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

Mr P Simpson ) Department of Health,
Mr P Deazley ) Social Services and
Miss C Thompson ) Public Safety

I welcome Mr Paul Simpson, Mr Peter Deazley and Miss Clare Thompson from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

Members have questioned the short title of the Personal Social Services (Amendment) Bill and have asked why it should not refer to the contents of the Bill. Members asked whether the legislative draftsmen could be invited to speak to the Committee on the title of the Bill. Following advice, the Committee agreed that its questions should be directed to the Department.

The Department has responded and advised that the short title was chosen because the Bill deals with a number of issues. If all of those were included in the short title to ensure that it was accurate, that would defeat the purpose of the short title. Officials have indicated that, where possible, the Department tries to provide suitable descriptive titles for Bills. The matter has been considered at length over the past two weeks, and Members can now ask questions.

As the Chairperson says, we should direct our questions to the Department. It has provided advice, based on the legislative draft, on the reason for the title as it stands. I know that the Committee has some concerns, and one Member has raised several issues in past weeks. The Committee can table an amendment to the Bill, if it feels that that is necessary.

We discussed this matter several weeks ago and went around the houses on it. I am aware that the Committee cannot call for the person who drafted the Bill to appear before it, as that would be unprecedented. However, I do not accept that. The Committee can set its own agenda, and that would speed the process up, rather than going back and forward with Committee officials, possibly for several more weeks. I propose — and I know that Mr McFarland also feels passionately about this — that the Committee table an amendment to get around that when the Bill reaches Consideration Stage.

Amendment proposed: in page 10, line 2, leave out

"Personal Social Services (Amendment) Act"

and insert

"Carers, Disabled Children and Direct Payments Act" — [Ms Ramsey]

On 16 January, Members agreed that they were content with subsections 1 to 9. Subsection 10 says that decisions are to be made "without regard to the means of the carer". There were concerns about the definition of the word "means" and whether it referred solely to financial means. The Department’s response, which has been tabled for Members’ attention, states that reference to "means" in the Bill refers to direct payments only — references also occur at clause 6(3) and clause 7(3).

The paper that I sent to the Committee simply points out that "means" in this context refers to charging for non-residential personal social services as opposed to charging for residential care. In that case, there is no question of assets or property being taken into account; it is only income, and the same regulations apply as for income support.

I am satisfied with that.

The Department’s response states that income includes salaries, wages and some social security benefits, but it does not include attendance allowance or disability.

I would need to find out exactly which social security benefits are taken into account.

I am probably nit-picking.

Never.

I asked what means were considered, and I was concerned about assets being taken into account. As far as I understand it, this is the standard means test, and you have outlined the non-means-tested and means-tested benefits. That is in keeping with everything else.

Ms Ramsey, would you be happy with a letter on that matter?

Yes.

23 January 2002 /Menu / 13 February 2002