Members present:

Dr Hendron (Chairperson)
Mr Berry
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr J Kelly
Ms McWilliams
Ms Ramsey
Mrs I Robinson

Witness:

Mr P Deazley ) Department of Health, Social
Services and Public Safety

The Chairperson: Clause 1 will be considered first, as agreed last week, followed by the remaining clauses. I propose to complete the consideration of the remaining clauses today, if possible.

The Committee welcomes Mr Peter Deazley from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. The Committee’s concerns are centred on the consultation on the professional assessment tool, the fast-track review and the appeal mechanism and the payment system. Last week, you said that you would give the Committee further information today.

Mr Deazley: I had expected to be able to bring the documentation today, but the Minister is still approving the consultation document. Approval is taking this length of time because the document is large. I had expected it to be approved in time for today’s meeting. For it to be of any use, the Committee would need to go through the document.

The Chairperson: Have you anything to add that was not covered last week?

Mr Deazley: No.

Ms McWilliams: We have known about the report for some time. When was it finalised?

Mr Deazley: The final piece of the report had to be written by Prof Brendan McCormack, who designed and piloted the tool. It was completed two weeks ago.

Ms McWilliams: Knowing that the legislation was going through the Assembly and that the tool went hand in hand with the legislation, I am concerned that the Committee has been delayed in completing consideration of the legislation. With the legislation being considered by the Committee, one would have thought that the Department would have issued a timescale in parallel with the legislation so that everything could have been completed by now.

The Chairperson: That is very disappointing. However, we must proceed, as time is passing.

The Chairperson: There is an amendment concerning consultation on the professional assessment tool. Mr Deazley has said that he has nothing to add. The Committee was asked to agree to a provision for financial assistance for nursing care costs and to agree the definition of what constitutes nursing care in advance of detailed written information based on the assurances of officials. Members will want to confirm those points with officials, as we discussed last week.

Members may wish to consider whether the Committee should recommend an amendment to the Bill that would require the Department to issue its guidance by means of Statutory Rules. That would ensure that the Assembly and the Committee would have the opportunity to consider and formally agree any guidance or appeal mechanism prior to its being implemented. This would allow the Committee to agree to clause 1 with a greater degree of confidence in advance of the details being made available.

Members should note that the draft amendment is a working proposal that has been drafted without legislative drafting advice, and it may not be technically competent. Advice is also needed on how and where it should be placed in the Bill in the context of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. Members could discuss and agree the amendment even though it may not be technically correct. That has happened before. That could be done at a later stage via Mr Deazley and the relevant people, but is open to discussion.

Ms Ramsey: This issue has probably arisen in relation to every Bill we have discussed. We are all representatives and know the way boards and trusts work; we all know that those entitled to something are not always aware of the fact. We introduced a clause into the Carers and Direct Payments Bill to the effect that responsibility to inform people of their entitlements should lie with the trust. The proposed amendment does not strike me as being in any way different from what we did with other Bills. I know that the question of placing the onus on the Department, the board or the trust to inform people of their entitlements was raised with the Committee Clerk at the start of deliberations on this Bill. Unless I am reading the issue wrongly, I have no problem with placing responsibility on the trust or relevant authority to ensure that it informs people of their exact entitlements, rather than assuming that it will do so.

The Committee Clerk: The proposed amendment, which takes accounts of members’ points, is essentially intended to require the Department to provide for guidance, directions and so on by means of a statutory instrument which would have to come through the Assembly and the Committee. The Committee would, therefore, have the opportunity formally to agree whatever guidance or payment arrangements were put into place. It does not specifically identify a requirement on the part of trusts or boards to publicise the information. Based on the evidence given by officials, they are arranging for boards to identify all those residents currently entitled. It is therefore not quite the same as the previous amendment that we made, since it is proactive.

Ms Ramsey: If we ask the Department to bring the guidance to us, we shall at least have another shot at ensuring that the requirement is part of it.

The Committee Clerk: Yes.

The Chairperson: Yes, that is possible. Do we have enough time left?

The Committee Clerk: The Committee must complete the Committee Stage of the Bill by 7 June. We are running late. We need to put the draft report before the Committee for agreement. It must be lodged with the Business Office by 7 June. If we went ahead with an amendment on this basis, it would allow the Committee to consider all the other issues when they come forward from the Department. The Bill is essentially a provision to ensure equity of treatment for nursing home residents. That is in clause 1, and the details will have to follow; the Committee will wish to see them.

The Chairperson: Are members agreed that we should try to amend the Bill? The technicalities of the amendment will, of course, have to be considered further.

Ms McWilliams: Given that the deadline is 7 June, I feel that we have been put in an absolutely ridiculous position. We have neither the tool of assessment nor the payment systems before us for discussion. We are sitting here scrutinising legislation with two massive pieces of information missing, yet the deadline is 7 June. It is absolutely outrageous, and if we continue to act in this manner with other pieces of legislation, we may as well pack up and go home. The amendment is based on the content of two documents that are supposed to come forward to us. We are having an irrelevant discussion about an amendment based on whether what the Department produces is adequate.

The Chairperson: The assessment tool was a key point.

Mr J Kelly: Perhaps I might ask Mr Deazley when he thinks the statutory instrument will be introduced.

Mr Deazley: I would rather not make any more promises. In defence of the Department, I should point out that the assessment tool was entirely in the hands of professionals. It was being run entirely by Prof Brendan McCormack. We in the Department could not move on the issue until we had received the documentation. As far as I can remember, we got the report on the pilot about a fortnight ago.

Mr J Kelly: So you are not going to hazard a guess.

Mr Deazley: As I have said, I expected to be able to lay out the consultation document and the submission on the payment system today. It is a big document for the Minister to go through by herself.

The Chairperson: Our choice is to postpone it again — and it seems terrible to do that — or agree that we are content with the clause, subject to the Committee’s proposed amendment.

Ms McWilliams: I propose that we postpone it. If we need to have extra meetings before the deadline, we will do so. We are not in a position to take this forward without two major decisions being made by the Department.

Clause 1 referred for further consideration.