Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): I formally welcome Louise Kennedy, the policy and communications manager of Victim Support Northern Ireland. You are very welcome to the meeting. The meeting will be recorded, and Hansard will publish a transcript in due course. Louise, I will hand over to you to give us an outline of your submission. We will follow that up with some questions from members. Thank you, Louise.

Ms Louise Kennedy (Victim Support): Thank you, Chair. Thank you for giving Victim Support the opportunity to provide evidence on the Protection from Stalking Bill. We are delighted to see the Bill progress through the Assembly, as it has been a law literally years in the making.

I will start by providing a brief snapshot from the perspective of victims of how stalking is currently tackled. As you know, Victim Support is the lead agency supporting victims of crime in Northern Ireland. An opt-out situation operates with the PSNI and Victim Support. When a victim of crime reports to police, that victim's details will automatically be passed on to us, unless the victim has expressly opted out. Consequently, we support victims of all types of crime, including victims of stalking. In advance of today's evidence session, I spoke this week to our support staff and, indeed, our independent sexual violence advocates (ISVAs) so that I could provide you with the most up-to-date lie of the land on stalking. I will detail the main takeaways.

Victims find stalking hard to report, and they find it difficult to navigate properly through the criminal justice process. When reported, incidents are still looked at in isolation and not as part of a pattern of behaviour. That is not helped by the fact that, when victims report a new incident to police, it can be dealt with by a different team or different person each time. One incident in isolation, without the broader context of the pattern of behaviour, can often appear to many agencies and agents as minor or just not serious enough to investigate. Consequently, agencies are not seeing the bigger picture or recognising the seriousness of the behaviours as a whole. A lot of victims feel extremely worried that the pattern of minor but escalating behaviour being inflicted on them is a build-up to a more serious incident that could harm them. Victims report to us that they feel that they have no protection in cases like that, which leaves them feeling vulnerable and at risk of more serious harm.

Online stalking has also massively increased. There are simply more avenues online. People feel more vulnerable to online stalking now that most of the world has moved on to that virtual platform. For example, in universities and workplaces, invites to lectures or training sessions can be sent out in a big group email with an invite list that is visible to all. That is increasing online stalking at universities and so forth. Finally, during COVID, victims have reported feeling much more vulnerable due to the "Stay at Home" messaging because stalkers will almost certainly know where their victims are for the majority of the time. Those are the challenges that we witness with the status quo and that, we hope, the Bill will overcome.

It is important to say first and foremost that, overall, this is good legislation. It is a positive step that stalking will be explicitly named in law as a crime. That will help victims of stalking and justice agencies to better recognise it and to respond to it more effectively in a way that prioritises victim safety. It is also positive that the Bill is broad enough to include conduct that amounts to digitally assisted stalking, or cyberstalking. The Bill moves us one step closer to ratification of the Council of Europe Istanbul convention, which is widely regarded as the gold standard for tackling all forms of violence against women. It will also go some way to meeting recommendations that were made by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) in its most recent examination of the UK in 2019.

We are supportive of the law and primary legislation more generally being constructed in a gender-neutral way. It is important to recognise that stalking can happen to anyone, though it is disproportionately experienced by women and perpetrated by men. To our mind, having gender-neutral law allows for applicability in all cases where stalking is taking place. Where the gendered lens can and should come in is in training and guidance, which will assist police and legal practitioners to recognise the different presentations of stalking when it comes to victims who are female, male, trans, heterosexual and LGBT. It is to the benefit of all victims that there be a gender-aware approach to training. We see that as part of a broader upskilling of relevant practitioners so that they can recognise and understand the many nuances of stalking behaviours, including how those present depending on gender. There should be nuance in training and guidance that fosters an understanding of the different types of stalking and stalker.

As our written evidence attests to, we think that there are a lot of positives in the Bill. Ultimately, Victim Support is of the view that the key to the law being successful will be its operationalisation. We are aware that the Committee is seeking to consult Scottish support practitioners to hear their view on their stalking law, which resembles our own in many ways, and that the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, for example, will give evidence on the English approach later this afternoon. That will be really useful in giving us an insight from a victim's perspective into how the law has already been operationalised elsewhere, what has worked and what has not worked. We look forward to hearing that evidence so that, collectively, we can make Northern Ireland's response to stalking the best that it can be.

In the meantime, we in Victim Support NI would like to add a few comments from our perspective. As was stressed during the scrutiny of and debate on the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Bill, which is now an Act, even the best crafted statutes can be worth little more than the paper that they are written on if they are not rolled out effectively. That sentiment has been echoed by all the agencies that have given evidence thus far and, indeed, by the Committee. We would like to highlight some areas where work could be done to ensure our effectiveness. First, we endorse the PSNI's view that, for the law to be operationalised effectively, it needs to be resourced adequately and to include sufficient training for officers. To our mind, this is not just a new law; like the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act, it is a new way of doing things that will require a new mindset and new approach from our criminal justice agencies. It is just not reasonable to expect that such a cultural change will happen of its own accord. Agencies such as police and prosecutors need to be given the resources, training and tools to meet the challenge of tackling stalking. That will inevitably need to include resources to deal with the investigative burden of conduct crimes and of ongoing training for officers as stalking tactics and patterns shift and evolve with new technologies and new circumstances like the pandemic.

We also point out that victim confidence in the new law and the justice system more generally will require better communication with victims. That is not confined to stalking or the Bill. However, as victims are particularly vulnerable and constantly having to reassess their safety, we think that it is particularly important to mention it. Keeping victims informed of and consulted about steps taken, such as arrest, release on bail, imposition of stalking protection orders (SPOs) and conditions attached, will be crucial so that victims can take decisions and actions to safeguard themselves. We have a justice system that is very offender-focused by its nature and structure. That can often be to victims' detriment, so it is important that agencies deliberately and as a matter of policy communicate with victims effectively and in a timely fashion. That includes effective communication and consultation in the event that it is proposed, for example, that an SPO be shortened or amended.

We will highlight several other issues that the Committee may wish to consider. First, it may be useful to set up a stalking register given the fact that some stalkers are serial perpetrators. A register, which has been flagged as a good idea by the likes of Paladin, would be an invaluable preventative tool. Ultimately, most victims tell us that their main wish from the justice system, in addition to their own safety, is for no one else to go through what they have. A stalking register may help to make that wish a reality. Secondly, better data will help us to improve, tailor and evolve our response to stalking. Specific data collection on reportage of incidents and whether the law is being used and utilised adequately at each stage of the justice process would be useful in monitoring its success.

Finally, if we are truly to tackle stalking, domestic abuse and other crimes of that intimate, abusive nature, it is not enough for us to react only once they have happened. By that stage, the horse has well and truly bolted, unfortunately. If we are serious about tackling stalking and preventing future perpetrators and victims being created, we need to educate people. That means awareness-raising campaigns, but it also means standardised, mandatory relationships and sexuality education (RSE) in all our schools for all age groups in an age-appropriate way. I know that that is not the domain of Justice, but Justice is the bellwether of how effective we have been in our other preventative efforts up the road. A cross-departmental violence against women strategy, which has been flagged, may be one part of that solution. Victim Support is in favour of that and would like to see it as soon as possible. We hope that the work of the Gillen implementation team, which includes the roll-out of the education and awareness-raising recommendations, will be a game changer in that regard, but if those initiatives fall short of teaching our citizens about relationships, respect, consent, healthy boundaries and resilience, we are failing them and future generations.

Thank you for your time, Chair and members. I am happy to answer any questions that the Committee may have.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): Louise, thank you. You have given us a very good overview. It is reassuring that you recognise the legislation as a good piece of work. Obviously, there are areas that we will want to look at in further detail. One of your recommendations is a stalking register for serial perpetrators of stalking and abuse. Will you elaborate on how you see a stalking register operating? Would it be akin to the requirements of the sex offenders register?

Ms Kennedy: We see it as being similar. Would a stalking register be applicable only if someone has been convicted under the stalking legislation? That could be one of the differences. Obviously, there will always be the presumption of innocence and the need for the rights of defendants and the rights of victims to be balanced. However, we hope that, with this legislation making stalking an explicit crime, the protection orders and the entire regime of change with coercive control and so forth all being part of the mix, we will have more effective prosecution and conviction of perpetrators, and a stalking register could be rolled out in that regard.

That said, there is a question about whether there is merit in having an operational register of some kind if someone is found to be a serial perpetrator of stalking but has not yet been convicted. I do not have the skill set to go into that in more detail in the way that, for example, the police would, but it is certainly something to consider. Ultimately, there are other examples of initiatives to protect people that do not require convictions to be used, for example, multi-agency risk assessment conferences (MARACs) and Clare's law. That may be something to explore, with the rights of all parties involved being very, very carefully considered.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): Thank you. In your paper, you also mention the need for special measures to be fit for purpose, and you referenced the failings of technology. Will you elaborate a little on the experience on special measures? Has there been any improvement on the technology, given that we have had increased remote hearings in the last year?

Ms Kennedy: Of course. That issue arose in some research that Victim Support did. We asked 10 ordinary members of the public to observe sexual violence trials between 2018 and 2019, and we subsequently released our 'Bearing Witness' report. The failings in technology was one of the biggest and most glaring things that could be easily fixed. You had people not being able to hear recordings or being able to see people. There were also really badly recorded interviews, for example, that were being used for victims of sexual offences who were using their achieving best evidence (ABE) interview as their evidence-in-chief. It is something that, we think, is an issue and that has been recognised across the board in criminal justice agencies as an issue.

As the courts open up again and things like the remote evidence centres roll out, we will want to monitor over the next couple of months how much that has improved given the shift of things online. Certainly, there will always be a lag with these things. At the end of the day, when you think of the amount of time between someone giving an ABE interview when an incident happens and that ABE interview ending up in the courtroom setting, you find that it is sometimes several years later. It is not necessarily the case that you see improvements immediately. However, we feel that that is a fix and that decisive action needs to be taken. At the end of the day, for crimes like this, when you have the special measures that rely on technology for people to give their best evidence, it is really not OK that those measures are inadequate and do not allow juries to hear that full evidence.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): Thank you, Louise. That has been helpful. I will bring in some members at this stage. I have Linda, Sinéad and Rachel, who have indicated that they have questions, so I will take them in that order.

Ms Dillon: Thank you, Chair. Louise, you covered some of my points already in your responses to the Chair and in your presentation, so thank you. It has been very positive.

I want to tease out special measures a bit more. That was part of the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Bill, which carried special measures over into the family and civil courts. Was that raised with the Department? Victim Support was part of the reference group. Why do you think that the Department has not taken it on? What was its response, if it was raised?

Ms Kennedy: Sorry, Linda, your connection broke up a little bit.

Ms Dillon: Can you hear me clearly now?

Ms Kennedy: I can hear you. It was the first part I did not catch. What did you want to know if we had raised? I was not sure what you were asking.

Ms Dillon: To be clear, you were part of the reference group on the Bill. Were the special measures for civil and family courts raised in that group, and, if they were, what was the Department's response?

Ms Kennedy: As a matter of policy, Victim Support supports the roll-out of special measures in family and civil courts, and we have certainly spoken to the Department about them. That is a conversation that we continue to have. I am not sure whether we have won that argument yet about complete roll-out, but, if someone is a victim in a criminal context, they do not stop being a victim when you go down the road of family or civil proceedings or even divorce and so forth. At the end of the day, if the case is proven for vulnerable victims in the criminal context, it does not cease to exist in the family context. It is an ongoing conversation that we are having. Victims would be keen to see that happen in the family and civil courts.

I hope that answers your question.

Ms Dillon: Yes, it does. I am a bit confused about why the Department pushed back on it. It was accepted for the domestic abuse Bill. It should be automatically carried over; I agree with you. We should ask the Department what its view of that is. If it has a difficulty with it, I would like to hear what that is and why. Unless some very good argument is given for why you would not do that, I would certainly be supportive of it.

It will come as no surprise to you that I absolutely support what you said about RSE. I have been consistent about that in the Committee. You are right: we are not the Education Committee, but we are the Justice Committee. We are responsible for all things justice. We are not responsible for trying to come up with legislation to put people in jail; we are responsible for trying to prevent them committing crimes and creating victims in the first place. It is important that we work closely with Education and keep pushing for real and meaningful education about what a healthy relationship looks like and what an unhealthy relationship looks like. That is vital.

The other issues that I had were all answered in the presentation and in your questions, Chair, so I am content to leave it there. If there is anything else, I will come back to it. Thank you very much, Louise.

Ms Kennedy: Thank you, Deputy Chair. I will make just one further comment on what you said about RSE. We are not talking about sex education; we are talking about safeguarding. That is an important distinction to make. We are talking about safeguarding our children, who are our future adults. That is the focus that we need to have. It is not necessarily always the purview of Justice, but that could be one example of the great aspiration in our Programme for Government to end that siloed way of working. The issue can be cross-departmental. I am optimistic, given the noises that were made about the violence against women and girls strategy, that that could be one avenue in which that happens.

Ms Dillon: I absolutely agree. It is about the relationship rather than just the sex. I am talking about relationships in every form.

Ms S Bradley: Thank you, Louise. Chair, you and the Deputy Chair covered the points that I wanted to get some clarity on. Louise, you answered those points well.

I will not put you on the spot about detail on the register, but it is an interesting idea. It is definitely timely for us to give that matter some consideration. Your presentation was very good and specific; you went through the Bill clause by clause at times, and you talked about clause 2. Is there a bit of a contradiction with that? To my mind, the register would be a warning, as it would capture repetitive behaviour, maybe against different victims. I would need to look at clause 2 in the context of the legislation, but we are talking about a single-act offence of threatening or abusive behaviour. Are there some parts where we may have intentions at one end, but, because we are trying to broaden the capture of the actual offence in other parts, we contradict ourselves? That is just a thought I have at this time. I do not know whether you want to give any consideration to that.

You made the point about RSE well: it is not about sex education. The more we visit the domestic abuse piece and this, the clearer it becomes that it is about the parameters of a healthy relationship.

We cannot repeat that too often, because all this type of legislation will be based on a good programme of education being delivered.

I will not go over the earlier parts, because you covered them well. Thank you very much, Louise. If you have something to add on that other issue, I would appreciate your thoughts.

Ms Kennedy: You made a good point in asking whether, because clause 2 covers "a single act", that could mean being put on a register. My instinctive reaction is that, like you say, the intention behind a stalking register would be to capture serial perpetration against either the same person or against multiple people. To my mind, a register would lean more towards repeat conduct.

I am not sure how that would work operationally and so forth. A register does not necessarily have to be tied to every single clause of the Bill, although I have to put my hands up and say that I am a victims expert, not an expert of legal and procedural minutiae. To my mind, it would be about serial perpetration and repeat acts. That would be the crux of it.

Miss Woods: Hi, Louise. It is good to see you. Thank you very much for your overview. A lot of my questions have been asked, so I will not go into them. I cannot agree more with the point on resourcing, training, data collection, reporting, monitoring, reviewing and mandatory and comprehensive RSE. Like Sinéad, I do not think that we can say that enough. I appreciate you raising that again. It is crucial for all this and for preventative action and safeguarding.

Obviously, you said at the start that you deal with all types of victims in Victim Support. Will you give us an overview of the number of stalking victims that you deal with? We do not have a lot of data, if any, on victims and stalking in Northern Ireland because we do not collect that data. It comes under harassment, which covers a wide variety of behaviours. If you could give us a bit of idea of the number of stalking victims there are, whether there are rough numbers or whether stalking is quite prevalent, because, again, we do not have that data for Northern Ireland yet.

Ms Kennedy: As you say, because we do not have a specific stalking law yet, details on that are not captured numerically or empirically. What I can say is that victims of stalking come through to us in lots of different ways. For example, you can have someone who is going through a harassment law procedure, and when you listen to their stories, you realise that their experience is very much stalking. One of the reasons we are here today is because the harassment law does not capture the seriousness and sinister nature of a lot of stalking behaviours.

We see that coming through, and we provide general and emotional support in the immediate aftermath of stalking taking place. Also, if it came to a court process, our witness service would be there to give the person a separate space in the courts so that they could sit and not have to come into contact with the defendant. We would also provide free support if they wanted to apply for criminal injuries compensation.

Finally, where the more serious — I am sorry, excuse me: when I say "serious", I mean stalking behaviours that possibly also involve sexual violence. We have our independent sexual violence advocates for that behaviour. The things we see coming through there tend to be, although not exclusively, cases of domestic abuse with serious sexual elements and serious stalking potentially by ex-partners and so forth. You are really at the sharp end of the wedge with the extreme levels of sexual violence that took place in the past, and the danger is then with escalating stalking behaviours that are tied in with a domestic abuse relationship or you have a zero-sum power relationship between offender and victim.

There is a breadth that we see. Obviously, we work with other agencies in making sure that victims get the tailored support that they need. We work with the likes of Nexus, Women's Aid and the Men's Advisory Project (MAP) and so on. As a collective, the agencies that support victims see a breadth of that behaviour in Northern Ireland, just like anywhere else, and it is crucial that, while we have a law that covers it, the training, roll-out and guidance should reflect the different specificities of different kinds of stalking and presentations.

Miss Woods: Thank you, Louise. I think you already answered my question, but this is something that we looked at in the domestic abuse Bill and then put in the legislation. Would Victim Support agree with training on stalking being made mandatory for criminal justice agencies and partners?

Ms Kennedy: Yes, we absolutely would. I do not think that it is an "us versus them" situation. People who are in the criminal justice agencies are employees and human beings, and it is only reasonable that, if you have not received specialist training, you err on the side of caution because you are trying to do your job correctly within the parameters that you have been given. Detective Chief Superintendent McNally gave evidence last week about how the police would like there to be resourcing, training and so forth and not just a one-off, 40-minute online video. This matter requires ongoing lifetime career training for police and agency staff, because stalking behaviour is changing. Stalkers are motivated perpetrators who use everything at their disposal, and we need to make sure that we equip our justice and statutory agencies with the necessary tools and do not set them up to fail. In order to do that, we need to give them effective training, the space to do the training and the space and resourcing to, like I said, investigate and put the time into doing the longer investigative work that is required for course of conduct crimes like stalking, coercive control and domestic abuse.

Miss Woods: Thank you, Louise. I could not agree more. Finally, there is something in your submission, which was also in the submission from Women's Aid. We heard from Sonya last week. Your submission mentions:

Are you willing to elaborate on that? What experience do you have with the people you are working with on that? Is it similar? I do not know if you saw Sonya's submission to the Committee last week. Is there a similar experience in Victim Support?

Ms Kennedy: Yes, there is. I tuned in to hear Sonya's evidence, and, yes, we experience something quite similar. Most support agencies across the board would probably agree with that, although I cannot speak for them. Our experience is that, whilst it is not always an official paramilitary organisational issue, you certainly have individuals and communities with paramilitary links or power that is gleaned from that. The problem with that is the fear it can engender, and that fear is often proven to be true by the actions of those perpetrators. That kind of issue is an extra safety and safeguarding consideration for victims. It may also make them less likely to be able to give their best evidence because of fears for their own safety. We very much need to take that into consideration, because, in our communities, although, like I said, it may not be an official structure, you still may have people who are operating under the guise of being linked to paramilitaries, and that gives them power and engenders fear not only in the whole community but in the individuals in their lives, including the women in their lives. It can be truly terrifying and is very much a safety concern.

Miss Woods: Thank you, Louise.

Ms Dolan: Thanks, Louise, for your presentation. I have one question about the stalking register. Has Victim Support raised that with the Department, and, if so, what was the reaction?

Ms Kennedy: Sorry, Jemma, you broke up there. Are you asking whether we raised a register with the Department?

Ms Dolan: Yes.

Ms Kennedy: To my knowledge, we feel that having such a register is reasonably new thinking. We would like to see it and are in support of it. We have not necessarily pushed it as our absolute number-one priority in all the work that we do to support victims. When the domestic abuse Bill came through and in trying to get this Bill across the line, we have had, as I am sure you noticed, quite the laundry list of things that we wanted to happen.

A stalking register would be a really useful tool. We understand that more consideration may be required, as I said earlier, to balance the competing rights and ensure that we get it right and do not just roll out something that is quite ad hoc; not that I think that that would happen anyway, because the Department is very considered when it comes to big, radical changes. It is something that we would like to see. However, we appreciate that more thinking may need to go into it.

Ms Dolan: OK. Thanks, Louise. Thanks, Chair. That is me.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): OK. The last question in this session is from Paul Frew.

Mr Frew: Thank you, Louise. It is good to see again.

Ms Kennedy: Hi, Paul.

Mr Frew: Even through technology, it is still good to interact. I want to go into the detail a wee bit more. I have tried to see in your submission whether you are content with the tariff set for clause 1, that being 10 years, a fine or both for conviction on indictment. You will know that domestic violence brings a sentence not exceeding 14 years. Is Victim Support mute on that point, or do you have a preference?

Ms Kennedy: I will be honest, Paul: it is not something that I have considered in any great detail. However, we are not saying that there should be a hierarchy of those kinds of crimes. Stalking is very serious. Therefore, it may be a matter of looking at that law versus domestic abuse law and doing some kind of standardisation.

One thing that we did look at was the tariff set with regard to stalking protection orders and the fact that, in Northern Ireland, it was six months as opposed to 12 months in GB. We suggested that it should be standardised to 12 months for a number of reasons. I know that the reasons have already been cited by others in their evidence sessions, but, ultimately, we know from experience and research globally that very short sentences do not really make a bit of difference when it comes to the restorative and rehabilitative element. There may not be enough time to consider the impact of behaviours and so forth. We had thought about that.

There may be a case to standardise the overall tariff. We think that the legislation, as it stands, reflects the seriousness of stalking. That is to be welcomed. However, beyond that, I cannot say that I am enough of a legal exert to get into the minutiae of tariffs and so forth.

Mr Frew: OK. I understand and appreciate that.

You talk about the stalking register. That is on everyone's lips — there is no doubt about that — especially when we have seen the moves in England and Wales with regard to legislation there and the failure to adopt a register. That surprised me, to be honest. However, looking at the detail, I see that the register is one thing, but then we have the protection arrangements. Excuse my ignorance, but I am not sure whether Victim Support is involved in the public protection arrangements Northern Ireland (PPANI). If we do not have a register, can we put anything on statute to encapsulate safeguards in the PPANI arrangements so that — this would be at the other end of convictions, of course — people would then be managed and monitored as part of those arrangements? That might bring assurances and safeguards for victims. If that is the logical step when you do not have a register, can it work without a register? What would such an arrangement look like? Would it be a mirror image of the arrangements in place for the perpetrators of sexual crimes, or would it be nuanced to suit stalking perpetrators?

Ms Kennedy: That is a good question. Thanks, Paul. We are involved in PPANI to an extent. For example, we sit on the victims and witnesses subgroup to ensure that victims' voices are in the workings of PPANI. If someone is convicted of stalking, something similar to PPANI could be put in place in terms of those monitoring arrangements. Where we are talking about serious offences and there is a demonstrable danger of reoffending or risk of harm, that may be valuable. We have good templates for how we deal with things, such as the PPANI arrangements. On the flip side, we also have, as I have mentioned, the multi-agency risk assessment conference for domestic abuse, which does not require convictions. There needs to be a stepping through of all of those options to find a tailored stalking response and arrangements suitable for that type of crime. Perhaps there is work to be done in that regard. The theory behind having protection arrangements in place is certainly a very good one. More work could be done to look into it.

Mr Frew: Do you think that you should be added to a register if you have been convicted of stalking once, or should you be added when you have been convicted of stalking twice with two different people because that demonstrates the serial aspect to it rather than a fixation on one person?

Ms Kennedy: Those are the difficulties with the idea of a stalking register. It is usually quite difficult for a conviction to take place in relation to course of conduct crimes. Hopefully, this law will change that. I am optimistic in that regard. That having been said, serial conviction is not the only measure of serial perpetration. If you speak to the police or support agencies such as ourselves you will discover that it is not uncommon for us all to be very aware of serial perpetrators. They might not have been convicted, but they could be well known to local police. That intelligence exists.

In the current state of affairs, that kind of police knowledge is a useful marker for serial perpetration. However, now that we will have the stalking law, we will, hopefully, have more convictions for stalking. That having been said, it takes, as we know, sometimes several years for provisions to get right through the system. The question then would be: if someone whom we know to be a serial stalker is prosecuted once, do we wait many years for multiple prosecutions and convictions before we put them on the register? That could be an abundance of caution. Again, however, those discussions need to be had to tease out the balance between the human rights of the accused and victim safety.

Mr Frew: Thank you very much for your time, Louise.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): Louise, thank you for your time; it is much appreciated.

Ms Kennedy: Thank you, Chair and Committee. If there is anything else that you require from us, please do not hesitate to ask.

The Chairperson (Mr Givan): We will take you up on that. Thank you.