Community Restorative Justice (HC 87-i)

Q154 Mr. Dave Anderson: Could I ask you about the staff in CRJ? It is suggested that the method of selection would be the framework on the protection of children and vulnerable adults. Do you think that would work?

Ms Lyner: Yes. It would be our view that staff or volunteers who are already in schemes should be going through processes of that nature. There are POCVA checks; there are criminal record checks; there is a range of issues. Are those processes appropriate? Yes, they would be. We would definitely take issue with the notion that it would be some process set aside from the proper governance and management of those schemes that would make those decisions, partly because as an NGO ourselves, which is exactly what these organisations would be, we would feel that would be an interference in our governance if we were not in a position to make decisions about our own staff and our own volunteers. What we would be suggesting is that it would be important for any scheme that was to be recognised under the protocols to submit for inspection what their recruitment and selection standards would be, what that process would be, and to allow perhaps for independent assessors to be part of those panels. Unless we provide for the integrity of those schemes to run in governance those issues themselves, we undermine the community development model which we espouse. Undoubtedly there would need to be transparency around what processes were being used, whether they were signed up to POCVA and a range of other things. Those would be prerequisites to being engaged. We do have a problem if it was to be set aside to a group of eminently worthy individuals who were aside from the scheme to be making decisions about who could or should be employed.

Q155 Mr. Dave Anderson: When you talk of transparency, I take it that should be both ways. If there is evidence that says this person either should or should not be employed, that should be scrutinised in a way that can be watertight?

Ms Lyner: It would be scrutinised in a way that should be watertight and it should be available to the individual on whom the information is held so that they can challenge whether or not they are the subject of this information. It also needs to tie up with other initiatives that are ongoing, following on from St Andrews, issues to do with long term, ex-politically motivated prisoners and how the commitment to include them in society, working and community engagement are to be followed through. What we are talking about in relation to CRJ needs to fit with initiatives being taken through the OFM and the DFM as well. The two things need to synchronise.

Mr. Dave Anderson: If somebody had been involved in Paramilitary activity, would there be a level of that that would slow any of the work in these schemes? If, for example, somebody sold raffle tickets as opposed to somebody who had sold hand grenades, would you think there should be a line drawn?

Q156 Chairman: Is there an acceptability threshold?

Ms Lyner: The Good Friday Agreement has provided an acceptability threshold in that individuals have been released under the Good Friday Agreement and are available in the community. Those people who have been involved in activities or have been suspected of being involved have been recalled. There are a few of those. We have a set of procedures in place. We have very inadequate rehabilitation of offenders legislation that suggests people who have served anything over two and a half years will never have their records spent. We know that the reality is that the majority of people who have gone through processes for conflict related troubles have not reoffended and pose very little risk to children. We do need something sophisticated to ensure that there is not inappropriate determination because individuals have a huge contribution to offer to the well-being of our society. On the other hand, it needs to be looked at on a case by case basis and a process to take that forward. There is no issue about the scrutiny; it is about the transparency and the fairness, recognising that we need to provide people with reasons for them to invest positively in society as well.

Mr Conway: We have recruitment guidelines that we give out to employers on matters such as this and we would be prepared to submit those to you.

Chairman: That would be very helpful. That shows us what judgements you make.

This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee. Neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.

Promoted by Paul Foy on behalf of Dave Anderson, both of St Cuthbert's Church Hall, Shibdon Road, Blaydon, NE21 5PT