Northern Ireland Assembly

Health and Personal Social Services Bill: Consideration Stage

I trust that Members have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments. I draw Members' attention to the corrigendum - a correction to the wording of amendment 6. I will remind Members of this when we come to it.

We also have a grouping of amendments. I ask Members to refer to that grouping in the debate. Knowing that not all Members have fully participated on a regular basis in Consideration Stages, I simply point out that we take the amendments in turn.

There are four groups. We will debate the amendments referred to in each group. The first debate will be on amendments 1 and 2, the second on amendments 3 and 6, the third on amendment 4, and the fourth on amendment 5.

However, the voting on the amendments will come in the order in which they appear. We will vote on each clause on its own, in the context where there is no amendment, or subsequent to the amendment being voted upon.

No amendments having been tabled to clauses 1 to 20, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group them for the purposes of voting.

I beg to move amendment 1: In page 11, after line 2, leave out subsection (3).

No 2 (clause 22): In page 11, line 15, leave out "18" and insert "17". - [Dr Hendron]

The Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee considered the Bill, which covers 19 different issues, over a period of six weeks last November and December. As Members will have read in the Committee's report, many important issues were raised during the deliberations. The Committee was satisfied that these issues had been carefully considered by the Department before the Bill was drafted, with wide consultation having taken place on some and on-going discussions on the detail of others. I am assured that the Committee will be consulted further before these are finalised.

Although they were not part of the Bill, two important issues were raised during deliberations, which are important enough to bring to the attention of the House and to which my amendments relate.

The first covers the ambiguity in the use of the term "residential care". Whilst appreciating that planning applications are the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, the Committee wishes to highlight that the term appears to have a different legal meaning in planning legislation to that used by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in the Registered Homes (Northern Ireland) Order 1992.

On behalf of the Committee, I have written to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister asking for the matter to be discussed by the Executive. If the matter is not resolved, it will have serious implications for those wishing to appeal against planning applications. This morning, I received a reply from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and I will be bringing this up with the Committee on Wednesday.

A prime example is the establishment of Brindley House, a private children's home in county Fermanagh, which obtained planning permission for a residential care home under the Department of Environment's planning regulations. Local residents understood that it was to be a home for the elderly and they were concerned when it turned out to be a children's home. However, it was too late to raise objections.

There is a great need for many more children's homes, as my Committee indicated in our recent report on residential and secure accommodation and local communities must be prepared to accept more children's homes if children in care are to remain in their own areas. However, it is most important that planning applications are clear and do not lead to misunderstandings.

Amendment number 2 refers to the discrepancy in the upper age limit between the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 - which defines a child as a person under the age of 18 years - and the Criminal Justice (Children) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 - which defines an adult as a person who has attained the age of 17.

The Committee is aware that criminal justice is a reserved matter, but feels very strongly that young people in Northern Ireland, especially those in care, should not be required to attend adult court sessions or be held in adult jails at the age of 17.

I have written to the Secretary of State in my capacity as Committee Chairperson, strongly recommending that he revisits this matter during the ongoing criminal justice review. I seek the support of Assembly Members and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to raise this important issue with the appropriate authorities.

I support the amendments. As the Chairperson said in relation to amendment 2, the discrepancy is a matter for the Northern Ireland Office. The other ambiguity he referred to concerns two Departments - the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Department of Environment - which have devolved responsibilities and which are adopting different approaches leading to ambiguity about the terms used to describe children's residential homes.

This issue came to light in my own constituency with the case of Brindley House. The planning application for that development came before the local council in the normal way, and it was described as a "residential home". Planning was subsequently approved. Thereafter, it became clear that the development was for a children's residential home, and there was considerable controversy and protest involving residents in the vicinity. Locally elected representatives were called to account and asked why approval had been given without any questions being asked. Most of my colleagues on Fermanagh District Council had assumed that it was residential accommodation for the elderly.

There is an ambiguity, and local people affected see it as a shortcoming in the planning process and as something that requires particular attention. Such applications, when they are submitted, should specifically state the purpose of the development. Everyone understands that there is a need for residential accommodation for children in care, and that it must be provided for somewhere in the local community. However, the co-operation of local people is important, and that is more likely to be forthcoming where there is clarity surrounding the application. Therefore, this amendment is necessary if we are to avoid a repetition of the experience in Fermanagh where local people were, and remain, dissatisfied about the development. The Executive should tidy up this issue because it is a devolved matter for the Administration and the two Departments that I identified.

Go raibh maith agat. I want to briefly clear up a wee issue which the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety mentioned.

In case there is any confusion, I want to put on record that the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee is not against the need for residential homes. From the outset, there is a need for consultation with all interested parties. Brindley House has been mentioned. However, I do not think that the issue is about whether that was an elderly people's home or a children's home. The issue is about planning applications and the need to reword them so that residents and elected representatives can be involved from the start in order to avoid confusion.

Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis an Chathaoirleach agus le baill an Choiste as a mbreithniú cúramach ar an Bhille. Ó thaobh leasú uimhir a haon de, caithfidh an Bille reatha agus an reachtaíocht seirbhísí sóisialta i gcoitinne grúpaí éagsúla cliant a aithint sa téarmaíocht a úsáidtear. Tá seo riachtanach le cinntiú go bhfuil ár gcreatlach rialacháin fóirsteanach do réimse leathan riachtanas éagsúil. Ní thig liom labhairt ar son na Roinne Comhshaoil, ach samhlaítear domh go bhféadfadh deacrachtaí a bheith ann dá mbeadh an téarmaíocht chéanna in úsáid go forleathan. Tá mé ag dréim le toradh an chomhfhreagrais idir an Cathaoirleach agus an Chéad-Aire agus an LeasChéad-Aire ar an ábhar a fheiceáil.

Ó thaobh leasú uimhir a dó de, is feasach domh gur scríobh an Cathaoirleach chuig an Stát-Rúnaí maidir le sainmhíniú "páiste" i reachtaíocht an dlí choiriúil agus maidir le páistí a choinneáil i bpríosúin aosacha. Aithním na hábhair chúraim a thóg an Coiste agus beidh suim agam cinnte i bhfeagra an Stát-Rúnaí.

I thank the Chairperson and members of the Committee for their careful consideration of the Bill. With regard to amendment No 1, the present Bill and social services legislation generally must recognise different client groups in the terminology used. That is necessary to ensure that our regulatory framework is appropriate to widely differing needs. I cannot speak for the Department of the Environment, but I suspect that there may be difficulties in using the same terminology across the board. I look forward to seeing the outcome of the correspondence between the Speaker and the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on the issue.

With regard to amendment No. 2, I am aware that the Chairperson has written to the Secretary of State regarding the definition of "child" in criminal justice legislation and about the holding of children in adult prisons. I recognise the concerns that have been raised by the Committee, and I will be interested to see the response from the Secretary of State.

I thank Mr Tommy Gallagher, Ms Sue Ramsey and the Minister for their helpful comments. I put down the amendments on behalf of the Committee in order to highlight the two matters. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw amendment 1.

Members who have not so far involved themselves in much consideration of legislation may not be aware of the different reasons for putting down amendments. Members will, of course, put down amendments with the intention of pressing them to agreement or to a Division, to ensure that they are incorporated in the Bill. However, Members may also table probing amendments. That is the case with the current amendment, as has been indicated by the Member's request for leave to withdraw. If a matter cannot be discussed or debated unless there is an amendment to speak to, an amendment will be tabled. A probing discussion will take place, at the end of which the Member begs leave to withdraw. It is, of course, the case that the Member must have leave to withdraw.

There are two amendments in this group. One has been moved by the Member, who has now begged leave to withdraw it; the second has not yet been moved. When we come to the second amendment, Dr Hendron will simply say "Not moved" - I assume that on the basis of what he has just said. Many Members are familiar with legislation, but not everyone is, and we are trying to move forward together.

Is amendment 2 moved?

Not moved.

No amendments to clauses 23 to 38 have been tabled. I therefore propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group those clauses.

No amendments to clauses 39 to 43 have been tabled. By leave of the Assembly, I will group those clauses.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Molaim leasuithe uimhir a trí agus a sé.

Ó thaobh leasú uimhir a trí de, ciallaíonn an leasú seo ar alt 44, chomh maith le haisghairm mhír 16(d) Sceideal 3 den Ordú 1991, nárbh fhéidir dúshlán na Roinne a thabhairt ar a cumhachtaí iontaobhais SSS a dhíriú maidir le téarmaí agus coinníollacha dá bhfoireann.

I beg to move amendment 3: In page 30, after line 21, insert

No 6 (schedule 5): In page 59, after line 34, column 2, insert

Amendment 3 to clause 44 and the associated repeal of paragraph 16(d) of schedule 3 to the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 remove any possibility of challenge to the Department's powers to direct health and social services trusts on terms and conditions of service for their staff.

It has been recognised for some time that the general powers of direction contained in paragraph 6 of schedule 3 were considerably less robust than had been envisaged. That was because the Department could only direct trusts in matters in which it had already directed boards and agencies. Accordingly, the original formulation of the Bill contained provisions designed to strengthen the departmental power of direction by requiring trusts to comply with any directions given by the Department on the exercise of its functions. That provision, which is significantly more robust than the original, will be retained in the Bill and will enable the Department to direct trusts on such matters as the delivery of ministerial priorities in relation to service provision.

However, doubts persisted that that general power of direction may be susceptible to legal challenge so long as there was an expressed freedom contained in paragraph 16(d) of schedule 3. That enabled trusts to determine their own terms and conditions of service without any further qualification. Accordingly, the amendment now proposed retains the freedom of trusts to employ such staff as they see fit. That will cover areas such as numbers and grades of staff. It also retains the freedom of trusts to develop individual pay schemes or to vary the terms and conditions of service of their staff. However, it makes it clear that in such matters the Department's powers of direction under paragraph 6 take precedence.

It is likely that the new power of direction in relation to terms and conditions of service will be applied in the first instance to the introduction of the new pay and grading system for senior executives, which is currently being developed in conjunction with the NHS confederation.

Ó thaobh leasú uimhir a sé de, tá aisghairm fomhír (d) de mhír 16 Sceideal 3 den Ordú 1991de bharr an leasaithe ar alt 44(2), an chumhacht le hiontaobhais a dhíriú maidir le híocaíocht. Tá sé de nádúr teicniúil agus ní bhaineann sé le cuspóirí pholasaí an Bhille.

The repeal of sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 16 of schedule 3 to the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 is consequential on the amendment to clause 44(2) - the power to direct trusts as to remuneration. Amendment No 6 is technical in nature and does not affect the policy aims of the Bill. Molaim leasuithe uimhir a trí agus a sé.

Amendment 3 - moved or not moved?

Moved.

I beg to move amendment 4: In page 35, leave out lines 19 to 31 and insert

(1C) If the Commissioner discloses information as permitted by paragraph (1B) he shall -

(a) where he knows the identity of the subject, inform the subject -

(i) that he has disclosed the information; and

(ii) of the identity of any person to whom he has disclosed it; and

(b) inform the person from whom the information was obtained that he has disclosed it.'."

Molaim leasú uimhir a ceathair. Aithníodh an gá leis an leasú seo nuair a bhí an Bille faoi bhreithniú ag an Choiste. Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis an Chathaoirleach agus le baill an Choiste arís as a mbreithniú cúramach ar an Bhille. Ceapadh an leasú seo leis na tosca a shoiléiriú ina bhféadfaidh an Coimisinéir um Ghearáin faisnéis a nochtadh a fuair sé le linn imscrúdú. Ní bhaineann sé le cuspóirí pholasaí an Bhille.

The need for this amendment was identified during the Committee Stage of the Bill, and once again I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Chairperson and the members of the Committee for their careful consideration of the Bill. The amendment is designed to clarify the circumstances in which the Commissioner for Complaints may disclose information obtained by him in the course of an investigation. The information is to the effect that a person is likely to constitute a threat to the health or safety of service users, and the proposed amendment would clarify to whom the information may be disclosed. Provision is also made that if the identity of the person who may represent a danger to health is known, he or she must be told that the information has been disclosed and to whom it has been disclosed. Any subsequent action would be for an employer through normal disciplinary procedures or any person with whom the person is in contract. The amendment does not reflect any change in the policy aims of the Bill. Molaim leasú uimhir a ceathair.

I support the amendment to clause 50. While considering the Bill during the Committee Stage members of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee discussed this clause with officials from the Department. Committee members agreed that the words used in the clause were difficult to understand and proposed that they be amended to clarify the meaning behind the clause. The Committee is pleased that the Minister has seen fit to put down the amendment, which we support.

Does the Minister wish to respond?

I will merely acknowledge that this should make matters considerably clearer. I am glad to hear from the Chairperson, Dr Hendron, that it appears to have clarified matters for him.

Amendment 4 - moved or not moved?

Moved.

I beg to move amendment 5: In page 36, line 37 after "trust;" insert

Molaim leasú uimhir a cúig. Aithníodh an gá leis an leasú seo fosta nuair a bhí an Bille faoi bhreithniú ag an Choiste. Chuirfeadh an leasú comhairlí sláinte agus seirbhísí sóisialta ar liosta na bhforas SSSP a chaithfidh cruinnithe oscailte a thionól. Cuireadh comhairlí ar bun faoin Health and Personal Social Services Order 1991 le leasanna an phobail ina gceantair a ionadú. Is é cleachtas reatha gach comhairle, agus í ag comhlíonadh an tsainchúraim seo, an pobal a ligean isteach chuig a cruinnithe uilig. Chinnteodh an leasú go mbeadh teacht isteach ag an phobal chuig cruinnithe comhairle ar an bhonn reachtúil céanna leis na forais eile. Ní bhaineann sé le cuspóirí pholasaí an Bhille.

The need for this amendment was also identified during the Committee's Consideration Stage of the Bill. The amendment would add health and social services councils to the list of health and personal social services bodies who must hold open meetings. Councils were set up under the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 to represent the interests of the public in their area. In keeping with this remit it is the current practice of each council to allow public access to all its meetings.

The amendment would ensure that public access to council meetings is on a similar statutory basis to the other bodies. The amendment does not reflect any change in the policy aims of the Bill. Molaim leasú uimhir a cúig.

I support the amendment to clause 54. While considering the Bill during the Committee Stage, members of our Committee wondered why the health and social services councils were not included in the list of health and social service bodies covered by the Bill. Members agreed that an amendment to the clause was necessary to rectify the matter. The Committee is pleased that the Minister felt able to put down the amendment, and I thank her for it.

I will try to be as brief as possible, perhaps even more brief than the Chairperson of the Health Committee. As the Chairperson said, this was one of the matters that I raised in the Committee, and I am glad that this amendment has been put forward. I trust that Members will support it. It is important that health councils are included. At a time when we hear greater calls for accountability in the health service, it is most important that the councils are brought on board. If, as they say, they represent the public's views when decisions are being made about our services, it is most important that each and every one of our Members backs this amendment.

I feel that it is important to address the points raised by Committee members, and to ensure that even though health and social service councils do allow public access to all of their meetings at present, such access will now be on the same or similar statutory basis to other bodies.

An amendment to schedule 5 - number 6 - has already been debated.

In page 59, after line 34, column 2, insert

That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Health and Personal Social Services Bill, which now stands referred to the Speaker.

New Valuation List Order 2000

The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr Durkan): I beg to move

That this Assembly approves the New Valuation List Order (Northern Ireland) 2000.

This is a very straightforward Order, containing just one substantive article. Article 2 specifies the financial year ending on 31 March 2003 as the year in which a new valuation list will be issued for rating purposes. The new list will contain updated rateable values applicable to commercial properties throughout Northern Ireland. A few brief remarks about revaluation may provide Members with some background and help to place the Order in its proper context.

The basis on which commercial properties are valued in Northern Ireland, for rating purposes, is the same as that used in England, Wales, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland - the estimated rental value of the property at a fixed point in time. The last revaluation in Northern Ireland was carried out in the mid-1990s, and the new valuation list came into force on 1 April 1997 based on rental values as they existed on 1 April 1995.

Since this list came into effect the level and pattern of those 1995 values has been maintained. This means that an altered property, or a new property coming onto the list for the first time, is assessed on the basis of the value it would have had almost six years ago, reflecting the physical state and economic circumstances of the locality at that time.

However, as we all know, property values have changed over the past six years, and as a result, the valuation list is becoming progressively out of date. Value changes are not confined merely to the effects of inflation over this period but, more importantly, are also caused by social, environmental and economic factors. These have created shifts in the relative values of property today, compared with the pattern of assessments in the current list. These shifts are widespread and exist within and between different classes of property and between one location and another.

The continuing use of rateable values, based on outdated rental values, acts to distort the fair distribution of the rate burden between individual ratepayers - for example, businesses in areas which have experienced relative economic decline since the last revaluation will now be paying too much in rates whereas businesses which have benefited from improved economic conditions in the intervening years will now be paying too little. The decrease in credibility of the list cannot be corrected without a revaluation.

A five-yearly cycle of revaluations has been established in Great Britain in recent years. The currency of the Northern Ireland list will fall further behind those in Great Britain if a local revaluation is not carried out now. After many years the South is also moving towards regular revaluations, which have been accepted as a normal and routine part of any fair and equitable rating system.

A revaluation now in Northern Ireland will deliver greater equity and fairness. It will also greatly reduce instances of the dramatic rate swings which, as Members recall, were an unfortunate feature of the last revaluation, and which resulted in some individuals facing very large rate increases.

I intend that the new valuation list should be issued not later than 31 December next year and come into force on 1 April 2003. The Order we are considering today will enable that to happen, and I commend it to the Assembly.

I welcome the Minister's statement. Many business people throughout Northern Ireland will welcome the notice of motion about the New Valuation List Order. About three years ago there was a review of the rating valuations for business premises across Northern Ireland. This review was conducted after a 21-year gap. The result for many retail businesses, particularly in district and regional towns, has been, in many cases, catastrophic.

Some people experienced a doubling of their rates bill - some high street retailers experienced a trebling of their rates bill. Many of them have gone out of business. Many high street businesses, particularly the small independent retailers, felt that the last revaluation worked to their detriment. I agree with the Minister that it was imbalanced. Some retailers benefited, but others, particularly those in the high-street-independent-retailer category, suffered. I welcome the statement, and I urge the Minister and his officials to expedite this matter. It is just a pity that we have to wait until 2003.

I welcome the fact that there will be a five-year revaluation cycle in Northern Ireland similar to that in Great Britain. Many retailers will look forward to that, particularly those in smaller towns.

This is a golden opportunity to look at the revaluation of non-domestic properties especially in light of the white paper - the Government's notification document - circulating around the councils. While, ostensibly the paper is only for notification purposes, it is timely in that it focuses attention on the need to reconsider valuations in rural communities throughout the Province. Would the Minister shed some light on that?

I want to highlight the plight and the importance of rural post offices and village shops. The white paper indicates that across the water a 50% reduction in rates is being considered because of the community aspect of some businesses. We should look very seriously at the needs of post offices and small shops, and the community roles they play in villages in Northern Ireland.

The proposed 8% regional increase has many of those in small shops and post offices carefully considering their futures. For many of them, the increase will be too much to bear and some will probably go to the wall. That will have a direct impact on our rural communities, especially villages that have the post office or the small shop at their centres. They provide a great service to the local community and while they do not make a lot of money - they never will because they do not have sufficient numbers of people - they do provide something that is valuable. We must also look at the fierce competition from the large superstores. Not everyone can travel, and for some people the post office and small shop are an integral part of their lives. The Assembly took a unanimous decision to support rural post offices because Members also believe that there is a tangible benefit for the whole community

Across the water, people are looking at a 50% rate reduction. I ask the Minister to look seriously at that as an option for post offices and shops thereby breathing life back into villages where problems of increasing overheads press on them. Many look upon the spectre of a regional rate increase as the final nail in the coffin.

As elected representatives - especially those of us who represent country areas such as the Ards Peninsula, where post offices and small shop are an integral part of the community - we need to help our constituents. This is the opportunity to do that, and I ask the Minister to consider a 50% reduction - the same as that proposed across the water. That would represent a shot in the arm and breathe life back into the villages we represent.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>