Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): We have with us the Assistant Chief Constable, Anthony McNally, and Jeff Logan, who is a grade 7 in the PSNI. You are welcome to the Justice Committee. The Chair, who cannot be here today, sends her apologies.

We may have further engagement and sessions with you on the aspects of the Bill that pertain to the police. Thanks very much for your time. The information that you gave us in advance is comprehensive, and I assume that it will prompt a lot of questions. I invite you to make an opening statement, and then I will open it up to Committee members for questions or comments. Thank you.

Assistant Chief Constable Anthony McNally (Police Service of Northern Ireland): Thank you, Deputy Chair and members. It is nice to see you all. We are grateful to be here to discuss the new Justice Bill and its four constituent Parts. You know them as well as I do: the retention of biometric data; changes to bail and custody arrangements for children and young people; improving services for victims and witnesses, including through better use of technology such as live links; and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of aspects of the justice system.

The PSNI has been working hard on improving the justice journey for all those who engage in it, including through broader strategic forums such as the Criminal Justice Board and its work stream of speeding up justice and its working together board with the Public Prosecution Service (PPS).

As you mentioned, Deputy Chair, I am accompanied by Mr Jeff Logan. Jeff works in our scientific support team and has a long history in biometrics. He can assist the Committee on that aspect of the Bill specifically.

I will move on to the four relevant constituent Parts. As the Committee knows, the PSNI has engaged with the Department of Justice over the past 12 years or more on matters that are in this Bill and its earlier versions, not least biometrics. The retention of biometrics strikes to the core of substantive issues in the Bill regarding how policing across Northern Ireland discharges its functions under section 32 of Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. That is about keeping people safe; our policing plan objective of being victim-, community- and workforce-focused; and how we balance that with the right to private and family life, as set out in article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). We are keen to work with the Committee, the Justice Department and all stakeholders to get the balance right in order to maintain and build confidence in policing across Northern Ireland.

We have provided written responses on those key matters to the Committee and the Department and are happy to address any questions about those responses. This is day 13 in the job for me, so, although I have spent a lot time reading up on this, I do not know all the answers. I will endeavour to come back to the Committee on any questions that we cannot answer today. I give you my assurance that, between us, we have a good understanding of the matters in hand.

On biometrics specifically, I again assure the Committee that the PSNI has been cognisant of ECHR article 8 considerations in relation to biometric retention periods; indeed, in the absence of legislation, in 2012, it created a biometric ratification committee to consider applications for deletion of data that it held. Since the inception of that group, of 244 requests for deletion, 117 — 48% — have been authorised. It is important to highlight the fact that the retention schedules in the new Bill will create new demand for the PSNI. It is envisaged that much of that demand will be assisted by IT, such as by flagging disposal dates to us that we can then use human endeavour to manage. That will, of course, come at a financial cost.

I am reliably informed by my predecessors that, when the PSNI assessed previous versions of the Bill, in 2020-21, IT costs alone were reckoned to be circa £1 million.

As you will know, that was similar to the costs that we absorbed when we changed our Niche IT system for the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021. Those costs are consistent with significant legislative changes for the PSNI, but I cannot give you a specific figure. Those costs may be higher now, as they were four years ago and we have upgraded the Niche system significantly since that time. Of course, it goes without saying that IT costs and changes also require human endeavour to make them happen. That will create an additional demand on our organisation as we move forward with the Bill.

In order to develop our IT systems, in addition to the retention schedules that the Bill talks about, the PSNI will need to understand in detail when a review of someone's biometrics can be commissioned. Again, we need to understand the additional demands that that will create for us. Therefore, we need absolute clarity on whether review periods will be part of the Bill or whether they will be introduced as a subsequent amendment. I highlight the fact that, if they are introduced as a subsequent amendment, we will need to be kept abreast of timelines, because that may have an impact on further IT changes. The time frame from Royal Assent to enactment will need to be carefully considered so that we know what changes are required.

Part 2 of the Bill concerns changes to bail and custody arrangements for children and young people. Again, we have corresponded with the Department of Justice on those arrangements. We support those changes and, through our children and young persons strategy, we have highlighted that it is our desire that custody be an absolute last resort for our young people across Northern Ireland. Again, in this Part, there are some small matters that we will need to understand in more detail either through the legislation itself or its supporting guidance. In clause 4, for example, we are asked to assess a child's maturity and ability to understand bail conditions. We will need to give guidance, support and advice to our staff and custody sergeants on how, in practical terms, they manage to do that. The changes around bail and custody arrangements will also require amendments to IT systems and will need to be supported by new training, as I mentioned. However, they are much more straightforward than the changes that will be required for the biometric provisions.

Part 3 concerns improving services for victims and witnesses, including the better use of technology such as live links. Again, we support the proposals. The service has made great strides in recent years in technology and how we use it for court processes. This new legislation will help us to develop that further. We particularly welcome the use of live links for extensions of detention authorised by our superintending cadre. We have been asking for that for a considerable number of years. At present, those extensions can be carried out only in person, which can lead to significant travel across Northern Ireland for a small cohort of senior leaders. This will save them significant time and allow them to deal with other pressing policing priorities.

We also note some commentary on more sensitive matters such as a remote interview of a suspect, where the suspect is in one location and the police interviewer is in another but the suspect is believed to be from a vulnerable group. Clarity on how that aspect should be addressed and managed would be welcomed, again through either the legislation or guidance from the Department. As I mentioned, the changes may require capital expenditure and training, but it is possible that, in the long term, they could lead to financial and efficiency savings, which is obviously what the Bill intends to do.

I have no substantive remarks to make on Part 4.

Going forward and to assure the Committee, it is my intention to establish a Justice Bill implementation group to operationalise the legislation within policing. I will work closely with the Department on that and, of course, with the Committee, as you desire. The group will focus on addressing the key project management areas, which I see to be the IT requirements; training and guidance for our staff; the partnership impact on other criminal justice organisations and stakeholders; communication and public awareness to build confidence that the new legislation delivers what it sets out to achieve; and identifying and addressing the cost issues to policing.

Chair, I hope that my opening remarks are of assistance to the Committee. Jeff and I are happy to take your questions.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): Thanks very much for that, Anthony. Jeff, you can come in on questions.

I propose that we take it in the chunks that you have outlined so that we can deal with each Part of the Bill. I will throw it open first on biometrics. Are there any queries or comments on biometrics?

Mr Baker: Thank you, Deputy Chair. Police Scotland now collects biometric data from people under 18 only for serious crimes such as violent or sexual offences. That means that fewer young people will be stigmatised. In your opinion, is that policy worthy of serious consideration?

Mr Jeff Logan (Police Service of Northern Ireland): In some ways, that is not really — the PSNI will do whatever the legislation says, whether it says that we should take the fingerprints of all juveniles or not. In the Justice Bill as it is at the moment, there ar very different time frames for the retention of juveniles' and adults' information. There is a difference made in that. I guess that your question is for those who frame the Bill to decide on, rather than the police.

Mr Baker: OK. It is a massive concern that has come up with the Children's Commissioner and the Children's Law Centre. That is why I asked. Police Scotland has that policy in place to reduce stigmatisation. That is fair enough. That is my only question on biometrics.

Mr Bradley: Thanks for your presentation. I want to touch on your statement about the cost of software and upgrading your IT systems to match the Bill, but I want to come at it from the biometric point of view of the advances in AI and the pace of those advances. How does the PSNI hope to keep up to pace with those advances, and how do you intend to use AI?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: They are slightly different topics. This Bill specifically looks at classifying DNA and fingerprints as biometric data, whereas the use of artificial intelligence is slightly different. The PSNI is very much alive to the fact that there is a National Police Chiefs' Council-led programme looking at how we govern artificial intelligence in the organisation, how it is used and how we put appropriate guard rails in place to ensure that we use it in an ethical way. The National Police Chiefs' Council group met formally for the first time in January, and some forces are developing an AI strategy for implementation in policing. I chaired the first meeting of the PSNI's group on that subject last week, so it is something that we are very much alive to.

I can give an assurance that we will put parameters around the use of artificial intelligence and that, where we look to introduce any software that will have an artificial intelligence aspect, there will be appropriate governance and guard rails to ensure that we get the balance right between using it to help us solve crime, using it to support victims and witnesses and using it to deal with hostile state actors, who, we all know, are using artificial intelligence for their own nefarious purposes. We will put those guard rails in place to ensure that, when we use it, it has appropriate governance, and that will be reported to our service data board.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you, Jeff and Anthony. I have about four or five questions, but I will try to be really succinct, so I will ask them all together, if that is OK.

First, I welcome what you said about setting up an implementation group. I assume that there is already a project board set up, so I would like more information on who is on that team, how regularly it works and what work it is doing. Secondly — I know that it is difficult for you at this stage because the legislation is not there — but, on the design of the IT system, I assume that IT systems exist that can weed out on the basis of the retention schedules and the review mechanisms: have you explored what is available on the market? Thirdly, we have raised this issue a couple of times, but obviously it is essential for a reviewer of biometric material to be independent. What are your thoughts on that independence? Fourthly, are you assured that the required IT systems and capabilities will be in place to support the implementation of the proposed biometric framework in line with requirements under the Data Protection Act 2018?

Finally, something that I have continuously raised. I am not fully aware of how individuals are currently informed through the PSNI because, obviously, I have not been through that experience and do not want to be. We have just had a delegation of young people. How is that communicated now that people are fully informed and educated? You are well aware of GDPR and the regulations there. It is about ensuring that people know exactly what material is taken, how it will be used, under what legislation it is retained and how, as you say, they can follow up to be informed and educated more about exactly who will process that information and how it will be processed.

I know I have fired a lot at you, but that is it from me. Thank you.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: I will start, and then Jeff can provide some more detail.

A project board, in its purest sense, around looking at the Justice Bill in its totality has not been set up, but there has been significant work done on the relevant constituent parts of the Bill. For example, Jeff has been heavily engaged with the Department of Justice on the biometrics aspects. In my team in the criminal justice department, we have a criminal justice branch to look at new legislation. It has been engaging with the Department particularly on the children and live link aspects, and I have read emails going back to 2020-21 where we had been corresponding around previous iterations of the Bill. There has been lots of correspondence and lots of work done.

Now that we are at the stage of getting closer to Royal Assent, we will set up that formal project board structure. It met in a sort of hybrid form last week; I chaired it. It will have relevant stakeholders internally to start with. That will include, as I mentioned, Jeff for biometrics. We have a lead for the children's aspect and the live link aspect. We also have a legal adviser, a comms person and our information and communications services (ICS) people, who are our technical experts. It is basically everyone. I talked about those five strands from a project management point of view, and the relevant people from those areas are all there, so it is quite a healthy group. Initially, we will start internally just until we understand it, but, no doubt, when we start to get into the more technical aspects, we will have to engage with other criminal justice organisations around information-sharing and whether there may be implications around that. It will grow as time goes on, but I assure you that we have a suitable governance structure to make sure that we are now working with how the Committee will take this forward.

On the second question about our IT systems and whether we can look at retention, the answer is yes. When the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2013 (CJA) and the retention schedules in it were considered, we looked at our Niche system to see how we could put a flagging system in place that would tell us that someone's data was due for review for retention and deletion. We have tested those systems, but I must emphasise that that was in previous versions of Niche, which has been significantly upgraded. We now have the Niche universal app, so we will have to do a lot of that work again. That is where a lot of the IT costs will come into it, and Jeff might want to elaborate on that.

With regard to the independent review, were you specifically thinking about the role of a new commissioner there?

Ms Ferguson: No, it is about the review of the biometric material and ensuring — yes.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: OK. Again, Jeff can answer the one on biometrics. For assurance around the IT systems, the short answer around time frames is no, because we need to know exactly what we are being asked to do. There are two key bits. One is the time frames — the 70/50/25 are the main ones. Then, going back to the review piece, if it is introduced that we will have to carry out a review — I do not know whether it will be five years or 10 years on the basis of certain offence types and so on — we need to understand exactly what that will look like because we have to build the IT behind it. That goes back to my point, that, if, for example, there is a two-year commencement period after Royal Assent but you do not tell us what those review periods will be for six months, we will have lost those six months because we will have to start that work. It is so important for us to get that information about what exactly we are required to do around retention and then review at the earliest stage to help us build the IT structures behind it.

With regard to how you get access to information, we have our external website, which has all the information and, indeed, the application form for someone who wishes to have their biometrics reviewed for retention. It is on our website, and someone can access that form and fill it in. It will go to our biometrics committee for consideration.

Mr Logan: I will maybe just build on some of that —.

Ms Ferguson: I am assuming that there is a GDPR policy that is handed to someone in the police station when they have been arrested, their fingerprints are being taken or whatever so that, straight away, they are informed or educated on exactly how that information is being used. I do not know; I am asking. Is there a GDPR policy on the police website now that, if I were to go on today, I could access?

Mr Logan: Yes, I believe there is.

Ms Ferguson: That is good.

Mr Logan: I will just take your points one to five.

Ms Ferguson: Surely, yes.

Mr Logan: On the project board, the assistant chief constable (ACC) has spoken about the overarching project board. Beneath that, one of the strands of the Justice Bill is biometrics. There will be a variety of people sitting on that board, some of whom will be on the PSNI side. It will be chaired by a chief superintendent. The head of biometrics will be there, along with the head of scientific support and the head of the identification bureau. Our IT people from ICS will be there, because they will be vital in putting it in place. Folk from finance will be there. A data protection officer will play a big part as well because, as you said, later on we will want to be sure that we meet all our data protection responsibilities and commitments.

The information security officer will play a big part in ensuring that we handle the data correctly and securely. We will also bring in people from the investigative side because, at some point, they will need to be brought into the process in how to manage suspects. There will also be people from our justice and data quality side. On top of that, we will bring in externals: folk from the Department of Justice and Forensic Science Northern Ireland. It will be a fully integrated project. We do not want anybody to be blindsided. We want to be absolutely aware if there are any changes to timescales from the Department, in the same way that it will want to know if there are any changes from us. It will be integrated. Moving forward —.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): Sorry, just on that, there was a letter from the Justice Department saying that it will have a justice biometric retention project board: is that the board that you are talking about, or are you talking about something additional in the PSNI?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: As I mentioned, sitting above that, I will chair a group that will oversee all the different aspects. It will feed into that.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): Is there a departmental one and then one for the police?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: It will all be interconnected, yes.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): You mentioned the different areas that it will cover, such as the legal side. Will there be human rights people on that to balance those rights?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Yes.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): Thank you. Sorry I interrupted you.

Mr Logan: No, it is fine.

Long before we get to the testing phase, there will come a point when we will bring in our criminal justice organisation (CJO) partners: the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service (NICTS), the Public Prosecution Service (PPS), the Home Office and the other groups and people that we have to interact with to get this done. They will be brought in when they are required. Therefore, it will be quite a big group, but we want it to be all-encompassing to make sure that everybody is aware of what is going on.

The question on the existing IT is a really good one. The previous legislation, the CJA, was never commenced because of the Gaughran ruling. We were pretty much good to go with that and were about to press the big red button and go live with our deletions when the Gaughran ruling came in and we could not do that. The CJA was built to deal with conviction and non-conviction, and the Gaughran ruling introduced the concept of review and a more graded response in respect of how long we retain biometrics. At the moment, we are working with our software developers to look at the IT work that was done at that time to see how much of that we can use — I will not say cannibalise — and we are hopeful that some of that will be of use to us moving forward. It is certainly in no way fit for purpose for what we need, but we are hopeful that some of that will be usable and we will be able to make some savings with regard to work already done.

In respect of the independence of the review, there are two things there. The first is the basic biometric retention date. That is your top line: the one that you will get. The Bill talks about a maximum retention date of 75 years, 50 years and 25 years. That is set pretty much automatically by the software. It will do that for a number of reasons. It will do it on the basis of your age — whether you are a juvenile or an adult. It will do it on the basis of your conviction status — whether you are convicted or not. The other one is the seriousness of the offence. It will depend what you are convicted of as to whether you get the 75, 50 or 25 years. The third one is related to any potential custodial sentence that is handed down to you. That will all play a part in the calculation of that. That is completely independent, in that the decision of whatever maximum retention date you get is done simply on the basis of the software. It works out the date for us. That is about as independent as you can get.

The other thing that we are unsighted on at the minute is how the review mechanism works. I cannot comment on that because I do not know what that looks like. As the ACC said, it is really important. We have been told that the start date or the implementation date that we have been given, which will be either 18 or 24 months, will begin at legislative commencement. The difficulty with that is that it is possible that the review will come in by way of regulation after that. That could be six months or even nine months after that. Our software developers may well say to us, "We need the whole suite of rules here before we can start to design a product", in which case our 24 months or 18 months would go down to a year or possibly even less. I would like all the rules to come at once or the clock to start at the end, when the regulations are published. That would give us enough time to get the work done. We do not want to set an implementation date that we are not able to meet because we have not had the time to get the work done.

The other thing is the biometric ratification committee that we talked about before. We intend to retain the biometric ratification committee so that people continue to have the opportunity to have their biometrics reviewed independently in the same way as they can now. We will hear independent and one-off requests. We recognise that we have a system that has been built, but there will be cases and circumstances that we simply do not expect. It would be helpful if there were a mechanism for somebody to make an application and for that to be heard independently and for their case to go before the committee and for that to be heard.

I have already spoken about data protection. It is at the core of what we do. Our data protection officer will be on the project board, and her opinion will be taken. That is absolutely a part of it.

At the moment, all of the information that we have about seeking an early review of biometrics is on the PSNI website. The service instruction has been published and can be read, downloaded or whatever. Full instructions on how to apply to have your biometrics reviewed are on the website, and we will continue with that. We intend to publish on the website all of the information that we have on biometric retention, time frames and all the rest of it. You talked about giving people the information in the custody suite. We have talked a bit about that in the team. The difficulty with some of that is that, if somebody is in custody, they are probably pretty stressed and will probably not retain a huge amount of knowledge when they leave. Some of the retention is complicated. We can talk about this later in the implementation phase, but having it on the website would probably be more beneficial; it would allow people to look at it in slow time.

Ms Ferguson: Just one wee final one. There are varying retention periods, and biometrics are shared across different UK databases and stuff. What is the thought process there? It is obviously really complicated. I am conscious of new retention periods. If you have already shared data, how do you withdraw it? I assume that the system will have to link to other national databases.

Mr Logan: Absolutely. Part of the reason for that length of time is to make sure that our testing is right. It is not just internal PSNI testing; we will have to go to a lot of other criminal justice partners. We will all have to block out about four weeks, six weeks or whatever. It is like Swiss cheese: all of the holes have to align. Everybody will have to do this at the one time to make sure that all of the processes can be tested. If we decide to delete somebody's biometrics in Belfast and we have shared them with the national database, we will inform the national database that they need to come off, and they will.

Ms Ferguson: You would hope that there will be a technical, computerised way of doing it, rather than a manual way.

Mr Logan: Absolutely. We want it to be technical.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): Jeff, you raised some points about the subsequent regulations. The Committee wants as much of this as possible to be in the Bill. Would that be another option as well? Would you prefer it to be in the Bill?

Mr Logan: I think that we are — maybe "relaxed" is the wrong word. I have no firm opinion on whether it is done by regulation or in the Bill. It is more about when the clock starts ticking.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): Our concern is about the gap between —

Mr Logan: Yes, provided that we have enough time to do the work.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): — the Bill and the regulations coming into play and things falling between two stools.

Mr Logan: If the clock were to start ticking at commencement but the regulations were not published for another nine months or whatever after that, that would be a concern.

Ms Egan: It is a quick one, if you do not mind.

In the briefing paper that you provided about whether the PSNI has a biometrics strategy, you said that it:

How is that work going, given that the legislation is currently going through the Assembly? Are you updating it with a view to the legislation going through and being enacted? How has that process been going? Whom do you consult when you draft a strategy?

Mr Logan: The strategy is being updated at the moment, as you say. Things move quickly. I think that the strategy was put in place in 2019, and things have moved on quite a bit since then. Obviously, we are working on the basis that the legislation will go live; we are fully hopeful and confident that it will continue. Yes, we will do a full round of consultation with the Policing Board and with whomever else is involved before we go live with that.

Ms Egan: Do you link in with other jurisdictions on what they are doing? For example, the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner came to Committee, and I found his contribution really useful.

Mr Logan: Quite a lot of what goes on in the biometrics world is national. There is a national fingerprint database. We put all our material onto that. There is the national DNA database as well. Moving forward, there will also be a national facial database. We intend to contribute to that as well. With all that, there are national structures. We know one another well, and, yes, we consult widely.

Ms Egan: That is great. Thank you.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): I will check with Doug and Justin, who are online. Have you anything on the biometrics section?

Mr Beattie: I am OK, Deputy Chair. Thank you.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): Justin, you are OK. [Inaudible.]

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): I just have a few questions, if that is OK, and then we will move on to the next section.

Sorry, Justin. Are you looking to come in on this bit?

Mr McNulty: I am OK, Deputy Chair. Thank you.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): I think that we are trying to get a sense of what happens when somebody is in a custody arrangement and trying to understand that. As you say, Jeff, the person in custody might have vulnerabilities and be stressed. There is all that as well. I am just trying to understand the process and how they know that their biometrics are being taken. At what point is that explained? Is it at the initial point? Is there follow-up from the police afterwards to say, "We have taken your data. We have retained it. There is the ability to ask for deletions"? Are they informed when they have their fingerprints or whatever taken initially or later down the line? Is that done through the solicitor? What is the mechanism for that?

Mr Logan: At the moment, we have indefinite retention because we have no legislation to do otherwise. Everything is retained under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). Really, it is moving forward here. Again, part of the project here will be to look at the situations that you have mentioned and ask, "What do we do in custody? How do we inform people? How are people made aware of their rights? Should they be told in custody? What is the best way to do this?". It will pretty much be judged, I guess, on what is the most effective and best way of getting the information out to people. It may well be a mixture of both.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): Yes. At the moment, they are told that it is indefinite. Is there a point at which they are notified of that?

Mr Logan: Yes.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): We heard from the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner. Images are not included in the Bill at the moment. He mentioned that the PSNI holds 182,000 images. Those are not referenced in the Bill. Furthermore, he said that the police here use the images in such a way that they would constitute biometric data. Should images be included as biometric data in the Bill? Do you operate a service instruction on facial matching of those images? If so, can we get a copy of that service instruction?

The issue of images is coming up. We had the Youth Assembly in earlier. We took evidence last week from the Ada Lovelace Institute. It is looking at facial recognition advances that may be going through Westminster. We want to future-proof any legislation that we enact here as well. Is there a gap in the Bill with regard to images?

Mr Logan: Again, it is for the Department to decide whether to put provisions relating to images in the Bill. One thing that I will say, however, is that the PSNI made a policy decision a number of years ago that we would treat facial images in the same way as we treat fingerprints and DNA.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): You see them as biometric data. Is that how you treat them?

Mr Logan: Yes, once they are loaded onto a searchable database. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) was clear on that. It was content that, once the image is templated — I think that that is how it puts it — and goes into a searchable database, at that point, it sees that as biometric data. We have been clear and have made it clear to the Policing Board as well that, once that happens, we will delete the facial images in the same way as we delete fingerprints and DNA.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): Is that covered in a service instruction on the use of images?

Mr Logan: Not as yet, but I am sure that we will do that.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): That area needs to be developed.

Mr Logan: Absolutely. It does, yes.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: It is important to clarify, Chair, that there is the biometric retention ratification committee. If there is a request to delete fingerprints and DNA, we will also delete the custody photograph, if one exists. It will be treated in the same way.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): How is the ratification committee made up? I am not asking you to name individuals. Is it all officers? Is it people at a certain level? Who sits on it?

Mr Logan: As we said, the ratification committee was set up in 2012. It was set up in recognition of the fact that the PSNI was sitting in an uncomfortable position. It was holding material, and there was no legislative basis on which to delete it, but, at the same time, a European Court judgement on S & Marper said that the material should not be retained. There has been another judgement — Gaughran — since then.

The committee has evolved somewhat over the years, but the people who attend it have remained pretty consistent. It is chaired by the head of scientific support. Other members are me, as biometric manager; someone from legal; and somebody from our data quality department, who makes sure that all the information that is brought to the committee is correct. A couple of people are there just to speak up, should it be required: one represents a national security point of view, and the other represents a public protection point of view. If we were going to delete data and one of those two people had a concern, they would voice that concern and say whether they believed that it would be safe to go ahead or whether there was any public risk in doing so.

As has been said, almost 50% of the people who have applied through that process have had their biometrics deleted, so it is quite effective.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): That proves the point that those organisations do not have a veto. There would be an agreement or a consensus.

Mr Logan: There would be an agreement. Absolutely, yes. There is an appeals process as well. If someone is unhappy with the result that is sent to them, they can appeal to the ACC.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): That figure of, I think, 48% is stark. It shows the importance of the review mechanism and the regs that are coming forward.

You sent us information about guidance on the release of images of suspects and defendants, which states:

What is deemed legitimate? Is there a list?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: There is. It is still in draft format. A service instruction went to our service management board about four or five months ago with an initial view. It is being developed. There is a list, but it is not exhaustive. I am happy to share the draft service instruction with you, if that would be helpful.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): That would be really good. Thanks.

The submission also mentions the strong presumption against the release of children's images. It should be done only as a last resort. The submission refers to serious public harm. We — or I — know that, in Belfast, at interfaces and other areas, a large part of the time, the children involved may even be under 10, which means that they are under the age of criminal responsibility. If the decision is made to release an image, how is the risk of serious harm to the public balanced against the rights of the child? What happens if the child is under 10? That happens in Belfast, particularly, as I said, at interfaces where there may be conflict, so there is a potential harm not only to the child but to the public. Are images released of children under 10 or just of children of 10 and over, who are over the minimum age of criminal responsibility?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: The policy does not refer specifically to under-10s. It refers to persons under 18. I struggle to imagine a circumstance in which we would release an image of someone under 10, because they would be under the legal age of criminal responsibility.

I will go back to the first part of your question, which was about how we calibrate this for persons under 18. It is in the policy, which we will share. It states clearly that the presumption is that we will not release the images. Things that may change that position include the seriousness of the offence, such as with ongoing serious public disorder. The presumption is designed to help the child, because a lot of children who are involved in those circumstances are being coercively controlled to be there. It is not about trying to criminalise children, even if we were to release their images, but about trying to put supporting infrastructures in place. As I said, the policy is still in development. It is still early days, and I am happy to share what we have and hear any views on it.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): That would be good. These are things that we are grappling with and trying to strike a balance on. Obviously, as a Belfast rep, I have seen a lot of it, particularly recently.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: For your assurance, this is not something that is done lightly. It has to be a minimum of a superintendent or, if unavailable, an ACC to authorise a release, so we take it very seriously if there is a request to release.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): As you say, it is always the last resort for children.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Absolutely.

Mr Baker: I will touch on what Deirdre said. I asked what Police Scotland do about this. I worry about the stigmatisation of young people. Can I confirm that you treat photos as biometric evidence? Does that mean that a lot of photographs of young people at the age of 10 are retained?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: If someone is arrested for a recordable offence, and their photograph is taken, that is the case. In the present construct, anyone arrested, even if they are under the age of 18, will have their photograph retained. However, like anyone else, they have the right to ask for that to be removed as per our policy. You will be well aware that the Bill can put stipulations on that as you deem fit. Therefore, we are happy to work with the Committee on that.

Mr Baker: That is the importance of the safeguards and the consideration of what Police Scotland is doing.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): We move on to children in police custody. Ciara, had you a question on that?

Ms Ferguson: No, that was in the previous section, on bail.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): Does any member want to ask about bail and custody arrangements?

There may be areas that we will follow up on, because we need an understanding of children going through that process and what this legislation will mean, for being in the custody suite and then moving through. The Youth Assembly has raised issues around the lack of available accommodation. We all agree with the thrust of the Bill in trying to keep children out of custody and to use it only as a last resort.

Ms Egan: This is something that the Youth Assembly has just raised with us. When you are arrested, you are informed of your rights. Are there any specific rights that children are informed of, if they are arrested? Being under 18, they have different rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Are their rights different at present?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Arresting children is considered to be the last resort. They have the right to have an appropriate adult there — someone who can represent them, a family member or someone close to them. They have all the safeguards of an appropriate adult, in addition to the right to legal advice. If they are from a vulnerable group, we have registered intermediaries who can help support them through the criminal justice process and explain it to them. There are definitely additional safeguards for children who are arrested, and what is explained to them is different.

Ms Egan: Thank you. That is helpful. It was an issue raised with us before you came in.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): Does any other member want to ask about children, bail and custody? Not at this point. We move on. Does anybody want to ask about live links? Are there any queries or comments?

Ms Ferguson: I know that it is difficult to assess the financial impact of live links, but have you even a rough assessment of the potential costs incurred or saved by the utilisation of live links?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: The short answer is no. Obviously, these are hypothetical situations at present. There are a couple of bits that I want to tease out with the Department in the fullness of time. First, there is the situation where I, in one police station, can interview someone in another police station. The person in the other police station, the suspect, has to be accompanied by another police officer, as the Bill stands at the minute. However, we might want to consider that. It does not really reduce the administrative burden by much.

Secondly, it says that they must have a legal adviser present. However, if they do not want a legal adviser present, that could, arguably, nullify it as an option. Therefore, there are probably some things that I would like to tease out with the Department on that, just having read my way into it over the last few weeks. When I understand the nuances, the practicalities of what this looks like when a suspect is in a different location from me, how it all works and what numbers of police officers are required, only then can we work out what the savings are. At the minute, it just feels a bit theoretical. We need to get into the practicalities of what that will look like.

What I can say is that, as it stands, if a superintendent is working in Belfast and there is a review of someone's detention, that superintendent will do a review when that person has been in custody for coming up to 24 hours. The initial reviews are done by an inspector, but extending someone's custody beyond 24 hours, which can be for up to another 12 hours, can only be done by a superintendent. That superintendent, as is written in PACE, has to drive to that location — it has to be done in person — yet the solicitor can do it on the phone. You could have a police officer driving from Belfast to Strand Road police station and back, which is four hours on a good day, to do something that may take five, 10 or 15 minutes. There will be significant savings in travel time if a senior officer can simply go on to a live-link system and have a tripartite conversation with the solicitor and the suspect/detainee. Whilst there might be some upfront IT costs, and maybe some costs for training, if we work this out effectively, I believe that, in the long term, there could be significant savings — not necessarily financial savings but certainly savings in officer time, which is what we need.

Ms Ferguson: Do you think that there are enough safety checks built in? I am particularly concerned about vulnerable people who are detained. We have done visits to the prison and have looked at the level of remand, and there are high numbers of really vulnerable young people on remand. The majority of those people should not even be in prison, to be honest, given their vulnerability. From your experience, what are your thoughts on that, particularly on the most vulnerable young people who are held in custody? I believe that personal, face-to-face engagement can make a huge difference in understanding the individual. There is also the use of live links. Are there enough safety checks built in?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: I touched on that in my opening remarks. We need to get into a bit more detail on what exactly that looks like, but it may well be — I am not saying that we will definitely go down this route — that certain vulnerable groups might be excluded and that it has to be done face to face. Again, we will need to get into the granular detail of that.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): That bit around the training, guidance and follow-up will be for the implementation group.

Is there anything else on the administration of justice Part of the Bill — I am moving through this in chunks — or the amendments? I have a question about the amendments. Sorry, Stephen, go ahead.

Mr Dunne: Thank you, folks, for your presentation. I am keen to hear your thoughts on the vagrancy piece. What impact could those changes have on our streets? Could they create a gap in the law? Some might say that the changes will remove the tools to deal with the issue and potentially restrict people from getting the support that they may need. Some of these people can be victims of trafficking and exploitation.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Yes. That is a really valid question. Initially, when we engaged with the Department on that a number of years ago, we highlighted concerns, as you have, about whether that creates a gap, specifically around the simple begging offence that is constituted under the Vagrancy Act 1824. From memory, we have arrested around 500 people for that offence over the past three to four years. I am probably of the view, similar to the Department's, that that is not what those people need. The criminal justice system — arresting them — is not the appropriate pathway for someone who is destitute, homeless or needs help.

The Department has put forward its views, and we have certainly made clear our views on legislation in other jurisdictions that looks at potential preventative orders. If someone is, for example, begging or rough sleeping, preventative orders are put in place. What that does is much better, because that compels agencies to work together to support those people. For example, that may bring in the Department of Health and social workers — they are mandated to do so — to provide that support rather than going straight to a criminal justice outcome. I know that the Department is looking at those alternatives in relation to the core offence.

Where there are gaps, there are other offences that we could use, should we feel that there is no alternative to a criminal justice process. Those could be offences of disorderly behaviour, a breach of the peace at common law, public nuisance at common law or provocative conduct. Urinating in the street is one such offence. There are a number of other offences that are applicable. The criminal justice process is not the best way to deal with those offences; it really is about the supporting infrastructure for people who are on the streets and who need our collective help.

Mr Dunne: I agree with that. I noticed that the UK legislation is intended to:

and so on. That emphasises the importance of having the right tools that are specific to an individual's needs. Is that work continuing between you and the Department?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: We have written back to the Department to highlight the fact that we are aware of the approaches and options in other jurisdictions and that those should be explored if we are going to repeal that offence.

Mr Dunne: OK. Thank you.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): My question is on vagrancy as well. I agree with the thrust of the argument for removing that, because it penalises, in particular, vulnerable or poor people. You mentioned preventative orders. If the Vagrancy Act is repealed, will there be a gap or can other legislation be used to deal with maybe some of the unintended consequences? It is not about criminalising somebody; it is more about prevention.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: There are other, probably more punitive, sanctions — if you want to call them that — such as breach of the peace, disorderly behaviour and so on, if those are required. My preference is for us not to go there but to use preventative orders. I do not profess to know about them in detail at this stage, but I know that my team has engaged with the Department and has looked to England to see what they do. Again, if I may, I will come back to you on that.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): One hundred per cent. That would be useful.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: If there is something specific that may be helpful, we will certainly flag that to the Department.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): In addition to individuals with vulnerabilities, there is a concern about organised crime gangs. Is there other legislation that could be used in those scenarios?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Yes. We have reviewed that. From speaking to colleagues in the organised crime branch, not personally but through my team, I know that we have not seen that in Northern Ireland. That is not to say that it cannot or will not happen in the future. We are of the view that there is suitable legislation under the organised crime infrastructure that allows us to deal with that. Ultimately, what you are talking about is people being preyed on. That legislation deals with those who prey upon individuals; it exists.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): That is brilliant. Thank you.

This is for you, Jeff. It is back to biometrics. You said that there is a legal adviser on the ratification committee. Does that include a human rights lens on the legality?

Mr Logan: Yes.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): OK. My last question is about the injury on duty scheme, which has nothing to do with the Bill, so it is probably unfair to ask you about it, Anthony, but it may come up. That currently sits with the Policing Board. There are discussions about the transfer of the scheme to the police. Are you content to accept the transfer of the injury on duty scheme? I am not sure whether you have an answer to that.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: I do not know the organisational position, Chair.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): If you could follow up on that, it would be useful.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: I will certainly get the Committee to remind me to get an answer.

The Deputy Chairperson (Miss Hargey): We have been engaging with the Department on it, and we will hear from the Policing Board after the Easter recess. I will ask it that question as well. I appreciate that.

There are no further questions from members. Anthony and Jeff, thanks very much for coming in. We will appreciate getting the follow-up information and the breakdown of the oversight groups. If you have further information that you can present to us as we consider the Bill, we would appreciate that as well. There may be follow-ups as we take more oral evidence from other sectors and different sections of the PSNI.

Thanks very much for your time today. We really appreciate your coming in.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Happy to help.