Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Attending the meeting today to give evidence are Dr Paula Rodgers, who is the policy manager with Include Youth; and Ms Alicia Toal, who is the chief executive of Voice of Young People in Care (VOYPIC). Ladies, you are very welcome. Settle in. Take your time to get your breath back.

Members, next week, we have our round-table event with the children and young people to take their views on elements of the Justice Bill, and Include Youth and VOYPIC are coordinating that event alongside the Committee team, especially the young people's attendance, the event programme and everything that they want to put to us. Ladies, before we start into that, I thank you and the young people for their efforts in all of this. We are really looking forward to next week. Thank you for that in advance. Are you all set and ready to go?

Ms Alicia Toal (Voice of Young People in Care): Yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): In that case, I will hand over to you to give us your opening remarks. I presume that you are content to take questions from members afterwards. Is that OK?

Ms Toal: That is great.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Lovely. Thank you very much. I hand over to you.

Ms Toal: Thank you very much. On behalf of the Voice of Young People in Care, I thank you for the opportunity to present our insights and evidence to the Committee on the Justice Bill. It is important to say at the outset that I am neither a lawyer nor an expert on criminal justice, but VOYPIC's work with children in care gives us a unique insight into their lived experience, the impact that the law and its processes has on them and their lives, and its ongoing impact as they reach independence and adulthood.

VOYPIC is a regional children's charity for children and young people living in care and leaving care. We promote their rights and voice in all matters that are important to them. Our vision is that every child in care feels safe, valued and loved, and that every young person leaving care does so with dignity and respect, and thrives into adulthood. Our core programmes include independent advocacy services, which are pre-legal services that support children to exercise their right to take part in decisions about their lives and to voice their concerns and find resolution. We provide those to children in care and leaving care across Northern Ireland, and to those who are placed in Beechcroft Child and Adolescent Mental Health Unit. We also help young people to make connections through our participative youth work and forums, and to find their voice and set their own agenda for change. We strive to create change through our policy advocacy work, helping young people to develop the skills, knowledge and confidence to engage directly with decision makers and policymakers. We acknowledge the Committee's commitment to talking directly to children and young people as part of its consideration of the Bill. We supported 777 children and young people last year across children's homes, secure care, Beechcroft inpatient hospital, and foster and kinship families, as well as young people who have left care, wherever they may live.

The paper that was provided to members in advance of the meeting today gives you an insight into how children from care interface with the youth justice system, reminds members of obligations in international standards for children's rights and provides some commentary on specific aspects of the Bill as it relates to children in care. I will highlight some of the messages in the paper.

You will have seen from the statistics that, over the past three years, the proportion of admissions to the Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre (JJC), movements in the JJC and the number of children in custody involving children in care have increased. In 2023-24, over 43% of children in custody were from care, representing the highest rate in the five-year period. A significant number of care-experienced children are placed on remand and later do not receive a custodial sentence, suggesting that custody is frequently used for care-experienced children, potentially due to systemic gaps rather than the nature of the alleged offence. Children from residential care are disproportionately represented across the most formal aspects of our youth justice system, which are the use of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (PACE), remand and custody.

In September 2024, there were 4,173 children and young people in care. Of those, 218 were placed in residential care. Most of the referrals to the youth justice services are for children from residential care, which is the smallest cohort of our looked-after population. Where children from care are not represented, however, is in the earlier diversionary services, including the children's diversion forums. Children from care are not being afforded the opportunity to be diverted from the criminal justice system. There is no specific diversionary route without a criminal record for looked-after children.

The general principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) states that children have the right to enjoy their rights without discrimination; the right to be protected from all forms of discrimination; the right to have their best interests as the primary consideration in all actions and decisions; and the right to life and to the highest possible level of survival and development. We have to ask ourselves whether our approach to youth justice in Northern Ireland upholds the rights of children, and we must consider whether the implementation of the Bill in any way impacts negatively on or discriminates against children and young people, particularly those in residential care. We welcome the Bill's intention to modernise some of the framework for youth justice and the protections around bail, remand and the separation of children from adults. However, we still have some concerns about some clauses or aspects of the Bill.

Language is important. Every day, VOYPIC works with children and young people. We do not work with "looked-after children" (LAC) or "juveniles". We have worked hard to change the language of care over the past number of years, and we believe that it is important that, where the term "juvenile" is used in the Bill, it should be replaced with "child". The term "juvenile" is stigmatising and often associated with delinquency. Reframing the language and using the term "child" reflects the legal status of a person who is under 18 and the protections to which they are entitled.

We welcome the presumption of bail, and one of the provisions in the Bill aims to prevent the courts or police from refusing bail to children on account of there being no suitable alternative accommodation. We understand that that provision will not be commenced until alternative options are available, but that is likely to result in children remaining in Woodlands, potentially, for longer periods than the sentence that they might receive for any offence. That is a significant breach of the rights of those children. Through our advocacy service, we know that some looked-after children experience delays in perfecting bail, and we have worked with others who have been bailed to their former children's home. However, we are also aware of instances of the courts bailing some children to Lakewood Regional Secure Care Centre, and some of those children have refused to perfect their bail in those instances, preferring to remain in Woodlands.

Committee members will be aware of the bail fostering programme, which had been piloted in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust. An initial review of the pilot indicated that, whilst numbers are low, the placements to date have been successfully managed, and the concept is viable. An expansion of the project could provide part of the solution to the accommodation issue.

We are concerned about the proportionality, necessity and best interests of children in relation to the retention of DNA and biometric data. The retention periods for children's data are excessive. We advocate that a child's biometric data should not be retained in diversionary disposals, non-custodial sentences and non-serious offences.

The Bill enables the PSNI to use live video links for various custody functions. The use of live links should not undermine a child's right to a fair trial. An appearance before a judge is sometimes preferred by children and young people, because it can aid their understanding of proceedings and processes. Children must always be supported to meaningfully participate in proceedings and make informed choices about the most appropriate method for that.

The pursuit of justice in relation to risky, harmful or criminal behaviour can be secured by a range of means. Article 40 of the UNCRC asserts the use of "appropriate and desirable" measures:

Alternative responses are used across Europe in, for example, Luxembourg, Norway and Belgium, where early interventions and more therapeutic responses to children's behaviours and circumstances work.

I urge the Committee to scrutinise the Bill through the lens of children's rights in recognition of our evolving understanding and good practice in working with marginalised children, young people and families who live in vulnerable and sometimes harmful circumstances. We must also be mindful of the emerging insight on and our developing understanding of the criminal exploitation of children and young people and how the system responds to those victims of coercion and exploitation.

A failure to adopt a whole-government strategic approach to the investment and delivery of early interventions or preventative measures to support those families who are most in need and who experience a range of disadvantages has resulted in children being subjected to more adverse childhood experiences, increases in unmet psychological and therapeutic needs and increasing numbers of families who require crisis-led interventions, resulting in growing numbers of children requiring state care. In Northern Ireland, the annual cost of late intervention is estimated to be £536 million. Earlier preventative work and support not only reduces costs but significantly improves life outcomes for children, families and communities.

The independent 'Northern Ireland Review of Children's Social Care Services', commissioned by the Department of Health, was published exactly two years ago. It highlighted Northern Ireland's legacy of Troubles-related personal trauma and its societal symptoms: poor mental health, misuse of drugs and alcohol, and domestic violence and abuse. The review recommended bringing together some key services from Health and Social Care, youth justice and education into one single agency in order to better meet the needs of children and young people and families most in need of early help and support. That recommendation offers a practical and transformative opportunity to address long-standing structural failings. It enables a shift from crisis-driven responses towards early intervention, prevention and stronger collaboration with those who provide services to children and families. It ensures that public funding is used more effectively, reduces duplication and delivers services fairly, regardless of where a child lives.

The Minister of Justice has already indicated her support for the implementation of that independent review and has committed to working in partnership with Department of Health colleagues to best meet the needs of relevant children and families. Our focus must be on prevention and early intervention in order to minimise children and young people's contact with the justice system. Where such contact occurs, we must aim to divert them from further offending. Criminalising children increases the likelihood of adult offending, and a preventative, supportive approach ultimately leads to safer communities and makes better use of limited public funds.

I am happy to take questions or comments later.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Thank you, Alicia. Do you want to add anything, Paula?

Dr Paula Rodgers (Include Youth): I do, yes. I have a statement, which expands on the written evidence that you have received. I apologise if some of the issues that I will cover are similar, but VOYPIC and Include Youth are very much of one voice on a lot of the issues, and we work in partnership on those matters.

I want to thank the Committee for the opportunity to speak to you today about Include Youth's response to the content of the Justice Bill and, in particular, how we think aspects of the Bill will impact on the young people whom we support. Include Youth is a rights-based charity for children and young people who are in or leaving care and young people from disadvantaged communities in general. We have a range of programmes, covering employability, good relations and personal development. We aim to work with about 1,600 young people a year, and we work across Northern Ireland in various offices. We have a dedicated programme for care-experienced young people, called Give and Take. A lot of the experience that I will talk about today is very much drawn from those young people's experiences on the Give and Take programme.

Part 1 of the Bill concerns biometrics. While we support the move away from retaining data for an indefinite period, we are concerned that data on young people who are under 18 can be retained for five years following the commission of a first, non-serious, minor offence and for a period of 25 years following a second non-serious, minor offence. We are also worried that children's fingerprints and DNA can be retained without charge or conviction. We do not support the retention of data on children who have received diversionary disposals. As you are aware, there are a number of alterations and safeguards in the Bill for children who are convicted of an offence, but we still believe that those are not child's rights-compliant as they currently stand and do not align with international children's rights standards. Those standards clearly state that children should be treated differently and that all attempts should be made to prevent stigmatisation — to not label but, rather, afford them the opportunity to reintegrate and move on.

I am aware that members will meet young people next week, and we are delighted that that is happening. If I may, I will give you a wee taster of the views of some young people whom Include Youth has talked to about the Bill's contents. The key message from young people on the topic of biometrics was that the Bill needs to differentiate between conviction by and contact with the justice system. They believe that keeping personal data for years after a non-conviction, or even just a caution, undermines young people's rights to move on. I am sure that the young people will expand on that next week, when they meet you directly.

I will move on to Part 2 of the Bill, which concerns bail, remand and custody for children. We welcome the intention to strengthen the existing presumption of bail, which is very much in line with international children's rights standards. When it comes to decisions on granting bail, we agree that a child's age, maturity, needs and capacity to understand and comply with any bail conditions should be taken into account. However, we would like to see another term added, which is the vulnerabilities of a child. That is especially the case for care-experienced young people. Care-experienced young people should not be more at risk of having bail refused because of care status or their particular circumstances.

As an organisation, we have long called for custody as a last resort and for the shortest time possible. We, therefore, support the proposal in clause 8 to prevent children from being detained in custody and refused bail because of a lack of suitable accommodation. We have been concerned for some time, as Alicia has already said, that children are detained in custody because of a lack of suitable accommodation. We have also called for action to address the over-representation of young people from the care system within justice and, in particular, a custodial setting. We believe that the continued over-representation of care-experienced young people in custody is inexcusable. Despite the fact that 14 years ago, an independent team of experts carried out a review of youth justice and highlighted the significant over-representation of young people from a care background in Woodlands, the latest figures suggest that there has been little improvement, and Alicia has already referred to some of those figures. They are not going in the right direction.

We are not a lone voice in raising concerns about the inappropriate use of custody and the criminalisation of care-experienced young people. Research commissioned by us and other organisations, including VOYPIC in 2021, reported that there were continued concerns from the children's sector about the number of care-experienced young people in custody who were not sentenced. The respondents in that research were frustrated by the lack of progress in reducing the number of young people being placed in custody due to simply not having the right accommodation.

We are concerned that the accommodation considerations included in clause 8 will not come to fruition in practice. Members have already heard evidence from DOJ officials on that issue and about the impact that the current lack of available and appropriate accommodation will have on the ability to commence that provision. Include Youth is not supportive of the intention to not commence that clause; it is a really important clause.

Again, we spoke to young people, and they will expand on their views next week for the Committee, but they were unanimous in their view that, in their words:

Many of them, especially those who are care-experienced, have either experienced that or witnessed it happening to their friends, who had been remanded into custody, not because they pose a serious risk but because there was no accommodation. Young people told us:

They can see:

That is their fear. Young people made it clear:

The key message from them is:

We believe there could be better cooperation between Departments to ensure that no child is ever held in custody when they should not be. There is a clear need for supported community-based accommodation options.

We recommend better use of the Children’s Services Co Operation Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, which would provide for a pooling of resources and that coordinated approach between Departments. We also believe the recommendations from Ray Jones's review of children's social care services are very relevant to the discussion. Professor Jones saw a clear need for a dedicated children's organisation — a body dedicated to children, which would remove the inconsistent and fractured services and approach that we see today. We think that if that recommendation happened, it would lead to a better response to the children and the behaviours that we are talking about today at Committee.

Moving on, finally, to matters that we were really disappointed to see were not included in the legislation. For example, there was no mention of the age of criminal responsibility, and you will not be surprised to hear me say that. We have been calling for that for many years, and it is our organisational position that we support an increase to 16 years of age. Our low age of 10 is starkly in breach of international children's rights standards and, frankly, on a global stage, it is just embarrassingly low. It is not a good reflection of how we respond to children who are, themselves, often victims, and who are displaying behaviours, which are often the result of trauma and complex needs. There is an abundance of evidence about the high rates of complex needs of young people in the justice system. Certain children are simply over-represented time and again, for example, those who have mental health issues; those who have learning and speech difficulties, those who are care-experienced or have experience of neglect and abuse; and those who have experience of misuse of drugs and alcohol. The Committee has heard that from other people as well. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) has repeatedly called for action, calling for an increase to at least the age of 14, and commending those countries that go to the age of 15 or 16.

One of the key reasons why the UN Committee has really doubled down on the need to increase the age to 16 is the growing research on adolescent brain development, namely that children under 16 do not have the cognitive ability to fully understand the consequences of their actions, to demonstrate impulse control or to understand legal proceedings The science shows us that we need a different approach for children. Include Youth, along with our colleagues in VOYPIC, NIACRO, the Children's Law Centre (CLC) and the globally recognised Centre for Children's Rights at Queen’s, has been active in trying to bring new voices into the debate, and it has not been hard to find supporters. Part of that involved inviting other voices to come along and contribute to a blog/vlog series about the age of criminal responsibility, which is housed on the Queen's policy engagement website. There is a link in your written evidence to those really interesting blogs.

To date, we have easily secured the support of representatives from child and adolescent forensic psychiatry; victims' groups; organisations that work to tackle trafficking, child sexual exploitation (CSE) and child criminal exploitation (CCE); leading children’s organisations such as Barnardo’s; experts who work in community-based restorative justice; and globally recognised academics, all of which are in that series of blogs. Those are the voices of people who are at the coalface of working with children who come into the system. They know the profile of the children who are affected by such a low age of criminal responsibility, and they are saying loudly and clearly that change must happen.

If I may, I will read a really powerful extract from a blog by Dr Phil Anderson, who is a consultant psychiatrist in child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) in Northern Ireland. He states:

— minimum age of criminal responsibility —

He further states:

He concludes:

Research has shown us that bringing children even into the edges of the system causes them more harm than good. It causes stigmatisation, alienation and barriers to a future life. There are better ways to deal with it, and there is more detail in our written paper. We are not suggesting that there should be no intervention or response to behaviour that is deemed harmful to the victim and to themselves. Of course there has to be a response, but it should be a welfare intervention; it should not criminalise. It is not about whether children will be held accountable — they will be — but about how they will be held accountable. We cannot arrest our way out of a broken system that fails to support vulnerable and traumatised children with complex needs.

There is a more effective approach that will lead to better outcomes for children, safer communities and, crucially, fewer victims, because we really care about that as well. Victims are not forgotten in this approach and debate. Victim Support, which was another contributor to the blog series that I have talked about, has expressly said that what it wants most is fewer victims. It also supports an increase in the age of criminal responsibility to at least 14. It has explicitly said that it recognises that children caught up in the system are often victims themselves — victims of abuse, victims of adverse childhood experiences and so on — and that their harmful behaviour is the consequence of a failure to safeguard and protect them; it is not their fault.

We have a really important opportunity here to go beyond the bare minimum of what a child's rights-compliant age of criminal responsibility should be. Our Health and Social Care agencies and our voluntary and community sector are mature and developed, meaning that we can provide an alternative pathway; the systems are in place. We do not need to criminalise very young children. For that reason, we will support an amendment on the issue. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): OK, ladies?

Dr Rodgers: Yes. Thank you.

Mr Baker: Apologies, Chair, I will keep my camera off, because my signal is not very good when I turn it on.

Thank you for your presentation. To start with, what are the most important steps that need to be taken to address the criminalisation of care- experienced children and young people?

Ms Toal: One of the first steps is raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility, because that then automatically requires a different approach for all children.

There had been some joint working between the Department of Justice and Department of Health from 2022 to 2024. There was a regional care and justice programme that was jointly chaired by both directorates and sought to look at sharing physical facilities between Woodlands and Lakewood and at the harmonisation of some of those services across the piece. That all stemmed from a review of regional facilities that also recommended looking at another approach for all these children, because whether they are from care or are other young people who come into custody, they tend to come from very similar community backgrounds, face the same level of disadvantage and may have the same communication issues. There was a recognition that we did not need to treat those children differently and that they would often benefit from the same approach.

We were disappointed to see that, sadly, that programme came to an end in May 2024, because, whilst there was some great practice on the ground, there was no legal framework for it to operate in. It was thought that, when the programme closed, there would be another opportunity through the independent review of social care services, which also had recommendations on alternative uses of that site. However, for us, the fundamental recommendation was about a single agency that would bring those critical youth services, social care services and some education services together. Right now, those three directorates — and beyond, if you look to the Department for Communities — all hold certain responsibilities for these young people, except that they are kind of working in silos so there is not one overall distinct, joined-up, responsible and coordinated approach. If we had fewer silos and a single agency, it would allow us to make that change and to shift towards earlier intervention and preventative services.

Mr Baker: Thank you. That is key to a lot of things that I have learned about this place: early intervention is key, and we do not do enough of it.

I will move on to human rights. The Human Rights Commission suggested that a "child's best interest" principle should be included in relevant clauses of the Bill. What is your view on that proposal?

Dr Rodgers: I can probably speak for both of us and say that we absolutely support that. If you start with the principle of the best interests of the child, that will definitely set you on the right track for the decisions that you make. That should be the foundation of everything in the legislation that relates to children and young people. If they put in that best interests principle, that would set the standard.

Mr Baker: I want to ask about your experience with children and young people whom you work with. How aware are they of their human rights? Do you feel that more education is needed for them?

Dr Rodgers: Yes, there is a need for more awareness and more education around human rights and children's rights generally, and that is probably the case among our young people as well. That could even be having conversations about this legislation and the age of criminal responsibility. Young people are not particularly aware that that age is 10. We have those conversations, and they are surprised that that is the case, and they are maybe not completely aware of what they can call on when it comes to children's rights standards and what we should have. Yes, it would be beneficial if children knew a bit more about that.

Mr Baker: My last question is on the age of criminal responsibility. We know that, in general, our young people take risks. That is scientifically proven and is because they are developing mentally, but that is particularly the case among the most vulnerable children from socially deprived areas who have had a tough start to life. During recent events in the North — the anti-immigration disorder — a number of children were arrested. I am very concerned. How concerned are you that many of our children and young people are being exploited by criminal gangs? Do you think that the Justice Bill can help to address that?

Dr Rodgers: The words that you use are right: it is exploitation. We need to reframe the narrative when we see children on the streets engaged in that sort of behaviour, and we need to look to where the adults are and where there might be coercion or where children are being pushed to get involved. Children are the easy targets out at the front. They are very easily influenced and may not completely recognise the consequences of their actions. We need to be clear about who is responsible here and to see them as children and realise that different approaches are needed.

It is about investing in other things around prevention and early intervention. It is about getting youth workers on the streets and putting money into that; having more boxing clubs and things such as that. Young people need different interventions. There is a gap there, and people are stepping into that gap and offering children and young people an identity and a role that they will step into in the absence of anything else. It is really damaging for their future. I think that you are right to use the word "exploitation". We welcome that there is a change in language. We have noticed that in recent months, even since last year when there was disruption on the streets around race issues. Several politicians, including Members, talked about that as child criminal exploitation. Call it out for what it is.

Mr Baker: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Members, I will repeat this because we have quite a long list of members who wish to come in, and I have quite a long list of my own questions. Please keep the preamble to a minimum, and, ladies, please keep your answers as succinct as possible. I want to get as much ground covered as we can, so that we are going in to meet the youngsters with our heads in the right place and with as much as knowledge as we can get.

Ms Egan: Thank you for coming in. In that spirit, Chair, my question was about the Department of Justice and the Department of Health working together, but that was touched on in answer to Danny's question, so I will go on to my next one. You raised the need to swap the word "juvenile" in the Bill with the word "child". You are not the first organisation to raise that with the Committee. Have you had any engagement with the Department on that, and have you let it know your views on that? You are certainly not the only people who feel that way.

Ms Toal: I would have to refer back to my organisation to see whether that was raised. In VOYPIC, we pay a lot of attention to language and how it stigmatises children, so I will double-check that. If we have not, Connie, I will make sure that we raise it.

Ms Egan: No problem. Paula?

Dr Rodgers: We have not raised it in our written submission containing our evidence, but I agree with Alicia that the language is so important. I know that other organisations, such as the Children's Law Centre, have raised that as well, and I am supportive of a change in that. Language is important.

Ms Egan: That is really helpful, and I agree.

Thank you for raising the issue of the minimum age of criminal responsibility. I agree totally with what you say, and I am also hopeful that an amendment to the Bill will be tabled on that.

Another issue that has been raised with us is that of equal protection of children from abuse by removing the defence of reasonable chastisement. Are you aware of that and would you support that if an amendment on that were tabled? Organisations have asked us to do that as well.

Dr Rodgers: Again, we have not included that specifically in this piece of work, but we have been involved in alliances, and Include Youth is a member of the alliance that is calling for a change around that. So, yes, Include Youth is supportive of the amendment on that.

Ms Toal: VOYPIC is supportive as well.

Ms Egan: That is great. Thank you very much.

Mr Dunne: Thanks, folks, for the presentation. I am keen to ascertain your views on restorative justice and the proposed amendment on that. I am keen to establish your experience of restorative justice, particularly from the perspective of children and young people.

Dr Rodgers: Again, Include Youth has not referred to that specifically in the piece of written evidence that we have given to you, but I am aware of the amendment on restorative justice. I am certainly supportive of restorative justice as a practice. We partner with Alternatives — it is one of our partner organisations that we work with — so we see the amazing work that happens there and are very supportive of that. Clearly, there is a role there for young people to go through that restorative process and for good outcomes.

Mr Dunne: I am familiar with that. Sometimes, you think of restorative justice being more for dealing with adults, but, obviously, it has a key role for children and young people as well. That is why I was keen to tap into your experience from both of your organisations to see whether there is anything more around that.

Ms Toal: Some successful projects had been established several years ago, but I think that funding for those ceased. I think that it had been proven that it was providing very good results. Unfortunately, the funding was not available to continue it.

Mr Dunne: Do you have any thoughts on the development of the live links? How does it ultimately make the justice system fairer and more suitable for children and young people?

Ms Toal: Live links, in itself, does not make the justice system fairer or more equitable, but it is important that young people have the opportunity to use whatever method is most appropriate for them. Sometimes, as adults, we are under the illusion that technology makes things easier for children and young people to participate. That is not always true. In our advocacy service, we find that, when young people have to take part in their care planning meetings, it is sometimes harder for them to understand what is happening and who the people involved are. It is important that, where young people want to exercise their right to appear in person, they should. We also need to make sure that there are appropriate safeguards and guidance for the use of live links.

Mr Dunne: Thanks, folks.

Ms Ferguson: I have a few questions. My first follows on from Stephen's question on community-based restorative justice. As somebody who has worked in community development, I am a strong advocate for local, neighbourhood-level, grassroots restorative justice services, because they are in the community and can connect to it. They can use the resources in the community. I would love to hear your opinion on the provision to widen restorative justice services and to provide the power to accredit organisations to the Minister. Perhaps you could give me your thoughts on that and on widening it.

Secondly, I am gravely concerned about the lack of suitable accommodation. As the Minister has said that she is not going to move on clause 8, I want to know about the scale of the impact that that has on kids who are being put into custody. They should be out in a caring environment.

Those are the two key areas that I am interested in. Can you expand on them?

Dr Rodgers: I will talk about community-based restorative justice. There is clearly a need for an expansion of that. We support the work that goes on. I totally agree that it is about grassroots, community-based organisations, with people who know the children and young people and their families. There is absolutely a role there. We are completely supportive of any expansion of it.

We keep talking about the qpol blog on the MACR, but Alternatives put in a response to that and had a piece on it. It said that, if you are going to increase the age of criminal responsibility, you need to look around at the alternatives as well. Community-based provision is crucial to getting that right. Clearly, there is a role there.

Ms Toal: I will talk about the lack of suitable accommodation. The impact of not having appropriate accommodation for young people to perfect their bail means that we are depriving them of their liberty. If they are entitled to bail and we continue to lock them up, it is a complete breach of children's rights. We have grave concerns about that. There is an onus across government to look at how we can work together to develop accommodation options.

Ms Ferguson: Just to follow up on that, what is the scale of that? What is the picture? You mentioned that there had been a small pilot scheme on fostering and that it seemed to be effective. In reality, to deal with the current situation, what do we need? What is the scale and level of the need for accommodation for the number of young people who are currently in custody and should not be there?

Ms Toal: Different options are required. Some children in care are able to perfect bail because they are able to return to the children's home. However, we also know that, sometimes, there might be a number of children who may need a bail address. Perhaps something has happened in the home that means that those children cannot be placed back into it. There is already a huge pressure on care placements across the piece, be it residential placements, foster care placements or placements for those moving on from leaving care and aftercare. Therefore, in our care system, we need to have a range of flexible types of accommodation. We are starting to see, slowly, the development of different types of provision — one-bedded and two-bedded homes — that would allow children to not have to stay in Woodlands. Although the numbers in the southern area bail fostering pilot were small, that has proven that the concept is viable. The first step, therefore, would be a wider roll-out of the pilot in the southern area and then across all trusts. We have seen that professionals and services can be creative. During COVID, we saw different approaches and accommodation being made available quickly in a crisis, so we know that we can do something, but that will require investment that needs the whole Executive's support.

Dr Rodgers: If we are talking about other accommodation, it is important to have specialised staff, small numbers and wrap-around support. It needs to be done differently from the way in which we have done it before, because we see young people continuously bounce backwards and forwards, and there is no end to it. How that plays out for them is a really sad story. We have to make a move somewhere. We have to provide something. We have been talking for well over two decades about the need for more appropriate and supported accommodation for young people with really complex needs, because they are just bouncing continuously between care and justice. They do not deserve to be failed like that. Alicia and I know the young people. We sit opposite them and talk to them, and we know that they have potential, but we can see the sad route that they go down. It is so frustrating; I am sure that you feel the same. It is unforgivable. Lives are just going into a spiral when they do not need to. Anger and frustration build up, and the challenging behaviour increases.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): The system is stealing their prospects.

Dr Rodgers: It really is, and it does not need to. That is why we are concerned that clause 8 may not be commenced. We understand all the reasons for the suggestion that it will not be commenced, but, if we do not start somewhere — if it is not in the legislation — I am not really sure how it will happen. What will change in another 10 years to provide the impetus to do something about this? We will have another collection of young people who have lost their futures. They may have children who continue the same cycle. We see the problem repeating itself. We therefore urge you on that. We know that there are limitations on what you, as members of this Committee, can do and that responsibilities fall to other Departments, but we do not really care who does it: somebody needs to do something. That is our plea. It is a really important clause, and it must be commenced.

Ms Ferguson: Finally, I want to pick your brains. Given the urgency, is the issue anywhere in the strategic planning and performance group's (SPPG) work stream? Are you aware of anything that the Department of Health is working on with the Department of Justice? Have you been invited to anything on it?

Ms Toal: I am not sure. As part of the children and young people's strategic partnership, a member of SPPG went to the most recent meeting of the reducing offending regional group, having spent time with the Youth Justice Agency looking at the statistics. My frustration, which I had shared at a previous meeting, was that we had the police collecting a certain type of data about the thousands of call-outs that they had had to children's homes; we had the health and social care data; and we had the youth justice data. All the data told us slightly different things, and nothing was displayed in the same way. Work is being undertaken to pull those three data sets together to better understand what they are telling us and what the solutions need to be. Since the closure of the regional programme for care and justice, there is not the strategic high-level collaboration that there used to be. In the South Eastern Trust, where the secure care centre and the juvenile justice centre are based, there is some collaboration. I think that a partnership board has been set up there to look particularly at where they can share services and deliver services to children.

Ms Ferguson: That is grand. Thank you.

Miss Hargey: Thanks very much for your presentation and the detailed papers that you provided. I want to focus on biometrics, the retention of data and the whole area of stigmatisation. I am highly concerned about the proposed retention periods and the stigmatisation of children and young people, particularly when no offence or a minor offence has occurred. Twenty-five years is literally their whole childhood and beyond. The Department's response said that it needed to retain DNA profiles and fingerprints for under-18s to assist in solving future crimes and to act as a deterrent. When the Committee looks at the human rights implications under the various articles, proportionality is key. Do you believe that the reason given is proportionate?

Dr Rodgers: No.

Miss Hargey: Do you believe that holding the DNA profiles and fingerprints in case there is a future crime or as a deterrent is proportionate?

Ms Toal: That is not a justification at all. It is not compliant with human rights standards or children's rights standards, and it disproportionately impacts on children with a care experience whose data will be held, quite often, because of incidents that have arisen out of their care or lack of care or lack of information about their care and their frustration at what has happened. There are a lot of reasons why children with a care background may be there, and it is disproportionate.

Miss Hargey: The reason given for retaining the data for a longer period is that NISRA statistics show that there are higher levels of reoffending amongst those aged 13 at the time of the first recorded offence. Do you believe that that deals with stigmatisation or feeds into it?

Ms Toal: It feeds into it. We can send members a copy of '10 Reasons Why Ten is Too Young'. There are some statistics in that document that prove that the earlier the intervention in a child's life with preventative measures, the less likely they are to reoffend. The more intense the sanction against a young person, the higher the likelihood that they will reoffend.

Miss Hargey: The Bill includes having a commissioner to give oversight should we get to the point where material is retained, whatever the retention periods look like. What is your view of a review mechanism? Do you feel that it would be useful, should there be retention periods of any kind, so that an individual can ask for a review of their biometric data? Are you supportive of having a commissioner?

Ms Toal: Some type of oversight and scrutiny is a must, if the clauses were to go ahead.

Miss Hargey: I have a quick question on live links. Do you have any concerns about young people's understanding, maturity levels or the support for them if they have additional needs? Having live links is probably a good provision to give greater accessibility for court appearances, but what safeguards need to be put in place in that scenario? One safeguard is to make sure that there is a responsible adult with the young person. Do you have anything else from your experience of working with young people?

Ms Toal: There should be clear guidance for anyone who is supporting a young person. They need to ensure that the young person understands the proceedings and gives consent to the live link. As I said earlier, it is sometimes presumed that young people can understand and use technology and will automatically be familiar with how it all works, and that is not our experience. Some safeguards are needed for the use of live links. Children also need to be afforded the opportunity to appear in person if that is what they choose.

Dr Rodgers: I totally agree with what Alicia has said. It is very individual for the young people. When we did some consultation work around that previously — it was quite a while ago now — I was concerned because young people did not completely understand what was going on. Even though some safeguards were put in place, the young people did not seem to understand what was happening. There is a concern that justice is not going to be done or that they are not getting a fair crack that. Alicia is right about complex needs and understanding and speech and language difficulties. All of that can potentially put up another barrier to the young person having a fair crack at it, and that is a concern. Safeguards are very important.

Miss Hargey: That will be good. Thank you. If there is additional information on that aspect, will you send that to the Committee afterwards? It would be useful.

Dr Rodgers: OK.

Mr McNulty: Thank you, Paula and Alicia. From a youth perspective, where do you see the gaping chasm in the Justice Bill?

Dr Rodgers: The age of criminal responsibility. That is a very short answer to that question, but, that is where we, as an organisation, see the major gap. If I were to choose two things, they would be the age of criminal responsibility and the non-commencement of the accommodation provision, which I am also very concerned about.

Mr McNulty: In terms of lives being taken down a direction that they do not need to be in terms of cycles repeating themselves, what is your opinion of the article that was published last week that reported that some:

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): What do you mean, Justin?

Mr McNulty: I mean the youth whose lives were led in a direction that they did not need to go and cycles being repeated. When it comes to what the Justice Bill should include, what is your opinion, from a youth perspective, on the reality now that the 'Belfast Telegraph' has reported on its front page that some young people feel and believe that they missed out on the Troubles, such is the propaganda from one particular party and organisation?

Dr Rodgers: I am not familiar with that.

Ms Toal: I have not seen the article.

Dr Rodgers: I do not know whether I want to comment on that, because I am not familiar with the article that you are referring to. I do not know the context of the quote from young people, so I do not wish to comment on that, to be perfectly honest.

Mr McNulty: Do you think that the Justice Bill should include some provision that says that political parties should not glorify violence so that children are not led down a path of violence, thinking that it is cool, OK and glorious?

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Justin, I will answer that for you. That is the declaration that we sign as MLAs. That is the ministerial code. If people fail to live up to that, the onus is on the public and us to complain. People should be held accountable through the Committee on Standards and Privileges and the other means that there are to hold the Executive to account on such issues. I do not think, however, that those questions are for the witnesses to answer. I understand where you are coming from, and I concur, but we sign declarations, and the responsibility is then on us to act accordingly. It is not for witnesses to comment on those matters in the context of the Justice Bill.

Mr McNulty: Fair enough, Chair.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I understand where you are coming from, however.

Mr Bradley: Thank you very much for your presentation. The Bill intends to introduce new offences for organised crime. Since you are very much at the coalface, do you feel that young people, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, are still being led by sinister figures in the background who get them involved in all sorts of activity, mainly organised crime? Do you find that?

Ms Toal: Children do not find their way into serious organised crime. They are drawn into any type of criminality by the adults around them. Our unique history means that we are only beginning to understand the insidious nature of criminal responsibility. It is only in recent months that the national referral mechanism has started to receive referrals for young people here who we think are at risk of or subject to criminal exploitation.

Mr Bradley: A big worry for me is the fact that, in this day and age, young people are still being manipulated and used by sinister figures in the background. I am talking about organised crime, especially in the drugs scene. I am worried about the fact that it persists.

Ms Toal: It persists. In the independent review of children's social care services, one element of Ray Jones's "toxic trio" was the fact that, in certain communities, children and adults are still under fear, threat and intimidation. We need to get to grips with that.

Mr Bradley: Children still have a mentality that some of the activities that they get involved in are a bit of craic, but they are not. They can lead to serious consequences, not least damage and antisocial behaviour. They can also lead to a record for those unfortunate individuals. You are here today to make sure that that does not happen.

Dr Rodgers: Absolutely.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I have a long list of things that I want to work through, which I will do as quickly as I can. You mentioned that you want vulnerabilities to be considered. Will you outline what that might look like in practice?

Dr Rodgers: We would like to see that included, because we clearly see an increased complexity of need from the young people who come into our organisation, particularly from those who may end up at an interface with the police and the justice system. Although age and needs are mentioned, looking at vulnerabilities would capture something different.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): What types of vulnerabilities are you thinking of?

Dr Rodgers: I am thinking of young people with serious mental health issues; drug and alcohol addiction issues; and a history of abuse, trauma or neglect. The impact that such things have had on their developmental growth, where they are at in their life, the decisions that they have taken and the behaviours that they display because of them could be considered. I do not know whether I have either the answer to the question of how that should be done or the skills to know how those factors should be taken into account, but I see that each and every young person whom I meet through my work and whom we support who has come through the justice system has absolutely clear and identified vulnerabilities to the extent that I do not understand how they have ended up where they have. If there had been interventions at an earlier stage, very few — I am not saying none — would ever have got to the stage of going deeper into the justice system. I know from working with those young people that there is always a story. We need to somehow pin that down in the legislation. Maybe the term "vulnerabilities" is not the right one, but, hopefully, you understand what I am trying to get at in who is coming —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I think that we do. It is about taking into account the complexities of somebody's situation. I am just trying to figure out how that would work in practice. I do not want to waste time — I have told everybody else off for their preambles — but I am just trying to figure out how, in practice, that would work. We have heard evidence about how deprivation should be taken into account, but we understand that not everybody who comes from a deprived background commits crime and that not everybody who has experienced trauma commits crime. However, we understand that those are factors. It is about making sure that there is fairness and balance in the system too. I am trying to work my way through that.

Dr Rodgers: Our youth workers know our young people so well. I imagine that, if they were shoulder to shoulder with a young person in different circumstances, they would be able to explain the background. I had a telephone conversation today with one of our youth workers about one of our young people who had been held in Woodlands for five weeks when they should not have been. She was so frustrated about all that, and she kept saying to me, "This young person is a good person". Clearly, there were lots of behavioural problems, but if that youth worker had been shoulder to shoulder with that young person in the situations in which they find themselves, things would be very different. When such a child is arrested and brought to the police or whatever, they could have someone alongside them who really understands where they are coming from and everything that they have been through.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That leads me to an additional question that I did not have on my list. We have heard that, very often, the appropriate adult who is with a young person when they are in a police interview does not emphasise to them the importance of legal advice and that it is the police custody sergeant who tries to impress that on them. Do you also hear that young people in those circumstances do not have adequate legal advice and that the appropriate adult does not pursue that?

Dr Rodgers: Maybe Alicia can add to this, but I certainly know that there is an ongoing issue with young people not taking legal advice, even when it comes to accepting diversionary disposals and so on. That has been a red flag for us for some time. Young people are not taking it up, and there is a concern about why they are not.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): The Bill details very strict circumstances for when bail conditions might be applied. Should there not be conditions, or do you see circumstances in which they are sometimes helpful? If you do, will you outline them?

Ms Toal: For VOYPIC, it is about the requirements being unrealistic and unachievable for the child. We have seen instances in which bail conditions were about the child's not being allowed to break the rules of their children's home.

The children's home has a lot of rules, so the conditions need to be tailored to particular concerns. Children need to be given a reasonable chance to show that they are able to adhere to the conditions, so they should be realistic and fit the child's circumstances in life.

Dr Rodgers: We hear the same from some of our young people. They receive bail conditions that mean that they are set up to fail; you just know that they are not going to be able to do it. Again, I will give the example of the phone call that I had this morning. A young person was given really strict bail conditions for a children's home. They were rearrested — they broke their conditions — and are back at square one. You are starting from the presumption that you would rather that there were no bail conditions but an understanding of what has happened around the child, basically. If you take international's children's rights standards as the starting point for bail conditions, at the very least, you should take into account where the young person has come from and what the issues are before you give them conditions that will set them up to fail.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Yes. We have heard — I want to come on to this — that the police are more likely to be called to a care setting than to a home setting and that the issues are sometimes incredibly minor. To give us an understanding of that, will you outline the types of things that happen in those settings that mean that the police are called?

Going back to bail conditions, are there circumstances in which they are helpful? I do not want to lead you, but I will cite an example. If a child has been involved in disorder, exploited or is in bad company in an area, would it be helpful for them to be removed from that area and the people who could pull them into circumstances that they would be better off away from?

Dr Rodgers: Whether that condition is helpful would depend very much on the individual child and their support structures. Those would have to be taken into consideration.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I am asking this: are there any circumstances at all in which bail conditions are at times helpful?

Dr Rodgers: I am not sure —

Ms Toal: I am not sure.

Dr Rodgers: — that I would say that it would be better at times to have them than to not have them, because it depends so much on the individual.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): OK. Talk to me about the other issue, which is the types of things that the police are called out for.

Ms Toal: I referred to the recent meeting of the Children and Young People's Strategic Partnership (CYPSP). We are trying and hoping to get to grips with some of the data on those reasons. An article that was published in, I think, 'The Irish News' a few months ago referred to the police having been called to children's homes nearly 6,000 times. We could not get a breakdown and analysis of that data, however. Health and Social Care trusts reported to me that incidents of staff calling the police and police responding with visits to homes had greatly decreased across all five trusts, so it is hard to get a sense of what those 6,000 call-outs were for. Sometimes there is a follow-up visit after the police have been called, sometimes a visit may be about a young person who is on bail conditions and there are times when community officers are in a children's home. We hear about a range of things from children and young people, and, hopefully, you will also hear more on 3 July.

There has been a concerted effort to reduce call-outs so that they are for only serious incidents. Unfortunately, we do not get insight into those incidents, and I am keen to have an analysis of them. Are they serious incidents, and, if so — this is about the review — what happened in the day or two or in the hour or two beforehand? I know of young people who have been arrested because of a serious incident in which they may have assaulted a member of staff. When you hear about the circumstances of the incident and what happened in the run-up, you see that, for a young person who is approaching 18 years of age, in secure care and not knowing when they will get home, it is about frustration. They are being deprived of their liberty. Sometimes serious incidents like that arise. Other young people tell us about relatively minor incidents that might be to do with children having lashed out, and, in doing so, they have broken something in the children's home.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is helpful for us to understand. Thank you.

I want to come back to the lack of suitable accommodation, which is a huge concern for us too. You mentioned the bail fostering pilot, but very low numbers are involved in that; I think that there are only two placements. At this point, our understanding is that the problem is that social services refuse to place people at times. Part of this question is for the officials who are beside me, because this is my first go at this too. Is the Committee for Health aware of the extent of the number of children who are being kept in custody because there is no suitable accommodation for them? This is for the officials: can the Department of Justice legislate for something that will have consequences for the Department of Health?

If accommodation is not going to be built for a considerable time, what is the alternative? Can you give us some understanding of how, in practice, a suitable accommodation centre such as that that you describe, would be different from Woodlands? I have never been in Woodlands to know.

Dr Rodgers: I will answer your first point. I think that people are aware of that issue. The lack of accommodation is not news, so I think that Departments and health trusts are completely aware of it.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Have you engaged with the Committee for Health on it?

Dr Rodgers: I am quite sure that, at some point during my career in children's rights, when we have given evidence on other issues, whether that be on the children's social care review or other elements, I have raised that issue.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I just wanted to make sure that it is being picked up.

Dr Rodgers: Absolutely with Health. We are aware of the fact that, although we are talking to the Justice Committee now, so much of this stuff will fall to Health. We are very aware of that.

Ms Toal: The regional care and justice campus programme, which ran for two years, was jointly chaired by the Justice and Health Departments. There was a commitment and enthusiasm to try to do something different for those children and young people. Some progress was made, but, unfortunately, we were advised, as part of the stakeholder group, that the programme had to close because the legislative framework that was needed to allow it to proceed was not in place. We got no insight into what that legislative framework needs to be, but I am sure that, had there been an option to return to those who were responsible for that programme, they would be able to give you an insight into why it could not proceed and what legislation would be needed to get it back on the table.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): It would be very helpful for us to pursue that. Can you give us an indication of what the distinction is between Woodlands and the type of suitable accommodation centre that you envisage?

Dr Rodgers: It would look very different from Woodlands, in my opinion. We are talking about something that is a home for children, so it should have the right supports for them, including professionals with the right skills who know how to de-escalate situations and deal with the challenging behaviours that are presented. I have nothing but high praise for the staff at Woodlands and the Youth Justice Agency in general, but Woodlands is still a custodial setting and a youth justice intervention. That is what we are trying to get away from. We are trying to bring those young people back to a community base where they are from. They are not from Mars: they are from the community and surrounding places. We need home environments with the right people wrapped around them and consistent support, not professional staff endlessly changing around the young people, which happens all the time. It needs investment; there is no way around that. It is going to cost, but what value do you put on it?

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Again, Paula, may I ask you this? I have not been in Woodlands, nor have I been in a care home. What is the distinction between what you describe and a care home? I want to be clear about what is unique about what you describe.

Ms Toal: A lot —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I am trying to get at why the gap is so important.

Ms Toal: I am sorry; I thought that you were talking about bail accommodation in your question to Paula. We have some very good models of practice, but we do not have enough of them. Some homes offer a homely environment and maybe house smaller children. When we have to place larger numbers of children together, we fall into where we need regulations through the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA), so we then need industrial-sized kitchens and so on.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I am talking about bail accommodation. I am talking about the circumstances in which a child is refused bail because there is no suitable accommodation. The original proposal had been that the Department of Health and Department of Justice combined would build a centre. Then, suddenly, the money was off the table and that centre would not be provided. I want to understand this: how does a centre for suitable bail accommodation, which is not for fostering but a centre in which the Departments are working together, differ from Woodlands, which is custodial, and a care home setting, which is in social services? What is unique about the joint facility? I am trying to get at that point and at why that difference is so important.

Ms Toal: It is just that one happens to be a place of detention, and one is secure care. We are getting caught up in what a place needs to look like. When we talk about bail accommodation, we mean that there are different options, whether that be a small-children's home, a foster family, different types of supported lodgings or just different arrangements. I am never an advocate for building more centres. If we build more centres and more facilities, we will fill them, but we can repurpose what we already have.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): You guys will find that if somebody is bailed to a care home, part of the trouble is that there are times when social services says, "Oh, we are not doing that" or the home will not take them. Right. OK.

Ms Toal: We see a mixture of both. We have supported young people returning to their home. We have seen where that has gone horribly wrong, and then we have supported young people when they needed alternatives.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is helpful for me to understand. Thank you.

Page 23 of Include Youth's submission, under the section headed "Key problems identified by young people", states:

Can you give us some indication of the types of things that happen on a police visit that cause a placement to break down?

Dr Rodgers: I assume that that is when the young person is somewhere, whether in a foster placement or whatever, and there is an altercation or something has happened and the police are called. The police then have to do something about that because they have been called. Potentially, the young person ends up being taken away from that placement because it is no longer safe for the family whom they are with or it is no longer safe for them, so they are then put somewhere else.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I was trying to understand whether there was something in police behaviour that would lead to that.

Dr Rodgers: No, that is not what we are referring to. No; sorry.

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

There is a reference to problems with unregulated placements. Can you give us some indication of what those might be? I am trying to get to and understand the significance of having suitable accommodation. What goes on in those unregulated placements? What is the young person's experience?

Dr Rodgers: Some of our young people maybe end up in hostels and B&Bs — I am sure that the same goes for VOYPIC — and they will say to themselves that it is the worst place that they could be because of the behaviour of other people who are in the hostel. They could be other adults with drug- or alcohol-addiction issues or mental health issues, and then you put a very vulnerable child there who, in any other situation in a normal family home, would not be exposed to some of that stuff. They are already carrying a lot of need and trauma, and then you put them in that situation, where they are exposed to so much other stuff that can go horribly wrong, and it does go wrong. It is not supportive; it is not the place for them to be. A lot of unregulated hostel and B&B placements are still being used, however.

Ms Toal: Yes, although it is sometimes hard to break that down, because the unregulated placements and the data are presented as one, whereas there are different types of unregulated placements, some of which you would be more concerned about than others. In the past, we have seen that young people have been unsafe in the likes of hostel provision and B&B environments. I know that that is not what any social worker wants for their child, but when we have those kinds of pressures, such as those in finance and the ability to invest in new types of accommodation, we will see more young people ending up in those types of placements.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Do we have numbers for the young people who end up in those unregulated placements?

Ms Toal: Yes. The Department of Health has those figures. I do not have the statistics, but I caution against using them, because some supported accommodation projects might fall into those figures. Some families who have not finished their approval application to be foster carers or kinship carers technically fall into the unregulated placement category.

We need to be mindful of that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): If we were to try to seek statistics, we should be looking essentially for statistics for B&Bs, hostels and hotels. Is that the idea?

Ms Toal: Yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): OK. Clerk, I ask that we follow up on that with the relevant Department.

You mentioned that some of the children choose to stay in Woodlands rather than go to Lakewood.

Ms Toal: Yes, I said that. The numbers are small, but, particularly over the past year, there have been young people bailed from court to Lakewood who are choosing to remain in Woodlands.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): May I ask why?

Ms Toal: For a variety of reasons, one of which is that they simply do not want to have to move to another placement. We underestimate the impact of moving children and young people around. They like consistency. They like the consistency of relationships and settings, and, at times, there are fewer children and young people in Woodlands than in Lakewood. They have some good physical facilities in Woodlands. Rather than face another move, they therefore choose to stay in Woodlands.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Thank you. Community resolution notices (CRNs) are now to apply to 14-year-olds. I do not have her correspondence in front of me, so I am paraphrasing, but the Lady Chief Justice has expressed some concern that those who are under 14 could be coerced into carrying out acts, because, once they hit 14, they will get a CRN. Children will therefore be dealt with differently depending on their age. Do you have any thoughts or any concerns about that? That is in the new order.

Dr Rodgers: In the new order, the age is 14, yes. I think that a different issue is involved. If it is adults who are doing the coercion, go after the adults. A concern that adults would use the change in age to coerce young people into criminal activity because of their age is not a reason not to commence something that is progressive for children and young people. Am I understanding you correctly? Is that what you are asking?

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I am trying to remember what the correspondence said. She had expressed some concern that, if it starts at 14, there may be a greater risk to children younger than 14. Moreover, children would be dealt with differently depending on their age. A 13-year-old could do the same thing as a 14-year-old, but the 14-year-old will face the consequences, while the 13-year-old will not. Have you any thoughts on that? If you do not, it is fine.

Dr Rodgers: If you were to raise the age of criminal responsibility, that would deal with that completely, and that confusion would not arise.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): It might just shift it, but we will see.

Have you any views on the rehabilitation amendment about spent convictions and the time frames for children's convictions to become spent?

Dr Rodgers: I am sorry, but I have not commented on that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is fine. It was just a question to determine whether you had. That is no problem.

During our conversation today, reference was made to biometric data being held for deterrence purposes. Do you have any thoughts on that? There is also evidence that shows that some behaviours are indicative of future problematic behaviours. For example, cruelty to other children or cruelty to animals indicates that, further down the line, a child, as an adult, may have a propensity for violence. Do you have any views on whether that is a valid reason for retaining biometric data? How do we strike a balance between public protection and the rights of the child when there are indicators?

Ms Toal: When there is an issue of public safety or an indication of more concerning behaviours, there may be a case to hold on to some of the data. In Luxembourg, for example, that may happen if there is a threat to public safety, but guardians' and carers' consent is needed, and there is a process to be followed. What is being proposed in the Bill, however, is that we just hold on to all children's data, even when they have not received a caution or an early diversionary disposal. We are therefore penalising all children because of a small number who may go on to commit crimes as adults.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is helpful. Thank you very much for that. I do not have anything further to ask, nor do any other members.

Sorry, but I just wanted to tease out some of the issues while we have you here. That means that we will be a bit better informed when we go up to see you. Thank you very much for your time today. We are very much looking forward to next week and to having face time with the young people in order to take their views. Thank you for all the effort that you, and they, have put into next week.

Dr Rodgers: We might have a bit more craic next week. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Yes, we can all relax a wee bit and enjoy their company. Thank you very much indeed.

Ms Toal: Thank you.

Dr Rodgers: Thank you.