Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): I welcome Assistant Chief Constable (ACC) Davy Beck from the crime department of the PSNI; Detective Chief Superintendent (DCS) Zoë McKee, head of the public protection branch of the PSNI; and Chief Superintendent (CS) Gary McDonald from the justice branch of the PSNI. All three of you are very welcome. It will have been a busy day for you if you were at the Policing Board; some of our members have not yet got from there to here.

Assistant Chief Constable Davy Beck (Police Service of Northern Ireland): If I stray into Policing Board answers — [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): OK. We appreciate your coming here. I hand over to you for some introductory remarks, after which we will have questions.

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: Thank you, Chair and members, for the opportunity to provide evidence today on behalf of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I am joined by Detective Chief Superintendent Zoë McKee, the head of our public protection branch; and Chief Superintendent Gary McDonald, who is the head of our justice department. We welcome the Committee's focus on strengthening adult safeguarding, and we really appreciate the constructive engagement that we have had on that to date.

We support the intent and direction of travel of the Adult Protection Bill. The Bill represents a significant step towards placing adult protection on a statutory footing and building the protections that vulnerable adults in Northern Ireland deserve. Our position is broadly shaped by our experiences as a key partner in safeguarding and, critically, by our profound lessons from the Muckamore Abbey Hospital and Dunmurry Manor investigations. Those demonstrated clearly that adults at risk are entitled to a system that acts quickly, proportionately and transparently and that policing has a key role to play in that system.

Our assessment is that, in order to operationalise the Bill safely, effectively and within the principles of proportionality and human rights, several matters require careful consideration by the Committee.

First, clear and consistent definitions of, for example, "adult at risk", "adults in need of protection", "harm", "serious harm" and "psychological harm" are essential. Related thresholds must be unambiguous not only for police officers but for all safeguarding partners. Without clarity, there is a real risk of unnecessary referrals, duplication of effort and front-line officers being diverted into administrative activity rather than protecting the public. That, in itself, would be counterproductive to the best interests of vulnerable adults.

Secondly, I turn to the duty to report and co-operate. The police already make safeguarding referrals daily through our established pathways. We fully accept our obligations under the Bill, but primacy in responsibility for adult protection must remain with Health and Social Care (HSC). Any duplication or over-reporting will compromise our ability to respond to threat, harm and risk elsewhere. That said, criminality in any form will be the subject of robust investigation.

Thirdly, I turn to new powers and expectations about visits, orders and enforcement. Police involvement in visits under clause 5 and warrants under clause 19 must be framed as an exception, not the norm. Police should accompany social workers only when there is a clear and evidenced risk that necessitates our presence, and that is not expressly outlined in the Bill. We are keen to avoid any perception of an intrusive or enforcement-led safeguarding model, and we must ensure that adults are not inadvertently caused distress through unavoidable police attendance. Similarly, the introduction of assessment orders, removal orders and banning orders will require robust, reliable information-sharing arrangements with the trusts, the police and the courts.

Fourthly, I will touch on CCTV and surveillance. We recognise the Committee's significant interest in and the focus of the Bill on that area, which is likely to have been informed by the criminal abuses revealed at Muckamore. Our experience with body-worn video and custody CCTV demonstrates the value of recording evidence in safeguarding victims, protecting staff and ensuring transparency but also highlights the need for strong governance, human rights impact assessments, clear purpose, proportionality and secure data management. If CCTV is to be mandated or regulated in care settings, the framework must match the level of intrusion. We take the opportunity to offer to share our operational guidance and rights-based learning with the Department and, indeed, the Committee, if that would be of help.

Fifthly, I turn to training, capacity and cost. The scale of training required is significant. We estimate that, beyond our public protection branch officers, between 3,000 and 5,000 officers and staff would require new and enhanced awareness training. Costs will be associated with system changes, digital pathways, guidance development and internal processes. While we in policing are committed to playing our part, it is important to be realistic. New statutory duties will place new demand on a service that is already under severe resourcing and financial pressure. We learned from the implementation of the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 and the Protection from Stalking Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 that, without sufficient lead-in time, training, investment and digital readiness, risk simply transfers, usually to first responders: we must avoid that.

I understand that the funding requirements that the Department has outlined do not include the cost of policing the provisions of the Bill. Further specific resourcing will be required, including for the initial response to reported incidents, investigative follow-up, case building, attendance at court, management of outcomes, attendance at supporting boards and review meetings and other oversight requirements. All of that needs detailed costing and consideration in order to avoid a collective failure to meet rising expectations and to prevent vulnerable adults being failed.

Finally, for the purpose of commencement and sequencing, we welcome the use of commencement orders. It is vital that the legislation does not go live on Royal Assent. All partners, including the police, must have sufficient time to build guidance, systems, training and information-sharing arrangements, so that the Bill can operate as intended. Fragmented or under-resourced implementation risks creating gaps in consistency and, ultimately, undermining public confidence. The experience of the Mental Capacity Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 shows that partial implementation without sustained investment can impede progress for years. The Bill may also have an impact on the development of our Right Care, Right Person programme; again, we are keen to ensure that the Department gives that early consideration.

Chair and members, the PSNI is committed to safeguarding adults at risk and to working with Health and Social Care, the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA), the Department and, indeed, the wider sector to ensure that the Bill translates into meaningful, practical and safe improvements. We want the legislation to succeed. Our evidence today is therefore offered in the spirit of constructive partnership, informed by our section 32 obligations under the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, by our learning from experience and by a clear focus on what vulnerable people in Northern Ireland deserve. We appreciate the Committee's engagement, and we welcome your questions.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): Thank you very much. You mentioned definitions, which we heard about from GPs last week. You are concerned about the definition of "adult at risk" and of levels of harm. Without breaking confidentiality or identifying people, can you give us some real-world examples of the impact of what you are concerned about?

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: It is important to say that a range of offences is already available under the criminal law, all of which are outlined by clear definitions, stated cases, case law etc. That helps to inform understanding of where certain levels and parameters are set, particularly among the officers who will be our front line in responding to the issues. The more clarity we have on those definitions, the more that can inform our response.

Clearly, we want to avoid an overuse of policing in that setting. In care settings in particular, police officer visibility with all that that entails, including uniforms, equipment, the fact that officers are armed and so on, is not always in the best interests of the most vulnerable people. Widening definitions in order to give the clearest guidance possible allows for really effective, good decision-making in that regard.

Gary, do you want to add anything from a justice branch perspective?

Chief Superintendent Gary McDonald (Police Service of Northern Ireland): When it comes to the definitions and where the Bill will interface with Right Care, Right Person, we need to be really clear about what the thresholds and the guidance will look like for police deployment. We are in the middle of doing a lot of meaningful work with Health on Right Care, Right Person. Through the multi-agency silver group, we are looking at all sorts of health demands, if you like, and how those interface with policing, including our concern for safety calls and walkouts from healthcare establishments, which might come into that space.

We are in the process of agreeing memorandums of understanding (MOUs) to clarify the thresholds at which the police will step in, and we have done a little more work on the potential for Health to retain some of that responsibility. We need to be really clear in order to ensure that the work on the Bill does not undermine that. The outworkings of the Bill need to show, for a social worker who attends to enter a premises, for example, what the threshold for police attendance looks like. That clarity could be built in to the MOUs, meaning that the definitions in them would also be clearer.

Detective Chief Superintendent Zoë McKee (Police Service of Northern Ireland): I will pick up on a couple of practical examples. I know that, last week, you heard evidence on capacity, and there is the Scottish definition of self-harm and neglect; I know that you are considering a lot of things.

Policing is operating really well under the protocol for the joint investigation of adult safeguarding cases. There are robust arrangements in the joint protocol that are specific to adults who are:

That is a clear definition to which policing is very much alive and, as a result, can respond. We seek a little more clarity on each definition in the Bill so that there is a really clear understanding at an operational level of what it means for response, attendance and joint working with social services.

The Bill could cover a range of examples. I am not sure that you want to focus on self-harm and neglect, but an example of that could be the neighbour down the road whom everyone knows and is concerned about. An example that we often see is that of an adult at risk reporting the theft of their benefits at certain times or on certain days of the week. When police attend, the person involved is not willing to support a police complaint, because their perpetrator resides with them or they rely on them. Engagement on that is always a challenge. The likes of banning or removal orders are helpful because they will give the necessary support for social services to go in and allow for a little bit of a reprieve.

I can give you a recent example that is at the higher end of the scale. Police attended the home of an elderly man after neighbours raised concerns about him. He said that there was nothing wrong with him. His son, who was in the house, said categorically, "Nothing to see here". It was only because of the curiosity and investigative mindset of the attending officers, who felt that they had not got what they needed, that they returned to the house on a second occasion to speak with the victim in that case. When he was admitted to hospital, it was discovered that he had sustained acute injuries over a period of years. Skeletal surveys showed that he had been caused significant harm by a family member.

That is the scale of real-world experiences of older adults. The Bill can lend really good support in such cases, but I go back to my original point that we need to be really clear about those definitions, so that, when police respond, we are clear that we are not doing something different from what is already well established in the joint protocol world, where we work closely with social services. The Bill can then be seen as additional and complementary, with more robust powers for policing.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): Turning to resources, you have identified the extent of the training and additional resources that will be needed. Is planning under way for the additional workload?

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: The short answer is yes. As you will be aware, we have a recovery plan that recognises that, as we move forward, our public protection branch — child safeguarding; adult safeguarding — is a significant area that we need to grow. Zoë and the team have done specific work on the Bill and its potential implications for that. At this stage, it is fair to say, that work is indicative, as the Bill fleshes out and we get a better understanding of where it takes us on the potential thresholds for involvement etc. Significant work still needs to be done on the back of the Bill's progress in order to understand that. On the back of similar legislation in the past number of years, however, we anticipate that there will be significant recurring costs over a period of time for training, deployments and the tail, if you like, of investigative work, including the court cases and the management of those processes thereafter.

I do not know whether Zoë wants to expand on that.

Detective Chief Superintendent McKee: Additional work goes on, probably unseen, in the background. You could make a comparison with, say, domestic homicide reviews or current serious case reviews, as we know them, through the public protection arrangements. Those all drain resources. Over and above investigative capacity in such cases, there is the preparation and planning and the multi-agency work and collaboration that goes on in the background. We would absolutely need to consider that additional demand, especially if and when the oversight board — the transformation board, as it currently is — or interim board is set up.

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: That is where the thresholds are really important, because, clearly, the more we become involved, the longer that tail of resource commitment, which can go on for years, will continue. I want to ensure that I direct the detective cadre at the front end of protecting people and managing threat, harm and risk as opposed to at the administrative functions that follow. It is perhaps about more development with the Department, but that work is on the way. Certainly, Zoë is well involved in those discussions with the Department.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): This is the last question from me. You mentioned the CCTV issue and the extent of the PSNI's experience. Without misquoting the Commissioner for Older People, I think that she cited the example of custody suites and CCTV usage in talking about how we could deal with the consent issue. You mentioned guidance that you would be prepared to give to us and the Department if that were useful. That would be useful: you should forward that to the Department or to us, and we could forward it to the Department. Have you anything over and above that guidance that would be useful for us in considering CCTV and, obviously, the consent issue that goes along with that?

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: It is a really complex area. Whilst our experience with CCTV in the custody setting is useful, it is useful only up to a point. Its use in custody provision is different in that we have taken away someone's liberty at that stage. They are under investigation, and we therefore assume a degree of responsibility for them and their safeguarding and for the investigative process and its integrity. Whilst there are comparisons to be drawn and lessons to be learned, there is a difference between that and utilising CCTV in what is, essentially, a person's private space, particularly that of a vulnerable person. The issues are the balances to be struck on human rights and on capacity. I am conscious that the Committee has taken evidence on those areas. There are significant issues to be considered.

Gary, do you want to add anything on the operational side of CCTV?

Chief Superintendent McDonald: It works really well in the custody suite. You are right about the difference between the custody environment and what would be, essentially, somebody's home environment. That would need to be addressed. We have, however, gone through the process of data protection impact assessments, human rights impact assessments and engagement with relevant stakeholders.

CCTV has been embedded in our custody suites for some time. There are really robust systems and processes for how that is managed, accessed and used in the custody environment. There are clear, audited processes for all of that. It is used proportionately. For example, pixelation is used for certain areas of the cell, and audio is not continuous — it will kick in only at the appropriate time — so there are different ways in which you can manage the proportionate use of it whilst understanding that it is, obviously, intrusive, even though people are with us for maybe only 24 or 48 hours.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): That is a different scenario, but it would be useful to have information on the processes. I am content.

Mr Donnelly: I will pick up on what you said about CCTV. It is a big issue that has been raised with us quite a bit. In your opinion, how important was CCTV in the Muckamore case in particular?

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: It certainly helped. CCTV has transformed a lot of our prosecutions other than Muckamore, but, certainly, in the Muckamore experience, it helped. It cannot be seen in isolation, however. It is not a panacea for all things safeguarding. It has a role to play, but there is a wider issue to do with culture, early reporting and people being listened to and believed — perhaps that is the cultural issue in this — and early intervention and engagement. All those things can add to the weight of prosecutions, considerations, safeguarding and decision-making and can lessen our reliance on CCTV, which is somewhat after the fact. It is part of a suite of things, if you like, and something to have in the toolkit, but it is not the be-all and end-all.

Zoë, do you want to add anything about Muckamore?

Detective Chief Superintendent McKee: Yes. Give or take, 1,400 incidents were identified through the CCTV in Muckamore. The one thing that I want to reinforce is that the incidents were identified as a result of the staff not knowing that the CCTV cameras were there. From my professional experience, if people want to abuse somebody, they will find a way. I caution against over-reliance on CCTV, but, from an evidential perspective, it certainly supported the Muckamore inquiry, when the victims in that case did not have a voice. The families in the Muckamore case are strong advocates of CCTV, as, I am sure, some of you are aware. It has its pros, but, in the private setting, it has to be balanced finely with article 8 rights.

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: The only other point to make is that it is also about the consequences. It is not enough just to mandate CCTV and leave it at that. In policing more broadly, it can be frustrating, when you go to review CCTV, to find that the standard, upkeep and maintenance of it are not fit for purpose, so you are left with a suboptimal product that does not necessarily advance investigations as it should. It also raises questions such as, "So what? What are you going to do with the CCTV? Is it going to be reviewed? What does compliance look like, and what is the regime?". The reviewing and viewing of the Muckamore CCTV was a Herculean —

Detective Chief Superintendent McKee: Massive.

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: — massive operation —

Detective Chief Superintendent McKee: It took years.

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: — for policing. You have to consider what you are going to do with the CCTV; it is not sufficient just to say that you must have it.

Mr Donnelly: In the case of Muckamore, you had to watch it all, whereas, in the case of an incident being reported, you can limit viewing to the specific time. I cannot imagine how long it must have taken for people to go through all that CCTV, having to constantly sit and watch it, which, I am sure, was harrowing for them, because, I imagine, it was the same people again and again.

Detective Chief Superintendent McKee: It absolutely was, but it was a conscious decision in that case to review every minute and every hour of CCTV, as opposed to dip sampling, which could have been an alternative option. Due to the nature of the investigation and the victims involved, it was the right thing to do.

Mr Donnelly: Absolutely. I hope that they get all the justice that they deserve.

Definitions certainly came up last week. "Capacity" is a term that I recognise from working as a nurse in a hospital. Who assesses capacity in a situation on the street? Would a police officer be able to assess someone's capacity to make decisions about their own safety?

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: No. We do not make that assessment. Again, quite rightly, that is a medical issue. We deal with people as we find them, and their capacity then has to be considered by the right professional at the right time. That might involve assessment, and it would have a bearing on when we would take statements etc, but we would not take that decision, and I would not want us to step on to that ground. That is absolutely not the place for policing to be.

Mr Donnelly: So a medical practitioner makes the decision on whether a patient has capacity, and your response is dictated by that decision.

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: Yes.

Mr Donnelly: OK, no problem.

I have one other question about the training. You mentioned that 3,000 to 5,000 staff would need to be trained and that would be a recurring cost: are we talking about every year?

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: In some of the domestic abuse legislation, there is a requirement for annual refresher training. We recognise that we cannot just train people once and take that as having reached the required level. With every new procedure or process and, indeed, with existing processes, there is a need to refresh and refine and to make sure that our people are competent in that regard. It is not just about the upfront training; due cognisance has to be given to the fact that it is about something that officers will deal with regularly.

We have to ensure that they have the skills and ability to respond appropriately. It has to be recurring.

Mr Donnelly: The story that you told about the elderly gentleman and the neighbours was chilling. It is a real reminder of why the issue is important. I commend the officer and the neighbours for being so concerned; they probably saved that man from future harm and possibly even worse.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you for the presentation. I met your colleagues yesterday in relation to the investigation of the neurology issue and Dr Watt.

I was taken by the fact that you specify the need for clear definitions in the Bill and you indicate that the deterrents in the Bill are perhaps not appropriate or what you would want. My question is about the importance of the definitions and the deterrents that you would like to see. How would they interact with current law on assault or something of that nature?

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: The short answer is that the more clarity we have, the better. You are right: there are current offences such as common assault, actual bodily harm etc. We need to be clear about the overlap to avoid duplication. There is always that issue with new laws and potential new offences. We have to be clear about the gap that they are intended to address so that we do not fall into a position where a similar offence is already there. More clarity around the definition ensures that we can direct any response in respect of the Bill and new offences to the right offence, if that makes sense.

Mrs Dodds: Have you had interaction with the Department of Health on the Bill? Do you have a pathway for inputting those concerns?

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: Zoë can pick up on that, because she represents us on that group.

Detective Chief Superintendent McKee: Absolutely. There is a transformation board at a very senior level. It actually sat this morning. It will sit monthly in response to a lot of the work and the momentum that is being gained as a result of the Bill and the time frame. We have really good high-level robust conversations at professional level about the challenges, and we work through them collectively as a board. I think that you will hear from the board. You will definitely hear from the Bill team in the coming weeks.

There is also an interim board, which, essentially, is the equivalent of the statutory board that will come from the Bill. Operational practice informs the transformation board. Those conversations are going on every day. There are additional working groups that are working through the challenges for each of the areas of the Bill. The PSNI is closely aligned with and docked into those conversations. We have the opportunity to voice some of the concerns — not necessarily concerns but just sharing the views that Mr Beck outlined in his opening statement.

Mrs Dodds: One of the concerns that people talk to us about is the delay in implementing legislation on adult protection in Northern Ireland. You talk about the need for time to implement etc. I think that there is a concern, first, that we are working on a Bill for which we do not have proper costings — we do not know whether it will be funded — and, secondly, that, because implementation is required across a number of statutory agencies, it could be delayed because of funding and capacity in those statutory agencies.

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: Yes. Thank you. Again, it is about the balance. I can help to reassure the Committee by saying that we are already dealing with adult safeguarding under existing legislation and existing offences. The Bill adds to that and effectively helps address some of the gaps in the current legislation. I just want to make sure that that point is reinforced. Zoë may comment further on the level of safeguarding referrals in respect of adults at this time. However, the reality is that, if the legislation were to be introduced tomorrow morning, we would struggle when it comes to funding, resource, the technical aspects and the IT fixes that are required. Whilst it may seem frustrating to folk on the outside, we need time and a pathway to ensure that, when the legislation is in effect, we can make a difference to those communities and those vulnerable people. Collectively, the worst thing that we can do is to rush this in and not be in a position to deliver it operationally. If we do that, we will have raised expectations and may then go on to fail those people. Prudence is perhaps the right approach, but a lot of this absolutely depends on funding.

Mrs Dodds: The Bill will go through the normal processes. It will be amended, and issues will be raised that we hear about in the Committee. However, the crux of the matter is how we implement what we have. We could have the best legislation in the world, but, if we have no route to implement it, it will not be worth a lot. That is my greatest fear.

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: I agree.

Mrs Dodds: I have had no comfort on that issue from anyone who has presented. Thank you very much. It is really important, because you are crucial to this. We do not want duplication of what is already there. We want to add to your capacity to deal with the issues if they become a criminal matter, and we want to provide a clear pathway for you to do that. That is the most important thing. That was my take yesterday, and it is still my take today.

Detective Chief Superintendent McKee: The issues with funding are well rehearsed. The Bill transformation board is working really hard, so I am confident about that board being alive to a lot of the issues that you are discussing at Committee and making live-time changes, decisions and considerations, already thinking about what the regulations and statutory guidance could look like. I think that there is an acceptance that, because of the funding challenge, there will be a phased implementation. There needs to be a collective response across all the organisations involved as to what is being phased when and by whom and whom it affects. On your point, it might go on for a long time, but funding is the biggest barrier.

Mrs Dodds: You are talking to people who hear about funding challenges every time we meet.

Detective Chief Superintendent McKee: I know, I know.

Mrs Dodds: We are all pretty hardened to that issue. For example, we have the mental health strategy, which should give us a world-class system, but it is not implemented. We have a stroke strategy that is not implemented. Part of my frustration is that we could have the best legislation in the world, but, if we cannot implement it either because of your capacity or the Department's capacity to do so, that will be pretty demoralising. I completely agree on the need for it, but it is pretty demoralising, and I have not found an answer yet. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): Following on from Diane's point, it would be useful — I am slightly more optimistic than Diane, just because it is the run-up to Christmas — for us if you could provide — before February, if possible — some indication of the resource implications. That would be useful. You said, Davy, that it would also help to fill gaps. There might be some savings in this for you, so, if that could be identified as well, that would be useful for the Committee.

Detective Chief Superintendent McKee: We have given the transformation board indicative costings, so we can provide those to the Committee as well. Those possibly need a refresh because they are a little outdated and the policing position has changed over the past few years.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): Thank you.

Mr McGrath: I suppose that I have to declare an interest as a member of the Policing Board, because some of my questions will be about resources and part of our job is to deal with resources or lack thereof. As Diane said, we often hear witnesses say that there is a lack of money. It is always in the afternoon, after having been with the Policing Board in the morning, where we hear that there is not enough money to do the work there either, so we get it from both angles.

Part of our role is to interrogate legislation and find faults in it in order to perfect it, but are there parts of the Bill that might be good? Would it clarify some of the work that your officers have to do regarding adult protection and make it more clear-cut? Instead of having to spend time gathering evidence or having to build a case, the legislation would state that it is A or B and that is the case of it. From that perspective, might it be useful? That would maybe feed into what the Chair said about the benefits that might come from it.

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: A well-defined Bill with as much clarity as possible around the definitions, parameters, scope and involvement from a police perspective would be useful, linking into the Right Care, Right Person debate. There is a crossover into that area as well, so we need to make sure that what we do on one hand is not defeating the issues on the other hand.

The overarching concern that I have about the Bill is police being put in a position where, if there is any doubt at all, "We refer to the police. Not only that, but we ask the police to come along. Not only that, but in the proposed Bill the police have that resort to the use of force". That gives me a bit of a chill, frankly. I do not want us to be in that position. Clearly, if there is a requirement, we will absolutely fulfil our article 32 obligations, but it has to be laid out as clearly as possible, with clear requirements around health and social care, the decision-making process, the threat matrix and the escalation route.

Experience has shown us that, on occasions, there have almost been debates on the doorstep between social workers and police officers about who decides what is done when etc. Unfortunately, when there is confusion around roles, responsibilities, thresholds and parameters, that has led to significant failings. If there is absolute clarity, that helps in the wider position of where policing becomes involved.

As I say, the use of force in those circumstances is something that I want to avoid. It is not right, and we have had situations where officers have been called to a scene and effectively told or asked to apply handcuffs to someone so that they could be taken into care or to a place of safety. My position is clear: officers cannot be directed to use force. It is up to them whether they use it. There are all those considerations in advance to avoid those discussions. That is where we see the time of police officers and, indeed, other professionals being wasted when there is not clarity. None of us — no agency — can avoid that. The more clarity we can bring and the more scrutiny there is around the decision-making prior to the point of being on the doorstep, the better.

Mr McGrath: This process is starting to enlighten us to the fact that the definitions need to be really clear. You are saying it this week, and the GPs were talking about stuff last week and starting to give us real-life examples of where, if you do not have the correct definitions or there is ambiguity, it results in confusion. GPs and you, aside from other organisations, are named in the Bill as having to do something, so it is important that we get that right for you. We do not want you to be left in a scenario where you are in between the two sides and not knowing exactly what to do next. We might ask for pharmacy perspectives on that one, but that is a different issue.

I want to ask about Right Care, Right Person. There has been a huge amount of time taken to develop the policy, and we had a joint Committee meeting about it last year. Does some of this usurp that, or does it complement it? Will it create a difficulty? Do we need to get it right for that policy? A huge amount of work went into that.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: Yes, there is a huge need to get it right, because some aspects of this might conflict with that. We do not necessarily want policing to be baked into the response every time. Over the last number of years, that is what has happened, particularly in the health space. We are almost trying to step back and untangle that. It has taken a significant effort to get to a place where we have draft memorandums of understanding in place with the Ambulance Service. There was a lot of work through Right Care, Right Person about walkouts from healthcare facilities where previously, to be frank, the default position in the past was to phone the police. You know from the session last year that you referred to and through briefings to the Policing Board that around £4 million of officer hours is spent dealing with health-related calls that do not necessarily fall within our section 32 responsibilities.

There are opportunities in the Bill in terms of criminal offences. Where a crime has been alleged, we will always be there and absolutely take it on. However, it is about being careful that we are not baked into responses that fall short of that. That is where we need to be closely aligned with the principles and outworkings of the great work that is happening with Health right now to make sure we complement it. For example, we are engaging closely on gaining entry to premises with the Fire and Rescue Service, which also has legislative provisions to facilitate entry where there is concern for an individual's well-being and safety. We can look at where we can rebalance some of the responsibility, and all the work is governed under the joint multi-agency group. There are definitely opportunities for conflict, and we need to be careful to de-conflict appropriately.

Mr McGrath: In the paper about CCTV, can you add something on the audio element? I have taken both sides of the conversation, and, if the audio is there, it can provide the context to explain what follows from it. You mentioned that the audio only kicks in at certain times. If the way that works or is triggered was in the wee paper about it, that might help us to see whether it can be included within this.

Chief Superintendent McDonald: Briefly, all the audio and video is captured in communal areas, such as the entrance to the custody suite where somebody is booked in. The more private spaces — for example, the cell — are still covered by CCTV, but it is not continuously audio-recorded. It will pick up an intercom reaction and things like that. It is about dealing with it proportionately when the cell door is closed overnight, for example.

Mr Chambers: God forbid that another Muckamore scandal lands on your laps tomorrow morning; I have major concerns about how you would cope if something like that came along now. We do not really know how much more pressure this legislation will put on the police's resources, and the Chair has asked you to come back in February to give us some understanding of the additional resources that you will need. Unless you have put a note up the chimney for Father Christmas to bring you more resources — I would not depend on that — come the introduction of the legislation, if you need more resources, it will have to be conjured up from somewhere. Will it involve taking resources from other duties? Will other duties that you perform suffer because you will have to relocate manpower and womanpower to resource it?

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: Where we find ourselves at the minute is that, because of the cuts to resources across the organisation, we have to respond dynamically almost on an incident-by-incident basis, and, by "incident" I mean "major incident". A number of years ago, if we had a murder, there would be a major investigation team available to respond to and deal with the incident.

Because of reality of our resourcing, I now have to pull detectives from a number of teams in order to effectively form a team to deal with a murder investigation. We have had to respond much more dynamically to need. That is the case across the crime department, where I regularly move detectives to respond to specific investigations and incidents. Yes, if we had a Muckamore Abbey incident or investigation tomorrow morning, I would have to take officers off active investigations, including serious and organised crime —

Mr Chambers: I know that you would step up to the mark.

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: — investigations etc. We would do that, but, to be honest, in recent weeks that has become much harder, because people get to the point where they are burnt out. That is the position that we find ourselves in from a policing perspective. You can only ask so much of those people, and you can only ask them so many times to surge into this area and that area, because, when they go back, their core work is still there, which they have to catch up on, develop and keep moving as well. It is not a panacea.

We have a recovery plan, and we are making some progress on that. On the detective

, again, it takes time to pull that through. The recruits who come into the service will start in uniform policing and then, over time, move to other branches and departments, if they so desire. It takes time to draw that through. In the crime department, we are realistic about the fact that, whilst there have been small developments in starting to draw down officers from those who have been recruited, it will take us a number of years to get to where we need to go.

We appreciate that this is not about putting people back to where they were two or three years ago. We have the opportunity now to reshape the organisation to address the demands. The key areas are public protection and adult and children safeguarding, as I have mentioned. We know that we need more people in those areas. As we get more detectives and more people into the organisation, we will move people towards those specialities, so to speak, because that is where a lot of our demand now sits. However, our ability to respond is being hampered by the reality of our resource. I am not sure whether that answers your question.

Mr Chambers: It does. Thank you.

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: That is where we find ourselves at the minute.

Detective Chief Superintendent McKee: May I add a wee comment on that?

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): Sure. Go ahead.

Detective Chief Superintendent McKee: Resourcing is fundamental to the success of the Bill, but it is not the only issue. The Bill is really important, and it is there for a good reason. It is the culmination and bringing together of work and filling potential gaps that we see, particularly after some of lessons that we learned from Dunmurry Manor. We really welcome the Bill. The caution is about the organisational impact. I can see the Bill being really useful for our core colleagues in Health and Social Care, who are also on the front line, have their daily challenges and will probably have similar views to ours.

Just to give you a bit of context, we deal with about 1,300 adult safeguarding referrals annually. We deal with that with the resource that we have. As for the demand that the additional offences in the Bill will create, we do not know what we do not know, I suppose. However, if we had another Muckamore or another Dunmurry Manor, the offence types that the Bill proposes for care providers and care workers would be really helpful to us from a policing perspective, because, in the Dunmurry Manor case, we saw a gap there. I just wanted to add that.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): I am glad that you did, because I was going to bring that in at the end. From a policing perspective, I am glad that you did that. MLAs get a raw deal sometimes about the work that we do. This is important work. It is important legislation. It will protect vulnerable people. These sessions are vital for us to ensure that we get it right. We have heard over the past couple of weeks that it is not as straightforward as we thought it was three weeks ago. It is important that we get it right. We appreciate your coming here.

We are not finished yet.

Mr Robinson: I have a quick question. Zoe, I want to pick up on your comment about the transformation board, which, you said, met today. Given that you have a seat on the transformation board, does that automatically mean that you will have a formal seat at the table when the Adult Protection Board is in place? If not, why not? I would have thought that you would be a key partner in that?

Detective Chief Superintendent McKee: Absolutely, that is a given. For us as a statutory organisation for policing, it will be similar to the seat at the table that we have on the Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland for children. The adult protection board is just a version of that for adults who are at risk, so yes is the answer.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): I thank you all. It has been very good. We appreciate that.

OK, members, are there any —?

Mr Chambers: For the record, I should have declared that I am a member of the Policing Board.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): I was looking around to see who else was a member.

Mr McGrath: We left two behind us. Is the meeting still going?

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: It is still going.

Mr McGrath: Yes, I can imagine.

Detective Chief Superintendent McKee: Thank you.