Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I welcome Chris Quinn, the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY); Joanne McGurk, head of legal and investigations; and Rachel Woods, senior policy and research officer. Rachel is no stranger to any of us. Hello, Rachel. They are here to give the Committee oral evidence. You are all very welcome, and we appreciate your time. We have all read your paper, and we are looking forward to hearing what you have to say. You will make your opening statements, which will probably take 10 to 15 minutes. There will then be questions, and I intend to work through the Bill in an orderly fashion. Rather than the discussion jumping back and forth, it is better to cover each Part of the Bill in order. Is that all right?

Mr Chris Quinn (Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People): No problem.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is lovely. On that basis, I hand over to the witnesses. Thank you.

Mr Quinn: I thank the Committee for inviting us to give evidence today. This is our first appearance before the Justice Committee. I wish you all the best in your endeavours and hope that I am back in front of you again soon.

I will work on the assumption that the Committee is aware of my role and remit, as well as the legislation that established my office and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child's (UNCRC) General Comment 27, which is outlined in our written submission. My evidence today is not intended to cover all the clauses of the Bill, which are extensive and complex, but to instead address the key aspects of the legislation that most directly engage with children's rights. I will close my remarks by highlighting a few gaps, which I encourage the Committee to consider. We are aware that there are amendments, but, given the timescales involved, I am unable to comment on those now. I am happy to return to the Committee to give evidence on those if you would find that useful.

I stress the importance of hearing directly from children on their rights in relation to youth justice and ensuring that their voices are heard, particularly on the issues that are raised here. It would be great to see a panel of young people in this room or online, speaking directly to you on the Bill's provisions and giving you their opinions. I have had the pleasure of speaking to lots of children and young people, their families and the professionals who work with them across the sectors, including victims of crime, young people who are involved in restorative justice programmes, young people with lived experiences as well as young people who are in Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre (JJC) and their parents, all of whom would give you invaluable insights into the Bill.

Part 1 deals with biometric data and DNA retention. We acknowledge the effectiveness of DNA and fingerprint evidence in the detection and prosecution of crime. We also recognise that it will be necessary to collect and retain DNA profiles and fingerprints for the purposes of criminal investigations and that, in some cases, that may include retaining data that relates to children. We are concerned, however, that the principles of proportionality, necessity and presumption of innocence, alongside the child's best interests, should strongly underpin the legislative provisions, which should therefore impose strict limits on data retention.

We welcome the changes that have been made to the proposed retention regimes, which were and are indefinite, without review periods. We are unclear as to why the 75/50/25-year model and some of the time frames for children have been chosen. We have outlined some of our concerns in our written submission, so I will not go into those in much detail. However, I want to flag in particular those provisions that relate to proportionality; the retention of data of those children who are undergoing restorative justice schemes or diversionary disposals; and the need for age-appropriate and accessible information and guidance on data retention and collection.

I draw the Committee's attention to article 63G of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which deals with those who are arrested but not charged. As that relates to children, we hope that the Committee will ensure that children are not further stigmatised and that those provisions are proportionate and adhere to their rights. In our submission, we have noted a number of other recommendations for the Committee, including the creation of a biometrics commissioner. We have suggested some areas of responsibility for that office and the office holder, including appeals and the importance of reviews.

We ask the Committee to consider reviewing the retention of children's DNA data and fingerprints once they reach 18, including an application process so that they might be given an opportunity to enter adulthood with a clean slate. That decision would, of course, be dependent on the seriousness of the crimes that were committed and the number of offences for which they have been convicted, with appropriate safeguards.

Part 2 is entitled "Children" and contains several provisions that were, I understand, intended for a previous justice Bill, particularly those that relate to bail and remand. Therefore, I welcome that the Committee is now scrutinising those provisions; however, I recognise that there has been a delay, which is disappointing. From the outset, it is important to note our long-held position, which is that children should be subjected to bail conditions only where those are absolutely necessary. Disproportionate and onerous conditions should be avoided as far as possible. Furthermore, any bail decision should be subject to an appeal or review. There should be a strong statutory right to bail for children, subject to the power of the police and the courts to refuse it in limited circumstances. I very much welcome the clauses that seek to put it on the statute books that children are never imprisoned with adults. That is an important legislative step forward in the realisation of children's rights.

Part 3 outlines proposals to extend the use of live links. I am aware that a further amendment has been tabled in relation to that, which I cannot cover today. When it comes to that which is in front of us, however, I impress on the Committee the importance of the best interests of the child and consent.

NICCY recognises that the use of live links in the criminal justice system has and does yield benefits, particularly for victims of crime. We have supported and continue to support remote evidence centres, and we had the pleasure of visiting the site in Belfast.

The expansion in the use of live links to other non-court facilities may improve the experience for children and vulnerable witnesses in general, with the appropriate safeguards and processes in place. However, NICCY has a number of questions and concerns on the potential expansion in the use of live links for children's rights and access to justice. Appearing in front of a judge can be an important safeguard for anyone who has been deprived of their liberty.

We also encourage the Committee to ensure that a condition relating to competency to fully understand proceedings is considered and that mandatory training on adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), trauma-informed practices and children's rights be given to all professionals who are dealing with children in those cases. We encourage the Committee to fully consider the voice of the child in respect of those who are providing consent and the ability of children to provide and understand what they are consenting to during legal proceedings. The ability to consent to proceedings and processes must apply to children who are victims and suspects in the system.

The availability and accessibility of age-appropriate guidance is key, as well as training for all those involved in the processes. We agree with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which suggested that the use of live links should be monitored across the justice system so that it does not become the norm and is not used inappropriately. That is particularly important for their use with children.

Part 4 relates to various areas of the administration of justice. I will not comment on all those areas but will draw attention to that which relates to criminal record certificates. We have provided support for the registered intermediary clauses and trust that our written submission captures the reasoning for that.

On records, we appreciate that the changes that have been made as a direct result of the Supreme Court case are already in practice and that full public consultation on the matter may not have been appropriate. The rationale for the second reason provided is unclear, as we have outlined in our submission. NICCY is not aware of specific safeguarding risks to vulnerable groups of an application process to wipe the slate clean and encourages the Committee to fully evaluate the impact of having an application process that children who have reached the age of 18 can avail themselves of, including the evidence that has led the Department to that position.

I will outline a number of important issues that are not addressed in the Bill but come within its scope. It is of deep disappointment that, despite it being a miscellaneous provisions Bill, further provisions relating to children's justice have not been included, particularly on the minimum age of criminal responsibility and equal protection. The Committee will be aware that the age at which a child can be held criminally responsible in Northern Ireland is 10. That is one of the lowest ages in Europe. That is entirely against international standards and our scientific knowledge, and it undermines children's rights. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has continuously called for the UK and Northern Ireland to raise the age. A graduated approach, which was first outlined by the 2011 youth justice review, is no longer appropriate. Raising the age of criminal responsibility will progress our journey to being rights-compliant, where every child gets the best start in life. A suggested amendment for the Committee has been provided in our submission.

It is also of great disappointment that, despite multiple attempts, legislation on equal protection has not yet been realised. Children do not have equal protection from assault. That is a fundamental breach of their rights. Again, in regular examinations of how well the UK and devolved Governments are meeting their obligations, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has repeatedly stated that the issue of physical punishment must be properly addressed. It must be explicitly prohibited in law. I request that the Committee considers ensuring that equal protection under the law for children from all forms of assault, including physical punishment, is addressed in the Bill.

There are a few other issues with the Bill that I wish to raise with the Committee: an expansion of the abuse-of-trust provisions, minors' out-of-court settlements and the use of spit and bite guards on children. Some Committee members will recall that during the Assembly's scrutiny of the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, the abuse-of-trust provisions were expanded to include religion and sport but not extracurricular activities. It was disappointing that further areas could not be legislated for then. The Committee may wish to further explore how the extension of such abuse-of-trust protections could be secured within the scope of the Bill, particularly as they relate to children.

Finally, the Committee will be aware that, following two years' use as a temporary measure, in June 2022 the PSNI decided to continue the use of spit and bite guards as a permanent tactical option, including on children. That was despite a variety of recommendations from the Northern Ireland Policing Board's human rights reviews, the Police Ombudsman, the UN committee's concluding observations and recommendations that were made by children's rights organisations here. It remains NICCY's position that the presumption that spit and bite guards will not be used on children is too vague and leaves scope for their routine use on children. As that is an operational matter, the PSNI can continue to use them with the appropriate safeguards in place. However, NICCY does not consider those safeguards to be tight enough. The only way of ensuring that spit and bite guards will not be used on children is to ban their use. I encourage the Committee to consider that in the Bill.

You will be glad to hear that I am now going to pause and give you an opportunity to ask us any questions that you may have. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Chris, thank you very much for your evidence. First, by way reassurance, it is our intention to hear directly from children and young people. We plan to engage with them in a number of ways. Off the top of my head, one way will be through the Youth Assembly. We intend to try to engage with children who have experience of the processes and so on to see how things can be made better for them. That is our first point of reassurance.

Let us look at your first point on biometrics in Part 1 of the Bill. On that, Danny and Doug have questions for you. Obviously, other members may jump in as the discussion continues, but we will start off with Danny and then go to Doug.

Mr Baker: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the presentation. I am really concerned about the stigmatisation of children and young people when it comes to the retention of their data. I want you to elaborate a wee bit more on the concerns that you have on the Bill's provisions that relate to the retention of the data of children and young people.

Mr Quinn: It is a big concern of ours as well, Danny. To give myself a chance to catch my breath, I am going to pass over to Rachel to speak on biometrics. I will come in behind her.

Ms Rachel Woods (Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People): Thank you, Danny. Like a lot of things in the Bill, we are talking about children and young people, who are some of vulnerable people in society and are stigmatised by us in general. Having your data retained for longer than is proportionate and necessary will only further that stigmatisation. We know from a lot of research that, once a child is in the criminal justice system, they are almost set on a path. That is despite the significant work that the Youth Justice Agency and the youth justice services have done on diversion.

As we know, in Northern Ireland, the DNA that is taken from any child who is over 10 years old will currently be retained for life. That is because of the minimum age of criminal responsibility. Throughout our briefing, we have raised issues that we consider to be key in talking about stigma and children and young people and how the police and the criminal justice system perceive children and young people. It is not just about biometrics and your DNA: we also need to consider the softer data — the intelligence data — that is retained. The term, "The dogs in the street know who it is", is relevant because the children and young people who have been in contact with police before, or those whom the police know or assume to be troublemakers in their communities, are usually the first ones to be picked up. We have heard directly from children and young people with lived experience of that, who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. They can say, "It wasn't us", but if they meet the description and the police know who they are, they will be targeted. Having retention periods for data and DNA would only further that. That feeds into the idea that once you have been in contact with the criminal justice system, you are basically on a path to continue in that vein.

For children and young people, having their data retained for that length of time is not compliant with their rights and it certainly is not in their best interests.

It also implies a criminal record, which we can get onto that later when we are talking about Part 4. All those things feed into the stigmatisation of children and young people, particularly those who are in contact with the criminal justice system more than others. We have an over-representation of care-experienced children and young people in the system, and those with learning difficulties and special educational needs and disability (SEND), and we can go into that if you want to. There are specific groups of children and young people that that really affects.

Mr Baker: What approach would you like to see in the Justice Bill, from the Minister or from the Committee in our scrutiny of it, to make that better?

Ms Woods: If we go with the child's best interests being the overarching principle, we really need to look at proportionality and need. It was interesting to hear the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner's evidence to the Committee a couple of weeks ago on the usefulness of biometrics, data and facial recognition technology in the solving of crimes.

We have to strip the discussion back to why we retain DNA and data. If it is for crime prevention, that is not showing from the Scottish Commissioner's perspective. I believe that, in Scotland, 0·34% of all recorded crime was solved by biometrics in 2023-24 and 2% by facial recognition technology. It is not the overarching reason why crime is solved, so we need to go with the principles of proportionality and reasonableness and act in the child's best interests.

In our briefing, we drew attention to diversionary disposals, cautions and community restorative justice. Those are supposed to be diversionary disposals, and the key is the word "diversionary". They are supposed to be diverting children and young people from the criminal justice system, not entrenching them in it further. If we are saying that it is proportionate to retain the data of children and young people for five years after the completion of a diversionary disposal, how diversionary is that?

We also draw attention to the fact that there could be a difference in DNA retention if it was the result of a court-ordered community restorative justice disposal or one referred to by the police that did not go to court. Also, cautions are not convictions, nor are restorative justice schemes or diversionary disposals. We urge the Committee to look at that and decide whether it is reasonable, proportionate, lawful and in line with children's rights.

Mr Baker: That is sound. Thank you.

Mr Beattie: Chris, thank you for your evidence and your substantial briefing paper. I can see the hand of Rachel in that paper from listening to her answer to the previous question.

I want to push on what Danny said about the negative effect that there is on children if their biometric data is retained. I am just not quite getting it, and I am genuine when I say that. I am not challenging just for the sake of it. I am being genuine when I ask: are we really saying that if a 16-year-old has their fingerprints taken, it will have a negative effect on their childhood or in later life? When I was younger, I had my fingerprints taken: once it is done, it is done. I never reflect on that or think about it. How many children have come to you, and said, "They've got my fingerprints" or "They've taken a mouth swab of me and it really makes me feel stigmatised"? Is that an issue for the children or is it really an issue for us, who are looking at things from a different perspective?

Mr Quinn: When I think of that, my default is to ask whether it is proportionate, necessary and appropriate. We are looking towards a system that gives young people opportunities: a system of rehabilitation that avoids that stigmatisation. As Rachel said, the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner's recent evidence was quite stark in the percentages of crimes that were solved using biometric data, and the issues that he raised with facial recognition. Those statistics back up our position. The minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) conversation is also really relevant in this conversation. We have a very low age of criminal responsibility, and we stated in our submission that it ought to be raised.

It is about giving children and young people the best opportunities. My position is that the retention of that data is not proportionate or necessary, or in the child's best interests.

Mr Beattie: I kind of get that, Chris. I do not necessarily disagree with you; I am trying to tease out the issues by challenging them. I think that Rachel said that retaining DNA material does not lead to a great deal of prevention, but it does help later in life with protections. I am really interested in the crossover between being a young person or child and a young adult. At 17 and a half, they fall under what you are talking about, and you say that it stigmatises them, but does it stigmatise them when they are 18? I am trying to get an understanding. Does it really stigmatise them, or are we doing something just because we think that it is the right thing to do in society? Perhaps it does not have that much of an effect on the child.

Mr Quinn: I argue that it does stigmatise the child, regardless of their age. Think about how the child feels about themself in that process. What is the purpose? What does the child understand about that data being taken and what will happen with it? What is the impact on other elements of their life and on how they view their own life chances? I speak to a lot of children with self-limiting belief. This is part of that. I am not saying that it is the be-all and end-all, but we need to create environments in which children can flourish. The UNCRC, which we argue should be incorporated into domestic law, gives children certain protections on their safety and privacy. That privacy piece speaks directly to the UNCRC.

Mr Beattie: Good enough.

Ms Joanne McGurk (Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People): There is a quick point to be made about privacy and the balancing act that needs to take place. Chris talked about things being necessary and proportionate. That also needs to be taken into consideration. Given what has been reported by the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner on the retention of the information, is it really necessary and proportionate?

Mr Beattie: That is my point. I was a child as well. For the vast majority of children, it happens, and then it is gone. However, something may happen in later life where the retention of the biometric material from when they were younger helps, even in a positive way, with detection levels. You answered my question very well. I wanted to try to tease out that issue, and you gave me a good answer.

Ms Ferguson: I would love to hear your opinions on the five-year retention of material from under-18s who have been convicted of a first minor offence and given a non-custodial sentence. What do you want to see there? Likewise, for under-18s who are convicted of a first minor offence and given a custodial sentence of fewer than five years, their material will be retained for five years plus the length of their sentence. What should be in the Bill on that?

Ms Woods: Sorry, Ciara, do you know the clause numbers?

Ms Ferguson: I do not. You said earlier that, for under-18s who are convicted of a first minor offence and given a non-custodial sentence, their material is retained for five years, and that for under-18s who have a first minor offence and are given a custodial sentence of fewer than five years, it is retained for five years plus the length of the sentence. What are your thoughts on both of those scenarios?

Ms Woods: We do not have a specific number of years; it is about trying to make sure that it is reasonable and proportionate and within children or young person's rights. It goes back to the question of what the material is being retained for. Non-custodial sentences are the more diversionary ones. The key word for us is "diversionary". If you are given a community sentence, a youth diversion officer (YDO), a community restorative justice (CRJ) disposal or a community resolution notice (CRN), what is the purpose of holding material for five years, and is that proportionate? Why is it five years? That brings us back to why the 75/50/25-year model is being used. We are very unclear on where that model has come from. We have a number of different models operating across the UK, Ireland and Europe, all of which meet the Gaughran judgement. It is about different systems and review mechanisms and all the other safeguards that are in place.

We question why it is five years. Is there any benefit to it? What are the negatives and positives of it? Obviously, we are looking for it to be less than that. We propose that the Committee should consider effectively wiping the slate clean at 18 as well. Is there any reason for the biometric data and DNA to be continuously held? Is it held for lawful purposes, and is it in the child's best interests? If not, then what is the purpose of holding it?

If you were looking for a specific number of years, I would need to go back and do a lot more research on that, but it is up to the Committee to satisfy itself as to whether it believes that it should be five years for diversionary or non-custodial sentences. When it comes to a first minor offence, again, we look at the child's best interest in the justice system. We look at custody as a last resort. It is again for the Committee to satisfy itself on whether data should be retained for the sentence plus five years. What does that achieve, and what is it for? Again, we consider that it should be something less, but I would need to come back to you on whether it should be two or three years. That is part of the discussion about why that model has been chosen and for what purpose. We are still quite unclear about why that is.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): In all honesty, so are we, as are a number of organisations that have given evidence. Everybody is quite keen to understand the rationale behind the exact numbers that were chosen. We sought information, and there is some in our packs today, but I am not sure that it hits for us or fully explains it. We intend to follow up on those issues.

Ciara, are you finished, or do you want to come back in?

Ms Ferguson: No, thank you. Thank you, Rachel.

Mr Baker: Off the back of what Doug said. I do not know whether you share this view, but, for me, it is about the dangers of labelling young people. That is my fear with it. Do you share that view as Children's Commissioner? That is sort of where we are going with the retention of their data.

Mr Quinn: Absolutely. I will not go into too much depth about people's personal stories, but we deal with lots of children who have been involved in or around the justice system. In a lot of the cases that we come across, we can see where children have been failed and, if a different approach had been taken or a different opportunity had arisen, they might not have ended up in the situation that they have found themselves in. It is that cycle, Danny. It is about ensuring that the children do not find themselves in that cycle. The evidence suggests that, once you are in the cycle, it continues. It is absolutely about stigmatisation. Generally, young people are negatively stereotyped and stigmatised, and this brings in an extra layer. We are very concerned about that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): We will end up following up on some of this when we get to the next part on children's bail and custody. I am fairly sure that we will touch on these issues again. Does anybody else have anything to ask, or will I go ahead? Everybody is all right for now?

Folks, I want to understand and increase my knowledge of a couple of things. At page 2 of your paper, point (b)(i) in the biometrics section mentions the need to ensure:

To what extent and in which types of offences does that happen?

Mr Quinn: I will have to ask for some help on that one. Joanne, will you come in on that from a legal perspective?

Ms McGurk: I am not a criminal practitioner, so I will have to go away and look at that. The Bill makes provision for the orders that are there, and exemptions are made for certain behaviours, but we will need to go away and look at the data. We can write to the Committee about that, if that would assist it.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): It would be helpful for us to have some understanding of the extent of that issue. If you deem it to be important enough to include in your paper, I want to have a grasp of its extent.

In the second paragraph on page 4 of your briefing, you indicate that you understand that there will be "further amendments" and:

I am interested to know where you got that from, because our correspondence with the Department indicates that it does not intend to legislate on that. We are certainly looking into the issue, because a custody image is one thing, but, as soon as it is processed, uploaded and used for facial recognition purposes and that kind of thing, it becomes biometric data. We are looking at that, but I am wondering where in the Department you got that information from, because it is contrary to the information that we hold.

Ms Woods: Chair, that is our understanding as well. We apologise if it has come across slightly differently. One of the six planned amendments from the Department will include the systems around photographs.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): No, we are being told the opposite. They are being used at the minute, but there is stuff in our packs that indicates that the Department does not intend to move on that.

Ms Woods: OK. I apologise, Chair. If I picked that up wrongly, it is entirely my mistake. We hope that the Bill will include custody photographs.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): We are looking at that to see what the issues are. We are aware that the police are using them and that there is a service instruction. The police are going to come and give evidence, and we have asked to see their service instruction to understand whether it is sufficient. We are conscious of the various databases, how they all work and how the PSNI will feed into that system. So keep an eye on that.

Ms Woods: For the purposes of the Bill, we consider photographs as biometrics and support that being included. There have been a number of discussions recently about the use of live facial recognition technology, and a report was made relatively recently to the House of Commons on police use of it. We understand that the PSNI does not currently use it, but it could come in, so we ask the Committee to future-proof the legislation to ensure that that is covered. For all intents and purposes, we consider photographs as biometrics, despite their use over time and the fact that a photograph of somebody one year and 30 years later might not be exactly the same. Hopefully, they will go into the Bill.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): You are using them as biometrics at the point at which they are processed, uploaded and used, as opposed to just —.

Ms Woods: Exactly. Yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): OK. That is helpful. Thank you.

In your paper, you refer to "unintended consequences". What might those be?

Ms Woods: That is in the context of changes that may come down the line, as outlined in other consultations. I point specifically to measures to deal with antisocial behaviour. There were proposals in the joint consultation undertaken by the Department for Communities and the Department of Justice late last year.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is in our papers today. It is as if you are psychic.

Ms Woods: Excellent. We put in a number of queries. Our response to the consultation is available online, but I am more than happy to send the Committee our response to a particular order that applied to 16- and 17-year-olds, not just to over-18s. At the moment, those fixed penalties apply only to people aged 18 and over. If other legislative changes are made relating to antisocial behaviour, will that necessitate biometrics and data being taken from 16- and 17-year-olds on new orders? It is about trying to future-proof. I appreciate that the Committee is dealing with the legislation at hand and cannot look to future legislation that may not exist, but it is about looking at the changes that may come down the line, particularly in this mandate or soon, that we are also considering at the same time as trying to get the balance right with the likes of fixed penalties, which are not criminal convictions at all but civil, and the impact that legislating on biometrics in Part 1 of this Bill may have down the line.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is fair enough. Thank you. We were looking at the fixed penalty stuff too, and, at this juncture, I am not clear on what you could get a fixed penalty notice for that would require you to submit DNA.

Ms Woods: Exactly.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I cannot think of a solitary thing. We have asked some questions on that, too, in order to understand what the issue is.

Lastly from me is the issue about compliance notices from the Biometrics Commissioner. Can you elaborate on your thoughts about that? The Scottish Biometrics Commissioner has the power to issue compliance notices, but the proposal in front of us does not have that power. Can you elaborate a bit more on what you think about that?

Ms Woods: Will I take that?

Mr Quinn: Yes, please. Thank you, Rachel.

Ms Woods: Just from the perspective of looking at the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner Act 2020, it is much larger and more detailed than what we have here. I appreciate that a lot of this might come through secondary regulations and that it might just be a different style of legislating. It was a specific Act, whereas this is a miscellaneous Bill. We hope that the Biometrics Commissioner will have all the powers available that they need, because this is a very significant change and is dealing with people's data and DNA — their private data, at the end of the day. Without significant review mechanisms within Part I as drafted, we are looking to ensure that there is somewhere to which someone can make a complaint if their data is not being dealt with properly under the law. As far as I understand, the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner has those compliance powers, as well as additional powers that are not within our legislation as drafted. We hope that the Committee will consider that, to make that office as best as it can be. We also recommend that the Biometrics Commissioner have specific powers around looking at vulnerable groups, such as children and young people, so that there is a specific focus on children and young people and their data, just as there is in Scotland.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): OK. Thank you, Rachel. Does anyone have anything further to add about biometrics? All these issues are not separate and distinct; they will overlap at times. If anything occurs as we move through, we can accommodate that if necessary.

We will move on to Part 2, which deals with children beyond custody. I have Doug wanting to come in.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Chair. Chris, I am asking a question for more information, but I am actually supportive of this. Bail, remand and custody of children being a measure of last resort — I support that and understand it fully, but how do we balance that with the rights of the victim?

Mr Quinn: Again, our evidence here is grounded in the best interest principles and with regard to proportionality, necessity and appropriateness. For the victim, I think that you are absolutely right; in all of this, there is a balancing act to be considered. A lot of it goes back to the minimum age of criminal responsibility and some of what was discussed in Ray Jones's report on the review of children’s social care. We need to look again at where children and young people are housed with regard to secure care and the JJC; that is all part of it. I will ask Joanne to come in to talk about bail, as this is her area.

Ms McGurk: Absolutely. I will refer to the formal investigation that is referred to in the pack, which is an investigation that our office conducted into the life of the child in the care of the state. In that, we found that detention — in some cases because bail could not be perfected — and onerous bail conditions created trauma and led to reoffending. When looking at the victim, the intention of youth justice is to rehabilitate and ensure that there is no reoffending. Consideration of the victim, of course, is extremely important as well, but part of the youth justice process is to ensure that there is not reoffending, which is part of the outcome for all of society to prevent further offences.

Mr Beattie: I guess, in many ways, we have to be honest about this because, if we have a child or a young person who is continually reoffending, whether it is antisocial behaviour or something slightly more serious, the victims will have to try to understand, one way or the other, according to what you are trying to achieve here, that the child may not end up on bail, on remand or in custody, even though they are repeat offenders. That will be difficult for victims to understand, if we also want to focus on victims, particularly if the person is at the upper end of childhood — 17 or 17 and a half years of age.

Ms McGurk: It is not about there not being consequences or them not being responsible for their actions or accountability. All those things are important, but it is about how we deal with them and ensure, looking through a child's rights lens and the best interests of the child, that there is an outcome for that young person that is not going to create further reoffending back into the justice system but will balance their best interests, as well as those of the victim.

Mr Beattie: Absolutely. You are advocates for children, and I am trying to look at the wider context — even the mental health of a victim who sees a perpetrator, who happens to be under the age of 18, continually roaming the streets even though they have done pretty awful things in the area. I am trying to get a better understanding of that so that people understand what we are trying to achieve here in the widest sense, and not just in a narrower sense.

Mr Quinn: This Bill is very complex, with various layers. When you were speaking, I thought about the review of the JJC not so long ago and the secure care at Lakewood, but also the severity of different offences and proportionality. On the one hand, you are absolutely right: there are going to be situations where one form of action is not as appropriate as another. However, with a little bit of creativity, we have a marvellous facility at the JJC. Fortunately, there is a lot of space in there. It is great that there are not too many people there. We need to look carefully at the Ray Jones report as part of the solution to this, because it is very complex and, from the perspective of the needs of the child, it needs a therapeutic, trauma-informed approach to the various types of offences that someone might commit.

Mr Beattie: You are absolutely right, Chris. This is extremely complex, and that is why we are looking at it. Not just on this particular issue, but on wider issues, I am concerned that the victim is sometimes forgotten. In trying to do the right thing, we end up traumatising other people, and that is a difficult line to tread.

Mr Baker: How compliant are the provisions on bail, remand and custody with the UNCRC?

Ms McGurk: We generally welcome Part 2, but we have concerns about clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill, particularly with the wording:

I know that that has come up before. It is particularly relevant because it impacts on any conditions that flow from it. I use the formal investigation that I have already mentioned as a guiding principle. Certainly, in that case, the bail conditions were so onerous. They were really conditions to manage the child, rather than being for the reasons bail conditions should be granted.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Is that the case study that is in your —?

Ms McGurk: Yes. It resulted in multiple ongoing arrests, and certainly that was not complaint with the UNCRC or children's rights. Look at the wording of those clauses. There is a likelihood that it could be interpreted in a way that is not compliant, because the wording:

particularly in clause 6 and in clause 5, does not appear to be solely down to the right to bail. There are other influences and other external factors that may be —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): It is mob rule, potentially.

Ms McGurk: Yes, exactly.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Either you are entitled to bail or you are not. I am a bit concerned about that myself.

Mr Baker: What would you like to see in it, then?

Ms McGurk: Maybe further safeguarding. I need further clarity and some expression as to a stronger intention towards bail without conditions. That should be clearer and should be based on the best interests of the child. We have asked for the best interests of the child to be reiterated in this legislation. That would be helpful. We would also like training and guidance for custody officers, as well as the judiciary, who impose bail conditions, and the importance of those conditions being based on the needs of the individual child.

Mr Baker: Have you had any discussions with the Minister or her officials around the possibility of clause 8 not being commenced?

Ms McGurk: Not recently.

Ms Woods: We made it quite clear in our submission that we would not support the non-commencement of that clause. Joanne could probably go a bit more into why. On the back of clauses 5 and 6, which are of particular concern, and the threat to public order, we encourage the Committee to consider that in and around child criminal exploitation and the potential actions of others and who is at serious risk. Is it the child? Is it the community? How is that interpreted?

The explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) is not overly clear on the intention of the Department, and I know that has come up in Committee before, but the impacts of child criminal exploitation and the potential for a child or young person to be coerced into action by others and how a court could interpret it really needs to be looked at. Again, I am sure that you will be engaging on that, but how that specific clause can be interpreted needs to be looked at from the perspective of a child who has been coerced.

Ms Ferguson: I have a quick one. In relation to clause 8, obviously we do not want to see young people remanded in custody unnecessarily. Have you had any thoughts on the current position regarding accommodation? What is the level of unavailability of appropriate bail accommodation and the numbers of young people who are remanded in custody? I just want to get a feel for the current environment that we are operating in. What would you like to see? What scale and level is required post legislation? I am conscious that the health and social care trusts probably have a lot to do with providing appropriate accommodation, but what is the environment within which the legal system is operating at this moment?

Mr Quinn: I am thinking of the formal investigation again.

Ms McGurk: From recent casework, we are seeing cases where children and young people are not able to perfect bail or to find suitable accommodation, so the JJC is the best worst option. It is an ongoing issue. Chris talked about the formal investigation, and that was very much the case of the young person called Vicky in the report, who spent over 450 days in the JJC when she should have been on bail or on remand or should have been in suitable accommodation. The outcome was very difficult, and there was trauma experienced as a result.

As for what we would like to see, we appreciate the practicalities, but it is simply not good enough. The formal investigation in that circumstance was when it was happening in 2017. We are now in 2025, and we are getting casework again. It is a continuing issue, and it happened before 2017. There is a clear responsibility on the trusts to be able to provide suitable accommodation to allow children and young people to perfect bail where custody and detention of their liberty being determined by the court and the police as not appropriate.

There has been a bail fostering pilot, but there is not a huge amount of detail on that. We understand that it is being used, but we would like further information. It would be worth exploring how that can be rolled out to other trusts.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Its use was very limited; I believe that only two children were involved. From my recollection, it has been extended to afford the Department the opportunity to gather more data. I believe that it took place in only one trust area.

Ms Woods: One trust area, for two children.

Ms McGurk: There should be short-, medium- and long-term planning in relation to that issue. It is simply unacceptable, when the police or the courts determine that children should be on bail, that we say that custody is the best that we can do. Those are, often, vulnerable young people and that is not the appropriate accommodation for them.

Chris talked a little bit about the regional youth justice campus. That may be a way to move that forward in the long term, but there is certainly an onus on the trusts to move quickly on the issue in the short term. The Children's Services Co-operation Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 requires all Departments to cooperate for the well-being of children. There is an onus on all Departments because it is an issue that touches many of them.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Do members have anything to add?

Ms Egan: Not on this section, but later on.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I meant just on this section.

This is the trouble with this: I am somewhere where Doug is, to be honest, because I do not want to see children stigmatised; I want them to have the best opportunities that there can be. I appreciate that some children have a really bad start, and it is difficult to overcome that, but I think that they should be given the chances. The other side of that is that there are people who just behave badly, and we need to find a way and a balance to prevent them from doing that and from causing harm to other people. We need to consider the victims. I am wrestling with some of these areas myself and I trying to think through what the repercussions are. I am still working my way through that, so bear with me.

The bail conditions thing concerns me. A complete, no-conditions, free-for-all worries me. I do not believe that there should be onerous conditions. The case that you present is horrifying, but we know from practitioners that conditions are sometimes helpful, particularly for parents. I am not suggesting that bail conditions should be a means of good parenting; I am saying that, sometimes, it is not bad parenting that results in a child ending up in the system. Sometimes, those parents need a bit of help to impart to their child the gravity of the situation that they are in.

We can go back to all the business about fully understanding and all those things, but again, for me, it is about a balance. The safe space issue is key. When it comes to the issue around suitable accommodation, my understanding was that something was to be built but it has been stopped because of budgetary pressures. Certainly, custody is not ideal, but I do not think that any kind of custody, whether it is for an adult or a child, is the place to keep somebody safe. It should not be happening regardless; it is not suitable accommodation. A police cell or jail cell is not suitable accommodation in those circumstances. There is work that needs to be done, but I appreciate that it is more vexatious in the case of children.

You talked about children and adults in prison together. I presume that that refers to Hydebank, and you referenced Hydebank. Again, could you give me some understanding of the number of children/juveniles that you perceive to be in Hydebank? Do you have any data on that?

Mr Quinn: May I make a quick comment on your previous point?

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Yes, of course, Chris; please do.

Mr Quinn: You are talking about the fundamentals. I am not a lawyer, nor am I a draftsman of Bills. However, we are experts in children's rights and their best interests. In my opinion, all the issues that we are talking about today are mixed together. My view is this: let us raise the age of criminal responsibility as a starting point. Let us look at the JJC and Lakewood as they stand. There are facilities there, and I do not think that they are being used in the best way. We have seen the success of restorative justice practice, and how that can work for victims and perpetrators. We need to invest more in the prevention element. We need to focus on educating children and young people. I know that I am going way left field here, but we need to think about relationships and sexuality education. We need to think about all of that as part of the whole. We need to think about how the education system equips children and young people for life, and about the dangers online and offline.

With a little bit of creativity, we can make things work. I will go back to Ray Jones and his report. He gave us lots of solutions, and they seem to have stuck. A fundamental starting point, however, is raising the age of criminal responsibility and wrapping services around those who are vulnerable in order to prevent these things. I take on board your point about the victim, though. At times, serious crimes will be committed, but that is not the norm. Those instances are usually quite rare, thankfully.

Sorry, I have forgotten your second question.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): It was more a stream of consciousness as I work through the issues. My actual question was about the number of children and juveniles in Hydebank.

Mr Quinn: That does not happen anymore.

Ms Woods: That practice does not happen anymore. We believe that those clauses are to put in statute practice that has been in place for around a decade.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): It is essentially codifying.

Ms Woods: We are welcoming the clauses that are being legislated for now, but we believe that it has been 10 years since that happened. We would not have any data on that. I do not believe that it happens.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): No. That is great.

Does anyone else want to come in on these specific issue? We will come to the age of criminal responsibility and the issues around equal protection in the final session, when we cover all the general questions. I think that we will have further conversations around those topics. Does anybody else have any questions on children's bail and custody? No.

We will move on to live links. Has anything arisen with regard to live links? We have noted your points about live links, and understand where those are coming from. Live links, at this stage, is not massively controversial for us.

Part 4 of the Bill is on the administration of justice.

Mr Beattie: Chris, again, I am looking at the bit in your submission about disclosure, which refers to a clean slate at the age of 18. I am going to be honest with you and say that I would not be supportive of that. It should be based more around crime than age. What is your rationale for a clean slate at the age of 18?

Mr Quinn: That is a really valid question, Doug, and it is something that we have given lots of consideration to. Rachel will want to come in on this. We have already talked about stigmatisation and the criminal age of responsibility, and the seriousness of crime will obviously be a dictating factor in this. For us, it is about the ability to apply and for that to be reviewed, and, again, for those things to be proportionate and necessary.

Ms Woods: This is to do with recommendation 21 from the Youth Justice Agency review in 2011. There is then the 'Tracing the Review: Developments in Youth Justice in Northern Ireland' report from 2021. To be clear, the recommendation is not for automatically wiping the slate clean at the age of 18. When I read the EFM on this, the explanation did not really give us a lot of information on the position that has been put forward. To be clear, there are no calls from us that children and young people should get away with things at the age of 18 and that offending behaviour would never appear on a record. This is about an application process. We have something in place at the moment, and Part 4 is legislating on the process that is currently in place with the independent reviewer. That is the current role.

The recommendation is that we have an application process for a slate to be wiped clean rather than having to wait for an AccessNI or criminal record check to be applied for, because that is considered and a decision is made when an employer or potential employer makes an AccessNI application. We are looking to see whether we can get an application process so that, when somebody turns 18, they can apply — perhaps to the independent reviewer or somewhere else — to have information that is no longer relevant wiped. We are not saying that everything should go, because, obviously, there would be safeguarding concerns with that approach, depending on the seriousness of the offence. However, it is about having an application process, rather than all data going once the person reaches 18.

Mr Beattie: That is a good answer, and I get your point. You clarified well the fact that we are talking about a process. When we think about your patch and young people, we think that we are talking about 10-year-olds,12-year-olds and 13-year-olds, but we are actually talking about people who are up to 17 years old or those who are just about to turn 18. The moment that you tick a day over the age of 18, that process is no longer open to you. That is why I ask this: why is there an arbitrary age to the recommendation? Why is it not based on the crime as opposed to the person's age?

Ms Woods: If the Committee wants to look at having an application process for everyone to wipe their slate clean, I am sure that that would be fine, but we are dealing with the current position, which is about legislating on children. In Part 4, it is up to age 18, so it is up to when someone is an adult.

We do not think that it would be based just on the seriousness of offences. It would be based on the seriousness of the offences, but it would not be like having the disposals or CRNs that are used with 11-year-olds, which would not be relevant to anything anymore, depending on the offence. For example, sexual offences or any of the more serious offences, even if they were committed at 17, would not be included. Those would not be part of the process to wipe the slate clean, because they obviously come with safeguarding concerns.

The application process is for minor offences, which are already ruled out by the independent reviewer. You would just be able to apply to the process, rather than having to wait for a number of years to pass by or for a criminal record check to be issued on your behalf. For example, to get this position, I had to do an enhanced criminal record check via AccessNI. Had I been involved in any disposals when I was under 18, that is when the process would have kicked in, if I had not been given the opportunity, as recommended by the youth justice review and a number of other reports across the United Kingdom, to apply at the age of 18 to have a clean slate. It is just another way of looking at it and another avenue to essentially wipe the slate clean, if appropriate. It is not a blanket policy.

Mr Beattie: We are delving into the issue and teasing it out so that everybody understands that. It is important that people, particularly the public, understand that. They will put the question in the most extreme terms possible. That is what people do. If a 12-year-old is charged with and found guilty of a sex offence, would they be allowed to apply for that offence to be wiped clean at the age of 18? People will ask that question, because they will go to the most extreme situations.

Ms Woods: They could apply, but it would not be granted. Just because an application goes in does not mean that it will be granted. It is the same as what I understand to be the current process, in that, if an application was made to the independent reviewer and that kind of disposal was on your record, that would, obviously, be shown. What we are talking about here are applications made at 18 that relate to minor disposals. My understanding is that minor disposals are not given for serious offences. We are talking about low-level offences, not serious ones.

Mr Beattie: It is key to focus on the fact that we are talking about low-level stuff. That really needs to be highlighted when we talk about the issue if people are to understand it better. Thank you, Rachel and Chris.

Ms Woods: It really brings to our attention the importance of information and accessible guidance so that there is understanding. It is an extremely complex Bill and an extremely complex area of law. We need to look across all of it, from the perspective of the need not only for children and young people to access information but for us all to be educated on the criminal justice system and what we are talking about. Most of us will not have a clue until something goes wrong, and then we have to start googling and searching online for information about it. It highlights the importance — we have put this in our submission — of training and providing information and accessible guidance for everybody, specifically children and young people, about what will go on their record and the implications of all that for their future. We do not believe that that is in place at the moment.

Mr Beattie: You are absolutely right, Rachel. The justice system is probably one of the most confusing areas. That is why I asked about how much we focus on the victims. The victims will not get that. They will not understand it, because it is so complex, and that is why information and training are incredibly important. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Danny, before I bring you in, I want to ask a question on that specific point, if you do not mind.

Mr Baker: No, go ahead.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Rachel, you mentioned low-level offences. To your mind, what are low-level offences? I want to ask you about a specific issue. Sometimes, certain behaviours are indicative of more serious criminal activity that is likely to follow; for example, cruelty to animals or cruelty to other small children. Those are indicators that a person is going to be a problem as they age into adulthood. Do you envisage such offences being wiped?

Ms Woods: I hope that there would be a social welfare response to and support put in place for somebody displaying those types of behaviours and that the relevant authorities and support systems would give that their attention. That is why we have called for early intervention and prevention work, family and parenting support throughout and support in the community and voluntary sector, from a social welfare and child rights position. With respect to the Bill and this issue, I do not see how you could consider potential future behaviour. I understand your point, Chair, but I do not know how that would be relevant if the offences have not been committed and there is a disposal on a record.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): My issue is that, if a child is found guilty of an offence such as cruelty to animals, other children or whatever, that is often an indicator. The offence is there; the child is found guilty. You are talking about low-level offences. Is that a low-level offence that should be wiped? What is the level of the offence? Sometimes, those things are indicative of the likelihood of future offending and more-serious offending. At what level of offence do we say, "OK, that is fine. We will let that one go"?

Mr Quinn: I would say that, yes, that should be wiped. Rachel's point about a social care response is absolutely crucial.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I think that it is too, Chris, but the problem is that that is not there. Some of this stuff becomes an issue in terms of the parallel processes. It is the same issue with equal protection, which we will come on to. The problem is that all those things should move in parallel so that the supports are there, but they are not, and while they are not there, we need to be mindful of the gaps and the unintended consequences.

Mr Quinn: I can give you lots of examples. Say, for example, there is a playground accident in which somebody's leg is broken, and a young person is convicted of assault. As a result of that going on the young person's record, they cannot travel to America or go to a certain university to do a certain course. Putting to one side the question of criminalising that child in the first place, that is an example of where the slate should be wiped clean. Another young person who uses marijuana at the age of, let us say, 14 is caught by the police and gets a criminal conviction. Despite that individual being involved in programmes, doing really well in life and getting a job, they face life-limiting opportunities: they cannot travel, and they cannot do this or that. In that case, I would absolutely say, "Wipe the slate clean". A 10-year-old child in Derry/Londonderry is caught throwing a petrol bomb: a criminal conviction results. Let us ask who put the petrol bomb into that child's hands. Let us ask those questions, but, absolutely, wipe the slate clean for that child, providing that the supports are in place. I will stop there, because you have made the point about the supports not being there.

All those scenarios point to why wiping the slate clean is appropriate. It gets more complex according to the severity of the crime. That is what Rachel was saying around the application process and having a suitably qualified person, or people, to make those calls.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I agree. That is why I wanted to tease out the issue. These things are always black and white in the legislation. If there is going to be a sliding scale on this, we need to have an understanding of what it is, because we are going to have to vote for it, one way or the other.

Ciara, do you want to come in on this point, or do you want in on something general? Danny is also waiting.

Ms Ferguson: It is on the vulnerability of the children we are discussing, and the trauma.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I will come to that. Danny is waiting, and your point is not specifically on this. Danny, go ahead.

Mr Baker: Thank you, Chair. To be fair, Rachel covered a lot of it in her answer when talking about early intervention. Chris, you gave examples. As someone else who is keen on youth work, I see those examples. It is all down to early intervention. There can be a stigmatisation of our young people; they are already heavily labelled. We do not know their circumstances, or what happens behind closed doors. I have a quick example. We see it all the time. During the summer and Christmas holidays, for instance, we see an increase in antisocial behaviour, and all of that, in our communities — be that at an interface or anywhere else — and certain kids will get labelled. Poverty plays a massive part in that. If we continue to fail them, label them and throw them behind bars, it is only costing more money in the long run. Early intervention is key. That is what we need to see in legislation, going forward. Sorry, that was more of a point than a question.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is fine; I spoke for about ten minutes, myself.

Ms Ferguson: I have a question, now that we are talking about the vulnerability of our young people and the trauma that they may have faced. I have been working with a lot of young people with learning disabilities etc. You can see their vulnerability. Chair, I want to go back to live links if you will allow me to. I have a bit of concern about the use of live links, particularly with children.

First, what benefits do you see in continuing the roll-out of live links? Secondly, what safeguards can be put in place? Face to face is better than live links, particularly when you are dealing with vulnerable young people. What are your thoughts on that? I apologise for going back to live links, but I am doing that because of the vulnerability of the children we are speaking about.

Mr Quinn: Ciara, that is another great question, and one that we have talked about at length, internally. From a best-interest perspective, you have to ask yourself how child-friendly being in a courtroom, or the justice system in general, is. You used the word "safeguards". In our submission, we have highlighted that, yes, face to face is an important part of the justice system, but the success of the remote evidence centre in Belfast — I do not know whether you have visited it — is an example of how successful live links can be. My default position is that it goes back to the best interests of the child; the vulnerability of the child; their individual and specific needs; ensuring that specific safeguards are in place; and ensuring that the correct information is given to the child and their family around the use.

Joanne, do you want to come in on that from a legal perspective?

Ms McGurk: On safeguards, it is important to get the child's voice in the decision-making around what they feel is best and whether they want to give live evidence. I do not think that there is ever a time when they should not have the opportunity to hear about and understand their right to legal representation. That is key. As part of their access to justice, it is important that they have legal representation, their appropriate adult and a registered intermediary. It is also important that it is established that they understand what they are consenting to.

It is critical that, if this proceeds, those safeguards are clearly set out in the legislation.

Ms Woods: Ciara, we have talked about consent. The Bill would insert new article 46ZA into the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989. It gives a list of criteria to be met on the functions of a police officer. One of those is "appropriate consent", and it explains what that means. For those who have attained the age of 18, consent is to be given by the person. For those who have not attained 18 but who have attained 14, it is the consent of the person and the person's parent or guardian. For those aged 14 and under, it is just the consent of the parent or guardian, which we question, because it does not meet the standards of the voice of the child, as outlined in the UNCRC. We would question why there is no specific mention of the child's best interests or the vulnerabilities of children and young people. There is no mention in the provisions of those with SEND, learning difficulties or anything like that.

I am happy to point to specifics that we consider would be useful for the Committee to look at. We question who the appropriate adult would be in that and what that system looks like. We need to ensure that the voice of the child is front and centre and that they are able to understand proceedings. There are bits in other justice legislation about age and the ability to understand detainment, because you do not just get to 14 and become able to consent or not consent. It is important to take account of the voice, experiences and opinion of the child in the use of live links.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I think that it was your paper that asked, "OK, well, if one says yes and one says no, where are you left?". I will put it to the Committee at the end, but my view is that we should send your paper on to the Department for comment. We will pursue those things further. Ciara, are you happy enough with that?

Ms Ferguson: Yes, thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): OK, thank you very much.

I am conscious of time and that we have other witnesses waiting. Connie, moving on to general issues, I turn to you on criminal responsibility and equal protection.

Ms Egan: Thank you very much, everyone, for coming in today and presenting to us. I really appreciated the fact that your paper highlights issues that are not covered in the Bill, such as the minimum age of criminal responsibility and equal protection. I would like to hear a bit more, if it is OK, about your rationale for setting the minimum age of criminal responsibility at 16. I absolutely agree that 10 is far too young, but the Committee has heard from other attendees who have said that 14 might be appropriate. I would like to hear a bit more about your rationale for 16.

Mr Quinn: That is a great question, Connie. Again, we have discussed this internally. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has recommended at least 14. The short answer — and I will elaborate — is that I want this place to be the best place for a child to live. I want our laws and policies to be child-rights compliant. For me, 16 is an appropriate age, when you assess the maturity of a child. The whole rationale behind MACR is about the child's development, neurological and otherwise. It also goes back to the stigmatisation that Danny talked about. Sixteen is our recommendation for MACR.

Ms Woods: I appreciate that there is much debate. The age has to be raised, because 10 is far too young. The UN committee has commended states that have it at 16. There are a number of states that have it at 16. Some, like Luxembourg, have it at 18. It is different in different states that you look at. Our position is 16 as the absolute minimum. Again, that is based on extensive evidence of the harm that having a lower MACR — sorry, minimum age of criminal responsibility; we talk in acronyms at NICCY, which is another acronym — is ineffective. We know that criminalising children at a young age does not make communities any safer. Neuroscience and neurological research and the children's rights perspective, which we come from, recommend 16 as the minimum age of criminal responsibility. As Chris said, we would like this place to be the best place for a child or young person to be, so we will look for the best possible situation. That is what the UNCRC recommends.

Ms Egan: That is really helpful. You have provided wording for an amendment, which I thank you for. I hope that that will be put into the Bill.

Do you have any examples of how the current law on equal protection is being used, and of the negative impact that it is having on children and young people?

Mr Quinn: You are talking about international evidence and best practice. We now know about the dangers that it poses to a child's well-being and the impact that it can have on a child during their early life and into adulthood. I do not have any examples. Do you, Joanne?

Ms McGurk: I will not go into specific cases, but I will give examples of concerning things that can arise. Confusion can arise because of the lack of clarity. That blurring of the lines can create circumstances in which, in proceedings, contact with children is limited because of a parent's actions or the misunderstanding of actions. Without going into the details of a particular case, that is certainly something that we are concerned about. At the end of the day, adults do not have the right to assault each other, so why should they have the right to assault a young person?

Ms Egan: I largely agree. Thank you.

Mr Baker: A number of weeks ago, when the Minister was at the Committee, she confirmed that reasonable chastisement and raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility fall within the scope of the Bill. How much of a failure will the Bill be if it does not have those elements in it?

I take the Minister's point about Health's having to be at the table on reasonable chastisement. Have you had any engagement with Health officials? Is the ground being laid in Departments for that?

Mr Quinn: The first question was about how much of failure it would be. I think back to Patricia Lewsley-Mooney's time as commissioner. She worked really hard on equal protection. That was some years ago; it must be at least —

Ms Woods: The first one is from 2008.

Mr Quinn: Yes, 2008, so this is a —

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I told you: it comes up in every mandate.

Mr Quinn: — long-standing issue. People in this room will have campaigned on it for many years. Indeed, Rachel, wearing a different hat, worked on it from the other side of the table. It would be a failure. It would be hugely disappointing if it were not included in the Bill. On a positive note, while it is a complex Bill — we are all trying to work out the complexity — there are huge opportunities here to ensure that Northern Ireland is a more child-rights-compliant society. It would put us on par with other parts of the world.

What was your second question, Danny?

Mr Baker: It was about engagement with Health on reasonable chastisement. The Minister said that that is a key component and that it cannot fall to only Justice. If we do not have Health at the table, it will not work. The issue is within the remit of Health as well.

Mr Quinn: Joanne mentioned the Children's Services Co-operation Act. At any Committee that we appear in front of, all the issues straddle different Departments and different Ministers, as these issues do. However, I have not had any direct engagement with Health on that issue in this term.

Ms Woods: No. We are waiting for the family and parenting strategy. It is our understanding that that might not progress in this mandate. We actively encourage that to be progressed. We, others in the room and other organisations issued a joint paper on equal protection to you as part of this call for evidence. There are two calls in that paper, one of which is that the reform of the legislation must go hand in hand with family and parenting support. That is fundamental. It would be an absolute disgrace, and a missed opportunity, if equal protection and raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility were not legislated for in this mandate. Those are two fundamental breaches of children's rights that are currently being allowed for in legislation in Northern Ireland. That cannot continue. We have been talking about it for a very long time. There is overwhelming support — the majority of people in Northern Ireland support legislative change on equal protection and the removal of the defence of reasonable chastisement — so we fail to see why, after the number of delays that we have had, there would be any further delay in that legislation coming into force.

Mr Baker: Thank you so much.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): There is no Executive agreement on issues such as the minimum age of criminal responsibility, and, given the nature and make-up of the Committee, I suspect that that is unlikely to be agreed here either, and I anticipate that there will be an amendment. For us, there needs to be a balance. Support for families is key because, whilst we have no desire to see children abused or to see any form of punishment be a gateway to abuse, we do not want to see families and parents criminalised for having a bad day. That is the problem. If the supports are not in place, the criminal element will move ahead without support being there for prevention. We need to make sure that everything ties in together. I am certain that there will be longer and more in-depth discussions on that issue.

Ms Woods: Chair, if I may, I will encourage the Committee to consider the other countries that have removed the defence of reasonable chastisement. Criminalisation of parents has not been seen in any of the places that have removed that defence. That is not to say that every country and state that has removed the defence has put serious, good, robust parenting strategies in place. The NSPCC did research in 2021 or 2022, and, again, the majority of people said that they would like the defence to be removed. They also said that they would like education, training and resources, but we should have that in place for our parents and families anyway.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Yes.

Ms Woods: It is not just about that issue; it is about looking at the child's best interests and having the best start in life and putting those supports around the child in a family and a community. There is the old saying that it takes a village to raise a child; it absolutely does, but we also need resources and support from government. That is not to say that they do not exist, because there is lots there. In the countries that we have looked at, introducing equal protection has not increased criminalisation of parents in any way. That is something that the Committee could consider.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is my issue. Those conversations will need to be ongoing not just in the Committee but in our parties. People need to tease out the issues, including how society has moved on, and look at them in the wider arena. I will not make promises to you on that today — none of us can do that — but I can say that I have no doubt that the discussions will continue in parties and in the Committee as we work our way through the Bill. Whether there will be agreement, I do not know, but it remains in our consciousness.

Ms Woods: Chair, there is a wealth of knowledge in the sector.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Yes, there is.

Ms Woods: If you would like any further information, we would be more than happy to give you information or seek information on your behalf. We see that matter as one of the fundamental children's rights breaches in Northern Ireland, and we encourage the Committee, or individual MLAs, to look at it and legislate on it in this mandate because it is a matter of urgency.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): As I said, Rachel, we are going to look at it —

Ms Woods: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): — but I cannot go beyond that. There will need to be discussions, and a number of us want to look at the whole thing in the round because it is broader than being just a justice issue.

It is the same with the minimum age of criminal responsibility: there will be more discussion and research. There is no Executive agreement; there will be no party agreement. I suspect that it will be one of those things that we will have to tease out further and then see where we all land. We may end up a bit closer than we did in the previous mandate — I do not know — but we may not. That is the nature of democracy. We will debate and consider the issues. The great thing about the Committee is that it is really engaged: we are eager to think about things properly and carefully and see how things might move on. The minds may not meet this time — I will not predict one way or the other — but maybe things will move forward another step, which is always progress.

The Policing Board debates the pros and cons of spit and bite guards pretty much monthly. It is not that straightforward. I will leave that in the Policing Board arena for now, because we have enough to consider. We will, no doubt, come back to that.

I am conscious that other witnesses are waiting. You have been very generous with your time and information. Doubtless, we will speak further, but thank you for taking the time today. It has been really informative and helpful.