Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): The witnesses who are providing evidence today are Anthony McNally, Assistant Chief Constable (ACC); Jacqui Gillespie, chief inspector; and Jeff Logan, grade 7 in the PSNI. You are very welcome to the meeting. Thank you very much for your attendance. I invite you to make an opening statement on Part 1 of the Bill, which is biometrics, if that is OK.

Assistant Chief Constable Anthony McNally (Police Service of Northern Ireland): I had pulled together some opening notes —

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Overall?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: — in an overarching manner. They are not particularly long.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): That is fine. If you want to go ahead with that, we will break up our questions according to the Parts.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: That makes perfect sense.

Thank you, Chair and members, for the opportunity to meet you again to discuss the Justice Bill. As you will be aware, we previously gave evidence on 10 April 2025. The PSNI was advised of the planned Department of Justice amendments, which we received just over two weeks ago on 11 November. We have since held a constructive meeting with Department of Justice colleagues and provided feedback in much the same vein as we will give you today. As you said, Chair, with me today, for your benefit and that of the members, are Jeff Logan, who is our subject matter expert on biometrics; and Chief Inspector Jacqui Gillespie, who is our subject matter expert on vagrancy and on live links. Between us, we hope to be able to answer all your questions.

As I said, I will keep my comments brief because I know that you have questions, and I will focus primarily on the planned amendments, given that we gave our evidence on the Bill on 10 April. As we know, arguably the most detailed section of the Bill is Part 1, which relates to biometrics. Six bullet points in the Department's background document on biometrics relate to the planned amendments. At a high level, we have no concerns — we welcome the amendments — but there are a couple of specific relevant points to cover.

The third bullet point relates to the extension from 14 days to 28 days of the grace period during which we can apply to the commissioner for the retention of biometrics for those under investigation and not yet convicted. That is welcome because it would help us in the operational environment, where time is a pressure and people are a pressure. To have 28 days instead of 14 days in which to apply for retention would be very helpful. It is also in the interests of protecting victims to give us that time to ensure that the biometrics are retained for investigative purposes. The fourth point relates to applications to the biometrics commissioner. We welcome that amendment, but the application of the powers relating to the extension should not be restricted to those who have been arrested or charged. Those who have been reported for an offence should be included. The DOJ has shared with the PSNI a policy paper on prescribed circumstances that we will comment on and return.

We welcome the sixth point, on the power to specify a date and time for a person to attend a police station to give their biometrics, which contrasts with the present circumstances, in which they have a broad, seven-day period in which to present themselves. That would be helpful to us, but it would also be helpful to the individual, because we have a restricted estate and restricted capacity, which affects when the facilities are open, and it is not to their benefit if they turn up at a time when nobody is available to take their fingerprints and DNA. That will help us to manage them. It will also help us to manage our finite resources and to ensure that we capture the biometrics in order to help detect crime that the person may have been involved in in the past, and crime in which they may be involved in the future. Where possible, we will be flexible. It is, of course, early days, but we envisage that there will be a couple of days a week on which individuals will be able to come in at a set time. There will therefore be some flexibility — we will not be saying that you must turn up at Musgrave Street at 9.58 — and we will try to be flexible in understanding people's needs, within the confines of what allows us to do our job in an effective and efficient manner.

That is a summary of the six points. I again remind the Committee that we thought that the introduction of the IT changes that we require to implement the biometrics provisions would cost £1 million. They will, obviously, now cost more, given that everything has become more expensive. I remind the Committee that the PSNI will not receive additional money for that: it adds to the pressures that we have. As much as we welcome changes to legislation, most of them come with a financial tail, and that is another example.

I move now to the planned amendments relating to restorative justice. We support restorative justice practices in principle. We do not want to criminalise people, particularly the young, when we do not have to, so we support increasing the number of agencies that can deliver restorative practices across Northern Ireland, and we have been working closely with Department of Justice colleagues on that matter.

We support the reduction of rehabilitation periods for offenders, because we recognise that shorter periods boost the chances of offenders gaining employment and therefore, hopefully, not re-entering the criminal justice system. In turn, that will support the drive to reduce the number of victims, because, if offenders do not re-enter the criminal justice system, there will be fewer victims. That, of course, aligns with our policing plan priority to be victim-focused.

I move to the repeal of section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 and section 3 of the Vagrancy (Ireland) Act 1847. I previously stated that the PSNI agrees, in principle, with the DOJ that we do not want to criminalise individuals for begging or "rough sleeping" as it is colloquially referred to. As we know, many of those individuals have vulnerabilities and health needs. As I previously stated in the Committee, a system-wide approach is needed to address the underlying factors that cause homelessness and begging. Such an approach would provide a positive alternative to criminalising those who are affected by those issues and would reduce reliance on police officers having to use their powers under those Acts. That, frankly, does not solve the issues in the long term but deals just with the short-term challenge at hand.

We are concerned that replacement legislation may leave a gap. We are aware that the Committee has heard evidence from others about that. It is important, for transparency, to state that data from police systems indicates that the PSNI does not use the powers regularly. PSNI has dealt with approximately 700 incidents of simple begging — that relates to section 3 — since 2018, which is approximately 100 incidents a year. Section 4 focuses on people:

As I mentioned, that is often seen as rough sleeping. That power has been used 15 times in the past three years.

Repeal of the simple begging offence in section 3 means that police officers will no longer be able to rely on legislation to address simple begging. Given that that will no longer be a crime, it might ultimately mean that, where there is no wider offending or threat, police officers will not attend calls relating to begging unless other aggravating factors or offences, such as public order offences or harassment, are being committed.

A benchmarking exercise across the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland makes it clear that provisions for alternative offences that have been implemented elsewhere are being explored as potential replacements for that legislation. Whilst no present intelligence or other information is available to me on so-called organised begging or an established link with serious and organised crime in Northern Ireland, it would be sensible to acknowledge that, as in other areas of policing, that may become a factor at some point: it would be prudent to be prepared.

Legislation that is in use in other jurisdictions, such as section 5 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 2011, which is used by an Garda Síochána in the Republic of Ireland, makes it an offence to direct or organise begging, by providing that anyone who:

is guilty of an offence. Put simply, if I tell someone to beg for the purposes of organised crime, that is a criminal offence. There might be a gap in our legislation that we want to ensure is closed by an amendment to introduce such a provision. In England and Wales, clause 11 of the Crime and Policing Bill provides for:

to be an offence, which is similar to the offence in the Republic of Ireland that I mentioned.

The legislation in both jurisdictions creates a lower threshold for such crime than that set by the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, and those lower-threshold offences would give us the powers to deal with such matters. Given that neighbouring jurisdictions consider it prudent to create such offences, it may be unwise not to consider introducing a similar legislative framework here, given that displacement of offending from one jurisdiction to another is, as we know, always a possibility.

Despite the low usage of the powers in section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, it may likewise be prudent to consider other jurisdictions' alternatives to the offence of trespassing. In the Republic of Ireland, for example, section 11 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 makes it an offence:

Clause 10 of the Crime and Policing Bill of England and Wales proposes to create the offence of:

Amending the law in such a way in Northern Ireland would ultimately ensure that no significant gap would be created by the repeal of vagrancy legislation.

In summary, when it comes to the repeal of the Vagrancy Acts provisions, we do not want begging, in its purest sense, or rough sleeping to be criminalised. However, we also see that legislative change as an opportunity not only to achieve the objectives on decriminalising simple begging that were set by the Minister and the Department but to ensure that we modernise the law so that it is fit for purpose in 2025 and future-proofed against emerging crime types and trends that are seen in other jurisdictions. We have passed those views to the Department of Justice, which has advised us that it will consider them accordingly.

The planned amendments on serious crime would improve our ability to disrupt serious and organised crime at an earlier stage, helping us to reduce harm. The proposed provisions would strengthen our ability to apply bail restrictions and utilise disruption tactics. Crucially, by creating the offence of directing criminal activities, they would also improve our ability to target criminal leadership, which has been a long-term challenge for us in the absence of such legislation.

The planned amendments make no substantial change to live links: we support that. I am happy to take questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you, Anthony. I will run through the figures on begging. I caught the trespassing one, which was 15 times in the past three years.

What was the earlier one?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: It was 700 since 2018, so roughly 100 a year.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): One hundred per year since 2018 for the offence of —.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Simple begging.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. Thanks for that clarification. I did not have the figure in my head and did not want to get it wrong.

I remind members that we will deal with biometrics first, so, if anybody has any questions on Part 1 of the Bill on biometrics or the planned amendments, please indicate that now. Do not worry: you will get time to ask questions on all the other clauses in this session or the next, if that is required.

Ms Sheerin: Thank you all for coming in and for the presentation. Will you outline the PSNI's current advice on retention of data?

Mr Jeff Logan (Police Service of Northern Ireland): Data or biometric data?

Ms Sheerin: Biometrics.

Mr Logan: At present, there is no local legislation on the retention of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) biometrics. We revert to PACE, which allows us to retain them indefinitely. That is far from ideal from our point of view. As you know, there are two European Court of Human Rights rulings against the UK on that: S and Marper, and Gaughran. We want to comply with both those rulings, but, unfortunately, we are unable to because there is no local legislation. The Justice Bill is all about giving us that legislation, for which we are very grateful.

Having been left in the position of having no local legislation while being in violation of two European Court rulings, we mitigate risk by having in place the biometrics ratification committee. That committee meets regularly — usually monthly — and individuals are able to write in and request us to review the decision to further retain their biometrics. All the information on that is on the PSNI website. There is information for people on how to make a request, along with the application form, and on the reasons why we would retain and why we would delete biometrics: it is all there. People regularly apply for us to review the retention of their biometrics; often, we delete them.

Ms Sheerin: Is that committee an organisation within the PSNI?

Mr Logan: It is a committee within the organisation: yes.

Ms Sheerin: When it comes to a proposed review mechanism, do you agree that a truly independent committee or organisation should make those decisions, so that we do not have the PSNI reviewing the PSNI?

Mr Logan: We review decisions against a clear set of standards. A diverse group of people from within the PSNI sit around the table. Along with me, there is the head of biometrics, the head of scientific support and the head of the ID bureau. People from our public protection unit are also there. Our human rights lawyer is on the committee as well. As I said, we have a clear set of rules in the service instruction, which is published on the website, that says when we delete and when we retain. We apply those criteria and assess against them, and, on that basis, we retain or delete. If someone is unhappy with the result that we give them, which is usually because we are going to retain their biometrics, there is an appeals process. The appeal goes to the ACC for a decision.

Ms Sheerin: OK. At the outset, you referred to the fact that you are allowed to keep biometrics indefinitely. It is about how that works in practice and what difference the Bill will make.

Mr Logan: PACE allows us to retain biometrics indefinitely, because there is no local legislation in place. When the new legislation is commenced, a completely different retention regime will come in. PSNI has already stepped up a project that will put in place a process to take care of software, policies, procedures and everything else, so that, on the day of commencement, we will press a great big red button, if you like. At that point, a lot of fingerprints and DNA will be deleted from the database. There will then be an ongoing process of deletion as people's biometrics retention dates are reached and their biometrics are deleted from the database.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: You commented on our marking our own homework, which is understandable. It is important to mention that that is where we see the role of the biometrics commissioner bringing value. As Jeff said, rather than the indefinite retention of biometrics, the set periods of 75, 50 and 25 years will allow their deletion. However, as you will be aware, there is also provision for people to ask for their biometrics to be reviewed at an earlier stage. The PSNI will continue to decide that, but, if someone is not happy with the decision — let us say that we say that we want to retain their biometrics — the appeal mechanism would involve the individual appealing to the biometrics commissioner rather than the ACC. That part of the biometrics commissioner role would bring independent scrutiny to the entire process.

Ms Sheerin: As I understand it, the provisions in the Bill would still allow the Chief Constable to have oversight. Are you opposed to a completely independent mechanism that sits outside the PSNI?

Mr Logan: I am pretty sure that the Department of Justice paper on the review process states that, if someone asks for their biometrics to be deleted but the Chief Constable decides that they should not be, the person will have the right to take that decision to the biometrics commissioner. If the biometrics commissioner says that we should delete it, we will delete it.

Ms Sheerin: OK. The biometrics commissioner will have power over what the —.

Mr Logan: At the review stage, yes.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: That is, if there are lawful reasons and it is shown that we have misapplied the law in our retention or in our considerations.

Ms Sheerin: OK. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Before I bring in Ciara, I will stay on that point. What relationship do you see there being between the Chief Constable and the new Northern Ireland commissioner for the retention of biometric material? How do you see their interaction?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: We welcome it. There are commissioners in other areas of our business, and, as I said, that role will bring a degree of independent scrutiny to the process. It will be an external check and balance for us. If it is about public confidence, which is what we want to deliver in policing, that external and independent scrutiny is very much welcome. We also welcome the appeals process that we have just talked about. If we get it wrong or make errors or if there is learning to be taken on, we are a learning organisation, so we are happy to have that engagement and dialogue as and when the circumstances arise.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Do you see in the proposed legislation a clear demarcation between the Chief Constable's role and the role of the commissioner?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: We could do with that being clarified in the guidance. We had a conversation with the Department about the exact detail of that relationship and exactly the question that the Deputy Chair asked about the authority of the decision maker. It is a matter for the Committee and the Department of Justice. For me, the legislation needs to be a little clearer, but it could be dealt with by way of guidance. Given what the Department of Justice has explained to me in our conversations, I am content that it is a workable arrangement.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): The Bill's provisions will clearly set out the responsibilities and duties of the commissioner, because it is a new animal, if you like, so statute will dictate the parameters. It is about, I suppose, the connection between the Chief Constable's current roles, the amended roles that the Bill will enact and the interaction of two people on some decisions. Are you 100% sure who will have the final say? Will it be the commissioner? Will it be the Chief Constable?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: I would need to look at the legislation again. I read it about 10 days ago, but now that you have asked the question, I am happy to follow up on that. I certainly was when I last looked at it, but I am happy to look at it again.

Ms Sheerin: On the point that you have just raised, the Bill states:

That states:

so it looks as though the Chief Constable will still have oversight.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): We need to tease that out. That paragraph (6) may well be under other guidance, but we need to see a list of the duties and roles of the commissioner. If there is doubt at this stage, we need to iron it out. I will be happy enough if we can be given something that clarifies the interaction and the roles, responsibilities and duties of the Chief Constable and the commissioner.

Ms Ferguson: I want to follow up on a few areas. As you are well aware, there has been strong discussion, particularly among Committee members, about the retention of photographs. We believe that the Bill needs to incorporate provision to deal with that; there have been various conversations about it. Do you agree that a photograph becomes biometric when it is used for identification purposes, particularly given that PSNI images are shared with the police national database (PND) "on a continuous basis"?

Mr Logan: You will remember that the matter was raised when we were here in April. Whilst the Bill does not mention images, the PSNI has decided that it will treat custody images as biometrics: we will apply the retention rules for fingerprints and DNA to custody images. In making that decision, we are following on from the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) guidance that, as soon as an image is used to create a biometric template, by having a biometrics matrix put on top of it — as soon as it can go on to a searchable database, in other words — it becomes a biometric. We agree with that, and we will apply, or we certainly intend to apply, to our custody images the same biometric retention rules as we do to our fingerprints and our DNA.

Ms Ferguson: Do you agree that that should be incorporated in the Bill, including the word "photograph" as "biometric material"?

Mr Logan: We will certainly treat it as a biometric.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): It would all be operational, not in statute.

Mr Logan: Yes.

Ms Ferguson: Secondly, we are conscious of public awareness of the changes. It is recommended that the PSNI consider how to increase public awareness of the proposed changes to the use and retention of personal data and the procedures that they might need to follow. Have you given consideration to that recommendation, especially in relation to the under-18s and — I am passionate about this — young people with neurodiversity? Where are you with that?

Mr Logan: Do you mean when the legislation goes live?

Ms Ferguson: Yes.

Mr Logan: We intend to retain the biometrics ratification committee when we go live with the legislation. That will allow anybody to write in at any time to ask for a review of their biometrics: that will stay. All the information on that is already on the website. As I said, we get quite a few applications for that, and we process them, which certainly seems to have worked well. There probably is a communication piece for us to take on board before we go live, to make sure that everybody is aware of what has happened.

It is important to remember that, when the legislation goes live, the vast majority of the biometrics that come off will do so automatically because they have reached their biometric retention date. You do not need to apply to have your biometrics deleted: they will be deleted automatically as soon as they reach that biometric retention date. Only if you want your biometrics to be reviewed before that date will you make a written application to us that we will then consider.

Ms Ferguson: Even in the initial stages, such as when a young person is in a custody suite, it is about informing and educating them on the information that you are taking, why you are taking it, where it will be held and how long it will be held for. Are you able to communicate that? Have you done any work on it, and, if so, is it available? Is that in your operating standards?

Mr Logan: Do you mean in custody?

Ms Ferguson: Yes.

Mr Logan: I am not an expert on what happens in custody, so I defer to my colleagues on how that works.

Chief Inspector Jacqui Gillespie (Police Service of Northern Ireland): That is not in my remit either. I am sorry that I cannot advise on anything to do with custody, because I do not work in that area.

Ms Ferguson: That is fine. If you could follow that up —

Chief Inspector Gillespie: Yes.

Ms Ferguson: — it would be useful to see what currently happens.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: As you may recall, I mentioned that issue last time, and we are still quite a way off, because we have only just got the planned amendments, but I absolutely agree. As with any other legislation of a reasonable magnitude that we have introduced, staff training and a communication strategy that covers all your points will be required. We will put in place a process and a structure to do that. I hope that that work will be in partnership with the Department rather than just in the police, because the impact is across the piece. We will do that, but, truthfully, it is little too early because we do not have the finalised legislation. We need that before we can start to make firm plans.

Ms Ferguson: I have one final question. Current practice in Scotland for under-18s is that only those arrested for violent or sexual offending, or otherwise by exception have their biometric data taken. Does the PSNI have a view on that practice? Would you have any concerns if such an approach were to be taken in the Bill?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: As with all things to do with age, there will be polarised views on that across different sections of society. Ultimately, we will apply the law as it is written; I do not want to stray from that into giving a PSNI point of view.

The Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland is the legislated forum that looks after and protects the rights of children, and the PSNI is one member of that board. It might be prudent for the Committee to get the view of that collective body on behalf of children.

Ms Ferguson: OK. Thank you.

Mr Bradley: Thanks very much for your presentation; apologies for missing the start of it.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): We are only on biometrics.

Mr Bradley: Yes, I know; my question is on biometrics. As a photographer, when I take a digital image and add metadata to it, I presume that, in a PSNI context, that metadata becomes biometric data and therefore should be included in any biometric profile. If data is deleted from your biometric database, does that deletion happen at the same point across Europe, including in the Irish Republic, which is part of the EU? Will it automatically be deleted across all the platforms to which you have shared it?

Mr Logan: At the moment, the only biometric databases that we share our images to are national — UK — ones. They go to the PND, and, yes, when we have a PSNI image that is going to be deleted, the messaging will go across to the PND and the image will be deleted from that database.

Mr Bradley: That is fair enough. You mentioned restorative justice in your presentation, and I will touch on that. For some reason, you welcome a broadening of the organisations that can carry out restorative justice. Do you envisage sharing any biometric data with restorative justice organisations, and how do you plan to scrutinise those organisations and their employees and volunteers?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: First, I do not believe that the legislation suggests that there will be any sharing of biometric data with such organisations, and, off the top of my head, I cannot envisage any circumstances in which we might want to do that outwith this legislation or have any provisions to do so. To answer the first part of your question, the accreditation of the broadening of restorative justice practice is the responsibility of the Department of Justice. We will work with the bodies that the Department of Justice has said are accredited and able to carry out restorative justice practices.

Mr Bradley: You are right that it is not in the legislation, but these things have a habit of evolving into legislation as a Bill progresses. That is me, Chair.

Mr Kingston: By default, I am wary of any new commissioners and offices, because we end up with more bureaucracy. It is right that we question the value of creating another layer, another office and another expense for the public purse. Who currently oversees biometric data? Are there officers who have that specific responsibility — perhaps one of them is you, Anthony?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Jeff can chat you through that. We have a biometric ratification committee that is responsible for the review of biometrics in our operational support department. That is led by Assistant Chief Constable Melanie Jones. Within that, scientific support is responsible for biometrics, and Jeff is the subject matter expert. That is the body that is responsible for how the PSNI currently manages the retention of fingerprints, DNA and photographs.

Mr Kingston: So you have a body that scrutinises and oversees this and ensures that rules are enforced and applied?

Mr Logan: At the moment, we are trying to manage quite a difficult situation in that we do not have any local legislation. We do that by applying the live legislation, which is PACE, while also looking towards the two European Court judgements. That is why we have the ratification committee, which, as I said, allows people to write in and ask us to adjudicate on their case. In certain circumstances, we will delete their biometrics.

Mr Kingston: If it is not too much of a political — with a small "p" — question, what difference would creating a commissioner's office make? Would it make any difference? Do you think that the same outcome could be achieved without creating that new office?

Mr Logan: We have recently received papers from the Department on two issues. One was on the appeals for a review. If somebody was to write and ask for their biometrics to be reviewed, and the Chief Constable was to decide that he wants to retain that data, at that point, they could appeal to the biometrics commissioner.

There is also the issue of prescribed circumstances. The information package that would be put together for that would go to the biometrics commissioner, and it would be for them to decide whether those prescribed circumstances should apply or not and, therefore, if we can retain the biometrics for another three years. There may be other roles that the Department have for that commissioner that we are not aware of, but those are the two that we know about at the moment. They would also provide independent oversight of our decisions, which we want them to do.

Mr Kingston: Currently, the Chief Constable may or may not be the final authority, but you still have the Policing Board and the Police Ombudsman. Do you feel that this would be a more obvious route for any appeal to follow if there were a commissioner?

Mr Logan: Yes, it would certainly be an independent eye on what we are doing and any data that we are retaining. For anyone who has an appeal, I imagine that that is where it would go. It would be an independent person to oversee what the police are doing and their retention policy, and how they are applying the legislation.

Mr Kingston: I was not a member of the Committee when it did more detailed scrutiny of Part 1 of the Bill. Do similar posts exist in other jurisdictions?

Mr Logan: There is the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner for England and Wales and the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner

Mr Kingston: OK. This is my last question. I am trying to think of similar circumstances in which we have photographs or fingerprints taken, such as when we are going through border control at airports or ports. Would data there come under their jurisdiction? Are there any controls that you are aware of for the data that border control captures?

Mr Logan: I am honestly not sure exactly what is captured at the borders. That would be outside of the police's remit.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Our focus is on custody images of those people who are in custody.

Mr Kingston: Obviously, sometimes, those images might be of interest to the police if they are trying to track movements. Maybe that is purely for border control officers, under the Home Office.

Mr Logan: As far as I am aware, we do not have access to any of those databases.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I could be wrong, but there is an exclusion for certain regimes. For example, schedule 8 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the International Criminal Court Act 2001, the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 and the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019. That excludes those Acts from new articles 63B to 63X of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which the Bill inserts. You will have to delve into what that means yourself, Brian.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: It is about retention. I am just looking at it myself.

Mr Kingston: No doubt, there are good reasons for records not being disposed of too readily.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Just on that very valid point, does that mean that material can be held, as it is at the present time, indefinitely?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Our images?

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Yes.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: As we said, we are, as it stands, retaining fingerprints.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Yes, at the minute, but if the images that were obtained fell within the scope of any of those four Acts, how would you interlude with that? I presume that you use those Acts to arrest and then retain?

Mr Logan: I take it that those are all pieces of counterterrorism legislation?

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Yes. The International Criminal Court Act 2001 is one of them.

Mr Logan: Since 31 October 2013, the PSNI has applied the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) rules to all Terrorism Act (TACT) material. We have been actively deleting material since that date, as per POFA. If material is taken under any of the pieces of legislation that you mentioned, including the Terrorism Act and any of the other counterterrorism legislation, it will be deleted in accordance with the rules in POFA.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. Is that you finished, Brian?

Mr Kingston: Yes, thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I want to ask about the retention periods of 75, 50, 25, five, three and two years. There is actually a quirk, whereby the period is the length of sentence plus five years if P is given a custodial sentence of fewer than five years, the offence is their first offence and they are under 18. What is the reason for that quirk, where the retention period is the length of the sentence imposed plus five years as opposed to the other nailed down periods of 75, 50 and 25 years?

Mr Logan: I do not have that information in front of me, but, obviously, there is a different retention regime for juveniles than there is for adults. That is the first thing.

Someone may have done the calculations on that and found that there was a discrepancy between two people's retention times. That is the only reason that I can come up with. As I said, I do not have that detail in front of me.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. The two-year period is for when P is given a penalty notice under section 60 of the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. Correct me if I am wrong, and I could be, but that is for things such as criminal damage and being drunk in a public place, for which a person would get a penalty fine. How do you collect their data? How do you get biometrics from that person, if they have been given a fixed penalty notice?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: That is a good question, to which I simply do not know the answer.

Mr Logan: We probably do not collect it. That goes back to some of the previous questions about bringing people in post-conviction or, possibly, post-report. We should be able to scoop them up. At the moment, we have a problem because we have a lot of people to deal with. In effect, if you are not arrested, we have no way of taking your biometrics. Part 4 of PACE puts really strong restraints on the police as to when they can and cannot arrest. If you are not arrested, we cannot take you into custody. If we do not take you into custody, we cannot get your fingerprints, your DNA or your custody photograph. We would really like the law to be tightened up around what we can do post-conviction or post-report so that we can take those biometrics and get people on the database who have been convicted of an offence.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Yes. Do you mean retrospectively?

Mr Logan: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Yes. I have seen that somewhere. I do not know where, but I have seen it.

Mr Logan: It is in PACE.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Yes, it is in PACE.

Mr Logan: At the moment, it is possible to do that under PACE, but the person has to be brought in within a month of the date of their conviction, which is difficult to do. The officer who arrested the person may not even be aware that that person has been convicted. On top of that, the person has a seven-day period within that month in which to give their biometrics. That is really difficult for the officer in charge to do, because they could be on a rest day, on leave, on a different shift, attending a road traffic collision or whatever. That system simply does not work. We would really like it to be tightened up so that we can get that data.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Through an amendment from the Justice Minister, you will have a power, if it is within scope and made, to specify the date of a person's attendance at a police station for fingerprinting.

Mr Logan: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): The amendment states that the police:

That is quite specific. It is basically a mandate. What if somebody does not turn up? Is that an offence in its own right?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: No. There is a power of arrest for the purposes of bringing the person to the police station in order to take their fingerprints and DNA. Failing to turn up to provide fingerprints and DNA is not an offence, as I interpret it.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): How much flexibility will be afforded?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: That will come down the practical application of the legislation. I would like to tell you that we will be able to say to somebody, "We have a biometric and fingerprinting clinic on Tuesday in Ballymena and one on Thursday in Musgrave. One clinic is between 10.00 am and 2.00 pm and the other is between 2.00 pm and 4.00 pm. Pick one, and we will agree". That is the utopian world that I would like to get to. I do not know where we might be in two years' time. We might have to say, "We need you to turn up at 2.00 pm at Strand Road police station". It will come down to our ability to apply flexibility within the budget envelope that is available to us. Again, it will require human resource to bring those people to the police station and into the environment in which we are going to take their fingerprints and DNA. I would like to tell you that we will be as flexible as we can be, but the reality will be dictated by the operational environment as and when the legislation comes to life.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): How will that be administered? How will the person be notified? Will they be notified when they get a fixed penalty notice, or will it be by a letter of summons?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: How is it done at the minute, Jeff? Remind me. I think that the investigating officer is notified, so it will be via the investigating officer.

Mr Logan: Obviously, there is a process involved, because, by the time that it sometimes takes for things to get to court, the investigating officer might have retired or transferred to another station. A lot of things might have happened. We will have to really sit down and work it out. One of the things that we will have to do in the project is operationalise the process and think about how it works in practice. That will be for everybody's benefit. It will obviously be for the individual's benefit, so that they will not be going into a police station at 11.00 pm when the place is either half empty or really busy. We want to make this right for everybody.

Our biometric databases will be as effective as they are complete. We will be taking a lot of people off the database because we have to and it is quite right that we do so. However, we also want to make sure that we put the right people on to the database and this will be one of our ways of doing that. That is a gap that we have at the moment and we want to plug it.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Just to finish, this is exactly one of the IT challenges that I talked about. From the point of conviction to the point of sentencing, how do we notify an investigating officer that the biometrics have not been taken? If the subject has been arrested, they will have been taken. There will have to be process maps and swim lane diagrams to identify how we get an electronic process in place that notifies the officer and allows them to notify the individual to come to the police station. All that work has still to be done. We have a project board in place to look at that as and when the legislation has been finalised.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Do you think that there should be a fixed penalty notice under this biometric regime? At the minute, I suspect that, when somebody gets a fixed penalty notice, they do not get their fingerprints taken. Obviously, we are in this place because of human rights compliance and here is a further reach of you guys taking data from the person at a very low level. Do not get me wrong. Seriously, there is disorderly behaviour and behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace. However, the latter could be anything from parading to protest. Are we saying that we will take biometrics from those people who protest against the state?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: As I mentioned, we have a project board that will look specifically at all the provisions. I am not aware of what discussions are being had around that. I will have to take that one off the table. It is a fair question for you to ask, and I will come back to you on it.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. Also, with regard to the two-year retention of data for a penalty notice, there is no differentiation between ages, whereas, for every other time frame, there is age differentiation. That is true of most of them, not the qualifying stuff but the recordable stuff: the under-18 , right down to the 25 years and the length of sentence plus five years.

One other issue that I have is that the amendments are being split in two to allow a complete clause for a person who completes a community-based restorative justice process. That surprised me. It says:

Under what circumstances would a qualifying offence go through a restorative justice process? Why would people who have committed what are deemed to be the most serious offences in this country go through a restorative justice process?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: The restorative justice process is not for the most serious offences, as we all know, but some of the offences that go through the process will be recordable offences, such as theft or drugs possession. There may be circumstances in which a restorative justice approach is the right one. Those are two offences where, as we all know, reoffending is particularly likely. Therefore, if the restorative justice practice stops that reoffending, I support it. However, those offences are recordable offences, so if P was prosecuted, you would, ordinarily, seek to take fingerprints and DNA.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): The question is not whether that person should have their biometrics taken: they should. For somebody aged 18, the offence is a qualifying offence and their data will be retained for 75 years. There is no issue with that time frame, but it is the fact that this is included in a clause where P has completed a community-based restorative justice process. What sort of qualifying offences go through a restorative justice process? Surely restorative justice is a very good tool for use at a very low level, especially for youths and where there is a community-based solution, but where would a qualifying offence come into that?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: A qualifying offence in terms of these provisions?

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Yes. It is basically a new clause. It is about persons completing community-based restorative justice processes. It is an amendment — a new clause — that relates specifically to community-based restorative justice processes. Within that, the years are contained — the 75 years for a qualifying offence and the 25 years for a recordable offence. How would anybody who has been convicted of a qualifying offence be going through a community-based restorative justice process? It is not about the retention of the data, but how someone at that level could —.

Mr Logan: Are you asking how somebody who has committed that level of offence can end up going through a restorative justice process?

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Yes, that is exactly what I am asking.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: That level of offence is what I am referring to — the likes of theft and possession of drugs. Those are qualifying offences.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): So they are qualifying offences? They are deemed the most serious?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Yes. They are serious offences — 14 years on indictment. They are classed as —.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I suppose that what I am asking is this: would a murderer ever go through a community-based restorative justice process?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: No, not that I could ever foresee.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. That is fine. Thank you for that clarification. I will wrap up the biometrics piece, unless anyone else wants to come in with a burning question.

You said, Anthony, that your people here — Jeff and Jacqui — are proficient in vagrancy legislation and live links. Is that right?

Mr Logan: That is Jacqui. I deal with biometrics.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I think that we should go there first, so I will take things out of sequence a wee bit, if that is OK. I just want to do that while you are here and while we have the time. We will move to the use of live links and planned amendments on live links. Do any members wish to ask questions on the live links provisions in the legislation?

Ms Sheerin: Thanks again. How will the live link interviews be governed and how will they affect the confidentiality between solicitors and their clients?

Chief Inspector Gillespie: On the confidentiality issue, the live links will be governed to the same standard to which our interviews are governed. There will be a secure live link, and the information and data that is collated within that interaction will be kept securely. The live link interview will not be recorded on the live link; it will be recorded on the interview system. At the minute, if we have an interview in custody, we have a recording deck, CCTV and other equipment in the room to record the interview. The live link itself will be facilitated through Webex. That Webex interaction will not be recorded. It is simply a media tool. If I am one of the interviewing officers and there is another interviewing officer in another station, a live link is a means by which all parties to the interview can see and hear everybody else and be seen and be heard by the other parties. In effect, the live link is an interactive tool, but the data and everything that is recorded during the interview will be retained in exactly the same way as it is now.

Ms Sheerin: OK. Is that currently managed by an internal PSNI policy?

Chief Inspector Gillespie: It is a national approach to live links. When the amendments are made, that will be the approach that is taken. Nothing will be recorded on the Webex system or through the live links. The recording of the interview will take place as it does now.

Ms Sheerin: OK.

Chief Inspector Gillespie: Have I answered your question? No?

Ms Sheerin: Mmm.

Chief Inspector Gillespie: We are not using live links at the moment because, obviously, they are part of the Bill, but that is how they will work when we use them for interviews in custody.

Ms Sheerin: Is that a secure system?

Chief Inspector Gillespie: Yes, it is as secure as any system can be. It has been subject to a risk assessment, we are content with it and the Chief Constable has signed it off as being a secure system for the use of live links.

Ms Sheerin: OK. The Chief Constable has signed that off. Will there be engagement with solicitors?

Chief Inspector Gillespie: Yes, there will. There will be engagement with the partners that will be party to the live links interviews once they are up and running in custody. In fact, we have already started to engage with solicitors. Recently, our custody team had conversations with them about what the use of live links will look like. They are aware of the situation, and we will have wider engagement once the Bill reaches the end of its passage.

Ms Sheerin: That has already happened, and they are content with it.

Chief Inspector Gillespie: I was not party to the meeting, but I know that it has already happened.

Ms Sheerin: OK. On the sharing of documents and the paperwork side of things, how —?

Chief Inspector Gillespie: That will be shared through a secure email system. At the moment, when we share data, information and documents with solicitors, it is done with a secure email address. It will be exactly the same if we share documents that relate to a live links interview in custody. If we are to share information and documents internally — say, from one interview team to another that is in another location — that will be done through our secure internal email system.

Ms Sheerin: OK. In the PSNI?

Chief Inspector Gillespie: Yes.

Ms Sheerin: OK. Thank you.

Ms Ferguson: So are you confirming that live links are not being, and have never been, used in custody suites here in the North?

Chief Inspector Gillespie: Yes, so live links are being used for —.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: There are two distinct differences. The existing provisions allow for someone who has been charged with an offence to live link into a court virtually, rather than attend physically. That is happening presently. However, as it stands, if I am in Musgrave Street police station, and, for argument's sake, the suspect whom I want to interview is in Strand Road police station in the Derry City and Strabane area, we have no electronic facility by which to do that so it will require us all to be physically present in one location. The provisions that we are discussing would allow for me to sit in one location and the solicitor and the suspect to sit in a different location. That use of live links is different to their current use.

Chief Inspector Gillespie: Yes. The Bill's provisions are for interviews in custody. We have live links to the court at the moment.

Ms Ferguson: I assume that there is quality assurance of your use of live links to court. How has that been going? What data are you currently looking at? Have you been reflecting on how that is working in the courts?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: As you will recall, that was brought in under coronavirus legislation. That gave us the ability to stop the movement of people. We very much welcome it from the point of view that it means that we do not have to transport someone, with, potentially, police officers having to sit with them in a courtroom for two or three hours whilst we await them being brought up for their particular hearing. It allows us to do that remotely.

As regards the facilities that we have, it would be fair to say that nobody envisaged live links back in 2020, so our structures have required a lot of modification. We have had to dedicate rooms and ensure that they are a suitable distance away from any other environment for soundproofing purposes, and things like that, because, in the past, judges have commented about background noise and so on. We have done a lot of work through our strategic custody group to try to ensure that those facilities are as supportive for the judiciary, the police, the suspect and their solicitor as possible. For example, the Waterside suite, which is our newest custody suite, was very much designed with that in mind. It has a dedicated courtroom — we call it our "virtual courtroom" — to which we will bring a suspect, as though they were sitting in front of the judge. That is something that we have been building on, and we are continually refreshing our custody estate to put in live link courtrooms. However, as you say, that is a very different thing to us interviewing a suspect remotely. When it comes to court purposes, live links are working well.

Ms Ferguson: They are working well. I assume, then, that you are looking across your estate and planning ahead to ensure that you have adequate equipment and accommodation. As we progress with the legislation over the next year or two, it would be useful to see where you are going to put the equipment.

Chief Inspector Gillespie: We have started that already. An assessment of what equipment we need and the standard of the interview rooms that will be required when the legislation comes in has enabled us to do that. We have engaged our technical partners and the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service. We have costings. We have engaged the college to prepare an online training platform so that officers and staff understand how to use the new process once the provisions have been enabled.

That is very much under way. We have consulted across the organisation to take views on how people will use the new process. Those views are being collated, so we are doing a bit of stakeholder engagement, and we are looking at equipment needs and costings for the rooms and the training.

Ms Ferguson: I appreciate that internal aspect of it that needs to happen, so I am going to raise it again, as I have raised it previously. I have one grave concern that relates to specific groups of individuals, such as those with developmental learning or cognitive differences and those who face cultural barriers, including non-English speakers and stuff. It is about ensuring that the system works but also that individuals are aware of why and how it is happening and of the benefits of it. Is work being done towards having discussions with those groups to ensure that it will work?

Chief Inspector Gillespie: Once we get a little further down the line in making sure that we are content with our internal process, we will start engagement with the groups that you mentioned to get their feedback, because obviously that is important. There are safeguards in the live links legislation for vulnerable people, people under the age of 14 and people between the ages of 14 and 18, but I understand what you are saying: people need to know exactly what the process is, and they need to understand it. They have to consent to be interviewed using live links as a mediator. If they do not give their consent, the interview cannot go ahead. It needs to be informed consent, however, so we will definitely do that.

Ms Ferguson: That is a red flag for me. It is about trying to ensure that those who are most vulnerable are supported through and engaged in the process. There is an opt-out clause, which is recognition that it may not be suitable. I love face-to-face interaction, to be honest — that is best — and it could be daunting to be in a custody suite on a link.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: By way of reassurance, I echo your views, and I would go further. For someone with those concerns, it is not just about the interview; it is about being in a custody environment full stop. Again, our Waterside suite was built with that very much in mind. There is a specific area for children and for those who are with vulnerable people. We are in the early stages of looking at the amalgamation of some of our other custody suites. All those things will be considered. We are developing a process and a strategy/policy for dealing with persons with neurodivergence. We have just developed a specific piece of work on how we support females in the custody environment. We are very much alive to all the section 75 needs — that goes beyond interviewing — but I fully accept your point.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you. That is good to hear.

Mr Bradley: On clause 21, how many suitable custody suites are in operation? You seem pretty confident that the system is robust, but will you commit to coming back to tell us whether there have been any failures and, if so, how many there have been? The other thing is about children. I am not sure that live links should be the norm for children: it should be the exception.

When you talked a few seconds ago about re-evaluating the current custody suites, it sounded to me as though you were going to reduce the number of them. Someone has to be taken to a custody suite to be interviewed via live links. In my area, which is the north coast, that means taking people from Ballycastle, Portrush, Portstewart or Coleraine to Strand Road or Antrim to be interviewed via live link. You bypass a large police station to get to Strand Road and Antrim, yet you talk about reducing them even further. It does not make sense to me. Will you explain it a wee bit further?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: If you are talking about the custody estate provision, I will go back to the fact that, as the Committee will know from the Chief Constable's commentary, we are a police service with, when inflation is factored in, a significantly reduced budget. I guess that we are no different from when I think about the number of hospitals in Northern Ireland when I was a child versus the number of hospitals that it has now. Something similar has happened to custody suites and police stations in general. We have a lot fewer police stations. The cost of retaining custody suites is significant, because they have to be maintained to a high specification, as you would expect, because a lot of the people who are in a custody environment are in crisis for one reason or another. The cost of upkeep for 11 custody suites will far outweigh the cost of —. They are old custody suites at that, some of which have windows and present opportunities for ligature damage and so on. Would I like a custody suite in every police station? Yes, I would. From a business point of view, is that financially viable? No, it is not. Does that impact on everyone, not just children? Yes, it does. That decision is made with the best of intentions, so that the custody suites that we have are of the highest specification and provide the best service for those who are there, be they a detainee, a solicitor, a police officer or a member of police staff who is working there. I understand your concerns, but, from an operational perspective, that is the direction of travel and, I believe, our only financially viable option.

Mr Bradley: I have one wee further question, Chair.

You made reference to the number of hospitals. There is a direct correlation between the reduction in the number of hospitals and the increase in waiting lists and disservice within the health service. Are you not frightened that the same thing will happen to the PSNI, which is that reducing and reducing will lead to long delays and a reduction in the proper service?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: I fully accept the question. One way to look at that is to talk about the police estate in general. The difference between the police and the health service — I will not reference any other agency — is that police officers are more equipped to be mobile nowadays than they were 20 years ago. Police officers can pretty much do everything that they need to do whilst they are out on patrol. There is no real need for them to return to a station. That is a great advantage. We can cover a broader geographical spread than we could have done, frankly, when I was an officer on the beat, when there was a requirement to return to the station. From my perspective, the reduction in the estate was actually required and does not diminish our service.

When it comes specifically to custody, we have had a challenge over the past couple of years with Omagh station, which has been closed for refurb. That has taken much longer than we would have liked, because we uncovered broader problems than we have had. We have looked at our response times, because, to take your point, if officers are potentially, or probably, driving further to a custody suite, might that mean that there is a reduction in service to that community? That is not tracking through. Our attendance at 999 and 101 calls has not diminished, despite the fact that Omagh station has been closed and officers have had to drive to Strabane or another custody suite in that time.

Mr Bradley: You are not in my area enough. I will leave it at that.

Mr Kingston: Like others, I welcome this whole topic being taken out of coronavirus emergency legislation and put on its own standing. In the modern world, we all still use live links for some meetings, but, equally, we are all glad to get back to face-to-face meetings, as Ciara said. The quality of communication and understanding is much greater in face-to-face meetings compared with online meetings. Looking at some of the responses from groups that were concerned that that would become the norm —.1

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Sorry, which aspects are you referring to that would become the norm?

Mr Kingston: Either live link interviews or matters relating to court proceedings. The conditions for using live links are:

and

for a child. Nothing in the legislation places any restriction on the growth of that. The concern is that it should not become the norm to have an officer sitting somewhere. Obviously, that is more time-efficient, because an officer can do lots of interviews or issue cautions or whatever over the internet, but ensuring that people have a clear understanding of what they are consenting to, get the proper advice and do not feel rushed or pressurised is hard to capture in legislation. How do we ensure that that does not become the norm on the grounds of efficiency? Normally, I speak for efficiency, but, in this case, we need to ensure that people are not being pressurised.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Efficiency is not the motivator for me to carry out an interview of someone who is in a different place from me. I actually think that, like you in that scenario, I would much prefer to carry out an interview face to face. We will have to look at our operational guidance around this in due course. I will never say "never", but I would pretty much say that never would we ever interview someone who has been arrested for murder or rape where the police officers are not in the same locality as the individual, unless there are really extreme circumstances. That might simply be that the officers cannot get to that station within a certain time period because of weather or something really out there that restricts them. I see it as something that officers could use where there are maybe time pressures on the clock — for example, if the officers were with that individual, but they had to carry out an inquiry that caused them to go somewhere else and they could not get back in time, or whatever, but there is a police station nearby. There might be circumstances like that. In truth, my assessment of it is that it is a useful tool to have, but I do not see that, operationally, it will become the norm. It will be the exception. That is certainly the discussions that we have had in the police.

Mr Kingston: It is something that I am sure that we will be able to monitor. Can statistics be produced so that its use can be tracked?

Chief Inspector Gillespie: We did a benchmarking exercise with other police services, and there is very little use of those types of interviews in custody. The services that we have had the benchmarking interaction with have had that legislation since 2015. It is very rarely used, so we do not, as the boss said, envisage its being business as usual.

Mr Kingston: OK. Thank you.

Ms Ferguson: Just a wee quick one? With regard to the benchmarking that has been done elsewhere since 2015, do they have review periods set in for the usage of it?

Chief Inspector Gillespie: I did not ask that question. I can go back and ask, if you want that information. We shared the results of the benchmarking exercise with Department of Justice colleagues, but I can certainly go back and ask them whether that is the case.

Ms Ferguson: That would be useful, and then what quality assurance system they use for live links would be useful as well. Thank you, Jacqui.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. Danny, remotely.

Mr Baker: Thank you, Chair. Just because custodial settings have been mentioned in some of the answers, I want to stray a wee bit away from live links, but it is something similar, if that is OK.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. It may be picked up in another agenda item, but is it —?

Mr Baker: Yes. I just wondered: a number of clauses in the Justice Bill provide legislative underpinning for the separation of children and adults in custodial settings and on sentencing, remand and detention. What steps will the PSNI take to ensure that that same standard is replicated in police custody settings?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: I am not following the question. "A custody sentence"?

Mr Baker: Settings.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Oh, "settings". Sorry. I thought you said "sentence".

Mr Baker: Sorry, the signal is not great. Sorry.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Can you repeat it for me so that I am answering the right question?

Mr Baker: In the Justice Bill, there is legislative underpinning that they want to do around the separation of children and adults in custodial settings and on sentencing, remand and detention. What steps will the PSNI take to ensure that the same standard is replicated in police custody settings?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: As in where children are kept, versus adults?

Mr Baker: Yes.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: OK. As I mentioned, we are very much alive to that. I talked earlier about how we have taken the learning from previous experiences, whereby we have built a specific section within Waterside custody suite for children so that they are separated from adults. Well, first, taking children into custody is absolutely a last resort, and getting children out of custody as quickly as possible is our absolute priority. I should say that at the start. However, where they are in custody, where it is at all possible, we will make sure that they are separated from adults. There will be times, particularly in the smaller suites, which goes back to my point about modernising our estate and having better facilities, when that opportunity is diminished, but there will be times when there are five, six or seven cells in a row, and a child may be in one and there may be adults on either side. We try to avoid those circumstances where at all possible, so we are very alive to the needs of children. A child will obviously have the right to an appropriate adult to support them through all those processes, and we give particular guidance and instructions to our custody officers and staff as to the needs of children. We will happily share those with you if you feel that that would be of help.

Mr Baker: That is brilliant. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Let me see whether I have any further questions. How have you found the quality of the connection for interviews? You do not do live link interviews at the moment. You only use live links for court hearings under the Coronavirus Act 2020; is that correct?

Chief Inspector Gillespie: We do some that came about through the measures that we put in place because of COVID. Sometimes, but not very often, we will do a voluntary interview via live links. That is not done in a custody setting; it is a voluntary interview. When we first introduced this process, as I said, as a result of COVID, there were issues in certain areas where the connection was not great. Our information and communications services colleagues did a lot of work in those interview rooms to improve the connection. As I understand it, the connection issues that we experienced are now few and far between.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Obviously, we understand the Coronavirus Act 2020 and the movement of people meaning that you could be in a court setting remotely from a custody suite or a prison cell or other establishment. If we extend that out, however, what level of control will the defendant have over the live link? Who will control the feed or the link? When somebody is being questioned, what is to stop them from interrupting the feed, or even switching it off?

Chief Inspector Gillespie: The controls will be within the PSNI estate. If it is connected to the court, it will be within the courts estate. Any interaction that we have with the courts is usually managed from their end, but we manage the controls for the interviews that we conduct with our technology.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Right, OK. Somebody who is being questioned cannot just turn off the link and cease the interview?

Chief Inspector Gillespie: No. You can never say never, but they will not have access to the controls to allow them to do that.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: On a practical level, they will still be accompanied. They will not be sitting on their own. They will be accompanied and managed for their welfare and security and the general run of it. As my colleague says, even in the worst-case scenario, were an individual to get up and break a screen or something like that, we will use another screen or we will revert to doing the interview by way of a manual process.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): How does that affect custody clocks and stuff like that?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Ultimately, their ability to affect their custody clock is pretty limited. Will there be some delay? Yes, of course there will, but my thinking is that that will be minimal. Let us say that, for whatever reason, the tech goes down — it is not sabotage; it could be a stormy day or whatever, or we have some sort of catastrophe — we will just get another police officer in and carry out the interview. There might be some delay but, ultimately, it is on us to manage that accordingly.

Chief Inspector Gillespie: They are never on their own. An interviewee will never be on their own in an interview. There will always be a police officer with them.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): As well as their legal representative.

Chief Inspector Gillespie: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): There is a quick wee clause in the Minister's amendments whereby:

"Public authority" includes the PSNI, the Chief Constable and, interestingly enough, the First Minister and the deputy first Minister and a Minister in the Executive. Why would you need that? In which scenario should that be used by a police officer?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: It may well be for their own personal protection. There may be situations where it is not prudent to move people in and out of public arenas. Therefore, it could potentially be for their own protection and safety and for the safety of those who are looking after them. That is one such example.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): This is purely down to my ignorance, but what is a single-participant proceeding?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: I interpreted that to mean that it is them and them alone as a defendant. It is not that there is a co-defendant. You could have someone else in the court and me in a different environment.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Right. OK. Thank you for that. Anybody else on the live links? I think that we have exhausted that; thanks very much. We will move on to the repeal of vagrancy legislation. Connie, go on ahead.

Ms Egan: I appreciate your coming in today, and I appreciate your presentation, especially your agreement in principle with repealing the criminalisation of vagrancy. It is something that I agree with. However, I am very conscious that you will be the ones who will be operationalising it. Paul asked about the statistics, and I think that you said that there have been around 100 prosecutions per year since 2017. Was that for begging?

Chief Inspector Gillespie: Yes.

Ms Egan: Was it fewer than that for rough sleeping?

Chief Inspector Gillespie: We would never prosecute anybody for rough sleeping.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: There have been 15 people charged for trespassing.

Chief Inspector Gillespie: Sorry, section 4 is the trespass offence. Fifteen people have been charged with that over the past three years.

Ms Egan: What I really want to know is, especially for begging, do the police intervene on a call-out, or do you go and arrest someone and then bring charges?

Chief Inspector Gillespie: We can come across instances of begging in a number of ways: a member of the public can report the matter, and then we will respond; a member of the public may report a matter, and we respond and we come across an instance of begging; or officers will come across it when they are on patrol.

Ms Egan: How do you intervene, given that some of those individuals will be vulnerable? I am just asking for information.

Chief Inspector Gillespie: Absolutely. I understand where you are coming from. We will only ever arrest for begging as an absolute last resort, whether it is a nuisance, somebody is repeatedly begging in the same location after they have been asked to move on several occasions, people are feeling intimidated or it reaches a threshold of being a public order offence or a harassment offence. However, arrest is a last resort.

We will be a bit intrusive around the circumstances of the person who is begging, who they are, what the circumstances are, why they are begging and whether they have any particular needs. We have broadly the same approach, but it is slightly different in different areas, and we responded in that vein to the public consultation, so you will see all the different areas in the PSNI and how we respond to begging. However, it is absolutely a concern for a person's welfare and what other support they need, because we all know that people have so many complex issues, and that can lead people to be on the streets begging. We know that, sometimes, even when people are given the support, they are still kept in that cycle of begging. Therefore, officers look at how they can signpost them and what help and assistance they need, but it is absolutely a last resort to arrest people.

Ms Egan: It is helpful with officers signposting them. With those statistics that you gave us to 2017, have incidences of trespass with intent and begging increased every year since 2017, have you seen a decrease year-on-year, or is it roughly the same amount per year?

Chief Inspector Gillespie: On average, cases of begging are probably the same every year. I do not see any notable increase, but I will have to go back and look at the yearly figures again, rather than just give you the ballpark figure.

Ms Egan: I appreciate that.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: The numbers are small, and that refers to the fact that, as my colleague said, it is used as a last resort. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we do not want to criminalise individuals. We recognise that they have acute needs and often seek to get them into sheltered accommodation and all those things, which is what officers do on a weekly basis to avoid that last resort. We are very much a support service, but there will be circumstances when people are disruptive constantly outside the same shop and things like that, and shopkeepers are getting frustrated and so on. However, as you can see from the stats, it is something that we do not want to do, but, as I mentioned, we have a broader concern that, without anything in place of it, there just might be a gap.

Chief Inspector Gillespie: Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act, which is the offence of being found on premises for an unlawful purpose, is very often added by the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) when a person has been arrested for other offences, such as burglary, and there is not enough evidence to prove the offence of burglary, but the PPS believes that the actual offence of being found on premises for an unlawful purpose is being made out. It is used by the Public Prosecution Service.

Ms Egan: Can I get another one, please, Chair?

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Yes.

Ms Egan: I am broadly supportive of repeal. As Anthony said, the principle is important, given that we are dealing so often with very vulnerable individuals. We have a few hoops to jump through in the Assembly — if it gets to the Assembly, it has to be passed for this to go through — but you mentioned concerns about there being a few gaps. If it does go through, would it be helpful, following that, if there were engagement with the Department and reviews conducted to identify any gaps and make sure that they can be properly addressed?

Chief Inspector Gillespie: Yes, absolutely. We have engaged with the Department throughout all this and would certainly welcome that continuing. The Committee has proposed a few questions for us to consider, and I have looked at those. Considering that neighbouring jurisdictions have seen fit to introduce legislation to plug any gap, I think that it would be prudent for those to be considered here.

Ms Egan: That is helpful. When it comes to tackling some of these social issues, we need a more rounded approach than a justice one with the PSNI alone.

Chief Inspector Gillespie: Absolutely.

Ms Egan: Thank you very much.

Mr Kingston: I have a lot of interest in this section. I am concerned about the public message going out that rough sleeping and begging are no longer offences. I get entirely that the solution is not policing — you cannot arrest your way out of where nuisance is caused — and I get entirely that issues of mental health and addiction are at play and that support services are needed. All homelessness charities are committed to the accommodation-first model and to bringing support to people, but my concern is that the police have sufficient tools at their disposal. I have had meetings with traders in the city centre. Alistair Hagan was at a recent meeting, and he highlighted how forces in GB, compared with the PSNI, have a range of powers that do not exist here currently. For example, there is a public order protection — what is it?

Chief Inspector Gillespie: The public space protection order.

Mr Kingston: Yes, and sufficient move-on powers. If it is left that an offence has to occur before an intervention can be made, as opposed to people reporting feeling harassed or intimidated —. I speak to people who go to the city centre, particularly women, who I think are more likely to suffer harassment and aggressive begging, who feel threatened and not safe. Incidents of physical altercations have occurred.

We got a letter in our pack from the departmental officer saying that section 4 of the 1824 Act is largely redundant anyway and has been superseded, apart from the issue of being:

which means trespass. That is the question about trespass with intent. Also, I do not know whether you have seen Professor Kevin Brown's paper for the Committee, but, when I read it, I think it is helpful. He gave evidence to us to address begging and causing harassment, obstruction or public order concerns. It is all right for us sitting here to say, "We do not want to interfere with people who are vulnerable", but if you are trying to run a business in the city centre and customers are being put off coming in because of someone's inappropriate behaviour, or if you are questioning whether to go into a retail area such as the city centre because you think that you will get harassment and not feel safe, we have to ensure that the police can intervene to move people on and discourage inappropriate behaviour.

I am keen to hear your opinion of the potential amendments in Professor Brown's paper and whether there are other powers that, you feel, you lack or might find yourselves lacking in future.

Chief Inspector Gillespie: I had a call from Retail NI this morning that expressed exactly those concerns. I looked at Professor Brown's paper, and I agree that it is helpful. It sets out various bits of legislation that can be considered and makes recommendations for consideration of legislation in other jurisdictions that might be introduced here.

I will take your questions one at a time. You mentioned the offence of trespass with intent. As we heard, 15 people were charged with that offence in the past three years. In 12 of those cases, the Public Prosecution Service added the offence to the file when it was reviewed, so that was put on the file in addition to other offences. As I said, it is usually used where the offence of burglary cannot be made out. I also looked at earlier years. Between 2019 and 2021, eight people were convicted of that offence, and, in all cases, the Public Prosecution Service had added it at the decision-making stage, usually, again, because the offence of burglary could not be made out. There was one incident of somebody trespassing and urinating in a front garden. On another occasion, somebody who had been on what was described as a "crime spree" was found in someone's shed. Another person had gone into a new-build, and, when the owner returned, they found the person asleep in it. In those cases, the intent required for the offence of burglary to be made out was not proved. The offence of trespass with intent is not used often, but it is considered by the PPS.

We were asked what concerns there might be if the offence were removed and how such behaviour might otherwise be captured. I have researched that. There is, as far as I know, no alternative stand-alone offence of trespass with intent. I am conscious of time, so I will not repeat what is in Professor Brown's paper, but you will see in it a number of specific offences that involve intent to do something else. In burglary offences, the intent beforehand or having entered is to steal or to commit grievous bodily harm or criminal damage. There is an offence of trespass with a firearm with intent. A number of such offences relate to intent, but there is no broad offence. If the trespass with intent offence were to be removed, the offending that that captures in cases in which there is not enough proof of a specific alternative offence would no longer be captured.

When it comes to how such offending could otherwise be captured, the ACC mentioned section 11 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 used by the guards down South. That provides for it to be an offence:

It is quite a wordy offence. A similar measure is proposed for England and Wales in clause 10 of the Crime and Policing Bill, which provides for:

to be an offence. Those are examples of alternative offences that could replace the offence of trespass with intent.

Mr Kingston: Can you send those to us?

Chief Inspector Gillespie: Yes, I can.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Professor Brown's paper refers to clause 10.

Mr Kingston: Are those offences referenced there?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: We would need to understand from the Committee and the Department of Justice exactly what you want from the police in proposing move-on powers. You can have a power to move on, but that raises the questions, "Move on to where?", and "For how long?". I understand that, in its simplest sense, such a power may be useful, but the practical application of it would need to be thought through by Committee and the Department before we could operationalise it.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK, Brian?

Mr Kingston: Yes. That is fine for now.

Public spaces protection orders —.

Chief Inspector Gillespie: They are in place in England and Wales in antisocial behaviour legislation, as far as I can remember. That enables local authorities to put certain conditions on a public space: for example, no begging. That has been used in England and Wales for that purpose, but it does not relate solely to the act of begging; it can relate to other things that people might consider to be antisocial behaviour within a specific boundary of a public space. That is within the power of the local authority, rather than the police.

Mr Kingston: Right.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Does that include protest? Probably.

Chief Inspector Gillespie: I would need to double-check that.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: There is specific legislation governing protest in relation to duration, place, time and so on. This is more about antisocial behaviour-type activity, rather than pure protest.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK.

Mr Bradley: The two questions that I had have been answered to Connie and Brian very well. Thank you very much. As, I am sure, you have gathered, I am not a fan of centralisation, whether it is in local government, health or the PSNI, I am not a fan.

I am not against the repeal of the Vagrancy Act: it is a good thing if managed properly. Will you come back with a post-implementation report on how well it has worked or has not worked? We all come up with great schemes that are designed to save money and save staff, but nobody ever revisits them to say, "Well, actually, that did not work".

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: It is like any legislation. Having been involved in many pieces of it — for example, the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021, the Protection from Stalking Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 and the non-fatal strangulation offence — I would very much welcome the opportunity to revisit those. There is no doubt that some have worked better than others, and there have been operational challenges. I am happy to provide the Committee with whatever it desires.

Mr Bradley: I appreciate that, thank you very much.

Ms Ferguson: I will repeat myself, just like last week, when I say that we need to be clear and differentiate between vulnerable, homeless people and those who are begging and what is happening with Retail NI and the various reports; there can be a clear difference. I just want to reiterate that. It is antiquated legislation. We agree that it needs to change, and I support the police's approach to it, where it is not about criminalising a vulnerable person. We can see the small number of incidents that have been occurring, and, when you have done further work and cannot charge someone with an offence of burglary, you can use this offence for a small number of cases. When you are talking about quality assurance, we can see that you have been implementing a clear, person-centred approach around vulnerability, and I very much welcome that.

I am slightly veering off topic, but some excellent work is being done, particularly in Belfast through the Complex Lives programme. I have been heavily involved in Derry through the city centre initiative with the police and retail. From a police perspective, if such projects are invested in, is that something that you see the benefits of and appreciate because it assists you but also supports the most vulnerable?

Chief Inspector Gillespie: Yes, absolutely. It is about getting the balance right between the vulnerabilities and needs of people today on our streets and protecting others who are going about their daily business. It is about getting the balance right and not criminalising those in need but, obviously, upholding the law for citizens going about their daily business and protecting the business community so that they can continue their business without obstruction, irritation or harassment or from people being put off going to the shops.

Ms Ferguson: But there is a clear line. Of course, our retail workers must be protected but not necessarily from homeless people or people who are begging.

Chief Inspector Gillespie: Absolutely not.

Ms Ferguson: I just feel uncomfortable when the conversation veers into the experiences of our retail staff, and, of course, it should not be happening. If there is an offence against someone or someone in the general public feels vulnerable, they need to be protected. However, at the same time, when it comes to vagrancy, homelessness and vulnerable people who are begging, that is different. Last week, Retail NI mentioned that the majority of people causing the issues are those who are living in the community. It is not homeless people or those who are vulnerable and begging. Our retail staff are supportive of those people; they help them and connect them to community groups and stuff. There is a clear delineation between vagrancy law, the people we are dealing with and separately —.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: There is.

Ms Ferguson: I just want to reiterate that point.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: There are many different circumstances around that — for example, protests and counterprotests — and there are different views on those issues. We can use lots of different legislation in those spheres. There can simply be someone who has taken umbrage against a certain individual, and that is clearly not in the unlawful trespass space but in the harassment and stalking space. We will be alive to the different suites of legislation that we will use most appropriately. Absolutely, those offences are reserved for those who clearly do not have that intent.

Chief Inspector Gillespie: Retail came up because of Brian's question, but it is about getting the balance right for everyone in society, not just those in retail or the citizens going about their business. It is about getting it right for everybody and making sure that people get the support to stop the cycle of begging and homelessness.

Ms Ferguson: Do you welcome projects such as Complex Lives and the role they can play? There is also inter-agency work to support those who are vulnerable.

Chief Inspector Gillespie: Yes.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you.

Chief Inspector Gillespie: Police Scotland takes a multi-agency approach to homelessness, begging and rough sleeping. It involves a lot of statutory and voluntary agencies and the police, and it works well.

Ms Sheerin: I was not going to come in because Ciara covered my point. To be honest, I am catching up on the work because I am new to the Committee. If I understand it correctly, the objective of removing the old, outdated legislation is to move away from unhelpful and harmful language and a way of policing that belongs to a day that is long gone. In line with what Ciara said, I am not comfortable with the gentrification concept that, "This is a nice area, professional people are here, and we should not have this issue".

We need a clear differentiation between the handling of vulnerable people and those who are out to make mischief. With the best will in the world, Professor Brown's note suggests advising people that they will be arrested, but how effective will that be if you are dealing with a vulnerable person? There was a note about it in the pack that has been sent to the Minister for comment, and we await her response. I do not know what the right answer is, but the issue is clearly outlined, and we need a compassionate process that meets people where they are.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): It is clear from your presentation that you are compassionate about the social issues that lead to homelessness, sleeping rough and begging. I also get a sense that you are concerned about the gaps. If you own a business or are a homeowner and walk into your business or home and find a trespasser, vulnerable or not, what action can be taken if the laws are repealed?

Chief Inspector Gillespie: It depends on the circumstances surrounding the incident. If somebody is in need and contacts the police, there will be an assessment to deploy officers to the person. It depends on the other circumstances surrounding the incident. First, you would be alarmed if you found someone in your home who should not be there. I imagine that the police would have to consider the circumstances.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): When you get the call and go to the scene, what action can you legally take at the minute? What Acts do you use to perform your policing role? What vires do you have?

Chief Inspector Gillespie: It depends on the circumstances, but you could arrest the person. It would —

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Arrest them under what law?

Chief Inspector Gillespie: You could arrest them under suspicion of burglary or trespassing for an unlawful purpose using section 4(3), and we could use that. However, first of all, we would assess the circumstances —

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Of course.

Chief Inspector Gillespie: — and find out what is happening. It is available to us at the moment, but, if it were taken away, it would not be available to us.

Ms Sheerin: Are police currently trained in how to cope with people with autism and different complex needs?

Chief Inspector Gillespie: We should be. That is the aim. We try to train officers and staff to recognise those signs, yes.

Ms Sheerin: Does that happen across the board?

Chief Inspector Gillespie: It is part of our training programme for officers and staff in the PSNI. It is part of our continuing professional development programme. As society learns more about those things, that gets built into our training as well, so that would be a consideration in an officer's mind when attending a scene.

Ms Sheerin: Yes. Sometimes, for somebody in that situation, even the presence of police reinforces a fear that they may have that they are bad or whatever.

Chief Inspector Gillespie: Oh, yes.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: There is a suite of training that officers run throughout their career cycle. Obviously, the initial training that I received is different from what it looks like today. There are suites of training added continually. At the minute, we have training for officers around neurodivergence, complex needs and adverse childhood experiences. We have followed the Guidelines and Audit Implementation Network (GAIN) for those who have, to use a broader term, "mental health concerns", so there is a suite of options that we will use to help officers assess that person's needs. In the circumstances that the Chair mentioned, I reiterate that arrest is the last resort.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Of course.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: We will look at that person's individual needs, but clearly, those are within a suite of options.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): You would be arresting under what could be this offence: vagrancy.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: It could be, yes, but bear in mind the numbers, Chair. They are minimal.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I will ask this question, then: what would you do about the 100 cases per year of the begging offence, simple begging — I think we all agree that the language in the old Acts is horrible and needs to be reformed — and the 15 cases in the last three years of trespassing, if those two pieces of legislation were not in place?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: That is the point that we are suggesting. Not only do we think we might need to look at that, particularly around a replacement for the dwelling type offence, it will literally be down to that police officer's skills and ability to deal with the instances that will create some challenges, I suspect, in a small number of circumstances in which we have defaulted to an arrest. That is why we are keen not to repeal the legislation without further thought on additional provisions. We are asking the Department to consider whether we are content, collectively, that the gap is not one that we are unable to fill operationally.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): That is loud and clear. The Committee has heard that too.

Mr Baker: I have a follow-up question on what the Deputy Chair asked about training. I was wondering about the use of spit and bite guards, particularly on children. Children's rights advocates have highlighted that the presumption that those will not be used on children is vague in the PSNI guidance and leaves scope for routine use. Is that the case?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: No, it is not routinely used. Again, all consideration of the individual circumstances of each person will be taken into account before a spit and bite guard or spit and bite hood is deployed. As for the statistics, again, that sits with my colleagues in the operational support department. It is not part of the Bill, so I did not look at that before I came here today. Danny, if you want the statistics on that use as regards adults versus children, my colleagues in the operational support department could supply you with those.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I do not want to get into Part 2 of the Bill, which is "Children", because we will need an additional session. We have just run out of time, Danny.

Mr Baker: No, sorry. I did not mean that it was routinely used; it is just that children's rights advocates have said that the guidance is vague and could leave it open to that interpretation.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): We will wrap up now, Anthony. We thank you for your time, but we are not going to get through all the parts of the Bill today. We will have you back on 15 January, if that is OK. You can decide who your team will be in order to cover the other parts of the Bill that we still have to cover.

I have one more question. You mentioned organised crime begging and said that there might be a gap there. Do you have any evidence that there is an organised crime element to begging and people are being coerced to beg?

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: The short answer is no. I have asked my colleagues in policing organised crime whether they have any information or intelligence that that is happening in Northern Ireland, and the answer is no. That is not to say however, that it is not happening and we do not know about it or that it may happen in future. As it is now an offence in the Republic of Ireland: is there an opportunity that may be exploited and it comes north of the border? We have simply highlighted that to the Committee for its consideration.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): When you say "organised crime", that can also mean paramilitaries.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: It is organised, yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): You talked about "begging for gain". That wording sounds weird to me. If you beg, you obtain money, so you are gaining. It should not necessarily be a crime to gain from begging.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: It is in the context of organised crime, where you are looking to fund something nefarious. It is not the general sense of "gain".

Chief Inspector Gillespie: I am aware that it is proposed to include that as an offence in the Crime and Policing Bill for England and Wales, clause 11 is:

and, if that is passed, it will afford protections where, for example, someone organises vulnerable people to beg and then lives off the money that they get. That will give strong protections to the people who are being exploited. That is where "begging for gain" comes from.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: That is the key. The person who is gaining is not the person who is doing the begging. They are the person who is being exploited, probably because of their vulnerability. Why would you have that as an offence? It is because you are exploiting someone for your gain, not theirs.

Chief Inspector Gillespie: That is a low-level offence when it comes to proving that somebody is being exploited. It can include transporting somebody from one location to another as part of an organised crime group or even a low-level one to facilitate that person's begging and live off that.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. I asked you about a situation where you come home and someone is in your living room or business or someone comes to the front step of your business and is begging, which is causing harassment, obstruction or public order concerns. That sounds pretty neat to me. Professor Kevin Brown has been good enough to lay out that amendment for us. Is there anything in Professor Kevin Brown's proposed amendment that would cause you alarm?

Chief Inspector Gillespie: I have had a look at it, and I have not seen anything. I do not know whether you have.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: Again, we would need to understand the Department's view on the specifics of the legislation and what it was designed to achieve. I am not asking, in and of itself as an offence, whether it would be helpful. The simple answer is yes; we can see the merits of that offence. You have to ask yourself this, however: "What is the gap that we are trying to fill?". That is what it is about for me. There is a suite of other offences that would cover some of those aspects, including disorderly behaviour, provocative conduct and that type of thing. We would just need to understand exactly what the gap is that you are seeking to fill with such an offence. Is there not enough legislation already there? For me, that is what we need to understand.

Chief Inspector Gillespie: May I clarify something? Professor Brown's proposed new provision, "Begging Causing Harassment, Obstruction or Public Order Concerns" is broken down into four parts. The first of those deals with harassment, obstruction or public order concerns. The second part appears to be a stand-alone power whereby:

That is separate from the first part.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): That is a power to move on, basically.

Chief Inspector Gillespie: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Would you welcome that power to move on? You would not be arresting someone.

Chief Inspector Gillespie: We need to be clear about the role of the police in that space. As ACC McNally said, if I, as a police officer, ask somebody to move on and they move on and I drive off to the next call but that person comes back 10 minutes later, what are the consequences of that? What is the effect of me asking them to move on? Will it have the effect that I intend it to, or will I be going backwards and forwards for the rest of the day, moving that person on? In Professor Brown's proposal, he says that, if people do not move on, they will commit an offence. However, what if they do not move on or do not stay away for long, for example? There is a lot of detail that needs to be ironed out if the Department feels that we should have that power.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: In summary, the two questions that I ask the Committee to consider are these: what are the gaps that you are trying to fill, and, operationally, how do you see this working? Because of the very concerns that we have highlighted, we would probably need a little more information before we can give you an informed answer.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I appreciate that. Thank you very much.

I know that this has been a marathon session for you, and we are not even halfway through the Bill. It is a massive Bill. The next time that we meet, hopefully on 15 January, will we discuss Part 2, which is "Children"; Part 4, which is "Administration of justice"; and Part 5, which is "Final provisions". We have planned amendments on AccessNI filtering, restorative justice, rehabilitation of offenders and serious organised crime, and then, of course, there will be private Members' amendments, some of which have already hit the floor. I suspect that there will be more by that stage. We will probably need another session similar to this; that is what I am trying to say.

Assistant Chief Constable McNally: That is fine. We are happy to help.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. Thank you very much for your time.