Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Judith, thank you very much for coming back. We appreciate all your work on the Justice Bill thus far. I will hand over to you now. Thank you.

Ms Judith Bailie (Northern Ireland Assembly): Thank you, Chair, for the invite to address the Committee on the Justice Bill this afternoon. As members will be aware, the Bill was introduced in the Assembly earlier this week, on 17 September. There is a lot in the Bill. The purpose of today's evidence session is to give the Committee an overview, concentrating on key areas in each section. I aim to focus on highlighting what the current legislative situation is in each of the areas covered by the Bill, the proposals for change contained in it and some areas that the Committee might wish to explore further as the Bill moves through Committee Stage.

I will just say up front that a lot of this is complex and technical, and I probably will not have all the answers today. However, I will aim to give the Committee a starting point to work from as the Bill begins its legislative journey. Hopefully, this helps to build on your previous session with the Bill Office. It is all supplemented by the paper in members' packs that covers in a bit more detail everything that I will talk about.

Part 1 of the Bill relates to retention periods for DNA and biometric material. First, what is biometric data? Generally, it is the term used for fingerprints as well as DNA profiles. Those are unique identifiers derived from a physical sample of DNA that might come from blood, hair, saliva etc. Biometrics can be used to identify a particular individual and are routinely used by the police in all kinds of criminal cases. They form a key part of the criminal justice process as they provide police forces and national security agencies with a vital resource without which a significant number of cases could never be brought to trial. However, the public interest in collecting and retaining biometric materials also needs to be balanced alongside individual citizens' rights, particularly when we consider article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) around the right to respect for private and family life.

The existing legal framework in Northern Ireland is found in article 64 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989. That allows for the indefinite retention of biometric materials, including DNA samples, profiles, fingerprints and palm prints.

There are a number of databases that hold biometric data. There is a national DNA database that holds material uploaded from across the UK. There is a local Northern Ireland DNA database. There is a national fingerprint database, known as "IDENT1", that holds fingerprint information from across the UK. Fingerprint sets are also held locally in the PSNI fingerprint bureau. Police also use other databases and intelligence systems across the UK, such as the police national computer, which holds criminal record details and other information. There is also the police national database that holds custody photos, amongst other things.

I tell you that because the Committee should be conscious that different retention regimes operate across the UK for biometric data, which is one of the reasons why this is such a complex area. There are UK-wide databases, but there are different retention schedules, oversight arrangements and policies for data deletion, depending on whether you are in England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.

In recent years, there have been two European Court of Human Rights judgements that are relevant in this area. The first was S. and Marper v UK in 2008. It considered the retention of fingerprint and DNA data of two people suspected but not convicted of offences in England and Wales. The court found that this was not necessary in a democratic society and that the blanket and indiscriminate power of retention, regardless of the nature or gravity of the offence, the absence of any time limit, the lack of independent review and the restricted possibilities for acquitted individuals to have data removed or materials destroyed contributed to a violation of article 8.

That was followed by Gaughran v UK in 2020, which involved an applicant with a spent conviction for driving with excess alcohol in Northern Ireland. The European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of article 8 due to the indiscriminate nature of the powers of retention of the DNA profile, fingerprints and photograph of the applicant. There was no reference to the seriousness of the offence, the need for indefinite retention or any real possibility of review, resulting in a failure to strike a fair balance between competing public and private interests.

During this period, the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2013, which aimed to create a compliant regime locally, was passed. However, it was not possible to commence the biometrics provisions due to the need to preserve material that might be required for future legacy investigations. That has since been addressed under the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which includes a power to make regulations to permit the retention of designated collections of biometric material that would otherwise be destroyed and ensure that it is available for use by the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) during its lifespan. The relevant regulations came into force in May 2024, and the Committee may wish to consider how those will align with the new biometrics retention framework detailed in the Justice Bill.

Finally on this slide, it is worth being aware that the PSNI is currently operating an interim service instruction on the retention and deletion of biometric material. This highlights the fact that the service operates a biometrics ratification committee, and it can consider applications for deletion from local and national biometrics databases. This currently covers an applicant's DNA samples, DNA profiles derived from any sample, fingerprints, palm prints and any custody photographic images.

Part 1 of the Bill amends the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 and the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2013, and this part of the Bill follows a consultation that the Department undertook in 2020. That focused largely on maximum periods for the retention of biometric data. That resulted in a 75/50/25-year model that is reflected in the Bill. Broadly, this means a 75-year retention period for DNA and fingerprints for convictions for all qualifying offences. Typically, those are serious violent or sexual offences, regardless of age. There is a 50-year retention period for adults convicted of recordable but non-qualifying offences with a custodial sentence of five years or more. There is a 25-year retention band for adults convicted of recordable non-qualifying offences where there has been no custodial sentence. There is also specific provision for under-18s, as well as retention periods based on whether a first minor offence is applicable. There is also provision for individuals arrested for a qualifying offence but not charged or charged but then not convicted.

Ms Ferguson: Do you have a slide on that detail?

Ms Bailie: It is in the papers. I have attempted to break it down in table 1 of the papers. That should give you a full overview of every retention band in the Bill. There was a bit too much to get it all into one slide.

There is provision in the Bill for a court to extend the retention periods, whereby the Chief Constable can apply to a district judge for an extension, which is limited to two years at a time. The Bill also highlights a requirement for the Chief Constable to review the continued retention of material pending the investigation of offences every five years. This must consider whether an individual remains a suspect in the investigation and whether the biometric material has evidential value in the investigation or in any proceedings. The Department may make regulations specifying further factors that the police must have regard to in conducting a review.

The Chief Constable is also required under the Bill to conduct reviews of the continued retention of long-term retained material. That is material that is held for 25 years and over. The detail of that will be contained in regulations that the Department must provide for, which may cover a range of matters such as when the review should be conducted, enabling the individual concerned the right to request a review and conferring a right of appeal. Given the importance of a review mechanism in ensuring compliance with article 8 and given the significant periods that personal data may be retained for — 75 years, 50 years, 25 years — the Committee might wish to consider whether more details around the review mechanism should be defined in the Bill.

That also links to the appointment of a Northern Ireland Commissioner for the Retention of Biometric Material. The commissioner's broad role would be to review the biometric retention framework, including the gathering, retention and use of biometric material, but the Bill also appears to potentially confer some sort of review or complaint function on the commissioner under future regulation in relation to the review of long-term retained material. The Committee might wish to consider whether the Bill could be strengthened by providing a procedure in statute allowing an individual to make a complaint to the commissioner in relation to their biometric data.

I have already made a few suggestions for issues that the Committee might wish to explore in further detail, but the slide provides a brief summary. It is worth considering the 75/50/25-year model in greater detail. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission said in its response to the Department's consultation in 2020 that that model is disproportionate and not compatible with article 8, so it might be worth considering whether that model will allow for the retention of biometrics for an excessive length of time in the case of less serious offences. On the flip side of that, it might also be worth thinking about whether that model is overly complex and how exactly the retention bands will be workable in practice for organisations, such as the PSNI, that are responsible for biometric data.

The Justice Bill also does not include any specific provisions around custody photos. The Department did not consider that as part of the 2020 consultation but highlighted that PSNI policy has been to include custody photos within the scope of the regime governing the lawful retention and deletion of biometrics. The Department did not believe that additional legislation was required in that area, but, again, it might be worth exploring that matter further as well. Slightly different approaches are taken to custody photos depending on which part of the UK you are in. For example, Scotland's definition of biometric data includes photographs and recordings alongside fingerprints and DNA, but that is not the case in England and Wales.

The retention of biometric material beyond death is another area that is potentially worth considering. Following the 2020 consultation, the Department proposed to delete all biometric material 10 years after the death of a person, so it might be worth clarifying how the Bill gives effect to that and how that might operate in practice in terms of the PSNI being notified of a person's death.

We also have the Northern Ireland Commissioner for the Retention of Biometric Material, who is given a specific role in keeping under review the development of existing and new biometric technologies that could be used by law enforcement authorities for the prevention and detection of crime. A range of emerging policing methods may be of relevance in that area; for example, live facial recognition technology. That has been used by, I think, three police forces to date in England and Wales, but human rights and data privacy concerns have been highlighted. New developments in that area, driven by advances in AI technology, are likely to progress significantly in the coming years. It is worth being aware that there is a Scottish Biometrics Commissioner as well as a Home Office Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, and those offices have both expressed concerns that the UK's legal framework is inadequate and in need of reform, principally because it is failing to keep pace with rapid changes to biometric technology. It is worth considering whether the Bill is sufficiently future-proofed in that regard.

Moving on from biometrics, Part 2 of the Bill covers changes relating to police bail and court bail for children. There are amendments to the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 and articles 12 and 13 of the Criminal Justice (Children) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998. The Department has highlighted that the changes aim to strengthen the existing presumption of bail for children. The Committee may wish to consider the Department of Justice's strategic framework for youth justice 2022-27 and how it aligns with those legislative changes, as it emphasises that children should be placed in custody only as a last resort. The framework document acknowledges that the existing legislative presumption in favour of bail for children is not operating as the Department would like in practice, so it may be worth the Committee exploring what difference the Justice Bill will make in that area.

The Bill also provides that bail conditions for children must be proportionate and necessary. It also includes an amendment to prevent children being detained in custody and refused bail because of a lack of suitable accommodation. The Committee may wish to consider how that will be supported by statutory partners, as, at present, a lack of appropriate alternative accommodation can be a factor in the use of custody.

This part of the Bill also seeks to underpin arrangements relating to the separation of children and adults in custodial settings because it highlights that a child will only be held in a juvenile justice centre. The Bill also introduces a new youth custody and supervision order, which replaces the juvenile justice order for children aged 14-plus for less serious offences. The duration of the orders will be for a minimum of six months and a maximum of two years. The detention period cannot be for less than three months and cannot be more than half the period of the order. The Committee might wish to consider the rationale for the introduction of the order and the replacement of the juvenile justice order.

More broadly and outside the scope of the Bill, one of the key issues relating to children and young people in the criminal justice system is the minimum age of criminal responsibility, which is currently 10 in Northern Ireland. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has stated that a minimum age below 12 is considered not to be internationally acceptable, and it recommends an age between 14 and 16. The Department consulted on raising the minimum age from 10 to 14 in 2022. The results of that consultation show support for increasing the minimum age to 14, but, as I said, that is not addressed in the Bill.

Part 3 of the Bill relates to the use of live links in police interviews and detentions. The Department consulted on a range of amendments around that in 2020. At present, a superintendent or above can authorise an extension for a person in police custody from 24 to 36 hours in person only. A district judge can extend the detention up to 96 hours with both the detainee and a police officer in court. The use of live links for that function is intended to make those processes more efficient in time and resources, as, at present, police officers, detainees and legal representatives may have to travel considerable distances.

There was broad support for the changes, with appropriate safeguards in place, during the 2020 consultation. However, concerns were expressed about using live links for suspect interviews where a police officer is in a different location. Concerns were raised by respondents around the ability of detainees to understand the proceedings and participate effectively, as well as any necessary safeguards for vulnerable individuals.

I have highlighted a few issues that the Committee might wish to consider further in relation to Part 3 of the Bill. Is there an appropriate balance between the efficient use of resources and the needs of detained persons? Are there any additional safeguards for individuals undergoing live link interviews in police custody? It is also worth thinking about how the new arrangements might be monitored and whether they should be subject to any review. It is also worth considering whether there has been any impact on access to justice for detained persons in other jurisdictions where similar live link technology has been used for interviews in police custody.

Part 4 of the Bill covers a range of areas relating to the administration of justice. The slide highlights the various amendments being proposed. They are covered in full detail in the paper, so I will just talk about a couple of them today.

First, the Bill addresses a legal gap by amending section 7 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 to prevent a charge of murder or manslaughter from being "No-Billed" when linked to an offence of causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult. The "No-Bill" procedure is a tool used to dismiss charges in the Crown Court before trial when evidence is insufficient. It might be worth the Committee considering the background of why the change is considered necessary.

This part of the Bill also updates the Police Act 1997 to comply with a 2019 Supreme Court ruling on the disclosure of non-court disposals for those who are under 18. Essentially, it clarifies in legislation that all spent convictions or other disposals of a person under 18 can be automatically considered by the independent reviewer prior to the issue of a criminal record certificate. More detail about the process for this is in your packs, but it is worth noting that a number of stakeholders, including the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People, have called for the full implementation of recommendation 21 of the youth justice review around young offenders being able to apply for a clean slate at 18. However, the Department takes the view that a blanket policy of not disclosing any other disposals occurring when a person is aged under 18 in any circumstances could create safeguarding risks to vulnerable groups.

There are also changes to legal aid through amendments to the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 to impose restrictions on the taxation of legal aid costs. It is envisaged that the change will support a future introduction of alternative methods for determining the remuneration payable in relevant legal aid cases. The proposed change stems from the Public Accounts Committee's 'Report on Managing Legal Aid', published in 2016, and the Department conducted a consultation on the issue in 2022.

There are a few issues that the Committee might want to consider around this. For example, it might be worth thinking about whether restricting the role of a taxing master will actually give effect greater predictability around legal aid payments. Also, what are the time frames for alternative methods of remuneration being in place, is there potential for any impact on access to justice and what remit will a taxing master have once the changes are implemented?

I have covered quite a lot of ground. This Bill covers complex areas, particularly around biometric data retention. I will do my best to answer any questions that the Committee has, but I very much encourage you to seek expert evidence as well on this. I have already provided a few suggestions for witnesses in this area, but, if there is anything else, let me know and I will certainly do my best to find out.

The Minister flagged that a number of amendments have been agreed by the Executive for planned inclusion in the Bill at Consideration Stage. They are not considered in the paper or covered in the presentation at all.

I am all done. Thank you, Chair. I am happy to take any questions.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Thank you, Judith, and well done. This is not easy. It is a big Bill, and we understand, of course, that you cannot look at the next stage because we do not have the text of anything yet. I understand that but thank you thus far.

Members, I will open up the floor for questions.

Mr Beattie: Judith, thank you. It is complicated, and I was listening as I was typing. You mentioned the issue of biometric retention and that rules have been put in place, in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, so that it can be retained. Given that some murders that took place some time ago are not linked to the Troubles, is there a chance of there being a legal conflict between one and the other? For example, someone says, "My wife was murdered in 1975. It was not Troubles-related and this stuff is going to be destroyed." Is there a conflict, or could there be a conflict?

Ms Bailie: I am not sure that I can entirely answer that question.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): It might be one for the Department.

Ms Bailie: It might be better to ask the Department for a bit more detail on the regulations and how they will interact with the new retention regime that is being introduced under the Justice Bill.

Mr Beattie: I was just bouncing it off you, Judith, just in case you had the answer.

Ms Bailie: I can certainly look into it for you and see whether I can find any more information.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): There are murder cases that fall into that category.

Mr Beattie: There are, yes, and some recent ones. The point that I make is about the conflict of somebody saying, "The murder was not Troubles-related, but you have destroyed this evidence, whereas this is Troubles-related, and you are retaining it". It is that conflict that I am trying to tease out.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That could essentially destroy somebody's hope of securing a conviction and therefore justice for their family member who has been killed.

Mr Beattie: Yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): These are not by any stretch small issues. Have you anything else, Doug, that you want to ask?

Mr Beattie: No, I am just going to pester Judith on that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is an important one for the Department, because we are all aware of murder cases like that that could be impacted here.

Mr Dickson: As a continuation of that, when does a live case cease to be live? Presumably, it could be a live case for 25 years. You hear the police saying that the file remains open. If the file remains open, presumably, all the material is retained. Who makes the decision to close the file, and does closing the file start the clock running or has the clock been running for the whole time from the day and hour that the incident occurred? I appreciate that you are not going to answer those questions, but there are lots of complex questions that we will need answers to.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Yes, there are. If the case is going to be determined by how long you can retain the DNA, the case ends up closed by default.

Mr Beattie: In which case you could set a de facto statute of limitations by saying that we are closing something by —.

Mr Dickson: There should not be one, and —.

Mr Beattie: No.

Mr Dickson: In the non-Troubles-related arena, we can all think of cases that relate to constituencies or whatever that would be affected.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is part of the issue with the legacy investigation branch. It had cases that were not Troubles-related but still fell into that remit.

Do any other members have anything else?

Judith, I have a few questions, but bear with me. I have a considerable number. I need to work my way through to see what is better left for the Department or somebody other than you. Just bear with me for a second as I work my way through.

We will require more information about the custody photos. It seems strange to me that the Department would just rely on the police's modus operandi currently, as opposed to, just for completeness, including that. It seems strange, but I will not ask you to comment on that.

The live links — let me just check that I have everything on the DNA stuff and biometrics before we move on.

Judith, I refer you to page 14 of your report. There is reference there to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery:

Are retention regulations different for data taken prior to those dates? Can you clarify for us the significance of that date — 31 October 2013 — and what practical difference it makes to the retention of DNA?

Ms Bailie: The regulations essentially allow for the ICRIR to hold a designated collection of material for use during its lifespan, and that is material taken —

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Prior to that date?

Ms Bailie: — prior to 31 October 2013. That is my understanding.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): And after that? That, in itself, could cause some difficulties.

Ms Bailie: I am unclear about the rationale for that date.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): They will have a raft of evidence and forensic exhibits that they have not been able to test against a DNA sample, but that is not to say that they will not get a DNA sample in the future. Do you know what I mean? This stuff is not straightforward at all.

I would like clarification of what in theory happens to everything that the ICRIR holds when it finishes its work or not. I suppose that that is not for this Bill, but it will have an impact on it.

I have concerns on two fronts about the retention of material for those who are not convicted. There is the rights issue of having your data retained if you are not convicted of a crime. The other side of that is the legacy cases. A lot of those investigations are still live and being looked at. If the data are destroyed, answers may never be found. Often, I suppose, the police know who has committed the crime but need the evidence base to pursue that with the Public Prosecution Service (PPS). That is why all that stuff is important.

Talk to us, please, about repeat convictions and the impact on retention.

Ms Bailie: Do you mean when somebody has already been convicted of an offence and what that would mean for the retention of their data?

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Yes.

Ms Bailie: If an individual was previously convicted, it means that their data will likely be held for a longer period. It depends on whether it is a qualifying or non-qualifying offence. It also depends on whether the individual is under 18 or an adult as to which band — 25, 50 or 75 years — it would fall into. Those things can be taken into consideration. Table 1 in members' packs lays it out in full detail. You can tell by the type of offence, age and circumstances of the offending which category it would fall into for retention.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Turning to children's personal data, what I struggle with in the paper is understanding what types of crime fall into each category. You may be able to tell us that today, or maybe you can bring it back to us at a future date, but it is about understanding, as I said, what types of crime fall into each category.

Ms Bailie: The difference between a recordable offence, a qualifying offence and that sort of thing?

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Yes. You put it in the glossary.

Ms Bailie: Yes, but if it would help to pull that out more up front and share that with the Committee, I can do that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Yes. It is one thing to see the definition but another to understand what that looks like in practice.

Ms Bailie: OK.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I was interested in your point about the prevention of children being detained in custody and refused bail because of a lack of suitable accommodation. They say that they want to remove that. That is fine, but the point is this: where do those children go?

Mr Dickson: Where do they go?

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Yes. I think that the capital build on that has been put on ice because of budgetary measures. It is all very well to include that in a Bill, but, if it cannot be implemented, there are risks, even to the child's safety.

Ms Bailie: Yes. How does that practically work?

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Exactly, but we are being asked to.

Your paper notes the distinction between the old orders and the new orders for youth justice. What are the differences there beyond the fact that you are allowed just one order? If you have repeat offences, your order will have to keep being updated. Are there other significant differences there?

The detention issue is that your detention cannot be more than half of your order. Presumably, that is on the same basis as adult sentences, where you serve half of it in detention and then you are on licence. Is it the same idea?

Ms Bailie: I am not sure whether that is the rationale behind that one.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is one for the Department.

Ms Bailie: It is probably worth asking why the order has been replaced with a new youth custody and supervision order and asking a bit more about what practical difference it will make.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Given some of the evidence that we heard last week, I can understand why. Individuals can have up to 11 orders: individuals have been known to have 11. It is difficult to follow the conditions and restrictions of 11 orders, so you can understand why they would put them down to one.

When it comes to breaches of supervision orders, the result can be more detention or a fine not exceeding £1,000. Is the £1,000 fine proportionate? To your knowledge, how does that compare with similar fines for adults who are in breach? That may not come under your remit, but I ask it just in case you have covered it in your research. I will ask them how they got to the figure, but do you have any comparable figures?

Ms Bailie: It was not something that I looked into in the course of this research. I am happy to try to find that out.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Do not worry, Judith. We can ask the Department.

There is a reference in the paper to the Bill removing a provision to place a child on remand for the purpose of obtaining information about them. What does that mean, Judith? Can you give us an example of how that would work currently? What do they mean by that?

Ms Bailie: I am not entirely sure exactly what that means, but the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) states that that is one of the things that it would do. I am not entirely sure what information that might necessarily be, but that is what it is.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): It is about obtaining information about them. It is not clear.

I beg members' indulgence, but I want to be clear about this in my head. I do not understand the "No-Bill" explanation. I see that there was no consultation on that by the Department. I do not understand why lesser charges should not apply. Are you able to explain that to me, Judith, or do I need to speak to the Department about that?

Ms Bailie: That is probably another one that it might be best to ask the Department about. To me, it was not immediately obvious what the rationale was behind that. There may be a technical reason why that is in the Bill, but I have no more information today that I could share with you that would assist.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is fine. I just do not understand what it means.

Mr Dickson: Neither do I.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I am glad that I am not alone in that. I did not understand the provision. That is fine: we will ask the Department.

This ties in with some of the stuff that Liz mentioned. There is a reference in our pack to supporting the future introduction of alternative methods of determining remuneration in legal aid cases:

Are we being asked to pass legislation, in the words of Donald Rumsfeld, on "unknown unknowns"? There is an issue around consistency there.

Ms Bailie: I imagine that, perhaps, some people have to go through and build what the remuneration will be and specify it for each type of case that would be, potentially, currently considered by the Taxing Master. That is possibly why it says that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Yes, but, essentially, they are asking us to agree something that is on a blank page. That is for them, however.

I am nearly there, Judith. Thank you for your indulgence, everybody.

Page 69 of the paper states:

I do not understand that paragraph, probably because I do not necessarily understand the system. Can you elaborate on that, or do you need me to ask that one of the Department?

Ms Bailie: Is it the work of the Taxing Master that the Committee is interested in, or is it how that currently —?

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I do not understand what the paragraph means.

Ms Bailie: OK.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): It refers to "a respondent in vexatious-litigant order". Who determines that a litigant is vexatious? Do not worry, Judith; I will ask the Department.

That will do; I have asked enough. Do any questions occur to anybody else, while Judith is with us? No. In that case, thank you so much, Judith. That is a considerable body of work. It is really helpful, and we appreciate it. I have no doubt that your paper will be printed and alongside each of us as we make our way through the Bill. I am sure that we will call on you again, but, for now, thank you.

Ms Bailie: If there are any specifics or anything that I could not answer today that you would like me to follow up on, let me know. The Clerk will let me know. Thanks very much.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Thank you.