Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you very much, Elaine, for presenting to us today on behalf of the Women's Resource and Development Agency (WRDA). Without further ado, I will hand over to you.

Ms Elaine Crory (Women’s Resource and Development Agency): Thank you very much, Chair and Committee members, for having me here to discuss the research. It is a small piece of research, but we have an opportunity to make something positive come out of it. I know that you have the report and the briefing already, so I will not labour them. I will just explain some context and then outline some key issues that we drew out of it.

First of all, the research came about because I was contacted by a survivor in early 2025 who wanted to remain anonymous. She is still anonymous, even to me. She did that because of two things. She was aware of the research that we had done on violence against women and girls in WRDA: one piece on the scale and prevalence of it and one on experiences of the justice system. She was also aware that we are, for the first time, talking more about violence against women and girls and engaging in a strategy to try to end it. She had noticed that this issue, which had blighted her life, was not really present in those discussions and that there was no stream of work to address it, and she really wanted to know whether there was any room for research. She said that she had been in an informal support group with a group of other women with similar experiences who met online. That had been many years ago, but she was sure that those women would be willing to share their experiences. She said that there were still people living under that blight right now.

The urgency of the research was exacerbated by the tragedy in Maguiresbridge last year, but it was not instigated by it. When we did the research, we were aware that changes were coming in Britain. When I say "Britain", it came from the Home Office and Westminster, but it applies across Scotland and Wales as well. It took the form of statutory guidance issued to all police services. It is important to note why those changes came about in the first place: it was on foot of a mass shooting in the Plymouth area a number of years before. The person who carried out that shooting was partially motivated by his involvement in so-called incel culture. He had had his weapon seized because of legitimate concerns, but it was given back to him just a few weeks before the shooting. Therefore, the feeling was very much that there is a need to look at that and see what went wrong and whether there are wider lessons to be learned from it. That is where the statutory guidance from the Home Office originated, but that does not apply in Northern Ireland.

There are a couple of important orienting facts. At the moment, there are about 53,000 active firearms licences in Northern Ireland, although that figure goes up and down all the time. That corresponds to more than 100,000 firearms. Ninety-seven per cent of those who own firearms and have licences for them in Northern Ireland are men. It is the only jurisdiction on these islands where police are routinely armed. That obviously adds a certain number of firearms into the mix. Of course, we have a history of conflict. There is ongoing paramilitary activity. There is the "ordinary criminality" that exists everywhere, but some of that involves weapons too. Therefore, an unknown quantity of firearms is circulating in the population. Looking at the history of that, we are aware in the women's sector of research by Monica McWilliams during the latter years of the conflict and in its aftermath. She found that domestic abuse involving firearms seemed to be less prevalent after the conflict ended and some of those firearms had been taken off the streets. It was not gone, but it was less prevalent.

Since then, we have moved on a lot in being able to talk about violence against women and girls, and people feel more able to disclose things that have happened to them, so we wanted to see whether we could find something that may not have been looked at in the interim. That was the purpose of the research. It is a small sample, as I have mentioned — we know that — but the impact each time it happens is enormous for the individual whom it happens to, their family and anyone who survives it. The purpose of the research was to gather their experiences and see what we could draw out.

We noticed a couple of concerning patterns. One is that many of the respondents were not sure of the grounds on which their abuser had obtained their weapon. In some cases, they were not sure whether it was even a legally held weapon. They were not part in any way of the vetting process, so to speak. In many cases, the person held the weapon before the relationship began and they did not know about it until they moved into the home. Obviously, they know when it is the individual's personal protection weapon, but, in many other cases, they were not sure. They were making educated guesses in some cases.

There was also an emphasis on the shortcomings of our approach to medical self-declaration, because, first of all, it is self-declaration and, obviously, there is always a risk with that. Furthermore, the focus of the medical self-declaration is on the health of the person holding the weapon, as we all know. They might be in perfect health, but the people around them and in their family may not be in perfect health. That was the thinking behind the approach taken in the new Home Office guidance, which provides a medical pro forma that has to be completed by a doctor. It is still looking for the same kinds of things, but the doctor will be in a better position to know, perhaps, that, while the applicant is in good health, several people in their family have been through the medical system multiple times for things that might raise red flags.

Another issue is that of full cost recovery. Nobody wants the cost of anything to go up if it can be avoided. However, answers that the PSNI has supplied to questions from the Policing Board on the issue reveal that the shortfall in the past year, 2024-25, was just a little shy of £2 million. The shortfall is widening every year. That is partially because the licence fee has not gone up but the cost of everything else has. The PSNI has emphasised in an answer that every penny spent on it comes out of its budget and is taken away from front-line policing. Maybe there is an opportunity there not only to ensure that our licensing system is at its best but to provide full cost recovery so that the PSNI is not losing out. The PSNI does not have a lot to spare at the minute.

Another issue is references. Referencing, in general, is not necessarily the perfect system, but it is the system that we have in both jurisdictions. In Britain, they have increased it to a minimum of two, which is what we have here, but they have taken an approach whereby, if a person gets a licence with two referees and then applies to renew that licence with two entirely different referees and no "good reason" for that, the question is asked: why not? That good reason could be that somebody has passed away or has left the country or whatever. It may be that the people who originally vouched for them are no longer willing to do so, and that should be looked into where possible. There is an opportunity to improve that, even though it is not a fail-safe. None of these is a fail-safe. It is just everything that we can do to make it safer.

Finally, one of our big recommendations was on cross-referencing applications with the domestic violence and abuse disclosure scheme (DVADS). That comes from our experience of violence against women and girls and our abiding concern that many cases never result in prosecution. A person may call the police or make a report and then lose their nerve and withdraw from the process. The DVADS scheme holds that record, but criminal convictions do not. The idea was that, by looking at both together, you get a fuller picture of the person's history. Statutory guidance from the Home Office goes some way towards that. It does not explicitly mention the English, Scottish or Welsh equivalents of that scheme, but it talks about looking at a number of disposals that may have happened that would not meet the threshold on their own but which, taken together, form a pattern.

I will stop there and open it to questions. Thank you very much.

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

Mr McGlone: Thank you for your report. You clarified the question that I was going to ask. Of the 19 respondents, you are not sure how many referred to a legally held firearm. Of course, possession of an illegally held firearm is an offence. We know that that is illegal in and of itself. Secondly, are you aware that, if someone who is in perfectly good health holds a firearm — in most households, there are others in the house — no other person in that household is entitled, legally or otherwise, to have access to those firearms, unless they hold them on a joint certificate? Do you realise that?

Ms Crory: Absolutely. I am aware of that. What I meant was something a little different: I meant that the person applying for the licence or holding the licence might be in perfectly good health but that many people around them might be in poor health because they are victims of abuse and that, if a doctor had a concern about a pattern of abuse and that person's partner had a licence, that could be raised through the medical pro forma process. That is why it is being reformed.

Mr McGlone: Sorry, I picked that up.

You mentioned references. We all do references all the time. That can be because people are not available or are on holidays. Someone could have passed away. As long as they are a person of good standing in the community, they can give the references.

To take you back, we have already established that you are not sure whether the 19 respondents were all referring to situations where there were legally held firearms. In your report, you refer to that awful tragedy in Fermanagh: are you aware that the person responsible for that tragedy in Fermanagh was not in possession of a legally held firearm?

Ms Crory: Yes. The weapon that they accessed was legally held by somebody else.

Mr McGlone: Yes. That is to clarify that point. He was not legally in possession of a firearm, which is an offence in itself.

We have already established that, in a number of those 19 cases, we do not know whether the firearms were illegally held. In essence, that is 0·035% of firearms certificate holders. Many of us in the oom will know that, where an incident of alleged abuse is flagged up with police, the police straight away, invariably, take action to scoop any firearms held in that location. That is my understanding of the practice, and we have established that that is normal practice by the police. Maybe your drilling down did not show that. Do you know, of the quoted incidents involving firearms, how many were held on crown exemption? By that, I mean personal protection weapons held by members of the security forces, the police and whatever.

Ms Crory: A number of the people in the report told us that the weapon that was held was a personal protection weapon, and, in one incident, a family member is described as being murdered using a personal protection weapon. That was a long time ago. They refer to having reported it to the RUC.

Mr McGlone: Yes, I saw that. That is a long time ago.

Ms Crory: They are not talking about today or yesterday, of course. It is a tiny number, as I said. The academic research done by Monica McWilliams during the conflict and thereafter showed a smaller number. It is difficult for people to talk about these things. I noticed that a key theme was people describing a situation that happened 25 or 30 years ago, but they are still living in fear. The woman who spoke to me had an abuser with a personal protection weapon, and that relationship was over. However, he is still alive, and she will not even give me her name.

Mr McGlone: That leads me to my next point. Of the abusers mentioned in the 19 cases, how many of them came before the courts and were charged and prosecuted?

Ms Crory: We did not ask whether the person had been to court or what it had been for. The survey was very much about their experiences more than anything else. The relationship was over in all the cases, and, in many cases, the goal was escape not prosecution.

Mr McGlone: Are you fit to stand over that and say that it is correct in all 19 cases?

Ms Crory: I am not saying that none of the cases went to court; I am saying that we did not ask that question.

Mr McGlone: You do not know?

Ms Crory: Yes.

Mr McGlone: Of the 19 respondents, we do not know how many had illegally held firearms. We know that some of them are personal protection weapons.

Ms Crory: The large majority.

Mr McGlone: The large majority of them were personal protection weapons. Do you know how many of those people were members of the security forces? Maybe you did not ask the question.

Ms Crory: The question was about how the abuser came to have the weapon in the first place. There were a few people who did not know for sure. The majority who knew that it was a personal protection weapon knew that because their partner was a member of the security forces, but they might not have known the grounds on which the weapon was acquired before they laid eyes on the person and the grounds on which the licence is renewed. If it was an abusive relationship, the fear that was described vividly would apply when you ask questions about the basis on which the licence was applied for.

Mr McGlone: Of the 19 cases, some involved illegally held firearms. We know that some of the firearms were held by members of the security forces for personal protection or potentially by other people for personal protection, but you said that a number of the respondents said that they were held by members of the security forces. Can you quantify that from the 19 cases?

Ms Crory: I have the data here. If you bear with me, I will get the exact number. I did not say for certain that some of the weapons were held illegally; I said that they were not sure. We are not asking the person who owned the weapon, but four people or 28·6% told us that they were not certain of the grounds on which the weapon was held and not that it was illegal. It may or may not have been illegal; they do not know. Eight individuals said that it was a personal protection weapon; there were equal numbers for target shooting as a member of a gun club; smaller numbers for pest control and sporting purposes; and one was held as a result of paramilitary involvement. Therefore, one person knew for sure that the weapon was illegally held.

Mr McGlone: Thank you.

Ms Sheerin: Thank you for the briefing and the report, Elaine. My questions relate specifically to gun use and the fear factor more than the data about the cases that result from the use of a gun.

Following on from Patsy's question on personal protection weapons, we know that the root cause of femicide here is misogyny and the hatred or devaluation of women. In our post-conflict society, what role does the normalisation of violence play in that? I would like to have seen a broader and more representative sample of the population used to create the report, although I understand that you worked under time constraints. What links have you drawn out from the research?

Ms Crory: We did not run the survey for longer to make it bigger, because we wanted to catch up with progress in Britain, and we wanted the issue to be looked at here as a direct result of that. That would be great. I would love nothing more than to have academic researchers with all their resources, because the resources that we had for this report were the cost of printing, and it had to be kept under £100. That is how much went into it. It was just time that I carved out of my day.

It would be great to have academics work on this with all the force and reach and funding of a university. As Monica McWilliams's research was done through Ulster University when she was an academic there, it would be great to see that done and to have it bigger and deeper than we can afford. It is the kind of thing that would, hopefully, be considered. Right now, one of TEO's streams of work from the ending violence against women and girls (EVAWG) strategy is a deep dive into the impacts on rural women. Being from a rural background, I know that domestic abuse and violence against women and girls is more hidden and harder to get help for in rural areas. They are doing in-depth work, and I hope that something like that might come out of it. I do not want to pre-empt anything, because I do not know, but it is the kind of thing that would benefit from much more attention.

Ms Sheerin: Yes. What struck me when the report was first presented was my fear or apprehension that, if we start to focus on the means used to murder women, we miss what should really be the priority: the motivation. The data tells us that the majority of women murdered here are abused. If someone is going to murder a woman, they will do it with their own kitchen knife. That, disgustingly and regrettably, has been the reality for so many families. I would hate to see us turning or shifting focus away and ending up missing what really needs to be addressed. Have you thoughts on a twin-track approach to that?

Ms Crory: It is a multi-track approach. I totally agree with you that it is not about the weapon. A weapon is a weapon is a weapon. The vast majority of murderers use their bare hands. There are other loopholes that we could tighten. The vast majority of firearm owners use them safely and legitimately, and there is no intention in the report to take them away from those people — not at all — or to limit their access to them. It is about other loopholes, just as there were in Britain with that gentleman getting his gun back and then carrying out a mass shooting. That loophole was staring us in the face, and we will regret not having closed it. That is just one of the many loopholes that we should consider; there are red flags that are being raised and perhaps not acted on. The issue, as you say, is the motivation. It is misogyny, not the weapon, but any route through which we can tackle any one of those things will, one hopes, bear fruit down the line. It is difficult to prove a negative, right?

Ms Sheerin: Yes, of course.

Ms Crory: In the report, one person talks about the murder of her mother by her father. The vast majority do not talk about murder or even any violence using the gun: it is the threat. Often it is used as a reminder: "Don't you be doing this" or it is shown or waved about. In one case, an item of furniture was shot while the children hid in the bathroom, not sure whether it was their mother who had been shot. It turned out that it was the sofa. It is the fear that it creates, and any weapon can create that fear and has created that fear.

We know about non-fatal strangulation being the biggest indicator of escalation towards murder, but there is a danger in the public sphere — I would say this in any room but particularly in a room where we are talking about violence against women and girls — of focusing only on murder and the most extreme form of violence when the vast majority of people who experience violence against women and girls are alive and well physically. We do not want to focus only on the murders; it is about all the things that are not seen.

Ms Sheerin: Of course. Thanks.

Ms Egan: Thank you so much, Elaine, for coming in; it is really appreciated. I will be honest: until those incidents occurred in Northern Ireland and until I spoke to you about the report, it was not something that I had really thought about and about how this is an aspect of domestic abuse. As you pointed out, abusers will use any loophole or any means to perpetrate crimes, and that could be one way, and they are doing it.

In your research — you make a recommendation on cross-referencing with the DVADS — did you come across any examples of where information-sharing was effective or worryingly ineffective? People such as social workers can recognise domestic abuse in a household, but that does not automatically mean that the victim will come forward, give a statement and go through criminal proceedings. Is there effective information-sharing when people are at risk? Did you find that?

Ms Crory: In the report, no. One of the things — Pasty alluded to it — is that, if the police receive a report of domestic abuse in a home, they immediately get a marker, I suppose, on the call that tells them that there is a weapon in that house, and they act immediately — I mean "immediately" — to remove it. That was not the case in the past. Some of the things that we have here predate that approach. That was put in place after learning from bitter experience, and it is welcome. We want to see more of that.

You are absolutely right about social workers and teachers. We now have Operation Encompass, for example, that alerts teachers when the police have been called to a home, and the Helping Hands scheme provides training on that. We need that sort of wrap-around approach. A social worker or a teacher will not know that information, but they are the kind of person who, like a GP, is in a position to raise concerns about abuse in a home. We know that, sometimes, people are reluctant to do that, because they are afraid of children being taken away, for example. Part of the EVAWG work overall is about saying, "It doesn't matter whether you personally never commit any violence. There's a little bit that you can do and we can all do to look out for each other, our neighbours, our colleagues, etc".

Ms Egan: I totally understand that some people are nervous about coming forward. I think particularly of those who are in coercive controlling relationships with paramilitaries and people who have illegally held weapons. We talk so much about community coercion by paramilitaries, but it also goes on in family and relationship dynamics. Those people are probably scared about coming forward. They often do not come forward to the police, and they probably will not come forward to you to talk about this research. It could help to identify those who are at risk. It is really worthwhile and links into a wider piece on how paramilitaries operate and their impact on communities.

Ms Crory: It is tricky. It is difficult to get any solid data on the impact of paramilitarism, because people fear for their lives. We have bits and pieces. A couple of years ago, Women's Aid and some others, such as the Women's Support Network, and I did work on paramilitary loan-sharking.

We gave evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee about the experiences of survivors of abuse whose abusers were involved with paramilitaries. One abuser had gone to prison and was using drone technology to spy on the victim in her back garden. People who tried to escape by moving across the water had been picked up on a ferry and taken back home.

Coercive control is intense. We can only imagine that it is exacerbated if there is a weapon in the house. Those people are already criminals; they are not afraid of being caught with an illegal weapon. We will not catch them through that method. I really wish that there was an easier way of gathering those experiences and cracking the nut of the abuse that paramilitaries are still inflicting on us all. It is difficult, though, because people are so reluctant to tell their stories because they fear for their life.

Ms Egan: That is useful. Thank you for coming in today.

Ms Finnegan: Thank you for your presentation; it has been useful. Your report mentions that some PSNI officers can bring personal protection weapons home, but the protocol recommends that such weapons be left in the workplace. Does that lead to unnecessary normalisation of holding a gun among PSNI officers, given that we have seen an issue with misogyny? You have not recommended a change there, but would you?

Ms Crory: It is tricky, because there are times when the lives of PSNI officers are genuinely under threat. We saw the data leak some time ago, and I can only imagine that they felt very uncomfortable going home after that. You can see why the PSNI will not instruct officers to leave a weapon at the station. Guidance is the best that it can do, such as, "You don't have to bring it home. We are not in the conflict any more".

It is a tricky circle to square, if you know what I mean. I would not want to leave somebody vulnerable to genuine threats in their own home. We have seen PSNI members being attacked and killed because of their job. We definitely do not want that. Their personal protection weapons have not helped them in those instances. It is about whether the fear that might cause them to bring their weapon home is also causing them not to store it correctly but to maybe have it out and available. Of course, if a person is an abuser and has the right to bring the weapon home, they may well do so. Equally, they could have legally held guns in their home, like anybody else could, and could simply use that weapon instead. Therefore, an instruction from the police to leave the weapon in the station would not be enough, and it could open up risks.

Mr Bradley: Thanks very much for the presentation. It has been interesting. I am a former firearms holder; it was 35 years ago that I stopped participating in the sporting scene. Given the small sample size, what can you say to convince us that this is a systemic problem rather than a limited snapshot? Only 19 respondents throughout Northern Ireland do not reflect many of the 52,000 firearms holders.

Ms Crory: I agree that it is not a large number. Like I say, in an ideal world, a much bigger study would have been done by professional researchers at a university. This is what we can manage. It is not so much about whether it is a systemic problem; it is about identifying loopholes that could be closed without harming the firearms holders who do not wish to harm anybody and are keeping their weapon safely and so forth.

We could close the loophole that opens up the risk. I say "the risk", and, again, I stress that what caused the Home Office in Britain to issue that guidance to all the police services on the island of Britain was a loophole that handed a weapon back to a man who carried out a mass shooting. If you identify a loophole after a mass shooting or after a tragedy that could have been prevented, that is less than ideal. It is better if you know that the loophole is there and that your neighbours across the water have closed it.

I know that some people were not happy about the full cost recovery. We all know that nobody wants to pay more for anything, if they can avoid it, but, as far as I am aware, there were no major concerns about what happened in Britain violating the rights of owners of legitimately held firearms. I did some reading about that. The main issues raised were about the cost. It is less that there is a major problem that we have just not been looking at and more that this is a problem that is often hidden and that we could prevent further tragedies before they happen and learn from what they have done across the water.

Mr Bradley: Thank you very much for that. I appreciate the answer, but, in my mind, it is still a small snapshot, because most firearms owners in Northern Ireland hold those firearms for the control of vermin or for sporting purposes, as in my case at the time.

Of all your recommendations, which two would you ask the PSNI or the Department of Justice to act on first? How do we properly deal with the reality that some of the threat comes not just from licensed guns but from illegal firearms and paramilitary-linked control?

Ms Crory: I will take those two questions backwards, if that is all right. Yes, absolutely, some of the threat comes from illegally held weapons. The tackling paramilitarism task force should do as much as it can on that. We have a recommendation in there because we had feedback that said, "I know exactly where I could buy an illegal weapon, if I want to. It is at this location". If there is knowledge out there among respondents to a survey about where you might get an illegal weapon, that could be proactively acted on by the police, if at all possible, or by the tackling paramilitarism unit. Obviously, it is not easy to get all the illegally held weapons off the street. By definition, we do not know where they are, but, where possible, we should, obviously, get rid of every one of them.

If I had the opportunity to pick two recommendations and say, "Make those a priority", the top ask from us would be the instruction to interview partners of applicants for licences before a licence is granted or renewed. One of the key pillars of the guidance from the Home Office is that the interview should be held privately — in other words, with nobody else there — the only exception being when a person clearly cannot be interviewed, for example, because of serious illness. That is to say that a person will not have a licence or a renewal granted if their partner cannot speak freely to the police about the situation. Obviously, not every applicant has a partner and may acquire a partner later, so it is not perfect, but it is the most important step for us.

If I were picking a second one, it would definitely be the provision about more checks involving the domestic violence and abuse disclosure scheme before a licence is granted. Those two go together.

Mr Bradley: Thank you very much. That is interesting.

We were trying to cut down the previous workload on firearms, but this would increase it and therefore increase the cost. On that thread, have you had any meaningful engagement with the PSNI or the Department of Justice since the publication of your report? Have they shown any willingness to act on your recommendations?

Ms Crory: I have met the Justice Minister. I have also met the two junior Ministers from the Executive Office about the report. One of the recommendations that the junior Ministers gave me was to contact the Policing Board about the report. That is my next move. I got the address yesterday, so that is for later today.

I am eager to engage with the police. I spoke informally about the report to a police officer with whom I have regular contact. Our plan is very much to engage with the police in more depth and formally, but I have had no engagement with them yet. The Justice Department was interested in looking more into what will happen in Britain as a result of the changes made through the statutory guidance. That came in only in August 2025, so it is quite new. The Department is interested in looking at what comes out of that. The two junior Ministers recommended to me that we speak to the Policing Board and more to the police, so that is our next approach.

There is certainly an interest, particularly from the PSNI. It is eager to have full cost recovery, because it feels that, at the moment, it cannot be as thorough as it would like to be on everything because it is stretched thin. It is also subsidising the cost of licensing, at this stage, by about £2 million a year.

Mr Bradley: To clarify, you have not had any formal discussions with the Justice Department, the PSNI or the Policing Board as yet.

Ms Crory: No, I have: with the Justice Department. I met the Justice Minister and some of her officials in February. I have not met the Policing Board or the PSNI yet.

Mr Bradley: Thank you.

Mr Kingston: Thank you for your attendance and for the report. As others have said and you have accepted, it is a small survey with just 19 respondents in 11 weeks. What were the criteria for responding? Was it an open survey, or did respondents have to have had experience of abuse or of abuse where a firearm was involved? Was that one of the criteria?

Ms Crory: It was open, and anybody could respond. One person talked about how they had experienced abuse that did not involve a firearm, but they had moved to a home with their mother and had acquired a firearm for personal protection. They felt that the current system worked well for them. That is included in the report. Everybody else was a person who had a story: either they had experience, or, in some cases, their mother had experienced and they grew up in a family with abuse facilitated by a firearm.

Mr Kingston: Certainly, some of the testimonies are stark. In fairness to others, the 19 cases represent only around one in 300 firearms licence holders. Sorry, it is fewer than that: it should be one in 3,000 firearms holders. [Interruption.]

I will carry on. In how many cases did you ask whether the incident resulted in the firearms certificate being revoked?

Ms Crory: We did not ask that explicitly, and there was no mention in the testimonies that we got of the certificate being revoked. A number of people said that they had reported it and not seen action, but that predates the modern PSNI. There is a person who describes her mother being murdered with the use of a firearm by a serving officer. They said that they had gone repeatedly to the local RUC and not been taken seriously. That was at the height of the conflict. A lot of things have changed since then, and that is not an excuse by any means. It could have been better, but a lot of things have changed since then in that now the weapon would have been seized. However, there are factors that make a person extra fearful to report when they know that having a weapon is an essential part of the job.

I have covered some of this already, but, on the small sample size, one of the big points that we cannot forget is that there is a big gap between a person experiencing abuse and a person being able to articulate that that is what they are experiencing and being able to talk about it. All of the people who spoke to us had escaped that abuse. They were not in the throes of it; they were not going through it. I do not think that 19 is necessarily the full scope of everyone who has experienced or is currently experiencing that kind of abuse. Many of those people will not be able to talk to us for many years. By necessity, it will not be 100% representative, but, still, it is a small number.

One of the first conversations that I had with a survivor who contacted me was where she was saying, "I know it's niche, but a number of us found each other in a Facebook group years ago. We used to meet offline and talk and this was in the 1990s, and I know they are not all gone away, so maybe we can try and find some of them again". Talking about it on Facebook groups and on online groups and so forth was all that those people felt safe doing. Even when we could guarantee that we were not collecting their email addresses and did not know their names, there were certainly always people who did not feel 100% safe in writing down what they had gone through. That is the nature of abuse, especially abuse where you are still in fear of the abuser. It takes a long time to come forward. It is niche, but that does not mean that it is not important. There are other experiences that we consider under the umbrella of violence against women and girls that are numerically rare are still important enough to be considered.

Mr Kingston: If I have heard you correctly, you are saying that more attention is paid now than in the past to concerns raised. I agree that holding a firearm should be a privilege and should be conditional. That goes without saying. Do you think that, in the past, less attention was paid to concerns raised? Has there been some improvement on that?

Ms Crory: The area in which it has improved most is the way in which the PSNI will respond nowadays. In fact, any modern police force will have means of knowing when there is a weapon in the house and will act on that, regardless of whether that weapon is held as part of a person's role in the PSNI. There are other reasons why a person might not feel safe to call the PSNI on a colleague of theirs. Maybe it is not about not feeling safe but about not feeling that they are able to leave yet. We know that it takes an average of 37 incidents or attempts to leave before a person actually leaves. Often, they will not call when additional barriers are put in the way, such as it being their colleagues. The way that the PSNI handles it now is worlds apart from the way that the RUC handled it.

Our society in general is worlds apart from where it was, in that we are able to talk about these things. However, that does not mean that we are at the finish line on any of the issues. That is not me suggesting in any way that the PSNI will always be 100% perfect in how it handles such things, but there is a different level of expectation of institutions now than there was in the past.

Mr Kingston: Lastly, one of your questions was:

Out of 14 respondents, approximately 85% said no, and 14% said yes. Again, that shows a small sample. In the past, many people needed to have firearms for their personal protection and still do, to some extent, today. In the past, the number was much greater when terrorism was stalking our land and there were people dedicated to murdering members of the security forces. I would suggest that, in those days, a much higher number of people felt safer having firearms for their personal protection. The figure in the report is from a small sample from recent times, but, if a larger survey were done, I think that that would come out.

Ms Crory: It might well be the case. There are definitely people who rely on the knowledge that they are protected in their home, but there are many other people who only discover that their partner has a weapon when it is used against them as a threat. It does not matter whether there is an argument afoot or not: they will never feel safe knowing that the weapon is always there. That is a dilemma that many people will feel. If you are at threat from people outside your home murdering you with a weapon but you are also at threat from somebody in your home, there is nothing that the presence of that weapon will do to make you feel any safer.

Right now, if there was a threat around an officer holding a weapon, we would very much hope that that weapon would be taken away from that officer while the threat was active, regardless of whether there was an additional threat on that person, as in they were a member of the security forces, as opposed to a specific named threat, if that makes sense.

Mr Kingston: We are getting into another topic.

Ms Crory: We are in a way, but I hope that I have answered your question.

Mr Beattie: I am not as concerned about the small sample size, to be perfectly honest. It opens up an important conversation, regardless of the sample size. The point was well made by Emma: if somebody is going to commit violence against a woman or girl, they will use a knife, a gun, a hammer or their hands. The weapon is not necessarily the big issue here; the cause of it is. That is what I am really looking at. It is an important conversation.

I looked at some of the recommendations to see what I thought about them. We can evolve and change, and we should not just stop and say, "That is what we have always done. Let us just do it again.". In fairness to you, I think that you are right about some of the things, but there are some things that I do not think will work. Full cost recovery will not fix the problem in any way. People who are into firearms for sport or for personal protection will pay whatever the increase is —

Ms Crory: I agree.

Mr Beattie: — so I do not think that cost recovery is something that we can hang our hat on, and I would be opposed to it.

The other issue that I have concerns about is the increase in referee requirements. It is not that I have a problem with the increased requirements, but we always talk about good character references when we have trials that involve violence against women and girls. People start to rely on good character references, but, if we have a PSNI that relies solely on referees, I would have a concern. Do you see the two points that I am making?

Ms Crory: Absolutely. First of all, I agree with you. If a person is willing to pay, they will pay whether it is higher or lower, in many cases. It will not prevent the problem of violence against women and girls. The only reason that we have included it is that we thought that, if we are going to ask the PSNI to do more and it is already not delighted with the £2 million shortfall that it has had in the past year, we should probably recommend full cost recovery so that the PSNI is not required to spend further money to do even more. That is the only reason for including that. I do not think that it solves the problem of violence at all.

On the issue of referees, I absolutely share your concerns about the fact that a reference in itself does not really mean much. I had an informal conversation with a friend of mine who told me that he had been asked to write a reference for a colleague of his and had done so, but his immediate concern, when he went to write it, was, "I do not even know this man's domestic arrangement. He is a colleague, and I like and respect him, but I do not know who he lives with or how he behaves with his partner. In fact, I do not even know if he has one.". Immediately, there is the issue that, when it comes to somebody of good standing, which that man certainly was, there may not necessarily be a red flag, but we all know that abusers come from all walks of life. Therefore, references do not solve the problem.

One of the things in the Home Office recommendations was not just that you have references but that you look at what they are referencing and, if they are not there in the person's life any longer, it might be an indication of something. Are references a solution? No. We have all seen, as you said, a good character reference, but that tells you nothing about whether the person is abusive. It only tells you how they appear to the world. We have all heard the expression "street angel, house devil", and we know that that is what many abusers are like. They are lovely to their colleagues and to the fellow they play darts with or whatever it may be, but they are horrific at home. Therefore, it is not a solution; it is part of an array of things. To us, the biggest one by far — I mentioned this in response to Maurice's question — is interviewing the partner.

Mr Beattie: That is the interesting bit, and this is where I absolutely agree with what you say. Any change in the home needs to be notified, because the individual could be on his own, could meet somebody, they move in and they have a child. That is another change in circumstances. We already get it when they change address. You are absolutely right that a change of circumstances in any shape or form needs to be reported to the police. My concern still is — I do not know whether Patsy can help me with this one; I am not sure what the score is — that somebody can apply for a licence when in good health, but their health can take a serious dip in the following five years before that licence is reviewed. I do not think that they get another health check until that five years is up: is that right?

Mr McGlone: In law, they are bound to notify the licensing authority, namely the firearms and explosives branch (FEB) of the PSNI, if there is a material change in their health that is likely to jeopardise their holding a firearm.

Mr Beattie: Yes, but there is nothing to force them to do it. It is the whole business of, if your mental health degenerates, you do not necessarily adhere to what, you know, is the right thing to do. If a GP is treating somebody with diminished mental health, should that GP ask that individual, "Are you a firearms licence holder?", and, if the answer is yes, should the GP have a duty to report that? Is that where we should go with this? I am conscious that health deteriorates and that, with health deteriorating, people's responses deteriorate as well.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): It is already an offence to fail to declare a medical condition.

Mr Beattie: It is an offence, but I am saying that, if you have a deteriorating mental health condition, you might not necessarily adhere to what the law says. That is the whole point: your medical condition has deteriorated. I am just exploring it.

Ms Crory: I take your point completely. It is a dilemma, because we do not want to put more onus on anybody who is not part of the process. However, it is a valuable thing to consider for that exact reason. If a person's health is deteriorating and they want to maintain their licence — bear in mind the stigma around talking about mental health; we are just beginning to crack that now — it is unlikely that they will feel casual about lifting the phone and saying, "This is the state of my health. Come and take my weapons" when that person is already perhaps battling stigma and shame around their mental health and is thinking, "If they take this away from me, my standing in the community will diminish. People will know about it. People will talk.". In that circumstance, they will be less inclined to proactively self-report. That is the issue. Yes, it is a criminal offence to have a medical condition and not disclose it, but, sometimes, you are weighing things up and the fact that you are committing a criminal offence is not at the top of your priorities. People sometimes do not declare when, really, they should. I do not mean in this context necessarily but in lots of things. It is the same with driving licences.

Mr Beattie: Yes. As I said at the start, the small sample size does not matter; there is a good and fair conversation to be had. I will add this as a caveat, Elaine: when we talk about paramilitary weapons, all those illegally held firearms require a completely different response.

Ms Crory: They do.

Mr Beattie: A criminal justice response is required. We do not want to link such weapons to legally held firearms. We need to make sure that there is a distinct separation.

Ms Crory: Yes. I suppose that the big issue here is that some of those respondents do not know for sure whether it is an illegally held weapon. Our intention was to look at legally held ones, because that is where we can fix it. No number of rules that we can put in will stop weapons being held illegally, unfortunately.

The one thing that I will add to what you said, Doug — thank you for your comments — is that I mentioned when a baby is born into the home because — there are mountains of evidence of this all around the world — domestic abuse spikes around pregnancy and birth. In many cases where domestic abuse happens in a couple, it never happened until the woman was pregnant or the baby was newborn. It is a known point. That is why hospitals have put all kinds of safeguards in place now: to interview a pregnant person at her first appointment; to have signs in the bathroom telling you to put a mark on your urine sample and so forth. Hospitals and GPs have put all those in place knowing that. There is no reason why it should not be a moment when a flag goes up: there is an additional person in the home; it is a high-pressure time; everyone is sleep-deprived etc. It is the last time that you want a tragedy to happen that could have been avoided.

Ms Ferguson: Elaine, thank you for the report. As others have said, although it is a small sample, it is a really important report. I want to show thanks and appreciation not only to the Women's Resource and Development Agency but to the 19 respondents, because it is not easy for them to share their stories. We show our appreciation for them.

There are sensible proposals there, particularly around referencing and medical self-declaration. It is good to hear more in-depth information about that. It would be useful to have more knowledge about that as well, because there is a lack of knowledge. Those who do hold arms legally and have a licence will know the ins and outs of it. However, the general public do not know the ins and outs of it. It is useful from that point of view.

The report centres around the changes that came into effect in Britain under the Firearms (Amendment) Rules 2025. Have you liaised with the National Women's Council of Ireland on the governance around the Firearms Act, 1925 in Ireland and stuff? Have there been any conversations there?

Ms Crory: Not formally yet, although I am in an all-island women's forum run by the National Women's Council. We have a close relationship with it. We are a member of its organisation, and it is a member of ours. We share information regularly. It is doing work on violence against women and girls with the Women's Aid Federation up here now. Certainly, I will share the report and have a chat with them, because upgrades are very much needed in the South's legislation. It has more or less sat unattended for a long time. There have been moments — a bit like the moment in England that led to the changes to statutory guidance — that the Irish Government could have seized and did not. Without going into how I feel about how the Irish Government have done on that, I say that they could fold it into a new violence against women and girls strategy. They are moving on to their third iteration while we are still getting started on our first. Nonetheless, they have a moment there and all kinds of resource and time that maybe the Assembly does not have to put into that work. It is an opportunity for them to do so. I will reach out to the National Women's Council in the South.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you for that, Elaine.

Obviously, there is the wider discussion about legally held firearms and those that are illegal. You said that you have not followed up with the PSNI, but, even since the drafting of your report, the PSNI has mentioned that licences have been removed.

Ms Crory: Yes.

Ms Ferguson: It was reported in January 2025 that almost 900 had been removed. Do you have a breakdown of the reasons why they were removed; for example, whether it was due to self-reporting with regard to someone's health? Do you have any idea of that?

Ms Crory: I have not done what would be necessary, which would be to submit a freedom of information request. However, my knowledge of the categories of reasons for which weapons have been removed — the PSNI does that regularly, as do other police forces — is that they include things such as reports of domestic abuse. However, they also include a person's no longer being fit and able enough to operate the weapon, mental health issues and that kind of thing. I do not have a numerical breakdown, but it is a significant number. It is indicative of the fact that you might be perfectly legitimately holding your licence on a Monday and no longer be holding it on a Friday. Therefore, it needs constant monitoring and attention.

Ms Ferguson: I am not aware of the references side of things. You mentioned having a minimum of two and an issue if someone goes for a new licence for an additional gun and has different referees.

Ms Crory: That is the way that it operates at the moment. The approach now taken in Britain is that, if they applied today with their two references and then go back to renew their licence in five years with two entirely different references, questions will be asked as to why the first two referees did not sign again. There can be good reasons for that, such as referees passing away or leaving the country, but, if it is not for a good reason, it might be seen that those people no longer feel comfortable vouching.

People are encouraged to go back to the same referees, if they can. That also means less of a burden for the police force, which may be reviewing thousands of applications, in deciding who is of good standing in the community and who is not. Sometimes, unless you are actually in that community, you do not know whether a person is of such good standing as they are on paper or whether there are all sorts of whispers about them in the area, such as, "Sure, he has a good job, and he is the local butcher, but everyone around here knows how he treats his wife". To say that someone is of good standing in the community is almost meaningless unless the referees are embedded in that community too.

Ms Ferguson: Do we have any knowledge of what exists for the current reference? What questions are asked?

Ms Crory: It is vague. It is about whether you have any concerns about the person and whether you consider them to be safe. Even the best reference in the world from a genuinely upstanding person who is genuinely looking out for any concerns may come from someone who does not know much about the applicant's family life, because the referee cannot be close to the applicant and cannot be a family member. At best, they are making an educated guess a lot of the time.

Ms Ferguson: I have a final one, Chair, if that is OK. What is the current advice for the general public here on how to raise concerns? Is there a process or a methodology?

Ms Crory: I do not think that there is. The advice is to call the PSNI. Of course, people know that they can do that, but the reality is that many people just have a worry in the back of their mind and are not aware of an imminent threat. To those people, picking up the phone and calling the police seems a step too far. They would worry that, if it turned out that they were wrong, it might come back on them. Thought might be given to an interim measure whereby people raise not a red flag but — if you like — a pink one, which represents a lesser concern. People could say, "I am worried, but I do not think that there is an imminent threat of someone losing their life". I hope that makes sense.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you for that, Elaine.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Patsy, you have indicated to come back in for questions, and I will bring you back in shortly. I have not had a chance to ask my questions yet.

Elaine, you know me. You know that I am steeped in legislative change around domestic violence, stalking and everything else, and we have done a lot of good work together in the past. However, I have concerns about the report. That may be because I am from North Antrim; the North Antrim community that I represent is mostly rural. There is a massive shooting fraternity and a massive agricultural base there of people who have firearms licences. In my experience as an MLA, the police are super-sensitive around the issue. Even if a pink flag, as you said, is raised by a member of the public who rings Crimestoppers, 999 or 101, those firearms — 99 times out of 100 — will be lifted before any other conversation is had. At the minute, I am content with the regime and the way that the police respond — they do so legitimately — when flags or concerns are raised.

It takes an absolute age to get those guns back. That has massive implications for the person who holds that firearms licence. Most of the people whom I know who have firearms legally — I do not know anybody who holds them illegally — absolutely love their guns and their sport. Like any sport, it is a passionate thing, so there are real passions going on here, and people love their sport and their guns.

I see the current licensing system as being robust, but there have been failures, and we will come to those in a minute. In your report, you describe the regime as being lax. I cannot remember exactly what page it was on.

Ms Crory: The vetting regime, specifically.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): The vetting regime. Explain to me exactly what you mean by "lax".

Ms Crory: It considers the fitness — physical and mental — of the applicant. It considers that person's criminal record, but it does not consider whether they live with somebody who perhaps has not reported domestic abuse. You know as well from your history of looking at the legislation that domestic abuse takes all forms. Many of the types of abuse that we made illegal in the previous mandate were not illegal 20 years ago. I have sat in rooms with women who told me that they lived through regular sexual violence and abuse that was not even illegal in the 1980s. It became illegal in the 1990s, but they had lived with it for 20 years, so what are they going to do? Suddenly leave now? Suddenly report now? No, that was normalised for them.

I have spoken to women in their 70s and 80s nursing seriously ill men at the end of their lives who abused them from the day and hour the ring went on their finger in the 1960s. It is still heavily normalised in some communities and for some people. There are all sorts of reasons why nobody is lifting the phone to the police. Do the police respond quickly and effectively when somebody says, "I am worried about Mr Smith"? Yes. The problem is that people are not lifting the phone to say, "I'm worried about Mr Smith" unless they are really worried. Certainly, Mrs Smith often is not, because she has been groomed into a situation where she is afraid for her life and often has trouble naming even to herself what is happening. The point that we were making about it being lax is that at no point does the system consider, "Maybe we should ask Mrs Smith if he is safe to have the weapon".

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I recognise 100% everything that you just said about domestic violence. What I find difficult is connecting the bridge from that response, which has been normalised and groomed and everything else that goes with it, over to legally held firearms. I take the point raised by many members that a perpetrator will use their bare hands just as well as they will a knife, fork, spoon or gun, so there are issues there.

Notwithstanding your sample size — we have been through that, and I do not see that as significant — question 6 states:

I suppose that that relates to my first question.

Ms Crory: That is what I am talking about: the vetting process.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Most people will answer no because of the history of the regime and the vetting process. That was always going to be an answer that was given.

Ms Crory: It is still true by and large. It is not a requirement. Going to the question of full cost recovery, which is not a single-handed fix for anything, the police will not have the time, with thousands of applications, to do additional interviews with somebody's partner or family member without additional resource. That is the only reason why we think that it is part of the picture. I hear what you said: an abuser will use anything. We know that from bitter experience, even if you listen to just the news headlines. There is no single action that we will be able to take on violence against women and girls that will resolve it full stop. We have to take little pieces here and there as we can.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Imagine that every partner, wife and husband had to be interviewed if their partner had applied for a firearms licence: you are doubling the work and the cost. It is not a cost-effective system. The police do not operate the system effectively.

You are doubling the work, but you are still not going to get a result, because you and I know that victims of domestic violence will say what, they think, the perpetrator wants them to say, even when they are on their own in a closed room. Unless the police can see the signs — there is training for that, of course — the vast majority of victims will not rock the boat and risk alienating the perpetrator by causing them to lose their licence or have their application refused. Do you know what I mean?

Ms Crory: I hear you completely. Many may not do so, but, for many, it may be the first time that they have been asked the question directly to their face. That is the reason why, at the moment, if you are pregnant and present at the Royal or the Ulster Hospital for your first scan, they will take you to a room and ask you straight to your face, "Is there any abuse happening in the home?". Many people will not feel that it is safe to say yes and then walk straight back into the room where they know their abuser is, but some will. Once they have been asked once, they know that that person is alive to that concern, and — it may not happen that day; it may happen the next week or the week after that — they will finally feel as though people are alive to it.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Do you think that the spouse or partner interview is solely about trying to get an indication of whether there is domestic violence? Question 7 is:

When you interview an applicant, that person will know or will hope to know firearms inside out. There is an interest there. He will already have considered safety and the regulations, but the partner will not have done any of that, because they probably have no interest in guns.

Ms Crory: Yes, I hear what you say, but "sufficient information" means that the person doing the interview may be passed information on the standard of storage, for example, so they will know for sure whether that is the case. Of course, a person can get a licence and then store a weapon unsafely. We know that that happens, and it can result in tragedy.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Yes.

Ms Crory: You therefore want the other person in the house, even if they are not a victim of abuse, to be able to recognise that a weapon is not being stored properly when they see that and to be confident about that knowledge.

To go back to the overall theme of the ending violence against women and girls work, nobody can single-handedly fix the problem. Not everybody can fix their own behaviour, but you can know that something is wrong when you see it and raise a concern.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I just do not know that an interview at the verification stage will elay all that information to a partner who just does not really care about firearms.

Ms Crory: They can be passed a leaflet. The purpose of the interview is not to relay that information. The purpose of the interview, as conceived in the statutory guidance from the Home Office, is to ask questions about safety in the home, violence, abuse and coercion. The kind of question asked is, "Do you have access to your own money?".

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I suppose that that is covered in recommendation 5, with:

I get that. If there is an issue in the house that is not related to the firearms licence holder but is to do with a son or daughter who has a medical condition, a medical issue or a mental health issue, as soon as the police are called and it is ascertained that there are firearms in the house, they will be lifted. I have absolutely no doubt about that, because of my experience as an MLA.

You also talk about unannounced home visits.

Ms Crory: Yes. I know that that is not something that the PSNI is resourced to do in any way, shape or form. It does not necessarily have permission to do so. It would have to have a reason.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): That is what I was going to come on to. It is not just about the process of the police doing that but about the vires. The police cannot enter your house without good cause.

Ms Crory: No, absolutely. They are not entering and doing a search; they are visiting. If somebody — a social worker, a doctor, a teacher at the child's school etc — raises a concern by lifting the phone and calling the police, that teacher, doctor or whoever does not know whether there is a firearm in the home, but the police will know. Therefore, without a 999 call coming in to say, "Something is happening right this minute", they might take that moment to go, "Well, this is when we do our visit".

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. You will know through your experience that, with most claims of domestic violence, there can, rightly or wrongly, be a counterclaim.

Ms Crory: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Sometimes, rightly or wrongly, the counterclaim can go in first, and it can then be used as a weapon. The reporting of domestic violence can be used as a weapon by the perpetrator. In this case, it could be used as a weapon if the victim is a firearms holder. The perpetrator could say, "I will get your guns lifted".

Ms Crory: It is possible. I am not in any way saying that it is not possible, but I have two points to make about that. First, domestic abuse legislation can be used against a genuine victim, but that does not mean that we do not have the domestic abuse legislation. It is the same. It is already possible to use the system in that way without a single change being made; you or I can make a phone call that results in somebody's weapon being lifted. We already know that. There is a separate question about whether the police are as efficient and thorough as they could be in resolving that process, and that is for the PSNI, not me, to answer.

There is always a risk that good legislation can be weaponised, and it is something we have to balance. There are wider questions in many areas of justice about speeding up and making more efficient all aspects of our justice system from top to bottom. We all know how long people wait to come to trial when there is a clear-cut crime, much less anything else. I hear what you say: it could be weaponised against somebody but so can nearly everything that we do, unfortunately.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. I will bring in Patsy again.

Mr McGlone: I have two brief points. First, we often read in the newspapers that a person has been in possession of a replica or imitation firearm. If you are not knowledgeable about firearms or even if you are and are looking down the barrel of one of those weapons, it will have the same effect. Were any of the 19 respondents aware, even post the event, that the weapon was a replica or an imitation firearm?

Ms Crory: None of those 19. We carried out research in 2022 that had a larger sample of over 1,000 people. It was not about firearms, which is why we got such a wide response. It was to tell us about the experiences of violence against women and girls, and the survey had many more questions. However, some of the things that came up in the open text boxes involved people saying things such as, "He tells me that he is connected, and I have seen a weapon, but I do not know if it is real or not". As you well know, that is enough for the person to believe that there is a real weapon and that he is a paramilitary, and they should believe that for their own safety, but they are not sure. That situation has not come up in this research.

Mr McGlone: I am sure that you do not want to be associated with demonising legitimate firearms holders, many of whom are passionate about their sports, their guns and what they do and are among the most law-abiding in society because they do not want to jeopardise their sport. As well as that, there are family heirlooms in many houses that have been there for generations, and people are emotionally attached to those guns. I am sure that you would want to send out the message that they are not the people whom you are in any way attempting to demonise, because, from my experience, they are among the most law-abiding people in society.

Ms Crory: Absolutely not. First, there is no intention to demonise anyone. There are 53,000 licences, and the vast majority of those people have never so much as squashed a fly on purpose, just like everybody else in society. The issue is whether there are loopholes that allow people to fly under the radar. Do we have a system by which you can acquire a firearm legally in order to hold in your possession the means to coercively control your partner or children, in many cases in some of the reports, for decades and centuries? They do not have to be fit and strong or even in the room, but the fact that the person knows that the weapon is there is enough.

If I give a message directly to the licensed firearm holders — I include my father-in-law in that — it is that there is no intention to take anything away from them. They are looking after their weapon and effectively minding their own business, and I feel entirely safe around them, as I would anybody else. However, the nature of abusers is that they blend in among us, and we do not know who they are.

We should tighten up on any loopholes or any issues to make sure that we do not end up in a situation such as what happened in Plymouth a few years ago. A man was handed back his weapon, and he immediately killed a number of people. If the police are looking back at that and saying, "We could have done better there", I see no harm in our looking and asking, "What can we do to make sure that our i's are dotted and our t's are crossed?". There will never be a situation in which everybody gets everything perfect. Being able to admit that the system may work for lots of people but does not work for everyone is a mature response to any legislation.

Mr McGlone: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you, Elaine. It has been very useful and very good; a bit of a marathon session for you, but it has been very worthwhile. Thank you.

Ms Crory: Thank you very much. Thank you for your time.