Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I welcome from the Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI) Amanda Stewart, its chief executive; Gillian Montgomery, its director of operations for community and courts; and Stephen Hamilton, its director of operations for prisons, programmes and public protection. Thank you very much for your attendance at the Committee. Do you have an opening statement to make?

Ms Amanda Stewart (Probation Board for Northern Ireland): We do indeed. Chair and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland to discuss the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill.

We welcome the Bill, which represents a much-needed and significant reform of sentencing and is an important step forward in enhancing the transparency, understanding and effectiveness of sentencing in Northern Ireland. Sentencing is a particularly complex area of the justice system and one that rightly attracts a high degree of media commentary and public scrutiny. We are hopeful that the Bill will enhance public understanding of and confidence in the sentencing process and the wider justice system. A central aspect of the Probation Board's role is to supervise community sentences. Public understanding of probation is therefore intrinsically linked to public perceptions and understanding of sentencing, particularly sentences served in the community.

In the UK, the House of Commons Select Committee on Justice's inquiry into public opinion and understanding of sentencing in 2023 commissioned a public polling exercise in which 2,057 adults in England and Wales were asked about their knowledge of and views on sentencing. The subsequent report referenced frustrations with media reporting and perceptions of community sentencing, including over the use of phrases such as "walked free from court" in reporting on community sentences. A subsequent House of Lords report on community sentences also pointed to evidence that it had received that there is a public perception that anything other than a custodial sentence is not an adequate response to an offence and that that is often linked to a lack of understanding of the different types of sentence options.

There is a tendency to talk about the need for tougher sentencing to ensure that people are kept safe, but it is also important to talk about what effective sentencing looks like. Community sentencing can be effective and can prevent reoffending, reduce the number of people coming into the justice system, reduce the number of victims of crime and keep communities safer. We therefore welcome the opportunity to have a wider public conversation about sentencing, its purposes and how we can achieve smarter and more effective justice that has victims at its heart.

On the principles and purposes of sentencing, we support the articulation of proportionality, fairness and transparency as core guiding principles. Having clear statutory principles can support consistency and enhance public confidence, while, importantly, still allowing judicial discretion to respond to individual circumstances before the courts. We note and concur with the principles of punishment, protection of the public, deterrence, rehabilitation and reparation. We contend that those principles are not mutually exclusive. For example, community sentences, such as community service, enhanced combinations orders (ECOs) and probation orders, can be rehabilitative and punishing, can enable people to give back for the harm caused and can also protect the public by preventing there being further victims. I have heard service users on such orders talk about how challenging it can be to confront their distorted thinking and attitudes and how demanding it can be to make reparation through unpaid work. Although there may be a perception of judicial leniency, the experience of those on probation is that the impact of being on supervision can have far-reaching consequences when it comes to the challenges that they face.

The area of the Bill that is most relevant to the PBNI relates to suspended sentence orders (SSOs), and we are supportive of their introduction. There is persuasive evidence that non-custodial sentences are, in certain circumstances, more effective than short custodial sentences in promoting rehabilitation, reducing reoffending and driving down crime. To be truly effective, however, SSOs must, in our view, be used proportionately and targeted at cases that would otherwise result in custody, rather than what we refer to as a widening of the net or supervision increases without a corresponding reduction in custody. For SSOs to be effective in rehabilitating people, they need to be properly resourced, targeted at the right cases and supported by a full range of interventions. Without that happening, their benefits will not be realised.

The introduction of SSOs carries significant resource implications for the PBNI. The imposition of SSOs requires the allocation of additional staffing to ensure effective implementation, monitoring and enforcement, and we welcome the Department's recognition of that. The Bill can deliver safer communities and reduce reoffending but only if the resources match that ambition. Under-resourcing risks undermining public confidence and the effectiveness of the reforms. It is positive that the provision on SSOs will not take effect immediately, and that provides us with an opportunity to prepare and plan for the legislation's implementation.

The PBNI welcomes the introduction of the new offence of assault on a person who is delivering a public service or performing a public duty. Our staff are dedicated and committed public servants who go above and beyond to support some of the most marginalised people. They do, however, also have a clear role to play in holding people to account and in taking enforcement action. That often places them in precarious situations. Many of the service users whom we work with present with challenging behaviours and complex needs. Twenty-four incidents of violence against probation staff were reported last year. Any incident or threat of violence against probation staff is unacceptable, and we therefore welcome the new offence.

More broadly, the PBNI recognises and supports the measures in the Bill that are aimed at improving effectiveness and public confidence, including the provisions that relate to unduly lenient sentences and that put a greater focus on victims and their families.

As an organisation, we are committed to delivering services in a trauma-informed manner, which, we know, will improve outcomes for those whom we work with and their families and for victims throughout Northern Ireland. Everything that probation staff do is done to prevent people becoming victims of crime, thus making the community safer, so we welcome the fact that victims of crime and their families and representatives have been integral to the Bill's development. It is essential that all justice organisations, including the probation service, listen carefully to the experiences of victims and survivors and adapt their services to be responsive to victims' needs.

There will undoubtedly be challenges in the time ahead, particularly in ensuring that the gap between probation resources and the requirements of the Bill is reconciled. Without adequate resourcing and the right investment to support the reforms, there is a danger that they will collapse public confidence in the probation service and in the wider justice system.

The PBNI supports the Bill's ambitions, but delivery is contingent on adequate resourcing. If the Committee wishes the reforms to succeed, the key issue for it should be not just what the legislation states but whether the system is resourced to deliver it in practice.

Finally, I acknowledge the support and interest of the members of the Committee, whom my staff and I have met in the past number of years. Probation is a less well understood area of the justice system. We are, however, doing significant work to raise awareness and understanding, including having worked with DoubleBand Films to develop 'Carl Frampton: On Probation'. That documentary tells the story of a number of people who are subject to community sentences. Importantly, the final episode tells the story of a victim who has registered with the PBNI's victim information scheme. We hope that the documentary, which first aired this week on BBC Northern Ireland, will initiate a conversation in wider society about how people are rehabilitated and resettled, how we ensure that victims' voices are heard and how we work together to make communities throughout Northern Ireland safer.

Your interest in our work is incredibly important to us. We thank you for the opportunity to be here today and look forward to ongoing engagement with members in the coming months.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you very much, Amanda, and also for being so concise in your presentation. I do not get to watch a lot of TV, but I made a point of watching the first episode of the Carl Frampton series about the Probation Board. I congratulate you on that series and on the work that your staff do daily. I know that is very challenging.

Ms Stewart: Thank you, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I will now bring in members.

Mr Kingston: Thank you for your attendance and for your information. Part 2 of the Bill, which is on suspended sentences, is comprehensive. We sometimes have Bills that just amend previous legislation, but this Bill reads as though it is creating something. Suspended sentences already exist, however. Is the legislation therefore about bringing everything together? Will you summarise the main differences that the Bill will make?

Ms Stewart: The Bill enhances what is in place already for the custody element. The custody element will be deferred. The Bill's intent is to create the possibility of including in the suspended sentence order, where appropriate, additional requirements, such as community service or probation supervision. That order very much mirrors some of the community orders that we already have, but, with a view to being more rehabilitative, the Bill provides the judiciary with an additional tool to respond to the specific risks that somebody might pose and the specific needs that they might have, thereby resulting in their perhaps avoiding custody. At the minute, the only real deterrent in a suspended sentence is the custody element, whereas the Bill adds some of the work that we do to support people, rehabilitate them and reintegrate them in order to address the root causes of the offending behaviour.

Mr Kingston: OK. You have probably answered my second question. My recollection is that, when someone gets a suspended sentence, it is currently just that. Sometimes, people get community hours. They have to make recompense and show that they are changing their ways. Currently, suspended sentences tend not to have any community element to them. The Bill therefore provides an opportunity to combine the two.

Ms Stewart: The Bill introduces community requirements, which can be anything from what is already in existence, perhaps a probation order or what is referred to as an enhanced combination order, which is probably the closest order to the suspended sentence order. It has the punishment elements of it such as having to do unpaid work and having to have probation supervision. If there is an addiction issue, it allows for treatment. In fairness — this is where the resourcing issue comes in — the more that you build up an order, the greater the risk is that the person cannot fulfil it, and it then becomes a problem for us when it comes to cost. For an accounting officer, every time that something is added, the cost increases. That is where some of the challenges arise with costing it. If it is just unpaid work through doing community service, that is at the lower cost end. Once probation supervision by a probation officer starts to be added, the cost increases.

Mr Stephen Hamilton (Probation Board for Northern Ireland): I will add one thing to what you said, Amanda. In our engagement with the judiciary, we are often told that, where there is an offence in front of it — for example, domestic abuse — that, in the sentencing judge's mind, does not quite meet the custody threshold, the Bill will provide an option that is not available to the judge at the minute. The district judge or Crown Court judge who is sentencing could well want treatment needs to be addressed. At the minute, other than custody, the only option that is available to them for that is a probation order. Some judges want to sentence in such a way that there is something hanging over the offender's head, which is what a suspended sentence is currently, but there is nothing that combines the two in order to have something hanging over somebody's head as well as having targeted work done by a probation officer to address whatever the offending-related needs are. I believe that the judiciary will use that, because, quite often, it tells us that it is a missing item on the menu that is currently available to it.

Mr Kingston: When you say "treatment", could that be anger management treatment or —?

Mr Hamilton: Exactly, or it could deal with attitudes, addiction-related issues or other issues that are leading people into offending.

Ms Gillian Montgomery (Probation Board for Northern Ireland): There is also the potential to add a mental health treatment requirement to the orders under the additional requirements that will be available under the Bill. A suspended sentence order therefore makes the sentence much more robust. The individual can also be held much more accountable for their behaviour as a result of there being that deterrent effect, because, should they reoffend, the custodial element of the sentence can be activated.

Mr Kingston: Giving them help becomes part of the sentence.

Ms Montgomery: Yes.

Mr Kingston: It is for their own good.

Currently, when someone gets a suspended sentence, does that become a case for you or not? You mentioned resources. I imagine that a lot more cases will come to you. I do not know whether you have seen that paragraph 90 of the Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum states:

Do you have any comment to make about that?

Ms Stewart: I would challenge that assumption. In fairness, the Department did, I think, recognise in the memorandum that there will be additional resource requirements for probation, specifically for SSOs. We will absolutely be up for having the conversations with the Department on what those resource requirements are likely to be. We believe that the costs that were presented are probably at the lower end: between £3 million and £6 million. For example, the number of suspended sentences that are currently given out a year, in which we do not have any involvement at the minute, stands at around 4,000.

As an organisation, we have 4,000 community orders. We have a budget of just over £23 million for that work. If all those orders were to receive a supervision element and all the additional requirements that go with that, our workload would in effect double. We would go from having responsibility for 4,000 people today to having responsibility for 8,000.

Mr Kingston: Is it correct that there is no suspended sentence with a community sentence currently?

Ms Stewart: That is correct.

Mr Kingston: Right.

Ms Stewart: It will be additional work for us.

Mr Kingston: Currently, the two types of order represent two different outcomes, but the Bill provides the opportunity to combine them.

Ms Stewart: Yes.

Mr Kingston: Thank you.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Amanda, Gillian and Stephen. It is always good to have you here to talk to you. I met you last month, and it was a really useful meeting, so thank you again. You will know that I am a fan of our Probation Board, but it is always good to challenge you as well.

Amanda, at the start, you talked about the perception being that a community sentence is the easy way out. I would argue that it is not that there is a perception but that there is a lack of public confidence, because people do not understand the judgement. In other words, they do not understand what the judge is doing, because there is no consistency among judges. There is too much leeway for judges to choose to do as they wish.

How can we improve judges' consistency? Moreover, how can we improve public knowledge so that people have more confidence in the likes of community sentencing through understanding it better?

Ms Stewart: I absolutely agree with you. I do think that there is public misunderstanding of what it means when somebody gets a probation order. As I said in my opening comments, there are tight requirements. I often read in newspapers that people "got off", but, if you were to ask anybody who is on probation, particularly if they are being managed tightly and robustly by a probation officer, are being held to account for what they did and have to go out and do unpaid work on a Saturday, they would not say that they had got off. That is the point that I was trying to make.

There is a really important role to be played in building community confidence. That is why we welcome the Bill's introduction. The main reason that we did the 'Carl Frampton: On Probation' documentary was to allow the public to see some of the complexity of the people involved and the difference that can be made when somebody's risks and needs are addressed in a community. I would be the first to say that our organisation is clear with the judiciary when we feel that we cannot manage or supervise somebody in the community because the risk is too great. That is the real risk to public confidence. In the pre-sentence report to the court, we will absolutely say, "We can't manage the risk of this individual. We therefore recommend a custodial sentence".

Achieving consistency is really difficult. It is part of the challenge that came up previously about the different requirements. We very much work with people on the basis of their individual risks and needs. When a probation officer meets somebody to whom a judge is likely to be minded to give a custodial sentence and prepares a pre-sentence report, that is very much an individual report. I was trying to explain this on 'Talkback' with William Crawley earlier in the week: I may commit the same offence as you, but a judge will take several things into consideration. That forms part of what our staff are doing with the judiciary. They look at the particular offence, at the victim and at the person who committed the offence, and they then make an assessment of risk and need. That may mean that the sentencing process has a different outcome, because a judge has to take all of that into consideration, as well as a range of other factors. That is why, as an organisation, we say that we support judicial discretion. We think, however, that there is a real need for transparency and for discussion on some of the issues so that the wider public can begin to understand the process more and have confidence when they hear that someone has received a community sentence.

Mr Beattie: I do not disagree with you, Amanda. In many ways, it is a real concern that people do not understand what is happening and that all they see is inconsistency among judges when sentencing for the same offences. People will hate me for continuing to talk about it, but that is why I have pushed for there to be a sentencing council for Northern Ireland.

You mentioned unduly lenient sentences, and you welcomed the move to strengthen sentencing. That still does not apply to the Magistrates' Court, however. Somebody can get two years in the Crown Court for non-fatal strangulation, and it can be challenged as an unduly lenient sentence, but if the same individual were to appear before the Magistrates' Court for the same offence, it could not be challenged. What do you feel about that?

Ms Montgomery: I will come in on that question. There is no doubt that it is a challenge. We accept that the volume of cases going through the Magistrates' Court is part of the challenge, and introducing that aspect of unduly lenient sentencing there could choke the system very quickly. Moreover, in the main, the Magistrates' Court deals with less serious offences, and the sentences should not be as severe as those in the Crown Court. We, however, support looking at having some ability to move domestic abuse cases to the Crown Court from the Magistrates' Court. That would allow for some of the provisions in the Bill to address some of the concerns that exist about unduly lenient sentences.

Mr Beattie: Thank you for that answer, Gillian. Again, I cannot disagree with you. I do disagree, however, that doing that would choke the system in the Magistrates' Court, because there are not that many claims about unduly lenient sentences being handed down there, and that is the case in the Crown Court as well. The problem is that offences such as non-fatal strangulation are, as a result of legislation, allowed to be heard in either the Magistrates' Court or the Crown Court. It is a serious offence, and the sentence should be challenged if it is unduly lenient.

You answered my question well, and if we can move to making sure that the serious cases are heard in the Crown Court, that may alleviate the problem. My concern is that there is nothing in the Bill as drafted to do that, so those offences will still go to those courts.

I have one final question. Gillian, I have spoken to you about the victim information scheme before. Currently, everybody gets the information pretrial without any hassle, but as soon as the case is over, victims get dropped like a hot potato, and they then have to apply to the victim information scheme. Surely they are victims before the trial, during the trial and after the trial. There should therefore be one system in which people should automatically be included unless they have said otherwise. What are your thoughts on that?

Ms Montgomery: We have spoken about the victim information scheme on numerous occasions. As you have said, at the point of sentencing, current legislation states that the victim must opt in to the victim information scheme. Any change to that will require legislation. Anything that allows victims access to information has to be welcomed, but the matter has to be addressed quite sensitively and balanced against the needs of victims. Some victims, for whatever reason, may have missed an opportunity to opt in and receive the information. Victims' voices and their needs should be at the centre of any decision that is taken. There are victims who do not want to receive information and instead want to leave that part of their life behind, so the system should not retraumatise a victim by sending them information when they do not want it. It is therefore about putting the needs of the victim at the centre, but we will support anything that increases the accessibility of information for victims.

Mr Beattie: I do not want to hold you to this one, Gillian, but you know what I am going to ask you now. What do you think? Should it be an opt-out scheme or an opt-in scheme? They both have their problems, of course, but, at least, with an opt-out scheme, everybody gets the information until they decide that they no longer want it, and, then, they can opt out, whereas, at the moment, they are just forgotten about, post-trial. They have to literally opt themselves in. By that stage, it may well be too late. What is your preferred option here: an opt-out scheme or an opt-in scheme?

Ms Montgomery: There are certainly advantages to an opt-out scheme. The only slight challenge that I would make back is to say that victims are contacted and told that they are entitled to information. There may be a perception among some people that victims are forgotten, whereas they are contacted. However, I absolutely accept that, at the time of receiving that contact, they may not be in a position to make the best decision on what they will want three, four or five years down the line. There is no doubt that there are huge advantages to an opt-out scheme.

Mr Beattie: We have so many victim information schemes that are done by the Probation Board, the PSNI and DOJ. We replicate an awful lot of it. If we had one simple system that went with the victim all the way through, I think —. Listen, thank you very much.

Ms Egan: Thank you, all, for coming in today to discuss this issue. Brian touched on what I really wanted to ask about: the resourcing issues that you expect to experience with the proposed suspended sentencing legislation. I would like to hear more of your thoughts on that. You cited figures on the number of cases that you might have. I am also keen to hear whether you have engaged with the Department on your views. Did you engage with the Department when the Bill was being drafted?

Ms Stewart: I will answer and then ask my two colleagues to come in on the engagement, because I was not involved in that.

On costs, there is a divergence between what we have presented in our submission and what you have received from the Department. That is largely because we have probably done more work on what community supervision would look like, given all the additionality. The Department gave a unit cost, which was probably a good starter. We have built that up to what supervision would look like. The key to the provision is that it depends on judicial uptake. There are 4,000 suspended sentences at the minute. Based on the roll-out of enhanced combination orders, we do not have a sense that, when you make a new order available in a court area, you get a swell of those orders flowing through the Probation Board. It is, to some extent, manageable through implementation. The Department has referred to doing some work with us on modelling. We have not got into the detail with the Department. It is very early days in understanding what the specifics would be.

If I could give one message here today, it is that costs increase significantly when supervision is required — the costs are up to three times higher than they are for a basic community order. That said, there will be cases where supervision is absolutely important — where it is a key part of managing the risks of the individual and where that is the right order — and we should not shy away from that. However, a number of suspended sentences will just continue as they are at the minute, as a deterrent against further offending. There is a really important role for us in the guidance that we give to our staff and the guidance that we give through the pre-sentence report process with the judiciary: we must make sure that, when we recommend that additionality, we do so on the basis of risk and need assessment; that it is really robust; and that the judiciary understands that.

On judicial discretion and consistency, which we talked about earlier, we, as an organisation, do as much of that work as we can through the Judicial Studies Board. Gillian and Stephen have often gone and given presentations to and had discussions with judges, particularly around sentencing options and things that would potentially make that process better. At a local level, the relationship between the area manager in the Probation Board offices and the local judge is critical to understanding the extent of what is available.

I will ask Gillian to respond to the question on engagement, because she engaged on costs with the Department at a very high level.

Ms Montgomery: We have engaged with the Department. That engagement has not gone into the detail of breakdown of cost per order, but there has been engagement with the Department at various stages throughout the options being considered. At one stage, options other than suspended sentence orders were considered. At that point, we liaised quite closely with the Department and colleagues on different options that were available. There has been engagement throughout. There is still finer detail that needs to be worked through, but that process remains ongoing.

Mr Hamilton: We believe that this is at the top end of community-based sentencing with regard to the seriousness and the type of individual who will receive such a sentence. I refer back to the comment that I made to Brian. There could be quite serious cases that are subject to a suspended sentence order, where there are a number of additional requirements, such as residence, the various treatments and an offending behaviour programme, which is high-resource in that it requires group facilitators, training and so on. Since we believe that the orders will be at the top end of seriousness in the community and are an additional tool for sentencers in that space, they are not likely, in our view, to be low intensity or "low dosage" in terms of the intervention and resource that is required.

Ms Egan: Thank you. That was comprehensive. It is positive to hear that you have had that engagement with the Department. It is important that organisations such as yours can have input in the shaping of the legislation.

Is there anything that is not in the Bill that you think would have been worthwhile including?

Ms Stewart: We had that discussion. It is not in our submission, so we might take the opportunity to write to the Committee on that, Chair. I will refer to two issues that have come up. One of the issues that we have discussed relates to the option to opt in or opt out of the victim information scheme. The other is on the presumption against short sentences. I will get Stephen to talk about those matters. In many ways, that is key to the provision of suspended sentence orders, so there may be an opportunity to look at that as part of the review of sentencing that the Minister commissioned earlier in the year. We will certainly write to the Committee to provide more detail, but I will ask Stephen to give a bit of an overview of that.

Mr Hamilton: The policy intent of an SSO is not to replace short prison sentences, but it is pretty likely that some people who would otherwise have got a short prison sentence will get an SSO. The reason for that, which is no criticism of our hard-working colleagues in the Prison Service, is that a short prison sentence does not allow time for any meaningful impact to be made on someone's treatment needs, to use that term again — it does not allow time to address the factors that led to their offending. That is the space that the enhanced combination order fits into. That initiative was led by the then Lord Chief Justice to provide the judiciary with a purely non-legislative option that would enable it to consider a community-based sentence in lieu of a short prison sentence. That has been highly effective, as evidenced by the reoffending rates. You might say, "You would say that", but it actually is evidenced by the reoffending rates. Again, this is no criticism whatsoever of the Prison Service, but the reoffending rates in cases of short prison sentences are high. If a statistician were in the room, they would not allow me to compare the rates directly, and I am not doing that, but the fact is that enhanced combination orders and community-based sentences result in a much lower reoffending rate — less than half. That is why we, as an organisation, support the option of an additional enhanced community-based sentence so that it is not just in the soft/hard space but is in the effective space. That is what we all want to achieve collectively, so that there will be fewer victims.

Ms Egan: Thank you so much. I think that the Committee will all agree that it would be helpful if you wrote to us on that.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I second that.

Mr McGlone: I will be brief. Will you talk me through the SSO process as you see it, including the pinch points and what extra resource you would require?

Ms Stewart: There are 4,000 suspended sentences in Northern Ireland. At the minute, we have no involvement in those. The Bill proposes to add to those sentences. At the minute, all that a suspended sentence is is a deterrent against further offending. A person comes out of court and thinks, "I have to keep my head and keep out of trouble for x period of time". The change is that the Bill will create potential community requirements. That is referred to as a community sentence. It could be, for example, unpaid work, which is at the lower end. It could be a requirement to carry out between 60 and 240 hours of unpaid work.

Mr Hamilton: Forty and 240 hours.

Ms Stewart: Sorry, I got that wrong. Between 40 and 240 hours. That would be at the lower end of it. That would just require the community service element to be done. That is really effective because it is somebody giving back to the community and learning new skills. That part of our work is very visible in local communities through community groups. That starts to become more expensive if there is a requirement for probation supervision. The involvement of a probation officer increases the costs. If that community requirement requires probation supervision, the cost potentially increases from £1,000 to £4,500.

Mr McGlone: Who makes that a stipulation? Is it the court?

Ms Stewart: The court. The decision would be based on the advice that we give to the court in our pre-sentence report. As I said, we, as an organisation, have a job of work to do to make sure that our staff understand. There is a tendency to look at somebody who comes before you and think, "Gosh, they would really benefit from oversight of a probation officer for a few months". We found that even with ECOs. Our staff like to be able to help people. Our staff are social workers and they want to do the very best by people, but we cannot bring into the system people who should not really be in the system and who should have got a lower-end disposal. That is why we need to be clear in the guidance that we give to the court.

Mr McGlone: Taking that a step further, the more cases in which the court stipulates that there is a supervision requirement, the more social workers or social worker hours will be required.

Ms Stewart: Yes.

Mr McGlone: That brings us back to what we heard the Minister talking about this morning: the requirement for more money and investment, which does not magic out of the air. This proposal has consequences.

Mr Hamilton: To make it real: a probation officer can manage between 25 and 30 cases; that is a full caseload for a full-time probation officer. Whilst we do not believe that 4,000 SSOs will be made, if 90 are made, that is three probation officers who have to be paid for.

Mr McGlone: I would like to drill down on this, with the Chair's forbearance. Managing someone is one thing, but supervising them may be something completely different.

Mr Hamilton: We use the terms interchangeably. We risk-manage someone. For a domestic abuser, for example, we make sure that their work plan requires them to tell us if they enter a new relationship, to live where we require them to live, to undertake treatment etc; "You must, you must, you must". That is the risk management plan, which is managed by a probation officer. Supervision is the task that they do in seeing that person every week, twice a week or whatever it is. In a way, those are just two different ways of saying the same thing.

Mr McGlone: The more that you have to do, however, the more resource you need.

Mr Hamilton: That is right.

Ms Stewart: While I am making a case for resources for probation, some of what we are able to do is dependent on resources being available in the community. We talk about the need for somebody to be stable before we can start the risk-reduction work. That means that they need to have stable accommodation, mental health provision and addiction provision, so there is a system-wide implication. Those are not directly within our gift, but they are important with regard to the risk.

Mr McGlone: Thank you for that. I had not even thought of that context. With less investment or more cutbacks in those areas, you will not be able to fulfil the entire task that you set about to fulfil.

Ms Stewart: It just becomes a greater wrap-around service. The evidence already suggests that community sentences fare really well. That is largely because people are supported and held accountable. Community sentences work. We, as an organisation, say that we do not need to pilot those. All of the evidence, including on reoffending rates and from the pilots that we have done, suggests that. I have been to the Public Accounts Committee to talk about ECOs. Those are effective, but they require additional public services. We, as an organisation, are based in local communities. We supervise people for a maximum of three years. They are then rehabilitated into communities. The support from the community and voluntary sector (CVS) is really important as regards the additionality; it provides wrap-around support and meets need when we, as a statutory body, are not there.

Mr McGlone: OK. Thanks very much.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Do probation officers work with somebody for only three years? What about the Public Protection Arrangements Northern Ireland (PPANI)?

Ms Montgomery: The maximum for a community order is three years. In a probation order, a combination order or, indeed, a suspended sentence order, we work with somebody for a maximum of three years. For somebody who has been in custody, that period could be longer — licences can be for longer than three years — but community orders are for three years.

Mr Hamilton: On PPANI specifically, we are the designated risk manager, as it is called, for a person for as long as we are involved with them. When our involvement ends, that role transfers to the PSNI. The person remains subject to the arrangements.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): So, it could be for longer than three years.

Mr Hamilton: Absolutely.

Ms Sheerin: Thanks to you all for coming in. In the briefing paper, you express support for the introduction of the new offence of assaulting a public worker. We have had conversations in Committee about what exactly that would look like, when the threshold would be met and where it would stop in respect of who is classified as a "public worker". We received correspondence from the Department that stated that the new offence is unlikely to result in additional convictions, as it would replace an existing offence. The data tells us that, oftentimes, the threat of an extended sentence or of repercussions can be just as effective in reducing crime statistics. Is it your perception that that will be effective in reducing offences against public workers because it will be in people's minds that they will incur additional sentencing?

Ms Montgomery: Yes, that is where we perceive that that will be effective. It is important to say that assaults against public workers are unacceptable. Anybody who is carrying out their public role should not be assaulted. It is about the deterrent effect for people. If they think that they will receive a higher sentence because they have assaulted somebody, that will, hopefully, have an impact. It is a challenging one to work with because of the confines and how far the definition of "public worker" goes. We absolutely accept that, but we hope that that sentence will have a deterrent effect.

Ms Sheerin: I think that we all agree. You referred to the fact that some of your staff have been assaulted. Nobody should be in danger in their place of work: we can all get behind that. However, it is about the ramifications of that, and how it works in practice.

What are your views on the elements of the Bill that aim to increase custodial sentences? The pressure on resource has been talked about. What impact do you think that that will have on rehabilitation and reducing reoffending?

Mr Hamilton: You are absolutely right: various aspects of the Bill that aim to increase sentences, whether to do with driving, life sentence minimum tariffs or whatever. I do not want to misquote the research, but it is quite weak on the length of sentence being the thing that prevents people from committing offences, particularly driving offences, where, presumably, such things were not intentional. However, I completely understand all the lobbying and the reason for that being done: it is because of the unbelievable impact on families after such a thing happens. So, in that sense, we neither support it nor do not support it; it is a matter for judicial discretion. It is there. Do I think that it will deter people from speeding or whatever? From the research, the jury is out on that.

Ms Sheerin: OK. Thanks.

Ms Ferguson: I want to go back, Amanda, to your briefing at the start. You mentioned risk and needs, focusing on the offence, the victim and the individual. In your report to the judge, you said that there are areas that you just cannot manage. What are the key areas that, currently, the Probation Board cannot manage?

Ms Stewart: I will ask Gillian to give you an example, because she is the lead with the courts. Gillian, it would be useful, without talking about specific cases, to give an example of where a judge has given one thing and we have gone back and asked for that to be changed.

Ms Montgomery: It is not that there are particular things that we, as an organisation, say that we cannot manage. It is, say, if an individual is refusing to engage with us or their behaviour was not changing. That is all done case by case. There are no cases or areas that we do not work on or say that we cannot manage; it is very much case by case. In our pre-sentence reports, based on an accredited risk-assessment tool, we highlight all of the risk factors and needs that the individual presents. We may, in exceptional circumstances, say that the individual is unlikely to work with us or is refusing to work with us and, therefore, we cannot manage the risk; or that somebody on a community order is not engaging or attending their appointments and, therefore, we are unable to address their offending needs.

As Amanda outlined, there have been occasions when we have written reports for a court and an individual has been sentenced, but one of the additional requirements that we have asked for has not been given. We are then able to go back to the court, and we have done so on occasion. In one relatively recent example, we had asked for a domestic abuse programme to be attached to an individual's order, and that was not done. Without that, we felt that we could not manage the risk, because they were not going to address the specific need that was one of the key risks. We went back to the court and, through communication with the court, the order was amended to add that requirement. That meant that we were able to work with the individual much more safely in the community, with that constant focus on public protection and risk management as well as rehabilitation.

Ms Ferguson: I am conscious that you have to do a risk assessment for the victim, but has a collective analysis been done — you say that it is done case by case — on the needs of the individual? I think of the individual, because we are well aware, from reports, that at least 50% of the people who are in the prison system should not be. That has a lot to do with addiction, mental health issues and neurodiversity, and I am gravely concerned about neurodiversity in that regard. Is there a trend across the cases? I know that it is done case by case, but is there an area of unmet need in relation to the support that can be provided through probation, community sentencing orders or whatever?

Ms Montgomery: There are some issues that we see much more. Accommodation is one of those; absolutely. Neurodiversity, as you have raised, is another. We will put in place a wrap-around package based on the individual needs of the person, but we see accommodation and addiction needs continuing to be a feature. We see neurodiversity coming through in our caseload much more than we did a number of years ago.

Ms Ferguson: Is any work ongoing to assist the Probation Board etc in those key areas?

Ms Stewart: I will give you an example. One of the problem-solving justice initiatives is the substance misuse court. Often, the addiction is the cause of the offending. The whole purpose of the substance misuse court is to deal with the addiction problems to start with. It is a brilliant example of judicial involvement the whole way through the process. It is nearly a deferred sentence, but you are actually dealing with the cause of the crime, and you have judicial oversight and probation oversight. That is a superb example of how, when you meet somebody's needs, you can make a difference to reoffending and rehabilitation. We are really supportive of those types of orders, as long as the resource is there. We cannot do it without the resource.

Ms Ferguson: Stephen, you set out the work plan for probation officers. They say, "You must, you must, you must". In any of those "musts" for an individual, are there areas that you, in probation, just cannot access?

You mentioned that a lot of the cases could be at the high end of the scale of seriousness, which concerned me. Are there any key areas where the support that is needed is not there?

Mr Hamilton: The biggest one by a country mile is accommodation. There is a general lack of available accommodation, which we all know, but — this is where it comes into our world — emergency temporary accommodation specifically is not available anywhere outside Belfast. People queue at 5.00 pm to get that which is available, so we are requiring individuals, who might be relatively risky, to be in a queue. Sometimes, often through no fault of their own, they do not get accommodation. Even if they get a bed, their circumstances will not be ideal for the management of anybody's risk. We constantly raise the whole issue of service user instability and lack of accommodation. We are going into a space in which, within our budget, we will have to procure emergency bed availability, albeit very limited, that, outwith the Department for Communities and the Housing Executive, we can utilise to provide access to an emergency bed for one or two nights. It is a really pertinent issue and, by far, the biggest one.

Ms Ferguson: I have a final question. I see great work in the community and voluntary sector in particular when it comes to unpaid work orders. What engagement has there been with the CVS on orders in lower-level cases? What is the current set-up? What support is given to the CVS? Such orders are valuable. As you said, they have been really successful, which is great to see, because that means that people are reintegrated into their own community and that they have role models and peer support. What engagement has there been with the CVS? Will there be barriers to strengthening the sector, given that we all know the pressures that it is under?

Ms Stewart: I will set the context and then ask Gillian and Stephen to give specific examples. I am a huge advocate of the role of the community and voluntary sector; that was what attracted me to probation. We see that role becoming less sustainable, however, because, with one-year budgets, it has no certainty from one year to the next. As I have often said and been quoted as saying — it is absolutely my belief — I do not necessarily want to grow probation. What I would love to grow is the CVS support around it, such as the fantastic work that is done by NIACRO, Alternatives, Community Restorative Justice Ireland (CRJI), Extern and all the other bodies that provide wrap-around support in that space. I will ask Gillian and Stephen to give you examples of such work. It is nowhere near where I want it to be, because reducing budgets make things more difficult and a yearly budget does not lend itself to that work.

Ms Ferguson: Before you give examples, what is the current set-up? If there is a payment to the CVS, what is it and how is it set up?

Mr Hamilton: We have a long-standing partnership with NIACRO, and we fund it for certain things in the areas of mentoring and improving employability for service users. As the statutory sector, we are not expert in those things and should not do them. It is entirely right and proper that the CVS does them and that we do that in a competitive way with it. NIACRO is one example. You mentioned community service. We fund — the amounts are tiny — 34 bodies across the Province to provide supervision of people who are under community service orders.

Ms Montgomery: There are a few other aspects to that. I will come to community service, which is very much about community and voluntary sector funding. We also have the Aspire project, which is for young men aged 16 to 30. We are funded from the Department for that, but the vast majority of the budget goes to the community and voluntary sector, be it to NIACRO, Alternatives or CRJI. We are also developing relationships with Start360 on peer mentoring for a number of things. Funding is available, but, as Amanda said, it is not necessarily the way that we want it to be. Community service is where we are able to help, in very small ways, the community and voluntary sector. A small payment is available for groups to take some of the individuals who are subject to community service. Through community service, we are also able to help the community and voluntary sector to get work done that it does not have the money to do and would otherwise not be done. That is a real grassroots way in which we can support very low-level community and voluntary sector organisations.

Ms Ferguson: What is that payment?

Ms Montgomery: It is worked out on the number of hours completed. It is very low; it is about £150.

Ms Ferguson: I thought that, because I had seen it advertised a few months back, and I thought, "What? For the number of hours?". It is so valuable. I was wondering what the uptake was.

Ms Montgomery: The uptake is really good. That is the really positive thing. This year, we have been able to fund organisations that we have not worked with before, and that is so positive for us.

Ms Ferguson: How many groups are in that sphere in total?

Ms Montgomery: There are fewer than 40 bodies in that funding sphere this year. However, that number is higher than it was last year, which is really positive for us.

Ms Ferguson: That is good. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): The Department has said that it will implement the legislation in a phased and proportionate manner. The legislation has a commencement clause that enacts the law, which the judiciary then uses. How can you phase the implementation of the law?

Ms Stewart: The Department referred to two elements, which are phasing and piloting. For me, those two elements are different. In a sense, I would probably argue that we do not need a pilot. We know that it works; we do not need to test it because we have all the evidence. Phasing is needed in the sense of scaling up and understanding how that would roll out. This would absolutely have to be phased. It cannot be what we have had with ECO, which has been stop-start for the past 10 or 11 years, from one court area to another. We need to have a plan that gets it right across Northern Ireland.

I say that because what then happens is that, if you make SSOs available in one court area and not in another, and there is a huge time gap around that, the provision of those orders becomes an equality issue. A non-custodial option may be available in one postcode but not in another. It becomes about where and when you are sentenced, as opposed to the need for an SSO. We would certainly be up for phasing, but we would want a plan for when that is going to be rolled out across all the court areas, as opposed to it being a case of, "We can afford to do one now, and we'll tell you when we can afford to do the next one". That is critical for me, because we have had ECO for 10 years. We had two court areas, and we moved to a third court area this year with no prospect of extending that further at this stage because of the budget constraints.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): If a judge is going to hand down a suspended sentence, why would he not use a suspended sentence order?

Mr Hamilton: Do you mean instead of an ECO, Chair?

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Yes, or instead of an ordinary suspended sentence, without supervision.

Mr Hamilton: It is simply because of the issue that we started with. There will be reasons why that person has offended. The supervised suspended sentence order allows those issues to be addressed. The way that a current SSO works, without any supervision, means that those needs go completely unaddressed. If somebody is a violent offender, they will not undertake a programme and will not have to turn up at 10.00 am every Monday morning to see their probation officer etc. The supervision is quite stringent, and it addresses the reasons why people are offending.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): My question, however, is this: if a judge had that at his disposal, and he was minded to hand down a suspended sentence as a deterrent — in other words, "If you offend again, this comes back on you" — why would he not then impose a suspended sentence order?

Ms Montgomery: The pre-sentence report will provide information to the judge, and they are responsible for their own decision. The pre-sentence report may lead the judge to say, "Yes, there are risks or needs that require supervision, unpaid work, a programme or whatever other element". That may not be the case; perhaps the individual has a low likelihood of reoffending and does not need an additional intervention to reduce the likelihood of reoffending because that risk is perhaps low to start with. The risks and needs of the individual will largely sway that decision. If there is repeat reoffending or something like that, it is more likely that a judge would go down the line of imposing a suspended sentence order with supervision as opposed to the order that stands at this point in time without any additionality.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): There are 4,000 suspended sentences at present. Is that right?

Ms Montgomery: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): What is the breakdown of that per year?

Ms Montgomery: That is per year.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): That figure is the number per year. That means that 4,000 suspended sentences are issued every year. Imagine that judges decided that a quarter of those were to be suspended sentence orders. Would that mean 33 more staff? When was the last time that the Probation Board ran a recruitment drive, and how many people does it employ?

Ms Stewart: I am really pleased to advise you that we have full capacity. We are not running a recruitment process this year for probation officers. We will consider it later in the year, but, usually, we would have gone out at this stage to get the students who are coming out. However, we have no vacancies, and that is largely as a result of the work that we did with the support of the Department to address the pay issue in probation. The organisation has stabilised. We have no vacancies at probation officer level, but there are challenges in the social work sector.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): If you needed to upgrade employment quickly, do you have the capacity to do that? If you recruit yearly, particularly among school or university leavers, how many do you usually bring in per year?

Ms Stewart: We normally bring in probably about 10 people.

Ms Montgomery: Yes. We had vacancies for a number of years, so we brought in 17 in one year. We are able to attract individuals now, whereas, as Amanda said, that was not necessarily the case a number of years ago. We are now able to attract and retain staff. Bringing in 33 in one year would absolutely be a challenge.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): That would be if judges were to use the suspended sentence a quarter of the time. If they were to use it half of the time, you would need 66 people.

Ms Stewart: That assumes that there would be a requirement for a probation officer to be involved with the orders. That is the bit that we need to be clear about. Some of those orders might just be community service. The supervision aspect is where it becomes expensive.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Right, OK. I will come to the supervision period that is specified. I will read from the Bill, which can be dangerous at times:

— I think, we mentioned that —

Are you content with those supervision periods and how they run in parallel with the operational period?

Mr Hamilton: They fully reflect the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which created probation orders, combination orders and community service orders. It is a straight lift from there, which also says from six months up to three years. To be honest, that has worked. Three years is quite a long time to be under supervision. The Bill enables supervision for that length of time, which allows for programmes or whatever needs to be done. I think that we support that length of time.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I turn to the operational periods. Where the offence is not a serious offence, as per clause 3(2), we are talking about an operational period of not more than three years. For a serious offence, we are talking about a term of five years or more. That sentence could be seven years. Why would the operational period be for only five years?

Ms Montgomery: Regardless, the supervision period will only ever be for a maximum of three years, but, after that three-year period, the suspended element of the sentence could continue to hang over the individual's head for another two or four years, up to five or seven years. There will be a difference between times. Our intervention will stop at a maximum of three years, but they will still be subject to that sentence for an additional two or five years. That is the carrot that remains hanging over their head.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): In simple terms, the operational period is the suspended sentence.

Ms Montgomery: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): What community requirements are we talking about? I have tried to find the list of community requirements. I understand the point that Brian made about support for issues such as mental health and addiction services. However, what makes it a community requirement and puts it on the list?

Ms Montgomery: The community requirements are currently a direct lift from the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, as Stephen mentioned. It can be a residence order, treatment for a mental health condition, treatment for alcohol dependency, what was referred to in the 1996 Order as an "attendance centre order", or a programme requirement. There is a list of, I think, around seven requirements. It is a direct lift from schedule 1 to the 1996 Order. In addition to that, if somebody is subject to supervision, we can specify that they should complete an offending behaviour programme, and we have talked quite a lot about that today. That is the list of the additional requirements that are available.

Mr Hamilton: There is one more that links to a different piece of legislation, and that is electronic monitoring. In addition to the list that Gillian mentioned, there are the electronic monitoring provisions in the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008. That can be added to the list.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Those two pieces of legislation are in clause 8. You talk about unpaid work. Is that different?

Ms Montgomery: Unpaid work is what we refer to as community service. It is 240 hours of unpaid work, which can be a stand-alone additional requirement to the order.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you very much. That has been very helpful.

I want to ask you now about the offence against a public worker. I think that it is too broad and that the repercussions of the offence should be looked at. The Bill as it stands repeals the three aggravated offences of assaults against firefighters, police officers and ambulance workers. I believe that those offences should be aggravated or enhanced, because, if one of those workers is put out of commission, they have to go to the hospital, and somebody could die as a consequence of that. The same cannot be said about a retail worker, no matter how good they are or how much of a service they provide. You are leaning towards the blue-light services, because you have to go into people's homes, where there could be violent offenders. Should we have a tiered system rather than the broad-brush approach of "assault on public workers"? You guys go into enclosed spaces, where there is only one way out, and you might get cut off, and we have heard the horror stories and worry about that. Should there be a tiered aggravation with regard to the types of public workers?

Ms Stewart: That is a difficult one, and I understand why the Committee is deliberating on it. Part of our normal, day-to-day work is about keeping our staff safe, because we are not in a retail shop where one person may come in. The vast majority of the people whom we work with have the potential to be violent, and there is a range of arrangements to keep staff safe, even when they go into somebody's home. That said, there were still 24 incidents of violence against probation staff. They largely relate to people being abusive rather than to physical aggression. My personal reflection, having looked at it as part of the Bill, is that we are starting to pit one justice worker against another. In a sense, if I say that it is not suitable for probation officers because they are not a blue-light service, they would say that they are based in police stations and work alongside the police. It is a really difficult one.

As is the case with the other workers, the people whom we work with have the potential to cause harm. We recognise that and mitigate it. Are our staff raising it every day with us as an issue? Not really, if I am being honest with you. That is largely to do with the skills that they have to be able to manage it and also confidence that the systems and the processes that we have in place will deal with it. We have a zero tolerance approach to it.

I will open it up to my colleagues to give their view on it having been around the system for much longer than me.

Mr Hamilton: I have very little to add to what Amanda has said because my view is exactly the same. It is very difficult. If we were to be added to the list, it could be asked why a health and social care worker or a home help had not been. Any of us can think of who should be on any list. Yet, I totally see that, if everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. As a bare minimum, the legislation signals to society how seriously such conduct is taken and how unwelcome it is. As Amanda said, I am worried about pitting one profession against another. It is very difficult.

Ms Montgomery: There is no doubt that it is a challenge. As Stephen said, it is about the intent and legislation saying that something is not acceptable and highlighting to society how unacceptable something is and how seriously something will be treated. Hopefully, it will then have an effect. Potentially, it also increases public confidence where somebody sees a response to an unacceptable action. It is a challenge. We talked earlier about widening the net. This widens the net to include more people who can fall into the category of public worker. It is about trying to get a balance.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Brian, do you want to come in for a short one? Ciara, you have indicated again.

Mr Kingston: I want to clarify the terminology. The legislation refers to a "suspended sentence order". Does that currently exist?

Ms Stewart: Yes.

Mr Kingston: When someone is given a suspended sentence, that is an SSO. Is that right?

Ms Stewart: Yes.

Mr Kingston: In various pieces of paperwork, the introduction of SSOs is referred to. SSOs do currently exist. We are talking about the introduction of supervised SSOs or SSOs with a community condition. Is that right?

Ms Stewart: Yes.

Mr Kingston: That is fine. It should maybe then be SSSOs.

Ms Stewart: It took us a wee while to get our head around that.

Mr Kingston: That is fine. I am not going mad then. That is my understanding. They already exist, but they will now be supervised SSOs.

Clause 11 refers to a responsible officer who supervises the SSO with a community requirement. Clause 11(4) states:

Similar to what Ciara asked earlier, who can that be? Can that be somebody from the voluntary and community sector? That person is also supervising a court order, and, if the offender is in breach of that, they would have to take the responsibility and be in the position of saying, "If you are in breach of this, you will go to jail". It might be neater if it were only probation officers. Is it already the case that those roles can be done beyond probation officers?

Ms Montgomery: It includes an option, and we will need to work out what that will look like in reality. As you said, if we are talking about the breach of an order, a probation officer is the person who is responsible for taking a breach back to court. It allows a level of flexibility where some elements of a supervised suspended order could be managed by somebody other than the Probation Board. There was that reference to the community and voluntary sector earlier. The detail would need to be worked through, but there is a level of flexibility there.

Mr Kingston: From the point of view of the victim, it is about knowing that the sentence has substance and that an offender will not be treated softly and supervised by somebody working in a community group who maybe does not want to be too hard on them. The detail of that is to be worked out.

What is the current situation? Can community orders be supervised from the likes of Alternatives or CRJI?

Ms Montgomery: Earlier this morning, we were reading the 1996 legislation on community orders. It is a stipulated probation officer; somebody appointed by the Probation Board.

Mr Kingston: So, there is that statutory oversight.

Ms Montgomery: That is absolutely there in all community orders.

Mr Kingston: And supervision orders?

Ms Montgomery: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): That is a very interesting question. A decade ago, I remember visiting a very good scheme in Cloughmills. I do not want to name the person involved, but he is my namesake. The scheme did very good work, and the Probation Board was delighted with the performance and the operation. Is that person appointed by the Probation Board?

Ms Montgomery: That person is absolutely appointed by the Probation Board and is one of our employees. They fall under that. They are appointed by the Probation Board and are our employee.

Ms Stewart: We alluded to the fact that we had that conversation amongst ourselves when we looked at that. We just need a wee bit of time with the Department to work through it. Our understanding is that it could be a community service supervisor who is employed by the Probation Board, as opposed to that widening piece. However, we need to have a conversation with the Department to be clear that our and its understanding is the same.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. No other members have indicated. Thank you very much for your time today. It has been very informative. You are the first witnesses from outside the Assembly to talk about the Bill. This is the start of it for us, so thank you.

Ms Stewart: Thank you very much, Chair.