Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I welcome Debbie Corry, acting head of the organised crime branch; Lorraine Ferguson-Coote, head of the criminal policy unit, Therese Murphy, head of the police human resources policy and policing strategy and engagement branch; and Lesley McCombe, head of the community safety partnership branch. Ladies, you are very welcome. Thank you for taking the time today. We are glad to have you here.

This is not a small matter — the Bill contains everything — so thank you for coming to brief us in person. I will hand over to you, and then we will ask questions. As you will appreciate, areas of interest to members include issues that have arisen relating to the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA), the Human Rights Commission's reporting and the DFI. That will start us off, and members will then come in, but that gives you an indication of the things that we are looking at. I hand over to you.

Ms Debbie Corry (Department of Justice): Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to come and talk to you today. I will give an overview of about 10 minutes and will then be happy to take questions. A range of policy colleagues are with me today because, as you will appreciate, the Bill is wide-ranging.

We acknowledge and apologise for the frustration that the Committee will have felt at the fact that we came to you with this at the last moment. We asked the Home Office whether we could share the detail with you earlier, but we were advised that, as the content had been shared in confidence and was not in the public domain, we would be unable to do so. We endeavoured to make sure that you were aware that it was coming, and we provided you with information as soon as possible.

Members will be aware that my predecessor briefed the Committee several times on the Criminal Justice Bill, which fell prior to the general election in the summer of last year. Since then, the UK Government have been working, primarily through the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, to firm up the content of their new legislative programme. Members will note that the majority of measures that require legislative consent that we will talk about were formerly in the Criminal Justice Bill or the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill.

I will give a brief overview of the Crime and Policing Bill. It was introduced on 25 February 2025. Its purpose is to support delivery of the Government's Safer Streets mission to halve knife crime and violence against women and girls within a decade and to increase public confidence in policing and the wider criminal justice system. The majority of the measures in the Bill extend to England and Wales only, but several measures extend to the UK as a whole, some of which fall into the transferred sphere.

Currently, 11 measures require legislative consent in order to extend their provisions to Northern Ireland. Either they are a mixture of reserved, excepted and transferred matters or they are fully transferred matters, which I will come to in a moment. We understand that the Home Office expects the Bill to secure Royal Assent towards the end of this year. We are seeking views on matters that engage the legislative consent process and require the agreement of the Assembly, including clauses 32 and 33 and schedule 5. Those measures introduce a new offence of cuckooing, whereby criminals take over the home of another person and use it for criminality.

Clause 37 relates to the offence of possession of advice or guidance about creating child sexual abuse images: paedophile manuals. It amends the defence for a person charged with possession of a paedophile manual in section 69 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. That offence criminalises the possession of any item that involves:

but explicitly excludes advice or guidance about pseudo-images. The new provision will close a loophole in that offence and extend the definition of the section 69 offence to capture possession of guidance on producing AI-generated child abuse material.

The third measure that engages the legislative consent process extends the provisions in clauses 59 to 68, which relate to the management of sex offenders. Those provisions aim to strengthen and streamline the current sex offender notification requirements in Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Those requirements, more commonly referred to as the sex offenders register, are automatically applied to offenders convicted of or cautioned for a specified sexual offence. They form an essential part of offender risk management and are considered an invaluable tool for the police, in conjunction with other public protection authorities, to manage the risk of sexual harm that an offender poses while in the community. In practice, they enable the authorities to know the whereabouts of relevant offenders and respond to matters arising as quickly as possible. The notification requirements have been operating in some form since 1997. They have been strengthened periodically to help ensure that they keep pace with the changing nature of behaviour. They are managed on a UK-wide basis, and my colleague will be able to provide further detail on those if that is helpful.

For the Committee's information, a further measure included in the "Management sex of offenders" provisions of the Bill, which has been included for England, Wales and Scotland at this stage but has been excluded for Northern Ireland, is the provision at clause 66(2). It allows for restrictions to be placed on applications for replacement driving licences. This measure cuts across the Department for Infrastructure. Officials have engaged with DFI colleagues, and the Minister has recently written to the Infrastructure Minister to seek approval for extension to Northern Ireland in principle. Subject to the relevant approval, there would be the ability to include that provision at Report Stage during the Bill's passage, but that of course would be subject to a separate legislative consent memorandum (LCM).

The fourth measure that requires consent is clause 73. It relates to the new offence of spiking. The Government are repealing sections 22 to 25 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and replacing sections 23 and 24 with a single administering a harmful substance offence, including by spiking. It will be triable either way, and the aim is to increase public awareness that spiking behaviour is illegal and encourage victims to report incidents to the police.

Clauses 74 and 75 provide for a new offence of:

That replaces a provision in the current Online Safety Act 2023 with a broader offence that would cover all means by which serious self-harm may be encouraged or assisted, including by any means of communication or in any other way. It will include direct assistance, such as giving someone a blade with which to harm themselves and also encouraging or assisting harmful eating behaviours, when engaging in a person's suffering from an eating disorder has the potential to meet the threshold of serious self-harm.

Clauses 78 and 79 of the Bill introduce new offences relating to electronic devices for use in vehicle theft. This criminalises the possession, importation, making, adapting, supplying or offering to supply a vehicle device, such as a signal jammer, for use in vehicle theft or in the theft of anything within a vehicle.

Clause 95 is about expanding the lawful purposes for which the police can access the GB DVLA driving licence database and that enables the Secretary of State to make legislation regulations to enable police and law enforcement agencies to access driver licence records held by the DVLA.

Measure 8 is clause 102 and schedule 15, about reforming the existing confiscation regime for the proceeds of crime under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA). That is intended to introduce a statutory objective for the confiscation regime. It will also enable better prioritisation of compensation for victims, create a procedure for the earlier resolution of confiscation, make it easier to restrain assets to preserve their value during an investigation and extend powers to the Magistrates' Court and the Crown Court. It also introduces "confiscation assistance advisers" to enable appropriately qualified persons to assist defendants with satisfying orders, allowing provisional discharge of confiscation orders where there is no realistic prospect of recovery and clarifying the courts' approach to hidden assets.

Clause 103 introduces cost protections in relation to proceeds of crime in civil proceedings, and that is really to mirror an approach taken in the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, which amended the unexplained wealth order provisions in POCA.

Measure 10 relates to the implementation of international law enforcement information-sharing agreements. That is a future-proofing measure that ensures that UK agencies can continue to share information with overseas partners to facilitate mutual assistance in criminal investigations, and it is particularly important given the UK's exit from the EU. It provides for a negative procedure regulation-making power in implementing an international obligation for devolved Administrations, which can be exercised if and when the opportunity or need arises in the future.

The final measure in the Bill that would require consent is at clause 130. That is for criminal liability where a senior manager commits an offence whilst acting in the scope of their actual or apparent authority for all crimes. That is known as identification doctrine reform, and it replaces a provision in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which is limited to economic crime only.

Not all the measures will be commenced as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent, assuming, of course, that legislative approval is given. For example, the reforms to confiscation in the Proceeds of Crime Act would be commenced on a date that Department of Justice appoints. Others have similar provisions. We appreciate that the Committee would prefer to legislate locally for such measures. However, due to the extensive legislative programme for the rest of the mandate, it is unlikely that it will be possible to bring forward a number of those provisions in the same timescales.

Whilst we engaged with the Human Rights Commission at a high level, that was mainly about measures in the former Bill. However, we asked the commission to comment on all the measures that were transferred. I stress that, at that stage, we were not able to share the clauses with the commission, so it was just a high-level overview. I understand that the commission will now start its own detailed scrutiny of the Bill.

As I mentioned, we expect that the Bill will complete its passage towards the end of the year. The Minister is keen to lay the legislative consent memorandum , and will be engaging with her Executive colleagues in the coming weeks. Once that memorandum is laid, the matter will be referred to the Committee for scrutiny as we work through the process. We are happy to come back at any point with further information or briefings if that would be helpful.

The Committee may wish to note that the Minister may seek to extend additional measures to Northern Ireland. Some will depend on drafting capacity, but I would like to reassure you that we would come back to you with additional detail on that at the earliest opportunity. Those would be separate through a second LCM, so separate from what we are dealing with today, and we are not asking the Committee to consider those at this time.

That is a whistle-stop tour of the Bill. Of course, we are happy to take questions.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Great. Thank you very much.

Miss Hargey: Thanks very much for the presentation. You touched on the timescale for the LCM and the Bill's Second Reading, but that that would have to go by the Executive for approval. If we were to go down that route with the Bill, what is the latest date that it can be progressed? What are the timescales and cut-off dates around that?

You mentioned the Human Rights Commission. I know that it said that some concerns were raised or that it was looking at the Bill. Has the commission provided you with a written update, and, if so, can the Committee get that? I would be keen to know what the Human Rights Commission is saying about the content of the Bill, particularly those areas on which we are looking for legislative consent to be given.

You touched on international law and the sharing of information. You also talked about agencies. What agencies does that include? Is there a list of the agencies, including the international agencies, with which information will be shared? Are safeguards built in on how the information is used and shared? Can we be provided with those?

My last question is on the DVLA. I am keen to understand the current process by which the PSNI can access its information. Given the changes that the legislation would make, I am keen to understand what safeguards are in place to ensure that that is not abused. Is it just the PSNI, or do other agencies have access to that expansive database?

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Did you get a list of all those questions?

Ms Corry: I got some of them. If I miss any, please tell me.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Deirdre can come back in.

Ms Corry: The timings for the LCM are laid down by the Assembly. The Minister is keen to adhere to those as much as possible. We are fortunate that we have come in at the start of the Bill — Criminal Justice Bill was introduced much later in the process — so timing should not be an issue. We are keen to lay the LCM at the earliest opportunity. We are seeking views today, and the Minister will then formally engage with her Executive colleagues. We want to lay it as quickly as possible.

We are probably in a more fortunate position for a second LCM this time. Last time, the Government were hurtling towards the end of the mandate, and there were concerns that the process would be constrained. At the moment, we are looking to lay a second LCM in May. Again, there should be sufficient time for the scrutiny process to take place. Does that cover everything on timescales?

Miss Hargey: Yes, that helps. Thank you.

Ms Corry: We had high-level initial engagement with the Human Rights Commission, and various policy areas have been engaging on a one-to-one basis. We have not had just one engagement with it. We cannot share anything with you at this point, but we will engage further with the commission as we go through the process. The commission is starting its scrutiny of the Bill. I will let Therese mention the engagement that she has had when she covers the DVLA clause.

Ms Lorraine Ferguson-Coote (Department of Justice): I can cover my engagement.

Ms Corry: Lorraine has also been engaging with the commission. It may be helpful to do that now.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: Yes. I will start. My area covers the register of sex offenders, so that includes the strengthening, bolstering and streamlining of the requirements for sex offenders to notify police. That is commonly known as the sex offender register.

A specific provision that the Bill makes for England, Wales and Scotland but not for Northern Ireland as yet is to place restrictions on the issue of replacement driving licences for sex offenders. The reason why Northern Ireland was not included in the Bill as introduced was that we had to engage with the Department for Infrastructure, because the provision cuts across its territory. In England and Wales, the Department for Transport deals with DVLA issues for England, Wales and Scotland, but Northern Ireland has its own arrangements in that regard.

The impetus for the requirement to change that provision is the same as for the change of name. There is already a provision requiring a sex offender to notify the police about a name change, but they must do so within three days of changing their name. Under the new measures, they will be required to do so at least seven days before they change their name.

The further bolstering arrangements for replacement identity documents, including UK passports and immigration documents, which are reserved matters, and, in the devolved space, the driving licence, originated from parliamentary and public concerns about sex offenders moving about and reoffending.

There were several high-profile cases in England and Wales that led the then Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, to announce plans to address this, tackle it and pin it down. One particular lobby of the Safeguarding Alliance originates from the case of Della Wright, who was only five years old when she was raped by a sex offender who had changed his name five times. It is imperative that we nail this down.

As Debbie has set out, the sex offenders register has been in place in some form since 1997, and we have strengthened it on a number of occasions through primary and secondary legislation. We are keen, subject to the approval of the Minister for Infrastructure, to have this particular provision included in the Bill. We have an opportunity to instruct the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to do that for Report Stage, which, I think, will happen around the end of May. We have engaged with the Department for Infrastructure at official level and have set out information that concerns DFI. The particular area that concerns the Department for Infrastructure is the making of supporting regulations that will set out the processes on what information will be shared across the police and DFI.

We are conscious that it is sensitive information. The police have been doing this for some time — since 1997 — and we hope that they will guide the Department for Infrastructure. However, the Department for Transport, the Home Office, the PSNI and other police forces will all be involved, because this will be done across the UK. The Department for Transport will take care of it for Scotland, England and Wales. I assure the Committee that there will be a working group to coordinate all that work to ensure that everyone can make an input when the regulations are being drafted.

I will turn to the human rights aspect. As Debbie said, the views of the Human Rights Commission were sought in a general way prior to the introduction of the Bill. The Human Rights Commission gave some initial observations on the sex offenders notification. It is well versed on how that has progressed over the years. There have been several judicial reviews that have tested the established processes, usually on the grounds of article 8 — the right to family and private life — but those reviews have found in favour of the Government in respect of it being justifiable and proportionate engagement or interference, because it is about protecting the public from sexual offending.

The Home Office issued a memorandum of human rights when it introduced the Bill. The Human Rights Commission said on introduction that it would provide its formal scrutiny and response, which Debbie touched on. We went separately to the Human Rights Commission to try to expedite that a little bit for this particular issue so that we could provide the best and most comprehensive response to the Minister for Infrastructure. The Human Rights Commission's had said that it would come back on that, but we pointed it to the memorandum. The memorandum sets out that there is interference with article 7 — the right to no punishment without law. The view of the Home Office is that it is not a punishment and that these are preventative measures and not a sanction for what the offender has done. Regarding article 8, the Home Office found, in putting this forward for debate, that it is justifiable and proportionate. That aligns with a lot of the outcomes of judicial reviews across the board. We await the formal Human Rights Commission response on that.

I will touch on the Information Commissioner, which you might be interested in. We are conscious of the sensitivities surrounding the information that will be processed under this legislation. We have engaged with the Information Commissioner. It has come back to say that its public affairs team in England and Wales has engaged with the Home Office on this and they feel that it would be a duplication of effort to do the same for us. However, they said that they were assured that the provision in this primary legislation that ensures the making of these regulations, which will be the key to the processing of information and how that will be operated between the police and the Department for Infrastructure — the DVA — provides a sound basis on which data protection compliance has to be assured. They said that that will ensure that nothing can go into the regulations that contravenes the principles of data protection legislation. As I said, the PSNI is in tune with all this and will be a key part of it. The PSNI holds information on sex offenders on a system known as ViSOR (violent and sex offender register), which is accessed only by key officers working in that field. That is recognised through the courts as well; that was tested at one point.

I hope that that gives the Committee some reassurance that we have engaged with the appropriate authorities. The Information Commissioner highlighted the fact that, if we are to align with compliance as we move forward with the regulations, we will have to engage with it separately, in accordance with article 36(4) of the GDPR, as we did with regard to the primary legislation. We have carried out an assessment and will continue to engage with those authorities. I hope that that helps on that front.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Therese, are you going to speak on the same point?

Ms Therese Murphy (Department of Justice): I will talk about the DVA clause, so it will be similar. I will just check what Deirdre wants me to answer on, if that is OK.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Yes, but, while we are on this subject: Ciara, does your question relate to the sex offenders part?

Ms Ferguson: Yes. I have one question on that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Bear with me a second. I also want to check with the other members who indicated that they want to ask a question. Deirdre, I appreciate that you have other questions that we will need to come to, but, while we are asking about this part: Justin and Danny, do your questions relate to the sex offenders part?

Mr McNulty: No.

Mr Baker: My question is more general. It is about the engagement process with children's rights advocates.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): OK. We will get to you in a wee second, then, Danny. Ciara, your question is on this point.

Ms Ferguson: Yes. Do you have any concerns? Something that popped out at me as being a concern is this:

Will you give more information on that?

Ms Ferguson-Coote: That is about the review of indefinite notification. That scheme has been in place since 2014 — that is when it was commenced, I think. The legislation that supported that was the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2013, which amended the notification requirements. All the amendments are done in a bit of a patchwork quilt. That scheme was put in place in response to a Supreme Court judgement that found that having an indefinite period of notification did not bode well when it came to article 8 — the right to a private life — and determined that there should be an inbuilt review mechanism. There was a remedial order, and all UK jurisdictions took action to include and legislate for a scheme that allowed a person to apply to the police following a certain period — 15 years for an adult sex offender, and eight years in a case where the offender was a juvenile at the time of the incident — to have their notification requirements discharged. It is not done willy-nilly, however, or based on the views of the police alone; it is done in conjunction with the other public protection authorities. The applicant will be able to give representations and appeal the decision of the Chief Constable. A process is in place for that.

This particular provision — the new scheme — which is set out in clause 65, will run in parallel with the scheme in which a person can apply. The new scheme emanates from an independent review that the Home Office commissioned. An ex-Chief Constable, Mick Creedon, talked about looking at how the police's management of sex offenders might be made more efficient. Although that work was remote to England and Wales, there was engagement with the PSNI to understand its processes. As I said, it is all done consistently, but that engagement was done to get a feel for what PSNI officers thought and whether there were ways of improving things. Indefinite notification is where someone is in prison for 30 months or more, which is a fairly low threshold. That work found that quite a number of people could sit on indefinite notification and just not be bothered to make an application. Once the 15-year period, or eight years for a juvenile, is triggered, the police will proactively begin what is called an own-motion review. They will kick-start that without a formal application. They will let the offender know that they are looking at that. They will engage with the other public protection authorities, such as probation, in order to properly assess the level of risk. They will then communicate the outcome to the offender, who, again, can appeal. A similar legislative framework applies to that. The schemes will run together.

In its initial observations on the review, the Human Rights Commission said that there would be interference with article 8. As I said, the Human Rights Commission has not come back formally on the general stuff, but it highlighted that particular piece. The Human Rights Commission is aware of the reasons why we have the review in the first place. Its concern was that we would not allow a person to apply for an own motion review and that it would be just the police that could do that. However, a dual system will run, so that negates that particular concern of the Human Rights Commission's.

I hope that that answers your question.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Deirdre, does that cover your question? Your initial question related to this stuff about the DVA.

Miss Hargey: No. I am still unclear as to the Human Rights Commission's views and concerns, not just those pertaining to the DVA, and about how the power is used at the moment. What do the police have access to now, and what will change? What other agencies are involved? The police have been mentioned, but do other agencies have access? I am not clear about that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): We have not got to Therese yet; we are still on the sex offenders bit.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: I apologise; I was just covering off the human rights aspect around replacement driving licences. I am conscious that there is a similar issue with the DVA. Therese will fill you in on that.

Ms Murphy: I was not involved in the previous Bill, and I have inherited this clause. I hope that any of the questions that you ask are the same ones that I have had to ask recently myself in order to get up to speed. The purpose of clause 95 is to expand the lawful purposes for which the police can access the GB licence database. Most of the detail in this Bill relates only to GB licence-holders and not NI licence-holders. The similar provision, I think, was in clause 27 of the previous Bill, and I believe that concerns were raised about data protection and human rights at that stage.

Following that, when this Bill came to us, we asked the Human Rights Commission to assess clause 95 as it was. It highlighted the measures related to the collection, storage, processing, retention and disclosure of personal data and said that there was an issue because the clause engages article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, article 2 of the Windsor framework and articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Human Rights Commission's report went on to make recommendations to the Department. We will be happy to share the Human Rights Commission's report on that clause with you. The Human Rights Commission recommended that the Department ensures that the proposed data disclosure measures in Northern Ireland comply with the EU law enforcement directive and uphold the data subject's rights to erasure and information. It asked the Department to clarify that the driving licence data access cannot be used for facial recognition, with explicit safeguards to prevent arbitrary use. We are engaging with the Home Office and the Departmental Solicitor's Office (DSO) on those issues.

Deirdre asked about who can access that information at the moment. From my discussions with the PSNI, it is my understanding that all services have access to DVA and GB licence data for road safety purposes. If you have been caught speeding and you are pulled over at the side of the road, the police can temporarily access your licence details in order to confirm who you are, but they do not, at this point, have any powers beyond road safety. The purpose of this clause is to extend the purposes for which the police can use that information, but it relates only to GB licence-holders and not NI licence-holders. I asked the PSNI to tell me how that change will help. One example is where an IP address that is linked to child abuse is connected to a property. Being able to identify and get images of persons living at that address through the DVA database would be useful, but it would apply only to GB licence-holders. If the process is shown to be effective in GB, there may be a request from the PSNI in future years, but we do not know that at the moment.

You asked what changes it will make. Access to the data is covered in road traffic legislation. Apologies if I get this wrong, but it is under the "powers of constables". I think that the powers will be extended to the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (OPONI) and police staff. That is more about clarification of who can access the data. That is listed in the clauses in the Bill. OPONI's counterparts in England, Wales and Scotland have access, and OPONI just wants to have similar access powers.

On the safeguards that will be in place, the Home Office will have to draft secondary regulations. The purpose of that is to regularise and clarify access to the data and how the information will be used for policing and law enforcement. A code of practice will also be established. Access to driver information will be subject to a code of practice to ensure that it is appropriately used. It is in the Bill, as it is now, that the Home Office must consult the Department of Justice on the regulations and code of practice, so we will have a say on how they go through. Without having sight of the draft regulations and code of practice, we will have to work with our DSO and the Human Rights Commission to make sure that they are compliant with the Windsor framework and all the other relevant articles.

Ms Corry: Deirdre, you also asked about the international law enforcement information-sharing agreements. We do not have policy colleagues from that team with us here today, so we might have to come back to you on some of that, particularly in relation to a list of agencies that would be able to access the information. That is, I believe, one of those mixed matters: the international law enforcement element would be reserved, but the fact that it would engage local policing would bring in a devolved aspect. I understand that it relates to the international law enforcement alerts platform (I-LEAP). I think that colleagues briefed the Committee on that previously, but we can provide further information in writing if that would be helpful.

Miss Hargey: Thanks very much. I am keen to see a list of the international agencies that would have access and a list of the agencies that would have access to the DVA data, if there is one. It would also be useful if we could see the Human Rights Commission response. It would be useful to see any written responses on any aspect of the LCM.

I would like clarity on the DVA bit. Why would we have an LCM just to access data from a GB database rather than from the database here? I thought that it would be all one. What is the purpose of that? Why would we want that information if it does not include a database from here? I just want to understand it a wee bit better.

Ms Murphy: My understanding — I may have to follow this up in writing — is that, although all services can access the data, that was just alphanumeric details. GB has improved its data systems through API, whereby data images can be accessed by all services. I think that GB used that as an opportunity to, in legislation, revise who can access the information and make the data protections more clear and concise. That is my understanding, but I am happy to come back to you with more detail.

Miss Hargey: I appreciate that. Thank you. To help my understanding: is the database that is used here likely to be changed to align with those proposed changes?

Ms Murphy: A request for the database to change would probably come from the police to the Department of Justice. The Department would probably then liaise with the Department for Infrastructure, which is the data controller. However, again, to date, there has been no request for access to NI licence-holder data.

Miss Hargey: Thank you.

Mr McNulty: Thank you, Debbie, Lorraine, Therese and Lesley, for the insightful and detailed presentation.

My understanding is that the Bill contains a mechanism to ban the flying of paramilitary flags and the display of paramilitary paraphernalia. Will you comment on that, please?

Ms Corry: That is one of a number of reserved or excepted matters that are contained in the Bill. My understanding is that that is covered in clause 123(5), which relates to the amendment powers under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000. When I was preparing for today, I asked Home Office colleagues about that, because we have not had any direct engagement with them on that clause. It is my understanding that the measure delivers on a recommendation made by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, following a visit to Belfast in 2022. He engaged directly with the PSNI about the measure. It was not included in our initial presentation, because we are focusing today on the issues that engage legislative consent.

Mr McNulty: What would be the implications of that clause here?

Ms Corry: There are likely to be outworkings from how it is operationalised. We have not been involved in any of those discussions, to date. It is a matter for the PSNI, but I appreciate that a number of Departments and agencies will have a role in that.

Mr McNulty: Can you say what it will relate to? Will it relate to flags, banners, 6 feet by 4 feet hoardings and billboards?

Ms Corry: I am not entirely sure. I have not engaged on that aspect of the Bill, so, unfortunately, I do not have that detail in front of me.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Maybe you could take that up with the police, Justin. It might be worth writing a letter to the police asking what engagement they have had on that issue. Is that what you said, Debbie: that the police have engaged on that?

Ms Corry: Yes. My understanding is that the Home Office has engaged directly with the PSNI on that matter. As far as I am aware, the Department has not had any engagement on it, to date.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That might be your option to get further information, Justin, if that works for you.

Mr McNulty: Thanks, Chair.

Mr Baker: Thank you for the presentation. My question follows on from what Deirdre said about engagement. To what extent has the Department engaged with children's rights advocates?

Ms Ferguson-Coote: We engage where certain provisions interface with children's matters. I have not had any engagements, as yet, with any of those bodies about, for example, the registered sex offenders provisions. However, if individual policy people see interest from those particular bodies, they will engage with them.

Mr Baker: Will the Department be satisfied that the provisions that have been identified as applying to the North reflect the obligations, for example, of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)?

Ms Ferguson-Coote: We could probably come back to you on that. There are so many fingers in the pie when it comes to the policy leads on the Bill. We could probably do a write-around and ask whether there has been any engagement there, if that is helpful.

Mr Baker: It would be. It is important because it has far-reaching impacts for children and young people. Their advocates should be involved in order to ensure that it is compliant with the UNCRC.

Ms Corry: We can do that. We can write to all the policy leads across the Department who have that measure in the Bill and come back to you on that.

Mr Bradley: My questions relate to the principal objective of the new confiscation regime that is introduced by clause 102 and schedule 15. What will change from the old legislation? Will it be better? How will it be enforced better than the old one? We all see people running around who have great wealth despite having no means.

Ms Corry: Yes. The Bill's confiscation reforms are quite extensive. They are intended to give courts more powers to make more realistic and proportionate confiscations and are also designed to try to make the system more transparent, so that the processes and procedures are clearer. Hopefully, it will also improve the enforcement of orders and speed up confiscation proceedings. We have initially engaged with operational partners, who are supportive of that regime. Those reforms have been talked about for a considerable period. Often, the legislation can be found to be quite complex and difficult to work through. The Bill will make a number of changes, which include setting out a statutory definition for the scheme. As I have said, it will ensure that it is more transparent. It will also set out how recoverable amounts should be calculated and bring in detailed provisions on how hidden assets should be calculated in dealing with tainted gifts, etc. It will also ensure that procedures are streamlined, which should help, and include an early resolution confiscation process, which will hopefully resolve issues earlier in the process. There will also be changes to making restraint orders and to the appeals process, although it will not actually change the appeals process; it will just clarify and make the right of appeal easier to understand. Does that help?

Mr Bradley: It does. It will make that more streamlined and easier to access.

The other thing is the criminal lifestyle test. How is that an improvement? How do you test somebody's criminal lifestyle based on their assets when they do not seem to have the means to acquire them, if I can put it like that?

Ms Corry: That is one of the issues that will be quite complex. It will be set out clearly in the legislation. A number of tests would need to be met. I do not have a copy of the draft legislation in front of me, but that is something that the court would take into consideration. There are, I believe, safeguards in place to ensure that legitimate assets are considered separately. It is definitely about ensuring that the legislation is clearer and that measures are there so that it is transparent.

Mr Bradley: Thank you.

Ms Ferguson: I have two questions.

First, I want to ask about budget, specifically. Given the detail that you have provided, have you looked at the potential financial implications of the Bill, and does the Department anticipate receiving any budgetary allocations from Westminster for it?

Secondly, are you satisfied overall that the Bill will have no unintended consequences across the board, or do you have any concerns?

Ms Ferguson-Coote: We do not think that the registered sex offender (RSO) and notification requirements will incur any further costs. Anything additional will be absorbed by the current operation of the principal lead, which is the police and the other agencies. Some of the measures have been developed as a consequence of efficiency. Measures around, for example, a virtual notification requirement, where a person does not have to go into a police station, will offset some administration costs. The bigger saving will be around the review of indefinite notification requirements, because there will be people in that regard for whom the risk is not there. The police will carry out the own motion review and will be able to cut down the list, but that would be only where there is not a risk of sexual harm to the public. There will be measures such as that.

We will align the list of prescribed police stations at which an offender notifies their personal details to police. Under the current process in Scotland and Northern Ireland, we have to do it by statutory rule. We are informed by the police as to what stations still hold for prescribed purposes. As you know, the PSNI estate has reduced, and a lot of stations do not accept members of the public. Each time a station comes off, we have to provide a statutory rule, albeit via negative resolution. The provision in the Bill will offset the need to do that, because it will be done administratively by the police; they will publish a list. England and Wales have already moved forward in that respect. We were able to align with that, as was Scotland, to make that more efficient. There will be efficiency savings in certain areas across the Bill that will offset costs, but the expectation is that there will be no new money and that that will be absorbed by current operational resources.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Have you checked that with the police?

Ms Ferguson-Coote: The notification requirements?

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Has any part of the Bill that will impact on the police been checked with them?

Ms Ferguson-Coote: I am speaking about the sex offender side, but Debbie will —.

Ms Corry: We have written to the police as well about identifying anything of concern as we go through the process. Most of the measures amend or update what is there, so we do not anticipate there being any significant new costs; they will be absorbed by the system, as Lorraine said. For example, the Bill will streamline the process when it comes to POCA.

You also asked about unintended consequences.

Ms Ferguson: I would love to have further information on resources. We all know how stretched the police are and about the resources that are required to keep on top of the current processes. We all know that, when new processes are introduced, they have an impact on resources. I would like to —

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Maybe we could be kept apprised of that.

Ms Ferguson: — be kept abreast of that and get more —.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: That is reasonable. I guess that we are speaking in silos.

Another one of my areas is the possession of a paedophile manual. The Bill simply amends that area to bring pseudo-images within the scope of the legislation. There will not be any particular cost associated with that. However, we can certainly come back to you.

Ms Ferguson: I definitely get the point about the efficiencies, as you outlined, but I am conscious of the resources on the ground. Introducing new measures takes time, in particular, and resources. If you do not have the resources to have that extra time, I would be concerned.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Speaking of time.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: Policy leads have spoken to operational partners as well. We have been engaging with the police on the RSO stuff, the possession of a paedophile manual and some of the reserved provisions that fall within my remit, such as anything to do with child sexual exploitation or abuse. We have been engaging with the police, the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) and other criminal justice partners — early engagement is really important — so that they can make preparations as well.

Another thing that sits with that is commencement. As Debbie said, a number of measures will be commenced according to operational readiness. We did that in the last mandate with our primary legislation. We will not commence those on registered sex offenders until we are operationally ready and they are able to carry out the functions.

Ms Ferguson: Do you have a work plan and a timescale, given that it will be incremental and based on resources and time?

Ms Ferguson-Coote: That is all done in individual policy areas, but, on registered sex offenders, there will be a plan that the Home Office will lead on. There will be a working group, because there are a number of supporting pieces of secondary legislation that will be crucial before the primary legislation can be commenced. It is not just about the operational readiness of partners; for effective policy, we plan how we will implement it and that includes ensuring that we have the guidance in place and that everybody is trained up or whatever needs to be done is done. Some will need more focus than others. For example, the police have been operating the notification requirements for some time, but there will be issues for other partners such as the DVA.

Ms Corry: It is very similar for the likes of the POCA changes. We will want to work with operational partners on that, and we have already engaged with them. We appreciate that it is a significant piece of work, so, again, we will bring together a working group to make sure that everybody is on the same page. We have the power to commence that when it is ready. There is a power in the legislation that allows us to amend that through the Assembly, if necessary, to make sure that it is working correctly for Northern Ireland. That should, hopefully, future-proof it.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Are there any unintended consequences? Thanks, Debbie.

Ms Corry: At this stage, we have not identified any unintended consequences. We will remain mindful of that as we go through the process, particularly the scrutiny phases. If any issues are raised, we can go back to the Home Office and work with it as we go. We are very keen to avoid that, if possible. We will definitely keep it on our radar.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Ladies, I have a couple of things. In the information that we have thus far on the new offences and so on, we do not have any indication of the sentences. Will you furnish us with potential sentences when you look at those things?

As regards forthcoming regulations as we move through and commencement dates, will you keep us apprised of potential regulations and those that may come here, because I appreciate that there is a distinction between the regulations that are made over there and those that impact on us? Will you keep us apprised of both? What other amendments do you anticipate as the Bill progresses through the Commons and the Lords?

Ms Corry: Would you prefer that we write to you with the detail on the sentences for the new offences, or would you rather go through it today?

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I am just conscious of time.

Ms Corry: It is probably easier if we write to you then.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): It means that we have a record of it all, rather than just —.

Ms Corry: Absolutely, we can do that. Again, we will engage with you on the forthcoming regulations. We see today as our first engagement with you. We anticipate that we will be back as the Bill progresses, if there is any further information that you need at any point in time.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): On the regulations that will potentially flow through here, it would be useful to have some understanding of which process you will use, be it negative resolution or —.

Ms Corry: Yes.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: Going back to registered sex offenders, if we get approval from DFI for the driving licence restriction, nine pieces of secondary legislation will be attributable to it, five of which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The more comprehensive pieces of legislation need that. Anything minor, such as updating a list of something very minor, will fall under the negative resolution procedure. We have our own power, certainly on the registered sex offenders, for the Department to make its regulations. The regulations on the restrictions on driving licences would be made by DFI, and that is why it is so critical that we have DFI on board with this. The regulations, certainly those on the replacement driving licence, can only be done in unison. They cannot be made in isolation of any other UK jurisdiction. We have to consult with each other, and that is built into the statute, as is commencement. We will be consulting on all of that, because the whole point of it is to ensure that there is consistency and protection across the UK.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is helpful. Thank you.

We are at amendments.

Ms Corry: Yes, we are on further measures that may come forward in relation to a potential second LCM. As Lorraine said, there are the driver licence amendments in relation to the registered sex offenders scheme. The Minister is also looking at the child exploitation measures that are in the Bill currently. That includes some prevention orders as well. There is also a potential offence in relation to fine-tuned AI models designed to produce child sexual abuse material and a child abduction measure. There are also stalking orders on conviction and acquittal guidance to police on disclosure. There is, potentially, a barred and advisory list to come and access to remotely stored data. That is all that we are aware of currently. Some of those are dependent on drafting capacity at the Home Office's end. Those are the measures that we are looking at currently to extend.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): You anticipate that those will come up by way of amendment and that you will adopt those. You said the end of May, did you?

Ms Corry: Probably. Timings for that are not confirmed at the moment, but we will give you as much notice as possible and engage at the earliest possible opportunity. Particularly now that the Bill is in the public domain, we are able to do that a lot more easily.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I have one other issue to raise. Most of the other stuff has been covered. I want to check about virtual notification of RSOs in certain circumstances. What do you envisage that those circumstances might be?

Ms Ferguson-Coote: It depends very much on the risk of that individual. On initial notification — the first time that they do it — there will be no opportunity to do it virtually. The police will have to assess the risk and whether there are any consequences to someone doing it virtually as opposed to in person. That assessment would be done and tailored on an individual basis.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): OK. Will we get a bit more time to look at that one too?

Ms Ferguson-Coote: Yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is really good.

Does anybody have anything further? No. We are all done. Ladies, thank you very much. We very much appreciate that. It is very wide in scope, so we are grateful to you for coming to give us a bit more detail. No doubt, this will not be the last engagement that we have on it.