Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): We have with us, from the Department, Andrew Dawson — it is nice to see you again — director of criminal justice policy and legislation; Lisa Boal, head of PACE, policing policy and strategy division; Naomi Magowan, policy official, policing policy and strategy division; Colleen Cartwright, policy official, modern slavery and human trafficking unit; Jane Maguire, head of civil and family courts branch; Susanne Corr, policy official, criminal policy branch; and Emma Crozier, head of violence against the person branch. I feel as though we have half the Department here. I am sorry that we are taking up your time, but it is really helpful to have you here just in case issues arise as we look at this.

Andrew and the rest of you are very welcome to the meeting. Doubtless, we will hear from some of you in due course. Only five officials can sit at the table at any given time. We will hand over to Andrew for opening remarks, and the guys can prepare themselves. I have a list of the questions that we will ask. There are general questions about human rights and the code of practice. There are questions about the policing barred and advisory lists, so, Naomi, you will need to join us at the table for that. We have some questions for Susanne about the restrictions on granting replacement driving licences in a new name to registered sex offenders. We will need Emma to speak to the strengthened age verification requirements for the online sale of knives, crossbows etc. Finally, we have some queries around DOH and Access NI. Who can deal with that?

Mr Andrew Dawson (Department of Justice): I can do that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That gives you some indication of whom we will need. Hopefully, that is helpful. We will hand over to you, Andrew, to give us your opening remarks. Thank you.

Mr Dawson: Thanks very much, and thanks for your time this afternoon. You received our briefing paper of 2 September. It will be helpful to recap the position so far and provide a brief summary of the contents of the Bill. The Bill was introduced in the Commons and received its First Reading on 25 February. It completed its Commons Report Stage and Third Reading on 18 June and moved to the Lords the next day. The Lords Second Reading debate is, we understand, scheduled for mid-October.

The Assembly approved the first legislative consent motion (LCM) on 10 measures in the Bill on 23 June. At that point, the Bill contained 15 Parts, 137 clauses and 17 schedules. For comparison and to illustrate how the Bill has evolved from the previous version that you may have seen, it now contains 16 Parts, 203 clauses and 21 schedules. As the Chair said, our objective today is to brief you on a further 10 measures that are intended to be the subject of a second legislative consent motion on the Bill.

As we advised in July, two of those measures were drafted to include Northern Ireland references at Commons Report Stage but were not ready in time for consideration in the first LCM. The intention is for the other eight clauses to be tabled at the Lords Committee Stage, and all will then be considered at the Lords Report Stage. The Department also laid a memorandum on 2 September to advise the Assembly that, whilst we are not yet in a position to lay the LCM, it is our intention to do so in due course. We did that on advice and in order to provide as much information as possible to assist with the Assembly's scrutiny role, notwithstanding the fact that much of the Bill's progress is outside our control.

To illustrate that point, there is still uncertainty around timescales. We are making best efforts on that. We are advised by the Home Office that the Lords Committee Stage is scheduled for late October to late November. The text of the amendments extending any provisions to Northern Ireland will need to be agreed about three or four weeks in advance of that, which means by the end of this month or the start of October. The crucial deadline for the Assembly to have considered the legislative consent motion by is before Report Stage commences in the Lords. The Lords Report Stage is scheduled for 8 December, although there is a risk that the Bill could move more quickly than that. Ideally, therefore, and in order to give enough time for further scrutiny and to prepare for the plenary debate, we aim to table the motion for Assembly consideration as soon as possible after the Halloween recess.

The following provisions are intended to be included in the legislative consent motion. The first provision is the creation of a new child criminal exploitation (CCE) offence, which will criminalise every adult who uses or attempts to use a child under the age of 18 for the purpose of involving the child in criminal activity; alongside that, there is the creation of new civil child criminal exploitation prevention orders. Those provisions are currently dealt with in clauses 40 to 55. Colleen is here to provide any further information that you may require on those.

Secondly, there is the provision of an enabling power for supporting secondary legislation to be made by the Department for Infrastructure to enable the refusal of a replacement driving licence for certain registered sex offenders where approval has not been given by the police. That is currently clause 94(2). As you know, Susanne is here to provide further information on that.

The third provision is the creation of an offence to:

a child sexual abuse image generator. That is currently clause 63. Susanne can also provide information on that.

The fourth provision is the creation of a new child abduction offence in relation to the detention of a child abroad without appropriate consent. That is currently clause 104. Jane Maguire is here to give any information that you may require on that.

Fifthly, there is the provision of a power for the courts to impose stalking protection orders directly at conviction or even on acquittal if there is enough evidence to suggest that the defendant is still a risk to the victim. That is in clauses 97 and 98, and I can provide further information on that.

The sixth provision is a new measure to introduce "right to know" statutory guidance, which aims to tell stalking victims the identity of their abuser at the earliest opportunity and to empower and encourage the police to release identifying information about anonymous stalking perpetrators to victims. That is currently clause 100, and, again, I can provide further information on that.

The seventh provision is the creation of Northern Ireland policing barred and advisory lists and a duty on the police to consult relevant barred and advisory lists before employing or appointing an individual. Those clauses are being drafted, and Naomi is here to provide further information on them.

The eighth provision is to strengthen the age-verification requirements for the online sale and delivery of knives and crossbows, including a provision regarding the bulk and suspicious sale of knives. That is currently in clauses 31 to 36. Emma is here to give further information on that.

The ninth provision is the removal of the supervision exemption from the definition of "regulated activity". That is a Department of Health measure, which the Minister has agreed to include in the LCM. It will ensure that all individuals working with children, including where that work is not a regulated activity under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups (Northern Ireland) Act 2006 but is instead classed as a "supervised activity", undergo full vetting. That is currently clause 105. I am happy to provide you with any further information from what I know on that measure and, if needs be — if there is anything that I cannot tell you — to revert quickly to DOH colleagues and write to you in the next few days. You should be aware that DOH colleagues are briefing the Health Committee on that provision today.

The final provision that we aim to include in the LCM is law enforcement access to remotely stored electronic data. That would create a power for police and law enforcement agencies to extract information from one or multiple online accounts in criminal investigations including counterterrorism and national security investigations. Currently, that is in clauses 130 to 137, clause 190 and schedule 14 to the Bill. Lisa is here to provide any further information on that.

The Department has engaged on all those provisions with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which raised no general concerns. The screening of the proposed amendments that was conducted by the Human Rights Commission also concluded that the provisions are compliant with article 2 of the Windsor framework, in that no diminution of rights, safeguards, equality of opportunity provisions or discrimination protections arise from the provisions.

In addition to the 10 measures that I outlined, current clause 138 proposes to expand the lawful purposes for which the police and other organisations can access the GB Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency database. As I understand it, the Committee has already been advised that policy development is ongoing to consider whether and in what way that provision should be extended to Northern Ireland. The Home Office has formally responded to the Minister, who is considering the proposal. She has written to her Executive colleagues to test whether agreement is possible. My departmental colleagues will provide you with an update on that measure as soon as possible.

There is also the possibility of some minor consequential amendments to the broader offence of "Encouraging or assisting serious self-harm". That measure was included in the first LCM. There might be some minor consequential amendments to that offence, and those might be tabled at House of Lords Committee Stage. We are liaising with the Home Office on the possibility of extending those to Northern Ireland. We will update the Assembly on the position as soon as we can.

I hope that that has been of some help. We are all here to take questions.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Thank you very much, Andrew. Unless anything has occurred to anybody in the course of Andrew's remarks, there are only questions from Deirdre and me. Go ahead, Deirdre.

Miss Hargey: Thanks very much. My questions will probably jump about, so apologies. Clauses 40 to 45 deal with child criminal exploitation. The Human Rights Commission highlighted the need for awareness-raising on the new offence and to make sure that it is robust enough to meet the requirements of article 6. What work will be done or is being done on that?

Mr Dawson: I will call my colleague Colleen up to the table to answer that one.

Miss Hargey: No worries, yes. Thank you.

Ms Colleen Cartwright (Department of Justice): As you probably know, there is already a programme of work, which was launched in 2021, to address CCE in Northern Ireland. Most significantly, the Justice Minister, Health Minister and Education Minister launched the CCE action plan, along with a Northern Ireland definition of CCE last September. We are about a year into that action plan. It has actions on training and awareness.

The Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland (SBNI) leads on a lot of actions in the plan. It is developing pathways and guidance, including risk-assessment tools, for practitioners who work with children on how to respond to CCE. The Department is also developing a child exploitation toolkit to go with that guidance. That is at the drafting stages. There is a large piece of work in that CCE action plan on training and awareness for policy and operational partners. The Safeguarding Board will do a lot of that.

Once the likes of the CCE offence and the prevention orders come into effect, statutory guidance will go alongside them. We will work with the PSNI to develop that. It is at the very early stages. We have recently engaged with the Home Office around it. It advised that it will keep us engaged on how it develops and on how we will develop a Northern Ireland version of it. Non-statutory guidance will also be developed along with partners. There is lots of work in the area of promotion. Once this is live, that will be amended in the toolkit that will go into the guidance pathways. SBNI is developing workshops on that too.

Miss Hargey: There are stories in the news today about children and young people and the adoption legislation that was introduced by Department of Health a couple of years ago and about how some of the work has not been progressed because of funding difficulties. You touched on the definition, once this becomes law. Is resourcing an issue in this area of work, particularly around children and young people? Has that been an issue up to now, or are you identifying it as a risk?

Ms Cartwright: There have been discussions around resourcing and capacity, especially in the like of the health and social care trusts, because, whilst CCE is classed as a form of modern slavery and human trafficking, there is a large safeguarding element, so it sits in the Department of Health as well. There have been queries around how the pathways and guidance will be implemented by the like of social workers, but the majority seem to be on board. There is that large piece of work, and everybody is dedicated to the actions in the CCE action plan. There will be a dedicated resource.

The Departments of Justice and Health submitted a bid to the Home Office for the roll-out of a national referral mechanism child decision-making pilot, which is a UK framework for referring victims and potential victims of modern slavery and human trafficking for support. That bid was successful. We hope that that will be operational by January 2026. It will sit within Health: the Department of Health submitted that bid. DOH will get a funded full-time coordinator's post along with the framework. That person will also be responsible for the like of training and awareness. That will be fully funded.

Miss Hargey: Colleen, I am not sure if my next question around the AI models that have been designed to produce sexual abuse material and images is for you. The Human Rights Commission raised the need for awareness-raising of the new offence as a way of trying to deter potential perpetrators. The commission also stressed the need to highlight the new offence relating to child abduction, as detailed in clause 104. Is awareness-raising being taken into account as part of the work in considering those new offences?

Mr Dawson: Susanne and Jane will comment on those.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Before Susanne and Jane answer on those: Patsy, did you want to come in on the previous question that Deirdre asked?

Mr McGlone: My question is on child abduction.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I just want to make sure that we are with the right people.

Ms Ferguson: I have a quick question.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Is it on this point?

Ms Ferguson: Yes. You talked a lot about the statutory guidance. Will you throw some light on the non-statutory guidance and what work has been progressed to date? It is critically important that community and voluntary organisations and grassroots organisations on the ground in neighbourhoods and communities are fully aware, because they work very much with a bottom-up/top-down approach. It is pertinent to them: they work with the statutory agencies and, in many cases, are the first contact to identify the issue.

Ms Cartwright: The non-statutory guidance that the Home Office is developing is in the extremely early stages. We have only had one initial engagement meeting with the Home Office — just last week — around the development of that guidance. It has not shared any drafts with us, and we are not aware of what it will be, but it has advised that it will keep us abreast of any progress and involve us in it, because we will have to make Northern Ireland adaptions, in partnership with those operational and front-line practitioners. I have nothing additional, but I am more than happy to keep you updated in writing as that progresses and is drafted.

Ms Ferguson: That is great, Colleen; thank you.

Mr Dawson: There was a query about the child sexual abuse image generator.

Ms Susanne Corr (Department of Justice): Was it about awareness-raising?

Miss Hargey: Yes.

Ms Corr: We do not yet have anything in planning. We have not yet seen the draft provisions, but, further down the line, that will be part of our implementation plan. As is the case with any new offence, we will take awareness-raising into account. We have not got anything concrete yet, but it will be part of the plan.

Miss Hargey: Is it similar for the child abduction offence in clause 104?

Ms Jane Maguire (Department of Justice): Yes, it will be similar. We will action that when we come to the point of implementation. We have already engaged with the PSNI and the Public Prosecution Service to make them aware that this has been proposed. In due course, we will engage with the legal profession, for example, on getting the message out there.

Miss Hargey: Have they highlighted any concerns or issues regarding awareness-raising?

Ms Corr: Our operational partners have not.

Ms Maguire: No; it is the same for the child abduction offence.

Miss Hargey: My other points are on a different issue.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): We will let Patsy come in on this issue, and then we will move on to the next one. Thanks, Deirdre.

Mr McGlone: Your briefing document states:

Permitted by whom?

Ms Maguire: It might be whatever has been agreed between the parents, or it might be under the terms of a court order.

Mr McGlone: That is what I am trying to get at. I understand if it is under the terms of a court order, but how do you define "permitted" in those instances?

Ms Maguire: There will be a definition of "appropriate consent" in the legislation, but, in some instances —

Mr McGlone: Sorry: I am asking whether it is a week, two weeks or three weeks?

Ms Maguire: It will depend on the facts of the individual case.

Mr McGlone: Right, OK. I am not sure about that one.

It says:

If the child is there lawfully with the lawful parent, guardian or carer, you would hardly refer to that as "detention".

Ms Maguire: That concept is already —

Mr McGlone: It is a concept that maybe moves beyond what is interpreted to be the legal period, as defined by the court or whomever.

Ms Maguire: Again, "detention" will be defined for the purposes of the legislation. The purpose of the new offence is to cover the gap that exists in the current position.

Mr McGlone: If the child is with someone whom they love, and who loves them, you would hardly refer to that as "detention".

Ms Maguire: That is a legal term. Obviously, these are —

Mr McGlone: I get where you are going.

Ms Maguire: — complex and sensitive cases. I appreciate the point that you are making.

Mr McGlone: I have a final point on working through the process. We have heard about cases on the radio where, say, the mother or father remains abroad somewhere with the child. It becomes an offence, but, if the person who has the child with them has no intention of ever coming back to the North or to anywhere in the UK, how do you enforce that offence against that person? What cooperation or collaboration have you had with Interpol, international jurisdictions or whatever international bodies to ensure that measures, or even extradition processes, are put in place to comply with that? How has that been worked through? I am trying to get my head round it. If it is an offence here, that is grand — somebody could be brought before the court for whatever the offence is — but, if there is no extradition methodology and the person has never had any intention of coming back, how is the deterrent aspect of that applicable or enforceable against the person who has committed the offence?

Ms Maguire: You are right: there are practical challenges in enforcement in cross-border cases. It will depend on cooperation with law enforcement agencies in the country where the child is. However, we still think that it will act as a deterrent in some cases. It is also about ensuring that cases of wrongful detention are placed on an equal footing with cases of wrongful removal, which is already an offence, albeit that those same practical challenges —

Mr McGlone: I get that.

Ms Maguire: — can arise, and complement the civil remedies that are available.

Mr McGlone: I am trying to work this through to see what collaborative work the Department has done with other jurisdictions to make this doable and workable. What best practice can you work through? How can you ensure that a child — it is usually a child — is brought or encouraged to be brought back home to their parents, loved ones or whomever it might be? I am just trying to get my head round that and how the Department has been working it through internationally and collaboratively with other jurisdictions.

Ms Maguire: The issue could arise in other situations that are not within my area of expertise. I suppose that it would come down to which country a child was taken to and what the particular circumstances were; for example, whether there was an extradition arrangement. Certainly, in its evidence to Parliament, Reunite International, one of the leading charities in that area, indicated that it would be helpful and would allow the parent who remained where the child had been taken from to seek the assistance of law enforcement agencies in that country.

Certainly for some parents, the prospect of facing a criminal penalty would be a deterrent. It might be helpful if there is an extradition arrangement maybe with a country that is not a party to The Hague convention, so you do not have access to the civil remedies under that. There are practical advantages. As I said, enforcement will depend on the country and particular relationships and cooperation.

Mr McGlone: I am not trying to bounce you on this. I am trying to establish its practical outworkings.

Have you liaised with the PSNI to see how it might see different or practical avenues at international level, potentially through Interpol?

Ms Maguire: We have made the PSNI and the Public Prosecution Service aware of the proposed new offence. They did not raise any operational difficulties from their perspectives. Maybe they are familiar with the offence that already exists under child abduction legislation.

Mr McGlone: I am just trying to work through the practical application of this and whether they have any ideas. If they do not have any ideas on how to work around it, maybe they should have.

Ms Maguire: Yes. As I said, we have not had a discussion in that detail, but they are aware and have not raised any concerns.

Mr McGlone: I am not saying concerns; I am saying opportunities and ways to work through the legislation — ways to see how people can, in fact, bring back their youngsters and get their youngsters back to where they should be. I would hope that the police would have some ideas as to how they might work with Interpol on those issues, especially if you are changing the legislation. Anyway, that is their gig. You may well wish to raise that with them.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Thank you, Patsy. Those were helpful questions on issues that we all have. If these things are supposed to deter, how is it going to work in practice? Ciara, did you want to come in on the same issue?

Ms Ferguson: I probably do not need the answer now, but there is a lack of awareness within the North of Ireland and GB on child abduction, even when moving from one part of the North to go to England. I deal with a lot of such cases, so it would be useful to get the lie of the land regarding child abduction as it stands, even within the North, GB, the UK or wherever, and what is changing in other countries. We spoke about how important it is to raise awareness, even locally. I deal with cases quite regularly, and parents are not aware, so it would be useful to know where even the current legislation sits. Even a quick summary of it would be really useful, for me in particular.

Ms Maguire: Yes. In writing? Would that be OK?

Ms Ferguson: Yes, in writing. I do not expect it here. That would be really useful.

Ms Maguire: I will go away and provide something to you, absolutely.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Deirdre, you have more questions.

Miss Hargey: Yes, two or three more, sorry.

I think that our information packs state that the Infrastructure Minister has now agreed in principle to clause 94 regarding registered sex offenders. Has that been now done officially, because that was raised before?

Ms Corr: Officially in principle. We do not have the clause yet —

Miss Hargey: Yes.

Ms Corr: — so it cannot be finalised, but, yes, in principle, she is supportive. The practicalities will be worked through with officials from both Departments.

Miss Hargey: OK, no worries. Thank you.

My other question is about access to remotely stored electronic data. The Human Rights Commission highlighted concerns about the requirement on the Home Secretary for a code of practice and the consultation with the Justice Minister on publishing a code of conduct. When will those be available, and will we have sight of them?

Ms Lisa Boal (Department of Justice): The Human Rights Commission said that a code of practice would be a useful tool to ensure that appropriate safeguards were in place regarding the exercising of the new powers, and the commission is happy to work with us on that. The Home Office will take the lead in drafting that code of practice. I do not think that that work has started yet, because its capacity has been focused on the actual legislation, but it plans to turn to that next and to start drafting that.

The Home Office will turn its attention to drafting the code of practice, and there is a requirement for the Home Secretary to consult the Information Commissioner and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner in drafting that code. It will also be consulting the Education Minister. I expect that it will be in contact with us, at an official level, once it starts to take that work forward. We can keep the Committee updated on that as and when it progresses.

Miss Hargey: Will that be in line with or before the LCM has been agreed on or not?

Ms Boal: It will not be before the LCM is agreed, but it will be drafted and in place before the powers are commenced. The LCM will give consent for the powers in the Bill. Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, those particular powers will not be commenced until the code of practice is agreed and put in place in statute.

Miss Hargey: You are asking us to agree an LCM on a code of practice that we have not seen. I just want to highlight that as a concern.

Ms Boal: The Home Office will not commence the measure until the code of practice is in place, so that is an important assurance.

Miss Hargey: Yes, but we have no oversight of what that is or no control.

Ms Boal: Yes, because the work has not started yet.

Miss Hargey: I am just highlighting that as a concern.

The other bit is about the proposal relating to Health and clause 105: the removal of the supervision exemption. I have two queries about that. It could potentially increase the workload around additional checks for AccessNI. Does the Department have an estimate on any additional numbers? Do you have a sense of the implications of that? Is funding or support in place for the knock-on effect on community and voluntary organisations with the increased workload to them from the clause and what the Department of Health is asking for? Has any analysis been done?

Mr Dawson: I have not seen any impact assessment on that, but I can liaise with my Health colleagues after the meeting. They are also briefing their Committee today. I will provide the Committee with some information on that.

Miss Hargey: OK. That would be good. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Does anybody else have anything to add?

I have a couple of queries, and, compared with those, they are fairly straightforward. I appreciate that it is an LCM and not in your gift, but, to be honest, some of the sentences in it are risible. I do not see them as deterrents, but that is a matter for His Majesty's Government.

My first query relates to the barred lists, so that will be for Naomi to answer. From reading the paper, it seems to me that the intention was that there would be a number of bodies to which it would apply but that now it is just moving to the PSNI. The issue seems to be that there are capacity issues. I would like some understanding of what that means. From a layperson's point of view, which is me, I look at that and say that it is just about including people on a list, so what is the issue? Furthermore, does it not mean then that there is a gap? If it is applicable only to the PSNI, is there not a gap where people can move between some of those services, and it will not be caught?

Ms Naomi Magowan (Department of Justice): Yes, it is because of capacity within the Bill that it is reduced back to the PSNI at present. There is still the intention down the line to hopefully include the other bodies, but it is purely down to capacity.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is what I want to understand. I get that it is about capacity, but I look at that and think, "What is it that will take up the capacity?", because it seems to be just listing bodies that it is applicable to. What will take additional resources? What is the issue?

Ms Magowan: At present, we have provided drafting instructions to the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel (OPC), and those instructions are to create the lists in the Bill. The clauses that are in the Bill at present just relate to the UK bodies, creating a list for the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, the British Transport Police and the National Crime Agency, for example. We see the Bill as an opportunity to create the lists for Northern Ireland in order to create a more cohesive environment, with all the regions of the UK having equivalent lists. We have been providing those drafting instructions to OPC, and that will mirror the England and Wales provisions.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is going to be way down the line, is it not?

Ms Magowan: No. Hopefully, it will be in this Bill. It is hoped that it will be introduced at Lords Committee Stage. It is providing the power to create the lists. We then would be enacting regulations that are more about the actual process of the lists as such and the procedures involved in them. It is not as simple as listing the organisations. It is a full creation of the lists themselves in the Bill.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): You will forgive me. I am still not seeing that this is a massive thing, because creating a list is creating a list. I appreciate that it is not you; it is OPC or whatever, but it seems bizarre to me. In the interim, there is a gap. How long will the gap be in existence? How long will it take for you to get lists passed? Who is going to pass it then? How is this going to work?

Ms Magowan: Do you mean the other bodies in Northern Ireland such as the Policing Board? To create those lists for other bodies, it would require a primary legislative change. The capacity in our current mandate is not there, so it would be into the next mandate before those could be created in that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Can you address the gap issue for me?

Ms Magowan: The vast majority of individuals who would be being added to the lists will be from PSNI. I admit that there is a gap there, and, if anyone is dismissed from the Northern Ireland Policing Board etc, it is, unfortunately, unavoidable that that gap will exist in the interim period.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): There is Belfast Harbour Police, airport police and all of those bodies. People could, essentially, move around.

Ms Magowan: Harbour police and airport police are under the remit of DFI, so they are more difficult to legislate for, given that DFI is their governing Department. It is cross-cutting in that way.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I am not sure that I am understanding why. I cannot see how much resource and time would be required to add those additional names in. It is not computing with me. Does everybody else get it and I do not? Do you all get it? Do you see why there is a reason?

Ms Magowan: It would be creating the lists in the Bill, so it is not a list of names. It will be saying who the relevant authority is for each one of those organisations and where their power comes from, even in who they employ and how they dismiss people and whether it is through employment law. So, there is more to it than listing organisations. It would need to be giving where the power for those organisations comes from with regard to employing people. For example, with the PSNI, the officers are not employed as such. They are set out in statute, so it is referencing where that comes from, which is the Police Act etc. It will be the same for employees of the Policing Board, because they are employees, so it is employment law that is used. They are dismissed through appropriate processes and have appeal mechanisms. It is not as simple as just listing organisations. It will have to demonstrate where the power for those organisations comes from.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): That is fair enough, but, I suppose, it still leaves us with a gap that could potentially be exploited. I do not imagine that there will be huge numbers, but there is a gap there, and it could potentially be exploited. Do we have any indication from the Minister about the prioritisation in the next mandate to deal with those gaps?

Ms Magowan: I am not aware of that at present.

Mr Dawson: If I may, I will intervene on plans for potential legislation for the next mandate. I think that we will be starting to have those discussions fairly soon. At the moment, our focus has been on getting our three Bills introduced or scrutinised by the Assembly and on these two legislative consent motions. We have just expanded the capacity of the Department in legislative planning and monitoring, and that will fall within my team from now. We will be putting a communication out in the Department, in the next month or so, asking for initial ideas for a very long list of what might be included, subject to ministerial and Executive approval, after the next election. Part of that work will be prioritising, for our purposes, what might need to be in an earlier Bill of the next mandate, compared with something that might be safely left to later on. We will start that work very shortly.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Presumably you have a lot of stuff that you have not been able to fit into this mandate that you will have to carry over anyway.

Mr Dawson: Absolutely. I already have a fairly long list of my own without having to ask anybody else about it.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): Got it. OK. That is great. Thank you very much.

My next question relates to the knives issue. I want to understand where this is coming from, the risks with that type of crime and so on. None of us has any issues with the safeguards that are in here. I just want to establish practical things. People buy knife sets as wedding gifts: people have it on their wedding register. In practical terms, how is this going to work?

Ms Emma Crozier (Department of Justice): With sale and delivery, the first provisions strengthen the age verification requirements. At the minute, a retailer is required to show due diligence in checking someone's ID, but there is nothing to explain what that is. These provisions set out what the seller needs to do. They must physically check somebody against their driving licence or passport photo before they make the sale. It is similar for a delivery on those ones. On bulk sales, things such as you have described would not be included. Its purpose is to stop people buying, say, 20 knives online and then selling them on Facebook or social media, where there is no way to track where they go. Therefore, it is not targeted at cutlery sets and things such as that; it is to flag to the police or others that someone is buying knives in bulk that do not come within the classification of cutlery.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): I wonder how it is going to work. You see chef's knives, and so on, on Amazon. Anyway, I suppose that it is the same with buying alcohol online.

Ms Ferguson: I understand the physical presentation of ID in checking it. How do they propose to do it online?

Ms Crozier: Yes, they will need to follow remote sales. I can come back to you on that, but I think that buyers will be required to send a copy of their ID. I do not know: I will double-check for you how it works with online sales, when the buyer is not physically present.

Ms Ferguson: Where did the limit of six knives come from? You could go round a few websites and buy five knives from each. It would not be long before you would end up with more than six. I just wondered where the number six comes from.

Ms Crozier: I can come back to you on why the limit of six was picked, rather than five.

Ms Ferguson: That is fine. Thank you, Emma.

Mr McGlone: On that, what is the definition of a knife?

Ms Crozier: It is a bladed product rather than a knife. It is the same definition as is used in the Offensive Weapons Act 2019. It is quite confusing: it is a subset of a "bladed article"; any blade that could cause harm to the skin.

Ms Ferguson: Like your razor?

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): You could be buying multipacks of razors to shave your legs.

Ms Crozier: Sorry, I may be confusing the two provisions: sale and delivery and bulk buying. There are different definitions depending on the provision. There are three different definitions, and I will set that out for you in writing.

Mr McGlone: The point is that a knife is a knife. The difference is the use that it is put to in the hands of the individual and that person's intent. If they go on Amazon and buy a range of knives, ostensibly for cooking under the name of a high-profile chef or something like that, how do you control it? How do you stop it getting into the wrong hands?

Ms Crozier: Do you mean if they buy it and it is then passed on to someone else? No?

Mr McGlone: I mean the sale of a knife for a legitimate purpose. It is about the end user and what that person uses that knife for. How do you control the sale of that knife? You cannot.

Ms Crozier: No. I think that what you mean is that somebody could legitimately buy a knife that then ends up in the hands of somebody else. Is that it?

Mr McGlone: Anybody who has a credit card and an account can go on Amazon and buy a set of knives.

Ms Crozier: The sale of knives is covered under clause 31, and that would require them to —. These provisions are really to prevent knives getting into the hands of under-18s following the incident in Southport last year when a 17-year-old was able to buy a blade online.

Mr McGlone: That blade could come from within the household.

Ms Crozier: Yes.

Mr McGlone: Somebody could have bought a knife from Amazon for legitimate purposes, and it is then in the house. How do you prevent that person from getting the knives that are in the cupboard?

Ms Crozier: It is a very good point. I do not think that this will cover that.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): It is just about agreeing or not agreeing an LCM, Patsy.

Mr McGlone: Aye, I know.

The Chairperson (Ms Bunting): It is the same issue for me with some of the sentences and stuff being sent for summary. Some of that stuff should carry way heavier sentences than are proposed, but it is up to the Government. It is not our call.

Nobody has any further questions, so thanks so much, folks, for taking the time today. We really appreciate it. We know that it is quite a lot to come up here and have so many of you away from your desk and so on, so thank you very much. We appreciate your answering our questions. We will doubtless see you all again at various stages and in different guises in the interim.