Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Dr Archibald): I welcome Orla Drummond, Michael Scholes and Niamh McHugh, who are research officers in the Assembly Research and Information Service (RaISe). I will hand over to you to make an opening statement, and then we will open the meeting up to members' questions.

Mr Michael Scholes (Northern Ireland Assembly): Thank you very much, Chair. I will summarise the key points of the paper and then hand over to Orla and Niamh, who will discuss the equality implications of the Bill.

The paper aims to support the Committee and the wider Assembly in its scrutiny of the Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Bill. Throughout the paper, we have presented issues or questions for the Committee in blue boxes, which members may feel is useful.

Section 1 of the paper provides, by way of context, a statistical profile of domestic abuse in Northern Ireland. In 2021, approximately 31,000 domestic abuse incidents were reported, and 19,000 domestic abuse were crimes recorded. That is the highest level since the data series began in 2005. Statistics also show that there was a reported increase in domestic abuse during the COVID-19 lockdown periods.

Section 2 gives an overview of the Bill and the public consultation that was held earlier this year. The key findings of that reveal that 96% of those who replied to the consultation believe that paid leave for victims and survivors of domestic abuse should be put on a statutory footing. The Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Bill was introduced to the Assembly as a private Member's Bill on 19 October 2021. The Bill creates a statutory entitlement to paid leave for victims of domestic abuse. It provides that the Department for the Economy make regulations entitling an employee or a worker who is a victim of domestic abuse to be absent from work. The regulations will require the approval of the Assembly via the negative resolution procedure.

Safe leave is paid leave that is designed to be used by the employee or worker in order to deal with issues related to domestic abuse, including, but not limited to, obtaining legal advice and pursuing legal proceedings; finding alternative accommodation; taking advantage of healthcare, which includes mental healthcare; obtaining welfare support; and protecting family members. Safe leave is to be set for a minimum of 10 days per year.

The Bill does not prescribe specific elements relating to pay, notice periods or proof of domestic abuse. The detail of those and other issues are to be introduced via regulations brought forward by DFE.

Section 3 of the paper discusses the key provisions of the Bill in more detail. The Bill uses behaviours described in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 to define domestic abuse. However, the definition in that Act has attracted some criticism, mainly for not including a single definition of domestic abuse. Also, some stakeholders feel that it fails to capture the essence of the psychological harm that is caused by domestic abuse.

Provision in the Bill extends safe leave entitlements to workers as well as to employees. That is worth pointing out, because the interaction between employment status, NI law and the proposed regulations may prove challenging, particularly in cases where it is difficult to establish employment status, such as in the gig economy. The Bill sponsor has expressed a wish that no requirements should be needed to provide proof of domestic abuse, and the Bill does not explicitly state that proof of abuse is required. However, the Bill allows supplementary regulations to be brought forward by the Department in regard to notice procedures. That, arguably, gives authority to the Department to shape the notification process.

Section 4 provides a comparative perspective of other jurisdictions. Globally, the Philippines, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and Italy make statutory provision for domestic abuse leave. However, statutory paid leave is offered only in New Zealand, Canada and Italy.

Section 5 takes up other issues that are concerned with the Bill. Niamh and Orla will shortly speak about human rights and equality issues. Other issues include parity, which I will discuss briefly now. Currently in GB, there are no statutory leave payments for victims of domestic abuse. If the Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Bill is enacted as drafted, a statutory payment will be available for victims only in Northern Ireland. That may mean that, by offering enhanced entitlements to employees and workers that are not otherwise available in England, Scotland and Wales, Northern Ireland could be in breach of the Treasury parity principle, which states that people in the UK all pay the same rate of income tax and National Insurance contributions and are therefore entitled to the same benefits and rights. There remains a risk that, if the UK Government were required to restore parity in the future by introducing equivalent statutory safe leave payments in GB, the Treasury could seek to recoup the cost of doing so from the Executive's Budget. If that were the case and the UK Government sought to restore parity in GB at some future date following the enactment of the Bill, the estimated liability for the Northern Ireland Budget per annum could be considerable.

The Bill places a duty on the Department for the Economy to publish an annual report in order to monitor compliance with the Bill. DFE estimates that the cost of producing that annual report from existing resources would be approximately £7,200 a year. If a new team were set up to do that, the annual cost is estimated to be somewhere around £76,000. DFE has also presented annual costs for the public purse at various take-up levels of domestic abuse leave, assuming that the Bill was enacted. Those range from £145,000 if 500 individuals each take three days per leave in one calendar year, to nearly £10 million for a take-up of 10,000 individuals each taking 10 days per leave each year.

Thank you, Chair. That is a brief run-through of the key points of the paper. I will hand over to Niamh and Orla for their presentation on the human rights and equalities considerations.

Dr Orla Drummond (Northern Ireland Assembly): Thank you, Michael. Good morning. I will briefly cover the beginning of section 5 of our Bill paper, which looks at human rights and equality considerations.

While domestic abuse is often treated as a private concern for criminal and civil proceedings, a number of human rights are impacted that invoke a positive obligation on states to mitigate harm to victims and to provide support mechanisms. Positive obligations occur when states must guarantee human rights in circumstances where state agents do not directly interfere. Human rights and human rights law are generally concerned with the relationship between the citizen and the state, but, in certain circumstances, the state must try to mitigate harm between citizens.

Two examples of positive duties in the realm of domestic abuse concern the right to life and the right not to be tortured or to experience degrading or inhuman treatment or punishment. The positive duty to protect life means that the state should intervene when someone's life is at risk from another person and when the authorities know or should know about that risk. That includes protecting a person from domestic abuse. International standards on the right to life are enshrined in article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The right is domestically protected by the Human Rights Act 1998.

Additionally, domestic abuse victims are protected by the right not to be tortured or treated in a manner that is cruel or degrading. For example, article 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 imposes a positive obligation on public authorities to protect citizens from serious ill treatment by other individuals. The positive duty included in that right means that public bodies such as Governments and the police have an obligation to protect at-risk individuals from article 3 violations by private citizens. The United Nations human rights bodies have made a wide range of statements on domestic violence and have placed a broad range of obligations in that area on states.

Those obligations relate not only to the protection from harm but to the support mechanisms that are required to aid domestic abuse victims. As noted by Rights NI, those duties include improving the responses of states' criminal justice systems; ensuring that civil law measures are effective; conducting public awareness campaigns; and, crucially, providing social support mechanisms and measures such as housing, refuge, accommodation and childcare facilities to victims. The enactment of the Bill would be a step towards meeting those positive obligations on supporting victims and survivors of domestic abuse, thereby enhancing human rights protections. The ability for those affected to access paid leave means that they are economically protected and are provided with support and guidance in a time of crisis.

I will now hand over to Niamh, who will discuss any additional human rights elements.

Ms Niamh McHugh (Northern Ireland Assembly): Good morning, everyone. Following on from what Orla said, I will highlight the key areas on enhancing human rights protections.

First, it is important to consider the wider context of support mechanisms that are in place and available for victims, particularly the accessibility to support services in Northern Ireland. If victims or survivors of domestic abuse can access leave entitlement but cannot access support services, that could reduce the attainment of the Bill sponsor's intended objective. For example, Human Rights Watch highlighted that there are insufficient measures to ensure critical support and services for survivors of violence, especially those who are least likely to get help. It notes that, before the COVID-19 pandemic, support for specialist domestic abuse services was already a national crisis and that that situation has been further exacerbated. In relation to the protections of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act, there is strong concern regarding the lack of access to domestic abuse services for migrant, black, Asian and minority ethnic women. Examples of barriers for those communities include access to a phone, language barriers and immigration status. That is because the barriers can be used to control those communities or to prevent them seeking help. They may fear approaching authorities due to the risk of detention, deportation or separation from their children. Those barriers, therefore, highlight the additional and specialised support systems that those communities require.

In May last year, Amnesty International urged the Northern Ireland Executive to provide emergency funding to groups that help victims of domestic violence. Significant additional funding had been made available to women's refuges and other groups in every part of the UK apart from Northern Ireland. As discussed previously, a number of positive obligations are placed on states in order to ensure the protection of their citizens from the detrimental impact of domestic abuse, including the obligation to ensure that there are effective support mechanisms. While the Bill enhances the protection of employees and workers in the workplace, it is vital to ensure that valuable supports are also in place. Last year, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission published a guide for employers on managing and supporting employees who are experiencing domestic abuse. Ten key recommendations were made for employers, and those are detailed in your papers. The report provides a point of reference and some wider considerations of how to support domestic abuse victims in the workplace, and it could enhance the effectiveness of the Bill sponsor's intended purpose.

Potential scrutiny points centre around the provision and enhancement of support services, especially around migrant and BAME communities, as well as the consideration of the recommendations that were made by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission.

Mr Scholes: Thank you, Niamh.

Chair, that is our presentation. We are very happy to take any questions that the Committee may have.

The Chairperson (Dr Archibald): Thank you very much for that. It was very helpful. Thank you for the briefing paper, which, as always, is considerable, and all the scrutiny points, which we will share with the Bill sponsor and the Department in order to get further information to support the Committee's deliberations on the Bill.

I will go back to the financial implications of the Bill. Will you talk us through your understanding of how the payments will be made? Obviously, there will be obligations on employers to support workers if paid leave is put in place. Is there also a statutory obligation relating to workers whose employers do not pay them that money or workers who do not have that in their contract? What is your understanding of how that will work?

Mr Scholes: My understanding of the cost and parity issue is that, interestingly, unlike the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill, employers do not have explicit liability to pay under the Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Bill. That is one point. However, my understanding of the whole process is that, under other statutory provisions, like sick pay or maternity pay, the employer pays the employee their normal wages, and the employer can claim back the money from HMRC. That money is then totalled by HMRC at the end of one calendar or financial year, and that scores off the Northern Ireland annual managed expenditure (AME) payments. Those payments are social security payments, so they fall under AME. Questions on that are possibly for the Department for Communities.

If Northern Ireland were to step outside those arrangements and introduce a new entitlement, like domestic abuse pay, there would be the potential that the Executive would be breaking that parity agreement with Treasury. In the future, if GB were to legislate and introduce the domestic abuse leave pay elements for England, Scotland and Wales, the ramifications of that could be that it would impact the Northern Ireland Executive departmental expenditure limit (DEL) budget, not the AME budget. In effect, we would be potentially punished for that break of parity. "Punished" is quite a strong word, but it all depends on negotiations between Treasury and the Department of Finance.

The whole point of mentioning that in the paper is to raise the issue. I am not a finance expert. It would be a good idea for the Committee to seek clarification on that point from the Department of Finance, the Department for Communities and the Department for the Economy, because parity is not a straightforward matter. It is not a statutory position; it is a Treasury procedure. It depends on the negotiations, and, as I said, the whole point of that particular section is to raise that as an issue for the Committee.

The Chairperson (Dr Archibald): Thanks for that. Obviously, we have had considerable discussions on that particular point in relation to the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill and where that crossover happens between devolved policy areas and the Treasury guidance on it. We have sought legal advice on that, but we can also raise those points with the various Departments. That is useful.

Mr Nesbitt: My question is on the same issue, Michael. Are you aware of any example of Treasury enforcing the cost of parity on any devolved Administration?

Mr Scholes: As I said, I am not sure, but I am not a finance expert. My colleagues in the financial scrutiny unit may be able to come back to you on that. I am not personally aware of one. That level of detail is beyond the scope of the paper.

Mr Nesbitt: Consequent to that, are you aware whether Treasury has the power to impose that financial obligation, or does it require legislation through Westminster?

Mr Scholes: All I can say is that, as I mentioned, the parity principle is written down in the statement for funding policy. A new one is usually produced at a spending review or a fiscal event. It kind of explains the public finance system. That is not on a statutory footing.

It would be up to the Department of Finance and Treasury to enter into negotiations on how possible parity implications could be sorted out.

Mr Nesbitt: OK. I am still not clear whether, on foot of those negotiations, it would need to pass through Westminster as primary legislation.

Mr Scholes: I cannot really give an answer to that. I agree that that point is definitely worth raising with, perhaps, the Finance Department.

Mr Nesbitt: OK.

Safe leave is set at a minimum of 10 days per annum.

Mr Scholes: Yes, that is correct.

Mr Nesbitt: What if I need only five or six days?

Mr Scholes: Then you would take only five or six days.

The Chairperson (Dr Archibald): You have the ability to take —.

Mr Scholes: Yes, it is set as a minimum. Basically, you have a minimum leave entitlement of 10 days per year. The legislation says that employers must allow for a minimum of 10 days' domestic abuse leave, but if you need only five or six days, that would be absolutely fine.

Mr Nesbitt: OK. Thank you very much.

Mr Weir: Thank you for the presentation and the information. I have a couple of points, and I will come back to the parity point in a minute. I note that you raised the definition of employment, workers and those on zero-hour contracts, which we will obviously pursue. To be fair, I know that the Bill sponsor indicated that she was not quite sure what the scope would cover, and that is one of the areas that we can explore.

One of the issues raised by, I think, Keith with the Bill sponsor was the scope of who, in the context of international comparisons, comes under the definition of a victim of domestic abuse. Where pure numbers are concerned, this may be a little bit at the margins, but what would happen if, for example, in a family setting, the son or daughter were the employee and lived in the house with, say, the mother, who was the direct victim? From looking at where such legislation has been used elsewhere, what is the scope and definition of a direct or indirect victim, how much has that been covered or is it limited? Is the limitation purely on the basis of a person's residency? Do you have any comments in connection with that?

Mr Scholes: The Bill sponsor left that issue vague — not "vague", sorry; that is the wrong use of the word. She left a broad definition there for various reasons. Clearly, if, as in your example, the mother was the victim of domestic abuse, she could claim the pay. However, what you are possibly getting to, Mr Weir, is whether, if a child were abused in the home, the parent — the mother or the father — would be able to claim that form of domestic abuse leave. In Australia, there is a stipulation that, if a child is involved in the abuse, the parent would be covered to claim domestic abuse leave and pay.

Mr Weir: Does that apply to the flip side, or is it purely in circumstances where the victim is a child? I am conscious of the fact that, and again, this may be more relative, although the mother of the household — it could be the mother, the father or whoever else is in the household — is the person directly suffering the domestic abuse, their son or daughter, who is of working age, may want to take some time off to support the mother. A good example is if they finally persuade their mother to leave their father and seek refuge and want to take some days off to be able to help her find somewhere. I just wonder about that, given the way in which the Bill has been drafted. We do not want everything so tightly defined that it does not cover different situations, but I think that it is important for both the employee and the employer, who needs to know where to grant the leave, that there is a level of certainty so that they are not scratching their head about whether they qualify.

Mr Scholes: You make a very good point about children of working age who are victims of domestic abuse. We say "children", but I guess that you mean people who are under 18 who are in employment.

Mr Weir: Not necessarily. The housing market has been in such a way during COVID-19 that more and more younger people are effectively in a situation where they are not getting their own accommodation, even rental accommodation, and are still staying in the parental home. For sake of argument, a 20-year-old could be living with parents who are in their 40s.

Mr Scholes: There are a couple of points there. Under the Bill, the 20-year-old who is in employment and possibly an agency worker, not an employee, would be able to claim the paid leave. You are possibly alluding to a parent in that position who would like to support —

Mr Weir: Or vice versa.

Mr Scholes: Yes. My answer to that is that the regulations to be introduced by the Department could include a reference to residential or household abuse. I think that the Bill sponsor made that provision particularly broad to encompass things like those that you discussed, Mr Weir. That really would be, again, something for the Department to look at in the regulations, and there is possibly a reason why the Bill sponsor chose to go down that route rather than to be too overly prescriptive with the definitions.

Mr Weir: I want to look at a second area. The global figures that are being suggested are probably not that large. You have highlighted the particular financial implications for the Department of producing a report, and maybe we need to probe that with the Department. Allied to that, has there been consideration of whether gathering the information will require any additional legislative changes in order to give the Department power to seek particular bits of information, particularly in the private sector? Maybe it is best that the Department comments on that. Do you have any thoughts on it?

Mr Scholes: That is a very good point, and, clearly, that is a question for the Department. You are quite right that the provision for notice and other confidentiality issues may require additional resources that need to be looked at by the Department. In order to provide confidentiality and record-keeping and things like that, a new bespoke system may need to be deployed. Again, clearly, it is for the Department to estimate a costing on that. Yes, I do see some additional resources being required in that area, although possibly not a huge amount. Existing resources are there, and I think that there is a family unit in the Department for the Economy that deals with other statutory paid leave issues. So, I think that the infrastructure is already there in the Department, but, again, you would need to bring that up with the Department when it comes to see you.

Mr Weir: My next point is about the parity issue, to which there are two aspects. The Chair and Mike have both raised the wider parity issue, which is this: if we go down a particular route, what is the level of threat to the wider block grant situation? It is bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario. Mike raised the issue of where the Treasury has stepped in to make a particular financial requirement of devolved institutions, and there may not be a worked example of that. To what extent has direct parity been broken in the devolved institutions, however? Is there a worked example of that? As Mike indicated, if parity has been broken, will that be something that falls administratively to the Treasury? Irrespective of the ultimate policy decision that is taken, will that require additional legislation?

On the principle of parity, we have to be careful about the widespread acceptance of breaches of parity, and this is more of a point than a question. For example, roughly eight or nine years ago, it was mooted that benefits should tie in much more with local economic circumstances. The argument used was that, if the average wage in a region is lower, perhaps the benefits should be lower. We have to be careful that we do not enable those who seek to go down that route to do so.

My final point may be for you or the Committee. I do not want to accuse the Chair of being in the same position as me, and perhaps we are being a little bit obtuse. The Chair mentioned the situation in which someone is getting statutory pay. In such circumstances, it would be quite helpful if we were to have a couple of worked examples. For example, if x is off work for 10 days, and x's employer normally pays them y amount of money, how will the money for an individual impact on the system at a micro level? Worked examples would trace that and give us a better understanding of the extrapolations. We would know the implications for HMRC and what the allowances should be. A couple of worked examples would be very helpful for us in crystallising our thoughts. If there are certain routes are dependent on where we go on some of the parity issues, they may crystallise our thoughts on the route that we take. Again, I do not know whether it is for you to do something or the Committee. I confess that I am in a similar position to the Chair, so a flow chart of how finances impact on individual cases would be helpful to crystallising our thoughts.

Mr Dickson: Thank you for the information and the very helpful briefing paper. You referred earlier to the definition of "domestic abuse" in legislation and how that might be determined in the Bill. In addition to domestic abuse, there are other issues that arise in similar circumstances, such as sexual assault. The British crime survey indicated that 29% of people in abusive relationships are also stalked. Is there crossover with stalking legislation? Should that be included in definitions? It is important that we have a clear understanding of what domestic abuse is in its widest context and that, if the Bill provisions comes into force, employers have no wriggle room to say, "Your request for leave is not covered by that bit".

I will mention one other aspect of the Bill. When we were taking evidence from the Bill sponsor, I raised the issue of confidentiality and employers. The HR records of employers, and of HR departments in particular, will have a high degree of confidentiality, but a smaller employer, or, indeed, any employer, potentially runs the risk of what might be described as water-cooler conversations. It is vital that people seeking the leave have absolute assurance of the confidentiality of the information that is given to their employer. How might that be included in the legislation?

Mr Scholes: With your permission, I will address the second point first. It is very difficult to legislate for confidentiality per se, but it can be done. Australia's Fair Work Act 2009 explicitly states that the employer must have regard to ensuring that information concerning notification and proof of domestic abuse is treated confidentially. In the comparative perspective section of the paper, there are not really any other examples of explicit statutory provision for confidentiality.

There are, however, some things in legislation. In Ontario, for example, the employer must keep records relating to the domestic abuse request for three years. That is not necessarily a point about confidentiality, but, if you think through that provision, you will see that it would be simple for us to introduce something for the employer to keep the records for three years and then dispose of them. You could take advice on that. That could help with the confidentiality issue. It will be difficult to legislate for confidentiality, however, because, as you rightly say, you are always going to get those water-cooler moments, and people will always gossip. Australia, however, has a provision in law that explicitly relates to confidentiality and employers. We can therefore definitely do that.

Mr Dickson: Could disclosing that information be a criminal offence?

Mr Dickson: There are two aspects to it. One is that employers have their standards and rules about maintaining employee records. The other is that the individual is put at a high degree of risk. If the reason that the person has sought the leave and information such as where they were living were to get out, it could lead to a further, potentially life-threatening incident. I am concerned that we need to make clear to employers the need for confidentiality. We also need to look in the direction of the person who is making the request, in order to ensure that they are adequately protected.

Mr Dickson: The more people who know, the more difficult that it all becomes.

Mr Scholes: I do not see why there could not be a provision to make that an offence. It would certainly give the confidentiality aspects more teeth. Given the way in which the Bill is set up, I am not sure whether that could be done by regulation or by a Committee amendment to the Bill. That is something to talk through with the Assembly legal team and take advice on, but I cannot think of any reason why you could not do it.

I will go back to your first point, if you are happy enough with that answer.

Mr Dickson: That is fair enough. Thank you.

Mr Scholes: There are a couple of things to note about stalking and the definitional aspects of domestic abuse . The Bill sponsor was on the Justice Committee when the now Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act was going through Committee Stage, so she will be very familiar with its definitional aspects. She is therefore clearly happy enough with the Bill. I know that legislation on stalking is going through at the moment. I could be wrong, but I think that RaISe has produced some papers on stalking, so it might be worth the Chair or the Committee Clerk speaking to the Justice Committee to see whether stalking is included. I do not know, because I am not an expert in the area. The Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act speaks about behaviours, so stalking could be covered in it, but I am not 100% sure. You will perhaps need to clarify that with the Justice Committee or even the Justice Department.

Mr Dickson: That is helpful, because it is important that we capture all the potential issues around the broadest definition of "domestic abuse". A spin-off from domestic abuse is, regrettably, that it can lead to stalking. There is good statistical evidence available. If that is not drawn into the broad definition of "domestic abuse", we will need to seek further information on that.

Mr Scholes: Stalking is a very good example, because, the definition of "domestic abuse" is not just of the behaviour but of a domestic connection to the victim, and stalking does not necessarily have that, so I see your point. That would need to be looked at, yes.

Mr Dickson: Thank you.

Mr K Buchanan: Thank you, Michael, Orla and Niamh, for the information so far. I have one question, although I always say that, and it then turns into two or three. My question relates to other countries. Your paper refers to 31,196 domestic abuse incidents in Northern Ireland 2020-21 and then to 19,036 domestic abuse crimes. I appreciate that you may not have this information, but I want to get your sense on it, Michael or whoever. In Italy, fewer than 100 women took up the benefit of statutory paid leave. What is the correlation? Compared with how many women or men took up the benefit of paid leave, how many incidents were there in Italy, Canada and the Philippines? Do you know where I am coming from?

Mr Scholes: Yes.

Mr K Buchanan: Is there a broad percentage of take-up?

Mr Scholes: I can answer that. The Philippines and Italy are both very interesting examples. In the Philippines, domestic abuse leave is available only to women, and the woman must prove, by certificate, that the abuse has happened. Clearly, that is a barrier to take-up. There are therefore issues in that jurisdiction that act as a barrier to people taking up that leave. As I said, it does not apply to men, and the very fact that women have to produce a certificate acts as a barrier to take-up.

In Italy, there are other issues behind the legislation that prove a barrier to the overall take-up. The system is very different in Italy. There are different ways in which people can take domestic abuse leave. They can join a programme: I think that that is the best way in which to describe it. Joining the programme gives them access to the domestic abuse leave provision. If we think about confidentiality and all those other issues, joining that programme appears to be a barrier in itself. That issue was raised in the research into poor take-up of the leave in Italy. We need to be very cognisant of all those barriers to uptake.

The start of your question was perhaps about whether domestic abuse is a Northern Ireland problem. It clearly is not. It is a global issue. We do not have figures for how many domestic abuse incidents occur in country x, y or z, because the stats for different countries have been recorded in very different ways. You could be comparing apples with oranges. The statistics might not have equivalence.

I do not know whether Orla or Niamh will want to add to this, but, from what I have read, domestic abuse seems to be a growing issue, and one has been exacerbated by COVID-19 lockdowns. There is clearly an issue to be addressed.

Mr K Buchanan: Do you see any barriers in the Bill to safe leave for women, men or whomever needs it?

Mr Scholes: The Bill sponsor deliberately left the Bill broad so that there would not be any barriers. The only issue that I can see is that of financial parity. That could be a major issue going forward. That is my perspective, however. I do not know whether Orla or Niamh have anything else to say about the rights or equality issues.

Dr Drummond: The Bill enhances human rights protections for all victims and survivors of domestic abuse. That wide definition may cover some things that you talked about, such as stalking, by leaving the Bill open to interpretation. That might ensure that more people are covered by the scope of the Bill than are excluded from it.

Mr K Buchanan: I have one other point, which may be for the Chair or the Committee Clerk. It would be interesting to know the number of incidents of domestic abuse and the level of take-up in other countries, just to give us a flavour. I appreciate your answer about the barriers, Michael. There do not need to be barriers. I would be interested to see what those other countries' numbers for incidents and crimes are like compared with those in our own country.

This is more of a comment than a question. It concerns Peter's point. Is the victim classed as still being a victim when it is an incident, or just when it is a crime? What are your thoughts on that? Looking at the figures, I feel that, if it is an incident of domestic abuse, it is still domestic abuse. Whether it is an incident or a crime, it still creates a victim. Is that your understanding, Michael?

Mr Scholes: It is. You were speaking about the PSNI statistics. In its bulletin, the PSNI describes the difference between an incident and a crime. This Bill uses a definition of "domestic abuse" that means that a crime does not have to have occurred. A domestic abuse incident would be evidence of domestic abuse. That definition would therefore be OK in the Bill.

Mr K Buchanan: Thank you, Michael, Orla and Niamh.

The Chairperson (Dr Archibald): Thank you, Keith. Nobody else is signalling to come in. Thank you for the briefing. As always, you have raised a number of points on which we will follow up. We may also pick up some of the queries that members have raised and come back to you about some of those.

Mr Scholes: OK. Thank you very much.

Mr Weir: Chair, just on —.

The Chairperson (Dr Archibald): Do you want to ask something, Peter?

Mr Weir: This is just on the back of Keith's point. If a statistical table in tabular form were to be produced with the number of incidents —

Mr K Buchanan: And crimes.

Mr Weir: — and the number of crimes compared with take-up of paid leave, that would be useful. A good argument has been made for this, and I think that it may be the case, but It would interesting to see whether take-up has in any way been deterred in jurisdictions in which evidence has been required in order to trigger paid leave.

For the sake of argument, there may be a 1% take-up in some places but a higher take-up in a jurisdiction with a notification system. It would be interesting to have a final column stating "specific evidence" or "detail of a crime required to trigger it", or something of that nature.

The Chairperson (Dr Archibald): OK. Thank you.

Mr Scholes: Thank you.