Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): We have from the Northern Ireland Policing Board (NIPB) Sinead Simpson, chief executive; Adrian McNamee, director of performance; and Sarah Reid, director of police pensions and injury benefits. You are all welcome. It is lovely to see you again. It is your first time here in this capacity.

We have received your written submission on the Bill. Our intention is to hand over to you for opening remarks for about 10 minutes, and then we will move to members' questions. As we always do with the Bill, we will work through its Parts in order. We note from your submission that you have a couple of other issues, so we will touch on those if members have questions. We may raise some issues that come up in the amendments. We will work through it in that order, if that is OK with you.

Mrs Sinead Simpson (Northern Ireland Policing Board): Yes. Perfect.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is lovely. Sinead, I will hand over to you.

Mrs Simpson: Thank you, Chair and members, for the invitation to give evidence to the Committee today and for your warm welcome, Chair. You have done the introductions, so I will not go over them. I probably will not need the full 10 minutes, which is, hopefully, good news; I know that you have a lot to get through. Five or six minutes may suffice.

Chair, you and Maurice have first-hand experience of the oversight role that the board performs, the breadth of work that falls within its statutory duties and the conscientiousness with which its political and independent members carry out that scrutiny work through the its committee structure and wider board structures. You will be aware that we do not get involved in operational matters. The board has provided a written response on some elements of the Justice Bill. We are pleased to be here today to discuss clauses 22 and 23 and other elements of the Bill that we have offered comment on and to give you a flavour, if helpful, of the discussions that led to our response. We are happy to take questions at the end. I will just say, Chair, that it is a chunky piece of legislation to scrutinise, and we do not envy your task.

The board welcomes clause 22. It enables the board to delegate functions to officials. Board members appreciate the clarity that it provides post the Charity Commission ruling. The board is considering a scheme of delegations to underpin clause 22. Unfortunately, I cannot advise you of the exact specifics of that scheme, as it is still being considered by committees. It will, hopefully, be debated at the board next week. I can, however, give you a sense of the direction of travel. In a situation where we have a fully constituted board, the delegation through officials will be extremely limited. When we do not have a fully constituted board, there will be some delegation, but, again, it will be limited. I am happy to unpack that with you during questions.

Similarly, the board welcomes clause 23. It gives effect to a Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) recommendation and brings us into line with England and Wales. Most important, it removes some overlap and duplication from the system. Again, we are happy to elaborate on that.

In the greater scheme and context of the Bill, they are quite straightforward clauses. We do not foresee any particular issues for us in implementing them, other than the issue with clause 22 that I mentioned on the scheme of delegations.

I now turn to biometric retention and the other elements on which we offered some comment. The board recently agreed a policing plan that is all about the PSNI being victim-, community- and workforce-focused. We therefore support much of the content of the Bill, because it underpins those three themes. On the specifics, we have indicated in our submission that the board supports having a biometric retention regime. It is an issue that our human rights adviser has raised in numerous reports, noting the need for legislative change in that area. As the main accountability body for the PSNI, we want to ensure that there is a legal framework in place that is human rights-compliant, but the board has not sought to comment on the specific framework that is proposed in the Bill, as it is not within our competence to do so. We note, however, that it represents a graduated response and that account will be taken of the type of offence, the outcome and the age of the individual, as you know.

We know that the PSNI is keen to work with the Committee, the Justice Department and stakeholders to deliver on all aspects of the Bill in a way that maintains confidence in policing. I will come to the implications of the Bill for policing in a moment.

The board supports the concept of a biometrics commissioner for Northern Ireland. We have, in successive human rights reports and other reports, called for that, because there needs to be independent scrutiny of the retention system. There is a need for an independent office to provide the public with assurance and confidence that the system for acquiring, retaining, using and destroying biometric data for criminal justice and policing purposes is lawful, effective and ethical. The board believes that that role needs to be performed by an independent office.

I am sure, Chair, that you are being bombarded with information, but, if it would be helpful, we have human rights annual reports or reports that are specifically on privacy and policing, sections of which would be helpful to the Committee. If you do not already have those, we are happy to share them with you. We are happy to talk a bit more and answer questions. Our human rights adviser is also happy to come back to the Committee, if that would be helpful, because some of the subject matter is complex and we are not human rights experts. Sections of those reports talk about the basics of gathering biometrics and the databases on which they are held. You may have that information, but, if you do not, we can send it to you.

The board supports the introduction of the bail and custody provisions in Part 2. Board members share the desire for custody to be a last resort for children. The Committee has had detailed briefings from children's sector organisations, and we do not wish to get into areas that are within their competence. The focus of the board, along with the PSNI, will be on the implementation of those provisions and the issues that they raise for the PSNI. A theme for us in a number of the Bill's Parts is how the PSNI will give effect to the provisions, what training and guidance will be needed to do so and what the cost implications for its IT systems will be. That will be our focus.

The board supports and recognises the need for change and the potential impact that the introduction of live links could have on the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system. However, during their discussion, board members recognised that efficiency cannot be the only driver. The board notes the issues and concerns that were raised by consultees and organisations that gave evidence on consent, privacy and capacity to participate. While we recognise the need for change, we want to ensure that those concerns are addressed effectively. As the main accountability body for policing, we want to make sure that as much as possible has been done to take on board people's concerns so that the PSNI is not implementing a regime that is still facing a lot of criticism.

Those are the only comments that I will make on specific chunks of the Bill. For us, as I mentioned, the implications for policing more generally need to be considered. The board and its members support the Justice Bill, and I do not want to say anything that takes away from that. We need to have further discussions with the police about the Bill's operational implications, its implications for their computer systems, the Niche changes that they will need to make, the training implications, the procedural and guidance changes that will be necessary and the cost of all of that. We know that a lot of the changes are needed to bring the regime to a state in which it is human-rights compliant. Obviously, we have no issue with that, but we need to understand the implications of those changes. As you know, policing is a very stretched service, as are a lot of services, so we need to talk through with the police how they will take on board the changes. As with any new legislation, there is a resourcing impact that we need to be mindful of, and the Committee has been strong on giving cognisance to that.

As well as welcoming the Bill on their behalf, as I have done, board members would want me to mention other changes that are not included in the Bill, including improvements to the police misconduct arrangements and vetting procedures and the policies on ill-health retirement, injury on duty (IOD) and assaults on police officers and other emergency staff. I know that you have a big job to do and that today is about the Justice Bill, but board members would not forgive me if I did not mention those issues.

I have tried to keep it brief, Chair and members, because I know that you will have questions. I am happy to take questions. Thank you.

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

Justin, I say this for your benefit, as you have just joined us. As usual, we will first work through the Bill's Parts. We will then go through the issues that the Policing Board has raised and the amendments. If you want to come in on anything, just indicate as usual.

Miss Hargey: Thanks very much for the paperwork. It would be good to get the human rights reports as well, because that is a theme that the Committee is looking at. Any perspective on that from the Policing Board would be really useful.

You have welcomed the implementation of the retention periods for the biometric data. From a human rights point of view, we are looking at whether that is proportionate and necessary and whether it strikes the right balance. What is your view on the retention periods in the Bill? Obviously, I agree with the broad thrust and direction of the Bill, but do you have a perspective on those periods? Are there any changes to the provisions that the board would suggest? Have you identified any gaps?

Mrs Simpson: The board does not have a perspective on the 75/50/25 time frames. From the board's perspective, the PSNI is operating in the absence of any regime at the moment. I know that Anthony McNally was with you recently and will have explained the procedures that the PSNI has in place. The board has purposely not taken a view on that. Once the Bill's provisions are implemented and a biometrics commissioner is in place, we will want to make sure that our human rights monitoring work dovetails with whatever arrangements are in place. That will be our mechanism for exploring whether that regime is effective or whether changes are needed. My perspective on whether the graduated approach is proportionate comes down to each case and whether 25 years can be justified in a case versus 50 years. As a board, we have purposely not taken a perspective on that, so it would be wrong for me to offer one.

With regard to other changes, the answer is no. A reflection that came out of the privacy and policing report that we did a couple of years ago was that the whole world of biometrics is fast-changing. We have fingerprints, DNA and photographs: what will be next? I do not have the answer, but the challenge is to make sure that what we put in place is as future-proofed as possible. That is why the board was so supportive of the role of the biometrics commissioner: when we did that report, which Adrian McNamee took through his committee, we brought over Fraser Sampson, the then Scottish Biometrics Commissioner. From the conversations and the presentation of that report publicly, it became obvious to us how complex and fast-moving this world is but also how up for a conversation the police were, because they recognise, as do the board, that we are in a world in which you are trying to balance crime prevention and crime detection against the ethics of gathering data and the infringement of people's rights. An ongoing conversation is important, but there are no changes that we would recommend, because having a commissioner in place would help to achieve that.

Miss Hargey: I have questions on that I will come back to. We had the commissioner from Scotland in giving evidence, and he talked about proportionality and necessity. He said that, by their very nature, police services would hold everything, which is not what we want either. For us, it is about trying to strike the right balance. That is the point that we are trying to reach.

Mrs Simpson: My experience, as someone who is working with the senior team at the moment, is that they want to work with others when they are in the space of having to balance those rights, particularly in Northern Ireland. They get how important it is, so I have no doubt from our conversations as part of the privacy and policing report a few years ago that they are up for the conversation and want to get it right.

Miss Hargey: When you are sending the other documents, will you also send that report?

Mr Adrian McNamee (Northern Ireland Policing Board): Yes.

Mrs Simpson: There is a report on privacy and policing, but maybe we will pull out the relevant sections rather than give you the whole report.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Yes, please do. I have seen the human rights reports.

Mrs Simpson: The Chair has had the joy of reading them. We will pull out the relevant sections.

Miss Hargey: That is brilliant, thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That would be helpful, thank you.

Danny, are you indicating that you want to speak on biometrics?

Mr Baker: I am. This follows on from what Deirdre said. Police Scotland takes biometric data from people under the age of 18 only if they are arrested for violent or sexual offences. Does the Policing Board feel that serious consideration should be given to applying that practice here? I take the points that you have made so far, but I would like to know whether you are having those conversations.

Mrs Simpson: We are not currently having those conversations, Danny. Apologies if I end up saying this a lot — I am not trying to be unhelpful — but the board does not have a position on that. We have not been debating it. However, I have no doubt that, as the conversation about the implementation of the Justice Bill goes on and there are developments elsewhere, we will have that conversation. We are a 19-member board that contains representatives of different political parties and independents. There could be a vast array of views on issues such as that. Unfortunately, I cannot offer a perspective from the board on that issue, but I am sure that we will have those conversations.

Our human rights adviser helps us to discharge our section 3 duties, which are to monitor the Police Service's compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998. As the years go by, I fully envisage that being an issue because we will see developments in other places. We will instigate conversations on whether they are appropriate moves for us to consider for Northern Ireland, but, right now, it is not something that the board has a view on.

Mr Baker: OK, thank you.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you, Sinead. In recommendation 6(e), the board suggests the appointment of an investigatory powers commissioner. Will you outline the requirement for a local commissioner and the powers that, you think, they should hold? The Bill does not reference the inclusion of photographs or images. The PSNI, as we are aware, holds 182,000 images as biometric data. Does the board feel that those items, which are universally accepted as constituting biometric data, should be included in the Bill?

Mrs Simpson: Taking the first one, we made that recommendation in one of our reports, but I cannot remember which one.

Mr McNamee: Privacy and policing.

Mrs Simpson: The privacy and policing one. The role and powers are already in legislation. The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 sets out the arrangements for the Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office (IPCO), which is Sir Brian Leveson's office. There is already provision in that for a range of inspectors. We recommended in our privacy and policing report that one of those be dedicated to Northern Ireland. Its powers are set out in that legislation. We are not suggesting a whole new office; we are suggesting a focus by one of the investigators in that office on Northern Ireland, because, obviously, there is a particular history here.

Over the past 18 months, the board has dealt with the surveillance of journalists and others and has had to put in place a number of strands of work around that. There is already a process in place; it is just about having a dedicated focus on Northern Ireland. That was what the recommendation related to. I reiterate what I said at the start: if it would be helpful to come with our human rights adviser to unpack that in a wee bit more detail than I am able to provide, we would be happy to do that.

The issue of photographs was not debated by the board, but I understand that they are considered by the PSNI to be biometric material. It is my understanding that they are included, but that had not been debated by the board at the time that we provided our response to you. I cannot see why they would not be included.

Ms Ferguson: OK, thank you.

Mr Beattie: I think that my question was answered, but I will ask another quick one: will you try to outline what, you think, the relationship would be like between the Policing Board and the biometrics commissioner? Would they have a role on the Policing Board, other than as an external advising body, to ensure that the Policing Board — this is a big piece of work — is kept fully up to speed with developments in biometrics?

Mrs Simpson: Thanks, Doug. That is a really good question. We were chatting with John Wadham earlier about that issue. We have a statutory duty to work with all the other organisations that are in the world that we are in. None of us wants to duplicate work. As I mentioned in answer to one of the earlier questions, we will continue with our annual human rights monitoring work, and we will then do specific pieces of work, if the performance committee or board members want us to.

If we are in a situation in which a biometrics commissioner is in place, I fully anticipate us working in collaboration with them. I imagine that our human rights adviser would have regular conversations with the biometrics commissioner and that we, as a board, would probably wish to invite them to one of our monthly board meetings to talk about their work. In order for us to discharge our section 3 duties on monitoring human rights, we do not want to go in and overlap in that world, but we want to take assurance from it. It is a bit like what is going on around surveillance. We want to take assurance from what Angus McCullough is doing and what IPCO is doing in its world. There would, absolutely, be collaboration.

Mr McNamee: We have a bit of experience in how the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner works with the Scottish Police Authority. This time last year, John Wadham, our human rights adviser, and I attended a meeting between the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner and the Scottish Police Authority to see how they work together and complement each other. We have been looking at that. They are complementary roles. As you said, it is a wide area with all the new technology coming in, and it is one on which we could work together to assist each other.

Mr Beattie: You have answered my question quite well. My concern is about ensuring that you work together and that there is no conflict or duplication. However, when you have a biometrics commissioner as well as the Police Ombudsman, the Policing Board, the Police Service and the DOJ, all of which are looking at the same thing from different angles, I wonder how that relationship will pan out, particularly when we are in a time of real flux around legacy. The Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) could well crumble, and we could be back to the legacy investigation branch (LIB). I am trying to understand what that relationship would be like, but you answered my question well.

Mrs Simpson: Doug, you are right: it puts an onus on all of us who work in the field of oversight, accountability and inspection to join up. None of us has the money or staff capacity to duplicate work. We always need to be conscious of the ongoing work streams of others.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I have a couple of questions about biometrics. One, which relates to an investigatory powers commissioner, has already been answered.

Sinead, in your opening remarks, you talked about costs. The board has a role to scrutinise the performance of the police and to advocate for the police. The Committee has concerns about the cost of a new IT system, because, thus far, we have not been able to get any kind of ballpark figure for the cost of developing and implementing a new IT system for biometrics. Has the board had any conversations internally or, indeed, with the police on that issue?

Mrs Simpson: On the general point that you make, board members will, absolutely, be in the same space. It is always difficult when new legislation is coming in and it is the right thing to do. You do not want to be in the position of arguing against it, but the practicalities are that it needs to be implemented and we need to find the money to make that happen. I have had conversations with Assistant Chief Constable (ACC) McNally to, I suppose, start the discussion. I am not sure whether the police are able to put an exact figure on that either.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): No. They are saying that they will not know until Royal Assent.

Mrs Simpson: Yes. It will be a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation until we know exactly. From a board perspective — you and Maurice will know how it works — through our resources committee, with, I imagine, a bit of overlap into our performance committee, we will have those conversations with the PSNI. From the conversation with Anthony, I understand that there might be some elements that it can absorb and that there might just be small changes to Niche. Some costings were done back in 2013, but the world has moved on a lot and we might be talking about vastly different costings now. For other areas where there are significant changes, the board would be happy to go through the business case with the police and provide support. I do not know whether the police are even at the point of putting an outline business case (OBC) to us or to the Department. If the board is persuaded that additional money and staff are required, it will be happy to support the police.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is fair enough. From our perspective — certainly mine — I have never experienced, even on council, a circumstance in which a principle has been agreed without the likely impact on the ratepayer/taxpayer having been costed. However, that is what we, as Members, are being asked to do. We are being asked to put our hands up for something that has not been costed and could run to many millions. The figure could rise as development progresses. Please, keep an eye on that.

Mrs Simpson: I have two points to make on that. Many of the changes are necessary because they bring us into line with European conventions. There are other elements from which some efficiencies could be derived — live links, for example — but I have not seen the detail around all of that. We want to get that from the PSNI before we take a firmer view on it.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Is the board confident that the police would be able to develop, deliver and implement the new IT system for biometrics in 18 months to two years, as envisaged?

Mrs Simpson: I cannot offer a board view on that. However, from the conversations that I have had with the PSNI, I know that it takes a long time to work up a business case, for the business case to go through the system and for the necessary checks to be done within the Department of Justice and the Department of Finance. I cannot say whether it can be done within 18 months. I know that everyone will work hard to make it happen within 18 months, but it will be extremely challenging.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Does anyone have anything further to ask on biometrics?

Connie, for your information, we are working through the Bill by subject matter, as we usually do. We will then cover the issues that the Policing Board has raised before moving on to the amendments.

Does anybody have anything further on biometrics? No.

We will move on to children's bail and custody. Danny is not there. Does anybody have anything on children's bail and custody? I do, so I will kick off; usually, I go at the end.

We can all buy into the principle that children should not be kept in custody unless there is absolutely no alternative. However, we are also aware of the fact that the proposals that were on the table for a safe place for children to be accommodated are no longer on the table due to financial constraints. The Bill means that a child will be released on bail, pretty much regardless, unless a series of very set circumstances applies. Does the board have any concerns about that? If a child is released on bail and there is no safe place and they are returned, that will have implications for the police and so on. Has the board expressed a view on that?

Mrs Simpson: The board's view is the one that we articulated. The board supports the principle that custody should be a place of last resort, as you said, Chair, on behalf of the Committee. As you just said, the practical implications of what that means and the difficult decisions and choices that PSNI officers will have to make daily as they encounter such situations is of worry to us. Again, it is one of the issues that we will want to unpack a wee bit more with the PSNI.

The Policing Board does not work daily with children or help them to navigate the system in the ways in which others who have given evidence to you will have done. We want to understand exactly what PSNI officers would have to do in certain circumstances and what choices they have available. This is a personal reflection, but we want to make sure that the options are clearer and that the PSNI officers are clear about what is available to them. We do not want them to, unjustifiably, come under criticism where they have had no choice or things are simply unclear. We want to avoid that situation. That is as much as I can say because, as a board, we did not get into that. I know that the PSNI has a governance group. I fully anticipate that, once the PSNI starts to unpack all of this a little more, we will have those conversations with the PSNI and such issues will come to the fore.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Does anybody else have a question on children's bail and custody? No.

Let us move on to live links.

Ms Ferguson: I was going to pass this question to Danny, but he is not here.

I have just one question, basically. What concerns does the board have about the use of live links and technology, particularly in relation to children and vulnerable adults?

Mrs Simpson: The issue was debated at committee; I will let Adrian come in on the detail. The board is supportive of live links. We hold the service to account. It is stretched. We know that there are efficiency savings to be had. The board has read the consultation papers and has heard, as you have, the concerns about children and young people that have been expressed by other organisations, and we want to make sure that those are effectively addressed. It is a bit like the issue around bail and custody that the Chair raised: we do not want the police to be responsible for administering a regime that people are not happy with or at least where there are no efforts being made to address some of those concerns. We want to make sure that they can be addressed. Adrian will go through some of the detail.

I and another colleague visited the family justice centre in Derry a couple of Mondays ago. We absolutely get the benefits of being able to remotely engage with the system in particular situations: for example, domestic abuse cases. What we were trying to convey was that it may not be that we, as the board, have concerns, because we do not work with children and young people, but we hear the strongly held views of others in the sector, and we want to make sure that they are addressed. I know that Adrian has a bit of detail on what they are.

Mr McNamee: When members discussed this in committee, they looked at the issues raised by others. Those are the issues that we referred to in our response to you around consent and people understanding exactly what is going on when using live links. The main one that came up was the need to make sure that consultation in private with legal representatives continues to happen and whether live links would impact on that in some way. Another issue was whether detainees would understand the proceedings and participate effectively in police interviews. There were also concerns around how it would affect children and young people and vulnerable groups. Those were the main issues that members highlighted when we were discussing the response.

Ms Ferguson: Is there currently any quality assurance in the existing use of live links? Have any issues arisen?

Mrs Simpson: I do not have that information to hand. We can look through our human rights reports and see whether John, our human rights adviser, has commented on that.

Ms Ferguson: It is positive, but there are concerns about young children and vulnerable adults, in particular, given the large increase in vulnerable people.

Mrs Simpson: We are mindful of that. Things seem to be or, perhaps, are good, but we want to make sure that there are no unintended consequences that we are not mindful of. Again, that is another area that we want to unpack a little more with Anthony in order to understand the implications. I listened to Anthony's evidence, and I know that he has some issues that he wants to thrash out in order to understand fully how it will work.

Mr McNamee: I am not aware of it having been raised with us in the last few years.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Including the issue of access to legal representation and the privacy around that? These are concerns that people have raised, as opposed to evidence that there has been a problem thus far.

Mr McNamee: Yes.

Mrs Simpson: Yes.

Mr Dunne: Thank you, folks, for the presentation so far and all the detail. You touched on listening to different groups with different views, and you mentioned the committee process. How do you know which group to listen to? Are there criteria? In the children and young people's sector, for example, like in any sector, there is a range of groups. You touched on a view that came forward. Are there any criteria for whom you select or listen to, or is it just whoever shouts the loudest?

Mrs Simpson: What I was referring to was the people who have given evidence on the Bill coming to the Committee. More generally in this field, I mentioned our section 3 duty around human rights, the work that our human rights adviser does and the reports that we produce on human rights monitoring. John and Adrian and his team engage widely with people who have a view. It is a bit like what the Committee has to do: you need to listen to the views of others and take an informed position. That is what we try to do at the board, supported by John's work.

Mr McNamee: As an example, before Christmas we launched a report on children and young people and policing. That was a year's research and maybe six months' engagement with all young people's representative groups across the board and taking their views. John did podcasts with young people. At the launch in early December, we had over 100 young people in the room with a police officer at each table going through the recommendations and what they meant for them. We tried to include as many people as possible. That is an example of how we take research forward.

Mr Dunne: That is helpful.

Miss Hargey: A big theme of the children and young people part is stigmatisation. Some of the stuff we are looking at in the Bill is about public order and what is appropriate, and we are still trying to get our heads around that. From that session, where you engaged directly with young people, did anything come up regarding their experiences or interaction with the police?

Mr McNamee: The biggest thing that came up was the police taking their mobile phones. If they had something on their phones, they did not want to give them to the police because it took so long for them to be returned. That was one of the big issues that young people came up with. When carrying out our research, we had discussions with young people about the PSNI's use of force, the age around stop and search, arrest and custody, and their interactions with the PSNI.

Miss Hargey: Is that report public?

Mr McNamee: Yes. We launched it in December. It is on our website, but we can send you a copy. There is a handy young person's version that is easy to read, or I can leave this copy with you.

Ms Ferguson: I assume, Adrian, that young people who have gone through youth justice and have been detained in a police station were part of the consultation.

Mr McNamee: Yes. We worked with a couple of youth groups that had been working with the police to give us access to people. We launched the report at St Peter's Immaculata youth centre in west Belfast, which facilitated those types of young people being able to engage with us on the research we were trying to do.

Mrs Simpson: We have a board member who works with a youth club in west Belfast, and she initiated a lot of that. The young people who engaged with us had experience of the system.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): If everybody is fine with live links, we will move on to the administration of justice, please. Who has got stuff there? I do.

The clause around delegation is fairly standard in local councils, so a number of us are familiar with that. It is helpful for the record, and you referred to it in your opening remarks. For the record, however, what things might be delegated, would they be temporary or permanent, and how would that work in practice? Just so we are all on the same page and clear about what that might mean and look like.

Mrs Simpson: I will caveat this by saying that we are still talking to members about that, but I am happy to give a flavour.

The first thing to say is that the construct of the board comes from Patten. We have political members and independent members, and we have important statutory duties. The sense from the conversation so far is that that is important and the board is an important body. That is the starting place for members with regard to delegation. If we have a functioning board, we do not need to delegate very much, if anything. There are one or two issues. For example, liquor licensing comes through the resources committee; that is very much a black-and-white administrative function, and that will possibly be delegated. Outside of that, no. If we have a functioning board and everybody is around the table, then no. So, extremely limited.

I am the accounting officer for the board, so the functions that would be discharged through the audit and risk assurance committee (ARAC) are not actually functions. ARAC operates like an adviser to me as the accounting officer. I obviously need to motor on and progress the annual report and accounts and the internal audit programme — all those elements of the corporate governance framework. There are other things for which we do not need to use this provision because they are not statutory functions, but other things, such as the drawdown in moneys to make sure that the PSNI gets money to pay its bills, come through us. However, I can do that anyway, as chief executive and accounting officer.

If we did not have a board, the delegated functions would include the ARAC work and the injury on duty and ill-health retirement cases that currently go through the committee. Those would need to be progressed by us as officials. Those are not viewed by members as being particularly high-risk, because the recent Chadwick and Harvison judgement told us that the doctor's assessment is final. There is nowhere to go on that anyway, so members would be happy for those to be delegated, if we did not have a functioning board. There might be other compensation cases involving a running court case that could not wait for a board to come back, so we might need to have delegated authority around those.

It is pretty limited. It is stuff that absolutely needs to be done to keep things moving. Our main function is holding the Chief Constable to account, so we would not take reports from the Chief Constable. We would not take new policy decisions. You might be able to give effect to a decision that a board had previously made, because you are just working through that. We might be able to launch things but not make decisions on things. That is a sense of the discussions to date.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Some of the financial settlements in legal cases can be sizeable sums. Do you envisage a delegated limit on some of those?

Mrs Simpson: Absolutely. A lot of those sums would be above my delegated limits. Even if there were a fully functioning board, those would go to the Department and onward to the Department of Finance. There are probably very few of them. They need to come through the board, but I would not have the authority to sign off on them anyway, because they could run into millions.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is helpful. It is good to have that in Hansard so that we are all clear about that, and so that Members who are not part of the Committee have that knowledge as well.

The second clause that relates to the board is about the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) and the Comptroller and Auditor General. Are there any consequences of the Policing Board's not being part of that process? Are there unintended consequences?

Mr McNamee: Clause 23?

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Yes.

Mr McNamee: No, I do not think so. It is a unique statutory function in Northern Ireland. It was repealed in England and Wales a number of years ago. The board supports the Audit Office's position on it. We see it as an area of simplification, because it is potentially duplicative, in that the Audit Office examines the board's annual report and accounts, which includes information around the policing plan, which it looks at in the continuous improvement audit. You also have His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) inspecting effectiveness and efficiency every year in the PSNI. We see this as a simplification, and we do not envisage any unintended consequences; it will be one less thing for us to do.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I understand. That is great. Thank you. Does anybody have anything further on the administration of justice? I will return to the separate issues that the Policing Board raised in that regard in its paper; I want to work my way through the Bill first.

Mr McNulty: Thanks, folks. Does the Policing Board have any concerns about the introduction of clause 22 regarding the delegation of functions? What functions are expected to be delegated?

Mrs Simpson: No, we do not — are you happy for me to answer, Chair?

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Briefly, Sinead. Justin, we have already covered some of that. Sinead covered some of it in her opening remarks and in answer to a question that I raised.

Mrs Simpson: To summarise, Justin, we do not have concerns. The clause enables the board to delegate. We now need to create a scheme of delegations, which will be, "This is what we will delegate when you have a functioning board, and this is what we will delegate when you don't". I was just saying to members that the starting point for board members is that, if we have a functioning board, we do not need to delegate to officials.

It will be pretty limited. There are some things that, if we do not have a board, will need to be delegated. There will be compensation cases that need to go through the board, as well as ill health, injury on duty cases and other small administrative issues, but we do not have concerns per se. We are still working it through our committees and our board, so I am not saying that we are there yet, but we have no concerns. In many ways, it clarifies things for us post-Charity Commission, so we are content to work our way through it.

Mr McNulty: Thank you. I have one more quick question. Sorry, I am having a few connection issues, so forgive me if this question has already been answered. What benefits do the board foresee from the removal of the requirement of the Comptroller and Auditor General to audit performance plans, and will there still be a suitable level of accountability and governance in the operation of the board?

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Yes, Justin, you have missed that. Adrian essentially said that it would avoid duplication. I had asked if there were any unintended consequences. Adrian said no, that it would avoid duplication and, more than that, a number of the board's functions and reports are still subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General, HMICFRS and, presumably, the Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) too, so there is no issue there and nothing will be lost. Is that OK? Does that give you some assurance?

Mr McNulty: Yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): OK. Does anybody have anything to add about the administrative justice that is in the Bill, or can we move on to the other points that the Policing Board has included in its submission? Are we content to move on?

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): OK, let us go there. Deirdre, do you have stuff on injury on duty?

Miss Hargey: Yes. It has come up. The Policing Board has been discussing it, and we have raised it with the Department. I am trying to work out what the process of engagement has been between the board and the Department about legislation coming forward to enable the transfer to take place. I would also be keen to hear your views on incorporating that enabling legislation in the Bill. The concern would be that, if it is not done, it may not fit within the other two Bills in this mandate and may not happen until the next mandate. I am keen to hear an update on those two issues about your engagement and your view on it.

Mrs Simpson: I will kick off and Sarah, who has recently taken over, will come in on any details or correct anything that I get wrong.

First of all, the board's position has been consistent and, hopefully, clear that we support the Audit Office recommendation from 2020 that the roles and responsibilities that we currently discharge should sit with the PSNI. I know that the Committee is aware of the huge scrutiny that there has been about how we administer ill health and injury on duty. Our reason for the move is similar to the Audit Office's rationale for the move. It is not because the work is a really busy and complex area, which it is; it is because, from an administrative point of view, it makes more sense for it to sit with the Chief Constable. It does not sit well with the functions of a board, and board members have been unanimous in that. There is also an issue with how we administer the scheme. Sarah can unpack that if you want.

With regard to engagement, this predates the Audit Office. I have been with the board only since 2021, so it predates me. There was a judgement from Justice Scoffield a number of years before the Audit Office report, but, since the report, there has been good engagement with the Department.

There were a number of elements to that report. Some minor changes needed to be made. There were issues around the case management system in the PSNI. There is a chunk of regulatory change needed, and then there are the structural issues, which is what you are referring to. There have been working groups that Sarah and her predecessors were involved in. There was a large chunk of regulatory change, which is absolutely needed. The case law, the judicial reviews and the legal issues that we have been dealing with over the last number of years are because the regulations need to be amended. They are open to interpretation and pose lots of issues. That needs to be sorted, so the consultation that the Department did on that last year, which we participated in, is much needed, and we appreciate that a lot of effort has gone into that.

It is fair to say that board members are frustrated at the lack of progress on that fourth element, which is structural change. I have had conversations. This takes up a lot of my time as chief executive, and that is fine. I have had conversations with the Chief Constable. He is keen to own this. He has no issues. Obviously, a lot needs to be worked through in terms of how you give effect to it. There is the appeal bit that sits with the Department. Does that come to us? Do we continue to be the pension scheme manager? Probably. There is the staffing issues. A lot needs to be worked through. Absolutely, a fundamental agreement across all parties that that is what we are working to is something that the board is keen on.

Miss Hargey: I just want to get a sense of that. The engagement is happening, but is there any sense of timescales? I support the transfer, but I am conscious that we should not try to put it in a Bill if it is not ready, but my concern is that it will then be thrown back into the next mandate. That will just delay it, and the problems will persist. I am just trying to get a sense of timescales. If this has been ongoing even since before the Audit Office report, will it be beyond the next mandate?

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Just before you answer that, Sinead, we also want to bear in mind that, when we took evidence from the Department, it said that the board had not requested this, which was a source of astonishment to the rest of us. We sought clarity on that because we understood that, most certainly, the board did request this. In that context, please give Deirdre an answer.

Mrs Simpson: We wrote to the Justice Department after that, and copied it to the Justice Committee, because we were not aware that there was a gap in communications on that, to put it that way. When I say that it has been ongoing since even before the 2020 audit report, I mean that it has been ongoing in the sense that people have been raising it as an issue. Then you had the Audit Office report. Obviously, there are chunks of work that need to be gone through in order to deliver on each of those. From the Department's point of view, it is working through that third element, the regulatory change, which is needed. There have been some conversations at the steering groups around structural change — I should let Sarah speak, actually — but there is due to be a steering group in June at which it is our hope we will start to get to a project plan, we will know what end date we are working to around the structure, and we will be able to work back from it and see the milestones.

Miss Hargey: You do not have that yet.

Mrs Simpson: I do not have that yet, no. I know that the Department is working on it.

Ms Sarah Reid (Northern Ireland Policing Board): The need for regulatory change is a priority. The regulations are loose and are resulting in legal cases that we have had to take forward over the past number of years. I will give you an example. With regard to things like the implementation date, the regulations are silent. That is causing us a lot of legal issues where the selected medical practitioner (SMP) — the doctor — has had to take the decision on when to say that an ex-officer became permanently disabled. That is not sustainable, and doctors are not happy to be doing it. From my point of view, if we are going to facilitate the movement, we want to do so tidily, where there is a tightening of regulations and we are not moving problems from one organisation to another. As Sinead said, the current arrangements are that there are three organisations involved in this process. In all our work that we are doing, and all the engagement that we are having on this, we have to ensure that the people whom we serve are at the centre of our discussions. They are having to go through three different organisations. Their data is transferring between three different organisations. Getting the regulations right is absolutely paramount. That will put us in better standing to actually move the functions.

Miss Hargey: My last question is on that part of it. You said that the consultation was last year. Have you seen any new proposed draft regulations from the Department, or have you not had sight of anything?

Ms Reid: No. Like us, the Department has had significant resourcing challenges. That work has taken a bit longer than expected. We understand that it wants to come to any steering group fully prepared with a project initiation document on next steps. We are slightly behind on seeing draft regulations, but we know and have agreed as part of the consultation the areas that definitely need a focus.

Mrs Simpson: From a board perspective, board members would have wished that there would have been enough resources around the system in Justice and for us that would have allowed those big chunks of work around regulatory change and structural change to happen at the same time.

That would have been the desire of members. As you said, Policing Board members are conscious of when the next opportunity could come if we lose the opportunity in this mandate. Board members met the Minister in October or November and had that conversation. The Minister said that it would not be possible. Members then reluctantly said, "Can we at least be shelf-ready for next mandate?", although their preference would definitely have been for it to have been in this mandate.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): In practical terms, there is, obviously, a situation of having paper records rather than an IT system. We are aware of the difficulties that that causes for everybody concerned. Have there been any discussions about, or progress on, the development or procurement of an IT system for the records?

Mrs Simpson: A bit of digitisation is going on. Sarah will, maybe, talk about that. There have been conversations about a case-management system that, if it moves to the PSNI, would dovetail with its system. To be honest, however, Chair, those conversations have been a bit stop-start. As you know, although Sarah is in post now, there has been a bit of flux in senior staff over the past year on our side of the business, which has meant that progress has not been as speedy as we would have liked. We put a bid into the Department for a little bit of money to bring in some expertise to scope out what is needed. That is not to say that we are not trying to digitise what we have — Sarah can talk about that — but we have put in a bid for the development of a case-management system that will, hopefully, drive some efficiencies in the way that we do things and generate more meaningful and useful management information to allow us to progress those cases more quickly.

I would like to think that we would be able to do some scoping work on that in this financial year, so that we could then move to the next stage. That would be work to help us to figure out what that system would look like, since we are not IT experts. We could then go to market to procure that system. Going to market for procurement is a cost that we could not absorb within our current budget. That would require us to make a bid to the Department.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Has any work — previously, even — been done on costings?

Mrs Simpson: Of an actual case-management system?

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Yes.

Mrs Simpson: I do not think so, Chair, but I can check. If it has been done, it would have been done a good number of years ago and would probably be very outdated by now. I will check that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): The problem is that this needs to be done, and it will need to be funded. If the function stays with you, you cannot fund it, but if the function moves to the police, it will need to be done by them, and they cannot fund it. That is another cost that needs to be accounted for, and the cost is not getting any less as time progresses.

Mrs Simpson: Do you want to speak about digitisation, Sarah?

Ms Reid: Yes. We are paper-based and have been for some time. You know about that, Joanne: you have probably seen that paper, although it is locked up in stores. That is not ideal. Paper transfer is not ideal. We receive paper from the PSNI, and that is not good. We have very strong governance arrangements in place, but it would be foolish to say that there is not a risk associated with that.

We are testing the Box system with new cases that come in. We have an information-sharing agreement between the PSNI's data protection officer (DPO) and our DPO to make sure that the governance is in place for that system. We will go live for new cases in the middle of May. As that progresses, if we see benefits — clearly, there will be benefits — we will start to digitise the records that we have filed in storage. That is a huge job, because we have thousands of files, but that is part of our plan.

Some work has been done to look at a specification to scope a case-management system. For everybody involved, we need to know the affordability of a case-management system. For everything that we need it to do, we need to consider whether it is affordable and value for money. We are not technical experts, so we are working on a specification to bring in a company of technical experts who can tell us what we need, how we can operate with it, how much it will cost and what type of organisation could deliver it for us.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Presumably, you cannot get information from forces across the rest of the UK, because their numbers are a fraction of ours.

Mrs Simpson: Yes. It just does not compare at all.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): OK, that is fair enough.

Does anybody have anything further to say on injury on duty? Ciara, I know that you want to come in on custody, but I want to work through these issues before bringing you in. I also have Maurice wanting to come in on the general issue.

Ms Ferguson: It is about the independent custody visiting scheme (ICVS), which is under other issues.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I will come to that. Before we head to ICVS, we have policing misconduct regulations. Does anybody have anything on that?

Mr Bradley: Yes. I have just read, in our pack, that that is not currently in the Bill. The length of time that it takes police misconduct issues to reach a conclusion concerns me. I have been involved in quite a few such cases over the years, including one that used regulation 13 that could have cost a young probationer their job although, thankfully, it did not. The length of time that it takes and the correspondence that is needed to get those cases over the line is exasperating. How do you think that that being included in the Bill could improve issues? Have you had any discussions with the Minister or the Department about having that as an amendment?

Mrs Simpson: The board made recommendations on that, and Adrian will keep me right on which report that was. I can say, however, that the board completely empathises with your comments, Maurice. We need to have an efficient misconduct regime. It is important to maintain public confidence in policing. It is important to maintain the reputation of policing. It is important to uphold high standards, deter misconduct and protect the public. A number of years ago, we made a number of recommendations in a report as to how that might be speeded up. The Department was receptive to that. Last May, we received correspondence from the Department, which we took to our committee. The Department engaged with us, as well as, I think, with a limited number of other stakeholders, to try to unpack some of the issues that we raised in our report, which was a couple of years before that. I understand that the intention is to set up a working group between the Department, the PSNI and possibly the Policing Board — we will have to discuss with board members whether we should be on that working group.

To speed the process up, you have to unpack and understand why it takes the time that it does. The issues that we raised in our report from a couple of years ago included that of who is appropriate to chair the misconduct hearings and whether having somebody who is legally qualified would help to speed it up. We talked about the interplay between misconduct and criminal hearings and about whether you have to wait for the criminal hearings to conclude before starting the public misconduct hearings. Other issues included joint proceedings, in which you can deal with more than one case against an officer at the same time. We mentioned a raft of things in that report. I understand, from the correspondence that went through committee last year, that the Department is looking at what it can do. I have no sense of it being included in this Bill and was not anticipating that it would be. As with IOD and ill health, the board wants to see ambition to get that into legislation soon.

Mr Bradley: Thanks very much. None of you have changed a bit, by the way.

Mrs Simpson: Thank you. Is that a good thing? [Laughter.]

Mr McNamee: I will just add to that, Maurice. The board did quite a lot of work on that, and, in November 2022, published a review of the professional standards and all the board's recommendations for what changes should be included.

Mr Bradley: Have those recommendations been implemented? That is the problem.

Mr McNamee: Not to date.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Can I check about the issue of the independent chair? I think that the Assistant Chief Constables (ACCs) do it currently and that the appeal mechanism is through the Chief Constable or Deputy Chief Constable — I am not sure which it is. There had, at one time, been discussion about having an independent chair, but England and Wales seem to be moving away from that position. Has there been a reassessment?

Mrs Simpson: Adrian can come in on that. As a board, we have not debated that hugely. From an event that I was at across the water, which was hosted by John Beggs, who you will remember, Chair, I know that they have moved away from that. There is a conversation around whether or not it was good that they did that. We made our recommendations a couple of years ago in that 2022 report. That will now be part of the conversation with the Department and the PSNI around the current thinking and the right thing to do on that. As Maurice said, we are all trying to speed up the system. We are trying to make sure that it is fair to the officers who go through it, but it needs to be swift if it is to be efficient. We will look at what the best practice is. I do not know whether there have been recent discussions.

Mr McNamee: No. You have covered it all.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): A question for us to ask the Department is whether it considered including that in the Bill, just so we can see where it is with that. The Committee will determine whether or not it wishes to amend some of those things. It is always helpful to see where the Department is on those things too. Is there anything else on misconduct, Deirdre?

Miss Hargey: I raised that issue with the Minister the other day on the back of the British Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, having moved reforms in that area. I asked whether there had been engagement, because the Government have laid those reforms in Westminster. You had communications as far back as last May, and there was talk of establishing a working group, but none of that has happened yet. I am keen to hear what the Department's response has been. When did the most recent engagement with the Department take place to look at those issues? Do you sense that there is a delay in progressing those matters? The recommendations from your report were made a few years ago and nothing has really moved. Westminster is moving ahead and has laid down reforms. What has the engagement been with the Department and when was the last engagement with the Department? Have you had a chance to look at Westminster's proposed reforms? One of the key areas is about confidence in policing, which is similar to here as well. I am keen to hear whether you have any initial views on those proposed reforms.

Mrs Simpson: I will check that I am not telling you a lie, but I am fairly certain that the most recent engagement was the one that took place through the Committee in May last year. The Department can explain for itself, but I know that the division with responsibility for that within the Department is also responsible for IHR and IOD and a number of other issues. I know that it has resourcing challenges, as many of the rest of us do.

We have not had a board discussion about the developments across the water, but, as officials, obviously, we have had a look at them. We made our pitch two years ago, but the world has moved on, and a lot of work was done by the PSNI. We have been overseeing that, looking back at historical cases to see whether or not they would meet the standard of the misconduct regime now that we have had Operation RORIC, which the PSNI took forward. We have had the Angiolini inquiry report. The HMICFRS came in and had a look at vetting, so a lot of work has been done. The bit that they have fixed across the water is that if an individual fails in-service vetting, they can be removed from service. That is a big step. Obviously, there needs to be proper process to test the allegations and what not. If we are now going to get round the table with the Department and others, post the conversations last May, we will want to have a conversation with board members in order to put that issue on the table. It is fresh issue since we had the conversation with the board in November 2022. Do you want to add anything, Adrian?

Mr McNamee: You referred to the vetting issues. The Home Secretary brought that change in, and it will take effect from 14 May, so it is fairly recent. We have not had an opportunity to discuss that with our members.

Miss Hargey: I accept that. It was only in April.

Mr McNamee: Yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): OK?

Miss Hargey: If we are corresponding with the Department, I will be keen to see whether there is a timeline for that work and whether it is considering the measures that have been brought in at Westminster. I am keen to know what the timescales are for that to be done.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Are members content to agree to those two queries to the Department thus far?

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I am conscious of time, so we will move on. If we can limit preambles, that will be helpful. I want to move on to the ICV scheme. Ciara, you wanted in on this, and then I have a couple of questions on that.

Ms Ferguson: I have one quick one. The proposed legislative change is for custody visitors to have access to custody records. What conversations has the board had with the Department and what are the thought processes? Could that be included in the Justice Bill?

Mrs Simpson: To answer your last question, I do not know whether the work is sufficiently progressed for it to be included in the Bill. At the outset, I will say that the independent custody visitor scheme — I am not sure whether everybody is familiar with it — is a really important scheme. It is run by a group of volunteers, but they are an important part of the human rights monitoring framework. They go into detention facilities and custody suites and check on the conditions and on whether or not detainees are being afforded all the rights that they have. The issue is that, if they do not have consent from the detainee, they cannot talk to them and cannot check their record. That can happen if the detainee is sleeping. If a detainee is awake and they can get the consent, that is fine, but, if he or she is sleeping or is incapacitated for another reason, they cannot. For us, the ability of the scheme to meet its obligations is a big issue. It is also part of the national preventative mechanism, so it is really important to us that it functions.

We have had good conversations with the Department. When we raised the issue with it, it was responsive. Just last month, there was a meeting between departmental officials, the Department's legal advisers, us and our human rights adviser. I know from that conversation that the Department now wants to seek the views of the PSNI, the Human Rights Commission and the NIO, which were the legislators of the original Act. It is maybe worth highlighting to you the fact that that provision is not contained in the legislative provisions across the water. I do not know whether that will prove to be an issue. We have raised the issue. We unpacked and it and explained it in that meeting, and the Department, understandably, now wants to take the views of others. It will then want to have a conversation with the Minister. Based on that, I am not sure that it has progressed significantly to enable it to be included in this Bill. If it could be, that would be great.

Our custody visitors had been checking just over 90% of custody records, and one of the impacts has been that, when that issue was flagged and we had to amend our procedures, that has now halved. I am not saying that there are not massive issues. The PSNI is alive to its responsibilities. The ICVS provides an important function, with a report into us each year. If there are issues, it will flag them, and we then discuss them with the PSNI. It is an important function. The fact that the scheme exists in the first place is a deterrent to people not adhering to their responsibilities. There has been good engagement, but I do not know that it has sufficiently progressed to be included.

Ms Ferguson: You gave percentage figures on the decrease in the checking of custody records. Can you give us that in numbers?

Mrs Simpson: I do not have the numbers; I only have percentages, but I will the get those for you.

Ms Ferguson: That would be useful to get the scale.

Mrs Simpson: I see what you mean. You want to know what number that 91% is of. It might only have been reduced by three or four people. It will not have been that. I will get you the figures.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you. I think that it might be important for the Committee to follow up with the Department post the range of engagements that have taken place. As you said, there was a positive response. It is just to see what the Department's intentions are. Is it going to come forward, maybe?

Mrs Simpson: I am here, obviously, to advocate for the board's issues. This is having an impact on our ability to deliver a scheme, which is a statutory duty. It is an important part of a national preventative mechanism. If this is a small change to the Bill that could be accommodated, that would be brilliant, but I just do not know.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): May I check one thing around this issue, Sinead, please? I am not familiar with what information is included in custody records. If you know that, it would be helpful for us to know so that we have a context for this. I am wondering about the privacy issues and the rights of the detained person to have their records looked at in circumstances where they are either unable to consent because of capacity issues or because they are not available.

Mrs Simpson: I do not know offhand, but I will come back to you on that point. I do not have with me the letter that we wrote to the Department, but that might be included in it, so I will come back.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Of course, I understand that this is in the detainee's interests, but, still, it should be their choice.

Mrs Simpson: That exactly highlights it. You have put your finger on exactly why this is a complex area. We are trying to balance a number of rights and duties here. I do not know whether it is included. Is it, Adrian?

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): No problem. You can come back to us in writing. That is helpful.

I am conscious of time, and we have the representatives of the Bar outside. Maurice, has your general issue been covered?

Mr Bradley: It has been covered now.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is grand.

On the amendments to the Bill, you guys have commented on the serious organised crime aspects. You said that you support the additional amendments. Do you envisage any issues for the PSNI that might have an impact on the board?

Mrs Simpson: As we have said, we need to have conversations with the PSNI to fully understand how it will bring those provisions into effect. We do not foresee any issues. Serious and organised crime features in the new five-year policing plan. We have measures to address child criminal exploitation, the threat posed by terrorism, paramilitaries and serious and organised crime, and the board will view it as an additional tool in the toolkit. However, we want to have further discussions with the PSNI. The PSNI has lobbied for the measures, so I do not anticipate any issues with taking them forward. However, it is another couple of potential charges on the charge sheet, and there will need to be communication with staff as well as training and guidance, and that will all need to be unpacked.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I have two further questions. One relates to AccessNI filtering. Do you envisage any repercussions for the potential vetting of PSNI recruits? The second question is about the repeal of the vagrancy legislation, which you indicated that you support. Some Committee members have concerns about the repeal of the legislation because of the antisocial behaviour that may ensue. The Department has indicated that the councils can have by-laws, but many of us with practical experience of council by-laws understand that, often, very little is done or can be done because it needs people on the ground and there are no resources for that.

Our other concern is that the PSNI has indicated to some extent that, where there is a report of aggressive begging or antisocial behaviour as a result of that, it will come to investigate. We also have some concerns about organised begging and the potential for trafficking. If the PSNI does not come to those circumstances, there is the potential for a lost opportunity to refer and help people who have been trafficked. Nobody wants to criminalise homelessness, but there is a potential for the loophole to be exploited by nefarious people, and we want to avoid that. I am conscious that, while the police may be willing to come, there may not be the resources because we are aware that the PSNI does not attend to some crimes already.

Has the board had a conversation about the impact on policing resources? Do you see a potential issue with trafficking? Do you envisage a potential upturn in antisocial behaviour? It is potentially difficult for you to express an opinion, but has the board considered those issues?

Mrs Simpson: The board needs to have ongoing conversations with the PSNI about all the implications, including the training, guidance and IT. I cannot speak for the PSNI. We all know the resourcing challenges it faces, and some hard calls are currently being made. It is my understanding that the PSNI intends to go to those potential trafficking cases. If offences are being committed, the PSNI will attend. I get the point you have made, Chair.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Presumably the by-laws issue affords the PSNI an out?

Mrs Simpson: From conversations with the ACC in charge, it is my understanding that, if an offence is committed, the PSNI will respond. We have not discussed the issue, but my personal reflection is that some of it may sit outside the offences: for example, a genuine case of homelessness. There is work going on in the PSNI, along with the Departments of Health and Justice, called the Right Care, Right Person programme, which I am sure the Committee has been briefed on. Some of the concerns might fall into that space.

You could be dealing with some of the issues that you have described, but you could also be dealing with issues that are not for the PSNI to deal with but that it deals with currently, and others need to step up. I will not waste your time by offering personal opinions. We can certainly make sure that that is on the table when we have conversations. I take your general point: resources are thin. What does that mean for the practical outworkings of this? If you remove that legislation, what will that mean on the ground? I have no doubt that members will be happy to keep that on the table.

I do not know the answer to your question about Access NI filtering. The vetting system for new officers is quite robust. To the best of my knowledge, Access NI is for particular posts. The vetting system for the PSNI involves more than Access NI. I am not 100% sure. I do not think that those changes will have any effect on the vetting of PSNI officers, but I will check, in case I am wrong.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is fair enough. Thank you. Does anybody have anything further to add, or are we good? We are all good.

Folks, thank you so much. You will appreciate that, if we hear further from the police, there may be other issues on which we need to correspond with or speak to you. Presumably, that is fine, and we will hear from you anyway on those other issues.

Mrs Simpson: That is no problem. As I said, we will send the documents or the extracts that we promised to send. Our human rights adviser is more than happy to come and talk to you. Just to be sure of that, we chatted to him this morning before we made the offer. We all get how complex the Bill is and that the burden rests with you in trying to navigate your way through it, so, if we can help, we will be happy to do that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is really great. Thank you so much. Lovely to see you all. All the very best.