northern ireland assembly Monday 18 June 2007 Ministerial Statement Executive Committee Business Oral Answers to Questions Executive Committee Business Private Notice Question Committee Business The Assembly met at 12.00 noon (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. Recent Flooding Incidents Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister for Regional Development that he wishes to make a statement on the recent flooding incidents. I remind Members that points of order are not taken during ministerial statements or during any questions that follow. The Minister for Regional Development (Mr Murphy): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. With your permission, I wish to make a statement on the flooding caused by a period of severe weather between 12 June and 15 June 2007. I propose to provide a brief overview of the situation, including the prevailing weather conditions and warnings, the impacts of flooding across the North, and the roles and responses of the many Departments and agencies involved. I also want to comment on some of the big issues that emerged and to set out how we plan to learn from the experience. At 11.19 am on Tuesday 12 June 2007, the Met Office issued a flash warning of heavy rain for the whole of the North, valid from 1.20 pm until 9.00 pm. The forecast was for scattered, slow-moving, heavy and prolonged showers, some of them thundery, leading to localised torrential downpours during the afternoon and evening, with 15 mm to 20 mm of rain possible in just a few hours. Further flash warnings were issued on Wednesday 13 June and Thursday 14 June. Those warned of heavy and thundery outbreaks of rain with some torrential downpours, with up to 30 mm to 40 mm of rain expected in areas where the ground was already saturated. All Departments and agencies have contingency plans to help them prepare for, and respond to, emergencies. Once the first severe weather warning was received, those plans were activated immediately. Early in the afternoon of 12 June, parts of the North, particularly east Belfast and Omagh, experienced extremely heavy rainfall: some 50 mm in two to four hours. In those places, the quantity of rain overwhelmed the drainage systems and waterways, leading to the flooding of roads and properties. In the Derry City Council, Cookstown District Council and Magherafelt District Council areas, a small number of domestic properties were flooded. Overall, it is estimated that hundreds of properties were affected. The volume of rain on 12 June represented a storm-return period of between 94 and 240 years. That means that we do not expect to suffer from such a downpour more than once in every 100 to 200 years. Current drainage design criteria are sufficient for a once-in-30-years storm. A large number of emergency calls were received that day. The Fire and Rescue Service received over 400 calls in a three-hour period, representing the busiest period in the service’s history. Northern Ireland Water received 1,800 calls, and Roads Service received over 300 calls. Staff from a wide range of Departments and agencies were quickly on the ground, working together to secure the safety of those at risk and minimising damage to property and disruption to the community. I will highlight some of their work and pay tribute to the front-line staff who worked so hard. Roads Service and Northern Ireland Water were in the front line. A major incident response regime had been initiated within Northern Ireland Water by 3.00 pm. Teams were established in Belfast, Derry and Omagh, and, in line with the inter-agency flood liaison protocol, contacts were established with Roads Service and the Rivers Agency. At the peak of the flooding, over 100 Northern Ireland Water staff and contractors were at the various flooded locations across the North, checking pumping stations, placing sandbags, replacing manhole covers and assisting in clean-up operations. At least 15 roads in Belfast and Omagh were closed, with many others affected but passable with care. Approximately 350 calls were received as a result of the Belfast incident, with 100 calls received in the Omagh area. In total, 50 Roads Service workers and private contractor staff were on the ground minimising damage to property and assisting in the recovery process. Over 1,700 sandbags were supplied during the operation. The Rivers Agency also made a major contribution, deploying staff within 45 minutes of the incident. Over 60 industrial, engineering and administrative staff were involved, using mini-diggers and diesel pumps to assist in operations. Over 1,000 sandbags were put to use. Rivers Agency staff have been involved in the removal of debris obstructing watercourses and grills. Contaminated sandbags are being collected and disposed of. Prompt action has prevented the flooding of school property in Ballygawley and dwellings in the Bogside. Belfast City Council activated its emergency plan at 3.30 pm. It set up a major incident room and co-ordinated a rescue and clean-up operation in conjunction with the Fire and Rescue Service, the Police Service, Northern Ireland Water, the Rivers Agency, Roads Service, the Social Services Agency, the Department for Regional Development’s central claims unit, Northern Ireland Electricity, British Telecom, the Housing Executive, the Met Office, the Salvation Army and the Red Cross. Some five conference calls, involving many of those organisations, took place on 12 June to ensure that all were aware of the developing situation and to co-ordinate the response across Belfast. Emergency reception and advice centres were opened at Avoniel leisure centre by Belfast City Council and on the Cregagh Road by the Salvation Army. On Tuesday 12 June, an initial social fund of £100,000 was made available to assist those in immediate need. That was followed by a further £5 million that the Executive made available on Thursday 14 June. Castlereagh Borough Council and Omagh District Council were similarly active in deploying staff to aid recovery and co-ordination, including assistance with the evacuation of people whose homes had been flooded. In these and the other areas that suffered flooding, meetings were arranged to bring together those organisations involved in dealing with the flooding incidents. By late afternoon on 12 June, the Housing Executive emergency plan was fully operational and remained in operation due to the continued heavy rain. Approximately 150 Housing Executive homes were affected. In total, six people needed temporary accommodation. The Social Security Agency responded to flooding in east Belfast by making staff available at the emergency unit in Avoniel leisure centre. Staff have remained at Avoniel leisure centre and have also distributed social fund claim forms to residents of Clara Way and the Clarawood estate. On Tuesday 12 June, the Fire and Rescue Service received over 400 calls in a three-hour period. Firefighters attended 200 of those calls, rescuing 32 people in Belfast and 15 in Omagh. Appliances were dispatched from stations outside the affected area, and high-volume pumps were used to clear the affected buildings. Representatives from the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust attended the multi-agency advice centre at Avoniel leisure centre. Social services responded in order to ensure that services to children, families and elderly people, such as home helps, continued to be provided. In addition to the problems caused by flooding, a number of lightning strikes caused customers to lose their electricity supplies. Northern Ireland Electricity mobilised nine of its 12 incident centres, and by 4.30 pm had dispatched a senior manager to the community assistance centre at Avoniel leisure centre to co-ordinate its activities in east Belfast. Around 7,000 customers were affected during the day, with all but two customers being reconnected within 12 hours. Those high levels of resources were maintained by the agencies throughout Tuesday and Wednesday as the focus of activity moved to the clean-up operation. At the same time, all the agencies remained on the alert and made preparations for the further heavy rain that had been forecast, clearing obstructions and delivering and restocking sandbags. All roads were reported as being clear the following morning. Northern Ireland Water is dealing with 142 requests to assist householders with clean-up operations and the distribution of sandbags. The Housing Executive has been engaged in repairs and clean-ups in the affected areas. Environmental health officers from Belfast City Council have provided advice and assistance at more than 26 streets affected by flooding. The council has also offered support for the internal disinfection of owner-occupied homes, and a private company is on standby for that purpose. In Belfast, 21 crisis loan applications have been received by the Social Security Agency, and 17 have been paid. Ten applications for community grants have been received and paid. All claims in connection with the flooding have been processed, and any subsequent claims will be given the highest priority. By 5.00 pm on Friday 15 June, only one claim had been received and cleared in Omagh; any further claims received will be given the highest priority. My Department’s central claims unit has registered 66 compensation claims for investigation. The multi-agency advice centre at Avoniel leisure centre remained open, but by Thursday 14 June, there were few callers. The Belfast Health and Social Care Trust continued to ensure that vulnerable people were supported, including at Towell House, an old persons’ home that had been flooded. On Tuesday evening, when the full scale of the flooding became clear, the Executive decided to hold an emergency meeting to review the response of the various agencies and identify what more needed to be done. The Executive met at 9.00 am on Wednesday — a visible demonstration of the difference that devolution can make when a crisis of this nature arises. It will take some time to assess fully the effectiveness of the overall response. What I can say now is that vehicles, materials and staff were deployed to the worst-hit locations within a short time of the initial severe weather warnings being received. Communications systems were able to deal with the exceptionally high number of calls. In Belfast, inter-agency communication on the ground was excellent. The early assumption of a lead role by Belfast City Council was useful. Regular conference calls were held to co-ordinate responses, and the multi-agency advice centre proved an invaluable focus for those affected and for the responding agencies. The media was briefed in order to keep the public informed about what was happening on the ground and how to access help and assistance. On Thursday 14 June, the Minister of Finance and Personnel, Peter Robinson, announced that £5 million had been made available to the Department of the Environment. That money is being used to support the work of district councils in responding to the needs of householders who have been affected by the floods. On Friday 15 June, the Minister of the Environment, Mrs Arlene Foster, announced that her Department would establish a scheme under article 26 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 to address the recent emergency. Minister Foster also announced that, from Monday 18 June, an immediate payment of £1,000 would be made available to each seriously affected household. She is monitoring the severe weather situation and will consider whether any further action may be needed. The Executive are determined to review the handling of the emergency thoroughly in order to identify the areas in which we can do better next time. I have no doubt that exceptional weather events will occur in the future, and we need to be prepared to deal with them. By way of example, widespread flooding occurred again on Friday 15 June in many locations, particularly Belfast, Newtownards, Bangor, Comber, Lurgan, Crossgar, Ballynahinch and Downpatrick. We are pleased to note that emergency procedures were swiftly implemented, and front-line staff, customer-service staff and contractors were mobilised by the Rivers Agency, Roads Service and Northern Ireland Water. Across the three organisations, around 450 staff provided assistance on the ground. Thousands of sandbags were distributed, and pumps and gully-emptiers were deployed. Around 2,000 calls for assistance were received from the public. Emergency services and district councils also assisted. 12.15 pm The multi-agency learning and linkages developed in the past year by the Belfast Resilience Network are proving to be invaluable in ensuring that each agency knows its role and responsibilities during the response to, and recovery from, an incident. I pay tribute to, and thank, the many individuals and voluntary agencies that came forward during the emergency to help people and to offer their assistance by, for example, providing furniture. I am thinking particularly of bodies such as the Salvation Army and others. Many individuals also came forward, and I place on record our thanks to them. In the longer term, the Belfast sewer project, which is costing over £120 million, will reduce the risk of flooding in the city centre. However, no sewerage system can be guaranteed to prevent all possible flooding. Before we can be satisfied that our approach to any further flooding incident will be the best that we can deliver, we have much more work to do. We must also consider what must be done in the longer term to ensure that our infrastructure can cope with climate change and foreseeable weather conditions. I express the sympathies of the Executive — and, I am sure, of everyone in the House — to everybody who was affected by the flooding. I hope that people will be reassured that the Executive and all the relevant agencies will continue to work together to keep their homes and businesses as safe and secure as possible. Go raibh míle maith agat. Mr Speaker: I remind Members that they are to ask questions relating to the ministerial statement. The Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development (Mr Cobain): I also thank all the statutory agencies and the emergency services for their work last week. I notice that 32 claims have been made for community care and crisis loans. I am sure that that number has risen dramatically over the past few days. Can the Minister assure the House that sufficient funds are available to meet that need and that making these claims will not affect genuine claimants who may need to claim other grants later in the financial year? Mr Murphy: May I first ask for the indulgence of Members? I will be answering questions on behalf of several Departments and on a range of subjects that are not necessarily under the remit of the Department for Regional Development. This morning, I spoke to officials from all the Departments involved and asked them to read the Hansard report of my statement and the questions put on it. If Members feel that questions are not answered fully, or if I do not have the answers to hand, the relevant Departments will pick up on that and respond to Members in writing. The emergency funds will be available to the Department of the Environment to help councils to alleviate any hardship experienced by householders across the North as a result of the flooding on 12 June. Payments of £1,000 will be made to householders to prevent suffering or severe inconvenience. In addition, councils may incur expenditure on the following activities to help people to make their homes habitable: completion of the clean-up exercise; external clean up of streets and other public areas; collection, retention and disposal of household contents damaged by the flooding; assistance to private householders to clean up their homes and gardens; advice on health and safety issues; provision of dehumidifiers to dry out homes; and advice to householders about what help might be available from other agencies. The councils are compiling a database of households where there is evidence of significant flooding, including underfloor damage in living areas, garages or utility areas where household utilities are installed, but excluding motor vehicles. For apartments, the database will record evidence of flooding in basements that contain storage rooms. Only those households in which councils can confirm suffering and severe inconvenience will qualify for the payment. This is not compensation: it is a one-off payment. I will ask officials from the Department for Social Development to respond to the Member’s question about those people who may need to claim other grants. This one-off payment is not designed to cut across other payments that may be available. It is intended to give assistance quickly to those households that need it most. I am referring, for example, to those people whose cookers, fridges and kitchen units were damaged, and to people who, even after the clean-up exercise, cannot live in, or use the facilities in, their homes. Helping those people is the purpose of the payment that was agreed by the Department of Finance and Personnel and will be administered by the Department of the Environment and the councils. I say to people who wish to submit claims, or raise concerns, through the Department for Social Development or another claims process, that the agencies involved are committed to ensuring that all claims will be treated as matters of high priority. I am sure that those claims and concerns will be acted on. If the Chairperson has a specific question on how making those claims will affect other claims made through the Department for Social Development, someone from that Department will give him an answer. Mr Newton: I join the Minister in paying tribute to all the emergency services and the manner of their response. I pay particular tribute to the PSNI for the effective action that it took in rescuing an 85-year-old housebound lady in my constituency. Had the PSNI not taken such action, she would have remained in a flooded house, unable to move. Is the Minister satisfied that the maintenance and cleaning of drains and gratings is being satisfactorily carried out? What action will he take to alleviate flooding in areas where it is occurring regularly? Mr Murphy: I agree with the Member’s comments about all the emergency services and agencies. I also paid tribute to those ordinary citizens who offered their help and to voluntary agencies. Everyone involved played a valuable role in helping to alleviate people’s hardship and suffering. The extreme flooding that occurred on the afternoon of 12 June was not caused by a failure to maintain the operational effectiveness of the storm gullies or road drains. The deluge that fell in two hours overwhelmed the gullies, road drains and watercourses. The Met Office has reported that the rainfall frequency represented a storm-return period of between 90 and 240 years. That means that we do not expect a reoccurrence more than once every 100 to 200 years. Department for Transport design standards typically require new road-drain systems to be designed to cope with a one-in-six-years storm. Those design standards include an allowance for climate change. Any system that was designed to meet current standards could not have coped with the severity of last Tuesday’s storm. The Department for Regional Development’s Roads Service aims to inspect and clean, where necessary, all gullies in urban areas twice a year. Gullies in rural areas are inspected and cleaned, where necessary, once a year. That policy, taking into account the Department’s finite funding and staffing levels, ensures that a reasonable level of drain maintenance is carried out. In Belfast, there are some 136,000 storm-water road gullies, so a considerable resource is needed if there is to be ongoing inspection and cleaning of the entire network of gullies and road drains. Local Roads Service officials keep records of each inspection. Those records note the time and date of inspection and whether the gullies and drains are running or not running. Those not running are identified for further jetting and investigation. Details of recent inspections in those areas affected by flooding in east and south Belfast are as follows: on the Ormeau Road, gullies were inspected and cleaned as necessary in January 2007; on the Stranmillis Road, the Newtownards Road and Ladas Drive, they were inspected and cleaned in February 2007; and in Orangefield and Clarawood, they were cleaned and inspected in December 2006. The Roads Service has also diverted a considerable resource to cleaning gullies in those areas over the past few days and to removing an accumulation of debris that had been swept into the drainage systems by the storm water. Moreover, sandbags were provided to those affected areas after the heavy-rain-forecast alert for Friday 15 June 2007. Preventative measures were discussed at the Ministers’ meeting last Wednesday, and I have further discussed the matter with officials. The heavy rain that was forecast for Tuesday 12 June was for the entire Belfast area. It was not forecast that it would be localised or that it would affect east Belfast specifically. As I have said, there are 136,000 storm gullies in Belfast. Nonetheless, Roads Service and other agencies, in the light of what happened, will look at whether a greater degree of co-ordination can be achieved after a Met Office severe-weather warning has been issued and examine their ability to get people on the ground in the areas affected. I reiterate that the severe-weather warning was for Belfast in its entirety, not only for those areas of east and south Belfast that were affected. Resources must be applied to those areas that experience continual flooding, and all agencies that have a responsibility for occurrences of flooding have a duty to make the necessary improvements. Some £120 million is invested in the Belfast sewer project. It will take some time to complete work on that project, but it will improve the system’s capacity. However, no system that has been designed or built could have coped with the amount of rain that fell in such a short period in Belfast last Tuesday. Mrs McGill: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. Have the most vulnerable people been identified, and are the statutory and voluntary sectors helping them? Go raibh maith agat. Mr Murphy: Councils’ involvement was important, because local government provides people with their closest contact to elected representatives. Councils are often the first port of call for people facing difficulties. For the purposes of deciding who should receive share of the funding that the Executive have made available, councils have been tasked with identifying the properties and families that are most at risk. Various other agencies took a range of calls — some of which I detailed in my statement — from people who required assistance, and they provided that assistance where possible. For example, the elderly people who were affected by the flooding in the basement of Towell House have been reinstated. There was, therefore, a clear priority to address the needs of society’s most vulnerable. That is why the Executive acted promptly to make funding available through the bodies that were at the forefront in dealing with a particular incident — local councils, such as Belfast City Council and Omagh District Council. The councils will identify those people who require most assistance, and that assistance will be provided through the Executive and the other agencies involved. Dr McDonnell: I congratulate those workers who turned out and gave sterling service during the floods. I was impressed with what I saw. I also compliment the Housing Executive in South Belfast, and, in particular, its district manager Liam Kinney. Does the Minister share my concerns that Northern Ireland Water’s decision to award a contract worth £70 million to Crystal Alliance to handle customer relations has not been a good idea? Is he aware that many victims feel that they have been kicked around in a public-relations exercise? I can only comment on experiences of my constituents. The home of one young family — Ciaran McCreanor, his wife and infant, who live in Florenceville Drive on the Ormeau Road — was flooded, and not from the water on the street, but from reflux from the toilet. He was told, however, that that was an act of God. It did not strike him as so, and he feels that those comments added insult to injury. Furthermore, people from Sunwich Street off Ravenhill Avenue called call centres in England only to find that the operators did not have any idea what was going on here. They had not read about it, and they were not aware of the events that were taking place here. Perhaps the Minister will consider that. Will the Minister also tell the House whether our rainwater drainage system could be separated from the sewerage system? Such a separation would mean that the rainwater would flow into, for instance, a river in the event of there being similar flooding, or even flooding that was less heavy. Mr Murphy: Dr McDonnell and other Members will know from last Monday’s statement that matters relating to Northern Ireland Water’s contract are being reviewed. The members of the review panel have been appointed, and the review process will start almost immediately. Following that review, Members will be able to have a fuller discussion on the viability of the contracts awarded by Northern Ireland Water. Northern Ireland Water received more calls during the crisis than any other organisation. It received 2,000 calls last week, and it has reported that all but a small minority of those calls have been well handled. Last Wednesday, I visited some of the households that were affected by the floods, and I appreciate their frustration. No matter how many resources are deployed, people often feel as if they are not being deployed directly to them, or quickly enough. 12.30 pm That is understandable. Everyone will agree that the people on the ground did their best to cope with very difficult circumstances. As part of their overall review, it is the job of the Executive to investigate why resources that could, perhaps, have been deployed were not. With regard to the infrastructure, the Department will struggle to provide the type of infrastructure that has already been earmarked for investment. In response to the Member’s question, separating the storm-drainage from the sewerage would entail a much greater project, and I wish that we had the money to do all such things, but otherwise they are not feasible. We are investing substantially in the water and sewerage services and that will alleviate some of the problems. However, in the case of such an intense downpour, in a localised area, over a very short time, it is difficult for any infrastructure to cope. Mrs Long: I thank the Minister for his statement, and I support his comments on the work of the emergency services and other voluntary sector agencies, who have been busy in the constituency over recent days, and who continue to provide valuable support to those affected. In his statement, the Minister commented on the wide range of Departments and agencies that were involved in the response. During last week’s flooding, there was extensive damage to schools in the South Eastern and the Belfast Education and Library Board areas. Both boards — and indeed the schools — have responded admirably to the challenges that the damage has caused them to face. Can the Minister assure us that his Executive colleague the Minister for Education is now fully involved in the response to the flooding, to ensure that the already-stretched budgets of schools and education and library boards are not placed under further pressure, because of the actions necessary to re-open schools as quickly as possible? I understand that the Minister was not invited to the original emergency Executive meeting; however, I hope that, by this stage, she is involved in the ongoing discussions on how to take this forward and on the financial implications. Mr Murphy: I thank the Member for her question; however, we should resist the temptation to swipe at people in the middle of a general crisis. The Minister for Education has been involved; she was not invited to attend the special meeting of the Executive because only those Ministers directly involved in the clean-up were needed. With regard to the schools in Belfast, the Minister was in contact with the chief executive of the Belfast Education and Library Board, who assured her that the emergency plan had kicked in inside one hour. Board officials and officials from the Department of Education were in regular contact throughout the day to assess the damage and to organise repairs. The Department will consider any bids for exceptional funding to cover the damage caused by the flood. The Minister wishes me to pay tribute to school principals and to all those involved in the clean-up at schools across the North. Their hard work ensured minimum disruption to pupils, particularly at the start of their examinations. All schools are now open and fully functioning, and the Education Minister has spoken to principals at some schools that were affected, and they are content with the boards’ emergency response. Lord Browne: I appreciate that last week’s weather conditions which led to extensive flooding — particularly in my constituency of East Belfast — were rather unusual. I welcome the Minister’s statement that all of the agencies are to work together in a co-ordinated fashion. Has the Minister considered that flooding also took place in the United Kingdom and that it may be useful to engage with those authorities in the UK that had emergency plans? To prevent such an unfortunate situation arising again in Northern Ireland, we could learn from the plans that other organisations put into operation. Mr Murphy: The Member is correct. If there are lessons to be learned from other areas, then I am sure that the agencies and the Executive will be happy to learn those lessons, from wherever they come. There was severe flooding in England as that same storm system moved over from here to Britain, and the Department for Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), which is responsible for the co-ordination over there, was severely criticised for not doing enough — just as some of the agencies over here were criticised. The agencies here do liaise with agencies in Britain and elsewhere, and where lessons can be learned, they will be learned. It is worth bearing in mind that similar occurrences have happened in England. People will remember the flooding incidents last year, in such places as Cornwall, and how the agencies there were criticised. All the answers do not lie in one place, but liaison is ongoing, and where experiences can be shared and lessons can be learned, we are happy to take those on board. Mr Buchanan: I join in congratulating the emergency services, the agencies, the voluntary organisations and others who did an excellent job during the difficult days of the flooding. For several years, the sewerage and rainwater network infrastructure in Omagh has caused difficulties because of extra pressure from large new housing developments that have rendered the network inadequate. Omagh District Council has lobbied the Department for Regional Development on that issue on several occasions. When does the Minister for Regional Development propose to have plans in place to upgrade the network to help avoid a reoccurrence of flooding in that area? Mr Murphy: The Member is correct: the infrastructure struggles to cope. It is no secret to any MLA that the necessary investment in water and sewerage services has not been made by direct rule Administrations over the past 20 years. Therefore, the current Administration is faced with a serious financial consequence. A substantial investment plan has been rolled out in Belfast for the sewerage works, and there are also plans for substantial investment in the sewerage and water infrastructure across the North. Finance will be required, and that will cause difficulties for all of us. The infrastructure is not up to the required standard — that should not come as any surprise. There are plans to make the necessary investment that has not been made in the past, and that will present a challenge. Nevertheless, it is generally accepted by Members that building a system that could cope with the rainfall experienced in Omagh and Belfast last week would probably be beyond our capacity. It can only be expected that systems are built to cope with storm levels that may come along once every six, seven — or even 30 — years. Last week’s rainfall levels were far above those that normally occur within those expectations. Mr McCallister: I concur with the remarks made about the emergency services, which, along with volunteers, have done tremendous work. Three of the eight towns that the Minister for Regional Development mentioned in his statement are in the South Down constituency, and he accepted that this was the second time that they had been flooded. Does the Minister have a longer-term strategy? He may not be able to give me the strategy or the timescale today, but can he write to me about the Crossgar, Ballynahinch and Downpatrick areas? Mr Murphy: The Member is correct: those areas were seriously affected. I do not have a specific plan for those areas with me today. Northern Ireland Water is progressing a programme of over 100 drainage area studies for the larger population areas across the North, and those will determine the improvements required to sewerage networks in order to reduce the risk of flooding and meet environmental objectives. It is estimated that a capital injection of over £300 million will be required for improvements and schemes. The capital-works programme is currently focused on waste-water treatment compliance, water quality improvements and reductions in interruptions to supply. The majority of the work required for the implementation of the drainage area study programme is scheduled for 2010 and beyond. If there are specific plans for the areas that Mr McCallister mentioned, I will ask Northern Ireland Water to respond to the Department for Regional Development. Mr McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Omagh town was particularly affected by last week’s rain. There was substantial damage to property, and people were hugely inconvenienced. The people of Omagh welcome the establishment of the emergency fund but would also like affected businesses, and people whose vehicles were submerged in public car parks, to be compensated appropriately. I also wish to wish to commend the General Consumer Council, which, together with Omagh Independent Advice Services, intervened to offer advice and guidance to those local people who had suffered the most. Will the Minister give an assessment of how effective the inter-agency co-operation and communication was on the ground in Omagh and in the other towns and cities affected? Will the Minister agree to come to Omagh to meet representatives of the local council and the divisional roads manager to discuss lessons learned and preventative measures that might be put in place? I know that his visit to Omagh would be a very welcome development. Go raibh maith agat. Mr Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Member for his question and his invitation to Omagh — I would probably be the first Armagh man to be welcomed in Tyrone. Nonetheless, he makes a serious point. The immediate need, as far as the Executive were concerned, was to help those whose homes were uninhabitable, and especially those who lost essential household utilities and who had no electricity supply or facilities for cooking. I agree with the Member’s point, and it is a serious one, that businesses were damaged, and property, such as vehicles and belongings. Consideration is being given to the additional action required. Some of the assessments that he asks for are for the longer term. The Executive’s priority was to ensure that our response was as good as possible. Our assessment at the time was that inter-agency communication was good. Certainly, however, there is no scheme that cannot be improved, and the Executive will want to consider, in the longer term, the lessons to be learned from the event, and how the emergency plans could be tweaked and improved. I have no doubt, and I am sure that Members will agree, that we will face further incidences of severe weather similar to that experienced last week. The Executive want to reassure the public that this is a new Administration, more responsive to the needs of the public — the people who elected Members and put us here — and that we want to improve the responsiveness of all agencies and take preventative measures whenever possible. Mr Shannon: First, on behalf of the people who phoned me on Friday in relation to the flooding, I put on record their thanks to the staff of the Department of the Environment, the Department for Regional Development, the councils and the other bodies who were there to help. The Minister’s statement has been made, obviously, in respect of the Belfast and Omagh council areas. However, it is important that it be clarified for the people of Newtownards and Comber, whom the Minister mentioned in his statement. I would add Saintfield and Killyleagh, where houses were also damaged. It is important that the scheme be open to them. Secondly, the Minister may have seen the picture in today’s newspaper of Killyleagh football ground, which is beneath four feet of water. A ladies’ match is supposed to be taking place on Thursday, but that will be impossible. There will be no football on that ground for about six weeks. At a meeting two years ago, the Rivers Agency said that it could not put a larger pipe under the road to alleviate the water problem in what is a water catchment area. I encourage the Minister to respond positively to Killyleagh FC and ensure that a larger drain is inserted to ensure that flooding will be alleviated. The current situation is unacceptable. Mr Murphy: I thank the Member for his question. The particular problem in Killyleagh is the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, and I am sure that officials from the Rivers Agency will respond in due course. As regards the other council areas affected, there was further flooding, as the Member quite rightly said, and I mentioned parts of County Down in my statement. It is a matter for the councils; all councils were written to and emailed on Friday afternoon about the availability of the new scheme. Councils should get in touch with the Department of the Environment where there is need in their areas and submit an application to be involved in the scheme. As the flooding only occurred on Friday, I expect that that is something that councils — whether Ards Borough Council or Down District Council — will communicate with the Department of the Environment about to ensure that residents in those council areas receive assistance if they require it. The scheme is open to councils, but it is up to them to apply. All the councils have been informed — by email or letter — about the scheme, how it works and how they can get involved if they deem that people in their areas require assistance. 12.45 pm Mr McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. I warmly endorse his comments about the response of the emergency services, the community and voluntary sectors and, indeed, the community itself. I also recognise, as the Minister stated, the exceptional nature of the downpour last week. Does the Minister agree that in the context of climate change the data that the Met Office and the Department rely on may already be out of date and that it therefore it may not be another 90 years before we experience a similar event? Can the Minister indicate what short-term measures have been taken and lessons learnt from the events last week? Mr Murphy: That is a valid point. The Department needs to see if the statistics and the analysis for the gully-cleaning exercise — one aspect of what Roads Service is involved in — are up to date with weather predications. There are also resource implications for that — as I mentioned, there are 136,000 gullies in Belfast alone, and if a more regular service is required, there will be resource implications. There was a departmental discussion this morning, which I expect to continue, about the ability of the Met Office to predict the location of severe weather earlier and more accurately. The Chamber will be aware that the weather warning last Tuesday was for the Belfast region as a whole; it was not specific to east or south Belfast. There is scope to look again, for instance, at how regularly services are provided and whether a greater degree of co-ordination is possible with the Met Office to ensure an earlier weather warning — that would help the agencies to respond more rapidly. All of those are lessons in a changing climate. We must look at the implications of the events of last week and at how the Executive and the agencies can respond better in such circumstances. Mr Weir: I thank the Minister for his assurance that all council areas that were affected by the flooding are able to apply for the scheme — including North Down, which at least got a passing reference in the statement. There were, I am reliably informed, parts of the Province, particularly around Cookstown, where flooding began on the evening of 11 June. Will the Minister assure the Chamber that those areas will also be included in the scheme? Will the Minister clarify the position on compensation where there has been damage to property outside a house — for example, where cars were parked outside and had to be written off? Will there be compensation to households for damage to property outside their houses? Mr Murphy: I apologise for not referring to North Down Borough Council, but perhaps that is an argument for reform of local government as there are so many councils in County Down. Fewer councils would make my geographical job a bit easier. Regarding compensation for property, the answer is the same as the one I gave Barry McElduff; the priority was to get a payment to people in households who had lost utilities, electricity, cooking and refrigeration facilities, so that they could return to a normal standard of living immediately. That does not close the door on any consideration of other properties that were damaged as a result of the flooding, but it is not to open the door unduly either. We had this discussion with officials from the Department of Environment and the Department of Finance and Personnel. That was where the priority was, and if people want to make an argument for further consideration to be given to that, the Executive will give it due consideration. Mr Armstrong: I must congratulate the emergency services and voluntary services for their actions. Could the Minister for Regional Development and his Department be more proactive in looking at the impact which new development is likely to have on existing areas where the infrastructure is already struggling to cope with the results of the flooding and at those at risk? Will the Minister pay particular attention to the impact of Planning Policy Statement 14 (PPS 14) and global warming? PPS 14 seems to concentrate on developments in towns, villages and rural areas, but little thought is given to the surface water in those areas and parts that are prone to flooding. The Minister for Regional Development said at the end of his statement that he would take a look at what needs to be done on a long-term basis, and it is important that he is very proactive. Mr Murphy: It is a valid point that we need to look at housing development planning and at how replacing green fields with a housing development creates a hard surface that may contribute to flooding. We also need to look at whether the existing services — and I know that that has been a difficulty for planning — can cope with what may have come from additional housing. That is the reason for the substantial investment in water and sewerage services and the reason that over a 100 drainage schemes are being looked at across the whole region. Those are the long-term implications that we have to grapple with, because it is not simply a matter of building houses; we must also look at the long-term implications of those houses. Mr Armstrong will know that the court case in relation to PPS 14 begins this morning, and that constrains what we can say about it. Certainly, the impact of PPS 14 is one that the Assembly and myself as the Minister responsible for that planning policy will want to look at again. We will see what the implications are from the outcome of the court case, but we certainly want to look not only at rural planning and people’s ability to live in the countryside but also at the strain that a build up of development puts on the sewerage system and the water and drainage infrastructure. Mr Wells: The House will support the praise that has been heaped on the shoulders of all the statutory services that carried out such excellent work last week. I also think that the House accepts that the events of 12 June were exceptional — I witnessed the rainfall, and it was something that I had never seen in my, unfortunately, 50 years on this planet. [Laughter.] I am more concerned that the devastating impact of global climate change may be starting, even in this part of the world. That is worrying. I am also concerned that although 15 June was a more normal day for rainfall, in my constituency of South Down areas such as Crossgar, Ballynahinch and Saintfield were very badly affected. Is the Minister absolutely convinced that the drainage system in those towns and villages is capable of meeting normal rainfall patterns, because my impression on Friday was that it certainly is not? Mr Murphy: I share the Member’s concerns about the general change in climate that we seem to be experiencing and the implications that that has for all of us. The rainfall of 15 June was not of the severity, for instance, that we had in east and south Belfast, Omagh and other places on 12 June. Nonetheless, there was substantially severe rainfall over a more protracted period. We will be asking questions about whether the systems that were in place were able to cope with that rainfall. We have not had a report on whether the rainfall was measured against the storm expectations, which were above and beyond what a fully functioning water and sewerage system and drainage system would be able to cope with. Of course the Member is aware that our system is not up to the standard that we want it to be. There is investment planning to try to improve that standard, but whether that would have coped with Friday’s rainfall is another question that we want further analysis on. I cannot give the Member that assurance at the moment. We had to deal with many issues that arose from the events of Tuesday and Wednesday. Less analysis has come forth on the events of Friday, including the level of rainfall and whether systems were fully up to scratch. We shall be asking those questions, and if there are lessons to be learned, we will learn them. If any further information can be made available, we will provide it to the Member. Mr O’Dowd: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Minister has largely covered the issue that I wished to raise. I was seeking answers about future sewerage infrastructure improvements. That matter has been addressed. Go raibh maith agat. Ms Lo: In his statement, the Minister mentioned longer-term planning to improve the sewerage system in Belfast. Will the Department for Regional Development examine mandatory sustainable urban drainage systems for all new developments? That could reduce peak flows in sewers and road drainage by attenuation. Mr Murphy: Investment in sewerage in Belfast is well under way, particularly in areas of south Belfast, in which the Member obviously has an interest. In the longer term, flood risk mitigation will be provided for in the central city area through the Belfast sewer project, which has been included in Northern Ireland Water’s capital-works programme for completion in 2009. That is a £120 million capital-works scheme, which includes the proposed Belfast sewer tunnel. The tunnel is designed to divert storm water to a terminal pumping station near the Belfast waste water treatment works at Duncrue Street. When completed, the existing pumping stations that currently pump storm water into the River Lagan — including the River Terrace pumping station — will be decommissioned. The proposed Belfast sewer project is designed to reduce the risk of flooding significantly, although no sewerage system can be guaranteed to prevent all further flooding. Further investment is required in the Belfast area — in addition to the Belfast sewer project — associated with the implementation of drainage area studies, particularly in the east Belfast area. As I said in response to another question, those studies do not have the same priority as the waste water treatment works or the interruption-of-supply works. The drainage area studies are scheduled to be implemented after 2010. However, the substantial investment in Belfast’s main sewer project is due for completion in 2009. That will result in a significant improvement in the situation in the city centre area. Mr Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. First, I thank the Minister for his reassurance that the compensation is payable across various council areas. That was not clear on Friday. I repeat Peter Weir’s question about compensation in respect of the events of Monday night, when Cookstown was badly flooded. Will the compensation cover the events of Monday night, when the first of the storms occurred? It is important that commercial buildings are covered in the same way as domestic ones. The situation for some domestic properties is OK, but commercial properties sustained much damage, and facilities inside some of them had to be closed down. Mr Murphy: I repeat my previous answer: all councils were contacted in writing on Friday. Any council that considers itself eligible for the scheme is entitled to apply for compensation. That includes Cookstown District Council, if it has a particular case to make. Priority was given to domestic households and to getting people back to some acceptable degree of living standard. That does not necessarily close the door on any other request for assistance in respect of damage to property. People who have such cases to make should pursue them. We will see where that brings us in relation to the resources that are available from the Executive. Of course, £5 million, as a headline figure, seems like quite a substantial amount of money, but that will be spread across the areas of damage, and the Member will know that quite a number of areas and properties were damaged by the storms. The door is not closed to further consideration for other properties and other people who were affected by the flooding. Mr McCarthy: I sympathise with all those who have lost their homes and who have been traumatised over the last week due to the severe flooding. I congratulate the Minister on his efforts to learn lessons from what has happened to ensure that such severe flooding does not reoccur. 1.00 pm The Minister will remember that, a couple of weeks ago, I stood in the Chamber and appealed to him for sufficient funding to properly maintain the roads in my constituency. Last Friday, the A20 — the main road between Portaferry and Newtownards — was blocked by flooding. Many of my constituents were affected by that flooding. Will the Minister ensure that his officials are given whatever means are necessary to keep this main road open at all times? As most of the road runs alongside Strangford Lough, there was no excuse for not being able to get rid of the water quickly. Will the Minister advise what compensation will be made available to motorists whose cars were written-off as a result of getting caught in the flood waters? Finally, despite the over-abundance of water throughout the country over the past week, Kiltonga industrial estate in Newtownards had its water cut off last Friday and is getting a temporary supply back only this morning. Will the Minister comment on that situation? Mr Murphy: I thank the Member for his questions. The priority for Roads Service is, of course, to try to keep roads open. Roads were reopened fairly quickly after the events had taken place. If investment is required, a case can be made for that and it will be given consideration. The Member will know that there are competing requirements for investment — across all areas of the Executive’s responsibility, not just for Roads Service. Therefore, priorities must be agreed and investment must be made on the basis of those priorities. If a lack of resources is identified in any area, a strong case for investment could be made. Compensation has been mentioned for damaged properties. Members should be clear that these payments are not compensation: they are one-off payments to enable people to get their properties back to an acceptable living standard, allowing them to cook and use the facilities in their own homes. However, as I have said, consideration can be given to further requests for support. Any requests should be made through the process that has been agreed with the councils. A note will be taken of the specific case that the Member mentioned in his constituency, and I will ask Northern Ireland Water to respond to him. Mr S Wilson: I welcome the Minister’s statement and the work of the emergency services over the past week. The Minister has indicated that the events of last week were exceptional circumstances. However, in the past eight years, it is about the eighth time that I have heard — from various Ministers, not just from the current Minister — that those are one in every 100 or 150 years events. It seems that we have had 1,000 years of disaster all wrapped up in the past eight years. As such events are not now considered to be exceptional circumstances, will the Minister give an assurance that emergency planning is being strengthened so that the Department is aware of where floods are likely to occur? They seem to happen in the same places time and time again. Will the Minister also give an assurance that data on the locations of floods will be collected and that the Department will liaise closely with the weather forecasters so that early intervention, such as the distribution of sandbags, can occur before the flooding even starts? Despite the ongoing investment programme and the strategic investment programme, will the Minister confirm that where areas that flood regularly are identified and where individual actions could be taken to alleviate that problem, some money will be spent and some research will be carried out to ascertain how that issue could be resolved? Finally, will the Minister assure Members that, given the record of the councils — and especially Belfast City Council — in distributing money within two days of it having been received, that there will be a role for councils if there are emergencies in the future? Mr Murphy: I thank the Member for his questions. I am happy to provide him with reassurance on all the issues that he raised. My response to the first point raised is similar to that given to Mitchel McLaughlin earlier. The descriptions of how often in 100 years such events might happen are provided by people in the Met Office — that is their job. They are professionals; they measure those occurrences, and they provide the frequency of such events. There is a perception among some Members of the House, and also among some members of the public, that there is a greater frequency in such occurrences. If that is the case, there needs to be a more accurate description and a greater degree of co-ordination before an event happens. That is something that could usefully be investigated. It must be borne in mind, however, that the warning for Tuesday 12 June covered the greater Belfast area, not east Belfast or south Belfast in particular. It is difficult to be that specific. If factors such as the amount of resources available, the number of gullies and rivers, the area of sewerage and water infrastructure that must be checked and the distribution of sandbags is taken into account, there is some restriction on what can be done in advance. It is the Executive’s job to examine the emergency response and to consider what else could be done in advance and where procedures could be tightened up. The issue of advanced warnings and the ability to get rapid response out before an event is something that could usefully be examined. The councils played an important role, and the Executive commended them and continue to commend them. It is clear that, in such circumstances, the councils are the first port of call for many members of the public, regardless of where responsibility lies. Over those days, the councils, particularly Belfast City Council, Omagh District Council and some others, proved that they could initiate a very quick and localised response to the people on the ground by means of projects such as the Belfast Resilience Forum and by use of their own staff and resources. I assure the Member that the role played by the councils has not been lost and that it will be factored into any review of procedures or the emergency response. Mr Easton: Will the Minister reassure the House that the Belfast to Bangor railway line, which was closed because of last week’s flooding, has been checked for health and safety? Will he also give an assurance, after the flooding in the Gransha Road and Bloomfield Road areas of Bangor, which appears to have been caused by blockages in the drainage system, that all gullies and drains will be checked? Mr Murphy: The Belfast to Bangor railway line was closed for one and a half hours on Friday 15 June 2007. At 8.30 am, a signaller reported flooding in the vicinity of Craigavad. The line was subsequently closed between Cultra and Seahill. A landslip further along the line was also reported. Infrastructure personnel were duly alerted and, having assessed both problems, they were able to reopen the line. Train services were resumed, albeit with an operating speed restriction in place as a precautionary measure. I do not have specific details about the roads that the Member mentioned. However, I will ask Roads Service officials to respond to him in writing. Welfare Reform Bill Consideration Stage Mr Speaker: Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List, which details the order for consideration of amendments. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There are three groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn. The first debate will be on amendments No 1, No 2 and No 5, which deal with the manner in which a person with a mental-health condition is dealt with by the Department for Social Development. The second debate will be on Mr Brady and other Members’ opposition to clause 16, which deals with the question of whether the Department should have the power to contract out some of its functions. The third debate will be on amendments No 3 and No 4, which deal with the payment of housing benefit and debt counselling. I remind Members intending to speak that, during the debates on each of the three groups of amendments, they should address all the amendments in that group on which they wish to comment. Once the initial debate on each group is completed, any subsequent amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate. The Questions on clause stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear to Members — and I am sure that it is — we shall proceed. No amendments have been tabled for clauses 1 to 10. Clauses 1 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 11 (Work-focused health related assessments) Mr Speaker: We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. Along with amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendments No 2 and No 5. These amendments deal with the manner in which the Department deals with persons with mental-health conditions. As amendment No 5 is consequential to amendment No 1, I will call amendment No 5 only if amendment No 1 is made. Mr Brady: I beg to move amendment No 1: In page 10, line 6, at end insert “, or (e) a psychiatrist, a psychologist, a psychiatric nurse or a psychiatric social worker where the assessment is in relation to a person in connection with a mental health condition.” The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List: No 2: In clause 12, page 10, line 23, at end insert “(e) for securing that in the case of a person who has a mental health condition, the interview is conducted in a manner that takes into account the specific needs of the person being interviewed;” — [Mr Brady.] No 5: In clause 55, page 41, line 27, at end insert “(e) a psychiatrist, a psychologist, a psychiatric nurse or a psychiatric social worker where the medical examination is in relation to a person in connection with a mental health condition.” — [Mr Brady.] Go raibh maith agat. All of these amendments are designed to alleviate the impact of the Welfare Reform Bill on those vulnerable groups whom it will affect the most. Historically, benefit legislation has been formulated by people who have no specific knowledge or experience of those in receipt of benefit. These changes are being introduced without consultation and are designed to save money, not necessarily to enhance people’s lives. Those people who have particular types and degrees of mental illness, and who find it very difficult to articulate how they are affected, will be one of the groups most affected by the changes proposed in the Welfare Reform Bill. The purpose of amendment No 1 is to ensure that people with mental-health problems are examined by medically qualified practitioners who have particular insight into those problems. The legislation, as it stands, mentions: “(a) a registered medical practitioner, (b) a registered nurse, (c) an occupational therapist … or (d) a member of such other profession”. There is no mention of people with specific qualifications in mental health. As someone who has represented people on incapacity benefit with mental-health problems over the past 26 years, and who has dealt with people on benefits for over 30 years, I feel that I am in a position to comment on these issues. Inevitably, a person with mental-health problems, appearing before an appeal tribunal, will be asked if they have seen a psychiatrist, psychologist, psychiatric nurse or psychiatric social worker. Often, the tribunal will adjourn to request a report from one of those practitioners. Obviously, this means a further delay; something that adds to the stress on the client and the cost to the public purse. Therefore, it does not seem unreasonable that practitioners in the particular professions mentioned in the amendment are the most appropriate people to examine those with mental-health problems and to comment on their competence or otherwise. The amendment can only be of benefit to those people with mental-health issues. I ask the Assembly to support the amendment. In relation to amendment No 2, client interviews for the purpose of social security are carried out in the jobs and benefits office — usually in the public office. By definition, people who are being interviewed feel some degree of intimidation and enter into the interviews with a degree of trepidation. The public offices are noisy, busy and usually full of people waiting to be seen. When an interviewee has a mental-health problem, it is important that the Social Security Agency should be aware of their condition. The interview should be carried out in a manner and location that is conducive to dealing with their particular problem. It is of paramount importance that such people should be interviewed in a sensitive and humane manner and allowed to dictate the course of the interview at their own pace. If necessary, the interview should be carried out in the person’s home, because that is where they feel most comfortable. It is also incumbent on the Social Security Agency to ensure that interviews are carried out by people who have received extensive training in dealing with clients who have mental-health problems, and that the interviewee is comfortable with the location and pace of the interview. The client must also be reassured that the interview is being carried out in the strictest confidence and that confidentiality is being strictly adhered to. I ask that the Assembly support the amendment. Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. 1.15 pm Miss McIlveen: The amendments may be tabled with best of intentions for people with mental-health conditions, but their acceptance would not benefit those people or anyone else who is in receipt of benefits in Northern Ireland. Members from all sides of the House share the concerns that surround the treatment of people who suffer from mental-health conditions. The Minister made specific mention of that in her comments to the House last week, and I welcome the specific commitment she gave that people with mental-health problems would be treated with particular sensitivity and sympathy. I will speak against the proposed amendments to clauses 11, 12 and 55 of the Bill. The Members who tabled the amendments appear intent on introducing change for change’s sake. Clause 55(2) will insert a definition of “health care professional” into The Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, and that definition will reflect “health care professional” as defined in clause 11(8) of the Bill. After listing three categories of healthcare professionals, the Bill states a fourth at subsection (8)(d): “a member of such other profession regulated by a body mentioned in section 25(3) of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002 (c. 17) as may be prescribed.” The Members who tabled the amendments do not intend to change that paragraph, so I presume that they are happy with it. I wonder whether they have read section 25 of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002. It is readily apparent, for those who have chosen to read it, that all recognised and regulated health care workers are catered for in section 25. It naturally follows that the Bill in its unamended form caters for the appropriate healthcare professional to assess each individual depending on his or her particular circumstances. Aside from the ineffectuality and superfluousness of the attempt to insert the proposed paragraph (e) into the legislation after such a catch-all paragraph (d), it is poor and clumsy drafting. I will now deal with the proposed insertion of new paragraph (e) into clause 12. Clause 12 governs regulations that the Department can introduce under the Welfare Reform Bill, and matters that may be taken into account when issuing those regulations. The guidelines set out in clause 12 — they are merely guidelines — are to assist in general terms the matters that the regulations may address. Although several matters are particularised, the list in clause 12 is not exhaustive. The specifics of providing the appropriate environment for the interview of people suffering from a mental-health condition are more suited to the detail of the regulations. As the Members who have proposed the amendments are members of the Committee for Social Development, they will have an opportunity to discuss the issue when the regulations are being drafted. The Minister was clear and unequivocal when she met with the Committee on 24 May 2007 and said: “I want to make it quite clear that I will be coming back to the Committee before anything happens as regards the regulations. I want to get the views, advice and guidance of Committee members before proceeding. I am quite clear about that.” The Sinn Féin members of the Committee for Social Development are dressing the amendments up as additional protection for those who suffer from mental-health problems. The amendments do nothing of the kind. They contribute nothing constructive. One of the primary reasons for accelerated passage of the Bill was to maintain parity with the rest of the United Kingdom. It is recorded in Hansard that, on 24 May 2007, the Committee for Social Development: “agreed unanimously to the accelerated passage of the Welfare Reform Bill”. Mr F McCann: Will the Member give way? Miss McIlveen: Sorry, no. Thank you. Not only that, but during that meeting the Sinn Féin Committee members did not raise one single dissatisfaction as to how people who suffer from mental-health disorders may be treated under the Bill. Perhaps at that stage they had not been told what to think. Nevertheless, no matter how well intentioned the amendments are for the treatment of people with mental-health conditions, they will not be in anyone’s interest if the principle of parity is broken because of their being accepted. The DUP will not support the amendments; it is important that the Bill passes through the House. Mr A Maginness: I oppose the amendments in this group. I agree with the comprehensive analysis that Miss McIlveen has put forward. She has critically examined each individual amendment and has succinctly presented the arguments collectively and individually. Mr Brady raised a general point about mental illness and people who suffer from mental ill health. It is clear that all Members are sympathetic to the notion of assisting people who suffer from mental ill health. Indeed, it is clear that the Minister, in addressing the House and the Committee for Social Development, is exceptionally sympathetic. However, the proposals in amendments No 1, No 2 and No 5 in no way augment the process of assisting those people. The Bill, as it stands, is clearly intended to give people who suffer from mental ill health the greatest possible assistance with work-related interviews, and so on. In fact, it could be said that the proposed amendments are superfluous. I wish to raise one specific issue in amendment No 1, which is the introduction of psychologists into the definition of a “health care professional”. To permit a psychologist to make assessments would introduce into the legislation someone who is not necessarily — I emphasise “necessarily” — medically trained to deal with a patient. Some psychologists may have some medical experience or qualification. However, in most circumstances, psychologists are not medically trained. It would therefore be inappropriate for a psychologist to be involved in assessments. For that reason — although not for that reason alone — amendment No 1 is flawed, because people who are medically trained are required to deal with people who suffer from a medical condition. Mr S Wilson: Even the wording of the amendment is flawed. The amendment proposes that psychiatrists, psychologists, psychiatric nurses or psychiatric social workers be involved in the assessment of people with a mental-health condition. The terms are so wide that almost anyone could fall within the remit of clause 11 were amendment No 1 accepted. Mr A Maginness: Exactly. I agree with what the Member has said. In many situations, people do not have a specific mental condition, problem or form of mental ill health alone; often, there is a mixture of physical and mental conditions. In such cases, it is difficult to extract the predominant element that affects a person and to identify the specific issue that must be addressed. A person could have a mental-health condition — for example, periodic depression — yet also suffer from some physical problem, illness or disability. In those circumstances, it is an entirely different situation that needs to be addressed. Amendment No 1 does not really consider the complexity of situations in which, in many cases, the mental-health condition may be very minor compared to the person’s physical incapacity. The Bill is broad enough to catch all needs and to capture a mixture of physical and mental needs, where they exist together or separately. Therefore, in dealing with the circumstances that have been mentioned, the clauses as they stand should be acceptable. My remarks apply equally to amendment No 1 and amendment No 2. It is important that the Assembly is mindful of the Minister’s commitment to deal sympathetically and understandingly with the problems that Mr Brady raised. I am not saying that Mr Brady should not have raised those issues: if he simply wanted to highlight them, that is fine and one respects that. However, if he wanted to move an amendment that would efficiently and correctly deal with those problems, I am afraid that he has not done so. The amendments are flawed and do not deal with the situation properly. Therefore the Member has done a disservice. Mr Ford: The amendments recognise concerns — which have existed across the UK since the implementation of the Welfare Reform Act 2007 — about the effects that some of the requirements may have on people who suffer from psychiatric illness or who have a learning disability. However, it is not clear that the amendments deal with those problems. Certain issues are beyond what can reasonably be included in primary legislation. Amendment No 2 refers to job-related interviews and has considerable merit in its specification that such interviews should be carried out in a reasonable manner and in accordance with the needs of the individual. However, there is already a host of provisions for regulations. Some Members referred to the Minister’s comments in last week’s debate on the Second Stage of the Bill. The question must be asked whether the amendment, which would require the provision of further regulations, is appropriate. The Assembly must ensure that people who face work-focused interviews are treated in a way that will encourage them into work and not in a way that increases anxiety or creates difficulty for people who suffer from depression or who have a learning disability. That is a key issue on which there is no disagreement. The question is whether the relevant clauses should be amended. My colleagues and I will listen carefully to the Minister’s response. As a social worker by profession — indeed, an approved social worker under the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 until my registration lapsed because of the time that I spent in this place, where a qualification in mental health social work is, apparently, not relevant — I must declare an interest. All the appropriate professionals are covered in the Bill. To suggest that a particular group of professionals is required to deal with a particular case — such as that of someone who has had orthopaedic surgery, for example — implies that there should be a list of those who are suitable to deal with each case. As one who made his living as a social worker, I certainly would not have felt qualified to submit a professional report on the ability to work of someone who had had orthopaedic surgery. Professionals are sought to provide professional reports, and part of their professionalism is to determine whether they are capable of providing a report. To suggest that certain professionals would deal with certain conditions is to suggest that a raft of amendments should go through in order to encompass all kinds of other people who would be suitable. That goes against the spirit in which professional regulations were laid down and those that are referred to in the Bill. Registered social workers, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, nurses or doctors are capable of dealing with their area of expertise. We should not divide them into further subsections. Like Mr Maginness, I agree with Ms McIlveen, who spoke against the necessity of such divisions. However, I want to put on record my disagreement with her reference to the principle of parity. The Assembly has yet to tackle the issue of where parity is essential in social security matters and where variation may be an option. The basic structures, financial benefits and key conditions of the legislation must be treated on the basis of parity. However, It is wrong to suggest that the Assembly cannot amend minor details in a Bill such as this because of parity considerations. Had I received the necessary assurances from the Minister about the concerns that I raised, I would not be supporting what I regard as a flawed amendment. 1.30 pm However, that is not saying that Members should accept automatically that no amendment is possible in such cases. There may be circumstances in which the Assembly could make marginal variations to conditions, which would have no effect on their role within the UK national framework for social security but would make conditions easier for some people here. Let us be careful not to get too hung up on parity even in relation to social security legislation. The key issue is to ensure that the Bill goes through as fast as possible and in the best possible form. If the Minister repeats the assurances that she made about the way in which people with psychiatric illnesses or learning disabilities will be treated, and addresses concerns that appropriate professionals will be involved, there will be no need for any of the amendments to be made. Mr Shannon: I support the Bill. The subject was debated at length in the Chamber on 23 January, and concerns were expressed about some of the Bill’s implications, specifically the prospect of negative repercussions for those with neurological and mental-health problems. I pointed out the problems associated with topping up benefits for people who attended interviews and the impact that could have on people who were genuinely unable to work due to mental-health problems. The Bill begins to address the issue, and that is welcome. However, to what extent are the mental-health professionals satisfied with the clause, in particular the Northern Ireland Neurological Charities Alliance — the umbrella organisation for charities dealing with multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, muscular dystrophy and other conditions — which expressed concern to me and, I suspect, others about the Bill? I reiterate that I agree with the concept of getting people back into work placements, but not to the detriment of their mental health or that of their families. Will the Minister assure the House that above-mentioned concerned parties can be satisfied as to the power and remit of the Bill and the effect that it will have on those it is aimed at? In other words, will help be getting to the people who need it? If the answer is that there has been wide consultation and that the various bodies are satisfied, then Members must support the Bill and encourage those on the periphery of society back into satisfactory working lives. Mr F McCann: a Cheann Comhairle. I would like to clarify two points, especially given the point made by Miss McIlveen. First, the Committee for Social Development supported accelerated passage for the Bill only after being informed by the Minister that benefits would be stopped in mid-June — that was the only reason why accelerated passage was agreed to. If the Committee had had an opportunity to debate the Bill further, many more amendments might have been proposed today. Secondly, Alban Maginness raised the point that a psychologist is better placed to speak for claimants than a physiotherapist. Physiotherapists are mentioned in the Bill while psychologists and psychiatrists are not. I support the amendment of my friend from Newry and Armagh Mickey Brady because it makes sense. It sets out in black and white what is required of the Department when it embarks on interviewing a person who suffers from a mental illness. It would mean that those who would adjudicate and assess people who have been informed that they must attend a job-focused interview would have the medical experience to judge the ability of that person to take part in such an interview. The amendment states: “a psychiatrist, a psychologist, a psychiatric nurse or a psychiatric social worker where the assessment is in relation to a person in connection with a mental health condition.” That is clear, whereas the Bill, as it stands, is not. There is no mention in the Bill of the professions listed in the amendment; nor does the Bill state that a person must be qualified in psychiatry to examine, or judge, people with mental illnesses who are to be interviewed. Nowhere in the Bill does it say that those being asked to adjudicate in cases where the person suffers from a mental-health disorder must be qualified to do so. In fact, clause 55(2) states that: “’health care professional” means — (a) a registered medical practitioner; (b) a registered nurse; (c) an occupational therapist or physiotherapist registered with a regulatory body established by an Order in Council under section 60 of the Health Act 1999 (c. 8); or (d) a member of such other profession regulated by a body mentioned in section 25(3) of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002 (c. 17) as the Department may prescribe;.” It continues, but the meaning is the same: it mentions every possible practitioner to cover other illnesses, but it does not state who should examine or assess those who suffer from mental illnesses. I find that rather strange. Mr S Wilson: I appreciate the Member’s giving way. Although I can appreciate the Member’s point, I am not so sure that those professionals are not covered by clause 55(2)(d). Is the Member saying, as a Member for South Antrim Mr Ford did earlier, that if someone has a heart condition, he or she would be best examined by a heart specialist, or that if someone has a limb condition, he or she would be best examined by an orthopaedic surgeon? If that is the case, why does Mr McCann not suggest that there be specified professionals for all kinds of ailments? Mr F McCann: The point is well made. However, when it came down to it, Sinn Féin and some other Committee members believed that those people suffering from mental illnesses would lose out and be the hardest hit by the proposed interviews. If other people suffer from other ailments, they too should be catered for. The Bill names a wide spectrum of professionals to cover a range of conditions, but it makes no specific mention of mental health. My point is that many people who claim incapacity or related benefits suffer from mental illnesses. People may argue that GPs are qualified to examine anyone who is ill. That is not the case. Very few GPs are trained to deal with mental illnesses; they are even less capable of assessing or advising a person with a mental illness. Mr McGlone: Will the Member not also accept that, in many instances, people attend their GPs to receive counselling for mental illnesses? Mr F McCann: For some considerable time now, I have attended meetings with the families of people who have taken their own lives. They say that GPs are so overworked and overloaded that it is impossible for them to identify some of the problems suffered by their patients, some of which are mental-health conditions. That is why Sinn Féin specifically argued that the Bill must include references to professionals with psychiatric training. Such professionals could deal with sufferers of mental illnesses and give the necessary professional advice on when people with mental-health difficulties could be interviewed; how the interviews should be conducted; the degree or severity of the illnesses; and whether the people should be accompanied during the interview process. Amendment No 2 deals with the circumstances and surroundings in which the interviews should be conducted. Those very simple precautions should be supported by everyone in the House. These issues should already be provided for in the Bill. Let us ensure that we afford those with mental illnesses the expertise that they need to cope with the changes in the Bill. I am pleased to support amendment No 5 from my friend from Newry and Armagh. Mickey Brady has over 30 years’ experience working for the then Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) and later in an advice centre, dealing with appeals and many other problems. He knows what he is talking about. He has conducted incapacity-benefit interviews in DHSS offices. Professionally, he has seen the results of dealing with people with mental-health problems and has tried to adjudicate on decisions — an activity that is not easy on the people who work in those offices. They are not equipped to deal with, or adjudicate on, those types of cases, and many would attest to that. The surroundings in which interviews take place are as important as the interviews. I am still not convinced that the interviews, as they are laid out, are the right step forward. They could prove to be a major setback for people who suffer from mental illnesses. Members must get this right — Mr S Wilson: Will the Member give way? Mr F McCann: Sammy, you will end up saying more than me during my contribution. Mr S Wilson: I appreciate that the Member has given way on a second point. Clause 12(2), which Members will have more opportunity to debate in detail, makes it clear that: “(2) Regulations under this section may, in particular, make provision — (a) prescribing circumstances in which such a person is subject to a requirement to take part in one or more work-focused interviews; (b) for notifying such a person of any such requirement;” The application of those regulations will allow far more flexibility than would the inclusion of a paragraph, which simply says that: “…the interview … takes into account the specific needs of the person being interviewed;” Does the proposed legislation not offer a better safeguard? Mr F McCann: The intention was to include an amendment to deal with that issue. The problem is that the longer the process goes on, the less likelihood there is that anything will be included to deal with the specific needs of claimants. In 1995, when the last major changes to the incapacity-benefit system took place, I took part in several meetings with senior DHSS officials and visited local offices. The people in those offices who conducted interviews with claimants found the interviews difficult to deal with because, through no fault of their own, they were not trained to the necessary standards. The level of training that is required to deal with the interviews is far more advanced than that that is currently provided. In practice, regardless of what is contained in the legislation, the theory may not be applied in practice in social security offices. Therein lies the difficulty. Members must get this right — and if I could read this speech properly, we might get it right. [Laughter.] We must consider best practice in various countries, and take advice from professionals who deal with mental illness. In some situations, I have observed that surroundings and a friendly atmosphere can be half the battle in making a person feel at ease. That is what amendment No 1 is about. Although the Bill stipulates where an interview can take place, it misses one vital point, which is taking advice and opinions from those who know — professionals in the field of psychiatry and mental health. I have serious difficulties with certain aspects of the Bill. If I were dealing with it at Committee Stage now, I would not be in a rush to recommend accelerated passage. Too much depends on getting it right. Not least among my concerns is that life should be made as comfortable as possible for those whose illnesses warrant a completely different approach than is normally taken during interviews of that nature. How many Members have experience of people who, for an apparently trivial matter, have been called for an interview at a social security office and have fallen apart because they think that they have done something wrong? How many Members are aware of people who have become physically ill and refused to go to interviews because they could not handle the stress of walking into local offices? Members should consider that a consequence of the Bill would be that when people are asked why they have not attended an interview and they explain that they could not mentally handle walking into the office, more than likely, those people would receive reduced benefits. A genuine fear of authority has always been prevalent among older people, but it also exists among younger people — and Members can only guess how the Bill will impact on those with mental-health problems. Given that, I hope that Members can put political considerations aside and recognise amendment No 1 as taking precautions to deliver those interviews in places that are conducive to those with such illnesses. Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I support amendment No 1. Mr O’Dowd: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I had not planned to speak on the Bill because my colleagues have adequately covered my concerns. However, in January, I proposed a motion in the Transitional Assembly, and listening to the comments today, I feel that many of the Members who are opposing the Sinn Féin amendments appear to have forgotten what that debate was about. 1.45 pm The DUP has made much about holding Ministers to account: it now has an opportunity to do so. There is nothing to stop the Minister for Social Development progressing the Bill in its entirety without going near the Committee again. I do not suggest that she will do so: however, if departmental officials are prepared to walk into a Committee room and tell the members of the Committee for Social Development that benefits will be stopped if they do not agree to accelerated passage, then what is to stop them from doing anything? It now appears, with the benefit of hindsight, that that may not be the case, and that the Assembly has the power to ensure that benefits can continue to be paid. If departmental officials are capable of telling such a whopper to the members of the Committee for Social Department, what else are they prepared to do to ensure the progress of the Bill? I wonder, as did Mr Ford, whether Ms McIlveen is more worried about parity of esteem between here and Britain than she is about the rights of people suffering mental illness. There may be an argument regarding the financial implications of paying benefits but the Assembly has the power to ensure that any legislation made in this Chamber will provide basic rights for the people under its jurisdiction. I am concerned, but not surprised, about the SDLP’s stance on the matter. On 23 January 2007 I proposed the motion in the debate on the Welfare Reform Bill, which specifically mentioned neurological patients. The SDLP was, apparently, so concerned about people with mental-health difficulties that its amendment excluded neurological patients and included a reference to people with mental ill-health. It is worth quoting again — Mr McGlone: Will the Member define the word “neurological”? Mr O’Dowd: The word was specifically chosen to include people with multiple sclerosis. I will supply the Member with a more detailed definition if he so wishes. The motion as amended stated: “That this Assembly expresses deep concern about the implications of the Welfare Reform Bill, particularly the introduction of a new coercive regime into benefit administration, and its impact on a number of vulnerable groups, especially those people with mental ill health.” — [Official Report, Vol 21, No 14, p 405, col 1]. Nothing in this Bill has changed since it came from Westminster. It has been posted here and is sitting in front of us awaiting adoption by the Assembly. Margaret Ritchie voted in favour of the motion that was tabled on 23 January. Does that mean, therefore, that the coercive regime mentioned in that motion has been done away with? Welfare rights groups in England do not think so. Those groups are very concerned about the nature of the Bill — they have had experience of its impact. Alban Maginness won our argument for us when he said that psychologists were not properly trained to deal with people suffering from mental-health problems. Does Mr Maginness honestly believe that client advisors working in social security offices are properly trained to deal with people with those same difficulties? I seriously doubt that. Those staff members would readily admit that they are not properly trained to carry out those functions. Lobby organisations and advocate groups share deep concerns about the Welfare Reform Bill and the effect that it will have on vulnerable people in society. Briefing papers supplied by Assembly researchers, the Law Centre and groups representing the field of neurology for the debate on 23 January, highlighted several cases. One case, which stuck in my mind, was of a young mother with severe alcohol and mental-health problems who attended a work-focused interview accompanied by her children. She failed the interview; failed to find employment; left the family home and lived on the streets, and ended up taking her own life. On a day when newspapers and radio stations are reporting that three young people in a small geographical area have taken their own lives, and when the subject of suicide once again comes to the fore, are Members saying through this Bill that they are not going to take the opportunity to protect the rights of people with mental-health difficulties? Some Members say that the Bill does not have to be so restrictive; but if we are serious about protecting the rights of people with mental-health problems, this Bill is our opportunity to do so — it will send a clear message that a line has been drawn in the sand. All the fine words about the Bamford Review and the need for investment in mental-health services are not worth diddly-squat, unless they are in legislation. The Assembly has the chance to act on that today. With the deepest respect to general practitioners, who do a fantastic job in very difficult circumstances, they are not qualified to deal with mental-health issues at that level. Indeed, the suicide-prevention strategy launched by the direct rule Health Minister, Sean Woodward, identified — Dr McDonnell: What qualification does the Member have to dictate to the Chamber that GPs are not qualified to deal with mental-health issues? I worked for 28 years in the Health Service, and 50% of what I dealt with in those years was mental health; now Mr O’Dowd tells me that I am not qualified and that, retrospectively, I have been a failure. Mr O’Dowd: The Member is being somewhat dramatic in his representation of what I said. I did say that GPs were not qualified to deal with that matter. Mr Molloy: Address the Chair. Mr O’Dowd: Sorry Mr Speaker. I am being told off here. [Laughter.] If my colleague refers to the suicide-prevention strategy and the consultation around it, he will find that it was GPs who lobbied the hardest for more assistance, more training and more resources to deal with mental-health issues, because mental health is a specialist issue. I am not degrading GPs. I opened my speech by saying that they do an excellent job in very difficult circumstances, but a 10-minute, sometimes five-minute, appointment does not make a GP a specialist in mental health. Mental health incorporates two separate subjects. One is counselling, and sometimes someone to talk to is as good a counselling as any, and often that will be done by the local GP. However, the Assembly is being asked to agree that people with mental-health issues present themselves at a tribunal, a hearing and an adjudication, which may result in the loss of benefits and their being forced into unsuitable employment, which may have a detrimental effect on their health. A doctor, who is not a specialist in this subject, is asked to decide in half an hour if a patient is mentally competent. I do not believe that any GP should be put in that position. Mental-health professionals should carry out that assessment. Go raibh maith agat. I support the amendments set before the House at this stage of the Bill. Mr Speaker: I remind Members to address their remarks through the Chair. Mr S Wilson: I will address my remarks through the Chair, and I will not require a reminder from the Deputy Speaker on the opposite Bench. Sinn Féin is making a belated attempt to wash its hands of a decision that it, collectively, supported in this House. [Interruption] The hon Member says — from a sedentary position — that he was blackmailed. If Sinn Féin is so easily blackmailed by a Minister’s saying that, if one thing is not done, the other will be done, perhaps it should not represent people here. If it felt strongly and sorely about that, it should have opposed accelerated passage. However, collectively, it supported the accelerated passage of the Bill through the House, after the reasons for that were given, both to the Committee and to the Assembly, by the Minister. Mr F McCann: Will the member give way? Mr S Wilson: I am obliged to give way. [Laughter] Mr F McCann: I have you now. Accelerate passage has been mentioned from the outset of the debate, and certainly during Miss McIlveen’s speech, she talked about getting accelerated passage through the Committee. In the Committee, I tried to explain that, if accelerated passage were not granted, people’s benefits would cease in mid-June. Under those circumstances — and under no others — there was an obligation to allow accelerated passage. If Sinn Féin had its way, there would be several other amendments before the House today. Mr S Wilson: As I am not a Member of the Committee for Social Development, I do not know what was said at the Committee meeting. However, having been present in the Assembly when the Minister for Social Development asked for accelerated passage for the Bill, I am sure that her request was not made on those terms. We are now in mid-June and still debating the Bill. Had it been the case that, without accelerated passage, people’s benefits would have ceased in mid-June, I would have at least expected the Members opposite to have said that they agreed to accelerated passage for the Bill only under duress or under protest. However, we did not hear even that; there was general assent in the House that the Bill should be given accelerated passage. Perhaps Sinn Féin Members, like all of us, have been lobbied by the various groups that are concerned about the issue, but it is not good enough — and it is not responsible politics either — that, after having agreed to accelerated passage, they now find that they should have thought more deeply about the matter, give in to the lobby groups and try to blame everyone else, including the Minister. Mr O’Dowd: Does the Member agree that the granting of accelerated passage does not mean that we must agree with the Bill throughout its entire process but, rather, that we forgo the Committee Stage of the Bill? The amendments that we are discussing today are perfectly within the rules of the Assembly. Mr S Wilson: I appreciate that intervention, as it brings me to my second point. Part of the argument today has been about accelerated passage. Why do the Members opposite complain about accelerated passage when, as the Member has quite rightly pointed out, Members have every chance to make amendments now on the floor of the House? The Members opposite cannot have it both ways. They cannot complain about accelerated passage and then tell us that the fact that the Bill has been given accelerated passage does not really matter because amendments can legitimately be made on the floor of the House, although we have not had the same opportunity to consider amendments in detail in the Committee. Sinn Féin Members have argued that holding the Minister to account is what the Assembly is all about. Of course we want to hold the Minister to account. That is the job of every one of us here. As she is a member of another party and I enjoy having a go at members of other parties — indeed, as people know, I occasionally enjoy having a go at my own party’s Ministers — I would have been more than happy to join Sinn Féin in having a go at the Minister for Social Development if I thought that she was trying to pull a fly one on the Assembly, but I do not believe that that is the case. Indeed, the proposed amendments would hardly hold the Minister to account. If anything, the amendments would arguably do a disservice to the very people whom Sinn Féin claims to want to protect, as I will explain in a moment or two. I listened to the reasons that the Member gave for disagreeing with the Bill. He pilloried my colleague from Strangford Miss McIlveen for being happy simply to adopt parity legislation and to follow blindly whatever legislation comes through Westminster, as if that was the job of unionists. It is not the job of unionists to blindly follow bad legislation that comes through Westminster and is introduced into the Assembly. If such legislation can be amended so that its provisions are tailored to local situations, we will of course do that. However, given that the Member stated that not one line of the Bill had changed since it came from Westminster, it seems that Sinn Féin Members are interested in ensuring only that we do not mimic legislation that comes from Westminster. Sinn Féin Members should not, on the one hand, blame the DUP for blindly following parity legislation while criticising such legislation simply because it originated at Westminster. The basis on which I say that is that I am not so sure that the proposed amendments show that the Members opposite even have an understanding of what the Bill is all about. For example, the Member argued that client advisers are not qualified to make some of these complex judgements; that is quite true. However, the assumption behind that view is that client advisers will be making such judgements by themselves, but they will not. They will have a plethora of available information, whether it be written or oral. People will also have the right to make representations. It is wrong to say that some client adviser in a Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety office will have to adjudicate on those matters. The basis on which the amendments have been tabled is wrong. 2.00 pm Mr O’Dowd used emotional rhetoric in his second argument. He quoted the sad example of a mother who had been turned down for benefits and who killed herself. I do not know about those circumstances, and the Member did not outline the details of the case, but there is no guarantee that a professional might not have come to exactly the same conclusion. There is no guarantee that, had a professional made that judgement, that mother would not have behaved in the same way. It is wrong to suppose that professionals hold the key to ensuring that such instances do not occur. The use of such emotional rhetoric shows that the Member knew that the amendments were weak. He had, therefore, to make such an appeal. Would the amendments help individuals? Great play has been made of specifying that: “a psychiatrist, a psychologist, a psychiatric nurse or a psychiatric social worker” — and we are not told which would be the most appropriate — should be involved in assessing cases: “in relation to a person in connection with a mental health condition.” I pointed out in an earlier intervention that there is no definition for “a mental health condition”, or the degree of severity of “a mental health condition”. In some cases, it might well be that, when someone has a complex mental-health condition, one of those professionals would be the best person to become involved. However, the Bill does not rule that out. The Bill allows for all such professionals. I would imagine that if people who assess cases feel that there is a need for a psychiatrist, a neurologist, a heart surgeon, or whatever, they would seek that help, and the Bill allows for that to happen. The proposers of amendment No 2 believe that inserting: “the interview is conducted in a manner that takes into account the specific needs of the person being interviewed;” is a safeguard for someone who needs to be interviewed in his or her own home, or needs to be accompanied to interview. Anything so vague could not be regarded as a safeguard. The Minister is offering that regulations be made about notifying people of the place and the manner of the interview, and that those regulations will be presented to the Committee, which will have an opportunity to amend them. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong. Mrs D Kelly: Regardless of the Westminster legislation, there is ample flexibility to allow the Minister to issue good-practice guidelines, and each manager would then be held accountable for the delivery of those guidelines. Mr S Wilson: My mind must be easily read — I hope that it is not. [Laughter.]I was about to come to that point. The regulations allow the Minister to be far more specific than the amendment would enable her to be. The amendment could offer only general guidance to some poor caseworker who is left to exercise discretion in regard to a vague statement. That could be as dangerous — or more so — than a good set of regulations that are well thought out, tailored to the specific situation, and that take on board all of the representations that are made. As safeguards, the proposed amendments are less effective than those offered by the Minister. I was provoked to speak because the Member indicated that the DUP had no interest in holding the Minister to account and that my party blindly follows Westminster legislation to maintain parity with Great Britain. I hope that I have made it clear that that is not the case. Mr Ford: From what the Member said, I assume that he would be happy to break parity if doing so ensured that the regulations would provide better services to our people than those regulations that are likely to be introduced in GB. Mr S Wilson: I do not know whether the Member was in the Chamber when I discussed the issue of parity. I would not be happy to break parity if it would result in consequences that were detrimental either to the benefits that people receive or to the size of the Northern Ireland block grant allocation. On occasions, it might be desirable to break parity, but, because of the consequences, it may be decided not to. Issues of parity with Great Britain should be judged along those lines, not from a doctrinaire approach that because legislation originates in Westminster it must be sound. Bad legislation sometimes goes through Westminster. I oppose the amendments for the reasons that I have given. I support the terms of the Bill. Mr Molloy: Like Mr Wilson, I have been provoked into speaking in this debate. It does not matter whether it was right or wrong to give the Bill accelerated passage or how the Committee granted accelerated passage. The Committee Stage of a Bill’s passage is important, and accelerated passage should never be granted easily. Belatedly or otherwise, Members want to discuss the issues at stake in the Bill, rather than the principle of accelerated passage or how the Committee operated. Miss McIlveen’s suggestion, that my colleagues had been told what to do after the Committee had assented to accelerated passage, is most derogatory. Committee members responded as the Minister asked. However, Members have to ask questions during this stage of the Bill. There is no suggestion that my colleagues have been told how to speak or instructed to ask specific questions. It is important that Members should consider all requests for accelerated passage carefully and that they should question whether any Minister, from any party, should have a free run. Mr Wilson raised the issue about holding the Minister to account. If the amendments are so minor and unimportant that they will not result in major change, why does not the Minister accept them? Most Members have represented people who have had an unfair hearing at a tribunal or a medical examination. In particular, Members will have received complaints from individuals that, although they had a thorough physical examination, their mental illness has not been sufficiently taken into account. I refer Members to Dr McDonnell’s comments about GPs. In every other aspect of healthcare, medical experts state that professional knowledge is needed to deal with certain illnesses and that consultants are required. We are told that a small local hospital is inadequate; only a big hospital will have all the required professional staff to cope with a wide spectrum of illnesses. However, in the Bill, it seems anyone coming off the street with experience of any aspect of life can examine a person and give a verdict that can affect that person’s entire future. Indeed, some people have taken their own lives as a result of these decisions. Mrs Long: The debate is not about whether specialist knowledge or facilities are needed. It is about whether it is necessary to specify a particular group of specialists in the Bill in order to allow them to conduct assessments in cases involving mental health, or whether the subsequent regulations are the appropriate vehicle for that. Mr Molloy: I thank the Member for her remark. However, it serves to emphasise further the fact that the Bill deals with some issues and qualifications but not others. The purpose of the amendments is to include in the Bill provisions to deal with particular mental-health issues. All Members, including the Minister, wants to get the legislation right, regardless of which party they belong to, so that patients will be protected in future. It is not a matter of parties debating among themselves but about getting the legislation right. I remember hearing a comment made by a predecessor of the Minister, John Hume, when he was elected to the old Stormont. He told some colleagues that his argument was no longer about fighting tribunals but about changing and correcting legislation to ensure that pat |