Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I inform members that providing oral evidence today are Jim McCarthy, chief executive officer of Community Restorative Justice Ireland (CRJI); and Debbie Watters, chief executive of Northern Ireland Alternatives (NIA). You are both welcome to the meeting. Without further ado, can you make an opening statement? Thank you.

Ms Debbie Watters (Northern Ireland Alternatives): Yes, thank you, Chair. I will make some opening remarks — I will keep them brief, you will be glad to hear — and then, hopefully, have a conversation with you. On behalf of Jim and myself, it is a pleasure to be here today. Thank you for accepting our submission and thank you for the opportunity to talk to you.

Some of you know our history. Both organisations are about 27, 28 years old. We have been accredited by the Department of Justice for over 18 years, together, almost at the same time. In all of that time, as organisations, we have been working in the Justice field, but it is important to say that community restorative justice has not just been about criminal justice; it has been about peacebuilding, bringing communities along with the rule of law and building the capacity of socially disadvantaged communities.

When the amendments to the Justice Bill were published, we felt that it was really important that, collectively, we put together a submission, because we wanted to send the signal that this is not just about Catholic or Protestant communities; it is about socially disadvantaged and vulnerable communities coming together to address issues of justice, policing and the rule of law.

One of the amendments is to insert clause 26A:

That was important to us, because it is really important that this devolved Government oversee restorative justice and restorative practice and that that function rests locally. In terms of that, we have put in a submission around the amendments, but we were also keen to talk to the Committee today about the new accreditation process of community-based restorative justice — actually, not just community-based: the new accreditation scheme process for restorative justice across Northern Ireland. We will just leave it there. Whatever you as Committee members want to focus on, we are at your mercy today and happy to discuss what, you think, is pertinent.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. Thank you very much for that, Debbie and Jim, and thank you for being so succinct. We greatly appreciate that.

Mr Kingston: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Debbie and Jim, for attending today and for your paper. I remember Alternatives starting up in Woodvale many years ago — around 28 years ago. I have had some dealings with the organisation, particularly where there have been community disputes, and it is an agency that people can go to to mediate seek to resolve difficult community issues. I also respect the role of Alternatives role in promoting positive values in the community.

In your paper, you have said that you welcome the accreditation scheme. I expect that you may have mixed views and think that it provides both opportunities and, maybe, unintended challenges. I am aware of the reach that community-based groups have, so will you say a bit more about what opportunities or challenges you see in expanding the accreditation?

Ms Watters: Brian, thank you for the question. It is really important to put it on the record that the current Administration have probably done more than others to move the accreditation process forward. We have not been accredited in 18 years. Since we were accredited 18 years ago, nothing has changed. There has been no review. The current Justice Minister and officials have done a really good job in cementing the process and ensuring that there is now a review and a new accreditation process. We welcome that, and I am really positive about it.

A positive thing is that expanding the accreditation opens up the field to others so that CRJI and Northern Ireland Alternatives do not monopolise the field of restorative justice. We are open to others, especially from within the community, being in the arena, and we are happy to see that safeguards and quality assurance have been put in place so that not just anyone can step into the field.

People really have to come up to the mark and have the appropriate training and standards. That is really important. When we saw the initial accreditation process, one of our reservations was that there is a level 1, at which people do not have to do much to be accredited. We were taken aback by that, because of the rigorous nature of what we were put through 18 years ago and since then. People can be restorative justice practitioners with an Open College Network (OCN) qualification: that is probably not good enough. Furthermore, it is not explicit enough about working with the PSNI and supporting the rule of law. Nobody should be in this space unless they are very deliberate about working with the PSNI. Their support of the PSNI and of the rule of law are really important. I am not sure that that is clear or rigorous enough in the accreditation process.

Mr Jim McCarthy (Community Restorative Justice Ireland): In 2007, when the protocol that we went through came out, it was rigorous, and we stepped up to the mark and did it. If level 1 had been available, we would have jumped at it, but I am not so sure that we would have been where we are today with the PSNI. I see level 1 as a get-out clause. My concern is that, in our community, anti-peace-process groups could open an office, one person could get an OCN, and then they could put a sign over the door to say, for example, "Here is a community restorative justice organisation". I am really concerned about that.

As Debbie said, our organisations have been going for 28 years, and people would find it hard to find fault or find that we have got something wrong. I am not saying that we get everything right, but people would find it hard to point out where we have overstepped the mark or someone has been re-victimised or has got hurt. I fear that the level 1 accreditation in particular will dilute the quality of service that people will get. I have grave concerns, especially in Derry, where, I think, anti-peace-process groups will use it to open offices. People do not know who those groups are. If you have an issue or a problem and you go down the street to a community group, you are not going to ask whether that group has a level 1 or 2 or 3 accreditation; you are just going to go in. That is one of my concerns about the steps.

Mr Kingston: OK. I want to push you further on that. In your paper, you call for:

and you contend that the proposed new clause 26A:

Do you think that Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland has an important role to play? Would that be your preference?

Ms Watters: We do. As it sits, the independent protocol lead will accept all of the applications, review them and make decisions on them. They will then go to an independent suitability panel — we do not yet know who will make up that panel — and then officials will look at them. The role that CJINI will play will be further down the line. Even though we welcome the accreditation process and are overwhelmingly happy with it, our issue is independence. Where is the independent eye? Where is the scrutiny eye? In terms of Justice, we have worked hard for that. We have the Policing Board and the Justice Committee. We always have an independent eye over what is going on. That is the conversation. Whether it is CJINI or the UK Restorative Justice Council — whatever it is — there is a need for independent scrutiny.

Mr McCarthy: CRJI went through a CJINI inspection in 2022, which resulted in four fairly low-level recommendations. It criticised the statutory organisations for their interactions with us. That was a good, rigorous inspection, but had it been left to one Department, one Minister or one set of officials, we would not have got through the inspection. When it was opened up to an independent body like CJINI, it was able to come in, as Debbie says, with a keen eye to look through everything and give its findings. Why would you change that? Why should we be different from the Probation Board or the Youth Justice Agency or whomever else it inspects? Why should the community approach or that process be diluted?

Mr Kingston: OK. I have one more question, but I will wait, Chair, until you have gone round the others.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): That is OK.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Debbie and Jim, for your presentation and for all that you do, which is incredibly important. Can we talk about community resolution notices (CRNs)? As part of the adult restorative justice strategy, the police are supposed to refer first-time offenders to you, but that does not seem to have worked. Can you give us some background as to where the failing is or what is going on?

Mr McCarthy: In the early part of this year, we received 50-plus referrals from the police across west and north Belfast and maybe three CRNs. The chief inspector in Woodbourne has done her level 3 and 4 in restorative practice, which means that she has a really good understanding of it. It is down to some police officers and the system not working. They have to put their name at the bottom of the CRN, so they are asking themselves whether they are taking a risk in widening it out to the community. I am not sure about that. There are that many of them, but, when you talk to some of them and you say, "We need a CRN", the next thing is it is on your desk not as a CRN but as a case. We cannot wait. We cannot say to the person in the community, "We have to wait to get approval for a CRN". We have to go ahead and do the case. We have been a victim of our own success. If you are a cop and you are able to make a referral, you do not have to go through the laborious process of a CRN. Why would you, if we are going to do it anyway? There is a will in the PSNI in both areas to do it. I do not know what the hold-up is.

Ms Watters: I feel the same. We get a lot of informal cases from the PSNI system, but, in the pilot, which was in Brian's area in north and west, we got four CRNs. Do you know how many CRNs were given out in north Belfast? Probably about 300 or 400: we got three or four. For me, there is something broken about the system, and our difficulty is that the focus is always on us. We are not broken. We are open to receiving the cases, but we often feel that we are penalised because we do not get the cases. We do not get the cases because of a broken system. The Chief Constable is very supportive of restorative justice, but something is broken in the middle layer that means that the referrals do not come to us. As Jim says, maybe that is because they involve more work, but, if we got the referrals, we might stop reoffending, because of the way we work with first-time offenders. It is really important that we get it right. The challenge now is, if we roll out the process to Bangor and Ards and to Dunmurry or to Lisburn and Castlereagh, will we get the referrals there? If we do not, does that mean that our funding will stop, when it is not our fault?

Mr Beattie: That leads to a question that you both alluded to about the process not seeming to work. Could we not simply sit down with the PSNI and streamline the process so that it does not involve more work and is more easily done and does not need a signature? What else can we do on that? Is that the real issue?

I will ask my other question on the back of that. Has the Minister been to either organisation to show support and help the projects?

Mr McCarthy: No. The thing that nobody says about CRNs is that, if you go to your solicitor about it, and they say, "Yes, go and avail yourself of a CRN", the solicitor is not paid a penny — nothing. Morally, saying, "Go for the CRN", is the right thing to do; financially, it is suicide. That has to be factored in. People sometimes do not like to talk about that, but, if your only business is getting 10 of them a week but you send them round to Community Restorative Justice or Northern Ireland Alternatives and do not get paid, that needs to be factored in. There is legal aid for different things, so there surely has to be something for the initial green form. I know that people do not like to speak about it, but it is a factor.

Mr Beattie: It is important, Jim; you are right. If something in the process means that somebody loses out and therefore they are not doing it, we need to address the process. We need to look at that process to make sure that it works for everybody so that we can get the outcomes that we want. We want people to avail themselves of restorative justice.

Has the Minister been to see you?

Mr McCarthy: No.

Ms Watters: No. We have written to the Minister on several occasions requesting a meeting or that she visit us, but her diary is very busy. We are running an event — we have invited the Committee to it — on 21 November, during Restorative Justice Week, and we invited the Minister to speak at that, but she will be out of the country on that date.

Mr Beattie: OK. Thank you. It is an important issue and one that needs to be dealt with.

Ms Egan: Thank you, Debbie and Jim, for coming in. In your submission, you mentioned children and young people a lot. I am particularly interested in that topic, so I want to get your thoughts on the provisions in the Bill for children and young people. You noted your concern that children and vulnerable groups could be penalised and criminalised for being coerced into organised crime. Do you think that the Bill adequately accounts for that?

Mr McCarthy: The word "child" needs to replace "juvenile", because "juvenile" is a throwaway term. We have seen in some cases, recently in particular, the age of the children involved get younger and younger. We live in the real world, as you do, where we see kids flying about on their wee electric scooters, and it is the norm. Recently, drug dealers have been targeting them to do deliveries. The theme that they say to them is, "If you get caught, you'll get a slap on the wrist. You'll go to Hydebank at worst, or you'll get this or that". There is no other pathway for them. If they go into the system, they go into it as it is. There is no other way to direct them. There needs to be focus on their education and on pathways to employment. There needs to be more focus on that, rather than justice being a heavy hand on them.

Ms Watters: I agree. The Bill needs to focus more on vulnerability. I often use this language: the person who is causing harm is also the person being harmed. Often, it is difficult to differentiate between offender and victim, especially when they are a young person who is being coerced and is vulnerable. Criminalising someone at that age is life-changing for them, especially when they are being coerced and feel that they have no choice.

That leads me to another issue: the minimum age of criminal responsibility. There is disagreement on that, but, in terms of vulnerability, I feel strongly that we need to look at the minimum age of criminal responsibility. Children need to be dealt with in the welfare system. That does not mean not having sanctions; it means putting a supportive network around them to help to address issues of vulnerability.

Ms Egan: I appreciate that. Other organisations that have given evidence to the Committee have raised the issue of replacing the word "juvenile" with "child". I agree with you on the minimum age of criminal responsibility. Obviously, that has not been included in the Bill, but it has consistently been raised as an issue, especially when we talk about exploiting children. You can think about children as young as 10 and 11 being criminalised, in particular. That is a concern for me too.

You mention in your submission two international examples: the German youth justice model and legislation in New Zealand for family group conferencing. How do those compare with the systems that are in place here? Are they models of international best practice?

Mr McCarthy: Roughly speaking, the German model focuses on what is needed for the wider family. If a child comes in front of you, there is a reason for that. There is probably poverty in the house and poor education among the kids. They need help. Sometimes the first thing that people here do is to say, "Don't be telling the neighbours the police were here". It is shame. They are shamed and scared to come forward for help. Instead of them being brought to wherever they are brought to, there needs to be a greater focus on home visits and including the family more. I am talking about the grannies and grandas as well, if they are still around. It should be a whole-family package that looks at everybody in order to determine who the best person is to liaise with in the family — someone who can help, guide and listen to them — rather than the way it is, with the solicitor, court, social services coming out for an hour or two to do a report, and that is it. There needs to be a big focus on listening to the family.

Ms Watters: We are getting better at early intervention, but we need to get even better at it. The New Zealand and German models focus on putting resources in at an early stage. It is about prevention and early intervention not just with the individual but with the whole family. That family group conferencing is about teaching the family how to do business differently and more effectively, making different decisions. We know that, if a young person becomes criminalised at an early stage, there will most likely be a downward spiral for them. It is difficult to get out of that system. We need to stop seeing an individual crime as just an individual crime and start thinking about what is going on underneath the surface, what the family needs and how we can support everyone in the family and their place in the community. As Jim says, it requires a package of support at a very early stage. Do not wait until they are 16 or 17.

Ms Egan: That is really helpful. I appreciate it. We have discussed stigmatisation in Committee previously and how that can impact a child and send them down a path that can be detrimental to them. I really appreciate that.

Those are all my questions, Chair. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you, Connie.

You mentioned the minimum age of criminality responsibility: do you have an age in mind?

Ms Watters: I was hoping that you would not ask me that, Paul. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): That is why I am here, Debbie.

Ms Watters: Can I answer that in a couple of ways? One is that I have done work on that with Include Youth, and, coming from a restorative justice organisation working in loyalist communities that tend to be very right-wing, I do not think that we would get 16 over the line. I do not know whether we would even get 14 over the line. I always say that a hybrid model, to begin with, is 12. The recommendation was made years ago that, within two years, we should move to 12. To children's rights organisations who champion 16 — I get why they do that — I always say this: "You are not working with the victims in communities". There are loads of victims in communities who feel really hurt and harmed by some of those young people, and they do not get it.

We should look at moving to 12 or 13, and, after doing that, really do a process of education with local communities to say, "This is why we need to keep moving this up, because it actually disadvantages our young people within our communities if we do not increase it". I know that, in Finland and other Scandinavian countries, it is 16 and it works really well. However, I am also a pragmatist. I do not think that we would get that over the line by just moving from 10 to 16 immediately. My colleagues in the Children's Law Centre and others will shoot me for that — metaphorically, of course — but I think that a phased approach is possibly the way to go.

Mr McCarthy: We differ slightly. With experience and looking back, we think that the baseline should be 14, and then discuss it from there. However, that has been going on for a long time.

Ms Watters: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Should there be a variation depending on the type of offence?

Mr McCarthy: Who picks it? Who decides that? Who decides what route we will take? Is it left to somebody who sits in an office, reads a case and thinks, "He was 14 and knew what he was doing", or looks at it and says, "He is 14. Hold on till we see the family background and see what happened". I say "He": I am just talking about young lads because they are the majority of what you get. It is about who makes that decision, which can be left open to —.

Ms Watters: Yes. Everybody talks about the Bulger case, but that is the exception rather than the rule. A case like that happens very rarely. Most 12- or 14-year-olds should be dealt with in a different way. I am not sure whether it should be case-sensitive. We should have judges and a judicial system that are experienced enough to make the right decisions when provided with the right evidence.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Very good. Thank you.

Mr McGlone: Thanks very much for your presentation. It has proven interesting so far. I want to dwell on a couple of things.

Debbie, a couple of times, you emphasised that support for the rule of law and the PSNI was paramount in any organisation that is involved with community restorative justice. Is that based on any sort of experience with accredited organisations that may be equivocal on support for the rule of law and the PSNI?

Ms Watters: No, because we are the only two accredited organisations.

Mr McGlone: So there is nobody beyond that.

Ms Watters: There is nobody beyond that, Patsy. However, we are aware of groups that would like to be accredited and would like to fudge — I will use the word "fudge" — the issue of working with the PSNI. Someone may get their photograph taken standing beside a police officer, but that does not mean that, day and daily, they support the rule of law, engaging with the PSNI and working with it in deliberate and meaningful ways. That is probably what we are fearful of.

We are fearful that people will become accredited and will fudge that issue.

As Jim said, if you need help and you see somebody from a restorative justice organisation on your street, you will not ask, "Are you accredited to level 1, 2 or 3?". You do not really care; you just want the help. If you go to somebody, and they say, "Listen, do not worry about reporting that to the police. We will sort that for you", that dilutes our role and the process.
,

Mr McGlone: I get what you say, and I support it. I do not have a problem there. Bear with me. I am new to the Committee, so it is a new brief for me.

Ms Watters: Do not worry.

Mr McGlone: You mentioned a "broken system", "the middle layer" and referrals that are not coming to you. Will you talk me through the process of referral to you and where you both see the gaps, voids or weaknesses in the system? How should that happen, as opposed to how it happens now?

Mr McCarthy: A CRN is supposed to come through to a secure email. It is supposed to detail the whole case. The other thing is that the referral has to be voluntary. We do not want to get into the position where people in the community are told to come to CRJ or NIA. We know most of the cops who make the referrals, and I tend to be upfront and say to them, "Do those people know that you are sending them to us? Do they know what we have to do?", because our integrity will be on the line with people if we do not deliver for them. When the cops deliver that message — they are the first point of contact —it affects the process, because they say, "When you go to CRJ or Alternatives, you will have to do this, this and this". They do not explain it properly, because it is not their role. They arrive at somebody's door at night, and they say, "You can take a CRN if you want, or we can deal with the situation now with a police caution". That is the way of it, right?

Ms Watters: Yes.

Mr McCarthy: That is what happens. We do not get the opportunity to make our case to the people who are sent to us.

Mr McGlone: When the police do the CRN referral, are they not duty-bound to explain to people and say, "Look, we are going to give you a CRN, or you can take another option or whatever other route you want to go down, but a CRN will do this, this and this. Does that sound OK?" or, "Are you prepared to accept this, because, if you do not, we have alternatives?". Is that not a flaw in the policing system?

Ms Watters: That is part of the problem. A police officer has the discretion to say, "I am giving you a CRN, and that is your warning. Away you go." That is one way of doing a CRN. The other way is to say, "I am going to refer you to Alternatives or CRJ, and it will take you through the process, and, hopefully, that will change the choices that you make in the future". Most police officers choose the easy way out rather than the most effective way out. We have talked ad nauseam to the police about this. We want to see police officers going in for supervision and their line manager saying, "How many cases have you referred to restorative justice this month?": that is not happening. We need someone at the top of the PSNI to issue a directive to say, "Each station needs to send so many cases to Alternatives or the accredited groups, and, if they are not doing that, I want to know why not". That is not happening at the minute.

Mr McGlone: Right. I want to take you to the end of the process, after someone has come to you, and to look at the evaluation or your success rate, as we might call it, when it comes to reoffending and all that stuff. What work have you done around that? What can you say to us about someone who might have been referred to you to get themselves steadied up and who does not go back to the criminal justice system or come to the attention of the police again? What work have you done to say, "Look, this works. We are doing well here"? From there, you can go straight back to the police and ask why they do not use the system more often in the process that you just outlined.

Ms Watters: It has been about 10 years since we did a recidivism evaluation, but, at that stage, our success rate was 80%. Eighty per cent of people did not reoffend. All of the international studies around restorative justice say that it sits at about 60%, whereas someone coming out of prison is probably 80% likely to reoffend within their first year of being released. Restorative justice really makes a difference not just in the short term but in the medium and long term. Do we want to keep people out of the criminal justice system and save resources? We do, so restorative justice is a way to do that.

Mr McGlone: The sole inhibiting factor to the proper, efficient running of that referral system for you is the police. There is no other body or organisation that is stymieing your ability to get referrals, is there?

Ms Watters: For CRNs, it is the police. We were getting ECO cases from probation, and we were probably working with about 80 of those cases a year.

Mr McGlone: What does ECO mean?

Ms Watters: An ECO is an enhanced combination order, where a judge, rather than sending someone to prison, keeps them in the community but gives them a significant job of work to do. We were facilitating those, but the funding was pulled during the budgetary cuts. It is not just the PSNI. The budgetary cuts in Justice have meant that we have not been getting the same number of cases and referrals that we would have had four or five years ago. So, Patsy, what that signals to me is that community-based restorative justice is not the priority. When there are cuts to make — I get it — statutory agencies hold onto their money for themselves. However, that signals a spirit of thinking in the system. If they are truly in partnership with the community, we should not be the first to be cut.

Mr McGlone: If what you are doing, via your interventions, prevents people from going back into the system, that, in itself, eases some of the pressures on the police and the justice system.

Ms Watters: It does, but people tend not to think of the long term when they are faced with budgetary cuts.

Mr McGlone: Even though it has implications in the longer term.

Ms Watters: Yes.

Mr McGlone: OK. Thank you both very much.

Mr Bradley: Thank you both for your presentation. I found it interesting, and it is something that I am interested in.

I worry about what was raised at the start about weak or inconsistent vetting of staff or volunteers and insufficient background checks. There seems to be a lack of robust case triage and escalation of pathways. I am also concerned about unauthorised data edits or decision-making being influenced unduly. I read into that, rightly or wrongly, that there is a lack of local intelligence-sharing with the police and community safety partners. Could the new system that is being mooted be easily infiltrated by paramilitary organisations and paramilitary figures who might use their involvement with community programmes to burnish legitimacy and claim a public role? How can that be avoided?

Mr McCarthy: That is what we were talking about with our concerns about level 1, where you do not really have to do anything, apart from a short training programme, and then you can call yourself a "restorative justice organisation". I also think that, if a one-person organisation can be accredited, what is to stop them from having an office with four non-accredited people? It would not happen in any of our offices, but I can see it happening with anti-peace-process groups. I can see them exploiting the system as it is. We have been clear about that.

I am not sure what the answer is, but it lies with the Justice Minister. It certainly does not lie with any of our organisations. We are upfront about what we do. We share what I would call "a community analysis". I would not use the word "intelligence", but that is just a protective thing for our organisation and our workers, because we will be attacked enough when we move into different areas. Why would someone come into CRJI when one of the first things we will say to them is, "We will share this with the police", when they can go down the street and that will not be said to them by someone with level 1? I agree with your point about the non-vetting.

Mr Bradley: I am concerned about that, to tell you the truth, because I worry that certain organisations become gatekeepers, and, if that is not properly sorted out and vetted, those organisations will have an even greater grip on communities through restorative justice if they can get a HNC or whatever accreditation and set up an organisation, probably in opposition to yours. It is a massive worry for me that paramilitary groups will use that system to set up their own organisations and become even stronger gatekeepers in certain communities.

Mr McCarthy: That is where Criminal Justice Inspection has a role. If you leave that to one individual and one Department, it is just not going to work. It has to be someone with a proven track record of independence and who knows exactly what is going on and will know whom to talk to in an area. CJINI is very thorough. When I first heard of it in 2007, when it was coming in to inspect us, I was totally against it. I argued in our organisation that it would be the end of us: I was proven wrong. It brought us up to a really high standard that we would not be at today only we had to do it. Why change that now? There are 20 years of experience from two organisations where nothing has gone wrong, and, instead of having the same standards, you are diluting them.

I am not the most articulate person in the world, but I know what I am talking about with restorative justice. I used to say, "You can have it like credit unions in each area. They might be different, but they are up to the same standard. If you go to the credit union in Newry, you will get the same service as in a credit union in Derry.". That is how I see restorative practices and restorative justice. The new accreditation brings it way down.

Mr Bradley: I tend to agree. Thank you very much for your answers. I really appreciate that.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): A proposed new clause 26A(2)(b) provides that the Department of Justice must determine the requirements for the accreditation of persons to provide restorative justice services and maintain a register of persons. The requirements must include a requirement that accredited persons cooperate with the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice in Northern Ireland. The requirements may include, in the case where an accredited person employs other people, requirements to be met by some or all of the persons employed, employees or other staff. Would it be fair to say that the simple way to assuage your concerns is to make it that all employees must be accredited?

Ms Watters: The Department of Justice would say that it needs to accredit only those who are working on criminal justice cases. Alternatives has 50 staff. Not all 50 are working on criminal justice cases. Some go into schools, and some do neighbourhood disputes that do not reach the criminal threshold. Over time, we will get all 50 staff accredited because that is the right thing to do. However, the Department of Justice has asked us to phase that in because it is a big piece of work.

Jim, you are the same. Not all your staff work on criminal justice cases.

Mr McCarthy: Yes.

Ms Watters: A way to address that concern, however, is to say to an organisation, "Why wouldn't you get all your staff accredited? There are only three or four of you. Why wouldn't you? What's to prevent you doing that?".

Mr McCarthy: I have concerns that you could open an office with one or two people accredited out of, maybe, 10 working in it. The Department of Justice is giving itself a bit of leeway with this by asking us to hold back. It is not our fault that it is busy. I do not mean that in a derogatory way. I want everyone to be accredited. We have 30 employees, and both organisations want everyone accredited. We will get the first phase through because we are already having problems with AccessNI and delays. I can understand why there is a bit of a delay, but I would like to put everyone forward as soon as possible.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): That is helpful.

I am looking at the Department's paper where it sets out the criteria for level 1, level 2 and level 3. It is saying that level 2 is intermediate and that those in level 2 are:

Those in level 3 are:

Those in level 1 are, basically:

Should the Department not just do away with level 1, raise the ladder a bit and have everybody accredited at level 2? People at level 2 could then undertake also what is meant to be level-1 work.

Ms Watters: There are some groups that are quite small and are working their way towards getting accredited. They should not be penalised because other groups do not want to work with the police. I think that that is what level 1 is intended for. It is intended for smaller groups such as the one in the lower Shankill, which Brian will know. There is a restorative justice group in Ballymoney that would love to get accredited and may not be able to reach level 2 at this stage.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Why not, though?

Ms Watters: That is a good question, Paul. You are asking whether groups could reach level 2 if its definition were written slightly differently. I am not sure. I am trying to be fair to the Department of Justice because it has worked really hard to get us here. We have said from day one that level 1 is open to abuse. It really is. Maybe the Department has really good safeguards around it, but I think that it wants to test it over the next six months, and that is maybe what we should do, or the Committee could revisit it in April 2026, after it has been tested.

Mr McCarthy: Around 90% of cases that come in the door come in as level-1 cases, and, once you get sitting down, you see that it requires level 2, level 3, level 4 and beyond. Somebody will say, "I didn't tell the police this wee bit. Is it OK to tell you that?". The next thing you know, you are into a whole scenario. Employees — I hate calling them "employees"; they are staff and colleagues — need to be equipped to deal with whatever that person is going to say to you in the room. You cannot ask them to come back tomorrow or next week. You need to be sitting there ready to go. In my view, they need to be trained up to that level.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Sure. Thank you. I will bring in Deirdre.

Miss Hargey: Thanks for coming in to us today. It is important to hear from the grassroots. How were both organisations engaged with on the new restorative justice framework? Was there a co-design process with the Department for the new framework?

Ms Watters: The framework started with the appointment of a panel of people. Do you remember what that was called, Jim?

Mr McCarthy: No.

Ms Watters: No, that is because we are getting old.

Mr McCarthy: It is because there are different panels for different years and different processes.

Ms Watters: We gave evidence to that panel, and it came up with the levels and handed its report to the Department of Justice.

Miss Hargey: I am talking about your organisations being part of the process other than being engaged with, even though you have been the only ones working in this field for over 20 years.

Ms Watters: To be fair, Deirdre, once that report went to the Department of Justice, it has engaged with us at every stage. I feel that we have been engaged with well, but, all the way along, we have said that we do not like level 1.

Miss Hargey: I share the concerns that have been raised today about level 1. On the one hand, the proposal is to transfer the powers and oversight to the devolved Assembly. That is a good thing, and you welcome that. Where is the emergence of level 1 from? Do you have concerns that there are other motivations or other actors that are potentially involved in introducing that?

Mr McCarthy: I think so. It is to access different aspects of funding, and the Justice Department is probably one of the lowest funders. I said to our board, "Can we not take the word 'Justice' out of our title?". That is what I wanted to do. Level 1 is designed for groups that will —. It opens the door for funding from the Housing Executive and the Belfast Trust. Once they are accredited, that opens the door for other types of funding. Again, it does not matter what level it is. My view is slightly different from the Justice Department's view. I think that it is sometimes about ticking boxes. I do not mean the staff; they have been really accessible. They have had the directive for that.

I remember, in, I think, 2015, sitting in our office in Twinbrook — we have the bit of paper; I found it last week or the week before — trying to think of a name for the centre. It is all written down as "C this or C that". We proposed the "centre of restorative excellence". We are now a small bit-part player in it. I find that, sometimes, when you go with themes and ideas, some big, glossy thing comes out a year later, and the community angle is not taken into account. It is like how we would love to see a wing in prisons for first-time offenders. You do not need any extra cells or extra staff; they are there. A first-time offender is somebody who has probably just got caught on the wrong side of the law, ended up in prison and will probably never be back, but they go into an environment where they will be schooled. I gave an example at the time and said, "If you are sitting watching 'Top of the Pops'", and I think that it was Harry Maguire who said to me, "You may explain what 'Top of the Pops' is". The example that I gave was that, if you are sitting on a wing or in a canteen and somebody shouts, "Education" and you are watching the football or whatever, the ones around you will say, "Don't be going to that". We are thinking like that: we do not know whether we are listened to. Sometimes, I think that we are listened to, and then it comes out as some big idea. The situation regarding the centre of excellence really annoys me because that idea came from the community.

Ms Watters: The idea came from us, and we presented it to the Fresh Start panel, and then we lost it. It was taken off us. We did not have the money to make it happen. It still has not happened. All that we would have needed was £10,000 or £20,000, and it would have been up and running by now. However, it got sucked into a system where things just get lost. TEO and DOJ have been arguing over who should own it and where it should sit. Deirdre, that is part of the problem. DOJ has engaged with us well, but we are still powerless. DOJ still has all the power.

Miss Hargey: That is my concern about some of this. It is nearly a further grab by the centre and away from the community-based provision. That is an issue.

Do you think that the framework supports or hinders things? What are the pros and cons of the framework when it comes to partnership working? Does it also recognise the different community contexts? I know that you highlighted some of the differentials, but it is also about looking at things like poverty, regional balance, urban and rural, minority ethnic communities and new dynamics that are at play. I also want to ask about funding and resourcing. The Executive will, hopefully, move to three-year Budget cycles here soon, so, in the context of the new framework, what are your views on some of those issues? What do you see as the pros and cons?

Ms Watters: It is always a fear of mine that, when something is statutory-led, the statutory partners will protect their own. At the last restorative justice working group, I said that my fear is that a pot of money has been dedicated for this process, yet the body overseeing it is statutory and the body disseminating the cases is statutory. What reassurance do I have that the cases will not go to another statutory body rather than to the groups with almost 60 years' experience between us?

I do not say that to sound arrogant; I still think that we are the poor cousins and that we are always having to play catch-up. We should not have to do that at this stage; we should be seen as the ones with the expertise to help to deliver the training and to develop and design the model. My fear is that the statutory organisations and the big voluntary organisations will do better out of that than we will.

Miss Hargey: That is a concern. I remember going to America a few years ago with somebody from Alternatives to talk about restorative justice approaches and mediation. It became a huge business over there, but the main focus should be on community. It became about which big organisations come in. They write good applications, but they are not connected on the ground. I am concerned that, in all of that, you could lose that community aspect at the grassroots.

I agree with your concerns about CJINI's oversight and the independence that it has, given its track record and experience. I think that you, Jim, said that, when it does a review, it is robust. Do you have any other concerns about that oversight being removed and put into the Department, or do you see any positives?

Mr McCarthy: I am very concerned. I do not want to be critical of the staff, but I received an email in, I think, 2022 at 11.00 pm saying, "Your funding's suspended because of allegations on social media and other venues". The Assembly was collapsing at 12.00 midnight, so I had nowhere to go; I could not get anybody. The Assembly was being dissolved, so the Minister instructed an official to send that to me that at 11.00 pm. The next day, our bank accounts were frozen. We had no wages for staff. I was struck by the thought, "Is the Minister, whoever it is, going to have the power for all this?". When CJINI came in, it quickly established that a lot of that was nonsense, and we got it all going again. It concerns me that one Department can do that, and then that same Department is going to come in and inspect you, whereas, in the past, it would have been CJINI, with fresh eyes, to look at the whole process and say, "This is wrong here".

Miss Hargey: My next question follows on from Paul's about the level-1 accreditation. Is it the case that you would just remove level 1, or would you have a new accreditation structure? Do you have any thoughts on that?

Mr McCarthy: When we were co-designing the skills for justice level 4 — we are now an assessment centre; probably the only one — we said to the trainers, "We would prefer it if they weren't assessed on a role play: they should be assessed on a real case". You made the point about professional trainers coming in and doing role plays, and it is just stamped and out the other side. There is our level 4, and there is the Restorative Justice Council one. Someone has to observe the person doing a case. I have seen people who have turned out to be brilliant for us come in straight out of uni, after having done their degree, and, when a case comes in from the area, they are all over the place. They have the skill, but they do not have the community knowledge to deal with it. They can get that only by working there and doing it and being observed doing it. It worries me that the training could be diluted so much that it becomes just a rubber stamp.

Miss Hargey: Do you think that it is important to have a standardised approach across all of those things, so that there is a signing up to things such as the rule of law? The training and everything else would then be standardised.

Mr McCarthy: Absolutely.

Ms Watters: Yes.

Miss Hargey: I have just two more questions, one of which is about the interim protocol lead. Do you have any views on the longevity of that? Would you redesign the Justice Bill via organised crime amendments?

Obviously, there are things that we are looking at. You touched earlier on having a justice system that has a child-centred approach and protects victims. What additional safeguards could be put in place, and what should we look at with a sharper focus, as regards how the Bill deals with the area of coercive control? Have you any views on that?

Ms Watters: You will know this, but I will say it: the new accreditation process is being launched tomorrow. It is being launched as is. To be fair to the Department of Justice, we should test it, and we should test the process of how we apply. Deirdre, it opens tomorrow. Tomorrow, we can apply as an organisation and as individual practitioners. It will close towards the end of November. I want to see how that process plays out. The independent protocol lead process could do well, and it could be without any hiccups, but that does not mean that there should be no independent scrutiny, because that was written into almost every layer of the Good Friday Agreement and the peace process, and we should not lose it. We should test the process and see how it plays out. Once we go through it — if we are approved as an organisation and some of our practitioners are approved — we will be more than happy to come back to you and talk about what it was like for us. Did it work well? Where were the bumps in the road? What needs to be changed or revamped? We could come back to you and say, "We think there needs to be wholesale reform of this", or, "We think it needs tweaked".

On organised crime, we are entering a phase in which an independent expert has been appointed to oversee transition and work with groups to help them leave the stage or help them to see what that will look like. I know that the loyalist community is hoping to work closely with that person. After all of this time, paramilitaries should not exist; they should not be here. The UDA and UVF should not still be here, but they are, and we need to work where we are with what we have.

How we deal with coercive control will be seminal for us in the next year. Deirdre, I have said to the NIO, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the PSNI, "You cannot expect groups to transition without filling the gap with good and effective policing". There is an issue there; there is a twin-track approach. If groups move away, what are the police going to do with the vacuum that has been created? That needs major attention, because there are communities with barely one or two neighbourhood police officers. They never see a police officer. Of course, the Chief Constable will say that he does not have the resources, but you cannot address coercive control and organised crime without effective policing, and you cannot say to groups, "Leave the stage", without filling the void. There is a huge issue for the Department of Justice around policing and how it is managed. We need to do better on that — we really, really do.

As a former vice chair of the Policing Board, I say that I am committed — very committed — to independent scrutiny. We had it. Imagine: we were inspected by Criminal Justice Inspection when we had about 10 staff. Jim's group was the same. We were small, but we took it on the chin and stepped up. Independent scrutiny gives reassurance to communities and the Justice Committee, and it should give reassurance to the Justice Minister.

Miss Hargey: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I will stay on that point. There is a six-week window to apply, which starts tomorrow. It is meant to go live from 30 March 2026. What do you think of that timescale? Given your experience of starting up, cranking up, getting more staff and putting everything else in place to provide the service that you provide, is the window of opportunity for applications reasonable? Is that a fair time frame?

Mr McCarthy: It depends on who looks at it. If we are told to slow down and only send in 10 applications, what will be done about the new groups? Who will tell them to slow down? The process is unfair.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): The two bodies that have done it for years have been told, "Do not send your people our way. We can't cope".

Mr McCarthy: It might have been suggested more than —

Ms Watters: The suggestion is, "Keep an eye on the first two pilot areas. Get enough people accredited to work on the first two pilot areas" —

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Which are?

Ms Watters: Ards and North Down and Lisburn and Castlereagh.

— "and then start to roll it out". It is a phased approach. If I am honest, Paul, we have accepted that. Do you know why? Because we have waited 18 years for this.

Mr McCarthy: I have also raised the issue about the choice of areas. Is it Castlereagh and Ards?

Ms Watters: Ards and North Down and Lisburn and Castlereagh.

Mr McCarthy: What are the next two areas?

Ms Watters: Antrim and Newtownabbey and — what area is Ballymena in?

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Mid and East Antrim.

Ms Watters: They are the next two areas.

Mr McCarthy: What opportunities does Community Restorative Justice Ireland have in a pilot in any of those four areas? I was taken aback when I heard that it was those areas. I asked the Department, and it said, "We'd like to widen it a bit more". I said, "We recently opened offices in Lurgan and Dungiven. We're there. We're tried and tested". I have huge concerns about the areas that have been chosen for the pilot.

Ms Watters: The choice of Ards and North Down works for us, because we have an office there. However, in the spirit of partnership, I will say that the choice of areas is unfair because of CRJ's lack of presence in those areas. We work together as a partnership, and I support what Jim has said. Even though the choice of areas works for us, I support what Jim has said.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I will bring in Ciara. Where are you from, Ciara?

Ms Ferguson: To be honest, I am sitting here getting angrier and angrier. I just do not get it. We have two organisations here with 40 or 50 years of experience. You mentioned the Restorative Justice Council. You mentioned the training and expertise that goes into the work, which I get as someone who worked in the community and voluntary sector for 20-plus years. You need to get to know people and build trust. There are wider implications. When you deal with a case, it is critical that you are able to connect with the people, organisations and support networks in a community.

First, how did it get to the stage where you are not driving and supervising the accreditation? I just do not get it. The Department has thrown out the baby with the bathwater. I just do not know how it has got to this stage. Secondly, I am angry about the choice of areas. Key inequalities already exist. The Department should have focused on the excellent good practice that you already do and on how to develop your services in particular areas across the North. I am fortunate that the Cityside of Derry has restorative practice, which I and many of our communities rely heavily on. There is nothing similar in the Waterside to rely on, and we are crying out for a service in that area of Derry. There is geographic inequality in the choice of areas that have been allocated pilots. It will be an incremental process even though there is already such good practice and such a good evidence base. Debbie talked about the evidence that was presented 10 years ago and the further research that clearly demonstrates the huge benefits of restorative justice. Our children, young people and communities should be at the centre of the process; it should not be about the administration and bureaucracy that has been created.

I could go on and on because I am angry, but I will stick to a few questions. First, given the expertise that both of your organisations have, are you involved as external supervisors in the process, or are you, like any other organisation, expected to come along and join the accreditation process that opens tomorrow?

Mr McCarthy: We definitely have no role. We are in the same position as everyone else who will be rapping the door tomorrow.

Ms Ferguson: OK. I am just curious about this. You mentioned that you got three out of 300 or 400 CRNs. What organisations are they going to?

Ms Watters: Probably none. The police have just been saying, "There's a slap on the wrist. Away you go". The early intervention bit is not happening.

Ms Ferguson: The process is running ahead of itself. What does the Department think increasing the number of organisations will change? You have the trust and the expertise. It is now being opened up, which will dilute it among organisations that are new to all of this and that do not have the trust, the expertise or the experience. For the life of me, I seriously do not know where it is going.

The Probation Board states that its ambition is:

In your opinion, is the Probation Board sufficiently independent of the process to fulfil the role of independent referrals body that is responsible for referrals?

Mr McCarthy: No.

Ms Ferguson: OK. Thank you.

Do you have concerns about potential geographical inequalities in access to restorative justice currently, never mind through the new process? Given the proposed roll-out of adult restorative justice on a phased basis in the limited number of areas in which it already exists, what are your concerns about the current inequalities? Will those be remedied in the short and medium term by the changes?

Mr McCarthy: We have a great relationship with the PSNI inspector in west Belfast. To give an example, the superintendent in Derry changed recently. She is originally from west Belfast.

Ms Ferguson: I met her, yes.

Mr McCarthy: Within a short period, we had trained 10 police officers in Derry, which had never happened. That is an example of where the experience and trust that we have built up has kicked into action.

On the geographical issue, I could not go into Ards and start saying, "We want to do this and that". It would take me years to start all over again. I agree with you: I struggle with the choice of areas. Why not use the areas in which we exist —

Ms Watters: Where there is existing infrastructure.

Mr McCarthy: — and build on that? As I said, we recently opened offices in Lurgan and Dungiven. We have plans to do something jointly. It will not be either orange or green; it will be a restorative justice office or a restorative practice office.

Ms Ferguson: On the Restorative Justice Council and the current level of training, I am aware of loads of practitioners who are at level 3 and level 4. Was that taken into consideration in trying to set up the new accreditation process?

Ms Watters: The independent protocol lead worked closely with the chief executive of the Restorative Justice Council. However, a framework already existed. The framework that has been developed for Northern Ireland is probably more rigorous than what is used throughout the rest of the UK and Ireland. There is Restorative Practices Ireland as well.

Ciara, it is partly to do with our history and where restorative justice came from here, but we are past that; those days are gone. A lot of work has gone into it. I keep saying, "Let's test it". That is me trying to be fair and to mediate. Do you hear me?

Mr McCarthy: She keeps a lid on me.

Ms Watters: But sometimes —

Ms Ferguson: Sometimes you have to do what is right.

Ms Watters: — it is not right to keep a lid on things. You have heard some of our concerns. My biggest frustration is that community is always treated as the poor cousin. Why? We should not be treated as the poor relative. We have been world leaders in all of this, but we feel powerless.

Mr McCarthy: We recently had a visit from the Ukraine deputy justice minister, along with a delegation. We met near enough the whole Tajikistan justice department. They all came to ask us stuff. Tajikistan has come out of a civil war. In Ukraine, they are very advanced because they are preparing for their troops coming home. We do not get asked the same stuff by people here. People here do not ask us about our expertise or what we have. We have staff and colleagues who have been working in the offices for 15, 18, 26 and 27 years, and their expertise is being wasted.

Ms Watters: It is not just Jim. I have a challenge internally. My staff say, "Debbie, just opt out of the accreditation. Why are we putting ourselves through it? Just do non-justice work. Just do the schools work, community work and ethnic minority work. Why are we putting ourselves through it for very little in return?". We do it because it sets us apart, and it keeps the other groups at bay. It is really important that we keep the other groups at bay — the groups that do not support the rule of law and are not interested in working with policing. We do it for the greater good, but does it give us more funding? Does it set us apart? There are probably groups that are not accredited — drug and alcohol groups — that get more CRN referrals than we do.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): How is that possible?

Ms Ferguson: It has been my concern from the start that we are seeing a loss of community restorative practice and the fantastic work that has been done by the likes of your organisations in all our communities, work that has supported and continues to support so many young people, vulnerable people and families. I am so fearful that that element of community is being lost or eroded. There is an attempt to create something new when, instead, the current model of good practice should be built on.

Miss Hargey: When you look at it in the context of the community resolution notices, you see that there is a lack of partnership working. I worked recently at the Broadway interface in south and west Belfast, where policing costs have been over half a million pounds. I know that Alternatives and others have been out on the ground, and I have written to the policing and community safety partnership (PCSP) in Belfast about that, because it has been a great programme. However, it is probably the same young people, some of whom are as young as eight or 12, who have been arrested in those cases as repeat offenders. If that easy prevention work, which would have a direct impact on policing costs and ease the pressures, is not being done — when there is not that engagement with and investment in the existing infrastructure that is out on the ground doing the work — that is what happens at the other end.

We need to look at the figures for community resolution notices and to keep a close eye on how the accreditation process goes from tomorrow. I would like to go back to the Department and ask about the rationale for the choice of areas. We want to ensure that all areas are covered, but what was the rationale for that choice? The big thing for me is that we must not lose the restorative practice infrastructure that already exists in the community. What was the rationale for the choice of areas?

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): It seems to be that they are just spread out from Belfast, but that is not necessarily a logical rationale.

Mr Kingston: I will not speak for long, because I am aware of the time. I want to ask more about the community resolution notices. Doug and Patsy largely covered that, and you have commented on it. I share the concern about you only getting a handful of referrals from the police. I propose that the Committee writes to the Chief Constable and the Policing Board to express the view that there should be more referrals. If that is the view of the Committee, I will make that proposal.

I listened to what you said, Debbie: that it is basically compulsory to take part in an enhanced combination order. There should be a compulsory element. I am concerned that a CRN is just a warning. I appreciate that that goes on the record and so on, but it should be compulsory to take part in the programmes that both your organisations run. It is entirely voluntary, which, I appreciate, means that there is buy-in from the offender, who is the client. Are they compelled in any way to take part in the programmes? Would you like to say a wee bit about what is done when you get referrals for a CRN?

Ms Watters: Yes. When we get a referral, we take them through a process of looking at how their actions have hurt their victim, their community, their family and themselves, so it is holistic. It is probably a slightly lighter touch because it is a CRN, but it is about helping people to reflect on their behaviours, what is going on in their lives that led them to make those choices and what we can do to support them.

The beauty of somebody coming to us for a CRN is that we are in the community. I might say to somebody, "Listen, we do another wee programme. Do you want to join that?". Once we are done with the CRN, that does not mean that we are done with that person. We wrap ourselves around them. We see them as a valuable member of the community and try to address the issue of stigmatisation and all of that. You do not get that in a statutory system; you just do not get it.

Both organisations also use a therapist and counselling. If somebody is struggling, they do not have to wait six months to see somebody; they are in almost immediately to get the support that they need. Yes, they have to choose to work with us, but, Brian, in my experience, it is about how it is presented. If a police officer says, "Listen, I can give you a warning or you can go and work with Debbie there and it'll take another five or six weeks", what would you choose? It is all in how it is presented to somebody. We have said, "Let us meet with them. We'd like to have one initial meeting in which we say, 'Listen, if you come and work with us, this is what it will be like', and the staff member will win them over, because it is all about relationship". That is what we have asked of the police. We have said, "Let us do an initial assessment. After that, if they do not want to work with us, that is their choice".

Mr Kingston: There should be something more to encourage uptake and something compulsory. Policing needs good community partners, and that is what you provide.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): You are disappointed at the number of police referrals, but Public Prosecution Service (PPS) referrals are basically non-existent, if I have correctly read the research paper that was done for us.

Ms Watters: Non-existent, Paul, but solicitors refer and judges have referred straight from the bench — not routinely, but that has happened. We would like to see more of that. It does not have to be pre-court; it can be post-court.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. What is your formal relationship with the Probation Board? How do you interact with it? What are the formal links?

Ms Watters: We both get funding from the Probation Board to run a programme called Aspire, which comes out of the tackling paramilitarism programme. Our relationship with the Probation Board is really good. That does not mean that it transfers into money or cases. The current Probation Board chief executive officer, Amanda Stewart, who has come from the Policing Board, really values community. However, every statutory organisation is under budgetary pressure. That played out, and we lost the ECO money, so we no longer —. The ECO programme has been cut for the Probation Board, and that is a shame because it was a successful programme.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): This has been a marathon session for you, and I thank you for that, because it has been really informative. Just before you go, I will take you into the murky world of biometrics.

Ms Watters: Over to Jim.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): You are getting a whole new clause alongside diversionary youth conference. When I first read it, I was amazed to realise that you guys work with people who have committed qualifying offences. Do you work with people who have committed those really serious offences?

Mr McCarthy: When the Department started talking about levels of accreditation, officials told us at one of the meetings that they saw our practitioners as being at around level 2. I was looking at them and thinking, "Is this for real?". I cannot think of any type of case, from murder right through, that we have not worked on or dealt with. I was stunned when that was said.

There was a case where an individual was killed by an armed criminal gang in Poleglass. Three people claimed his body: his biological parents, his new partner and his foster parents. The police came to us looking for help with the case. I know that I am getting off the subject, but it is just to give you some context. The police asked us, "What do you think you could do there?". We spoke to the families, and there were two funerals. He stayed in one house on one night and was moved to another house the next night. It is all practical stuff. We work on all kinds of cases.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Right, OK.

Mr McCarthy: We think that biometrics could be open to abuse. DNA could be taken when an individual is young and kept for years and years.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): For people who commit qualifying offences, DNA is kept for 75 years. Let me get this right. For recordable offences, it is 25 years. For under-18s who complete a diversionary youth conference or a community-based restorative order, it is five years. Do you want to comment or offer an opinion on that?

Ms Watters: As restorative justice organisations, we have to believe in the capacity of people to change, otherwise we would not do the work. A system that continues to discriminate against people who are changing or who have changed does not serve us well. If we want people to rehabilitate, we need to say to them, "We have a system that will stand by your side in that". That is one of the key issues with this: it does not allow people to say, "I've completely changed, and I will never be in that system again".

Some people argue that, if you keep the DNA and the child goes missing, for example, it is much easier to find them. That is rare; those things are very rare. We need to move to a more modern system that is underpinned by restorative justice and supports people's ability to change. What we have at the moment is a punitive and adversarial system, with a restorative system running alongside it, and never the twain shall meet. We need to find a way for the two systems to meet and to meet really well and effectively.

Miss Hargey: Do you feel that photographs should be included as biometric material? At the moment, photographs are not included in the Bill, even though the PSNI retains around 180,000 photos. Do you believe that photos should be seen as biometric material and be part of the oversight when it comes to a review?

Mr McCarthy: I think so. Anything that the police hold in that sense should be part of it. Otherwise, it will be dissected into different bits and pieces. It will come down to someone deciding whether to keep that bit or the other bit. It should all fall in.

Ms Watters: My only caution around that, Deirdre, is, when photographs of young people are published as part of police investigations, it is sometimes hard to tell whether that young person is a 15-year-old or a 19-year-old. There needs to be more caution around that. I support what Jim is saying.

Miss Hargey: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. That was a marathon session. Thank you very much, Debbie and Jim, for your time. It was a really good and informative session.

Ms Watters: I must say — I am sure that Jim will agree with me — that we feel listened to and heard.

Mr McCarthy: Yes.

Ms Watters: We really appreciate that, so thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. Thank you very much for your time.