Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): We have with us Amanda Stewart, the chief executive of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI); Gillian Montgomery, its director of operations; and Aideen McLaughlin, an assistant director. Ladies, you are very welcome. Thank you very much for taking the time to join us today. We usually do a bit of housekeeping in order to coordinate our questions by subject matter, but your evidence is quite tight, so I will bring in Committee members as they indicate to ask a question. We already have your written submission, but I will hand over to you for 10 or 15 minutes in case there is anything that you wish to add to it. I will then bring in members to ask questions. Does that suit you?

Ms Amanda Stewart (Probation Board for Northern Ireland): Yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is great, Amanda. Thank you.

Ms Stewart: Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to provide evidence on the Justice Bill. I am joined by Gillian Montgomery. Gillian is our director of operations and is responsible for our work in the courts and the community. Aideen is an assistant director who has operational responsibility for north and west Belfast, victims, restorative justice, and children and young people. There are probably a few other things thrown in there, but that is largely her role.

I know that members are familiar with the Probation Board for Northern Ireland's role, but I will briefly provide some context and outline why the Bill's provisions are relevant to the Probation Board. As you know, Probation works to protect the public and to reduce reoffending by supervising people who have offended in the community while overseeing their rehabilitation and resettlement. We aim to provide an individualised, trauma-informed approach that tackles the root causes of offending. The root causes can be different for every person who walks through our door.

That person-centred, trauma-informed approach is particularly relevant to our work with children and young people. All our practitioners have been trained in adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and in trauma-informed practices, and we work closely with the Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland (SBNI) on continuing to develop those practices. We know that many of the young people who enter the criminal justice system have experienced multiple adverse childhood experiences, including being victims of sexual abuse, being exposed to domestic abuse and, as a parent, also having served a prison sentence. As was noted in the Committee's evidence session with the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY), it is therefore imperative that all professionals who work with children and young people understand and take account of the impact of trauma while working to reduce reoffending and, ultimately, protect the public.

You will have seen from our written evidence that the vast majority of Probation's caseload is made up of supervising people over the age of 18 and that only approximately 1% of our caseload are under the age of 18, which is about 40 individuals. It is absolutely right that the Youth Justice Agency (YJA) be responsible for the supervision of children and young people who are sentenced to a community order, and we believe that it would be beneficial for children to be supervised through a single community order, with the Youth Justice Agency as the single supervisory body. Ultimately, that would prevent duplication and ensure that a streamlined, child-orientated process was in place that would prevent reoffending and reduce the number of victims in the future.

It is also important that any community order be suitably flexible in order to allow for relationship building between the child and the supervising officer and, where appropriate, victims. That would increase the effectiveness of community orders. Although a very small number of our caseload are under the age of 18, approximately 15% — about 80 people — are aged between 18 and 25. On that point, some members will be aware that the Probation Board leads on the delivery of the Aspire young men's project, which was set up following a recommendation in the Fresh Start panel report on the 'Disbandment of Paramilitary Groups in Northern Ireland'. The aim of Aspire is to reduce criminality and risk-taking behaviour in young men aged 16 to 30 who are marginalised in their community and at risk of becoming involved in paramilitarism. It is a collaborative project on which the PBNI leads, and it is delivered in conjunction with partners in the community and voluntary sector: NIACRO, Community Restorative Justice Ireland (CRJI) and Northern Ireland Alternatives (NIA). The project has been evaluated and has proven to be effective in promoting positive outcomes for young men who present with multiple and complex issues, including addictions, poor mental health and lack of access to appropriate accommodation.

We welcome the amendments to existing legislation in the Bill that deal with the presumption of bail for children and young people. If they can be supported to safely remain in the community, we know that the outcomes will be much better for them. The ability to retain support networks and services in the community, including family ties, education and employment, is a factor that reduces further offending.

Probation is supportive of the amendments to existing provisions on court bail that state that a child should not be placed in custody solely because of accommodation needs. Every effort should be made to seek appropriate accommodation and to link with social services and others to prevent a child being placed in custody unnecessarily. Trying to secure appropriate accommodation for PBNI service users is a growing challenge for our organisation. We understand that it impacts on service users of all ages. It is, however, a real concern that, owing to a lack of appropriate accommodation, some children and young people who have been granted bail have been unable to avail themselves of it. As is stated in our written evidence, we believe that there is a need for all organisations to work together to address children's accommodation needs when they arise.

Finally, I will say something about the impact that entering the criminal justice system can have on children and young people and, in particular, about the need to minimise stigmatisation and labelling very young people as offenders. It is important that our interventions and our engagements with young people do not further stigmatise them, as we know that that can lead to further exclusion, poor behaviours and reoffending. It is for that reason that the PBNI supported raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 14 years, in line with recommendations from the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

Children who enter the criminal justice system often present with very different needs and risks from those of the adult population. It is important that all practitioners working with children be equipped to build effective relationships and provide evidence-based interventions that can break the cycle of criminality, give hope to children and young people and, ultimately, keep our community safer. We are now happy to take any questions that the Committee may have.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Thank you very much, Amanda. I will now bring in members.

Mr Baker: I will focus on accommodation. What engagement have you had with the Department and the Minister?

Ms Stewart: Do you mean specifically on accommodation for children and young people?

Mr Baker: Yes. I am concerned that the Minister is not going to commence clause 8.

Ms Stewart: I will hand over to Aideen, but, first, I will provide you with wider context on just how challenging finding accommodation is becoming. In our organisation, we are increasingly finding difficulties, even though a lot of work has been done, particularly on finding accommodation for people coming out of custody into the community. The nature of the people whom we work with means that the situation can break down very quickly. You will find that the figures are very high for people coming out of custody with suitable accommodation to go to, but, within a number of days, the situation breaks down, and that presents challenges for our staff. Our board members have asked us to set up an accommodation working group. We are doing some work internally on that and on linking with the Housing Executive. That is ultimately for adults, however.

I will now bring in Aideen, who deals specifically with issues for children and young people, although I suspect that difficulties for adults become even more challenging for children. In a sense, our concern is that, unless it is addressed, that issue will become a problem.

Ms Aideen McLaughlin (Probation Board for Northern Ireland): Thank you, Amanda. One of the pieces of work that the Probation Board was involved with, alongside the Housing Executive and the Health and Social Care Board (HSCB), was the review of jointly commissioned accommodation for young people aged 16 to 21. The report of the review was published in September 2023, and it made a series of recommendations about how we can improve the pathways for young people from a care background and young people who are leaving custody and about how we can ensure that the accommodation is in the right place, is available at the right time and has the right resources in place to enable young people to succeed once they come out of care or custody.

Since then, a working group has been established. It is made up of representatives from the Housing Executive, Supporting People, the Youth Justice Agency, the Probation Board and Homewards, which is an organisation that is getting involved in the area. The working group is looking to see what targets we can set and what actions we can take to make a real difference to young people who are coming out of care and custody. It is also looking at what we can do in advance for young people who are approaching the transition age of 18 to have them move into accommodation that will suit their needs and to have support services around them. We are in the early days of that work, but we are hopefully developing specific actions. The private sector will also be involved, because it needs to be involved in that area of work. That is where we are at at the moment.

Direct engagement has not happened with the Minister as such, but it is happening on a cross-sectoral basis to try to tackle issues for that group, which is very much in need.

Mr Baker: Do you have concerns that clause 8 will not be commenced by the Minister?

Ms McLaughlin: I do not want to comment on clause 8 specifically. On the ground, we are linking up really well on having the accommodation piece enacted and are looking at various routes and pathways. A small number of young people under the age of 18 are in custody, so we should be able to solve it. We should be able to have the right kind of bail fostering or supported accommodation in place for those young people, but that will require us to work together across the different sectors.

Mr Baker: It is important that there be cross-departmental departmental work done with social services and the trusts. That legal protection in the Bill will not be commenced, but it should be. I was just wondering whether you had any concerns about that. That is brilliant. Thank you.

Ms Ferguson: I will follow up on that. Your work on it is critical. You said that it is a small cohort of young people who are in custody. It would be useful for the Committee to get an update about the working group. I know that the Department for Communities secured funding for it. I am well aware of Homewards project and the investment that it has brought in. I am keen to learn what progress has been made and where that project is. Will it include capital funding for a wrap-around support service? It would be useful to know whether it will.

I will focus on biometrics, if that is OK. Gillian, what are your thoughts on the retention periods, particularly for children and young people's biometric data? What are your views on photographs not being included in the biometrics provisions in the Bill? Overall, do you feel that the retention periods and the fact that photographs are not to be included could lead to the stigmatisation of children and young people?

Ms Gillian Montgomery (Probation Board for Northern Ireland): We are not directly involved in the area of biometrics. A consultation has taken place. There are various views on the issue and on how to protect children in the midst of those retention periods while not labelling or stigmatising them or viewing them as a criminal for any longer than they need to be. Similarly, we are not directly involved in the area of photographs, because of the small number of children and young people with whom we directly work. At a high level, however, we support what is in the Bill.

Ms Ferguson: Practically, on the ground, you are supportive of the current retention periods for children and young people's data. You are happy enough that photographs are not being considered.

Ms Montgomery: Yes.

Ms Ferguson: That is fine.

Ms Montgomery: We are content with the proposals in the Bill.

Ms Ferguson: It is one and the same. From your practical experience on the Probation Board and your practical experience overall, that is your view on the proposals in the Bill. You are content with the current retention periods, particularly for children and young people's data.

Ms Montgomery: Again, they do not affect us directly, because of the small number of young people with whom we work. Overall, however, we are concerned about the impact of any labelling or stigmatising of children.

Ms Egan: Thank you for coming in today and presenting to us. I will pick up on something that you said at the end of your presentation about the minimum age of criminal responsibility. A number of organisations that have appeared before the Committee have said that they wished that that had been included in the Bill. I am interested to know your rationale behind supporting its being raised to 14. We have heard a range of views from organisations on raising it to either 14 or 16. You said that you work with quite a small number of young people: would raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility have a major impact on the work that you do?

Ms Stewart: I will give you some context, and then I will hand over to Gillian to cover the specifics. The board originally took that decision when the Minister undertook the consultation. I cannot recall the specifics of why the board settled on 14, but it was to do with a young person's capacity to understand fully the implications of their actions at that age.

From our perspective in working with people, it is investment in prevention and early intervention that allows people not to enter the justice system to start with. That has worked well for the cohort of people with whom we work. For that cohort of children and young people, there is a focus on a relationship-based and trauma-informed approach, along with the therapeutic piece to address the issues and prevent them entering the justice system.

As an organisation, we ultimately exist to prevent people re-entering the justice system. They come to us after they are in the system, usually for the supervision of the order. The minimum age of criminal responsibility is largely about their capacity to understand fully the consequences of their actions at such a young age. I will ask Gillian on the specifics.

Ms Montgomery: The small numbers that are and have historically been involved mean that a change to the minimum age of criminal responsibility, whether it becomes14 or 16, will have no direct impact on our work. We support a minimum age of 14 because that is in line with all the research into children's ability to understand the implications of their actions at that age. We are aware of other consultation responses that say that 16 would be the preferred minimum age.

Ms Egan: Would there be an impact from raising the age from 10 to 14? Do you do much work with that age cohort? I know that some jurisdictions, such as the South, use exemptions. Given that there is quite the difference of opinion in the Assembly on the matter, would that be workable?

Ms McLaughlin: We do not work directly with 10- to 14-year-olds, because all that work is undertaken by the Youth Justice Agency, which takes the lead for under-18s more generally. Rather than have a different minimum age of criminal responsibility for different types of offending, it is much clearer to have one age —14 — and then to have flexibility over the disposals or sentences for particular offences. It is all about taking an individualised approach to each child: looking at the circumstances that have resulted in their committing the offence; looking at what can be put in place to address their offending; supporting them to rehabilitate; and reducing the opportunity for them to create more victims in society.

Ms Egan: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Miss Hargey: Thanks very much for your contributions. I have a couple of queries. The first one is on clause 8. Danny raised the issue of having sufficient accommodation, and you highlighted the crisis in accommodation for adults. We know that we are in a housing crisis and that there is competition for accommodation between the Department of Health, the Department of Justice, the Department for Communities and the likes of Mears when it comes to the Home Office stuff on immigration. How confident are you that there is sufficient and appropriate accommodation to ensure that clause 8 could be complied with?

The broad thrust of the Bill is to keep children and young people out of custody arrangements, so finding accommodation for them in the community is essential. On the basis of your practical experience, are there better outcomes for children and young people who remain in the community than there are for those in a custody environment? I would like to hear your views on those two aspects.

Ms Stewart: I will ask Gillian and Aideen to talk about the specifics and practicalities of the work.
It will, however, come as no surprise to you that, as an organisation, because we work in communities and are responsible for the supervision of community orders for adults primarily, we believe that outcomes are better when people are able to retain all their links to the community. We also recognise that — this forms an important part of the work that we do alongside communities — people who come out of custody or off a community order ultimately live in local communities, so any successful intervention tends to be community-led and community-driven. That is really important to us in our work.

Ms Montgomery: As has been outlined, because of everything that has been said about impact, we work with agencies to ensure that people remain in the community. It could even be the short-term impact of losing accommodation and its effects on family, employment and all the other factors that help somebody to desist from reoffending. That is certainly our focus. My work is with adults, but we work with hostels to ensure that people can remain in their community so that we can work with them and support them to re-enter the community.

Aideen will talk about young people.

Ms McLaughlin: There is an over-representation of young people from care backgrounds in the justice system. They often do not have supportive accommodation to fall back on and therefore end up in custody. The Youth Justice Agency has done some good work on bail support programmes to supplement a child remaining in the community. Those programmes have worked well. We know, however, that there is a difficulty and a challenge around accommodation. The report that I referenced about the review of jointly commissioned accommodation states that, in 2023, 18% of the homeless presentations to the Housing Executive were people aged between 18 and 21. There were almost 3,500 presentations, including young people and young adults coming out of custody and young people who were sofa-surfing and moving around the system.

There is a need to look at what we can develop and put in place to have young people remain in the community and be supported. As has been said, once they go into custody, their chances of getting out of the criminal justice system again are reduced. It is therefore about doing anything that we can to bolster young people's chances of remaining in the community. Bail fostering for young people, for example, is an option that could be considered and developed.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): There is a pilot under way for that, but it has not been used very much, so it —.

Ms McLaughlin: I do not have the figures, but, no, it does not appear to have been used.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I think that it was used only for a couple of children in one trust. Officials were looking at extending the pilot.

Ms Stewart: It was run in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust (SHSCT) in 2023. I am not familiar with its outworkings, but I know that it was developed in response to the report in 2023, which gave cause for concern about accommodation and how challenging finding it can be.

What is coming across is the desire of all the agencies to work together as much as possible. I see it happen particularly around addressing children and young people's needs whenever they arise. I note the concern about the legal footing, but, at a practitioner level across all the agencies with which I work, I see a real desire to do the very best and to get the best outcomes, particularly for vulnerable looked-after children. There are models of working, particularly in Belfast — for example, the Complex Lives programme — that enable us to do that.

The efforts that agencies are making comes up time and time again. It goes back, however, to the point about public services being under so much demand and about the lack of services and provision, particularly accommodation. Some of the other challenges that people who enter the justice system experience, such as mental health issues and addictions, really stretch the community service. Some of the operational work that we then have to do to link and cooperate with those agencies is becoming more complex.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Deirdre, do you have any more questions?

Miss Hargey: I have just one more query, Chair. We are struggling to get our heads around biometrics. You said that you are happy with what is in the Bill. One of the emerging themes from a human rights perspective and from that of children and young people's rights is stigmatisation. The PSNI currently holds 180,000-odd photos, which are not included in the Justice Bill as biometrics. Do you view photos as biometric material?

For children and young people in Scotland, biometric data, particularly for those under 18, is retained only in circumstances that involve serious offences.

Do you have a view on those two issues?

Ms Stewart: In our response to the consultation, we focused largely on Part 2, which relates to children and young people. If the Chair is happy, I will consider some of the questions on biometrics and write to the Committee with supplementary evidence. That will give us time to consider the issue. That is unless Gillian wants to give answers to those specific questions.

Ms Montgomery: No, the most helpful way to do that will be through a supplementary response.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is fair enough. Deirdre, are you content with that?

Miss Hargey: Yes, I appreciate that. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Is that you finished, or do you have more questions?

Miss Hargey: That is me done, Chair. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I always go at the end, ladies. There are a couple of things from me on the children's stuff.

Justin is indicating. You go first, Justin, and then I will come in. Go ahead.

Mr McNulty: Thank you, Amanda, Gillian and Aideen.

I will start with a comment that I may have touched on before. I am moved by your obvious empathy, your emotional intelligence and your compassion for young people and adults who are caught up in the justice system. They are often victims of their circumstances, which is sad to see. You mentioned some of those circumstances, and addiction is one of them. Pregabalin is a class C drug that is readily and cheaply available, and it is part of a concoction of drugs that many people now use. It must be a total menace to the justice system to have to deal with that reality, and it is the same for the young people and adults who get caught up in that addiction. It must be horrendous. To what degree are you, the justice system and its agencies supported to prevent that cycle of reoffending and, as has been mentioned a number of times, the stigmatisation of people who are caught up in the justice system for whatever reason?

Ms Stewart: I will give you some context and then pass to Gillian. We are managing just over 4,000 people in the community, and, when we last looked at the figures, over 75% of those people had specific addiction or mental health issues related to their offending. That is becoming a real challenge for us. You will be familiar with, for example, the substance misuse court, which was specifically set up to deal with the root causes of the offending behaviour and, to some extent, act as a deferred sentence. That has been really successful, because it includes therapeutic intervention that supports tackling the root causes of the offending behaviour, which tend to be addiction issues. In many ways, given the number and complexity of cases, that has become increasingly difficult.

As an organisation, we decided this year to employ addiction-specific counsellors to work alongside our own cohort of staff, including the probation service officers and community service staff. We are in the early stages of that process, which is about responding to the growing need and demand for specific work on addiction. I will ask Gillian to comment on some of the practical outworkings of that.

Ms Montgomery: As Amanda outlined, we now have our own in-house counsellors, and we have a lot of links with community providers in relation to substance and alcohol misuse. Addiction is one of the key factors in reoffending. When people present to us with addiction issues, we sometimes find that it is those issues that have brought them into the criminal justice system. At other times, we find that people's addiction issues are symptomatic of other issues in their life.

We have a strong focus on addiction issues. All our staff undertake alcohol and drugs training so that they know about the issues with which our service users present. We now see much more polysubstance misuse. Staff are having to respond to what is presenting in front of them, which is becoming increasingly complex and, at times, leads to our service users presenting in a much more chaotic way. Through the support of our in-house counsellors and support from other groups in the community, we are able to support the individuals to address the reasons for their addiction, which will, in turn, help to reduce the likelihood of reoffending.

Mr McNulty: It is a huge challenge for you, ladies. I do not envy your task. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Ladies, thank you. I commend the Probation Board for its work with offenders and on ensuring that wider society is kept safe and giving people a chance to rehabilitate and start again.

In all of the proposals, balance is the key. I am trying to find the balance between not stigmatising children and affording them an opportunity to rehabilitate and make something of their life and the indicators that some behaviours represent. For example, we know that cruelty to animals and cruelty to other children are indicators that things will continue into adulthood. When it comes to the retention of records, biometrics and so on, where should we strike the balance between affording children the opportunity not to be stigmatised and having regard to public safety? When you come back to us in writing on the issue of biometrics, will you address that point, unless you can give a view on it now?

Ms Stewart: I will answer some of that, and then pass over to Gillian. We may well write to you with further information.

As an organisation, we fully understand the impact of offending behaviour on communities and individuals. We see that every day through the work that we do alongside victims. Although we work with offenders, I emphasise that we also work really closely with victims to make sure that they are supported throughout their rehabilitation and resettlement in the community. I would never want to minimise that impact, and our staff constantly challenge themselves on striking a balance between care and control, which is so important to their work.

I will pass over to Gillian to talk about early indicators, particularly among children and young people, in her experience as a practitioner.

Ms Montgomery: It is a real challenge. We frequently say that the best indicator of somebody's future behaviour is their past behaviour, whilst taking into consideration the fact that children will push boundaries and, for a variety of reasons, do things that they will never repeat. I absolutely take your point, Chair, about really concerning behaviours such as abusing animals. There is a fine line to be struck in order to give children the opportunity to be children and to move on from those behaviours. We can consider that in the further written evidence that we will provide.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Yes, it would be good if you could look at that, because we are trying to strike a balance between ensuring that we do not leave kids without a future and recognising the wider implications for public safety, which may be fairly severe as we move through the process.

There are issues around retention but also the rehabilitation of offenders. Do you have any comments on the amendment on the rehabilitation of offenders? Have you had a chance to consider that?

Ms Stewart: We will come back to you on that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Thank you. That would be helpful, because the amendment will probably have a direct bearing on some of your caseload.

We heard from the profession that, when children are in care, more often than not the police are called to deal with minor issues that they would not be called to deal with in another setting. That impacts on children's bail conditions, leads to their arrest and all of that. Do the proposals in the Bill alleviate that? Do you have any comment on that?

Ms McLaughlin: The provisions assist in addressing those concerns. In parallel, work potentially needs to be done with the staff in the children's homes from which those children come.

I appreciate why someone would phone the police as a last resort because a child was not adhering to boundaries and was potentially at risk of harm to themselves or somebody else in the unit. Restorative practices have been shown to be effective in addressing some of those issues in the residential context, and there are good examples of that. Again, that is an area in which practice could be strengthened alongside the provisions in the legislation.

A police officer's discretion is really helpful when a child has breached their bail or committed another offence at the lower or minor level. Children will make mistakes and act out, and they need to be held to account, but they do not always need to be removed from a situation. We can all do more, collectively, to address those issues.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Thank you. That is helpful. On the same issue, can you look at paragraphs 11, 15 and 16 of your evidence paper? My query goes back to the issue of balance. We have the issues with breaches of bail conditions, and we may have a situation in which there will be no bail conditions except in certain circumstances. At times, bail conditions have proven helpful, including for parents. Bail conditions should not be a replacement for responsible parenting. However, there are parents and families who struggle. In light of everything that we are discussing, will you comment further on paragraphs 11, 15 and 16 of your evidence paper, the balance between having conditions and having no conditions, and breaches of conditions and their impact on victims? There has been a lot of talk about support in the community, which is right and fair. However, the victim is likely to be living in the same community. How do we balance that?

Ms Montgomery: On the point that you raised linked to paragraph 11, the Bill provides the police with the flexibility, as Aideen said, not to arrest. That provides flexibility but allows for a child to be arrested and removed from their circumstances in more serious cases. It goes back to the point that you made, Chair, about balancing the needs of victims, even if the person who has committed the offence is a child, and the needs of the child. Clause 7 aids that and is the subject of our response at paragraph 11.

In relation to paragraphs 15 and 16 of our written evidence, four years is a long time for a young person. A significant proportion of individuals aged over 18 are not serving a sentence of four years, but I accept that the sentences for the more serious offences allow a longer time to work with the individual to address their reasons for committing the offences. That relationship-building takes a long time, which is why we support the longer time for the more serious offences. I am not sure whether I have answered your question or whether you would like more detail.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I am trying to understand the presumption of zero conditions, which seems to be an extreme position, because sometimes conditions are helpful. By the same token, I do not want to see the police being called and children being found to be in breach of their bail conditions for minor issues that should not be regarded as a breach. I am looking for the right balance and the right point.

I am interested to understand what you mean by:

If conditions have been applied, that is because the case has been considered severe enough to merit them, in accordance with the proposals. Therefore, if there is a breach and that is not reported until the next scheduled hearing, what is the sanction? Where is the onus to abide by the conditions? What is the sanction for not doing so? If nothing happens in the interim period, what do you envisage happening in that space?

Ms Montgomery: As we have talked about, for children in a care environment, the police are more likely to be called and frequent breaches of bail are more likely for what would be considered to be lower-level incidents. That is where the legislation provides flexibility for more serious breaches. Again, it very much depends on the bail conditions. Where the bail conditions exist to protect somebody and are breached and the person who is supposed to be protected by them feels under threat or unsafe, it would not take another month, if the next scheduled court appearance is a month away, for that to be dealt with. It would be dealt with more quickly than that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): In what circumstances would it be better to move a child away from a specific community, maybe to get them away from a group of friends? Are there circumstances there that you have taken into account?

Ms McLaughlin: I am not sure whether we have specifically addressed those circumstances in the response, but, yes, there may be situations in which it would be best to place that child elsewhere for a period to, as you say, reduce their propensity to link with that group or reoffend against a particular victim. However, that does not necessarily mean that they have to go into a custodial setting for that to happen; it is about considering what can be put in place elsewhere to give that child a chance to succeed and keep their bail conditions.

The first thing to ensure is that the child understands, at the outset, what the bail conditions mean, whether it is police bail or court bail, because, often, in a court, it goes over their head and they do not fully understand. Again, the Youth Justice Agency has been really helpful in doing direct work with young people, helping them to understand what the bail conditions mean and, more importantly, what the implications are if they breach them. Sometimes, it can bring additional resources to bear to support a young person's adherence to those conditions in the community. It goes back to the basics: if they understand the bail conditions and wilfully breach them, they need to be brought back and held to account before the court sooner than their next scheduled appearance.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is what I am trying to figure out. The proposal is that there are limited circumstances in which there would be any conditions at all: I am not sure about that. There should not be excessive conditions, but trying to rule them out is not always the best thing either.

I had one last point and cannot remember what it was. I will come to it.

Ciara, you wanted in again.

Ms Ferguson: I have a question about paragraph 6 in your paper and the words "threat to public order". Paragraph 6 states:

it does not matter how small that number is; they are children —

Do you have any concerns about that? What are your thoughts?

Ms Stewart: I will comment generally first. As we find with the Aspire programme, there is always the issue of child exploitation and coercion. One of the concerns is that there is the potential for children to be punished for the actions of others. For example, there may be concern about how others will behave towards them when they go back into the community. I will lean towards Gillian or Aideen to comment on the specifics of that.

Ms McLaughlin: We need to be clear about whether the child is presenting the threat in the community or whether they are the one who is at risk in the community. If the child were under threat in the community, it would not be right for them to be remanded into custody. We need to look at alternative ways to keep them safe. However, where the child is at risk of causing further serious harm to a victim or somebody else in the community, it is absolutely right that they be put in a place where they can be managed and supported and the public can be protected.

I do not know whether I have answered your question.

Ms Ferguson: It will be the subject of further conversations, but it is useful to tease out the arguments on public order versus the needs of the child and, obviously, the victim. Thank you for that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): It is not just an issue to do with children. If you are entitled to bail, you are entitled to bail. It is not about the mob saying that you cannot have bail.

This is my final point. Other groups have said in their evidence that there should be a degree of flexibility in cases where a child in the juvenile justice centre is coming towards the end of their sentence and is about to turn 18. They have said that there should be flexibility to allow that child to stay there for a short period until the end of their sentence rather than be moved to Hydebank Wood Secure College. Do you have any views on that?

Ms Stewart: I will make a general point about the working relationship that we have with the Youth Justice Agency, as that is an issue that comes up quite a lot for us, as an organisation. We work really closely with the Youth Justice Agency to do the best for young people. Obviously, there is the opportunity to streamline the transitional arrangements. We have a memorandum of understanding on the operation of those arrangements, but those good working relationships exist not only to do the very best for young people but to maintain public safety. Aideen is the link with the Youth Justice Agency on those transitional arrangements, so I will ask her to comment on them and how they work.

Ms McLaughlin: Generally, when a child is approaching the age of 18 and will have to remain in custody for a period after that, we need to consider how long that period is. If it is a further eight or nine months, absolutely, they would need to move to Hydebank Wood, because they will be managed as an adult when they come out for supervision in the community. However, vulnerable children often turn 18 while they are in Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre and their period of custodial supervision is coming to an end in a couple of months or, potentially, up to a period of six months. Would it not make sense for those young people to remain at Woodlands?

It is all about balance. We absolutely have come forward and said clearly that no over-18s should be held in Woodlands, but it is about whether we can have the flexibility to make exceptions based on vulnerability and the length of custodial supervision that is left.

Where possible, relationships are made in Woodlands. Often, the young people do positive work, be that offence-focused, psychological or whatever. Breaking that with a move to Hydebank can be unsettling for some young adults.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): May I follow up on that with you, please, Aideen? I appreciate that it might not be a question for you, but I am exploring the issue in my mind. In your experience, to what extent are those who turn 18 and move to Hydebank destabilised by that move?

Ms McLaughlin: The Youth Justice Agency and the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) work extremely well together to manage those transitions and support the young person to take the step from Woodlands to Hydebank. For example, NIPS staff come down and talk to the young person about the differences in the regimes and the fact that it will be prison officers and not social workers or community youth workers who will work with them. In my experience, they manage that well with the young people, so we have not had difficulties as a result of young people being almost knocked off balance by a change in their environment. We know that Hydebank Wood has a supportive approach to young people who make the transition from Woodlands. Fortunately, the number of people who have to move from the children's facility to the adult prison is small

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is really helpful to know. Thank you very much indeed.

I thank the three of you for your time and your verbal and written evidence. You are going to follow up with us on biometrics, the rehabilitation of offenders and a couple of other bits and pieces. Will you look at the restorative justice amendments too? If there is anything else that you deem to be relevant, we would love to hear from you. Thank you very much indeed.

Ms Stewart: Not at all. Thank you very much.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Thank you for taking the time to be here. It was good to see you again, Amanda. All the very best.