northern Ireland assembly Monday 4 February 2008 Ministerial Statements: Committee Business: Oral Answers to Questions Committee Business: Private Members’ Business: The Assembly met at 12.00 noon (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence.
Mr Ross: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 16 November 2007, I tabled a question for written answer to the Minister of Education. I still have not received an answer. Given that questions for written answer are supposed to be answered within 10 working days, can you use your office to investigate why, after 49 days, I am still waiting for an answer from the Education Minister? Mr Speaker: Let me say to the Member, and to the whole House, that I have had a number of complaints from all sides of the House about Departments not answering written questions within the appropriate time. I can assure you that my office is being very active about dealing with those complaints. Mr S Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister in question not only disregards questions asked by individual Members, but disregards questions raised by the Assembly’s Education Committee, which has a statutory role in the work of the House. We have written to you saying that, on a number of occasions, it has taken from September until January for the Minister to respond to the Committee’s questions. I trust that, when you are considering the issue, you will pay particular attention to the Minister of Education and the Department of Education, one of whom seems to be out of control, while the other seems to be falling apart. Mr Speaker: Once again, I say to all sides of the House that this issue is common to a number of Departments. It is not just one Department that my office is receiving complaints about. I assure Members on all sides of the House that the issue will be dealt with. Mr Campbell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order relates to today’s questions for oral answer. I understand that you do not take points of order during that part of business, and I also understand the difficulty that the Business Office has when accepting questions that are tabled. However, today’s question 9 to the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure asks the Minister: “to detail his plans to restore confidence in him and his Department among Irish language speakers following his failure to support an Irish language Act.” Mr Speaker, I ask you to consider that question’s pejorative use of “failure”, rather than asking about the Minister’s “decision” not to introduce an Irish language Act. Although I am sure that a debate could have followed through supplementary questions, I would have thought that it was the Minister’s “decision” not to proceed with an Irish language Act, rather than his “failure”. I contend, therefore, as do many others, that that question ought not to have been selected. Mr Speaker: I appreciate the point of order. Mr F McCann: Regarding the point of order raised by Sammy Wilson, it would be more appropriate if he were to look into the way in which he conducts his chairmanship of meetings, and his treatment of people who come before — Mr Speaker: Order. I ask the Member to take his seat. Order. That is not an appropriate point of order. In answer to Mr Campbell, I will look at that issue and come back to him. Mr F McCann: On a further point of order, do the concerns raised about Ministers not responding to written questions apply across the board to all Ministers, or are they confined to one Minister? Mr Speaker: My office is gathering figures on exactly where the problem lies; however, I assure the Member that more than one Department is causing the problem. Mr Storey: Further to the points of order raised by my colleagues Mr Ross and Mr Wilson, Mr Speaker, will you, in your deliberations, take into account that, following its submission, when a question appears on the Assembly website, AssISt, as having fallen, no information comes back to the Member who asked the question as to why it fell? In this case, the problem again concerns the Education Minister, and it may be yet another opportunity for her to be evasive. Will you look at that matter? Mr Speaker: That is another issue that we shall examine. Let me remind Members on all sides of the House that the issue causes big concern to some Members, who, when they write to a Department, wait for a very long time for a written answer. I assure Members that the Office of the Speaker and the Business Office are looking into the matter. Mr Ford: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Standing Order 42(1) requires Ministers to take the Pledge of Office, usually in this House or before you, as its representative. That pledge refers to the ministerial code, which requires that Ministers support Executive decisions. Last week, in this House, several Ministers failed to support either the Programme for Government or the Budget. To the best of my knowledge, no apology was given by those Ministers for not doing so. I ask you to take time to consider whether those Ministers were in breach of the Pledge of Office that they took before this House. Mr Speaker: I thank the Member for his point of order, but must remind him that that is an issue for the Executive and not for this House. Mr Ford: With respect, Mr Speaker, I point out that the Pledge of Office is taken before this House, and I ask you, as representative of this House, to examine whether the Speaker has a role. I accept that the matter lies with the Executive; however, the fact that Standing Order 42(1) refers to the Pledge of Office surely gives you a role. Mr Speaker: I will take the matter on board and look into it. However, I must again tell the Member that it is more for the Executive than for this House to deal with the matter. Ms S Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat. On the back of previous points of order, can you confirm, or can your office clarify, whether the Assembly has signed up to an anti-bullying policy? Mr Speaker: I must tell the Member that that is not an appropriate point of order for the business of this House today. Ms S Ramsey: Further to that point of order, I want to know whether the people employed by this Assembly are protected by an anti-bullying policy. Mr Speaker: Once again, I can refer the matter to the Commission. Mr S Wilson: Further to that point of order, I notice leaflets around the building to indicate that there are five harassment contact officers in the Assembly. Do those officers deal with complaints about Ministers who try to bully Committees? Mr Speaker: Order. Order. I ask the Member to take his seat. We will now move on. Proposals for the Reorganisation of the Health and Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety that he wishes to make a statement regarding proposals for the reorganisation of the health and social care system in Northern Ireland. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey): I am making an announcement today on proposals to transform health and social care services in Northern Ireland. I shall put those proposals to the Executive next month for approval for public consultation. Since my appointment as Minister in May 2007, a major challenge facing me has been the need to reform and modernise our health and social care system. Structures that had remained largely unchanged for 30 years had already started to alter dramatically as the radical reforms proposed under the review of public administration got under way. Health has been leading the way in that reform process. Only last year, the first significant step in reforming the health and social care system was taken when 19 trusts were reduced to five health and social care trusts and one ambulance trust. Those new organisations will be at the forefront of improving and protecting health, and delivering better-quality services to the population. They will work closely together, be more effective and efficient, and promote stronger links between hospital and community services. Perhaps the greatest change that faces our health and social services, however, comprises the demands and expectations of members of a changing population who rightly expect access to services delivered in their own communities and homes, and to new life-changing drugs and modern technologies that will transform their lives for the better. I want a modern, responsive and forward-looking Health Service that tackles health inequalities and puts patients at the heart of its thinking. When I took up office in May 2007, I inherited a raft of proposals for reform, which had been drawn up by direct rule Ministers for a direct rule Administration. The return of devolution, with local Ministers and a local Assembly scrutinising their work, presents a real opportunity to deliver a local solution that meets our local needs. I have said it before, and I shall say it again: I make no apology for having taken the time to consider the organisational changes that are required to put in place arrangements that are fit for purpose, both now and in the future, and that will deliver the best possible outcome for patients and clients. To do otherwise would be to fail the people of Northern Ireland. In recent months, I have spoken to a wide range of people, including patients, clients, carers and health and social care staff. There is a real desire for change in order to improve our system. I have reflected long and hard on what has been said to me over the past months. I have considered other models — not only in England, Scotland and Wales but in the Republic of Ireland — which have faced similar reform issues. Therefore, I am clear about what I want from our health and social care system. We must have a patient-centred service. Value for money is crucial, and the way in which services are delivered must focus on maximising benefits to everyone who uses the service. Our services must be efficient, high quality, capable of meeting challenging targets and without unnecessary duplication. In addition to that, I want to develop forward-looking, innovative health and social care organisations that deliver on targets and are constantly striving to improve their performance for the benefit of patients. Quality and standards will continue to be driven up without compromise. Patients, clients and carers must be given the opportunity to voice their concerns and be sure that they are being listened to; dignity, respect, equality and fairness for patients, relatives and staff are at the core of everything that we do. Those are the guiding principles that I have used in determining the future shape of our health and social care system. Some of the reforms proposed by the direct rule Administration have already been implemented. I am satisfied that the current trust structures should remain largely as they are, and I have already informed staff of that conclusion. The previous direct rule Administration’s proposals also included the establishment of a large regional health authority to replace the four boards and to take on some departmental and agency functions, with almost 2,000 staff. In reviewing that proposal, my starting point has been that the structures must improve health and social care services and, thereby, the health and well-being of the people of Northern Ireland. I, therefore, propose to establish a new regional health and social care board, which will be answerable to me. That body will focus on prevention and on making services more efficient, accessible and patient-centred. The organisation will be smaller and leaner than that in the previous proposal, and it will employ no more than 400 members of staff by April 2011. 12.15 pm The new board has been designed to focus on three central functions. First, commissioning, by which I mean the process of planning and resourcing services that best meet the needs of the local population from the five trusts and other organisations. I have already announced the development of a comprehensive range of service frameworks, which will set out the standards by which we will transform services. Secondly, financial management of the health and social care system will ensure that we live within our means and get the maximum return on our investment. Thirdly, strong performance management and improvement will ensure the achievement of targets, objectives, standards, improved safety and will create and promote a culture of continuous development. There will be renewed emphasis on disease prevention and earlier intervention for individuals and communities to create a healthier population. My proposals will give the new organisation the authority to act on my behalf in pushing for significant improvements in efficiency and performance that will improve services for patients. In contrast to the previous proposals, I will be looking for clear accountability and governance arrangements between the regional organisation and my Department and the best use of available resources. Although the regional board will have a strong local presence, decisions on its location will be determined in line with policy guidance and statutory requirements. Therefore, it may prove necessary to make temporary arrangements from April 2009, pending completion of the necessary processes. Effective commissioning is the link between policy development and its delivery at ground level. I support active engagement of front-line professionals, such as GPs, nurses, social services staff, allied health professionals, public health practitioners and others, in the commissioning process. They will bring their innovation and expertise, which will help to secure better services for the communities that they serve. There are benefits in tying commissioning arrangements to defined population areas; in particular, having coterminosity with local government. Direct rule commissioning arrangements, which I inherited, suggested that there should be seven local commissioning groups: that was based on Peter Hain’s proposals for seven district councils under the review of public administration. However, in the absence of firm proposals for local government reorganisation, I propose that we have five local commissioning groups, covering the same geographical area as the five trusts. Those local commissioning groups will operate as committees of the new regional board. However, this proposal will remain subject to review, pending the outcome of deliberations on local government reform. Direct rule proposals for seven local commissioning groups did not include any input from elected representatives — that was a missed opportunity. Therefore, I propose to seek views on the composition and membership of the five commissioning groups. I want to examine ways of ensuring that local people and councillors are given strong voices in the system. That will ensure that we have a more democratic and accountable process while retaining the strong benefits of having primary-care-led commissioning. I want the commissioning system in Northern Ireland to take advantage of the unique opportunity to commission social care alongside health services. I also propose that the process will have very strong links with local communities and voluntary and community sector groups, so that they are involved in tackling health inequalities and in the design and delivery of health services in their areas. On 3 December 2007, I told the Assembly that I remained to be convinced that the excellent work being carried out by the health and social services councils would be improved by establishing one large organisation, which was suggested by the direct rule Administration. I am, therefore, seeking views on new arrangements that would ensure a strong local focus while giving patients, clients, and carer representatives a powerful regional voice. I also believe that, contrary to earlier direct rule proposals, there is a need for locally elected representatives to have an active role in the work of the proposed organisations. Previous direct rule proposals included the abolition of several agencies and the transfer of their functions to a single multi-purpose authority. Aside from those who work in the Department, trusts and boards, a significant number of staff work in a range of agencies and organisations. Careful consideration has been given to all those bodies, and it is, therefore, proposed that the elements that make a substantial contribution to the three core functions of commissioning, financial management, and performance management and improvement, transfer to the new regional board. For the present, I propose to retain several of the existing agencies, but I wish to explore any opportunities to increase current efficiency and productivity levels. The agencies that will be retained include the Northern Ireland Practice and Educational Council for Nursing and Midwifery, the Northern Ireland Medical and Dental Training Agency, the Northern Ireland Blood Transfusion Service, the Northern Ireland Guardian Ad Litem Agency, and the Northern Ireland Social Care Council. The Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA) would also be retained, but its role would include adopting the current functions of the Mental Health Commission for Northern Ireland. The functions of the Health Promotion Agency for Northern Ireland would also remain separate from the regional board and would be included in a new organisation that would have a wider role in providing expertise and supporting local government agencies on health inequalities and health promotion for their communities. To facilitate that, I propose that locally elected representatives be appointed to the board of the new health promotion and improvement organisation. Following consultation, I will make a further announcement as to the further shape of that public-health body. I also confirm that the Northern Ireland Regional Medical Physics Agency will be part of the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust. I am already considering the establishment of a shared-services organisation, on which I consulted last year. The aim of that body would be to bring together services that are common to health and social care organisations; for example, finance and staff recruitment. My proposal is that shared services would, for governance purposes, be part of a common-services organisation. That body would provide a range of support functions for the health and social care services, including some that are provided by the Department and the current boards and agencies. The current functions of the Central Services Agency would also be included. Each year, we spend some £4 billion on our health and social care system. I am determined that we spend every penny of that wisely and to the benefit of the population of Northern Ireland. I have agreed already the plans that will see a reduction of nearly 1,700 staff and savings of more than £53 million being made by April 2011. The proposals that I have outlined today would deliver on those savings. I will also set the new regional board the task of generating new levels of efficiency and better productivity. I anticipate that, over time, that will create significant additional savings that we can reinvest in front-line services. I also propose that the Department be much smaller, with a staff of around 600 by the end of the comprehensive spending review (CSR) period. That reduction would be achieved through existing initiatives such as the Fit for Purpose strategy, the CSR, and the Northern Ireland Civil Service reforms. Several staff will also transfer to the common-services organisation and the new regional board. While ensuring clear lines of accountability for the commissioning of health and social care throughout Northern Ireland, the new arrangements would allow the Department to be more sharply focused on its responsibilities for delivering the aims of the devolved Administration. They would also concentrate on introducing legislation and determining and reviewing policy standards, priorities and targets for health and social care. I also propose that the regional research and development office, which is in the Central Services Agency, would be best placed in the Department. I believe strongly that those proposals would provide a streamlined and democratically accountable way of managing our Health Service. However, their success depends on the continuing dedication and commitment of our health and social care staff against ever-rising levels of demand and expectation. I want to convey my thanks and appreciation to all the staff for the care that they provide to patients and clients each and every day. The staff are our biggest asset, and no one can doubt their commitment and their willingness to rise to new challenges. We need to ensure, therefore, that we make the best possible use of knowledge and skills in transforming the health system. I realise that this is an anxious time for many staff, who are concerned about what the new structures will mean for them. I will ensure that the decisions on future structures are supported by an effective human resources strategy in order to address the concerns of staff and those who represent them. Key elements of that strategy are already in place, and the implementation process will be undertaken in close partnership with relevant professional bodies and trade unions. Until the outcome of the proposed consultation is known, we will not have the detailed information to inform discussions with individual members of staff. In the interim, I have asked that, as we work through the process, every effort is made to ensure that they and their representatives are kept fully informed. I believe that, although extremely ambitious, these proposals can be completed in time for the new arrangements to be set up from 1 April 2009. That will, of course, depend also on the co-operation and goodwill of all those concerned. Unlike my direct rule predecessors, I propose a full public consultation on my proposals, which will provide a unique opportunity for the public, their representatives, health and social care staff, service users and all other key stakeholders to have their say. I plan to issue a more detailed consultation paper next month. My statement gives only a first outline of the proposals, and it is intended to lead into, and not to pre-empt, discussion with my Executive colleagues. I welcome, too, early engagement with the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety and am eager to meet as soon as possible. We are building the foundation for a vibrant and successful future for the health and well-being of the people of Northern Ireland. None of that, however, will be possible without the approval of the Executive and the Assembly. I look forward to the help and support of colleagues in taking forward these important reforms. I have already made it clear that the public and patients come first, and that key principle is embodied in the proposals. We have now a unique opportunity to truly transform our health system into one that is world class and fit for the twenty-first century. I commend the proposals to the Assembly. The Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mrs I Robinson): I welcome the statement from the Minister and thank him for providing an advance copy of it. The Committee has for some time had serious concerns about the ongoing delay in reaching a decision about the structures to replace the existing four health and social services boards. The Committee believes that that has been the cause of great uncertainty, frustration and loss of morale among existing health and social care staff. More importantly, the continuation of the existing structures beyond April 2008, when the new structures should have come into place, will continue to absorb vital resources that could be better directed to other key service developments. The announcement today is, therefore, very welcome. I hope that it will end the uncertainty and provide some reassurance for those working in the health and social care field that the new structures will be in place in the near future. The Health Committee will want to examine the proposals in detail, both during the consultation period and during the passage of the subsequent legislation, and will ask the Minister to attend the Committee as soon as possible. The Minister said that the new regional health and social care board will have fewer than 400 staff, whereas the proposed regional health authority would have had about 2,000 employees. I recognise that a number of bodies that were due to be subsumed into the authority will continue to exist. I welcome, particularly, the continuation of the Health Promotion Agency, which has a vital role in the area of prevention. What assurance can the Minister give that the full efficiency savings envisaged will actually be achieved? What are the differences in start-up costs between the original proposal and the new board? Finally, what are the planned savings over the first three years? 12.30 pm Mr McGimpsey: I welcome Mrs Robinson’s approach to structures. I know that the original structures were due to be in place by April 2008. However, as I explained, it was necessary to carefully examine what we were getting ourselves into, and the direct rule model and proposals were not suitable in many respects — not least because, as Mrs Robinson said, under the direct rule model, the Health Promotion Agency was to be subsumed into the new body. Members will agree that health promotion — engaging the local population in their own health needs — is a key strategic step that the Department must take. As I indicated, the original efficiency plan was to make 1,700 redundancies, which would have saved £53 million a year. The new proposal will meet that target. There are also ongoing efficiencies, which will be achieved through a concentration on performance management, commissioning — local groups commissioning for the health needs of their areas — and strict financial management and financial regimes to ensure that everyone lives within their budgets. Those are future savings. As I said, all of that is dependent on a full consultation. There is no difference in start-up costs: in fact, although we are now planning for April 2009, we are already ahead of the original savings plan for the body that was to start in April 2008. Mrs O’Neill: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the statement and hope that it will go some way towards addressing the concerns that Health Service staff have had in recent years. I look forward to the consultation process and the discussions between the Minister and the Committee as we get more beef on the bones of the proposals. The Minister said that the function of the Health Promotion Agency would remain separate from the proposed regional board and that it would develop a wider role and provide support to local government on health inequality and promotion. Does he agree that the Investing for Health strategy should be a key tool in addressing health inequality, and will he ensure that that strategy feeds into the new enhanced role of the Health Promotion Agency? Go raibh maith agat. Mr McGimpsey: The Health Promotion Agency was to be one of the casualties of the direct rule reorganisation, which was a mistake, because health promotion is a key objective. A report commissioned by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in the early days of their Government asked whether the country could afford the Health Service that Nye Bevan originally envisaged — cradle-to-the-grave healthcare that is free for all citizens. That report found that that was affordable and sustainable, but that a key element would be the engaging of the local population with their own health, which could be achieved through, not least, a concentration on health inequalities — someone who lives in a disadvantaged area is more likely to develop a chronic disease, will not live as long, and so on. A key way to reduce the need for healthcare is to engage the local population, and the Health Promotion Agency plays a vital role in that. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Molloy] in the Chair). I have sat on Belfast City Council for many years and listened to policies being promulgated from on high by civil servants — the policies may have been brilliant, but they fell down when it came to implementation and delivery. There is an important role for local government in implementation and delivery in a number of areas, not least through health inequalities. The Health Promotion Agency is vital to drive that agenda forward. I appreciate the concerns of staff and the uncertainty that there has been. I have written to them and kept them fully informed, and I will continue to do so. I have had meetings with the trade unions, and I have written to all staff on the foot of my statement today to keep them informed so that they know where they stand. The support of staff is the most vital asset in delivering what we all want, which is the best possible Health Service for patients. Mr McCallister: I welcome the Minister’s statement, and I congratulate him on introducing proposals for much-reduced bureaucracy in the Health Service. I am grateful for his remarks about further including the community and voluntary sector by giving them a more active role, and for his comments about the Health Promotion Agency for Northern Ireland. We are on our way to delivering a quality patient-centred service. Will the Minister confirm that GPs will continue to play an important role in the local commissioning groups and that he will continue to work with the BMA (British Medical Association) as the consultation period commences? Mr McGimpsey: I thank Mr McCallister for his remarks about developing Health Service structures and about trying to cut through some of the bureaucratic layers. It is important to note that a fourth tier is not being introduced; the previous model had a fourth tier, which had the effect of adding a further layer of bureaucracy to the decision-making process. That will definitely not happen. The board should be seen to be working in parallel with policy development in the Department and should not be considered a fourth tier. That was one of my main requirements when I met with David Sissling to work my way through the process. GPs play a vital role in determining health needs, and they receive support and information both from other professionals and those who are involved in several disciplines. They will also be supported by local councillors, who I see playing an important role on local commissioning groups by representing the needs of the people in their areas. As we meet rising needs and expectations — not least the challenges that changing demographics will bring — there will be a strategic change of direction for health services. That will involve early intervention, given that prevention is better than cure. We will try to keep people out of hospital by dealing with them at primary-care level, and that will be a GP-led strategy. I have had several meetings with GPs and members of the local commissioning groups, and they are very enthusiastic and keen to move ahead. I am keen that they do so meaningfully and with support. They must be allowed to do their work without being encumbered with too many layers. GPs will play a vital role, and I will be meeting with the BMA in the near future to discuss how we progress matters. Mrs Hanna: I welcome the Minister’s focus on prevention and early intervention. I also welcome that he has defined the functions of the organisations that he proposes to establish. I hope that we will see, and be able to measure, better outcomes for patients. The Minister has proposed the establishment of five local commissioning groups, which would cover the same geographic areas as the five trusts. When we have a definite decision on the number of local councils that we will have — and the Minister referred to the involvement of councillors and local government — will he assure me that there will be coterminosity with councils to ensure better delivery of services on the ground and to ensure that people and patients do not fall between the cracks, as has happened in the past? Will he also assure me that there will be much clearer signposting to services, which could include anything from phone numbers, screenings, and community-support services to appointments with consultants? The Minister is aware of the complexity of those services and the absolute confusion that the public have about accessing some of them. Mr McGimpsey: I welcome Mrs Hanna’s remarks. The five commissioning groups had to be fastened to, and coterminous with, something; their areas could not be marked out simply by drawing lines on a map. They had to be relevant, as Mrs Hanna, rightly, said. Under the Hain model, there were to be seven local commissioning groups, because Peter Hain had decided that there would be seven councils. We would be hard pushed to get agreement on seven local councils as things stand, and I want to move on. I will ensure that the health system adapts to any number of councils that may be agreed. We can adapt to seven councils, to 11, to 15, or to any other number. However, I need to move forward, and I have decided that there will be five groups, because there are five trusts. The point is that a local commissioning group will not have to commission services from the trust with which it is coterminous; it can go to any trust in the region. The Member made a vital point about signposting services. Providing information is absolutely crucial, because there is confusion. For example, I am frequently confused about how to access out-of-hours services. It is important to get that sort of information out to the public. There is a big job of work to be done to engage the local population and to give people meaningful information on the services that they may require, so that we do not end up with the confusion that exists in some areas at present. Mr McCarthy: I welcome, for the most part, today’s announcement by the Minister. However, I am concerned about the possible reduction in staff numbers. The Minister referred to: “members of a changing population who rightly expect access to services delivered in their own communities and homes”. That certainly contradicts the plans for the Ards Hospital site, which include the proposed closure of the successful and convenient minor-injuries unit. Will the Minister give the Assembly a commitment that that closure will not occur? I welcome the retention of the Health Promotion Agency and the fact that the health councils will have more local input. What discussions has the Minister had with his Executive colleagues to ensure matching approaches, for example, to education, libraries and policing? Will he clarify whether the new local authorities will play a lead role in holding local health services to account? Mr McGimpsey: On the Member’s last point, accountability is one of the key elements, and I envisage the new board having a vital role to play in that, along with others. For example, locally elected representatives will be firmly embedded in the commissioning groups of the new board. I inherited the staff numbers, and I ensured that they would not change as we looked at a different type of reorganisation. Those figures are out there, and negotiations are still going on. However, the target is to reduce the number of staff by 1,700, which will save £53 million a year. Substantial moneys have already been invested in that programme. I intend to ensure that that figure is reached without compulsory redundancies. I consider voluntary retirements, and so on, to be the way forward. With regard to the Ards Hospital site, I have asked each trust to produce plans for 3% comprehensive spending review (CSR) efficiencies. I have not seen the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust’s plan yet. I will examine it in due course. However, I know the Ards Hospital site just as well as Mr McCarthy does. I live within a few hundred yards of it, and I am well aware of the hospital’s history in the Newtownards area and the assistance that it has been to my family over the years. Therefore, I will examine any question about Ards Hospital with particular care. 12.45 pm Mr Buchanan: I, too, welcome the progress that has been made on the rationalisation of the health boards. Indeed, some of my party colleagues and I tabled a motion on 3 December 2007 demanding progress on Health Service reform. Commissioning of services is crucial if cost-effectiveness is to be ensured. Does the Minister support contestability between different service providers? The Minister has identified where savings of £53 million could be made. That includes reducing staff numbers by almost 1,700 by 2011. Will he confirm that that is not an accurate reflection of the current situation, given that it will cost the Health Service some £70 million to bring those plans to fruition by facilitating huge managerial pay-offs? Mr McGimpsey: I ask the Member to write to me about the huge managerial pay-offs that he described; I am unaware of those, so I am interested to hear about them. However, I am aware that investment has been made to facilitate the reduction of 1,700 staff. I will give the Member the same answer that I gave to Mr McCarthy and others: we will reach that target. My view is that that can — and will — be done without compulsory redundancies. That is the way forward. If the system loses 1,700 staff but continues to increase its activity, it is, by definition, getting more efficient. That is the right direction in which to travel. Mr Buchanan is one of those who demanded that I make tough decisions. I look forward to his support — and that of the other Members who demanded it — in doing so. We are making progress. Our Health Service has a first-class staff that makes the service work: it is its prime asset. Therefore, I will do whatever I can to look after those workers. Ms Ní Chuilín: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I, too, am a member of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, and I am not afraid to ask tough questions and support the Minister in making difficult decisions. I welcome the involvement of locally elected representatives in local commissioning groups: that is a positive move. The Minister mentioned community involvement, but will he clarify whether he is referring to the involvement of the community and voluntary sector? Often, health professionals who work in the community are seen as representatives of the whole community. The community and voluntary sector provides after-hours services for suicide prevention and for those who have mental-health difficulties. Those who provide those front-line services are often underpaid and ignored, and the local commissioning groups must recognise them and their work. They work in the most deprived communities, and they, above all, know where health needs are most acute. Will the Minister clarify the role of the community and voluntary sector? Mr McGimpsey: I agree very much with the Member. In areas such as mental health and suicide prevention, bereaved families and local community groups play a vital role. It is indisputable that such groups have saved lives. I see that network of local community groups, councils and councillors engaging fully with the Health Service as a whole, and using exactly that type of mechanism is the best way in which to engage a local population. In Belfast, the Belfast Healthy Cities initiative and health action zones carry out work for the local population. One of the key questions is how we proceed with community planning. It is important that we work with local councils, communities, community and volunteer groups, not least where health promotion is concerned. Not only will local councillors sit on the commissioning groups, but I expect that they will be firmly established on the board of the Health Promotion Agency for Northern Ireland. They will help to drive forward the agenda of health promotion. Mr Easton: I, too, welcome the reforms that the Minister has announced. It is widely believed that performance management has been sadly lacking across the Health Service. What makes the Minister think that his proposals will lead to better performance management? When the 19 trusts merged into five, many managers retained their positions, although they probably should have left them. Can the Minister assure the House that there will not be a repeat performance? Mr McGimpsey: Every organisation needs managers. For example, there are 1,300 staff in the Mater Hospital. Those 1,300 staff cannot simply be milling around the hospital; management must be there to organise them and to provide leadership all the way down. That is an essential requirement. Of course, the type of management that staff end up with is important. The Department wants the best management it can get for the Health Service. That is why I want to see performance improvement as well as performance management. In March 2006, before any of us arrived on the scene, 76,000 people had been waiting more that six months for outpatient appointments: by March 2007, no one was waiting. That is the result of employing creative and inventive management techniques and of tackling problems by thinking outside the box. At the same time, in March 2006, 6,500 people had been waiting more than six months for surgery: by March 2007, no one was waiting. I encourage that kind of good, clever management. I am not suggesting that those reductions were achieved by 100%-perfect means; however, they show the kind of performance management and improvement that is needed. That is why performance management and improvement, as well as commissioning and financial controls, will be at the very heart of the new board. Its focus will be on how they work in the Health Service. Mr Savage: I thank my colleague the Health Minister for his far-reaching statement to the House, and I congratulate him on it. I also welcome the fact that the Minister intends to appoint locally elected representatives to the new health promotion and improvement organisation. Does he agree that his decision shows that locally elected representatives and local people will be well placed in the new organisation and that the personal experiences, local knowledge and professional expertise that they can bring to the table will be an added advantage? Mr McGimpsey: I thank Mr Savage for his remarks. I agree with him wholeheartedly. In particular, I believe strongly that locally elected representatives have a vital role to play in representing their communities. Therefore, I expect that the organisation will be permeated with local representatives. I look forward to the consultation during the next 12 weeks, when that matter will be discussed and examined in more detail. I will have a model ready for the consultation, which will begin in two weeks’ time. I regret that during my statement, I said that the consultation will begin next month: I should have said that it will start this month. I have not lost a month. I have an Executive Committee meeting on 13 February. Provided that the Executive approve — and without pre-empting what they will say — I am ready to launch that intensive 12-week consultation on 15 February. The Assembly has made constructive points that will be helpful to the Department as it works towards a conclusion to the matter. Mr Gallagher: I, also, welcome the Minister’s statement: it is an important first step in removing what patients see as some of the most unsatisfactory aspects of the Health Service; for example, waiting lists for those in serious difficulty. Many health professionals are unhappy because they have been unable to engage satisfactorily with the trusts at management level. The establishment of local commissioning groups should help to overcome the problem to some extent. Will the Minister tell us how the commissioning groups will be involved at management level, because their involvement at that level would help reduce some of the waiting lists? We know about the shortage of NHS dentists. The Minister has made money available for the appointment of NHS dentists; however, those appointments have not happened. Indeed, the recruitment process seems to be very slow. Where will the recruitment process for NHS dentists be located in the new arrangements? Will it be included, for example, in the new shared services unit? Duplication of functions has also been a big problem. Therefore, I welcome the Minister’s reference to the Health Promotion Agency. Unfortunately, in the past, trusts have duplicated health promotion functions, which was unhelpful because we need a clear message on health promotion. Will the Minister assure us that such duplication will be eliminated in the new structures? Mr McGimpsey: The Member made a number of comments to which I will try to respond. First, we are recruiting dentists who will be directly employed — and, incidentally, one organisation that was to disappear under the direct rule model was the Northern Ireland Medical and Dental Training Agency. There has been a problem with junior doctors and their training, and it seemed to me that scrapping that agency, which plays a vital role in training doctors and dentists, would be a mistake. Dentists can make more money outside the Health Service than they can in it, and I am trying to address that problem. We have employed dentists directly, and one thing that a local commissioning group will be looking at will be the dental needs in their area. The group will then seek to commission dental services to meet those needs. I am hopeful that an effective commissioning process will help in the problem areas that the Member has mentioned. Commissioning health services in local areas is part of the Department’s strategy, which is to move towards primary care and away from secondary care. The objective is that people will avoid having to go into hospital because they will be receiving proper preventative care — early intervention, early treatment and, therefore, early prevention. That is the direction in which we intend to travel, and doctors will be driving forward that strategy. They will be playing the key role, and I am grateful to them for that. They are prepared to do it, and I subscribe to the old adage: never look a gift horse in the mouth. I am excited about the role that doctors will play. It would be wrong for me to prescribe how the system will be managed. All that I can say is that management will be involved, and that there will be a constant quest for high performance and improvement in the management of the entire system. Mr Ross: I welcome the Minister’s statement. He said that approximately seven agencies would be preserved rather than be subsumed into the new regional board. Is he not concerned that that will reduce potential efficiency savings? Moreover, how will the Mental Health Commission’s work be delivered within the regulation, quality and improvement authority? Mr McGimpsey: I missed the first part of the Member’s question, which was about trusts: the thrust appeared to be about efficiencies. We will seek to make efficiency gains. That is reflected, for example, in waiting-list targets. Next month, I will be in a position to announce a new range of targets. For example, the current target for a patient’s pathway is 47 weeks, comprising 13 weeks, 13 weeks and 21 weeks, which runs from first appointment with a doctor through to completion of surgery. I will be in a position to reduce that, and I will make that announcement next month. That is an example of the ongoing efficiencies that are being found in the Health Service. The Department will warm to that task and get better at it. There is much more to be achieved, and all of that will be to the benefit of patients. 1.00 pm The RQIA is an important body, which seeks to ensure high standards of health and social care services. As it was set up only two or three years ago, it is simply getting into business and it is one of the areas on which I will concentrate. The Mental Health Commission will be subsumed into the RQIA to ensure standards across the Health Service, not least because the patients whose treatment is supervised by that body are often the most vulnerable members of society. The RQIA will move forward with the Mental Health Commission. The Mental Health Commission can carry out unannounced inspections, and that will be a feature of future inspections. Mr S Wilson: Having served in local government for a long time during direct rule, I share with the Minister a great scepticism about quangos. The more super the quango, the greater the scepticism. In the setting up of the regional board, which is a super-quango, how will the Minister ensure that the local commissioning groups, which are only committees of that quango, will have a real say in the decisions that are made centrally? How does the Minister intend to hold the regional board to account, and how will the Assembly be able to hold it to account? The Minister concentrated on the 1,700 redundancies, but he also outlined a number of other ways in which efficiencies will take place. Apart from the 1,700 staff savings, new levels of efficiency, better productivity and a smaller Department will be introduced. What total saving does the Minister envisage from all those measures, and over what period will that be achieved? The Minister talked about the concerns of staff. One of the biggest issues of concern for staff is the job evaluation process that is under way. Some staff who have been doing their jobs for some time have been moved down two or three levels, and that has affected morale. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that staff have a fair appeal against those evaluations if they disagree with them? Mr McGimpsey: Although Agenda for Change is not, strictly speaking, part of the proposals, it plays a vital role. A number of staff are appealing their grades — several thousand, actually. The trade unions that represent the staff are negotiating with the Department and the trusts on the grading issue. It has been a long, slow and, at times, tortuous process, but we appear finally to be coming out of it. It is important that the appeals are carried out properly and that people get a fair hearing. I take the Member’s point, but I cannot tell him what I am doing specifically, other than overseeing the process to ensure that it is being done properly. Staff will move out of the Department into other areas, leaving a smaller Department. I also intend that the Department will become more focused. Currently, 1,100 people work there — after nine months, there are still members of staff to whom I have not had a chance to talk. It is a large organisation that plays an important role, and the people who work there play an important and vital role at times. However, they do not all need to work in the Department; they should be out in other areas. Commissioning will be one of the keys, and I will ensure that the local groups will commission for the health needs of their populations. That constitutes the principle of the group. Rather than drafting people in, local GPs will be involved in the group, as will local allied health professional services and mental-health and learning-disability services. A range of disciplines and professions will be involved to ensure that the commissioning is done properly. The people whom I have mentioned represent the deliverers, and they will know whether the providers are not delivering properly. Therefore, they will play an important role. The commissioning will be done properly, which will be a big step forward. It has always been in the back of my mind that it has been 35 years since the reorganisation of the Health Service. Within a few years, people realised that it was not quite right, so several attempts were made to tinker with it. I want to have a system that can evolve, and that is what we are moving towards. Therefore, when we see problems and a need for change, we will not have to break the system and start again. I am approaching the process in that way so that it will stand the test of time. If the commissioning groups are not quite right, we will evolve the organisation to ensure that they are right. We will continue to do that not only in the commissioning groups but in other areas. Mr Durkan: I also welcome the Minister’s statement and congratulate him for the work that has gone into it and the work that lies ahead. The Minister has said that decisions must be made on the location of the regional board. Does he accept that decisions on its location should extend to the reduced Department and to some of the other retained or reorganised agencies? The Minister emphasised the involvement of locally elected representatives in local commissioning groups and the active role that they will play in the work of the retained area health and social services councils. He also said that local representatives will be appointed to the new health promotion and improvement organisation. Although I welcome the commitment to involve local representatives, how does the Minister plan to ensure that their involvement on different bodies will not add to the confusion and possible duplication that he is trying to eradicate? Will he tell us more about the composition of the regional health and social care board? He has told us about its functions, but he has not coloured in its composition. Finally, will the Minister assure us that the transfer of the Mental Health Commission’s functions to the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority will not lead to any loss of focus on mental health, especially when there is such concern about suicide and when welcome additional money is available for the Bamford Review? People will want an assurance that there will be no reduction in management focus by the Mental Health Commission being subsumed into another body. Mr McGimpsey: The Mental Health Commission will ensure that the appropriate standards are in place. That is why working with the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority — and being part of it — is a positive step forward. Mental health and learning disability are not inescapables in the Budget, but they are my number one priority, and I will ensure that nothing is lost as far as mental health and learning disability is concerned. Professor Roy McClelland is the chairperson of the mental health and learning disability board, which has been charged to act as champion for people with mental-health and learning disabilities. Its challenge is to ensure that I do not stray from the agenda. The regional health and social care board will have a functional role. I assure the Member that we will have discussions and suggest proposals for its composition, among other things. Locally elected representatives must be permeated through the board, because they represent the local taxpayers who will fund and use the body. It will belong to local populations, which is why their representation is important. Dr W McCrea: I welcome the Minister’s statement. He has proposed that five local commissioning groups be established. How will that fit into the current local government review, which is led by the Minister of the Environment? Mr McGimpsey: I am a member of the subgroup that is chaired by the Minister of the Environment. All members were asked for ideas on what powers relating to such areas as the Health Promotion Agency and health equalities, for instance, can be passed to local government. I see an important role for local government in the delivery and implementation of services. That is my main contribution. The Health Service, the health needs of, and health delivery for, local people will be the winner if that process were changed. It is fair to say that there is no agreement on how many local councils are required. There are 26 now, and agreement has not been reached on how many there will be beyond that. Peter Hain suggested that there be seven, but I do not hear anyone arguing for seven now. However, I had to proceed, and that is why I fastened on the trusts. I had to anchor the commissioning groups to something; I could not anchor on the basis of 26 councils. As Members are aware, the boundaries will be moving. For better or for worse, that is how I am going forward, but it can evolve. If necessary, I can evolve and adapt to whatever number comes out of the review of public administration when its deliberations conclude. Finding a way forward for the Health Promotion Agency is more difficult, because it has to engage with the councils. If it is to engage with the councils now, it will have to engage with 26 local councils. Therefore, it will be beneficial to have the number of councils settled sooner rather than later. However, we are where we are. I assure Members that work on improving health provision will continue to the best of our ability, and the Health Service will adapt easily to whatever number of councils comes out of the review of public administration. Mr G Robinson: Will the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety elaborate on what functions are to be retained in the Department that were not envisaged in the original proposals prior to devolution? Mr McGimpsey: The main issues that I am looking at relate to policy and legislation, and I am keeping human resources close to me. The new regional health and social care board will report directly to me. It is important that the Assembly, through the Executive and the Minister, is the responsible body, and that we do not have to work our way through lots of tiers. My line of sight is a key criterion, and it is important that I, as the Minister, can see directly to every layer or section of the Health Service. I do not want to have to meander through different tiers. Access to matters relating to legislation, policy, human resources and budget-setting plays an important part in allowing me to fulfil my function. Mr I McCrea: I welcome the Minister’s announcement. Does the Minister feel that the five local commissioning groups will be local enough? The Minister did not answer my colleague Tom Buchanan’s question, so will he confirm whether he does support contestability between the trusts? Mr McGimpsey: I missed the bit about contestability between the trusts in Tom Buchanan’s question. I do not want to over labour that, because we are all part of the one team and seeking to deliver on the same agenda. Although the local commissioning groups might be coterminous with a trust — as I said in response to an earlier question — they will not have to go to that trust for a service. The group could go to any of the trusts in the area, and that is important. 1.15 pm Ian McCrea asked whether five groups are enough.Each group will determine how low it must — or wants — to go. Many community-commissioning associations were proposed. However, I will leave the decisions about how those matters are to be determined to each commissioning group. For example, every GP in any particular area will have an opinion about what should be commissioned, and, therefore, decisions will depend on how each group deals with those opinons and allows them to be articulated. As I said, given that there are five trusts, five is the number of commissioning groups because I must have something to which I can anchor them, and that cannot be local government because of the fluid situation that we are in. The other point that I made is that we are attempting to design a system that can evolve as needs change. The Re-establishment of the Ministerial Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the junior Ministers that they wish to make a statement regarding the re-establishment of the ministerial subcommittee on children and young people. The junior Minister (Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister) (Mr Paisley Jnr): This morning, Members received an advance copy of the junior Ministers’ statement. I ask that they check against delivery because, since this morning, that statement has been changed. Junior Minister Kelly and I are announcing the re-establishment of the ministerial subcommittee on children and young people. In August 2005, in the wake of the appointment of a Minister for Children and Young People, a ministerial subcommittee for children and young people was established under the previous Administration. Given my and junior Minister Kelly’s specific responsibility for the co-ordination of children and young people’s policy issues, we felt that, at the appropriate time, it would be important to re-establish that group, and a decision to do so has now received the Executive’s unanimous support; hence this mornings statement. This is a pivotal step, which will ensure that children’s issues remain at the forefront of policy and that Government’s responses will be cross-departmental and co-ordinated. Children and young people constitute more than a quarter of the population and, therefore, are the responsibility of all Departments. In addition to representatives from the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Court Service, all Ministers have been invited to join the ministerial subcommittee, and I encourage them all to attend the first meeting. Subsequently, only those with responsibilities relating to each agenda item will need to attend. That will help to focus the subcommittee’s attention and avoid the replication of Executive meetings. The establishment of the ministerial subcommittee is an important development because it will provide a platform that will encourage a joined-up approach to addressing children and young people’s issues. The junior Ministers have an oversight role in the 10-year strategy for children and young people, and the subcommittee will drive forward its implementation and help us in that task. For the incoming budgetary year, the ministerial subcommittee will provide a good opportunity for Ministers to identify one or more key priorities, which will supplement existing departmental and cross-departmental work. Incidentally, the Budget has been good for children and young people. In the first year, excluding baseline provision, we have identified more than £30 million for children and young people. Further to the identification of baseline provision, we are confident that the amount of money in the Budget for children and young people will exceed that of the previous children’s fund. Unlike the children’s fund, the new funding arrangements will ensure that children and young people’s issues will be imbedded and mainstreamed in each Department’s policies. That is a positive and important move. All Departments must now step up to the mark and ensure that children and young people are a priority. We are confident that the available funding should mean that no child or youth programme will be reduced or cut. Ministers must make that a priority, and the ministerial subcommittee will be one way to ensure that action is taken. We also wish the subcommittee to help to achieve the greater integration of children and young people’s policy, funding and service delivery, and that will be done without compromising or blurring the roles and responsibilities of individual Ministers. The re-establishment of the ministerial subcommittee is only one of a large number of public service agreement targets associated with children and young people that we have set. Those targets are ambitious; however, we are ready and willing to rise to a high standard and to work tirelessly to ensure their full and swift delivery. The subcommittee will strive to achieve transparency through the timely sharing of information that is relevant to children and young people, and which will help to facilitate joined-up working. The first meeting of the ministerial subcommittee on children and young people is being arranged with other Ministers. The Chairperson of the Committee of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (Mr Kennedy): I thank the junior Minister for his statement and offer the support of my Committee for the re-establishment of the ministerial subcommittee on children and young people. The junior Ministers gave notice of their intentions when they attended a meeting of the Committee last week, in which they outlined their proposals for ensuring cross-departmental delivery of children’s and young people’s priorities. What role will the subcommittee play in ensuring that the direct resources provided to Departments in the Budget for those priorities will address the long-term needs of young people, and will not simply be used to tackle short-term funding pressures? When, in what form, and to whom, will the progress of the subcommittee be reported? How will the junior Ministers ensure that the views of key stakeholders will inform the work of the subcommittee? The junior Minister (Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister) (Mr G Kelly): I presume that the scrutiny Committee will continue its working partnership. All of this is about partnership. We want to involve the scrutiny Committee, as we have already done, and we welcome its input. We also intend to ensure that all stakeholders are a part of this exercise. The whole Assembly is on board, because this is our future. The scrutiny Committee will be kept up to date on all issues that arise. Ms McIlveen: I welcome today’s announcement. Will the junior Ministers set out the current agenda and confirm the range of cross-cutting issues that will be addressed? Furthermore, will the junior Minister give the Assembly a working definition of severe child poverty and explain how he plans to eradicate it? Mr G Kelly: Go raibh maith agat. I will answer the Member’s second question first, as it is slightly more complicated. There are different ways of defining severe child poverty. The Government’s published statistics on relative income poverty are arranged in order of depth of poverty: that is, children of households whose income is less than 70%, 60%, and 50% of median income. We have asked the NISRA (Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency) statisticians to consider the best ways of defining different levels or depths of poverty. That work is under way. The Executive are committed to tackling poverty in general, and specific emphasis has been given to child poverty and severe child poverty. The Executive recognise that poor children live in poor households. A number of common traits can be readily identified as indicators of poverty; for example, workless households, or those living in private-rented accommodation. In effect, that means that we can identify those most at risk, including children in severe child poverty. Through the Programme for Government, we must strive to implement the most effective policies that can be applied as a means of targeting those individuals. The Executive are in the process of agreeing an overall anti-poverty strategy, based broadly on the Lifetime Opportunities programme, which was launched by direct rule Ministers in 2006. We will seek the views of the Assembly on those proposals in the near future. Ms S Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Like other Members, I welcome the re-establishment of the ministerial subcommittee on children and young people. I also welcome the involvement of officials from the NIO and the Court Service, given that kids in the juvenile justice system are outside the remit of the Assembly. In the statement, it was indicated that, in year one, an additional figure of over £30 million, excluding baseline provision, will be available for children and young people. Will the junior Minister state where that money will come from and how it was secured? Mr G Kelly: In the past few months, we have undertaken a series of meetings as part of pre-Budget discussions to make the case for significant funding for children’s services. Indeed, long before the draft Budget was issued, we went to see the Minister of Finance and Personnel to argue for money for services for children and young people. We will continue to liaise with ministerial colleagues to urge them to mainstream and protect funding for children and young people within their departmental budgets. All our allocations in respect of the priority funding packages that were initiated by direct rule Ministers, and other ring-fenced items, have been removed from departmental baselines. I will give the Member a breakdown of the £30 million that she mentioned. The £26 million allocated to the Department of Education (DE), the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS) and the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL) is broken down as follows: DE has been allocated £10 million for 2008-09 and £5 million for 2009-10; DHSSPS has been allocated £10 million in 2008-09; and DCAL has been allocated £1 million for 2008-09. The additional £13 million allocated to DE is broken down as follows: £3 million in 2008-09, £5 million in 2009-10, and £5 million in 2010-11. The additional £30 million allocated to DHSSPS is broken down as follows: £10 million for 2008-09, £10 million for 2009-10, and £10 million for 2010-11. I now turn to funding for OFMDFM for the implementation of the play policy and support of exemplar area-based projects. The 2008-09 period does not count, but in 2009-10, the allocation is £0·729 million, and in 2010-11, it is £1·614 million. That means a total of £69 million over three years for DHSSPS, DE and DCAL, and £2 million for OFMDFM. Added to the £26 million allocated to facilitate the continuation of projects previously funded by the children and young people’s funding package announced earlier is the £2 million that I mentioned. Junior Minister Paisley said that we have arguably more money than we had under the previous package; altogether, over £71 million has been allocated to children’s services in addition to baseline funding. Mr Durkan: I welcome the statement by the junior Ministers this morning, and, in particular, the re-establishment of the subcommittee. In the statement, junior Minister Paisley said that the new budgetary figures, combined with the baseline figures, are more than the amount for the previous children’s fund. Of course, if one is to make a comparison, one has to combine the children’s fund with the figures for all the departmental budget lines. At that time, considerable amounts were being put into departmental budget lines for child-health services, Sure Start and the free nursery year. If comparisons are to be made, Members must also take account of the fact that the other Executive programme also gave particular priority to children, young people and family support services. Will the junior Ministers ensure that, in the subcommittee’s work, efforts will be made to encourage Departments to do what they can, where they can, to support families and parents? That is one of the most important ways of supporting children, where they are and where they need to be. Mr G Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I very much take on board the Member’s comments. It is the job of Ministers to encourage the mainstreaming of that money. The Programme for Government and its related public service agreement targets outline the Departments’ commitments to addressing children and young people’s issues. The subcommittee, as a whole, can hold Ministers accountable as regards those commitments. As the Member knows, there is cross-party support for this matter, and an enthusiasm on the part of the all the Ministers to participate. The ministerial subcommittee will have enthusiasm. 1.30 pm The subcommittee will establish its priorities and cross-cutting targets at the outset to ensure that tackling children’s issues remains paramount and that the Government’s response is cross-departmental and co-ordinated. OFMDFM wants the subcommittee to achieve greater integration of policy, funding and delivery for those services that are relevant to children and young people. The subcommittee will strive to achieve transparency through the timely sharing of information on children and young people. That will help to facilitate joined-up working. Everything centres on that, and each Department must ensure that money is added to the funding that was available to them previously. Now that there is a final Budget, Ministers are committed to ensuring that that happens. Mrs Long: I thank the junior Ministers for bringing their news to the Chamber. During last week’s meeting of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, the end of special funding was discussed. I want to explore that issue further. Most people accept that mainstreamed and continuous funding is preferable to special funding. However, if money is not ring-fenced for services for children and young people, is there not a danger that internal departmental pressures may lead to its being diverted to other areas? What actions will the junior Ministers take to counteract that considerable risk? The Programme for Government identifies some cross-cutting targets and priorities that relate to children and young people. However, other departmental issues, such as transport and planning, also have a major impact on children and young people. Has any consideration been given as to how those services will be co-ordinated to ensure that their priorities are taken on board? Has the proofing of decisions for the impact that they will have on children and young people been considered? Mr G Kelly: We have written to ministerial colleagues to request information on those elements of the children and young people’s funding package that have been mainstreamed and retained. It was difficult to know which had been retained or otherwise before the Budget was agreed. Soon, we hope to be able to clarify that Departments have allocated their funding for the delivery of their strategy commitments to children. As junior Minister Paisley said, the Budget was good for children. We are pleased that the final negotiations on the Budget led to an additional allocation of £13 million over three years to the Department of Education for services for children and young people as well as for youth services. An additional £30 million over the same period was also secured for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to implement the recommendations of the Bamford Review. The granting of additional in-year flexibility, coupled with allowing the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to retain efficiency savings of over 3·5%, presents an opportunity for that Department to increase its resources further. In addition, £26 million was allocated to that Department and to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure to facilitate the continuation of projects that were previously funded by the children and young people’s funding package. The Member raised the broader issue of whether OFMDFM will assess the impact that any new measures will have on children. It will, and the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, of which she is Deputy Chairperson, will ensure that that happens. Every Department has a responsibility for many important issues, including child poverty, fuel poverty, poor housing, and educational disadvantage. That is why the subcommittee is being re-established, and, given that its remit covers many issues, it will be able to influence actively every Department. I understand that, due to diary commitments, early March is probably the earliest date on which all Ministers will be able to attend a meeting of the subcommittee. However, we are keen to move forward with the project. Mr Shannon: I thank the junior Ministers for the contributions that they have made to an important subject. I am a member of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, which, as the junior Minister said, is united in its intention to ensure that issues that relate to children and young people are addressed fully. Will the junior Minister outline the work programme for the subcommittee on children and young people and tell the Assembly who its members will be? How will the junior Ministers ensure that it compels every Department and Committee — whether the Department of Education, the Health Committee, the Department for Employment and Learning or the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure — to ring-fence money to ensure that the issues that affect children and young people will be addressed? Mr G Kelly: The work plan will include the re-establishment of the subcommittee, actions for actively engaging children and young people in the political process, and actions to ensure that children and young people are made fully aware of their rights and responsibilities. Specific actions will be taken to find poverty measures that most effectively identify those children most in need, and specific targets will be determined to ensure progress in achieving our anti-poverty targets. Furthermore, the work plan will include anti-bullying measures; campaigns to promote the health, safety and well-being of children; details of a campaign of raising awareness on specific priorities; plans for engagement with the sector; and much more. With regard to ring-fencing, I refer to my earlier answer. Our intention, and the intention of other Ministers, as stated in meetings of the Executive, is to ensure that the issue is progressed. Extra money has been allocated, including £30 million to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, £13 million to the Department of Education and £2 million to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. Rather than use the term “ring-fenced”, the job of the subcommittee will be to ensure that that money is spent well. However, despite the fact that Ministers have made a clear commitment to address this issue, they have the right to run their own Departments. Ms Anderson: Go raibh maith agat. I thank the junior Ministers for this most welcome statement. Sinn Féin is totally committed to consolidating and advancing the equality agenda. The agreement of the Executive parties to measure the Programme for Government, Budget and investment strategy against the statutory guidelines is a major advancement and a welcome development. In that context, will the junior Minister state whether the outcomes of the equality impact assessment 12-week consultation process will be taken into account when resources are allocated? Furthermore, on that basis, does the junior Minister agree that groups and organisations that work hard for the needs of children and young people should be encouraged to take part in that consultation process? Members may wish to ensure that consultation meetings are held in each of their areas to ensure that the particular needs of children and young people across the North are taken into account when resources are allocated. Mr G Kelly: Go raibh maith agat. We encourage everyone, especially stakeholders, to get involved in that consultation process. The Programme for Government clearly highlights that equality, fairness, inclusion and the promotion of good relations will be watchwords for the Executive’s policies and programmes across Government Departments. That places an overarching responsibility on all of us to proactively change the existing patterns of social disadvantage by using increased prosperity and economic growth to tackle ongoing poverty and to develop innovative measures that will address existing patterns of socio-economic disadvantage and target resources and efforts towards those in greatest need. The Executive are fully committed to ensuring that equality is properly taken into account. In line with that, a draft equality impact assessment, carried out at a strategic level on the Programme for Government, Budget and investment strategy, was launched last week for the 12-week consultation that the Member mentioned. The focus of that assessment is at the strategic level, and aims to consider the overall impact that will be associated with the Executive’s priorities and allocations of resources as set out in the Budget and investment strategy. The Executive will take account of the final equality impact assessment carried out at a strategic level when implementing the Programme for Government and the investment strategy. In the case of the Budget, the final equality impact assessment (EQIA) will be taken into account in the future allocation of resources, including during the monitoring rounds. The consultation on the draft EQIA will be an important exercise. The Executive are determined that the consultation on the draft assessment will offer everyone the opportunity to have their say and influence decisions. Mr Beggs: I also welcome the reappointment of the ministerial subcommittee. However, the junior Ministers were given responsibility for children’s issues in June 2007. Why has it taken some eight months for the subcommittee to meet? How regularly do they intend the subcommittee to meet? Will they ensure that in future it meets to scrutinise budgetary issues and deal with cross-cutting issues that affect children and young people? Mr G Kelly: The institutions were set up in May 2007, and it has taken us until now to reach this point; I do not want to make any excuses about that. We intend to move forward with some haste. The first meeting of the subcommittee is being prepared, and we hope that it will take place early in March. As for regular meetings, we will go through those processes when we get together. I hope that “regular meetings” says it all; we will meet regularly, and more often when it is necessary. I take the Member’s point about the Budget and in-year monitoring. We want to ensure that what we have promised for children in the Programme for Government — if I remember correctly, three public service agreements deal directly with, and five others touch on, this wide-ranging issue — is part of our departmental work. Mrs M Bradley: I welcome the setting up of the ministerial subcommittee. Perhaps we should have had it a bit earlier. Has an assessment been made of the level of funding that is required by the programmes resourced through the children and young people’s fund that OFMDFM considers a priority and with which it wants to continue? Where is the funding for children’s play, which is an important part of children’s lives? Would it not have been better for the subcommittee to have had its own budget? Mr G Kelly: I will first deal with the children’s play policy. The analysis of the consultation responses has been published on the children and young people’s unit website. Work has begun on revising the policy statement to take account of those responses, and it is intended that the revised policy statement will be published by the end of March. Play policy contributes to all six of the high-level outcomes in the strategy and has been proven to have beneficial effects on children’s physical and mental health, to aid development, to encourage social skills and to improve knowledge and skills. By the spring of 2009, action plans will have been developed to implement the play policy. We are delighted to have secured funding of over £2 million in years 2 and 3 of the Budget to take these plans forward and support exemplar area-based projects. The Member also asked where money is used in each Department. We know where that money has been used, because there was an earlier funding package. We have extracted some helpful information from those couple of years when it was operational. The reason that we are doing away with the funding package and pursuing mainstreaming is because we now know which programmes are sustainable and effective. We are eager for all Departments involved in those policies and projects to mainstream them. That is the whole idea. Mr McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the re-establishment of the subcommittee. Can the Minister share some of the details of the implementation groups that will be established to carry out, or deliver on, the decisions taken by the subcommittee? Mr G Kelly: A number of implementation structures have been, or are in the process of being, established to oversee the implementation of the strategy over the next 10 years. Those include a strategy planning and review group, which we will chair. It will include the chairpersons of the other implementation groups, together with senior representatives of statutory, voluntary, and community-sector organisations. An interdepartmental group on children and young people will be established, as will a network of practitioners, comprising representatives of agencies that deliver services for children and young people, to provide commentary on the implementation of the strategy on the ground. A research and information group, and a parents’ advisory group to seek the views of parents, will be set up. 1.45 pm All groups will be required to meet at least twice a year, and the terms of reference and membership of each group will be approved by the strategic planning and review group. Each group will be chaired by a member of the strategic planning and review group who will report routinely at meetings. Terms of reference and membership lists will be published, and memberships will be refreshed every two years. Ms Purvis: I, too, welcome the junior Ministers’ statement and, in particular, their guarantee that issues relating to children and young people will remain to the fore. Will the junior Ministers provide me with assurance on several matters? They said that the funding available should mean that no programmes for children or youths will be reduced or cut. Given that, will they assure me that those providing such programmes in the community and voluntary sectors will not have their funding reduced or cut? I welcome the fact that the NIO and the Court Service have been invited to attend the subcommittee. Can the junior Minister assure me that non-devolved matters relating to children and young people will be given the same priority as devolved matters? Finally, when do the junior Ministers expect to publish the action plan on their Department’s 10-year strategy for children and young people? Mr G Kelly: The reserved matters concern the NIO and the Court Service, both of which were deliberately involved in the original subgroup. They will continue to be involved. A close eye will be kept on all issues that affect children, and that applies equally to reserved matters. It may be repetitive to say that, with regard to funding, the movement is towards mainstreaming. We have written to Ministers, urging them to determine what each individual Department will be doing about previous projects and those that continue, as well as those that they believe should not continue, and why. We will follow that up on an ongoing basis. The current one-year action plan was published in March 2007. Future plans will follow a three-year cycle, in line with Government finance policy. Work has begun on engaging with Departments, the voluntary sector and young people. Implementation groups are being set up to review the current action plan and strategy. A workshop with young people will be held in the next few weeks, and, as I indicated earlier, we will seek the views of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister and involve it in the consideration of a draft three-year plan. Furthermore, the Commissioner for Children and Young People has agreed to bring together a group of representatives from the community and voluntary sectors to review the action plan. Mrs D Kelly: I, too, welcome the junior Ministers’ statement and the establishment of the ministerial subcommittee on children and young people. We in the SDLP are concerned about equality issues. Will the Minister give us more detail about the EQIA that is under way? It is my understanding that the EQIA relates to the Programme for Government; if that is so, consultees and respondents will have an opportunity to impact on the action and implementation. Is that the case? Moreover, what was the thinking behind establishing children’s moneys in that way? At Westminster, a specific children’s fund has been established, and agencies other than Departments can apply to that fund. That enables innovative thinking, not just more of the same. In the Republic of Ireland, the Minister for Finance, Brian Cowen, has specifically set aside some €800 million for children and families; non-governmental organisations can also bid for that money. From what source in Northern Ireland can NGOs bid for funding? What is the potential for innovative thinking on children’s issues? What are OFMDFM’s priorities for children and young people over the next six months? Mr G Kelly: I thank the Member for the question, which came at the end of her speech. The Executive examined how children and young people’s issues are dealt with at Westminster, in the South and elsewhere. They concluded that the best way to deal with children and young people’s issues is through funding being mainstreamed in Departments. The Executive will take account of the final strategic equality impact assessment in the implementation of the Programme for Government and the investment strategy. The final EQIA will also be taken into account in future Budget allocations, including monitoring rounds. During the important consultation on the draft EQIA, the Executive are determined that all people, including the voluntary sector, will have the opportunity to influence final decisions. Departmental budgets will also take the EQIA into consideration. Therefore, all those issues are involved. OFMDFM is no longer the funding Department; instead, the moneys will be mainstreamed into Departments. The children and young people’s funding package has not disappeared but has been replaced, we would argue, with an effective method to ensure that money is available to all Departments to deal with this issue. Ministers will attend this high-powered subcommittee, which means that there will be direct access to their Departments. The Executive have made their decision about the way in which to progress this issue, and we think that it will be seen to work. Mr F McCann: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Will the junior Minister tell us what OFMDFM is doing to combat bullying? Mr G Kelly: As Members know, bullying is a huge issue for children and young people. Any efforts to raise awareness of this issue and develop mechanisms to tackle the problem will, I am sure, be widely welcomed by everyone in the Assembly. The anti-bullying forum, with participation by key stakeholder representatives, has developed a range of initiatives, one of which is the production of an information advice leaflet for parents and carers regarding bullying because of race, faith and culture. Over the next three months, we plan to produce and implement a dissemination strategy for the leaflet; that will involve the leaflet being translated into key languages and ensuring that parents are aware of its existence, either by flagging up web-based access or by distribution of hard copies through a variety of outlets, a LeasCheann Comhairle. In the longer term, we intend to develop a one-day training course for schools, which will include preventative and responsive strategies on bullying because of race, faith and culture. It is also intended to help schools to review the usefulness of the website material. Mr O’Loan: I welcome the setting up of the ministerial subcommittee, with the proviso that I hope that it will lead to a more strategic focus on the important issue of children and young people. The junior Ministers’ statement said: “no child or youth programme will be reduced or cut”. In response to the draft Budget, the education and library boards were greatly concerned that funding for the Youth Service had been cut substantially. Extra funding was provided in the revised Budget, but I understand that the Youth Service still regards its funding as being cut. Will the junior Minister give a definitive statement on that matter? Will he confirm that the line in his statement, which states that the budget for the Youth Service is not being cut from last year, means what it says? If he cannot give a definitive statement today, will he undertake to write to me on that point? Mr G Kelly: Go raibh maith agat. I have said repeatedly that it is for individual Ministers to determine spending priorities now that the Budget allocations have been finalised. Part of the Executive’s role has been to improve budgetary allocations for youth services but not through a dedicated funding package. I will write to the Member and give him more details. However, the position has been stated several times today. The Executive are advancing youth services, not through a funding package but through mainstream funding supported by a ministerial subcommittee. Ms J McCann: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I also welcome the re-establishment of the ministerial subcommittee on children and young people. Will the junior Minister state what actions are being taken to ensure the protection of children and young people? Mr G Kelly: Protecting and safeguarding children is a key priority for us all. A Staying Safe policy statement is being developed as part of the 10-year strategy for children and young people. It will bind together and integrate current developments and measures on safeguarding children as well as consider what additional policies and actions are required. The document will seek to place the Staying Safe policy in east-west and North/South contexts because the subject is one that does not stop either at the border or within the island as a whole. Legislation to safeguard vulnerable groups is being taken forward in line with developments in England and Wales and in parallel with those in Scotland. We have also established the Bichard co-ordination group to oversee developments here. We are liaising with the NIO on co-ordination and on the development of a communications strategy for the new arrangements that will be implemented in 2009. We have arranged for cross-jurisdiction safeguarding to be put on the agendas of the North/South Ministerial Council and the BIC (British-Irish Council). Draft Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2007: Mr Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to two hours for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose, and 10 minutes for a winding-up speech. All other Members will have five minutes to speak. The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the draft Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2007 (Dr Farry): I beg to move That the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee set up to consider the draft Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2007, should be submitted to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as a Report of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Secretary of State referred the draft Order to the Assembly for consideration under section 85 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Committee’s report, if adopted by the Assembly, will, together with the Official Report of this debate, constitute the Assembly’s response to the Secretary of State on the draft Order. The Committee worked on this legislation in a challenging time frame. I pay tribute to the Deputy Chairperson and Committee members, who showed great commitment and dedication to the task in hand. I also pay tribute to the Committee Clerk, Committee staff and researchers without whose professionalism and efforts the Committee could not have succeeded. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the officials and representatives of the organisations who provided information and evidence. Minister of State, Paul Goggins MP, came to the Assembly on two occasions: the first was on 26 November 2007, when he briefed Members before the Committee was formed; the second was on 14 January 2008, when he appeared before the Committee. The proposed Order is the outcome of a fundamental review of the law on sexual offences in Northern Ireland. Its aim is to achieve a strengthened, modernised and harmonised body of law, based on the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which was also informed by extensive and fundamental research. The draft Order deals with 19 offences that are already covered in Northern Ireland through the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Therefore, 40% of the provisions are already in place. However, more importantly, the draft Order would cover 36 new offences. 2.00 pm The draft Order comprises seven parts. Part 1 sets out key definitions for words such as “sexual”, “consent” and “touching”. Part 2 covers non-consensual offences such as rape, assault by penetration, sexual assault and causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent. It redefines rape, creates new offences and addresses evidential presumptions about consent. Part 3 deals with sexual offences against children under the age of 16 and makes such offences easier to prosecute. The offences of rape and assault can now be used in cases involving children under the age of 13 without the issue of consent arising. There are also proposals relating to offences in which adults are in positions of trust, which also deal with sexual offences committed by members of the family or the extended family. There are provisions for offences that deal with exploitation through prostitution and pornography, which aim to protect children up to the age of 18. Part 4 deals with sexual offences against persons with a mental disorder, and Part 5 deals with prostitution. There are new offences of loitering, persistent soliciting and kerb crawling. Part 6 deals with miscellaneous sexual offences including preparatory offences that apply regardless of whether an intended sexual act occurs. The key effects of the draft Order include, as summarised by the Minister: all offences becoming gender neutral; all non-consensual activity and sexual activity involving children and other vulnerable adults being criminalised; clearly defined offences; children and young people being placed at the centre of proposals; new offences designed to protect children from abusive behaviour in the home; the equalisation of the age of consent in Northern Ireland with the rest of the UK; ensuring that other vulnerable groups will benefit from added protection; and strengthened law on commercial sexual exploitation. The Committee broadly welcomed the legislation — the only exception being the age of consent. We welcome the codification of the law on sexual offences into a single statute, the creation of gender-neutral offences and the stiffer sentencing regime. We also welcome the removal of consent as a defence for sexual activity with a child under the age of 13, and that such activity will now be regarded as rape. However, we were averse to the proposed defence of “reasonable belief” where a child is between the ages of 13 and 18. At last, some clarity has been brought to the law on rape, and there is now an in-built presumption of rape if violence is used or where an over-powering drug is administered. The Committee heard evidence that the guidance for prosecution, social services and education is not clear or robust enough, and that the resources are not sufficient, for children who engage in sexually harmful behaviour. Therefore, the Committee welcomed the Minister’s commitment that effective guidance will be provided to the Public Prosecution Service and that he wants to ensure that he develops the guidance in consultation with voluntary organisations and statutory agencies. There is undoubted merit in the development of prosecution protocols. In the interests of consistency, justice and — particularly — the victims, that work should commence without delay. The Committee was persuaded by the arguments for equalising the penalties for causing or inciting abuse of a child through prostitution and for paying for the sexual services of a child. We strongly recommend that the draft Order is amended to reflect that. It is anomalous that a perpetrator of the latter offence could receive life imprisonment whereas a person who controls the child might receive only 14 years. The Committee also feels that section 5 of the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 should be amended to ensure that young people are not penalised inappropriately for consensual and non-abusing sexual activity. We also strongly recommend that the NIO, DHSSPS, key professionals and non-governmental organisations establish a forum to develop and advance policies and practices in that area. The Committee was grateful for the Minister’s commitment to a round table discussion to pull voluntary- and community-sector representatives and his officials together. We also welcome the Minister’s commitment to ensure that those parties continue to be involved in the development and implementation of the legislation. The Committee noted that the positions of trust referred to in the draft Order do not include sports coaches, and while acknowledging the difficulties involved in definition, strongly urged the Minister to give further serious consideration to the inclusion of sports coaches in the legislation. The Committee was united in its views, save for the proposed change to the age of consent in Northern Ireland. Members may be interested to know that a formal age of consent is not defined in legislation; rather, it is the age at which activities are not formally proscribed. The majority of the Committee is strongly opposed to any change to the age of consent here. We heard evidence from the Christian Institute against any change; it felt that the proposed change was ill-conceived and that parity with the rest of the UK was not important. It was further argued that lowering the age of consent would not result in the reduction of teenage-pregnancy rates. Members might like to know that the age of consent in the Republic of Ireland is also 17 years of age. The Minister argued that the legislation was about defining when sexual activity was a crime, not about defining when young people should engage in sexual activity. The teenage-parenting strategy was effective in reducing teenage pregnancies, and its success has underlined its importance. The Minister said that even if the Committee were unanimous in recommending the status quo, he would still need to be convinced of the arguments for Northern Ireland being out of line with the rest of the United Kingdom. The main concern of the NSPCC and Barnardo’s was that the current age of consent tends to prevent young people from coming forward for advice if they are engaged in sexual activity. The Committee also noted the potential anomaly of people in certain circumstances being able to marry when they are 16 years of age. In coming to its decision, the Committee felt that there was no public lobby in Northern Ireland for change. It felt that it was for the Minister to prove his case and that the burden of proof should not rest with those who wish to defend the status quo. Finally, I want to comment in a personal capacity as a member of the Committee. I agree with all the Committee’s recommendations. However, I find myself in the slightly unusual position of being its Chairperson, but reflecting the minority view in the Committee on the issue of the age of consent. My view is that the age of consent in Northern Ireland should be set at 16 years of age and be in line with the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not believe that there is a compelling reason for Northern Ireland to be out of line with the rest of the UK. The issue is not about encouraging or legitimising sexual activity at an early age; rather, we should recognise that it is a reality in our society — as it is in others — and we should ensure that we have a practical response to a genuine problem. In practice, young people are rarely prosecuted for engaging in sexual relations when they are below the age of consent; the authorities rarely view it to be in the public interest to pursue prosecutions for such activity. There is a strong argument for ensuring that no barriers are erected that would prevent people from receiving proper advice from qualified professionals who could inform them of the risks that are connected to their activities. Anything that prevents people coming forward for advice is counterproductive. We can, in a responsible way, support lowering the age of consent to 16 years of age. I believe that that is the more responsible line to take, although I respect fully the views of those Committee members who argued otherwise. Mr Ross: I support the report, and the bulk of the proposed legislation is welcome. Although much of the debate — both in the Committee and in the media — has centred on the age of consent, it does a disservice to the overall legislation, which, in many ways, toughens the existing law. Many of the main proposals have been welcomed by all the parties. The Chairperson mentioned some of those proposals, including criminalisation of non-consensual sexual activity between and involving children, and a recommendation for more robust sanctions. He also noted that the defence of consent has been removed for those who engage in sexual activity with a child who is under 13 years of age, although some members would have preferred to have seen that apply to children who are 14. The NIO argued that children are at the heart of the proposals. We welcome the fact that new offences have been created. The reason for that is that children should be protected in their homes, which is where most abuse occurs. The Committee heard disturbing and horrific evidence, particularly from children’s groups, about how some public toilets in Northern Ireland have been used to advertise sex with children who are as young as 12 years old. I am pleased that the report recommends that the law for those who incite the abuse of a child through prostitution should be equal to that for those who pay for the service. Indeed, the Chairperson has already referred to that. The age of consent was the main issue in, and out, of the Committee. The proposals to lower the age of consent were strongly resisted by the Committee. Sinn Féin, in particular, seemed to argue against lowering it, expressing the fear that sexual predators from the Irish Republic would come across the border to prey on younger people. However, that party’s representatives seemed to change their mind in the last meeting. Sinn Féin Member Mickey Brady made comments in the media, which were carried by UTV and ‘The Irish News’, stating his concerns about lowering the age of consent. He said: “Sexual predators may be encouraged to take advantage. There are people out there who may well take advantage of that situation and that is a real fear”. However, one week later, after Pat Doherty expressed an opposing view on the BBC’s ‘Let’s Talk’, the Sinn Féin Committee members changed their opinions. Jennifer McCann said that Sinn Féin does not want to criminalise children, despite the fact that, as the Chairman said, the Committee agreed that section 5 of the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 should be amended so that two young people who were consensually engaged in sexual activity would not be inappropriately charged. Sinn Féin’s rationale is dangerously close to the view that, because young people under the age of 17 are having sex, we should legislate for that. Many young people smoke and drink before they are legally allowed to do so. If we were to follow the Sinn Féin rationale, we would abolish all the laws in relation to that, despite the health implications. It is somewhat bizarre that, at a time when the Government are raising the age at which one can buy tobacco products and are seeking to reclassify cannabis in order to protect children, they propose to lower the age of consent in Northern Ireland, despite the fact that there is no public outcry to do so. The argument that children are already engaging in sexual activity and that the age of consent should reflect that holds no water. Laws are put in place to protect us. Young people should be protected, and that is what the legislation aims to do. Maintaining the age of consent at 17 is not about criminalising children, as Sinn Féin has attempted to argue; it is about protecting children from those who would try to exploit them. Let us remember that we are not talking primarily about two 16-year-olds who are engaged in consensual sexual activity, but, perhaps, about a 40-year-old man aiming to take advantage of a 16-year-old girl. We must also consider the message that lowering the age of consent would send out. Having sex requires emotional and physical maturity, and lowering the age to 16 would send out the message that the Government expect young people to be engaged in sexual activity and were legislating for that fact. No arguments have been advanced that provide a good reason to align our law with that on the mainland. Northern Ireland has different laws relating to many issues, such as abortion and alcohol. Therefore, there is no reason that we should not maintain the age of consent at 17. We have heard evidence from various groups that wish to see a lower teenage pregnancy rate and a halt to the spread of STIs, and we all agree with that. However, lowering the age of consent will achieve neither of those aims. There is no evidence to support that view. Neither is there a link between the age of consent and the number of young people who seek advice on sexual issues. The burden of proof lies with those who wish to change the law, not with those who wish to maintain the current position. Evidence given to the Committee shows that nearly 28% of 16- to 24-year-olds in GB had sex before the age of 16, whereas in Northern Ireland the figure is only 15%. We do not want to see any reversal of that. In my closing remarks, I wish to touch on a few issues. We mentioned that sports coaches are not included in the provision about a position of trust. That is important, and we have encouraged the Minister to examine it. In England, in October 2007, tennis coach Clare Lyte was sentenced after a trial that heard evidence of how she abused her position as a tennis coach to engage in a sexual relationship with a child of 13. That hammers the point home. Mr Deputy Speaker: The Member’s time is up. Mr Ross: I commend the report and hope that Members will support it. Ms S Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Like the last two Members who spoke, I welcome the debate. I also welcome the report from the Ad Hoc Committee on the Draft Sexual Offences Order. For the record, the previous Member’s speech described my party’s views incorrectly on several issues. The minutes of evidence will prove that my two colleagues and I probed many of those issues so that we could put information in the public domain before coming to our conclusion. I hope that the Member is not saying that comments and statements made by other C |