Northern Ireland Assembly Flax Flower Logo
Session 2008/2009
First Report

Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety

Report on the Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill (NIA 21/07)

TOGETHER WITH THE MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS, MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS RELATING TO THE REPORT

Ordered by The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety
to be printed 13 November 2008

Report: 10/08/09R (Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety)

This document is available in a range of alternative formats.
For more information please contact the
Northern Ireland Assembly, Printed Paper Office,
Parliament Buildings, Stormont, Belfast, BT4 3XX
Tel: 028 9052 1078

Membership and Powers

The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety is a Statutory Departmental Committee established in accordance with paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Belfast Agreement, section 29 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and under Standing Order 46.

The Committee has power to:

The Committee has 11 members including a Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson and a quorum of 5.

The membership of the Committee is as follows:

Mrs Iris Robinson MP (Chairperson)
Mrs Michelle O’Neill (Deputy Chairperson)

Mr Thomas Buchanan       Mrs Carmel Hanna
Dr Kieran Deeny               Mr John Mccallister
Mr Alex Easton                 Mrs Claire McGill1
Mr Tommy Gallagher        Ms Sue Ramsey
Mr Sam Gardiner2

1 with effect from 20 May 2008 Mrs Claire McGill replaced Ms Carál Ní Chuilín.
2 with effect from 15 September 2008 Mr Sam Gardiner replaced Rev Dr Robert Coulter.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Introduction

Consideration of the Bill

Clause by clause consideration of the Bill

Appendix 1

Minutes of Proceedings

Appendix 2

Minutes of Evidence

Appendix 3

Written Submissions

Appendix 4

Written Evidence and other Correspondence considered by the Committee

Appendix 5

List of Witnesses

Executive Summary

1. The stated purpose of the Bill is ‘to provide the legislative framework within which the proposed new health and social care structures can operate’. Prior to the introduction of the Bill the Committee heard evidence from a number of the organisations likely to be affected by the provisions. Following its introduction a total of 30 organisations responded to the Committee request for written evidence. The Committee took further evidence from a number of key organisations before undertaking a formal clause by clause scrutiny of the Bill.

2. During the clause by clause consideration the Committee raised a number of concerns with the Department including issues highlighted in the oral and written evidence to the Committee. The Committee agreed that it was content with clauses 2 and 3, clause 7, clauses 10 to 12, clauses 15 to 17, clause 19, clauses 22 to 35, and schedules 1, 3, 4 and 7.

3. The Department agreed to a proposal from the Committee to change the name of the ‘Regional Support Services Organisation’ to the ‘Regional Business Services Organisation’ in clause 14 and throughout the Bill. The Department agreed that the acronym “RAPHSW” be replaced with the term “Regional Agency” in clause 1 and throughout the Bill.

4. The Department accepted a number of amendments proposed by the Committee to clauses relating to consultation. It accepted amendments to clauses 4 and 6 relating to the requirement of the Department to consult in relation to its power to determine priorities and objectives and to issue directions. The Department agreed to strengthen the consultation provision in clause 5 on the production of a framework document for all health and social care bodies and the provision in clause 9 about consultation to be undertaken by the Local Commissioning Groups. The Committee welcomed the proposal by the Department to amend clause 8 to provide for joint sign-off of the commissioning plan by the Regional Board and the Regional Agency.

5. The Committee was divided on the merits of a separate regional agency for public health and social well-being set out in clause 12. Most members supported the proposed agency arguing that a much stronger public-health message is needed. A number of members argued that setting up a separate agency would create another layer of bureaucracy and that its functions could be dealt with by the regional board. The Department accepted drafting amendments to clause 13 relating to the functions of the regional agency.

6. The Department accepted an amendment to clauses 18 to strengthen the duty on health and social care bodies to take account of the views of the Patient and Client Council and an amendment to clause 20 about taking account of comments submitted in response to a consultation. The Department accepted an amendment to clause 21 to place a duty on trusts to exercise their functions with the aim of reducing health inequalities. The Committee had concerns around the principle of public-private partnerships and suggested the inclusion of a reference to ensuring the long term financial viability and value of any public-private partnership schemes. Following consideration the Committee agreed the clause as drafted. The Committee questioned the procedures for making subordinate legislation set out in clause 29 and after consideration agreed to the clause as drafted. The Department accepted a minor correction to schedule 2 and advised the Committee of drafting amendments to be made to schedules 2, 5 and 6.

Introduction

1. The Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill (NIA 21/07) (the Bill) was referred to the Committee for consideration in accordance with Standing Order 33(1) on completion of the Second Stage of the Bill on Tuesday 1 July 2008.

2. The Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety (the Minister) made the following statement under section 9 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998:

“In my view the Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”

3. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum states that ‘the rationale behind the reform of the health and social care system is to put in place structures which are patient-led, patient-centred and responsive to the needs of patients, clients and carers as well as being more effective and efficient (releasing resources for investment in front line health and social care).’ The stated purpose of the Bill is ‘to provide the legislative framework within which the proposed new health and social care structures can operate.’

4. During the period covered by this Report, the Committee considered the Bill and related issues at ten meetings. The relevant extracts from the Minutes of Proceedings for these meetings are included at Appendix 1.

5. The Committee had before it the Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill (NIA 21/07) and the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum that accompanied the Bill.

6. On referral of the Bill to the Committee after Second Stage, the Committee wrote on 4 July 2008 to key stakeholders and inserted advertisements in the Belfast Telegraph, Irish News and News Letter seeking written evidence on the Bill by 22 August 2008.

7. A total of 30 organisations responded to the request for written evidence and a copy of the submissions received by the Committee is included at Appendix 3.

8. Prior to the introduction of the Bill the Committee was briefed by the Minister on 6 March 2008 about the proposals for the reform of the health and social care system. The Committee took evidence from the Health Promotion Agency on 22 May 2008 and evidence from the Institute for Public Health and the Northern Ireland Local Government Association on 19 June 2008 about the proposals. The Committee took evidence from the Mental Health Commission on 3 July 2008. Following the referral of the Bill for Committee Stage the Committee took evidence from Departmental officials on 11 September 2008 about the policy behind the Bill and its general provisions. The Committee took evidence from the Central Services Agency on 18 September 2008; from the Health and Social Services Boards, the Health and Social Services Councils, and the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority on 25 September 2008; from the Royal College of Nursing, the British Medical Association (NI), and the Allied Health Professions Federation on 2 October 2008. The Minutes of Evidence are included at Appendix 2.

9. The Committee began its clause by clause scrutiny of the Bill on 2 October 2008 and concluded this on 6 November 2008 – see Appendix 2.

Extension of Committee stage of the Bill

10. On 3 November 2008, the Assembly agreed to extend the Committee Stage of the Bill to 5 December 2008.

Report on the Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill

11. At its meeting on 13 November 2008, the Committee agreed its report on the Bill and agreed that it should be printed.

Consideration of the Bill

12. The Department issued its ‘Proposals for Health and Social Care Reform’ for consultation on 18 February 2008 with a closing date for submissions of 12 May 2008. Following this consultation period, and prior to the introduction of the Bill, the Committee took evidence from a number of organisations. The Committee took evidence from the Health Promotion Agency and the Institute of Public Health in Ireland on 22 May 2008 and 19 June 2008 respectively. The Health Promotion Agency argued that public health and health improvement are complex issues that require collaboration and partnership working and that “current structures do not easily facilitate those partnerships or local working”. The Health Promotion Agency described the current restructuring proposals as offering “a major opportunity for change” and argued that “any proposed new organisations should make public health, particularly health improvement, a priority”.

13. The Institute of Public Health welcomed the proposed regional public health agency as “a major opportunity to bring together the different aspects of public health and to give public health a much stronger voice”. The Institute stated that “the agency must be multi-sectoral. Public health is not about just the health service, … but about other areas such as housing, education, agriculture, transport and rurality. This organisation must be outward looking and forward looking. There is here a fantastic opportunity to create in Northern Ireland something that is truly world class”. The Institute argued that “there must be strong links between the [regional health and social care] board and the proposed regional public health agency, but it is not clear how those links would be taken forward”. The Institute also called for the regional public health agency to have a stronger function relating to research and information.

14. The Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA), in evidence to the Committee on 19 June 2008, welcomed “the proposals for a much stronger and closer role for local government” and said it would mean that “the local community will have ownership of the services, feel more involved, have better feedback, and enjoy an improved sense of well-being”. NILGA called for local government to be seen as “an organisation that, in conjunction with partners, can deliver health improvement. It has responsibilities for environmental health, heath improvement through the provision of leisure and open spaces, community development, good relations, economic development, and so forth”. NILGA also recognised that capacity building for local councilors needed to be addressed and that council members working on health bodies must be properly supported and briefed in their work. NILGA was strongly supportive of the proposal for a regional public health agency.

15. The Bill provides for the dissolution of the Mental Health Commission and the transfer of its functions to the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority. The Committee took evidence from the Mental Health Commission on 3 July 2008. The Commission argued that it should be retained as a separate organisation but, recognising that this was unlikely, made a number of suggestions about how its functions, particularly those relating to the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, should be delivered within the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority. The Committee took evidence from the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority on 25 September 2008 when it reported that “over the summer we took a strategic approach on an operational level to discuss and plan how the services will come together, if the legislation comes into effect from 1 April 2009”. The Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority reported that the Authority and the Mental Health Commission established a project board to develop an action plan and full agreement has been reached on how the work in the action plan will be taken forward.

16. Departmental officials briefed the Committee on 11 September 2008 on the general provisions in the Bill. The Committee recognised the tight timescale to deliver the proposed changes by 1 April 2009 and noted that the purpose of the Bill is to provide a legislative framework for the proposed new healthcare structures. The officials explained that

“The Bill seeks, either in the body of the document itself or by securing the powers to make subordinate legislation, to establish parameters within which each of those health and social care bodies will be permitted to operate; what is expected of them; and the necessary governance and accountability arrangements that would support the effective delivery of health and social care in Northern Ireland.”

17. The officials reported on the outcome of the consultation and stated that there was broad support for the thrust of the proposals. They said that there was much support for the establishment of a regional board and a regional agency for public health and social well-being and indicated that the name of the regional agency “was chosen to try to get across the message that the agency will adopt a comprehensive approach to the public health and social well-being of the entire population”. They indicated that comment on the regional support services organisation was limited while there was “overwhelming support” for the proposed patient and client council model.

18. Officials reported that among the concerns raised during the consultation were the relationship between the regional board and the regional agency, representation of the voluntary and community sector, and the level of social care representation on the local commissioning groups. The Committee questioned the inclusion in the Bill of a provision relating to public-private partnerships and the officials explained that legal clarification on the issue was needed and stated that “It is simply a permissive provision, and it provides the legal clarity that a PPP scheme can be used if it is required and is judged appropriate in individual cases.” In response to a question about deficiencies in performance management identified in the Appleby Report the officials explained that a proposed definitive framework for performance management was being prepared and would be published shortly.

19. The Committee took evidence from the Central Services Agency on 18 September 2008. The Agency outlined its current role and indicated that its replacement by the proposed Regional Support Services Organisation would represent a natural progression with the new organisation providing a wider range of services. Among the additional functions which will move to the new body are the health and personal social services superannuation scheme, some payment functions relating to GPs, with ICT and IT services transferring in the medium term and, in the longer term, accounts services and human resources and recruitment are areas under consideration. The Central Services Agency made a case that the name of the new body should be changed to the ‘Regional Business Services Organisation’ to better reflect the business and business-support functions it will provide.

20. The Committee took evidence from the Health and Social Services Boards on 25 September 2008. The Boards welcomed the general thrust of the proposals and particularly the enhanced profile for public health and well-being. The Boards recognised that “there is a particular challenge in bringing together [those] different interfaces, particularly those between the regional health and social care board and the regional agency for public health and social well-being”. The Boards stressed the importance of the Framework Document under Clause 5 in providing the checks and balances on accountability between the various bodies.

21. The Committee also took evidence from the Health and Social Services Councils on 25 September 2008. The Councils welcomed the clear line of management responsibility in the structures from the Minister and the Department, through the commissioning board, and to the providing trusts. They stated that “the accountability of trusts to the regional health and social care board is a key strength of the proposed structures”. The Councils welcomed the creation of the patient and client council and recognised “the importance of having a single co-ordinated organisation to formulate and express diverse local views”. However, they also had some concerns about how local representation will be preserved and maintained.

22. The Councils argued that the regional agency for public health and social well-being should be accountable to the regional board. They acknowledged that concerns about the separation of functions between the two bodies had been addressed by the Minister’s “commitment to the production of a framework document that makes abundantly clear the respective functions and interrelationship of the new health and social care organisations”.

23. The Royal College of Nursing, in evidence to the Committee on 2 October 2008, supported “the Minister’s stated intention to put the public-health agenda at the heart of the health and social care system”. They shared the concern echoed by others that “how the local commissioning groups, the regional health and social care board and the regional agency for public health and social well-being work together is central to the delivery of those objectives”. They called for the language in the Bill to be strengthened and that “all plans should be signed off jointly by the local commissioning groups, the board and the agency. In that way no one body has primacy over the others. We believe that that will provide checks and balances that will help to ensure that good local decisions are made”.

24. The RCN welcomed the involvement of local voices in the commissioning of services but had some concerns about the weight that will be given to the local representatives and professionals involved. It stated “if commissioning is to be truly local, an agreed level of authority must sit with local commissioning groups; otherwise, groups will be relegated to no more that debating chambers”.

25. The British Medical Association (NI), in evidence to the Committee on 2 October 2008, strongly welcomed the establishment of a regional health and social care board and the slimming down of the Department but stressed that this reduction in bureaucracy must produce savings which will be released into front-line patient care. The BMA welcomed the creation of a new regional support services organisation but had concerns about the size of the organisation and particularly how it will be structured. The BMA also welcomed in principle the establishment of a regional agency for public health and social well-being but was “slightly concerned about the lack of clarity on how the organisations will communicate with one another”.

26. The BMA expressed major concerns about the top-down approach to managing commissioning and argued that “an opportunity will be lost if we create local commissioning groups, but ignore the potential for further development at a community level”. The BMA questioned whether the proposed local commissioning groups with populations of 300,000 would be so very different from the existing health boards and argued for structures to operate at a level of 50,000 patients or fewer. They recognised that under the proposed structure this is not precluded but would wish to see it encouraged. The BMA also expressed opposition to the inclusion of elected local representatives on the local commissioning groups arguing that if they are included “the scrutiny and accountability of local councils may be eroded”.

27. In evidence to the Committee on 2 October 2008 the Allied Health Professions Federation, while welcoming the creation of a single regional health and social care board, had reservations about the representation of allied health professions on the board. The Federation also welcomed “the emphasis that the regional agency for public health and social well-being will place on health promotion and protection”. The Federation expressed some concerns about the proposed commissioning arrangements. These included the need for the allied health professional on each local commissioning group to have access to adequate support and advice structures and the need for clarification on the extent of the financial controls. The Federation argued that “care is also needed to ensure that there is no duplication between the regional board’s role and that of the LCGs. … … Regional commissioning must have a local flavour – localities must have an input into what is commissioned regionally”.

Clause by clause consideration of the Bill

28. The Committee undertook its clause by clause scrutiny of the Bill on 2, 9, 16, 23 October and 6 November 2008 – see Minutes of Evidence in Appendix 2.

Clause 1 – Restructuring of administration of health and social care

29. The Committee raised two concerns relating to this clause. The first related to the use of the acronym “RQIA” in subsection (2)(b) and throughout the Bill to refer to the Health and Social Care Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority. The Committee suggested that “Health and Social Care RQIA” be used. However, following consideration the Department did not accept the proposal arguing that

“as the purpose of an acronym is to provide a shortened version of the full name, “Health and Social Care RQIA” is not felt to be appropriate. In addition, “RQIA” is a recognised and accepted acronym for the organisation and therefore it is considered that it should remain.”

After further consideration the Committee agreed to the use of ‘RQIA’.

30. The second concern related to the use of the acronym “RAPHSW” in subsection (5)(b) and throughout the Bill which the Committee considered cumbersome and unwieldy. Following consideration the Department proposed that “Regional Agency” be substituted for “RAPHSW”. The Committee agreed to clause 1 as drafted subject to the proposed amendment to subsection (5)(b).

Proposed amendment, clause 1(5)(b), “leave out ‘RAPHSW’ and insert ‘the Regional Agency’.

Clause 2 – Department’s general duty

31. The Committee agreed to clause 2 as drafted.

Clause 3 – Department’s general power

32. The Committee agreed to clause 3 as drafted.

Clause 4 – Department’s priorities and objectives

33. The Committee noted that clause 4 will make it a statutory requirement for the Department to determine its priorities and objectives for the provision of health and social care. The Department can revise those priorities and objectives but before doing so it must consult with such bodies or persons as it thinks appropriate. The Committee had concerns that section (3) releases the Department from the obligation to consult “where because of the urgency of the matter” it is necessary to act without consultation. The Committee proposed that the provision be modified by the inclusion of the word “extreme” before “urgency” and that where no consultation takes place a report will be submitted to the health and social care body concerned. Following consideration the Department did not accept the proposed inclusion of the word “extreme” arguing that

“this creates a difficulty in attempting to define and justify what type of situation is “urgent” as compared to one that is “extremely urgent”. In addition, the use of the term “extremely urgent” would mean that the Department would be required to consult in instances where the circumstances were just “urgent” and this would appear to defeat the purpose of the provision”.

After further consideration the Committee accepted section (3) as drafted.

34. The Department accepted the need for a report to be submitted to the health and social care body concerned where because of the urgency of the matter no consultation takes place and agreed to amend the clause accordingly. The Committee agreed to clause 4 as drafted subject to the proposed amendment to section (3).

Proposed amendment, clause 4(3), “leave out subsection (3) and insert:

(3) Where the Department is of the opinion that because of the urgency of the matter it is necessary to act under subsection (1) without consultation—

(a) subsection (2) does not apply; but

(b) the Department must as soon as reasonably practical give notice to such bodies as it thinks appropriate of the grounds on which the Department formed that opinion.”

Clause 5 – The framework document

35. The Committee noted that clause 5 provides a statutory requirement on the Department to produce a ‘framework document’ for all health and social care bodies. This is intended to clearly specify to each body what is expected of it and the procedures it must follow to perform certain functions. The Department is required to keep the document under review and to revise it as and when necessary. The clause also provides that the Department should consult with each body in respect of its functions and may consult with any other bodies that it considers appropriate. The Committee was concerned that the provision in subsection (5)(b) that the Department “may consult any other bodies or persons the Department considers appropriate” was too weak and proposed that ‘may consult’ should be replaced by ‘will consult’. Following consideration the Department accepted the proposal and agreed to amend the clause. The Committee agreed to clause 5 as drafted subject to the proposed amendment to subsection (5)(b).

Proposed amendment, clause 5(5)(b), “leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘’will’.

Clause 6 – Power of Department to give directions to certain bodies

36. The Committee noted that clause 6 will give the Department power to issue general or specific directions to the regional board, the regional agency and the regional support services organisation in carrying out their functions. The Committee had concerns that subsection (3)(a), similar to the provision in clause 4(3), enables the Department in cases of urgency to issue a direction without first consulting the health and social care body concerned. The Committee proposed similar amendments as in clause 4, that is, to insert ‘extreme’ before ‘urgency’ and to report retrospectively where action is taken without consultation. Following consideration the Department did not accept the proposal to insert the word “extreme” before the word “urgency” but did accept the need for a report to be submitted to the health and social care body concerned where because of the urgency of the matter no consultation takes place and agreed to amend the clause accordingly. The Committee agreed to clause 6 as drafted subject to the proposed amendment to section (3).

Proposed amendment, clause 6(3), “leave out subsection (3) and insert:

(3) Where the Department is of the opinion that because of the urgency of the matter it is necessary to act under subsection (1) without consulting the body concerned—

(a) subsection (2) does not apply; but

(b) the Department must as soon as reasonably practical give notice to that body of the grounds on which the Department formed that opinion.

(3A) Where the Department is of the opinion that (for any reason other than the urgency of the matter) it is not reasonably practical to comply with subsection (2)—

(a) that subsection does not apply; but

(b) the Department must as soon as reasonably practicable give notice to the body concerned of the grounds on which the Department formed that opinion.”

Clause 7 – The Regional Health and Social Care Board

37. The Committee noted that clause 7 establishes a Regional Health and Social Care Board to replace the existing four Health and Social Services Boards. The Committee agreed to clause 7 as drafted.

Clause 8 – Functions of the Regional Board

38. The Committee noted that this clause sets out the functions of the regional board which are chiefly those transferred to it from the existing four Health and Social Services Boards and any other function that the Department directs. The Committee also noted that section (3) requires the Board to draw up an annual commissioning plan and in doing so it must consult the Regional Agency and have due regard to the views of the Agency. Uncertainty about the relationship between the various bodies and particularly the Regional Board and the Regional Agency has been a recurring theme of the written submissions received by the Committee. The Committee acknowledges that to some extent those concerns may be addressed in the framework document to be drawn up under clause 5. However, the Committee recognises the importance of the role of the two main bodies in drawing up the commissioning plan. The Committee, therefore, welcomes the proposal by the Department to amend this clause to provide for joint sign-off of the commissioning plan by requiring the prior approval of the Regional Agency to the contents of the plan. The Committee agreed to clause 8 as drafted and supports the proposal to amend section (3) requiring the Regional Board and the Regional Agency to jointly sign-off the commissioning plan.

Clause 9 – Local Commissioning Groups

39. The Committee noted that clause 9 provides for the establishment of the Local Commissioning Groups and that the Department is proposing five such groups to align with the existing trust boundaries. The Committee raised concerns, highlighted by the Royal College of Nursing, calling for the provision in subsection (4)(b)(i) relating to consultation with the regional agency, to be strengthened. Following consideration the Department accepted the need to amend the subsection and has proposed a revised text. The Committee agreed to clause 9 as drafted subject to the proposed amendment to subsection (4)(b)(i).]

Proposed amendment, clause 9(4)(b)(i), “leave out ‘consult RAPHSW’ and insert ‘work in collaboration with the Regional Agency’.

Clause 10 – Power of Regional Board to give directions and guidance to HSC trusts

40. The Committee noted that clause 10 gives the Regional Board power to give directions to trusts about the carrying out of their functions. It also places a duty on trusts to comply with those directions. The Committee agreed to clause 10 as drafted.

Clause 11 – Provision of information, etc. to Regional Board by HSC trusts

41. The Committee agreed to clause 11 as drafted.

Clause 12 – The Regional Agency for Public Health and Social Well-being

42. The Committee noted that clause 12 provides for the establishment of a separate regional agency for public health and social well-being. A number of members questioned the merits of setting up a separate agency arguing that it creates another layer of bureaucracy, that it is contrary to the aim of creating more efficient structures, and that its functions could be dealt with by the regional board. Other members strongly supported a separate agency arguing that a much stronger public-health message is needed.

43. The Department explained that one of the driving factors underpinning the current reform proposals was the need to address existing inequalities in morbidity and mortality and that to do this the profile of public health and social well-being needed to be much higher up the agenda and issues dealt with in a more focused manner. The Department argued that

“another important issue was the need to develop improved partnerships, not only with local government but with the full range of public-sector stakeholders and others who have a strong influence and a role to play in improving public health and social well-being”.

On the question of whether these functions could be dealt with by the proposed regional board the Department argued

“if responsibility for public health and social well-being is to lie with a regional board that will inevitably be driven by the significant concerns and priorities that must be addressed, the prioritisation of funds specifically targeted at public health and social well-being can necessarily take second place”.

The Chief Medical Officer stated bluntly “In a single organisation the public-health agenda would disappear”. The Department pointed out that during the consultation 59% of those who discussed the issue of an agency were supportive, 20% were undecided and 21% were not supportive.

44. In response to concerns that the separate agency must not be a talking shop but must be able to make a difference the Department stated

“We are doing detailed work on the relationship between the board and the agency to ensure that the product of their work is an integrated commissioning plan, of which both have ownership, both approve and … which gives the agency not only direct input into the smaller amounts of money that it will commit but very significant influence over the £4 billion that the board spends in total.”

45. Following detailed discussion on the issue a proposal ‘that the regional public health agency be incorporated into the proposed regional board under clause 7’ was not carried. The Committee agreed to clause 12 as drafted. (For details of the divisions see the Minutes of Proceedings of 6 November 2008 in Appendix 1)

Clause 13 – Functions of RAPHSW

46. The Committee noted that clause 13 details the functions of the Regional Agency and that the agency will have both health improvement functions and health protection functions. The health improvement functions include the reduction in health inequalities and health promotion. The health protection functions relate to protection against communicable diseases and other wide ranging dangers to the health and social well-being of the public. The Committee raised three drafting concerns about the clause which were highlighted in written submissions. Disability Action called for subsection (2)(b) to be expanded to better outline the health promotion function while the British Red Cross asked for the same subsection to be strengthened by including a reference to ‘risk reduction’. Following consideration the Department accepted the proposal relating to health promotion but did not accept the inclusion of ‘risk reduction’.

47. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry called for the Regional Agency to be required to consult the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety about making ‘persons, materials and facilities’ available to other bodies. Following consideration, the Department did not accept this proposal pointing out that “to insert a provision to the effect that support services could only be provided to other bodies after consultation with the Health Committee would be a significant inhibitor to the day to day performance of functions and prove to be extremely bureaucratic”. The Committee accepted this argument. The Committee agreed to clause 13 as drafted subject to the proposed amendment to subsections (2)(b).

Proposed amendment, clause 13(2)(b), “after ‘health promotion’ insert “, including in particular enabling people in Northern Ireland to increase control over and improve their health and social well-being’.

Clause 14 – The Regional Support Services Organisation

48. The Committee noted that clause 14 establishes a regional support services organisation to replace the Central Services Agency and to undertake additional functions. The Committee noted that the Central Services Agency in its evidence made a case that the name of the new body should be changed to the ‘Regional Business Services Organisation’ to better reflect the business and business-support functions it will provide. The Central Services Agency also pointed out that the acronym RSSO could have unfortunate and unintended pronunciation. The Committee called for the name of the organisation to be changed and following consideration the Department agreed to amend the title of the body to the “Regional Business Services Organisation”. The Committee agreed to clause 14 subject to the proposed amendment to the title of the body.

Clause 15 – Functions of RSSO

49. The Committee noted that clause 15 sets out in broad terms the list of functions that the Regional Support Services Organisation is required to provide on behalf of health and social care bodies. The Committee raised an issue, highlighted by the Northern Health and Social Services Board, proposing that in subsection (3)(a) in relation to the securing the provision of services the word “equitable” should be included as well as “in the most economic, efficient and effective way”. Following consideration the Department did not accept the proposed amendment and argued that

“The RSSO, like all of the newly created bodies will be bound by existing legislative requirements of Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act in relation to fairness to all. In addition, RSSO’s business is to provide a range of transactional and support services to a number of health and social care bodies. In most cases, the services it provides are in response to demand from those bodies and, as such, it would be difficult for RSSO to demonstrate that it will provide its services in an “equitable” way.”

The Committee agreed to clause 15 as drafted.

Clause 16 – The Patient and Client Council

50. The Committee noted that clause 16 establishes a new body to be known as the Patient and Client Council which will replace the existing four health and social services councils. The Committee was strongly supportive of the new council. The Committee agreed to clause 16 as drafted.

Clause 17 – Functions of the Patient and Client Council

51. The Committee noted that clause 17 sets out the four main functions of the Patient and Client Council, which include representing the interests of the public and promoting involvement by the public, as well as other provisions relating to how those functions are exercised. The Committee raised an issue relating to subsection (2)(a), highlighted by Disability Action, which proposes that the council should be required to consult the public “in an accessible way”. Following consideration the Department did not accept the proposed amendment and argued that the Disability Discrimination (NI) Order 2006 provides sufficient provision to ensure that public bodies consult in an accessible way.

52. Disability Action also questioned whether section (4) refers to reasonable adjustment under the Disability Discrimination Act or not. The Department advised that section (4) is about the Patient and Client Council making arrangements to the extent it considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements to provide assistance to individuals making or intending to make complaints. As a public body bound by the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act, the Patient and Client Council would be required to make any reasonable adjustment to meet any special needs in relation to disabled persons. Following further consideration the Committee accepted this explanation. The Committee agreed to clause 17 as drafted.

Clause 18 – Duty to co-operate with the Patient and Client Council

53. The Committee noted that clause 18 places a duty on health and social care bodies to co-operate with the Patient and Client Council. The Committee had concerns that the wording of section (6) – “a body to which this section applies shall have regard to any views expressed by the Patient and Client Council” – could allow the body to listen to the views but not necessarily act upon them. The Committee proposed that it be amended to “have due regard to”. Following consideration the Department accepted this proposal. The Committee agreed to clause 18 subject to the proposed amendment to section (6).

Proposed amendment, clause 18(6), “after ‘have’ insert ‘due’”.

Clause 19 – Public involvement and consultation

54. The Committee noted that clause 19 relates to public involvement in the planning and delivery of services and it places a duty on health and social care bodies to provide information, to obtain information on the needs of the population, and to encourage and assist people. The Committee raised an issue relating to subsection (1)(a), highlighted by Disability Action, which proposes that each body should be required to promulgate information “in accessible formats”. Following consideration the Department did not accept the proposed amendment for the reasons set out in relation to a similar issue at clause 17. After further consideration the Committee accepted the explanation. The Committee agreed to clause 19 as drafted.

Clause 20 – Public involvement: consultation schemes

55. The Committee noted that clause 20 requires health and social care bodies to show, in their consultation schemes, what arrangements are in place to consult with the Patient and Client Council and the recipients of health and social care. The Committee had concerns about the use of the phrase in subsection (3)(a) “to have regard to any comments” and proposed that, as in clause 17, this be amended to “have due regard to”. Following consideration the Department accepted this proposal. The Committee agreed to clause 20 as drafted subject to the proposed amendment to subsection (3)(a).

Proposed amendment, clause 20(3)(a), “after ‘have’ insert ‘due’”.

Clause 21 – Duty on HSC trusts in relation to improvement of health and social well-being

56. The Committee noted that clause 21 places a duty on each health and social care trust to exercise its functions with the aim of improving the health and social well-being of those for whom it provides care. The Committee raised an issue, highlighted by the Community Development and Health Network, which proposes that each trust should also have a duty to exercise its functions with the aim of reducing health inequalities. Following consideration the Department accepted the proposed amendment. The Committee agreed to clause 21 subject to the proposed amendment that after the words “the health and social well-being of” in line 2 is inserted the words “and reducing health inequalities between”.

Proposed amendment, clause 21, “after ‘of’ insert ‘, and reducing health inequalities between,’”.

Clause 22 – Public-private partnerships

57. The Committee noted that clause 22 relates to the forming of public-private partnerships to provide facilities or services for the promotion or provision of health and social care. The Committee expressed concerns around the principle of public-private partnerships. The Committee also proposed that the clause should include a reference to ensuring the long term financial viability and value of any schemes. The Department pointed out that this clause enables the new bodies to form or participate in forming Public-Private Partnerships but the existing DFP and Treasury guidance, which is binding on all organisations, makes it clear that the central concern of any procurement route is the achievement of value for money. The Committee agreed to clause 22 as drafted

Clause 23 – Schemes for transfer of assets and liabilities

58. The Committee agreed to clause 23 as drafted.

Clause 24 – Transfer of functions of Health and Social Services Boards

59. The Committee agreed to clause 24 as drafted.

Clause 25 – Transfer of functions of the Mental Health Commission

60. The Committee noted that clause 25 provides for the transfer of functions exercisable by the Mental Health Commission to the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority. In oral evidence to the Committee the Mental Health Commission had expressed concerns about the proposed transfer but the Committee noted that in later evidence from the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority the two organisations were working closely to implement the transfer. The Committee agreed to clause 25 as drafted.

Clause 26 – Transfer of functions of Central Services Agency

61. The Committee agreed to clause 26 as drafted.

Clause 27 – Amendment of statutory and other references to dissolved bodies, etc

62. The Committee agreed to clause 27 as drafted.

Clause 28 – Dissolution of special agencies

63. The Committee agreed to clause 28 as drafted.

Clause 29 – Orders, regulations, guidance and directions

64. The Committee noted that clause 29 deals with the procedures for making subordinate legislation under the Bill. The Committee also noted that subordinate legislation made under different procedures are subject to different levels of scrutiny and approval within the Assembly. The Committee asked what consideration had been given to whether the subordinate legislation should be subject to affirmative resolution or negative resolution. The Examiner of Statutory Rules provided advice to the Committee on this issue. The Department advised that

“Subsection (1) of the Clause provides that orders altering the functions of the proposed new Regional Agency (13(5)) and Regional Business Support Organisation (15(6)) and orders which include supplementary, incidental or consequential provisions to be used for expediency to give full effect to the Bill (30(1)) must use the affirmative resolution procedures. This is because it was considered that since such orders are akin to primary legislation and, therefore, more important and more likely to merit discussion they should be formally approved by the Assembly. The regulations and other orders which may be made principally relate to the day to day organisation of the various organisations and, therefore, considered more appropriate to the negative resolution procedure.”

The Committee agreed to clause 29 as drafted.

Clause 30 – Further provision

65. The Committee agreed to clause 30 as drafted.

Clause 31 – Interpretation

66. The Committee agreed to clause 31 as drafted.

Clause 32 – Minor and consequential amendments

67. The Committee agreed to clause 32 as drafted.

Clause 33 – Repeals

68. The Committee agreed to clause 33 as drafted.

Clause 34 – Commencement

69. The Committee agreed to clause 34 as drafted.

Clause 35 – Short title

70. The Committee agreed to clause 35 as drafted.

Schedule 1 – The Regional Health and Social Care Board

71. The Committee noted that schedule 1 deals with the membership of the Regional Board and also covers other provisions including committees, sub-committees, finance and accounts. The Committee agreed to schedule 1 as drafted.

Schedule 2 – The Regional Agency for Public Health and Social Well-being

72. The Committee noted that schedule 2 deals with the membership of the Regional Agency and also covers other provisions including committees, sub-committees, finance and accounts. The Department accepted that there was an error in paragraph 7(3) in that the reference to ‘the Regional Board’ should read ‘RAPHSW’. The Department also advised that there was an error in paragraph 6 relating to the resignation or removal of members of district councils who are appointed to the regional agency. The Department advised that it intends to bring forward a revised schedule 2 because of the large number of changes required as a result of the title changes. The Committee agreed to schedule 2 subject to the proposed amendments to paragraphs 6 and 7(3).

Schedule 3 – The Regional Support Services Organisation

73. The Committee noted that schedule 3 deals with the membership of the Regional Support Services Organisation and also covers other provisions including committees, sub-committees, finance and accounts. The Committee agreed to schedule 3 as drafted.

Schedule 4 – The Patient and Client Council

74. The Committee noted that schedule 4 sets out the arrangements for the operation of the Patient and Client Council and deals with its status, constitution, remuneration, staffing, procedures, finance and annual reports. The Committee agreed to schedule 4 as drafted.

Schedule 5 – Transfer of assets, etc

75. The Committee noted that schedule 5 deals with the transfer of assets and liabilities and outlines arrangements for the completion of annual reports and accounts of health and social care bodies that have been dissolved. The Department advised that it proposed to make an amendment to paragraph 2(6) to insert a reference to the ‘transferor’ organisations. The Department explained that the provisions, as currently drafted, do not exclude the ‘transferor’ organisations from the process of consideration of grievances. The Committee agreed to schedule 5 as drafted subject to the proposed amendment to paragraph 2(6).

Proposed amendment, schedule 5, paragraph 2(6)(a), “after the second ‘of’ insert ‘a transferor or’”

Schedule 6 – Minor and consequential amendments

76. The Committee noted that schedule 6 deals with amendments to other legislation as a result of the Bill. The Department indicated that it needed to make a technical amendment to the paragraph 18(1)(a) of the schedule, namely that the words ”the Regional Board or RAPSHW” will be replaced by “Regional Business Services Organisation”. The Committee agreed to schedule 6 as drafted subject to the proposed technical amendment.

Proposed amendment, schedule 6, paragraph 18(1)(a), “leave out ‘the Regional Board or RAPHSW’ and insert ‘RBSO’”

Schedule 7 – Repeals

77. The Committee agreed to schedule 7 as drafted.

Appendix 1

Minutes of Proceedings
Relating to the Report

Thursday, 6 March 2008
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mrs Iris Robinson MP MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Buchanan MLA
Dr Kieran Deeny MLA
Mr Tommy Gallagher MLA
Mrs Carmel Hanna MLA
Mr John McCallister MLA
Ms Michelle O’Neill MLA (Deputy Chairperson)
Ms Sue Ramsey MLA

In Attendance: Mr Hugh Farren (Clerk)
Mr Mark McQuade (Assistant Clerk)
Mrs Noelle Bourke (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Alister Strain (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Joe Westland (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Rev Dr Robert Coulter MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín MLA

The meeting commenced at 2.40 p.m. in closed session.

The meeting moved to Public Session at 3.07p.m.

3. Evidence session with the Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety

The Minister was accompanied by:

Dr Andrew McCormick Permanent Secretary
Dr Michael McBride Chief Medical Officer
Dr Miriam McCarthy Deputy Secretary Health Care Policy
Bernard Mitchell Modernisation Directorate
David Bingham Director Human Resources

The Minister briefed the Committee on proposals for Health and Social care reform then took questions from Members. The Minister then addressed other issues raised by Members. The Chairperson thanked the Minister and officials’ for attending.

[EXTRACT]

Thursday, 22 May 2008
Boardroom, Northern Ireland
Fire & Rescue Service, Lisburn

Present: Ms Michelle O’Neill MLA, Deputy Chairperson (In the Chair)
Dr Kieran Deeny MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Mr Tommy Gallagher MLA
Mr John McCallister MLA

In Attendance: Mr Hugh Farren (Clerk)
Ms Hilary Bogle (Assistant Clerk)
Mrs Noelle Bourke (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Joe Westland (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Mrs Iris Robinson MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Buchanan MLA
Rev Robert Coulter MLA
Mrs Carmel Hanna MLA
Ms Claire McGill
Ms Sue Ramsey MLA

The meeting commenced at 2.58 p.m. in public session.

5. Evidence session with the Health Promotion Agency

Members took evidence from Dr Brian Gaffney, Chief Executive, Health Promotion Agency about the proposals to reform the health and social care system.

A question and answer session ensued. The chairperson thanked Dr Gaffney for attending.

[EXTRACT]

Thursday, 19 June 2008
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present: Ms Michelle O’Neill MLA, Deputy Chairperson (in the Chair)
Mr Thomas Buchanan MLA
Rev Robert Coulter MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Dr Kieran Deeny MLA
Mrs Carmel Hanna MLA
Mr John McCallister MLA
Ms Claire McGill MLA
Ms Sue Ramsey MLA

In Attendance: Mr Hugh Farren (Clerk)
Ms Hilary Bogle (Assistant Clerk)
Mr Mark McQuade (Assistant Clerk)
Mr Alister Strain (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Joe Westland (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Mrs Iris Robinson MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Tommy Gallagher MLA

The meeting commenced at 2.37 p.m. in public session.

5. Evidence session with the Institute for Public Health on the Department’s proposals for health care reform

Members took evidence from the following witnesses:

Dr Jane Wilde Chief Executive, Institute for Public Health

Ms Claire Higgins Public Health development Officer, Institute for Public Health

2.55pm Mr Alex Easton joined the meeting.

3.06pm Ms Sue Ramsey left the meeting.

A question and answer session ensued. The chairperson thanked the witnesses for attending.

3.40pm the Committee adjourned

3.50pm the Committee reconvened

6. Evidence session with the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA) on the Department’s proposals for health care reform

Members took evidence from the following witnesses:

Ms Heather Moorhead Chief Executive, NILGA

Arnold Hatch President, NILGA

A question and answer session ensued. The chairperson thanked the witnesses for attending.

4.27pm Dr Deeny left the meeting

[EXTRACT]

Thursday, 3 July 2008
Senate Chamber, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mrs Iris Robinson MP MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Buchanan MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Mrs Carmel Hanna MLA
Mr John McCallister MLA
Ms Sue Ramsey MLA

In Attendance: Mr Hugh Farren (Clerk)
Ms Hilary Bogle (Assistant Clerk)
Mr Mark McQuade (Assistant Clerk)
Mrs Noelle Bourke (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Joe Westland (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Rev Robert Coulter MLA
Dr Kieran Deeny MLA
Mr Tommy Gallagher MLA
Ms Claire McGill MLA
Mrs Michelle O’Neill MLA (Deputy Chairperson)

The meeting commenced at 2.39 pm in public session.

5. Evidence session with the Mental Health Commission

Members took evidence from the following witnesses:

Mr Paul McBrearty Chief Executive, Mental Health Commission

Mr Noel McKenna Chairperson, Mental Health Commission

Ms Clare Quigley Social Work Member of the Commission

Dr Brian Fleming Consultant Psychiatrist and Medical Member of the Commission

3.18pm Ms Ramsey left the meeting

3.22pm Ms Ramsey returned to the meeting

A question and answer session ensued. The chairperson thanked the witnesses for attending.

7. Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill

Members noted that the Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill received its Second Reading in the Assembly on Tuesday 1 July 2008 and that the Bill has been passed to the Committee to undertake the ‘Committee Stage’. The Committee agreed to release a press release and public notice and that relevant organisations should be invited to submit comments on the provisions of the Bill.

[EXTRACT]

Thursday, 11 September 2008
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mrs Iris Robinson MP MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Buchanan MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Mrs Carmel Hanna MLA
Mr John McCallister MLA
Ms Claire McGill MLA
Mrs Michelle O’Neill MLA (Deputy Chairperson)
Ms Sue Ramsey MLA

In Attendance: Mr Hugh Farren (Clerk)
Mr Mark McQuade (Assistant Clerk)
Mrs Noelle Bourke (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Alister Strain (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Joe Westland (Clerical Supervisor)

Apologies: Dr Kieran Deeny MLA
Mr Tommy Gallagher MLA

The meeting commenced at 2.34 pm in public session.

5. Health & Social Care (Reform) Bill.

Briefing on the provisions of the Bill

Members took evidence from the following witnesses:

Bernard Mitchell Modernisation Unit, DHSSPS

Ivan McMaster Modernisation Unit, DHSSPS

Craig Allen Modernisation Unit, DHSSPS

A question and answer session ensued. The chairperson thanked the witnesses for attending.

[EXTRACT]

Thursday, 18 September 2008
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mrs Iris Robinson MP MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Buchanan MLA
Dr Kieran Deeny MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Mr Tommy Gallagher MLA
Mr Sam Gardiner, MLA
Mrs Carmel Hanna MLA
Mr John McCallister MLA
Ms Claire McGill MLA
Ms Sue Ramsey MLA

In Attendance: Mr Hugh Farren (Clerk)
Mr Mark McQuade (Assistant Clerk)
Mrs Noelle Bourke (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Joe Westland (Clerical Supervisor)

Apologies: Mrs Michelle O’Neill MLA (Deputy Chairperson)

The meeting commenced at 2.05 pm in public session.

5. Health & Social Care (Reform) Bill.

Evidence session with the Central Services Agency

Members took evidence from the following witnesses:

Stephen Hodkinson Chief Executive, Central Services Agency

Jacqueline Kennedy Director of Human Resources and Corporate Services

Paula Sheils Director of Family Practitioner Services

A question and answer session ensued. The chairperson thanked the witnesses for attending.

[EXTRACT]

Thursday, 25 September 2008
Seminar Rooms,
Muckamore Abbey Hospital

Present: Mrs Iris Robinson MP MLA (Chairperson)
Dr Kieran Deeny MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Mr Tommy Gallagher MLA
Mr Sam Gardiner, MLA
Mrs Carmel Hanna MLA
Ms Claire McGill MLA
Mrs Michelle O’Neill MLA (Deputy Chairperson)

In Attendance: Mr Hugh Farren (Clerk)
Mr Mark McQuade (Assistant Clerk)
Mrs Noelle Bourke (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Joe Westland (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Rodney Aiken (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Mr Thomas Buchanan MLA
Mr John McCallister MLA
Ms Sue Ramsey MLA

The meeting commenced at 2.01 pm in public session.

5. Health & Social Care (Reform) Bill

Evidence session with the Health & Social Services Boards

Members took evidence from the following witnesses:

Dominic Burke Acting Chief Executive, Western Health & Social Services Board

Paula Kilbane Chief Executive, Eastern Health & Social Services Board

Stuart MacDonnell Chief Executive, Northern Health & Social Services Board

Fionnuala McAndrew Director of Social Services, Southern Health & Social Services Board

Dr Kieran Deeny made a declaration of interest that he was a member of a Local Commissioning Group

A question and answer session ensued. The chairperson thanked the witnesses for attending.

A Member made a request that witnesses avoid using abbreviations when presenting evidence to the Committee.

6. Health & Social Care (Reform) Bill.

Evidence session with the Health & Social Services Councils

Members took evidence from the following witnesses:

Richard Dixon Chief Officer, Eastern Health & Social Services Council

A question and answer session ensued. The chairperson thanked the witnesses for attending.

3.08 p.m. Committee meeting adjourned.

3.16 p.m. Committee meeting resumed.

7. Health & Social Care (Reform) Bill.

Evidence session with the Regulation & Quality Improvement Authority

Members took evidence from the following witnesses:

Alice Casey Interim Chief Executive, Regulation & Quality Improvement Authority

Phelim Quinn, Director of Operations, Regulation & Quality Improvement Authority

Jude O’Neill Head of Mental Health and Learning Disability, Regulation & Quality Improvement Authority

A question and answer session ensued. The chairperson thanked the witnesses for attending.

3.22 p.m. Mr Tommy Gallagher rejoined the meeting.

[EXTRACT]

Thursday, 2 October 2008
Senate Chamber, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mrs Michelle O’Neill MLA (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Buchanan MLA
Dr Kieran Deeny MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Mr Tommy Gallagher MLA
Mr Sam Gardiner, MLA
Mrs Carmel Hanna MLA
Mr John McCallister MLA
Mrs Claire McGill MLA
Ms Sue Ramsey MLA

In Attendance: Mr Hugh Farren (Clerk)
Mr Mark McQuade (Assistant Clerk)
Mrs Noelle Bourke (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Joe Westland (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Rodney Aiken (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Mrs Iris Robinson MP MLA (Chairperson)

The meeting commenced at 2.06 pm in public session with the Deputy Chairperson in the Chair.

5. Health & Social Care (Reform) Bill.

Evidence session with the Royal College of Nursing

Members took evidence from the following witnesses:

Mary Hinds Director, Royal College of Nursing Northern Ireland

Ann Marie O’Neill Chair, Royal College of Nursing Northern Ireland Board.

A question and answer session ensued. The Deputy Chairperson thanked the witnesses for attending.

6. Health & Social Care (Reform) Bill.

Evidence session with the British Medical Association

Members took evidence from the following witnesses:

Dr Brian Patterson British Medical Association (NI), Chairman of Northern Ireland Council

Dr Brian Dunn British Medical Association (NI), Chairman of the General Practitioners Committee

Mr Danny Lambe British Medical Association (NI), Deputy Secretary

Mr Ivor Whitten British Medical Association (NI), Assembly & Research Officer

A question and answer session ensued. The Deputy Chairperson thanked the witnesses for attending.

Mr Sam Gardiner made a declaration of interest that he is a Local Councillor.

Mrs Claire McGill made a declaration of interest that she is a Local Councillor.

2.50 p.m. Mr Tommy Gallagher left the meeting.

3.02 p.m. Mr Tommy Gallagher rejoined the meeting.

3.02 p.m. Mr Thomas Buchanan joined the meeting.

3.12 p.m. Mr John McCallister joined the meeting.

3.14 p.m. Ms Sue Ramsey left the meeting.

7. Health & Social Care (Reform) Bill.

Evidence session with the Allied Health Profession Federation

Members took evidence from the following witnesses:

Mrs Liz Cavan Committee Member, Allied Health Professions Federation UK

Ms Liz McKnight Chair, Allied Health Professions Federation NI.

Mr Tom Sullivan Policy Officer, Chartered Society of Physiotherapy NI.

A question and answer session ensued. The Deputy Chairperson thanked the witnesses for attending.

Dr Kieran Deeny made a declaration of interest that he is a member of a Local Commissioning Group.

3.44 p.m. Ms Sue Ramsey rejoined the meeting.

3.44 p.m. Committee meeting adjourned.

3.56 p.m. Committee meeting resumed.

8. Clause by Clause consideration of the Health & Social Care (Reform) Bill

The following witnesses attended:

Ivan McMaster Department of Health, Social Services & Public Safety

Bernard Mitchell Department of Health, Social Services & Public Safety

Craig Allen Department of Health, Social Services & Public Safety

The Deputy Chairperson referred Members to the legislation & copy of responses received from relevant bodies.

Clause 1 (Restructuring of administration of health and social care)

Clause 1 deferred. The Department is to provide further information.

Clause 2 (Department’s general duty)

Clause 2 deferred.

Clause 3 (Department’s general power)

Clause 3 deferred.

Clause 4 (Department’s priorities and objectives)

Clause 4 deferred. The Department is to consider proposed amendment.

Clause 5 (The framework document)

Clause 5 deferred. The Department is to consider proposed amendment.

Clause 6 (Power of Department to give directions to certain bodies)

Clause 6 deferred. The Department is to consider proposed amendment.

[EXTRACT]

Thursday, 9 October 2008
Senate Chamber, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mrs Iris Robinson MP MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Buchanan MLA
Dr Kieran Deeny MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Mr Tommy Gallagher MLA
Mr Sam Gardiner, MLA
Mrs Carmel Hanna MLA
Mr John McCallister MLA
Mrs Claire McGill MLA
Mrs Michelle O’Neill MLA (Deputy Chairperson)

In Attendance: Mr Hugh Farren (Clerk)
Mr Mark McQuade (Assistant Clerk)
Mrs Noelle Bourke (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Joe Westland (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Rodney Aiken (Clerical Officer)

The meeting commenced at 2.04 pm in public session.

3. Clause by Clause consideration of the Health & Social Care (Reform) Bill

The following witnesses attended:

Bernard Mitchell Department of Health, Social Services & Public Safety

Ivan McMaster Department of Health, Social Services & Public Safety

Craig Allen Department of Health, Social Services & Public Safety

Michael McBride Chief Medical Officer

The committee discussed the rationale for the proposed Regional Board and the separate Regional Agency for Public Health and Social Wellbeing.

4.19 p.m. Mrs Carmel Hanna left the meeting.

4.19 p.m. Mrs Michelle O’Neill rejoined the meeting

4.20 p.m. Mrs Carmel Hanna rejoined the meeting.

4.20 p.m. Mr Tommy Gallagher rejoined the meeting.

4.27 p.m. Mrs Claire McGill rejoined the meeting.

4.42 p.m. Mr Thomas Buchanan rejoined the meeting.

4.42 p.m. Mr Sam Gardiner left the meeting.

4.45 p.m. Mr John McCallister rejoined the meeting.

4.52 Dr Michael McBride left the meeting.

4.54 p.m. Mr Tommy Gallagher left the meeting.

The Chairperson referred Members to the legislation & copy of responses received from relevant bodies. The committee commenced clause by clause consideration of the Health & Social Care (Reform) Bill at Clause 7.

Clause 7 (The Regional Health and Social Care Board)

Clause 7 deferred.

Schedule 1 (The Regional Health and Social Care Board)

Schedule 1 deferred.

Clause 8 (Functions of the Regional Board)

Clause 8 deferred, officials advised that the Minister was considering an amendment to Clause 8(3) (b).

Clause 9 (Local Commissioning Groups)

Clause 9 deferred, The Department is to consider a proposed amendment.

Dr Kieran Deeny made a declaration of interest that he is a member of a Local Commissioning Group.

Clause 10 (Power of Regional Board to give directions and guidance to HSC trusts)

Clause 10 deferred.

Clause 11 (Provision of information, etc. to Regional Board by HSC trusts)

Clause 11 deferred.

The Committee agreed to continue consideration of Bill at its next meeting. The Chairperson thanked the witnesses for attending.

5.06 p.m. Mrs Carmel Hanna left the meeting.

[EXTRACT]

Thursday, 16 October 2008
Senate Chamber, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mrs Iris Robinson MP MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Buchanan MLA
Dr Kieran Deeny MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Mr Tommy Gallagher MLA
Mr Sam Gardiner, MLA
Mrs Carmel Hanna MLA
Mr John McCallister MLA
Mrs Claire McGill MLA
Ms Sue Ramsey MLA

In Attendance: Mr Hugh Farren (Clerk)
Mr Mark McQuade (Assistant Clerk)
Mrs Noelle Bourke (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Joe Westland (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Rodney Aiken (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Mrs Michelle O’Neill MLA (Deputy Chairperson)

The meeting commenced at 2.03 pm in public session.

7. Clause by Clause consideration of the Health & Social Care (Reform) Bill

The following witnesses attended:

Bernard Mitchel Department of Health, Social Services & Public Safety

Ivan McMaster Department of Health, Social Services & Public Safety

Craig Allen Department of Health, Social Services & Public Safety

Michael McBride Chief Medical Officer

The Chief Medical Officer provided the Committee with an update on screening for breast cancer.

The Chairperson referred Members to the legislation & copy of responses received from relevant bodies. The committee commenced clause by clause consideration of the Health & Social Care (Reform) Bill at Clause 12.

2.28 p.m. Mr Tommy Gallagher left the meeting.

2.35 p.m. Mr Tommy Gallagher rejoined the meeting.

Clause 12 (The Regional Agency for Public Health and Social Well-being)

Clause 12 deferred. The Department is to provide further information.

Schedule 2 (The Regional Agency for Public Health and Social Well-being)

Schedule 2 deferred.

Clause 13 (Functions of RAPHSW)

Clause 13 deferred. The Department is to consider proposed amendment.

3.09 p.m. Mr Tommy Gallagher left the meeting.

3.14 p.m. Dr Michael McBride left the meeting.

3.14 p.m. Mr Tommy Gallagher rejoined the meeting.

Clause 14 (The Regional Support Services Organisation)

Clause 14 deferred. The Department is to consider proposed amendment.

3.15 p.m. Mrs Iris Robinson left the meeting.

3.15 p.m. Ms Sue Ramsey took the Chair.

Schedule 3 (The Regional Support Services Organisation)

Schedule 3 deferred.

Clause 15 (Functions of RSSO)

Clause 15 deferred. The Department is to consider proposed amendment.

3.20 p.m. Mrs Iris Robinson rejoined the meeting & resumed the chair.

Clause 16 (The Patient and Client Council)

Clause 16 deferred

3.26 p.m. Ms Sue Ramsey left the meeting.

Schedule 4 (The Patient and Client Council)

Schedule 4 deferred

Clause 17 (Functions of the Patient and Client Council)

Clause 17 deferred. The Department is to consider proposed amendment.

Clause 18 (Duty to co-operate with the Patient and Client Council)

Clause 18 deferred. The Department is to consider proposed amendment.

3.32 p.m. Mrs Carmel Hanna left the meeting.

Clause 19 (Public involvement and consultation)

Clause 19 deferred

3.39 p.m. Ms Sue Ramsey rejoined the meeting.

Clause 20 (Public involvement: consultation schemes)

Clause 20 deferred

Clause 21 (Duty on HSC trusts in relation to improvement of health and social well-being)

Clause 21 deferred

Clause 22 (Public-private partnerships)

Clause 22 deferred

Clause 23 (Schemes for transfer of assets and liabilities)

Clause 23 deferred

Clause 24 (Transfer of functions of Health and Social Services Boards)

Clause 24 deferred

Clause 25 (Transfer of functions of the Mental Health Commission)

Clause 25 deferred

Clause 26 (Transfer of functions of Central Services Agency)

Clause 26 deferred

Clause 27 (Amendment of statutory and other references to dissolved bodies, etc)

Clause 27 deferred

Clause 28 (Dissolution of special agencies)

Clause 28 deferred

Clause 29 (Orders, regulations, guidance and directions)

Clause 29 deferred. The Department is to consider proposed amendment.

Clause 30 (Further provision)

Clause 30 deferred

Clause 31 (Interpretation)

Clause 31 deferred

Clause 32 (Minor and consequential amendments)

Clause 32 deferred

Clause 33 (Repeals)

Clause 33 deferred

Clause 34 (Commencement)

Clause 34 deferred

Clause 35 (Short title)

Clause 35 deferred

Schedule 5 (Transfer of assets, etc)

Schedule 5 deferred

Schedule 6 (Minor and consequential amendments)

Schedule 6 deferred

Schedule 7 (Repeals)

Schedule 7 deferred

The Committee agreed to continue formal consideration of Bill at its next meeting. The Chairperson thanked the witnesses for attending.

Members agreed a motion to extend the Committee Stage of the Bill to 5 December 2007.

[EXTRACT]

Thursday, 23 October 2008
Senate Chamber, Parliament Buildings

Present: Ms Sue Ramsey MLA (In the chair)
Mr Thomas Buchanan MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Mr Tommy Gallagher MLA
Mr Sam Gardiner, MLA
Mrs Carmel Hanna MLA
Mr John McCallister MLA
Mrs Claire McGill MLA

In Attendance: Mr Hugh Farren (Clerk)
Mr Mark McQuade (Assistant Clerk)
Mrs Noelle Bourke (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Joe Westland (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Rodney Aiken (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Mrs Iris Robinson MP MLA (Chairperson)
Mrs Michelle O’Neill MLA (Deputy Chairperson)
Dr Kieran Deeny MLA

The meeting commenced at 2.06 pm in public session.

8. Clause By Clause consideration of the Health & Social Care (Reform) Bill

The following witnesses attended:

Bernard Mitchel Department of Health, Social Services & Public Safety

Ivan McMaster Department of Health, Social Services & Public Safety

Craig Allen Department of Health, Social Services & Public Safety

Carolyn Harper Department of Health, Social Services & Public Safety

The Committee agreed to consider clauses where there was no dispute and defer consideration of other clauses to the next Committee meeting

The Chairperson referred Members to the legislation & copy of responses received from relevant bodies. The committee commenced clause by clause consideration of the Health & Social Care (Reform) Bill at Clause 1.

Clause 1 (Restructuring of administration of health and social care)

Clause 1 deferred for further consideration.

Clause 2 (Department’s general duty)

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted, put and agreed to.

Clause 3 (Department’s general power)

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted, put and agreed to.

Clause 4 (Department’s priorities and objectives)

Clause 4 deferred for further consideration.

Clause 5 (The framework document)

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted subject to the proposed amendment by the Department, put and agreed to.

Clause 6 (Power of Department to give directions to certain bodies)

Clause 6 deferred for further consideration.

Clause 7 (The Regional Health and Social Care Board)

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted, put and agreed to.

Clause 8 (Functions of the Regional Board)

Clause 8 deferred for further consideration

Clause 9 (Local Commissioning Groups)

Clause 9 deferred for further consideration.

Clause 10 (Power of Regional Board to give directions and guidance to HSC trusts)

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted, put and agreed to.

Clause 11 (Provision of information, etc. to Regional Board by HSC trusts)

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted, put and agreed to.

Clause 12 (The Regional Agency for Public Health and Social Well-being)

Clause 12 deferred for further consideration.

Schedule 2 (The Regional Agency for Public Health and Social Well-being)

Schedule 2 deferred for further consideration.

Clause 13 (Functions of RAPHSW)

Clause 13 deferred for further consideration

Clause 14 (The Regional Support Services Organisation)

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted subject to the change in the title of the body, put and agreed to.

Schedule 3 (The Regional Support Services Organisation)

Question: That the Committee is content with schedule 3 as drafted, put and agreed to.

Clause 15 (Functions of RSSO)

Clause 15 deferred for further consideration.

Clause 16 (The Patient and Client Council)

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted, put and agreed to.

Schedule 4 (The Patient and Client Council)

Question: That the Committee is content with schedule 4 as drafted, put and agreed to.

Clause 17 (Functions of the Patient and Client Council)

Clause 17 deferred for further consideration.

Clause 18 (Duty to co-operate with the Patient and Client Council)

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted subject to the proposed amendment by the Department, put and agreed to.

Clause 19 (Public involvement and consultation)

Clause 19 deferred for further consideration.

Clause 20 (Public involvement: consultation schemes)

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted subject to the proposed amendment by the Department, put and agreed to.

Clause 21 (Duty on HSC trusts in relation to improvement of health and social well-being)

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted subject to the proposed amendment by the Department, put and agreed to.

Clause 22 (Public-private partnerships)

Clause 22 deferred for further consideration.

Clause 23 (Schemes for transfer of assets and liabilities)

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted, put and agreed to.

Schedule 5 (Transfer of assets, etc)

Schedule 5 deferred for further consideration.

Clause 24 (Transfer of functions of Health and Social Services Boards)

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted, put and agreed to.

Clause 25 (Transfer of functions of the Mental Health Commission)

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted, put and agreed to.

Clause 26 (Transfer of functions of Central Services Agency)

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted, put and agreed to.

Clause 27 (Amendment of statutory and other references to dissolved bodies, etc)

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted, put and agreed to.

Clause 28 (Dissolution of special agencies)

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted, put and agreed to.

Clause 29 (Orders, regulations, guidance and directions)

Clause 29 deferred for further consideration.

Clause 30 (Further provision)

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted, put and agreed to.

Clause 31 (Interpretation)

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted, put and agreed to.

Clause 32 (Minor and consequential amendments)

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted, put and agreed to.

Schedule 6 (Minor and consequential amendments)

Schedule 6 deferred for further consideration.

Clause 33 (Repeals)

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted, put and agreed to.

Schedule 7 (Repeals)

Question: That the Committee is content with schedule 7 as drafted, put and agreed to.

Clause 34 (Commencement)

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted, put and agreed to.

Clause 35 (Short title)

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted, put and agreed to.

[EXTRACT]

Thursday, 6 November 2008
Senate Chamber, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mrs Iris Robinson MP MLA (Chairperson)
Dr Kieran Deeny MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Mr Tommy Gallagher MLA
Mrs Carmel Hanna MLA
Mr John McCallister MLA
Mrs Michelle O’Neill MLA (Deputy Chairperson)
Ms Sue Ramsey MLA

In Attendance: Mr Hugh Farren (Clerk)
Mr Mark McQuade (Assistant Clerk)
Mrs Noelle Bourke (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Joe Westland (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Rodney Aiken (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Mr Thomas Buchanan MLA
Mr Sam Gardiner MLA
Mrs Claire McGill MLA

The meeting commenced at 2.04 pm in public session.

7. Clause By Clause consideration of the Health & Social Care (Reform) Bill

The following witnesses attended:

Bernard Mitchell Department of Health, Social Services & Public Safety

Ivan McMaster Department of Health, Social Services & Public Safety

Craig Allen Department of Health, Social Services & Public Safety

Martin Bradley Chief Nursing Officer

Clause 1 (Restructuring of administration of health and social care)

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted subject to the proposed amendment agreed by the Department, put and agreed to.

Clause 4 (Department’s priorities and objectives)

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted subject to the proposed amendment agreed by the Department, put and agreed to.

Clause 6 (Power of Department to give directions to certain bodies)

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted subject to the proposed amendment agreed by the Department, put and agreed to.

Clause 8 (Functions of the Regional Board)

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted and supports the proposal to amend section (3) requiring the Regional Board and Regional Agency to jointly sign-off the commissioning plan, put and agreed to.

Clause 9 (Local Commissioning Groups)

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted subject to the proposed amendment agreed by the Department, put and agreed to.

Clause 12 (The Regional Agency for Public Health and Social Well-being)

Question: that the regional public health agency be incorporated into the proposed regional board under clause 7.

Proposer: Mr Alex Easton

Seconder: Mrs Iris Robinson

The Committee divided: Ayes 2; Noes 6; Abstentions 0

AYES

Mr Alex Easton
Mrs Iris Robinson

NOES

Dr Kieran Deeny
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mrs Carmel Hanna
Mr John McCallister
Mrs Michelle O’Neill
Ms Sue Ramsey

ABSTENTIONS

None

The motion falls

As consensus could not be reached on clause 12 as drafted the Chairperson proposed:

That the Committee is content with Clause 12 as drafted Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 2; Abstentions 0

AYES

Dr Kieran Deeny
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mrs Carmel Hanna
Mr John McCallister
Mrs Michelle O’Neill
Ms Sue Ramsey

NOES

Mr Alex Easton
Mrs Iris Robinson

ABSTENTIONS

None

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 13 (Functions of RAPHSW)

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted subject to the proposed amendment agreed by the Department, put and agreed to.

Clause 15 (Functions of RSSO)

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted, put and agreed to.

Clause 17 (Functions of the Patient and Client Council)

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted, put and agreed to.

Clause 19 (Public involvement and consultation)

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted, put and agreed to.

Clause 22 (Public-private partnerships)

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted, put and agreed to.

Clause 29 (Orders, regulations, guidance and directions)

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause as drafted, put and agreed to.

Schedule 1 (The Regional Health and Social Care Board)

Question: That the Committee is content with schedule 1 as drafted, put and agreed to.

Schedule 2 (The Regional Agency for Public Health and Social Well-being)

Question: That the Committee is content with schedule 2 as drafted subject to the proposed amendments to paragraph 6 and 7(3), put and agreed to.

Schedule 5 (Transfer of assets, etc)

Question: That the Committee is content with schedule 5 as drafted subject to the proposed amendment to paragraph 2(6), put and agreed to.

Schedule 6 (Minor and consequential amendments)

Question: That the Committee is content with schedule 6 as drafted subject to the proposed amendment to paragraph 18(1)(a), put and agreed to.

4.17 p.m. Mr John McCallister left the meeting.

4.21 p.m. Ms Sue Ramsey left the meeting.

4.29 p.m. Ms Sue Ramsey rejoined the meeting.

4.33 p.m. Mr John McCallister left the meeting.

4.36 p.m. Mr Tommy Gallagher left the meeting.

[EXTRACT]

Thursday, 13 November 2008
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mrs Iris Robinson MP MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Buchanan MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Mr Tommy Gallagher MLA
Mr Sam Gardiner MLA
Mrs Carmel Hanna MLA
Mr John McCallister MLA
Mrs Claire McGill MLA
Ms Sue Ramsey MLA

In Attendance: Mr Hugh Farren (Clerk)
Mr Mark McQuade (Assistant Clerk)
Mrs Noelle Bourke (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Joe Westland (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Rodney Aiken (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Dr Kieran Deeny MLA
Mrs Michelle O’Neill MLA (Deputy Chairperson)

The meeting commenced at 2.06 pm in public session.

6. Consideration of the draft Report on the Committee Stage of the Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill.

The Committee considered the Draft Report on the Committee Stage of the

Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill paragraph by paragraph. The Committee agreed the main body of the report:

Paragraph 1-11, read and agreed

Paragraph 12-13, read and agreed

Paragraph 14-15, read and agreed

Paragraph 16-18, read and agreed

Paragraph 19-22, read and agreed

Paragraph 23-27, read and agreed

Paragraph 28-34, read and agreed

Paragraph 35, read and agreed as amended

Paragraph 36-38, read and agreed

Paragraph 39, read and agreed as amended

Paragraph 40-41, read and agreed

paragraph 42-45, read and agreed

Paragraph 46-49, read and agreed

Paragraph 50-55, read and agreed

Paragraph 56-57, read and agreed

Paragraph 58-70, read and agreed

Paragraph 71-77, read and agreed

The Committee agreed the Executive Summary

Paragraph 1-6, read and agreed

The Committee agreed that Appendix 1 to 5 be included in the report.

The Committee agreed that an extract of today’s Minutes of Proceedings should be included in Appendix 1 of the report and were content that the Chairperson agrees the minutes relating to this to allow them to be included in the printed report.

The Committee ordered the Report on the Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill (NIA 21/07) to be printed.

[EXTRACT]

Appendix 2

Minutes of Evidence

Table of Contents

Ministerial Briefing 6th March 2008 51

Health Promotion Agency 22nd May 2008 61

Institute for Public Health 19th June 2008 67

NILGA 19th June 2008 75

Mental Health Commission 3rd July 2008 81

Departmental Briefing on the provisions
of the Health & Social Care (Reform) Bill 11th September 2008 87

Representatives of Central Services Agency 18th September 2008 95

Representatives of Eastern Health & Social Services Council 25th September 2008 103

Representatives of the Health & Social Services Board 25th September 2008 107

Representatives of the RQIA 25th September 2008 115

Representatives of Allied Health Professions 2nd October 2008 123

Representatives of the BMA 2nd October 2008 129

Clause by clause consideration of
the Health & Social Care (Reform) Bill 2nd October 2008 137

Representatives of the Royal College of Nursing 2nd October 2008 147

Clause by clause consideration of
the Health & Social Care (Reform) Bill. 9th October 2008 151

Clause by clause consideration of
the Health & Social Care (Reform) Bill 16th October 2008 161

Clause by clause consideration of
the Health & Social Care (Reform) Bill. 23rd October 2008 177

Clause by clause consideration of
the Health & Social Care (Reform) Bill. 6th November 2008 183

6 March 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mrs Iris Robinson (Chairperson)
Mrs Michelle O’Neill (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Buchanan
Dr Kieran Deeny
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mrs Carmel Hanna
Mr John McCallister
Ms Sue Ramsey

Witnesses:

Dr Michael McBride
Dr Miriam McCarthy
Dr Andrew McCormick

Mr Michael McGimpsey

Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety

1. The Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mrs I Robinson): I apologise for the delay in inviting the public and the Minister into the Committee; we had some housekeeping matters to attend to. I welcome the Minister and his officials and those in the Public Gallery.

2. Minister, I regret that your time has been cut short. When the Deputy Chairperson and I met you some time ago, you said that you would be happy to discuss any issues that we might raise. However, we will not have time to discuss those matters today. The main evidence session will be on the proposals for health and social care reform, which you announced on 4 February 2008 and which are now subject to consultation.

3. I welcome Dr Andrew McCormick, the Department’s permanent secretary; Dr Michael McBride, the Chief Medical Officer; Dr Miriam McCarthy, deputy secretary from healthcare policy; Bernard Mitchell from the modernisation directorate; and David Bingham, the director of human resources.

4. As our time is limited, I will hand over immediately to the Minister.

5. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey): Thank you for the welcome; I am delighted to be here. I will get through my opening remarks as quickly as possible, as I know that you are anxious to ask questions and I am keen to answer them.

6. First, restructuring is guided by the need to modernise the health estate — several hospitals are more than 50 years old and will need to be replaced at considerable capital cost. Secondly, we need to be efficient; I recognise that the Health Service is inefficient, and we must drive out inefficiencies. Thirdly, we must engage the local population in taking responsibility for its own health. Those are the three overarching strategic aims to which I work.

7. When I came into office I was faced with a proposal for a health and social care authority, and when I examined the proposals I felt that some opportunities had been missed. I went back to square one and began with a blank sheet of paper. I worked on proposals that presented the best opportunity for administering health for the future and began by looking at the three core functions that were proposed for the health and social care authority.

8. The first was to determine need in various areas and to commission health provision to address it.

9. Secondly, we considered performance management and improvement. Much of that is included under targets and ensuring that we deliver as efficiently as possible without affecting quality and patient safety.

10. The third aspect is finance. We deal with a very large budget and some very large organisations, and those organisations must stay within budget and exercise financial discipline.

11. Those were the three core elements that I looked for in a new regional health and social care board to replace the four existing health boards. It will have a maximum of 400 staff and will focus on commissioning performance management, improvement and financial management.

12. The next step involved engaging the population. Direct rule Ministers proposed to abolish the Health Promotion Agency, and its functions would be subsumed in that giant authority. I thought that that was a missed opportunity. Having taken advice from Dr Michael McBride, the Chief Medical Officer, and a very wide range of opinion from Northern Ireland and further afield, it was decided that the agency was the best way forward. A health promotion and improvement organisation was proposed — which would include the Health Promotion Agency — but which would have several other functions, including health promotion, health protection and public health.

13. We will engage the population, particularly on health inequalities: men living in inner south Belfast will live five years less than those who live in outer south Belfast; women will live three years less. That is as a result of health inequalities. We must look at how we drive forward health promotion, health protection and the public-health agenda.

14. Furthermore, I talked about the need for democratisation. Local government has a major role in public-health and in working closely with the new public health agency. There are some problems with local government as we do not know how many councils there will be, but we are fastened to the present five trusts, and we can be largely coterminous with whatever emerges, with some small adjustments. There is a focus on local government working on local community planning with local community and volunteer groups; initiatives such as health action zones and healthy cities will also be important. Responsibility for those functions will be removed from the trusts and given to the new agency, which will work closely with local government.

15. As part of the democratisation agenda, I have examined the commissioning function of the regional health and social care board and have decided that local public representatives should sit on the commissioning groups. I also expect to see local government representation on the board of the new agency as well.

16. I have also considered the proposal for a patient client council. As the Committee is aware, there are four health and social service councils, whereas the proposal under direct rule was to abolish them and to replace them with a single patient client council. However, we do not want to miss an opportunity to allow local representatives to play an important role in representing their communities. Those councils should not be abolished but should be reinforced and strengthened. We are considering proposals for a regional council with five sub-councils or perhaps one for each trust. That is covered in the consultation document. It is important that the local population has a voice.

17. A common services organisation will take over functions such as financial payments, recruitment, estates management, and information and communication technology that are not core to the board, the agency or the Department. That will reduce the size of the Department. The Department will focus on policy, legislation, standards and priorities, and on supporting and advising the Minister. The original proposal was for human resources to be dealt with by the new authority. However, as I do not believe that to be a sensible move, I will retain human resources in the Department.

18. That is a brief synopsis of the Department’s direction. The time frame is very tight, but it is achievable, and the 12-week consultation period is already under way. My target is to have the legislation ready for Second Stage by the summer.

19. The efficiencies that were set out under the review of public administration — a reduction of 1,700 administrative jobs to save £53 million per annum — will be achieved under that arrangement, and we will hit all the targets that we said we would. However, the major efficiencies will be achieved through the working of the new structures. As colleagues are aware, the five trusts were in place when I took up office in May, and I felt that it would be a mistake to alter those structures fundamentally or to tamper with them. At that stage, the new structures were just starting out and needed to be built up rather than put into reverse. Thus those structures will largely stay the same. As I said, it is my intention that responsibility for public health will be taken from the trusts and given to a new regional health promotion agency.

20. I am happy to leave it there and answer colleagues’ questions.

21. The Chairperson: When will the regional health and social care board come into being?

22. Mr McGimpsey: I anticipate that it will come into being in April 2009. The target date is 1 April in the next financial year, which is tight but achievable. There is sufficient time for a full consultation period and the consideration of its findings. As in the run-up to the Budget, I will visit boards and trusts throughout Northern Ireland because the establishment of the new board poses many questions.

23. Through the consultation process, I will be keen to hear what others have to say and to consider any additional feedback. I am at pains to emphasise that nothing is written in stone. I have created a broad outline, but I am keen to hear from everyone, including the unions and staff. A great deal of wisdom is gained simply by listening.

24. The Chairperson: I have a question for the Minister, although it may not be particularly relevant to today’s meeting. Given that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has been treated differently from all the other Departments, have you calculated what further savings can be made over and above the 3% efficiencies that can be returned to the Department over for use in front-line services? Have you come up with any figures?

25. Mr McGimpsey: The review of public administration states that 1,700 jobs must be cut to save £53 million, and that will be achieved.

26. Mr McCallister: Minister, I want to tease out more of your thoughts on local councils. How will local councils help in promoting health?

27. My second question is probably more for the Chief Medical Officer: will the agency do as much to promote and improve health as it will do for those who already suffer from long-term conditions?

28. Michael, you and I attended a stroke strategy event yesterday. Is that the type of condition that the agency can help to prevent? Is the agency as concerned with preventing the further deterioration of poor health as it is with health promotion?

29. Mr McGimpsey: Many Committee members have been local government representatives. My experience, as a member of Belfast City Council for the past 15 years, is that Departments are good at devising policies and plans. However, I am not so sure about their ability to deliver and implement those policies, and I envisage that local government will play a crucial role in that. Local government would be good at implementation. There is an opportunity for local representatives, who work closely with communities, to provide local representation and implementation.

30. Local government will have a strong role to play in delivering initiatives such as health action zones and healthy cities, and particularly in Investing for Health and the tackling of health inequality. As I do not yet know how many councils there will be, it is difficult to determine to what extent local government will be represented on commissioning groups, the public health agency, and patient and client councils.

31. However, I will reserve places for local government representatives, and there must be a drive for representation across the board. How that is done is a matter for discussion with the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA), local councils and others. Peter Hain proposed seven councils, the present number is 26, and the assumption is that the final number will be neither of those but somewhere in the middle.

32. I do not know where that middle will be. We may have our own views on the proposals, but whatever the council structure may be we will accommodate it coterminously.

33. Mr McCallister: You are determined, Minister, to move forward —

34. The Chairperson: The member will address his remarks through the Chair.

35. Mr McCallister: Minister, through the Chair, are you determined to move forward and let the Department of the Environment — and whatever is finally decided in relation to councils — catch up with you?

36. Mr McGimpsey: I am on the ministerial subgroup on the review of public administration. As for the Department of the Environment, the planning proposals are at an advanced stage, although discussions still need to be held on other areas. The new local-government structures offer us a brilliant opportunity, since decisions on the promotion of health will no longer be just a matter of the Assembly exercising its powers regionally. We have a tremendous opportunity, through local government, to redress the difficulties of the past 30 wasted years in which local councils had no powers. Councils will have an important role in the new regional health promotion agency. I will let Michael talk about health protection and public health and the input that we hope to get from local government.

37. Dr Michael McBride (Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety): There has been much discussion about public health, and it is important that we remind ourselves that public health is about what society does to improve and protect its health and that everyone has a part to play. As the Minister said, improving public health must happen at a variety of levels. There is a strategic level across Government, under the framework that is outlined in Investing for Health and through the ministerial group on public health, which is chaired by the Minister. There is also the local level, because public health is about delivery in communities.

38. The proposals, particularly those for strong involvement from local government, provide a unique opportunity to ensure that we build on the projects that have been working well, such as the local Investing for Health partnerships. District councils have already been actively involved in that and in bringing about meaningful change for communities. Through the consultation exercise on the Minister’s proposals, we now have a unique opportunity to further embed local government in tackling health inequalities and in improving the health and well-being of the population.

39. Ultimately, public health is a matter of where people work, learn and live. It is about urban planning, such as local government decisions on the licensing of premises or about fast-food outlets; it is also about how we plan our environment, such as planning cycle paths and pedestrian precincts. Therefore local government has a vital, vibrant role to play. Public health must be put into the hearts of communities and local government, and we must build on the successes that we have undoubtedly had under the Investing for Health strategy.

40. The Chairperson: Thank you, Michael. I hope that that answers your questions, John.

41. Mr McCallister: Yes. Thank you, Chairperson.

42. Dr Deeny: Minister, you and your officials are more than welcome. Wearing my GP hat, I have a particular interest in local commissioning. That is a new concept, and I could not agree more with the idea of local and bottom-up involvement.

43. I have some questions on practicalities. This morning, I spoke to a couple of GPs who are on present local commissioning groups, and they are concerned about practical issues. For example, some GPs have made arrangements in their practices for taking on locums. I know of one practice that has taken on a partner on what it understood to be a four-year contract. What will happen in such circumstances?

44. Having spoken about the proposals in my area and with other GPs, I know that people would welcome council representation on local commissioning groups, as GPs are particularly concerned about commissioning. Some years ago, in what might be described as a water-testing exercise on fundholding, GPs almost got their hands on commissioning and the ability to use finance for services for their patients. Will there be devolved commissioning with the necessary finance and the power to make decisions?

45. If that was the case, my GP colleagues and I would more than welcome that proposal. You said that the Department is involved in legislation; we believe that it is involved in strategies and planning, but not commissioning. If the proposal is genuinely about the devolution of commissioning — with the necessary finance and decision making and a bottom-up approach involving GPs, health professionals, the public and council representatives — we would be very interested.

46. If the proposal ends up as an exercise that needs a rubber stamp from the Department, my worry is that the GPs involved might walk away from it. The Health Committee does not want that to happen, because there is a great deal of GP interest in it.

47. Can you give me an assurance that that will be the case? I know that the local commissioning groups will be part of the regional health and social care board. GPs must be made aware that they will have real commissioning power that will be backed up by financial measures. With the help of councillors, patient representatives and allied health professionals, GPs having the power to determine the needs of primary care will be good news for the future of local commissioning groups.

48. Mr McGimpsey: I can give you that assurance, Kieran. We began with a blank sheet on this proposal. I sat down with officials — Dr Andrew McCormick, David Sissling and others — and one of the first issues to arise was the agreement that David Sissling came to with the British Medical Association (BMA). The Department will stand over that, as it is very much a part of the proposal.

49. A public health medical professional, along with GPs, will be part of a commissioning group and will help to determine need. There were four GPs in each group, and that number should stay the same. You can take comfort from that, as the BMA has done. If you wish, Andrew can go through the technical details and what has already been discussed with the BMA.

50. The proposal for seven groups was made because Peter Hain said that there would be seven councils; there will not be seven, although I do not know how many there will be. It seems to work with five groups; as 15 multiplied by seven would result in 105 commissioners for Northern Ireland. I wanted to change that. I also wanted to give the groups extra weight by reducing the number to five.

51. In addition, it seems that there was a missed opportunity for local representation in the make-up of the groups. I propose that there should be four locally elected representatives in each of those groups as well a public health medical professional and other professionals. That will be subject to consultation, and other proposals will be made.

52. There will be a transition, and the Health Department will seek to manage those GPs who have given undertakings or made commitments. Andrew will deal with that crucial issue because one of the building blocks is GPs being involved in commissioning for their areas.

53. Dr Andrew McCormick (Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety): The proposal always included a framework within which the questioning process would work. There will be a continuation of regional targets, standards and service frameworks as the basis for commissioning. However, decision making — which is the critical point — will be increasingly devolved. That will allow for consideration of targets and standards at regional level.

54. In that context, it is for the commissioning groups to make plans for the services that are appropriate to the needs of their populations, and that will enable the devolved process to work.

55. We get the best of both worlds: decision making is devolved while infrastructure and bureaucracy is kept to a minimum. The handling of money, for example, will not be the responsibility of the local commissioning groups; that minimises the need for administration and bureaucracy, but it delivers exactly what is decided at local level.

56. The Minister remains in control and his approval for commissioning plans will be required; but any plan that is based on a local assessment of need and in response to that need will be considered. That is the best of both worlds.

57. Dr Deeny: What happens to a GP has who has made changes to his or her practice and is not reselected to serve on a local commissioning group?

58. Dr McCormick: That issue will not arise until July at the earliest, so we have some time to work through the detail. During direct rule we decided not to set local commissioning groups up in shadow form, as we did not want to ask GPs to commit for a year when we were unsure what would happen. Therefore the decision was made that appointments would last for four years, which meant that some GPs made the kind of decision that you talked about. We now have to manage the consequences of that.

59. The seven groups remain, and their contribution continues to be beneficial. The consultation on the proposals is ongoing, and we will proceed only after a primary decision has been taken by the Assembly. However, the transition will have to be handled sensitively. We are grateful for the adjustments that some GPs made, and we will respect and honour those.

60. Mr Gallagher: I welcome the Minister and his team and thank them for the presentation. Most people will welcome the steps that are being taken to improve structures. It is important that what is mapped out runs concurrently with the setting up of the new councils, which is supposed to happen by 2011.

61. Does the Minister agree that, with each passing day, it becomes more likely that we will have 26 councils until 2013? If that is the case, does the Minister agree that there is a danger that the process will be messy, confusing and frustrating for those who use the service?

62. We all want inequalities to be removed. Practically every stroke sufferer who spoke at the event that John McCallister referred to said that treatment is often a postcode lottery. For example, the availability of occupational-therapy services in the west is much poorer than in the east of the Province. Is there anything in the structures that will tackle such problems?

63. Living within budgets was talked about. The Western Trust has to deal with debts of £3·3 million. I am not questioning how that debt was accrued, but it is difficult to understand how inequalities of service can be tackled while some trusts have to deal with significant debts as well as other problems.

64. Mr McGimpsey: It is coming to the end of the financial year, and trusts are expected to live within their budgets. At this time of year things become concentrated. I am not aware of there being a deficit in any of the trusts, and I would expect them to inform us if there were. Last year’s deficit has been recovered, and I expect all trusts to meet their targets this year.

65. As far as the 26 councils are concerned, I remain optimistic that we can get agreement. If we do not get agreement, things will be very messy. The Department of Health will accommodate whatever number of councils there are, whether that be 15 or some other number. Although we may be stuck with the existing structure for another while, I will deal with that and with the discussions with local government officials. However, I will not allow that to derail the key issues for the future structure of the Health Service.

66. We expect much of the inequality of provision to be addressed through commissioning based on local need. Another key element is the capitation formula for financial resources in each area. That should be done equitably and fairly, and it should be based not simply on population but on need.

67. Mr Gallagher: Will the Department still carry out the capitation exercise?

68. Mr McGimpsey: Yes, it will. The budget will flow from the Assembly to the Department. You mentioned the introduction of the service frameworks, which will set the level and quality of service that patients anywhere in Northern Ireland are entitled to expect. Some of those frameworks have been introduced and more will follow. The issue of stroke services will be addressed through one of those service frameworks.

69. Dr McBride: It is a well-known fact that, every year, 4,000 people in Northern Ireland suffer a stroke. Unfortunately and tragically, 1,300 of those people will die in the first month, and a further 1,300 will be left permanently disabled. Indeed, some of us heard the views of those affected by strokes and their carers at a very compelling workshop, which was sponsored by the Northern Ireland Chest, Heart and Stroke Association and by Speech Matters.

70. With regard to the point about the inequity in service provision, we are consulting on the draft stroke strategy. Thanks to the agreed budget settlement, there is significant investment to ensure that we improve the inequity in service provision. The consultation period finishes at the end of March.

71. We are, as the Minister indicated, developing a raft of service frameworks. There will be a section on stroke in the cardiovascular health-and-well-being service framework. That will set the optimal standards that we should attain for all patients, irrespective of whether they live in Strabane, Strangford, Ballymena or Ballycastle. The standard of service provision should be the same everywhere. Therefore, the service frameworks will set explicit standards and outcomes that we would like to achieve. As Dr McCormick said, those frameworks will then form the basis of our commissioning of services from providers, and they will inform how we will benchmark ourselves against achieving that quality of service.

72. Dr Miriam McCarthy (Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety): We are in the process of consulting on the stroke strategy, and we invite comments from Committee members. We asked Speech Matters to produce a user-friendly, shortened document, which has been very useful in workshops for people who do not want to sit and read a lengthy textual document and for people who have suffered a stroke and for whom sight is a problem. There is a real opportunity with this strategy to make a difference.

73. I know that the Committee is interested to hear more about it at a future date, and I will facilitate that.

74. Ms S Ramsey: It is crucial that this be tied in with Investing for Health because, at that time, that document was a vision for the future. If the Assembly implements this strategy correctly, there are exciting times ahead. I do not want to seem too negative; however, having gone through the Committee’s work and having dealt with issues in my constituency, it is clear that staff, service-users and families must be informed as quickly as possible. It is important to avoid confusion during the transitional period.

75. The Minister indicated in his statement on 4 February that he had examined other models. It would be interesting to know if he has incorporated any areas of best practice into his own proposals. I am eager to ensure that no potential conflict of interest arises on commissioning groups between the provider and the commissioner.

76. I take on board the Minister’s point about local government and increasing the input of local councillors; however, considering that those councillors know the issues in their own constituencies, will the community and voluntary sector’s contribution to health and social care be negatively affected by the reform?

77. Mr McGimpsey: The community and voluntary sector plays a key role, which will be enhanced by the establishment of a regional public health agency. In my experience — and probably in the experience of anyone has who been a local councillor — local government plays an important part, through local knowledge, in delivering information and service on the ground. Furthermore, local councillors will play a key role, because they are in close contact with their communities. That is a strong reason for local government to work together with the community and voluntary sectors. Rather than compete, each should complement the other and strengthen the system.

78. The Department examined other models. For example, the Irish Republic has the Health Service Executive, which is essentially a super health-and-social-care authority, similar to what was proposed here under direct rule. However, there are mixed views about how successful that has been. The Scottish model provides that the trusts commission for their areas, depending on what they determine the needs to be. That is dangerous because the providers could commission simply what they can provide, rather than deliver provision based on need. Therefore, I believe that a separation is necessary. The Department has effectively stripped away the outer layers of the proposed health-and-social-care model to the three core functions of commissioning, performance management and financial management, and there are very strong reasons for those. That is the best way forward.

79. This is potentially a very exciting time for health, and the first time that this has happened in 30 years. If the Assembly establishes the new health and social care body correctly, it can tick a box, and — as long as the model is flexible enough to evolve and change without having to break up and start again — that body can serve its purpose for the next 30 years.

80. Dr McBride: At the time of the launch of Investing for Health. in 2002, Sir Donald Acheson, former Chief Medical Officer of England, referred to it as the best public-health document that he had seen in the English language.

81. That was a product of genuine cross-Government and cross-party co-operation under the leadership of the Minister in the Ministerial Group for Public Health. It has delivered in the short term by improving life expectancy. However, we have not been as successful in closing the inequality gap between rich and poor.

82. As you outlined, crucial factors are coming together: we have, again, a strong, local Government, and a policy review of Investing for Health will commence next year, for which we are doing the preparatory work. We are happy to keep the Committee updated on that. Furthermore, we are reviewing the fundamental structures of the Health Service to improve the health of the population, improve life expectancy and reduce health inequality. Therefore, I agree — this is an exciting time.

83. Ms S Ramsey: I do not want to sound negative, but can there be a conflict of interest between the provider and the commissioner?

84. Dr McCormick: No. We are trying to get the right balance. The commissioning groups are designed so that there is no provider involvement; there is, therefore, no conflict of interest. Furthermore, we do not regard commissioning as a confrontational process or something that is designed to cause dispute or difficulty. On the contrary, the power — the financial resources and the decision-making power — is on that side of the system. However, we must build on the successful collaborative approach that works well in this region, because trusts and commissioners can — and should — work together, particularly clinicians and other professionals. The structure and systems can deal with the hard edge of final decision-making, but the nature of the system is more collaborative and constructive, and we must build on that strength.

85. Mr McGimpsey: It is also important to stress that, although there are five commissioning groups tied to five trusts, that does not mean that each commissioning group is tied to one trust for provision — they can go to any trust. The commissioning groups have the freedom to go to any one of the five, which strengthens the commissioning function.

86. Mrs Hanna: I welcome the Minister and his colleagues. I am grateful for the presentation.

87. Although there is a fair bit of detail on the issue, I will concentrate on the headlines. You talked about the local focus; however, you spoke about the health inequalities in the individual patient’s journey. The other inequality is in long-term illness, which you referred to when you mentioned strokes. We have all been to presentations with patients and carers, and it is humbling to listen to what goes on in their heads and to how little their voice is heard. We focus on cancer and heart disease; however, many people, such as those with arthritis and multiple sclerosis who do not have those diseases still suffer quality-of-life problems. It is important to improve the details and quality of their care, even if that is only flexibility in appointments or not having to wait for six months to go to a pain clinic following a flare-up. I put it on record that it is important to do that. Many people, particularly the long-term sick, do not feel that they have a voice in a big organisation, because they are spoken to but not listened to.

88. You mentioned health promotion and the Health Promotion Agency, which is covered by the commissioning functions. Do you have any details about that? Will the Health Promotion Agency per se be incorporated into a new regional public health authority? How do you picture the strategies for disease prevention and health promotion?

89. Mr McGimpsey: Miriam will respond to your remarks about long-term illnesses and the patient journey.

90. I see the new agency as reinforcing, strengthening and enlarging the whole health-promotion agenda about promotion, protection and public health. Michael McBride can deal with the detail better than I can.

91. Dr McCarthy: You raise a very important issue on chronic-disease management.

92. Management of chronic disease is crucial to the future of services. There has been a move away from isolated incidents of disease. Most people, as they get older, are now more likely to have a chronic disease, and live with it rather than die from it. During the CSR period, the Department has identified a significant amount of money — over £10 million — to improve the management of chronic disease. Some of that is based on trying to keep people in their own homes, and maintaining their independence and dignity, rather than their being hospitalised. You are absolutely right: often, it is humbling to listen to people’s stories about how they must manage, and how their chronic disease affects not only them as individuals, but their entire families.

93. Therefore, it is important to maintain patients in their own homes, with independence and dignity. An example of how that is achieved is through the introduction of specialist nurses — heart-failure nurses and specialist respiratory nurses — who visit people in their homes. Patients love that and it makes a difference. It helps patients on a personal level and significantly improves the management of their disease. That has real potential, which must be further explored in the next couple of years.

94. Moreover, there is the potential to monitor patients at home. Rather than bring them to outpatient clinics or to GPs, they can monitored without having to leave their homes. For years, diabetics have monitored their own blood-sugar levels at home. There is huge scope to expand that area through telemedicine and other technological advances. The Department is committed to exploring those possibilities and now has funding to do so. It will look to working with professionals in achieving its objectives.

95. Dr McBride: The first part of the question referred to functions of the public-health agency. Clearly, there are three large elements of that. The first is public-health support and expert advice from the multidisciplinary public-health team to the board that will commission services, so that commissioning will be about transformational changes and services that achieve better, more equitable outcomes for all patients and service users, irrespective of where they live.

96. The second important element is that of health improvement and of bringing together the critical mass of staff and expertise from the existing boards, the Health Promotion Agency, and the health-action zones, to move forward that work agenda in a way that has always been envisaged in the investment strategy’s objectives and goals for health.

97. The important third element is health protection, which covers, as the Minister mentioned, childhood immunisation, cervical screening, breast screening, emergency planning and preparation for pandemic flu, as well as the important issue of surveillance for infections, including healthcare-associated infections. Recent events have emphasised the importance of ensuring that there is a strong, centralised function that can rapidly co-ordinate the Department’s response.

98. Mr Buchanan: Many areas have been covered. I welcome the pledge from the Minister and the Department to set the wheels in motion to deliver a more effective, efficient and better Health Service for patients, and to set in place the framework, strategies and targets that are long overdue. Input from local councillors will be a move in the right direction towards helping to eradicate health inequalities. Serious inequalities in the current health system must be addressed.

99. Two issues that always come to the fore are the efficiency savings of £53 million by 2011 and the 1,700 reduction in staff. I want an assurance from the Minister that those staff will come from the already overbureaucratic management-administration system, rather than from nursing and front-line staff who deal with patients; and that there will be no detrimental effect to patients. I am concerned that patients will still have a service that is delivered to the highest standard during the transitional period. Perhaps the Minister will provide clarification.

100. Mr McGimpsey: Yes, I can give that assurance. The 1,700 reduction in jobs will, primarily, be from the boards’ administrative staff and not from such staff as nurses. Dr McCormick will provide the details.

101. Dr McCormick: The first phase, the merger of the trusts, has happened. The unfolding of the job reductions will happen through to 2011; the numbers will be achieved and the savings secured by that date. The process will involve filling the posts by competitive processes as the new organisations form. There will be a process of early retirement or voluntary redundancy so that delivery of the objective of streamlined administration is achieved as smoothly as possible.

102. The majority of savings will come from the reduction of the 18 trusts — all of which have their own finance divisions, HR divisions and other support — to five organisations. Approximately 1,300 of the 1,700 job reductions will come from the merger. The new proposals on the structures for the rest of the sector, which affect the existing boards and agencies, must secure around 400 job reductions. Those will not be achieved by staff redundancies but by suppressed posts. We have had a process of vacancy control for two years, which means that the process can be managed. Although that involves a substantial cost, we are seeking to manage and minimise it to achieve long-term savings. The costs are one-off, but the savings will last for the rest of time. That works as a justifiable value-for-money process, and it delivers the objective of streamlined administration.

103. Mrs O’Neill: Some Committee members touched on commissioning. Minister, you said that effective commissioning is the link between policy development and delivery on the ground. Given that research shows that healthcare improvement starts from the ground up, have you considered other ways, in addition to the health and social services councils, to ensure that the patient voice is heard at all levels, including commissioning and regional-board levels?

104. Do you think that the new regional health agency could contribute to renewing the focus on protecting the funding of such key public-health strategies as Protect Life, which is part of the suicide strategy?

105. Mr McGimpsey: The four elected local representatives will pay an important part in representing local communities. That element was missing before, and it is an important element because those representatives are in a position to represent the views of local communities. Furthermore, the patient-client councils will have an important role. Places will be set aside for local councillors, as well as for the councils representing their particular areas. There will be five organisations; the question of whether that will be one organisation with five subsets or five separate organisations is out for consultation. I am in favour of there being one organisation because a strong regional voice is needed, as well as a local voice.

106. A council and sub-councils seems to be the best solution. However, patient client councils are another important way of enabling people to express their views and to ensure that there is accountability, not merely through the Assembly but through local councils as well.

107. Mrs O’Neill: Does the Minister envisage the new public health agency giving a renewed focus to the protect life strategy and the suicide strategy?

108. Mr McGimpsey: Those strategies aim to reduce need and demand for Health Service resources by encouraging local health engagement. The strategies will benefit greatly from that approach.

22 May 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mrs Michelle O’Neill (Deputy Chairperson)
Dr Kieran Deeny
Mr Alex Easton
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr John McCallister

Witnesses:

Dr Brian Gaffney

Health Promotion Agency

109. The Deputy Chairperson (Mrs O’Neill): In the first of today’s two evidence sessions, representatives from the Health Promotion Agency (HPA) will give evidence on the proposals to reform the health and social care system. Members have hard copies of the HPA’s submission and a briefing paper from the Assembly’s Research and Library Services.

110. I welcome Brian Gaffney, the chief executive of the Health Promotion Agency. I invite you to make a presentation, after which Committee members will ask questions.

111. Dr Brian Gaffney (Health Promotion Agency): Thank you. I am delighted to meet the Committee. My invitation reflects the Committee’s interest in public-health issues, and it affords me the opportunity to convey my organisation’s perspective on the proposed changes to structures, which will have a wider impact on public health in Northern Ireland.

112. I will provide some background information on public health in general and on health improvement in particular, and I will then talk about changes to the current structures. I will focus on the proposal to establish a regional public health agency (RPHA), because that will have the greatest impact on the Health Promotion Agency. However, if required, I will also comment on the broader structural reorganisation.

113. Much debate on the health system rightly concerns medical care and treatment — they are the most expensive, demanding and, probably, most important aspects. Public-health issues have increasingly come to the fore over the past two decades. More evidence has been gathered, and that evidence shows that healthier communities are more socially cohesive, economically productive and, interestingly, more involved with local structures, such as local government. That is why we want to improve public health.

114. The Wanless Report and the Appleby Report, which dealt with economic issues that affect England and Wales and affect Northern Ireland respectively, indicated that we will no longer be able to afford such an extensive healthcare system without public-health improvement and an engaged population. Public health and health improvement should be taken very seriously.

115. Public health is a complex matter, but, in order to improve discussion, we divide it into three domains. The first domain is health protection, which covers protection against disease, through immunisation and other programmes, and environmental protection’s contribution to health. The second domain is service development, which deals with ways in which public-health specialists have an input into the development of other health and social care services. That input includes providing evidence, and debating how services can be improved and made more cost-effective. The third domain — in which I operate — is health improvement. When people use the term “public health”, they are usually describing health improvement or health promotion.

116. Since the mid-1980s, health improvement and health promotion have developed beyond the previous individual-based, medical model. That model was thought to be quite straightforward — if people were told what was good for them, they would change their behaviour and, thus, their health would improve. However, that is often not the case with public health, so any model must be more in-depth.

117. We now appreciate that public health — both physical and mental — is a resource that develops over a person’s lifetime. Public health concerns people’s appreciation of their capacities, knowledge, skills and behaviours, and their interaction with their social and economic environment. Health is more complex than, say, whether a person feels sick, so we must find ways in which to improve it.

118. The Health Promotion Agency offers programmes for individuals, because we want to develop individuals’ skills and knowledge, and help them to make healthy decisions. However, we must create environments that enable people to make those healthy decisions. That is why the issue is so important for the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, and, indeed, for other instruments of government. Consideration of environments and of how people interact requires work in many different sectors. Children and young people must be educated to enable them to make healthy decisions. People need to have a healthy workplace that helps them to make healthy decisions on their behaviours, including on smoking and nutrition.

119. Moreover, safe neighbourhoods are needed. The physical environment must allow people to take physical activity where they feel safe. People must be able to make healthy and affordable choices about food, and so on, and they must be provided with the skills to use those choices. That is particularly relevant to the Committee and the Government, because we realise that the legislative programme has an impact on people’s health.

120. That is most clearly seen in the example of smoking legislation. For many years, those of us who work in public health lobbied for smoking not to be allowed in public places or workplaces, but Government action is required to legislate on such issues in order to allow us to put programmes in place. The current debate on alcohol misuse depends on legislation that will enable people to make choices about alcohol. Changes may be reflected in licensing laws and sales restrictions.

121. Public health and health improvement is so complex, and involves so many people, that no one agency or organisation can be responsible. The issues require much collaboration and many partnerships. The Health Promotion Agency has partnerships at community level with various organisations, such as healthy living centres and community development programmes. We have relationships with many community and voluntary groups, such as Action Mental Health, the Ulster Cancer Foundation, the Northern Ireland Chest, Heart and Stroke Association, Age Concern, Barnardo’s and PlayBoard. All those are important partners of ours in developing public health.

122. The Health Promotion Agency describes its work as being an integrated approach across many areas. Those areas include research, because we need to know what we are talking about, we need to know the evidence for what works and we need to know what is effective. That research should feed into training for professionals, not only health professionals but educational professionals, and even Government professionals who work in the legislative field. We disseminate a great deal of information, to health professionals in particular but also to the public. Some of that is evidenced in many of the programmes with which the Health Promotion Agency is involved.

123. None of that work goes on by itself. It must be linked to what is happening locally, and it must be linked to other organisations. It must be done through many different health settings, including work with local councils, other agencies and local health structures. I hope that the current proposals will facilitate that work. In our various consultation submissions, we said that current structures do not easily facilitate those partnerships or local working. They do not facilitate a truly cohesive relationship between local work and regional work, and they do not necessarily link that work. Therefore, we are neither making best use of scarce funding nor ensuring that good programmes are sustainable.

124. Much good work is taking place, particularly at community level. The Health Promotion Agency and other organisations, such as local councils and other health structures, are doing work at a regional level. However, there is, as yet, no joint-planning approach or agreed funding mechanisms across the partnerships and programmes. There are no common objectives, nor is there joint accountability. There is no real, agreed process for evaluation or measurement of outcomes. It is to be hoped the current proposals will tackle and improve those areas.

125. We consider the current restructuring proposals to offer a major opportunity for change. To do that, much of the work that is done on health improvement regionally and locally must be linked. We hope that, by sharing evidence and by planning programmes together, we will ensure local input as well as regional commitment, and we hope that the two sides can work together. Any proposed new organisations should make public health, particularly health improvement, a priority.

126. Sometimes, in the public-health system, health improvement plays second fiddle to health protection and service development, which often eat up resources. It is important that the proposed RPHA focus mainly on health improvement and collaborate with local commissioning groups (LCGs) and the proposed regional health and social care board (RHSCB). The Health Promotion Agency is unsure of the RHSCB’s commissioning and providing function, and the proposals do not outline clearly the plans for other sections of the health system. For instance, our relationship with primary care and, especially, general practice must be outlined in the new structures.

127. We must accept that we do not want longer timescales or the difficulty in measuring health outcomes to deflect the focus from health improvement. Health improvement is essential — we want to improve individuals’ health and produce a vibrant, more productive — socially and economically — community in Northern Ireland. We need structures that will enable us to help the community. If such decisions were determined by the market, there would not be any smoking legislation or restrictions on alcohol sales, and other development programmes would not exist. Government must take the lead and establish structures that will allow public-health workers to work together with other health-system employees and local-government representatives.

128. Therefore, I look forward to the changes, because there are faults in the current structures. I hope that the debate on the new structures will consider health improvement a top priority.

129. The Deputy Chairperson: You mentioned that adopting a partnership approach is crucial to delivering health promotion. Do you think that the review of public administration (RPA) proposals should impose a statutory requirement to compel local councils to become involved? Would such a measure strengthen health promotion? Would that enrich the council’s forthcoming local community-development plans?

130. Dr Gaffney: The HPA’s work with local government is always conducted on an ad hoc basis; those sectors do not usually work together, and they do not always prioritise public health. In the history of public health, local government has, undoubtedly, played a major role. Through its traditional and regeneration roles, it can enhance public health. Local government also has a long history of community development and of working at a local-community level.

131. The public-health agendas of the Health Service and local government must come together. There are proposals to introduce community-planning rules and to impose a duty of well-being on local government. Local councils should have a statutory responsibility as well as a responsibility to work closely with any new health-system structures.

132. Dr Deeny: I have known Brian Gaffney for a long time — longer than I care to admit — and I am interested in health reform. I am worried that the Health Reform Bill will not be passed by its target date. The intention is that it will come into operation on 1 April 2009. However, its Second Stage is scheduled for the week commencing 23 June 2008, and its Committee Stage is expected to commence at the end of June.

133. I am familiar with the HPA’s work. I spent this morning in Altnagelvin Area Hospital, where I saw a poster, which probably came from the HPA, that I had never seen before. I do not know whether other Committee members have seen it, but it is anti-drink-driving poster carrying a slogan along the lines of “I’m sure you wished you’d crashed at your mate’s”. Such posters convey a message effectively, as do television adverts.

134. I wonder just how many people will be involved in the regional public health agency. Will there be too many organisations? Will it be too complicated? I have heard other people ask whether the proposed RPHA should be incorporated in the proposed RHSCB. What are your views on that? Furthermore, if my figures are correct, even with the RPHA and the RHSCB to come into being next year, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS) will continue to employ around 400 people in the trusts. Why are those staff required?

135. I have another question on coterminosity. Interestingly, I have changed my tune. Initially, I would have preferred there to be five to seven LCGs, but I now think that, given the proposal to have 11 councils, there should be six LCGs — one for Belfast and one between two for each of the 10 other councils — particularly as they are involved in local councils. That would help secure councillor representation. It is right to base the number of LCGs on the number of councils. For example, a single LCG, coterminous with the trust, would not be adequate for the west. I am sure that Tommy will agree, because it would be a city-dominated LCG. The commissioning body would be in the city, as would the provider. For example, Derry has entirely different needs from the rural populations of Tyrone and Fermanagh. My view is that LCGs should be based on councils.

136. I agree with Brian that the whole idea of LCGs is that they will involve GPs and other health professionals in the area, as well as local councillors — we health professionals are keen to work with health promoters in future. I am sure that Brian will agree that the health and social boards, with which I have worked for well over 20 years now, have, in many cases, not been in touch with the local communities. I mean no disrespect when I say that. Local communities do not know what they are. They adopt a top-down approach, through which decisions are made. Services are commissioned by people who are not really in touch with local communities at all. The new method of health commissioning, and the other new proposals under the RPA, are supposed to have the reverse character and operate in a bottom-up fashion.

137. Do you agree with me on that, Brian? A very good relationship could be formed were the new RPHA to work with the LCGs, which should take over most of the commissioning in future, once the process has bedded down for a few years. Indeed, that were the original plan. Those are all my questions and comments.

138. The Deputy Chairperson: There are plenty to keep you going.

139. Dr Gaffney: I will try to cover all the points raised. I cannot really comment on the size of the organisations, because, in a sense, it is still up for debate, because the consultation has only just finished. On whether public-health agencies should be incorporated in the board, I urge that, at least, there should be a separate health improvement agency. One might think that I am bound to say that because I come from a stand-alone agency; however, the proposed RHSCB, which will contain the LCGs, will be a huge commissioning organisation. Its budget will be huge, if not the number of people that it employs. As I said earlier, health improvement in particular sometimes loses out when decisions and choices have to be made about hospital care, and waiting lists tend to dominate in those circumstances. Sometimes, health improvement and public health must have a separate focus. I am not 100% sure what the relationships will be — I think that a decision has yet to be made — nor am I sure whether the RPHA will be commissioned by the board or the Department. Therefore, I do not know what the relevant sizes will be.

140. However, where important public-health issues, such as alcohol misuse, require discussion, it is important that a focused body raise them. Although it does not seem difficult for an agency such as the Health Promotion Agency to raise issues around smoking, that has not always been the case. In my first ever meeting with Government, an outgoing Conservative Minister with responsibility for health did not allow us to raise the issue of smoking legislation. However, that did not stop us. My chairman at the time, the late Jimmy Hawthorne, who was outspoken on public health, did not hesitate to raise the issue.

141. Sometimes, an independent voice is required. Issues that are coming to the fore include obesity, which will involve the food industry, and alcohol, which will involve the drinks industry. The revenue that the Government collect in tax means that it is sometimes difficult to tell them what needs to be done. An independent body that is at arm’s length from Government could raise the difficult issues. I am not sure whether that body should incorporate the three domains of public health — health protection, service development and service improvement — because those domains must have strong, close links with services that the proposed RHSCB will develop. Therefore, whatever structures are created, it is important that those links be tight, because the body needs to influence what is commissioned. In some ways, I am glad that I do not have to answer the questions about the structures that should be created and the relationships that there should be. However, a separate, independent and health-improvement-focused public-health body is necessary for a range of reasons.

142. The Health Promotion Agency is a regional provider of public health and, because of the current structures, it has no formal mandate to work at a local level. Despite that, much of our work is done at a local level. Dr Deeny is correct to say that people who work at the community level often do not know the functions of their local health and social services board. Recently, we had to work with a range of local groups on mental-health issues and, because we were not 100% sure of their agenda and what they do, and vice versa, that has been a fractious relationship at times. However, the results have been positive, so such difficulties can be overcome. In future, we must ensure that whatever is created is accessible to LCGs.

143. As an aside, we must realise that five or six LCGs will not be local to the communities that they serve; for example, the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust is a huge organisation, with many employees. I am not saying that that trust should be smaller, but, when an organisation covers such a large population, the body that commissions from it will not be able to work with local communities day to day. A way must be found to ensure that those local communities have an input into the process. A series of proposals, such as the community commissioning associations and community development processes, has not solved the problem.

144. Our new local trusts must have their agenda set clearly by the commissioning process that is implemented. They must interact with local communities, because I cannot see any other way for local communities to feed into the process under the current system. It is difficult to get a grasp on local issues, and local people may sometimes, for genuine reasons, find it difficult to get a grasp on regional issues. Nevertheless, both are important and must be accommodated. There is a clear role for input from those who are involved in primary care, especially GPs, who are the top health professionals at a local level. After all, the organisation with which local people are registered is the local practice, so GPs should reflect that.

145. Very few local practices are concerned about coterminosity — many of their patients are from locations that are within different local-government or health-trust boundaries, yet those practices manage to work around that. We must consider every body’s boundaries, but, for me, two points stand out. We must ensure local input — be that through a system that the LCGs develop or through the trusts being told that they must obtain that input — and it must be balanced against regional provision of public-health functions. It is sometimes the case that those functions can only be delivered regionally, so they must be developed in that way. The question of how we strike that balance is difficult to answer, but it is not, and should not be, insurmountable. In a sense, it should be the main driver for creating the new structures.

146. Mr Gallagher: Thank you, Brian, for your presentation. I agree with the point in the Heath Promotion Agency’s response to the consultation on proposals for health and social care reform that the proposed RPHA should have executive powers. It is obvious that the HPA is concerned about which body will have responsibility for health improvement and, if I interpret your response correctly, the HPA believes that that responsibility should remain with the local trust. Given that the trusts have badly managed health improvement, will you explain why the HPA would not want the proposed RPHA to assume responsibility for health improvement?

147. Dr Gaffney: I do not necessarily feel that the trusts are doing that work badly. In many instances —

148. Mr Gallagher: Sorry, that is simply my opinion.

149. Dr Gaffney: Much of the work may be a duplication of, or it may not be linked to, other work. For example, I am working in the system and even I was surprised to find that some of our Investing for Health partnerships, even at a local level, were not really aware of the work that their local healthy-living centre was undertaking. It did not seem to be possible to co-ordinate the two, because they were funded and managed separately, and did not seem to be part of the same system. Therefore, it is not the case that the trusts are doing bad work, but it may be that they do not co-ordinate.

150. The HPA feels that we still need health-improvement and health-promotion staff based in trusts, because we see no other way in which local links can be established. In any part of Northern Ireland, it is possible to find examples of work going on between local community groups and local health trusts. A regional organisation would not be able to replicate that work.

151. Even if all health-improvement staff were relocated from trusts and based in a regional agency, at some stage they would have to return to local level and work with the local trust. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, it is a question of whether we can ensure that the work that those people do ties into a common agenda and that it is subject to a common system of accountability and a common planning process.

152. If the proposed RPHA is to commission health improvement, it must ensure that trusts, through their health-improvement staff, are meeting the regional agenda and that their work complements it. I see no point in reorganising the existing structures to make health-improvement staff work at a regional level, only for them to return to work at trust level subsequently. However, greater co-ordination is needed.

153. Mr McCallister: We all agree that we must make huge strides to make the entire population aware of public-health issues.

154. I am interested in following up on questions about tying in the issue of health to the proposed new council structures. Would councils play a strategic role, using their structures as a delivery mechanism to get across the message?

155. Dr Gaffney: There are examples of local councils taking the lead role in public-health programmes and in the work of Investing for Health partnerships, and those are good examples of what councils should do at a local level. Regionally, we have engaged with councils on issues such as workplace health, and that has been a fruitful exercise. Therefore, the public-health role of councils could be played at strategic and local implementation levels.

156. Councils have vast experience of working with their local communities, but some public-health workers may feel that if we encourage that partnership too much, we will hand over public health from the health system to local councils, thereby losing something. However, I regard such a partnership as a strength rather than a weakness. If we can ensure that the councils, whatever their number or size, prioritise local public-health programmes and issues, that will only enhance the process. Councils must work in close partnership with the health system, but they have slightly different perspectives and structures, so they could assume responsibility for many areas. Although we have developed a good training programme with GPs to address fuel poverty, much of the real work on tackling fuel poverty should have local-council input.

157. Fuel poverty is a health issue. Many people who endure fuel poverty develop ill health, and some of those people die a result of the cold weather. That is only a small example, but it is one that local councils could implement locally, by improving the housing stock and providing grants. Therefore, there is a role for strategic input at both council and local implementation levels.

158. Mr McCallister: I agree that councils have a huge role to play, but some are better than others at dealing with such issues. How do we ensure that the programme is delivered evenly across Northern Ireland?

159. Dr Gaffney: Again, I would look to examples of good work elsewhere. I would not normally hold up England as being somewhere with examples of good public health. However, it has tried not only to have coterminous boundaries with its health and local government structures but to have joint planning. Therefore, local authorities there have a community-planning brief, but they work to that within existing health structures.

160. Some local authorities appoint a director or head of public health, who is jointly appointed with the local health trust, which, in England, is known as the local primary-care trust. The model is one that we could use, in order to ensure that community planning, for example, were done jointly by the health system and local authorities. That would guarantee accountability, with joint funding and programmes. People would try to ensure that it were evenly spread and that no inequity existed in the work done in Northern Ireland.

161. Mr Easton: You touched on my question. Will the proposal to transfer public-health functions from the boards and trusts to the new RPHA lead to more effective delivery of public-health services for Northern Ireland?

162. Dr Gaffney: We must examine more closely public-health functions in boards and trusts. Currently, the health boards are involved in commissioning and in providing some public-health and health protection programmes, and they provide some health improvement. The trusts, as the providers, are involved in all three areas. If nothing else, reorganisation should provide some clarity on who commissions and provides the different local and regional services, which may lead to better co-ordination and a more cohesive approach to public health.

163. Of the three public-health domains that I mentioned earlier, the Health Promotion Agency’s focus is on health improvement. I do not want whatever new system is created to allow the boards’ current public-health functions — service development and health protection — to dominate. That could mean that they take their eye off the ball when it comes to health improvement. However, bringing the functions of the health boards and trusts together in order to match them to local input will be an improvement.

164. The Deputy Chairperson: Fewer Committee members than normal are present today, Brian, so that concludes the questions. Thank you for coming; it has been most helpful. The Minister is attending next week’s meeting, and you have given us some questions to put to him.

165. Dr Gaffney: If Committee members have any further questions, I am happy for them to contact me at the agency, and I will supply information on public-health issues.

166. The Deputy Chairperson: When the legislation comes before the Committee next month, we will write to you to request feedback. Thank you.

167. Dr Gaffney: Thank you very much.

19 June 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mrs Michelle O’Neill (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Buchanan
Rev Dr Robert Coulter
Dr Kieran Deeny
Mr Alex Easton
Mrs Carmel Hanna
Mrs Claire McGill
Ms Sue Ramsey

Witnesses:

Ms Claire Higgins
Dr Jane Wilde

Institute of
Public Health in Ireland

168. The Deputy Chairperson (Mrs O’Neill): Our first evidence session today on the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s proposals for health and social care reform comes from the Institute of Public Health in Ireland. A copy of the institute’s response to the proposals, its report entitled ‘Towards Healthier Societies’, and a briefing paper from Assembly Research Services can be found in members’ pack.

169. I welcome Dr Jane Wilde and Ms Claire Higgins. Jane Wilde is the chief executive of the Institute of Public Health in Ireland, and Claire is the public health development officer. I invite you to give a short presentation of approximately 10 minutes. Members will then have the opportunity to ask questions.

170. Dr Jane Wilde (Institute of Public Health in Ireland): First of all, thank you very much indeed for asking us to come and give evidence. We are delighted to be able to come to the Committee, because we think that the proposals are such an important change issue in Northern Ireland. We also think that politicians have a huge role to play in health and social care — particularly in the public-health agenda, which is what we are interested in as an institute of public health.

171. I will say a few words about us so that the Committee is aware of our perspective. Claire Higgins, who works in the institute with me, leads on our health impact assessment programme. She is particularly interested in looking systematically at how different policies, programmes and projects affect the health of communities, particularly the most vulnerable people in those communities. She worked previously in a local strategy partnership in Antrim and also in the voluntary and community sector.

172. I am a public-health doctor. I worked in the health system in Northern Ireland, and then I was the founding director of the Health Promotion Agency. Later, I became an executive in establishing the Institute of Public Health, which was set up to promote co-operation between North and South.

173. We have been asked to say something about the proposals for health and social care reform. There are five main strands to the Minister’s proposals, but I will confine my comments to just three areas: the proposed regional health and social care board; the proposed regional public health agency; and proposals for increased democratisation of the system.

174. It is important for us to think about whose eyes we are looking through when we examine the proposals. Therefore, I thought that it would be useful to outline the most important issue, which is whether the proposals will make any impact on community health inequalities. That is the whole purpose of the issue. When I talk about health inequalities, I am talking mainly about socio-economic inequalities; in other words, the huge gap between the rich and the poor. Therefore, the first issue is whether the proposals will make a difference.

175. The second issue is whether the proposals will help to use the mammoth amount of expertise, commitment and experience that exists in Northern Ireland. The third issue is to think about how the Institute of Public Health can contribute, and whether the proposals will allow us to contribute to better health in Northern Ireland.

176. We welcome the proposals. They provide a way ahead for Northern Ireland. They are radical, but they are sensible and timely, and can be made to work.

177. With regard to the proposal for a regional health and social care board, the functions of commissioning, financial management and performance management are sensible and rational, and no further functions should be added. There are huge issues with regard to commissioning. We welcome the issue of local commissioning and the role of primary care and others in that. Commissioning should cover the different fields of public health. Therefore, we are talking about how we protect people from infections, and so on, how we help people to improve their health, and how the services that we deliver are directed to, and planned for, the most vulnerable people.

178. There must be strong links between the board and the proposed regional public health agency, but it is not entirely clear how those links would be taken forward. We have some ideas about how that might happen, but, in the absence of clear proposals, the Committee may have views on the issue.

179. Our view is that there must be a strong relationship. We would like the proposals for the regional health board to include a requirement that commissioning plans go through the regional public health agency when they are being signed off by the board. Therefore, they should be checked from a public-health perspective.

180. The proposals have a strong focus on increased democratisation, in particular trying to strengthen the role of local government. Claire has a wealth of experience in that area, and she will say a few words about that.

181. Ms Claire Higgins (Institute of Public Health in Ireland): The institute welcomes calls for closer links with local government and supports that action to strengthen its role in improved public health for communities. There are already good working relationships between local communities and local authorities, and they should be supported and strengthened to help to develop and shape services for improved quality of life.

182. That could be done by community planning and the power of well-being. That presents an opportunity to create healthier communities and to address health inequalities. It is essential that the regional public health agency is strongly involved in the development of the community planning framework. It is important to ensure that Investing for Health targets for tackling health inequalities are reflected in the planning process, that they complement and build on existing area-based partnerships, such as the Investing for Health teams and the health action zone teams, and that community planning targets should reflect the social determinants of health in all action areas — for example, in transport and education — and not just through health actions.

183. The institute recommends that community plans are signed off by the regional public health agency. That will ensure that health is adequately addressed in each of the area plans.

184. Finally, local government is in an excellent position to engage in health impact assessment (HIA), which is a methodology to assess the health impacts of an identified proposal. The institute, with the Department of Health, has led in HIA in Northern Ireland, and the regional public health agency has a key position to support conducting health impact assessments.

185. The institute has been closely involved in the health impact assessment in the west Tyrone area plan, which is funded by Omagh and Strabane District Councils, and the Western Investing for Health partnership. The assessment will engage with key stakeholders to look at the health impacts of the plan, which will be in place until 2019.

186. Therefore, HIA presents a way of working that engages local communities, local government and other sectors that need to take into account the impact of their work on health.

187. Dr Wilde: The proposed regional public health agency is very dear to our heart. I have been working in public health in Northern Ireland for almost all of my working life. I see this proposed agency as a major opportunity to bring together the different aspects of public health, and to give public health a much stronger voice.

188. I welcome the proposal to put public health at the centre of these proposals, and I note that the Chairperson of the Committee has welcomed the proposals. I hope that the Committee will feel able to do likewise as this develops.

189. The functions that are set out are the right functions for the regional public health agency. However, there must be a stronger function relating to research and information. Unless we have good information across a range of issues, it will be very difficult to be sure that we are doing the right thing and in the right way.

190. The agency must be multi-professional. That means bringing in not just public health doctors like myself, but other members of the health-and-social-care family, as well as economists, behavioural scientists and anthropologists to consider how to shift Northern Ireland’s rather poor health record. I cannot think of any professional group that does not have a role in public health.

191. The agency must also be multi-sectoral. Public health is not about just the Health Service, as the Committee well knows, but about other areas such as housing, education, agriculture, transport and rurality. This organisation must be outward looking and forward looking. There is here a fantastic opportunity to create in Northern Ireland something that is truly world class.

192. I have just come from an international event at which Queen’s University, the institute, and the Community Development and Health Network were chosen as one of five centres across the United Kingdom to create a centre of excellence for public health, bringing £5 million into Northern Ireland in order to build capacity. That shows what can be done when we join together: we can beat other people and be not only good but really great.

193. We are very enthusiastic about the proposals, and we look forward to contributing to making them work. I have not mentioned anything about the institute’s work, but Committee members have copies of our first 10-year report. Rather than talking about the institute’s contribution, I hope that we might come back and say what the institute is doing for public health in Northern Ireland and across the island of Ireland. Thank you very much.

194. The Deputy Chairperson: Thank you. The Committee welcomes your enthusiasm for the proposals and the way forward, because we want to make an impact on the community.

195. How do you visualise the healthy living centres, which you evaluated, fitting into the proposals?

196. Dr Wilde: Healthy living centres, and the many other partnerships in Northern Ireland, whether Investing for Health partnerships, community development partnerships, or Healthy Cities partnerships, have a key place with regard to the proposals.

197. As the term “public health” has become better known, and as action locally has flourished, there is now a range of partnerships. Healthy living centres, for example, have made a big impact locally, as the evaluation states. Partnerships that work should be strengthened, and the proposals not used to leave them behind. We are very keen to see the existing successful partnerships being strengthened, resourced and supported. For too long, partnerships have had to exist with minimal resources. I recently met the Community Development and Health Network; it does not know how much money will be available next year. That is despite that fact that that organisation is a remarkable network that brings community-based organisations together throughout Northern Ireland. We are very keen to see existing successful partnerships being better supported.

198. The Deputy Chairperson: With your background in the Health Promotion Agency, you will be aware of its five core aims. Do you think that the proposals will subsume and build on the current role?

199. Dr Wilde: That is a good idea. If people work in an organisation, they have a commitment or loyalty to that organisation. They might not want to see organisational shift. However, it is the right way to go because it can strengthen the work that has been done in the Health Promotion Agency by bringing a stronger element of the other aspects of public health — the health protection aspect, for example, which provides protection against infectious diseases. It also has a stronger role in ensuring that the services that are commissioned throughout Northern Ireland have a strong public health function. Including those considerations will be very important in strengthening the role of the work that the agency does.

200. The Institute of Public Health has had a very strong role in health intelligence — the information side of things; forecasting new conditions; and evaluation, as you mentioned. We can continue to bring that to the new public health agency, but we will do that from a slightly external perspective because of our North/South links.

201. Mr Buchanan: I thank Jane and Claire for coming to the Committee today. There is no doubt that these changes will be challenging for the Department, the Committee and to folk like you with regard to the delivery of better health provision right across Northern Ireland.

202. What input did you have into the development of the Minister’s proposals for the restructuring of the Health Service? Community planning and well-being were mentioned. You also talked about the West Tyrone area plan and the work that was done with various stakeholders between Omagh District Council and Strabane District Council. Do you think that the joined-up working between the key policy stakeholders will provide a better, improved service right across Northern Ireland?

203. You also spoke about the good partnerships that are already in existence and about how those need to be strengthened as they are currently underfunded. Do you see the new proposals strengthening or having a detrimental effect on those good partnerships?

204. Dr Wilde: Claire will comment on the community-planning side of things, and then I will cover some of the inter-sectoral issues and answer some of the questions about how we have been involved.

205. Ms Higgins: We have been working in partnership with the Community Development Health Network, the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA) and the Health Promotion Agency to draw up a briefing paper for what politicians should look to include in community planning. There are 10 action points, and those should be assessed against community plans so that health inequalities can be addressed through community plans. That is a piece of work that we have started, and we will approach political parties in the autumn. Hopefully, that will filter down to communities.

206. The new proposals should strengthen the partnerships that are in operation. Using the example of community planning, the Investing for Health teams developed a wealth of resources, including baseline health statistics. All of that information needs to be included in community planning. The process should strengthen the partnerships that are in existence.

207. Dr Wilde: I will pick up on a couple of other points that were mentioned, such as how we have been involved. Like others, we responded to the consultation. Because we are primarily funded by the two Health Departments, North and South, we also have good relationships with the Chief Medical Officer’s office, for example. We have had an input into the thinking about public health, and we have had a good chance to put our views forward and hope to continue to do so as the process rolls out.

208. New functions that have been proposed for the regional public health agency include a stronger role in resourcing and help to support local government in public health. It is important that funding goes to the new agency for that function. The proposals are scripted in such a way that all the money goes through the new regional health and social care board, which will be the main funders of the system. However, I think that some money should go directly from the Department of Health to the new regional public health agency to protect the idea of public health and health improvement, because, for understandable reasons, it generally gets a low priority compared to acute services. Therefore, it is important that a strand of money goes directly from the Department of Health to the regional public health agency. I hope that I have answered some of your questions.

209. Mr Buchanan: Yes, you have covered most of the questions.

210. Dr Wilde: I will be happy to follow up any questions that I have not answered.

211. Dr Deeny: Thank you for coming before us. The issue is of great interest to me, because I have been working in the Health Service for years. It is potentially a very exciting time if we get it right. Rather than waiting for disease to occur and then trying to prevent it, the focus will be on health promotion and disease prevention, as well as a link up with other areas, such as local government, community groups and leisure centres, walkways, cycleways and even mental health. There should be facilities for people, both young and old, living in rural communities who are isolated and lonely. Such facilities would help to prevent ill health.

212. How big will the regional public health agency be? You mentioned that the agency should have a say before services are commissioned, but that worries me. Are you saying that it should have a commissioning role, or are you saying that it should have a veto?

213. I have asked the following question before, but I have never been given a clear answer to it. I know Dr Brian Gaffney well, for example. There is a major role in public-health promotion, but how many people will be employed by the regional public health agency? Should they not be part of the regional health and social care board?

214. I will be celebrating an anniversary tomorrow — I will be 28 years qualified — and I have worked in the Health Service for more than 25 years. Over the years, I have seen many great ideas get bogged down in bureaucracy. What worries me is that there will be lots of wonderful ideas, but there will be another huge agency that will be separate from the five local commissioning groups. For instance, the Western Health and Social Care Trust has four tiers of management. New bodies always have fancy, great ideas, great strategies and protocols, but it is different on the ground. I do not want my hopes being built up for the future. We cannot afford to build up people’s hopes nor can we afford duplication, with people trampling on one another’s toes.

215. Dr Wilde: I do not want to get into competition over how long people have been qualified. In many ways, I have total empathy with the points that you make. The overall point that I would make is that you do not run systems, which is what we are really talking about here, by deciding what organisations you are going to have; you do it by deciding how those organisations link up, what kind of relationships people have and what kind of processes you build up.

216. With regard to your points about bureaucracy and waste, and so on, when the four boards are scrapped and trusts are more streamlined, the proposals will ultimately reduce the number of organisations, rather than create more. The issues are the relationships between the Department of Health, the board, the agency and the trusts. The practitioners will feed in through those organisations.

217. As I understand it, commissioning will be done by the board, but it will need public-health advice, and that advice should be provided by the public health agency. There must be a contractual relationship between the expertise of the public-health agency and the needs and requirements of the board. I am not sure how that might best be done; some of the staff of the agency will have to either be seconded, or have joint appointments, or it may all be a matter of grace and favour. That causes a few complexities in regard to how those different organisations are governed, but a lot will depend on the senior leadership in the board and of the public health agency, because if those two organisations do not work in a streamlined and sensible way, any contract that is put in place will be inappropriate.

218. I actually think there is a need for some tension between the health and care system and the public-health system. Public health is all about the organised efforts of society, but if I go to see a GP or a nurse I want the very best for me. There is a healthy tension between what we do overall in society and what each individual practitioner is going to do. I do not think that everyone is going to agree about every detail of the system, but that is OK.

219. Dr Deeny: I have an issue with the number of people that will be employed by the proposed agencies.

220. Dr Wilde: To be honest, I am not actually sure how many people are being proposed.

221. Mrs Hanna: A staff of 200 is mentioned for one of the bodies.

222. Dr Wilde: I do remember a figure of 400 staff for the regional health and social care board. I have a vague notion of that, but I would have to check — I cannot remember.

223. Dr Deeny: I cannot understand the numbers. For example, there will be 16 staff in each of the local commissioning groups, making a total of 80, and then there will be 400 staff in the regional board; it seems an awful lot, never mind those in the Health Department in Belfast. That is my worry.

224. Dr Wilde: It would be very useful if the Committee considered the issue of the actual breakdown of staff in those organisations. I do not have any inside information about that.

225. Mrs Hanna: Jane, Claire, you are very welcome. I have some of the same concerns as Kieran, even though I do feel that it is a very exciting time. In all the time that I have been on the Health Committee since 1998, this is the first time that I have heard public health being talked up, from the Chief Medical Officer down. There does seem to be more of a focus on that, which is very welcome.

226. The setting up of those two bodies does seem to be quite complex. In one way, it is good to have a separate public-health body, as long as it actually has a clear role. The arrangements certainly cannot be voluntary; there must be statutory partnerships and links established. The proposals do need to be checked out; in fact every proposal that will involve so many staff should be checked out. We do not want to be overly bureaucratic. That problem has arisen with so much of our legislation, such as equality legislation, and we must ensure that it does not become a box-ticking exercise, but genuinely does make a difference. That is particularly the case with regard to local government — the Minister has said that he plans to have local elected representatives on the proposed new bodies.

227. We want to ensure that the proposals actually do make a difference this time, particularly regarding health inequalities. They must tackle the challenging lifestyles and make a difference to the people who most need help, for they are the very same people who suffer from the health inequalities. If we do not make a difference on those issues, we are really not making a difference at all.

228. The Committee must tease out from the Department exactly how the proposals are going to work. We must look at the family tree of each of the proposed organisations to ascertain who is in it, what are they doing, and where they are making links with other organisations. At the end of the day, the whole idea of the review is to make the system better for patients. Early intervention and prevention must be at the heart of that. There is a lot of work to be done, and we in the Committee must work with the Department to tease out the details. Otherwise the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, and it may be too late then. We must ensure that statutory links are established between the relevant organisations. It cannot be the case that there will only be links between the bodies if someone feels like consulting.

229. Dr Wilde: It would be terrible to set up an organisation, such as a public health agency, but give it no power or influence. That would be a waste of money.

230. Mrs Hanna: The patients and people must be kept in mind.

231. Dr Wilde: The community must also be kept in mind. I am glad that you raised the issue of health inequalities, because it is at the core of public health. In comparison with other countries, it is socio-economic inequalities that hold back Northern Ireland. As well as the terrible suffering, the loss of life and the impact on individuals, society and the economy, socio-economic inequalities stop us from having better health and being able to be proud of that

232. Mrs Hanna: That is why it is so important to have the health action zones.

233. Dr Wilde: Yes.

234. Mrs Hanna: We know the importance of early intervention and see it in primary care all the time. For example, if older people require a physiotherapist or an occupational therapist, they need that service immediately, not in six months’ times. Early intervention in such cases can keep people out of acute beds in a hospital, but it does not happen. We must try to change that.

235. Dr Wilde: It is also important that community needs are addressed locally. That way, people can plan and manage their own healthcare organisations and health.

236. Mrs McGill: I thank you for the presentation, you are both welcome.

237. Claire, you mentioned the partnerships and referred to the Western Health Action Zone and Western Investing for Health and the relationship between those bodies and the councils. I declare an interest as a member of Strabane District Council, and it was great that you used my area as an example. I endorse what you said — I am well aware of the good work that is done in that area.

238. Strabane District Council recently received a presentation from a group of dentists who were very keen to be represented on the commissioning groups. In your submission, you state that you want a range of bodies and professions to be represented. I want to put on record that the council received that presentation and that I am passing on what was said, which concurs with the points that you made.

239. You said that the role of councillors and elected members on the commissioning groups has not been established and requires clarification. What should the role of elected members be on those commissioning groups?

240. Dr Wilde: We would very much like to see elected representatives to be on all these groups, which is what the Minister has proposed. However, we do not know how the membership of the groups will be chosen, so we do not really have a view on that. We hope that the Committee will help us decide.

241. Mrs McGill: The commissioning groups will be made up of 16 members — what would be an adequate number of elected members on a commissioning group? I ask that because the number of councillors in council areas varies, and the change in the structure of local government will also have an impact.

242. The Deputy Chairperson: No pressure.

243. Dr Wilde: What do you think?

244. Mrs McGill: I have already declared an interest, so I cannot comment.

245. Dr Wilde: I do not know. Although we support the proposal for elected representatives on commissioning groups, it is important that membership also includes people from the local communities. I recognise the local role of councillors, but we do not want the number of elected representatives to be at the expense of local people. However, that does not answer your question.

246. Mrs McGill: Geographical spread is important in choosing the number of elected members on commissioning groups.

247. Dr Wilde: That is absolutely correct. Geographical spread, how people will be chosen, whether those people will be independent, and how the system will work are all issues that have to be considered. However, that is part of what is needed in public health — more democracy, community participation and political thwack.

248. Mrs McGill: Will an elected member sitting on a commissioning group be independent? I ask that question because that individual has been elected to represent a particular geographic area.

249. Dr Wilde: This is not the only area where these issues are being debated — they apply to all sectors.

250. The Deputy Chairperson: Many of the questions that have been asked will be relevant in the upcoming evidence session with NILGA.

251. Mrs Hanna: It is important that the health systems either side of the border learn from each other. Indeed, the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety has already met its Southern counterpart. Where does the Institute of Public Health in Ireland fit in, particularly regarding the regional public health agency?

252. Dr Wilde: I have not discussed what we do in any detail, and I would love to come back and do that at some stage. There are three areas in which we can help to strengthen public health in Northern Ireland. First, the same public-health issues and challenges are faced throughout the island. I did not elaborate on those because the Committee is already well aware of those. The health systems, North and South, can meet those challenges by sharing resources, where appropriate — for example, media resources, skills and expertise, and so on.

253. Secondly, things are done differently, North and South. There is, therefore, an opportunity to learn from that and to lever. The smoking ban is a good example of that; its introduction in the South helped us in Northern Ireland realise that it could work here too.

254. The third issue is about people crossing the border for treatment. The border should not undermine anyone’s health. If people in the North need to access services that are available in the South, the necessary arrangements should be made to make that possible, and vice versa. That would benefit people here and in the South.

255. The Institute of Public Health in Ireland essentially works in three areas. Research and information is one area. There is a lot that I could say about that, but this is not moment. The second area is capacity building, including training, sharing programmes, and health impact assessment, which Claire Higgins mentioned. The third area of work concerns policy and policy advice. We have a lot to learn from each other, and also from outside Ireland.

256. The proposals provide an opportunity for the Institute of Public Health to help with the new arrangements in Northern Ireland. The institute has strong academic links. We ensure that the research carried out is appropriate and addresses the relevant matters and that the results are well communicated.

257. The Deputy Chairperson: Thank you very much. I appreciate that today’s session has been very much focused on the RPA. Therefore, we will invite you back another day to discuss your specific role in further detail.

258. The relevant legislation will probably be proposed in the next few weeks, so you can come back to us over the summer with any comments that you wish to make on that.

259. Dr Wilde: We will be delighted to follow that up; thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to do so.

19 June 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mrs Michelle O’Neill (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Buchanan
Rev Dr Robert Coulter
Dr Kieran Deeny
Mr Alex Easton
Mrs Carmel Hanna
Mr John McCallister
Mrs Claire McGill

Witnesses:

Mr John Matthews
Ms Heather Moorhead
Ms Suzanne Wylie

Northern Ireland Local Government Association

260. The Deputy Chairperson (Mrs O’Neill): I welcome Heather Moorhead, chief executive of the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA), John Matthews, vice-president of NILGA, and Suzanne Wylie of the chief environmental health officers’ group.

261. Mr John Matthews (Northern Ireland Local Government Association): I thank the Committee for receiving us. This is an example of how the relationship between local and central government is growing.

262. We welcome the Programme for Government and the changes that are happening. NILGA wants to contribute to those changes and play its part in the whole range of services that are being delivered to the community. I am standing in for Arnold Hatch, who, at the last minute, had to go to England on business.

263. We think, and very much hope, that our vision for local government accords with your own in that we want an innovative, modern approach that is supported by the partnerships and relationships in Northern Ireland’s new dispensation between local and central government on modern, citizen-centred public services and greater efficiency and effectiveness. We want to see the breaking down of the silo-type management of services, and very much support the hub-of-the-wheel model in community and health services and other service delivery. We see local government representatives playing a key part in that. NILGA believes that that should be at the core of the changes.

264. We have met Health Minister McGimpsey on this issue, and he assured us that his vision is for greater democratisation of local health bodies in the delivery of services. We believe that he agreed with us that local government representatives should account for at least 50% of the membership of those bodies. In that way, the local community will have ownership of the services, feel more involved, have better feedback, and enjoy an improved sense of well-being.

265. There must be a clear understanding of the roles of board members and of public and council representatives. Members who are working on health bodies must be properly supported and briefed in order that they can give responsible and rational answers to the press and public.

266. Reporting structures are central to communication between central Government, local government and service deliverers. They are at the heart of the image of politicians, both local and in the Assembly. All of us — in this respect, we are all in the same family — receive criticism and a rough press. However, if the issue of reporting structures is properly addressed, that will be to everyone’s benefit — good for services, for citizens, and for those sectors of Government that are delivering the services. In addition, we want wider emerging arrangements across central Government.

267. NILGA is producing a paper for the strategic leadership board, which has been set up by the Minister of the Environment to deal with the implementation of the review of public administration (RPA) and bringing the 26 councils into 11 councils. The paper, which deals with community health issues, is expected to be ready in about eight weeks’ time, and we will forward it to the Committee.

268. Ms Heather Moorhead (Northern Ireland Local Government Association): A lot of people are involved in local authorities, and the RPA has taken about five years, with various ups and downs. One of the prizes of the RPA was coterminosity, in order that services could be streamlined. Many of our colleagues are running three or four partnerships that have different arrangements. A lot of time is required in order to develop those relationships, which distracts from getting a key plan for service delivery.

269. Four councils are somewhat out of step with the health trusts: Limavady, Newry and Mourne, Dungannon, and Castlereagh. If it is in the gift of the Department to examine that situation, we would welcome that. If that is not possible at this stage, there should be some negotiation and discussion with NILGA on how to implement community planning and develop suitable arrangements. Part of progressing community planning is streamlining the approach to create fewer partnerships. We want to work with the Committee to consider how to do that in a way that does not involve lots of staff running around to different kinds of organisations.

270. Ms Suzanne Wylie (Northern Ireland Local Government Association): I emphasise the need to explore the opportunities for working in the new community planning process that will come into operation under the review of local government and the advantages that it will bring by streamlining and integrating services locally. It will also provide greater public engagement and local accountability.

271. Community planning of health improvement and preventive health measures has a fundamental role in addressing health inequalities and focusing on integrating health improvement, protection and promotion. It also has a role in ensuring that the health impacts are taken into consideration in every public policy and by all public services. We welcome the establishment of a regional public health agency with a central role in co-ordinating the integration that, according to the consultation document, will be both regional and local. We welcome the local support for local government that the document suggests.

272. Local government should be regarded as civic leaders and agents of delivery, as that is where the community planning framework creates the hub to ensure integration of services, including those that have an impact on health improvement. However, local government should also be seen as an organisation that, in conjunction with partners, can deliver health improvement. It has responsibilities for environmental health, health improvement through the provision of leisure and open spaces, community development, good relations, economic development, and so forth. After 2011, local government will also have regeneration and planning powers, et cetera.

273. Local arrangements must include good and balanced two-way communication and joint working in community planning. Rather than the one-way consultation process that the consultation document suggests between the community planning organisations and the regional public health agency, we want a two-way communication process; that should be included in the legislation.

274. The local community plan must also be influenced and established in the light of regional policy — none of us would argue against that. The community plan can help to strike a balance between regional policy and local need. We would welcome the exploration of innovative delivery approaches at local level and the concept of local joint public health units or teams that would have joint ownership with the regional public health agency and local government. Those could be physically co-located, with the possibility of joint appointments. I am happy to take questions from the Committee on how that would pan out in the future.

275. I am keen that best practice from other regions be considered — many joint working arrangements exist in England, Scotland and Wales. All have slight variations, and each has disadvantages and advantages. We recommend that those arrangements should be considered and that the best should be adopted.

276. During the past several years, there has also been considerable partnership working on health improvement, which should be built on. There is lots of good practice from which to learn. It should be built on in a way that links with the regional public health agency and the community planning process at a local level. Integrated health and well-being partnerships that are aligned to the community-planning framework should be developed on an appropriate geographical basis. We want to highlight the need to involve local commissioning groups and patient/client councils in that process to develop and deliver community plans.

277. Finally, local government wants to see the development of some community planning pilots from 2009, which is, obviously, when the health structures change. Local government structures will not change until 2011, but we would like some pilots to be introduced during the interim in order to test some of those models and arrangements for integrated working and also to build the capacity of local government during that period. We suggest that the health structures design team should work closely with the local government modernisation task force on order to take some of those arrangements forward.

278. Ms Moorhead: One benefit of local government is that it can think about health in its widest sense. A problem that we have found is that thinking on health ends up with the health profession — it is about sickness. In fact, health is about economic development, social cohesion, fuel poverty, crime, and so on. The language that is used and the way that business is done are important. If health remains simply a matter for the health profession, then it is somebody else’s job. Our belief is that if that were co-located with councils, and informing community plans, those plans would have a “health wedge”. The added value, or “big win”, from that is that the wedge — the thinking on health — would begin to influence all of the other areas, such as economic development, parks and leisure, and all of those kinds of strategies.

279. We welcome the regional public health agency, because it will bring about better intelligence and information. We will be able to see how our policies make people’s health and well-being better or, indeed, worse. Sometimes, work can be done on health strategies when, in fact, the economic development policy has a bigger impact on people’s health than anything else. Hopefully, community plans will have a focused approach on health, with health professionals working with environmental health officers in an influencing role and an added, innovative way of working.

280. Another advantage is that councils are innovative and close to citizens. They find ways to work together to bridge gaps, and find resources to plug those gaps, when other agencies cannot. The genesis of health action zones throughout Northern Ireland was based on where there was co-location and shared thinking between the health sector and local government. Lots of creative things happened. In fact, the health action zones created a culture for that, and innovations began to be piloted throughout the rest of Northern Ireland. We have, therefore, learnt from others and we are pushing at the right doors in order to try and find a more integrated approach.

281. Another advantage of having that within councils is that we would get all the things that we have discussed — economies of scale, back-office services, and so on. They provide the support structures, but we also get the intellectual philosophy right. Therefore, we welcome proposals for a much stronger and closer role for local government. We have begun to experience that relationship. Instead of there being a stand-off, which is usually the case, there is a realisation that everybody is responsible and that we must work together in order to make progress.

282. Mr Matthews: We do not want to usurp in any shape, form or fashion the strategic direction that will be set by the Assembly. It is good to have the opportunity to have dialogue in order to determine how services can be delivered and measured on the ground. One thing that will make a difference to our ability to make improvements and to interface with central Government is the power of well-being in that legislation. There are other features of the legislation, such as the clean neighbourhood agenda, which are more pertinent to what we do. However, it all feeds into the better lifestyle of the citizen. We are grateful for the opportunity to discuss that. Hopefully, we will have more opportunities to interface with the Assembly and to lay out the thinking of local government.

283. The Deputy Chairperson: I agree that more integration, co-operation and focus are needed in order to tackle health inequality, which can be done locally. You talked about the benefits of community planning. However, there is no legislative requirement on councils to consult. The main aim of community planning is to engage with people in communities. The absence of that legislative requirement will cause problems and disparity, depending on where one lives and how focused councils are on encouraging co-operation. Will that be a problem, or will we see improved outcomes?

284. Ms Moorhead: The style of community planning is happening all over Northern Ireland and it is beginning to show benefits, although it is frustrated by the fact that there are so many stakeholders. Some are coming to the table and some are not, and we are trying to move forward. We will see a massive difference when we get the statute and there is a better understanding and a framework. These issues are massively important. We must understand how to target things locally. We want to provide an even level of service for equality purposes, but we must also be clever about how that is done locally. The things that are happening in Strabane are not necessarily the same as those happening in Belfast; that is why we need community planning. We will have 11 new councils and there will not be the same problems throughout each borough: some towns may be quite wealthy and others not, so we will need community plans to tackle those differences. We hope that community planning will provide a level of flexibility.

285. Ms Wylie: The modernisation agenda for local government will address the issue of mechanisms for community engagement. Neighbourhood delivery structures have been put into play by many local authorities in Great Britain, and they join up neighbourhood service delivery with other agencies. That is the direction that we see local government moving in.

286. The Deputy Chairperson: I welcome your suggestion of a pilot scheme. There are some good and bad examples of neighbourhood renewal, which involves several agencies coming together. Some councils have divorced themselves from that altogether. We must learn from good and bad practices and move forward.

287. Mr Matthews: Minister Foster’s statement, when she was Minister of the Environment, was very pertinent in that the changes taking place are not an event but a process. We are all subject to that process, and the target is an improvement of the way in which we live and work together.

288. Dr Deeny: As a GP, I am greatly interested in this subject. The old days of waiting for diseases to occur and treating them are disappearing rapidly. That is good to see. It is about health promotion and disease prevention, and that is where local government comes in. I am delighted to see that happening. Ms Wylie referred to facilities for young and elderly folk to encourage them to exercise, which, in turn, encourages mental well-being.

289. In your submission you referred to local government having a function of scrutinising the delivery of health services, and I could not agree more — that would be wonderful. Coterminosity will come into effect in 2011, and we should be thinking about our local commissioning groups (LCGs) being coterminous with our councils, not our trusts — and I mentioned that to the Minister the last time he came to the Committee. I would like to see six LCGs eventually, one in Belfast and five others, each with two councils. The Minister told the Committee that the plan is for four local councillors, which would be two from each of the new councils. That, to me, would make more sense as there would be an overlap of trusts and it would introduce competition. If doctors felt that their patients were not getting the service from one trust, they could go and commission from another trust.

290. I agree with you in one sense. You said that the Minister gave a commitment that local councillors would make up over half of the LCGs, but that is certainly not what he said to the Committee.

291. Mr Matthews: The Minister did not give a commitment, but there did not seem to be any area of disagreement. That is something that we aspire to.

292. Ms Moorhead: He has given a commitment to more democratisation. This is our view.

293. Dr Deeny: I am currently on the West Local Commissioning Group — although I know that those groups are changing. There are 16 members, and four of those are local councillors and four are GPs. It is quite right that that should be geographically correct in each of the areas.

294. The regional health and social care board in Belfast is to have 400 staff, yet we have only 16 in each of the five local commissioning groups. There is no need for those 400 people in Belfast; I would have no problem with taking away half of those 400 and bringing the local commissioning groups up to 20 or 22 members. Then we could certainly have 50% councillors.

295. We are talking about commissioning going out to the local communities — bottom-up from the patient. You said that the health sector has always been in the hands of the professionals but believe me it has not. I know that you did not mean it like that. Commissioning was in the hands of the health boards, many members of which were managers or administrators and did not have qualifications in health. Many of those board members did not know the local communities, nor did the communities know them; commissioning was done in a top-down way. This whole idea of local commissioning is bottom-up.

296. There are a lot of councillors in my area who are committed to health, but I am told that on some councils there are not as many. There are reasons why many councillors in our area are involved in health, and it is a good thing. There are other people who are involved in their communities — for example, GPs such as me, pharmacists and optometrists. With the current proposal of 16 members, there is a danger of having no dentist, or no lay members, or not enough GPs. All of the people who I work with are committed to their local areas. As with elected councillors, there are people in health and the allied professions, and lay members — optometrists, dentists, people in childcare — who are very committed to their own areas and look at it in that way.

297. Is that the future? Do you think that eventually we should be coterminous with the councils — if we have 11 — rather than the trusts? There are still hundreds of people in the Department of Health, never mind the 400 people working for the regional commissioning board; that is bureaucracy dominating when we do not have enough commissioners in the community. If LCGs had 22 members, then I would accept your view that 10 of those should be councillors — there needs to be enough room for everybody who is interested.

298. Mr Matthews: We have our own house to look at; one of the big items in the review of public administration is the reduction in the number of councillors and the necessary change that will come when a lot of those councillors do not stand at the next elections. Capacity-building was one of the things writ large in that review. It is in all our interests to up the game and raise the standard of people who are aspiring to get involved in local and central government.

299. Capacity-building in local government is one of our big targets, but we have to change that culture. Currently, we have a few oul fellas going to a meeting of an evening to have a wee bit of an argument with their mates across the table — it cannot be that way in the future. I look forward to more professional people sitting on boards, bringing intelligent and rational comment to the various outside bodies. I look forward to the whole change that we are committed to, and to being able to sell that to the public.

300. Ms Moorhead: The rationale among elected members is that the health sector is run too much by professionals. The concern is that one or two elected members cannot make that much of a difference on those boards, as they would be overridden all the time by the professionals. The main point that we are making is that it is important to have public representatives — not just professionals — giving a public view of what people think is important; that is the ethos of what we are trying to say.

301. Ms Wylie: Our view is that commissioning should be as local as possible. We want coterminosity. Something similar to what you have described would be a best fit with local government, and we would support that.

302. Dr Deeny: What do you think of this situation? All of us, even local GPs, are accountable. The patients know who we are, as does the electorate. What you are proposing is a different model. Previously, no one knew who was on the health boards. The boards could commission and make decisions and people did not know who to go to if they had grievances. Now the plan is that everything will be locally controlled, and that is the good thing. However, to me, having 400 people in Belfast overseeing what the rest of Northern Ireland is doing makes a mockery of the whole situation. The Committee needs to know how many staff each of those bodies will have.

303. The Deputy Chairperson: The point about capacity-building for councillors is a key one. I sat on the RPA capacity-building subgroup, and the issue of the needs of councillors has been strongly highlighted by that subgroup.

304. There is also the issue of confidence. The general public need to have the confidence that the councillors representing them on the various bodies are capable, and that they are attending the meetings of those bodies.

305. Ms Moorhead: That is why we make the point about support. We currently have elected members on European monitoring committees, and the papers that they receive can be quite voluminous. If those councillors are carrying out five or six other jobs, that amount of paperwork is not manageable.

306. To assist with that, we received funding to appoint a European officer. That officer analyses the papers, prepares the briefings, sits with the members and agrees the key points that local government wants to make, and reports back. While we want elected members to be on the bodies, we also want appropriate arrangements. It would be inappropriate to ask public representatives to do a professional’s job. However, we do not want to undermine individual members. Often it is not the members’ fault, but the fault of the system. We have found that our members are much more confident and better briefed, and can report back and articulate their views so long as they get appropriate support.

307. Mrs Hanna: It is important that you are here today to express the views of local government. Many of us have a background in local government. Local government must be closer to the ground and the people if health inequalities are to be tackled and if people are to be supported in changing their lifestyles. There should be so much more going on in local government, particularly through the leisure centres and parks that we already have. If more is to be taken on — in a broader health sense — much will depend on how meaningful a role local government has within these bodies.

308. You talked about having sufficient numbers of elected representatives on the different bodies. That, I feel, must be balanced by the inclusion of other people and the community. A lot of it has to do with the role that councillors have. They must have something to contribute, not be sent there as a nodding dog with a large volume of paper that no one has time to get through.

309. The way that committees are set up in local councils can also make a difference. It is not just the chairperson who needs the briefings. We find in our own Committees that everyone needs to be kept informed of what is going on. That may mean cutting a great deal of less relevant matters from committee business, but that creates time for councillors to feel more confident and informed if they are attending meetings elsewhere.

310. We are in the midst of very exciting times, as the Committee has discussed with the Institute of Public Health in Ireland. Particularly in the case of the public health agency, where the more meaningful role is, how much contact have you had with the Department as to how meaningful the role of NILGA will be? Will it be a formal role rather than a consultative or box-ticking position?

311. It is important that NILGA should have a tangible role to play. It would be worth having some sort of pilot to help build capacity and see if it works. This is all about making things better for people, and it is only worth doing it if it will achieve that.

312. There has been disappointment in local councils with the responses given by some of the Departments during the review of public administration. It was not intentional, but meaning can get lost in the way that things are written. It is most important that there be a partnership between local government and everything else that goes on.

313. We have a big piece of work to do to tease out exactly what these bodies are going to do, and to make sure that they work together. The healthcare body must work with the public health agency; otherwise, it will not work at all. These bodies are so huge, as Kieran Deeny said. Decentralisation and moving services to other parts of the country have been mentioned, but we still have huge bodies in Belfast. The Committee must work with the Department to consider what the functions of those two big bodies will be. If this is to work, there must be a formal relationship between those bodies and local government and the communities. That is the bottom line for me, and I suspect that it is the bottom line for everyone. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, but we cannot wait until it is all eaten. We must get it as right as possible before it gets off the ground.

314. Mr Matthews: It is our health and our community, not the bureaucrats’.

315. Mrs Hanna: I do not know how much contact you have had with the Department on what your role will be and how formal that role will be. It must be a meaningful role.

316. Ms Wylie: We have had quite a bit of contact with the Department, both officially and through some of the stakeholder engagement exercises that were carried out around the consultation document, which were all without prejudice. Belfast City Council has had contact with the Minister and the Chief Medical Officer. The chief environmental health officers group and NILGA have also had those contacts. We have worked closely together in local government so that we are giving one message about how the reforms could work and how the relationships should be formalised at a local level.

317. Ms Moorhead: I have been impressed. The Department has been open and engaging in wanting to have genuine talks. In such situations, a stand-off can develop as people seek to keep what they have. The Department has been open to the view that something closer is needed.

318. Mrs McGill: You made the point that Strabane and Belfast have different requirements. Carmel Hanna and Kieran Deeny mentioned inequalities, and that issue must be addressed. Inequalities can only be addressed at a local level — I support that position entirely.

319. I agree with the Deputy Chairperson and Mr Matthews about capacity-building; that is critical at this stage. However, your description of councils is not a reflection of what happens at Strabane District Council.

320. Ms Moorhead: I have one further point. The commissioning groups will be located locally. Local government is exploring options for subregional structures. For example, planning services will be with local government. NILGA’s prerequisite will always be to empower the statutory bodies, which will be the 11 councils. We want the councils to have as much of the services and to be as autonomous and locally accountable as possible. We suspect that, when we examine the services, some areas of work will need to be delivered on a shared basis. There are perhaps three or four areas in Northern Ireland that do not have technical services and planning. We would welcome a discussion on that, because we do not want separate health and planning subregional structures.

321. As you suggested, a shared service might allow the local commissioning groups to serve two councils. In the short term, a relationship with the regional public health agency might work on a two-for-one basis for community planning, and that might also work for planning and other arrangements in a group or other shared service, or in some other way that provides for the council something that could not be done across 11 councils. Our prerequisite will be to have as many services in the 11 councils as possible.

322. The Deputy Chairperson: Thank you.

3 July 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mrs Iris Robinson (Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Buchanan
Mr Alex Easton
Mrs Carmel Hanna
Mr John McCallister
Ms Sue Ramsey

Witnesses:

Mr Paul McBrearty
Dr Brian Fleming
Mr Noel McKenna
Ms Clare Quigley

Mental Health Commission

323. The Chairperson (Mrs I Robinson): I welcome Mr Paul McBrearty, chief executive, Mr Noel McKenna, chairperson, Ms Clare Quigley, social-work member, and Dr Brian Fleming, consultant psychiatrist and medical member, from the Mental Health Commission. I apologise that the Committee had to deal with other business before the evidence session could begin. I invite you to make a brief presentation, after which members will ask questions. When you have finished your presentation, I will allow up to one hour for the question-and-answer session. You are very welcome.

324. Mr Noel McKenna (Mental Health Commission): As chairperson of the Mental Health Commission, I thank the Committee for receiving us. Paul McBrearty will deliver the substantive presentation. I want simply to record our thanks to the Committee before he starts. Clare, Brian and I — and, indeed, Paul — will answer any questions that arise from the presentation.

325. Mr Paul McBrearty (Mental Health Commission): Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I understand that members have possession of our briefing paper. We will deal substantially with most of its points.

326. The Mental Health Commission is an independent, non-departmental public body — probably the smallest in Northern Ireland. Our budget is in the region of £600,000. We are comprised of a chairman and 16 sessional commissioners, who carry out a range of activities. Although those activities have been listed in our briefing paper, it is important that I highlight what they are and what they mean for the commission.

327. Commission members are drawn from a range of professions: psychiatrists, psychologists, nurses, social workers and other individuals — lay members — who bring their expertise to our work. We create teams that are required to visit any individual who is detained in hospital under the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986. We also visit any individual who has a mental-health problem and is being treated under the legislation. That leads us to people who have difficulties that are associated with learning disability. Multi-disciplinary teams visit individuals in hospital and community facilities to check on the services that are being provided and, specifically, to meet and talk to those people and their relatives about their experiences while they are receiving treatment from health and personal social services.

328. That is a very important starting point because that means that we focus on the individual. We do not focus on the generalities of the service, but how the service has been delivered to specific individuals, how they are dealing with it and the sorts of issues that emerge. Within the statutory requirements, we can bring to the Department, the health trusts and any other body — this Committee included — any important issues that have arisen from the findings of our visits and discussions with those individuals. For example, we have expressed concern to the Minister in the past about under-18s being admitted to adult wards in mental-health facilities, and we are tracking progress on that regularly. We also have issues about the unavailability of acute psychiatric admission beds. Again, the commission has raised that issue in the past.

329. If we feel that it is necessary, we can refer a particular case to the Mental Health Review Tribunal so that it can review it with regard to, for example, issues of detention or guardianship. Very specifically, the commission has the power to gain access to any facilities, and, if required, it can medically examine an individual in private, whether it be in a hospital or a community facility. We have access to their medical notes to assure ourselves that the treatment that they are receiving is appropriate to their illness and that it is required. Last week, two of our commissioners travelled to Enniskillen to visit a learning-disabled individual in his own home to check that the guardianship was appropriate to his circumstances, as an issue had been raised with the commission about whether it was appropriate. We had to assure ourselves that that arrangement was appropriate for this individual. Again, I must emphasis that we focus on the individual, not on general services, although those general services are important to us.

330. The commission will appoint doctors who, at the end of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 assessment process, can detain an individual — that is the “part II” appointment, as we call it. We also appoint doctors under part IV of the Order, which enables a doctor to get a second opinion if a patient has to undergo, for example, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT).

331. We review all legal documentation in relation to any formal detention, which is a very important function. The removal of anyone’s liberty is an extremely serious issue. The commission has to ensure that trusts that apply the legislation do so correctly. Not only do we check that the legislation is being applied appropriately, but we consider whether the clinical reasons for the detention are appropriate. That is an important function of the commission.

332. If an individual has been detained for more than three months, we are required to see the drug-treatment plan for that individual, and I know that the Committee is interested in drug-treatment regimes. Our medical panel, which is made up of the medical members of the commission, will review each and every drug-treatment plan for that individual and assure itself that the treatment plan is appropriate to the patient’s needs. We will obviously appoint individuals to give second opinions.

333. On 23 June, the Minister announced that, as part of the Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill, he intended to transfer the Mental Health Order functions from the commission to the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA). The commission welcomed the opportunity to make its views on that proposal known in the consultation process. In essence, the commission believes that it should be retained and its members made a submission to the Minister to indicate why it believes that that should happen. The commission felt that the fact that it is an independent body is important — that is especially important for those who access mental-health and learning-disability services. As we are a stand-alone body that is separate from the health and social services bodies, we are able to question the care and treatment that is being provided. We have indicated that we believe that that facility will be lost with the transfer of functions to RQIA because those functions will be only a small part of that overall body’s work. We are concerned about that, and I will address that issue in more detail shortly.

334. People with learning disabilities and mental-health needs are vulnerable and require an element of independence. As I said, we focus on the individual. The body that will take responsibility for that field is, in the main, focused on measurable standards, such as the regulation of various organisations and quality improvement. Although that is an important issue, the focus is different from that of the commission — we focus on the individual, rather than the wider body.

335. As I said, the commission is made up of professionals and lay members, which has been very important. The lay members challenge the professionals, and many have experience as either a service user or a carer for someone with mental-health requirements or a learning disability. That challenge is an important element of the discussion in the commission and is important to the way in which we carry out our visits. We are concerned that that level of service and client-user involvement would be lost if the commissions functions were transferred.

336. In recognition of the Minister’s indication that there will be a transfer of functions, the commission considered how to respond. We said that if our functions transfer to the RQIA, we would prefer a stand-alone unit in the RQIA to maintain the pseudo independence of the commission and to ensure that the mental-health and learning-disability element of the Mental Health Order is visible to anyone who wants to access our services. Part of our argument against the transfer is that the title “RQIA” does not reflect any aspect of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986. In contrast, the title “Mental Health Commission” conveys a clear message — if someone is unsure about who to contact for help, he or she will find the Mental Health Commission in the phone book or on the Internet and, if we cannot help that person, we will send him or her to the correct organisation. That is an important element that should not be lost if there is a transfer of functions. We are not sure whether a stand-alone unit can be established under the RQIA’s constitution, but we want it to be considered.

337. The functions of the commission include visiting patients and scrutinising legal documentation. Another important element of our work is the examination of serious incidents by the commission’s multi-disciplinary teams — those teams that are notified of any serious incidents that happen to people involved with mental-health services. Such incidents include suicide, other serious self-harm and violent incidents in hospitals or in the community, such as abuse from staff — which, sadly, sometimes happens — or abuse from another patient. The commission is notified of all serious incidents and intensely scrutinises the issues that arise from them. We talk to the trusts about their responses after their investigations and refer any issues that arise to our visiting panel so that, when they visit the facilities in question, they can ask what has been done to address the problems. We document the issues that are raised and how they are addressed.

338. Lay involvement is not as significant in RQIA’s format as it should be. Also, some of the professional representation for the Mental Health Order is not what it should be. Those are issues of concern, and we raise them as such with the Committee.

339. The commission made several recommendations to the Minister in the event of the functions being transferred, which is why we have come to give evidence to the Committee. Certain actions will reassure the commission about the future delivery of the Mental Health Order functions and that the interests of the vulnerable groups that I have mentioned — those who have a mental illness or a learning disability — will be protected.

340. Therefore, we made a number of suggestions. Firstly, the commission has a small budget, which it believes should be given to RQIA in its entirety. Given that that funding is a small proportion of the overall budget of RQIA, the commission feels that it should be protected for a period of years, enabling the functions to become embedded in the organisation. If efficiencies are produced as a result of economies of scale, the commission wants those additional moneys reinvested in the operations of the Order. That would allow the development of, for example, links with user-care organisations, enabling RQIA to become more familiar with the general public. The commission wants the Committee to be particularly aware of that issue.

341. The commission has suggested that the RQIA organisation should have full-time staff. That departs from the commission’s current practice of part-time sessional commissioners, but there was always an aspiration to bring in full-time professionals at some point. The commission believes that that approach is essential in delivering the function and in ensuring that it is delivered in a proper manner.

342. I have already referenced the name and logo of the RQIA. However, the commission would again ask that consideration is given to the inclusion of a reference to the Mental Health Order somewhere within that name or logo. It is not about the commission, but the Order, and it is important that it is reflected in some way so that users of the service and carers can find their way to that particular service.

343. The commission also suggests that the board of the RQIA should reflect the functions that it delivers, particularly in relation to the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986. The commission may be being a little cheeky in that respect, but we have raised and discussed that with RQIA, and I know that it is giving it due consideration. It is fundamental that whoever is involved in the strategic direction-setting of the organisation running the Mental Health Order, has knowledge of the Order, mental-health and disability services. Furthermore, the commission feels that there should be someone with that knowledge at a very senior level in the new organisation. The commission has suggested appointing a new deputy or vice-chairperson, but that would be very aspirational in relation to what it wants to see.

344. As referenced at point 4?7, the commission is working with RQIA on a model of delivery. If a clearly identifiable and visual stand-alone unit cannot be created, the commission will work closely with RQIA between now and March 2009 to develop that model. That will satisfy the commission that delivery through RQIA will be appropriate to our beliefs and ethos, with respect to focusing on the individual. It is fundamental that a clear model of delivery is determined prior to the transfer.

345. It is also important that service users and the client groups are made fully aware of RQIA. The commission feels that that is important and that it should be actioned through the external-relations function. Preferably, there should be user or carer representation at a significant level within the RQIA organisation to represent mental-health and any disability functions.

346. The Chairperson: Thank you, Paul, for that interesting presentation. I would also like to congratulate you all for the sterling work that you have done up to now. I hope that the Minister will listen to those calls for the commission to have representation on RQIA, so that that sterling work does not get lost in the ether.

347. Mr Easton: I am a great believer that if something is working, it should remain the way that it is. In my opinion, the commission does not need fixed or changed.

348. Has the commission had direct meetings with the Minister about RQIA and is the Minister sympathetic to the commission? Furthermore, what can the Committee do to influence the Minister in the right direction?

349. Finally, how many people in Northern Ireland are held under the Mental Health Order?

350. Mr McKenna: I will answer some of those questions, and, perhaps, Paul will provide the statistical information. The commission did not have a personal, direct engagement with the Minister, but during a consultation meeting in a local hotel, I, along with Paul and some other colleagues, did have an opportunity to make a verbal representation to him, which we followed up with a substantive letter. He was well-disposed to listening to what we had to say. He told us that the purpose of transferring the functions of the commission to RQIA was to strengthen the work that will be done on mental-health and learning-disability services. If that materialises, I would be truly delighted.

351. I accept that there were deficiencies in the commission. Given its size, being a small organisation, the commission is vulnerable when it loses one or two key members of staff. There are certain benefits in economies of scale and a larger resource. If money was not a major factor, I could prescribe exactly what is needed for an independent commission. However, we live in the real world and acknowledge that money is a factor. We in the commission would be very concerned if the budget allocation for mental-health and learning-disability services was cut, and there were moves to economise, because those affected by such issues are a vulnerable section of the community.

352. I have a son with Asperger’s syndrome, and, when I meet psychiatrists and mental-health professionals, they tell me that they do not have the resources to do much for him. I will stay at the Committee meeting after this session to hear Lord Maginnis’s presentation on autism.

353. The commission would love to continue to carry out its functions, but we are not reactionary; if the democratic decision is to transfer those functions to RQIA, we are merely keen to ensure that the baby is not thrown out with the bath water. The challenge is there for RQIA, and we will do our level best to ensure that, when the functions of the commission are transferred, RQIA will deliver those functions in a competent and, indeed, an enhanced manner. We are confident that that will be the case

354. Had the commission remained in being, there were plans to appoint two or three full-time commissioners; to create a more expansive role for users and carers; to establish strong external communication links; and to provide some mental-health education. Hopefully, those things can still be done when RQIA assumes control of the functions. I was reassured when you told me on Monday, Madam Chairperson, that, as a watchdog body, the Committee will be monitoring very closely what happens when the functions transfer.

355. We accept that the decision has been made, but welcome the fact that the Committee will be monitoring the transfer of functions very closely. If the Committee can use its good offices to influence the Minister and the Department, perhaps some of the recommendations that have been suggested — which I think are valid recommendations — can be implemented under the governance of RQIA. The transfer of functions is going to happen, whether I like it or not — we are democrats, and accept the decision of the Government. All we are keen to do — and this is our bottom line — is to ensure that a good service is provided to our stakeholders; primarily, users and carers.

356. The Chairperson: Thank you. Will you provide statistics on the number of people who have been sectioned under the Mental Health Order?

357. Dr Brian Fleming (Mental Health Commission): On average, around 1,500 people per annum are compulsorily admitted to hospital by their general practitioners, and usually an approved social worker or member of the family. That period of admission is for, in the first instance, a week, then two weeks, and, thereafter, they may be detained for treatment for up to six months. Of the 1,500 people admitted per year, just over half of those remain detained for treatment. In others words, half are regraded as voluntary admissions or they are discharged from hospital before they require that detention.

358. Ms Clare Quigley (Mental Health Commission): To clarify, the role of the Mental Health Commission is also to monitor the care and treatment of the great number of voluntary patients in hospitals, in the community and with learning disabilities. Primarily, the voluntary patients with whom we deal have mental-health problems, but others may have learning disabilities.

359. Mr McKenna: Clare made an important point to which I want to add. As more and more vulnerable people with learning disabilities or mental-health problems are being decanted out of hospitals and into the community, they will need a watchdog body to represent and speak up for them. At least when those patients were in hospital they were sure of a visit from the commission, when it was in existence. My son lives in the community, so I am involved in the care movement. Community groups, with which I am in contact, are crying out for a watchdog body to represent them.

360. I want the programme for mental-health and learning-disability services to offer more user and care representation, which can deliver improvements to the service

361. The Chairperson: Thank you for your input.

362. Ms Hanna: Thank you, Chairperson. Good afternoon. Thank you for your presentation; it was very good. I do not have a specific question, but I understand where you are coming from.

363. I share your concerns about the role of an independent watchdog following the transfer. It is important that an additional mental-health role is clearly defined; at times, it is inclined to be an add-on. The presence of user groups is essential. As the Chairperson said, we will continue to monitor what happens following the transfer, because it is vital that there continues to be a specific role for the inclusion of your recommendations.

364. Mr McKenna: Thank you.

365. Ms Quigley: In future, there may be an opportunity for that when the new mental-health legislation is considered. It may be that, in the course of your monitoring, you are not satisfied with the level of specific individual attention that can be paid to mental-health issues within the transferred functions. You may want to look for a body under the proposed future legislation. That is worth keeping in mind, because we, as a commission, will not be around to make that plea.

366. Mr McCallister: We are keen that the good work undertaken by the commission is not lost or swallowed up in RQIA and forgotten about. Will you develop your point about the external-relations function; do you see some of that feeding into this Committee? How is that function being progressed? Is it effective? Where must we direct our focus to ensure that that continues to work?

367. Everyone in the room agrees that we must do more for the groups that you identified and with which you have been working. They are some of the most vulnerable people in society, so we want to be rock solid that we do everything that we can. Will the external-relations function help to build on that by not only promoting your work in the community, but by assisting all elected office bearers to communicate any problems arising from your duties back to the Committee and Assembly?

368. Mr McBrearty: It is fair to say that the commission expects a much broader discussion to take place with a wide range of groups about the operation of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.

369. The commission has a limited life-span. We have only nine months left in which to work closely with RQIA on those issues. I hope that two developments take place before 1 April 2009.

370. First, the Committee will be keeping a close watching brief on the application of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986. However, RQIA, with its own statutory responsibilities, will be in a position to address the Committee or make reports to it, through whatever mechanisms are in place.

371. Secondly, we want RQIA to become actively involved with voluntary organisations and other user and care organisations. Without fear of contradiction, I can state that we have a good relationship with RQIA. We work very closely with it in order to develop everything that we have flagged up.

372. We cannot make RQIA do what we want, but we can try to influence its approach — in the same manner that, through talking with members, we hope that the Committee will seek to exert its influence to secure reassurance on issues that it regards as important.

373. RQIA seeks to develop external communications and to actively involve users and carers as part of a total remit, not just in regard to areas such as mental health and learning disability. RQIA must address the Committee about its plans on those issues. However, I would be remiss if failed to state that we are working closely with RQIA in order to share what we do and how we do it.

374. RQIA may have a better way of doing things — we will be happy if that is the case — but we have told it to heed our concerns. We would like to walk away on 31 March 2009, content that we had shared all our functional knowledge, and that RQIA had satisfactory plans in place for delivering services. However, we will not know whether that is the case, because we will no longer exist. RQIA’s preparedness might not be formally assessed until a year later.

375. Mr McAllister: In light of the relationship that has grown up, are you hoping for as seamless a transfer of functions as possible from RQIA?

376. Mr McKenna: Absolutely, we are anxious to ensure that a good, smooth transfer takes place. That is our responsibility and that is what we are charged to do. We have a good working relationship. We do not agree on everything, but dialogue is about negotiating.

377. We are here to make representations to the Committee, Madam Chairperson, because we will be gone in fewer than nine months, whereas the Committee will still have influence and be able to continue to monitor developments.

378. On Monday, I was reassured by your undertaking, in a personal capacity, to meet with us again formally or — time permitting — informally, if we have concerns that things are not progressing as well as we would like them to. I am confident that progress will be made.

379. Madam Chairperson, the Committee’s support, if it were possible, would be a confidence boost that we could convey to the Department, with which we share a steering group. We are also represented on a project group with RQIA. Committee support will add weight to our recommendations and ensure that both groups pay serious attention to your views.

380. Finally — and our psychiatrist, Brian, is very keen on this issue: we must have a separate annual report on mental health and learning disabilities.

381. RQIA must have some form of mechanism to convey to the population of Northern Ireland exactly what is happening in the fields of mental health and learning disability. The incidence of mental-health illness is increasing, instead of decreasing. We must take every step that is possible to reassure our population that the Government are doing everything that they can through both good health education and services. The Bamford Review has been endorsed, and the Government’s response to it, which looks positive, is available.

382. I am grateful that the Committee has listened to us today. With its support, the minds of senior civil servants and the RQIA will be more concentrated, and they may take the view that the recommendations have a lot of validity. Although they may not necessarily agree with everything that has been said, they will try to thrash out the recommendations and see whether some consensus can be reached.

383. Mr Buchanan: I commend the work that the commission has carried out already. I share its concerns about the transfer and hope that, during the transfer, none of that good work will be lost. We must keep a close eye on matters and scrutinise events. We do not want mental-health services to take a step backwards; we want to keep it moving forward.

384. I am disappointed that the Minister refused to meet with the commission during the consultation period. He should have met with it and listened to the concerns that you are now expressing to the Committee. The Minister will want to streamline services to provide a more efficient, effective service. I note that in your presentation, you said that the commission is already providing such a service.

385. What financial savings does the commission envisage the transfer will make, while maintaining the current level of service and building on it? We cannot stand still; we must build on the services that are provided already. If the services are being streamlined to make them more efficient financially, what will the savings be?

386. Mr McBrearty: The question of how the RQIA was dealing with the situation was put to it in discussion with the commission a year ago. At that time, the RQIA — perhaps not having an understanding of the full remit of the functions being transferred to it — indicated that there could be savings of about £250,000 to £300,000 from the commission’s existing budget. That is a considerable sum. However, that took into account the fact that the commission has a secretariat, a building and offices that represent expenditure that would be subsumed in a much larger organisation. At that time, and as the RQIA was considering addressing the transfer of functions, that was probably a reasonable place to be initially. However, following from our more detailed discussions about what will be required, the RQIA has shifted considerably from that position. Although I am not in a position to give an exact figure, I think that the potential cash saving that would come about from a transfer of functions would be less than £100,000.

387. The Chairperson: I reassure the commission that, following today’s meeting, the Committee will be making general comments to the Minister. I also reassure you that we will be scrutinising any legislation on the matter at Committee Stage, and we will ensure that the points on which you have major concerns are addressed in that legislation. However, if, before decisions are made, there is disparity between that and what the Committee sees as the continuation of effective good mental-health services, it will be mindful to ask the commission to come back and highlight those issues.

388. We thank you for coming before the Committee and making your presentation. I endorse what you said. It is important that we hear the voice of the user and the carer in any set-up; they represent the coalface. It is also important that that mechanism for representation is afforded to the carer or the user. It has been an interesting session; thank you very much.

389. Mr McKenna: On behalf of my accompanying colleagues from the Mental Health Commission — and, indeed, all commission staff and members — I thank the Chairperson and Committee members for receiving us today.

390. The Chairperson: Thank you.

11 September 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mrs Iris Robinson (Chairperson)
Mrs Michelle O’Neill (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Buchanan
Mr Alex Easton
Mrs Carmel Hanna
Mr John McCallister
Mrs Claire McGill
Ms Sue Ramsey

Witnesses:

Mr Craig Allen
Mr Ivan McMaster
Mr Bernard Mitchell

Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety

391. The Chairperson (Mrs I Robinson): The Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill is an important piece of legislation that will greatly affect health provision across the board. Today marks the beginning of the Bill’s Committee Stage, and departmental officials are here to brief the Committee on its provisions. Over the next few weeks, we will hear evidence from interested groups before embarking on a clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill.

392. We are subject to a very tight timescale, and we must complete our report by 23 October 2008. I refer members to the separate red folder, which contains a copy of the Bill, a briefing paper from Assembly Research and Library Services and a copy of written submissions to the Committee’s consultation on the Bill, which took place over the summer. In total, 29 responses to the consultation were received. I remind members to bring their red folder to each meeting during Committee Stage.

393. I welcome Mr Bernard Mitchell, Mr Ivan McMaster and Mr Craig Allen from the modernisation directorate in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS). I invite the witnesses to outline to the Committee the background to the Bill and its general provisions. Members will then be able to ask questions. I will allow up to one hour for the evidence session.

394. Mr Bernard Mitchell (Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety): On behalf of my colleagues, I am grateful for the opportunity to begin this process of engagement with the Committee in considering the Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill. I will start by thanking the Committee for its input to date to the legislation. I acknowledge the helpful comments that were made during the Bill’s Second Stage in the Assembly on 1 July 2008.

395. The Chairperson has highlighted the tight timescale, for which I am also grateful. We are working hard to try to deliver the proposed changes by the due date of 1 April 2009. It is important to do so from the point of view of all those staff who need certainty about their futures and about the way forward. We have a busy few months ahead of us in going through the detail of the Bill’s proposals. Several proposals are still under consideration and subject to final decision. I will cover those areas if Committee members have questions about them. We will, of course, be available to answer any questions during the Committee’s consideration of the Bill, and we will call on other officials if additional expertise is required.

396. We intend to give a short explanation of the Bill’s main provisions, based on the broad thrust of its proposals. We will then take questions. I will now hand over to my colleague Mr McMaster.

397. Mr Ivan McMaster (Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety): I will quickly run through the broad provisions of the Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill, and how those provisions are set out. First, it is important to say something about the Bill’s general content, and, perhaps more importantly, what it does not contain. The Bill’s purpose is to provide a legislative framework within which the proposed new healthcare structures can operate. The Bill’s aim is to set out, as transparently as possible, the high-level functions of DHSSPS and the various health and social care bodies that will be created under the legislation.

398. The Bill seeks, either in the body of the document itself or by securing the powers to make subordinate legislation, to establish parameters within which each of those health and social care bodies will be permitted to operate; what is expected of them; and the necessary governance and accountability arrangements that would support the effective delivery of health and social care in Northern Ireland.

399. It is probably just as important to note that certain measures are not included in the Bill. It does not rewrite Northern Ireland’s entire body of health legislation. Functions that existing health bodies carry out will still need to be performed. The Bill will legislate that functions once performed by A will instead be performed by B.

400. Pieces of legislation that bestow a vast number of functions, such as the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 or the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, are extant, and the Bill will not seek to replace them. Rather, the Bill puts in place a framework of new structures. It will amend existing legislation only where it is absolutely necessary. For instance, pieces of legislation that were used to establish bodies that the Bill now seeks to dissolve must be repealed. In general, however, the Bill is to be read with, rather than instead of, other legislation.

401. The Bill does not address a number of issues. No mention is made of organisations such as the Northern Ireland Medical and Dental Training Agency (NIMDTA) or the Northern Ireland Practice and Education Council for Nursing and Midwifery (NIPEC). Bodies not mentioned in the Bill will continue to exist in their present form.

402. The Bill has 35 clauses, which come under 10 broad headings. I will cover those as quickly as possible. The fairly explanatory heading, “Restructuring of administration of health and social care” covers clause 1, which defines health and social care bodies. It is at the beginning of the Bill, along with explanations of abbreviations and acronyms that appear throughout, to facilitate the reader.

403. Clauses 2 to 6 deal with the “Department’s role in promoting and providing health and social care”. The clauses explain the Department’s general duties, powers and priorities. It is important to bear in mind that the Department will maintain all its existing duties. Those provisions broadly replicate the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 by establishing the Department’s overall duty for health and social care in Northern Ireland.

404. However, the clauses, by providing an explanation of the Department’s duties, go one stage further than the 1972 Order did. The 1972 Order outlines the Department’s overarching duties to improve the health and social well-being of the people in Northern Ireland, whereas the Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill explains, in more depth, related issues, such as introducing policies and holding people to account. Clauses 2 to 6 set out clearly what the Department should and should not do, thereby allowing people to hold the Department to account if a duty is not performed properly.

405. Clause 5 introduces the new concept of the framework document. It sets out how the new bodies will be accountable in the discharge of their functions; how they must conduct their relationships with the Department; and, as equally important, how they will conduct their relationships with the other organisations to create an effective joined-up approach.

406. The introduction of the framework document is recognition that total clarity is needed about the roles and functions — local and regional — across all health and social care organisations, and of the Department.

407. The next broad heading, which covers five clauses from 7 to 11, deals with the establishment of the regional health and social care board, including its functions and objectives, and makes provision for the establishment of local commissioning groups (LCGs).

408. The existing four boards will be replaced by a single regional health and social care board. The regional board will focus on the main areas of commissioning health and social care; managing and improving the performance of health and social care trusts; and resource management. The legislation will give the regional board the power to offer guidance and direction to health and social care trusts, as well as to place a responsibility on them to abide by the regulations and to provide information as the board requires.

409. The reform will seek to ensure co-ordinated commissioning at all levels. The clauses will require the regional board to draw up a regional commissioning plan, and to consult with and to have due regard to advice or information that the proposed new regional agency for public health and social well-being (RAPHSW) provides.

410. Clause 9 deals with the establishment of local commissioning groups. The legislation allows the regional board to establish whatever committees it likes, but it specifically states that it must establish particular committees called local commissioning groups. Those groups will involve local health and social care professionals, local government and lay representatives. They will bring together their innovation and expertise and deal with local communities’ needs in the planning of services.

411. The number of local commissioning groups and the areas that they will cover will be specified in subordinate legislation. The current thinking is that there will be five groups, which will be coterminous with the five trusts. Those details will be covered by subordinate legislation because the issue may be re-examined when the local government boundaries are finalised. Therefore, it is slightly easier to deal with the matter through subordinate legislation than through primary legislation.

412. The membership of the LCGs will also be prescribed by subordinate legislation, which allows for more flexibility should any changes need to be made. The current thinking is that each group will comprise four GPs, a pharmacist, a dentist, four elected local representatives, two social-care professionals, one nurse, one public-health-medicine professional, one allied health professional and two health-and-social-care-related voluntary-sector representatives. If my maths is right, that is a total of 17.

413. The Bill requires the commissioning groups, in exercising their functions, to consult the proposed regional agency and to have due regard to any information that the agency provides. Again, that is an attempt to encourage joined-up thinking.

414. The next heading deals with clauses 12 and 13, which simply establish the regional agency for public health and social well-being. The creation of the agency stems from a desire to bring a higher profile to public health and social well-being and, equally importantly, to reduce health inequalities. The thinking is that a dedicated body is the best way in which to create a sustained and enhanced focus on the matter and to drive the public-health agenda forward in a manner that is not possible under current arrangements.

415. The new agency will have three key functions: health improvement; health protection; and the provision of public-health support to commissioning and policy development. It also has a particular responsibility for promoting improved partnership-working with local government and other public-sector organisations. Indeed, the clauses will place an obligation on the new agency to co-operate with other bodies that carry out health-protection or health-improvement functions. Again, we are aiming at some kind of joined-up work.

416. Clauses 14 and 15 will create a regional support services organisation (RSSO). Believe me, over the next few weeks, members will become familiar with those terms and initialisms. If members are struggling with them, do not worry. We are still struggling with them as well, so bear with me. The organisation will incorporate the majority of services that the Central Services Agency currently provides, but it will offer a broader range of support functions for the entire health and social care service.

417. Those clauses will impose a specific duty on the organisation to ensure an economic, efficient, effective service to all users. It will be required to operate within clearly defined standards, with measurable performance indicators. Clause 15 places a duty on the RSSO to put in place arrangements to that end, and the Department must approve those arrangements beforehand.

418. Clauses 16 to 20 deal with a broad range of “Patient representation and public involvement”. The five clauses deal primarily with the establishment of the patient and client council. They also deal with enhancing patient choice; meeting the needs and expectations of patients, clients and carers; and ensuring that their views are heard and listened to at all stages in the planning and delivery of services. The patient and client council will replace the four existing health and social services councils. It will build on the excellent work that those councils have carried out in the past, and it will combine the strong local focus that the councils provided with a powerful regional voice — a voice that has been missing in the current set-up.

419. Although the patient and client council will have a clear regional focus, subordinate legislation will provide that it must have five committees at local level, and those committees will be coterminous with the five integrated trusts. Those satellite offices will provide the important local presence that the health and social services councils do currently, but they will feed local issues and perspectives into the formulation of wider regional aims through the patient and client council.

420. Clause 18 places a duty on the Department, the regional board, the regional agency, the trusts and special agencies to co-operate with the patient and client council in the discharge of its functions. That is a statutory duty. There is also a duty to consult with the patient and client council, to give such information to it as it requires and to have regard to advice that it provides. That gives the patient and client council a statutory footing that it may not have had before the legislation was drafted.

421. Clause 19 also requires those bodies to prepare a consultation scheme, which the Department must approve. In the past, such a requirement has been known as a statutory duty to engage. The consultation scheme places a duty on all health and social care bodies to show that they will make arrangements with patients, clients, the patient and client council, and carers to ensure that they are involved in, and consulted on, the planning and provision of care, the development of proposals for change and decisions that affect the provision of all aspects of health and social care.

422. Clause 20 states that the bodies are required to have regard to the comments given — they cannot ignore them. The bodies will have to prepare a written statement that summarises the comments, and set out a response to those comments.

423. The next heading, “HSC trusts”, comprises clause 21, which deals with health and social care trusts. It places a duty on trusts to aim to improve health and social care, despite any competing priorities that they may have. The duty imposed in the clause already applies to the other organisations that we are creating in the Bill. However, for consistency, it was considered important that the provision be applied to trusts also, even though the legislation does not deal with trusts.

424. The next heading, “Public-private partnerships”, comprises clause 22 and deals with public-private partnerships (PPPs). Current provisions in legislation permit PPPs. The inclusion of that provision in the new structural arrangement clarifies that the Department, the regional board, the trusts, the regional agency, the regional support services organisation and special agencies are permitted to form, or participate in forming, partnerships to provide facilities or services. The inclusion of the clause is not about encouraging the use of PPPs, but it is acknowledged that private finance initiatives (PFIs) are only one of a range of procurement models and should only be used where it can be demonstrated that it represents better value for money as a conventional option over the lifetime of the contract. The clause permits, rather than encourages, their use.

425. The next heading, which deals with the “Transfer of assets, liabilities and functions”, covers clauses 23 to 28. The Bill becomes technical at this point. Clauses 24 to 26 deal with the dissolution of the health and social services boards, the Mental Health Commission and the Central Services Agency, plus the subsequent transfer of their assets, liabilities and functions. It does not seek to replace existing health legislation but merely states that functions that were previously performed in one place will now be carried out elsewhere. That is what the Bill does — it states that the responsibility for functions that were carried out previously by body A will be done by body B. Therefore, it does not interfere, detract from or add to those functions.

426. Clause 23 requires the Department to produce schemes for the transfer of assets and the liabilities of dissolved bodies, including staff who can be listed by name or by the type of work that they do. The staff have to get from body A to body B, and the technical provisions contained in clause 23 allow that to be done.

427. Clauses 29 to 35 become even more technical. They deal with the Department’s power to make supplementary, and other, provisions by amending or repealing legislation where necessary, and several are necessary. Although I said that we were leaving all legislation as it was — for the most part — some elements need to be amended or repealed, and those clauses deal with that.

428. There are seven schedules to the Bill, the final two of which set out in detail repeals and minor and consequential amendments. The first four schedules deal with the establishment of new bodies: the regional board; the regional agency; the regional support services organisation; and the patient and client council. Schedules 1 to 4 deal with details about the constitution and operation of those bodies; their committees and who shall serve on them; how their boards will be constituted; and how they will be established.

429. That is a very quick run-through of the Bill. I will leave copies of our submission with the Committee Clerk, as our submission may assist the Committee at a later stage in its scrutiny.

430. The Chairperson: May I ask a simple question? The consultation period ended on 12 May, and you received around 120 responses. Can you indicate what the general thrust of those responses is, percentage-wise?

431. Mr Mitchell: I may not be able to give a percentage breakdown, Chairperson; however, I can say, and the Minister will have said this in his announcement, that broad support was received for the thrust of the proposals. Having read through each and every page of all the received proposals, I can say that the quality of response was high and that the responses included some really good material. If you are interested, I will be happy to talk in detail at some point about changes to the proposals that have arisen as a direct result of the consultation responses.

432. A number of broad themes emerged from those responses; there was a great deal of support for the regional agency’s proposed role and for the renewed focus on public health and social well-being. There was a concern that the Bill be comprehensive and that it not be driven by a solely health-orientated agenda but that it take into account social well-being. That explains the name of the new agency in the Bill:

“The Regional Agency for Public Health and Social Well-being”.

433. It was chosen to try to get across the message that the agency will adopt a comprehensive approach to the public health and social well-being of the entire population.

434. There was much support for the new agency’s role, and for the establishment of a regional board to replace the four existing boards. The responses included a great deal of advice on how we might ensure a good relationship between the regional agency and the regional board; it was felt important that those two bodies operate seamlessly to a common agenda. It was suggested that the Department put arrangements in place to ensure that that is the case.

435. We received a limited amount of comment on the regional support services organisation. Responses that we did receive were broadly supportive, with the major theme being a concern that the RSSO be genuinely accountable to its customers to whom it will provide a service, especially those smaller agencies that will rely on it for support. It was felt important that those concerns and wishes be given due regard.

436. There was overwhelming support for our proposed patient and client council model, which is to have a regional council and five local committees. The notion of creating a strong regional voice with a good local presence that reflected local concerns and struck the correct regional/ local balance was also welcomed. That is an overview of the consultation responses, Chairperson.

437. The Chairperson: Thank you very much indeed, Bernard. I now ask Committee members to put any questions that they may have to our panel.

438. Mr Easton: In your consultation, did any groups highlight major concerns? Is there anything to be worried about?

439. Mr Mitchell: It was a good consultation so, as you would expect, two or three concerns were raised. As I have already said, the relationship between the regional board and the regional agency was raised. That is what I mean by a “good consultation”; many comments were insightful and came from people who had a good understanding of the importance of roles and relationships in an organisation. Therefore, the Department is paying a great deal of attention to that issue, and it is a key piece of work with which the Department is dealing and will continue to do so over the coming weeks.

440. Representatives from the voluntary and community sector expressed concern that that sector should play a proper role and be seen to have its place in the new system. The Department has sought to respond to that point in several ways. For example, the increased membership of the local commissioning groups — which now have two representatives from the voluntary and community sector — was a change to the original proposals that came about as a direct result of comments from the consultation. Another decision that was made as a result of the consultation was that the Department will seek to have an individual director with an allocated responsibility for the voluntary and community sector at executive level in the regional agency and the regional board so that there could be direct input into the work of both bodies.

441. A concern was raised that there should be more than one social care representative on the LCGs, so the Department has proposed that there should be two. That ties in with a related issue because notionally, at this stage, the Department has adult and children’s services in mind. Concern was also expressed that the broader agenda for revisiting arrangements for children’s services planning, and its multi-sectoral nature, should not be lost because of the new arrangements. The Department had several meetings with constituencies representing that side of the house and has agreed arrangements with them on how that part of the agenda will be developed.

442. I do not believe that any of those concerns would fall under the category of serious, below-the-waterline problems; they simply reflect a thorough response from the consultees.

443. Mr McMaster: Some concern was expressed that the regional agency for public health and social well-being might take away from the good work that is already being done on the ground. As a result of that, there was an original proposal that many health-protection and health-promotion personnel from the trusts would transfer to the new agency. Given those concerns, it has been decided that community-development and other health-improvement staff who currently work in trusts will not be affected in the shake-up. Therefore, the Department recognises that much good work is currently being done.

444. Mr Mitchell: When the proposals were initially announced, at a meeting that I attended with the Minister, members raised that point. A decision to bring a much-reduced number of staff into the regional agency was directly based on that concern and the subsequent consultation responses.

445. Mrs McGill: I joined the Committee only recently, and I have a question about the number of groups that have evolved because of the proposed changes. Is there confusion about that issue, or is there likely to be confusion? Given that you have said that the changes relate to the structure of care rather than the actual care that is being delivered, will you comment on the responses from those consultees? The Mental Health Commission responded and had some concerns about the lack of integration that might ensue as a result of the changes.

446. Mr Mitchell: I should have referred to the issue of the Mental Health Commission in answer to Mr Easton’s question. That concern was expressed, and it was considered carefully; several meetings were held with those concerned.

447. The view taken was that the functions of the Mental Health Commission could be undertaken more effectively within the broader infrastructure of, and with the greater resources held by, the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA). If the Committee plans to meet representatives from the RQIA, that would be an opportunity to seek some reassurance on that point. That was the rationale for the carefully considered decision to proceed with the transfer of the functions of the Mental Health Commission to the RQIA.

448. In the second reform phase, the number of bodies was significantly reduced. The first reform phase involved a significant reduction in the number of trusts, which now amounts to five trusts and the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service. The current phase will involve the amalgamation of the four health and social services boards into one regional health and social care board. The number of agencies affected was reduced from the original proposals, because it was felt that some of those agencies, such as the Northern Ireland Medical and Dental Training Agency, were doing good work. There was no reason to change the functions of that agency and other bodies because they were carrying out their functions effectively.

449. Mrs McGill: I declare an interest as a member of Strabane District Council. The Mental Health Commission submission states that councillors will be at arm’s length from commissioning decisions. Will that be the case?

450. Mr Mitchell: The view of the Department is that the functions currently undertaken by the Mental Health Commission will be fully addressed by the RQIA and that greater resources will be available to address those functions than is currently the case.

451. Mrs McGill: Is it only the elected councillors who will be at arm’s length from commissioning decisions? Will there still be local accountability?

452. Mr McMaster: The proposal is that there will be four councillors on the LCGs.

453. Mr Mitchell: There is provision for four local government representatives on each local commissioning group. There is also provision for local government representation on the patient and client council and in the regional agency for public health and social well-being. From the Minister’s perspective, the introduction of improved democratic accountability through active engagement with local government representation is an important element of the reforms. The current proposals are significantly strengthened in that regard compared with those that were previously being progressed under direct rule.

454. Mrs Hanna: Is it unusual for a Bill to contain provisions for the use of PPPs at this stage? I accept your view that that does not mean that such schemes will be used, but it seems strange to have that provision in the Bill, particularly as there is so much concern about PPPs. It seems as if the provision has been inserted so that, even if the use of PPPs is opposed, the option is still available to make use of them.

455. Mr Mitchell: The Department was conscious of that. The view was that legal clarity was needed in the event that it was decided to make use of a PPP scheme, and, if it were felt that the legal framework were not sufficiently clear, it would then be too late to address concerns from a contractor. The aim was to insert a provision into the Bill that was permissive but that made it explicit that the provision simply made the use of such a scheme possible, if it were required. As my colleague said earlier, it is not the Department’s intention to insert that provision with any motive to encourage PPP schemes. It is simply a permissive provision, and it provides the legal clarity that a PPP scheme can be used if it is required and is judged appropriate in individual cases.

456. Mrs Hanna: I am concerned that, if people are opposed to a PPP in any given case, it would be difficult to oppose it if the provision is already in the Bill.

457. Mr McMaster: The provision simply allows the use of PPP schemes, and it is not prescriptive about whether such schemes should be used; it simply permits their use. Timing is the issue; the provision for the use of PPPs does not sit altogether comfortably in the Bill. However, the Bill is probably the biggest structural change to health services since 1972, and the Department feels that the Bill is as good a place as any to insert a clarification that such a PPP scheme is available.

458. Mrs Hanna: It flags up the issue of PPPs, which people may not otherwise have thought about.

459. My other main concern is that powers are still centralised and do not flow down, despite all the discussions about personnel being in place to allow that to happen. The proof of the pudding may have to be in the eating; we will have to wait and see whether the powers are provided so that personnel will be able to make decisions and budgetary controls will be given to people nearer ground level. For many people, that has been a concern throughout the process.

460. Mr Mitchell: I want to comment on that, because several work streams are ongoing across a range of initiatives.

461. First, work is being undertaken on the proposed improved partnerships among health, social care, local government and other stakeholders. Those partnerships are at the heart of the proposals, and there are plans to run pilot schemes from April 2009. If that works and the pilot arrangements are put in place, that will be a real step forward in front-line, ground-level partnerships among the respective stakeholders who have an influence and interest in public health and social well-being.

462. Secondly, if LCGs and GPs feel that they do not have the required devolved authority, they will not participate and, therefore, will not function. Indeed, if Dr Deeny were here today, I feel that he would agree with that point. Effective commissioning is required, a sentiment that was expressed to me at a meeting this morning. I do not believe that the four local government representatives would be content to sit on a body if they felt that it did not have devolved authority.

463. Therefore, the Department is developing operating frameworks for the local commissioning groups. They begin with the premise that funds will be devolved to the LCGs through the governance arrangements of the regional board. However, that is done on the basis of empowering them to make decisions about local services. Many of the reforms rest on a number of factors, but that is one of the key foundation stones.

464. The Department is attempting to change the public’s perception of the scale of the LCGs, which is an issue that arose from the consultation process. Although LCGs are local, many people think that they will be large groups. The LCGs must think about how they will engage with local communities.

465. Mrs Hanna: Those are my thoughts. That is particularly the case with public health, where we want to reach the most vulnerable people. The LCGs must be linked in on the ground.

466. Mr Mitchell: Some of those people say that they are not represented by national bodies that represent the larger organisations. Therefore, the Department is introducing specific proposals for that type of stakeholder community engagement with the LCGs.

467. Mrs Hanna: By the same token, there is expertise beyond the Department on the current boards to make the decisions, particularly on public health issues.

468. Mr Mitchell: I recently met representatives from the Food Standards Agency, and they were enthusiastic about the potential role of that agency in focusing the agenda. That is what the Minister had in mind when he made the proposal.

469. The Chairperson: The Appleby Report identifies notable deficiencies in the Northern Ireland Health Service and also the distinct absence of an explicit performance management system. The report contends that the current performance management system is devoid of clear and effective structures, information and, most importantly, incentives — both rewards and sanctions — at individual, local and Northern Ireland organisational levels to encourage innovation and change.

470. Will you comment on that view and how it weighs up with the Bill’s proposals?

471. Mr Mitchell: That is an interesting aspect of the Department’s current work. It is akin to the blood flowing through the arteries rather than the bones of the structure.

472. Something similar to the current basic skeletal framework mechanism will remain, with the Programme for Government feeding down to a public service agreement, priorities for action, health and well-being plans, and trust development plans, with accountabilities at various levels.

473. There are real opportunities at present, because changes are being made that allow for a fresh examination of what is being done. The reduction in the number of boards, and the setting up of a regional board, provides an opportunity to consider greater consistency of information and for a more comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to the sort of management performance to which the Appleby Report aspired.

474. The very presence of the regional agency for public health and social well-being will allow a focus on the development of measures that can effectively gauge whether the progress in public health and social well-being that is expected as a result of the creation of the agency is being made. There are real opportunities. Colleagues with whom I met this morning are working on the detail of that performance regime, taking in all the relevant issues, including the regulatory framework, the role of the RQIA and the revised role of the slimmed-down Department, with an improved focus on how the regional agency and the regional board will work together and how the LCGs will play their part in that function and relate to the trusts.

475. The Department will provide a definitive framework for performance management. The reforms have given us the opportunity to do that. The Department is working hard on that matter, and proposals will be published in the next four to eight weeks.

476. Mr McMaster: The provisions of the Bill include a statutory responsibility for the regional board to performance manage the trusts. The board can now be told that that is no longer something that it should be doing but which it absolutely must be doing.

477. The Chairperson: I am glad that there will be that level of accountability and scrutiny. We are only at the start of the long process of considering the Bill in detail. Members have had to go through a lot of reading material. I thank the departmental officials for attending this afternoon; it has been very helpful. Thank you for your time.

18 September 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mrs Iris Robinson (Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Buchanan
Dr Kieran Deeny
Mr Alex Easton
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr Sam Gardiner
Mrs Carmel Hanna
Mr John McCallister
Mrs Claire McGill
Ms Sue Ramsey

Witnesses:

Mr Stephen Hodkinson
Ms Jacqueline Kennedy
Ms Paula Sheils

Central Services Agency

478. The Chairperson (Mrs I Robinson): I welcome Stephen Hodkinson, chief executive of the Central Services Agency, Jacqueline Kennedy, director of human resources and corporate services, and Paula Sheils, director of family practitioner services.

479. I invite you to make a brief presentation, after which I will invite questions from members. You are very welcome indeed.

480. Mr Stephen Hodkinson (Central Services Agency): Thank you very much for the invitation and the welcome. You have explained who we are so I will begin.

481. I intend to use our submission, which I have already sent to members, as the basis for the short presentation. I intend to give you some sense of the Central Services Agency’s work. At the end of the submission, we raise a number of issues, which are relatively minor on the scale of change taking place, but we thought it perhaps useful to draw your attention to those.

482. The Central Services Agency is a relatively long-standing Health Service organisation. It was established in October 1973 under the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, and its main brief — as defined in the Order — is to provide a range of regional support services for the rest of the Health Service. The agency’s functions are wide-ranging and include legal services and procurement services, which covers sourcing, contracting, procurement and warehousing logistics.

483. The agency supplies support to family practitioner services, which I will describe in more detail, because the boards also provide such services. The Central Services Agency has a family practitioner services counter-fraud unit and an office of research ethics committees, which is less well known. The research and development office handles the budget for research and development in the Health Service, and the agency provides a range of financial services to support the Health Service and others. There is also a human resources department.

484. The agency currently provides approximately 90% to 95% of legal services to health and social services, which, in broad terms, is mainly for trusts. On 11 July 2008, as the Committee will be aware, the Minister took the decision to cease the use of private-sector providers. We are now working to bring all legal services to the Central Services Agency. That will ensure that all legal services in the Health Service are provided by the public sector. Our legal service is not profit-motivated; we aim to break even, and, furthermore, we provide services solely to the Health Service.

485. The submission shows the breakdown of the number of staff that our legal services employ, the size of the budget and the quality of service. There are usually 5,500 to 6,000 cases in operation simultaneously, which cover all areas of law including family law, child law, employment law, a wide range of medical negligence cases and cases that involve trips and falls. That workload will, probably, increase by between 500 and 1,000 cases when we adopt the work currently provided by the private sector.

486. The agency’s regional supplies service is one of two designated centres of procurement expertise in the Health Service, the second being health estates, which is part of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. That title indicates that we meet a wide range of standards in our areas of involvement.

487. The regional supplies service also provides services to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. It purchases a range of vaccines and various types of medicines for emergency situations for the Department. It has two warehouses in the Province in which those vaccines and medicines are stored.

488. There are issues about the possible future development of the procurement function. We currently play a small part in the procurement of services that are provided by nursing homes, residential homes and a range of domiciliary services. Those are currently contracted for by individual trusts, and we are working with a group made up from the Department and the trusts to find out whether some general, regionally applicable rules can be put in place so that the procurement process is consistent across the service and recognises the problems that the market faces in supplying the services.

489. The submission provides the Committee with an overview of the regional supplies service. Members will have gained a sense of its size; it has 300 staff and spends £307 million a year, which is a large amount of public money.

490. I will outline the role of the family practitioner services, although the fact that the director of that service has accompanied me to the meeting indicates that I am less well equipped to speak on that area. The service does not provide services to patients, but it provides a range of support services to the contracts that general medical practitioners, pharmaceutical practitioners, dentists and ophthalmic practitioners have with the boards.

491. We provide a range of payment services and support issues concerning the registration of patients, and our organisation issues medical cards. As a result of that process, we produce much information on the use of the services that we provide to the Department, the boards and the practitioners for planning and policy purposes and, to some extent, the monitoring of issues such as fraud.

492. Family practitioner services comprise a large part of the Central Service Agency’s business; we spend some £700 million a year on it, which is a large amount of money. We have some 180 staff, and the submission provides details of the numbers of practitioners who are contracted to the boards. My staff are in regular contact with those practitioners on various issues.

493. I have mentioned several issues that are on our agenda, and which have been for some years. The implementation of the electronic prescribing and eligibility system (EPES) is a particularly important issue. The Committee’s earlier business referred to its meeting with the Pharmaceutical Contractors Committee, and the Department and the Central Services Agency are in discussions with that committee on that issue. EPES is an important project for us.

494. There are other issues around the implementation of new contracts for certain practitioners, which automatically bring about a change in the way in which we operate, how we pay and how we staff. That is a large area of work.

495. The counter-fraud unit is, in some senses, linked to that, as it currently deals with family practitioner services issues. The unit pursues people who are suspected of having fraudulently claimed exemption from paying for their prescriptions and other charges. There is also a section that deals with contractor fraud, which, along with the boards, undertakes investigations when it is thought that fraudulent practice by practitioners may have taken place. Those are the two main areas of the counter-fraud unit’s work. We expect that the role of the counter-fraud unit will be extended to provide a service to the rest of the Health Service, including the hospital services, instead of simply concentrating on family practitioner services. That would involve a large piece of work.

496. The issue of free prescriptions has been the subject of some discussion over the years. That would be a significant issue for the Central Services Agency, because it would mean that it would not have to pursue people for non-payment of statutory prescription charges. That is an interesting area of work, to which we would respond if required.

497. The office of research ethics committees (OREC) manages health and social care’s research ethics approval process. In broad terms, applications to carry out research in the Health Service that may have ethical implications must go through the approval process. That is a statutory arrangement, and although the Central Services Agency houses OREC, appoints members of the committees and handles the process, it has very few powers as an organisation to change that arrangement, because it is part of a UK-wide process. OREC processed 230 applications for research work in 2007-08, which should give members an idea of the large volume of its work. OREC works exceptionally well, particularly in its close relationship with the trusts. The office is based at Haslem’s Lane in Lisburn.

498. I will now turn to the work of the agency’s research and development office. The Central Services Agency has managerial responsibility for a fund of some £13 million, which is allocated from the Department. That money is used to fund research across the Health Service. Although the present expectation is that all the agency’s services will be transferred to the new regional support services organisation (RSSO), to which reference is made in the Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill, a decision has still to be made about where the research and development office will go. All the other services that I have talked about will transfer to the regional support services organisation. We await that decision.

499. We have submitted two additional papers that deal with financial services and human resources services. Although it is reasonable to expect that an organisation of this size will have a finance department or a human resources department, the agency provides services to a range of other relatively small Health Service organisations and bodies, some of which are listed in our submission. The agency provides a payroll service, and it pays accounts for other customers. Our service model is an embryo of the shared services approach that is heralded by the regional support services organisation, which offers a wider service, including payroll, accounts and recruitment facilities across the Health Service. The staffing numbers are indicated in our submission.

500. Similarly, the agency provides human resources to a wide range of Health Service organisations and has been doing so for many years. Part of the human resources director’s brief is to look after equality services, to have responsibility for the implementation of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and to run the corporate services of the organisation such as building works and administrative processes.

501. The final page of our first submission provides the Committee with a few indicators that summarise the size of the organisation. The Central Services Agency currently has approximately 700 staff. Our operational budget is around £24 million, which is mostly spent on staff.

502. I have already referred to the large spend of the family practitioner services, while money spent on the regional supplies services is also rather significant. If taken together, those functions would account for around £1 billion of health and personal social services spend that the agency in some way handles. Furthermore, and for your information, I have indicated that we are not only based in Belfast city centre but have a range of offices — primarily for our procurement staff — across the Province. I have mentioned Haslem’s Lane in Lisburn already, but our headquarters, where the vast majority of our services is located, is in Franklin Street in the centre of Belfast.

503. That concludes my description of the agency. My general observation is that the services that health and social care provides are important and significant in the delivery of other services. Obviously, the agency’s activities mainly concentrate on services that are delivered to patients in hospitals and community-care settings. However, behind all that lies a fairly significant support arrangement that provides very important services such as procurement, payroll and legal services. We view the agency as an important part of the architecture of health and social care. We are very interested in the development of the regional support services organisation as a wider organisation that provides a wider range of services.

504. I raised four points in our second submission. They, in a sense, relate more directly to the
Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill. We, in our response to the consultation document on the Bill that the Minister issued earlier this year, indicated a support for the development of the RSSO. We believe that the establishment of the RSSO would represent a natural progression from the Central Services Agency, because it will provide a wider range of services than we currently provide. We have no fundamental concerns about the Bill or the creation of the RSSO.

505. It is very important to establish a wider organisation. Indeed, we have advocated that for some years. The creation of the RSSO will ensure that individual parts of the Health Service provide more functions regionally or centrally, and, for that reason, we support its creation.

506. I mentioned earlier that, as more services are placed together, the potential for producing a great deal of regional information begins to kick in. Therefore, we need to think of the RSSO not only as a provider of services but as a major provider of information.

507. My letter of 7 August 2008 to the Committee suggested that the new organisation not be named the RSSO. We feel that the new organisation’s name should be more reflective of the business and business-support functions that we currently provide, and “support services” does not reflect those. Although the RSSO will support the delivery of health and social care, it will also have a status of its own. For example, we currently have a number of professionals working for us who provide financial, human resources, legal and procurement support. We also employ other professionals, such as dentists and pharmacists. We wish to see the name changed to reflect that.

508. The Chairperson: Thank you, Stephen, for that detailed presentation. I will now open it up for Committee members to ask questions.

509. Mr Easton: First, what functions that will add to your workload will come from the boards and trusts to the new body? Secondly, how much savings do you think that you will be able to make? Thirdly, will there be any job losses among your 700 staff, or do you foresee that an increase in staff will become necessary as a result of more services being transferred from boards and trusts?

510. Mr Hodkinson: I expect the RSSO to provide more services than the Central Services Agency does at present. The Department’s superannuation branch, which runs the health and personal social services superannuation scheme — therefore, it is a scheme for the Health Service, not one for the Department — should transfer to the regional support services organisation. That is the current thinking. According to the timetable, that function will probably transfer on 1 April 2009, so that will happen in the relatively short term.

511. The four health boards perform some payment functions for GPs. Our expectation is that those functions will transfer to the RSSO to complete the package of payment services that we have. Our medium-term expectation is that ICT and IT services provided in the Department will transfer to the new organisation.

512. In the longer term — two to three years — subject to the investment that is necessary in ICT, we expect financial services such as payroll and “accounts payable”, which is the handling of all invoices, will transfer to the RSSO, and those services will be provided on a regional basis for all the trusts.

513. Human resources and recruitment is another area. At present, all Health Service organisations recruit for themselves, more or less. There are some arguments, and models, that indicate that some of those recruitment services could be provided regionally for other organisations.

514. Mr Easton: What about savings and job losses?

515. Mr Hodkinson: The expectation is that savings will be made once the RSSO is in its completed form. Several models of shared services exist across the public sector. Those can be found principally in the United States, Australia and the Far East, where organisations have adopted the shared-services approach. I must stress that, with proper investment in IT and its various support systems, one can make savings and produce a much more cost-effective way of working.

516. As I said, the agency currently has 700 staff, and it is planned that the RSSO will have anywhere between 2,000 and 2,500 staff. That represents a sea change. Central Services Agency services will not make savings in the first instance, but they could be made as we expand the support services that form part of the RSSO over the next two to three years.

517. We will remain part of the comprehensive spending review until 2011, and the whole of the support-services area must take its share of savings made.

518. The Chairperson: That was a very detailed response.

519. Dr Deeny: I welcome Jacqueline, Paula and Stephen. It is nice to see some of the faces behind the Central Services Agency, because, in my role as a GP, I have been in touch with the agency many times down the years. Of course, Stephen, I know your brother well, who works in Omagh as a consultant.

520. Ms S Ramsey: Do you need to declare an interest?

521. Dr Deeny: I do not. I want to be clear, because I have not looked at the legislation since before the summer recess. Three major agencies are to be established: the regional health and social care board; the regional agency for public health and social well-being; and the common services organisation. I assume that the Central Services Agency, which will be renamed the RSSO, and which you would prefer to see renamed, will lie within the common services organisation. Is that correct?

522. Mr Hodkinson: “Common services organisation” was the initial name chosen, before it was changed to “regional support services organisation”. We were even more unhappy with the former, because we did not like the use of the word “common”. We have progressed the issue to “regional support services organisation”, and the next stage, as we see it, should be to change the name again to “regional business services organisation”. However, yes, the agency’s services were originally to lie within the common services organisation.

523. Dr Deeny: What else, along with the Central Services Agency, will make up the RSSO?

524. Mr Hodkinson: The legislation indicates broad headings of areas in which the RSSO will provide services. However, the kind of work that we are trying to plan for the RSSO indicates that it will include: the Department’s superannuation branch; a large part of the services that the Department’s directorate of information systems currently provides; and some of the financial and human resources services that boards and trusts currently provide. There has also been discussion about moving information services and providing a range of estates services regionally for the entire service, but that is a longer-term objective. Some of the boards’ family practitioner services will also move to the RSSO.

525. Dr Deeny: I have some experience of what the agency does, and that includes much good work with GPs. Mr Hodkinson also mentioned that he would like to see other functions added to the agency’s current duties.

526. Finally, paragraph 4 of your letter states that the acronym RSSO:

“could have an unfortunate and clearly unanticipated sound”.

What is that sound?

527. Mr Hodkinson: I have been practising it, Chairperson, and I am not sure how to say it to the Committee.

528. The Chairperson: I have that problem all the time.

529. Mr Hodkinson: In my case, the problem is possibly down to my age. RSSO, if pronounced as one word — must I say it?

530. The Chairperson: Yes, please. I like to laugh at someone. [Laughter.]

531. Mr Hodkinson: It sounds like “arso”. [Laughter.] I thought that that might surprise the Committee.

532. Ms S Ramsey: It is as well that Jonathan Ross is not here.

533. Mr Hodkinson: People are generally mumbling the sound. I was hoping that members would rehearse it in their minds and that I would not have to say it. It is an unfortunate sound, even if it was not intentional.

534. The Chairperson: Once it gets out, the name will stick.

535. Mr Hodkinson: That is true. It must be dealt with at an early stage, and I am trying to do so with my departmental colleagues.

536. The Chairperson: It would be wise to change the name, because you would be the butt end of a joke. [Laughter.]

537. Mr Hodkinson: Thank you very much.

538. Dr Deeny: You mentioned the agency’s current functions. Are there other functions that you would like to take on?

539. Mr Hodkinson: I mentioned the research and development office, which is one of our functions. However, the Department has not as yet told us where that function will go. It may not go to the regional support services organisation but to one of the other two main bodies to which you referred.

540. Mrs Hanna: You may be aware that the before it became DEL, the Department for Employment and Learning was almost named DOLE — the Department of Learning and Employment. That had to be changed. [Laughter.] You may have to do the same.

541. What impact will the Minister’s decision to bring all legal services in-house have on the agency? You mentioned the fact that the agency plays a large role in information and communication services. How will it manage those functions?

542. Mr Hodkinson: The agency welcomes the Minister’s decision that the Central Services Agency should provide all legal services for the health and social services internally. We have argued for that for some time.

543. There will be big changes. First, costs will be saved. As I said earlier, we are not a profit-driven organisation — we charge to cover costs. That means that we build a relationship with our clients. We agree fees with them on hourly rates or block contracts. Our intention is only to recoup the funding that we need, fundamentally to pay our staff. That, in itself, takes us out of going rates in the market for legal services. That is an improvement.

544. There are other, perhaps less obvious, advantages. Under the arrangements that existed when there were several providers of legal services, it was possible that different advice was being given for the same problem in several places throughout Northern Ireland. For example, a social worker could ring for advice on a child case in Strabane, and another could ring in Newry, Larne or wherever, and they would all receive slightly different advice from different providers. There is potential for us to bring together such advice. We can, therefore, offer advice to someone in Belfast, and if that person’s query emerges as a frequently asked question, we can then inform the rest of our clients — the rest of the Health Service.

545. We provide a training regime for our professional and support staff, and also for clients, in how to handle matters themselves so that they do not always need to call their solicitors and create an administration process in order to solve a problem. Until now, we have not provided that training for some parts of the service whose legal services are provided by the private sector. Therefore, that will bring about consistency.

546. We have a system that I have always considered an expensive way in which to do things. If, for example, a medical-negligence case arises that involves three hospitals — say, a patient has gone to his or her local hospital, has been referred to another hospital, and then to a tertiary service in the Royal Victoria Hospital — and the three hospitals belong to trusts that have different legal-service providers, each of those legal-service providers may wish to engage an expert because they each represent a different client. That is expensive. That will not happen — certainly not to the same extent — if all legal services are provided from one source.

547. Therefore, there are several hidden advantages. However, there are several other matters on which we must begin to work more strategically across the entire service.

548. Mrs McGill: My question is on procurement, which Carmel touched on in a previous question. To date, what has been the agency’s relationship with the Central Procurement Directorate (CPD) here? What will it be in future?

549. Mr Hodkinson: We have a close relationship with the CPD at a professional, working level. Our colleagues in the regional supplies service work with the CPD. We consult the directorate on a one-to-one level for advice. We also work with the CPD on several groups that the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) has put together over the years to ensure that consistent approaches are taken to procurement across the public service. The best example, which I carry round in my head, is that we have vehicles, such as ambulances and trucks. We also have contracts for tyres and tubes. I apologise for reducing the matter to such a basic level. However, it illustrates the point that I am making.

550. Parts of the public service, such as education and library boards, use more vehicles than we do. Therefore, it makes sense that they should have the contract for tubes and tyres for the entire Province, and that we buy off that contract. Similarly, it makes sense that we should have the contract for laboratory equipment, and schools and universities can buy off our contract. We are developing relationships with the Central Procurement Directorate, the Water Service, the education and library boards, the Housing Executive, and so on, in an attempt to get the best return for the investment that has been made across the public service.

551. Mrs McGill: Did the Central Services Agency engage with CPD to provide legal services and advice on the difficulties and the Minister’s subsequent decision?

552. Mr Hodkinson: No, CPD secures its own legal advice, presumably from DFP legal services or Government legal services. The Central Services Agency has not advised CPD on legal matters. Indeed, that would have been a conflict of interest, as we would have been a potential competitor to other groups.

553. Mr Buchanan: I apologise for being late and missing part of your presentation. When I came into the meeting, you were answering a question that Alex Easton had asked. You stated that substantial investment in IT services is needed if savings are to be made. What level of investment package would IT services need in order for appropriate savings to be made?

554. Mr Hodkinson: Three projects are in need of investment. The first of those is family practitioner services, which I will ask Paula Sheils to talk about in a moment. The second is finance and supplies —procurement — and the third is payroll and human resources.

555. Our payment systems for paying bills are fairly antiquated. We have had them for some 10 to 15 years, and they are not fit for purpose for what we want them to do. Those payment systems pay the bills. However, the turnaround is not fast enough; they do not produce the necessary information; and they are not compatible with the supply services, which, because of the large number of suppliers that we have to pay within a certain timescale, are closely linked to paying bills.

556. It is generally accepted that investment is needed for new systems in finance and supplies and in payroll and human resources. Our payroll system is very old — information and communications people would call it a legacy system. The system pays people — we do not receive complaints on that front generally — but its sharing of information with human resources is antiquated. Human resources information is used in payroll calculations. An investment of around £12 million is needed in order to improve those systems.

557. Ms Paula Sheils (Central Services Agency): The payment systems that we use in family practitioner services pay general practitioners, dentists, optometrists and pharmacists. Like the systems that Stephen has just described, they were fit for purpose 20 years ago, but the nature of the contracts with the independent contractors has changed over time. The systems were originally built to cope with items of service claims — someone did one thing and was paid for doing that one thing. However, contracts are moving to the provision of a service with practice-based payments.

558. Many of our payments must be calculated offline before being entered into the payment system. We cannot calculate those payments on the system. Therefore, we must change the systems not only to ensure that they are sufficiently up to date to meet the demands of the current contracts but to ensure that they are flexible enough to be amended easily in order to adapt to future changes.

559. To make a change to the current systems is extremely expensive, because the programmes were written in an old language, the common business oriented language (COBOL), expertise in which is disappearing. People are no longer being trained to maintain that system. Therefore, we must change the system for family practitioner services payments. The system is fine for making payments, but we look forward to the day when any necessary changes can be made more cheaply.

560. Mr Gallagher: The agency seems to have approximately 700 staff employed in delivering services. The overall exercise is one of rationalisation, so how many people do you expect to employ after restructuring the organisation?

561. Mr Hodkinson: If the regional support services organisation were not being introduced, and we were implementing the computer systems that we need, we would be reducing staff numbers from 700. It is difficult to give an exact figure, but it would probably reduce to approximately 600.

562. If we transfer the 700 employees to an organisation that employs between 2,000 and 2,500 staff from other boards and trusts, there are potential savings to be made in areas such as payroll and finance, which are currently distributed around the system. Therefore, to bring them together in one or two places, or into one process, will produce savings. Overall, the Minister expects us to cut 1,700 administrative staff across the review of public administration, thereby saving £53 million. That £53 million is funding freed from support services and administrative services for release into direct patient and client-care services.

563. The Chairperson: Everyone who wanted to ask a question has done so. Thank you for that detailed and interesting presentation, Stephen, Jacqueline and Paula. We appreciate your coming today. Thank you for your time.

25 September 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mrs Iris Robinson (Chairperson)
Mrs Michelle O’Neill (Deputy Chairperson)
Dr Kieran Deeny
Mr Alex Easton
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr Sam Gardiner
Mrs Carmel Hanna
Ms Claire McGill

Witnesses:

Mr Richard Dixon

Eastern Health and Social Services Council

564. The Chairperson (Mrs I Robinson): I welcome Richard Dixon, who is well known to the Committee as the chief officer of the Eastern Health and Social Services Council. I invite Richard to make a presentation, after which I will invite members to ask questions.

565. Mr Richard Dixon (Eastern Health and Social Services Council): I thank the Chairperson and members for inviting the health and social services councils to present their views on the Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill to the Committee. My presentation is based on the response to the four councils’ consultation, which is a consensus view reached by the councils after careful consideration of the proposals, particularly the proposed establishment of a patient and client council.

566. In general, the four councils are supportive of the proposals. We believe that the new structures will offer the people of Northern Ireland a much-improved system of accountability and involvement.

567. We welcome a structure that has a clear line of management responsibility from the Minister and the Department, through the commissioning board, and to the providing trusts. The accountability of trusts to the regional health and social care board is a key strength of the proposed structures. The previous arrangement, in which commissioners and providers were jointly accountable to the Department but in which providers were not clearly accountable to the commissioners, was not ideal. Customers want a simple transparent system in which they can see how, where and by whom decisions are made. The proposed new structures will deliver that.

568. Over many years, the health and social services councils have represented patients and the public within the health and social care system. Therefore, we welcome the priority that the legislation gives to engagement with patients and the public. We welcome the creation of the patient and client council. We also welcome the representative nature of the new bodies, particularly the local commissioning groups. Above all, we welcome the new duties in the legislation on engagement with patients and the public, which are applicable to all the health and social care organisations.

569. I will now comment on our response to the proposed creation of the regional health and social care board and the regional agency for public health and social well-being. Our concern for a simple, clear and accountable structure is reflected in the comments that we made in our response to the proposed creation of those two bodies. Although we strongly support the creation of local commissioning groups and the delegation to them of significant commissioning responsibilities, we wanted it to be clear that they operate under the direction of, and are fully accountable to, the regional health and social care board.

570. Underlying central authority will help to ensure equity in the allocation of resources and access to services, will guard against the risk of a postcode lottery in Northern Ireland and will ensure that regional, as well as local, interests are taken fully into account. A regional authority will benefit those in small and dispersed communities, such as those who live with a rare condition who may — and I emphasise “may” — fall below the radar of local commissioners and their priorities. For a similar reason, we said that the regional agency for public health and social well-being should be accountable to the regional board. We were concerned that a separation of the public-health functions in that manner would lead to silo thinking — a territoriality among organisations that could work against the best interests of patients and the public.

571. However, we are comforted by the Minister’s recognition of those concerns in his response to the consultation and by his commitment to the production of a framework document that makes abundantly clear the respective functions and interrelationship of the new health and social care organisations.

572. The proposals for the patient and client council are in line with the views expressed by all four health and social services councils throughout the planning process. We welcome the clarity of the proposed patient and client council’s functions, the place it will be given in the new structures, its independence and the duty placed on all health and social care organisations to engage with it, which is enshrined in the legislation.

573. The issue of most concern to members of health and social services councils in the development and delivery of the patient and client council is how local representation will be preserved and maintained. Regardless of how that is worked out in secondary legislation and in implementation, members of health and social services councils will want an organisation that is clearly rooted in local communities and which equitably hears the local voice. Notwithstanding that, the members of health and social services councils recognise the importance of having a single co-ordinated organisation to formulate and express diverse local views and, consequently, welcome the broad consensus of opinion, in response to the consultation, that the patient and client council should be a single body rather than five local and autonomous groupings.

574. In conclusion, the collective view of the health and social services councils is that they are able to support the structures that are set out because they are, in principle at least, capable of delivering fully accountable services and seeking the involvement of patients and the public in all their functions.

575. Dr Deeny: Thank you for the presentation, Richard. I have worked in the Health Service for many years and am very interested in this issue. Are you in favour of one patient and client council or one patient and client council that has five offices?

576. Mr Dixon: We are in favour of one patient and client council that has five local offices.

577. Dr Deeny: As with any consumer council, the patient and client council is a patients’ advocate. How many members will a patient and client council have? How much clout will it have to stand up for patients? I assume that the five offices will be in the confines of the five trusts; how many people will be employed in those five offices? As a GP, people visit me to discuss health issues. For example, someone rang me at lunchtime with a complaint. Should people who complain be directed to one of the five offices, which will then refer them to the patient and client council?

578. Mr Dixon: There are a number of issues there, and I will try to take them in turn. Matters relating to membership and structures are currently under debate and discussion.

579. We imagine that there will be a regional patient and client council, which will have a membership of at least 15 people. However, it will be difficult to balance the need for the council to be representative with the need for it to be a board of governors that looks after an independent organisation. The members of the four health and social services councils currently work on a voluntary basis. We have no executive functions, and we are looked after by the boards, hence I am called an officer rather than an executive. Nevertheless, we anticipate that the regional patient and client council may have a similar make-up, and there will be a genuine attempt to ensure that it is representative of local groups. We are unsure about the size and composition of the local groupings in each of the trusts and local commissioning groups areas, but we may be less constrained, provided we have the freedom to recruit people that the patient and client council regards as appropriate or representative of an area and provided a clear link is created between it and the regional body.

580. We imagine that regional body members will be paid. The local groups may remain voluntary, and that would provide more latitude, but there would have to be an absolute link between those local groups and the regional body.

581. We imagine that the patient and client council will have five offices that will deliver three core functions for their respective areas. Those functions are: advocacy for individuals with complaints; liaison; and working, and maintaining a relationship, with the local trust, the local commissioning group and other relevant bodies, including the voluntary and community sector. Furthermore, the offices will actively engage with communities. It is reflected in our response that representation will be contained within committee membership, but it is always augmented, whether by a local commissioning group or a patient and client council, by an active ongoing programme of engagement with communities. The officers will go out and meet people and bring back their views, as well as take in the views of members of local committees.

582. Access requires work, because, with the best will in the world, even with five local offices, they will not be accessible or local to everyone in that patch. We hope that serious consideration will be given to ideas such as accessible clinics for advocates, access to the Internet and to new technologies to a greater extent than was ever the case with the health and social services councils. You are correct to point out that access is of primary importance.

583. Lastly, the powers of the patient and client council are greatly augmented by the Bill. A duty is placed on all health and social care organisations to engage with the patient and client council and to listen to what it has to say and to have due regard for it. That is a significant additional power that gives the patient and client council influence to a greater extent than the health and social services councils now have.

584. The requirement that all health and social care organisations produce consultation and engagement strategies will address how they are communicating and working with the people whom we serve. Those strategies will be approved by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety only after consultation with the patient and client council. Again, that is another significant additional power.

585. Mr Gallagher: Richard, you spoke about people working for the patient and client council, but most of its members will be unpaid. Is that correct? If so, it will be important for members who take time off work to receive appropriate remuneration, as they are making a valuable input into council discussions, formulation of plans, and so on.

586. In your submission, your response to clause 8(2) of the Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill is that the regional board’s functions do not include any reference to balance of regional, strategic commissioning and locally responsive commissioning.

587. It is important for that issue to receive a good deal of attention as the Bill progresses, because the public have many questions about disparity. People in the west, for example, ask why home helps there are paid at a different rate than in other areas and why, across all the trusts and boards, some areas provide vulnerable groups with more support than others. It has always been difficult to obtain accurate information about such variations, and figures must emerge to identify how much money has been allocated to different areas.

588. Is that what you were getting at? If so, have you any ideas about how to improve that situation, because the subject has been discussed in Committee and no answers have been forthcoming. How could more balanced commissioning be achieved?

589. Mr Dixon: The theme of the councils’ response was to make a clear statement on the need for central leadership and direction that will, and should, provide equity across Northern Ireland. In saying that, we do not wish to detract from the important local agenda that requires local responsiveness. We clearly stated our support for those structures that involve locally elected representatives, engage with communities and decide what people in the area need and want.

590. However, any proposals should arrive at a central point at which someone makes a decision. Among the duties of that individual should be to ensure equity of access, so that a person in Strabane will have the same experience of a service as a person in Newtownards. That is the business of decision-making; it is why a central authority is necessary, and it is the underlying theme of our response. Until now, such an authority has not existed.

591. We stated in our response that the fragmented nature of the planning and delivery of care through multiple organisations in the old system was a disadvantage and should not be replicated in the new structures.

592. Mrs McGill: Thank you, Richard, for mentioning Strabane; I am grateful to you for doing so. I want to put on record that I welcome that and the fact that equality of service, provision, and so forth, that has not existed thus far, will happen.

593. The Chairperson: That was a fairly simple and straightforward comment. Members have no further questions. Thank you, Richard, for taking the time to meet the Committee and for your presentation.

25 September 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mrs Iris Robinson (Chairperson)
Mrs Michelle O’Neill (Deputy Chairperson)
Dr Kieran Deeny
Mr Alex Easton
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr Sam Gardiner
Mrs Carmel Hanna
Ms Claire McGill

Witnesses:

Mr Dominic Burke

Western Health and Social Services Board

Dr Paula Kilbane

Eastern Health and Social Services Board

Mrs Fionnuala McAndrew

Southern Health and Social Services Board

Mr Stuart MacDonnell

Northern Health and Social Services Board

594. The Chairperson (Mrs I Robinson): I welcome Dominic Burke, acting chief executive of the Western Health and Social Services Board; Paula Kilbane, chief executive of the Eastern Health and Social Services Board; Stuart MacDonnell, chief executive of the Northern Health and Social Services Board; and Fionnuala McAndrew, director of social services in the Southern Health and Social Services Board. You are all very welcome. I invite you to make a brief presentation, and I will then invite questions from members. I will allow around 40 minutes for the evidence session.

595. Dr Paula Kilbane (Eastern Health and Social Services Board): Thank you, Chairperson. I am the current chairperson of the chief executives’ group, so I will briefly outline some points in our submission, because the main purpose of our visit is to answer questions.

596. We welcome the underlying themes of the review of public administration (RPA), including the reduction of bureaucracy through simplifying systems and avoiding duplication. We particularly welcome public health and well-being’s significantly enhanced profile in the Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill, because, although we all recognise that it is very important to cure, and care for, those who are unwell, it would be better if we could prevent them from becoming unwell in the first instance.

597. It will be very challenging to deliver the reforms in the Bill. We are attempting to reap the benefits of reduced bureaucracy in the context of new organisational arrangements. There is a particular challenge in bringing together those different interfaces, particularly that between the regional health and social care board and the regional agency for public health and social well-being. The functions that the health and social services boards currently carry out will be transferred to one or other of those two bodies. Indeed, some will be transferred to a third body, the regional support services organisation (RSSO). The core functions of the regional health and social care board itself are: commissioning; performance management and improvement; and financial management. The regional board must have primacy in commissioning, taking account of, and paying due emphasis and regard to, input from the regional agency.

598. The range of commissioning activities and functions to be carried out should equate to what the health and social services boards are currently doing — those activities and functions should be both regional and local. The commissioning arrangements should deliver improved health and well-being, and reduce inequalities. That will depend on how efficiently the regional board interfaces with the regional agency. Importantly, the board will be a regional body with an intense local focus. The Bill contains a major and welcome emphasis on the views of service users, communities and the public, and, in particular, it provides for local representation from locally elected councillors.

599. The regional board will be multi-professional; that is absolutely essential when dealing with the complex range of services that will be commissioned. However, there will also be adequate provision in the commissioning arrangements for specialist and vulnerable services. The local commissioning groups (LCGs) will be fully involved in performance management and improvement, and, importantly, the Bill recognises that the regional board should be accountable for the management of family practitioner services. I remind Committee members that 20% of all resources are spent on family practitioner services. The strategy and policy is to move increasingly from providing services in hospitals to providing them in the primary-care arena and in communities themselves. It is very important that that be seriously represented in the structure of the regional board.

600. The local commissioning groups should play a lead role in engaging communities and in identifying local priorities for improving health and well-being. The majority of services should be commissioned locally. Only very specialist or vulnerable services, or services that cater for small numbers of people, should be commissioned regionally.

601. In order to do that, people must be located locally. One cannot be in touch with the needs of one’s local community, and with its activists and representatives, unless one is co-located and close to the ground. We firmly believe that staff from the board, the agency and the regional support services organisation, whose jobs directly relate to local issues, should be co-located in order to ensure that they work together properly — that should be done locally. Over-centralisation of those structures would not be a good idea.

602. As far as the regional agency for public health and social well-being is concerned, the three domains of public health should also be integrated and co-located in order to facilitate local working. The first of those functions is health improvement — including initiatives such as Investing for Health — and health promotion.

603. The second function is health protection — including vaccination — against outbreaks of communicable diseases. Health protection also covers environmental hazards, which is an issue of increasing importance and of public interest and concern, and emergency planning — ensuring effective responses to pandemic outbreaks of flu, major outbreaks of communicable diseases or a major emergency event such as the disastrous aftermath of a dirty bomb. Responsibility for the aforementioned should lie with the regional agency.

604. The third function is to provide input into the commissioning process, which will assist integration of the regional agency with the LCGs.

605. There is a need for the LCGs to be properly informed, so important links must be made with the regional agency, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, and bodies such as Ireland and Northern Ireland’s Population Health Observatory (INIsPHO), the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry and relevant departments at Queen’s University. Yesterday’s announcements about the increase in melanoma rates will not have been lost on Committee members. It is important for a public-health agency to have that kind of intelligence and information, enabling it to monitor progress against targets.

606. I will now move from structures to people. People are a vital resource in making the changes work. There will be fewer of them, and we must ensure that we have the right people in the right places. We welcome the fact that, at this stage of the proceedings, the chairpersons’ positions have been advertised and the appointment panels will sit in early October. As well as that, the advertisements for the posts of chief executive have been published. That is all about trying to meet an exacting timetable and moving to a position in which people can tell their staff that, all things being equal, and assuming that the Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill passes, they will be able to transfer on 1 April 2009. In bringing people along, it is important to be able to tell them where they are likely to be situated and what they will be doing.

607. That takes me to the next point, which is all about location, location, location. We support the need to implement the reforms as quickly as possible. We recognise, however, that if we have regional bodies with local outworkings, it is important to ensure the equitable distribution of local employment opportunities to match. We understand that there are some policy issues outstanding, and Sir George Bain and his team are currently reviewing those in another place.

608. We expect that, although the new bodies’ headquarters will comprise more senior staff, they will have to be supported by people in lower grades, who may be much less mobile. We must be careful that nobody feels that they are being asked to work in places that are unsuitable for them for practical, and other, reasons. Many women in the lower ranks have other responsibilities that tie them near to where they live. There are issues of equity and fairness, but those issues differ from issues that arose at the time of the trust mergers. In that instance, staff largely stayed where they were, particularly those who were working at the coalface.

609. The Minister is fully committed to avoiding compulsory redundancies, but no guarantees have been given. ICT and modern ways of working, in a remote sense, can enable those changes to happen.

610. Accountability is about having clear lines of distinction among the roles of the new organisations, and among the Department, the Minister and the trusts. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will retain financial accountability for the trusts, while the board and the agency will have responsibility for the commissioning of performance management. The operating framework, which underpins the legislation, must be clear about who does what and when, in order to prevent a situation in which the commissioners pursue the implementation of targets and priorities, while performance and financial accountability is pursued on different lines. It is vital that there be crossover.

611. Although we welcome that fact that local councillors will be represented on the regional agency and the local commissioning groups, the issue of dual mandates should be considered against the number of councillors required under the latest proposal to establish 11 new councils. The roles and responsibilities of members of the LCGs, the regional agency, and the patient and client council should not be duplicated. There may also be issues around how local councillors are identified and selected to serve on those bodies. However, that is not for us to comment on.

612. In conclusion, we recognise the huge scale of change. The process is more complicated than the trust mergers. We are creating four new organisations, whereas the trusts were merged to form bigger organisations that performed the same functions. As leaders of our boards, we are committed to managing that transition. We try to maintain the morale and knowledge base of our staff. We want them, albeit in fewer numbers, and their expertise to transfer to those new functions.

613. The Department has set up a number of work streams aimed at planning the fine detail of the operating framework. There is a number of projects groups. For the Committee’s information, I appended a communications document, issued by the Department, which lists the names of who runs what and who belongs to which work stream. A further 19 pages may be downloaded from the Internet, if members want to know exactly who does what.

614. In the background, people are working hard to produce the essential operating details, which will underpin the structure and help it to work. Clearly, communication is vital in order to keep everyone on board and to deliver the reforms to the timescales.

615. My colleagues, who have also contributed to the process, will wish to discuss a variety of issues.

616. The Chairperson: How is staff morale? Are staff being kept informed of developments?

617. Dr Kilbane: Every attempt is made to keep staff informed. However, we await movement on some issues. Staff enquire about what kinds of jobs they will have to apply for and where those will be located. Some of those questions cannot be answered. Structures are being worked on at a departmental level. The working groups are building up a head of steam, and we expect staffing issues to become clearer soon.

618. Our staff see the end point approaching, and that is helpful for them. Our vacancy rates being what they are, I do not pretend for a minute that staff do not struggle daily to get everything done — they do struggle. However, my general sense is that, as we approach the end point, people who were in a dark place a while ago are now beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel. My colleagues may not agree with that comment.

619. Mr Dominic Burke (Western Health and Social Services Board): No, that is the situation. Staff fall into two, if not three, categories. One category is those people who are charged and ready for the new world; they want to be involved, and are clearly up for it and ready to go. Many of them will continue to do the jobs that they currently do to the same standard as before.

620. Some staff are coming to the end of their career and are getting ready to leave. The people whose morale is most significantly hit are those who are uncertain at present. People who are leaving see the end in sight and are up for delivering in this transitional period to ensure that the 2008-09 activity is carried out to a high standard. Those who will be in the new world will join the new teams and get on with planning for 2009-10 and beyond. As is to be expected, it is those who are uncertain about what is happening who have a degree of anxiety.

621. The Chairperson: Has there been a mass exodus of professional staff in any significant healthcare areas to the private sector or elsewhere?

622. Mr Stuart MacDonnell (Northern Health and Social Services Board): There has been a significant exodus, but I would not say that it has occurred at any particular grade. Like my colleagues, I try to meet staff informally once they have handed in their resignation to find out their reasons for leaving. A mixture of reasons is usually involved, with the need for certainty featuring most often. Some people are moving horizontally to a place of certainty. Small numbers are moving across the water, with others moving to the private sector.

623. A significant number are moving into the trusts — they are further down the road in the restructuring process. They may have reached a point in their restructuring whereby they have been unable to fill some posts in what they call the legacy trusts — the previous trust in that geographical area. In those cases, the trusts open the posts to the wider RPA group, and people apply for them simply because they are the first jobs to become available. We have suffered as a result of that trend. I hope, however, that it is coming to an end. In November, three years will have passed since the first changes under the RPA were announced — that is a long time. We assume that, once the senior staff take up their posts in the new agencies over the next couple of months, matters will begin to speed up.

624. The Chairperson: Let us hope so.

625. Mrs M O’Neill: You said, Paula, that the effectiveness of the local commissioning groups will hinge on local input. Should there be a statutory requirement for them to carry out proper consultation? I know that they will have a public consultation role, but should a statutory requirement be placed on them to consult publicly on their decisions?

626. I also want to know about the role that the Department will have in drawing up frameworks and in establishing aims and objectives for the different health and social care organisations. Will that give the Department a mechanism through which it can exercise control over the new bodies?

627. Mr S MacDonnell: It was a politician who said that all politics is local — I think that it was the late United States senator Tip O’Neill. The Minister is clear that a significant number of elected local representatives will sit on the boards of the local commissioning groups — perhaps four. An issue may arise with the establishment of the groups when the outcome of the new Local Government Boundaries Commissioner’s review is known. However, let us assume that that has all happened. The local commissioning groups will technically be committees of the regional health and social care board, which will be accountable to the Department. The regional board will be bound to implement the wishes and policy of the Minister of the day, and, in turn, it will ask the local commissioning groups to ensure, through service frameworks and the like, that they are working to that policy.

628. However, that said, there should be a large range of issues within the local ambit of a local commissioning group. There should be scope for difference rather than adopting a uniform approach.

629. Key to how the new system will work is how much autonomy those LCGs are afforded, after they have dealt with the pressures of the Minister of the day and the financial situation, which is not of the LCGs’ making. I believe that there is a requirement in the Bill for the regional board to consult widely on any plans. I am sure that it, in turn, could by management instruction bind the LCGs to do the same. However, whether enshrined in legislation or not, I am convinced that the LCGs will do that anyway.

630. Mrs Fionnuala McAndrew (Southern Health and Social Services Board): Having a statutory duty to consult does not necessarily mean that that consultation is more effective. Sometimes consultation can be tokenistic, even when required by statute.

631. Stuart is saying that if there is a duty on local commissioning boards to consult, and if the framework document or plans for how the LCGs should conduct their business are clear, that will encourage creative consulting methods. That consultation would then be conducted with a range of people with an interest in health and social services, and could be more productive than through statutory duty, where some people just tick the box.

632. Mrs M O’Neill: What about the creation of framework document? Clause 5 of the Bill states that the Department must work with each new health and social care body to draw up a framework document that establishes that new body’s functions. Will that be advantageous and defeat any further problems down the line?

633. Dr Kilbane: That will ensure that all the boundaries join up, which is very important. We must know who is accountable for what, what the rules of engagement are and what it is that people must do when working with one other. Furthermore, if certain functions are not delivered, we must know who takes action and what the sanctions, or, alternatively, the rewards, may be. It is essential to have a framework document, and that document must be thoroughly developed and tested. That will ensure that the people who work in the different arenas are quality-assured.

634. Dr Deeny: First, I declare an interest in LCGs. My question relates to what Stuart was talking about.

635. The regional health and social care board can overrule the LCGs. Therefore, LCGs are really local advisory groups, dealing with public-administration systems. They are not commissioning organisations in the sense that primary-care trusts in England are. Given that, do you not feel the term LCG to be misleading?

636. You have both referred to the fact that decisions are best made locally. My concern is that people on the LCGs will believe that they can be overruled by the regional board at any time. What do you think about that? Do you think that that should be the case, or do you believe that the LCGs should have the same clout as primary-care trusts in England? There, the primary-care trusts commission only in exceptional cases, and only very exceptionally are they overruled by a central body.

637. Mr S MacDonnell: Dr Deeny has hit on a pivotal issue. There need to be checks and balances in any system. Wearing his MLA hat, Dr Deeny expects the Committee to hold the Minister to account for what happens in health and social services, and, in turn, for him to have control over the various agencies that act on his behalf. As MLAs, you would not accept it were the Minister to say that a matter has been delegated to people for whom he has no responsibility. However, if everything is controlled from the centre — the point that Dr Deeny makes — what scope exists to have creative and energetic people working locally to resolve local problems?

638. It is more to do with the style used to operate the arrangements than it is to do with the statutory basis on which the different agencies are established. If the centre is very controlling — I am sure that all members are aware of organisations that operate like that — parts of the organisation, on the peripheries, may feel marginalised. Equally, I am sure that it would not be acceptable, certainly not to the Northern Ireland Audit Office or to the Assembly, if the centre were relaxed and did not know what was happening on the peripheries. There are, therefore, checks and balances.

639. The framework document, which is intended to wrestle with those checks and balances, is what we are all interested in seeing. None of us has yet seen it, Dr Deeny. Therefore, when the document emerges, I want to bench-test it to see how it deals with the issue of autonomy versus the mandatory requirement to implement the Minister of the day’s wishes.

640. Dr Deeny: I know some GPs who sit on local commissioning groups, and not only on the group on which I sit in the west, who would like to think that they are accountable to a regional body yet have the power to commission locally, and with the necessary financial backup. That is a concern at LCG meetings that I have attended, and in other LCGs. If commissioning groups do not have the clout and financial resources to back their decision-making, I do want to see GPs or other primary-care representatives walk away from local commissioning groups.

641. Mr S MacDonnell: What you have said is what, in principle, the policy direction is trying to achieve. My colleagues and I are beaten down by the pragmatism of our experiences. Sometimes the pressure of the issues of the day is such that, by the time that one has dealt with them, it is the end of the day. One then goes home, only to come in the next day to encounter more issues.

642. The framework document will, therefore, have to address the freedom to manoeuvre that you seek in the system, and I urge you to make your suggestions, whether as an MLA or through the British Medical Association (BMA), or both, in order to ensure that those freedoms are there. As I said, however, much will be in the style of operation as opposed to what the framework document says.

643. Dr Kilbane: I am more optimistic, because the intention — although we will have to wait and see what emerges — is that there will be devolved local budgets. The emphasis is that only those functions that can be commissioned regionally should be commissioned regionally — the power should lie locally. That is the intention, and I believe that people are genuine in that intention.

644. Furthermore, locally elected representatives on the LCGs will undertake a great deal of scrutiny; therefore, decisions will not be taken in darkened rooms. There will exist real power for LCGs to commission within the scope of the policy framework. They cannot send rockets to the moon if that is not the purpose of the enterprise, but they will have enough power to make decisions about local issues.

645. There is another side to that coin, which is that some of the decisions that LCGs make may not be popular locally. Therefore, be careful what you wish for, because living in the straitened circumstances of a confined budget means that it will be possible to do some things and not others, and some things will have to change — all of which is difficult to achieve.

646. The object of the exercise is that if everyone is on board and given the freedom to make decisions, that represents an important step change, and one that is genuinely expressed in anything that I have seen so far.

647. Mrs Hanna: The rationale behind the framework document is, I suppose, to reduce bureaucracy and bring services closer to people and patients. The bodies must, however, have members with the necessary expertise and knowledge, particularly on public-health matters. I am thinking particularly of health inequality, which is a big concern for everyone, because the gap it is getting wider all the time. Therefore, people must be in place who can make the necessary decisions, and we do not yet know that that will be the case. I will have a concern until more is known about what is happening.

648. The Chief Medical Officer is talking up prevention, rather than talking of picking up the pieces, so it is important that the expertise is in place, and that expertise must be joined-up. Bottom-up and top-down approaches must be taken, in order that the groups on the ground, such as those concerned with healthy living, are properly involved. Everyone is concerned about how that will all come together to make a difference.

649. Mr Burke: You are absolutely right. The important point concerns working together, and Dr Kilbane made that remark in her opening statement. The regional agency for public health and social well-being must work with the regional health and social care board. People who are currently involved with Investing for Health and health action zones will work as part of the regional agency. Local commissioning groups will include local representatives and will have the voice of the people.

650. Those people will come together to ensure that effective local health-improvement initiatives are running. The test will be whether joint planning emerges at the top level that is informed by local commissioning and by local groups. People will recognise that working together at ground level results in the implementation of the most effective plans.

651. Mrs Hanna: Therefore, it is not only about consultation. The people who are closest to the problems must inform the legislation.

652. Dr Kilbane: We understand the concept of a joined-up approach in the local areas to mean that the relevant folk from the regional agency — representatives from organisations such as Investing for Health and Wellnet — will work alongside the regional board at a local level to ensure that informed and sensible decisions are made. Otherwise, they would not be able to write a local commissioning plan, part of which requires them to outline what they are in doing, for instance, to invest in community groups and narrow inequalities.

653. At the regional level, the chief executive of the regional agency will have to ensure that that adds up to something that will deliver on inequalities across Northern Ireland. On that regional level, work must take place on an inter-agency basis. We acknowledge that that is not simply the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s baby; the work is also concerned with housing and education. Whoever gets the interesting job of chief executive of the regional agency for public health and social well-being will have to fulfil that role regionally, and that will be on the basis of joined-up local arrangements.

654. Mr Burke: Community planning, on which local councils will lead, will have a key part to play. That will bring more people to work together by statute in order to deliver that agenda.

655. Mr Gallagher: How do you see the reforms progressing? You talked about the importance of a balance that allows for grass-roots involvement in the regional board. Local influence on service delivery is important. How do you envisage that happening? The purpose of the exercise is to trim down our Health Service and to try to ensure that money is spent on front-line services rather than on bureaucracy. If the two elements are to be the regional board’s central function and local influence, can that be done, and can savings be achieved at the same time?

656. Dr Kilbane: The aim, and the challenge, is to cut 25% of the current cost of the health and social services boards and the other legacy bodies in Northern Ireland over three years. Therefore, the new designs will be based on a target of having 25% fewer staff by the end of that period, or whatever equates to a 25% reduction in costs, which is between £12 million and £13 million. That is achievable. It is happening already, because a vacancy-control programme has been in place in recent years — that is, since the changes were mooted — with the result that organisations are already operating with significantly fewer people in permanent positions. Therefore, even before the point of change, we have started managing the numbers downwards.

657. Earlier, we referred to the fact that some staff will decide not to stay with the health and social services boards. As present, our assessment of the numbers shows that we are well on target to achieving those savings, which, paradoxically, could result in a scenario in which we lose more of the necessary expertise than we should. We have lost a number of key people to organisations that seem to have a more certain future, so we must be sensible and make appropriate decisions about enabling people who need to work locally to do so. We will not be in control of the process after 1 April 2009, but, from where we are standing, we are definitely on target to achieve the reforms.

658. Mr S MacDonnell: To set that in context, the comprehensive spending review’s three-year target for the entirety of health and social services in Northern Ireland is £343 million, which is a huge sum of money. The target for the organisations that we represent, as well for the Central Services Agency and the Health Promotion Agency, is £13 million, which is approximately 4% of that target.

659. The RPA saving from reform of the first-phase organisations — the trusts — is £39 million. Therefore, the overall RPA target for Northern Ireland’s health and social care sector is £52 million. I agree with Paula that the £13 million target is achievable. We are halfway through the first of the three years and, as I said to you earlier, Chairperson, because so many people have left ahead of the change, we are almost ahead of the wave of change.

660. However, that target only equates to 4% of a very large figure, and, as the Committee is well aware, freeing up that amount of resources is a task that the trusts are wrestling with. It is a huge challenge for them. Our £13 million saving is welcome because it is a significant sum of money, but it remains a small part of a very big challenge for the entirety of health and social services in Northern Ireland.

661. Mr Easton: Are there any functions that the trusts are concerned about losing to the regional board, the regional support services organisation or any other agency?

662. Mr S MacDonnell: In time, some functions will migrate. From memory, those will include financial systems management, HR, recruitment, processing, some aspects of estate management, and so on. Those are outside my remit, but I am aware that seven or eight trust functions have been highlighted as moving to the RSSO. In turn, those may be grouped together in different sectors in Northern Ireland rather than their all moving to some kind of central administrative factory.

663. When it is appointed, the RSSO management team will have to liaise and negotiate with the trusts. A document setting that out has already been published and consulted on. I am sure that, in due course, the Committee will want to hear from the people who are driving that. That is not something that we are driving; however, one of the work streams that Dr Kilbane mentioned is dealing with that issue. A small number of board staff will migrate to the RSSO

664. The entire Central Services Agency will migrate also. However, the greater number will come from trusts, and I expect that to happen over the next three to five years.

665. Dr Kilbane: We do not believe that any functions will be lost as a result of the reforms. As custodians of the boards’ functions, we must perform due diligence to ensure that the new structure — although it will have fewer staff — carries out the essential functions. We have no reason to believe that that will not be the case.

666. The Chairperson: Everyone who indicated that they wanted to speak has done so. Thank you all for coming to the Committee and for answering members’ questions. The Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill represents the greatest shake-up of the Health Service in its history, so I hope that we get it right.

25 September 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mrs Iris Robinson (Chairperson)
Mrs Michelle O’Neill (Deputy Chairperson)
Dr Kieran Deeny
Mr Alex Easton
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr Sam Gardiner
Mrs Carmel Hanna
Ms Claire McGill

Witnesses:

Ms Alice T Casey
Mr Malachy Finnegan
Mr Jude O’Neill
Mr Phelim Quinn

Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority

667. The Chairperson (Mrs I Robinson): The Committee will now hear evidence from the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA). I welcome Alice Casey, the interim chief executive of the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA); Phelim Quinn, its director of operations; and Jude O’Neill, its head of mental health and learning disability. We have set aside 40 minutes for you to make your presentation and to take questions from Committee members. I will now hand over to you.

668. Ms Alice T Casey (Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority): Thank you very much for inviting us, Chairperson. Malachy Finnegan, our communications manager, is with us this afternoon as well. I will take a couple of minutes to make a few opening remarks, and then Phelim and Jude will talk more about how we will operationalise the functions of the Mental Health Commission, subject to the legislation’s passing.

669. The RQIA welcomes the opportunity to provide oral evidence to the Committee on the Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill, and to clarify, and expand on, the written evidence that we previously submitted. We were established in 2005 to register and inspect health and social care organisations across Northern Ireland. Our powers in the regulated sector include the ability to carry out announced and unannounced inspections of care organisations, nursing homes, residential homes, children’s homes, and a whole range of other services that came under our regulation on 1 April 2008.

670. Our powers include the ability to make recommendations for improvement; to enforce requirements; and to issue failure-to-comply notices. We can also administer the ultimate sanction of prosecution and compulsory closure of those homes. In the statutory sector — that is, hospitals, and community and primary-care services, including dental services — we have the ability to enter premises, to obtain information and to undertake reviews of those services. Some of the reviews that we have already undertaken include the hygiene reviews, which were publicised quite recently; clinical and social-care governance reviews of all trusts, and many more. The review that we are currently finalising is the clostridium difficile review, which is to go to the Minister shortly.

671. All our reports are made public and are available on our website; everything that we do is published. The RQIA cherishes and will defend vigorously its right to independence. We are the independent regulator for health and social care in Northern Ireland; we are independent in thought and purpose, and we believe that our work to date has demonstrated that. We have no qualms over reporting on what we see when we inspect or review organisations.

672. We review constantly our practices, we learn from sharing our experiences with other regulators across Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, and we collaborate and share expertise. We also use clinical experts from across the UK when we review particular services, and we have experts to look at those services objectively. We used experts when dealing with the clostridium difficile outbreak, the hyponatraemia review and our review on blood safety. We will also use experts for our planned review of maternity services across Northern Ireland and for child protection arrangements, and so on. We have a wholly lay board that is made up of 12 members and a chairman.

673. The Bill does three things for the RQIA — we shorten the name of the authority to RQIA, because we find it easier to say. First, it tidies up our title and establishes the RQIA in legislation, — in place of the Northern Ireland Health and Personal Social Services Regulation and Improvement Authority — and that is welcome as it clarifies the situation for many people.

674. Secondly, the Bill impacts on the organisations that we will review. For example, we will have responsibility for reviewing and regulating the proposed new regional organisations: the regional health and social care board; the regional agency for public health and social well-being; and the regional support services organisation.

675. Thirdly, it transfers the functions of the Mental Health Commission to the RQIA, and that change is welcome. Since the transfer of the Mental Health Commission was first mooted some 12 to 18 months ago, the RQIA has worked collaboratively with the Mental Health Commission on a range of issues. Over the summer, we took a strategic approach on an operational level to discuss and plan how the services will come together, if the legislation comes into effect from 1 April 2009. We have established a project board, which includes the chairman, the chief executive and the commissioners of the Mental Health Commission with officers of the same rank in the RQIA.

676. The project board’s work to date has included developing an action plan in response to a due diligence report that the RQIA had undertaken; clarifying the legal implications of the change on the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 for the RQIA; clarifying the implications for our board — our 12 lay members and chairman; reaching agreement on the workforce plans and the financial implications with the Mental Health Commission; and developing an appropriate communications plan so that the public know exactly what is happening. The project board’s work has also included developing and reaching agreement on how the RQIA will take over the Mental Health Commission’s operational work. That was an important piece of work, and I am pleased that we achieved full agreement with the Mental Health Commission at our project-board meeting last week. We have now agreed how we will take the work forward, which is a major step.

677. The pathway is now clear for the transfer to take place. The RQIA is ready, willing and able to progress that important work, and it has wider powers than the Mental Health Commission. It means that the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority will regulate all services in the health and social care family in Northern Ireland. It will also be subject to the necessary vigour that is required under the regulation.

678. I shall now had over to Mr Quinn and Mr O’Neill, who will tell the Committee how that will be done.

679. Mr Phelim Quinn (Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority): I shall deal with the discharge of the functions of the Mental Health Commission under the RQIA and the comprehensive model that we have developed in conjunction with the Mental Health Commission’s senior management staff.

680. In developing the comprehensive model, we have worked in partnership with the mental-health commissioners. We have also used the resources of senior psychiatric professionals across Northern Ireland. Establishing the dedicated mental-health and learning-disability team under that model has been an important factor in developing and delivering the functions of the Mental Health Commission, as set out in the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986. I will speak in more detail about the model as I go along.

681. That model enshrines several factors. First, the specific care, treatment and human rights of individuals are embraced in the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986. It has been stated that the RQIA concentrates on systems and organisations, but the authority also fully acknowledges its requirement to focus on individuals.

682. Secondly, it is stipulated that there must be engagement and consultation with wider service users, their groups and advocates. The RQIA is concerned about the context in which care is provided. In a previous submission to the Committee, the authority was told of concerns about psychiatric-unit environments in which care is provided in Northern Ireland. I will address that issue later.

683. Thirdly, there must be an assessment of the level and availability of care using quality standards, at the same time as considering clinical- and social-care guidelines, legislative regulations and legislative standards.

684. All those elements will be incorporated in the RQIA’s work under the 1986 Order and the Health and Personal Social Services (Quality, Improvement and Regulation) (Northern Ireland) Order 2003.

685. Account must also be taken of enforcement action in response to non-compliance. With both organisations working in tandem under the two relevant pieces of legislation, the responsibility for enforcement lies with the RQIA. Therefore, to some extent, the circle will be squared when it comes to discovering what is going wrong. We can then make recommendations and take any required enforcement action.

686. The RQIA is committed to promoting and protecting the core functions of the Mental Health Commission. In order to do that, key issues in several areas must be addressed. Those issues include independence, multidisciplinary working, investigative action, inspectorial action, advisory and advocacy work, and protection of patients and the public.

687. Finding a new way forward involves using the powers that are combined after the transfer in a manner that reflects the Bamford Review’s aspirations. Any work that the RQIA does will be future-proofed in line with that review’s aims, objectives and legislative recommendations. The RQIA will retain and develop its commitment to focus on the individual and the rights of service users and of their carers, incorporating enforcement powers.

688. The authority will promote multi-professional and lay working. The RQIA wants to include the lay concept in its work under the Mental Health Commission, and in the broader remit to the RQIA itself for inspection, review, governance and service reviews.

689. Extra emphasis must be put on the promotion and sharing of good practice across mental-health and learning-disability services. Once found anywhere else in the rest of the UK, in the Republic of Ireland or, indeed, in the rest of the world, examples of good practice will be shared with services.

690. There will be a drive to encourage wider promotion of service-user engagement on mental-health advocacy. That means more than simply looking at mental disorder and learning disability per se; it involves the promotion of good mental health in the Northern Ireland population.

691. The RQIA seeks to enshrine respect for everyone’s human rights and the right to timely, high-quality care. It aims to promote choice and to listen to the needs of individual service users and the views of their carers in order to develop a culture of learning and innovation. The authority will find and challenge deficient practice, and it will show integrity, and be open and transparent, in its work with service users.

692. The RQIA wants to work in a more accessible, responsible and targeted manner. It will engage more with the public. The RQIA is about to close consultation on its public-participation strategy. Among the key factors to be inserted into that strategy is the authority’s work in the areas of mental health and learning disability. It is also hoped that two external reference groups with service users will be established — a specific one each for mental-health service users and learning-disability service users. That will enable the RQIA to obtain both constituencies’ views, which will further inform all aspects of its service provision.

693. On the issue of operational alignment, the RQIA regards the transfer as an opportunity to build on existing resources by adding an expert specialist team of full-time and paid sessional multi-professional officers. Mental health commissioners are currently part-time members drawn from a range of professions. The commission has always aspired to have full-time officers. There is now the opportunity to employ those full-time officers and to supplement skills and expertise with sessional workers, such as psychiatrists, approved social workers and other care workers, who may not be represented in the full-time workforce.

694. In line with the Bamford Review recommendations, the RQIA visiting programme will include annual announced and unannounced reviews and inspections of mental-health and learning-disability hospital facilities in Northern Ireland.

695. An additional aspect of that programme that we wish to emphasise is that it will not just comprise visits to hospitals and buildings but will review the effectiveness, quality and safety of the new service-delivery models for mental health and learning disability that are developing throughout Northern Ireland. For instance, we wish to evaluate the effectiveness of home treatment and crisis- and rapid-response services, and consider how they address the needs of individuals who use them.

696. We are conscious of the high suicide rate in Northern Ireland, and, therefore, we wish to specifically focus on that. We have just completed a risk-assessment and risk-management review of adult mental-health services, and we wish to maintain that focus in order to ensure that health and social care organisations in Northern Ireland are working in line with the Northern Ireland suicide prevention strategy.

697. There should be a specific focus on services for people with learning disabilities — whether those services are in hospitals or in the community — and we are committed to maintaining a specific review programme for visits to, and inspections of, learning-disability services in Northern Ireland.

698. The Committee may also be aware that, following the transfer of responsibilities for the commissioning and provision of prison health, part of RQIA’s remit means that it now has oversight of those services. Given the incidence of mental-health problems in the prison population, we are required to continue to review the quality, safety and availability of mental-health services in Northern Ireland’s prisons.

699. Another area, which I touched on earlier, is our recent programme of unannounced hygiene inspections. Although called “hygiene inspections”, they consider the general environment in which care is provided. Resonating from our previous discussions with the Committee, we wish to extend those inspections to mental-health and learning-disability facilities in order to help us make robust recommendations about how such facilities should be improved for service users.

700. Those measures consider service provision. We wish to protect the rights of individuals in the service and to maintain a focus on people who are subject to guardianship orders, whether such people be in hospitals, in the community or in regulated sector services in the community. Furthermore, we want to maintain and deliver a service that enables us to monitor the key function of detention under the 1986 Order.

701. We will employ a sessional medical panel to continuously review treatment plans. That panel, under the Order, will appoint part II and part IV doctors. We will also employ a sessional panel of approved social workers to ensure that guardianship is closely monitored in Northern Ireland.

702. We wish to develop a revised code of practice for governance. Work on that has already started as part of the project plan for the transfer of functions, and it will reflect our responsibilities under the 1986 Order. The code of practice will also take account of the relevant elements of the Health and Personal Social Services (Quality, Improvement and Regulation) (Northern Ireland) Order 2003.

703. The functions arising from the 1986 Order will be subject to rigorous, internal performance management in RQIA. We will produce quarterly reports for our board that will reflect activity and outcome measures arising from RQIA’s work on mental-health and learning-disability services. Furthermore, in order to help our board understand the issues for mental-health and learning-disability service users, we propose to develop a mental-health advisory group that will take advice from senior professionals and will reflect the mental-health and learning-disability population in Northern Ireland. Further to our meeting with the project board last week, development of that has already started.

704. Communication is a significant issue, which was also discussed at our project board meeting last week. Up until now, the Mental Health Commission has always used distinctive blue writing paper. When the mental-health and learning-disability services received blue letters, they were always very mindful that those were letters of significance that could have highlighted any issues or problems that arose in those particular services. As a proven brand, the RQIA proposes to use the same blue paper and envelopes that were previously used by the Mental Health Commission, so that that message continues in the services across Northern Ireland.

705. We are very happy to take questions.

706. The Chairperson: Do you want to say anything at this juncture, Jude?

707. Mr Jude O’Neill (Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority): To build on what Alice and Phelim said, the RQIA will endeavour to protect and promote the core functions of the Mental Health Commission, as enshrined in the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, as they transfer across to the RQIA. That includes a commitment to maintaining the spirit of the view of the 1986 Order — an approach that reflects a body that is independent, multidisciplinary, investigative, inspectorial, advisory and protective.

708. The Chairperson: We had a tour of Muckamore Abbey earlier today and discovered that there is 100% occupancy, which means that people are being turned away. Some of the families of inpatients, who may have been here for 40-odd years, think that those inpatients could be put into the community. There is a feeling that that is the way to go, because Paul Goggins said that nobody should be institutionalised by 2014.

709. However, the Committee holds the view that one size does not fit all. We have heard from families and friends of Muckamore Abbey patients who would be loath to see family members who have been here for perhaps 40 years being put into the community — particularly older parents, who could not manage to care for their son or daughter. They would need a 24/7 service, and the cost of providing that is over £100,000 a person.

710. What is the RQIA’s role in a situation in which people feel that their family members should stay in a secure environment rather than being put out into the community? Do you have powers to become involved and make recommendations to reflect the fact that not everyone wants to go into the community?

711. Mr Quinn: The quality standards for health and social care, as published by the Department, are mindful to reflect the views of service users and their carers. They form the basic framework against which the RQIA assesses services. I am in absolute agreement with the Committee: one size does not fit all. In the regulated sector, we find people who regard their placement in that sector as their own home. To some extent, the long-term residents or patients of Muckamore Abbey and their carers regard it, or some of its wards, as their own home.

712. Currently, we have the right to assess those services to find out whether adequate views are taken from service users about how their care packages are being planned, and whether it is appropriate for people to be placed in the community. Through any review process, we will ensure that there is robustness and an evidence base, as well as an engagement with residents and their carers in placing people in alternative services. We will assess those services, and we will make recommendations on the back of those assessments.

713. The Chairperson: There are over 200 people in Muckamore Abbey at the moment, and it is planned that the number of beds will be reduced to 87. However, people are not being placed in the community. Bed blocking and 100% occupancy already exists.

714. How can you argue for resettling patients into the community when, currently, you cannot cope with getting them out of the care facilities? There are people in Muckamore Abbey who should have been out in the community a couple of years ago; they still cannot get out because the facility and back-up to do that is not available. I am interested to hear your views on that, and I welcome the fact that you will examine the issue.

715. Unannounced visits are also an issue. The Committee has asked for its members to be able to examine standards in their own communities and in one another’s communities, collectively or individually, because it is us, the politicians, who get it in the neck. As elected representatives, we are on the front line; our constituents fill mail bags with letters about the state of our hospitals, the lack of hygiene and the non-implementation of the policy of staff not wearing their uniforms outside work. I still see physiotherapists and other healthcare professionals shopping in my local stores while still wearing their uniforms. My understanding is that there is a Health Service-wide policy about not wearing uniforms outside the workplace.

716. Do you think that elected representatives should be allowed to make unannounced visits? Members of the community come to us first, telling us, for example, that their relatives are in a hospital ward that has blood splattered on the walls and floor, that the ward is never cleaned, and so forth. I know that this issue is a hot potato.

717. Mr Quinn: It is, and it is not, a hot potato, in that we believe that patients’ experience is probably the first indicator of their perception of their quality of care. To some extent, the public-observed experience of what is happening in hospitals is the only valid view. Having said that, I think that that must complemented by the professional view on infection-control practices and other forms of estates management relating to infection control.

718. I am sure that elected representatives do go into hospitals, and I am sure that they make comments. We are happy to take those comments on board. The RQIA can take direction about unannounced visits to specific facilities. I am conscious of the Chairperson’s comments at our last meeting, which have been at the forefront of our minds concerning unannounced hygiene inspections.

719. I will give you some background. We were asked by the Minister to conduct a series of unannounced hygiene inspections. We did that without any additional resources, and those inspections were, to a certain extent, a test bed. We have started to recruit a specialist team of inspectors, and we intend to run a full programme of annual unannounced inspections from November. Those inspections will go beyond acute hospital facilities; they will extend into mental-health and learning-disability facilities, community facilities and will also provide advice to the regulated sector. There will be no hiding place from our unannounced hygiene programme. We will be there, and we will report. The inspections may take different forms at different times. We hope that we can do them in clusters, so we will do a round of visits in, for example, a maternity service or in a group of acute mental-health hospitals. We will report on that very openly, as we have done previously.

720. The Chairperson: As elected representatives, we also have a duty of care to our constituents. When we take a phone call telling us that we should see the state of the bed, the ward or the toilets that someone’s relative or loved one is having to put up with, I think that we should be able to do something about that, thereby complementing one another. There is the possibility of overstepping demarcation lines that have been set by professionals, but elected representatives are not going to cost the Government anything by doing this. We are elected and paid representatives, and, therefore, it will not drain financial resources. Thank you for your points; I will take them on board.

721. Dr Deeny: I commend the RQIA. When we met previously, I asked Phelim whether the authority could hold the Department and the trust to account. Since that occasion, you have conducted three unannounced hospital visits.

722. Mr Quinn: We have conducted five visits.

723. Dr Deeny: I can recall the visits to Downe Hospital, Craigavon Area Hospital and Altnagelvin Area Hospital. Where were the others?

724. Mr Quinn: They were at Belfast City Hospital and the Causeway Hospital.

725. Dr Deeny: I commend you for arriving unannounced, inspecting the premises and publicising your findings. It demonstrates that the RQIA can hold trusts to account and, furthermore, justifies the motion that the Committee tabled in the Assembly. Although the Minister wanted to focus on one trust, you visited different trusts. Indeed, four of those visits took place outside the Northern Health and Social Trust, and deficiencies were found on every occasion.

726. Alice mentioned the organisation’s independence. What is your role within the structures? It is difficult for the public, the Committee — and even a healthcare professional such as me — to understand all the acronyms, and so on. Who guides and instructs you? Will you remain independent? That will enable you to hold the Department to account.

727. I reiterate the Chairperson’s comments. Although I have travelled the road to the airport many times, today is my first visit to Muckamore Abbey. I am impressed with the standard of care received by people with learning disabilities. You mentioned that you will assume the remit and duties of the Mental Health Commission. Will you be involved in commissioning mental health?

728. Ms Casey: No, we will not.

729. Dr Deeny: Will you have an influence?

730. Mr Quinn: We will influence the shape of the quality safety agenda for mental-health and learning-disability services. Our focus will be on individuals because, under the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, loss of liberty will be a major issue. We must defend people’s liberty and ensure that, when people lose their liberty under the Order — through a detention or guardianship — it is done within the law, and every technical detail is checked and monitored. Until now, that has been the Mental Health Commission’s role. However, we value the fact that it will be our responsibility from 1 April 2009.

731. Dr Deeny: I have worked in the community for years, and the services at Muckamore Abbey could not be matched or afforded in the community. The services are wonderful, and I am delighted that I came today. Some of the people here are severely disabled and have left the community because they could not cope with the stigma or had been picked on. Moreover, safety is an important consideration. Those people live in a safe environment and in a happy comfort zone. We have all learnt from today’s visit. Will you explain your independence?

732. Ms Casey: The RQIA believes that it is independent. We are a non-departmental public body that is funded by the Department. Therefore, we use public funds. However, beyond that, we determine our own journey. We have a lay board that comprises 13 significant people from Northern Ireland, who, rigorously, hold us to account on our independence. Although some of our work is commissioned by the Department and the Minister, we determine the majority of it ourselves. We establish our own agenda and work, and we are currently planning a three-year programme of reviews of health and social care services and the regulated sector. That review will be unveiled at a board meeting in November 2008.

733. Nobody influences our reviews, which we send to the Department and to the Minister. For the sake of factual accuracy, reports go back to the trust or organisation that we reviewed, but the findings are our findings. That has always been clear to us, and, judging from my discussions with the Department and with the trust chief executives, that approach is recognised and respected as being necessary for governance purposes.

734. As the Bill states, the RQIA currently reviews the health and social services boards and other agencies. We believe that we will review the new regional health and social care board, the regional agency for public health and social well-being, the regional support services organisation and any other new organisations. Although we believe that we are, to a large degree, our own masters, we recognise that we cannot all be our own masters in this world. We will, however, have some element of independence.

735. Mrs Hanna: The RQIA’s subsuming the Mental Health Commission will mean quite a change from its present role; it is an additional responsibility. The commission is concerned with people whereas the RQIA is, perhaps, more concerned with institutions. Phelim listed the endless issues involved; are extra resources available? Much more expertise will be required for the RQIA to go in a different direction. It is interesting that the Mental Health Commission is to become part of the RQIA, and I can understand why that decision was taken. However, will it be within the RQIA’s remit to consider any proposed legislation for competence for patients? Users and healthcare professionals have concerns.

736. Ms Casey: The current budget for the Mental Health Commission will transfer to the RQIA. There will be a slight reduction in that budget because Lombard House, where the commission is currently based, will not have to be maintained. There will be greater economies of scale because there will be no duplication. As Phelim explained, the plan is that a distinct team of people will be employed who are resourced to undertake this important work. The budget is adequate, and we will decide how to use that money.

737. Mr Quinn: As Alice says, we are considering a radically different model of delivery for the functions of the Mental Health Commission under the Bill. We are moving to an employee-based model, which may look slightly more expensive but is, in fact, built within the confines of the existing Mental Health Commission budget. There have been early indications that the Department is committed to that budget, with an in-year uplift for any cost-of-living increases. The money is there; however, if we find that our ability to discharge those functions is challenged by budget restrictions, we will make representations to the Department. The transfer of functions must be done properly; we do not want to cut corners and risk individuals’ human rights.

738. It is a different departure for us, but we are working closely with our colleagues in England and Wales, who are currently undergoing the same type of transfer. From 1 April 2009, in England, the Care Quality Commission is assuming the responsibilities of the Healthcare Commission, the Commission for Social Care Inspection, and the Mental Health Act Commission. Similarly, in Wales, Healthcare Inspectorate Wales is assuming the responsibilities of the Mental Health Act Commission, and something similar will happen in Scotland under the Crerar Review. It is useful to have that peer group working to the same timescale in developing models of delivery for a piece of work that is focused on the individual in organisations that have formerly been focused on institutions.

739. Mrs Hanna spoke about the capacity legislation to which reference is made in the Bamford legislative framework. I will be honest; we will have to consider the details, but it is our view that the RQIA, in subsuming the functions of the Mental Health Commission, will have a role to play in the protection of individuals. I cannot say how that will play out. That legislation has not yet been made, so we do not know the details.

740. Mrs Hanna: When you make those recommendations, you will find — as we and everyone else does — that the resources are not available for their implementation. Will you then act as champions for mental health? I suspect that you will make recommendations, but, as we saw here in Muckamore, the resources are not available, even for good recommendations that everyone supports. That is the situation.

741. Mr Quinn: There is the potential for that to happen.

742. People continually warn that the budget is not available to do x, y or z. However, I will give you a small example. The RQIA happened to be in Craigavon Area Hospital for a clostridium difficile review a fortnight after the unannounced hygiene inspection. We were pleasantly surprised that the chief executive and the chairperson had walked the floor of the hospital after the inspection to ensure that all the estates issues that had been identified as a result of the inspection were being addressed. When we were there a fortnight later, they had been addressed. At times, it had been said that the money was not there to address those estates issues, yet — by virtue of the fact that we were going to publish the findings of that report, which includes photographs of the state of the facilities — action was taken. We were very pleasantly surprised by that.

743. Ms Casey: It is important to remember that not all recommendations cost money and that sometimes we can cut through all of the financial issues and simply get people to do their jobs properly.

744. The Chairperson: Sometimes that is the answer: doing the job properly.

745. Mr Gardiner: Ms Casey, you represent the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority. For the benefit of the public, I give the full title, as you were directed to do by the Chairperson but failed to do so.

746. I am disappointed by what you said in relation to your organisation. It has responsibility for the hygiene and cleanliness of hospitals. Blame me as being the culprit of Craigavon. I visited the hospital and made public the state it was in, because I had been made aware of the dangers of clostridium difficile, and I know of a lady who died as a result of that infection. That fact was not even recorded on her death certificate, which represented a risk to the undertakers who handled the body. That is under investigation.

747. I met the chief executive of Craigavon Area Hospital, and also the chairperson of the trust, who arrogantly maintained that she knew what she was talking about and asked how I dared to criticise her hospital. It is not her hospital: it is there to help and to cure people. Since the hospital is in my constituency, I represent the people who use the hospital and who work in it. I drew attention to what I had observed: children were going in and out — with their parents, admittedly — at all times, and visiting hours were not regulated. Fortunately, that issue has now been brought into perspective, and visiting times are now enforced. Children were climbing over and under the beds, when clostridium difficile was rife in the hospital. That should not have been permitted, and it has now been brought under control. I spoke with the Minister — blame me again — and voiced my concern about what was happening. He acted, and he told me that he had ordered an independent visit to the accident and emergency department, which was still not up to standard.

748. Had your organisation been on top of things, it would not have been necessary for me, or any member of the Committee, to bring that to the Minister’s attention or to make the public aware of the situation.

749. The Chairperson: Ms Casey, do you have any comment?

750. Mr Gardiner: Guilty.

751. Ms Casey: We are not guilty. The clostridium difficile review required us to examine the state of Northern Ireland’s preparedness for an outbreak. Across Northern Ireland, we found good and bad. Some trusts were better than others. That is what we found, and that is what we reported to the trusts and to the Minister.

752. We are not complacent. There is no doubt that all the trusts can improve, and some show more room for improvement than others. We did a good job on that first part of the review. We saw what we saw on the day that we visited the hospital. We did not, and could not, visit all areas of the trust. We did not visit for a longer period of time because that would have required far too many resources. On the day that we visited Craigavon Area Hospital, what we saw was quite reasonable. Undoubtedly, however, there was room for improvement.

753. Mr Gardiner: Was that on your second visit?

754. Ms Casey: Do you mean was it on our second visit or on the visit that we made in order to carry out the hygiene report?

755. Mr Gardiner: On which visit was the matter first drawn to your attention?

756. Ms Casey: The hygiene report was carried out around two weeks before we visited the hospital to conduct the clostridium difficile review.

757. Mr Gallagher: It is important that you clarify a little comment that is made in Alice’s letter to the Committee Clerk, which states:

“The RQIA recognises that it must make provision in its governance structure for an increased emphasis on mental health and learning disabilities.”

That recognition is important and welcome. First, can you clarify whether it will be your responsibility, or that of the Department, to make an appointment? Secondly, how do you envisage that that will work? Will it involve one individual or several? What do you seek to achieve? It would be best if someone were involved on the board who is a powerful advocate for people who suffer from poor mental health or who have learning disabilities.

758. I am trying to make the point while having every respect for you. We often come across that type of phraseology. Often, the outcome is simply a token gesture. How do you imagine that that will work?

759. Ms Casey: I can say clearly that the board will not have a member who represents mental health and learning disabilities. That is not in the plan. The board consists completely of lay people. It does not have representation from any group at all. It examines how the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority carries out its work and whether it does so appropriately in all circumstances. However, strong governance arrangements will ensure that we do what we should do in respect of that new area of care.

760. Part of our responsibility is to establish the team that will undertake that work. Although it will be led by Jude, it will be managed by, and accountable to, me. Therefore, a team of people will be dedicated to undertake that work, which will fit into our governance and quality-assurance arrangements, and will be scrutinised by one of our other executive directors. Regular reports will be made. The board currently receives regular monthly reports on work progress with the Mental Health Commission to effect the transfer properly. Those reports will continue after 1 April 2009 so that the board can discuss how progress is being made to absorb the Mental Health Commission’s work.

761. The main focus of Phelim’s earlier point is that an expert advisory panel will be appointed to guide the board and the senior officers of the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority on how we conduct our work on mental-health and learning-disability services. Therefore, governance checks will be carried out at all levels of the organisation.

762. The Chairperson: Everyone who indicated has been given the opportunity to ask questions. I thank Alice, Phelim and Jude for coming along and giving their presentation.

2 October 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mrs Michelle O’Neill (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Buchanan
Dr Kieran Deeny
Mr Alex Easton
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr Sam Gardiner
Mrs Carmel Hanna
Mr John McCallister
Mrs Claire McGill
Ms Sue Ramsey

Witnesses:

Mrs Liz Cavan
Mr Tom Sullivan
Ms Liz McKnight

Allied Health Professions Federation UK

763. The Deputy Chairperson (Mrs O’Neill): Our next session is representatives of the Allied Health Professions Federation. I welcome Liz Cavan, Liz McKnight and Tom Sullivan to the meeting. I invite you to make a short presentation and answer Committee members’ questions.

764. Mr Tom Sullivan (Allied Health Professions Federation NI): I thank the Deputy Chairperson and members of the Committee for allowing us to present the case of allied health professionals at short notice. We appreciate that the Committee has a busy schedule, so we will try to keep our presentation as brief as possible.

765. Like our medical and nursing colleagues, we have a number of concerns about the proposals for health and social-care reform. We also have a different perspective from our medical and nursing colleagues on how some of those proposals will be played out. The purpose of our presentation is to demonstrate the unified and collective view of allied health professionals.

766. The Allied Health Professions Federation represents more than 6,000 health and social-care workers throughout Northern Ireland. We work on all programmes of care and with all age groups. Initially, we welcomed the proposals for health and social-care reform as an opportunity to redress deficiencies at departmental, board, local-commissioning-group (LCG) and trust level and to reposition allied health professions in those various structures. Some of our concerns have been addressed, but the proposals overlook many of the concerns that we have raised.

767. I appreciate that the evidence session’s focus is not on the departmental structures. However, the departmental structures should also be reviewed to ensure that they are compatible with the other proposed arrangements. The legislation outlines the remit of the Department as a policy-development role for improving the health and social care of the population of Northern Ireland. However, the top-structures review, which was completed in August 2006, highlights the deficiencies of the department’s policy process.

768. Like our medical and nursing colleagues, we welcome the creation of a single regional health and social care board and the abolition of the four trusts. However, we have reservations about the representation of allied health professionals on that regional board. We welcome the emphasis that the regional agency for public health and social well-being will place on health promotion and protection. Allied health professions have a significant role to play in the public-health agenda. Our skills have been underutilised in the past, but that deficiency can be addressed now.

769. My colleague Liz Cavan, who is the chairperson of the council of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy and a member of the Allied Health Professions Federation UK, will present our concerns about the proposed commissioning arrangements.

770. Mrs Liz Cavan (Allied Health Professions Federation UK): The Allied Health Professions Federation broadly supports the concept of commissioning to secure the best possible outcomes for health and well-being. We promote an inclusive approach, in which the staff who deliver the services have genuine ownership of the local commissioning groups’ plans.

771. It is planned that each group will have one allied health professional on it. Like the Royal College of Nursing Northern Ireland (RCNNI), we believe that each allied health professional will have a very broad church to deal with, and will need their colleagues’ support in order to deal with that effectively.

772. We very much believe that a bottom-up approach should be adopted, with professionals, users and local government having input into the plan. Working together, the front-line services could really take ownership of that commissioning plan and feel that it is theirs and is seen to be inclusive.

773. I hope that this does not ruin me, but I was involved with the commissioning arrangements for the local health and social care groups (LHSCGs). Although there were definite deficiencies — particularly their not having GPs on board — those groups achieved some good things. They would have been strengthened, unlike our British Medical Association colleagues suggested, by the inclusion of local-government officials. Some members may be aware of some of the initiatives that the LHSCGs started.

774. Allied health professionals work with local government: speech and language therapists work with SureStart in areas and wards of deprivation; and occupational therapists work with their housing colleagues. New work is taking place in leisure centres, where physiotherapists are training leisure-centre staff so that people with long-term conditions can receive rehabilitation to keep themselves as fit as possible. Working with our colleagues has made that work possible.

775. That partnership will do nothing but help the health of the population. Physiotherapists and dietitians are working with leisure-centre staff to tackle obesity. Our dietitians are also working with environmental health officers to give consideration to the issue of food-labelling. There are many areas in which we feel that health and well-being will be supported by taking a bottom-up approach.

776. From that point of view, we differ a little from our medical colleagues. Clarification is required in the commissioning process on the extent of the financial controls. We agree with the RCNNI that there must be clarity on the groups’ authority. Care is also needed to ensure that there is no duplication between the regional board’s role and that of the LCGs. It must be clear who commissions what, in order that duplication is avoided. Regional commissioning must have a local flavour — localities must have an input into what is commissioned regionally. The problem is that we have yet to see some detail.

777. Ms Liz McKnight (Allied Health Professions Federation NI): I shall talk about the proposed patient and client council. We fully support the establishment of one patient and client council, but one in which the five local offices cover the same geographical area as the trusts.

778. We need to ensure that there is adequate capacity in those local offices to provide a strong voice for our local population to be able to understand the structures in the individual trusts. There is a great deal of variance among trust structures and processes right across Northern Ireland. It is important that local people can get to grips with their local trusts’ processes. When working in a trust, it is sometimes difficult to know what the processes in that trust are, let alone try to figure out what is going on in another trust.

779. We would also support and acknowledge the role that the voluntary and client-representative groups would have in those local offices. That is important, because it would provide patients with a real voice. Patients who currently feel unable to voice their concerns could do so, and there would exist a representation that could channel and challenge patients’ experience.

780. We know that patients sometimes find it difficult to access the healthcare services that they require because of barriers, and they want someone to represent their view. Voluntary groups can often be a useful advocate for patients.

781. We also want to comment on the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA), which is responsible for overseeing the quality of patient services across Northern Ireland. Our medical, nursing and social-services colleagues are all represented at director level in the structures of the RQIA. However, allied health professionals do not have similar representation, despite a recommendation from the Department. Therefore, there is a gap in the monitoring of the delivery of the quality, effectiveness and safety of the services that our patients use.

782. Allied health professionals want to work in partnership with all the groups that are involved in healthcare delivery, including our colleagues from the different professions, local government, and, particularly, our patients and clients. Having all parties engaged in the process is the right direction for the new structures to take. We thank the Committee for its time.

783. The Deputy Chairperson: When we met informally, one of your concerns was the inadequate support structure in the Department for your professions. Has that situation improved any since we last met? I know that all trusts were supposed to appoint someone to liaise with the allied health professions, but has that happened?

784. Mr Sullivan: Last Friday, we were informed that there is nobody at a departmental level with responsibility for issues that pertain to the allied health professions. There is an allied health professions adviser in the Department, who has been on long-term sick leave for a while. Some civil servants were seconded to do specific project work and undertook the adviser’s role to provide advice to the Department. Those secondees have since retired. Therefore, as of last Friday, there is no one in the Department with the appropriate expertise and experience to advise it on issues that affect the allied health professions.

785. When the review of public administration (RPA) proposals were being considered last year, the allied health professions adviser was, again, on long-term sick leave, which meant that there was nobody at departmental level to advise appropriately the various working groups that were examining the proposed changes to the structures. Therefore, there was no effective input from the allied health professions. We raised that issue with the Minister last October, and secondments were made. However, as I said, those people have since left, so we are in a worse position, because there is no one in the Department to offer advice on issues that affect the allied health professions. It would be unimaginable to have no nursing or medical advice at the Department, yet that is the position in which we find ourselves.

786. The Deputy Chairperson: That is incredible, especially after the representation that the Committee made on the matter after we first met the allied health professionals. We will have to take that issue up with the Department. You must be concerned that, despite all the restructuring, the views of allied health professionals have been left out of the equation.

787. Mr Sullivan: Even if the adviser were to return from sick leave, there remains an issue of capacity — there would be only one person to cover all the work streams in the Department, including workforce development, training, and strategy and policy advice. Therefore, there would still be no capacity or structure for allied health professions at departmental level. The adviser’s status in the Department is not reflected as it is in other areas of the UK. In England, Scotland and Wales, there is a chief health-professions officer at departmental level, who has a direct link to the relevant Minister. Our adviser does not have that status in the Department. Even if the adviser returns, neither the structure nor the support for the role is in place.

788. The Deputy Chairperson: The Committee will raise that point with the Department.

789. Mr Gallagher: Thank you all for attending the Committee this afternoon. You expressed your concerns about the proposal for only one representative from the allied health professions on each new local commissioning group. I share that concern, because there is a wide range of allied health professionals, from speech therapists to occupational therapists. Indeed, I know from experience that occupational therapists are further split between those who work solely in a hospital unit and those who work in the community. The two, therefore, have different perspectives. I understand that such a split means that increased representation would be better.

790. What is a fair level of representation? Is it a minimum of two representatives on LCGs, or have you a different preferred figure in mind? Moreover, I am not clear about how you feel about representation of allied health professionals on the regional board. Your submission states that the Committee should, under the reorganisation, note:

“the roles and career prospects of a high number of very experienced and valuable AHP colleagues have been cut in order to make further savings.”

791. I am sure that other Committee members are aware of the demand for therapeutic support. That remains on the increase. Therefore, such a cut seems strange.

792. Mrs Cavan: We have a grave concern that, through the reorganisation, we seem to have lost an entire level of allied health professionals. That presents many difficulties, because those who managed the allied health professions were often, particularly in the smaller professions, allied health professionals who worked in a clinical capacity for part of the time.

793. In the other, larger professions, some managers had the important duties of ensuring that more junior staff were looked after and properly trained, and of maintaining the governance of the systems for which they were responsible. The removal of that layer of management means that that looking-after, the arranging of leave, and so forth, are now the responsibility of people who are specialists in their area and should be at the coalface with patients.

794. We are concerned that to remove a complete layer of management will affect patient care and leave less time for those professionals to carry out clinical work, because all those activities must still be carried out somehow. It is a matter of striking a balance: the management structures should not be overbearing, but they must be able to look after staff needs, including their training needs, and ensure the safety and care of patients.

795. You asked how many representatives we want to have on LCGs. We do not have a specific number in mind, but each new local commissioning group needs an allied health professional. However, underlying structures, from which those professionals can obtain support and advice, are also required.

796. The allied health professions — from radiography to drama and art therapists — are also part of a broad church. Consequently, so that a person striving for good commissioning is not left alone, he or she must have good support from staff with the time to provide it. We do not say that we require one of everything, or that two people should be present; however, we do require a support system.

797. Mr Sullivan: We do not want a situation similar to that which arose in the past, when there were seven commissioning groups, and one AHP representative had to look after two, and in some instances three, groups. Clearly, it was a conflict of interest for that individual to represent more than one commissioning group. Therefore, unlike the previous situation, we want a dedicated AHP representative for each group.

798. Dr Deeny: Next year’s changes to local commissioning are important. Last year, someone from one of the GP magazines rang me about an article and said that, although that commissioning system exists in primary care trusts in England, it does not exist anywhere else. Consequently, if next year’s proposals achieve the expected results — if they do what it says on the tin — and entire communities, including GPs, health professionals, nurses, elected representatives and community representatives, get involved, that will be a unique achievement, and I hope that it works.

799. I could not agree with Liz C more — I shall call Mrs Cavan, Liz C, and Ms McKnight, Liz Mac. [Laughter.] An individual allied health professional or nurse, who might be commissioning for 300,000 people, really does require support.

800. I am delighted that the Allied Health Professions Federation is here, because there was a time when that appeared unlikely, and, given that its members play a vital role throughout the healthcare system, the federation’s attendance is important.

801. You said that adequate resources and financial controls should be devolved to local commissioning groups. I am on the current western LCG, so I must declare an interest. However, if LCGs are to work, will AHP state on the record that, without those financial arrangements, people will become disinterested? I have no doubt about that, and that is my worry. Does AHP agree?

802. Given that the membership of my local commissioning group will have to be renewed next year, I may not be on it. Nevertheless, LCGs might become simple advisory bodies, which could be overruled at a whim by regional boards. They will be required to include representatives from the entire community — professionals of all forms and community representatives — who will all attempt to commission for local requirements. Everything, however, will require a rubber stamp from civil servants in Belfast, and might not be agreed.

803. I believe that such a system would collapse. Do allied health professionals agree with medical, nursing and, indeed, community people that, to be effective for people at a local level, commissioning clout must be backed by adequate finance? Otherwise, we are not interested.

804. Mrs Cavan: The straight answer is yes. We are keen that the local commissioning groups will not just be talking shops; that their role will be clear; that they will know how much they can commission; and that their financial structures will be specified. All of that must be clear in the detail, and, given that, we will support the proposals.

805. Ms McKnight: Allied health professionals have bitter experience of those in advisory posts being listened to, but not acted on.

806. In some of the working-out of healthcare delivery and the development of the structures, we have seen how an advisory capacity limits getting things done. We have seen how advisory posts do not necessarily meet the needs. There should be a financial ability to make decisions and act on them, as opposed to having to go to another level to take that action forward.

807. Dr Deeny: The person who phoned me last year will be watching with interest to see how the local commissioning groups work when they are up and running in Northern Ireland. It may be a model that other countries might follow — if it works.

808. Mr Buchanan: I notice that you support the setting up of a regional agency for health and social wellbeing, alongside the regional health and social care board. You say that that can act as a conduit for best practice and signposting the regional health and social care board and the LCGs. I am concerned that that would be nothing more than another talking shop. I am not convinced that setting up a regional agency alongside the regional health and social care board is a good move. It is currently integrated, and I cannot see why a section cannot be set aside in the regional health and social care board to continue with that practice, rather than set up another regional body alongside the board. What would that regional body do and what would its role be? The Committee has had various meetings about the issue, and I feel that it would be acting only in an advisory role to the board — and that is what you have stated in your submission.

809. Why do you support the setting up of another regional body alongside the social care board? What will its role be, and why is it necessary to split the integrated health system already in place?

810. Mr Sullivan: I take your point about the board and the regional agency. It echoes the comments that our nursing and medical colleagues have made, in that there is a lack of clarity on the roles defined for the different groups in the legislation. We would also like to see more clarity and meat on the bones as to how the different agencies would operate. However, from my perspective, the regional board has a role in the performance management of the Health Service as well as overseeing the commissioning arrangements, and a financial management responsibility for the other HPSS agencies. The regional public health and social wellbeing agency, however, is focused on health promotion and health protection and, therefore, has a different and broader focus. It can act as a catalyst for bringing the other organisations, departments and agencies together to work in a more multidisciplinary way across different departmental boundaries, such as education and social development. The regional agency, because of its social wellbeing aspect, would be much more focused on those aspects of health promotion and health protection

811. I can see a role for a regional body, but I agree that the details of how the different organisations interconnect must be clarified.

812. Mrs Hanna: I take on board your comments about your skills being underused. Is that connected with your lack of representation at the top? You said that performance management was not happening.

813. What about the local commission groups? Have you had discussions with the nurses and GPs about how the partnership would work and whom it would comprise? It would be useful if those discussions were to happen locally. The GPs were not involved previously, but discussions should be happening now. Is that the case?

814. Ms McKnight: Unless we are at the table, AHP are often an afterthought in discussions regarding planning services. At those discussions, a service is considered and developed, up to a point; subsequently, however, someone will realise that to get a patient well, mobile, rehabbed or out of acute care, he or she will require the services of a physiotherapist, occupational therapist and, perhaps, a dietitian. At that stage, someone will tell the AHP that it is required; however, not having been factored in at the start of the process makes it more complicated and difficult.

815. That goes through the whole of the structures. The AHP should be part of the discussion at every level: from planning and delivering services to acute and primary care, and through the different structures for the commissioning and developing of services for patients.

816. Mrs Cavan: Although the GPs were not at the previous commissioning arrangements, the professionals and the members of the community — our users — who were present, worked well together and came up with lots of imaginative ideas. It was wonderful to hear people say that they needed more of a particular service, sharing the small amount of money that there was and benefiting each other.

817. If you are not at the table, people do not remember. In their submissions, the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association said that they wanted to be at the table with their colleagues from social services and nursing or social services and medicine. No malice was intended, but they tend to forget our special role. AHPs can get people out of beds more quickly and prevent people from going into hospital. That is our role, but it is sometimes overlooked. It can be an important factor in the Health Service’s finances, because bed days are expensive, and it is a role that AHP plays well.

818. Nurses or doctors at the table sometimes forget the role of the other professionals who may have those skills ready and willing to help the needs of patients. If we are present, we can remind them and make care better.

819. Mrs Hanna: Have discussions on partnerships with the local commission been facilitated by the Department?

820. Mr Sullivan: It is difficult for that to happen, because the Department does not have the capacity to bring that together. Currently, there is no AHP adviser.

821. Mrs Hanna: It would make sense if that were to happen.

822. Mr Sullivan: We would welcome discussions. Discussions are ongoing between various chief officers in the Department, but we are not at that level; we are not included in those discussions.

823. Ms Cavan: We tend to be forgotten.

824. Mr Sullivan: That is part of the difficulty.

825. The Deputy Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, and we will talk to the Department and ensure that you are not forgotten. We will see what we can do.

2 October 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mrs Michelle O’Neill (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Buchanan
Dr Kieran Deeny
Mr Alex Easton
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr Sam Gardiner
Mrs Carmel Hanna
Mr John McCallister
Mrs Claire McGill
Ms Sue Ramsey

Witnesses:

Dr Brian Dunn
Mr Danny Lambe
Dr Brian Patterson
Mr Ivor Whitten

British Medical Association (NI)

826. The Deputy Chairperson (Mrs O’Neill): We will now take evidence from the British Medical Association (NI) (BMA (NI)). I welcome Dr Brian Patterson, chairman of the Northern Ireland council of the British Medical Association; Dr Brian Dunn, chairman of the general practitioners committee; Mr Danny Lambe, deputy secretary of the British Medical Association (NI); and Mr Ivor Whitten, the association’s Assembly and research officer. I invite you to make your presentation. The evidence session will last for approximately 30 minutes.

827. Dr Brian Patterson (British Medical Association (NI)): The British Medical Association (NI) thanks you for the opportunity to attend the Committee. I listened with interest to the evidence from the representatives from the Royal College of Nursing Northern Ireland, and, for the most part, I echo their sentiments. It is interesting that two medical professions fundamentally agree.

828. I shall begin by making a few points on the overall view of the BMA (NI) to the reform of our Health Service. We will then take questions from Committee members and try to answer them as best we can.

829. The BMA (NI) welcomes the Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill as progression of phase two of the review of public administration (RPA), which deals with the reform of health and social care. It has the potential to improve the lives of many people in Northern Ireland. At the outset, I wish to clarify that our reservations are not related to the proposals for structural reform; rather, they are concerns about the function of those structures. However, we in no way wish to impede the Bill’s progress.

830. We also welcome the proposed establishment of a regional health and social care board. The BMA (NI) has long had the policy objective of reducing that which is totally unnecessary, and that includes the four health and social services boards in Northern Ireland. We strongly welcome that proposal. We also support the slimming down of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. We look forward to the savings that will be made from a reduction in bureaucracy, and to those savings being released into front-line patient care. It is vital that the reduction in bureaucracy produces those savings. Moreover, it is essential that any such savings are visible and audited, and that the Department communicates with health and social-care organisations and other stakeholders on how the savings will be redistributed to front-line patient care. It must a visible and transparent process.

831. The BMA (NI) welcomes, with reservations, the creation of a new regional support services organisation. In response to the proposals in ‘Transformation of Business Services in Health and Social Care — Shared Services’, which was published in 2007, our recommended option was for a single, centralised support service to provide a range of shared services. However, the size and bureaucracy of that support function is a concern. The BMA (NI) hopes that the huge bureaucracy is structured in such a way that it is flat and divisionalised, which is to say that there should be a streamlined hierarchy with only a few managers, as opposed to directorate upon directorate. The provision of any outsourcing of work must be subject to the application of stringent business cases and must be progressed openly and transparently. We have some concerns that such an organisation will be structured in such a way that it will be taken over by the private sector.

832. The establishment of a regional agency for public health and social well-being, as well as the priority given to public health in the new structures, is welcomed in principle. It is vital that the role and functions of public-health doctors are enhanced and backed up by the necessary staffing levels and support. The regional agency will need to interface with the Department, the regional health and social care board, the regional support services organisation and the trusts. It is essential that bureaucracy be minimised in the regional agency and among the other bodies. We are slightly concerned about the lack of clarity on how the organisations will communicate with one other.

833. There should be no clash of functions between the proposed director of public health and the Chief Medical Officer. There must be clarity in their relationship, and in the relationship of the advisory roles of the director of public health and the Chief Medical Officer to the Minister. We would also be concerned were the director of public health not medically qualified. It is quite common for that to be the case in England.

834. The BMA (NI) has concerns about the lack of engagement with public-health doctors by the public-health work-streams project team. The mechanism currently used for transparency and to involve staff does not compare to the mechanism used in the previous consultation process.

835. The mechanism by which people are selected for different work streams is unclear. As a single issue that is perhaps not terribly important; however, constraints have been placed on the ability of the people selected to consult fully with their colleagues. In particular, they have not been allowed to share relevant documentation. That appears to be illogical, as the documentation could probably be obtained through a freedom of information request. It causes much unnecessary suspicion and resentment, and it does not allow for open and transparent working.

836. The BMA welcomes the patient and client council. Its role, personnel, and finance should be effectively resourced, and its local offices should be based in the new trusts, the new LCG areas, or the new local council areas.

837. In turn, those bodies must be more strategic and visionary than reactive, as has previously been the policy. That will require the proper resourcing that we mentioned earlier. The BMA has major concerns about the top-down approach to managing commissioning. From listening to the discussion with the first set of witnesses, I understand that that is a widespread concern. An opportunity will be lost if we create local commissioning groups, but ignore the potential for further development at a community level, at groups of local practices or at individual practices.

838. The BMA strongly believes that any commissioning body that wishes to have a general practitioner involved must have the freedom — as long as they operate within the regional strategic framework — to commission services, and to place or to move contracts. Commissioning is about assessing, prioritising and commissioning according to clinical need. That must be evidence-based, and decisions must be taken by people with the appropriate level of expertise.

839. Our next point will not be popular. The BMA opinion is that elected local representatives should not be included on local commissioning groups. That is no reflection on local councillors; we do not want to minimise the importance of elected local representatives. The BMA fully supports the principle of local commissioning groups and local government working closely together on local health improvement plans.

840. Furthermore, we are realists, and recognise that our wishes will not be fulfilled. However, we will be keen to ensure that that works effectively.

841. If elected council representatives are on LCGs, the scrutiny and accountability of local councils may be eroded. The practicality of having four local representatives on each LCG is a concern. For instance, in the Northern Health and Social Care Trust area, the proposed community group will cover eight current local government areas.

842. The BMA has consistently called for more powers for local councils, especially with regard to well-being and community planning. That is essential if local councils are to engage with multiple stakeholders in planning healthier spaces for ratepayers. It would be difficult if local councillors were to commission services which they would then be required to scrutinise. The scrutiny role is more important. Historically, lack of scrutiny is an area where the Health Service has fallen down.

843. Thank you very much. We are happy to answer member’s questions.

844. The Deputy Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation. Tommy, do you want to start?

845. Mr Gallagher: Thank you for your presentation. I return to the issue about the lack of shared information in work streams. Elected representatives have found that, under RPA, in the case of local government, it has been felt that the Department has not shared information with the elected representatives who will be involved in the new set-up.

846. I presume, therefore, that the Department is also the body that is not sharing with the professionals information about all that is happening in those work streams. Is that the case?

847. Dr Patterson: The situation is even more complicated than not sharing — the difficulty is that it prohibits those who have the information from sharing it with their colleagues.

848. Mr Gallagher: Did the Department impose that restriction?

849. Dr Patterson: Fundamentally, yes, because they are the only people at present who have the information. There is little enough information available on which we can comment, but we would like to see whatever information there is to make an informed comment rather than have to fight and use legislation to get information. If the process is open and transparent — and it is hardly the Official Secrets Act — why are we not seeing that information?

850. Ms S Ramsey: When I was growing up, there was an advertisement on the television saying that one does not need a pill for every ill. I agree entirely with that.

851. Your submission states that local commissioning groups should be led from the local community upwards, that iii should not be a top-down approach, but a bottom-up approach. I agree with you totally in that respect. Therefore, I am slightly concerned at your point about elected local representatives.

852. I am not now a local councillor, but I was one for a long time. The Bill aims to achieve a holistic approach to health and social services to ensure that Departments other than Health, Social Security and Public Services play their part, whether in education, sport and leisure or on local councils. How does that fit with your view on elected local representatives? They are probably the only ones — especially at local council level — who have a holistic approach to the community’s needs, especially when councillors have grown up, live and work in that area. You need to be careful on that, which brings me back to my original point that it is not always a pill for every ill.

853. Medical practitioners, for whom I have a great deal of time and respect, do not always have the right answers. The challenge to treating heart disease or obesity could, for example, be to provide more leisure facilities. Therefore, if this Bill is to be a root-and-branch change in the approach to community health inequalities, the BMA, which is probably one of the larger medical unions, must be careful.

854. Dr Patterson: Do not get us wrong: we do not suggest that the local commissioning groups should be composed entirely of professionals, and that there is no place for community representation. That is not what we are saying. Four seats are allocated for local councils, and that could cause a problem with regard to scrutiny. That is our objection. However, that is not to say that those four seats could not be filled by other lay people from the community, empowered through various bodies. There is another way of approaching the issue which preserves the right of councils to provide firm scrutiny.

855. Dr Brian Dunn (British Medical Association (NI)): Commissioning is not a democratic process — it is not about voting whether somebody should have this or somebody should have that. The BMA(NI) believes that the political decisions are taken by the Minister, the Assembly, and the local commissioning groups. Hopefully, smaller groups below that would work within that overall strategy.

856. I am a GP. I live in, and am involved with, my community, and I am chairman of various organisations. I recognise that the local council has a big role to play. Living as they do in the community, GPs live with their mistakes as well as their successes, and that makes them human.

857. I do not think that I am infallible; I know my fallibilities. I am happy to work with other people to improve the health of the community. The Minister’s document does not recognise what true commissioning is. Northern Ireland has not had true commissioning. Boards have given huge sums of money to trusts, assuming that the volume of service will be the same as the previous year. Whether the trust either delivers or does not, in the next year, it receives the same volume of money plus an uplift.

858. Proper commissioning, as we envisage it, involves groups of practices coming together to assess the needs of their community and considering how the service is provided. It involves assessing whether there is a more efficient way of providing the service, holding the trust to account for what it does provide and cutting out inefficiencies, such as unnecessary outpatient appointments and considering drug budgets. For instance, it should look at practices having the same drug formulary as the hospital. Sometimes, patients go into hospitals on one tablet and come out on a different one just because the hospital does not use that tablet. Huge efficiencies can be made, but those efficiencies can only be made by professionals if they are fully engaged in the process.

859. Ms S Ramsey: We are not disagreeing, but a more proactive approach is needed when commissioning and local knowledge and information is considered. For example, my constituency of West Belfast had a high level of asthma for several years. People were being given the medication to deal with asthma, but no one was dealing with the Housing Executive to get rid of the cause. Local elected representatives are crucial for finding out information, and a proactive approach is required that recognises that a pill for every ill is not necessary.

860. Dr Dunn: We agree entirely with that. As doctors, we realise that the improvement in health in these islands has not come about because of better medicine. We recognise that it has come about because of better diet and better social conditions. We do not see the LCGs not working with the local councils. Local elected representatives must work closely together with the LCGs, not only to treat illness but to prevent illness and improve the health of the community. We both want the same outcome, but my perspective is slightly different from yours and that of the Minister.

861. The Deputy Chairperson: Agree to disagree.

862. Mr Easton: Thank you for your presentation. You mentioned that local councillors might not be on the local commissioning groups. Slightly before that, you suggested that another layer below that might be created that would include local representation. Can you explain more about that?

863. Dr Dunn: The Woodward proposals, the Goggins proposals and the Sissling proposals envisaged a local commissioning group. Under that, they envisaged groups of practices who use the same provider, which cover perhaps up to 50,000 patients, coming together to consider the needs of their community and how the provider was providing those needs. They envisaged that those groups would have the ability to have a devolved budget, and, if necessary, the ability to move the budget to another provider to improve the health of their community.

864. GPs did that, and fundholding was not universally popular, but the reason that fundholding patients got a better service than non-fundholding patients was not because extra money was spent on them. They got a better service because of better commissioning by the GPs.

865. For example, a fundholding practice with a practice on the Antrim coast was an isolated, single-handed practice that had a laboratory service collection twice a week. When fundholding ended, the GP had a laboratory collection twice a day, in-house physiotherapy, in-house podiatry and other services. His patients benefited, without any extra money being spent on them, and that is the way that we see services should be provided.

866. Ninety per cent of our budget is spent on hospitals, and, by increasing the efficiency and improving the service to local communities, money could be saved without sacking people or making people work harder. A year or two ago, GPs were up for that type of system, but they have become more and more cynical as delays have gone on, and they think that it will never be implemented. Our big problem will be in motivating GPs to join LCGs.

867. Dr Patterson: We do not advocate a one-size-fits-all approach. However, where local need exists, it seems strange to call it local commissioning when populations of 300,000 are involved. Most of us are familiar with practices with approximately 7,000, 11,000 or 15,000 patients. Issues in our Health Service could be sorted out at that lower level, and, although the Bill does not deny that possibility, why has the proposal changed significantly since the previous proposal? It is silent. When I explore the proposal, I am told that there is an option for local commissioning groups to suggest a lower figure. Our health boards have had many options over the years, which they have chosen not to exercise. It is difficult for large organisations to recommend smaller bodies to carry out particular tasks. There are areas in our country where local need could be addressed through smaller areas of commissioning, rather than populations of 300,000.

868. Mr Gardiner: Thank you for your presentation. I am disappointed and do not accept item 12, which refers to locally elected representatives. I declare an interest; I have been an alderman in Craigavon Borough Council for many years. I do not agree with your sentiments about locally elected representatives on this new body. Local representatives have their feet on the ground. Doctors work their hours and, afterwards, are free to play golf or go sailing. Councillors and MLAs are on call around the clock. We communicate with the public, and the public know who represents them. Therefore, I do not accept that point and your presentation is, perhaps, damned by its inclusion. I do not support you on that matter.

869. Dr Patterson: As I said during the presentation, we know that we are out on a limb on that matter. I tried to argue that the reason is not about —

870. Mr Gardiner: Why not be sensible about it?

871. Dr Patterson: I think that we will be compelled to be.

872. Mr Gardiner: You had better change your tune.

873. Dr Deeny: I disagree with Mr Gardiner. Like Brian Patterson and Brian Dunn, I am well known in the community, and I do out-of-hours GP duties.

874. Mr Gardiner: But you are a public representative.

875. Dr Deeny: That is true. My questions have, mainly, been covered. I agree with Brian Patterson that 1·7 million people spread across five local commissioning groups — amounting to over 300,000 in each area — does not constitute local commissioning. That is a concern. The Committee should consider that point.

876. The previous proposal was for the community care associations, and they covered areas of, roughly, 50,000 people each. That is local commissioning. As a GP, an elected representative and a member of community, I know that people consider 300,000 too large. We must consider reducing that figure to approximately 50,000. Our practice has over 8,000 patients, and we could amalgamate with other local practices that are aware of their specific local needs. How can the Committee address that matter — as I believe we should — to secure local commissioning and meet local health needs?

877. I accept Sue’s point, and accept the point made by the BMA; there must be a close link with councillors. Indeed, I have no problem with councillors’ being represented, because leisure centres and other facilities are involved in healthcare. Councillors are in touch with local needs in that area. How can the Committee’s response to the Department consider local need, rather than allow a regional board with five local commissioning groups to deal with more than 300,000 patients?

878. My second question is about the problems the BMA may have in communicating with the various bodies that you mentioned at the beginning. Again, I ask for your suggestions or solutions: how should communications take place between the new bodies proposed for next year?

879. Dr Patterson: To answer your second question, it is obvious that communication must be effective without involving a huge bureaucratic machine. Our major concern is that this proposal is silent on how the bodies will communicate. There is silence in other areas, for example, the number of seats available on these bodies and the persons likely to fill them. Silence always raises suspicion. I can live with it when someone states his position, and then one can argue for or against it; but silence implies a plan that we have not yet been told about. My worry is that communication must be effective, therefore people must be accountable for it. There is no need for a huge, complex machine, in which it is obvious that no one will be accountable when communications go wrong.

880. We have had a long history of being given the runaround. We speak to a trust, which tells us that the board that commissioned it is responsible; we go to that board, which says that, though it is commissioning, the trusts are not acting and the Department will not let the board do anything about it. We have spent light years running round in that circle, and we never succeed in getting the three in one room. My fear is that these bodies will act in the same way. To make communication effective, someone must be accountable for it, and we should not have to chase up 17 different culs-de-sac. To keep it simple, structuring communications is all about accountability.

881. There is something else you can do to ensure that there will be commissioning at a lower level. I am assured that what is on the table does not preclude that; however, I want firmer assurance. I want to know that it will be encouraged. With populations of 300,000, the question must be asked: are the LCGs are so very different from health boards? We may simply be moving from four health boards to five. The needs of local people are vital. We differ, in some respects, as to how those needs will be communicated, but that can be resolved. The important thing is that the ability to address those needs is definitely — not just potentially — present.

882. Dr Dunn: Regarding accountability, there was an instance recently where a board wanted to do something, but the trust said no. The board replied that it was the commissioner; the trust responded by claiming that it was not accountable to the board, but to the Department.

883. The new arrangements must ensure that the provider will be accountable to the commissioning body, rather than to the Department or anything else.

884. I must prolong the argument on elected representatives: I pushed that fairly hard in the BMA. In my community, I am a GP and an elected councillor. I know the rules of councillors, and what councillors will bring to LCGs is only peripheral and could be worked out in a meeting between the LCG and the local council. Commissioning will be about who will receive breast cancer drugs, dialysis, to where heart disease should be referred, how asthma should be treated. There are items around the periphery that will be of interest to elected local councils, but a co-ordinating committee could sort those out. There is no need to have councillors there, making decisions that, at times, will be very unpopular. However, as the Deputy Chairperson has said, I am sure that we will agree to differ.

885. Ms S Ramsey: Councillors will be the only independent element; they alone will have no agenda to push.

886. Dr Dunn: We see GPs as independent.

887. Ms S Ramsey: We’ll beg to differ on that as well. This issue is also about protection. Councillors are the only ones who are independent. The BMA — [Inaudible.]

888. Dr Deeny: Just on the back of that —

889. The Deputy Chairperson: If there is time at the end, I will return to Dr Deeny. Carmel is next.

890. Mrs Hanna: Good afternoon, gentlemen, and welcome. I take on board the point that has been made and I am concerned to ensure that savings from a reduced bureaucracy are directed towards front-line services. However, those savings must be subjected to proper accounting and auditing procedures; otherwise it will not be possible to assess their benefits. My biggest concern is how the bodies relate to each other with regard to their partnership, decision making, top-down and bottom-up relationships, where they meet in the middle, and how well they communicate.

891. The witnesses say they are concerned about the large scale of the regional support services organisation. It is so big that I wonder what it will do. It will not want to commission other services that can be obtained in-house. In a previous submission to the Committee, the Child Support Agency (CSA) stated that it was concerned about the impact on it of being subsumed into another body.

892. I am also concerned that not enough consultation has taken place with public health doctors through the Institute of Public Health. A serious effort to create a new public health body requires a lot more public consultation.

893. How do you envisage the make-up of a commissioning body? What decision-making role will its members have? Will there be a partnership role for GPs and other health professionals? I am not hung up on the number of councillors that may be involved, but in principle I support a councillor being appointed. If their role is regarded as peripheral, there is no reason why there cannot be capacity-building with councillors. There is no reason that councillors should not have a far more meaningful role.

894. I want to hear more about the proposed breakdown of that commissioning body and how to ensure that it will be a real partnership that will incorporate health professionals and others in the decision-making process. Mention has been made of Dr Brian Dean’s comments on the efficiency savings that doctors might bring to the body. If that is not happening already, surely it should be, partly as a result of a reduction in prescribing and generic drugs. Problems like clostridium difficile have informed the public about ongoing problems associated with the overuse of antibiotics.

895. I want to see commissioning groups made even more local, but there must be a real partnership in both the membership and the decision-making process.

896. Dr Dunn: I emphasise that GPs are not seeking power. As a GP myself, the only thing I want from the secondary sector is that my patients are seen and treated or operated on as soon as possible. I have no other agenda.

897. Adopting a central direction approach will not lead to savings. Generic drugs, for example, are always trumpeted as the saviour of prescribing budgets.

898. Mrs Hanna: That was just an example.

899. Dr Dunn: At any time, 30% of generic drugs are more expensive than the branded equivalent. Sometimes generic drugs are cheaper, at other times they are a lot more expensive. Reorganisation alone will not create savings. Like most reorganisations, this one will result in bureaucrats generating more bureaucracy. Therefore, savings accrued through reorganisation will be small.

900. Savings can be made by involving the practices. I want to emphasise that savings can be made by getting practices to sit down together — which involves extra unpaid work for GPs — to establish how to get more people through the health care system for the same amount of money. That involves considering referral patterns and talking to trusts about how to provide better services through increasing the number of new appointments, and reducing the number of review appointments by having those looked after by GPs rather than by hospitals.

901. I am passionate about this because it can work, and I want to see it work. It must be more radical than rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic and declaring that everything will be OK. Trusts must provide what they are paid to provide, rather than being given huge sums of money in the hope that they do.

902. Mrs Hanna: I agree. However, all other health professionals must do exactly the same in their roles.

903. Dr Dunn: Absolutely.

904. Mrs Hanna: Therefore, my question is more about the breakdown of that partnership.

905. Dr Dunn: We envisage that locality commissioning will involve GPs, nurses and other health professionals working with people in the local community, assessing local needs, and deciding how best to meet those needs. There is no question of GPs dictating what happens. It is just that GPs hold patients’ medical records and are responsible for approximately 90% of referrals to the secondary sector. That is the only reason that GPs feel best placed to perform that function. GPs want to work with people, not boss them or tell them how things should be done.

906. Mrs Hanna: I take your point on that. We have been so concerned about making the decision-making role right in the two main bodies, but it is equally important that we are aware of how it works — right down to that level — and that we know the detail.

907. Dr Patterson: That partnership happens day and daily on the ground. When we look at the proposals, we see that there is huge potential for that partnership to flourish. In the past, people always said that that is what should happen. However, they placed so many obstacles in the way that they prevented it from happening, and we are concerned that such a situation will reoccur. They do not want that to happen at a local level, because a local level is much more effective but less controlled. This is about top-down control rather than about genuinely assessing and meeting need from the bottom up.

908. On the issue of savings, and the visibility of those savings, we have gone through phase one of the RPA for two years. Are you impressed by the level of savings resulting from the reorganisation of the trusts? I do not think that there have been any savings.

909. Mrs Hanna: The concern was always that no savings would really be made. We want to ensure that the reform of health and social care works and provide a better service for patients. We are hopeful that there will be savings in future and, if there are, that they will be visible.

910. Mrs McGill: I declare an interest as a district councillor. I do not wish to labour the point, but it would be remiss of me, as a district councillor, not to comment. Your submission demonstrates your strong opposition to local councillors sitting on local commissioning groups (LCGs). As you have declared that you are a councillor yourself, Dr Dunn, I wonder whether that opposition is a result of your personal experience of councillors. It may not be the same across the entire North —

911. Ms S Ramsey: Which means that you are not a good councillor. [Laughter.]

912. Mrs McGill: My colleague Sue Ramsey said that councillors bridge the gap between some bodies. Furthermore, you made referred repeatedly to the threat of increasing bureaucracy. I feel that councillors often do a good job in highlighting such bureaucracy.

913. My question concerns the transfer of the Mental Health Commission to the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA). Do you have any comment to make on that issue?

914. Dr Patterson: We have commented on that in our documentation.

915. Mrs McGill: I only require a brief answer. If you have not got the information with you, you can respond to me at a later date.

916. Dr Patterson: We are all aware of the situation surrounding mental-health services in the Province. We see the RQIA as having a huge role to play in the development of mental-health services. However, to place that body in such a position is a little like the previously mentioned scrutiny issue. How can that body scrutinise something for which it is responsible? That is our argument.

917. Mr Ivor Whitten (British Medical Association (NI)): The transfer of the Mental Health Commission to the RQIA is somewhat problematic, mainly as a result of staffing and training issues. The RQIA is already stretched, and the absorption of that extra responsibility will mean that it will be further stretched. We are not necessarily against the idea, but our real concern is whether the RQIA will be able to take on the extra responsibility. It is a very sensitive area, which must be properly resourced.

918. Dr Deeny: I am not going to ask what you think I am going to ask. [Laughter.] I wish make a point as a GP. Many people say that 300,000 people being cared for by a single LCG is too high a number. I feel strongly about that, and I wish to stress that fact to my fellow Committee members.

919. The Western Health and Social Care Trust provides healthcare for a population of almost 300,000 — I believe that 297,000 is the exact figure. That trust encompasses quite a large area, and the people’s health needs in that region are differ greatly. For example, the needs of those living in Derry city are different to those living in rural Fermanagh or Tyrone.

920. Given that the LCGs will be commissioning, it is important that Committee members take that point on board. It may be argued that it is fine for a LCG to cover a population of 300,000 in Belfast because everyone there has the same needs, but we all know that that is not the case. People living in different areas of Belfast have different needs.

921. We must consider seriously the proposal to bring the population covered by a LCG down to approximately 50,000. For example, my patients’ needs differ from those of patients in the Creggan estate in Derry. It is important that we take that on board, and I ask Committee members to consider it.

922. I was not asking a question; I just wanted to make the point that 300,000 patients are too many for a single LCG. The needs of the people in the west are different from those of the people in Belfast, and, similarly, the needs of the people in south Belfast are different from those of the people in north Belfast.

923. Ms S Ramsey: We could make a note to consider that during clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill.

924. Dr Deeny: As Brian Dunn mentioned, GPs, primary-care professionals and community representatives are prepared to make an input to the LCGs at no cost.

925. Ms S Ramsey: May I ask a question that may not be popular with the BMA? It does not annoy me to be unpopular. Please explain to me, as if I were a two-year-old, how the commissioning system will work. For example, if GPs are in control of the commissioning service and 90% of Brian Patterson’s patients have asthma and 90% of Brian Dunn’s suffer from allergies, who commissions for which patients? The commissioning process will be subject to a budget, so if Brian Patterson makes a stronger argument to the commissioning group, will his patients receive the treatment that they need ahead of Brian Dunn’s patients?

926. Dr Dunn: Budget setting is much more sensitive when performed at a local level. It will not be the case that a decision will be made to buy X number of drugs, which is what happens at present. Currently, the Eastern Heath and Social Services Board allocates approximately £1 billion to Belfast Heath and Social Care Trust each year. That body then requests a volume of drugs, but frequently that is not delivered. With a local commissioning system, doctors will know how many patients suffer from asthma, allergies or heart disease, for example. The doctors in the LCG will then get together and calculate the total number of patients with different conditions in that group, and they will place their contract accordingly. In that way, the contract will be much more sensitive to the local need.

927. Ms S Ramsey: I do not want to criticise, because I have a very good GP, whom I hope is listening to this. [Laughter.] However, rightly or wrongly, GPs will want to fight for the rights of their patients and will not consider people who are not their patients — the only people who will do that are those who are independent. The only people who are totally independent are elected representatives.

928. Dr Patterson: Certainly, a huge issue exists and it relates to Carmel’s point about partnership. It should not be only GPs who are determining how the system operates. GPs have a valuable input to make, as was shown when they did not participate in the local health and social care groups (LHSCGs), but that was because that scheme was doomed to failure. We do not want the LCGs to be doomed to failure. We suspect that the scheme is being manoeuvred into an LHSCG mode, and we are relying on the Committee to prevent that happening, during its clause-by-clause scrutiny. The LCG scheme is about getting everyone with an interest involved. I am not particularly hung up on people’s disciplines or professions because I recognise that a variety of people will have a legitimate interest.

929. The new scheme will be much more sensitive to the needs of individual patients if it is operated at a level of 50,000 patients or fewer, rather than at a level of 300,000 patients. The scheme should not focus solely on doctors. Doctors have a role to play and, as the Committee heard earlier, nurses have a role, as do pharmacists, dentists, and opticians, and those roles are vital. It is all about communication. Communication at a genuinely local level will produce better outcomes for patients than communication in some lofty chamber.

930. Dr Dunn: We are not particularly concerned about what form the bodies will take; we are concerned about their function. We want to see them as effective commissioners; otherwise, there will be a secondary-care-led service. That kind of service has created the waiting lists that now exist. We must have a service that considers what the patients in the community need and delivers on those needs, rather than delivering what the secondary-care service wants to provide, which is sometimes the case.

931. The Deputy Chairperson: That brings our evidence session to a close. Thank you very much for coming along and presenting your views, even those that were unpopular. [Laughter.]

2 October 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mrs Michelle O’Neill (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Buchanan
Dr Kieran Deeny
Mr Alex Easton
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr Sam Gardiner
Mrs Carmel Hanna
Mr John McCallister
Mrs Claire McGill
Ms Sue Ramsey

Witnesses:

Mr Craig Allen
Mr Ivan McMaster
Mr Bernard Mitchell

Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety

932. The Deputy Chairperson (Mrs O’Neill): The Committee will now begin its clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill. I welcome Ivan McMaster, Bernard Mitchell and Craig Allen, who are here to give meaning to each clause, provide clarification, and to answer any questions. At the Committee meeting on 11 September, information was distributed, including a copy of the Bill, explanatory notes, submissions for the Committee’s consultation, together with a table that brings together comments received by the Committee in relation to each clause.

933. The Committee has a number of options in relation to each clause. Before choosing an option, I will invite officials to outline briefly the purpose and meaning of the clause. Members may wish to seek clarification about the clause as we proceed. Members will take account of the views expressed in the written submissions and the oral evidence. Following discussions with the officials on each clause, the Committee must decide if it is content with the clause as drafted, or, agree the potential for amendment, in which case the Department must be requested to consider its position and report to the Committee. Where amendment is considered appropriate, the Committee must then invite the Department to indicate whether it is willing to undertake the drafting of such an amendment. By choosing that option, we effectively defer the consideration of the clause.

934. I invite the officials to outline the meaning of the clause and then we will take members’ questions.

935. Mr Ivan McMaster (Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety): I will set this out for you as briefly as I can. Clause 1 deals with the generality of the restructuring of the organisations. That is dealt with at the beginning of the Bill in an attempt to aid the reader, set out the bodies that are to be dissolved, the names and acronyms used, and, hopefully, get those things out of the way. Subsection (1) deals with the four bodies that are to be dissolved. Those bodies were created by primary legislation and therefore, have to be dissolved by a similar means. Two special agencies — the Health Promotion Agency and the Regional Medical Physics Agency — are also being dissolved; however; those were set up under subordinate legislation and will be similarly dissolved. The subordinate legislation dealing with those two bodies will come before the Committee at some stage later in the process. Fur the purposes of this Bill, the four bodies that will be dissolved are those listed in clause 1.

936. Subsection (2) provides for a change in name for a number of bodies. The Regulation and Improvement Authority was established in 2003, and the Order that established the authority said that it should be known as such. In practice, however, the organisation has always been referred to as the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority. “Quality” is clearly part of its remit, and the opportunity has now been taken to regularise that situation and legally amend the title to its commonly referred name.

937. Moreover, health and social services trusts are now to be known as health and social care trusts. That reflects recent thinking that the term “and personal social services” should be replaced with the term “social care”. Indeed, some Committee members may be aware that, since they were established in April 2007, the new trusts have been branded as health and social care trusts. However, strictly speaking and legally, they are still health and social services trusts, so the opportunity has now been taken to regularise that matter as well. Similarly, to provide some uniformity, the special health and social services agencies are to be called special health and social care agencies.

938. Finally, clause 1(5) gives a definition of health and social care bodies. Its purpose is simply to list those bodies that are being referred to when the term “health and social care bodies” is used in the Bill — that includes the bodies that are being created, as well as the special agencies, the RQIA and the trusts. It provides a generic phrase, and when the Bill refers to a health and social-care body that is not one of those listed in this subsection it will say so. Essentially, when the term “health and social care bodies” is used, it refers to all those bodies listed under subsection (5).

939. The Deputy Chairperson: In the previous evidence session, we heard from representatives of the allied health professions. I am not sure whether this issue is directly relevant to clause 1, but they mentioned their concerns about representation and support services for allied health professionals in the Department. Is that issue in any way relevant to clause 1, or is the Department considering it at a different level?

940. Mr Bernard Mitchell (Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety): I do not believe that it is; I think that that is a separate issue.

941. Ms S Ramsey: I know that we are starting clause-by-clause scrutiny, but I have a general question to ask. The proposals in the Bill were put out to consultation, and many general responses were received. In the light of those consultation responses, does the Department or the Minister have any proposed amendments to the Bill? Sometimes, a Committee can do a great deal of work on a Bill only to arrive at the same conclusion as the Minister. Therefore, it may be useful to know whether the Minister has any proposed amendments as a result of the consultation.

942. Mr Mitchell: There is none at this point.

943. Mr McMaster: As we go through the Bill, I will draw members’ attention to a couple of proposed amendments, but they are to amend printing errors and the like. However, no substantive amendments have been proposed at this stage. When we come to the relevant clauses, we will point out the changes that will have to be made. For example, in one instance, there is a reference to the “regional agency” rather than to the “regional board”. That is simply a printing mistake, or a mistake on our part. We will bring those proposed amendments to the Committee’s attention when we reach the relevant clause, if that is OK. However, there are no proposed amendments to this particular clause.

944. Mr Gardiner: Clause 1(2)(a) and (b) will rename the Northern Ireland Health and Personal Social Services Regulation and Improvement Authority the Health and Social Care Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority, and states that it will thereafter be referred to as the RQIA. Anyone who reads the Bill will be misled by references to the RQIA — they will not know what it means if the term “Health and Social Care” is removed from its title. The organisation’s role hinges on health and social care, yet the Bill refers to it only as the “RQIA”.

945. Mr Mitchell: Do you propose that the term should be prefaced by the words “Health and Social Care”?

946. Mr Gardiner: Yes, it should be spelt out properly.

947. Mr Buchanan: Clause 1(5)(b) states:

“the Regional Agency for Public Health and Social Well-being, established under section 12 and referred to in this Act as ‘RAPHSW’;”.

I am not convinced that that body should be set up. I do not really see the need for it, and I will be proposing an amendment to say that we are not convinced that such a body should be set up.

948. Mr Mitchell: It would be fair to say that, in the consultation responses, several respondents raised the issue of the respective roles and responsibilities of the proposed regional agency and regional board. They stressed the importance of being clear about the nature of those relationships. They felt that the lines of accountability and responsibility for the two bodies should be clear, and that they should work to a common agenda.

949. It is also fair to say that there was significant support for the concept of a regional agency, on the grounds that it was seen to offer a tangible sign of an intention to bring a renewed focus to the issue of public health and social well-being. Many people responded positively to the proposal from that perspective, and they felt that it was an issue that had to be addressed. They wanted a focus on health inequalities.

950. Mr Buchanan: That may be so, but to me, it is another body that has been set up to consult or to give guidance to the regional board. I do not see the need for it. It is another layer that will have to be paid for out of the health budget. The issues that it would be set up to address could be dealt with by the regional board.

951. The Deputy Chairperson: Clause 1(5) merely describes the organisations that comprise the health and social care bodies, Thomas. Clause 12(1) establishes the regional agency. Your argument may be more valid when we get to clause 12.

952. Mr Buchanan: I am simply putting a marker down today. I do not feel that there is a need for a regional agency.

953. Mr McMaster: Clause 12 establishes the regional agency. Clause 12(1) states:

“There shall be a body corporate”.

Clause 1 sets out the definition of the regional agency and provides an acronym for it. If it is subsequently decided that the regional agency should not be created under clause 12, the reference to it in clause will be also be removed.

954. Mr Gallagher: It is worth noting that we have already approved a clause, as Tom is aware, that dissolves the health and social services boards. This is a proposal, as part of a process of rationalisation, for a single board to replace the four boards that are to be dissolved. Is that correct?

955. Mr McMaster: That is correct.

956. The Deputy Chairperson: Are you happy enough to leave the matter until we get to clause 12, Thomas?

957. Mr Buchanan: That is fair enough, but I have put a marker down. I am not happy with such a body’s being set up.

958. Mr Mitchell: Chairperson, are you content that we do not respond further to that issue today?

959. The Deputy Chairperson: I think so, yes. The Committee must decide whether it wants more time to consider that position or wants to agree the clause as it stands.

960. Mrs McGill: There are concerns about the setting-up of the regional agency. We have had a presentation from one set of witnesses in particular. Those witnesses articulated their concerns about the increase in bureaucracy that the legislation will create. Your suggestion, Chairperson, that we seek clarification on the nature of the regional agency and obtain some more information may be valuable at this stage. We should all be clear —

961. The Deputy Chairperson: Are you suggesting that the officials should try to explain the situation or that we should refer the clause for further consideration?

962. Mrs McGill: I am listening to Tom’s concerns and to what the officials have said about returning with some more information. I am not clear about the process. If we agree clause 1, does it just go ahead? One member has said that he has put down a marker. It may be valuable to know exactly what added value the regional agency will give to the structures.

963. I remember that, shortly after I became a member of the Committee, I raised some concerns about the number of proposed new bodies. We have already heard today some concerns about the linkages between them and about each body’s particular authority. I agree with the concerns that have been expressed.

964. The Deputy Chairperson: I fully understand your point, but clause 12 deals with the establishment of a regional agency for public health and social well-being. When addressing that clause we will have the opportunity to fully debate the ins and outs of how that agency will operate in practice.

965. Mr Gallagher: All the groups that gave evidence in Committee this afternoon supported the establishment of one regional health and social care board to replace the four current health and social services boards. It seems to me that the Bill will enact the measures that those witnesses supported. None of those groups questioned the establishment of single regional board. That has not been raised as an issue in any of the submissions that have been made to the Committee.

966. Ms S Ramsey: Claire McGill and Thomas Buchanan make a valid point. I partly agree with Tommy Gallagher, in that no one involved in the consultation has opposed the establishment of a regional board, but, in reading the Bill, it seems as if it abolishes the four health and social services boards but establishes three more organisations. Claire’s point is that more information is needed, because, although the Bill appears to abolish the four boards and establish one regional board, it also establishes a regional agency for public health and social well-being and a regional support services organisation (RSSO).

967. Mrs Hanna: Tom Buchanan’s proposal is a radical shift from the course that we have been taking so far, and it almost represents a return to the drawing board. We all have concerns about how the new bodies will work together, but we have been expressing those concerns all along. We have never said that any of those bodies should not be established; we merely queried the methods of communication among them and where the decisions would be taken, and we sought to ensure that the new bodies would not be top-heavy. We received no clarification, so this is probably the first time that anyone has questioned the number of bodies. If we are to discuss a reduction in the number of bodies to be established under the legislation, that is a bit like going back to the drawing board.

968. It is not that we should not discuss the number of bodies, but it has not been mentioned before. Several issues concerning the bodies have been discussed, but no one has questioned the need for any of the bodies, except, perhaps, for the RSSO, which will subsume the Central Services Agency. We heard about concerns around that at a late stage. However, it represents a shift if we are now to question whether one or more of the elements should be removed. As I said, it is a bit like going back to the drawing board.

969. Mr Buchanan: With respect, it is not a shift. If you remember, I raised the issue in the House during the Bill’s Second Stage. I stated then that I did not see the need for the establishment of a regional agency alongside a regional board, and the Minister responded to my concerns. It is not a new issue. It may be the first time that it has received open discussion in Committee, but it is something that I have raised in the House prior to today’s meeting.

970. Mr Mitchell: Some very strong arguments exist in support of the creation and development of the regional agency. We welcome the chance to explore those with the Committee, and to go through the arguments in detail. We are quite happy to address the points that have been made about duplication and value for money — we can answer them. We are content to return and discuss those issues, and we shall bring some public-health expertise with us to try to inform that discussion.

971. The Deputy Chairperson: Are you suggesting that we refer clause 1 for further consideration and return to it at a later date?

972. Mr Mitchell: We can address those points when we come to discuss clause 12, which if amended, as my colleague has said, would alter clause 1.

973. Mr McMaster: When we come to clause 12, which proposes the establishment of the regional agency for public health and social well-being, the Committee will either vote on whether the clause should be agreed to or propose an amendment to it. If the Committee proposes an amendment to clause 12, it must also propose to an amendment to clause 1. In other words, if we decide not to set up the regional agency, the reference to it in clause 1(5)(b) must be removed. That is based on the assumption that every other clause will be accepted. However, if the Committee agrees that a clause should be agreed to, it will be withdrawn.

974. Clause 1 provides some clarification about the organisations that will be dissolved and details the names of the new health and social-care bodies.

975. Mrs McGill: I understand Carmel’s point that what Tom Buchanan suggests represents a complete change and that we are going back to the drawing board. However, that is not my position. Some concern was expressed about the establishment of a regional agency. When Mr Mitchell said that he will return with further information, I said that that will be valuable. That remains my position.

976. Mrs Hanna: When I said “back to the drawing board”, I meant that we as a Committee must have further discussions on the issue. The issue may have been raised at Second Stage, but it was not raised in Committee until now.

977. Mr McMaster: Clause 2 sets out the Department’s overarching duty for the provision of health and social care in Northern Ireland, as well some specific requirements.

978. The clause largely replicates article 4 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, which states that the Ministry of the time had an overall and overarching duty for the provision of health and social services. However, given that the Bill is designed to provide a clear narrative of the major review of structures, it was considered that the Department’s overarching duties should be restated in the Health and Social care (Reform) Bill. There were concerns that it was not enough to spell out the Department’s overarching duty in high-level terms.

979. Clause 2(3)(a), therefore, provides some further detail about the Department’s overarching duties. It is the first time that the Department’s unavoidable requirements have been placed on statue.

980. It states that Department must:

“develop policies to secure the improvement of the health and social well-being of, and to reduce health inequalities between, people in Northern Ireland;”.

If the Department does not adhere to those requirements, someone could question its actions and say that it was in breach of its statutory requirements. That is the first time that that requirement has been spelt out in legislation. However, the duties listed should not be regarded as exclusive.

981. Clause 2(3) begins: “In particular, the Department must—”. The requirements that follow are areas of high-level focus. However, that does not mean that the Department cannot perform other duties.

982. Clause 2(3)(h) specifies that the Department must:

“monitor and hold to account the Regional Board, RAPHSW, RSSO and HSC trusts in the discharge of their functions;”.

983. Clause 2(3)(i) provides that the Department must:

“make and maintain effective arrangements to secure the monitoring and holding to account of the other health and social care bodies in the discharge of their functions;”,

984. because some of them are also held to account by other bodies.

985. Clause 2(3)(c) outlines the Department’s duty to:

“allocate financial resources available for health and social care, having regard to the need to use such resources in the most economic, efficient, and effective way;”.

986. The clauses place firm, clear duties on the Department.

987. Clause 2(4) states:

“The Department shall discharge its duty under this section so as to secure the effective co-ordination of health and social care.”

The clause ensures that health and social care go together. We cannot distinguish between those two issues; they are inextricably linked. The clause makes provision for effective co-ordination because it is an important issue.

988. The Deputy Chairperson: If members have no questions, I propose that the Committee move through a number of clauses and come back to agree them, rather than agree them one by one.

989. Mr McMaster: Clause 3 concerns the Department’s general power. I want to distinguish between this clause and clause 2: a duty is inescapable, whereas a power is something that the Department can exercise if it considers it necessary. Clause 3 provides a general power for the Department to do almost anything that it wants in order to discharge and secure its general duty. The duty is very broad in the first place. This clause, therefore, provides very broad power for the Department to do anything in its power in order to improve the health and well-being of people in Northern Ireland — anything legal, I should say.

990. Clearly, there are other actions that are not specified in the clause. However, clause 3(1)(b) states that the Department may:

“do anything else which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of that duty.”

Paragraph (b) will simply give the Department the power to step outside its remit. The Department will normally secure the provision of those duties, from the regional board or elsewhere, but the wording does not stop the Department from providing them itself. If the Department finds that something is not being provided, it can employ someone directly to do it. It is a very broad power, but it also, more or less, a restatement of the general power given in the 1972 Order.

991. Clause 4 places a statutory obligation on the Department to determine, regularly, priorities and objectives for the provision of health and social care. The Department has done that in the past, although it was never a statutory requirement as it will be when the Bill becomes law. The Department can revise those priorities and objectives. Before doing that, however, it must, generally speaking, consult with the bodies in question.

992. The Department believes it right and proper that if it is setting objectives for bodies, it should consult with them. However, subsection (3) releases the Department from that obligation and provides for the doomsday scenario — for example, during the outbreak of a disease — when urgent action is required and there is no time for consultation. In such a case, the Department must demonstrate why the matter was so urgent that it did not consult. In the normal case of events, however, it must consult with the bodies on setting priorities and objectives.

993. Mr Buchanan: The safeguard is that the Department must explain why it took an urgent decision.

994. Mr McMaster: Indeed. This Committee, or anyone else, could ask the Department why it did not consult. The general requirement for the Department is to consult, but the Department realises that it must explain why it considered a matter so urgent that it did not consult.

995. The Deputy Chairperson: The British Medical Association (BMA) has called for retrospective consultations in such cases. Would that be beneficial?

996. Mr Mitchell: What did the BMA (NI) mean by that?

997. The Deputy Chairperson: The BMA said that meaningful consultation must be at the core of an issue. It also said that it would like the Department’s emergency decisions to be subject to retrospective consultation.

998. Mr McMaster: That might be difficult in some cases.

999. Mr Mitchell: Given the nature of the service that is provided in health and social care, action without consultation would occur only in extremis, when an immediate risk called for immediate action.

1000. In fact, action would be expected, and failure to act would, rightly, be criticised. The BMA (NI), and, subsequently, anyone else, can challenge why certain action was taken in a particular set of circumstances and criticise or take legal redress if it considers that an individual has acted outside his or her authority.

1001. Mr Easton: To pick up on what Tom Buchanan said, I am slightly concerned that clause 4(3) could be open to abuse, in that the Department could take action without consultation. I accept the concept of a doomsday scenario, but I would like a bit more beef on what constitutes the doomsday scenario that would permit such action. I would hate to agree to clause 4, only for a silly situation to arise that becomes an excuse for taking such action. A list of doomsday scenarios would be helpful.

1002. Mr McMaster: It quickly comes to mind that there could be a national emergency or an outbreak of some highly infectious disease.

1003. Mr Easton: Are there any other scenarios beyond those two?

1004. Mr Mitchell: I would avoid using the word “doomsday”, because it implies that such a scenario is unlikely. Given the nature of health and social care, it is not unusual for situations to arise in which a Minister feels that he or she must intervene, either because there is an issue of public concern or a risk to patients, carers or staff. The scenario may be linked to an outbreak of illness or a failure of infrastructure that means that a service can no longer be provided in a particular building. That is not a fanciful situation; in my experience, when a boiler house blew up at 3.00 am and there was no power to a particular building, immediate action was required. The word “doomsday” paints a misleading picture; it is not that uncommon, given the nature of the profession, for the Department to have the right to intervene in the public interest and in the interest of patients, clients or staff.

1005. Dr Deeny: In clause 4(3), perhaps the word “extreme” could be inserted before “urgency”. As a doctor, I know that the discovery of an animal with rabies on the island would be an extreme situation. GPs receive not only urgent referrals but “red flag” referrals, because some cases are more than urgent. Perhaps “urgency” is not a sufficiently strong word and could be preceded by “extreme”.

1006. Mr Gardiner: I can imagine instances of extreme urgency, but surely there would be enough time to inform the Committee. Rather than have the Department take a decision and leave us high and dry, we would have an opportunity to have an input.

1007. Mr Mitchell: That may be an option, but I am not being fanciful when I say that there would be circumstances in which something happened during a holiday period, at night, on a Friday evening or in the early hours of a Sunday morning that required a response there and then. To ask for total commitment to prior discussion would be to tie the hands of the Minister of the day in a situation that demanded his or her response. How that is defined is another issue, but the underlying need is important for patients and clients.

1008. Mr Gallagher: We must all accept that Departments cannot be compelled to come before the relevant Committee before making every decision — that is simply a fact of life in any democracy. Everyone knows that unexpected events will happen but not what they will be. Kieran probably came up with the best solution when he suggested the phrase “extreme urgency”. We will just have to leave it at that.

1009. A matter has cropped up. Do not misunderstand me; we do not always agree with the Department. It might have been at the outbreak of clostridium difficile, and the Minister and officials came to the Committee immediately to ensure that members were briefed. This place also has an Executive. Therefore, there are safeguards. As Kieran said, we must leave the matter there and hope that it will work.

1010. Mrs Hanna: Briefly, Deputy Chairperson, we can all understand that, in some circumstances, there is not time to consult the Committee. However, it might be appropriate for there to be a report and review afterwards, rather than consultation, so that people understand why it happened, what expenditure was involved, et cetera. Perhaps, that would be more sensible.

1011. The Deputy Chairperson: I suggest, therefore, that the word “extreme” is included — “the extreme urgency of the matter”. Also, Carmel’s suggestion that there should be a report and review immediately after the decision —

1012. Mrs Hanna: As soon as possible afterwards.

1013. Mr McMaster: In cases in which no consultation had taken place, the report and review could be carried out afterwards.

1014. Mrs Hanna: It is a bit difficult to undertake retrospective consultation.

1015. Mr McMaster: I understand that. Sometimes, it would be difficult.

1016. The Deputy Chairperson: Are you happy to consider that suggestion?

1017. Mr McMaster: Yes.

1018. Clause 5 provides a statutory requirement on the Department to produce a document which is to be known as a “framework document” for health and social-care bodies. To clarify, it will apply not only to bodies that are created under the Bill, but also to special agencies, trusts and the RQIA. It will clearly specify to each body what is expected of it and the procedures that it must follow to perform certain functions.

1019. The clause sets out what the document should include: the body’s main priorities and objectives and the process that it must employ to determine any other priorities and objectives that it might have, because it is recognised that organisations might also have certain internal targets. The document will also prescribe the matters for which the individual body is responsible. The Department will be required to set out roles and responsibilities for each of the bodies. That sort of clarity is considered to be essential for performance-managing the organisation. The document will set out the manner in which each of the bodies is to discharge its functions and conduct its working relationship with the Department and, indeed, other bodies in the health-and-social-care family.

1020. As has been said by Committee members, effective operation of proposed new structures will not depend on that legislation or even on subordinate legislation. It will depend on what happens on the ground. The document will go some way towards setting guidelines. Those matters must be included. However, subsection (2) states that it can also contain:

“(a) such guidance relating to the carrying out by each health and social care body of its functions, and

(b) such other material pertaining to the body or its functions”

as the Department considers appropriate.”

The provision requires the Department to keep the document under review and to revise it as and when necessary. Certainly, parts of the document will be reviewed fairly regularly.

1021. Subsection (4) requires that the Department to ensure that the framework document is “best calculated to promote” health and social care. That relationship refers back to the Department’s general duty to promote health and social care. It must ensure that the document has a purpose and that it is not merely bureaucratic gobbledygook. Its purpose is, generally, the promotion of health and social care.

1022. Subsection (5) covers consultation. The Department should consult with each body in respect to its functions and may consult with any other bodies that it considers appropriate. That could be the BMA, the Royal College of Nursing, or any other individual who has a particular expertise. The subsection does not limit the Department’s consultation powers or compel the Department to consult with each body.

1023. Subsection (6) says that each health and social care body must have regard to the framework document. That means that the body will follow the document’s instructions unless there is a compelling and exceptional reason not to do so. That is a broad outline of clause 5.

1024. Dr Deeny: When will the Committee see the framework document?

1025. Mr Mitchell: The Department is required to make it available before April 2009. We intend to complete a substantive draft by the end of November. At the moment, there is no plan to bring that to the Committee. That is our current timetable.

1026. The Deputy Chairperson: A response to our consultation suggested that the wording “may consult” in clause 5(5)(b) is too weak. One suggestion is to replace that phrase with “must consult with stakeholders” drawn up in conjunction with the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety. What is your opinion on that amendment?

1027. Mr Mitchell: That it is the difficulty with the rigidity of the process. An extremely lengthy list of folk would have an interest in a high-level framework document.

1028. The Deputy Chairperson: Even if the legislation said “must consult with stakeholders”?

1029. Mr Mitchell: Every individual reasonably considers himself or herself a stakeholder in health and social care.

1030. Mr McMaster: I am concerned about the definition of the term “stakeholders”. How broad should it be?

1031. The Deputy Chairperson: Do members have any views on that matter?

1032. Mr Buchanan: The phrase “may consult” is weak; it leaves it open-ended and suggests that the Department can decide whether to bother consulting. Use of the word “must” will compel the Department to consult.

1033. The Deputy Chairperson: Could