Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): The Committee will receive oral evidence from Department of Justice officials on the strategic framework for youth justice. The officials who will provide that evidence are Dr Veronica Holland, the deputy director of the rehabilitation and reducing reoffending division; Mr Stephen Martin, the chief executive of the Youth Justice Agency (YJA); and Ms Jenny McAlarney, a policy official in the rehabilitation and reducing reoffending division. I welcome you all to the Committee. I invite you to make an opening statement.

Dr Veronica Holland (Department of Justice): Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the Committee for the opportunity to update it on the strategic framework for youth justice. We are pleased to have the opportunity to update the Committee on the strategic framework and to answer any questions that Committee members have about that work. You may recall that members had asked for a presentation on the latest annual progress report and on the action plan, both of which were considered by the Committee at its meeting on 18 September. The documentation was published on 3 October.

I will begin by providing a bit of background and context and then give an overview of the framework and its development. I will then cover the progress that has been made to date on it. The five-year framework covers the 2022-27 period. It is intended to evidence how the youth justice system has developed and improved in recent years, including the key milestones that have been achieved. It sets out a vision for the future work of a progressive youth justice system that delivers better outcomes for children and communities. The original framework action plan, which is associated with a document published in 2022, contained 16 actions that the Department of Justice and our colleagues in the Youth Justice Agency almost exclusively led on. The actions were aimed at progressing one of four outcomes. Those outcomes related to children being exited from the criminal justice system at the earliest point; achieving positive outcomes; custody being a last resort; and partnership working. A number of those themes also run through the provisions in the Justice Bill, which is progressing through the Assembly.

The governance of the strategic framework involves an implementation group, which ensures a coherent and coordinated approach to delivering the work under the framework and that associated with the action plan. The membership of that group includes representatives from a range of Department of Justice policy areas, the youth justice sector and the voluntary sector. Include Youth, Voice of Young People in Care (VOYPIC) and the Children's Law Centre (CLC) represent the voluntary sector on the group. In the past year, its membership has been expanded to strengthen our strategic links with key partners, with the addition of representatives from the police, the Department of Health and the Office of the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY).

When it comes to reporting on the framework, there is a commitment to publish an annual progress report, with the third report covering work done during 2024-25. As I said, that report was recently shared with the Committee and has been published. The action plan that sits under it is very much viewed as a living document. It is updated annually to take account of completed actions and to reflect any new priorities that have been identified before being published alongside the annual report. The action plan that was recently provided to members has been updated to reflect ongoing work and priorities for the current year, 2025-26.

I will briefly set out some of the framework's key achievements in its first two years. A range of actions was delivered, including mainstreaming earlier-stage diversion and rolling out children's diversion forums to provide children with access to multi-agency early intervention and support. That is very much aimed at preventing them from moving further into the formal criminal justice system. An enhanced case management framework for children who pose a high risk of significant harm or who have complex needs has been delivered. There has been a public consultation on the minimum age of criminal responsibility. There have also been consultations with children, young people and their families on their experience of the Youth Court and community sentences. There has been the piloting and expansion of the joint services provided by the Youth Justice Agency and Health and Social Care (HSC) child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS).

In addition, there has been work done to improve employability for 16- and 17-year-olds who are in the justice system through developing partnerships and improving connections to existing services.

I will now provide an overview of the key achievements that have been delivered in the third year of the framework. Those are set out in the most recent progress report. Queen's University Belfast completed an evaluation of the multi-agency children's diversion forums, with an action plan having been developed to address recommendations from the report. The YJA and Health and Social Care CAMHS approach has been fully rolled out across Northern Ireland. A part-time regional coordinator post has been established, with ongoing work being done with research partners at Queen's and the University of Limerick to design an evaluation of that service.

The Youth Justice Agency has participated in the trauma-informed Oregon pilot in order to evaluate the organisation's alignment with trauma-informed practice, as well as meeting various organisations to share its knowledge in that area. That has included presenting the YJA's work on developing trauma-informed approaches, including at the Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland (SBNI) trauma-informed practice conference in January 2025.

Several new measures have been introduced in order to improve the experiences of children and their families in the consultation and engagement that has been undertaken with them on Youth Court hearings. That has included updated documentation and guidance for the Youth Court, as well as new signage to reduce disruption and limit personnel at those hearings, given the age of the individuals involved. Earlier this year, we launched new resources to prepare children for court appearances, including an information video and 360-degree virtual courtroom tours, along with a dedicated web page. Those resources are available on the Department of Justice's website for young people and their families to access.

A number of aspects are linked to legislative change. The Committee will no doubt be familiar with them, and departmental officials will likely brief you further in the next couple of weeks. Members will be more than aware that there are provisions to amend children's bail, remand and the custodial sentencing framework, along with provisions that relate to filtering arrangements and the review of specified offences, on which departmental officials recently briefed the Committee. Those have all been included in the Justice Bill that the Committee is currently considering.

An options paper was prepared during the year covered by the most recent progress report. It takes account of the views expressed during the public consultation on increasing the minimum age of criminal responsibility. That paper was developed and shared with Ministers earlier this year. There has been no agreement on the way forward with that. Members will, no doubt, be aware that an amendment to the Justice Bill has been tabled on that issue.

Finally, a task and finish group has been established to commence work on the commitment in the strategic framework to develop a new single youth community order to replace the existing seven court orders that are in place. Pre-consultation engagement was undertaken with a range of stakeholders, including children and families and third-sector organisations. That consultation ran from April to July 2025. We understand that a summary of the responses report is on the Committee's agenda for today. We are more than happy to answer any questions on that as part of this session.

I turn now to the current action plan. Some elements of the work that I have just covered are still in progress and therefore continue to be included in the updated action plan for 2025-26. They include ongoing work on the Justice Bill provisions, the launch of the new Youth Court resources and the finalising of proposals for the new single youth community order based on the consultation that was undertaken previously. Other actions being taken forward in-year include the implementation of the findings and recommendations of the external evaluation of children's diversion forums, work to review and update the new Youth Justice Agency assessment tool and work to provide improved data on the journey travelled for children who have engaged with Youth Justice Agency services.

There has been engagement with the Home Office on the introduction of a new civil youth diversion order for terrorism-related offences, which is being introduced across the UK through the Westminster Crime and Policing Bill. Work is also being taken forward in partnership to improve the evidence base on the needs of girls in the justice system and to implement learning and practice. There has also been engagement with wider cross-Executive strategies and with other Departments on ongoing programmes of work to ensure that the needs of children in the justice system are reflected and considered.

Finally, I will touch on the work that is being taken forward on the development of a new cross-Executive strategy to reduce offending and reoffending. Although that is intended to cover all cohorts of the population, there are obvious links to the strategic framework for youth justice, given the long-term aim to reduce criminality and improve outcomes for all sections of society. The experience of the youth justice system here and the successes that we have seen — a significant reduction in numbers entering the formal justice system or being prosecuted at court, as well as a low custodial population — will be vital to informing that work in the coming months.

That is a brief overview of the background, the context, the work that has been undertaken over the past number of years and the work that will be taken forward under the current action plan. We are now more than happy to take questions from members.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you very much, Veronica, for your presentation. I will now bring in members.

Mr Kingston: Thank you for your presentation and your paper. I have two questions. I welcome the multi-agency partnership approach and the collaborative working. That is important for young people. Important partners are the parents or the parent. My involvement with youths engaging in antisocial behaviour and crime often happens at interface areas. I represent North Belfast, and, when we have multi-agency meetings about such behaviour, comments are often made that, when the police or others bring offenders home, they do not get a supportive response from parents. It is important that parents take responsibility for their authority and influence over their children. Social services may have to become involved when there is a lack of parental responsibility. Can you speak to that? In some circumstances, parents are not displaying the right leadership to their children.

Mr Stephen Martin (Youth Justice Agency): If a child is referred to the Youth Justice Agency, we work not just with the child but with the family. Family work is a really important part of what we do. Inevitably, we are not with a child 24/7, but their parents are, so we try to skill up the parents as much as we can so that they can deal with issues. For lot of the issues, we generally find that it is not necessarily about poor parenting, which is sometimes the perception, but about the relationship and about issues to do with the child's needs. It is therefore about helping the parents understand the child's needs. Neurodiversity is a growing issue, and a child is often on the autism spectrum or has ADHD, so it is about equipping the parent to understand the issues and giving them some strategies to deal with them, but, yes, the approach is very much about working with the family, not just with the child.

Mr Kingston: Can social services be brought in?

Mr Martin: Yes. We have a good relationship and information-sharing agreements in place with the trusts, so, if we have a safeguarding concern about a child, we will make a referral to social services. We will do case conferences, for example. Sometimes, a social worker is already involved with a family. If that is the case, we can often do a case conference. An education welfare officer may also be involved with the child. We look at the services and supports that are currently there and at whether they can be strengthened.

Mr Kingston: OK. Thank you.

My second question is on a similar theme. I am school governor, and I sometimes hear comments from teachers about not always getting the information that they need on what is happening elsewhere in their pupils' lives. I understand GDPR and so on, but, if pupils have become involved with the Youth Justice Agency, what are your protocols for sharing information with schools so that they are aware of what else is happening in their lives?

Mr Martin: As part of the needs assessment that we have in place, which Veronica mentioned, there are five key domains. Family is one, and education, training and employment is another. We often find that a lot of children who come to our attention are not involved in education in any meaningful way, and that is a significant issue.

We will try to reattach those children with their existing education provision. That involves us working closely with a school and getting an assessment of the child and their needs and so on.

We work with schools on education, training and employment. If there were no particular issue connected with the school or that child's education, we would not necessarily inform or involve the school, but it is a key domain in our needs assessment, so it would be unusual for us not to have some engagement with the child's school, if that child is in education.

Mr Kingston: So the school is seen as an important partner.

Mr Martin: Absolutely, yes.

Mr Kingston: But you would not automatically inform the school. I can understand a young person feeling that their involvement with you should not be brought into every aspect of their life, but you recognise the importance of the school, which is often a point of stability in young people's lives when there might be less stability in other parts of their lives.

Mr Martin: Very much so. We take a strengths-based approach, trying to identify the child's existing strengths and how we can build on them. Education is an area that we try to focus on as much as we reasonably can. Schools are an important part of that.

Mr Kingston: OK. Thank you.

Miss Hargey: Thanks very much for your presentation and for the paperwork that you provided. My question is about the fact that the Justice Act 2015 amended the Justice Act 2002 so that the aims of the youth justice system reflected the best interests of the child principles, in line with article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Your statement of purpose and values do not include that, however. Is there a reason for that international obligation not being mentioned?

Mr Martin: Are you referring to the Department or the Youth Justice Agency?

Miss Hargey: The Youth Justice Agency and its values statement.

Mr Martin: The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is very much a part of our three-year corporate plan — it is mentioned specifically in it — which we shared with the Committee a number of months ago. Derry City and Strabane District Council has been a lead partner in some work we have been doing, and it was recently announced as a UNICEF child-friendly city and community. We very much work to the ethos of the UNCRC, and it is part of our corporate plan. The values of our organisation were designed with children, so the values in our corporate plan were also designed with children, through a participation approach.

Miss Hargey: Are they assessed and benchmarked against the obligations in the UNCRC, or do you just consider those obligations?

Mr Martin: I do not know whether we benchmark against them. It is very much a case of the children telling us what our values should be. Our corporate plan is benchmarked against the UNCRC, which is very much to the fore in our approach.

Miss Hargey: OK. My other wee question is about your annual performance impact report, which shows some good work, with 83·1% of earlier-stage diversion referrals being successful. What happens with the remaining percentage — those who are left? Are there mitigations, or is work being done to increase the success rate despite it already being high?

Mr Martin: Yes, there absolutely is. We work to a gradated approach and try to intervene as early as possible. The first step is a community resolution notice with the police. That is for lower-level first offences, such as shoplifting, minor criminal damage and some drugs offences. That usually entails a one-off session with the child, and there is only a 7% reoffending rate.

If, at that point, we identify through our needs assessment that a child needs extra support, we refer them to the children's diversion forums that Veronica talked about, and they go to earlier-stage diversion. Those are children who have additional needs that we cannot meet. We meet children's needs in 83% of cases, but sometimes it just does not work because something falls; for example, there could be an addiction issue. In such cases, we do not give up on the child, but we cannot be successful in every circumstance. Our aim is to keep the child out of the formal system as much as we can.

Miss Hargey: Are any patterns emerging among the remaining percentage, with certain groupings or vulnerabilities represented? For example are there patterns involving children who are in care or children who have issues with substances?

Mr Martin: There are. We have just received the statistics for last year, so I am about to do our trend analysis, which will go to our board. When I did that last year, there were two emerging issues that then became a feature of our corporate plan. One issue was children in care, particularly in residential homes. We have a growing number of children in the care system who are receiving multiple referrals to us. If a girl is in residential care, unfortunately she has a reasonably high likelihood of ending up in the youth justice system. We have done a lot of research and work to identify the needs of girls. Girls in the system, care-experienced young people and young people who are neurodiverse are part of an emerging pattern, so we are trying to develop our practice in those three areas in particular.

Miss Hargey: The Police Ombudsman has raised the fact that neurodivergence issues present more and more through that office, so that is interesting.

Clause 12 of the Justice Bill specifies that a period for youth custody supervision orders must not be less than six months. Children's rights standards do not allow for a minimum sentence and say that detention and imprisonment should be used only as a measure of last resort or be for the shortest period possible. Taking into account those international children's rights views, what is your view on the six-month minimum in the Bill?

Ms Jenny McAlarney (Department of Justice): A consultation was held in 2014 on the new youth custody and supervision order, and the views were split equally among those who felt that there should be a minimum period and those who did not. You will know a juvenile justice centre (JJC) order carries a minimum period of three months in custody. That was decided at the time because research showed that putting children in custody for less than that was more detrimental to them in that it was a short, sharp shock. They were being taken out of their home environment and out of school only for a very short time, and, really, there was no time to work with them. Children should not be in custody for any less than three months. If the judiciary decide that three months is too long, they should look at alternatives, such as a community sentence. If the period of custody is going to be less than three months, children should be given a community sentence and not be put in custody at all. That is the rationale for that decision.

Ms Ferguson: First, I commend the Youth Justice Agency: it is so refreshing to see a comprehensive early intervention collaborative approach that is having huge impacts on young people's lives.

I have a few questions. Stephen, you mentioned children in care. Are you part of the collaborative foundation project with the Department of Health and the Department for Communities? That is a quick question to make sure that you are part of that collaboration on young people in care and are working on the wrap-around services for the early intervention power to prevent homelessness. You have a critical role in that.

Mr Martin: We are part of a number of forums. I sit on the programme board of the children's services reform programme, which is the Ray Jones work. I also sit on a forum on youth homelessness with the Housing Executive and social services that is particularly focused on care. I also chair a subgroup of the children and young people strategic partnership, and we are looking specifically, in a multi-agency way, at offending by children in the care system. We are connected with a lot of forums, and we have a big focus on doing what we can collectively to reduce the number of care-experienced children in the justice system, because it is just too high.

Ms Ferguson: You mentioned neurodiversity: we continually see and hear that. When we are in the prisons and when we meet the PSNI, it is a huge issue along with the lack of support available for young people as soon as they meet the criminal justice system. What additional support would you like to be able to access to support young people who are neurodiverse?

Mr Martin: During my time as chief executive, we have put in place the CAMHS partnership that we talked about. I think that I have mentioned at the Committee before that our children struggle with child and adolescent mental health services because it is a medical model and, if you do not turn up to two or three appointments, you are out. We have developed a partnership with Health, funded on a 50:50 basis, that means that we now have a CAMHS worker in each of our teams. We had to find the money for that from our own budget — we got no additional money — but it has been really successful. Pre-pilot, 14% of the children whom we referred to CAMHS finished with their aim achieved, meaning that they came out the other side better than they started. With our pilot, the figure was 88%. We have rolled the pilot out, and it has provided a massive amount of support, particularly for children who are on the autism spectrum and those who struggle with mental health issues. As part of that, a trained professional works with our staff to triage, signpost and refer children to services and

to support them. That has been transformational.

We have not done an evaluation yet, as Veronica might have mentioned. Our plan for the next business year is to roll out an evaluation of the service. We are in the design phase on that evaluation with the trusts, Queen's University and the University of Limerick, who are our partners on the evaluation.

Ms Ferguson: I will focus on one of the actions, which is to further develop the bail fostering pilot scheme as an alternative to custody and support successful transitions back into communities. It is positive that there have been good outcomes for the children involved, but it seems that there have been small numbers involved with the pilot scheme since it was established. Will you explain why the numbers for the bail fostering pilot scheme are so low? More generally, is it your view that the Justice Bill will deliver all the improvements to bail and remand that you consider to be necessary?

Mr Martin: I will talk about bail fostering. The Southern Health and Social Care Trust is probably one of the more progressive trusts in its thinking. The bail fostering pilot is a partnership between us and the Southern Trust, and it is funded by the Southern Trust. We have just placed our sixth child to come from the JJC in a fostering arrangement, which is a specialist placement. The five previous placements were all really successful. The director of children's services in the Southern Trust has been advocating that his colleagues in the other four trusts apply a similar model. We are certainly keen to promote that, but, ultimately, it will be a decision for the trusts, as they will fund it. So far, the scheme has worked. It is an alternative to custody in the juvenile justice centre for a number of children who cannot return home.

Ms McAlarney: I will comment on whether we think that the provisions in the Bill will help. The purpose of the provisions is to enhance our compliance with the UNCRC's requirement for custody to be a last resort. Significant improvements have been made over a number of years, and the number of children entering custody in Northern Ireland has significantly reduced, but the number of children who are held on remand is far higher than the number of those who end up with a custodial sentence.

We want to ensure that bail is a statutory requirement for children rather than a presumption. That involves applying two tests when a child goes before a judge. In making a decision on bail, the judge will first have to consider whether the offence for which the child is in court is one that could result in a custodial sentence. That is the first test, and, if it is not met, the child should be released on bail automatically. However, even if that test is met, the judge can still consider four other conditions around bail to see whether it is necessary to remand the child in order to prevent certain things from happening, such as reoffending, interfering with witnesses, causing public disorder or failing to surrender to custody. However, if mitigations can be put in place in their bail conditions to prevent those things, that child should be released. We are trying to ensure that children are held on remand only when it is necessary and there is no alternative.

Ms Ferguson: The UNCRC is clear that, when a child or young person commits a crime, the time taken to process their case should be as brief as possible. What is your assessment of the efficiency of the juvenile justice system in resolving cases involving children and young people?

Mr Martin: I will take the flak for that one because that is probably [Inaudible.]

To be honest, there are far fewer cases in court than there have ever been, but the system is no quicker. I have my own views on why that is, and there are certainly far too many adjournments in cases, which causes significant delay. I will get into trouble for saying that, but it is true.

For example, we are supporting a child on bail who was involved in the riots last summer. They are still on a tag, having been on bail for almost a year. The system is not quick enough. A year in the life of a 15- or 16-year-old is a long time. It is a long time to have a serious offence hanging over you. The system is not quick enough, and that is just not good enough. It needs to improve. We certainly do everything that we can, as do our partners, but it takes far too long.

Ms Ferguson: Has any research been done into what happens elsewhere with children and young people who are going through the justice system to compare it with what happens here? We can naturally assume that the process causes more trauma for children and young people, whether from the stigma or from whatever they are going through, given, as you said, the time that they spend awaiting court. Are you aware of any research?

Ms McAlarney: The speeding up justice directorate is the division in the Department that is responsible for looking at that. There is an ongoing programme of work to tackle unavoidable delays. It takes a whole-system approach, looking at reducing demand, feeding capacity and loads of other ways of resolving delays in the justice system. Children are one part of that. The directorate recognises the impact of those delays on children in particular. It got transformation funding recently, and a big programme of work is under way on that.

Dr Holland: There is a focus in the criminal justice system more generally on speeding up cases that are going through the system to reduce the delays that are being encountered, particularly, as you said, given their impact on children and young people. The focus of the work that was referred to, which is being taken forward by our speeding up justice colleagues with the transformation fund, is very much on early engagement and out-of-court disposals. That is about trying as much as possible to take people out of the system, where that is an appropriate means of dealing with them. I appreciate that that does not necessarily address the speed with which cases go through the formal court system, but the Department, through our speeding up justice colleagues, as Jenny noted, is taking forward that wider programme of work to address the issue. As I said, the focus of the transformation bid is very much on the work being done outside the criminal justice system and on ensuring that, where appropriate, cases are taken forward through that route, there is early engagement and, if an out-of-court disposal is appropriate, cases are progressed in that way.

Ms Ferguson: So there is no research out there. I am aware of the wider picture on speeding up justice, but children and young people should be a priority across the criminal justice system, through the courts and at each stage. I may follow up on that separately with the legal profession. We need to do better, because early intervention is key. Children are the future, and if we are to change things around in any way — we can see how it can work — early intervention for children and young people needs to be prioritised across the whole justice system.

Mr McGlone: Thank you for your presentation. I will move on to education, training and employment. The letter from the departmental Assembly liaison officer refers to young ones coming from a background of

How is the potential school, employer or training environment notified of the level of risk that may be associated with that offender?

Mr Martin: If a child has been convicted of an offence, they will have a criminal record. If they have been convicted of a sexual offence, they may well be signing the sex offenders register, in which case those details need to be disclosed by an individual if they apply for employment. If there are any checks, such as AccessNI checks, the offences will appear on those. The Youth Justice Agency has no role in disclosing offences to others. We have neither the capacity nor the statutory authority to do that.

Mr McGlone: I get that, with GDPR and all that stuff. It is just to make sure that people are protected, particularly if previous offenders are going into a classroom.

Dr Holland: The disclosure of those offences will really depend on the post that an individual applies for. If any individual is working with children and young people or with vulnerable individuals, there will be requirements for checks to be undertaken, such as AccessNI checks, as Stephen said. That is probably the primary route through which such information would be notified to employers who take on individuals who have been involved in or had contact with the criminal justice system.

Mr McGlone: I have one other question, which has been brought to my mind by events in Ballymena, where, apparently, kids just seem to disappear. I am not saying that they were in the justice system: far from it. They were probably the victims of crime. What systems do you have to make sure that youngsters — that is what they are — who come out of the youth criminal justice system are checked on? Many of them come from really vulnerable backgrounds. What is their transition out of the justice system? How do you make sure that all the necessary information is with the statutory agencies and any responsible body that might have contact or supervision responsibility or, indeed, any form of communication with those kids when they emerge from the criminal justice system?

Mr Martin: If safeguarding concerns come to light when a child is working with us, we make a referral to the gateway team in the relevant trust. If the referral meets the team's threshold, the trust will become involved, and the child will become part of that system. There is a well-developed safeguarding system in Northern Ireland. As members of the Safeguarding Board, we are subject to protocols around sharing information and so on, which we follow. If there is no safeguarding concern, we will not raise one, but, if there is a safeguarding concern and we are concerned about the child's welfare, a set of processes will come into play.

Mr McGlone: OK. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): No other members have indicated that they want to ask a question.

How would a change in the minimum age of criminal responsibility affect your agency's operations?

Mr Martin: There are two ways of looking at it. If the age were to be raised, it could be said that the Youth Justice Agency would have no ability to work with children between the age of 10 and the new minimum age. Somebody needs to do something with those children, however, because, with our focus on early diversion, the last thing that we want is a child turning up at the age of 14 with well-embedded behaviours that create long-term challenges. I would be keen for our agency to be enabled to work with those children on a voluntary basis, but there needs to be some form of work with them. Whether that is done by social services on a statutory basis or by us on a voluntary basis, the important thing from our perspective is that work is done with the child to address their behaviours.

Dr Holland: If the minimum age of criminal responsibility were to change, the associated legislative changes and any outworkings of the change for the work that organisations currently undertake — which organisations would do the work and what that might look like — would be looked at.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Who looks after a nine-year-old at present?

Mr Martin: We have no authority to work with nine-year-olds, so, if there is a concern, that is for social services.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Would changing the minimum age of criminal responsibility just shift the onus and focus from the Youth Justice Agency to social services?

Mr Martin: That could happen, but we would be keen to take voluntary cases, as we can now. In one that I approved today, for example, we will work on a voluntary basis with a child who is not subject to an order but has a vulnerability. I have agreed that we will work with the child on a voluntary basis. We could do that if the age were to change, but it would have to be voluntary.

Mr Kingston: Whom did the request come from?

Mr Martin: The request came from the child's parents. The child is known to us. There is, in my view, no reason why we could not do that if the law on the minimum age were to change.

Mr Kingston: The child consented?

Mr Martin: The parents need to consent, as does a child who is 18. We prefer to have the child's consent too, but their consent is not necessarily needed. Parental consent is needed.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Apart from the Youth Justice Agency, would any agencies of the Department of Justice have an operational change similar to yours if the age were to change?

Dr Holland: I do not think so.

Ms McAlarney: We would definitely need a run-in period before the legislation commenced so that we could put in place a framework for dealing with children under the new minimum age of criminal responsibility. That would be done with the Youth Justice Agency and other partners.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): That raises an interesting point. If someone is in the system at 10, 11 or 12 and the law changes, what will happen to them? By the time they get out the other side of the process, the law may have changed.

Dr Holland: What typically happens with legislation is that it is not retrospective. Say, for argument's sake, that the date of the new legislation commencing is 1 January 2026 or whatever the date of any change may be: it will be only offences that occur after that date that will fall under the new provisions.

Ms McAlarney: The date of commencement.

Dr Holland: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Fascinating. We have an amendment down. Does the age that is stated in the amendment align with the findings of the public consultation undertaken by the Department?

Ms McAlarney: Yes. The public consultation indicated strong support for an increase. Over 83% of those who responded — there were over 400 responses; I think that there were 450 — supported an increase beyond the age of 10, and, of those, around 65% supported an increase to 14 years. Some of them may have supported an age that is lower than 14, and some may have supported one that is higher. Some supported an increase to 16 or above. In addition to the 83%, another 5% or 6% support an increase as long as there is an exception for serious offences. Really, only one in 10 people who responded to the consultation were not in favour of any increase. The age of 14 is fairly reflective of the views.

Dr Holland: The amendment that has been tabled could be deemed to be a halfway house between 14 and the current position. Obviously, it is not a departmental amendment, but the position adopted in it is about trying to be cognisant of the fact that there may be concerns. The Jamie Bulger case is the one that is always cited. However, despite the passage of time, there has not been another case to replace that as the "new Jamie Bulger case". The amendment is drafted in such a way as it is really about trying to take account of as many concerns and views as possible. The wording is not a departmental position, but it is trying to deal with some of the concerns and issues that some Members from across the Assembly have.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I will read from the amendment:

Has the Department formed a view on the wording of the amendment?

Dr Holland: The Department will not necessarily take a view on an amendment that has been tabled until such times as it has been agreed by the Assembly. From memory, I think that the text that has been included in that amendment is fairly reflective of other legislative provisions in this area. Setting aside its content, there is nothing in the wording that would give us cause for concern legally, if that makes sense.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): You pre-empted my next question, Veronica, so you are very good.

Do any other members want in before we tie up?

Mr Kingston: I will ask this question again; I know that you asked it. If a child is below the age of criminal responsibility and is reported to the police for a crime, what currently happens? Does being below that age mean that they are not guilty or cannot be guilty?

Ms McAlarney: Yes.

Mr Martin: Yes.

Mr Kingston: So they will not go to the Youth Justice Agency. Does nothing happen? Who gets involved at a statutory level?

Mr Martin: Social services. If the police have a concern, social services may be involved. This did not happen, but, if a nine-year-old had been involved in the riots during the summer, there would have been a safeguarding concern about that child that would have meant a referral to social services by the police.

Mr Kingston: What is the compulsion when it comes to a referral to social services? From the point of view of the child and the parents, is it a voluntary involvement, or, if there is a safeguarding concern —?

Mr Martin: I am not a social worker, so I am probably not the best person to answer that, but my understanding is that there is an assessment of whether that child has particular needs and whether there are concerns about their parental arrangements. It would be treated as a safeguarding issue, as far as I am aware.

Mr Kingston: If social services had genuine concerns and the parents or child were to say, "Look, we do not want you involved", would social services still have some statutory authority to get involved?

Mr Martin: Yes, it is my understanding that, under the Children Order 1995, they would.

Mr Kingston: OK.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): No other members have indicated, so thank you for your time, your presentation and your answers. Thank you very much.