Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): We are joined by Graham Walker, head of international criminal justice cooperation in the Department of Justice (DOJ); Colleen Cartwright, a policy officer with DOJ; Eilis McGrath, assistant director, Belfast region, Public Prosecution Service (PPS); and Assistant Chief Constable Davy Beck and Detective Chief Superintendent Zoë McKee of the PSNI. I hope that I got everyone right. I welcome you all to the Justice Committee, and I invite you to make an opening statement.

Mr Graham Walker (Department of Justice): Chair, thank you for the opportunity to make this opening statement. You have already noted that I am joined today by colleagues from the PSNI and the PPS, so I will not reprise those introductions. I am joined, for the Department, by Colleen Cartwright, the Department's policy lead on child exploitation. Our police and prosecution colleagues will wish to make remarks on behalf of their organisations, so I will keep my comments brief.

I welcome the opportunity to speak about the important issue of child criminal exploitation (CCE). The Department welcomes the recent Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) inspection on CCE and the follow-up review inspection on child sexual exploitation (CSE), which identified many similar themes and challenges. Those forms of exploitation exist on a continuum of overlapping harms. They are complex forms of child abuse, and it is essential that children who are groomed, coerced or manipulated into criminal activity are treated, first and foremost, as victims in need of protection and support and are not unnecessarily criminalised.

The Department is fully committed to ensuring that our response is consistent, trauma-informed and child-centred. I am pleased that CJINI recognised the significant cross-governmental progress that has been made in recent years, particularly in relation to CCE. Tackling child criminal exploitation cannot be the responsibility of criminal justice agencies alone and requires a coordinated whole-system response. The Department has worked closely with the Health and Education Departments, alongside operational partners, to strengthen Northern Ireland's response to CCE. That work led to the development of a formal definition of child criminal exploitation for Northern Ireland, and the joint launch of a two-year CCE action plan by the Justice, Health and Education Ministers in September 2024. Together, those elements provide the foundation for a coordinated approach that improves awareness and identification, strengthens prevention, enhances safeguarding pathways and supports the disruption of those who exploit children.

Within that plan, the Department of Justice has clear responsibilities. We are increasing awareness of relevant offences under the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, contributing to new practitioner guidance that has been developed by the Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland (SBNI) and preparing for the introduction of new offences that will strengthen our ability to disrupt those who exploit children. That includes a new, bespoke offence of child criminal exploitation, alongside CCE prevention orders, which will shortly be implemented in Northern Ireland. The Department also plays a central role in strategic oversight as co-chair of the cross-departmental children and young people's strategy child protection group.

Another important step forward has been the creation of a dedicated CCE professional officer post with the Safeguarding Board that is jointly funded by the Justice and Health Departments. That role is already proving vital in driving delivery across the safeguarding system, maintaining action through the action plan and supporting front-line practitioners. Alongside that work, the Department continues to strengthen victim identification because, quite simply, unless children are identified as victims, they cannot be properly supported. The national referral mechanism (NRM), which is the UK's framework for identifying victims of exploitation, is central to that effort.

Working in partnership with the Department of Health, we introduced a Northern Ireland pilot to devolve decision-making for child victims of modern slavery and child exploitation. That means that decisions can now be made locally and more quickly by safeguarding professionals who understand the child's circumstances, rather than solely through the Home Office system. The pilot went live in January 2026 and has already generated an increased number of referrals. We believe that that will make a significant difference in strengthening awareness, improving recognition and enhancing decision-making in child exploitation cases.

Importantly, we already see evidence of improved identification. In 2025, 24 local children were identified as being exploited in Northern Ireland, compared with just five in 2024. That represents an increase of 375%. While those figures are deeply concerning, they also demonstrate that more children are now being recognised, formally identified, supported and protected. Crucially, it also means that fewer children risk being unnecessarily criminalised.

I will now turn specifically to the CJINI inspection. The Department welcomes its findings, which provide a valuable insight into where progress has been made but also where challenges remain. It is important to recognise that the inspection reflects the system as it existed during the fieldwork stage, which took place during the early implementation of the action plan. Since then, further progress has been made, including on the development of new practitioner guidance by the Safeguarding Board to support front-line responses to CCE.

The CJINI report makes two strategic and two operational recommendations. The Department fully accepts strategic recommendation 1, directed at DOJ and its partners, which calls for the development of a strategic framework to establish a baseline for how the justice system responds to CCE and the establishment of indicators and monitoring mechanisms for outcomes. Work is already under way to address the recommendation. Officials are working closely with justice partners, including through the establishment of a new criminal justice child exploitation forum. The forum will deliver a consistent, child-first framework across the system, improve data and oversight and strengthen how we assess and monitor outcomes for children affected by exploitation. Importantly, it will also provide a mechanism for criminal justice organisations to collectively address challenges, identify opportunities for improvement, monitor the effectiveness of the justice system response and escalate issues for strategic resolution by senior justice leaders where required. The forum will consider all forms of child exploitation, including criminal and sexual exploitation. Terms of reference have already been agreed, and the first meeting took place on 1 May. The next phase of work will involve a series of round-table workshops, with the first intended to be held by the end of June to drive the work forward.

The Department is committed to ensuring that the CJINI findings meaningfully inform the next phase of our work. Child criminal exploitation does not exist in isolation; it is often linked to organised crime, paramilitarism and multiple overlapping forms of abuse and exploitation. It presents a significant challenge for the criminal justice system and wider society. The Department fully accepts the recommendations made. Work is already progressing, and we remain firmly focused on ensuring that children affected by exploitation can be identified, protected and properly supported across the justice system.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you, Graham. Just before we move on, can you go through those figures again? I think that you said that five children were identified in 2025.

Ms Colleen Cartwright (Department of Justice): There were five local children in 2024.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): In 2024, five local children were identified. What was the increase in the figure? I know that it was a 375% increase.

Ms Cartwright: Twenty-four local victims were identified in 2025.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK, so there were 24 in 2025. Sorry for the confusion there. Thank you.

Who is up next?

Assistant Chief Constable Davy Beck (Police Service of Northern Ireland): Chair and members, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Committee today alongside colleagues from the Department of Justice and the Public Prosecution Service to discuss the really important issue of child criminal exploitation. I am joined today by Detective Chief Superintendent Zoë McKee, who is head of our public protection branch.

At the outset, I acknowledge the findings and recommendations in the Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland report on child criminal exploitation. The report is important and timely. It highlights the complexity of that form of abuse, identifies areas where improvements are required across the criminal justice system and reinforces the need for coordination of that safeguarding response. We in the PSNI welcome the scrutiny and the opportunity to continue to strengthen our service-wide response in that regard.

Increasingly, we see exploitation linked to organised criminality, coercion into drug supply, online offending, intimidation and violence. In Northern Ireland, we also recognise the particular challenges associated with organised crime networks and community-based coercive control. Importantly, children who are exploited are victims first and foremost, so we need to do more to ensure that those children are seen, heard and safeguarded appropriately, while those responsible for exploiting them are identified, disrupted and held to account.

The Criminal Justice Inspection rightly identifies that it is not an issue that policing can solve alone. Effective safeguarding requires a whole-system response, involving policing, justice agencies, health, education, safeguarding partners, local communities and the voluntary sector.

Over recent years, we in the Police Service of Northern Ireland have significantly strengthened our strategic and operational focus on exploitation, but we recognise that more can and should be done to improve our policing response. We have formally adopted the cross-departmental definition of child criminal exploitation and are embedding that operationally across the service. Enhanced governance arrangements are now in place through a dedicated child exploitation delivery group, led by Detective Chief Superintendent McKee, who is with me today, with reporting and accountability through established Northern Ireland Policing Board performance arrangements. We are also strengthening our data-recording and identification processes, introducing bespoke person flags to better identify children at risk and ensure that exploitation indicators and national referral mechanism considerations are more clearly recognised.

Training and awareness activity is being expanded significantly. An organisation-wide e-learning package is under development, and child criminal exploitation is being incorporated into foundation training for new officers, investigative development programmes and specialist child abuse training. Alongside our safeguarding partners and academic colleagues, including Queen's University Belfast, we are improving our analytical understanding of exploitation and strengthening our ability to map exploitation networks, identify adults who groom and exploit children and better understand contextual safeguarding risks in communities, which is absolutely vital.

Operational policing continues to respond to significant safeguarding demand. Child exploitation in all its forms remains a core policing priority. Responding to that type of crime is complex. It requires a balance between safeguarding responsibility, enforcement activity and acting in the best interests of the child at all times. We fully acknowledge that there is more work to be done, particularly around recognising exploitation, consistency of approach, data maturity, prevention and longer-term safeguarding outcomes. We also recognise the wider strategic challenge.

At present, there is no stand-alone child criminal exploitation legislation in Northern Ireland. That presents some operational and evidential challenges across the wider system. Notwithstanding those challenges, significant work is under way across policing and partner agencies to strengthen prevention, improve identification and enhance disruption activity to better protect children from harm.

I recognise the professionalism and commitment of officers, staff and safeguarding partners who work daily in this demanding and difficult area, often supporting some of the most vulnerable children while operating under considerable workforce and resource pressures. I welcome the opportunity to assist the Committee and will be happy to take questions.

Ms Eilis McGrath (Public Prosecution Service): Thank you, Chair and Committee members, for the invitation to attend the Committee hearing.

The PPS welcomes the Criminal Justice Inspection report on child criminal exploitation and the new cross-departmental definition that has been developed by the Departments of Justice, Health and Education. We particularly welcome the engagement undertaken with children and young people in order to reflect lived experience in Northern Ireland. While the definition is recent, the behaviours associated with CCE are, unfortunately, not new. The PPS has long dealt with cases involving the exploitation of children and young people for criminal purposes by adults, organised groups and peers. Increasingly, there is recognition that CCE must be treated not only as a criminal justice issue but as a safeguarding issue, with the best interests of the child at the centre of decision-making.

The "best interests of the child" principle is embedded in the PPS's statutory obligations and prosecutorial decision-making. Prosecutors are required to consider not only the offence but the child's welfare, vulnerability, background circumstances and any exposure to trauma, coercion, intimidation or exploitation. In some cases, children appearing before the courts as suspects may themselves be victims of exploitation. That approach requires prosecutors to exercise professional curiosity and to work closely with investigators and safeguarding partners to understand the full context of a child's circumstances, including vulnerabilities linked to adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), family instability, educational disengagement, mental health difficulties, peer pressure, social exclusion and paramilitary influence.

At the same time, adults who recruit, groom or exploit children for criminality must be held fully accountable. The PPS has dedicated human-trafficking senior public prosecutors (SPPs) in its serious crime unit. It also has dedicated youth prosecutors across all PPS regions who specialise in youth justice matters and work regularly with PSNI youth diversion officers and the Youth Justice Agency (YJA) in cases that involve vulnerable children and young people. Alongside that specialist work, training and guidance are being developed across the organisations more widely so that all prosecutors are equipped to recognise indicators of exploitation and safeguarding concerns. A range of diversionary options remain available to avoid the unnecessary criminalisation of children, where appropriate, while supporting rehabilitation and safeguarding outcomes.

The PPS is working closely with the Department of Justice and criminal justice partners to strengthen the collective response to CCE. We are represented on the criminal justice child exploitation forum and the implementation group that is preparing for commencement of the new provisions in the Crime and Policing Act 2026, including the specific offence of child criminal exploitation, prevention orders and the offence commonly known as "cuckooing". That work includes developing training, guidance and operational readiness across the criminal justice system. The introduction of a specific CCE offence will also improve data collection and understanding of the scale of offending. The PPS also supports the wider multi-agency approach through our involvement on the child exploitation committee alongside the PSNI and the Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland.

While significant work remains, there has been important progress in recognising CCE as a safeguarding issue arising from child abuse rather than solely a matter of criminality. The PPS will continue working collaboratively with criminal justice and safeguarding partners to improve outcomes for children and young people while ensuring that those responsible for exploiting children are brought to justice. Ultimately, our shared objective must be to protect vulnerable young people from exploitation and ensure that the voice and welfare of the child remain central to the justice system.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you very much for that, Graham, Davy and Eilis. I will go to members now.

Ms Egan: Thank you all for coming in today. Child criminal exploitation is a really serious issue. I cannot think of anything as important. Obviously, the CJI report had some findings that were not good. It states:

We are letting children down. When the CJI came in, I was really concerned about the figures relating to referrals to the national referral mechanism. I am trying to get them in front of me. We saw tens of thousands of referrals being made in the UK, but, over a 10-year period, there were only four in Northern Ireland. Can you explain why there is such a huge disparity?

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: First, we are absolutely and fully committed to the protection of children, and we take seriously the issues raised in the report. As Eilis said, child abuse is nothing new to us in Northern Ireland; what is new is its framing around CSE and, more recently, CCE.

It is also recognised that the NRM framework is perhaps not as reflective as it should be of the Northern Ireland situation. There was an issue for us in the interpretation, use and maximisation of the NRM process. The pilot that Graham referenced is a mechanism to, if you like, Northern Ireland-ise our considerations, our viewpoint and, as a consequence, our identification and referral of young people into the model. That is showing signs of an early response to a more bespoke mechanism as opposed to the initial position with the NRM.

You are absolutely right that we need to do better, and we should do better. That is not to say that safeguarding was not being identified and addressed. Referrals were still being made to social services and youth diversion officers (YDOs), and the child-centred approach was still there. However, we may not have been fully aligned specifically with the NRM methodology.

Zoë, do you want to add anything?

Detective Chief Superintendent Zoë McKee (Police Service of Northern Ireland): We will see significant changes with the pilot, because we now have a better depth of understanding of the local issues by having local panels and having assessment by and discussion with the agents who know the child in question best before a case is even considered by the Home Office to produce conclusive findings. It can only bring more improvement, which we need. When we look at the stats that Graham and our Department of Justice colleagues have referenced, we can see that, in the short time that the pilot has been running — since January this year — there have been significant increases in referrals.

Ms Egan: You said, I think — correct me if I am wrong — that, beforehand, the NRM may not have been aligned as well with Northern Ireland: will you explain that a bit more for me?

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: The NRM was very much aligned to human trafficking and modern slavery referrals as opposed to those for coercive control, which is more nuanced — the CJINI report acknowledges the nuances around that — so it was probably not interpreted in a way that matched what the mechanisms were established for, which was primarily about human trafficking and modern slavery, as opposed to what we tend to see in Northern Ireland, which is more linked to paramilitary influence and community coercive control. It is about that differential, if that helps to explain it.

Mr Walker: The lack of awareness of the applicability of the NRM at that time was a key factor. As we all agree, now that the pilot is working on a devolved basis, we expect it to make a significant difference in raising and strengthening awareness and allowing practitioners to recognise that the NRM is an applicable tool for CCE cases.

Ms Egan: OK. Thank you.

Another of my concerns — maybe the point has been raised — is about children entering the justice system and appearing before the courts as suspects when, in reality, they are victims of exploitation. Have you done any work to establish how many such children there have been and whether further interventions were made in their cases? Going before the courts and entering the criminal justice system can have a huge impact on their future and their well-being, especially if they are treated as the suspect when they are the victim.

Ms McGrath: It can be a difficult balance to strike and a difficult concept to grasp, but we have youth specialists who are used to working with young offenders and work in the Youth Justice Agency with partners in the youth justice system to gather information. That becomes part of our decision-making. We work closely with the police, particularly YDOs, who usually have a good idea of what is going on in the child's community and home. That information will often be available to us, and it ultimately factors into our decision-making.

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: I will add to that from a policing perspective. Our YDOs have been in place for a long time — they are well established — and every potential prosecution of a person under the age of 18 goes through the YDO process. That is our attempt not to criminalise people but to look at the wider issues. The liaison and collaboration process with the Youth Justice Agency works well, and, as Eilis says, that continues to inform prosecution decisions and to minimise those as much as possible by looking for disposals through mechanisms other than court, which is the last resort in many of those cases.

The CJINI report identifies some of the more nuanced drivers, if you like, or push-pull factors in a person's ending up being investigated for a crime that were not fully recognised, acknowledged or further investigated as being part of the wider exploitation of young people. The report highlights that element, and we are collectively committed to doing that work.

Ms Egan: How effective has the PSNI's work in the past two years been in identifying people who exploit children? As you said, there are links to paramilitary organisations. How has that work progressed, and has the situation improved in the past few years?

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: That work is being led by Zoë.

Detective Chief Superintendent McKee: I can pick that up. We are pivoting to the recognition that, fundamentally and first and foremost, it is a safeguarding issue, not an enforcement issue. The definition in the wider action plan has been really helpful. We had to start by having a clear definition that all partner agencies understood; that is the baseline that we work from. Having published the definition in late 2024, we embarked, in early 2025, on setting up a delivery group on child exploitation, incorporating child sexual exploitation and child criminal exploitation, to embed and implement that.

At the same time, we were the subject of a review by Criminal Justice Inspection, so, as we were building our response and what our model would look like, we were being inspected.

We did some fantastic work last year and have built on it this year, including embedding our definition across the organisation and developing the e-learning package and embedding that in all of our training. We are also doing an initiative with Twin Sight North and Dr Colm Walsh, whose research is really informative. We are building on that with some network analysis at a local level. We know that child criminal exploitation happens in pockets of areas and in certain communities. We are building an evidence base to try to understand where those problem areas are so that we can target our resources accordingly. Some of our vulnerability leads at local level are the key people, in that they engage with those children on the ground.

We are also trying to build a culture with our officers, because it is about a change in mindset across the board. We have to acknowledge the findings of Criminal Justice Inspection, which were that we have not always got it right, as you know from the dip sampling, on identification, response and disruption. We are building a culture in which we look beyond the criminal offence to the vulnerability of an individual child: what is the picture behind that child, what are their needs, and how can we best use the services? More broadly, we are looking at how we dock in and work more collaboratively with our safeguarding partners, such as the Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland, which has developed a fantastic practitioner guidance document that has been rolled out not just for policing but for all of our partners. Building on the good work as part of the action plan is happening within police as well as to a huge extent beyond the police.

Ms Egan: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I will pick up on some of those things that Eilis was exploring. When you identify a child who has been flagged as having been exploited through criminal means, you are there to assess the prosecutorial factors in that case,. However, is there a flow of information that goes back down the chain to the PSNI about the evidence that you might get at that point of that exploitation so that a new investigation can commence, irrespective of what you do with that child when it comes to the criminal justice system?

Ms McGrath: Professional curiosity could lead us to contact the YDO to ask questions. We could have some suspicions about the evidence that we have in front of us. However, we have to acknowledge our criminal justice partners, because they often identify it first as an issue or a potential one. As part of the Criminal Justice Inspection report on CSE, there was a recommendation that we flag such cases, and we now have that as part of the prosecutor information form (PIF). It specifically asks officers to comment on whether they suspect any exploitation. It would be part of our professional curiosity, and we would, of course, go back to the investigators to ask whether there was any further information that they could glean for us in that regard.

As a wee bit of reassurance, we have dedicated youth specialists who have worked in the area for years as senior public prosecutors and public prosecutors. They have good links with YDOs and the Youth Justice Agency. The flow of information is usually quite solid. There is absolutely no difficulty in lifting the phone and saying, "I have a wee bit of a concern in relation to this case". The communication between the criminal justice partners is, we find, very effective.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you.

Mr Kingston: Thank you, all, for your attendance and for your actions to implement this important report.

I think that you, Graham, mentioned child criminal exploitation as a new offence: has that come into effect, or is that in a current or future Bill?

Mr Walker: It is in the Crime and Policing Act, which received Royal Assent, I think, about —

Ms Cartwright: On 29 April.

Mr Walker: — a fortnight ago. Commencement and implementation are intended to happen around the end of the year.

Ms Cartwright: Yes. We are in the implementation phase. We have put together a partnership group with the likes of the PPS and the PSNI to look at the different work streams in order to commence that new offence and those prevention orders. There are court rules that need to be written, and there needs to be training and awareness etc. As Graham said, we hope that that will be commenced by the end of the year.

Mr Kingston: Will that enable the prosecution of adults guilty of CCE?

Ms Cartwright: Yes.

Mr Kingston: Graham, you mentioned figures of five and 24 for the past two years: were those children identified as being criminally exploited?

Ms Cartwright: Those were the local victims of child exploitation.

Mr Kingston: Yes, in Northern Ireland, but that was when we were without an offence for adults. Is there an offence that adults can be charged with?

Ms Cartwright: They could be charged under modern slavery/human trafficking offences, although we know that, historically, that has been a challenge. Part of the reason why the CCE offence in the UK Crime and Policing Act is being extended to here is to address that gap.

Mr Kingston: OK.

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: We will look at the broad range of offences. If there are offences — contact offences or whatever — in respect of an adult against a child, we will still prosecute those. What this addresses is the gap in legislation around the overall coercive control of a child as opposed to a specific offence of assault, sexual assault or whatever the case may be. It adds to the armoury, if you like, of available offences that we can consider in the broader sense.

Ms McGrath: I reiterate that. It will be what we will look to, and it will be another offence that we could direct as a prosecution. At present, various offences can be used with regard to child cruelty or aiding and abetting, but this will certainly be a welcome addition.

Mr Kingston: It also highlights the specific issue of child exploitation.

Ms McGrath: Clearly, it will assist with the recommendation about the data maturity that you mentioned for the purposes of pulling through the numbers.

Mr Kingston: Davy, you mentioned an increasing number of incidents: did you mean an increasing number of incidents of child criminal offences? Are those figures rising because of better identification. or is there a rise in children being involved in criminal activities whether they are exploited or not?

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: No, I do not necessarily see it as a rise in the number of children involved; it is a rise in awareness around some of the drivers behind that. It speaks to the point discussed earlier that, historically, we may have looked at those as children offending, whereas it is now more a case of looking holistically at the drivers behind that and recognising coercive control more clearly in our considerations. That is a sign of the awareness-raising that Zoë and others mentioned.

Mr Kingston: I want to ask a question that builds on that. Where does that approach lead us? Do we end up considering all child criminal activity as child exploitation, or do we recognise that, in some cases, the child is responsible for their criminal activity? We have the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill in front of us, which refers to the purpose of sentencing being punishment, protection of the public, deterrence, rehabilitation of offenders and reparation for victims. Rehabilitation should always be an aim in justice and sentencing, but do we end up almost implying that children are not responsible when they take part in crime? Obviously, this relates specifically to where they are being exploited, but is there a recognition that not all child criminal activity is exploitation?

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: Absolutely. We have to make that clear. We still see many examples where children made a decision to offend, whether against us as police officers, the public or, indeed, other children. Mindful of that, there is still a requirement to address that behaviour. We have the mechanisms to address that behaviour through youth diversion orders, the prosecution services and the expertise that we have to identify those children. What this does is look also at the wider drivers and causative factors of crime, and it addresses some of those. It puts a bit of balance back into the considerations around child offending and the responsibility for that but accepts that adults may have had a role in getting us to that point.

That brings us back to the requirement for us all to be child-centred in those considerations and think more broadly about what has brought us to that point. It is a natural extension of what we have been working towards and developing over many years. There is a maturing approach around that. There are also risks, as you suggest, in not recognising that there are also children who offend. By addressing that offending, we are supporting those young people.

Mr Kingston: You want them to turn their lives around and be rehabilitated.

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: Absolutely.

Mr Kingston: My last question is on whether social services might get involved in instances of parental failure or lack of parental responsibility. Maybe that is not quite exploitation, but it is often a factor. Will social services have a role in the forum that you are talking about?

Ms Cartwright: We are in the early stages of developing the child exploitation justice forum framework, and, as Graham said, there are workshops to come. Social services will be involved. Essentially, the forum will be for justice matters, and that will feed up into the children and young people's services (CYPS) child protection group, which the Department of Health co-chairs and on which all trusts sit. It will feed into that wider cross-departmental strategic approach. Social services will most definitely be a key partner in that.

Mr Kingston: Thank you.

Detective Chief Superintendent McKee: I will pick up on two points. If a child comes to our attention as a suspect, we must always be alive to the fact that they are potentially vulnerable, due to the fact that they are a suspect at such a young age. The wider missing episodes or antisocial behaviour — those wider community and environmental living factors — need to come into play. When a child is identified as a suspect, it is an absolute statutory duty for the police to engage with social services and make that assessment. We always refer. We also have a professional curiosity and investigative mindset regarding parental responsibility and pick up on whether there are neglect or cruelty issues in the home or any wider offences that are affecting the child, the outworkings of which can develop into criminal behaviour.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Colleen, you keep emphasising "local" children: what other classification of children is there?

Ms Cartwright: "Local" means UK or Irish nationals. The Home Office NRM statistics break it down. Eighty-six children were referred to the NRM in 2025, 24 of whom were UK or Irish nationals. The rest of the children will have been from different countries — maybe they were referred to the NRM because they had been trafficked into the country or brought here to be exploited.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you.

Ms Sheerin: Thanks to you all for the presentation.

I will go back to some of the points that Connie made, because I had the exact same assessment of the report. It painted a pretty dire picture. Obviously, the testimony that you have provided today suggests that there have been some changes since and that things have improved. In recent times, we have had two alarming examples of incidents in which child exploitation was not picked up. The news that we got last week around the Katie Simpson case demonstrated a catalogue of errors. Multiple statutory agencies and services had not asked questions or identified where there were risks to a young person. There was a lack of the instinct that, you would hope, should be present in the PSNI, health service and all of the actors. Details were also revealed around the so-called race riots in Ballymena last summer. FOI requests revealed that CCE was identified as probably being a factor in some of the meetings that were held in the wake of those riots, but there were no referrals to the national service after that. What was the rationale for that?

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: To be clear, 33 juveniles were subject to interventions by police in respect of the Ballymena riots.

Those 33 juveniles were referred through the mechanisms of social services et cetera. That is the point that I made earlier. We are considering safeguarding and making those referrals to social services and other partners. We are considering the impacts of safeguarding et cetera.

Those referrals were not made through the NRM, because that requires specific evidence of the more modern slavery/human trafficking element that is specific to the NRM. We are better aligned now to address that, but I reassure the Committee that that is not a case of dealing with those juveniles and not making referrals or not considering their safeguarding. Those 33 juveniles were referred to social services.

Ms Sheerin: You would say that referring them to the national mechanism was not the appropriate pathway for those individuals.

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: On the evidence of those particular cases, yes.

Ms Sheerin: You referred them to social services and then —?

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: Safeguarding will have been addressed through that mechanism.

Ms Sheerin: You are content with that.

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: Maybe "content" is not the right word. We are always open to challenge on that and to improving how we do that work. However, I reassure the Committee that it was not a case of not considering the safeguarding of those people in the wider sense. That was considered, and referrals were made to what was, we deemed at the time, the appropriate avenue for them.

Detective Chief Superintendent McKee: I will just pick up on a point about timelines. The national referral mechanism pilot commenced only in January this year. We previously had a different process of reporting directly through NRMs to the Home Office. That has moved now to a more local focus, which is welcome. Therefore, at the time, the same criteria or mindset will not have been applied to the specific case of public disorder that you are speaking about. At the time, we were clear in calling that out. We identified it as criminal exploitation manifesting itself in public disorder: children were being encouraged to engage in that behaviour.

Ms Sheerin: There are two almost twin-track problems playing out here in what we have seen identified by the report and in some of the cases that we have seen in the public domain, such as the report released last Tuesday on Katie Simpson's murder. That identified that there was institutional misogyny and a lack of investigative thinking from some of the statutory agencies that were faced with Katie as a victim but were not asking the questions that they really should have asked. The report tells us that there was no effective system in place to track cases of CCE or measure the level of it. Do those attitudes still exist? Is the pilot sufficient to address bringing the system forward? Is that pilot having the appropriate or necessary impact on existing attitudes?

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: A number of factors are addressing those attitudinal elements that you mentioned. We have done significant work on our training not only in respect of the investigative mindset but on the understanding of CCE and CSE more widely. Also, I am conscious that we are now into year 4 of our ending violence against women and girls action plan. We are utilising the recommendations from a range of reports, including the report on Katie Simpson's terrible murder, to inform that plan for the next three years.

Certainly, we are committed to addressing all those areas of concern and ensuring that we use that as a real learning opportunity to move on and provide a much better service to all victims, regardless of who they are, what age they are et cetera, and to pick up on those valid and clear areas where we did not perform in the way that we should have done, absolutely.

Detective Chief Superintendent McKee: We have to acknowledge the recommendations from the Katie Simpson report, and we will work with Jan Melia and the Department on the implementation stage of those over the next 12 months, as well as the recommendations that are specific to us in this report. You are right: it makes for uncomfortable and difficult reading. We completely acknowledge that, but these are the things that keep us on our toes and are the catalyst for organisational learning and improvement. Absolutely, that is where the organisation is focused.

Ms Sheerin: Thanks.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Brian, do you want to ask a quick question on a point that Emma made, or do you want to wait until the end?

Mr Kingston: No, it was not specifically on Emma's point.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I will leave you until the end.

Mr Kingston: Yes.

Mr Bradley: Thank you very much for your presentation. It was mentioned earlier that no legislation exists. If that is correct, what specific steps have been taken to ensure that the PSNI recognises child criminal exploitation beyond county and country lines, particularly where paramilitary and organised crime groups are involved?

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: Again, I emphasise that, first and foremost, we are absolutely committed to protecting children, and we are taking those issues seriously. We have implemented a range of issues quickly in response to that report, including accepting the definition, enhanced data recording, amendments to the prosecutorial documentation, which Eilis mentioned, enhanced flags and enhanced accountability through the Policing Board. We are working with our partners here and externally through the Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland and academic partners. Training is a key element, as Zoë mentioned, and she may want to highlight some other issues.

Detective Chief Superintendent McKee: They are all features of the strategic delivery group that I run, and it is at gold level across departments in the organisation. I want to be clear that it is not just a matter for the public protection branch; it is owned by the whole organisation from the front-line officers to, in some cases, our forensic specialists. We are alive to the issue, and we have a delivery plan. ACC Beck has described some of the key work that we are focused on.

Mr Bradley: Do those plans include the introduction of legislation to support your work?

Detective Chief Superintendent McKee: Yes.

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: That is the work that Graham mentioned.

Mr Bradley: We have talked a lot about paramilitary intimidation and organised crime. How is information collated about the Provisional IRA, which, I believe, is not monitored by the PSNI, and all the other paramilitary organisations that still exist? Are there links between paramilitary groups and organised crime to share in child exploitation?

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: We will address all criminality wherever it comes from and whatever the source.

On organised crime gangs and paramilitarism across Northern Ireland, we have 48 groups under investigation, which is an increase on last year of around six. We have conducted 391 disruptions to those groups over the past year. Paramilitary groups make up around 17% of the 48 groups, and, as part of our efforts to address that criminality, the amount and value of drugs and cash that we have seized are up, arrests are up and the number of people with links to paramilitary groups whom we have charged and reported is up. Across all the organised crime gangs, arrests are increasing, the seizure of weapons and firearms is increasing and our safeguarding, which is key to today's discussion, is increasing.

We are working extremely hard day and night to address all criminality, no matter what group it comes from and irrespective of the community or the impact. The community is where the impact is felt most because those groups have coercive control across certain communities, and we are committed to doing everything that we can to address that.

Mr Bradley: However, my understanding is that the PSNI is not monitoring the Provisional IRA, which is done by the security forces on the mainland. Do the security forces on the mainland share information with the PSNI about that paramilitary group?

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: We monitor all areas of potential and actual offending, and we will address all areas. We work closely with our partners in Northern Ireland, in GB and, indeed, in an Garda Síochána.

Mr Bradley: That is a very political answer. [Inaudible.]

Mr Bradley: You should be a politician.

Mr Beattie: Team, thank you for your answers so far.

The core concept of CCE is coercion into crime: an individual or group taking advantage of an imbalance of power to coerce, control, manipulate or deceive a person who is under 18. What do we do when the person who is doing the exploiting is under 18?

Detective Chief Superintendent McKee: That is a great question. We also need to say that it is child abuse, first and foremost. What do we do when the child is under 18? We kick in all our statutory child protection obligations, regardless of the incident or the specific circumstances. As partners in a collective, we all have our statutory obligations, so, if there are any concerns, we will make the appropriate referrals, have the appropriate case discussions, do joint investigations and then signpost to appropriate partners. You then need to consider the age of criminal responsibility, and then you get into a lot of other issues and debates around under-18s. First and foremost, however, we need to safeguard those people because, as we have said, it is about safeguarding first and enforcement thereafter. We know — I think that I am just repeating what I have already said — that these are the most vulnerable people, and they deserve and need our additional collective response and protection.

Mr Beattie: I kind of get that. Look: it is easy to say that, but I do not see how a 17-year-old who is exploiting a 12-year-old is the victim if they are doing the exploiting. I am not quite getting that side of things. You cannot give a prevention order to somebody who is under the age of 18, so we cannot give a prevention order to that 17-year-old. Just remember Alexander McCartney: he started his litany of offences at the age of 14, and that went on until he was around 26. Look what happened with regard to that.

The question kind of still stands: what do we actually do? How do we stop that exploitation? We all know that a lot of that exploitation can now be done remotely online. A 17-year-old can sit and exploit and coerce somebody into crime over the internet. It is really difficult to see what we can do in that regard.

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: The only response that I will give to that, Doug, is that we will certainly investigate that criminality. We will discharge our obligations under section 32 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. We will investigate that irrespective of the person's age and take that investigation through the measures that we talked about earlier with regard to the youth diversion officer etc. We will attempt to address the behaviour, look after the safeguarding, signpost and signal people and help them along that journey. Ultimately, there are still juvenile courts. We will still prosecute juveniles if that is absolutely necessary and warranted.

Ms McGrath: We get files of that nature that are investigated and submitted to us. There is the Youth Court. Part of the youth justice system looks at restorative justice principles, which you referred to earlier. Ultimately, there are prosecutions that go through the court system and avail themselves of youth diversionary disposals and youth conferences along restorative lines as well. We have those situations.

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: The reality is that many of those offenders will have exhausted all other opportunities multiple times —

Ms McGrath: Absolutely.

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: — but we will take them through that process.

Detective Chief Superintendent McKee: Your question demonstrates how complex the issue is. There are differences between child criminal exploitation and either contact or non-contact sexual offending. There are subtle nuances, even in the example that you provided. We also need to see the additional barrier with child criminal exploitation, which is that a lot of victims do not self-identify as victims. They will see their perpetrators as their protectors and their peers — their providers, in some circumstances. That plays into the power imbalance. Where there is online offending or contact offending from a sexual perspective, we are absolutely in the space of sexual offences prevention orders. While you may not be able to get one for an under-18, there are other ways of managing those offenders under the public protection arrangements, despite the fact that they are juveniles.

Mr Beattie: I used the extreme example of Alexander McCartney at the age of 14, but it is a fair example. If he was 13 and a half, for example, or just six weeks younger — late 13 — under the minimum age of criminal responsibility, if the age was changed to 14, you would be powerless: is that right?

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: In essence, when it comes to the criminal justice route, yes. We could still signpost and advise social services, but, yes, ultimately, we would not have that sanction or the ability to consider a criminal prosecution. That would limit the interventions that are available.

Mr Beattie: OK. Good enough. Thank you all.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you all for your presentation. There are two core areas. As you mentioned, the report was done whilst improvements were being made during the fieldwork. I recognise that, and I acknowledge some of the interventions that have happened recently. Many of you mentioned that it is now a key priority across the criminal justice system. Some have mentioned that training has begun, and I know that there is guidance from the Safeguarding Board, but can you outline the level and scale of the investment in training that is taking place to ensure that it is embedded across the criminal justice system?

Detective Chief Superintendent McKee: I can speak on behalf of policing first and foremost, but some of the things that I will refer to will be more broadly across partners in the criminal justice system.

I will start with the practitioner guidance from the Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland. That has been issued and is an absolutely fantastic tool for awareness-raising and education and is a reference point. We are also developing a toolkit for front-line officers to identify and respond appropriately. That is a work in progress. We are also revising, as ACC Beck has referenced, all our current training protocols and processes that are well established in the service at foundation level, specialist crime level and day-to-day district learning packages for local policing. We are also developing an e-learning package for roll-out across the whole organisation for broader awareness and training.

I know that, through the newly established forum, training and awareness-raising across the criminal justice system will be a key focus, because, as we started off by saying, this is not just a policing matter. We all know that we need that wider collective response. It is part of the training pillar: is that right?

Mr Walker: Yes.

Ms McGrath: Yes.

Ms Ferguson: Do you have a timeline for that? Some of it is in development, so do you have a timeline for when it will be fully embedded and when people across, for instance, the PSNI will be fully trained?

Detective Chief Superintendent McKee: In the PSNI, in the existing frameworks, it has already been done. It is already embedded. For example, specialist officers doing child abuse investigations or those in the rape crime units have bespoke detective training courses, and we are introducing child exploitation elements into that. When it comes to foundation training, they will cover bespoke modules in the training centre.

Ms McGrath: In the PPS we already have policy guidance for the prosecution of young people; guidelines on child safeguarding; our policy on human trafficking and exploitation; and guidance for prosecuting cases involving child sexual exploitation. That is all live, practical guidance that we continually train our lawyers and admin staff on, and we continue to work in the child criminal exploitation area. Again, that will in be addition to this.

We always have professional curiosity when we approach any file. It is about embedding that in all our prosecutors and, indeed, all our staff in PPS and building on the guidance and training that we already do in a specific area and specific offence, which we will welcome when it comes.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you. That leads me on to my second question, if that is OK, Chair. In relation to professional curiosity, I know that the Public Prosecution Service crosses a range of areas: vulnerability, adverse childhood experiences, education, mental health, peers, social influence, family, paramilitaries, etc. On the investigative side, from the PSNI perspective, you mentioned to my colleague referrals to social services. Can you expand further on professional curiosity? I am conscious of the range of organisations and services that have knowledge and information about the coercive control of young people in neighbourhoods and communities. What other organisations and agencies do you avail yourselves of?

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: You are absolutely right. While, as a police service, we have significant amounts of information, we do not have all the information, particularly around some of those core community issues. Zoe mentioned the training from foundation through to specialist officers: that is one element of it. We also need to raise awareness with our neighbourhood teams so that they are also having those discussions but know how to identify and address some of the issues that they come across and develop that community network of support. We have done work through, for example, the Ask for Angela campaign, which was specifically around our violence against women and girls action plan with the night-time economy, taxi drivers, Translink and so on. It is continuing to build on that.

None of this should be delivered in isolation. There is learning from a range of reports, including Katie Simpson's case and the CJINI report, and from internal work that we have done across the organisation. For me, there is a risk of doing it piecemeal, so I have already commissioned some work to bring this together with that more holistic development of training, which will continue. This is not about doing one-off training and saying that we have it done. We can do some of this through awareness training, but we need to bring in those real lived examples of where we have it wrong and embed that as part of our delivery of training across the PSNI. With our partner organisations, we need to continue the Ask for Angela-type approach, where we can tailor that to make it bespoke to a number of partners. The work with Women's Aid is one example of how we can really generate the community-level intelligence, information and concerns that really inform what we do, where we do it and when we do it.

There is a broad range, and I absolutely agree that we need to expand that. It is not just about what we at this table do but about how we can develop that. That is why it is important that this is delivered as part of a framework, and that is what recommendation 1 really gets to. None of can do this in isolation; it has to be done across us at this table as partners but also across Education, Health etc —.

Ms McGrath: The voluntary sector.

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: Absolutely; the voluntary sector. We are all collectively feeding into the information pot. That potentially gives us the best opportunity to get ahead of some of the issues.

Ms Ferguson: That is good, because I wanted to come to the importance of someone whose background is in community development and family support, particularly the likes of family support hubs. There is a wealth of knowledge, experience and support in the community sector. You mentioned Health, Education and Justice working together on a cross-departmental level: the community is a missing link here in being able to support young people in communities and do the preventative work on coercive control. That is the final one.

You mentioned the new criminal justice forum. That is a criminal justice agencies forum, and, obviously, it feeds into safeguarding from a health perspective. Are there any thoughts about looking at the wider framework? You may all separately have forums that you link into. Is there a way that a framework can ensure that the right people are sitting around the right table at the right time in support of our young people? It seems very weighted, very heavy and very much a process. How can we tighten up? How can the criminal justice system work collectively, which is great, while working effectively with the other partner organisations that have a key role to play, particularly in safeguarding and supporting young people against coercive control and exploitation?

Detective Chief Superintendent McKee: I think that that will be addressed through the recommendation and the framework that has already been established through the strategic group that was mentioned by our Justice colleagues at the beginning. There is also the two-year CCE action plan, which is about cross-departmental delivery. We are alive to the fact that it needs to be a cross-system approach. There are 15 action points in that, and, after a year and a bit, we are, from recollection, on track with at least over half of them. Everybody around here and the wider partners in the statutory sector and the community and voluntary sector are alive to the fact that this is a cross-system problem with only cross-system solutions.

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: Colleen, do you want to add to that, with specific reference to the forum?

Ms Cartwright: Yes. We have considered the community and voluntary sector in the terms of reference for the new justice forum for child exploitation. We will hold workshops with our statutory partners that are in the membership and do a workshop with the community and voluntary sector to ensure, as you said, that we get the right people round the table in order to scope out what data those organisations have, what the data tells us about child exploitation and how that can affect the justice system and the outcomes and to monitor those outcomes. We hope to start the workshops at the end of June. We really hope that the community and voluntary sector will be able to provide us with a child-centred framework and access to the child's voice in order to inform that framework.

Detective Chief Superintendent McKee: We cannot forget the work of the Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland. It does sterling work in this space as well. It represents 21 statutory agencies and really pushes forward a lot of the exploitation work.

Mr Walker: To add to that, there is an obvious nexus between the forum and the SBNI's child exploitation committee. We fully accept CJINI's recommendation, because it is important for the justice family to be able to identify the opportunities and constraints across the Justice family and to solve those. That assists us in feeding objectively into the broader piece, where we sit with Health, Education and the voluntary sector. It gives us a real feel for the landscape of what is going on in Justice in order to inform that argument and that piece.

Ms Ferguson: This is just a point. At that higher strategic level and working across systems, it is critical to work at a neighbourhood level as well, because that is where you will be most effective.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Let me read the CJINI report:

The CJINI recommendation has a clear emphasis on the missing children piece. How many missing children are there at present?

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: Right now?

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Yes.

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: I am not in a position to answer that, because the number changes by the hour and by the minute. What I can say to reassure you is that, in every district and area's daily management meeting, missing persons are a key part of the agenda. Those cases are reviewed, and daily updates are provided.

We absolutely recognise the elevated vulnerability of children in care and the missing aspect. Zoë is our lead organisationally for missing persons. For me, that emphasises and blends our approach to vulnerability, public protection, children, CCE and CSE and missing persons, because — I mentioned a nexus — there is a nexus around that, which we recognise. We recognise that there were some failings and what CJINI found in respect of that. That was not acceptable, and we addressed it very quickly.

I do not know whether you want to add anything to that.

Detective Chief Superintendent McKee: As soon as that came to our attention, we set up what we term internally as a "gold group". We had a cross-departmental response to that because we quickly realised that there were quick-time actions that needed to be addressed. The update is that we have made significant changes in terms of response times. There is a review of the policies and guidance issued to local officers, but you will know from Criminal Justice Inspection that one of the recommendations is specifically around the Philomena protocol and the need to reword it. We are also making changes and amendments to meet that recommendation.

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: That needs to be a multi-agency response as well.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): While I know that it would change — it would be a movable feast as regards missing children — on average, in any given week, how many children are missing?

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: I do not have the exact figure. We can certainly write to you and give you an overview of that, but it varies. I would not want to give you the wrong information.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): No, and I would not expect you to.

Detective Chief Superintendent McKee: There will be, say, weekends where there will be peaks and troughs. It depends on what is happening in local communities. There will also be low-, medium- and high-risk children and then the adult missing persons as well. We are not trying to —.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): No, I would not want to you give over information that you did not think was accurate or correct. I am asking you in case there is any correlation between that and the people on the national referral mechanism. We are looking at 24 people for 2025 on the national referral mechanism: is there a correlation between missing persons and those registered?

Detective Chief Superintendent McKee: Potentially yes, because we refer to the national referral mechanism also for child sexual exploitation. We know from our data and evidence base that it is one of the indicators for missing persons, especially for looked-after children, so, yes, there is a correlation.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. I will read on from CJINI:

— we have covered that a wee bit —

Can you give me any practical examples of how that has improved and what I have just read out is in the past?

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: To give you some reassurance, we have a child and young person's forum, and we engage with a range of partners around the children's voice more collectively at a strategic level to challenge us to make sure that the voice of the child and the young person is heard. That was specific to the response to individual cases. Again, Zoë has led our response to that and implemented work in the early stages of our being made aware. That was before the publication of the report around those issues.

Detective Chief Superintendent McKee: I have practical examples of that to give you some reassurance. When inspectors brought that to our attention early on in their inspection, we immediately invited inspectors to come along to see how that was happening. We built in floor-walking in the call-handling centre where the calls were coming into to make sure that the calls were being dip-sampled, scrutinised and listened to. We then built in an additional layer where we had the child sexual exploitation team going in and dip-sampling all missing person episodes, use of language and how they are framed. We are now developing a better data source.

It is back to looking at where, we know, the problems are and at the timeliness of calls coming in, when officers are deployed, how quickly that happens, what the outcomes are, how quickly they return to places of safety and whether the referrals are being made. That is all being tracked now, and we are building that evidence base to give us and, more important, local communities and others the reassurance that we absolutely take the matter very seriously. Any failing with one child and not getting it right runs significant risk. We are very alive to that.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): When you read current police records, can you now see what the child has to say in them?

Detective Chief Superintendent McKee: I would like to say that we are getting there. I would be misleading you, however, if I were to say that I see it in every case. It is part of the work that we have described today on bringing more to the fore embedding the principle and providing training. Some officers might have known that something was wrong or did not feel right, while others might not have identified anything. Having a clear definition of what child criminal exploitation is has been almost the starting point. Policing Board accountability is driving that work and the focus that there is on it.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): What about the PPS? Are there any practical differences there?

Ms McGrath: Although there was no particular recommendation for us, we work with our criminal justice partners. The sampling of files because of the lack of data in the CCE arena will mean that, in future, it will be a little easier for us to get the files, because we will have the offence to attribute to it. To reassure you, however, I will say that our specialists do a huge amount of work on youth offending with the police, as well as with the youth justice system, and that is documented. Queries are in the file notes. When the data-quality issues are clarified, what the child has to say will perhaps be evident in future reports.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. This is my last one on the CJINI report. It contends:

One of the strategic recommendations is that an "adequately resourced delivery model" be developed: is it adequately resourced?

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: I would widen that out. I will be absolutely frank with the Committee and say that there is a resourcing challenge for the PSNI that affects our ability to respond to all the challenges. The public protection branch holds significant risk across a broad range of offending behaviour, with children being one aspect that we have talked about today. That risk, however, is replicated for adult safeguarding, serious sexual offences, domestic violence and violence against women and girls more generally. Taken together, that broad range of offending, criminality, risk, potential risk and safeguarding is phenomenal, and, at the moment, we do not have the appropriate resource in the crime department, in the public protection branch and in the PSNI in general to address it fully and properly. As a result, yes, there is an increased risk of service failure in those areas, and I will not shy away from saying that.

We have a recovery plan in the crime department to regrow detective status. As I sit here today, I am 265 detectives below the established strength that I should have. That has an impact across the crime branch and not just on the public protection branch. Today, the public protection branch sits at around 60 officers below strength, and that has an impact on our ability to deliver everything that we have talked about today. Committee members, as our political representatives, can help us with that regrowth and resourcing so that we can provide the best possible service and safeguard communities across Northern Ireland.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK. Thank you.

Mr Kingston: I just want to clarify the statistics on national referral mechanism referrals. Is it correct that 86 children were referred in 2025?

Ms Cartwright: Yes, 86 children were referred.

Mr Kingston: Of those 86 children, 24 were from the UK and Ireland.

Ms Cartwright: Yes.

Mr Kingston: Sixty-two were therefore foreign national children.

Ms Cartwright: Yes.

Mr Kingston: They were under-18s.

Ms Cartwright: Yes.

Mr Kingston: They were referred as potential victims of human trafficking.

Ms Cartwright: Of modern slavery, human trafficking and child exploitation.

Mr Kingston: Were many of them suspected victims of sexual exploitation?

Ms Cartwright: Yes. It would be a mix.

Mr Kingston: Some of us are members of the all-party group on modern slavery and sexual exploitation. We are familiar with the online advertising.

Ms Cartwright: I have that information elsewhere. I can get a breakdown of the statistics for you. The Home Office will tell us what the young person was referred for: whether it was for labour exploitation or sexual exploitation. I can get you the statistics, but I do not have that finer detail with me today.

Yes, there could be a wide variety of human trafficking offences involved, as well as offences of modern slavery, child sexual exploitation or criminal exploitation to do with drugs. There are lots of reasons for referrals.

Mr Kingston: For clarification, were the 24 people who were from the UK and Ireland still seen as having been trafficked?

Ms Cartwright: They were seen as victims of modern slavery, human trafficking or child exploitation.

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: Not necessarily in Northern Ireland. Some of them could have been trafficked prior to arriving here. That was then reported, and they were referred to us.

Mr Kingston: The more we hear, the more shocked we are by what is going on below the surface and the scale of it. I would welcome any statistics.

Mr Walker: We are happy to write to you with them, Chair.

Mr Kingston: That would be helpful.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Can you also provide information on missing persons, even a snapshot over a period? That is all that I request.

Assistant Chief Constable Beck: We are happy to do that.

Detective Chief Superintendent McKee: No problem.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you very much for your time today. It has been an informative session.