Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): We have with us, from the Children's Law Centre (CLC), Paddy Kelly, director; Eamonn McNally, senior solicitor; and Fergal McFerran, policy and public affairs manager. They are here to give us evidence. Folks, you are all very welcome. I am fairly certain that the names on my list are not who is in front of me. No, they are. Paddy, I am sorry.

Ms Paddy Kelly (Children's Law Centre): It is not a problem. It is not the first time that that has happened to me.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I made an assumption. I am sorry about that, Paddy.

Ms Kelly: It is totally understandable. I am well used to it at this stage.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I looked down my page at the names and thought, "Oh, no". Apologies for that.

Thank you very much for your forbearance as we worked our way through the issues with the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY). Maybe, in some respects, that will make life a bit easier for you.

Ms Kelly: I hope so.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Thank you very much for your attendance today. We value your paper. I will hand the meeting over to you for your opening remarks, and then, as ever, we will ask questions. Is that OK?

Ms Kelly: Yes. Good afternoon, members. Thank you very much, Chair, for your welcome and introduction. We are grateful to the Committee for providing us with the opportunity to make a submission and give evidence on the Justice Bill, as introduced.

As you may be aware, the Children's Law Centre is a children's legal charity that uses the law to vindicate children's rights through legal advice, representation and strategic litigation; policy and advocacy work; training; research; and ensuring that the voice of the child is heard and taken into account when decisions are made about children's lives. We are pleased to be able, annually, to assist thousands of your constituents to access critical services to ensure that their children are able to enjoy their childhood and realise their full potential.

I acknowledge that members received our written submission late, which may have militated against your having time to consider it in detail. The reason for the delay was the complexity of the Bill and our wish to provide you with proposed technical amendments, including a detailed clause-by-clause consideration and, in some instances, proposals of potential amendments for your consideration. If members have not had the opportunity to fully consider our submission, we will be happy to assist the Committee by meeting you informally to discuss it following today's meeting or by providing further written information as necessary.

As we were invited to give evidence on Part 2 of the Bill, the submission largely focuses on Part 2. The Children's Law Centre intends to make further submissions to the Committee on other Parts of the Bill in the coming weeks. In the interim, our submission provides you with links to the Children's Law Centre's response to public consultations on the retention of DNA and fingerprints and the proposal to use live links for police detention.

CLC's submission is based on evidence accumulated over 27 years of work on justice policy and legislation, including our intensive engagement in the developmental process that brought us to many of the provisions contained in the Bill. Our proposals are evidence-based and draw on our casework; our direct experience of children in the criminal justice system; good practice here and elsewhere; and binding domestic and international human rights standards. They also reflect current scientific and other research, including on brain development.

We note that many of the provisions in the Bill reflect current practice and will put on a statutory footing the many changes in the youth justice system that have evolved over two decades. They will also give effect in statute to at least some of the outstanding recommendations of the youth justice review. While that is to be welcomed, it is regrettable that, in the intervening period, because children and families have not been provided with the support that they require, children have been criminalised unnecessarily and are living with criminal records that are impacting and will impact on their life chances. The time has come — the Bill is the opportunity — to provide the next generation of children and families with the additional and necessary supports and protections to ensure that children are kept out of the criminal justice system and to afford legal certainty to those working in it.

In addition to the detailed proposed amendments to specific clauses in Part 2 that we discuss in our submission, we suggest that the Committee considers the inclusion of an overarching clause on the Bill's interpretation and implementation and an amendment to the language used in the Bill.

We would welcome the Committee's supporting a new clause to be included at the start of the Bill to ensure consistency with the provisions of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, as amended by section 98 of the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2015. The 2015 amendment incorporated the "best interests" principle in the aims of the youth justice system alongside the need to:

We propose that the new clause applies to all Parts of the Bill. The inclusion of that amendment would also reflect and reinforce other statutory duties, including those under the Children's Services Co-operation Act (Northern Ireland) 2015.

We would welcome the Committee's support for our proposal that, in all instances where the term "juvenile" is used in the Bill, it is replaced with "child". The term "juvenile" carries a stigma associated with delinquency and wrongdoing and reflects society's understanding of and approach to youth justice in the previous century, whereas the term "child" is humanising and reflects the legal status of an under-18. Using the language of "child" is, therefore, consistent with the rehabilitative rather than punitive approach to youth justice that is the Department of Justice's prevailing policy approach in 2025. Substituting "child justice" for "juvenile justice" throughout would also overcome any confusion that might arise from the Bill's interchangeable use of the two terms.

We wish to give members as much time as possible to ask any questions that might arise from our submission, but we will take a couple of minutes now to commend to the Committee proposed amendments not included in the Bill, as introduced, that we outline in our paper. The Bill represents a legislative opportunity, and the time is well overdue, to address two areas of law and policy in which the evidence for change is overwhelming: raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) and repealing the defence of reasonable chastisement. We are aware that they have already been raised with the Committee by colleagues, including from Barnardo's, from the British Association of Social Workers (BASW) and, this afternoon, from NICCY.

At 10, our current minimum age of criminal responsibility is not only one of the lowest in the world and in breach of international human rights standards but does not reflect the reality of our child justice system. In the absence of raising MACR, colleagues in the child justice system have worked extremely hard to remove children from the formal criminal justice system. The majority of children in the Juvenile Justice Centre (JJC) on any given day are 16-plus. Younger children are diverted, albeit within the system, but many still receive a criminal record that can haunt them for life, creating barriers to education, employment, rehabilitation and travel. Neuroscience research has demonstrated that children under 16 lack the cognitive maturity to fully understand legal proceedings, consequences of actions and impulse control.

Children who come into contact with the criminal justice system are often the most vulnerable. Over 34% of children in custody in Northern Ireland are care-experienced. Additionally, children from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds and those with mental health issues, learning disabilities or histories of abuse or neglect are disproportionately represented. Instead of criminalising those children, we should prioritise early intervention, support services and diversionary approaches outside the criminal justice system. If the aim is to rehabilitate and support children to change their behaviour, criminalising children does not work. Rather, it stigmatises and alienates children, leading to their reoffending. DOJ data shows that the reoffending rate for young people who receive a custodial sentence is 80% within a year, proving that punitive approaches are ineffective. DOJ's public consultation demonstrates broad consensus among your constituents that 10 is too young. This legislation provides the vehicle to introduce that long-overdue statutory amendment.

In 2006, an amendment was enacted that provided that the defence of reasonable chastisement would no longer be available to certain offences committed against children. While that was a welcome step, it is regrettable that the defence remained on the statute books in respect of common assault offences, under section 42 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The consequence of the limited amendment is that our most vulnerable citizens — children — do not enjoy the same protection from assault as you and I. Not only is the current legal position in breach of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), but it exposes parents to legal uncertainty; flies in the face of evidence that physical punishment increases aggression and antisocial behaviour and causes depression and anxiety in children that may continue into their adult lives; and, very worryingly, runs the risk of escalation into physical abuse.

The NSPCC's research shows overwhelming public support for a statutory amendment to protect children from being physically punished by their parents or caregivers: it is supported by 65% of the general public and 71% of parents, carers and guardians. It is clear that parents do not want to physically chastise their children but, rather, want help to support their children to grow and thrive. The argument for retention of the defence in respect of lesser offences was a need to put in place support to assist parents who face challenges. Twenty years is sufficient time for the necessary supports to have been put in place. The public wants to see prohibition of the use of physical punishment. The Bill presents an excellent opportunity to ensure that our most vulnerable citizens — our children — enjoy the same protections as you and I.

We are happy to try to answer any questions that Committee members might have, but, given that the focus of our written submission is Part 2 of the Bill, we would welcome engagement, in particular, on the relevant clauses that relate to presumption of bail without conditions; concern re the inability of children to perfect bail; and how to protect against the inappropriate placement of children with complex needs in the JJC, as exemplified by the disturbing, but sadly not unique, case of Sophie Rodgers, who was one of Eamonn's clients and whose heartbreaking story was covered in the media a few weeks ago. To assure Committee members, we contacted Sophie's mum in advance of today's Committee meeting, and she said that she would welcome our speaking about Sophie's case in our engagement with you to assist you in exploring how this legislation might stop what happened to Sophie happening to any other child.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Thank you very much, Paddy.

Mr Baker: Thank you so much, Paddy. That was very informative. Going back to the minimum age of criminal responsibility, I would like to tap into your wealth of knowledge on the failures of the past. In the previous session, we heard that there is a chance that we may not get this over the line even through an amendment. The Minister has said that there is scope for it in the Bill. In your view, what were the failings of the past, and how much of a failing would it be if we, once again, did not get this over the line?

Ms Kelly: I started work on this issue 30 years ago, when the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child first recommended — it was the first examination of the UK Government — raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility. At that time, we had three juvenile justice detention provisions: one was on the Glen Road, the name of which I cannot remember — it has gone now, anyway; there was another at Lisnevin in Millisle, which was a grade C prison; and the third was the predecessor of the JJC. The population of children in the criminal justice system was significantly higher. I think that, at that stage — I am delving deep into my memory, Danny — there were circa 50 children in the JJC alone, never mind the other two establishments. That is the risk that we face in the criminalisation of children, if we do not raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility.

I commend colleagues in the youth justice system for the work that they have done, in the intervening period, in the absence of the minimum age of criminal responsibility being raised. Recognising the particular vulnerability of younger children, they have worked hard to remove them from detention and from the criminal justice system.

I want to record my very strong personal thanks to Tony Kavanagh, who used to work in the youth justice system and has done a lot of work to get us to where we are now.

At that stage, they closed down Lisnevin as well as St Pat's on the Glen Road — that is the name of the institution that I forgot. Tony and his colleagues in the youth justice system worked very hard to remove the children, especially the younger children, from detention in the justice system until the minimum age of criminal responsibility would be raised, such were the assurances that were given to us at that time.

We are therefore at the stage where, if you were to go to the youth justice centre on any particular day, you would find that the majority of children are aged 16-plus. I would say that the majority of them are on bail or on remand awaiting but unable to perfect bail. We will, no doubt, come to that at a later stage. The majority of those who are 16-plus are probably waiting to perfect bail and are in for very minor offences. Raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 16 would reflect the current reality of the youth justice system. I suppose that I am saying that the world has not fallen apart because of the fact that, effectively — in all but statute — that cohort of children under the age of 16 is not being detained in a juvenile justice centre and those large numbers of children are being diverted, albeit within the criminal justice system, as opposed to criminalised. I think that society is now mature and developed enough that, having learned from the work of Tony Kavanagh and others, we are in a place where we can take that next step.

I will pick up on a question from the previous session about the actual age being 16 — I think that it was Connie's question. We have been discussing that with elected representatives since the Assembly was first established. At a particular time — 2008, I think — we were having intense discussions and were lucky to have the chair of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in Belfast for one of our annual lectures. I spent a lot of time talking to her about what the age is, given that the UN committee had said that it should be raised, progressively, to at least 12. She told me that the committee said that the age should be 12 in order to give comfort to countries where the age was as low as seven or eight and that may not be well-developed democracies to be able to move to 12. The committee's expectation for developed democracies such as Northern Ireland, however, was that the age of criminal responsibility should be 16. That is reflected in a quotation that is included in our submission; she said that publicly at our lecture. That is where the age of 16 comes from, and that is reflective of the UN committee's views on developed democracies.

I do not know whether that answers your question, Danny.

Mr Baker: It does. There is a chance that it might not be in the Bill, and, speaking as a new member of the Committee, I feel that that could be another massive failure. This is an opportunity to undo the wrongs of the past three decades.

Ms Kelly: Yes, and we will continue to criminalise our most vulnerable children, such as the looked-after children who should not be in there at all. We take them into the care of the state because of what has happened to them or because their parents were not able to support them. Those looked-after children or the children with learning disabilities or mental health problems are the most vulnerable: Eamonn goes down to the JJC to provide legal advice to those children. We would be continuing to criminalise them, and I do not think that anyone in society wants that to happen.

Ms Egan: Thank you, all, for coming. I appreciate your briefing paper, especially the insight that you gave us into bail. We heard from the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY) about inappropriate placements, such as children on bail who end up in the JJC. You mentioned the horrendous case of Sophie Rodgers. That is an absolute failure for that young person. Will you talk about that and about any experiences that you have through the Children's Law Centre? Will you talk specifically about any contact that you have with the Department of Health? There needs to be a joined-up approach with Health and Justice working together.

Ms Kelly: I will hand over to Eamonn to answer that. He deals with those children weekly, if not daily.

Mr Eamonn McNally (Children's Law Centre): Sophie's case is incredibly sad. The outcomes for her were horrible. In your previous briefing, you heard NICCY talk about "Vicky". I represented Vicky, instructed by the official solicitor at the time. There is more than one Vicky: Sophie is another Vicky. She spent a significant amount of time, on multiple occasions, in the Juvenile Justice Centre, with bail, as a looked-after child, not being put into an appropriate placement in the community by the health trust. The Juvenile Justice Centre has to be commended because it stepped up to the mark and did its best in the situation, but she should not have been there: that is the key point. She had bail granted by a court. The bail was subject to an address. That was not provided by the trust, which has a statutory obligation to do so.

We provided you with a document called 'Regional Good Practice Guidance'. That document came on the back of a case that the Children's Law Centre brought in 2012 called JR66. A very clear pathway is set out in appendix 11 for when a child is given bail and brought to the Juvenile Justice Centre, including what the responsibilities are and who is responsible for doing what and when.

We frequently encounter an issue when we go to the Juvenile Justice Centre and meet the young people — we do advice clinics. It is not about the criminal case; it is about preparing them for coming back to the community, so that they have the best opportunities for education, health and things like that. The majority of the young people whom we meet there are sitting with bail. The majority of them are there for offences that will probably not attract a custodial sentence. The majority have had their situation made aware to the health trust: that they require accommodation or a bail address to be bailed.

There are multiple cases on that: there was JR66; there are MPs applications and lots of cases. Judicial reviews have been in and out of the High Court on the matter, and it is very clear that there is a statutory obligation on health trusts to provide a bail address as soon as article 21 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 is triggered, which is, basically, as soon as a child is given bail and has nowhere else to go. We are sitting with young people in juvenile justice who have complex needs that really require a health response. We have children with learning disabilities, mental health needs, autism and all sorts of things. Sophie is a prime example of a young person with additional needs who requires additional support to be in the community. She required help and spent long periods in the Juvenile Justice Centre, ultimately, to have all charges removed on the basis that she was not fit to plead.

That is an example of Vicky eight years ago and Sophie in recent years. You heard it on the radio a few weeks ago, I am sure. We have not improved the situation for our young people when it comes to bail. The courts grant the bail. There is an opportunity in the Bill to create a situation where the obligations are put on the health trusts to make it a reality.

In the earlier session, you talked about the non-commencement of the provision on accommodation. It will be really disappointing if that is not commenced. Quite simply, if it is the health and social care trust's responsibility to provide accommodation and it does not provide it, and a court cannot grant bail without the accommodation, it will not happen, because we do not have enough proper accommodation as it is at the minute. In the past, we have had young people placed in inappropriate and unregulated accommodation, such as B&Bs and hostels. That is not so common any more, but, unless it is included in the legislation, we will not get the accommodation. We will not get to that point where it improves.

Ms Egan: Thank you.

Mr McNally: Sorry, that was a very long answer to your question.

Ms Egan: No, it was illuminating the scale of the problem. The implications for the rights of those children and the impact on their well-being from their being put in such inappropriate placements is extremely concerning. How common is it? You mentioned cases from eight years ago, but it sounds as though multiple children who are on bail are in the JJC, and it is totally inappropriate for them to be so.

Mr McNally: There are a small number of young people in the JJC currently compared with years ago. We go up to the JJC every few months to do advice clinics with them. The JJC regularly puts young people in contact with the centre, because it knows that we can try to help the young people negotiate the path with the health trusts. Every couple of weeks, we get a contact from a young person about that. Every time that we go to the Juvenile Justice Centre, there are five or six young people in, and at least half of them are sitting with bail. A high percentage of the looked-after population is sitting with bail. The system is just not doing what it should do.

Ms Egan: That is extremely concerning. What is your interaction with the Department of Health and the health and social care trusts on that? What feedback or progress has there been on that?

Mr McNally: As part of a programme of training, the strategic planning and performance group (SPPG) of the Department of Health engaged the Children's Law Centre last year to run out a series of training to all the health and social care trusts and to the Housing Executive on the area of article 21, as I term it, which is around homelessness generally. A big part of that training is about the obligations to young people once they are granted bail and about when and how a trust should interact. A lot of discussion has to be had on the type and suitability of accommodation and supports.

In the previous session, NICCY talked about the impact on victims when young people are granted bail. The fact is that, when a young person is accommodated by a health trust, under the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, 24 hours later, they become a looked-after child. That means that a lot of health interventions should be going on around the young person, and that does not seem to happen in practice. There should be a lot of help and support for that young person while they are on bail.

It is also important to remember that, when a young person is accommodated by a trust for the time that they are on bail, after 13 weeks, they become entitled to leaving and aftercare supports, so there should be ongoing supports from the trust right the way through. That is a key piece as well. If they sit in juvenile justice — do not get me wrong: it does a very good job with the young people — it is picking up the slack for the health system.

Ms Egan: I have no doubt that they are doing their absolute best in impossible circumstances. Thank you for that, and thank you for your work on that. I hope that we can follow up on that, because that is really concerning.

Mr Fergal McFerran (Children's Law Centre): Chair, may I add to that briefly?

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Just give me one second, please. I ask everyone who is online to mute, please. We are getting feedback and noises. Thank you. Apologies, Fergal, but I just had to deal with that.

Mr McFerran: Eamonn reflected concern that aspects of the Bill might not be commenced, particularly in the area around accommodation. I draw your attention to the recommendation in our written submission about clause 8 to ensure that the word "solely" is removed. The implication of the clause is that considerations of accommodation are not used to deny bail to a child, but inclusion of "solely" could arguably, in some circumstances, allow it to continue to be the case that that does happen. Therefore, we suggest in our written submission that "solely" be removed. We think that that would safeguard against some of what is happening.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Thank you, Fergal.

Mr Baker: Have you had any engagement with DOJ officials and the Minister on clause 8 maybe not being commenced?

Mr McFerran: We have not had direct engagement with the Department on the Bill.

Ms Kelly: We are, however, happy for you to share our submission with the Department.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I expect that that is likely where we are headed.

Ms Ferguson: Tony, on solutions to ensure that children are not remanded in custody unnecessarily, you mentioned several pilots such as bail fostering in certain trusts that have proven to be successful. Young people, too, have raised concerns that it might bring additional stress. Will you throw some light on those pilots, how successful they are and in which trusts they are working?

Mr McNally: I think that that question was meant for me.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Was that question for Eamonn?

Ms Ferguson: Eamonn, is it? Yes.

Mr McNally: No problem. The bail fostering pilot ran in only the Southern Trust, and it was for only a very small number of children, so it probably did not have the testing that it should have had.

Let us take it back to its core. We have five health trusts that all face the problem of having to provide bail addresses for young people. The appropriate accommodations do not exist in the numbers that we need. We have known for well in excess of 20 years that we need proper provision, and we do not have it. The bail fostering pilot was one idea of how to deal with that, but it will not be right for every child. Some young people, especially older children, who have entered the justice system will probably need supported or semi-supported accommodation in that situation, and it is just not there. That is what we are being told when we interact with the health trusts in trying to get them to fulfil their statutory responsibilities.

Ms Ferguson: Has the Justice Department or the CLC thought of any other ways to address the accommodation needs? We are conscious that the trusts should have a role, and that is not just with young people who are on bail but with other vulnerable people, such as adults with mental health problems, who need accommodation. Are you aware of any cross-departmental discussions?

Mr McNally: There were some discussions at the time of the review of regional facilities. It was not exactly a proposal that, we thought, would work, but the thought was to have a step-down facility from the Juvenile Justice Centre that would allow for a bail address. We had some issues about how that would work, and the proposal lacked detail. Colleagues mentioned the Children's Services Co-operation Act 2015. There is no joined-up working between the five trusts to solve the problem. Everybody is doing their own thing, and that does not lead to good outcomes.

It also leads to situations, in certain areas, where there is a lack of appropriate accommodation. As I said, not so much now, but, in the past, we have had young people in what is termed "unregulated accommodations", which are B&Bs and hostel-type accommodations, that are wholly unsuitable and are away from any family, school placements or child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) support that they might have, because it is the only thing available. We want to never go back to that situation. We have always argued that the Supreme Court was very clear that hotels, hostels and B&Bs should never be used as accommodation for homeless 16- and 17-year-olds, even though it was very popular for years. It was something that we argued against.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you.

Ms Kelly: I will take it back a step further. If you look at the profile of the children and young people who are in the JJC, you see an over-representation of looked-after children. That is the result of an issue that I have worked on for 25 years. There is a willingness — "willingness" is too strong a word. Staff in children's homes are more likely to call the police in situations where they would not be called if the child were living at home with their natural parents. As a result, the child is removed from the children's home and ends up in the JJC, sometimes because the children's home will not take the child back. Some of those children need bail addresses.

That situation is a long-term problem to be addressed, and I have had assurances from the trusts and the old Health and Social Care Board that there will not be a readiness to call the police into situations where, for example, a child has kicked off in a children's home, which may be because they are traumatised, and has broken a window. That child should be dealt with in the care setting of the children's home — their home — as opposed to the police being called and the child ending up in the JJC. That will remove a cohort who are in need of bail.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you for that, Paddy.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Does anybody have anything else? I have a couple of things.

Obviously, I concur about the hotel, hostel and B&B situation, where the children can even be susceptible to predators. It is a dreadful circumstance. Beyond the problems with suitable accommodation, there is already an existing presumption of bail. Are there any other factors in why those children are not granted bail? The children with suitable accommodation do not come into it. What are the other factors?

Mr McNally: This will sound a bit cynical, and I do not mean it to be —

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): No, Eamonn, just say what you need to say. That is fine.

Mr McNally: — but it is the reality. Once a health and social care trust provides accommodation for a child, under article 25 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, the child automatically becomes a looked-after child, so your responsibilities become more than merely to provide accommodation. After 13 weeks as a looked-after child, the child is entitled to the full leaving and aftercare supports, which can last from the age of 18 to 21 and, in some cases, up to 24, so there is a disincentive, shall we say, to take those children on. The other issue is that, because of the total lack of appropriate accommodation that is out there, I have had multiple conversations with unnamed trusts, shall we say, and been told, "We cannot take those kids on because we have nowhere to put them". Those are the sorts of conversations that we have. Things have had to go beyond just trying to negotiate; they have had to go to pre-action letters and judicial review because we cannot get the situation sorted. It is not the fault of staff who are working on the ground. They are doing their best to try to find accommodation and addresses for those young people, but, if the accommodation is not there, you cannot find it. That is the problem.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Presumably, that deals with the vast majority of children who do not get bail. What are the reasons for the rest?

Mr McNally: They are different. In the situation that you have, there is not getting bail and then there is bail's not being perfected. Those are two different things. Most young people who are granted bail will go home, for the most part, or go to a relative. It is whenever you get into the situation when a young person —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): So they are granted bail, but there is nowhere for them to go, and that is down only to the lack of suitable accommodation.

Mr McNally: It is usually down to whether there is a suitable address that can be agreed by the court and the PSNI. There might be a reason why the young person cannot go to a particular area, but you are back again then — do not forget — to the looked-after population who are already looked after by a health trust and have, essentially, been arrested for an offence that they have committed, or allegedly committed, whilst in a children's home. We have experienced some where there have been minor offences that no parent would ever call the police about, right up to the higher range of offences where there is no choice but to call the police.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): As in Vicky's case.

Mr McNally: Yes, as in Vicky's case, but there are other practical ones. For example, I recall the case of a young man who let off a fire extinguisher and was charged with criminal damage. I am aware of a young person who saw a document and were really emotionally upset about it. It was about something that they did not know. They burned the document and were charged with arson. We are talking about some offences that no parent would ever report. There are offences at the other end of the scale where there is no choice but to bring the police into play. We see that mix. A lot of it comes back to what Paddy talked about: the zero tolerance policy and its interpretation by trust staff can lead to the criminalisation of young people. We have seen it on multiple occasions. There is also the policy that — they call it "absconding", but it is not absconding — when a young person is late back to a children's home, the police are contacted. When any child is 20 minutes or half an hour late home, their parents do not phone the police. We are in that type of world.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): A wee bit of common sense might resolve some of the issues.

Mr McNally: We have always advocated for a common-sense approach to the zero tolerance policy.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Do all the trusts have a zero tolerance policy?

Mr McNally: Yes. You will see that the figures were reflected in a newspaper article that Fergal was involved in. The police have been called to children's homes thousands upon thousands of times over the past year, disproportionately so.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): It might be helpful for us to have some of those statistics.

Mr McFerran: We can share some of that afterwards, yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): It would be helpful if you would, please, Fergal.

Finally from me, this is a situation where, from what you are telling us, a Department has failed in its statutory obligation for 30 years — well, the trusts have for that length of time. What then? What are the sanctions? We are seeing what the consequences are, but how can those bodies — those government agencies — fail in their statutory obligations for that length of time? What are the pathways? Obviously, this is the Justice Committee. We cannot take on the Department of Health: that is for the Committee for Health.

Mr McNally: Ultimately, the result is that costly judicial reviews are having to be brought for young people who should not be in the juvenile justice system, because that is the ultimate response that has to happen when a government body does not fulfil its statutory responsibilities. We never take that lightly, but solicitors in private practice are also having to do those on behalf of their clients. Often, we are providing advice and information to solicitors in private practice to enable them to bring challenges on behalf of clients whom they are representing in criminal matters. That is a costly way —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Presumably, it is still not getting those children out, because, if there is no suitable address, there is no suitable address; a judicial review will not resolve that. My issue is this: how have they been getting away with it for so long?

Mr McNally: Often, the issuing of proceedings will produce an address, shall we say, that was not there beforehand.

Ms Kelly: That is for individual children. That is why it is so important that clause 8 is commenced; as long as there is that safety net, in a sense, that the JJC is available, that approach will continue to prevail in the trusts. To ensure that that cannot happen, it is critical that the issues around accommodation in the Bill are addressed.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): You have been very clear on that, as has NICCY and others, actually. Thank you very much.

Does anybody have anything further? No. We are covered.

Folks, thank you very much. Apologies, once again, that we ran late with this. You will appreciate that, as I said, we are a very engaged Committee and want to take these subjects seriously. Thank you for your time.

Ms Kelly: Thank you, Chair. As I said, we will submit on the other parts of the Bill in due course. If there is anything that you want us to come back on with regard to the detail of some of the clauses, we are very happy to assist in any way.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is perfect. I suspect that the conversations will be ongoing. Thank you very much. Thank you for your paper.