and the Committee's scrutiny of it. The Bill presents an important opportunity to amend Northern Ireland's legislation to provide further protections for children. I will speak specifically about additional amendments that Barnardo's Northern Ireland would like to see made to the Bill. We strongly encourage the Committee to consider amendments to the Bill that relate to equal protection and the minimum age of criminal responsibility.

An equal protection amendment, which is sometimes referred to as a "smacking ban", would provide children with the same protections from assault as adults. In Northern Ireland, a parent or someone who is caring for or in charge of a child currently has a defence in law for using physical punishment against that child. That means that children are afforded less protection from assault than adults, for whom no such defence exists.

Legislative steps have been taken in Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland to ensure that children have the same protection from assault as adults, and MPs in Westminster are currently considering amendments to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill to provide children in England with that protection. It is vital that children in Northern Ireland are afforded the same protection as their peers elsewhere in the UK and Ireland, and the Justice Bill provides the opportunity for our Assembly to provide that legislative protection for our children.

The second amendment that we recommend would raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility in Northern Ireland. As Orlaith said, the current age of criminal responsibility here is 10 years old, which is one of the lowest in Europe. We have been waiting for this change in Northern Ireland for a long time. In fact, over a decade ago, 'A Review of the Youth Justice System in Northern Ireland' highlighted the need for fundamental change in many areas of the youth justice system, including highlighting the importance of raising the age of criminal responsibility. The impact on children, families and communities of criminalising children from such a young age can be lifelong and have ripple effects beyond any one incident. Alongside raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility, Barnardo's Northern Ireland recommends examining the support that we provide to children who come into contact with the youth justice system and how we need to rethink and reshape our approach.

We welcome the opportunity to discuss our recommended amendments with Committee in more detail and will be happy to answer any questions that members have.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): Thank you very much for that. The session is being recorded by Hansard, so there will be an official record.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you very much for your presentations. I hear the concerns about the need for greater focus on the well-being and rehabilitation rather than the criminalisation of our young people. Can you provide any further detail from your experience of the types of programme that could positively impact on children who are in that situation? Are there any examples from other jurisdictions that we should consider?

Ms Canavan: Is that around the minimum age of criminal responsibility or working with children?

Ms Ferguson: Working with children on rehabilitation.

Ms McGibbon: I referred to Bahrain. We took a lot of the good programmes that we have here and brought them out there. In my briefing paper, I raised a query about the opportunity for a child to have a "circle of support". It is not just about the programmes that a child is asked to complete, and often will complete, but whether any change comes out of that. My suggestion is that, following those programmes, every child should have a circle of support. That would be a group of people that holds the child accountable for their behaviour but with the child very much at the centre. We can see that a child's finishing a period of time with the Youth Justice Agency does not necessarily mean that they are ready to go back out into the world. We do not want to put extra time on their sentence, but they might need a circle of support from the voluntary agencies going forward.

For me, sentencing and placing children in custody addresses some of the problems, but those children need more support because they continue to offend or deliberately commit offences to get back into custody, which is the revolving-door syndrome. Yes, we have the programmes, it is about what we follow up with afterwards. Our programmes are good. They are properly geared to address those issues, and they go across the scope of children's learning needs and communication difficulties, but it is about what happens afterwards. We can take children and work with them, but we cannot always change their home circumstances or where they go back to.

Ms Canavan: One of the key issues is to take as much of it out of the justice system as possible. Delivery in the community and voluntary sector is important, even more so when we talk about early intervention and prevention. We need to address those situations where a child has already gone into the justice system. We would love to prevent children from going into the justice system in the first place, and it picks up on the point about the educational needs.

Information from the Department that shows 69% of prisoners left school aged between 14 and 16 years, and 45% have no qualifications. We can see the link with education, getting in early and making sure the children are getting the right education. Part of that is about language development. Barnardo's does a piece of work to help kids talk, and the project works in communities to help kids with basic language skills from a very early age. We know that will help them in their experience and engagement with education. Again, it links back in so we do not have the pressures on the justice system in the first place. We need to make sure that when we talk about taking pressure off the justice system, we look at both sides: rehabilitation and preventing entry to the youth justice system in the first place.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you. As someone who worked in the community with Barnardo's and a range of organisations, I know it is critical because we have vulnerable young people who have ended up in the criminal justice system through no fault of their own but because of a range of different circumstances. We have some innovative practices, carried out by a range of community organisations that work with the PSNI to give a fuller picture of the current circumstances and issues that need to be weighed up. That needs to be done because we do not want to criminalise our young people. Thank you for emphasising that fact and the early intervention work, which is critically important.

What are your thoughts on holding data for five years for one offence? The second offence is 25 years. What are your thoughts?

Ms McGibbon: I referred to children in care, particularly on that issue, but children make mistakes. It might be a one-off offence, and families may circle around and support those children and we never see them again, but we are holding their biometric data and that does not sit comfortably with me. It could be my child; we do not know. We are trying to motivate and inspire the children in care homes to find a better life. They already feel downtrodden about themselves, and they will know that data is held about them and they have been labelled as an offender. Children seeking a clean slate at 18 was mentioned earlier, yet their data could be held beyond that age. What are we saying about that? I do not know the answer. I was shocked to read about the biometric data proposals. I welcome that we are moving forward with what we do with biometric data, but we have some way to go on what we maintain on children who may have committed a minor offence and what a minor offence is.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): As part of the call for evidence, we will look for ways to engage with children and young people and organisations such as the Voice of Young People in Care (VOYPIC) to get the experience of children and young people in care. We hope to do that over the next couple of months. We will look at any further written submissions in detail, and the Committee is doing a specific piece of work because some of the changes are due to judgements from the European Court of Human Rights. We just want to make sure that they are compliant, so we have been doing scoping of their compatibility with rights and, I suppose, the issue of what is proportionate and what is not. We will continue to do that, so if there is any further information that you want to provide, we are keen to have it.

Ms Egan: Thank you so much, Trása and Orlaith, for coming in. I really appreciate your contribution. Orlaith, you mentioned that raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 14 is in line with the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. I do not want to pit you against each other, but Trása said that it should be 16. Could you explain the rationale for that? Given that you are asking the Committee to bring an amendment but there are two different ages in front of us, it would be good to have the information that both of you have and the rationale behind the asks.

Ms Canavan: The first thing to say is that we are definitely not pitted against each other. We both completely agree that it needs to be raised and that 10 is much too low. The UN Committee recommended that it should be raised to at least 14 but said that they commend state parties that have a higher minimum age, for example, 15 or 16. Barnardo's takes the position that we should strive for the best for our children and young people in Northern Ireland, so that is why we recommend 16. If we got to 14, we would not be heartbroken and we would still be able to advocate for change to 16, so we are definitely not going to get into a to and fro over the exact number, but raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility is key. As the UN says, it needs to be at least 14, but, if we can do better, why not?

Ms Egan: Thanks for that. That is really helpful. The age definitely needs raised, and 10 seems very low. It should be 14 or 16, so more information on that is useful.

That is my only question. Thank you very much.

Ms Canavan: We are happy to provide further information on that throughout the Committee's consideration of the Bill.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): It has been raised. Obviously, we have the Bill in front of us, and that is not in it. The Bill has to be approved by the Executive in order to be tabled, so the issue is likely to come up again. When I queried it with Department officials, I was told that this is the Bill that you would do it in. At some point, it will come up, and there will be different views, so it is good to get an indication of what you are saying.

Ms Dolan: Thank you, Trása and Orlaith, for your presentations and written submissions. They are really useful and interesting.

My questions are for Orlaith. Orlaith, do there need to be clear criteria developed by the Department for when an 18-year-old is due to move from a juvenile justice centre? What needs to be considered and included in that?

Ms McGibbon: Jemma, a few years ago, probably around 2014, an arrangement was made between the Youth Justice Agency and the YOC in relation to 17-year-olds. There was an arrangement about when children could stay in the juvenile justice centre, because they automatically should have been moved over to the young offenders centre. The arrangement contained some flexibility. For example, if someone was aged 17 and a few months at that time, why would you disrupt the really good work and the support that you had developed with that young person in the juvenile justice centre, who would get support when they leave, and, instead, make them go to the young offenders centre, where they would be exposed to a different range of people, offending and all those things? They are somewhat protected in the juvenile justice centre. We need to look at that.

Does that change have to be made on their eighteenth birthday, or is there some flexibility that both centres can come to an arrangement based on, perhaps, the child, their behaviour, their maturity and how well they are progressing in their sentence? That could inform whether you want to move them to the young offenders centre.

Ms Dolan: It could be done more on a case-by-case basis, Orlaith.

Ms McGibbon: Possibly, yes. I think that the numbers will be quite low anyway for that, but it needs to be a case-by-case consideration.

Ms Dolan: OK. I have another question. You briefly touched on this in your presentation. You said that the Bill does not go far enough to legislate for alternative bail accommodation for young people. Could you outline what alternatives you envisage?

Ms McGibbon: The Southern Health and Social Care Trust offers bail fostering placements, but, as far as I am aware, that does not go across any of the other trusts at this time.

Those placements prevent a child going to the juvenile justice centre under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) provisions or whatever it may be. They go to a bail fosterer. They are in a home environment but are away from family. If the issue is with the family or there has been an offence against the family, that placement keeps everyone safe and provides an opportunity for the situation to calm down. If an offence is committed, the child goes to court and is given bail the next day, so rather than being bailed back to an institution, they could go back to the fostering placement, if and when it is available, or to some sort of organisation that could be set up to house them with a view to building family relations again. Often when parents refuse to take the child home on bail, it is because they are so tired of everything that has been going on and they just need a break. That could be done for a few days with the right support. It is not just about providing the placement; it is about providing the supports so that we do not see the child appear again.

Again, way back, there were moves by the then Health and Social Care Board to provide beds that were specifically for bailed children in some of its placements for young people. I went off to New Zealand and other places for a while, so I did not know what was going on, but from what I understand in catching up, that move did not materialise. There have been thoughts about it, and people out there support it, but it has not progressed.

Ms Dolan: Thank you. That is really interesting. I imagine that it would not be a huge thing to implement, but it would definitely make changes. Thank you very much for that, Orlaith and Trása.

Mr Bradley: Thank you very much for your presentation. Raising the age of responsibility to 16 has already been mentioned. Maybe you could split the difference and settle on 15. Do you think that raising the age of criminal responsibility would have an impact on the justice system's caseload — sorry, I have a tooth missing — and on the Youth Service? Do you think that the community and voluntary sector has a role to play in rehabilitating young people?

Ms McGibbon: From the age of 10, children are already being referred to voluntary agencies to potentially try to implement that early intervention plan. Yes, children already receive that service from the age of 10 or maybe younger. Our family support hubs and all those organisations are possibly already looking at children who come to the attention of the police but who are not being made criminally responsible at that stage. If we raised the age of responsibility, it would allow an opportunity for youth justice specialists to focus on the children on whom we have still not been able to impact from an early intervention point of view. It would allow them to be less stretched in the services that they provide at the early intervention stage and to hone in on the circles of support that I talked about and all those things that could be provided. Yes, it might change it around, but the juvenile justice centre would then work with those at the higher end on whom early intervention has not been able to have an impact. That could be for many reasons, such as family and community and all those things.

The age of criminal responsibility should be 14 so that youth justice can come in with more specialised knowledge, interventions and programmes. When I worked in youth justice, it was typically when they were aged 14 when we started to have concerns about not only children who were involved in continual reoffending with increasing the frequency but the types of offences that they might go on to commit. The youth justice specialists are best placed to deal with that.

Mr Bradley: A lot of people fall into the trap of reoffending. Do you think that enough is being done on social services and housing? Even employment opportunities do not seem to be there for people, because they are stigmatised by having had a period of trouble in their life early on.

Ms McGibbon: Often, the children we work with were known to all those services before they came to youth justice. They may have displayed concerns in education, and they may be known to the trust through a voluntary basis or because their family is involved with the trust. Once children start to become criminal, it is often thought that it will be easier just to put them in the criminal justice system, where we will work with them, whereas there should be joint working. We continue to work with social workers who work with children who are known because they are on child protection registers, for example, but there is greater emphasis on and priority given to the criminal aspect than to the social aspect.

When we assess children, that is all in the mix. We try to understand what is causing them to do what they do. We look at their family, peers and communities to see where the failure has been. You mentioned education. As Trása said, those children often do not complete their education journey. For some reason, attempts to engage them or put them into smaller settings do not work. That is a concern for youth justice, especially if children are out of school, because there are then greater opportunities for them to offend.

Ms Canavan: All our systems are extremely stretched. There is a huge shortage of social workers in the trusts, for example. It is about making sure that, whatever intervention we do, we get in early before problems escalate. That is why diverting from youth justice and doing the community work is so valuable. We not only prevent the harm that offending behaviour causes but reduce the burden that is on our systems.

It is important to remember that, when children display offending behaviour or engage in those activities, it is often because of the adverse childhood experiences that Orlaith talked about or things that have gone on in the family home, whether that is struggles with money, poverty, parental substance misuse or domestic or sexual abuse. We are not looking at a situation where everything is going happily for a child and then, one day, they act out. We are looking at a much broader picture, understanding that and getting in to work with communities. There is fantastic work going on in communities where the whole community rallies around a child or a family. That is so effective at making sure that the community is there, working alongside those families and children.

Mr Bradley: When I was growing up, I knew people who were what I called "wee rascals". They engaged in antisocial behaviour and low-scale criminality. Once they reached a certain age, most of them grew out of that and became model citizens. Do you know what the main driver is? Employment.

Ms Canavan: That is where the link with education can come in. If children are not able to stay in the education system because, for example, they have been criminalised and taken out of their education to be brought into the youth justice system, that is really disruptive. They then go back in, and they have that label. It can be really challenging to then proceed to employment and build a life for yourself. As Orlaith said, it follows you for your whole life, whereas we are saying, "We understand. You are a bit of a rascal, but let's sort this out. Let us keep you in education, keep you in the community and make sure that we can support you so that, when you get to the age when you grow out of it, you can get employment and lead a life". That is what our kids want.

Ms McGibbon: So many of them tell us, "I would not get that job because of what I did in the past". They have a fear about that. Care children already have that lack of confidence and lack of opportunities, and then they have a criminal record as well. It is difficult to navigate.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): It is a really interesting conversation about the fragmented and siloed nature of our system. Like you say, the provisions may be in one trust, but they are not across the trusts. You might have a good community structure and response in one area but not in another. Obviously, we are dealing with complex family make-ups, poverty and all those layers that sit on top of this.

Ms McGibbon: That is why the Jones review is important. It has tried to bring all that together and take a less siloed approach, which we in BASW support.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): That is the case particularly in the identification of early indicators that you talked about, such as speech and language. We know about the impact of, example, the COVID baby era and the speech and language delays that are appearing now. There are indicators at a very young age. It is nearly like trying to develop school places in that you know where you are when the kids are born. In a fragmented, siloed system, they just fall through the net, and that is the danger.

Ms McGibbon: We know that 60% of offenders have a speech, language and communication difficulty. In 2014, we in the Youth Justice Agency undertook a study of that, and that led to the provision of speech and language therapists. We found that 58% of the young people whom we looked at were referred, like you say, Deirdre, way back when they were children but perhaps did not get to the services for all the reasons that we can think of. I know that it has changed a lot now that speech and language therapists are in schools and there are greater opportunities, but it is quite significant that, in 2014, 58% of young people in juvenile justice here in Northern Ireland had speech, language and communication difficulties.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): It is a huge flag, is it not?

Ms McGibbon: Yes.

Mr Beattie: Orlaith and Trása, thank you very much indeed. It is a really interesting and complicated subject, particularly as it relates to speech and language therapies. I led a debate in the Chamber last year on that and on our lack of therapists. It is incredibly important. I am looking for a bit of clarification on a couple of things. Much of it has been already covered in the good questioning by the Committee.

Orlaith, you talked about stigmatisation due to the retention of biometrics. I understand that. I absolutely get it when somebody has to give biometrics — fingerprints, a mouth swab, pictures or whatever. I get that and understand how they can feel under pressure from the justice system, but do they really continue to think about it once it is done, say, five years later? Is it not just something that slips into the background? I cannot see how it continues to stigmatise them over the years after it has been taken in the first place. Where does that line of thought come from?

Ms McGibbon: It goes back to the labelling of young people, Doug. This is one more thing, where they are told, "We're holding your biometrics. Why are we holding your biometrics? Is it because we think you'll come to police attention again?". It may not be at the forefront of their mind, but it is about young people in police stations and all the anxieties that go alongside all that. For me, it is still about saying, "We have concerns about you" or, "We were expecting you, because we already have your biometrics". Yes, I hear what you are saying, but I still think that there is a labelling aspect to all that. It is not just about young people in care. I said today that it could be my child who committed a crime, who made one mistake that I am not happy about or to whom something happened, but I would like them to move on with their life and not have that label attached to them.

Mr Beattie: I get that, Orlaith. I do not disagree with you, in essence. I am trying to understand it. As somebody who left school at 16 and a half with no educational qualifications, I found myself on the wrong side of the law for something very minor and had my biometrics taken, but I did not go through the rest of my youth or my adult life thinking, "Oh my goodness, they are waiting for me to turn up at the door again". I get what you are saying. I just wonder whether that is something for us to worry about, as opposed to its being something that a child is worried about, if you know what I mean. I get your point, and you make it very well.

Trása, you answered really well Connie's question, which I was going to raise, about whether the age of criminal responsibility should be 14, 15 or 16 or when you become a teenager at age 13. That argument will rumble on over the next number of months. That was a good one.

You made a good point about transferring from a youth to an adult facility, Orlaith. Why does the age of 18 have to be a hard stop? Why can it not be a case of saying, "He is in a programme, let's make it 18 and a half". However, would that come up against the case of somebody who was committed to prison or custody and who automatically has to go to an adult prison when they are 18 plus one day? Do you see a conflict there, or would we have to put something definite in place to remove that conflict?

Ms McGibbon: There would have to be arrangements for that. I do not know. As I said, I recall it happening with 17-year-olds, so there was an internal arrangement between the organisations. When I read that it was to be for 18-year-olds, I thought that that was really good but that we could come up against the same issues. They may have that arrangement, but I thought it important to raise it if there were a hard and fast rule that you went on your eighteenth birthday or at some point on that day. We need to expect that to be looked at so that they are not moved just because the legislation states that they must go when they are 18 years old. There could be some clause or flexibility in the legislation or, perhaps, arrangements between organisations, so it might be down to that.

Mr Beattie: That is a fair point. I always try to look at this from the side of the victim as well, with the victim looking at it. It is really important that we do not forget about the victim when we discuss this. Some victims will be saying, "They may have been 17 and a half when they committed the crime, but do you know what? This is the punishment that we would expect".

Thank you very much. It has been a good session.

Ms Canavan: If I may just add a little to that.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): Yes, go ahead.

Ms Canavan: You are spot on to raise the experience of the victims as well. That is crucial, because they are as much a part of the story as anyone else we have talked about. When we are having this conversation about rehabilitation and young people in the justice system, we are hoping for fewer or no more victims. We hope that we can work with a child or young person so that they are able to step away from that kind of activity and do not engage with the youth justice system with the result that there no future victims. That is the aim of all this work. The aim of the justice system is not just punishment or condemning people for what they did; it is about making it so that we do not have as many victims and as much heartache as we do. You are right to point that out and to keep in mind that we are also thinking about potential future victims who we want to prevent that ever happening to.

Ms McGibbon: I will just say something, Doug. Ciara, you asked a question on this earlier. All youth justice work focuses on victims, so the victim is very much at the heart of it. Restorative conferences are run, and victims will go to those meetings, although some will not, to put information forward, and they work to repair the harm etc. Even in the juvenile justice centre, that victim focus still remains. You are accountable for the harm that you caused. That is the harm that was caused not just to the direct victim but to your community and your family. There are multiple victims. That is not meant to take away from the person who was deliberately harmed, but there are wider victims as well.

Mr Beattie: Good answers from you both. Thank you.

Mr Dunne: A lot of ground has been covered, as were a number of the points that I was going to raise. I was keen to get that clarity, but it was covered in the discussion on one of the ages for responsibility being 14 and the other 16. In Scotland it is 12, and I understand that in the Republic it is still 12. How do you think that is working in those two jurisdictions, and what impact has going from seven and 10 had?

Ms Canavan: Scotland's plan was to increase the age in increments, so it went to 12 with a view to increasing it further. They have found that they are a little bit stuck and have not been able to take the necessary steps to be able to increase the age. When we spoke to colleagues in Scotland, they told us that that step-by-step approach was not working and that, in line with UN recommendations, you need to have the age 14 at the very minimum but that it should really be 15 or 16 for best practice. I can see why we look to those other jurisdictions, and it is important to learn the lessons from what has happened there and what has not worked.

Mr Dunne: What is the hard evidence on that from those other European countries? Is the age 16 Portugal, 18 in Luxembourg, 15 in Sweden and 14 in Germany? Are you 100% convinced that, ultimately, people will have the outcomes that we all want to aspire to, such as less crime and fewer young people getting involved in crime?

Ms Canavan: I do not have that information to hand, but I am more than happy to get it and share it with the Committee.

Mr Dunne: Yes, that would be helpful. Thank you, folks.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): Following on from that, you gave the example of Bahrain as well, which will form part of the debate on the issue. There is no doubt about that. You have answered the points about increments, so I want to ask about reviews that are built in. If you were moving in a direction of travel, does the thrust of the Bill move us in that direction, or does it just not have it in at this point? Were caveats or anything built in? For certain offences, were caveats built in for the age increasing, or what way did that work?

Ms McGibbon: No. It raised the age to 15.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): OK.

Ms McGibbon: It was previously eight years of age. That is why it is such a big departure. When Stephen asked about Europe, I did not think that it was right for me to compare Bahrain and its process about how and why young people, at times, are placed in custody. That happens for things that we would not do that for. That is why it is such a huge departure that they went to 15.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): OK. That answers it.

Thank you very much. Nobody else has indicated that they want to ask a question, so I thank you for your time and the submissions and for coming to the Committee today. As I said, we will look at the submissions in a lot more detail. We will soon discuss our call for evidence and when it will go live. Just keep an eye out for that, and, if there is any additional information or evidence that you want to provide, we are more than happy to take that. Thanks for your time.

Ms McGibbon: Thank you.

Ms Canavan: Thank you so much.