Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Members, Fiona Greene, chief executive of NIACRO, is providing evidence today. Fiona, you are welcome to the Committee meeting. Thank you very much for your attendance. I am sure that you will have an opening statement to make.

The Committee Clerk: We have just received a message saying that Broadcasting have lost the sound for the meeting. They have asked us to pause.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. That will give you a wee bit more time to get prepared. Members, just take your ease.

The sound is back now. That was just a blip. I am sorry for that interruption, Fiona. Please carry on.

Ms Fiona Greene (NIACRO): Thank you, Chair and Committee members, for giving us the opportunity to give evidence today on the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill. For 55 years, NIACRO has worked across Northern Ireland to reduce crime and its impact on people and communities. Last year alone, we supported around 7,800 children, adults and families and facilitated more than 55,000 prison visits. While we support people who have been victims, we do not claim to speak on their behalf. Victims, their families and the organisations that support them have rightly and courageously brought their evidence to the Committee. NIACRO speaks from our experience of working with people who have offended and with their families and children. We are here to give voice in some part to the people who are sentenced, who are in custody or who are living with a criminal record, as well as their families. We ask the Committee to use the session to look through a different lens while, of course, keeping victims as the point of focus.

It is really important for me to get it across today that people who are sentenced even at the lower end — for example, those who receive a fine — can face longer-term systemic challenges with living with a criminal record as well as the social and personal challenges that led them to commit the crime in the first instance. People who have been in contact with the criminal justice system are disproportionately affected by poverty, mental health, addictions and housing instability. Time in prison exacerbates those factors and increases the likelihood of reoffending. Incarceration impacts on mortality. Last month, the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) published for the first time a research report on post-prison mortality in Northern Ireland: it showed that individuals face a significantly elevated risk of death following release from custody. Across the full study population, 384 people died within one year of their latest release. After taking account of differences in age, the number of deaths was 24·3 times the number expected on the basis of mortality rates across the Northern Ireland population. We work with the families and children of people in prison, and they face what we describe as an "unseen sentence", often living with shame, stigma, isolation from their community and other family as well as facing financial, housing and other costs associated with having a loved one in prison.

I will move on to the Bill content and clauses. In May, we set out our high-level response to the Bill, which you should have among your papers, but I would like to make some specific comments now. NIACRO particularly welcomes the aspects of the Bill that, on enactment, should see greater transparency and an improved information flow to victims and witnesses of crime, giving them a better sense of their place in the criminal justice system. The Department and, in turn, the Committee are to be applauded for having responded so compassionately to the views and voices of victims and their families. We support the decision to place sentencing purposes and principles on a statutory footing and to place a duty on courts to give reasons for the sentence.

We would like the sparing use of punishment principle to be re-included. We were disappointed that it disappeared from the list, given that the DOJ's 2020 sentencing review consultation document stated:

It went on to state:

Its absence from the Bill matters. Alongside proposals such as the extension of the unduly lenient sentence scheme, the aggravator uplifts and the increased road traffic sanctions, there is a risk that the overall direction of travel has changed somewhat. We see longer and more punitive sentences, while the public remain largely unaware of the rigour and accountability involved in effective community sentencing as well as the excellent progress made to date on the reform of the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 as part of the Justice Bill. This is at a time when the criminal justice budget has contracted while numbers have increased and the complexity of need has intensified in prisons. It strikes me that, at this juncture, there is an opportunity for the Committee to properly support the sentencing purpose of rehabilitation contained in the Bill.

NIACRO recognises the five purposes and agrees with them, but we do not support any prioritisation of them. The court should have regard for all of them in conjunction with discretion to weigh each sentence case by case.

It will not come as a surprise to the Committee that NIACRO does not agree that including denunciation as a purpose is necessary. At the stage of sentencing, the individual has been indicted through the criminal justice system, and guilt has been decided. That inherently shows the societal response to the crime — the transgression, if you will — and a collective rebuke has, in effect, already taken place.

NIACRO welcomes Charlotte's law. While the number of cases affected may be small, the impact on victims' families is profound. From the convicted person's perspective, it does not achieve the required accountability to move forward into rehabilitation, which is a key focus of our work in NIACRO. Having participated in the Department's review, we encourage anyone in custody with relevant information on the whereabouts of bodies to disclose it as soon as possible and allow the families the opportunity to bury their loved ones with dignity.

Suspended sentence orders (SSOs) will allow courts to attach community requirements to a suspended sentence. On the one hand, we view that as, potentially, a really positive move; on the other hand, it could lead to unintended consequences. It will, of course, give rise to an increase in the work of probation colleagues, and they will require adequate resourcing to scale up its potential. We see a role for the voluntary and community sector — a role similar to that of, for example, our transitions mentoring service — in walking alongside individuals to support their engagement with community requirements in compliance with supervision. To be clear, our role is not to sanction but to support, and engagement is always voluntary. The advent of SSOs will mean that, if there is an activation event, more people could come into custody or be recycled than is currently the case. Increasing the net of custody, placing further pressure on the prison system and considerably lengthening the rehabilitation time frame for a spent conviction could be their negative effect. There must also be safeguards in place that allow courts to distinguish between wilful non-compliance and a failure caused by, for example, gaps in service provision. Someone should not be penalised for failing to access support that simply was not there.

It is quite a technical Bill with good and understandable intent to address the lived experience of victims and families of existing sentencing decisions, particularly in regard to some serious and emotive cases. We ask the Committee to have cognisance of the Bill's impact on and cost to the criminal justice system as well as the longer-term impact on people who are convicted and their chances to fully achieve rehabilitation and reduce reoffending.

I am happy to assist the Committee further and take members' questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you very much, Fiona. Thank you for being concise and timely with your presentation. I really appreciate that.

I will go to members to ask questions. I remind members to be concise in their questioning. Fiona, if you can, please be concise in your answers.

Mr Kingston: Thank you, Fiona, for your attendance and for your paper. I acknowledge the work of NIACRO in aiming to reduce crime and its impact on people and communities and in assisting people to turn their lives around, thereby reducing further crime and reoffending.

You have brought a line of thought on the principles of sentencing that we have not heard from others. You have suggested the "sparing use of punishment": we do not hear that commonly from the public. People want to see that there are consequences of crime, and one of the key purposes of sentencing is deterrence. Therefore, people want to see that, when the law is broken, there is a consequence. That is a general public sentiment. They also want to see consistency in sentencing.

I have two questions. Where do you see the phrase that you used, "sparing use of punishment", sitting in the Bill? Would that not lead potentially to inconsistency of sentencing?

One of the aims is to have more consistency so that sentencing is fair and proportionate. If too much is left to discretion, there could be more inequality.

I will come on to my other question afterwards. That is enough to give you at once.

Ms Greene: We see the concept of "sparing use" as an additional principle to be in the Bill. I have thought about how that would sit with the purpose of punishment. To be clear, as we said in our earlier submission, NIACRO recognises that sentencing must include elements of punishment. The public and, in particular, victims will rightly expect to see that. For them, it is about accountability, which is a big theme that we would like to see presented as part of the messaging on the Bill. It also strikes me, however, that it is about the balance of the five purposes with the rehabilitation side and how the principles interact with the purposes.

I am not saying that I have all the answers, but, given where we are coming from — we are not speaking on behalf of our service users, but we recognise that people can move on from crime and should be supported to move away from the risk of further criminality — we think that "sparing use" should be one of the principles. It was proposed as a principle in the sentencing review consultation and was well described at that point, so I would like to understand why it was removed. Maybe we could come back to that question.

You had a follow-up question.

Mr Kingston: We will have the Department before us later today —

Ms Greene: Yes. OK. You can ask it that question.

Mr Kingston: — so we can raise that question.

My other question is about Northern Ireland's sentencing framework. You propose a sentencing council. How would that work? Our jurisdiction is smaller than others, and we want to see consistency in sentencing. It could be argued that, given the smaller number of judges in Northern Ireland, they will be more aware of what is in the framework. Is Northern Ireland big enough to have a sentencing council? How would it work in practice? Would every sentence be referred to the council before being issued?

Ms Greene: My understanding is that, in England and Wales and, indeed, Scotland, sentencing councils were set up to set standards. They also have a role — this is in line with the attempt through the Bill to clarify public messaging on sentencing — in making clearer, for example, the variety of factors that the judiciary has to weigh up and why decisions are taken. On the basis that there is a sentencing council in other jurisdictions, I am not 100% convinced that we should not have one. As we recognised in our submission of May this year, however, the Bill is an incremental step towards more consistency and more public confidence in sentencing not only among victims but among people who are being sentenced, who should not feel that they are subject to the vagaries of personal decisions or other factors being taken into consideration when being sentenced.

Mr Kingston: I have a brief question about transparency. Do you support the proposal for greater access to sentencing remarks, potentially by putting them in the public arena?

Ms Greene: Do you mean televising?

Mr Kingston: Televising or publishing: making them more readily available to victims.

Ms Greene: Having considered the transparency issues, I find it unacceptable that victims do not have ready access to them right now, given that that is such an important part of their involvement in and experience of the criminal justice system. I know that the information is there, but a process has to be gone through to access it. Victims should have as much of the information that pertains to them as we can provide.

Sentencing information is also really important for and should be equally available to the person who is being sentenced. Most people who have been convicted have legal representation, so they probably have a better opportunity to have the sentence explained to them, including what it will mean in the longer term and why decisions such as those on mitigation were taken. It is equally important for offenders to understand their sentencing and the implications for them not just now or when they go into custody and what their orders look like and the longer-term impacts. At the start of my presentation, I spoke about the longer-term effects of having a sentence, such as living with a criminal record, systemic challenges to employment, education and all those things that I spoke about last year in relation to the Justice Bill. We did research a number of years ago involving some women prisoners whom we work with in the criminal justice system, and a number of them who were in prison did not understand their sentencing. Therefore, it is not just victims who do not have that information readily available.

When it comes to more public statements, my view is that, over time, there has been an improvement in the judiciary being more intentional about providing statements around sentencing. Part of me balks at the thought that sentencing could be televised: that is where our smaller jurisdiction comes into play. It is very different. I was struck by some of the comments made by the Bar Council to the Committee a number of months ago around the fact that, in America, such things are common and the public love it. However, the point of having public messages around sentences is not that the public love it. I would be concerned about voyeurism and about it being used for entertainment value. I am always thinking of the families who are affected by sentencing, particularly when people go to prison, and the effect on children, which is huge and probably is not talked about enough.

The complete answer to your question is that we support more public messaging, more statements and more understanding for victims and everyone involved in the process, but more work needs to be done on considering the risks of televising sentencing.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I will stay on that subject, Fiona. Clause 18 is titled "Duty to give reasons when determining a tariff". When the court makes an order, new paragraph (3A) says that it must:

There is slight discretion there regarding the effect of the order for the offender. Should there be another limb, (c), regarding informing the victims or witnesses? Clause 18 says:

but that does not really give the victim or witness a place; it is just open court.

Ms Greene: I cannot remember the terminology as I sit here, but my understanding of why it is in there for the offender is to do with the legal process around giving due information to the persons being accused, because, after all, it is their sentence and their liberty being challenged. That said, I understand the views of other organisations and the views of the Victims' Commissioner and Victim Support on it. I understand why it would be important for victims to feel that ordinary language applies to them as well.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Yes, sure. On the first point that Brian raised , which was about the omission of "sparing use of punishment". There are purposes in the Bill, and then there are principles in the Bill. At the minute, there are three limbs to the principles:

Do you not think that there is enough in "proportionate" and "fair" to cover "sparing use of punishment"?

Ms Greene: As I said at the beginning, I understand why that is. It is a response to specific types of offence, and the Bill is trying to address some of the other submissions that we have heard from victims and families. I completely understand that. From NIACRO's point of view, however, we ask that the messaging also be about managing sentencing expectations. Potentially, sentencing will never achieve full satisfaction for victims. There is a purpose. Tariffs are set, and laws are already in place that limit or mitigate all of those things. From my perspective, when I think about rehabilitation, supporting people to move on and reducing offending and reoffending, it is important for us to have that expressed in a more obvious way.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK, thank you.

Ms Egan: Thank you for coming to give us evidence on this. I am really interested in that point. I am trying to get my head round how it would work if we put "sparing use of punishment" alongside one of the purposes being punishment. It feels like they do not fit together. I am interested in how you envisage that. I see that, in the Bill, sentencing has five purposes, one of which is rehabilitation, which you have talked about as being really important. Is there enough in those five components? They include reduction of crime, rehabilitation and protection. What does "sparing use of punishment" mean to you? Does that mean a sparing use of, for example, a jail sentence, or does it mean sparing use of, potentially, rehabilitation?

Ms Greene: The way I looked at this was that the purposes are the why and the principles are the how. It is about how the court applies the purpose, if you know what I mean. I do not know whether I am answering your question fully, but that is how I looked at it. I understand that there is that rub: how can we have one and the sparing use of the other? It is about proportionality. I accept the wording of "proportionate", "fair" and "transparent", but we would like stronger messaging on sparing use and to have that included, more so for the court.

Ms Egan: OK. I appreciate your view on that.

Ms Greene: It is nuanced.

Ms Egan: I understand; I am just trying to get my head round it. I suspect that some people who represent victims will probably take issue with that as well, and I am sure that you understand that.

You will correct me if I have picked you up wrongly, but you mentioned that you do not believe that we should add denunciation. We had evidence about that previously.

Ms Greene: I felt that that was really unnecessary. Given the fact that sparing use of punishment is not included, there is a balance to be struck in all of this. The Committee has had to consider an overwhelming amount of evidence on the Bill.

Ms Egan: Thank you. I appreciate your thoughts on that.

There was one other issue that I wanted to raise. In your opening remarks, you touched on suspended sentence orders, and you said, I think, that that was one of the most significant changes in the Bill. I totally understand what you say about needing to ensure that resources are there. Would there be benefits to having suspended sentence orders and what those could bring?

Ms Greene: There is potential for benefits, yes. If someone is given a suspended sentence, it may be that the victim or the public will say that they have been given a slap on the wrist or that the sentence is not significant enough, albeit the individual will have a criminal record. I go back to my earlier remarks: there are other implications in and around that. If someone has been given a suspended sentence and then an order that, in this case, is supervised by the Probation Board, that would be an opportunity for support to be provided. In my earlier remarks, I mentioned the personal and societal challenges faced by people who are in the criminal justice system, which are to do with health, stability and all of that: there is an opportunity for more support and greater victim satisfaction, in that victims can see that there may be more tangible consequences and more public accountability.

The other side is that, were someone to breach a suspended sentence order — the terminology is that "an activation event occurs" — that could cause custody to kick in, whereas, currently, such an order would not be in place, so there would be no breach to be supervised. That recycling could go on, as we could bring more people into the net of custody. There are also issues around increasing and elongating the rehabilitation period. We need to be mindful of all the other legislation coming through, so that we do not give with one hand and take away with the other when it comes to rehabilitation. We have considered and discussed that as recently as this morning.

We would like to provide supplementary information to the Committee whereby we take each clause in which we can see an increase and consider it against the Rehabilitation of Offenders Order 1978 and the proposed changes to the Order. We should also look at the impact on AccessNI and enhanced disclosure checks, because there will be a negative effect on those. While convictions can be spent, there would be a requirement to disclose them in an enhanced way. If we are talking about rehabilitation, particularly in relation to aggravating factors, people cannot take that label around with them for ever.

Ms Egan: Those are really interesting points. I have no further questions. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Before we move on to Patsy, I will come in. If you do not like the word "denunciation", would "accountability for one's actions" be OK?

Ms Greene: Judges make statements about the unacceptability — that is a very contrived word — of actions, particularly in serious cases. NIACRO has put accountability at the forefront of all its work. All our service users who have been in the system choose to work with us. They have taken accountability. Another part of what we do involves mentoring people, because, sometimes, it can be a very isolating experience in many ways for people who have come out of prison or been involved with the criminal justice system. Resettlement and return from custody are not easy. Part of what our mentors do involves providing someone with that one-to-one accountability, where someone checks in with them and says, "Have you done that?", "Are you going to your probation meeting?" or whatever. Accountability is a huge principle for us. I will definitely consider and respond to that.

Mr McGlone: Thank you very much for coming along to Committee. I want to rewind to the concept of a sentencing council. I have read stuff online on an academic analysis of the Scottish Sentencing Council's functionality or, rather, how it does not function. That study concluded that the sentencing watchdog, which was the Scottish Sentencing Council, had been "a monument to inertia". Its staffing costs had risen in the 10 years up to 2025 by 355% and its overall spending increased "more than threefold". Have you had any information from stakeholders that counters that conclusion, or could you provide us with anything like that? I do not mean today, if you have not got that, but I look at that analysis and say, as many of us would, "Are we setting up another body that will just cause delay in the justice system?".

Ms Greene: I accept what you say. I have no particular response to the details that you have provided. We will respond to that.

Escalating costs and "inertia" speak to me about performance, management and administration. That should not get in the way of doing what is right and what is important about messaging and information on sentencing. It should be out there in the public domain for everyone who is involved. As I said, our position remains that there should or could be a sentencing council. We recognise, however, that the Bill is an incremental step, and more work could be done on that. For us, the concept is definitely there.

Mr McGlone: It would be worth your while to have a look at it.

Ms Greene: I will.

Mr McGlone: It is by Dr Brown from the University of Aberdeen. It would be worth your while to have a look at that article to see where he is coming from, because it is critical of the council, including how it should have moved on sentencing for rape. That is just one analysis, but it is one that bounced off the page at me.

Thank you.

Mr Beattie: Thank you very much, Fiona. I will start by asking about the sentencing council, because I am a fan.

Ms Greene: I know.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): We know.

Mr Beattie: I have hammered that point home many times. There are sentencing councils in England, Scotland, Wales and the Irish Republic, and one is about to be set up on the Isle of Man. Never too small is a sentencing council if one can be set up on the Isle of Man. Each of those sentencing councils is bespoke. It is not about the rising cost, therefore, but about how it is operated and how effective it is made to be in each jurisdiction. For me, consistency and transparency are important. I look at it not just from the victims' point of view, although I look at things from the victims' point of view an awful lot, but the perpetrators need that consistency and transparency as well. Is it a fair argument to say that those whom you represent need that transparency?

Ms Greene: Yes. That is my simple answer. I agree.

Mr Beattie: I mean, I just —.

Ms Greene: Unbelievably so, Doug.

Mr Beattie: I think that it works. Anything that we can do to improve it would be better.

Here is the real question that I want to ask. Forgive me, because it is about something that is not in the Bill. I want to get your thoughts and feelings on this. In the case of offenders, we talk a lot about rehabilitation. I believe in rehabilitation. Surely, however, part of that rehabilitation is for them to understand the damage that they have caused to their victims. Do you think that it is right and proper that offenders, once they have been convicted, are made to attend sentencing remarks and to hear a victim's personal statement?

Ms Greene: We do not have an organisational position on that, but my view is yes. It goes back to the point about Charlotte's law: if the person who has been convicted does not take some accountability or if they perpetuate harm, that is not good for the victim, it is not good for society and it is not good for them. Out of utter respect for victims and their experiences, their impact statements need to be heard; they should be heard and understood. If there were more understanding of harm caused, less harm would be caused, and there would be more self-reflection. It could be difficult for some individuals to take on that information, however. They may need support and explanation. I am not saying that it will take a huge resource per se, as it would probably apply to a smaller number of cases. As I said, I am here to speak in part on behalf of our service users and their families, who experience the ripple effect of the crime, and it is important that we keep the focus on the victim as well.

Mr Beattie: Thanks, Fiona.

Mr Bradley: Thank you very much. Apologies for missing your presentation.

Ms Greene: That is OK.

Mr Bradley: I was held up at another Committee and needed to get something to eat.

Looking at it from the victim's point of view, there is a perception that a suspended sentence is a slap on the wrist and the person has got away with their crime. How can the Bill achieve balance through the sentencing council whereby the victim is looked after — how the victim has suffered and the impact on their life are taken into account — while taking account of how the perpetrator's life may be turned around? How can that balance be struck?

Ms Greene: I would return to the purposes of the sentence and what the court or judge needs to weigh up — all the factors around those purposes — in making those decisions. Without prioritising and saying that one is more important than the other, it all has to be weighed up. The way that I look at it is that Lady Justice holds a set of scales, and the rights and sometimes the outrage of the community and victims have to be weighed up against the human who is subject to having their liberty removed or their rights curtailed for a period of time or, potentially, the rest of their life. That is a matter for the court. There should be judicial discretion on that. However, standards and public understanding of what that looks like and means need to be improved.

Mr Bradley: You are right: it is the perception. Not enough is being done to understand where the victim is at that particular time or at the time of the sentencing. It is not just about the effect that it has had on them but about the effect that it will have on them for the rest of their life. There is not enough clarity on that.

Ms Greene: It is the ongoing impact, and that is not just at the higher end or the higher thresholds of crime. It can be at the lower end. I worked in victim support for many years and was involved in the development of the witness service, so I know first-hand what that looks like and feels like. That is partly why I am here. Some people might think that I am at the other end of it, but that is not the case. It is the continuum of the spectrum, because, in order to prevent victims from going through that, we need to do the prevention work and support the people who are at risk of criminality.

Mr Bradley: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Brian wants in again, but I will ask you a number of questions that I do not think have been covered yet.

What are your thoughts, as a group, on clause 36, "Aggravation by reason of vulnerability"? Aggravation by hostility and aggravation by reason of vulnerability are under Part 6 on "Particular Persons or Groups". The Public Prosecution Service (PPS) has shown a lot of concern around the practicalities of the court proceedings on that, how it could jeopardise cases and how we look at vulnerabilities. Have you, as a group, thought about that and how it would manifest itself on the offender?

Ms Greene: What page is that on? I have some notes on it.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): That is clause 36 on page 24.

Ms Greene: For us, that was the most difficult part in many ways as regards the implications of the detail of that part of the legislation. I was struck by some of the comments that have been made to date around what that means for victims because their vulnerability will be subjected to more scrutiny — that is how I will put it, and we all know and understand what that will mean — particularly around clause 36(7)(b), which states:

Many years ago, I was involved in the lower end of the courts and tribunals, representing people around their disability and what their vulnerabilities would look like. That can be really difficult, so the standard of proof — maybe that is not the right terminology — or the inquisitorial nature of the adversarial criminal justice system could have unintended consequences for victims. That is my roundabout way of saying that.

I also had some issues, potentially, around "to protect himself", because the way that I looked at it was that that was, in some part, a way for the Bill to potentially address misogyny. There has been a lot of discussion about that. If that is what it is about, it should just name it and not conflate everything. Furthermore, it is not about the person protecting themselves, because that almost puts an onus back on the victim to do something when what we are really trying to address are the behaviours and actions of the person who has committed them.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): My understanding is that the clause originated because of age and then everything else sort of wrapped itself around that. However, the PPS displayed real concern about the prosecutor not applying the aggravator at the start, and, even if they do, it is all about that victim's vulnerabilities having to be tested in court.

Ms Greene: I know.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): If the prosecutor does not apply the aggravator, however, there is doubt as to whether a court may be able to take vulnerability into account later in the court case and even in sentencing. Do you have any thoughts on the practicalities?

Ms Greene: It is complicated, and the Committee should probably have a session on it.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): We are meeting the Department next.

Ms Greene: I definitely think so. I have been struck by some of the evidence that has been given. On first reading it, I thought, "It is a vulnerability, and, yes, that sounds good", but, when you get into the detail and the difference between a characteristic and a situational —.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): What are your thoughts on enhanced combination orders (ECOs)? They were piloted in Northern Ireland as a replacement for a 12-month prison sentence. A lot of people have said that the enhanced combination orders worked well, but it was a pilot, and the pilot was not continued. They think that there is a miss in the Bill.

When you read the provision, you see that suspended sentence orders take up only from five years to seven years or thereabouts with regard to custodial sentencing. There needs to be something for the lower end to replace the 12-month sentence, if you like. A lot of the people who support ECOs say that they work. Do you have any evidence on or experience of ECOs and why they are not used?

Ms Greene: I am aware of the work that colleagues in some of the restorative justice organisations and the Probation Board have done. I am aware that, from the Probation Board's point of view, good evidence has been built up on the success of that. Our definitive statement is that community sentences are always better than custodial ones, given the evidence on reoffending in particular. Yes, we support anything that supports people who have been convicted to get the help that they need so that they do not reoffend. Yes, we support that.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): In your submission, you mention your evidence on the Justice Bill with regard to the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. If you have not already done so, will you forward that to us again so that we can take a fresh look at it in the context of this Bill?

Ms Greene: Absolutely. We will send that with the supplementary information on what, we think, this Bill has against that. We will try to do a version of it. Maybe that would be better instead of just rehashing everything. We do not want you to have to read those 32 pages again.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I remember you saying that.

Ms Greene: We can do that. It is not a problem.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): That is brilliant.

Mr Kingston: I have one other point. Although the rehabilitation of offenders is one of the purposes of sentencing, there is virtually nothing about rehabilitation in the Bill, apart from, arguably, community requirements for suspended sentences. This issue came up a few times. When people are detained on remand and are therefore not convicted, can NIACRO or other organisations do any rehabilitation work with them? I ask that because, sometimes, by the time someone is sentenced, they have already served their time on remand and are released either immediately or shortly afterwards without going through rehabilitation. Is that a failing in the system, or can NIACRO or other agencies work with people on rehabilitation before they are convicted?

Ms Greene: One of the reasons why there are so many people on remand is the delay in the whole system. It has been one of our policy priorities for many years to reduce that delay through, for example, the introduction of bail support programmes. At one point a couple of weeks ago, 60% of the people in Maghaberry were on remand, which is a high proportion of the current prison population.

As an organisation that delivers services or programmes to support people in a non-judgemental way, irrespective of what they have done and where they are in the criminal justice system, we find it really frustrating that, although we could help or could deliver a programme, particularly for people who have been in the system or have recycled around it several times, that is not possible because they are on remand and are not convicted. They are going through a legal process, so there are legal ramifications around defence and all of that. You have to bear that in mind. There is people's right to a fair trial. There is the issue of how taking part in a rehabilitation programme before you have been convicted would be considered by a court and even in a public messaging way. There are lots of factors.

That was in response to a question about tackling delay and getting to it quickly. Doing so is for victims, particularly, so that they are not faced with the fact that someone has already served their time before the conviction is given, and for the person who is convicted so that they can get the support that we could and should provide.

Mr Kingston: Presumably, the victim can be supported before a conviction. That will be by other organisations, including Victim Support.

Ms Greene: Yes. I am talking about the delay for victims. We have heard —

Mr Kingston: The frustration.

Ms Greene: — for so many years about the frustration around that. That includes the process of being called to court. You all understand what that looks like.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Doug wants in to ask a supplementary question on that.

Mr Beattie: Fiona, I want to carry on with that a little to try to understand it better. If a prisoner goes in on remand, you cannot deal with them and cannot do any rehabilitation with them. If they go to court and are given a sentence where, on the basis of time served, they are released straight away, are you able to start working with them at pace when they are back out in the community, or are they just lost to the system?

Ms Greene: Some people can be lost. Hopefully, we sent some information on the programmes that we deliver. Those programmes are funded and have targets and criteria against which we deliver. Where someone comes out and is not referred to us or we do not have a service in place, people fall through the system. It is so frustrating for me. I have been on record for many years saying that there must be something that we can do to not jeopardise someone's legal status as a non-convicted person in the prison but also provide support and assistance to them. That is to allow them to resettle when they get out. More has to be done in relation to the remand population.

Mr Beattie: Fiona, this is a slight tangent, sorry.

Ms Greene: It is OK.

Mr Beattie: This is interesting to me. If the person convicted is a foreign national and they are given 12 months or more, they should automatically be referred to the Foreign National Offender Returns Command for deportation once their sentence is complete. Do you have any dealings with that unit of the Home Office, or do you get involved in that in any shape or form? Are you aware of it in the whole process?

Ms Greene: I do not know. My team, which works in the prisons, has not escalated that to me. That is not to say that, at an operational level, our staff who work in the prisons are not assisting people and their families, of course, who are in that position. We run the Family Links service in the visitors' centres on behalf of the prisoner with the Prison Service, so we come into contact with most families and most people across the prison site.

Mr Beattie: That is why I asked the question. As you are dealing with the prisoner who is going through that Home Office unit, they have family outside whom you have to deal with.

Ms Greene: Yes, the Family Links service would, hopefully, pick that up and be able to provide practical support to the family. We have a debt and money-management service. We have some in-house experts on that, and we refer them on to the Law Centre and all of those things.

Mr Beattie: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): That is everyone who wants to ask a question.

Fiona, thank you very much for your time and for your answers and evidence.