Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): We are looking today at the amendments to the Justice Bill that relate to the reform of rehabilitation periods, the repeal of vagrancy legislation and live links in courts and tribunals. We have departmental officials with us again today to provide oral evidence. The amendments relate to the areas of the Bill that I have outlined. I welcome Andrew Laverty, the Bill manager. It is nice to see you again, Andrew. Long time no see — from last week. [Laughter.]

I also welcome Maura Campbell, the Bill's senior sponsor; Lorraine Ferguson-Coote, who is the head of the criminal policy unit; and Máire Sheehan, who is the head of the legacy policy and legislation group. Thank you for taking the time to be here. Máire, may I check that I have pronounced your name correctly?

Ms Máire Sheehan (Department of Justice): It is Máire.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is great, thank you. I wanted to make sure: there is nothing worse than referring to somebody with the wrong name throughout.

Ms Sheehan: I have answered to many things. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Me too. Provided that it is within common decency and the bounds of the law, we are fine.

I will hand over to you, folks. Thank you very much for your attendance today. We welcome it and look forward to hearing from you, after which we will take questions. I propose, as we did last week, that we deal with the amendments in sections. I invite you to work through the rehabilitation periods amendments first, deal with questions on those, move on to the vagrancy amendments and, finally, the live links amendments. Does that work for you guys?

Mr Andrew Laverty (Department of Justice): Yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is great. It saves us jumping about and means that our approach will be a bit more coherent. Thank you very much, and over to you.

Ms Maura Campbell (Department of Justice): We worked Andrew hard last week, as you know, so I will kick off this time. You will recall that he was here with relevant colleagues to brief you on some of the Department's planned amendments to the Justice Bill, and we are here today to cover the remainder, which are to do with the rehabilitation of offenders, vagrancy and live links in courts and tribunals. All of those areas fall within our division, and I am joined today by the respective policy leads in our team.

You have the written briefing, so I will briefly summarise the three areas and then hand over to the policy leads as we go through each section, as you have suggested. Under the rehabilitation of offenders provisions, we will bring forward amendments to the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 to reduce the time that it takes for some sentences to become spent and to allow for more convictions to be capable of becoming spent. Secondly, the vagrancy amendments will repeal the current rather archaic vagrancy legislation insofar as it will decriminalise rough sleeping and begging in Northern Ireland. We will instead rely on a range of other offences that are available to deal with public order, disorderly behaviour and harassment in public places where someone's actions breach the threshold of criminal behaviour. Finally, the live links provisions are intended to provide a long-term legislative solution to allow for the wider use of live links as part of the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service's (NICTS) digital modernisation programme.

We will start with the rehabilitation of offenders, so I will hand over to Andy.

Mr Laverty: Maura summarised the principal policy intent of the amendments, so I am happy for you to ask any questions that you might have.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Off we go — straight in. Who is coming up first on that? It is me.

My questions on this are fairly straightforward, Andrew. Let me just get to the right page. I am at page 67 and paragraph 10 of your report. No, that is not right; sorry. There is a table in there, and I am just trying to find it. I apologise; it is at page 66. I have a few questions around it, and I am keen to understand what happens with a sentence of over 10 years. Beyond that, there is reference to the aspects that you will come back to because you are still developing policy and consulting on some areas. Did I read that?

Mr Laverty: No. It is probably a reference in the report on the consultation responses to the power to create a review mechanism. There has been policy development and a confirmed approach taken in the intervening time between the publication of the report in 2021 and where we are now. The draft amendment includes a provision to create an order-making power to establish a review or an appeal mechanism. It is at the very end of the amendment text.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I am looking for where I read that. I do not know whether you were here when we had the issue with the Policing Board: there was a discussion on removing injury on duty from the board. However, at no stage did the consultation include removing that from the board, and the Department said that the board had not asked for it to be included, which was astonishing, and that is why I am concerned. I want to find out why everything was not done in one go. You said that it has been done, but I cannot find it. I have written down the wrong reference, which is causing me consternation because I cannot find what I need. If I do, I will come back to it.

Essentially, everything is being done in one go, and there is no further policy development. You are not reviewing anything else about it.

Mr Laverty: No. The confusion may have arisen because, originally, the changes to the table of rehabilitation periods and the ability to make more convictions capable of becoming spent were intended to be brought forward by way of secondary legislation. There was a commitment to review an arrangement that had been introduced in Scotland whereby an appeal mechanism power had been taken to create an appeal mechanism. At the time, when it was first considered in 2021, the power to create the appeal mechanism could be brought forward only by primary legislation, so the intention was to take a twin-track approach.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I have found it, Andrew. It is paragraph 8 of your report.

Mr Laverty: In our briefing paper? OK.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): It states:

What happens after the 10-year limit? What do you envisage when you look at further policy development and consultation? What are the timelines and the next steps? Do you intend to do it via a statutory rule (SR)? If so, by what procedure?

Mr Laverty: OK. There is a lot for me to remember there.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I knew that I did not make it up. I just needed to find the paragraph.

Mr Laverty: At the moment and going forward, any sentence over 10 years would not be capable of becoming spent. We propose that the new upper limit should be set at 10 years. That is open to discussion with the Committee, and I imagine that there will be representations to you from interested bodies that will suggest different upper limits.

We have set the limit at 10 years because that coincides with the definition of what constitutes a serious offence in another piece of legislation. Having spent considerable time in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in the past six to eight years defending the Department against challenges to the rehabilitation legislation, I can say that the most common point of argument is this: why is the limit drawn where it is?

The existing legislation dates back to the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, under which there is no clear, coherent reason why 30 months was established as constituting a serious offence. Clearly, it does not constitute a serious offence in modern sentencing parlance. England, Wales and Scotland have changed their limits. Scotland changed its limit to four years, and, again, there is no read-across to any definition of that being a serious offence in any other legislation. England and Wales have changed their approach, in that they will allow all sentences of over four years to become spent except those that are specified as serious sexual, violent and terrorism offences. Some 170-something such offences are listed.

We took the approach of maintaining one of the core principles of the rehabilitation of offenders scheme, which is simplicity and ease of use. It is passive legislation, in that it establishes boundaries or limits that ordinary members of the public should be able to understand and read across to their conviction, if they have one. They should not need expert help or an outside body or person to help them to understand whether their conviction can become spent and, if so, when.

The approach that we have taken maintains that simplicity of approach and ease of understanding. The read-across is to the definition of a serious offence as one that is capable of having a sentence of 10 years' imprisonment set. Anything over 10 years is not capable of becoming spent yet.

The order-making power that we are talking about for the review or appeal mechanism would allow the Department to consult on what a review or an appeal mechanism might look like for determinate, fixed sentences of over 10 years. Therefore, it will include no life, indeterminate or extended custodial sentences. The reason for that, as is the case with the judicial reviews that have been heard, is that where you have a bright line, it works for everybody who falls on one side of it. The people who fall just the other side of it will obviously feel aggrieved, take a case and ask, "On what grounds am I being denied the same opportunity?".

Those sentenced to just below 10 years will, if the provisions are carried as drafted, be able to have their convictions become spent. Those with sentences of just over 10 years will not, so there is the reasonable expectation that they might seek to judicially challenge that decision. The review mechanism would then open up the opportunity for them to make application to the courts, because we imagine that it would have to be a court-based system. If you go past 10 years, it is very serious offending.

That scheme does not exist in a format that is capable of being consulted on at this stage. It has not been implemented in Scotland. Therefore, beyond reviewing the information that Scotland set in its regulations as being suitable for inclusion in an application, there are no means by which that has been tested.

We think that it would be courts-based and, obviously, require some kind of independent oversight decision-making. That element would be subject to further consideration and policy consultation.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): You do not envisage that becoming an issue in the Bill.

Mr Laverty: No. The power to create the order-making provision would then allow the policy development to progress, and, following that consultation and engagement with the Committee, the review mechanism would be created by draft affirmative statutory rule.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): You guys worked on this for a previous Bill, and it was not able to be included: is that right?

Mr Laverty: The provisions for changing rehabilitation periods and allowing up to 10 years to become spent, yes; the review mechanism, no. That is entirely new. This is the first Bill since the Scottish mechanism was created. It was always going to be the case that it would need primary cover. The assumption that I incorrectly made — that the other changes could have been done by secondary legislation — proved to be my undoing once the Assembly returned. Now, everything needs to be done by primary legislation, including the changes to the rehabilitation periods for up to four years and four years to 10 years. That is purely a result of how narrowly the order-making power to make changes by way of secondary legislation is drafted.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Do you envisage any risks in circumstances in which the time frames change but the review mechanism has not yet been looked at?

Mr Laverty: Only in the sense that the Scottish model still has not come on board, and the Supreme Court, at a hearing that I attended in October, was somewhat critical of the fact that the power had been available to the Scottish Government for, I think, nigh on four years but there had been no progress. Obviously, the longer it takes for a scheme to be brought into being after the power becomes available, the more open to criticism the Department stands.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): What timelines do you envisage for this?

Mr Laverty: It will be a question for my successor.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): All right, Pontius Pilate. [Laughter.]

Mr Laverty: That is my honest answer. I told you last week that I had made an offer to the Minister to throw myself at your mercy if a head needed to be put on the block.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): We are not that bad.

Mr Laverty: No, you are most definitely not.

It is work that I am attempting to progress at the same time as managing the Bill and being involved in defending the Department in the judicial review that the Human Rights Commission has taken against the existing rehabilitation of offenders law. Diminished resources, competing priorities and —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): It sounds like a chicken-and-egg situation.

Mr Laverty: As the Bill progresses, the focus will be more on the implementation of the changes that can quickly and easily be brought into operation; in fact, the provisions in the amendments that make the changes to the time that it takes for an offender to become rehabilitated will automatically come into operation two months after Royal Assent. There is, therefore, a fixed time frame for those provisions to come into operation. Between the Bill's Final Stage and Royal Assent, I will work on an awareness campaign to make sure that those changes in law are widely publicised. The focus will then turn to the establishment of the review mechanism. The provisions in the amendments give a skeleton of what a review mechanism might look like — the information that we would expect a court to require in order for someone to make an informed decision about a person's unique circumstances. It exists in theoretical terms, but, when it comes to putting it on paper and getting it to you so that we can go out to public consultation on it, we are not there yet.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is fine. I just wanted to understand what the thinking was and why it was not all done as one complete exercise, but that is fair enough. Thank you.

Does anybody else have anything on rehabilitation? No. There you are, Andrew. You got off lightly today. It was just me. [Laughter.]

Mr Laverty: My goodness.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Right. We will move on to vagrancy. Who is up for vagrancy?

Ms Lorraine Ferguson-Coote (Department of Justice): I am.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Lorraine, we will hand over to you.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: I have a wee introduction, so I will fire away. Thanks, Chair, for the opportunity to discuss the vagrancy repeal proposals. The Minister has committed to repealing the provisions. She is fully aware that begging and rough sleeping are often linked to underlying issues such as homelessness, poverty, alcohol and drug addiction, poor mental health, sexual and domestic abuse and family breakdown. Those are complex and cross-cutting issues that require a supportive, multi-agency response rather than one that criminalises people simply because of their personal circumstances.

As Maura highlighted in her summary, the amendment would repeal the current vagrancy laws, which criminalise rough sleeping and begging, insofar as they relate to Northern Ireland, specifically section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 and section 3 of the Vagrancy (Ireland) Act 1847. This follows a review of the law carried out by the Department in response to calls to repeal legislation that is considered to be old, outdated and archaic. We propose not to provide replacement legislation upon repeal but to rely instead on other existing offences to deal with associated behaviours that reach the criminal threshold, such as harassment, disorderly behaviour and public order offences.

The repeal of legislative provisions is not usually consulted on, as, in most cases, repeal is a consequential amendment resulting from the introduction of a new policy in primary legislation on which there will have been consultation. However, as we do not intend to introduce legislation to replace the vagrancy legislation, we considered it important to provide an opportunity for views to be submitted on its repeal, particularly from key stakeholders. To date, we have received seven responses to the consultation, all received in recent days. We have extended the time frame slightly to allow another interested party to respond, along with any others who might be keen to do so. In recent days, we have also further promoted the consultation across social media, with a particular focus on the business and retail sector and those working in the voluntary and community sector.

I am happy to take questions.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Thank you, Lorraine. Usually, I go last in questioning, but, today, I have a number of general questions, and members will come in on the back of those, if that is all right. I have a considerable number of questions —

Ms Ferguson-Coote: Oh.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): — but I will explain why. This is not as straightforward as it may appear on the surface. None of us wants to see homeless people criminalised, but the issue is not that straightforward. It is certainly not so in Northern Ireland, where we have trafficking, organised crime gangs and so on. People can be coerced into begging, and not everybody who begs is homeless. I want to pursue a few things with you, if that is all right.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: That is fine.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Your consultation closed on 21 January, which was after the amendment had been drafted, so what is the purpose of the consultation? What account will you take of the responses?

Ms Ferguson-Coote: First, Chair, thank you. The consultation has been extended to 31 January. I know that that is only 10 days. The clause has been drafted, but we have gone out to consultation, and we fully intend to consider any responses. The Minister committed to repealing the provision because it is old and archaic, and the review looked at the application of the vagrancy legislation in Northern Ireland compared with other jurisdictions. We consulted the police closely on that. While the clause is there, Chair, we fully intend to consider the consultation responses and any points that they raise.

Currently, the Minister's view, following her review, is that there is no requirement for replacement legislation. The basis for that is that we consulted the police, and the only gap that they highlighted to us was simple begging. Furthermore, there is other legislation within the framework to deal with criminal behaviour around rough sleeping and begging. The short answer is that we will consider the consultation responses.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): If the consultation responses indicate that the repeal of that legislation would leave a gap, then what?

Ms Ferguson-Coote: That would have to be analysed and considered by the Minister. If there were a significant gap, we would seek to bring work forward within the antisocial behaviour strategy that colleagues are dealing with and the strategic work around that.

Maura, do you have anything to add to that?

Ms Campbell: You mentioned the likes of human trafficking and organised crime. I know that Lorraine and her colleagues specifically explored with the police whether they anticipated any issues in those sorts of areas. You might recall that, in September, I flagged that we were a bit out of sequence here, in that we were proceeding with drafting the amendment before we had consulted, but that was really because we wanted to take the time that we needed to take with the police to explore the issues thoroughly. That took longer than we had anticipated, but they were satisfied that the only gap that they could see was what they refer to as "simple begging".

That takes us back to the principle of whether that is something that we want to criminalise. If someone is sitting with their hand out and asking you for change as you go by but not otherwise being a nuisance, does that reach the threshold for criminal behaviour? Our feeling is that that is more in the antisocial behaviour space that Lorraine talked about. We want to give people the opportunity to flag any practical issues and problems that, they foresee, could arise, but, to be honest, the solution to those may go beyond specifically what we do with regard to the criminal law.

We are looking at a wider societal response to the problems of homelessness and poverty, and we are looking at joined-up, multi-agency working. The police flagged with us the fact that, in a way, because we have the offences available, it almost invites people to look to the police in the first instance and for them to be the first point of contact when an issue arises. You have been briefed before on — sorry, what is it? Right —?

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Right Care, Right Person.

Ms Campbell: I always get it the wrong way round. Should it be the job of the police to respond in the first instance when those issues occur? Could we look more widely at a broader response to that? Ideally, it would have been better had we consulted sooner — we appreciate that — but, in the consultation, we look specifically at whether there is a gap in the criminal law, given the offences that we already have.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: As Maura says, we raised the organised crime element specifically with the police. Our review looked at the application of the vagrancy legislation; the protocols that the police had established with support organisations; the existing law around that; how they approach those issues; and what issues they are coming across. The police are the first point of call. They are the first responders to such cases. They engage with that person, whether it involves rough sleeping or begging. They do not arrest people for rough sleeping. With begging, they explain to them that it is an offence, which it currently is, and encourage them to move on, and they always signpost people to support services.

The police have formed partnerships, depending on the particular police area, with a number of support organisations. That came across strongly in the review. This is, as Maura says, a multi-societal and multi-agency issue. Criminal justice is one element of how the police deal with someone. There is a good body of evidence to suggest that a lot of really positive work is being taken forward. For example, Belfast City Council's Complex Lives initiative is really good. It works with the police and businesses on trying to embrace the person, consider their needs, wrap around those and encourage the creation of a more stable environment.

That is a very worthwhile initiative.

Police also have partnerships in their own districts with other bodies, so services will be tailored to the issues that present themselves in the various areas. Begging is prominent in Belfast city centre. It is prominent in Derry/Londonderry, but not as much, and in Newry; they are very much lesser areas for begging. It is around the hotspots, and I think that we have all seen those people now.

As Maura said, police have not identified any gaps other than simple begging, which the Minister does not support because it criminalises people because of the personal circumstances in which they find themselves. They are not harassing anyone, or, if they are, there is legislation to deal with that. That is where we are coming from. We have looked at it critically, but, in saying that, the consultation responses may pull up some other points that we need to consider. Criminalising simple begging, as the police perceive that gap, is not supported by the Minister.

Ms Campbell: The consultation responses to some of the issues that they may raise may be in the more general space of how you address antisocial behaviour, we suspect.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: Yes, because the evidence has come back. For example, research was done in Dublin city centre, commissioned by Dublin City Council. The South of Ireland has a slightly different approach. As a result of a High Court ruling, section 3 of the Vagrancy Act was struck down — the Act that we are seeking to repeal — on the basis that it was unconstitutional. That was around freedom of expression. That was in 2007, I believe, and new legislation was introduced in 2011, introducing the offences of aggressive begging and organised begging. The research that was done in 2016 suggests that there was an increase in begging in Dublin and that there was a need for a multi-agency approach, that it was not just down to criminalising someone and that it was better to deal with the underlying issues rather than the symptoms. That is very much the approach that has been taken, and good evidence of that is demonstrated in our review.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I am glad to hear you say that, because that was one of my concerns. It is OK not to criminalise, but what are we doing to help people? If you say to them that it is not a crime, they are still just left. You flagged the issue, Lorraine, of organised begging. That remains a worry for me, because there are people who are forced to beg across the UK and Ireland.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: Yes, Chair. In that sphere, we have strategic drivers to change that. We have the organised crime legislation and legislation around trafficking, so there are other ways of dealing with that issue. This repeal is about repealing the legislation — sections 3 and 4 — and not replacing it, because simple begging is the only perceived gap that the police see in the legislative framework. We do not support that, because, as Maura says, it includes someone sitting. We may be uncomfortable about seeing those people, but, if they are not obstructing, being aggressive, harassing or being disorderly, we need to look at that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Sometimes, when the police come to people who have been trafficked or who are forced to beg, it affords them the opportunity to ask for help. If they are not being approached or moved on and nobody is speaking to them, it leaves them more vulnerable.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: This will not change that. The police will still always respond to an incident. If they get a call about someone begging or rough sleeping, they will deal with the incident. That is day-to-day policing. It is just that, if someone is not getting involved in harassment or creating criminal behaviour, they will not have the power to —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Have they said that they will continue to do that?

Ms Ferguson-Coote: They have not said that, but that would be the outworking.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Given the resourcing problems that they have, I am not sure that, if something is not a crime, the police will turn up. We can pursue that with the police.

I want to move on; I am conscious of time and that there are other members to come in.

A couple of things, then. I am keen to understand what conversations you have had with local councils about the powers that they will be left with. As you say or as I feel, there are two sides to this: there is the homeless person who has a chaotic lifestyle for which they should not necessarily be criminalised, unless they engage in criminal behaviour, and there are impacts on tourism, on the shop owner whose door they are sleeping in and on councils. What engagement have you had with councils? Before similar legislation was passed in Scotland, Glasgow council had some serious concerns about it and its outworkings. In Glasgow, there are considerable numbers of homeless people, not all of whom beg, although some do, and some others who just beg. That can have a chill factor for tourism. What conversations have there been around all of that?

Ms Ferguson-Coote: With the review, we spoke principally to Belfast City Council, because it has the biggest cohort of individuals whom the policy engages. That was a positive conversation. It flagged up the Complex Lives initiative, about which we talked at length. As I said, we have received seven responses. Some of those have come from business owners. We have had one council response so far, but, as I said, that consultation has not ended yet.

I am conscious of the Scottish experience. Begging is not novel to any of us. It is not novel to this jurisdiction, to neighbouring jurisdictions or wider in the world, and it is dealt with in different ways. We are aligning our proposals very much with Scotland. Scotland does not criminalise simple begging. It repealed the UK legislation that we are repealing — it is section 4 — in 1982. There will always be certain issues around that area, but that has been repealed. It has worked off its existing body of offences to deal with any of the behaviours associated with begging and rough sleeping. Glasgow was one of the areas — Aberdeen was another — that applied to the Scottish Government for permissions from the Minister to introduce by-laws regarding begging. That was refused by the Scottish Government on a couple of occasions. They have been consistent in their messaging that simple begging should not be criminalised and that associated behaviours that enter the criminal space can be dealt with sufficiently. We are adopting a similar approach.

England and Wales are different. They still use section 4 of the Vagrancy Act, which is the UK-wide Act, for rough sleeping and begging. A repeal provision was included in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. That repeal mechanism has not been commenced, but they intend to include a replacement provision. That replacement provision was included in the Crime and Policing Bill of the previous UK Government, but that Bill fell. It included provisions for civil prevention orders to deal with rough sleeping and begging. A breach of those civil orders would have been a criminal offence with up to one month's imprisonment or a fine. There were also offences of rough sleeping and nuisance begging in it, which drew criticism from some Conservative MPs, who tabled amendments to have them done away with. They and some Labour MPs did not support those provisions, but, as I said, that Bill fell. We checked with colleagues about whether the new Government have any interest in resurrecting or progressing that: no decision has been made. As well as section 4, local authorities in England and Wales rely on public space protection orders (PSPOs). A critical analysis found that about 125 local authorities were using the orders to target homelessness. It was very critical of how those are used in England and Wales.

You can see that there is a mixed approach. In Europe, there is a mixed approach as well. There are some sanctions for begging and aggressive begging. We know that, in America, for example, it is contrary to the First Amendment, under freedom of expression. There is some human rights case law around it. In Switzerland, there was a successful case of a lady who was begging. She challenged it under article 8, the right to private and family life. It was found in her favour that it had breached that. She was given a fine, was not able to pay the fine and was imprisoned for five days. That was Switzerland's approach. I should say that Switzerland's approach was an outright ban on begging. The lady had no other means to gain money; she had no benefits or employment. By comparison, in Denmark, an individual applied for a judicial review but was refused. His plight was around articles 8 and 10, but that was discounted. While there had been a ban in Switzerland, it was an outright ban, so there were issues there. As I say, there was a human rights element to the Republic of Ireland approach, and the High Court considered it unconstitutional. There are case law elements around that as well.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): OK. That is fair enough. I remain concerned about some of this. It is not as straightforward as it is being made out. I will be interested to see whether that is the case. It seems to me that, no matter what the consultation returns, the decision will be made and we will progress anyway.

If you do not hear from them in the consultation, it is imperative that you engage with the Belfast chamber of commerce — I think that Londonderry has one too — and the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry and not just from an economic perspective. I was at an event on Monday where I was told about a member of staff who arrived at their firm to open the premises and found somebody unconscious in the doorway. Those people had to proceed to resuscitate that person and wait until the ambulance and the police came. That is a traumatic circumstance for a member of the public to have to deal with. We know that homeless people have wee regular spots where they go to sleep. If you are going to do this, people need to be ready. You need to understand that it has an impact and takes its toll on people who have to deal with everything that ensues when they are unwell.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: The police's view on rough sleeping is that it should never be criminalised. With begging, there will be instances like that. There are bodies and support mechanisms around that. It is about nurturing that and building on it, as opposed to criminalising someone who has complex needs.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): It is about striking a balance. The people who pay high rates across Northern Ireland also need to have their views taken into account. We are not heartless. I do not want to see people criminalised when they are having a tough time, but there are people who exploit it. These people are also trying to earn a living. We just need to be careful and make sure that we hear from all sides: that is my argument.

Deirdre wants to come in on this.

Miss Hargey: We are broadly supportive of repealing the Vagrancy Act. We asked previously what other jurisdictions were doing. We have a concern around organised activities and even people being forced to beg, and the South has moved on having zones around bank LINK machines and things like that. What assessment has been done of potential gaps in legislation? The concern is whether there are gaps and whether you are confident that legislation already exists. Have you done an assessment of that and what is in place at the moment? You said that you will look at it under ASB, but that might take some time. What happens in between? I want to get a sense of gaps. Is there anybody beyond the PSNI? Obviously, it will be the first responder in a lot of cases. Joanne touched on the business community, but are you picking anything up about the homeless community from those in the community and voluntary sector who are out on the street dealing with those issues and seeing them at the coalface?

Ms Ferguson-Coote: The police have been clear that simple begging is the only gap in law outside of overt nuisance or organised and aggressive begging. When it comes to the wider support services, there is good evidence of a strong willingness to come together as partnerships and do it together. That was drawn from the Dublin experience. When that research was done there, it drew out the fact that begging is increasing, even though they have brought in aggressive and organised begging. That is increasing, but there is a drive to make sure that we have a body of support for those people and that it is not just about Justice — criminalising the person — but multi-agency and about those wider issues.

We are talking about a smaller cohort here. The Housing Executive keeps a watchful eye on numbers. A spot check was done in, I think, November 2023, which found that there were 45 individuals who were in that entrenched situation. Those people have complex needs. Some of the stakeholders that we spoke to said that they can help the individual by giving them accommodation and so forth but those people's needs are greater than that, because they sometimes miss life on the street. There can be complex underlying issues, such as issues with drug and alcohol addiction. Any of us can find ourselves in that situation, and that came out of the Complex Lives initiative. It is not just about addiction; there could be a breakdown in family or mental health issues. There can be all sorts of reasons.

When we talk about rough sleeping, however, we are talking about a very small cohort. There are three main areas where begging is particularly prominent — Belfast, Derry/Londonderry and Newry — but Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon also have recurring cases. The police are involved in partnership working across the voluntary and community sector as well as councils and businesses. They all work together to address and respond to the issues that present themselves. That is all individual to the police area.

Mr Beattie: You covered that really well, and some of the answers were very good. I am broadly supportive of getting rid of the vagrancy laws: nobody should be criminalised for being on the streets. However, I share the concerns that the Chair articulated around organised begging. We have certainly had people who get the train into Portadown to beg and then back in the evening to wherever they live. That happens in the Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council area. The real concern is that the police will not do welfare calls to people who are on the streets, because there is no criminal charge for them to check up on. That remains a concern. It is nuanced, and we will delve into it. Your answers were pretty good, but, as the Chair said, the solution is not as clear-cut as repealing the vagrancy laws.

Mr Dunne: Thank you for your detail so far. I will echo some of those comments and emphasise that, from my experiences as a local rep, some of those people are being exploited — that cannot be lost, as Doug has mentioned — unfortunately not by choice, in many cases. I know that from my constituency a few miles from here, where people come from other areas of Belfast and so on to beg. I am not sure whether removing tools, as is the case here, is the best way, ultimately, of dealing with that issue. On that, is there concrete enough evidence that the Scotland model is the best approach? We all want to see people not having to beg and sleep rough. Are you, in the Department, confident that the Scotland model that you touched on is the number-one model that you should look at?

Ms Ferguson-Coote: It certainly is a successful model, from what we are learning from our counterparts. In addition, the PSNI had been engaging with their counterparts as part of the review. That legislation was repealed in 1982, and they have not included any replacement legislation. There is a body of law similar to ours that deals with surrounding issues, so my answer is that we are confident that it is a safe enough model.

Mr Dunne: The more tools you have at your disposal, the better, if and when required. Hopefully, they will not need to be used at any point, but many of those people, as you know, Chair, are victims of human trafficking and so on, as you said. There is a point — it is a fact out — that some people can feel uncomfortable with folks who, unfortunately, have had to resort to begging and so on. We think of lone workers and female workers who might be closing late at night or opening early in the morning. There are issues like that, so I presume that the business sector is in the consultation. Has there been any other feedback from them?

Ms Ferguson-Coote: Yes, we have received responses from the business sector, and some of those are umbrella groups representing quite a large number; one represents 600 businesses, for example. We are getting good feedback from there, but it is too early to analyse that, because we have received it only in recent days. We had not had any responses until the last couple of days, and we pushed it out on social media and from our press office to encourage people to respond. They have been flurrying in, and we got another one this morning, so, yes, we have responses from the business sector that we will consider fully.

Ms Campbell: Once we have had the chance to analyse those responses, we will come back to update the Committee and brief you on them.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: Absolutely. The organised crime exploitation is a wider issue. We have the organised crime task force and we have trafficking and exploitation law, so work is being done in those areas as well.

Mr Dunne: When the police have the opportunity to get involved, that can be a rescue and a lifeboat for somebody.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Yes, but, if they are not going to come out on a call when no crime is being committed, you diminish the opportunities there.

Mr Dunne: I believe so, yes.

Ms Campbell: The police would say that there are other organisations that should perhaps be that first point of contact.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Maybe, but how do you prove that they have been trafficked? It is not straightforward. It is not as straightforward as it is being presented here; there is no question.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: The police will engage, Chair. That is part of their normal, day-to-day policing. They will engage on and explain that. I cannot see that being hugely different from what is being done. They will go out to an incident and assess the needs of that person. I am sure that they also have intelligence if there is a group of people who are in that organised sphere as well. They will get as much information as they can from that person, so I cannot see them —.

Mr Dunne: I have one final point: would the criminal gangs that are, unfortunately, at the end of some of those chains be in favour of the move towards decriminalising?

Ms Ferguson-Coote: The criminal gangs?

Mr Dunne: Yes, the ones that sometimes send people to beg for them.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: You think it could be advantageous to them.

Mr Dunne: That is the question that I am asking: could it be? If so, I have concerns about it.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: The police have told us that the only perceived gap is simple begging. They have not raised any particular issue around organised begging, so the answer to that is that we just do not believe that there is any other gap. The police tell us that simple begging is the only gap. There are other ways of dealing with those individuals.

Mr Dunne: These people are often victims, and we need to keep all other avenues open to protect them, ultimately

Ms Ferguson-Coote: I appreciate that.

Ms Egan: Thank you. I know that it has been a really comprehensive explanation of the amendments that you are bringing forward, but it is really important. It will be no surprise that I support them. It is something that needs to be repealed, especially in a context where the laws are just not used to criminalise people.

I am conscious of the things that people have raised about organised crime. If it is within your remit, can you speak a bit more about the work that the Department is doing on that? I know that human trafficking legislation was introduced in the last mandate and there is a lot of ongoing work to tackle organised crime. Homelessness and begging and the crimes that are in the vagrancy amendments are social problems, not problems for the Department of Justice. If you could talk a bit more about how we can tackle organised crime, that would be helpful.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: If you are amenable, can we write to you on that? Another area of the Department deals with that. If you are happy, we can explore that and come back to the Committee.

Ms Egan: Yes, if the Committee agrees.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Yes, the more information we can get, the better.

Ms Campbell: As Lorraine said, we have specifically asked the police about this, but we are happy to check in again to see if they have concerns.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: It is something that we pressed with the police, but they did not raise any concerns.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Lorraine, you referred to the police going out to an incident, but, at this point, they will say that there is no incident so there is no need to go. We already know the pressures that they are under. When we take evidence from the police, I will want to check with them whether they will actually go to those calls or do anything about them or whether they will say, "There is no crime so there is no reason to go. There is no threat to life. People are not threatening to harm themselves or anybody else, so we are not going." Where does that leave everybody?

Another thing that I wanted to check with you finally, before you leave, is that you have referred to cases in Dublin and so on of organised and aggressive begging and how there was an uptick in those once the vagrancy laws and begging laws were repealed. What scope or preparation has been made if that were to happen in Belfast? You referenced Scotland as the model to follow as it has been successful. I do not know when you last walked around Glasgow, but I was there recently and it is difficult. Do you know what? It is just difficult to see. I am not saying that from any judgmental perspective; I am saying that it is hard to watch. It is hard to see. There are people who are incredibly vulnerable and people who are absolutely there to make money. If you are able to get a train from one place to another, that indicates that begging can be profitable. That is not to suggest that everybody who engages in it is not needy, but clearly there is another side to this, a seedier side.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: I just want to highlight that, when I talk about the successful model, I am talking about the repeal of the legislation. I am solely talking about that. There are wider societal issues.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I understand that, Lorraine, but my concern is that we can all look at the moral aspect and say, "Yes, ideally, people who are in that situation would not be criminalised. You should not be criminalised for being homeless." However, it is not that straightforward, and, if it becomes clear that the police do not turn up and then there is an uptick in aggressive begging and organised begging, what powers do the police have to deal with the situation? It is the outworkings that are of concern, not necessarily just for the homeless person but for the people who are exploited and where this has the potential to go wrong.

In an ideal world, people would not be criminalised — of course they would not — but I do not believe for a second that, at the point at which this is no longer criminalised, there will not be criminals who will seek to exploit it. Moreover, the help will not be available to those who need it on time, and the statutory agencies will not come because there is no crime. That is what I am worried about. If we are going to do this, we need to get our ducks in a row to make sure that people get the help that they need. That is my view, and that is not on the Department of Justice, by the way. I get that.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: I appreciate that, Chair. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Those are some of the things that occur to me. It is all being presented as straightforward, but, when you walk through some of the cities where it has happened, you see that there are safety issues and so on too, even for the people who are on the street.

Ms Ferguson: I will make a quick comment. I understand the concerns that Joanne has raised about the issue being more complex. I recommend that we look at the bigger picture. There are concerns about whether the police will call out, but there are models of really good practice, particularly in Derry. I have worked as part of a wider team with the Housing Executive, PSNI, Supporting People organisations and a plethora of local businesses that had concerns. Expert working groups were set up in councils etc, and those continue to work through a process of enabling and supporting people who are among the most vulnerable. The organised crime piece is separate from that. There are models of good practice that you might want to look at when looking at the wider picture and the implications or repercussions of the policy and the concerns. There are good working models.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: We very much looked at those models as part of the review. We are aware of the good evidence and good practice across all of Northern Ireland. It was not remote from Belfast City Council. In partnership with the police, they are all trying to adopt a multi-agency approach, because it is not just about Justice; it is about a wider societal issue. There are good models, and we looked at them as part of the review. Thank you for that.

Ms Ferguson: It is difficult. Getting the balance is difficult, but it is about building the relationships and trust to work together. In that way, you can overcome any of the issues.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: We are trying to push the antisocial behaviour issue across to our team there, but it is developing a strategy, which it has just consulted on, about other elements of antisocial behaviour law, such as drinking in public places, which is involved a lot with begging and rough sleeping. It is about that joined-up working.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I understand. I am humane. I take no pleasure in raising the other side of it, but we have to consider that side, because there are unintended consequences.

Lorraine, when you come back to us about the organised crime aspect, will you also come back to me on the powers and options that are available to the council, the police and businesses, should there be an increase in aggressive and organised begging as a result of repealing those laws? Is that all right? Are members content for the Department to come back on that?

Miss Hargey: The Criminal Justice Bill at Westminster fell, but it is being resurrected through the crime and policing Bill. There may be the potential for a legislative consent motion (LCM). I was going to ask about it in the correspondence bit of our meeting, but are you aware of anything coming through that pertains specifically to vagrancy?

Ms Ferguson-Coote: As recently as yesterday evening, we checked with our colleagues in England and Wales. No decisions have been taken by Ministers as yet.

Miss Hargey: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): OK. We will move on to live links. Máire, is that you?

Ms Sheehan: Yes, that is me.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Right. Over to you.

Ms Sheehan: For the purpose of Hansard, I note that I was described as the head of legacy policy and legislation group: I am not. I am a senior legal adviser, but I am policy lead on live links and a number of sentencing areas that will be included in the sentencing Bill, when it comes forward.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is helpful. We will correct that. Thank you.

Ms Sheehan: It may help for me to quickly scope out what is and is not new in the clauses. In that context, I emphasise that clauses do not set out detailed proposals of how courts should be run. They are enabling in nature, and they provide a general framework for the operation of electronic court or tribunal business rather than being prescriptive. The policy aim was to retain the measures in the Coronavirus Act 2020 that can deliver significant longer-term benefits and provide a basis for access to justice, fairness and improving transparency.

Much in the clauses will be familiar to those who have read or used the live link provisions in schedule 27 to the Coronavirus Act 2020, but it is not a replication. They build on user experience, responses to the public consultation, various engagement exercises conducted by the Department and developments in neighbouring jurisdictions post consultation.

The intent to set the measures will enable flexibility, appropriate choice and a person-centred approach to the way in which processes are managed for those who use the system, including victims, witnesses and the accused, and maximise the use of technology, where appropriate, in our procedures and practices. It is hoped that most will agree that the proposed new clauses align with the proposed future model that was included in the way forward report published in September 2024. What is new is that we are creating a framework for all criminal and civil courts. Prior to 2020, primary legislation applied only to criminal courts. Civil courts mostly had in-court rules. We are also creating a universal test. From 2011 to 2015, the description could have been that there were multiple formulations and different tests.

In summary, we are introducing a type of third live link direction called a "limited transmission direction". That is the proposed new clause j905. We are introducing a statutory obligation for the judiciary to have regard to the Lady Chief Justice's guidance. That is proposed new clause j902. We are refining what a person attending remotely has to see and hear to reflect the potential impact of other special measures that might be made by a court. We are refining the offences created through the 2020 Act to accommodate remote participation as well as the broadcast provisions that were introduced into the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 and to accommodate the potential of selfies. We are including a power to apply to vary the directions. Previously, the legislation allowed only to grant or rescind.

What is not new are many of the conditions to be satisfied for the technology to be a live link; who will be defined as a participant and be able to apply or have their view considered and in what circumstances before a live link direction is made; the requirement to give reasons when an application for direction is refused — the provisions in j901a simply reflect provisions that were already in relevant criminal legislation but have been adjusted to reflect what is appropriate to reflect civil jurisdiction; and the need for a court to provide reasons. We have been conscious that striking the right balance between in-person hearings and electronic hearings will never be an exact science for the judiciary, but it is hoped that the requirement to have regard to the Lady Chief Justice's guidance, alongside the provision of reasons, will deliver increased predictability for court users, so that they have a more informed view of how and why a decision or mode might be taken, and deliver improved consistency across the courts.

The provision of reasons is linked to the principle of open justice. A number of the proposed new clauses have been introduced with the purpose of enhancing open justice. We do not expect that decisions on remote observation will require detailed rulings. The clear expectation is that a couple of sentences that set out a judge's reasons will suffice, particularly if they reflect on the range of guidance that has been issued since the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, when live links provisions came into force.

I am happy to take questions.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Máire, thank you.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you, Máire. Has the Department engaged with the Human Rights Commission specifically?

Ms Sheehan: We have. Not only have we had the benefit of its response to our public consultation but we have engaged with it since that. I can say that we have been conscious of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and compliance with it and our international obligations. In fact, if anybody has read the public consultation document, they will know that, from chapter 1, which deals totally with trying to explain which rights are engaged by the policy, we have very much flagged up articles 5, 6, 8 and 10. They are the primary ones. The NIHRC did not express any serious issues with it; in fact, it mostly flagged research and whether it had been conducted. When we engaged with it, it had no examples of anyone having raised it as an issue or saying either that they were compelled to do it and it was not appropriate for them or that it was not in the interests of justice.

Throughout that process, particularly regarding the statutory rules that have been extending live links — I am the policy lead on that — we have constantly engaged and updated on what is happening.

I emphasise that every member of the judiciary will be very much aware of the Equal Treatment Bench Book (ETBB), which addresses the issues of adjustments, ground rules and how hearings are to be conducted to ensure effective participation. To do that, the most recent version, which was revised in July last year — it is available on the World Wide Web, so any member of the public can access it — has a new appendix about remote hearings.

Ms Ferguson: That is really useful. One of the main concerns for me is that there is a benchmark that children and young people understand, particularly vulnerable children. I have had experience of that, when a young person under the care of a parent is arrested and charged and has serious issues regarding level of understanding and knowledge etc, and the mum is probably the one who knows best what her son may or may not understand. Is that area of work in that adjustments model? My concern is around the consent of vulnerable young people.

Ms Sheehan: The Equal Treatment Bench Book is a huge document, but it has separate chapters about disability needs and young people. It covers race. It covers all the things that you would want for the person who is hearing your case to be able to make the adjustments needed for the purposes of that hearing.

For children, we have special measures that sit outside and apart from the wider use of live link provisions, and these will in no way cut across them; in fact, you will see in one of the clauses that we have adjusted j903(3) to ensure that any order made by a court could have an impact. I am thinking of a screen or something like that. For that purpose, the basic definition, which is that the person attending remotely should be able to "see and hear" and be "seen and heard" will not apply. It would be adjusted for that, just like it would be adjusted for those who have a disability such as blindness or who cannot hear. This is more refined and improved to reflect lessons that we learned. The legislation was created in a rush, and that bit was missed, so it makes a difference to have it made clear. People expect practical adjustments in a court, but it is better that there is clarity in the Bill.

Ms Ferguson: As you mentioned, I think, on page 82 of the report, special measures can vary.

Ms Sheehan: Special measures can vary. Live link is only one of the special measures available to the court. You could have an intermediary, an interpreter, a screen that hides the witness or a screen that can be adjusted so that the witness does not have to see the public or the defendant. Some of the adjustments might not even be in legislation, but the Equal Treatment Bench Book says that they are required, if they enable a person to have effective participation.

Ms Ferguson: What are the benefits for children and young people of using live links?

Ms Sheehan: The consultation in Scotland was more recent than ours. Ours was in 2022, and theirs was in 2023 going into 2024. It found the same experience, in particular for children and their parents, who may also be witnesses, being able to have wider provision and be allowed to use the remote evidence centres, where they can have what I would call a "child-friendly environment". They are kept together and there is absolutely no prospect of them coming across the defendant or the defendant's family. They are in a separate building well away from the court. They all find it less traumatising.

The guardian ad litem has given positive feedback about the experience in family case law, where they have been engaged, and with young children. There is no doubt that the use of video links has enabled children to give their best evidence or, at least, has increased the chance of that, as it has done with special measures for children.

Ms Ferguson: Finally, has there been any evidence or suggestion that, in certain circumstances, it should not be used?

Ms Sheehan: Not in the case of children. I do not believe that there has been any research. The difference has been about family courts, which obviously engage with children. However, children are rarely the witnesses or parties in that. Some of the adults engaged in it would have found it inappropriate for their use because it is an emotional setting. It is difficult, and that, shall we say, distance between the person asking the questions — difficult questions — and not being able to control your emotions in a way that, maybe in a physical court room, you would have been more aware that you had to caused some issues in the earlier times.

I think that the Lady Chief Justice's guidance gives a really good picture of the cases that have, through experience, indicated what might be more appropriate for in-person hearings and those more appropriate for remote. In particular, I think that you will see that the final disposal of a family case would be very much viewed as being more appropriate for in-person hearings.

Mr McNulty: Thank you for your evidence, Máire. You are clearly very passionate, informed and invested in the issue. Does this fundamentally improve access to justice for children and groups who may need to access live links? Does it make the justice system more approachable and meaningful? Were they able to access justice more readily, given the more comfortable position that they may be able to achieve through the facility?

Ms Sheehan: The first thing is that there is no one fit for everybody, so I do not want to be seen to answer as though everyone is the same or to take a generic approach. In the responses that we have received to our consultation and to the engagements that we have conducted and continue to conduct, I think that, when you give an additional tool to the courts or tribunals, an extra tool will never be a disadvantage. We must not forget about tribunals because children are often there with special educational needs cases and appeals against whoever put them in what school. A tool that allows you maybe to be in a less formal setting and, for children, to have somebody beside you who perhaps is not interfering with what is happening but is just quietly supportive has to help.

I know lawyers who, if they are called as witnesses, do not want to give evidence as a sworn witness in court. They would not just walk in and say, "No problem". We cannot underestimate this. Few people engage with the courts willingly. Often, the witness is the reluctant, good citizen who has been caught up in an incident or the victim of a crime. Anything that makes the process more individual and centred for the victim of crime is a positive.

Mr McNulty: OK. Well done, Máire. Thank you very much for that. I appreciate your answer.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Thanks, Justin.

Máire, I have just a couple of queries. On the penultimate page of your briefing paper, the first full bullet point reads:

Can I just clarify that? Is there a presumption in favour of live links, as opposed to their being an option or an exception?

Ms Sheehan: No. There is no presumption. We propose a limited statutory assumption in clause j902A, but there is no presumption. The test is clear: it is the use of live links either for the individual, the hearing or a preliminary proceeding in the interests of justice. The arbiter of that is the judge, and that does not change. As regards the giving of reasons, the way it is phrased is that it is linked to the fact that, if the clauses become law, they are required to have regard to the Lady Chief Justice's guidance. Some of the current guidance gives clear indications about the cases that are more appropriate for in-person hearings and those for which it might be more appropriate to have the flexibility of remote attendance. We hope the giving of reasons will help explain it to people.

I note Scotland's responses to a recent consultation also reported some feeling that there is a lack of transparency and consistency of approach among members of the bench. Open justice is often paraphrased as the need for justice to be seen to be done, and, for that to happen, it needs to be understood. Why did this or that happen? We are trying to knit that together for the opportunity to build on what already existed.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Thank you. I have a final question. We appreciate that it is almost there but not quite and there is still a bit of finessing to do. Can you give an indication of what you are still finessing?

Ms Sheehan: A letter went to the Office of the Legislative Counsel about another draft. One part of the finessing concerns is the new offences that have been created, which are at j907 and j908, but it is one tiny subsection. That does not imply that we are asking the draftsman to do something that is not complicated and technical. It is one area that is not exactly right, but it is pretty much there. A little tweak is being sought on who needs to be seen and heard, who must be seen and heard and who should not be seen and heard at any stage, even if they are observing or participating. There is not much else on that.

We have an exercise, however, to conduct, because the new provision at j902A happened post consultation. It occurs in Scotland, but it has been beneficial there, and there has been no opposition to its extension. There is a limited assumption being made in the law when it is a person or a public authority and it is a single-party proceeding, which means there is no requirement to serve notice on anybody, such as search warrants or a financial restriction on somebody's accounts where, if you had told them beforehand, the money would be gone. It is based on existing law, but it is only for those whom the lawyers refer to as "ex parte" — a layman might say, "without notice". It is quite restrictive.

The Department has taken a power on that, and it needs to reach out to find the people who are not in the justice field who might feel that they could use that power. The Scottish police gave some responses on the most recent extension, and the numbers and costs that were saved by using the ex parte were considerable. I can give you evidence; I just do not know where it is in my papers. It would be useful because of our budgetary constraints and the pressures on our police force. I am sure that anybody who has considered the statutory rules knows that the explanatory memorandum points out the benefits of being able to attend remotely in a case in which that is appropriate. You are able to continue doing work, and time is not lost because you are hanging around the court, which might involve another person having to go with you as well.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Yes, it is a no-brainer. That is helpful. With that on board, are we still roughly on time?

Ms Sheehan: That will be there at the call for evidence.

Mr Laverty: We will have that revised version with you at the tail end of next week.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is lovely. Does anybody have anything else? No. We are all good.

Folks, thank you very much. It is really helpful to tease out some of the issues and understand what your thinking is and the rationale behind it. We appreciate your time today. Doubtless we will see you again. I am sure that we will have more queries, but that is the joy of scrutiny. Thank you very much indeed. All the best, folks.