Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): From NIACRO, we have Fiona Greene, chief executive; Rachel Long, director of operations; and Andrea Moreland, senior practitioner for disclosure. It is nice to see you all; thank you very much for joining us today. You are very welcome. Thank you for taking the time. We received your written paper, which was very helpful. The way that this usually works is that I will hand over to you to make some opening remarks, if there is anything additional that you want to point out to us. We will then go to questions from members. Previously, we have done it thematically, but your evidence has a natural flow to it, so I have not forced members to abide by my housekeeping rules. We will just go old school, and, as members indicate, we will take questions. Are you content with that?

Ms Fiona Greene (NIACRO): Yes, thank you, Chair.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is lovely; thank you very much. I will hand over to you.

Ms Greene: Thank you, Chair and Committee, for the opportunity to speak to you about the draft Justice Bill specifically as it relates to the work of NIACRO. You already have our written submission, which includes general information on NIACRO and its services. Very briefly, NIACRO is a voluntary organisation that has been working since 1971 to reduce crime and its impact on people and communities. We are guided by a vision of a society where the rights and needs of all people are equally respected and protected.

NIACRO has a diverse range of services and operates across all constituencies in Northern Ireland. Those services include early intervention programmes, mentoring support, employability services, finance and debt advice and family support programmes. We create meaningful change for over 7,000 individuals annually, and we facilitate over 30,000 prison visits across the prison sites each year. We work closely with the Northern Ireland Prison Service and the Probation Board at operational and strategic level to deliver a range of trauma-informed programmes and services that are designed and delivered together, with aims to reduce reoffending, support rehabilitation and improve the effectiveness of the criminal justice system.

Our collaborative work focuses on strengthening family ties, maximising opportunities for training and employment — for example, through our UK Shared Prosperity Fund employability programme — and supporting stability with housing, health and finances — for example, through our Aspire and Transitions programmes funded by the Probation Board. NIACRO is also commissioned by and works closely with the Public Health Agency, the strategic planning and performance group and several health and social care trusts to provide early intervention and support services to families and children who are in need across Northern Ireland, to support our strategic goal of reducing the numbers of young people who are entering the criminal justice system.

It is important to us here today, and through our written submission, that the Committee gets a clear sense of the lived experience of the people whom we are here to support and who are and will be affected by the success of this legislation. We note that the Bill as introduced, with the addition of proposed amendments, represents a complex and technical piece of legislation. We are cognisant of previous Committee hearings on the matter and note that the Committee is taking a comprehensive and detailed approach to understanding and discussing the matters at hand so that it can take the best decisions and make recommendations on the Bill's merits — for example, on biometrics.

Given our expertise in our own policy priority areas, and to best assist you today, our evidence will primarily focus on the proposed amendments concerning the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, as well as our proposal for the addition of another amendment to raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR), noting that both matters have been subject already to DOJ public consultations in 2021 and 2023 respectively. For the record, we have also provided some more high-level feedback on other proposed amendments and commentary on the four Parts of the Bill as introduced, as all areas of the Bill have the potential to impact on existing and future service users of NIACRO. We are, of course, happy to discuss and take questions on those as appropriate.

NIACRO regards the Bill as a vital legislative tool that must align with the Northern Ireland Executive's commitment to creating safe communities as outlined in the Programme for Government. As such, it presents an opportunity to establish essential legal mechanisms to help support the delivery of the proposed cross-departmental strategy to reduce offending and reoffending and to bring about improved effectiveness and less delay in the existing criminal justice system. Additionally, this legislation should facilitate the implementation of the strategic framework for youth justice and the full implementation of the youth justice review 2011 and ensure that the youth justice system delivers improved outcomes for children, families, victims and communities impacted by crime.

You will see from our submission, at the section that specifically speaks to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Order, that we have focused on a number of themes, including reflection on the original intent of the 1978 Order, and we have provided examples of the lived experience of people helped by Andrea here, our disclosure expert, and her colleagues in our disclosure service. We hope that these live cases detail the ongoing impact of having a criminal record and how it affects someone's life, employment, travel, insurance and access to education.

The original intent and stated aim of the legislation, first enacted in England and Wales in 1974 and then transposed to Northern Ireland in the existing 1978 Order, was:

The purpose was to enable people who did not commit further crime to move on and have a second chance and secure employment. Having a job is the biggest single factor in preventing reoffending. It is important that we understand that employment acts as a protective measure in itself and that having people in work protects society. The legislation was never intended to act as a public protection tool but, as we have stated, as a tool to achieve full rehabilitation. However, it appears over time to have been viewed as such, which has complicated the public discourse on unspent convictions. As we have detailed in our paper, there are a range of public protection measures in place that should reassure the public and your constituents that no one will be placed at risk as a result of this legislative progress.

With regard to the overall response to the proposed amendment to the Order, NIACRO has campaigned for decades to have the Order updated to bring forth a fairer and more proportionate spent conviction system to this jurisdiction. We are pleased to see the potential changes now in draft form, especially as we move away from the current situation whereby any custodial sentence of over 30 months can never be spent. We applaud the DOJ's efforts to reform the current legislation as, for many people, time has been served and sentences completed, but the punishment continues. People are branded criminals for life despite life progress made, and they are never allowed to forget and therefore never allowed to fully move on from past actions.

While we broadly welcome the reform, we feel that there is a potential missed opportunity to align with the legislative advancements in England and Wales, which have been in operation since October 2023. At the time of the consultation in 2021, we viewed the proposal as more forward-thinking, but we believe now that it may lag behind England and Wales again, which has amended its 1974 Act to ensure that custodial sentences exceeding four years become spent after the sentence duration plus seven years — except, of course, for certain excluded offences under schedule 18 of the Sentencing Act 2020, which remain exempt from rehabilitation. Excluded offences include murder; manslaughter; terrorist offences; many sexual offences, including rape and sexual assault; and some violent offences, including grievous bodily harm and actual bodily harm. NIACRO takes this opportunity to call on the Committee to revise the legislation to ensure alignment with England and Wales, in that no bright line, currently 10 years, is proposed. Our view is that that will remove unnecessary barriers to rehabilitation.

You will also see from our case studies that the disparity between the two regimes presents people living in Northern Ireland with practical challenges of knowing when their convictions have been spent and they are no longer required to disclose them. That is why we have designed our own calculator and website for Northern Ireland and have a helpline and disclosure service to support individuals, agencies and businesses around that very technical matter. If this legislation goes forward, it has the potential to positively impact on tens of thousands of people and make a contribution to savings to the public purse in reoffending costs, which in 2023 were £374 million. We believe that it will also support economically inactive people to gain training, skills and employment. It will support businesses to safely and fairly recruit. In our research, conducted with the University of Ulster a number of years ago, most employers said that they were willing to employ people with a criminal record but that they would need help and advice to do so safely. It will help people and families to enjoy the benefits of living in a civic society through fairer access to insurance, travel, financial services and education. We believe that it will also help anyone who was under 18 at the time of conviction to move forward sooner.

At the other end of the spectrum, as we assist people out of and away from the criminal justice system, we also need to focus on not diverting people into the system, especially children, and that is why we want to see the MACR raised. We acknowledge that there is a lack of cross-party support for that or a consistent view on what the age should be. We welcome the opportunity for the Committee to meet young people who have experience of the criminal justice system to discuss that in conjunction with the work that you are doing with Include Youth. That will be an important opportunity for the Committee to discuss the matter with young people themselves. As the Committee is very aware, and given the previous input on the Bill from colleagues in Barnardo’s, the British Association of Social Workers, the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY) and the Children's Law Centre, the age of criminal responsibility in Northern Ireland is currently 10 years. Put simply, that is too young.

Way back in 2011, the youth justice review found that the age of criminal responsibility here was not internationally acceptable. We believe that the time has come for action, not least to reflect current practice and concerted efforts by the agencies to divert as many children and young people as possible away from the formal system. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) recommends a MACR of at least 16, which we support. We believe that this legislature and Northern Ireland have a real opportunity to lead ahead in an evidence-based way to support all children and our response to them when things go wrong and harm is caused by them. Raising the MACR in Northern Ireland will stop significant numbers of children entering the criminal justice system, preventing them from having a criminal record for the rest of their lives that leaves them with future barriers to employment, education, insurance and travel, as per our earlier comments on the spent convictions system, as well as increasing their risk of further involvement in the criminal justice system.

Raising the MACR will mean a welfare- and trauma-informed approach instead of a purely punitive one, and that approach can be taken to address complex needs and reduce risk. We are not saying that challenging behaviour should not be addressed; not at all. It is a question of how we address it. Too many children and young people are being criminalised, many of them care-experienced, and you understand that. As we all — the adults — grapple with health and social care reform, the impact of lack of progress in this regard should not be borne by our children. Responses are also required outside of the criminal justice system to support the complex needs of children with alternatives to the criminal justice system. That will require cross-departmental planning and implementation. Invest-to-save measures such as early intervention programmes and collaboration between all sectors, including the voluntary and community sector, will be needed.

There should be no exceptions to the MACR, in line with UNCRC recommendations on best practice. We recognise the need to hear and understand the views of victims in this debate and the views of local communities. We note Victim Support Northern Ireland's recent blog from February 2025 on the Queen’s policy engagement website, in which it lends support to raising the MACR. I ask the Committee to consider why our children are more criminally culpable than other children in the rest of Europe. We encourage the introduction of an amendment to the MACR as part of the Justice Bill. We believe that it is long overdue, and it will be a missed opportunity to put children's rights at the centre of our legal and care systems.

We have outlined 13 recommendations in our submission, covering the issues and range of themes in the Bill and the proposed amendments. In conclusion, NIACRO's key asks are: one, to reform the Rehabilitation of Offenders Order, revising the legislation to align with England and Wales and remove the bright-line 10-year proposed time limit when no conviction can be spent; and, two, for the Committee to consider introducing an amendment to raise the MACR from 10 to 16 years. We look forward to your questions, and we will do our best to answer them as a team.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Thank you. The briefing was really helpful, as was your paper. The issue with a Committee amendment to change the MACR is that the Executive cannot agree. As the Committee is mostly made up of Executive parties, the chance of agreement is slim as well. However, we will not rule anything out at this point.

Mr Baker: I will start with raising the age of criminal responsibility. We have heard different evidence; some will say 14, and you have said that it should be 16. Can you give your view on why it should be 16 and not 14?

Ms Greene: Our view is in line with the UNCRC, which is an international recommendation and best practice. We also have taken on board the comments made in the 2011 youth justice review. In 2021, a paper was produced with the Voice of Young People in Care, Include Youth and the Children's Law Centre, alongside the Centre for Children's Rights at Queen's University, called 'Tracing the Review'. We are happy to share the paper as supplementary information after the session, because it sets out our full rationale for asking for the age of 16 with no exceptions. We simply believe that Northern Ireland has an opportunity to lead on this. Clearly, 10 is too young, and we suggest that 16 is appropriate, given the other areas that relate to that age. People aged 16 cannot vote, and they are not allowed to get married without another adult's permission, and that is fundamental to the debate about what is a child.

Mr Baker: I would love to see young people having a vote at 16. Your paper states:

Can you elaborate on that? Why would you like to see that?

Ms Rachel Long (NIACRO): It is about filtering the records. NICCY and the Children's Law Centre have talked about the "wipe the slate clean" ask for children and young people. It comes back to the MACR. If you look at the number of children and young people who come into the criminal justice system and the types of offences, you will see that it is mostly first-time offences. If you look at Canada, Scotland and other jurisdictions, it is really important that, unless it is a serious offence — if it is a first-time or minor offence in those other jurisdictions — it is not held on the young person's record and does not appear. For an enhanced check, depending on the role that they are going for, we would want the information to come through to safeguard and support. If they are low and minor offences that children might have committed in their early youth, that should be considered. All this links back to the rehabilitation piece and people being able to move on in their lives. We ask very clearly that, if it is a low or first-time offence, consideration be given to not showing that on a young person's record past the age of 18.

Mr Baker: I have one last question on live links. Do you have any concerns about children and young people, or vulnerable people, and the use of live links?

Ms Greene: We need to take some more time out to consider that issue. We are aware of the effectiveness of live links as a means of access to justice for vulnerable and intimidated witnesses, particularly young people, through the witness services of the NSPCC and Victim Support NI. We are mindful that, as an organisation, we are also campaigning for a reduction in delays in the criminal justice system. We support any means that will do that, but we wanted to take some time out to talk to some of our children and young people and get their views on what is proposed in the Bill on live links for children so that we can take more of an evidence-based and robust approach.

As I said at the beginning, our focus is very much on the rehabilitation of offenders and the MACR aspects of the Bill, and also filtering, because those are the things that we deal with daily. Every matter in the Bill is important in itself, however, and we recognise the practical solution that that will give to police in relation to the matters contained in the Bill. It is about balance and proportionality, as all these things are, and of understanding what support systems are put in for young people, their guardians and the people around them who support them during investigations and arrest.

Ms Ferguson: I will come in on biometrics. In your opinion, does the Bill differentiate appropriately between children and adults when it comes to the 75/50/25 data retention model? In your presentation, you suggested that the Bill's approach to biometric data retention does not align sufficiently with the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. What are your thoughts on that? How could the Bill be amended to ensure that those rights are protected?

Ms Long: Thanks, Ciara. We have given some thought to that. We very much welcome the reform in that it brings an end to the indefinite period, bringing it more into line with children's rights. We have looked at it through the lens of retention, and, going back to the Bill, the rehabilitation of offenders and when convictions can become spent. Our view on the proposal that biometric data would be retained for diversionary disposals is that it absolutely should not be: a diversionary disposal is a diversionary disposal, which is an out-of-court disposal in order to divert, rather than bringing people into the system. We ask that biometric data not be held for diversionary.

Moving onto biometric data for non-custodial sentences, if I have read the Bill correctly, the proposal is that that data is retained for five years. We do not feel that to be necessary or proportionate. To look at the proposed amendments around the rehabilitation regime being updated, take that example of a non-custodial community sentence for a child — that that will be spent on completion of the order. If their conviction is to be spent on completion of the order, what is the need for their biometric data to be held on a police computer system for five years following the completion of the sentence? That does not align with what is being proposed in relation to that child's conviction being spent. That was just to give it that context so that it aligns with rehabilitation legislation and with what is being proposed.

I hope that helps.

Ms Ferguson: It definitely does. On numerous occasions, we have raised with other organisations the potential for ongoing stigma that can arise from that. Can you throw some light on that from your own experience of people who have convictions hanging over them with the fact that their data is being held?

Ms Long: Very much so. I can speak, even from my personal experience. I am a foster carer and provide respite. Very recently — within the past six months — I looked after a young girl of 17. As we have talked about, 30% — higher, even — of children and young people in the juvenile justice centre who come to the attention of the police are care-experienced young people.

One of the young people whom I looked after went missing for a time from her residential home. Rightly so, people were concerned about her, and the police put a photograph out and asked for information and whether anyone had seen her. When she returned, and I was looking after her, one of the first questions that she asked me, off her own bat, was, "Will the police hold my photograph?" and, "How long will that photograph of me sit on the police system? What information have they got about me?".

Young people really do care about this issue and do take it seriously. Every young person is different. They come from different backgrounds and families and have different family experiences and levels of resilience, but they do care. Hopefully, when you do get an opportunity to meet some of the young people whom we and others support, that is a question on which they would be interested in engaging with you.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you. That is great. That young girl was fortunate to have you. You raised the point of their not being aware at all of who has what, where it is or where it goes either, so that front end of consent is important.

Ms Long: For children and adults, there is our disclosure helpline as well, and those are the types of questions that we are asked. We provide lots of advice through the helpline, and they will ask, "Where does this sit? Who will see my information and how long for?", so it is important that people are educated and know the answers.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you.

Ms Egan: Thank you for coming in, and for your evidence. I really appreciate it.

Paragraph 3.9 of your submission asks:

What are your thoughts on that, and would you have concerns if that were not included? Do you think that current legislation on child welfare and a child's best interests is not sufficient?

Ms Greene: In preparing for this meeting, we were struck by the evidence given on that by the Human Rights Commission and, in particular, by the Children’s Law Centre. It would not be controversial to include wording on children's rights being at the centre of any legislation that pertains to them. That is my view.

Ms Long: A few things came up for us, particularly in relation to bail and custodial arrangements for children and young people. Some of it is about bringing into legislation custom and practice that is already happening. Another issue that we are concerned about, and that we would like you to explore, is how a child's maturity is assessed when in police custody. How are police officers going to assess a child's needs and their capacity to understand their bail conditions? We have questions, as did others who provided evidence, about a child's community ties. It is important that a child's bests interests are clear throughout. A child's best interests must be paramount in all this.

Ms Egan: I just wanted to hear more of your thoughts because you are not the first organisation to raise this with us. I appreciate that, and thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): As members have not indicated any other questions, I have a few matters that I would like to work through with you. This is the first time that we have really focused on the rehabilitation of offenders. This is us starting to chew the issues surrounding that. You raised concerns about the independent review mechanism. Beyond the fact that that potentially could not be done in this mandate, do you have any other concerns about that?

Ms Greene: Only that it will not be in this mandate. It is an important mechanism.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): The gist of your concern is that there will be provision for it but that it is not going to be implemented until further down the line, which means that all those people who have convictions of over 10 years have no means of getting them looked at. I have seen some of your case studies, and I can see how that is an issue.

Ms Greene: Yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): You indicated that you would prefer pretty much every conviction to become spent after 10 years. Is that just for children, or does it apply to adults? Are there any convictions that should remain unspent and continue to be disclosed?

Ms Long: For sure.

Ms Andrea Moreland (NIACRO): We want the legislation on rehabilitation to change for adults as well as children, and we believe that everybody should be given an opportunity to rehabilitate. People may have committed an offence once and never committed any other offence, yet that has been hanging over them ever since. We want those people, who may not be able to access employment or education or get insurance, to be treated fairly. Having an unspent conviction can raise all kinds of issues. However, we understand the concerns of the public and the Assembly about safety if the convictions of certain people become spent under the new legislation. What we want to put forward in response is that there are public protection orders in place for those people. There are things such as sexual offences prevention orders for serious sexual offenders, violent offences prevention orders for violent offenders, barred lists and public protection arrangements. Even if a conviction becomes spent, some of those supervisions, such as sex offenders registration, last past the spending period.

I do not know whether we have a particular stance on any convictions that should not become spent.

Ms Long: We consult. There is a specified offences consultation going on at the moment. We really welcome the fact that there is consultation on that, and, when there is something to be added to the exemptions list, we take that into consideration and put forward a view. We agree, I suppose, with the main categories that it contains, although, given some of our practice experience, if you were to ask around, you might hear about giving consideration to when some offences might fall off that list.

NIACRO is asking for the rehabilitation period to be in line with that in England, where any conviction can become spent after 10 years. We speak to our English counterparts, and we get phone calls from people who see conflicting information from the two jurisdictions; maybe they are moving over from Northern Ireland and trying to understand what that means. That legislation has been in place since 2023.

This is what we would like to see. If your sentence is over 10 years and is for a violent or serious offence — say, for example, you have served a 15-year sentence — under our proposed amendments, there would be a buffer period of seven years on top of the 15 years that you have already served. That is a pretty long time in which to demonstrate that you have not offended. Most sentences are now determinate and custodial. Most people will serve part of their sentence in custody and part of it in the community. They do not reoffend during their period in the community, hopefully, and there is then a further seven-year period during which they do not offend. We would like to see —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): It is not taken from the point at which they leave custody but from the end of the sentence.

Ms Long: It is from the end of the sentence, plus a further seven years. No matter the length of the sentence, there is a further seven-year period. The evidence tells us that, for somebody who has not offended after seven years, the risk of their reoffending is the same as the risk of you or me or a member of the public who has never offended committing an offence. The risk of offending becomes the same, which is why, I presume, the period has been set at seven years. However, we think that it is really important for there to be an independent review mechanism to consider that.

There absolutely should be exceptions, and we are content with the majority of them. We hear of the odd case through our helpline, and we have highlighted one such case in our written evidence. Possession of drugs is a specified offence. There are people who, in their youth, were in possession of cannabis or even a small quantity of a class A drug. That will always be specified and disclosable through AccessNI standard and enhanced checks. Therefore, we ask that, in some instances, for people who have moved on and have not reoffended — there has been one offence — their cases could be reviewed by an independent reviewer. Our ask is that there should be independent, flexibility in those situations.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I want to make sure that I have got this right. Ideally, for you, convictions would be spent after 10 years. In circumstances where that is not going to happen, you are content with an independent reviewer, but your concern with that is that it is not going to happen in this mandate. It is that a rough summary of where we are with that?

Ms Long: Ideally, we would like it that there is no bright line, no 10 years and no upper limit, so that all offences can become spent. It would be the length of the sentence plus seven years, whereas, at the moment, what is proposed is a maximum of 10 years.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): There are some issues in your paper that we will want to send to the Department and ask for its views on them. One of the questions that I would like to send, with the Committee's agreement, is what consideration did the Department gave to the position in England and Wales, what is going on there and why did it choose to take a different route?

Ms Greene: As I said at the beginning, when the Department consulted on proposals to amend the 1978 Order, way back in the previous mandate, we had considered when we were putting in our submission that it was more reachy and progressive. However, in the meantime, England and Wales moved forward with their legislative progress, so that bright line has been removed. We would like to see that done here.

As I say, it is a fairness thing and it is about proportionality, but there are practical issues about the two systems running alongside each other. We drew attention to a case study on that when someone was applying for a financial service, insurance, online to an English-based insurance company, which was attached to the Unlock disclosure calculator. We have had to develop a Northern Ireland calculator because the regulations are, obviously, quite different. That was also one of the reasons why we set out table 1 for the Committee, because it took us a wee while as well to say, "This is where we are, and this is what is proposed" and then we could compare it to England and Wales. Andrea and her team constantly come across this: people think that they do not have to disclose because they go online, read it and they think it is the same thing."

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I saw that in your case studies.

Ms Greene: There is a lack of public awareness around unspent convictions anyway. Tens of thousands of people have minor records, but they are still criminal records. Most, I suppose, are fines. At the moment, it is five years before they are spent. That can really impact on people. That is why we have set it out in that way: to give a comparator and also set out our position on each of those bits.

Ms Long: Just to add to that, the Minister said that the Department took that position because, in Northern Ireland, maybe about 20 people a year would be impacted by being over the 10-year mark. It was thought that that would be a reasonable number, and that an independent reviewer would be able to deal with those cases rather than having the provision open to 10 years and above. That is what was set out as the reasoning for the 10-year cut off.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That was done five years ago. It will be interesting to see whether there has been any discussion or thought in the interim period before they produced all this. We should be able to know where we are and query it.

On the restorative justice issue, you have highlighted that there are some inconsistencies in restorative justice and some issues on access to it. Can you elaborate on that a bit, please?

Ms Greene: Sorry, Chair, can you —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I will just establish where we are. Paragraph 4 in the summary of recommendations.

Ms Greene: We co-host the Restorative Practices Forum, and I sit on the DOJ's steering group for the adult restorative justice strategy, so we are very aware of the work that is ongoing in the development of the accreditation, all the governance arrangements around adult restorative justice and also the work being done by criminal justice agencies as to how adult cases can come forward through referrals. At the moment, there are a number of restorative justice organisations in communities in Northern Ireland, but, because of the funding, it is inconsistent. Also, from a victim's point of view, we hope that victims can also access restorative justice interventions more freely.

We have always been supportive of restorative justice and recognise that there are issues around the funding and resourcing, particularly at the moment, for what might be a really good alternative to more-traditional criminal justice solutions. Particularly for victims, it can be a very powerful intervention and actually more satisfactory than the existing criminal justice system with regard to justice served. It is not just an alternative to the criminal justice system, it can be done in addition to and provide, hopefully, more satisfaction and more repairing of harm between the person who has caused the harm and the person who has been harmed.

We are very supportive of those initiatives and want to see a consistent approach to the resourcing of that, both for the voluntary and community sector being supported and the organisations, that have been working solidly over the last number of decades in Northern Ireland on that big body of work, to be recognised and built upon as well as taking forward the adult restorative justice strategy in the DOJ. We commend them for the work that they are currently doing to bring that forward, albeit in a very challenging fiscal situation.

Ms Long: I will add that we, in partnership with the Probation Board, have a programme called Aspire. It is one of the only programmes where we can provide a restorative justice element to the work that we do. The programme is funded through the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime strand, and we know that it is due to come to an end; they are winding down that programme. When we talk about disparities, availability and access to restorative justice programmes, that is what we are referring to. It is about access to that, for the person who has caused the harm, but also the victims as well.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): So, your concern is around paths to restorative justice being narrowed, actually, rather than expanded.

Ms Long: Yes.

Ms Greene: We are supportive of the accreditation in the framework and the governance and resourcing of that, but it has to be done consistently and, as Rachel said, that both the person who has caused the harm and the victim also get free access to it. There will also be a requirement for criminal justice agencies to be supported through it, because it is different and is potentially outwith normal operations. As I said, we support the DOJ in what it is trying to do, but we hope that what is contained in the Bill will facilitate the Department to take forward its plans.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Thank you. In the summary of recommendations, number 5 is about expanding filtering eligibility. Have you covered that, or is there anything else that you want to flag up to us on that?

Ms Moreland: We welcome the proposed amendments to filtering by simplifying the list of filterable offences into the new schedule, but there are certain offences that we would like to see considered to be added to the filtered offences list. For example, we already discussed the possession of drugs, particularly for young people. All drug offences here are specified offences, so they are not eligible for automatic filtering. That is different from the filtering process in England and Wales. They filter drug possession and some supply offences from their standard and enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks, but we do not do that here.

I work with Youth Justice a lot, and a lot of the young people coming through have maybe been found with a joint, for instance, or a couple of tablets at a festival. That will affect their lives further down the line. In particular, young people or even adults who want to go into careers in a regulated activity. The current filtering rules, as they stand, whilst they are very effective, are further penalising people who want to go into those types of roles. If you get an enhanced AccessNI check to become a teacher, for example, or you may want to go into nursing, if you have an offence that is specified and is not eligible for automatic filtering, then that can cause issues. Young people, in particular, are penalised. I do not want to gender stereotype, but that kind of thing is becoming an issue for a lot of our female clients who want to go into careers in nursing, medicine or teaching. We would like the list of filterable offences to be expanded to include those things, but that is not to take away from public safety and having things assessed on a case-by-case basis. Obviously, we are supportive of that, but there are certain offences on that list that we would like to be reconsidered.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Section 7.7 of your submission is about youth custody and supervision orders. In the second paragraph, mention is made of the:

and you ask for flexibility. On that basis, I raised the issue with the Probation Board to see what its view was. Have you seen people being destabilised and having their progress affected by such a move? I absolutely understand the common sense approach that you are taking; I wonder where you think that the cut-off point might be.

Ms Long: The numbers that we are talking about are very small. Probation works really closely with the Youth Justice Agency, which is fantastic. They work really tightly together to look at those cases. If you agree to allow that young person to finish their order in the juvenile justice centre, that means that, from an operational perspective, the Youth Justice Agency is housing, holding and looking after an adult with other vulnerable young people. The juvenile justice centre is not, has not been and, hopefully, will not be, at full capacity; there is quite a lot of space in there, so that is possible and doable. Our young offenders' centre in Hydebank is fantastic; very trauma-informed prison officers and staff work there to support those very young 18-year-olds whom they receive into their care. We do not question that at all. We take the lead from the Youth Justice Agency practitioners who have been looking after and caring for that young person and will know what the best interests of the child are. Does the young person whom they are looking after have a learning difficulty or special educational needs? Are they care experienced? If they have a month or two months left in order to finish out their sentence in the centre, is that manageable? Is it safe to do so? Who are the other young people who might be affected as a result? We use a person-centred approach to assess those cases.

We do not work directly with young people in either of those settings, so I cannot give you an example of a case or talk to that in relation to our seeing the impact on young people. However, we would like consideration to be given to that, so that there is scope to allow for that where needed.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): It is useful to hear you expand on that and give us some concept of your thinking.

Recommendation 11 is about the use of fines as a disposal for under-16s. I think that we should seek clarification from the Department, and its views, on that. I would also like to clarify with the Department the issue of the retention of biometrics around cautions and disposals. In addition, there is the issue with flexibility around Hydebank. On a couple of issues that we discussed with regard to England and Wales, we can see whether the Department's thinking has changed or it has given those further consideration. Do members agree to that?

Ms Ferguson: The filtering issue was raised as well.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I am trying to read my own writing. I was writing stuff down. Now, I cannot read it.

Ms Ferguson: We can ask whether there has been any movement or change with regard to expanding the filtering for particular incidents.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Yes. I think that, if it is going to put in a review mechanism, we need to have some understanding of why it may not be possible to do that in this mandate. Has the Department looked at the possibility of doing it in this mandate? I can see the issues that you are having. Look: we all want to give people the best chance to restart their lives and, most importantly, not reoffend. That is in their interests and in society's interests. For people to be able to have a job, make something of their lives and feel that their lives are of value and that they can succeed is a key part of that. Yes: there is stuff that we should query further with the Department.

Has anybody got anything further for NIACRO? No.

Thank you very much. It has been very helpful to have you here. If anything else occurs to us, or we have anything further as we move through those aspects of the Bill, I presume that you are content for us to be in touch with you again.

Ms Greene: We are happy to come back if required or to provide any supplementary information that you might need. We really appreciate the opportunity to come and talk about the rehabilitation of offenders, in particular, and MACR, which is very important to us as an organisation. Thank you so much.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is great. Thank you very much indeed for your time. All the very best. Thank you.