COMMITTEE FOR HEALTH, SOCIAL SERVICES AND PUBLIC SAFETY
OFFICIAL REPORT
(Hansard)
Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
13 September 2007
Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mrs Iris Robinson (Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Buchanan
Dr Kieran Deeny
Mr Alex Easton
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mrs Carmel Hanna
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín
Ms Sue Ramsey
Witnesses:
Mr John Farrell, Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety
Ms Christine Jendoubi, Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety
Mr Robert Kirkwood, Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety
Mr Donncha O’Carolan ) Acting Chief Dental Officer
The Chairperson (Mrs I Robinson):
I welcome the departmental officials, Christine, John, Robert and Donncha — I have found out how to pronounce that name. Members will recall that clauses 1 and 2 have been agreed. Members have been provided with much written material, including a copy of the Bill, a detailed commentary and a copy of extracts from any legislation that the Bill amends. Members will also recall that we took oral evidence from a number of groups before the summer recess, and further written submissions have been received over the summer.
I suggest that, in the main, Members should use the notes on clauses that the Department has prepared, which were circulated to Members last week, as well as the paper provided by the Committee staff.
The Committee will have a number of options when considering each of the clauses. Before choosing an option, I will invite the officials to outline briefly the purpose and meaning of the clause. Members can then, if they wish, seek clarification. Following discussions with officials on each clause and the potential that there might be for amendment, the Committee can consider the options available to it.
The first option is to decide whether it is content with the clause as drafted. The second is to agree the potential for an amendment and request that the Department consider the matter and report its position back to the Committee: by doing so, we effectively refer the clause for further consideration. In cases where an amendment is considered appropriate, we can invite the Department to indicate whether it would be willing to undertake the drafting of such an amendment. We will now begin the clause-by-clause scrutiny at clause 3.
Clause 3 (General dental services: transitional)
The Chairperson:
I invite officials to outline the meaning of this clause. Thereafter, questions will be taken.
Ms Christine Jendoubi (Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety):
This clause deals with general transitional provisions and provides for the transition between the existing contract for dentists and the new contract. It also provides that all practices will have the right to enter into a new contract. At the point of transition, the boards will not have, for example, the right to decide to which existing dental practices they will offer the new contract. All existing practices must be offered the contract. The clause ensures continuity of provision for patients so that they will not notice the transition between the old and new contracts.
We must organise matters so that the new contract will come into effect on the same day as the transitional arrangements that are provided for in the legislation. There must be no gap: the legislation must be ready for the new contract to come into effect. When the legislation comes into effect, the old contract will fall, so the new contract has to be ready on the same day. This clause provides for that transition.
The Chairperson:
The British Dental Association (BDA) has called for an Order made under clause 3(7) to be subject to an affirmative, rather than a negative, resolution procedure. What is your view on that?
Ms Jendoubi:
The draftsmen, rather than the Department, usually decide whether a clause will be subject to affirmative or negative resolution. In my experience, the affirmative resolution procedure is usually reserved for clauses that include a power to set fees, charges or financial penalties. We have no strong views on that matter, and we are happy to take a recommendation from the Committee.
The Chairperson:
If members are agreed, can I ask the panel about the relationship between negative resolution and affirmative resolution?
Ms Jendoubi:
“Affirmative resolution” means that the clause cannot go forward unless the Assembly votes in favour of it. “Negative resolution” means that the clause is put before the Assembly for a period of days, I think of 40 days, during which time the Assembly can pray against it. If no-one prays against it during that period, then it is carried.
The Chairperson:
We are covered. We do not lose out, we have a period of grace, then.
Mr Robert Kirkwood (Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety):
The transitional arrangements would require that at a stage before drafting, the Committee would be involved in the policy that was being set out. As Ms Jendoubi said, the difference between affirmative and negative resolution is that, with affirmative resolution, the legislation has to be approved by the Assembly and it is necessary to go before the Executive for approval to make the legislation. Although it is an Order, it is still subordinate legislation. With negative resolution, the policy intention included in it would come before the Committee, so you would have an opportunity then. Once the legislation had been made and was laid, the Committee would have another chance. Any Member could pray against it, and the legislation could be annulled at that stage, if that was what the Committee wanted.
The Chairperson:
Therefore, there is a window of opportunity.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
If we go for affirmative resolution, on the other hand, we give the prerogative to the Executive, and we have no recall. Is that correct?
Mr Kirkwood:
No. We would be going to the Executive first, in the affirmative —
Ms Ní Chuilín:
And then come back to us?
Mr Kirkwood:
Yes.
The Chairperson:
Am I correct in thinking that the Committee has a period after the Executive give their —
Mr Kirkwood:
Yes, but with negative resolution it would not need to go to the Executive. We would come to the Committee setting out the policy that was intended to be taken forward in the legislation.
The Chairperson:
Are members content?
Mrs Hanna:
We should go with whatever leaves us with most opportunity to come back. I find that it becomes very complicated when we ask a question. Sometimes the answers make it almost more complicated, because we get a lot of information back. Really, we want to leave it as open as possible so that we can come back if we feel it is necessary to do so. The Committee should choose whichever is most favourable to it and affords it the most opportunity to return to the issue.
The Chairperson:
If the clause provided for affirmative resolution an order for transitional provision would go to the Executive first and then we would have the opportunity to come back to it for a second time.
Question, that the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 (Charges for dental services)
The Chairperson:
I invite the officials to explain the meaning of the clause, and we will invite questions thereafter.
Ms Jendoubi:
Clause 4 provides for a change from the existing item-of-service payments to dentists to a new regime of charges. It removes paragraph 1A of schedule 15 to the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 — which provides for item-of-service payments — and inserts a new paragraph 1A that allows regulations to set out a new system of charging. It also inserts a new schedule 15A, which deals with exemptions, into the 1972 Order. Schedule 15A replaces article 26 of the Health and Social Services (Primary Care) ( Northern Ireland) Order 1997. Therefore, the exemptions in the primary legislation are all now contained in one Order. It does not add any new exemptions, and it does not change any of the exemptions that are already in force. That was the basis on which we consulted.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
Does it mean that people of 65 years of age and over will be exempt from charges?
Ms Jendoubi:
No, because they are not exempt at present. The basis that we consulted on —
Ms Ní Chuilín:
Was that the primary dental care strategy?
Ms Jendoubi:
Yes.
The Chairperson:
Do you want to expand on that, Carál?
Ms Ní Chuilín:
I believe that there should be exemptions for people aged 65 and over.
This may not be the time to discuss that; maybe we can do that when we go into the nitty-gritty of the dental contract.
Mr Donncha O'Carolan (Acting Chief Dental Officer):
Recommendation 5 of the primary dental care strategy, which the Department consulted on, was that the existing exempt groups should continue to receive free dental treatment. None of the groups that were consulted wanted the current exempt groups to be changed. No one wanted the over 65s to be exempt from dental charges. The Department drafted the legislation on that basis.
Ms S Ramsey:
That does not make it right. It is my birthday today and, although I am not 65 yet, I would like free dental treatment when I reach that age.
Mr Kirkwood:
There would be an expense attached to that. If a policy decision were made or an amendment tabled that over 65s should be included among exempt groups, the Minister would have to consider whether it was affordable and whether it was a priority compared to other priorities in the Health Service.
Dr Deeny:
What groups did you consult with prior to drafting the legislation?
Mr O’Carolan:
An extensive list of consultation groups is held in the Department. I do not know exactly how many groups are on it, but there are around 70 names.
Dr Deeny:
Did any of them say that over 65s should receive free dental care?
Mr O’Carolan:
None of them came back with that view. Free treatment for over 65s is not available anywhere else in the UK.
The Chairperson:
Are you saying that it is offered nowhere, not even in Scotland?
Mr O’Carolan:
Some areas offer free dental examinations. The Department costed free dental examinations at a total of £600,000. [This sentence could not be picked up properly due to mobile phone interference.] That is just for examinations; the cost of the treatment would run to millions.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
People have paid their stamps for most of their adult lives. At the age of 65, people would imagine that they would be able to get their dentures without paying. [This sentence could not be picked up properly due to mobile phone interference.]
The Chairperson:
Do you want it to be called?
Ms S Ramsey:
Free dental care for the over 65s needs to be explored. I understand that there are cost implications. However, elderly people receive free transport, free eyecare and free prescriptions. The fact that no other regions have taken action on free dental care for over the 65s should not stop us from leading the way. I do not mean to be flippant, but the fact that none of the consultation groups requested the measure should not stop us from introducing it either.
The Chairperson:
Can you give me an idea of how many in the population are over 65?
Ms Jendoubi:
I cannot answer that off the top of my head.
The Chairperson:
Do members agree that before the Committee takes any decision, we defer and come back to it, deo volente, next week? I suggest that a rough calculation is made to find out what the cost might be and the number of people that it would affect.
Dr Deeny:
Did you say that 70 groups were listed for consultation on the issue of dental charging?
Mr O’Carolan:
I do not know exactly how many are listed. The Department has a distribution list that all consultation documents have to go out to.
Dr Deeny:
Is Age Concern on that list?
Mr O’Carolan:
Yes, as far as I am aware, Age Concern is on the list.
The Chairperson:
Help the Aged is also on the list.
Mr O’Carolan:
It is a comprehensive list.
The Chairperson:
We shall set clause 4 aside and invite the witnesses to return and provide a report with further information.
Mr John Farrell (Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety):
Our population is ageing, and the number of people who are over 65 today may not reflect what the number will be in five or 10 years’ time. We should look forward a couple of years, if possible, and forecast what the future cost may be.
The Chairperson:
It would be appropriate to consider more than one year.
Ms S Ramsey:
Money can be saved by investing in health.
The Chairperson:
I am sure that that view is not just a personal crusade.
Clause 4 referred for further consideration.
Clause 5 (Provision of dental services: Article 15B arrangements)
The Chairperson:
Could you please talk us through clause 5, Ms Jendoubi?
Ms Jendoubi:
Clause 5 looks very daunting. It seems very complicated, but all it does is make minor technical amendments to existing articles 15B, 15C, 15D and 15F, under which boards can enter into arrangements for “personal dental services”: the clause changes that to “primary dental services”. As was mentioned during last week’s Committee meeting, primary dental services embraces both general dental services (GDS) and personal dental services — those being services for which boards can enter into contracts, except for general dental services that will be contracted for with each individual dentist. For example —
Mr O’Carolan:
Are you looking for examples of when personal dental services might be used?
Ms Jendoubi:
Yes.
Mr O’Carolan:
Under the new contract in England, all orthodontic treatment is carried out under the banner of personal dental services. However, other areas, such as out-of-hours care or when a preventative scheme is needed in a deprived area, are not covered under the heading of GDS. A specific tailor-made scheme could be set up to target such areas. That would offer a degree of flexibility for the future; GDS is a bit more rigid. This would allow other providers such as dental hygienists and dental therapists to deliver services alongside dentists.
The Chairperson:
The purpose is to protect the public.
Ms Jendoubi:
We do not currently have personal dental services in Northern Ireland, nor do we have a vision for them in primary legislation. We have never brought the provisions that already exist into force. Clause 6, which was also mentioned at last week’s meeting of the Committee, deals with piloting personal dental services. Clauses 5 and 6 together will remove the provision to pilot personal dental services, because we cannot foresee circumstances in which we would want to pilot that type of separate contract. That might be a fixed-term contract dealing with specific areas, and it is not the sort of arrangement that a health and social services board would want to pilot. A board would simply want to let the contract. Articles 15B, 15C, 15D and 15F will provide for personal dental services to be made permanent.
Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 (Revocation of power to make pilot schemes for provision of personal dental services)
Ms Jendoubi:
That is the clause that I have just mentioned.
Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 (Assistance and support for persons providing primary dental services)
Ms Jendoubi:
The boards currently have such powers in respect of general practitioners, but not dentists. Clause 7 gives boards the power, when a dentist is injured, off sick, or when there has been a fire at a dentist’s surgery, for example, to step in and appoint a locum to ensure that continuity of service is maintained.
The Chairperson:
The clause simply protects the continuation of services.
Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 (Ophthalmic services)
Ms Jendoubi:
Clause 8 provides for ophthalmic services what preceding clauses provide for general medical and dental services, in so far as it provides for them to be on a performers’ list for Northern Ireland.
It provides for the conditional inclusion, and contingent removal, of practitioners from the performers’ list, and it provides for suspension by boards in the same way as other family practitioners.
The Chairperson:
As in malpractices?
Ms Jendoubi:
Yes. It is on exactly the same grounds.
Dr Deeny:
Does that apply solely to optometrists? They used to be called opticians, but they are optometrists now.
The Chairperson:
They all have fancy names now.
Dr Deeny:
There can be confusion with ophthalmologists when we refer to “ophthalmic services”, but we are talking about optometrists.
Ms Jendoubi:
It is “persons providing general ophthalmic services”.
Dr Deeny:
But it is referring to optometrists?
Ms S Ramsey:
I am being blinded by science.
Ms Jendoubi:
To be honest, so am I. I understand that opticians did not like to be called opticians, but preferred to be called optometrists in the same way that chemists prefer to be called pharmacists.
The Chairperson:
They just like big words. That is what it boils down to.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
Perhaps the Chairperson is right. People say that they are going to the chemist’s, not to the pharmacist’s —
The Chairperson:
Or to their pharmaceutical adviser.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
You normally use the name of the shop that you get your glasses from, but we will not give anyone free advertising.
Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 (Local optical committees)
Ms Jendoubi:
There are local optical committees in the same way that there are local medical committees in Northern Ireland. At the moment ophthalmic medical practitioners are not included in local optical committees, and clause 9 provides for them to be included.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
Dispensing opticians are not included — we have just had this conversation.
Ms Jendoubi:
As I understand it, dispensing opticians are people who sell glasses. They do not actually examine your eyes.
Dr Deeny:
Therefore, a dispensing optician is not an optometrist?
Mrs Hanna:
Nor an optician.
Ms S Ramsey:
Yes, because you get your eyes tested there.
Dr Deeny:
The optician only sells the glasses.
Ms S Ramsey:
Most of them do eye tests as well.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
At the place where I get my glasses — which I will not name — I just walk in, get my eyes tested, get my glasses and walk out.
Mr Farrell:
An optometrist carries out the eye examination.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
And then a salesperson will sell the glasses?
Mr Farrell:
It would not be a salesperson. The dispensing optician will be responsible for ensuring that the lenses that you are prescribed have been done up in the correct way and are put into the glasses. Dispensing opticians do not actually carry out eye tests. They have their own separate role to play in the optician’s practice, but they cannot examine eyes.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
A bit like the hygienist in the dentist’s, really?
Mr O’Carolan:
My understanding is they can fit the glasses and dispense them, but they cannot examine your eyes.
The Chairperson:
Why are dispensing opticians not included, and is it appropriate for them to be included, in local optical committees?
Ms Jendoubi:
We can look at that and come back to the Committee.
The Chairperson:
Optometry Northern Ireland argues that it is anomalous that dispensing opticians do not have a statutory right to membership of local optical committees and has proposed an amendment to clause 9 to provide for that. The Committee wants to explore why dispensing opticians are not included and whether it is appropriate that they should be.
Can the Department examine that?
Mr Farrell:
The Department will examine that and come back to the Committee. Local medical and dental committees comprise either doctors or dentists. The Department wants optometrists — the people who carry out eye examinations — to sit on the local optical committees. Dental hygienists, for example, do not sit on dental committees. One must read across to specify what professions should have places on committees.
Mrs Hanna:
I think that there is a difference. An optometrist examines eyes. However, a dispensing optician fills out prescriptions and measures it all up. I do not wish to denigrate what dental hygienists do, but I think that dispensing opticians have a much more technical role.
Ms Jendoubi:
Optometrists are on the local optical committees.
Mrs Hanna:
Surely dispensing opticians are arguing to be on the committees.
Ms Jendoubi:
You have described optometrists, who are already on the committees.
Mrs Hanna:
So dispensing opticians do not fill out prescriptions; they do not measure?
Ms Jendoubi:
Exactly.
Mrs Hanna:
When I get my eyes checked, one person examines them and another person works out what the prescription should be. Certainly, at the practice that I go to, it seems very much like teamwork: one person examines my eyes and the other does somewhat more than simply choose the frames.
Dr Deeny:
Clarity on that is needed. GPs get referrals from optometrists. They are synonymous with opticians of the past. However, the Committee is hearing the term “dispensing optician”, which is confusing. My understanding is that a dispensing optician is not qualified to examine the back of someone’s eyes. That must be made clear, because, until now, people have understood opticians and optometrists to be synonymous. That is not the case. A dispensing optician is not a qualified optometrist. Can the Department provide clarity on that? Indeed, is the term “optician” a proper description of someone who is just selling glasses?
Mr Farrell:
I believe that opticians do more than simply sell glasses.
Mrs Hanna:
That is the point that I have tried to make.
Mr Farrell:
Dispensing opticians ensure that a prescription is made up correctly and that the fitment is correct. They do not carry out eye examinations or assess whether a person’s eyesight is strengthening or weakening. They do not determine what prescription lens a patient needs. The optometrist does that. Optometrists are also able to refer their patients to secondary care, whereas dispensing opticians cannot do that because they are not able to examine the eyes.
The Chairperson:
Members agree that the Department will provide more information on that.
Clause 9 referred for further consideration.
Clause 10 (Pharmaceutical services)
Ms Jendoubi:
Clause 10 largely consolidates the provisions for pharmaceutical services that are already in the Health and Personal Social Services ( Northern Ireland) Order 1972. However, over and above that, it makes the same provisions for pharmacists that the previous clause made for optometrists and ophthalmic services: the performers’ list; conditional inclusion and contingent removal; and suspension. We want provisions to be consistent throughout family practitioners services.
The Chairperson:
The Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland argues that the provision adds further confusion to the regulation of pharmacists and feels that it will cause duplication. Can you respond to that?
Ms Jendoubi:
It depends what it means by “duplication”. If it means duplication of the role of the regulatory body and the role of the tribunal, the Department argues that there is none. That was discussed last week. I do not know what else the society might mean by duplication.
The Chairperson:
Could we defer that? A delegation from the Pharmaceutical Society will address the Committee later.
Clause 10 referred for further consideration.
Clause 11 (Disqualification by the Tribunal)
Ms Jendoubi:
This clause covers schedule 1 of the Bill, which amends schedule 11 to the 1972 Order in relation to the provisions for the tribunal. We will come to that in a moment.
The Chairperson:
Is the Committee content with the clause as drafted?
Ms Ní Chuilín:
I know that we discussed that before; however, the issue of suspension and neutrality seems to be a neutral act.
Ms Jendoubi:
We will get to that when we discuss the amendments to that schedule. This is just the covering clause.
Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 (Charges for services provided to persons not ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland)
Ms Jendoubi:
This is a humanitarian provisions clause. It is extant already in other parts of the United Kingdom and is a parity measure. It provides that, when someone has been allowed to come into the country for a course of treatment, the Secretary of State or, in our case, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, can determine that, on humanitarian grounds, that person should not be charged. The reasons for being brought in for treatment must include the fact that the treatment is not available in the person’s own country. For example, specialist services, or some cutting-edge technology, might be provided by the Royal Victoria Hospital.
The Chairperson:
Someone may be classed as a “bleeder” and may not be able to have a tooth extracted unless senior consultants are on hand.
Mr Kirkwood:
It will be only for treatment that is not available in the person’s home country.
The Chairperson:
I use that as an example of a specialist treatment that may not be available in other countries.
Mr Kirkwood:
The provision allows for that person to come over here to be treated and for the Department to consider if he or she should be charged.
The Chairperson:
On the other hand, does it open the floodgates? You must prove that it cannot be —
Mr Kirkwood:
Specific criteria will be set down in regulations. As Christine said, the first requirement is that the treatment is not available in the person’s home country.
Mrs Hanna:
My query may be covered in some other part of the legislation. Will that provision cover emergency treatment for toothache for someone visiting the country? Is that covered anywhere?
Mr Kirkwood:
That is covered in “persons not ordinarily resident”.
Mrs Hanna:
It is covered?
Mr Kirkwood:
A person can receive emergency treatments during a temporary stay in Northern Ireland. Legislation already covers that.
Ms S Ramsey:
Christine, did you say that this is not available in other parts of England, Scotland and Wales?
Ms Jendoubi:
I said that it is.
The Chairperson:
We are coming into line.
Ms S Ramsey:
Sorry. Such a provision is a good idea, on the basis that we should have top-of-the-range, merged services, as long as it is not abused.
Mr Easton:
Will this “humanitarian grounds” provision apply only to serious cases or could it be used for simple things?
Ms Jendoubi:
Ordinarily, simple things are available in the person’s own country. An example might be a youngster who has been caught in a bomb blast in Iraq and who is then brought to Northern Ireland because surgeons here have specialist skills, or a child born with a severe abnormality that specialist plastic surgeons here have skills to treat.
The Chairperson:
Is that like the dental surgery that is required to correct a cleft palate?
Dr Deeny:
On that costing, I know that the charge is waived for someone coming in from another country where the treatment is not available, but is the country not charged? For example, if someone from Canada — a wealthy country — came for neurosurgery in the Royal Victoria Hospital, will that country not be charged for the treatment?
Ms Jendoubi:
This clause deals with exceptional humanitarian grounds, and “exceptional” means just that. Someone coming to Northern Ireland for treatment that is not available in another country would not necessarily attract the use of that clause. There would have to be something particular about the treatment that would move the Department to regard it as exceptional in that way.
The Chairperson:
The member picked a bad example. Canada would be able to cope with all kinds of dental work.
Dr Deeny:
Is it for people from poor countries? Is that what you are saying?
Ms Jendoubi:
Treatment would have to be examined on a case-by-case basis.
The Chairperson:
Do you feel that the wording ties down what it actually means?
Mr Kirkwood:
The clause more or less brings Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the UK, where it has currently fallen behind. The provision would probably be used more in London, for example, where there are specialist hospitals. It would be used more there than for patients transferring to Northern Ireland for specialist treatment.
Dr Deeny:
Does a similar arrangement exist in America, for example?
Mr Kirkwood:
There is reciprocity among various countries in relation to the Health Service.
Dr Deeny:
Last week, the Committee met one patient who is now in Chicago having treatment that is not available here. I wonder whether we can draw a comparison, when there is no available treatment here.
Ms Jendoubi:
I am afraid that I cannot comment on whether the Americans should charge that patient.
Ms S Ramsey:
Why the NHS?
The Chairperson:
That is a fair point; the family are paying half the cost of treatment, and we are asking the Department to pay the other half. However, that is another issue that we have not sorted out.
Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 (Retirement of practitioners)
Ms Jendoubi:
The Committee may be familiar with this clause and its import already. The Department came to the Committee before the summer recess with the underpinning regulations for this clause. It will remove from the primary legislation the requirement for age restrictions for dental practitioners and GPs. The GP age restriction is no longer in effect, and the restriction on dental practitioners is the only one left. Dental practitioners were required to retire at 70 years of age, which is against the European directive that deals with discrimination on the grounds of age. Therefore, the Department is asking for it to be removed.
Dr Deeny:
GPs will be able to work forever or until we drop?
Ms S Ramsey:
Dr Deeny will be OK; he can work for another 40 years.
Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 (Minor and consequential amendments)
Ms Jendoubi:
This clause deals with small technical amendments that are necessary for the interpretation of the 1972 Order. For example, “Article 17C” should be replaced with “section 17C”, because that was a mistake in the original Order. There is nothing of import.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
I do not understand what this clause is about.
Mr Kirkwood:
It is a clause that can be included in any primary legislation. It is a standard type of clause, similar to Clause 16, which deals with interpretation. They are clauses that pick up on any minor or consequential amendment that is needed because articles are being changed.
Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
The Chairperson:
If I may, we will finish there, because we have other deputations from which to hear. Next Thursday, we hope to consider the remainder of the clauses, as well as the two schedules and the long title, thereby completing the Committee Stage of the Bill. I thank you for your attendance.
Ms Jendoubi:
Thank you very much.