Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): We have Debbie Corry, who, just to remind members, is head of the organised crime unit; Lorraine Ferguson-Coote is head of the criminal policy unit — hi, Lorraine, welcome back; and Fiona Scullion, head of policing strategy and engagement. Fiona, long time no see. [Laughter.]

Right, that is great. We are going to look at the Crime and Policing Bill legislative consent memorandum (LCM). We will have oral evidence from the Department.

We have considered the proposal for the LCM provisions in the Crime and Policing Bill over a number of meetings. The first issue relates to registered sex offenders. At last week's meeting, we agreed to seek further information from the Department on whether the requirement to notify could act as a deterrent; details of the categories of offender and whether they relate to offence or risk; and whether all categories of offenders would be treated the same after 15 years. The Department's response is in the tabled papers.

We also asked the PSNI for clarification on whether it would inform a partner of a registered sex offender who had been discharged from notification requirements that they had previously been on the register. We have not yet received a response from the PSNI, but, as soon as we do, it will be circulated, although that puts us in some difficulty, I think.

I have introduced the officials. They are here to respond to any queries so that we can make a determination on where we are with the LCM. Folks, you are very welcome. Thank you very much. I do not know whether you wish to make any opening remarks or want to go straight to questions.

Ms Debbie Corry (Department of Justice): I am happy to give a brief overview, if that is helpful, or go straight to questions. I will do whichever the Committee would find more helpful.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is fair enough, Debbie. Are members content to hear a brief overview, or do you want to go straight to questions? Are you happy with an overview? Yes? That is agreed. You are up, Debbie.

Ms Corry: Thank you. I will keep this brief, you will be glad to hear.

The Bill is at Report Stage in the Commons. You will wish to note that, as with the earlier Bill, a revised version of the Crime and Policing Bill has just been published. We have checked it, and there are no substantive amendments to any of the measures that require legislative consent. The Executive, at their meeting on 15 May, considered a paper and agreed that the legislative consent memorandum for the Bill could be laid, and it was laid the next day.

I will move quickly on to the measures that are included in the legislative consent motion. We had initially proposed to introduce 11, but, because one measure is still subject to ongoing policy development, that figure has been reduced to 10. That one measure is in clause 95, which is about expanding the lawful purposes for which the police can use the GB Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency driver licence database. Colleagues will write to provide the Committee with an update on that when it is available, but I must be clear that that measure is not included in the current request for the legislative consent motion.

The 10 measures for which the Minister seeks legislative consent are a new offence of cuckooing; provision to extend the scope of the current offence of possession of a paedophile manual; provisions relating to the management of sex offenders that aim to strengthen and streamline the current sex offender notification requirements; a new offence of spiking; a new offence of encouraging or assisting self-harm; offences relating to electronic devices for use in vehicle theft; reform of the existing confiscation regime for proceeds of crime under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002; introduction of cost protections relating to proceeds of crime in civil proceedings; a regulation-making power for implementation of international law enforcement information-sharing agreements; and criminal liability when a senior manager commits an offence whilst acting in the scope of their actual or apparent authority for all crimes.

We hope that, subject to a satisfactory report from the Committee and with the Justice Minister's agreement, the legislative consent motion will be laid by mid-June and the debate held before the summer recess.

The Committee will be aware that there will be at least one further request for a legislative consent motion on the Bill. That will include an additional measure that falls to the Department of Health, which will come forward at the Health Minister's request. We will provide the Committee with a further written paper on that in late June or early September. The measures that we seek consent on today are those that I have outlined. The Bill is scheduled to receive Royal Assent towards the end of the year.

I hope that that was helpful. I am happy to take questions.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is great, Debbie, thank you very much.

Miss Hargey: Again, thanks very much for the update. I was going to ask you about a second LCM, but there will be no second LCM, as was highlighted before, coming from Justice; it will come from Health.

Ms Corry: No, sorry, there will be a second LCM coming from Justice, and it will include the Health measure.

Miss Hargey: OK. Justice will bring that forward, and we will have sight of that.

Ms Corry: Yes, you will indeed.

Miss Hargey: Will it go to Health at the same time? Will there be a dual process?

Ms Corry: I believe so. I believe that policy colleagues in the Department of Health have written to their Committee about the measure. They have also engaged with their Minister, and he has written to our Minister to seek her agreement to bring it forward. That will be very clearly laid out in any future papers so that there is clarity on where responsibility lies.

Miss Hargey: What is the measure? Do you know now what the measure is that will be coming forward? Could we get a copy of the letter that was sent to the Health Committee?

Ms Corry: We will include information on the measure in the paper that is due to come to the Committee around the end of June, if you are content with that. I believe that it has to do with the removal of supervision exemption from the definition of regulated activity. It is quite a specific measure, but we will provide information on that in the written paper that comes to the Committee in due course.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Yes, because a second LCM is, essentially, starting again. We will need to consider all those individual measures.

Ms Corry: Exactly.

Miss Hargey: I just want to be aware of what is coming down the line. I suppose that, at this point, you do not anticipate any further LCMs.

Ms Corry: It is hard to know. At this point, we envisage that seven measures, including the Department of Health one, will require legislative consent. Whether they come together in one LCM or need to be grouped in separate LCMs will depend on when the Home Office table those amendments. There are also two or three policy areas on which officials are having very early conversations to see whether there are additional measures that could be extended to Northern Ireland, but how those are grouped going forward will very much depend on when the measures are added to the Bill by amendment.

Miss Hargey: OK. I appreciate that, thank you. My other question pertains to your letter, which is in our tabled pack, dated 28 May. It was the Department's response and clarification on categories around sex offences and stuff. It talked about an "own motion review" that would be triggered after 15 years. What are the criteria for triggering that, and who triggers it? I do not need all of that today, but maybe you could send that clarification to the Committee. I know that the Human Rights Commission raised points pertaining to that area, so I would be keen to see what the process is for triggering it at the 15-year point. Is it the police and, if so what are the criteria, or is it the individual? A bit more clarity would be helpful. Thank you.

Ms Lorraine Ferguson-Coote (Department of Justice): That is in my domain. There is already an ability to appeal. A review and discharge scheme operates under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. That came about as a consequence of a UK Supreme Court ruling that indefinite notification periods breached article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The remedial action taken was to legislate, and all UK jurisdictions did that at a similar time so that there was consistency across the board in the management of sex offenders. That has been operating since 2013, and it relates to a sex offender who is subject to indefinite notification, which applies to sex offenders who are convicted or otherwise of a specified offence for 30 months — two and a half years — or more: at the 15-year point from the adult's initial notification to the police — eight years if they were a juvenile at the time of initial notification — they are eligible to apply to the police to review that period. The police then consult their public protection agency colleagues on the risk and assess the other pieces of information and intelligence that they have as part of the local risk assessment processes that are ongoing. They assess whether that person qualifies: whether they are low risk. They will look only at category1, which is the low-risk offenders. That is the current process. If the police consider that there is a low risk, they will discharge and notify that person, but they can refuse that. At the moment, the police have a challenge in the High Court. A sex offender is challenging the application scheme. The police are challenging the application to come off notification. They are saying, "No, there is a risk". They take it on a case-by-case basis.

The provision for an own motion review scheme will bolster the existing scheme. It will run in parallel. The framework is almost identical. The person can still appeal, obviously, and, for the application scheme, that is heard at the High Court. The Human Rights Commission had a query on whether a person could still apply. They can, because this will run in parallel. It was to enhance the effectiveness of resourcing in the police management of sex offenders, and the impetus for that came from Mick Creedon, who is a former Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary. He carried out a review in England and Wales, with some consultation of police forces in the other UK jurisdictions. He found that there were people who were not applying simply because they could not be bothered with an application process. Those people were low risk and were still sitting on a notification, and the police had to go through the motions of risk management. With police resources as valuable as they are, particularly in that area, it did not free up the police's time. When we consulted the police on this proposal initially, they were very welcoming of it, as were the other public protection agencies, because this will allow them to focus more on the higher-risk categories. They discharge someone only if there is no longer an associated risk of sexual harm. This will give the police the ability to do it of their own motion as opposed to an application, and it will be triggered by the same period: 15 years for an adult and eight years for a juvenile. At that point, they will look at category-1 offender risk management.

Miss Hargey: I want to get this clear in my head. I get that it applies to category-1 offenders only. At the moment, the individual can apply at the 15-year point, but the changes here will mean that there will be an automatic triggering by the police at the 15-year point or the eight-year point.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: Yes, and that will allow police to do it of their "own motion", as it says on the tin, as I always say. It will not replace it.

Miss Hargey: The police will still need to do the risk assessment. The triggering of that review is at 15 years. Will that be done by an IT system triggering that 15-year point?

Ms Ferguson-Coote: Yes, the police operate a dedicated case-management system, and only dedicated officers in the public protection team will have access to that. They will be very aware of the various categories. They will know who is on the books, so to speak. They have already identified people whom they could assess once this legislation comes in. They have already been looking at that. They consider this to be a valuable mechanism.

Miss Hargey: There is an automatic triggering once that 15-year or eight-year point is reached, but only if you are in category 1.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: Yes.

Miss Hargey: That is all that I needed. I was just looking for that clarity. Thank you very.

Joanne, on the LCM more broadly, I want to note on the record our concerns about some of the reserved matters and the draconian nature of the legislation. That pertains not to the LCM matters but to the broader piece. I want that noted on the record.

Ms Egan: Thanks for coming in today. Can you outline for us the implications if this LCM were not passed and we then became out of step with other jurisdictions on this?

Ms Ferguson-Coote: I will start on the sex offenders side. There would be implications: not passing it would create a gap.

As I have said to the Committee previously, sex offenders travel across jurisdictions and could be very attracted to one jurisdiction that does not have the same safeguards as another. We have worked over the years to ensure, through primary and secondary legislation, that sex offender notification requirements are strengthened. Those requirements, otherwise known as the "sex offender register", have existed in some form since 1997. We have always sought to strengthen them in legislation and in consultation with the other UK jurisdictions. Certainly, if we did not have the LCM, there would be a void here, and we would be out of step in that important area. It is not where we would want to be. Ensuring consistency of public protections around the UK is key. I can speak only from that position.

I am also responsible for the provision on the possession of a paedophile manual. That seeks to close a gap in law. At the moment, pseudo-images are not included in the advice and guidance that these paedophiles set out with their manuals. This will ensure that we are up to speed with that and that there is no safe place for people who use those images to guide and advise fellow paedophiles, for want of a better term.

Ms Corry: From an organised crime perspective, it is very important to maintain parity and to make sure that Northern Ireland is not left without protections. Specifically, with electronic devices for use in vehicle theft, it is important that people do not come to Northern Ireland to perpetrate specific crimes. That is also the case for spiking and other offences that are coming through.

Given the constraints on the current legislative mandate in the Assembly, it would be difficult for us to find a suitable vehicle in which to include some of these measures. Therefore, it could be some time before we would be able to catch up. It is very much a case of keeping Northern Ireland on a par with other jurisdictions and having those safeguards in place.

Ms Egan: Thank you.

Ms Ferguson: Just for my information, could you explain the difference between category 1 sexual offences, which is where the changes will be implemented, and categories 2 and 3? I want to be clear on who will be assessed as low risk for the purposes of this legislation.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: That is an operational matter for the police. They have three categories: 1 is the lowest, 2 is medium and 3 is high risk. Obviously, the police look at the risk that individuals pose, but they also look at the frequency and gravity etc of someone's offences. Those in the high-risk category will have carried out significant and serious sexual offending. I do not have the definitions of those categories. It is something that I could —.

Ms Ferguson: It was just to be clear about category 1.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Stuff has been sent through. There is stuff in the pack that gives you some indication.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: Category 1 is the lowest, and that is the one where the police will look to review and discharge. They will not look at other categories, because that would not be appropriate. The police, in conjunction with the public protection agencies, are fed information routinely, so they are well aware of these people and the risk that they pose. They will not discharge someone who presents a risk of sexual harm.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I have two questions, ladies, if I may. I understand that you are in discussions with the police about partner notification. If there is an issue, a partner can request information. Will somebody who requests information still be informed if that other person is no longer required to notify?

Ms Ferguson-Coote: In that case, they are technically considered to not be a risk and are off the notification requirements. Are you talking about an intimate partner, Chair, someone who is in a relationship?

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I do not know. I am trying to establish whether it will still be possible for somebody — whoever — to get in touch and ask, "Is there anything that I need to be worried about here?", in the way that you can with domestic violence and so on, if a person no longer has to notify. We are waiting to hear from the PSNI on that. We understand that you are in conversation with the police. I am concerned that some of this stuff already exists, yet nobody seems to be clear about what will happen.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: If there is a risk under the public protection arrangements Northern Ireland (PPANI) and, I suspect, even if a person has come off the register and somebody has a concern, disclosure can be made under the PPANI guidance in order to safeguard children and vulnerable adults. That is what the police are saying. They will look at that on an individual basis and the circumstances around it.

There is, of course, as you mentioned, the domestic violence and abuse disclosure scheme. The police have said that domestic and sexual violence are quite often intertwined. Where there is a violent sexual offence, that information may be accessible through that scheme. We also have the child protection disclosure scheme, which may provide information about child sex offenders if someone has concerns about a person being in contact with a child, for example. There are mechanisms there, but it would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis, as I understand it.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is fair enough, Lorraine, but I want some reassurance on this. Yes, I get that there are other mechanisms, but I want to know about this one specifically. If somebody convicted of such offences no longer needs to notify, will a person who makes a request about whether they or their children are at risk be told that?

Ms Ferguson-Coote: They can do so through the child protection disclosure arrangements, and that is for the children.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Yes, but what about them?

Ms Ferguson-Coote: For the domestic violence and abuse disclosure arrangements, it would be only within that context. If there is concern about a new risk, that will be looked at. If that risk is substantiated, the police can move in with a sexual offences prevention order, for example. That is more a mechanism for dealing with a risk.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is my whole point: if it reaches that point, the person should not have been taken off the register. Do you know what I mean?

Ms Ferguson-Coote: I do. The police will be able to answer that, Chair. From the information that I am getting from the police, they will look at that very critically, including with other partners. It is a very serious matter to take someone off the register and discharge them. If there is a significant risk there or any other risk —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is what I do not get, Lorraine. The police already do this, but not by request, or whatever way it is worded. They already do this, and the procedures are in place, so why can they not tell me? I do not understand.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: Tell you that someone has —?

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Whether they will notify. Do you know what I mean? Whether they will disclose.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: Disclose the information to a partner?

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Yes.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: The police will be able to answer that. They will take all the information into account. I am just not terribly sure of the exact —.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Am I not explaining it well?

Ms Ferguson-Coote: No, sorry.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Right. There are already mechanisms for people to be de-registered.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: Yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Those exist.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: Yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): This is a proposal to slightly change that to afford people a chance to be taken off in a different way — automatically after a certain time.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: Yes.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Bearing in mind that there are already processes to take somebody off the register, I do not understand why disclosure would change. If a new partner contacts the police and asks, "Does my partner have a history of x? Is my partner a risk to me?" — you have indicated that there is another mechanism for children — will the police disclose that that person was previously on the sex offenders register? I do not understand why the police cannot answer that in relation to this legislation when they have a similar procedure that continues to run. This will now mean that it is automatically flagged. I do not understand why they cannot answer that question straight off the bat.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: Yes, well, the same would apply. They are very similar schemes, but one is an application and the other is done by own motion.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Exactly.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: There is the ability to disclose, but that will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The police advised me that they have the ability to so do for both schemes. Beyond that, there is no dedicated scheme: there is no scheme like the domestic violence disclosure scheme or anything beyond the child protection disclosure arrangements. There is no dedicated scheme, but disclosure can be made where it is considered necessary, and it will be considered on an individual basis.

Sex offenders have to disclose to partners as part of their licence requirements etc. It is a part of the licence requirements that they have to be upfront and say, "I was convicted of these offences". That is a stipulation, and it is something that they must do. Certain offenders have to do that. However, after 15 years, I am not quite sure.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I want to ask about the licences and the conditions around that change at the point at which you are no longer on the register.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: They run in parallel initially, but your licence conditions can be for a certain period, and your notification requirement may be longer. Some of them will fall out of kilter with that. There is an ability already there: a mechanism through licence requirements. Notification requirements are different: they are about notifying to the police so that they can keep track of that individual. The prevention orders, such as sexual offence prevention orders, for example, which often go hand in hand with notification requirements, contain individual tailored prohibitions and requirements that are very specific to the management of the individual's needs.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I am just trying to get a sense of the safeguards.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: I know. I was not quite sure what you were getting at.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I just want to understand the safeguards and which of those, essentially, drop away as a result of de-notification. That will be of concern to us and to wider society. I appreciate that category 1 is category 1 and that this is not always We know that there are grey areas and issues of consent and age: it is straightforward with teenagers. However, it is not always that way.

Ms Ferguson-Coote: I know, and I take your point. There are mechanisms there. The police will say that, with sex offenders, there is never no risk. It is low risk, and that is what we have to remember with these types of offenders.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is fine. We will see what the police say. I do not think that it will stop us going forward or otherwise, but I will want to know what the police have to say about that.

Finally, you indicated that the driving licences element had been removed because there was ongoing policy development. What are you looking at there, and what is happening in that regard?

Ms Corry: That does not sit within my policy remit. As far as I am aware, some concerns had been raised, and policy colleagues wanted some time to tease that out with the Home Office.

Ms Fiona Scullion (Department of Justice): We have sought an amendment so that the Department of Justice can commence the power. We await a response from the Home Office. The Minister wrote at some point in March 2025, and we know that the Home Office is considering how the policy would work in line with the legal requirements. As soon as we get that official response, we will brief the Minister and contact the Committee as soon as possible after that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is great, Fiona, thank you. We will work on that basis and hear from you in due course when you are a bit further down the line. OK, thank you.

Does anyone have anything further to ask the officials? No. Ladies, thank you very much indeed. We really appreciate it. Thank you for the time that you given us today and for answering all our questions.