Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): The witnesses are Theresa Ormandy, social worker and interim programme manager of hostels and adult criminal justice services with Extern; Denise Galbraith, project manager for Extern's prisoner support project (PSP); Debbie Watters, chief executive of Northern Ireland Alternatives; and Judy Magill, head of policy and development with Community Restorative Justice Ireland (CRJI). You are very welcome: thank you for your presence at the meeting. Who will give the opening statement? Go ahead, Theresa.

Ms Theresa Ormandy (Extern): Chair and Committee members, thank you so much for the opportunity to give evidence. For more than 50 years, Extern has supported people who are involved in the justice system to rebuild their lives and safely reintegrate into communities. That experience has given us direct insight into the challenges that people face when moving from custody into the community and of what support is most effective in reducing reoffending.

Extern welcomes the overall direction of the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill and its emphasis on rehabilitation, proportionate community-based responses and credible alternatives to custody. Our experience from across Northern Ireland is that communities are safest and further victimisation is reduced when sentencing contributes to accountability and there is practical support that addresses the factors that contribute to offending behaviour. We therefore welcome the Bill's intention to strengthen community-based interventions and to provide greater clarity around suspended sentence orders. In particular, we welcome the provision that would require individuals to understand the conditions that are attached to the order, as expectations are more likely to be met when they are communicated clearly and in a language that people understand.

While the Bill provides a legislative framework, it is less clear about the services, capacity and implementation structures that would be needed to make that framework successful in practice. Many people who have come into contact with the criminal justice system face multiple, overlapping challenges, including addiction, poor mental health, trauma, homelessness, poverty and social exclusion. The effectiveness of any community requirement will depend on whether addiction, mental health, housing and community support services are available, accessible and adequately resourced. Many of the interventions that support successful rehabilitation sit beyond the justice system, so effective coordination is required across health, housing and community services. From our perspective, one of the greatest risks that an individual may experience is to be expected to comply with requirements that rely on services that are unavailable, delayed or unevenly distributed across Northern Ireland. Whenever that happens, there is a danger that system failure will be mistaken for non-compliance by an individual.

Independent evaluation of rehabilitation and resettlement programmes, including Extern's prisoner support project, demonstrates that investment in community support can improve outcomes for individuals, reduce reoffending and contribute to safer communities. For that reason, we encourage the Committee to focus on four key areas: first, the importance of having a clear strategy that sets out how community requirements will operate in practice and how outcomes will be monitored and reviewed; secondly, the need for sustainable and realistic funding arrangements for the statutory and voluntary and community sector organisations that will be responsible for the delivery of much of the work; thirdly, the importance of ensuring that community requirements are needs-led, trauma-informed and proportionate and that they take account of an individual's circumstances, disability and communication needs; and fourthly, the need for a safeguard so that the courts can distinguish between wilful non-compliance and non-compliance arising from unavailable, inaccessible or inappropriate services.

We encourage the Committee to view redress and rehabilitation as complementary, rather than competing, objectives. We believe that effective rehabilitation — stable accommodation, improved relationships and reduced harm — serves the interests of victims as well as those of offenders, because the primary objective must be to prevent further harm and to reduce further offending. Those outcomes benefit victims, strengthen public confidence and contribute to safer communities.

Extern supports the rehabilitative intent of the Bill and its ambition to strengthen community-based responses to offending. However, legislation alone will not deliver the outcomes that we all wish to see; success will depend, ultimately, on whether the services, funding partnerships and cross-departmental arrangements are in place to support the legislation. The Committee has an opportunity not only to legislate for community sentencing but to ensure that the conditions exist for it to succeed. Our key message is simple: if we want community sentencing to work, we must invest in the community infrastructure that makes rehabilitation possible.

Thank you, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you very much, Theresa. Debbie and Judy, do you have a presentation?

Ms Debbie Watters (NI Alternatives): Yes, but it is not as good as Theresa's. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Do not worry about that. That is OK.

Ms Watters: Thank you very much to the Committee for having us. Extern's opening remarks, delivered by Theresa, were fantastic. We echo all those remarks on community-based sentences and the requirements set out in the Bill.

As most members of the Committee know, Community Restorative Justice Ireland and Alternatives have 30 years of experience of working on the ground — grassroots community work from the bottom up — delivering restorative interventions to communities. That is why we support the Bill. We believe that the Bill is innovative, but we think that, were the Committee to work with the community and push the third sector, we could see much more innovation. We would like to see restorative justice being not just a principle running through the Bill but established as a formal disposal, with pathways for doing restorative work.

You have had us here before, and we have talked about recidivism rates. We know that, if people go through a community disposal and a restorative disposal at a grassroots level, the rate of recidivism decreases immensely. That is partly because grassroots community organisations know how to wrap themselves around people — we know what going the extra mile means. For us, this is not just a programme; it is a way of being and a way of life, and that is what makes the difference. When someone is done with their formal restorative disposal, we will still be there for them.

One of the issues that Theresa raised is about scaling things up and making sure that there is equality of opportunity across Northern Ireland. That will be an issue for the Justice Committee. Another issue for us is resources. I want to have a conversation with you, but I will end with this: as a community sector and as a third sector, we get really tired of doing something really well and getting it working, only for the funding to end. The system or the establishment moves on to the next glossy, sexy thing but, in actual fact, we are the sexy, glossy thing, and we do not need another new pilot. A lot of what is in the Bill already exists, and we need acknowledgement and recognition for that, alongside long-term, sustainable funding for what already works in communities. We do not need new things. We need you and the Justice Minister to see the evidence and say, "That's working, and it will fit really well here; why don't we encourage more of that?".

CRJ, Alternatives and the Probation Service developed a programme of enhanced combination orders (ECOs). We took referrals to work with people restoratively directly from the system. Between us, we dealt with probably 100 cases a year, doing fabulous work with really good outcomes. That ended not because it did not work but because Probation's budget was cut. Historically, when the system's budget is cut, that results in money being cut in the community. All of that learning was gone. The Bill needs to include another form of ECOs. We are ready to develop that, in partnership with other organisations.

Thank you for listening to us.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you very much, Debbie.

Ms Judy Magill (Community Restorative Justice Ireland): I agree with everything that has been said. I am aware that CRJI and Alternatives have submitted multiple responses to the Committee over the past year and a half. I welcome how receptive the Committee has been — I appreciate the time that you have taken with each paper that has been submitted. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. Thank you, all, very much for your concise opening statements. We really appreciate that, because we are struggling for time.

Mr Kingston: Thank you, all, for your attendance and your papers. I do not need to declare an interest, but I will say that I have referred people to Alternatives in the greater Shankill area and to Extern's offices on the Shankill Road, so I am familiar with your work. I have referred people to Alternatives as an avenue that they can go down if they are looking for support, for example, in community disputes — disagreements with neighbours and so on. There is a community facilitator who can, at least, try to bring about some resolution or understanding. I appreciate that Extern has a walk-in service on the Shankill Road, which is particularly valuable for people with mental health difficulties.

Have you looked at the clause on the purposes of sentencing? I do not know whether you are familiar with that. Clause 1(2) sets out that the "purposes of sentencing" include "punishment", "protection", "deterrence", "rehabilitation" and "reparation". Do you think that those are the right key headlines? Do you have any comments to make on how that is set out?

Ms Ormandy: The balance is right. I talked in the opening statement about the balance between redress and bringing the public on board. I was very interested in the Bill's having common language, so that the public understand that it is about safer communities, which we could then drive through. I definitely support the balance between rehabilitation and redress for victims and the wider community.

Ms Watters: We agree with that, Brian. Any process that is victim-centred really helps the person who caused the harm to understand the hurt and harm that they caused. That should be a really important element of the Bill. It helps to reduce the level of recidivism.

Communities need to be at the heart of the process, because it is they who suffer the most. We all want safer communities. We are happy with the language of "rehabilitation", "reparation" and "deterrence", but we would like to see a plan or strategy beneath that that sets out what that would look like in practice.

Mr Kingston: OK. We have received presentations from a number of groups. A view that has been expressed to us more than once is that suspended sentences are a slap on the wrist. The victim does not feel that that is a satisfactory outcome because the person is released, and it seems that, if they do not offend again, there is no direct consequence. In the evidence that we have received, there is general support for the inclusion of a community requirement with a suspended sentence, so that a person at least has to go through a programme. Will you briefly outline what it would mean in practice for your organisation if somebody who received a community sentence also received a community requirement?

Ms Watters: If they were referred to us, we would take them through a very holistic and wrap-around process of looking at how their actions have hurt their victim, their community, themselves and their family. We would address the underlying causes of their choices and bring the victim, if they wanted, and the community into the process. The community often does not understand what this looks and feels like. We need to get everybody on board. We would not want a time frame to be put on that. If you were to say that that process needs to be completed in two months or six months, that would not be person-centred or person-led. Everyone is different. We would like to be able to assess each referral and put a plan in place with them, so that they are part of the process.

I understand, Brian, what you are saying about victims feeling that a suspended sentence is a slap on the wrist. That is why there needs to be a programme underpinning it, which victims are a part of and have a voice in. I think that victims feel left out only if they are not included and do not have a voice. Often, victims want not punishment but answers. They want to know why, and they want to know that reparation has been made. Reparation does not always equal punishment. Punishment often does not give us the results that we want. We want you to ask what the ultimate aim and outcome of this is. Suspended community sentences with a restorative element are the way forward.

Mr Kingston: I think that, quite often, the public want to see punishment; there must be a consequence. However, I support the balance in the "purpose of sentencing": "rehabilitation" is part of it, as well as "punishment" and protection of victims and society. What are the consequences for someone who is given a community requirement not attending or participating in it?

Ms Ormandy: I am interim programme manager, but I have also been the manager of our criminal justice floating support service since 2013. That is a voluntary floating support service for medium- or high-risk offenders. As part of that community element, we can get community packages and link in with our colleagues in the voluntary sector. We consider ourselves to be a service that is complementary to probation.

When a person comes in, they are at the point of change. I will ask my colleague Denise, who manages the prisoner support project, to speak, because it is vital that you hear about that. We have people who want to engage with us. We have a critical role in engaging with people who may have been non-compliant — I do not particularly like that word — but are at the point of change. We look at the underlying issues, such as housing and poor mental health. We advocate to get people into services to address addiction. We do a lot. The evidence base is there. If someone does not choose to engage with us or any of the support services, that is slightly different. The public would be very confident if they thought that somebody was trying to change, because that is part of what they talk about. People want to see a punishment element, but they also want people to succeed.

We can be working with 135 people at any one time. We have incredible success stories. The project can support people for up to two years or beyond that, if they go into housing crisis. That means that people can reconnect with a service that they are familiar with. The basis of it is building trusted relationships with professionals and linking in with colleagues. I might ask my colleague Denise to step in to talk about the PSP, because some of the issues relating to people who come out after short custodial sentences are possibly similar to the community element that you are looking at.

Mr Kingston: Sorry: my question was about people who do not cooperate.

Ms Ormandy: We feed back to the courts. We do that now. We attend court, and the judge wants to know whether the person has engaged and what that looked like. If they are not engaged with addiction services, we can say that we cannot get them to the threshold. It may be that they are willing to engage with addiction services but we simply cannot get them in because of large waiting lists. That is different. Someone who is at the point of change and really invested in it might be trying to stay away from peers who are a bad influence or to reconnect with their community, because they do not want to go back into that cycle. It is a big ask for them. We feed back into pre-sentence reports. We go to court quite regularly and say, "Look, this is not because of a lack of motivation."

On the flip side, we will say when someone has not engaged or turned up for their appointments. It really informs that. It makes it an even playing field, because we know whether people are trying to commit and move their lives forward. It is vital. It is often based on our relationship with that person, because we see them at least once a week. We know them, their family connections and their connection to their communities and services. We link in with those services to ask about attendance, and we feed that back to the court. We have good standing.

Mr Kingston: It is not optional, and there is a consequence —.

Ms Ormandy: Yes, and we can differentiate between someone who is not at that point of change or willing to commit to rehabilitation and those who are trying their hardest to go on a different path. It highlights them.

Ms Magill: For us, that is where the restorative element comes in. The evidence on the youth justice system and its restorative conferencing system shows that it is not easy for an offender to see the impact that they caused. It is not an easy process. A lot of shame comes out of it as well. The idea that it is a "soft option" in criminal justice has been well debunked by research and evidence.

Mr Kingston: I have a final question, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Just before we move off that point, I will ask whether you are content with schedule 2. You may not have read it, and it is fine if you have not. Schedule 2 is basically all about a breach or amendment of a suspended sentence order and the effect of further convictions when the order is breached. Schedule 2 is nine pages, and it is really hard to read. Do you have any comments to make on schedule 2?

Ms Ormandy: It is really a response to the need to have balance when somebody who has breached a suspended sentence order is in front of the courts. If there is a breach, there should be a consequence. Nobody would deny that. It is about having a fuller picture of what that looks like. When we attend court, we argue that it looks different for different people. Some people attempt to make changes but cannot access services. There could be rural issues, meaning that they cannot access addiction or mental health services. Often, through the stuff that Debbie talked about, we try to reconnect them to the community. It is a very isolating experience. We are happy with schedule 2. We would be the first to say that, if somebody breaches their sentence, there have to be consequences, but we would want the full story to be told. If somebody has not been able to access the services, but they are willing to engage, that really must be weighted in the court's decision.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Brian, go ahead. I interrupted you.

Mr Kingston: No, that was a relevant point to make.

My last question is about the involvement of victims. What is your experience? I imagine that some victims want to be involved and others do not. A previous witness told us that they want victims to have input into the conditions of a community requirement. What is your approach to that? What is your experience of victims' desire to be involved in setting or not setting the sentence, or in meeting or not meeting the perpetrator?

Ms Magill: Research has shown that, for a long time, victims have felt pretty voiceless when going through the criminal justice process. Sometimes, they feel on the sidelines. They are on the edge of their seat, and they are trying to get across the impact that the crime has had on them. Restorative justice has done a lot of work in that arena to try to get a more formalised disposal so that a pathway is there for victims to meet offenders. Being in a community-based setting, we deal with that for the offender as well. We try to make sure that there is wrap-around support to address what has caused them to offend and to make them a better person in society when they get released from prison. There is clear evidence that the collateral consequences of being released from prison — no employment, poor mental health, housing restrictions and all those things — lead to reoffending. The restorative justice element helps the criminal justice system achieve better outcomes and become more efficient. While community restorative justice is not in the field of measurable statistics — restorative justice is about taking a holistic approach — the evidence speaks for itself.

Ms Watters: Brian, most victims want to engage. They are just not given the opportunity. Traditionally, someone is referred to us, and that person and the victim then work out together what the plan will look like. The victim is at the centre of it. We recently did a case —.

Mr Kingston: In the community requirement?

Ms Watters: Yes. Someone is referred with parameters and a framework, but there is room to manoeuvre within that so that the victim can meet someone and say, "This is what I need from you". That is put down on paper in the restorative plan, and we then monitor it. There is no point involving victims in a tokenistic way. Some victims want to meet face to face, some want shuttle mediation and some do not want to enter into mediation at all but they want our support. There are different ways in which victims can be at the centre of the process, but it has to be real, authentic and credible.

Mr Kingston: OK. Thank you.

Ms Egan: Thank you, all, for coming in today to present to us, and thank you for the work that you do. I was at Extern recently. It is really excellent.

The fact that the Bill makes provision for restorative justice following domestic abuse was brought up at previous Committee sessions. Some of the organisations that gave evidence, such as Women's Aid, spoke strongly against that and said that, from talking to victims and survivors with whom they work, they see no appetite for it. They are really against putting that provision in the Bill. I can understand that. I want to hear your perspective as restorative justice practitioners.

Ms Magill: My personal opinion is that the formal criminal justice system should put no limit on what can be achieved by restorative justice. I put that forward first. However, given that the research, training and standards are not there yet for those types of cases, which are very sensitive and complex, you run the risk of re-traumatisation. A lot of background work needs to be done.

The backdrop is the adult restorative justice strategy, which is going through at the minute. There needs to be a lot more work done to get it to the stage of being able to deal with those higher-level, complex and sensitive cases. There is a lot of restorative justice training available for such cases, but the research and evidence are probably not there to speak to how successful that training is. It is also wrong for the criminal justice system to put a limit on what restorative justice can achieve.

Ms Watters: Connie, internationally, there is some evidence to say that there should be no limit. Restorative practice works in cases of murder — post sentence, obviously — and domestic violence. The issue is how it is done, because there is a power imbalance. That is the huge thing, so I get where Women's Aid is coming from. I have to be honest, however, and say that we work cases that involve domestic violence, and we do so quite successfully, but it is a long-term process. We are very cognisant of the power imbalance, so we work separately with all parties. If someone did not want to come to the table voluntarily, a meeting would never happen, because we do not want to re-victimise anyone. It is a very complex and sensitive situation, and, as I said, I totally get where Women's Aid is coming from, but if you look at international research, you will see that there is room to do business differently when it comes to domestic violence, but it must be led by the person who has been harmed and hurt.

Ms Magill: Where the complexity comes in for the criminal justice system is where there is a limit on, or a time frame for, by when processes need to be completed. The fact that criminal justice is a more procedural- and process-driven system means that there could be a restorative process, or some type of conference or meeting, but there would be six weeks in which to get that process from start to finish. That is where the complexity arises, so community-based processes are perhaps better placed to serve that, because they do not have a strict time frame attached.

Ms Egan: Thank you. That is really helpful. I absolutely agree that anything related to restorative justice for domestic abuse is so sensitive and that the process needs to be victim-led.

Debbie, can you tell us about how victims have found that process? I am really interested to hear that you have already done some of that work. What have the outcomes been like?

Ms Watters: Overwhelmingly, the feedback is that victims of domestic violence do not feel that the restorative process re-traumatises them. Rather, they feel that the system re-traumatises them and that they are treated as —. It is very difficult. I will talk about women, but I know that men are also victims of domestic violence. Many women feel that the whole process re-traumatises them, and we need to look at that. Many women therefore do not want to go through the formal criminal justice system. They often say to us that they do not want punishment for the perpetrator. Instead, they want answers and for their situation to be different. We have a system that does not allow for responsiveness and flexibility, so if someone is saying, "It is not punishment that I need to see come out of this, because that doesn't help my situation. What I need is a, b, c and d", we need to hear that.

Ms Egan: That is really interesting. Thank you.

Chair, I have one more question, if that is OK.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Yes, sure.

Ms Egan: The joint response that Criminal Restorative Justice Ireland and Northern Ireland Alternatives submitted mentions bringing back enhanced combination orders. Will you talk a wee bit more about them and give us some more information?

Ms Watters: We both had a programme with the Probation Board, whereby people were given ECOs and kept in the community rather than get a custodial sentence. They were referred to a community programme that involved CRJI or us taking them through a restorative process. We both worked with about 40 or 50 people a year, so about 100 in total annually. Connie, we had absolutely amazing results. We provided a wrap-around service, and we are still working with some of those people. We took them through the process of looking at how their actions had hurt their victims, their community, themselves and their families. Think about how holistic that is. Some of them were with us for six months, some for eight months and some for a year. There was no time frame, because the issues were complex. That programme ended because of a lack of funding that resulted in budgetary cuts to probation services. We would love to see that kind of programme happen again, because its results were amazing. I can send you some of the results from the programme, as well as case studies, so that you can see what they look and feel like. I can also send you feedback from not only offenders but victims.

One of the issues for the Bill to look at is what the programmes will look and feel like, but there is no point in reinventing the wheel. For us, the programmes are there, as they are for Extern. They just need resource. We had one worker and CRJI had one worker. It was not a huge amount of money that was involved. We got £40,000 a year — hello? — and CRJI got £40,000 a year, but the added value that community programmes brought was immense.

Ms Denise Galbraith (Extern): I will add to that from an Extern and prisoner support project perspective. Similar to ECOs, we provide therapeutic support in the custodial environment for people who are subject to short sentences, by which I mean sentences of a year or less. They have the therapeutic programme, and if they live within the greater Belfast area — a large proportion of the prisoner population ends up moving into greater Belfast, because that is where the resources are largely centred — they can access support from our social work team, which you met a couple of weeks ago, Connie. We have three social workers.

Initially, it was anticipated that there would be six months of support. In those six months, however, an awful lot of work is not getting done. These are people with a long history of trauma, mental health issues and addiction. They are homeless, and, because they have been through systems that let them down so many times, they need time to build meaningful and trusted relationships. Having been let down by Departments, coming into the justice system is the end of the road for them. Much like Debbie said, we found that building trusting and meaningful relationships was important for the individuals with whom we work. When they come to us, they are then much more open and honest about their experiences and about the situations that lead them to reoffend and go back into custody. We are therefore also in a good position to provide wrap-around support similar to ECOs in a community setting. As part of the project, we carried out a large-scale evaluation. Keeping someone in custody for a year costs around £57,000, compared with around £4,000 to keep somebody in the community. That is a huge saving, so we need to look at that as well.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): What sorts of crimes were captured by the enhanced combination orders?

Ms Galbraith: ECOs tended to be used for people with short sentences as well. Anecdotally and from what I have experienced in practice, they tended to be used for people who were repeatedly visiting the criminal justice system, where the judge acknowledged that a short sentence was perhaps the most meaningful one, given that a lot of those people might been on remand for a significant amount of time. The ability to do rehabilitative work in prison is narrow. We are talking about perhaps four weeks. We are also talking about people who were released on the day of their sentence because they had previously been on remand, where they could not do rehabilitation programmes. ECOs would therefore be most accessible for the short-sentence population.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): A suspended sentence order would cover sentences of, for example, two years, five years or seven years.

Ms Galbraith: No, much less than that. Two-, five- or seven-year sentences are for crimes that are a bit more serious.

People already get a licence that is managed through probation, so the sentence would be half spent in custody and half managed through probation.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): If the Department is legislating for suspended sentence orders, why is it not legislating for enhanced combination orders?

Ms Galbraith: ECOs used to be a huge part of the replacement for a short sentence. To my knowledge, they were tried out in only two court districts, but Belfast was not one of them.

Mr Beattie: Thank you all. What you have said is fascinating. I have worked with all your organisations at some time in the past 10 years.

I am trying to understand how what you do fits into the whole criminal justice system, because it cannot sit outside it. Rather, the two must be blended. You said that you want the Bill to incorporate the restorative principles but established as a formal disposal. Do you want that to be in the Bill? What would that look like?

Ms Ormandy: Judy, do you want to take the lead?

Ms Magill: Yes. Disposal is already happening through the process for the adult restorative justice strategy, but, for the past number of years, community-based restorative justice (CBRJ) organisations have wanted that to be formalised, even in sentencing reports, in order to provide a clear pathway for referring people to community-based restorative justice schemes. A benefit of community-based restorative justice schemes is that there is no time frame attached. They can also provide wrap-around support. When that is not provided, evidence shows that it is very much linked to reoffending.

On page 8 of our submission, you will see a diagram. It is known as the self-fulfilling prophecy. It means that, after people have gone through their punishment, they come out and are labelled as an offender. They are then face struggles with employment, housing restrictions and travel restrictions: things that exacerbate the punishment beyond the actual custodial sentence. CBRJ therefore has a big role to play in that sphere in trying to advocate a community-based disposal that can eradicate some of that strain and achieve way better reoffending outcomes for the criminal justice system. A lot of work goes on there.

Ms Watters: The —.

Mr Beattie: Theresa, a large bit of what you do through providing housing and support services is done to alleviate what Judy has just mentioned.

Ms Ormandy: Our criminal justice floating support programme has been around for quite a while, and the evidence is there to say that it is very much a wrap-around service. We look at the unmet need. It is a voluntary service, so we work with people who want to work with us to build relationships. That is even more the case with the prisoner support project. The recent Queen's University evaluation evidenced its success, and the Committee needs evidence. Reoffending rates were reduced significantly. The cost of running the project proved valuable, so the evidence is all there. We were very fortunate to have that team. I am a fan of it. The team pulled in staff from a probation background who were interested in working in the voluntary sector, so the expertise that we have will never be replicated again.

Denise comes from an approved hostel background. She has been with Extern for years. We have staff coming from probation services. We have linked into lots of communities across Belfast, so people really do get a wrap-around service when they come to us. The project has therefore been incredibly successful. If its funding ends in October, which is possible, I cannot see how we could build up that service again. It is really about what Debbie said about reinventing the wheel, but the wheel may not be there to get back that level of knowledge. That would be very hard to achieve. We were so fortunate to have that staff investment. They have chosen to stay with the project and not take other jobs. That is how committed they are to the project.

Mr Beattie: Debbie, did I cut you off?

Ms Watters: No, Doug, you did not. We have been in front of you before talking about the DOJ accreditation and the protocol for restorative justice. That is really important for us, as it allows the courts, the Public Prosecution Service (PPS), the police and probation services all to refer legitimately to us. We really feel that community-based restorative justice is underused. We would like to see it become more formalised in the Bill, because we are there all the time for those people who live in the community. We are there 24/7, and that is what makes the difference.

Mr Beattie: Yes, and you do a fantastic job. You answered a bit of my next question in an earlier answer to Brian. Many people see non-custodial disposals or community disposals as a soft option, and that becomes an issue for victim confidence, which you have already mentioned. We therefore need to build something in that will build victims' confidence. It does not help that, once a sentence has been given, the victim no longer receives information unless they sign up to the victim information scheme. I take it that your organisation is bound by that as well. If the victim does not sign up to that scheme, are you allowed to engage with them? Do you have to wait until the victim has signed up to the scheme before you are allowed to engage with them?

Ms Watters: Even probation services found the victim information scheme problematic, because it does not give us the flexibility to approach someone. As organisations, we can send a letter to someone to ask whether they are willing to engage. If the case comes through probation services, however, we are bound by the victim information scheme. If the victim does not sign up to the scheme, there is no way for us to contact them.

Mr Beattie: That goes to the heart of the confidence issue, because if the victim is not signed up to the scheme, they will not know about all the good work that you are doing and the outcomes from it. They just see the soft touch. I have argued that the victim information scheme should be an opt-out scheme, not an opt-in scheme. In other words, everyone would be in the scheme unless they were to decide that they were traumatised and wanted to leave it.

Ms Watters: I totally agree.

Mr Beattie: Yes, but the Minister does not agree, unfortunately.

There is a strong argument to be made that victims should be allowed to give their victim impact statement at sentencing, and that is correct. Should perpetrators be made to attend sentencing, and should they be sanctioned if they do not attend? That is more of a hypothetical question. If the perpetrator does not hear the victim impact statement, they will not know the full impact of their crime, which makes things harder when they start community-based restorative justice.

Ms Watters: The other way of looking at that is that if the perpetrator is referred to a restorative programme, they will hear about that pain, hurt and trauma, because that is the main ingredient in what we do. Whether they hear it in court or as part of a programme to which they are referred outside of court as a pathway, the offender needs to understand the hurt and harm that they have caused.

Mr Beattie: The problem is that, if the victim has not signed up to the victim information scheme, the perpetrator will not hear about the real-life consequences of their actions. Do you understand my point? Everything blends. Everything has to operate together. I certainly understand what you are saying about the need for sustainable funding. Thank you very much. I could ask about a lot more, but I do not want to take up any more of your time.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you all for coming here today. I declare an interest, because I worked for 20 years in a similar field. I therefore recognise how important it is to be responsive, flexible and to have a wrap-around service.

You mentioned additional resources that are needed, and I have grave concerns. If resource is not included in the Bill in some way, that will be a huge weakness. What is in the Bill may look good in principle in the Bill, but, without resource, it is a waste of time operationally. What engagement have you therefore had with the Department about the scale of additional resources that are required in order to provide your services? Do you believe that the Department is totally unprepared at the moment for what is required to ensure that the legislation is successful, not only for the victim but for the offender's rehabilitation?

Ms Ormandy: The PSP is a good example to give, because the good news is that, for the communities in which we are delivering it, we have the expertise, evaluations and the research to support it all.

By the end of October, that scheme could be gone, so we agree with you. We are advocating sustainability, because a project needs to be able to plan. We need to be able to evaluate and build on our success. We are investing so much time and effort to secure funding for a programme that is already successful and has the evidence base to back up that success. It is therefore all already there for you to use. That is the good news, because you would not have to build it up from the ground, as the communities already offer it. We need to see probation services funded. More so, the voluntary sector needs to be funded. We need to be put on a level footing. Probation services would have oversight and devolve some of the wrap-around services to the communities, which need to be funded as well.

Ms Watters: May I respond to that, Ciara, really honestly? Ten years ago, we and CRJI got funding from the police, the Probation Board and the Department of Justice, and we were in a much better place within the criminal justice system. Today, what Alternatives gets is £30,000 from the Department of Justice for the adult restorative justice strategy. Everything else has gone. The police money has gone. The Probation Board money has gone. That sends a message, which is this: is the accreditation process truly valued? Why would we do what we do if there is not a resource or a budget line attached to it? At a community level, we are not turning people away. You know that. I would like to say that we are not going to do that work, but we will do it. We are not paid for it, however.

Jim McCarthy could not be here today and sends his apologies, but he and I had a conversation in recent months about whether we should just opt out of justice and do our work in the community and in schools. Should we opt out of justice? Justice is the hardest work. I will tell you this: communities really struggle when working closely with the police and probation services. We get it from the community and we get it from the establishment, so, for us, things need to change. We are working really well with the Department on the adult restorative justice strategy, but even probation services would say that their relationship with the community has regressed, and that is partly to do with resources. I have to be really honest about that.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you. I have a grave concern. There is no more capacity in our Prison Service. We have many people in our prisons who should not be there. Instead, they should be getting additional, wrap-around support in the community. That is critical. My saying that does not take away from victims, who obviously also need wrap-around support in the community. That is also critical. If we are ever going to change the situation, restorative justice must be valued and recognised. On that, has any cost-benefit analysis been done, even by the Department, that clearly shows how effective the increased use of community sentences can be? For the Bill, are you aware whether the Department has done any such work?

Ms Galbraith: May I add to the point the Department of Justice was the only Department that funded prisoner support? It funded prisoner support by one third and Extern funded the rest. Recently, we got a small pot of money from the Department for Communities, but getting that was hard-fought. I go back to my original point that the justice system is the end of the line for people who have tried to access services through the health sector and to get housing through the Department for Communities. That talks to the need for cross-departmental funding. We cannot rely solely on the Department of Justice for funding just because people are in custody. The Department of Health and the Department for Communities also have to provide funding, and, to help at a much earlier stage, we are also looking for funding from the Department of Education, because children who have been failed at school have entered the care system and then ended up in the justice system, which is the end of the line.

Ms Ferguson: What is the best way in which to implement those solutions? How can we achieve that? What you suggest would ultimately be successful all round: for the victim, for the wider community and for reducing the number of people in our prisons.

Ms Galbraith: Departments need to come together and make an agreement. Things are so siloed at the moment. The Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) can fund only what is happening in prisons. We recognise the good work that is happening in the community, but organisations there are bound by how they can fund that work. A cross-departmental therefore approach needs to be taken.

Ms Magill: The adult restorative justice strategy allows more victims to access services, and can only be a good thing for the justice system. If I am honest, CRJI's view is that the Department of Justice's communication could be better. It could draw on our expertise more at every stage as it tries to formalise disposals, because community-based restorative justice practitioners make up the majority of the hub that frames the formalisation of restorative justice. The Department should therefore be at the centre, drawing on the 30 years of experience that we have in the arena. Its communication could therefore be stronger. Without a formal, resourced pathway and without investment, there is no way that the strategy will work.

Ms Watters: Connectivity is key. It is not all about justice. The Committee will know that we are in the pilot phase of the adult restorative justice strategy. It is going well. There are issues, but there are always issues in a pilot phase. An evaluation of the pilot will therefore be key.

Ciara, to go back to ECOs, we got £40,000 and CRJI got £40,000 for working with 40 people each — £1,000 per wrap-around service — but what we provided was not valued enough for it to be kept. It would be remiss of me to leave here today without having really pushed for the community sector, because, when things go wrong, the system knocks on our door. When things are going well, it casts us to the side and removes our money. We need political support. We are not going away, because our work is good, and the community wants us there, but we cannot sustain the funding cuts.

Ms Magill: The evidence shows that community disposals work far better and are more successful than custodial sentences. If the evidence is there, why is that approach not being resourced? If it is not resourced, by default, more pressure is put on the justice system. If the prison population is on the rise, if there are struggles with finances and if the cost of each prisoner is going up, it begs the question of why community disposals are not being utilised more.

Ms Ferguson: It seems to me that, as the Bill progresses, it will be key to have a plan, with CRJI, Alternatives, Extern and the Probation Board sitting around the table saying, "Operationally, how should this work throughout the justice system in order to get the outcomes that we all want to achieve? What does that cost? What is the potential number of referrals?". Something for us to take away from today is that need to push the Department, through effective engagement with you, to have a clear plan, and urgently. Across the justice system, we all want to see your work valued. We want to see it succeed. It can be successful, and I am really confident that it can be. I am really worried, however, that the strategy will not be impactful if we do not look at where the cost benefit will be, which is at the community level. It is therefore critical that we see wider engagement with you, a cost-benefit analysis done and a plan produced to determine the number of referrals that could come, rather than leave things to be based solely on the funding that is available. I 100% get what you are saying. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK, thank you. I want to get back to the Bill. Clause 1 is on "Purposes and principles of sentencing". Clause 1(2) states:

and ranks five purposes from (a) to (e). Do you think that they are ranked in order of importance or significance, or are they bunched together? They are:

In your paper, you say that the rehabilitation of offenders should be ranked higher. Do you read that clause as having a rank from (a) to (e)? If so, where do you think the rehabilitation of offenders should come in? You are not saying that it should be above punishment?

Ms Ormandy: That is interesting. I am not here to represent my own views. We took this to our colleagues in all our projects, because we wanted to get a wide range of opinions. Our colleagues work in the rehabilitation field and they see the benefit of it. Part of our job is to provide wrap-around services to support people. We lead that with Safer Communities; it is in our blood. Risk management is what we do every single day. Our staff very much felt that, if we do not balance rehabilitation with the punitive responses, we run the risk of not getting the outcomes that we want. Our staff made a really clear statement that they are no lesser; they are just the same. The outcomes suggest that when people engage with support services — the PSP has been evaluated — the evidence is there that reoffending is reduced significantly. We would argue the same for the criminal justice floating support. It was really interesting to hear staff talking about what they do on a day-to-day basis. We see the results; we see people connect to their families for the first time, and we see that pro-social modelling. We introduce people back to their communities and we look at employment. All the research indicates that that wrap-around service reduces offending. It was interesting to hear how our staff wanted that levelled up, maybe not above the punitive responses, but so that rehabilitation leads that way.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Clause 1(4) talks about:

A debate is raging at the moment around character references, but this might mean something more. The court has to take into account the character and circumstances of the offender. What does that read like to you? Are you comfortable with clause 1(4) in its entirety?

Ms Ormandy: Our staff were more focused on good character. When I put that to the working groups that we pulled together, they discussed it, but their angle was more about non-compliance. I know that that is slightly different, but they felt that that was where they sat, more so than, say, good character references. They did mention that, in some cases, they did not feel that it was applicable; for example, in domestic violence or sexual offending. They did not want to give a strong opinion on that. They felt that it should not be there, but their focus was more on how people engage with community support. That is where they felt that their expertise and their work sat better, if that makes sense. Perhaps that is more a question for Debbie to answer.

Ms Watters: I read that clause through a restorative lens about humanising the person. We often, I believe, demonise people who cause harm, and they are pushed to the fringes of society. Looking at their character and considering that is a way of saying that everybody has value just because they are. How do we ensure that that person changes and reaches their full potential?

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): The Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime suggested that clause 1(2), which lists the purposes of sentencing as:

should include denunciation. How do you feel about that?

Ms Watters: I am sorry, what?

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): That denunciation should be in there. It is more than punishment; it is marking the person out as having caused that crime.

Ms Ormandy: Is that public? Is that just to say that there is a form of process to —. We work with service users, and we do not exclude any offending history. The stigma and the exclusion are clearly there, and the by-product of that exclusion means that it would simply increase the risk of offending. Our umbrella is to reduce risk and to reduce the number of new victims. I do not find that helpful, because the barriers to employment and education and the restriction of services —. The punitive bit is there, and that is how our service users experience it. I am not sure what the aim would be, and I do not think that that would be helpful. I do not know if my colleague —. That is my professional opinion. I believe that the stigma exists already. Debbie talked about connecting people. We make connections to people who may not be involved in any services, so we have an open door. We build that trusted relationship and then talk about them building trusted relationships into their communities and link them back into GPs and into their families to stabilise that person. I think that that is more important than saying that —. I can see why the public might want it, but it does not serve them. I do not see in the longer term that that will serve them, because our overarching aim is to reduce reoffending.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Does anyone else want to comment?

Ms Magill: I think that CRJ and Alternatives agree with that. The evidence shows that the stigma and labelling of a person causes that cycle to begin again. It creates a self-fulfilling prophecy where they internalise that label and, with the restrictions that are put on them, there is a cycle of offending. I think that there is a way, especially in the restorative justice field, to shame the crime without shaming the person. Those are two different things. I agree that the main purpose of punishment through custodial sentences should be to protect the public and to maintain offender accountability, but I think that restorative justice has a different way of achieving that and of achieving better outcomes for both victims and offenders.

Ms Watters: I do think that the two things are not mutually exclusive. It is not that you work either with victims or with offenders. The restorative lens allows for good work with both. I understand why the commissioner designate would say that, but I think that our responsibility is to look at outcomes. What do we want from this?

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): If "denunciation" is not the correct word, is "accountability" a better one?

Ms Watters: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. Clause 1(2)(e) states that the court must have regard to:

Women's Aid and Nexus are concerned about that, because they believe that the offender could use that as another front for coercive control. The making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offences speaks to me as a restorative justice element. What does that line mean to you, and is there is a concern among you guys that, in some cases and with some perpetrators, it might be that they use that as another front?

Ms Watters: We have never experienced that, partly because restorative plans are really well managed and there is a lot of accountability and support. If we felt that a victim was being coerced, we would just step away from that restorative plan. We would not do anything that would re-victimise a victim. That is why it is really important that the workers are trained, that there is good oversight and good governance, and that the standards and ethics are in place. If all of that is there, that does not happen.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I will take you back to enhanced combination orders, because a suspended sentence order is, to me, basically a new model:

The will cover the period of a year and less. Notwithstanding the whole issue around the time spent on remand, do you think that a provision needs to be included for enhanced combination orders? Do you think that enhanced combination orders can work alongside suspended sentence orders, or is it one or the other?

Ms Galbraith: I think that it might be one or the other. It seems that you are doubling down, or doubling up, if you are giving a —.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I am not saying that the two should be given to the one perpetrator. I am wondering whether combination orders can work alongside suspended sentence orders as part of an array of tools in the toolbox for the judiciary.

Ms Galbraith: If you are building in the community rehabilitative element of them as well, yes, absolutely.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): If someone had a suspended sentence order for a crime with a tariff of less than a year, the only real difference would be that they might have to do part of that in prison.

Ms Galbraith: Potentially.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): That brings me to my next point. This is something that really worries me in clause 4:

What happens to someone who commits a crime that results in a sentence of between two and five or seven years and is given a suspended sentence order? What does that mean to you? Do they serve time in prison? Do they get out? Is it only when an activation event occurs and something triggers that they end up getting a custodial sentence?

Ms Ormandy: That is what we are currently experiencing, because that is our field. We argue that, if someone comes out and reoffends, we need to have the resources. I would like to argue that that person goes before the court. The court has full knowledge of what support package, if any, has been in place. That informs the judicial system that somebody that it is dealing with, if it is non-compliance —. They have gone on to commit another crime against somebody but are not involved in any services and choose not to be. It is completely different from a person —. It is a bigger picture for me. From a community element, I would want to know whether that person has had support and whether that support has been able to deliver. In reality, what we are finding —. If anybody is going in, especially in the sort of settings —. They are going in and out again, so it is very much what you are talking about in that they have not accessed addiction services and have not been able to access mental health services. They rely on us, and we can advocate for that, but we are not the mental health practitioners or the addiction specialists. We can turn to our community supporters and our complementary services, and they step up, but that access to statutory services is very limited, so our role is to feed that back. That generalises everybody who goes back into that system, as if that was —.

I have sat in court and been asked, "Why is that person not involved in addiction services?", because they have not met the threshold. They are willing to engage in addiction services and have been referred to a group session for an hour a week. They may have an underlying addiction that is fuelling their reoffending rate, and also they cannot access their mental health — clearly, there is a mental health issue — until they address their addiction issue. In reality, they are supported by a voluntary service when they should be in statutory services. When it goes back to the courts —. When that person reoffended and went back to prison, I did not believe that it served —. And he is out, and then we are looking to get those community supports in again. That is the reality.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): That brings me on to clause 10, which is "Requirement to obtain pre-sentence report":

I suspect that a pre-sentence report (PSR) would be quite handy throughout the judicial system, not just for administering suspended sentence orders. What do you think should be in that pre-sentence report? I know that the all-party group on harm related to gambling addiction would like that type of thing — addictions — included in a pre-sentence report. You alluded earlier to the need for a need-led, trauma-informed approach, but you also talked about pre-sentence reports and addictions and vulnerabilities. What should be included in a pre-sentence report?

Ms Ormandy: In both of our projects, that is what we do on a weekly basis. The Probation Board will reach out to us and ask about engagement and what those wider service —. Probation is under pressure, and I argue that it is a different relationship that somebody may have with probation. They will turn up for the probation and will commit to the pre-sentence report. Probation officers will contact us and ask, "What has engagement been like? Are they engaging in the support services that you have been able to facilitate?" We definitely do that. Sometimes we get invited to the courts to say that we have contributed to the pre-sentence report. The judge may want to speak with us to get more detail about that engagement. We have a long-standing provision of that. It is really important, because it gives a holistic view of the person and makes it individual.

Ms Galbraith: It has to be about that life story, basically: what has happened in that individual's life that has taken them into the justice system, into offending and into custodial sentences? Someone does not just wake up and decide, "I am going to offend today". That is not how it happens. The offending is serving a need. That might be a financial need to fund an addiction, or it might be that it is part of a peer group or something like that. It is about building the bigger picture of the person and how they got to that point. That needs to be included in the PSR.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): It strikes me that a pre-sentence report could inform the court of what the measures should be with regard to community requirements and the rehabilitation of that person.

Ms Watters: That is where the work is done. The ECO model has been great, but one of the problems with it is that the court was asking too much. If you are working with a person whose life is in chaos, and they do not have any routine or order, but they suddenly have to attend 10 courses, then we are setting them up for failure. There is a way in the pre-sentence report to say that we need to phase the programmes in and out so that it is not all at the one time. If someone is not used to even getting up in the morning, attending a course at 9.00 am is not tenable. A lot of the work should be done in the pre-sentence report, and also the victim impact statement should be there. The two should run alongside each other.

Ms Galbraith: Many people in the PSP self-identify as experiencing mental health and addiction issues. When they come to the community element and are looking for support, they are saying, "I can't possibly think about my mental health or addressing my addiction if I am surviving on crash or temporary accommodation". There is a potential that they are living on the street, and they are saying, "I don't feel safe. I can't address any of those bigger issues while I don't have my most basic needs". People are having their paperwork stolen; they are being beaten up; they are ending up in A&E. In order for people to be able to go on to a course and organise themselves to be there at 9.00 am on a Monday morning for 10 sessions, they need stability first.

Mr Kingston: On that point, I acknowledge that you are often working with people with complex and chaotic lives and trying to help them bring order to that. I want to clarify some of the basic points here. The Bill will introduce community requirements as part of a suspended sentence. Does that happen at all currently? Are there sometimes community requirements in a suspended sentence?

Ms Ormandy: There is no requirement to engage with us. We are the point of contact, and often we will get referrals to direct us to our services. Yours is slightly different, Denise, because obviously it is still voluntary; they are engaging. We are completely community-based, whereas yours is successful because it is based in the prison. That is a benefit. People engage in the therapeutic process, and then it is almost a continuity of care. I know that I am answering slightly differently, but if you think about it, you see that they are in custody. It is like a soft handover.

Mr Kingston: Are you with Extern?

Ms Ormandy: Yes, the prison support project is there. I think the success —. They are the most complex cases. I invite you to visit the project. They tend to be really chaotic people who possibly have never engaged with services before. We think that the connection in prison and then out of prison has been successful. For our project, there is not a community element, but they have to engage with our service. We are funded by Supporting People, so our remit is housing. With the current housing situation, our main referrals come in through —. Generally, over the past five years, a focus on finding and sustaining tenancy has become an issue. We are asking people to engage in supportive services and in their addiction support and mental health. As Denise has said, they are homeless; they are living from day to day, but still engaging with our services. There is no compulsory element to us. I argue that it could be built. If it was funded, we could have the programme there and let courts say, "We need you to engage with Extern's resettlement programme. That is a requirement". We are already doing that. There is an element you want to be voluntary —.

Mr Kingston: Does that happen currently?

Ms Ormandy: No. People reach in to us. We reach out, they reach in.

Mr Kingston: It is voluntary?

Ms Ormandy: It is voluntary.

Mr Kingston: Whereas the wording of the Bill would mean that the judge could set it as a compulsory part of the sentence.

Ms Ormandy: Yes.

Mr Kingston: Just to clarify, that does not happen currently with suspended sentences. Are there any circumstances in which people are sentenced to engage with your services?

Ms Watters: Yes, but it is at the judge's discretion. It is only if they know of us and have had previous experience of us; it is not anywhere in statute. The Bill would really take that further, in a good way.

Mr Kingston: So you can be included in a sentence as a requirement?

Ms Watters: Some judges have done that in the past.

Mr Kingston: To engage with Alternatives, for example, or CRJ?

Ms Watters: Yes.

Ms Magill: It is very discretionary. There is no clear, formal pathway. We argued in the paper about creating that formal pathway so that there would be a suitable process by which people could be referred to one of the organisations.

Mr Kingston: Sometimes it might even be just a recommendation from the judge. It could be compulsory, or a recommendation or suggestion. This wording in the Bill would take that to another level where it would actually be part of the sentence.

As I read this, your organisations are not acknowledged in the Bill. There is no recognition of the voluntary and community sector's role. How do you currently operate? I know that you said that your funding comes from DOJ. Do you operate under the Probation Board, or directly under DOJ? Who is the responsible officer? Is it somebody in your organisation who is responsible for the supervision of the offender who is engaging, or is it somebody in a statutory service?

Ms Watters: If a justice referral comes from the Probation Board, we report back to the Probation Board, and it has the statutory remit for oversight. If a case comes from the PPS or the court, the statutory system has the remit for oversight. It is not us. We are accredited by the Department of Justice, but we are very clear that we work within a statutory framework, to which we add value.

Ms Magill: I suppose —.

Mr Kingston: Sorry, just tell me that point again. Did you say that people can be referred by the Probation Board, the PPS or the courts?

Ms Watters: Or the courts. Or the police can refer directly through community resolution notices.

Ms Magill: Touching on community resolution notices, we have found that, unless there is a formal disposal, it is very much based on the community relationships that we have built up over the years. That kind of guides how many referrals you will get in from those agencies. That is why we would rather have a formal process. Because we are accredited by the Department of Justice, there is a question of utilising us more. We are utilised within the adult strategy through the hub, but, when it comes to community requirements, there are two accredited restorative justice organisations that could easily create a pathway and really do some good in that sphere. The accreditation, the training, the standards and the framework are all already there. It could be better utilised.

Mr Kingston: If the Bill resulted in an increase in community requirements in suspended sentences, how would you foresee that being worded by the judge? How would they word the community requirement? Would it be that it has to be delivered at the discretion of the Probation Board, or do you envisage yourselves being named as part of the sentence?

Ms Watters: Yes; named. I think that a judge could say to people that their referral pathway is to Northern Ireland Alternatives or Community Restorative Justice Ireland. That would send out a message that we are valued in our own right.

Ms Ormandy: That would be the same for Extern. That is actually what we are delivering in the community as we speak. It would be to say that they have identified a need, which should be bespoke to the person, and that they need us to engage. It would also need to be resourced and funded appropriately.

Mr Kingston: That was my second-last point. Do you have people within your organisations who would be designated the responsible officer? Yes?

Ms Watters: Yes.

Mr Kingston: In terms of the wording of the Bill?

Ms Watters: Yes.

Ms Magill: Just on that, whatever programme is being undertaken, we will have responsible officers within our organisations, but it depends on where the referral comes from. As Debbie said, if it comes from the Probation Board, you will report to it. You will send reports on engagement and what is happening to the Probation Board. It depends on from where the referral is received.

Ms Watters: Yes, or you report directly back to the court. Because we are accredited, we can receive referrals, and we have all the mechanisms internally to manage them.

Mr Kingston: This is my last question. Ciara touched on this point earlier. Under "Financial Effects of the Bill", the explanatory and financial memorandum states:

Presumably, you foresee there being the need for extra resources if you are going to have more referrals from people who currently do not have community requirements.

Ms Watters: Yes.

Mr Kingston: Perhaps the Department foresees there being savings elsewhere in the sentencing system somehow.

Ms Watters: The problem that the community and voluntary sector has is that it is used to doing a lot for nothing. Our budgets are constrained because of economics, and we are under pressure. We now need to stand up and say, "If you value us, there is a price attached to that".

Ms Galbraith: It can no longer be a race to the bottom — basically, who can come in at the cheapest rate — which is often how we refer to it.

Mr Kingston: I concur with your comment earlier, Debbie, that, when things are going badly, there is a call for community-based groups to step up, and when things are going smoothly you are, as you said, cast to the side. I acknowledge that Alternatives has helped me on issues involving hate crime. It has stepped forward when there was not a queue of people willing to step forward and address issues. I have found it to be helpful.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I have one wee question on clause 5, " Operational period and supervision period". So you have a suspended sentence order and, within the operational period, you have a supervision period. Are you content with those periods? So:

Are you content with the framework and how that works?

Ms Watters: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): It may be the case that a supervision period is lifted before the suspended sentence order is complete, but you are content with that.

Ms Ormandy: It just depends on outcomes.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. That is it from us. Thank you very much for your time. That was a really interesting and detailed session. We thank you for attending today and answering our questions. It has gone a long way towards helping us understand what those suspended sentence orders are, so thank you very much.