Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Departmental officials are with us to provide oral evidence on the SL1 on electronic monitoring. I welcome Michael McAvoy, who is deputy director of the community safety division, and Matt Neill, who is the policy lead for monitoring, analysis and reporting arrangements (MARA), which includes electronic monitoring (EM). Thank you very much, gents, for coming to the meeting. You will appreciate that we have had a couple of papers on the subject and have gone backwards and forwards a bit. I do not imagine that you have a general presentation to give us, but I invite you to make any comments that you have before we raise our issues.

Mr Michael McAvoy (Department of Justice): Chair, I do have a presentation, because it is so long since we spent any time telling the Committee about electronic monitoring. We can go straight to questions, or, if you want to indulge us, I will happily give you a bit of background, if that would be helpful.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is a decision for members. Members, how do you want to play this? You will appreciate that we are short of time, gents. I am sorry to have kept you back. We were receiving evidence on the Bill and are slightly behind schedule, so I apologise for keeping you waiting, but I am conscious of time. Members, do you want some background information, or are you content to proceed to questions?

Miss Hargey: It would be useful, Chair, to get a brief overview of the background. That might answer some of our questions.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is helpful. In that case, gents, fire ahead.

Mr McAvoy: I will make a start, Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss electronic monitoring. We are grateful for the consideration that the Committee has already given to the Electronic Monitoring Requirements (Responsible Officer)(Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2025. That is a bit of a mouthful. I trust that Matt and I will be able to address members' queries. We have not talked to the Committee about electronic monitoring — electronic tagging, as it is more commonly referred to — for a while, so I will briefly give you a bit of background information.

The public protection branch in the division has policy, legislative and operational responsibility for electronic monitoring in Northern Ireland. Tagging is simply a tool that we use as part of our overall public protection regime. I will explain what we use electronic tags for in Northern Ireland. They are used to monitor individuals who are released into the community in two circumstances: on bail terms set by a court, after a person has been charged with a criminal offence by the police but before they have been to trial; or as part of conditions in respect of a prisoner's leaving custody to serve out the remainder of their sentence in the community under the terms of a licence. Of the two scenarios, it is fair to say that tags are most often used in connection with bail.

At any given time, roughly 400 people in Northern Ireland are on an electronic tag. Over a typical year, about 1,200 people in total may have been on a tag for a period of days, weeks or months. It is a dynamic, evolving picture, with people coming on and off tags. To be honest, Chair and members, when it comes to electronic monitoring, we are quite behind where we could and would like to be in Northern Ireland. That is not due to a lack of imagination or aspiration on the Department's part. Indeed, we are talking about aspects of procurement, and moving to utilise new and developing technology in the field of electronic tagging was a key part of the procurement exercise that we have just completed. Matt led on that work. He can provide further details as the Committee wishes.

Suffice to say that there was an absolute need to go to tender for the contract: the previous contract had reached its end point, and we had used up all our options for extending it. We have reached the point where, to bridge the gap, we are using a direct award contract arrangement. Tendering for the contract was also about testing the market to ensure that we were still getting value for money. It is fair to say that, although the current system works incredibly well, it is limited. The main electronic tags that we use are curfew tags and location tags. We have been using curfew tags for a number of years, typically to enforce requirements that oblige someone to stay at home, which is typically from 10.00 pm to 6.00 am. There is a base unit in their home, and they wear an ankle tag, so we can enforce that curfew and monitor any breaches.

As part of the new procurement contract, we expect to be able to appoint the new provider that we advised the Committee about. When we go live, which will hopefully be in the coming months, it will initially provide a like-for-like service with the existing provision. We have built a requirement into the procurement specifications that the new provider should be able to offer location tagging in the course of the next five-year contract award period so that, for the first time in Northern Ireland, we will be able to avail ourselves of GPS functionality. That opens up a lot of possibilities that we probably do not have time to explore today but that we could maybe explore on another day, Chair. We have also included scope to test sobriety tags and monitor drug or alcohol consumption

In short, we are looking to transform and modernise the service that we provide. The motivation for that is simple. When we utilise the new technology during the life of the next contract, it will enable us to significantly enhance public protection. We will also be able to do quite a bit on the rehabilitation of an offender and, possibly, to add a tool that will assist with crime detection and investigation. As part of the recent testing, Matt and I volunteered to wear tags. It was sobering. It gave us an insight into the reality of what is involved, but also, during the more recent user-acceptance testing, the possibilities of the new technology that we are looking to tap into.

We are happy to take questions. I will volunteer Matt to cover the detail, because he knows it better than I do.

Mr Matthew Neill (Department of Justice): Thanks, Michael.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Thank you. That was helpful and interesting. I presume that that will help you to manage bail conditions much better and more closely. Deirdre is interested in this area, as am I. We have some questions. Do you want to go first, Deirdre?

Miss Hargey: Thanks very much for coming to the Committee, Michael and Matthew. We thought that it would be easier to do it this way than to communicate back and forth. My main concerns are with monitoring and when the GPS technology will come in. At a community level, I have heard concerns that the previous contract had not been working as well as it could have. I was concerned, Michael, when you said that the new contract will be a like-for-like service, because we have had complaints from communities about the impact of repeat offenders who are out on a tag and still reoffending. We are keen to see what the monitoring in the new contract will look like and how it will differ from that in the previous contract.

You talked about location tagging and using GPS functionality. When would that come into play? I am also conscious of the company that had the previous contract and the fact that we have heard that that was not working well. Were there issues with that contract? Is that why you went out to the market again to look elsewhere? Have you rectified any of those issues in the new contract so that you can try to ensure that the same issues do not happen again? Are there review periods or mechanisms built into the new contract so that, if it is not working and people are offending while wearing the tags, you can look at their function?

You mentioned this in your correspondence: the company that is to be offered the contract is based in England. We have been asking whether it works on any other contracts here. What will the set-up be? Will it all be done from a remote centre via technology, or will it have a physical presence here? What will that physical presence look like in the immediate term and throughout the cycle of the contract?

We are just looking for a bit more detail. Our main concern is breaches by those who wear the tags and their potentially reoffending. That concern comes directly from communities.

Mr McAvoy: Thank you, Deirdre. There are a number of things there. I emphasise again that the current electronic monitoring arrangements, which involve radio frequency, are rudimentary. When you have an electronic tag on your ankle, you are obliged to be in your home at 10.00 pm. As long as you stay in your home from 10.00 pm to 6.00 am, if that is the bail condition that you are obliged to uphold, you have met the requirements of your licence. Come 6.00 am and through to 10.00 pm that night, there is no ongoing monitoring and no additional functionality that we can use to restrict where you go, what you do, which town you enter and whether you go near certain addresses and so on. That is partly why we are keen to introduce GPS monitoring over the life cycle of the new contract period.

I say that just to make sure that everyone is aware that what we have in Northern Ireland is rudimentary and is curfew monitoring. It just makes sure that someone stays in their home, typically overnight. If they leave, there is a breach. That is reported to the current provider and can then be reported to the police. Depending on the offender's profile, there is a graduated response in the action that is taken to investigate that breach. Sometimes there are technical breaches. In the initial process, the first thing that will happen is that the provider will ring the base unit in the person's home. If the person who is on the tag and appears to have possibly absconded is there, that is OK; that is an issue with the technology. The provider will still send somebody out to look at the kit and, in doing so, confirm that the person who is on the tag is still there and has not attempted to tamper with it, which may have been the reason why it triggered. It is not terribly sophisticated, but it performs that function reasonably well for the 400 people who, typically, are on a tag.

GPS definitely offers lots of opportunities, as we have explored. The Committee received a briefing on the bids that the Department put into the transformation fund. You may recall, Chair, that one of those related to electronic monitoring. The purpose of that, Deirdre, is to put together a multidisciplinary team, and, if the bid is confirmed, we expect to do that from April onwards. That team would explore the functionality that will be provided through the new contract and how quickly we could tap into that. I cannot answer your question about when we might be able to use the GPS. An awful lot of work will definitely be done to consider its uses, applicability and potential cohorts.

We have done a lot of work to look at how other systems in England and Wales and internationally are deployed. There is definitely a lot of scope for using GPS in restricting the movement of domestic and sexual violence perpetrators. I talked to the interim transformation board about using GPS in a stalking scenario, because there is definitely an application there. In London, it has been used for high-end gangs that target expensive stores for theft. That would not seem to be a priority for us, but that is an additional cohort of offenders whom you can manage by alerting a central system if they breach a condition whereby they cannot enter an area or a town or if, for example, they head for the border. There can be live monitoring. We are not looking for 'The Truman Show' here, but there is an endless number of possibilities, and we genuinely have not had time to fully explore where our efforts would be best placed. Again, those efforts are driven by the desire to enhance public protection arrangements for victims and the potential for rehabilitation.

Matt is well across the detail of the new provider's operation, so I will ask him to answer the questions on review periods.

Mr Neill: We might previously have set out some of the detail of how we would review performance as part of the contract, but I will break it down. We will have direct live access to the new provider's system. That will be the first time that we will have that direct live feed. A series of reports and other things would normally be provided to us for billing, quality assurance and audit purposes to make sure that we are getting value for money and that services are being delivered as expected. In the new contract management process that we will have with this service provision, we will have weekly audits of the data and monthly and even quarterly meetings with the provider, alongside ongoing engagement to look at key performance indicators, performance and any issues. We are very conscious that we have had a tried-and-tested system working here. To be honest, no news has been good news. It has been working very well, but, for 15 years, there has not been any great evolution in what we have. As we work through a transition and mobilisation period with the new provider, we will have a lot of regular contact and engagement. We will break down the services that they provide and take feedback from citizens who are being tagged and from our stakeholders in the police, courts and Probation Service. We will use that information to manage the contract on an ongoing basis.

That is the day-to-day contract management for me. The longer-term piece will be that we have built in the initial contract for a five-year period, with a logical period of review in the third year. Once the data and the systems are up and running, we will have at least empirical data for two annual periods. We intend to review it in the third year of operation with a view to looking at the future.

As Michael says, we have advised of the intention to award, so we have not awarded the contract just yet. The first contract period is for five years, with options to extend for a further three- and two-year period. Each of those will provide either organic break points or points at which we can review the contract, service conditions and make any amendments or adjustments as required. It will be an ongoing organic process as the contract moves forward. As Michael says, with the service, we will take a business-as-usual approach to make sure that we are not creating any ripples in service provision for customers and citizens as we move the curfew technology on board. However, we will move in to look at location monitoring, how effective it could be and how it needs to be explored. That will take longer. The three-year point is a really good opportunity to review that.

Technology, as you know, evolves every week — almost every day, it seems. We will be looking at that constantly to see what changes have been made and what international evidence we can look at to make sure that, when we switch on any new service as part of the scheme, we are getting the best bang for our buck.

Mr McAvoy: As to the footprint of the new provider, it will have a base in Northern Ireland and provide employment.

Mr Neill: Yes, absolutely. The new contractor has committed to developing a field services hub in Belfast. That will be its base of operations. What that will look like in practice will probably needs to be further developed. However, realistically, that is where we will have our stockpile of all the equipment, the tagging gear and the redundancies and systems that need to be put in place. The field staff will use it as a base of operations. I guess that the fleet will probably be based there, allowing it to move around Northern Ireland, attend home addresses and deliver that equipment. An operations manager will oversee all that. That will be done by the dedicated, on-the-ground workforce that is based here in Northern Ireland.

Aside from that, you are right to say that it is a remote service. There will be a monitoring centre, and digital communication will go to a base that will most likely be in England. However, day-to-day field staff in Northern Ireland will deliver 24/7 provision. As Michael indicated, alongside going out, installing and removing tags and equipment, engaging with citizens to check faults, breaches and things like that, those staff are on the ground to deal with any issues if anything like that happens. They can go out and attend addresses at whatever time we need to meet the demand, whether that comes from the courts or the police.

Mr McAvoy: The only thing that I will add to that, Chair, is the fact that this arrangement is not that dissimilar to our present system. A hub is located in —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): It is or is not similar? Sorry.

Mr McAvoy: It is not dissimilar. There is a technological hub across the water, but there is that local workforce, fleet and centre and so on.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): You have led us into an area that I am interested in. I am not sure whether Deirdre wants to come back yet, but I am just going to interject for a wee second, if that is all right.

You say that, yes, they will have a presence. However, originally, you had been hoping to initiate the contract on 1 March 2025, is that not right?

Mr Neill: Our intention was to commence the legislation at that point in March. We were hoping for a contract award in early January. We are conscious that the Committee needs to consider the SL1 and the amendment. We have engaged with the provider to work out what the transition time frame would look like. As Michael indicated, at this point, there are approximately 400 citizens on tag. Swapping out that equipment will be a graduated process. Some of that might happen organically, as the court decides that somebody does not need that requirement, or maybe somebody has been returned to custody and things like that.

We will probably have to shift that date slightly to be in line with what the contractor can deliver, but we envisage a transition period of around six months from the contract award point.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): The point at which they commence —

Mr Neill: Delivery.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): — they will be in Northern Ireland?

Mr Neill: Yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Does the contract include whatever costings there will be for hubs and so on, or will that be additional?

Mr Neill: That is included in the pricing schedules that we have been provided with, and the evaluation panel will have considered that. The breakdown will have been provided in the tender response. I was not on the evaluation panel, but the detail that I have seen is that there are costs with setting up and establishing that hub, as well as the services and the infrastructure to make sure that it happens. There will then be the costs of actually running the service on an annual basis.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Are the people who are involved equipped to service and maintain the equipment, or will there be an additional expense and an additional contract for that?

Mr Neill: That is all built into the contractual arrangements.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): It is all built in, so it is all covered.

Mr Neill: It is all covered. I think that we have bought a full service, I suppose. Colleagues in the Ministry of Justice went for a different solution, which was a two-stranded approach. They bought the technology from one company, and the field services and the staffing are delivered by a separate provider. We have gone for a unilateral approach. It will be the same provider, the field staff will be employed by that provider and they will deal with the equipment and the technological solutions. I appreciate that the provider may have contracts coming in for other services, but, no, our contract will be with that provider, and all the strands that are under our contract will be what we are reporting against — the staff, the tech and the infrastructure for that.

Mr McAvoy: This is in line with Deirdre's question. In that transfer and transitionary period, there is no such thing as a big bang that will move 400 people over in a day. We would not want to do that, because if it fails, it fails for everyone. There is a natural period for transition. You will have the existing provider, the new provider standing up their service and one moving that service from one to the other over several months. We need to build in a bit of time, and the conversation will have started on the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) and the potential for staff who are employed by the existing provider to transfer to the new provider should they wish to do so. They might find alternative employment with the existing provider. They might want to go with the experience that they have and be valued members of staff with the new employer. That naturally takes a bit of time, but that is why there is probably a four-month transition period. It is also about avoiding that all-or-nothing situation. We do not want a situation where we have nothing.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That has been really helpful. Maybe the lesson for us is that, if we have queries, we should bring you in a bit sooner and have a conversation rather than perpetually write to you. Maybe that could move things through a bit faster, because that has been really helpful.

Deirdre, has everything that you needed been covered? I can see that Ciara wants to come in.

Miss Hargey: No, I have a quick question. Is there a break period in the contract? For example, if they were not doing everything that you had hoped they would, is there a break period for the contract? My other question is this: where that transitionary period or exploration of the GPS are concerned, is it written into the current contract that, if you decide to do that, there is the ability to transfer over to GPS? My last question is this: is anything additional built into the contract that is based on learning from the previous one, such as things that maybe did not work as well that you have now looked at or added to this one?

Mr McAvoy: I will volunteer to take the last couple of questions. It is definitely built into the new contract, and we have actually tested items with the new provider. I mentioned a tag that I used as part of the user acceptance was a location tag. I was told not to go to north Belfast during that week. I turned up at the Probation Board. I had not got out of the lift before they were on the phone saying, "What are you doing in North Street?" We have done the user acceptance testing. To be fair, the company has used that technology in lots of other locations, so it can provide it to us as soon as we are ready to take it and when we have considered the implications of using GPS and how it will work while ensuring that there is no infringement of people's civil liberties and human rights. There are lots of considerations that, to be honest, we just have not had the thinking time to work our way through, but that is part of the transformation bid, and there is potential for a multidisciplinary team to think its way through that.

If things fail, Matt, what is your backup plan?

Mr Neill: Where the contract is concerned, the SL1 amendment will afford the Department two responsible officers and two providers. That would cover that transition period that we discussed. Where break points from the contract are concerned, there will be a standard public-sector Civil Service contract with all the terms and conditions and break points on key performance indicators, termination in the event of any issues and critical failures, along with periods and opportunities to look at resolutions while appreciating the fact there are also service credits built in that mean that there will be certain key milestones and points that the provider has to hit to meet our standards. That concerns the time that it takes to report data on breaches back to the police, the Probation Board and so on. It is about making sure that the information, or lack of, on people's behaviour is provided to the authorities and can then be dealt with. The contract will include regular break points, but we will also have those contract-management meetings monthly and quarterly to keep track of that. I envisage that we will not get to a critical point right away if there is a difficulty, especially as we will be very cautious, given that this is a new contract and a whole service. That transition period will allow us to do a lot of things.

As Michael touched on, we have completed significant testing on the project. We have tested the curfew technology and the location-monitoring technology. Part of the answer to Deirdre's question is that the location technology is there and ready to go. Northern Ireland probably is not ready to take it on board yet, and we need to work through how it works in practice, because there is a difference with the curfew technology specifically. The curfew technology tells you whether somebody is where they are supposed to be at the time that they are supposed to be there. Are they at home or are they not? The location monitoring is a live-time direct feed, depending on what the organisations or agencies require, and I expect that that will be a lot more intensive for many of the criminal justice partners, so it is about working that through. A very specific requirement of the contract is that location monitoring will be provided for, and we are so keen to look at that and explore it at a future point. We have already designed the service credits for that to make sure that it is responsive to agencies' needs.

Miss Hargey: Sorry, this is my last question. It just came to me as you were talking —

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I am really conscious of time at this point.

Miss Hargey: — about location monitoring. Is the company using that elsewhere so that we can learn its pros and cons?

Mr Neill: Yes, there is a lot of international evidence on location monitoring in general from many providers. This specific company delivers a variety of different services not just in the criminal justice space but in the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime in London, which is utilising its services. It had initially piloted it for, I think, 200 offenders, all of whom had committed offences involving knife crime. It has already demonstrated evidence of 200 offenders being GPS-monitored throughout their period of supervision. I think that that contract has been extended and reviewed post the pilot stage. There is a direct UK evidence base there, and, internationally, there is a wealth of evidence on how GPS can be used, should be used and maybe how it should not be used. As Michael said, our project will be to look at all that to make sure that we are getting the best and avoiding some of the pitfalls.

Mr McAvoy: There are certainly really good examples in the States, Colombia and New Zealand that we have looked at as part of the consideration of the scheme.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you, Matt and Michael. I have four really short questions. First, what are the key performance indicators? The second question is on curfew tags and location tags. Does having location tags potentially mean that you no longer need curfew tags because the technology is there for location tags to replace curfew tags? Thirdly, you mentioned that roughly 400 people a year are either on bail or licence but that, in a typical year, 1,200 have been on a tag for a time. What is the percentage breakdown between people who are on bail and on licence? Fourthly, you mentioned the pricing schedule of the contract. Was the number of field staff who would actually be employed in the North to deliver on the contract clearly outlined in that pricing schedule?

Mr McAvoy: I will start, and Matt will then come in. It is a demand-led service, and even the existing contract has fixed and variable costs. We do annual projections on what it might cost, but it really depends on the number of times that someone is required to have an electronic tag as part of a bail condition. That varies. From experience, we know where it typically sits, but it increases and falls during any given year.

You asked about location tags replacing curfew tags. Location tags would allow someone to have a more sophisticated regime. It is the same tag, and they might be required to stay at home from 10.00 pm to 6.00 am.

You can prescribe, through the technology, that they are entitled to attend a place of study or employment during the day or simply say, "You're allowed in greater Belfast, but you are not allowed to go to Ballymena", because you know that there is a previous victim who lives in that town. There are various restrictions that you can place through the use of location monitoring technology. As I say, we just have not got there on what the bail conditions may be or their specificity. We have tested whether the technology absolutely exists to allow for very specific bail conditions. I gave the example of when I was told not to go North Street, but when I turned up at the Probation Board, providers were on the phone. It is very specific on the breach that you will trigger.

Matt will talk about the KPIs for the contract. As for the percentage on bail and licence, I will go with 90% and 10%, and Matt will correct me.

Mr Neill: Thanks, Michael. I took a snapshot from 17 February, which was just after the Committee's last consideration of the SL1. At that point, 86% of those on the caseload were on bail, with the remaining 14% on licence with probation. That was out of 350. The gender split was roughly 90% male and 10% female, if that is of any interest to the Committee.

We have a couple of very specific KPIs that are about mobilising the service in line with the contract date, which we will agree and which the provider will have to hit. A secondary element in one of the KPIs is on a digital solution for the ordering system. It is a bit nuanced. The system that we have is that the forms filled in by the court staff are checked against the orders of the judge and emailed through to the provider. We want to replace that with a digital portal solution to streamline things and allow for more robust cross-checking of information. That will speed things up, particularly when you have an individual who is going through court for multiple offences and who is on bail for two of those but not for the one that has an electronic monitoring condition. That solution will make sure that everything stays on or drops off at the right time.

Some of the KPIs — I do not have everything in front of me; apologies — are on the percentages by which things are dealt with. For example, the provider should make 90% or 95% of calls to an individual within five minutes or 15 minutes of a breach occurring, depending on the specific nature of the breach. For example, they may have breached their curfew, or, with the location tags in the future, if they have not charged the battery, they will get an alert to say, "You have not charged the battery. It is at this percentage. You must charge", and the provider will follow that up. The KPIs are very prescriptive to ensure that the provider's ongoing performance meets the needs.

Through the monitoring centre and the beacons or hubs that are fitted at the home, there is two-way communication with the citizen who is on tag, so, in the event of an emergency or an issue, they can contact the monitoring centre and flag that. If they contact the monitoring centre by using that direct access, the call has to be picked up within 60 seconds. It is things like that. Those are some of the KPIs that we have to ensure that that level of performance is dealt with. At a rudimentary level, when the court places the order, it is about making sure that the tag is fitted within a certain number of hours. We do not want to put through a tag install order on a Monday and find that the person was not tagged until the Thursday. It has to be a very robust, dynamic service to deal with the demand. Predominantly, as you see, 90% of it is from the court.

Michael touched on the second question on the curfew location tags. Having worn a location tag, I know that it is a bit bigger, because it has all the bells and whistles. It has a big battery that allows for longer battery life, which is important, especially when you are monitoring somebody who is moving through a city or town. It will monitor not just the curfew but the location, so you will know where they are at any given time. On a digital system, you can set it so that the person has to be in a certain zone on the map at a particular time, and if they are not, an alert will go off. If they are not supposed to be near a certain address at any time, such as that of a victim or a co-defendant, an alert will go off if they are there. It is a much more evolved and responsive system that looks at different risks. Certainly, it is a big step up from what we have with curfew monitoring.

Michael, you touched on the pricing schedule, and I think that we covered the metrics.

Ms Ferguson: The position on field staff is quite vague at the minute. Are there any numbers? Was the number of field staff here the North included in the pricing schedule?

Mr McAvoy: To run that system on the initial like for like — people have to go out in the middle of the night if there is a breach and so on — you are probably talking about up to 20 staff. That is the basis on which the existing provider provides the service. To create like for like from day one, the new provider will have to have people employed on a shift pattern. It is about self-identifying the numbers of people that it will need to respond to existing demand and the flexes in that. In the future, the provider will have more staff if we have more people on tags and more sophisticated tags when we move to location monitoring. The likelihood is that we will have more people, but it will not be 400 or 1,200 over the course of a year. It will grow if we utilise that additional functionality in the future, and, as it grows, the provider will need more staff. That is just the way in which we envisage it working.

Ms Ferguson: OK. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Gentlemen, thank you very much indeed. We very much appreciate your time today. Apologies for keeping you back.

Mr McAvoy: Not at all. Thank you.