Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I welcome Veronica Holland, deputy director of the rehabilitation and reducing reoffending division. Veronica is no stranger to the Committee; we have enjoyed her presence many times. I invite Veronica to make an opening statement.

Dr Veronica Holland (Department of Justice): Thank you, Chair. It is much appreciated. I am conscious of members' time. I am happy to make a brief opening statement or to go straight to questions, which I would prefer, but either is good for me.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Can you make a concise presentation?

Dr Holland: Yes. It was only five pages, but when I was outside, I took two out, so I will do the shorter version.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Professional that you are, Veronica. Thank you.

Dr Holland: Over the past couple of years, a range of work has been progressed in relation to restorative justice, the new accreditation process and the way in which it is operated. We had a revised protocol in 2023, and, under its auspices, the range of work has been taken forward. It has included setting training standards and designing a new detailed practice standards and accreditation framework, which was published in October 2025. That governs the new accreditation process and provides for a number of safeguards on the process.

The documentation on the process that we are adopting clearly sets out the expertise, training and experience that service providers must have in order to provide restorative justice departments as part of the criminal justice process.

It also sets out the practice standards, key skills, knowledge and competencies that will be required by the practitioners. It includes a requirement to uphold the rule of law, to adhere to human rights standards and to work in partnership with all criminal justice organisations, including the police, as part of the process. That is intended to provide reassurance about the experience of practitioners and the quality of the services being provided. A key difference under the new system is the accreditation of organisations as well as practitioners; previously, only the organisations were accredited. Under the new process, we have accredited seven organisations, and there are 26 accredited practitioners. Some 20 of those practitioners are accredited to deliver criminal justice services, and the others relate to level 1, which is below the criminal justice system threshold.

There was a robust process, including a protocol lead, for the applications, which were then considered by a three-person panel. After that, the applications were considered by a senior official in the Department of Justice before decisions were reached about them. As part of that process, we have also provided six days of training for the practitioners on the restorative justice conferencing process, which is a key aspect of the process. It involves a move to restorative conferences, which are akin to those used in the youth justice sphere, rather than lower-level restorative practice processes.

I will outline some of the key differences with the new process. Our view is that it is a more robust process because of the level of skills, experience and training that must be demonstrated by those who are applying for accreditation. The application must be evidenced by the skills, training and experience that the individual can demonstrate. There are three accreditation levels, and each level has clear, distinct criteria and evidence requirements associated with it. It is a tiered accreditation system that is commensurate with the competency and experience of the practitioners. Applicants also have to submit a case study with evidence of restorative justice interventions that they have undertaken, and they must demonstrate a proven track record of working with criminal justice agencies, including the police, as well as a commitment to operate within the rule of law and to continue with that as part of their accreditation by the Department. The accreditation is reapplied for every three years, and that process was not previously in place. Under the new system, the focus is much more on restorative justice conferences than on restorative practice.

The Department has also set out very clear requirements in the form of the key performance indicators and monitoring that will be associated with the various organisations and the practitioners working under them. It includes targets relating to the timeliness of contact with participants; the time frame from preparation for the restorative justice conference to its outcome and an agreement being put in place; the supervision of the agreement and any actions that arise out of it; participation levels; satisfaction levels; the submission of quarterly and year-end reports to the Department that will cover the KPIs; and the monitoring, as set out in the documentation, associated with the process. We will also have quarterly governance meetings with each of the accredited organisations and regular stocktakes with the practitioners.

The Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) inspections are different in practice but not necessarily in the legislation. In both the current and new legislation, the provision states that CJINI "may undertake" an inspection, and there is no obligation or requirement about when it will happen. Previously, it was prior to the accreditation of the organisations. Under the new process, it is intended that there will be an inspection by CJINI once the organisations and practitioners are operating. We are of the view that it is important that CJINI and the Department inspect and review the work of the practitioners and organisations once they are in place and operating, rather than through a one-off pre-accreditation check of an organisation's processes. The rationale behind that is the assurance that the process that we have put in place is robust and that we are getting the necessary assurances about the individuals who will provide the services. CJINI previously advised that it should not be seen as the last hurdle before accreditation. Rather, assurances about the process itself are needed. Our view is that CJINI's involvement in the reporting on the operation of the organisations and the practitioners is more appropriate when it has something to report on, and it can then advise the Department of any changes needed or processes that need to be tightened up. We hope that an initial inspection could commence during the second half of the three-year accreditation period. There would then be a follow-up or progress report during the second period of accreditation. From CJINI's perspective, the key thing in all that is that a risk-based approach be taken to all our inspections. Given that resources are limited, they must be effectively targeted as appropriately as possible and using a risk-based approach where deemed necessary.

That was a quick overview of the key elements of the new scheme. I know that the Committee has an interest in that CJINI aspect.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you very much for that, Veronica. I will get straight into questions. Some providers had a fear or concern at the start of the process, having been led to believe that level 3, which is the advanced level, might be unattainable for some or many applicants. That has not proved to be true —.

Dr Holland: No, that has not materialised. Of the 26 applications, six were granted level 1. Apologies if I get the figures the wrong way round, but I think that 11 were granted level 2, and nine were granted level 3. There was a good spread across the levels at which practitioners were accredited.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): A lot of practitioners who applied for level 3 were adjudged to fall into the level 2 category and were granted that level.

Dr Holland: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Does that suggest to you that there is a certain confidence in the robustness of the system?

Dr Holland: I cannot remember the exact numbers, but I think that six to eight people applied for a certain level of accreditation but were granted a lower level. That reflected the sense of what was demonstrated in the application form and whether it met that higher level. For the likes of those individuals, we expect that at least some of them will reapply after that first three-year period, and, in all likelihood, they should be able to gain that higher accreditation.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Where someone has fallen down a level, was that outcome based purely on their written application form? What made a difference?

Dr Holland: It was based on the evidence that was given through the application process. Applicants had to go through a number of aspects and demonstrate their experience and training. They had to demonstrate a range of other things, including their practice and a provisional case study, and show where they are at in their restorative practice and their skills, experience and expertise. The outcome was based on the written evidence that was provided as part of the application process.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Given that the evidence is written by the applicant, was there any way of independently verifying that information?

Dr Holland: As part of the process, the restorative justice protocol lead had a brief discussion with each individual and organisation. A couple of questions were asked to each practitioner. That was an additional part of the process.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Are you happy that that was robust enough?

Dr Holland: Looking back at the process, we would probably do some things differently the next time round. That is not necessarily because anything is amiss with the current process. It is more the case that we learned things that we would do differently in the application process and the training. We can refine the process to further improve it. As part of the process, we also want to get feedback and input from the practitioners by asking them, "You have gone through the process. Would you do anything differently, or would you want anything to be different in the training that was provided?". That will ensure that they can deliver the best service possible.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Everyone who applied was accredited to some level.

Dr Holland: One applicant was not, because they did not provide the follow-up information that the Department requested as part of the accreditation process. A number of applications were withdrawn. The main distinction between what was applied for and what was granted related to the level of accreditation. By and large, those who applied became accredited, though it was not necessarily to the level that they had asked for.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I am going off the table that the Department provided. When I read across all the lines and add up the number of applications, it seems that some level of accreditation was granted to every applicant.

Dr Holland: That case has possibly been noted in the table as having been withdrawn because the necessary information was not submitted, if that makes sense. Apologies if that is not clear in the table.

Ms Ferguson: No, it is not included.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): It is not included at all. Is level 1 a catch-all?

Dr Holland: Level 1, I suppose, is for those with a certain level of experience in this field. They are not necessarily dealing with criminal justice cases. There is an aspiration that they want to deal with those cases in due course. It is for them to take the initial step into dealing with cases before they reach the criminal justice threshold.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): You say in the paper:

What circumstances do you foresee?

Dr Holland: One example would be an individual who had been working with and then left one of the accredited organisations, whether Northern Ireland Alternatives, Community Restorative Justice Ireland (CRJI), Victim Support or whatever organisation it might be. Essentially, the accreditation is linked in with an organisation and the practitioner. If you are an accredited practitioner in an organisation and leave that organisation, you would no longer be accredited. If there were something that was giving us cause for concern with the practice of that individual, the accreditation could be reviewed and removed.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): How would you see that and know that?

Dr Holland: I suppose that, as part of this process and through the process with the protocol lead, as well as with the work that is being undertaken by the independent referral body through the Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI), there will be fairly regular engagement with the practitioners on how they are operating. A key element of that process will be to provide oversight, monitoring and quality assurance of the practice of those individuals. We expect to pick those things up as part of that process. Equally, things may be flagged with us by other practitioners or by criminal justice organisations that are partnering with those practitioners. There is probably a range of ways in which things would come to our attention.

Mr Kingston: Paul has covered some of my questions. Is every application made by an individual practitioner?

Dr Holland: There were, I think, 32 individual applications from practitioners and seven organisational applications. We ended up with seven accredited organisations and 26 accredited practitioners. Each of those will have been associated with an individual application for the individuals.

Mr Kingston: All the CRJI ones and Northern Ireland Alternatives previously operated restorative justice. Is that right?

Dr Holland: Previously, CRJI and Northern Ireland Alternatives were accredited organisations, and they had individuals working for them. They will not necessarily all be accredited as part of this process. A number of individuals were put forward for accreditation.

Mr Kingston: Are CRJ Derry and CRJI Newry/Armagh part of the same organisation or are they separate?

Ms Ferguson: They are different.

Dr Holland: They are three separate entities.

Mr Kingston: They are new.

Ms Ferguson: They are not new. CRJ has been operating in Derry for 20 years.

Mr Kingston: That is what I am asking. Is it part of the —?

Ms Ferguson: It is not part of CRJI, but they all work closely together.

Mr Kingston: Were CRJ Derry and CRJI Newry/Armagh existing practitioners? My question is about how many of these are new and did not have a contract before.

Dr Holland: The organisations that were previously accredited were Northern Ireland Alternatives and CRJI, which has a Belfast base but operates across Northern Ireland. My understanding is that there was a point since that original accreditation at which CRJ Derry and CRJI Newry/Armagh became separate entities in their own right.

Mr Kingston: They were originally part of that.

Dr Holland: They operated previously in undertaking restorative practice. It is not that they are new from the point of this process, if that makes sense.

Mr Kingston: New to it are Prison Fellowship NI, TIDES Training and Victim Support NI.

Dr Holland: Yes.

Mr Kingston: Can we be told who the individual applicants are?

Dr Holland: I do not think that there is an issue with that, given that the names will be published online in due course. Professor Tim Chapman, Sam White and Jim McGrath are the three individuals who are operating independently. As I said, all of the other accredited practitioners are associated with an organisation. The names of all of the individuals will be listed. We are waiting for one or two AccessNI checks to be completed. Once we have those, we will publish that list, and the names of all of those individuals will be available. We will share that with the Committee in due course.

Mr Kingston: This is my last question. Is there another stage to the contracting and tendering? Now that practitioners are accredited, are they, in effect, receiving a contract? Is it case-by-case funding or do they receive some core funding?

Dr Holland: We are very cognisant that, at the outset, we did not know what the uptake would be and what the numbers would look like, so, for the first year, we are making blanket provision. Well, it is not blanket provision, but we are giving each of the accredited practitioners an allocation of £10,000 a year for the cases that they undertake. We will probably review that at the end of the first 12 or 18 months to see what might be the most appropriate model. It may be that funding is given on a case-by-case basis at that stage, once we have a better sense of what the work entails in each case. That will be done by way of a grant agreement with the organisations and the three individual independent practitioners rather than a contract. In effect, it is a contract, but, in government terms, we refer to it as grant funding. That agreement will set out what we expect from them, what the key performance indicators are, how the work will be monitored and what we will want from them by way of quarterly and end-of-year progress reports.

Mr Kingston: In effect, they are now approved for a funding contract.

Dr Holland: Yes.

Ms Ferguson: I have a couple of wee things to ask on that. First, when I looked through the guidance on the practice, I saw that there is an organisation that is accredited only at level 1. It needs to be supervised by a level 2 or level 3 organisation. People can practice at level 1 without accreditation, but how are they assisted to move to level 2 or level 3 if they do not have someone in their organisation who is at level 2 or level 3 to supervise and stand over their work?

Dr Holland: I know what you mean. Prison Fellowship NI has level 1 practitioners but none at level 2. That will be looked at in the context of the types of work that they do. In all likelihood, it will be in the context of cases that are on the cusp of the criminal justice process and have not yet reached the formal process. Level-1 practitioners could be involved in those and have that work considered as part of the accreditation process.

Ms Ferguson: You will not have contracts with level 1 practitioners, will you?

Dr Holland: No. There are no contracts with level 1 practitioners.

Ms Ferguson: So there will be no money for level 1 practitioners.

Dr Holland: No. The funding is for level 2 and level 3 practitioners who are part of the restorative justice hub.

Ms Ferguson: Given the number of people who apply and the fact that there is very little money around to do the work anyway, it is a pilot programme at this stage. What percentage of people who have achieved accreditation are still in the system, compared with the number of people who are accredited in other ways through the Ireland programme? What percentage are now accredited through this process in comparison with the wider landscape of those who carry out restorative justice practice in the North? Have you any idea?

Dr Holland: I probably have the best sense of the number of practitioners in Northern Ireland Alternatives and CRJI, the folks who are Belfast-based but operate across Northern Ireland. I will hazard a guess — an estimate, at best — that, between those two organisations and the others, 15% to 20% of the workforce have been accredited. That guess is based on indicative numbers that we previously had for people who had been put forward for accreditation. Fewer people are accredited than unaccredited, but only accredited individuals will take forward the formal criminal justice system work that the Department will fund.

Ms Ferguson: I will go back to my previous question about independent applications. Imagine that I apply as an individual and get a level 3 accreditation, no bother, which means that I can go out and practise, do the work and take on contracts. Who oversees me, as an individual?

Dr Holland: There will be a key monitoring and quality assurance role for the protocol lead in relation to the work undertaken by independent practitioners and accredited organisations. There will also be scope for the protocol lead to do on-the-spot inspections — that is the wrong phrase, but the protocol lead can go out and see how the work is operating. We also intend to have group supervision, which will be undertaken monthly, and that will provide an opportunity to probe or tease out some of the concerns, issues or things that we think need to be looked into.

Ms Ferguson: You mentioned the protocol lead. She has now left the position. Is there an update on the recruitment?

Dr Holland: We have gone out to recruitment for that, and we have an individual who will, we hope, be in post at the start of June.

Ms Ferguson: Good. I have a final question. Brian asked a question regarding potential contracts. Did I get this right? Did you say £10k per practitioner?

Dr Holland: Yes. For argument's sake, if an organisation had three practitioners it would be —. I am sorry: I should provide clarification on that. Where the practitioner is independent, it will go to that individual. Where it is a practitioner in an organisation, it goes to that organisation. Therefore, if there were three accredited practitioners — for argument's sake — £30,000 would go to that organisation for the provision of the work.

Mr Kingston: For a year?

Dr Holland: Yes.

Ms Ferguson: Is that on the provision of so many cases, or timescales, or —? Is that just £10k? The organisation decides how many cases it takes on, or does it just have to take on every referral that it gets? What is it based on? Do you know?

Dr Holland: Again, for the first year, because we did not know what uptake was going to look like etc, that payment is made to the organisations, and they are to undertake the cases that are provided by the Department. It is cases that are allocated —.

Ms Ferguson: Can they refuse cases, because, "The £10k has run out and it is not covering my hours of work"? Are we looking for the goodwill of community organisations? I am quite passionate about this. Brian has worked in the community sector as well. If they are accredited to do the work, they need to be paid for the work that they are doing.

Dr Holland: Yes, I know what you mean.

Ms Ferguson: I can understand that it is a pilot, and it is early days, but if you are handing an organisation £10k, it needs to have the power to say, "The 10k has run out.". It could run out in two months, depending on the workload. I am trying to grapple with what —

Dr Holland: Yes, how we would deal with that situation. In the amount that we were given, we took into consideration the number of cases that we estimated would be coming through. For the cases that are being looked at, co-facilitations or two practitioners would be involved in a case, rather than a single individual. However, we reckoned that, over the course of the year, if the numbers were what we estimated, it would be in the region 12 to 15 cases. We may get fewer than that, or we may get slightly more. The key thing in all this is that we will have ongoing and continuing conversations with the organisations and the accredited practitioners generally on the operation of the scheme; how they think it is going; what is going well; what is going not so well; and what we need to refine. We are conscious of the need to ensure that there is close engagement and collaboration with the organisations and practitioners in taking this forward. The protocol-lead post is critical to that.

Ms Ferguson: I just want to raise it. It is critical, particularly when you are doing the quarterly returns, that you are looking at the intensive hours of work. I know that the CRJ does fantastic work in Derry. That is sometimes morning, noon and night, mediation and facilitation. It is such valuable work, but it is time-intensive, and it is early. You are basing this on 12 or 15 cases, but I am conscious that some may be a few hours, but others can be really intensive work. Therefore I want to ensure full cost recovery and value for the work that they do. I just want to highlight it. I understand that it is a pilot, but I want to raise it.

Dr Holland: Yes. We are keen, in that first year, to get a sense from the organisations of the range of hours involved in these cases. The other thing that it would be helpful to flag for the Committee is that this process is different from what they currently do. Currently, the engagement that they have with individuals could be wide-ranging and varied in the criminal justice cases because the focus on the process is around that restorative justice conference, essentially bringing the two parties together and trying to identify the issues that they want to go through to see what kind of outcomes they want from that process. The focus is very much on the preparation for that restorative justice conference, getting them ready for it and the monitoring of the agreement after that. It is probably going to be a slightly different —. There is a different boundary, in what they will be involved in for this process, as opposed to if an individual were to come to their office and ask for assistance on something. This is very much focused on the particular incident that has occurred and working towards the meeting of the two individuals.

Ms Ferguson: Your answer to that has caused me concern.

Dr Holland: I apologise.

Ms Ferguson: I am concerned by what you said about stricter boundaries. You do not want a process that is so tied down administratively that it loses the hours of work — the extra that always needs to be done so that things are done effectively for the victim and the individual.

Dr Holland: Yes. I apologise; that certainly was not my intention. There will be a robust process in place in order to make sure that the two parties are ready to go through the engagement. Ultimately, everything is geared towards bringing those two individuals together — obviously, where both parties consent to that — in order to have that discussion and go through what has happened, what harm was caused and what we can do to address that. There is a slightly different focus from what you would have in the range of engagements that organisations would currently undertake with individuals when they are dealing with them. By no means is it intended to curtail the engagement with them, and it will go through at their pace.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you, Veronica.

Dr Holland: No problem.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. No other members have indicated that they want to ask a question. Thank you very much for your time, Veronica.

Dr Holland: No problem. Thank you for your time; it is much appreciated, as always.