Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): The Committee will now undertake its informal deliberations on the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Bill. Brian Grzymek, Lorraine Ferguson and Ronnie Pedlow from the Department of Justice are available via StarLeaf should members have any questions or require further information or clarification on any issue during the informal deliberations.

Part 1 of the Bill deals with sexual offences. Chapter 1, on criminal conduct, covers additional voyeurism offences, sexual grooming by pretending to be a child and miscellaneous amendments as to sexual offences. Clause 1 deals with those issues and covers the subsequent amendments on additional voyeurism offences. One of the issues that have clearly exercised a number of organisations is whether clause 1 is framed too narrowly regarding the intent either to obtain sexual gratification for the perpetrator or to cause humiliation, alarm or distress to the victim and should be expanded to include other purposes and motivations, such as reckless intent. Another issue that was raised is whether the maximum term of up to six months on summary conviction is sufficient. There was then the suggestion that an amendment be made to the Bill to include the new offence of cyber-flashing in Part 1, as suggested by Professor McGlynn. A number of organisations also raised that issue. Do members have any comments to make on those issues?

Sinéad, apologies. You are now in the room but down in that corner, so you may have to shout at me.

Ms S Bradley: Thank you, Chair. On clause 1, I listened with particular interest to Professor McGlynn's presentation to the Committee. I do not disagree with what she said. I find myself conflicted, however, because nor do I disagree with what departmental officials spelt out to us about trying to frame this around the issue of consent, which is quite broad. I can see how, by broadening it out, it could become too much of a catch-all and a bit too broad. I also look at what is in front of us now, however, and I definitely think that there has to be some type of compromise: a midpoint from which we can expand the scope. We have rightly looked at and commented on a well-known case in Northern Ireland that, we recognise, would not be covered by the legislation. To my mind, one of our big objectives is to capture that kind of crime. We need to consider putting in the Bill the additional motivations behind the crime. That is a big piece, and it is fundamental to what exactly we are trying to achieve.

Mr Weir: I tend to agree with Sinéad. Earlier, I think, all the other evidence pointed simply to moving away from the purely motivational issue. My concern with the motivational side of things is that there is always an additional element of proof required: you have to prove that motivation. One thing about which we all have concern is the fact that there is sometimes a reluctance on the part of victims of sexual violence or, in this case, of voyeurism to come forward. Part of that reluctance is motivated by a feeling of, "Will I see a conviction arising out of this?". That presents two dangers, one of which is that the process sometimes creates something of a cold house for victims, whereby they feel uncertain about whether there will be a product at the end of it and thus ask themselves whether they should put themselves through it all for nothing. I can also see the situation from a practical point of view, however. If you are there as the public prosecutor, you will ask, "Does this case exactly fit the terminology?". I take on board what Brian and the Department said. Sinéad is right. Prior to the Department's evidence, I would have simply said, "Move away from the motivational and have a different definition". The issue for me is therefore that the compromise is that motivation has still got to be part of it. I do not have wording in that regard, but there is a concern that what is there at present on the confines of motivation is too narrowly drawn. We need to widen it a little to cover some of the aspects that have been raised. I am open to looking at that as a potential amendment.

Miss Woods: It is not that clause 1 as drafted does not cover a wide range — it does — and I fully appreciate the Department's response to the Committee on it, but I still believe that the clause is too limited and thus offers a defence. I appreciate the Department's response and quoting of the Public Prosecution Service (PPS), but we have read submissions and learnt from them that it is not always the case that there is no defence. The banter or group bonding defence is there, although not specifically, but it is there and can apply. I have to question how you can prove the humiliation, alarm or distress of the victim if the defence of banter exists. Furthermore, you still have to prove an intent.

I welcome the wider work that we need to do on consent. The Gillen review recommended that that be done, but it is a large-scale piece of work. I appreciate that people have asked us to change the intent of clause 1 and look at whether it is based on consent, but I acknowledge that that will not be possible for just the two offences of upskirting and downblousing. We need to expand clause 1 to include other purposes of reckless intent but without expanding it too much into the area of consent. That needs to be in there for the clause to cover the examples that, unfortunately, we know about and have seen and to find a middle ground between what, we know, we need in order to get to the ideal place and what we have at the moment. I would welcome the Committee's looking at an amendment on that.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Those of us who had the opportunity to have a discussion with a victim of that crime were left in no doubt that, if the legislation had been in place, it is possible that the person would not have been convicted. That gave us a lot of food for thought.

To be as broad as we can and to be fair to the Department and the organisations, I must say that, if I remember rightly, one of the things that the Department said was that its legal advice was that the clause is sufficiently wide. We all know that legal advice is legal advice and that you can get other legal advice. No disrespect to those in the room or listening in who are from the legal profession, but it is just that: legal advice.

I will just put that out there, because it may be something that the Department comes back with.

Mr Weir: That is understandable. It may well be that the legal advice is correct. In a situation, however, in which there is a practical example in the courts in, for instance, a year's time, someone may say, "This is not really what we intended to do". We are then left with what is in primary legislation. If an adjustment has to be made subsequently, the primary legislation has to be changed. It may be better, as far as is possible, to get this right at the start.

Ms S Bradley: May I add a brief comment? One of the takeaways for me was to do with the threat. Is that pinned down here? I am not sure that it is. That could have the same effect. Can we satisfy ourselves that the threat to publish fake images is included?

Ms Ennis: When we consider the clauses and any potential amendments, we should all be mindful that, although some of them need work, we must not broaden them too much in a way that makes them unworkable. We do not want to end up in a situation in which the Department says, "To hell with that. We are going to pull this".

That said, we are stuck in a catch-22 situation, because we cannot remove the need for proof of motive. That is an integral part of proving any criminal offence. I agree, however, with other members' comments about the need to look at ways to broaden the clause, because, while the motivation may not always be to cause harm or distress, often that is the result of the actions. We need to strike a fine balance here, making sure that we encapsulate all the possible outcomes of the offence without leaving ourselves open to having the Department say, "We cannot do that, so we are pulling it". We are open to looking at how we can do that.

Miss Woods: I want to make a point about cyber-flashing. I would certainly welcome a discussion about including that in the clause, as recommended. I note the Department's response about Scotland having legislated in that area. It is also something that the UK Government have committed to in England and Wales. I feel that, so as we are not left behind, this is an opportune time to have something similar in Northern Ireland.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Are there any other comments on that? The one thing that we have not covered is whether the maximum term of six months on summary conviction is sufficient or should be increased to 12 months, which would bring it into line with the position in England and Wales. A number of organisations have proposed that. Do members have a view?

Miss Woods: I ask the departmental officials in attendance today whether there would be any unintended consequences from that. I know that the provision has not been commenced in England and Wales, so the maximum term there is still six months. That is my understanding anyway. Were we to raise it to 12 months, would that mean that cases that are either way would go to higher courts and not be heard in the Magistrates' Court? What are the practical implications of that, given that, yes, the maximum term in England and Wales is 12 months in law but the provision has not been commenced and thus remains at six months? How would that work in the court system if we were to put it up to 12 months and commence the provision?

Mr Brian Grzymek (Department of Justice): To be honest, there is no unintended consequence that I can see, in the sense that there are in fact other offences that attract a 12-month term rather than a six-month term; indeed, there are a few hybrid-type cases that can go up to two years. That having being said, the Department stuck to the six-month sentence, because, when we look at the wide range of offences that we cover, one of our responsibilities in government in Northern Ireland is to give advice on the proportionality of offences. We compare them with other equivalent-type offences in order to make sure that there are not anomalous situations in which an act in one area might get a much different sentence from one in another area. It is on that basis that we went for six months. At the end of the day, the Committee could certainly go for 12 months, but, at the same time, that seems to take the offence out of alignment with equivalent offences. My responsibility is to give good advice about what constitutes proportional sentencing, and it is on that basis that I gave that advice. That is why it is in there.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Thank you for that, Brian.

Do members have any other comments on clause 1? I am trying to take members' views on having a possible amendment on the issues of consent and cyber-flashing. Taking Brian's comments into consideration, we need to decide whether we want to do anything about changing six months to 12 months. Can we pause that, however, and move on to clause 2?

Ms S Bradley: Chair, may I make one comment?

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Sorry, Sinéad. Go ahead.

Ms S Bradley: It is just about satisfying ourselves about the threat to publish. As a Committee, do we want to take a view on whether that is covered?

Mr Weir: Chair, that and another area are interrelated. If I read things correctly, there may be a little nervousness about going the whole hog. Although there is a reasonable argument for going the whole hog and shifting the issue from motivation to consent, the compromise is perhaps to look at having a slightly wider range of motivations, and doing that would also cover the threat issue. I can see a real possibility of real-life examples involving a threat, and we will want to make sure that that is fully covered. To be on the safe side, it may need to be included. If we are looking at going slightly wider on the motivational side of things, something perhaps needs to be made explicit in the Bill rather than just getting ministerial assurance.

Miss Woods: I totally understand Sinéad's point. Is that not covered in the departmental amendment on threats to disclose? If not, could it be included in there?

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Brian, do you want to comment on that?

Mr Grzymek: It could be covered in a couple of ways. It could be covered under threats to disclose. Committing a criminal act by taking or acquiring the picture is one issue. When you have motivations, it is conceivable that any threat to disclose would inevitably generate issues about distress and alarm for the individual, and that would also make it a criminal offence. On the face of it, I find it hard to see how it would not be covered.

Ms Lorraine Ferguson (Department of Justice): To add to that, we think that, because that type of behaviour is more opportunistic, it is less likely to involve threatening behaviour. Threats to disclose relate more to partner relationships, where there could be a sense of coercive control. We think that that is covered under threats to disclose. I know that there are variations around consent where, under threats to disclose, the person has to consent to the image being taken. It is the disclosure to which they are not consenting. Upskirting and downblousing behaviour is more opportunistic, however, and evidence from England and Wales, for example, has demonstrated that people do that in shops and on public transport, so they are taking a chance. Affected individuals could conceivably not know that the picture had been taken. We just do not know whether there is a situation in which threats would feature in that type of behaviour, but, if the Committee has any such examples, we can certainly consider the issue.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Rachel?

Miss Woods: Sorry. It is an old raised hand. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): OK. I just wanted to be sure.

Thank you, Fiona. That is useful. Sinéad, are you happy enough with that?

Ms S Bradley: Yes, I am happy with that. I just think that we should be mindful of it, because it is reshaping the clause in parts, and I would not want that to slip through the net entirely.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Yes. With the caveat of what we have said previously about a number of these things, we can try to strike a balance between what we think that we can do in the Bill and those views and a number of other things. That will be reflected in the report, so it is not the case that the issue will be put to the side.

I also take on board what Brian said about its perhaps being covered in other places. That is a proportionate way of looking at it.

For clarity, do we want to park the issue of changing six months to 12 months on summary conviction? Is the Committee content with that?

Ms S Bradley: Chair, I know that the provision has not been commenced in England and Wales, but, when it is commenced there, we are —.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): That is a valid point. We should ask about that. Brian, have the provisions not been commenced because they have been repealed?

Ms Ferguson: Hello.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Yes, Fiona.

Ms Ferguson: That provision was brought in to cover public protection sentences and custody plus orders in, I think, the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The custody plus element has been repealed. Going forward, it has been set out that 12 months is to be considered as six months in the reading of any reference to "12 months" in legislation. We cannot see that going anywhere.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Right. Where precisely is the threat to distribute included in clause 1?

Ms Ferguson: There is no reference to it in clause 1.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): No.

Ms Ferguson: We think, however, that it would be captured by other offences, such as domestic abuse offences. Where a person is in a partner relationship, that will be considered as being an element of coercive control or a pattern of behaviour. As we said, the threats that we do not consider will perhaps be in situations in which a person is not in a relationship, because the voyeurism is more opportunistic. Does that answer your question, Chair? It is not specifically cited in clause 1.

Mr Grzymek: The three Bills that the Minister has taken forward during this mandate are in the broad areas of domestic abuse, stalking and sexual offending, including the trafficking of victims. Taken together, they give us a range of options. There are some opportunities. If a form of behaviour is not covered by one piece of legislation, it will be covered by another. In most cases, it is hard to see how a person would receive threats from a random person to publish something that was unlawfully obtained. If it were to happen in a relationship or a former relationship, the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 would cover that.

It is almost impossible for every scenario to be covered by legislation. The reality is that, taken together, those three bits of legislation give a good platform of support and cover for victims.

Ms Ferguson: Chair, you should also remember that the PPS, the PSNI and the courts will consider every element of a case in the round. They will not leave things out specifically. That often adds mitigating factors to sentencing.

Mr Weir: I am thinking through the threat to distribute. I appreciate the point that is being made, which will cover the vast bulk of cases. Somewhere down the line, could there be a small gap between the two? For instance, could somebody who is not in a relationship with an individual use a threat to distribute as a form of blackmail to try to get that person into some form of sexual relationship or whatever? I am conscious that there is a possibility of the odd case falling between two stools.

Mr Grzymek: There may well be other offences, even outside of the sexual. Trying to force someone through a threat sounds like blackmail to me. There are other potential solutions quite apart from the legislation in this area. It is hard for one Bill to cover all eventualities. You have to view it in the context of the range of Bills, all of which support different aspects for people who find themselves in that sort of situation.

If you can give us hard examples, we can look at them. I am conscious, however, that it is quite late in the day now. To be honest, I am also conscious that the Law Commission will report later this year. Coming out of its conclusions, there could well be new legislation in the next two to three years. I am sure that this is an area that we will look at again in more detail.

As I said at the previous meeting, our aim certainly was not to wait for two or three years to see what happens before doing anything. We think that the Bill will give immediate relief to a number of people and improve cover for them. We will undoubtedly revisit the area in a few years' time, once the Law Commission has reported and we start to see what comes out of its report.

Miss Woods: Sorry, Chair. I am chiming in again. I want to pick up on the issue of the threat to disclose. I do not know whether this is just my reading of this, but, in clause 1, new article 71A(2) states:

Will that cover threats to disclose and distribute?

Ms Ferguson: That is under clause 1 as well. Wait until I see. New article 71A(2)(a) states:

with the intention being for the person taking it or another person to look at the image for the purpose of sexual gratification or to humiliate, alarm or distress. It is the same for downblousing.

Mr Grzymek: In both areas, if someone takes a picture with the view of passing it on to somebody else to do it —

Ms Ferguson: There is an element of sharing.

Mr Grzymek: — or of allowing somebody else to do that, that would certainly be covered by the clause

A threat is slightly different, but it is hard to have a threat without having admitted that you have committed the offence or that an offence has, in fact, been committed. That would therefore be picked up to that degree.

Ms Ferguson: We are adding threats to disclose to that provision. We consider that to be important, because it is in place other parts of the UK and Ireland, so we would be out of kilter otherwise. We also consider that to be more likely to happen in relationship-type situations. Someone threatening to do that is distressing for the victim.

Miss Woods: I understand that when it comes to relationships; I am trying to cover instances that are not covered by the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act. The Act is specific. It covers a certain number of relationships and states that it has to be done on two or more occasions. That is the make-up of the offence. If the Committee wanted to cover threats to disclose within the offences of upskirting and downblousing in the Bill under new article 71A(2)(c), which states:

adding "or share with another person (C)" could cover that. Perhaps we do not need to amend primary legislation, and that could be covered instead in the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM), because there is a third party involved in new paragraph (2)(c).

Ms Ferguson: There is the element of sharing the image, yes. The threat would be slightly different, in that you would be threatening someone by saying that you have taken the image and are going to share it. People could be doing it for their own purposes or doing it with another person, so there is an element of sharing there.

Mr Grzymek: It may also be the case that it could be picked up by the stalking legislation. You could argue that threatening to do that is "threatening or abusive behaviour". If it is picked up by the stalking legislation, it seems that the behaviour is pretty likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer "fear or alarm". It could well be picked up by that Bill.

We would argue that that is reasonably well covered. Like all these things, however, it will be tested in the courts.

Miss Woods: Thank you, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Members, can we move to —?

Ms S Bradley: Chair, may I make one quick comment, while it is in my head?

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Yes, Sinéad.

Ms S Bradley: I appreciate the commentary about how you would lean into domestic abuse settings. The other settings I was thinking of are those involving a work colleague or a university peer. Brian talked about there being other legislation that covers blackmail: I can see that. Is there a danger that the same offence could have different outcomes by leaning into two pieces of legislation, so that, if you were using the domestic abuse setting, the offence would have to happen twice, as opposed to if you were using the offence of blackmail, where one offence would be considered an offence by itself?

Mr Grzymek: Again —.

Ms S Bradley: Sorry. Is this an opportunity to use this legislation to make sure that the offence is greeted with the same outcome across our body of legislation?

Mr Grzymek: Clearly, the outcome will be determined by a court looking at the circumstances of the case. In law, there are often different ways of dealing with circumstances, and it would be for the PPS to look at the precise circumstances of the case. You talk about acts having to happen twice, but, in the stalking legislation, for the offence of threatening or abusive behaviour, it has to happen only once. It very much depends on the circumstances and how the PPS regards them. It is not unusual for there to be more than one route.

On the sentence or how the court would deal with it, you may have different maximum sentences, but the court will, of course, look at the circumstances of the case, and the maximum is not a minimum. The court will take account of the circumstances and determine the appropriate sentence.

It is not particularly unusual that, where an offence is committed, there might be more than one way of skinning a cat. The PPS will look at the circumstances of the case and how it would best fit into an offence, and the court will make a judgement accordingly on the facts of the case. I do not believe there to be a problem in that area.

Ms S Bradley: Thank you, Chair. I will look more closely at that.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): It is clear that we will come back to the issues on consent and cyber-flashing in clause 1, and we will consider them in closed session if we are looking at amendments.

That takes us to clause 2, which deals with sexual grooming and pretending to be a child. The key issues raised on the clause are detailed at page 7 of the tabled pack, and one such issue is the rationale for a requirement to prove that a person is communicating with a child with the intention of committing an offence. There may also be a need to address the issue of peer-on-peer abuse, which was raised by the PSNI. Members received commentary on those two issues. Do members have any comments on clause 2?

Let us revisit what the PSNI said about clause 2:

Brian, do you want to comment on that?

Mr Grzymek: I want to make sure that I have understood the point correctly. If you are talking about peer-on-peer or children-on-children abuse, I suspect that the clause is focused specifically on adults who masquerade as children to gain some potential advantage or capacity to create abusive situations. Perhaps you will elaborate on the issue that you are concerned about, because I am not sure that I have fully grasped it.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): It is about what the police said on the issue.

Ms Ferguson: We are conscious that there will be circumstances in which young people prey on other young people under the age of 18, but a range of interventions are used to work with the young people who do that. The provision in clause 2 is about addressing a gap that enables adults to prey on young people — children. The provision pre-empts grooming behaviour, and it is something that the PSNI specifically highlighted. The particular issue that the PSNI raised during its oral evidence has not been raised with us: this is the first that we have heard of it. We concede that such activities occur, but we are satisfied that there are interventions to deal with them. This is particularly about adults preying on children.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Fiona, is there an issue that some of this is also referenced in the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which comes under the remit of the Department of Health, depending on the age of the individual, say 16 as opposed to 18? Yes, Fiona?

Mr Grzymek: "Fiona" is actually called Lorraine, Chairman. You have caused a bit of confusion. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Thanks, Robert. I am glad to see that Ivan is sitting beside you. [Laughter.]

Mr Grzymek: Lorraine, do you want take that question?

Ms Ferguson: Sorry, could you repeat the question, Chair?

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Lorraine — just to get your name right; the members of the Committee know how bad I am with names — is the age issue not covered by the Children Order, which is within the remit of the Health Department as opposed to being under the jurisdiction of the Justice Department?

Ms Ferguson: It could well be covered under that legislation. There is a range of legislation that can be used for interventions for young people. However, Chair, it is not a specific issue that was highlighted to us before by the police in this guise. We have consulted on the clause significantly, and its provisions were driven by the police. They were specific that they are more concerned about an adult preying on a young person or child than peer-on-peer abuse. I think that they were making the general observation that such abuse happens. That is certainly something you could speak to the police about, but we are satisfied that the clause meets the intent, which is to tackle adults who prey on young people. That is the issue here.

Mr Grzymek: The clause came about as a result of our consultation on child sexual exploitation following publication of the Marshall report. That is specifically why we have that focus in the Bill. If other issues are coming up, the police have not raised them with us. This is an issue that we can log because, going into the next mandate, we are looking for issues that we will investigate further, subject to the wishes of the incoming Minister. However, it was not an area that we intended to address in the legislation. At this stage, I would be nervous about trying to bend an existing Bill to pick up on an area to which we have not given consideration.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): OK. Sinead?

Ms S Bradley: I have just one comment. I am going off the point slightly, but now is a good opportunity to do so. A point that the police also raised and that must be reiterated was that, as we move into a world where legislation on cybercrime is being put on the statute books, we should be mindful of the resources of the Police Service and the cybercrime centres. We are in a world where we hope to talk about three-year Budgets, but has there been serious recognition of the legislation that is coming forward that increasingly focuses on that type of cybercrime? Are you satisfied that the provisions in that legislation will become operational because the necessary resources are available? It is all well and good passing legislation, but, unless we are resourced to police the offences it creates, I have concerns.

Mr Grzymek: The biggest amount of expenditure on justice in Northern Ireland is on the Police Service. Ultimately, it is an operational matter for the Chief Constable, working within the policing plan, to determine how best he makes use of the substantial resources that are available to the police. That is a matter that they look at. Where they feel that there is extraordinary pressure, they can certainly come to us and make a case for funds.

The Police Service is used to new legislation coming along from time to time. At the moment, they are finishing off a lot of training on the provisions of the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act. Once the heavy lifting during the early part of that training comes to an end, those resources will become available to tackle the next thing that is coming along.

If the police found that there were extraordinary issues, they would certainly come to us. However, in the first instance, our expectation is that, as in any other area, they balance their priorities and look at how they can make the best use of their considerable resources to deliver and support justice in Northern Ireland.

Ms S Bradley: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Are members content that there are no amendments that we want to pursue in relation to clause 2?

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Clause 3 deals with miscellaneous amendments as to sexual offences and brings us to schedule 2. The issues raised on the clause are at page 7 of the tabled pack. One of the issues raised was whether "payment" is too narrowly defined and whether it should be extended to include other inducements that may be tangible, such as the provision of accommodation or a payment towards a debt. Brian, do you want to comment on that?

Mr Grzymek: I can offer my view on what that means. The payment is not necessarily specifically financial. It could be goods or services, so accommodation, food, drugs or whatever would equally be covered. It is more problematic to legislate to capture intangibles such as affection. Up to this point in the consultation, we have not received any particular issues on non-tangibles of that nature, and, from talking to the police and the PPS, we have not got any sense that there is a significant gap that needs to be covered. The advice that we have had from the police and the PPS is that, when they look at "payment", they do not restrict it to finance and look at payment in kind and other such advantages that are given to people in such situations. We do not believe that there is a significant gap to be filled.

Miss Woods: The NSPCC and others have been vocal on that, and we have discussed that throughout our deliberations on the Bill. Would there be any harm in adding "inducements" to schedule 2 to cover that? Would making sure that that is covered do any harm to the schedule or clause 3?

Mr Grzymek: Our reading and understanding of the schedule is that payments in kind — goods and services as opposed to just financial payments — are covered, so what would you be trying to cover? If you are trying to cover the provision of affection or something like that, it will be hard to do that. Elsewhere, they have found it hard to find a form of words to fit that neatly into legislation. I am open to receiving thoughts and advice on how we might do that, but it seems to be a significant issue. We are not opposed to doing it in principle, but there is the practical problem of how we legislate for that type of intangible.

Ms Ferguson: When we sought to make the amendment, we were seeking to change the references to child prostitution and child pornography. At that point, we brought in a live streaming element, because of an unsuccessful case in England and Wales involving the interpretation and recording of such images, so we thought that we would tighten the references up at the same time.

We had not looked further at the main provision that the clause relates to. We are mindful of what has been said and of what the PPS has said by way of general observation. It is not an insurmountable problem in terms of drafting; it is just difficult to capture all the elements. Sometimes, when you are being prescriptive in legislation, there is a chance that something might be left out unintentionally. We would have wanted to look at it more fully and consult and engage with others on what could be brought in under the definition of "payment" to cover the elements that are of particular concern. We have not researched or consulted on that enough to bring something forward. That is our concern. We want to ensure that we bring things in rather than leave anything out.

The courts interpret legislation fairly widely, and the PPS has said that the cases that are coming forward are mixed bag when it comes to the type of tangible and intangible elements that apply and are complex. For example, if you have an inducement, how would you satisfy the court that that should be covered when the legislation is so prescriptive? That is where we stand. In principle, we are not opposed to anything being added to strengthen the legislation; we just want to make sure that that is workable and covers what it is intended to cover.

Mr Grzymek: It is fair to say that, as with a lot of things, we would probably not object to including inducements. We would like to have gone through the list more thoroughly and could easily have done so. However, it is a question of getting the right language, and the danger is that, if you get the wrong language, you will produce bad law. In this exercise, we have not been able to spend time on dealing with that. It is a complex area, so I have been nervous about jumping in and putting something in that might in turn generate more problems than solutions. We would like to look at it in more detail over a longer period and, hopefully, come to a practical solution. I am a bit nervous about jumping for a quick solution that may well prove to be more troublesome.

Miss Woods: Thanks. I appreciate that. We are trying to cover miscellaneous amendments, and I mentioned the definition of "payment". There is no explanation of what constitutes payment, not even in the EFM. We cannot take it at face value that things may be covered, because it is not even in the EFM.

Mr Grzymek: It is already being used in the law and being taken to cover not just financial payment like goods and services but other forms of payment. The area raised by some NGOs may well be about where you get intangible things like providing affection. I can absolutely see how that can be used, but trying to capture that sort of payment is problematic, because it is not material in the way that goods and services are. Accommodation, food, drugs or drink can all be considered as payments, so that has not been an issue in court. The issue is whether you can extend beyond those, and that is where you get into complex ground. If we were to go forward in that area, we would need to consider it carefully and take advice from a range of people.

Ms Ennis: I want to expand on what Rachel said. I have some sympathy for her line of questioning but accept that it would be difficult to put in a form of words that covered intangible things. Going down that road would leave the clause completely unworkable, but I concur with what Rachel said about it not being taken for granted that "payment" means cash. I heard what Brian and others said about that already being worked in when offences like that are being tried.

I will not die in a ditch over it, but, as Rachel said, I would have liked to see a more concrete form of words that explicitly outlines that "payment" or "remuneration", if you want to call it that, is not exactly monetary and can be goods, services or other tangible things. Again, I am happy to hear what other members think, but, if it is already being done, fair enough. I will take others' expertise on that.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Will we come back to this one as a possibility or take on board the comments that were made? Obviously, as I said, members' concerns will be reflected in the report.

Miss Woods: Thanks, Chair. I would like to come back to it, if possible, even if it means having something in the explanatory and financial memorandum, which, as we know, is not the Bill. We are being told that intangibles and other forms of payment are being taken into consideration during cases, so I would like that to be made clear. It could read something along the lines of, "It is not limited to financial payments". I do not know whether that blows the clause out of the water, but, in my opinion, which is relatively meaningless, it does not. I would like to come back to that, even the inclusion of something that recognises that it is an issue and has been looked at. A change to primary legislation may not be required, but it could be clearer on the Bill.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): OK. Thank you. We will come back to that later.

That brings us to Chapter 2 on anonymity and privacy. Clause 4 deals with the extended anonymity of victims. The key issues raised about the clause are provided at page 8 of the tabled pack.

One of the questions, Brian, is whether extending the anonymity of victims to circumstances where there is a domestic offence opens it up to being a wider issue. What are the implications of that being done according to clause 4?

Mr Grzymek: Put simply, Chairman, that is very much related to sexual offences, on which there clearly is legislation about anonymity. Clause 4 just extends that degree of anonymity beyond a person's lifetime. I am not aware of any suggestions that it would be broadened, and certainly that was not consulted on, so it would be a substantial extension and would move away from the purpose of the Bill.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): If there are no comments from members on that, we will move on.

That brings us to clause 5, which deals with the disapplication of anonymity of victims after death. The key issues that were raised are on page 8 of the Committee Clerk's notes. Are there any comments on clause 5? OK. Thank you.

Clause 6 relates to the increase in the penalty for the breaching of anonymity and, again, is covered on page 8. One of the issues is whether, on summary conviction, the penalty of a level 5 fine or up to six months' imprisonment or both is sufficient. The police suggest that that does not adequately reflect the impact that such a breach may have on a victim or the wider family and recommend aligning with the maximum period possible through the Magistrates' Court, which is 24 months. Do members have any comments on that? Brian, do you want to comment on that issue? The police raised that with us.

Mr Grzymek: Again, that is one where we have taken the view, having looked at a broad range of legislation, that it is an appropriate level. At the end of the day, a six-month imprisonment or a fine not exceeding level 5 is a substantial penalty. I am not sure that those cases occur often. The aim of putting that into legislation is probably more about prevention than cure and trying to discourage people from doing it. We are happy enough that the penalty is consistent with that for similar offences, so we disagree with the police on that point.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): OK. As there are no comments from members, we will move on.

Clause 7 deals with special rules for providers of information society services. No specific issues with the clause were raised in the evidence that was received. As there is no comment from members, we will move on.

That brings us to clause 8. Rachel, do you have a point about clause 7?

Miss Woods: Sorry, Chair; you are too quick for me. It is about clause 8. Are we on clause 7 or clause 8?

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): We are on clause 8 now. Go ahead.

Miss Woods: Apologies. I will wait. Go ahead.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): No, you are all right. The only issue that I was going to reference on clause 8 was whether clause 8(5) should be reworded because of an issue raised with us by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). That was the only thing that I wanted to raise. It is probably the thing that you want to raise, Rachel.

Miss Woods: It is exactly the same thing. The ICO advised that it should be added that the list is not exhaustive for its work. Perhaps "in particular" could be replaced by "including, but not limited to".

Mr Grzymek: I will talk to the legislative draftsman on that one, but "include in particular" means what it says: it includes those things in particular, but, by definition, it is not exclusive. The words make it clear that the list is not exhaustive. If it said, "This list shall comprise (a) to (e)", I would agree with you, Rachel. However, "include in particular" highlights a number of the key players but also means that there will be others that are not listed. Our aim was to make sure that that list of five was not seen as being the totality of the list. The words have been deliberately put in by the legislative draftsman to achieve what Rachel's words seek to achieve. The wording is sufficient. I am happy to talk again to the legislative draftsman to confirm that, but that was certainly our intent, and I believe that that is what he has delivered.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): I do not want to cause disquiet amongst professionals, but, obviously, the Information Commissioner's Office took a different view. It urges:

I think that there is a conflict of interpretation on this, and we are probably on the side of the Information Commissioner's Office.

Miss Woods: If it is covered in the Bill and it is just a stylistic or wording issue, perhaps it could be added to the EFM to make it clear that the list is not exhaustive.

Mr Grzymek: I do not think that there will be any problem with doing that. Far be it for me to jump in between legislative draftsman and the Information Commissioner, but we very much rely on the expertise of the legislative draftsman when it comes to drafting legislation. It was not our intention to make that list anything other than an illustrative list, albeit one that picks up on some of the main players. I think that we can include that in the EFM without a problem.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Without involving the Minister at this stage, can we take it that there is a deal to have it included in the EFM? That is a deal between us and you, Brian. It is up to you to tell the Minister.

Mr Grzymek: It is a provisional deal. I will, obviously, speak to the legislative draftsman to make sure that he is happy about the deal, but I would be surprised if there were any problem.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): No issues were raised in relation to clauses 9, 10 and 11. Do members have any other issues to raise?

Ms S Bradley: The Women's Policy Group stated that it required further explanation of the meaning of "sexual offence" in clause 9.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Yes, the Women's Policy Group stated that it wanted further explanation of the definitions of —.

Ms S Bradley: It would be interesting to hear what the officials have to say about that.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Brian, do you want to comment on clause 9?

Mr Grzymek: Can you elaborate on their point? The meaning of the definition?

Ms S Bradley: They felt that the definitions, as described, were partly open to interpretation. I am not sure that there is any better example of those definitions being improved. I did not know if you had heard that comment or given it any thought. I would be interested to know.

Ms Ferguson: Those cover the range of sexual offences that are currently provided for. It is just ensuring that they are all in line within the meaning of those particular pieces. We know that some consequential elements were raised by the PPS. We are exploring that with the PPS and its lawyers to add a couple more legislative references to that list. I do not know what the issue is beyond the fact that those are legislative references that relate to sexual offences.

Ms S Bradley: Yes. I am not really in a position to speak about it. However, through the Chair, it might be helpful to keep on top of that work.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Yes.

Ms S Bradley: We could feed that back, and it might be sufficient to satisfy the concerns.

Ms Ferguson: OK. Thank you.

Mr Grzymek: If there is anything missing, we are happy for that to be raised with us. Clearly, we have worked with our legislative draftsman, and our lawyers have gone through all the legislation. We are revisiting this to make sure it is comprehensive. The aim is clearly for us to pick up all the relevant legislation that is covered by the phrase "sexual offence". That is what we intended to do, and we will revisit that to make sure that it is comprehensive.

Ms Ferguson: We are doing that at the moment because the PPS raised a couple of consequentials that were not included which were repealed. We are actually going to include more.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): OK. Thank you for that.

That brings us to clause 12, which deals with the offence related to reporting. Members will find the issues raised with regard to that in the tabled pack. There are a couple of issues. One particularly comes around the issue — we have discussed it previously — of whether the penalty of a level 5 fine, the six-month imprisonment or both on summary conviction adequately reflects the impact. That was the view of the police. The Department takes a different view.

The other issue was whether appropriate action can be taken against internet service providers. Obviously, that is a reserved matter because there is current legislation in the House of Commons. Obviously, that is something that we will also want to pay attention to. Brian, do you want to comment on the level 5 fine or the up-to-six-month imprisonment?

Mr Grzymek: I need to repeat the comment I made earlier: in fact, we have actually looked at this in the context of other equivalent offences and are satisfied that it is at the appropriate level. Clearly, if your report raises the reserved matter, it can be flagged with

Ms Ferguson: Just to highlight, whilst information society service providers are a reserved matter, there is a requirement on the devolved Administrations to work with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), which leads on that piece. DCMS has a responsibility to ensure that domestic law is in keeping with the intermediary scheme across the UK. DCMS has asked that we specifically look to our domestic law when making legislation to make sure that it comes within scope, which it does. We have consulted DCMS on the narrative that has gone into the Bill, and it is content. That is to ensure that there is consistency across the devolved Administrations. Even though it is a reserved matter, it is still a requirement under UK government law.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): OK. Do members have any other queries or issues? No? Happy enough? Thank you. Thanks for that, Lorraine.

Nothing has been raised about clauses 13 and 14. That brings us to clause 15:

Members will find the relevant information in their packs. This raises the issue of whether the provision should be extended to all sexual offence cases in all courts, rather than only those identified as serious cases, given the impact that offences that are considered to be minor may have on a victim. Maybe you can clarify for us, Brian, who determines what is a serious offence.

Mr Grzymek: With regard to the difference between a summary offence and an indictable offence, clearly many offences are indictable only, and many can only be dealt with on a summary basis. There are a number specified as hybrid offences where, depending on the circumstances, degree of severity or seriousness of the case, it can go either way. In those cases, what will happen is that the police make recommendations on the offence to the PPS, and the PPS looks at the circumstances and determines whether the degree of severity is such that it should be indictable or dealt with summarily.

There could be a situation whereby a case, depending on the seriousness of the offence, goes to the Crown Court or High Court, where it will capture a much higher offence. If it is dealt with summarily, by definition the Magistrates' Court will traditionally give a sentence of six months, in some other cases 12 months, and in some hybrid cases up to 24 months. By and large, however, the level of —

Ms Ferguson: Gravity?

Mr Grzymek: Yes, the gravity of the situation will determine the sentence. If it is a lower-level offence, it will be within a range and will be dealt with by the Magistrates' Court. Being dealt with summarily will normally not involve having a jury, whereas if it goes to indictment, clearly it will be a jury case.

The PPS will look at the circumstances and determine how serious the case is, and on that basis, where you have those hybrid offences, it has the choice. Clearly, cases like murder and rape and other things will always be dealt with on an indictable basis, but there will be other cases where you could have quite a range of behaviour which means that the PPS will make the judgement call.

Ms S Bradley: I suppose I just want to ask this question. In earlier clauses, we looked at strengthening anonymity for victims, and then, in this clause, we talk about the exclusion of the public from a trial unless, if my reading is correct, the victim is deceased. Is that correct? Is there a bit of a contradiction, or has it even been considered that there is a contradiction there?

Ms Ferguson: That is because the main intention of the exclusion is to avoid the victim having to give an account of the harrowing details of a case in court before the public gallery. If a person has died, there is not that need, because they could have died as a consequence of the sexual offence. The anonymity element means that, if they are a victim of a sexual offence, nothing can be published about them during their lifetime, and then we propose that it is 25 years after their death.

The exclusion has two policy aims. The anonymity is to protect their identity. In the small jurisdiction of Northern Ireland, jigsaw identification is very prevalent. The exclusion is about taking away the stress of them having to give evidence and going back over the ground. If they have died as a consequence of their injuries or been murdered, there does not need to be an exclusion direction because they will not be giving evidence.

Mr Grzymek: It is worth remembering that, when Gillen proposed the exclusion, it was in recognition that the whole justice system in the UK is based on open justice, where people have the right to appear before their peers and the courts are normally open. The default position normally is that people are admitted and justice is seen to be done. In these cases, there are victims who clearly could be traumatised and might well be put off from participating in a trial because of the public dimension to it. Gillen's proposal was that, where you have such victims, we can deviate from open justice to the extent that the general public are not admitted into the case. Where the person has died, that issue does not arise, because clearly there is not the question of anyone being put off by the presence of the public. We have done it on that basis, and the situations are distinct.

Ms Ferguson: The element of victim anonymity extending once they have passed away will always apply, and the person does not have to be actually pursuing their case for that to apply. Where they are a victim and have reported that, they will be a victim of sexual offence going forward and will always have their identity protected. As Brian highlights, this is about excluding people from the trial itself. You will know the background to the Gillen report, the rationale behind a lot of the recommendations and the show trial that can often take place with some of these cases where some people consider it a spectator sport to come along and hear, and that is very harrowing and distressing for victims. It is about reducing the footfall of those who go into the court as much as we possibly can, and it is only those who are instrumental to the case who will be allowed to be in the court.

Mr Grzymek: And, of course, the press. There is the potential for coverage, but, of course, that coverage has to operate within the law, so the details or the identity of the individuals will not be revealed.

Ms Ferguson: That is protected under the anonymity-of-the-victim provision.

Miss Woods: Thank you for the answers so far. Obviously, there has been quite a bit of an ask of the Committee to look at whether or not the public should be excluded from court in all cases of sexual offences involving a child and whether or not that should extend to all sexual offences cases in all courts, rather than those that are just serious. I want to pick up on that. Are there any issues that would be identified if the Committee were minded to look at that?

Also, I cannot remember — apologies if this is in the Committee pack; I went through it with a fine-tooth comb last night, but I may have missed this — are workers such as Victim Support, the witness service and the sexual offences legal advisers (SOLAs) and NSPCC young witness volunteers exempt from exclusion from the court under the Bill?

Mr Grzymek: The short answer is yes. Clearly, the judge will always look at who has been in, but our expectation is that that sort of support for the victim is different from the general public being there. Certainly, we see that all relevant people will be able to attend.

Ms Ferguson: We consider the witness service to fall under the element that includes members and officers of court, and others are included in that, including the investigating officer, who is a crucial part of the case, and law clerks for the PPS. We have had those conversations there. We will stipulate that in guidance as opposed to the explanatory memorandum, and the reason for that is that it is a more flexible working document and that, if any clarification is needed further down the line, we can adjust that. We cannot do the same with an explanatory memorandum. It just keeps it future-proofed.

On the issue of the young person, this recommendation by Gillen was for serious sexual offence cases, and that is in the Crown Court. If the case relates to a young person, they still have that protection under the court, so we are not age-specific in what we are saying. It is cases going to Crown Court, so that is covered. For the Magistrates' Courts, there is already a mix of other protections in the Children Order and in special measures that allow the special measures to be invoked around evidence given in private, involving clearing the court, so there are specific measures that we already have in place that this will build upon. It is not just looked at in isolation. There will be other elements, and those other elements for children will precede any requirement in this. We have made that particularly clear in the legislation. We believe that that is covered. We are not including the Magistrates' Court committals, but we will seek to implement the time when the committal legislation is being brought forward so that there is no gap. There are cases that are brought to the Crown Court; obviously, that goes through the committal process, and we do not want to create a gap in what we are trying to achieve. Similarly, our amendment is extending that to the appeal court. If it goes beyond that stage, there is a potential for a person to have to give evidence at that level, and we want to protect that. We are trying to safeguard their interests during the process, and we think that those gaps have been considered adequately and that they are covered. I hope that that is helpful.

Miss Woods: Just for clarity, there will be guidance on the exemptions and exclusions from court and the support workers? Guidance will be produced on this, further to the Bill's passing, and it will include the like of the sexual offences legal officers and the NSPCC's witness service?

Ms Ferguson: Yes indeed, and this is something that is very important. The guidance will be important to courts, because they are the criminal justice partner that is impacted by this because of the functionality in the courtrooms. At the moment, the pilot does not involve any participation in the court of the SOLA, particularly the law officers, but they will have audience of the court as a legal representative. They will not fall under members and officers at court. They will fall under the legal representation element, because they have that type of function. We considered that extensively as well.

Mr Grzymek: And the advantage of putting it in regulation —

Ms Ferguson: Or guidance.

Mr Grzymek: — or guidance is that we are conscious that, for example, SOLAs were piloted recently. We have had different people coming along — advocates of various sorts — so that gives you the capacity. As things develop, we bring in new or different people to provide different support. It gives the court the capacity to accommodate them.

Ms Ferguson: The members and officers of the court will also include a prisoner escort. We have considered every eventuality. We were careful in what we wanted to achieve by way of reducing the footprint and having available only those who needed to be there. We worked at length with our legislative draftsperson on the piece to ensure that we were not excluding anyone. The guidance is ideal, because it is a flexible document. As we move through, partners will let us know if there is any issue. We will consider that, and we can populate that. It is an easier way of doing things to inform the staff who are involved.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Are you happy with that, Rachel? If that were clarified in the guidance, it would be of great help to us. That assurance gives us confidence that that issue will be addressed. Do members want to do anything in relation to clause 15, particularly in relation to the extension to all sexual offence cases in all courts? Do we want to revisit this, or are we content with what we have heard and as it is drafted?

Miss Woods: I fully appreciate the answers that have been given. If it is covered in other legislation or another court protection then it is there, but there is something that is not sitting well with me. We have been asked to look at covering all sexual offences. I appreciate the answers. There is one issue that I might come back to, but I am happy to go with what the Committee would like to have a look at.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): If there are no more comments, we will move on to Part 2, which deals with trafficking and exploitation. This is where Ronnie will now be able to make his contribution. It is either Ronnie or Robert; I am not sure. I know it is Ronnie, so we are all right. Ronnie, you are welcome.

Clause 16 deals with support for victims. Members will find that in the tabled pack. One of the issues that was raised with us was whether the statutory support for the period of 12 months should be available after the national referral mechanism (NRM) for those who have a positive conclusive decision, since most confirmed victims of modern slavery are unable to access support with any degree of security. It is interesting; I note that the Nationality and Borders Bill had its Second Stage in the House of Lords on Wednesday of last week. In that debate, the Government gave an assurance that:

and that they would:

There is obviously a move being made with that particular piece of legislation, and it was certainly expressed to the Committee that there should be an amendment to clause 16 of the Bill here. Are there any other comments from members?

Miss Woods: Just on support for victims of trafficking, I have discussed this before, but is there any way of looking at those who have received a conclusive determination that they are a victim of human trafficking and are in the referral, but have then been denied it or received a negative decision and are appealing that? Granted, it is quite niche and would involve only a small amount of people, but just to have that, if we can and if it would not cause any massive issues if we sought to put that into the Bill. I note the Department's response to the Committee in the tabled papers folder saying that an amendment to the legislation would be necessary to change that. I want to look at that on this clause.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): I suppose that that could also include the discretionary element. That is important as well. Is the Committee happy to revisit that as an amendment?

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): OK. That brings us to clause 17, which deals with reports on slavery and trafficking orders. Information on all of that is in the tabled pack. Obviously, it is this issue of whether the Department should be required to publish annual progress reports and ensure that robust monitoring and measurement arrangements are put in place. Are there any comments from members in relation to that? I think that a possible amendment to that had been raised with the Committee. Was it Christian Action Research and Education?

Brian, do you want to make any comment on this one?

Mr Grzymek: but what I will say is that we made it clear when we were here the last time that the Department will produce an annual report. Whether it is needed in the Bill, the reality is that we have made that commitment. Regardless of whether that commitment is in the legislation, I am sure that the Committee will hold us to it. Therefore, I am not absolutely sure that an amendment is required in this instance.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): OK. All right. Members, no other issues? Ronnie, you are getting it easy here. [Laughter.]

Mr Ronnie Pedlow (Department of Justice): So far, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Ronnie, what is your view on the issue?

Mr Grzymek: Sorry, Ronnie. I pushed him out of the way. [Laughter.]

Mr Pedlow: I fully concur with what Brian said. [Laughter.]

We do not intend, if the Bill passes and we move to a three-year strategy, to get away from reporting annually. At present we report as part of the organised crime task force annual report as well. We are certainly very open to making sure that we report on the progress of the strategy, whether it is a three-year or a one-year strategy. That is not an issue for us.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Thanks, Ronnie.

Ms Ennis: Chair, are we discussing clause 16 or clause 17?

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Clause 17. We agreed to go back to clause 16 later, but we are dealing with clause 17 now.

Ms Ennis: That is fine. I missed the last couple of meetings, so I wanted to check that the Department is undertaking a consultation at the moment. Is that right, and, if so, what stage of readiness are we at in that regard?

Mr Pedlow: The Department will come forward with a consultation for the strategy in the next couple of months. We have started work on a consultation exercise. Whether it will be a three-year strategy or a one-year strategy, we will still be taking forward a consultation. It will not be dependent on the outcome of the Bill in that respect. Does that help?

Ms Ennis: That is fine. I knew that a consultation was in the ether. I just wanted to know whether you were prepared to get that under way.

Mr Pedlow: We have other consultations under way. We have just completed one on transparency and supply chains. We also have one coming forward on the slavery and trafficking risk orders (STROs), which the Committee may be interested in.

Miss Woods: I am sorry; my question is not about clause 17. I have to go to the Business Committee, but I hope to be back in 15 minutes.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): OK.

Mr Pedlow: We will get everything through in the next 15 minutes, then. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): While we are on clause 17, a number of other issues were raised and suggestions made to the Committee. One of those was the introduction of the slavery and trafficking risk orders, which created a considerable degree of interest. Brian, what is the Department's current position in relation to that?

Mr Grzymek: I raised it at the last meeting, but Ronnie can tell us, hot off the press, where we are today.

Mr Pedlow: Thanks, Brian. We have prepared a consultation document on the STROs, which is on the cusp of going to the Minister. We have just been completing all the various assessments that have to be undertaken for a consultation exercise. That will go forward to the Committee to say that we propose to put it out for consultation in the coming weeks.

The whole question of slavery and trafficking risk orders was considered — as we put in our response to the Committee — at the time of the introduction of the 2015 Act. At that time, because of the issue of the impact on human rights and because of concerns that were raised by a number of parties, it was not included in the 2015 Act. Since then, time and experience has passed and STROs have been in place in England and Wales. In Scotland, the equivalent is called a trafficking exploitation risk order (TERO). That has been the subject of comment in the Criminal Justice Inspection report and by the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, both of whom recommended that the Department should re-examine the matter again. That is why we have prepared the consultation exercise.

That would, in effect, mean that on the outcome of that, were the Department to look at introducing STROs, as things stand at the moment, they would have to be introduced in another piece of legislation, subsequent to the current Bill. Obviously, that would be in the new mandate and would be subject to the views of the incoming Minister.

There is a body of opinion that STROs should be introduced in Northern Ireland. The figures in GB show that 60 have been issued since their introduction in 2015. There have been 12 interim ones in the last couple of years. In Scotland, there have not been any TEROs introduced. Five have been considered, and six were not taken forward because the court did not believe that they were appropriate.

The human rights issue is primarily around the fact that an STRO would apply to someone who has not been convicted of an offence. Within the 2015 Act, the slavery and trafficking prevention orders would be issued post a conviction for slavery, trafficking and exploitation offences.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): What does the Department see as a difficulty if they were to be included in the Bill with a commencement order? I take your point, Ronnie, that legislation would be required in a new mandate. If we were to go about it in a slightly different way and accept, as I suspect is now the general consensus, that there is a place for the use of STROs, and we put them in the Bill with a commencement order, subject to the consultation, the Department would not be constrained on what it can or cannot do and would be given flexibility. It would have the legislation and then would need only to bring forward guidance or whatever. Would that be seen as a possible way forward on this?

Mr Grzymek: Ronnie, I will come in on that. Chair, we would be seriously nervous about that approach. Traditionally, when taking policy and legislation forward, there is a set order — a sequencing — of how we do these things to make sure we get the letter of the law correct. An important purpose of the consultation is to test our views and thoughts and seek input from NGOs, individuals and others to help the Minister determine the appropriate policy. Normally, once you have that policy developed, then you put it into legislation. I am not sure about developing what-if legislation in advance of the consultation. That would be a significant departure from the normal approach. Whereas it would be done with the best of intent, I am not sure it would not set an unfortunate president for future legislation which, I suspect, the Department and indeed the Assembly would be nervous about.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Are there any other comments on that from members? OK. We will park clause 17 and come back to it because Rachel has gone to the Business Committee, and I want to ensure that everybody is included in the discussion.

That takes us to Part 3 of the Bill, "Prevention Orders". Clause 18 deals with the qualifying offences for sexual offences prevention orders (SOPOs). Have members any comments on that?

One of the issues raised was that the Bill did not address the wider concerns around the need to ensure that all children up to the age of 18 are afforded safeguards under the abduction and recovery arrangements, regardless of age. The provisions of article 68 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 are afforded only to children who are in care and are subject to an emergency protection order or the Child Abduction (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. That applies only to children up to the age of 16. It was argued that the extension of qualifying offences for sexual offences prevention orders to include abduction protections in the clause should be extended to all 18-year-olds, not just certain groups of children. Brian, do you want to comment?

Mr Grzymek: I will note briefly that it is a balancing act. Clearly, we want to balance the need to protect older children while also recognising their independence and human rights. That is where the balance has been. Lorraine, perhaps you can pick up on that point.

Ms Ferguson: Certainly. For clarification, Chair, the minor tweak that we are making to the SOPO brings the abduction of a child in care into scope so that it will improve the effectiveness of the order. The issue that was raised is related in so far as it brings that particular abduction offence in, but it relates to another policy, if you understand my meaning. It is really about the tension in the age difference in the Child Abduction (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 and the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995.

We are doing work on that particular piece, and we plan to do that into the next mandate. It comes within the scope of the Marshall recommendations and the child sexual exploitation review and consultation that we carried out. It comes off the back of the consultation commitment to do something in that area. We sought to look at any gaps in abduction legislation. As Brian rightly pointed out, what came out of the consultation was that care had to be taken when it came to the age of lawful consent to sex — that age being 16 — and balancing that with the vulnerability of a person between the age of 16 and 18. We plan to do further work to explore and investigate that area in the next mandate.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Thank you for that, Lorraine. If there are no comments from members, we will move on to clause 19, which deals with the time limit for making violent offences protection orders. No issues were raised in the evidence in relation to that clause. There are no other comments on that.

I turn to clauses 20, 21 and 22. Clause 20 deals with ancillary regulation, clause 21 sets out provision for the Bill to come into force, and clause 22 gives the short title of the Act. No issues were raised in the evidence in relation to those clauses. That brings us to the conclusion of the Bill's clauses.

We will now deal with the Department's amendments. The Department advised the Committee of its intention to propose four amendments. Although the text of those amendments was not available when the key stakeholders were submitting their written evidence, a number of views and comments were provided in the evidence received. We will deal with those as we have them.

I turn to the abolition of the rough sex defence. The new clause and associated amendment will:

The Department provided the text of those provisions on 26 November 2021. The key comments and views in relation to the intention of the proposed amendments are at page 14 and 15 of the tabled pack. Do any members have comments to make?

Brian, will you clarify one thing for me? I assume that — we may come to this issue, but it is in my head now — the rationale and the need for the amendment to the long title is because of the rough sex amendment. Is that correct?

Ms Ferguson: That is what we said yesterday.

Mr Grzymek: Yes, that is the case.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Yes. I wanted to clarify that —.

Mr Grzymek: It is because of the rough sex amendment and the issue of non-fatal strangulation. We are conscious of the fact that, clearly, non-fatal strangulation is often associated with what has been classed as "rough sex", although we do not like that phrase. It is linked to it strongly, but, obviously, it stretches a little beyond it because it can also be used with coercion and other things.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): OK. Thank you. Do members have any other questions on that one? If not, we will move to the extension of the existing revenge porn provisions to include threat to disclose. The amendment will:

The Department provided the text of the amendment on 9 January. Is there any comment? If not, we will move on.

We now come to the provisions to widen the scope and strength of the current law on abuse of trust. The amendment will extend the current scope of abuse of position of trust of a child offences to include certain activities carried out in sports and faith settings. A delegated power to enable additional settings to be included by way of secondary legislation, if that is considered necessary, is also provided. The Department provided the text of the amendment on 26 November. Do members have queries about that one?

I advise members that the key comments and views on the proposed amendment, apart from the additional views of the Children's Commissioner, which were only received yesterday, are provided at pages 15 to 17 of the tabled pack for today's proceedings.

On the extension to the Gillen provisions in the Bill to include the exclusion of the public from hearings of serious sexual offences cases in the Court of Appeal, the amendment will include the Court of Appeal as a setting where the public can be excluded from appeal hearings against conviction and sentencing in serious sexual offences cases. The Department provided the text of the amendment on 9 January. The issues raised about clause 15 are at page 9 of the tabled pack. Do members have any views or comments? OK.

Sorry; we will go back to the one on abuse of trust at the end of our deliberations, because that was raised with us.

The Department's letter of 9 January included the text of the amendments for the new clause and schedule to create the new offence of non-fatal strangulation. On 2 December, the Committee received an oral briefing from the Department on the responses to the consultation on non-fatal strangulation legislation and the proposed way forward. The written briefing paper outlined that that legislation would be taken forward in the next mandate. When asked if there was an intention to bring forward the new offence as an amendment to the Bill, officials were, at that stage, not clear on whether an amendment would be brought forward and indicated that it may not be within the scope of the Bill. Although the Committee has seen the results of the consultation undertaken by the Department on the policy intent, it has not had the opportunity to seek views on the text of the amendment, so it is difficult to assess whether it achieves the intent or whether there are any gaps or implications. Obviously, the Committee needs to give further consideration to that issue at this stage.

Given that the Committee has not had the opportunity to obtain the views of stakeholders on the amendment, it may wish to welcome the introduction of the offence in principle and note the proposed amendment, as it did not have the opportunity to seek views on the text of the amendment and consider it in detail. Obviously, the issue of the Department's amendment to introduce the new offence will be covered in the Committee's report, if members are content.

Just to tidy up a few other bits and pieces with regard to amendments proposed in the written and oral evidence, the range of issues raised, including two proposals for amendments, are in members' packs. Do members have any comments? Maybe we will revisit those.

Ms S Bradley: On the other proposed amendments, I hear what the Department is saying in terms of the child abduction warning notices and other offences that may go into the next mandate, and the STROs. However, you are right to say, Chair, that we did not get a chance for stakeholders to explore the new offence that is being brought forward, although I have no reservation about welcoming it.

However, one amendment that repeatedly came up was the removal of the defence of reasonable chastisement. We had a good hearing on that. We may have different positions, but it certainly got an airing at Committee. I do not think that anybody could say that stakeholders did not make their voice clearly heard on that.

The Bill appears to have shifted into the realm of being about protecting the person more. I know the departmental officials' position on this, but was any consideration given to the possibility of that defence of reasonable chastisement now sitting more comfortably with the Bill as it is framed than it was at the outset? At the outset, it was probably more challenging to see the fit. It would be interesting if the Department could give us its opinion on that.

Mr Grzymek: I lead on that area, among others. The Minister and Department have been clear all along that we wanted to legislate on this. In fact, the way it worked out in the end, the Minister had to reduce the scale and breadth of the Bill for it to get approval at the Executive.

Our reading is that the matter is still outside the scope of the narrowed Bill. Certainly, the Minister and Department are not keen to legislate in this area. Rather, it is very much an issue that also tends to be cross-cutting, therefore there is an Executive dimension to it. We have to be conscious that in terms of reasonable chastisement, it could not be about criminalising parents but, rather, helping through education, better parenting and how we change behaviour. The aim was not to create more criminals. The aim was to change the behaviour of those who still use that as a solution for child control.

In essence, the Minister would be keen to take this forward, but our reading is still that it is beyond the scope of the Bill.

Ms S Bradley: Thank you. I appreciate that that is the reading. As things move — and they are moving, all for the better, in my opinion — officials have given some comforting words about things that they are not able to put in the Bill and are, perhaps, looking to the next mandate or other vehicles. Has the Department considered a vehicle to move on that issue or is it not yet fitting into any legislation? That would goad me all the more to try to make it fit in this one.

Mr Grzymek: The Minister made it clear that she intended to try to put it into the original Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, but that, obviously, changed. We are clear that to legislate in this area would be more than a justice issue because, really, good parenting is not a justice issue. It would have to involve other Departments, which makes it a cross-cutting issue that the Executive would have to decide on.

Certainly, the Minister was keen to push that forward, and has raised the issue in the past. It is clearly a matter for the next mandate. It is broader than Justice. You would have to have Executive agreement for it to go forward into legislation, but we expect that a legislative vehicle will come along early in the next mandate in Justice. Although I recognise that you cannot commit a future Minister, it is certainly likely that the remainder of that miscellaneous provisions Bill, which is currently drafted but parked, will probably form the rump of a new miscellaneous provisions Bill in the early part of the next mandate, if the next Minister so chooses. There could be an opportunity to legislate, but, clearly, Executive agreement would be required to go forward in that area.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Thanks for that, Brian.

Ms S Bradley: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Brian, I want to see where another issue falls in that same area. Is anything being done by the Department to include child abduction warning notices in any possible new miscellaneous provisions Bill in another mandate?

Mr Grzymek: I put out a note a wee while ago asking my colleagues across the Department to flag potential issues for consideration in legislation in the next mandate. We do that process not infrequently and always at the end of a mandate so that we have a range of issues that we can raise early on in the mandate with a new Minister. I have not seen the result of that yet, so I cannot give you an answer, but, clearly, this is one of a number of issues that could be brought forward. However, at this stage, as I say, we are just collating the views within the Department on what might constitute legislation in the next mandate. Of course, that is only advice that we would give to an incoming Minister. The Minister will have their own views on what needs to be the priority, and, of course, ultimately, the Minister is the person who decides what legislation to take forward.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): OK. Thank you. Members, there are no other issues in relation to the Bill. I suggest that we take a 10-minute break. We have been at this since 11.00 am. That will give an opportunity for Rachel to come back after the Business Committee. We will then resume in closed session and consider the issues that have been raised for possible amendments.

The Committee Clerk: We will cover them in open session.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Right, OK. We will go back into open session and do what we have to do and then go into closed session. That will keep us right. Thank you, Brian, Lorraine and Ronnie.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Members, thank you for your help. That wee break was useful. I now want to cover a number of things in open session. Apologies: my screen is not working, but I will keep an eye on the screen to my right.

We will go back to clause 17. A number of issues were raised that I want to go through. We raised concern about the introduction of slavery and trafficking risk orders, and we have said that we will come back to an amendment on that. The requirement for jury directions to be given in modern slavery and human trafficking cases is based on Scottish legislation on sexual offences, which enables juries to approach court evidence in a more informed manner. Brian and officials, if you are still with us, is the Department working on that?

Mr Pedlow: It goes wider than the modern slavery and human trafficking instructions to juries, but we are looking at that and will take it forward. We have to consider a number of interests. The intention is that that would be included in some sort of guidance that the Lord Chief Justice gives to courts. It goes wider than the specific issue of slavery and trafficking. We are mindful of it and looking at taking it forward, because it was mentioned in the Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) report in October 2020.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): OK. Thank you. Another issue that was raised with us — I appreciate that it will probably not be easy to achieve — is easier access for trafficking victims to the criminal injuries compensation scheme, given that many trafficking victims are currently not eligible for such compensation owing to significant legal barriers. Is that a fair summary of the challenges, Brian?

Mr Grzymek: Compensation is not covered by the Bill. That will have to be considered, because it raises a range of issues that we would not be able to address in the short term. It would require some form of review and consideration of the new circumstances. I do not see how it could easily fit into the Bill, not least because we do not have resolved policy in that area, but we could certainly look at it.

Mr Pedlow: Again, that was in the Criminal Justice Inspection review report. We are taking it forward with Compensation Services. There are two aspects to it. One is that the regulations and rules under which criminal injuries compensation is given would probably have to be changed in some way. My team also plans to do some training with Compensation Services staff in the very near future, to make them aware of the issues in modern slavery and human trafficking and to look for ways in which, even under the current structure or system, we could get a better outcome for victims.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): A couple of organisations recommended providing social security entitlement for recognised victims of trafficking by amending either the relevant social security legislation or section 18(9) of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 (HTEA) to create a new power for the Department of Justice to award ex gratia payments to all persons who have a positive conclusive grounds decision. One of the voluntary sector correspondents, the Migration Justice Project, indicated in a letter to the Committee on 8 December 2021 that, having considered the issue further, it believes that:

including the full range of support services listed at section 18(7) of the HTEA. The Migration Justice Project believes that section 18(9) already provides the Department with the power to do that. It recommended that the Committee should direct the Department to give consideration to that. Is that your interpretation of the powers that the Department has under section 18(9) of the Act?

Mr Pedlow: Under section 18(9) of the Act, the Department currently extends support to people who have had a positive outcome in the NRM, such as a positive conclusive grounds or a positive reasonable grounds decision; it uses that discretion. The question of people who have had a negative conclusive grounds outcome is sometimes raised. The current legislation does not provide any discretion for the Department to continue to support people in that category.

As we said previously, the length of time for which people get support far outstrips the 45 days that is referred to in the NRM. That is partly because the NRM process takes so long to arrive at a conclusive grounds decision. The provision of support has often gone on for in excess of 500 days. It goes beyond 12 months at present, under the discretionary nature of section 18(9) of the 2015 Act.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Do members have any comments to make about that? OK.

Another issue, Ronnie, is that, in the HTEA — the Human Trafficking and Exploitation Act — there is provision on persons convicted of class B drugs offences. As class B drugs are included in the original legislation, should we now include class A drugs?

Mr Pedlow: I would have to check that. Proposals to look at the issue of a defence are under consideration. A court case went to the European Court of Human Rights in which — forgive me — I think, the initials were V.C.L and A.N. That case related to two Vietnamese nationals who were deemed to be underage. The case was about the use of a statutory defence that they had been acting under duress and were victims of trafficking. A review of the outworkings of that is still ongoing in England and Wales and by us. However, we have not been approached directly about a defence for class A drugs.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): I suppose that that could be deemed to be a follow-on from the Human Trafficking Act's —

Mr Pedlow: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): — provision on class B drugs. Offences related to class A drugs and emerging forms of criminal exploitation could be included. These people never cease being inventive in how they use certain legislation to their benefit and to further their own ends. It is about trying to ensure that we have covered that as well as we possibly can. Does any other member have any comment on that? OK.

So that we can satisfy ourselves that we have covered the issue as holistically as we can and on the basis of correspondence that we have received, I advise members that, in correspondence with us on 8 December 2021, the Migration Justice Project recommended that we seek a ministerial commitment to ensure that prostitution-related convictions are expunged and that a task force is established to consider that; ensure that the expungement of prostitution-related convictions is included in the next Department of Justice modern slavery strategy; and ask the Department to identify how many people would benefit from such a process if it were undertaken. Brian, do you want to comment on that?

Mr Grzymek: I picked some of that up the last time that I was here. People have not been prosecuted for prostitution for some years now. When we looked back, we found that there are around 50 historical cases that might be affected, some of which go back decades. It is a relatively small number of cases. As I recall, the Department had not actually received any real calls to change the legislation to expunge those sentences. Lorraine, can you remember any more about that?

Ms Ferguson: There are plans for that in the Republic of Ireland, although an initiative to legislate to expunge them has not been announced. For our part, we would have to consider the particular offences that would be involved. In the Republic of Ireland, a number have already been repealed under the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017. It would be a case of looking at the particular offences that would be involved.

Mr Grzymek: It is not an area to which we have given a great deal of consideration, nor, in my recollection, has it been raised significantly with the Department. If the Committee has information on that, it can send that to us. We would certainly factor that in and look at. I knew that we had something on it somewhere. Sorry; you will have to excuse me: we have a lot of briefing papers knocking around, and I have not looked at this for a while. What we know is that they have been looking at it in the South. We are liaising with counterparts in the South to see how that is developing. We recognise that many of those offences are historical. We have not had any strong evidence that there is a large number of people in Northern Ireland who are directly affected and seeking expungements. That said, it is probably quite hidden. We are working with our colleagues in the South to see how they are developing it. From that, we will see how we can move forward.

A lot of that stuff is historical, and quite a bit of it may not actually be readily available on our computerised systems. We can certainly look at that and see how we can go forward. It would be hard for me to make any sort of commitment at this stage, as we are just not across it. We have done some initial scoping of data. By and large, it would involve a relatively small number of people, spread over a century by the looks of things. We need to do a little bit more work on that. The Department will certainly look at it, Chair, but I am not sure that it is appropriate for this draft legislation.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Do members have any other comments? OK.

I have a couple of other issues. One is the Department's use of discretion in healthcare entitlement. The Scottish legislation provides what some argue is a more substantive healthcare entitlement. It has been put to the Committee that section 18 of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation Act allows the Department to use discretion, particularly to allow victims to remain registered or to re-register with a GP. Will that be considered in dealing with victims of trafficking?

Mr Pedlow: There have been instances where, under the discretion in section 18 of the Act, the Department has supported specific healthcare measures for people. However, anything that commits the Department of Justice to doing something that falls under the remit of the Department of Health is a cross-cutting issue. We have taken advice, and the advice is that going beyond what we currently do as a discretionary matter would cut across into the Department of Health's remit. If that were to involve any change to the Department of Health's legislation, it would have to be taken forward as a cross-cutting measure and considered by the Executive.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Do members have any comments? OK.

The final issue is the amendment to widen the scope and strength of the current law on abuse of trust. Rachel, are you with us? I cannot see my screen.

Miss Woods: Yes, Chair. I am here.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Go ahead, Rachel.

Miss Woods: Apologies. The Business Committee went on a little longer than expected. I did not even expect to have to go. I am sorry if this has already been covered. Chair, can you go over what the Committee discussed on the abuse of trust amendment?

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): We discussed whether or not the scope is wide enough. There is a general sense that it is not. The question is whether we want to consider including "hobby" or "extracurricular activity" or amending article 28 of the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 to add a catch-all provision that defines a "position of trust". As you were not here, we said that we would come back to this, so that you have an opportunity to give your opinion on it.

Miss Woods: You are very kind. Thank you. [Laughter.]

I am sure that you would prefer that I was not here.

On abuse of trust, I completely understand and appreciate the Department's response that there is a caveat for things to be added in the future. However, it does not sit well with me that, in the Bill, abuse of trust seems to be limited to sports and religious activity. I appreciate the discussion in the tabled papers about unintended consequences and the age of consent. However, I do not believe that that would be the case because this is not about the age of consent. It is about the original policy intent on abuse of trust. It is abuse of trust, and, therefore, the offence would necessitate a position of power versus a position of vulnerability in a relationship to be outlined. This is not about legislating against a 16-year-old and a 17-year-old having a relationship; it is something very different. If the Committee is agreeable, I would like to explore widening that scope in line with what has been recommended by the children's sector. I believe that all the children's sector organisations are on a similar page on it.
.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Brian, so that we take a holistic approach, do you want to make any comment on that?

Mr Grzymek: papers that we sent to you and our further paper on abuse of trust. We put in that catch-all because, genuinely, we are not in a position to go beyond where we have gone. When we consulted, we got fairly good, clear evidence on sports and religion. That evidence was sufficient for us to agree that we had to legislate on sports and religion. We simply did not get the information to go beyond that. I am very nervous, as is the Minister, about legislating on areas where we do not have good evidence. Policy and legislation should be evidence-based; that is fundamental to how the Department and the Minister operate.

That is as far as we have gone. As I said previously, I started off expecting to get a much broader position than we have ended up with. We cast our net quite widely, but, when we came to harvest the product, we discovered that we were really short on evidence. For sport and religion, good, clear evidence was provided by a range of bodies, including a number of voluntary organisations. Beyond that, despite our looking for evidence and asking some of the NGOs to provide evidence, we just did not get it. Our inclusion of a capacity to add different areas gives us the opportunity to work with the various voluntary bodies and others to identify a body of evidence that supports an extension. We have to operate on the basis of evidence, which we just do not have.

Rachel is quite right: this is about abuse of trust. However, in legislation, you always draw lines. There is a balance to be struck. We have to recognise and respect that autonomous individuals have the right to choose to enter into sexual relationships when they are 16 and 17. At the same time, we must try to protect them from abuse where there is a significant imbalance of power. It is a balancing act. It is better that we work on good, hard evidence, rather than on supposition or whatever. We worked closely with the NSPCC in developing the Bill. To be honest, there were opportunities for the NSPCC and others to help us to see wider evidence, and that did not happen. On that basis, we are where we are. Clearly, the Committee has to look at the evidence that it has received and see whether that is sufficiently robust to go beyond what we have proposed.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): OK. Are there any other comments from members? We will want to revisit this.

Rachel, do you want to make another comment on the departmental amendments?

Miss Woods: I am not sure whether the Committee was being asked to form an opinion on amendments that we had not seen. Obviously, we now have them and will consider them. I am minded to support the three new amendments, especially the ones on strangulation and threats to disclose. I do not know whether they were formulated in conjunction with the criminal justice agencies, the PPS, the PSNI, the Bar and the Law Society. Can they be forwarded to those bodies for their opinions on their workability? I have to admit that I have not been through them in detail, because of when we received them. I have been unable to form a personal opinion on them as yet, but I will do so. I have no issue with their policy intent. I just have not been through them line by line. Can we get the opinions of the agencies that will be tasked with gathering evidence and eventually prosecuting under them?

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): Brian, do you want to comment on that?

Mr Grzymek: In developing the amendments, we have worked with all the relevant agencies. Indeed, we have consulted on things like non-fatal strangulation. What we have proposed is based on the outcome of that policy development, which is why it is taking us time. We are still making a couple of very minor adjustments, with the legislative draftsman, to tidy up the text of the non-fatal strangulation amendment. We sped up the whole process to get it into the Bill. Developing legislation is a long and detailed process that involves us consulting and engaging with a range of people. We have certainly covered that. The Committee may want to, independently or separately, seek advice and views from those people, which would be absolutely right. From our perspective, the amendments are not particularly controversial; most of them are fairly straightforward. On non-fatal strangulation, the Committee has talked about — what is the new phrase for "rough sex"?

Ms Ferguson: I cannot recall.

Mr Grzymek: Anyway, we have certainly talked about that in the past. Clearly, non-fatal strangulation has been a key element; it is a common mechanism relating to that defence. We are interested to hear whether the Committee has any views on those amendments. We have been developing them against the clock. Unfortunately, because it takes time to develop these things, they arrived with you rather late. I apologise for that, but, as I said, it is a by-product of the detailed and comprehensive approach that we take to developing amendments.

Miss Woods: Thank you, Brian. Maybe it was my misreading, but it was my understanding that the non-fatal one would be coming in the next mandate. Therefore, I did not raise it with the stakeholders when they gave us evidence. Perhaps that was a complete oversight on my part. I appreciate that the Department will have worked in conjunction with everybody. It is just that the Committee does not have the information alongside these amendments that we had with previous ones, if you get my drift.

Mr Grzymek: Yes. I had suggested to the Committee that we would be doing that in the next mandate, but our perception was that it was going to be raised as an amendment. Therefore, having considered the rough sex component already, we accelerated a process and diverted some resources to try to bring it into the Bill at the same time. We thought that that would provide greater completeness than leaving it to the next mandate. That is our fault rather than yours, Rachel. There is certainly a benefit in bringing it into the Bill. I was able to assure the Minister that we should be able to fit it in within our time frame, so she was keen for us to do it. However, a by-product of that is that we are still dotting i's and crossing t's with the draftsman.

Miss Woods: Thank you, Brian. I appreciate that. I welcome it being part of the Bill; it is just that I cannot form an opinion on it at this stage.

The Chairperson (Mr Storey): If there are no other issues that members want to raise in our consideration of the clauses of the Bill, I will thank Lorraine, Brian and Ronnie for their attendance again today and for all of the work that they have done, even over the holiday period, to provide us with information. It is appreciated. Thank you for your time. We will now go into closed session.