Dr Hendron (Chairperson)
Mr Gallagher (Deputy Chairperson)
Ms Armitage
Mr Berry
Rev Robert Coulter
Mrs Courtney
Mr J Kelly
Mr McFarland
Ms McWilliams
Ms Ramsey

Mr Peter Deazley )
Mr Robin MacRory ) Department of Health, Social
Miss Claire Thompson ) Services and Public Safety

I welcome Mr Deazley, Mr MacRory and Miss Thompson from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. The Committee has a briefing paper identifying the remaining parts of the Bill that must be considered. The Department's response to queries raised at our previous meeting is now with Committee members.

The first item of business is the short title. Members queried the wording of the short title and asked officials why it should not refer to the specific purpose of the Bill. The Department has responded that it consulted with the Office of the Legislative Counsel, which advised that amending the short title would defeat the objective of having a brief but accurate description. The Bill deals with several issues, all of which would need to be included in the title. Would the officials comment on that?

Have members seen all of the advice from the Office of the Legislative Counsel?

Yes, it has been tabled.

We have only just received it.

I will give members some time to examine it. If members are happy with the paper, we will move on.

I cannot add much to the paper, which is the advice of our senior counsel George Gray, the head of the parliamentary draftsmen. He has quoted chapter and verse, with appropriate legal references. From the Department's point of view, I must take his advice on the matter. He is the authority on the subject.

Does that mean that the Committee must also take his advice?

His advice has been offered to the Committee.

I am not opposed to taking his advice. However, he has quoted from Northern Ireland statutes in 1972. That was 30 years ago. It is wrong that nothing can ever be changed. I do not see the problem with changing things.

One of George Gray's main points is that there are two titles, one of which describes the contents of the Bill in full. Anyone who is looking for a full and accurate description of a Bill should look to the long title rather than the short title. However, that does not mean that, where possible, a short title should not also be descriptive.

The reason for the long title is to make it more self-explanatory for the public.

A Bill entitled "Personal Social Services (Amendment) Bill" means nothing. No one would have a single clue as to what the Bill is about. When I raised the point last week, I tried to explain why it might be a good idea to have a short title that indicated what the Bill contained. That seemed to be an eminently logical thing. It is not unreasonable to ask for such a title.

My sense is that you have gone to the legal eagles and asked them to find reasons why the Bill should not be changed. Let me give you an example: last week I suggested that we should call this Bill "Carers" - and please note that this is one word and that "Disabled Children" brings the total to three. We then mentioned "Direct Payments" - two more words. We could also have included the word "and", although that may not be a legal word. Therefore we perhaps had five or six words - and the word "Bill" brought the total to seven. That would tell people what the Bill is about. You have told the legal eagles that the Committee's suggestion would put nine words before the word "Act", and on the basis of that information they have said that there has not been anything since 1972 defining a short title of this length.

That is probably correct - but we do not have nine words. Who briefed the legal eagles that this was to be a nine-word title? As I said to you last week, this is a new game. If you keep returning to how things have operated for the past 30 years because it is convenient, you will continue having rows.

I understand the meaning of "long title". That can be 50 pages long so as to explain to the legal eagles, who wish to delve into a Bill, exactly what it is about. My not unreasonable view is that the short title of a Bill should tell people quickly - at the top of the page - what the Bill is about. I get a real sense that you have asked them to find reasons why we should be quiet and agree with what they have proposed.

I do not like the implication that I have, in some way, led, or misled, counsel in this matter.

I accept that. However, Alan McFarland is explaining the Committee's frustration with this matter, which we discussed last week. The system has been around for many years. His proposal was reasonable and I had hoped that the experts to whom you were speaking would provide something along the lines that Mr McFarland had suggested. Although the Committee did not vote on the proposal, there was support for it.

The draftsman is part of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. He provides us with advice and has always provided the title for a Bill. I suggest that the Committee ask George Gray to come and defend his position. It is not my decision.

I understand that perfectly.

Was Mr Gray briefed that the suggested short title was nine words long?

I told counsel that the suggested title was "the personal social services (carers, disabled children and direct payments) Bill".

No, it was not. It was never that.

That is what it sounded like.

The record will show what the Committee were suggesting. I tend to labour these things ad nauseum - and the Committee will understand what I mean by that - so that everyone understands what we are trying to produce. I am concerned that on the basis of the brief that the title would be nine words long, the draftsman decided that the title was too long. However, our suggested short title is not nine words long.

Ms McWilliams, would you like to ask a question?

Thank you, but my question has been answered.

Is it possible for Mr Gray to appear before the Committee?

There is the time factor involved.

This matter could then be dealt with. The problem regarding the title has been discussed over the past couple of weeks. In fairness to both people, while Mr McFarland is frustrated about the issue, Mr MacRory is obviously doing all that he can to ensure that something is done. Can Mr Gray come to the Committee so that we can sort out the matter and not be discussing it every week?

The Committee has the authority to propose an amendment to the Bill. If the Committee is unhappy with the short title as it stands, we can agree that the long title be amended to read, "Personal Social Services (Carers, Disabled Children, Direct Payments) Bill".

The long title, Mr Chairperson?

No. Members are content with the long title. If members wish to amend the short title it would be in the form that the Chairperson has just read.

Someone has added the words "personal social services" to our suggested title. Let me go through this again. In Great Britain a Bill called the "Carers and Disabled Children Bill" went through Parliament. The title stated exactly what that Bill was about.

Here, for reasons that may make sense somewhere, we have decided to add legislation about direct payments and other matters not directly concerned with carers and disabled children. On that basis, we are not allowed to call it the carers, disabled children and direct payment Bill. We must call it the Personal Social Services (Amendment) Bill.

We have two options. We can call it the carers, disabled children and direct payment Bill, or we can take the words "direct payments" out of the title and have a carers and disabled children Bill - like GB - plus a direct payment Bill. That would avoid having a nebulous title to cover a mishmash of legislation.

It is not that I want to move away from Mr McFarland's point, but we are talking about the short title. If the Committee is content with the long title as it stands, I will put the question.

I have no personal concern about this. However, if the legislation is to be correct, it ought to be comprehensible. I will not speak of this matter again if the Committee feels that I am labouring the point. I have no vested interest in the matter, but no one else is speaking up.

We would have supported you, Mr McFarland, but no one could get a word in edgeways. I support you.

Perhaps we are not the correct people to be giving evidence on this matter. The Department did not decide on the title for the Bill. We have taken the best legal advice that we can get, and we must follow it. The Committee must talk to George Gray if it wants a fuller explanation. The issue about not including the words "personal social services" in the title of the Bill is partly explained in the penultimate paragraph of Mr Gray's note dated 17 January. Health and Personal Social Service is a field of legislation in Northern Ireland, therefore, we must use the words "Health" or "Personal Social Services". Mr Gray may be able to change that, but I cannot.

I propose we meet Mr Gray.

The following paragraph from Mr Gray's note is significant, and needs clarification:

"It would be potentially misleading because if any of the three elements in the Act were repealed in the future, the Act would for the rest of its life have a title which referred to a matter with which it did not deal. So if, for example, a future HPSS Bill contained new provisions about direct payments (or simply consolidated the existing provisions) clauses 6 and 7 of this Bill would be repealed; but the Act would continue for all time to have a short title which referred to a matter which was no longer covered by the Act."

We need clarification on this matter.

I propose we meet Mr Gray. Would you second that proposal?

When we were considering this point at our first meeting, I simply asked the question. As we moved further into the debate, we all became quite wedded to the suggestion. The reason was that we wanted devolved legislation in Northern Ireland to do what is described in Mr Gray's note - to identify, to describe, and to facilitate people's understanding of what the legislation is all about.

The Committee has only just received Mr Gray's note, Mr Chairperson. Mr McCrory says that he is not best placed to take us through the legislative technicalities. It would be useful to spend time on this matter now because of future legislation. Members who were in the Chamber on Monday 21 January would have heard the Minister refer to future legislation being described as personal social services (No 1) Bill. Then will come (No 2) Bill, (No 3) Bill et cetera. It struck me then that the debate we started here might continue. It may be important to have the draftsperson before the Committee so that we can ask questions. Is it just the case that legacy has not permitted more than nine words in the short title? Conversely, is it for the reasons that John Kelly has just indicated - that if parts of the Act were to be changed then the name of the Act would no longer be relevant?

I suggest that we take time to read the note. I am always unhappy to receive lengthy legal papers just as the Committee is meeting. Perhaps we could return to this matter next week.

I have an e-mail from Mr George Gray, which reads

"I would prefer not to appear before the Committee at this stage. The draftsmen have not given evidence to date before any Committees".

I suggested that he might come, Mr Chairperson. I knew that I would be in trouble on those points.

The e-mail continues

"I would prefer not to set a precedent. If Committees called for us every time a drafting point arose, we could spend a lot of time on that."

Oh goody.

I have prepared a fuller note on the point although it all boils down to the simple fact that a short title must be short.

Ms McWilliams, are you proposing that we come back to this?

Yes.

Mr Chairperson, you already had a proposal. I proposed that we meet Mr Gray.

I second that proposal.

I presume that Ms McWilliams is proposing an amendment to my proposal.

It is not. It is the same proposal.

Is it?

Yes.

Why did you propose it if I had already done so?

I was saying that we could refer to this matter next week.

The proposal is being made by Ms McWilliams and seconded by Ms Armitage. Is that agreed?

Will you read the proposal, Mr Chairperson?

The proposal is that we return to this matter next week.

When will the Committee be meeting Mr Gray?

We are asking Mr Gray to come to the Committee next week. Can we fit that in at next week's meeting? We will be going to Craigavon Area Hospital that morning.

Ms Armitage's proposal to meet Mr Gray was the first proposal. That is what we ought to be doing. The Committee is confused about the content of his note. There is no point in coming back next week to go through the whole thing again without Mr Gray being here.

We should leave the other outstanding matters relating to the Bill for the moment. Ms Armitage has made a proposal. Is there a seconder?

Yes.

Is that agreed?

Yes. My proposal was also adding that we leave the Bill now, and return to it having had time to read the paper that has been prepared for us. We can then ask questions.

Thank you very much everyone.