Simon Hamilton
Strangford · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I have emphasised to the Member and the House before, that, whilst I accept that those are not good enough — that is why we have been developing the plan — there are alternative technologies in place that can present opportunities for those who just cannot get acceptable speeds.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. There are some initiatives that I believe will help and act as a driver to improve broadband access. One such intervention is the broadband universal service obligation (USO), which is being taken forward by Her Majesty's Government.”
“I thank the Member for his question. However, he is conflating two issues. I wrote to his party leader, and indeed to all Assembly party leaders, before making the announcement that I did last week about wanting to publish the details of the businesses in receipt of the non-domestic RHI scheme. It was my intention to do that tomorrow.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Chancellor, in his autumn statement, made some more funding available for telecommunications, and my Department is studying that and seeking to avail itself of that to the fullest possible extent.”
“In addition, my Department is managing a contract for the delivery of the superfast rollout programme, which, by 31 December, will provide access to superfast broadband with speeds of at least 24 megabits per second to a further 38,000 premises, both business and residential, across Northern Ireland, including in the Newry and Armagh cons…”
“I signalled the intention to do this a few weeks ago. The Member and the House will know that inspections of all installations would have taken place over the 20-year lifetime of the RHI scheme.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,625 lines we hold for Simon Hamilton, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 26 of 73.
“Amendment 120 clarifies that it is the court that specifies the individuals who the person lacking capacity may have contact with rather than their deputies. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 121 and 122 are related. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 124, 126 and 127, 129 to 132, 134 and 135 are technical amendments to align the language used in the Bill with the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 327 clarifies that proceedings in relation to an offence under clause 266 may be brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions in addition to a person who has the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA).”
“Amendment Nos 45, 52, 221, 280, 286, 408, 416, 418, 424, 458, and 464 carry this change in wording to other provisions in the Bill where necessary. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 47 relates to clause 48. Clause 48 imposes a duty on the relevant health and social care trust to refer a person's case to the review tribunal if an authorisation has been granted and extended. The aim of the amendment is to make it clear that the policy is that the authorisation must have been in force for at least two years, or one year for under-18s, at the time of the extension for the clause to apply. Amendment Nos 50, 282, 283, 284, and 285 are consequential to this amendment. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 68 clarifies that Part 2 of the Bill is not applicable where there is a legal obligation to act under other legislation.”
“Clause 65 explains what is meant by references in the Bill to treatment likely to be treatment with serious consequences, and will be made redundant if the amendments that I have just outlined are made. <BR /> <BR />I turn now to amendment No 42, which affects clause 39. This clause sets out requirements around extension reports; that is, reports that extend a period of authorisation, one of the additional safeguards provided for in Part 2 of the Bill. One such requirement is to make an assessment of a person's capacity to apply to the tribunal to seek a review of the authorisation. The amendment clarifies that this assessment should be at the time that the extension report is being made. In other words, it is not a speculative assessment. No change in effect is intended.”
“— are simply drafting improvements or clarify policy intent. Thankfully, they do not, I think, require any explanation. I have done them enough justice already. <BR />Moving on to amendment Nos 27 and 28, which amend clause 28. These amendments are to avoid any potential confusion around the use of the word "likely". They aim to simply clarify that the doctor needs to be satisfied that the chances of the treatment turning out to be serious are more than negligible. The word "likely" suggests that the doctor needs to be satisfied that the proposed treatment will probably be serious, which is not what is intended. Amendment Nos 32, 38, 74, 406 to 408, and 415 carry this change through to other provisions in the Bill where the word "likely" is used in the same context. Consequential to these amendments is my opposition to clause 65.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 12, 13, 15, 55, 70-72, 78, 90, 124, 126, 127, 129, 130-132, 134-136, 143, 144, 152-171, 175, 181, 190, 194, 222, 225, 226, 250, 252, 255, 256, 261-262, 264 — I am about halfway through — 268, 269, 273, 274, 278, 281, 290-291, 297, 299, 301, 315, 320, 328-329, 332, 333, 335, 336-338, 343-353, 355-358, 360, 364, 365-368, 394, 396, 397, 399-401, 414, 419, 420, 465, 466-468, 469, 483 and 484 — I will repeat those in case anybody did not hear them —”
“I have been asked by the Committee, following a suggestion made by the Law Centre, to replace the term "independent advocate", which appears twice in that clause, with "independent mental capacity advocate". The change will help to differentiate between advocates who will be instructed under the Bill and advocates who will be commissioned by the health and social care trusts for other purposes. It in no way affects their role. Amendment Nos 6, 33-37, 44, 58, 64-67, 73, 79-81, 83-89, 91-93, 95-115, 334, 339, 392-393, 413, 430 and 436 make the same change to references to independent advocates throughout the rest of the Bill. I am pleased that we were able to address this point to the satisfaction of the Committee.”
“Amendment Nos 4, 6, 9, 12-13, 15, 27-28, 30, 32-38, 42, 44-45, 47, 50, 52-55, 58, 64, 65-74, 78-81, 83-93, 95-115, 120-122, 124, 126-127, 129-132, 134-136, 138, 143-144, 152-171, 175, 181, 190, 194, 222, 225-226, 250, 252, 255-256, 261-262, 264, 268-269, 273-274, 278, 280-286, 290-291, 297, 299, 301, 315, 320, 322-323, 325-329, 332-339, 343-346, 348-353, 355-358, 360, 364-368, 379-388, 392-402, 404-408, 413-420, 424, 430, 458, 463-469, 471-480, 482-485, 487-488. <BR /> <BR />With your permission, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I propose to deal with this group's technical amendments together. They are minor and do not, in my view, require a great deal of explanation. I will deal first with amendment Nos 3 and 4, which relate to clause 7. As introduced, clause 7 makes further provision in relation to the best interests principle.”
“I take issue with the view expressed that the position adopted in the Bill leaves patients and healthcare professionals in a vulnerable and uncertain position. I argue that the Bill, as a whole, does the exact opposite. As I said in my opening remarks, I am pleased to table an amendment that commits the Department to review this area of law and report in three years' time. That brings me to the end of my concluding remarks on the group 1 amendments.”
“Clearly, we can do that in a way that would, for want of a better phrase, phase in the implementation of the Bill. We will need to consider that when implementing the Bill in the future. <BR /> <BR />I again place on record my thanks to the Committee for its work on advance decisions. The Chair tackled the issue with his customary enthusiasm. As he noted, the strength of the views of stakeholders on advance decisions rightly dictated that the Department's position required close scrutiny.”
“We looked at the cost estimates again and have significantly reduced them to between £76 million and £85 million for the first full year of implementation and, for each year thereafter, between £68 million and £77 million. The costs have significantly reduced, but it is still a sizeable amount, particularly in the current budgetary climate. To be fair, we have been honest about that from the start. <BR /> <BR />The best course of action is to pass the Bill into law. Many Members have asked where the money is for this and why we have not put money aside, but it would not be proper to start to put resources against a Bill that has not been passed into law. The appropriate time to look at an implementation timetable is when the Bill passes into law, after which funding can be accordingly applied.”
“It is clear that this is well intentioned, but I fear that there is a problem because of the way in which the condition works, and its potential extension to a much wider group of people, as proposed by the amendment, could up end up doing more harm than good. Put bluntly, none of us wants to end up in a position in which people would be worse off than they would otherwise have been as a result of the Bill. There is a real risk of that happening if the relevant amendments to clauses 21 and 22 are made today. <BR /> <BR />The Chair raised the issue of costs, and other Members touched on it. From the outset, we have acknowledged that, because of the complexity of the Bill and the scale of the legislation, this would be expensive to implement. Initially, there were some very high cost estimates that we were not content with.”
“I noted the ECHR concerns that Mr McCarthy raised regarding amendment No 29 and subsequent amendments about diluting the standards of those making very important assessments, as well as the suitability of the qualifications of the people making those assessments. I will give the Member a fuller explanation in writing on the issue of psychologists, but there is a role for other professions in other areas of the Bill, particularly in the formal assessment of capacity. I will give the Member a much fuller explanation in correspondence of the issue she raises between now and Further Consideration Stage. <BR /> <BR />I turn briefly to the Committee amendment relating to the prevention of serious harm. I listened carefully to the contributions, particularly that of the Chair.”
“It is apt, because, although a significant number of amendments were tabled, they relate to only four or five issues or concepts. Crucially, all of them were raised with my officials during Committee Stage, either in evidence sessions or in correspondence. As noted in the Committee's report, the Department's explanation or position on them, which I reflected in my opening remarks, was noted or accepted by the Committee, so it should not be surprising that I am opposed to the amendments today. <BR /> <BR />Ms McCorley made a specific point on the 101 amendments relating to definitional changes. In general, I welcome the fact that several amendments tabled by Sinn Féin will not be moved.”
“I thank all Members for their contribution to the debate on group 1. <BR /> <BR />It will be abundantly clear to everyone listening to the debate just how much consideration the Committee and members have given to the Bill. It is also clear how many important issues the Bill touches on, and there is still a lot more to go. It is important, therefore, that we get it all right. <BR /> <BR />What we are talking about today will affect the lives of many people in Northern Ireland. One small change to a clause could have a massive impact on someone's life. We should not forget that as we debate and take decisions on amendments. With that message to the front of my mind, it is apt that I turn to the amendments tabled by Sinn Féin, which account for the vast majority in the group.”
“I will perhaps reflect on that and come to it in my winding-up remarks. If we are unable to do that, we will reflect on the issue and perhaps discuss it at Further Consideration Stage. I am happy, however, to reflect on it and come back to it in my winding-up remarks.”
“<BR /> <BR />Moreover, there is a risk that, by doing that, we could stumble over European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) obligations, as the Bill could be incompatible because of the breadth of that definition. Those are the issues that we are concerned about. When it comes to the provisions that relate to the deprivation of somebody's liberty and the associated authorisation process, which is set out in schedule 1, there are those concerns around the European Convention on Human Rights. In such circumstances, I think and hope that the House will agree that, on one hand, we do not want to fall foul of the ECHR and that, on the other hand, we want to have the right, suitably qualified people taking the very difficult and life-changing decisions envisaged in the Bill.”
“Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. There are several concerns that flow from the raft of amendments, of which there are 101. I am glad that you did not read all the numbers out as well; I did that courtesy for you. The first issue comes from the fact that "clinician" is quite a wide term and runs the risk of including and capturing practitioners who are not suitably qualified to make important and difficult decisions. They are some of the most difficult decisions that might have to be taken in a person's life. I do not think that any of us want to be in a position where we have people who are not suitably qualified to perform the important functions and duties envisaged in the Bill having to take those decisions. That is why I think that a much narrower term is required.”
“I am happy to intervene if the Member wishes to give way, or I will do it in my summation.”
“As I mentioned, these amendments do not change the policy intent, but they do ensure that errors can be corrected without putting the person being detained at risk. <BR /> <BR />I am very glad to say that I thank Members for bearing with me, and I look forward to hearing their views on the amendments in this group.”
“<BR /> <BR />Finally in this group, amendment Nos 450 to 457 relate to reports made under schedule 2 to the Bill that are found to be defective or incorrect. Amendment Nos 450 and 451 limit the type of errors that can be corrected under paragraph 20 of schedule 2 to administrative errors only. Amendment Nos 452 to 456, which are to paragraph 21, allow the medical report required for the authorisation granted under schedule 2 to be corrected within the permitted period. Amendment No 457 inserts new paragraph 22, which allows for a new report to be issued if the original report does not comply with the requirements of the Bill. The amendment also requires a new examination of the person and a statement that the detention conditions have been met at all times since the original report.”
“That is reflected in new clause 272A, which is covered by amendment No 403 and which I hope will find support in the Chamber. <BR /> <BR />Before I conclude my remarks on the first group, I want to briefly refer to the remaining amendments in it. None of them changes the policy intent of the relevant provisions; they simply clarify that intent. Amendment Nos 431, 433, 437 and 441 relate to paragraph 11 of schedule 2, which deals with short-term detention in hospital and the requirement to examine, on admission, the person being detained. Amendment No 431 makes it clear that the examination must be done immediately on admission. That mirrors the approach in the equivalent article 9 of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986. Amendment Nos 433, 437 and 441 are technical amendments consequential to amendment No 431.”
“The more prudent course, which I am convinced is the right one for now, is to give this Bill time to bed in before deciding what the rules on advance decisions should be. As far as I can see, there just is not the consensus or the certainty to be able to legislate for it now. We, as an Assembly, are better taking the time to get it right, and the Bill allows us to do that. <BR /> <BR />However, I also accept that it is our responsibility to set the policy in matters such as these, which the Committee rightly reflects in its report. I want to be absolutely clear that the position adopted in the Bill is in no way an attempt to shirk that responsibility, which is why I had no difficulty in agreeing to the Committee's very reasonable suggestion to look again at this within a set time frame and to commit my Department to that in the Bill.”
“The common law can continue to evolve, as the provisions are not set in stone. That is different from the approach taken in the English Mental Capacity Act 2005, which codified the common-law rules, although Scotland did not go down that route. Perhaps influenced by the position in England, some stakeholders argued that the Bill here should include similar provisions. However, my Department has consistently maintained that fusing mental health and mental capacity legislation will create a radically different legal framework to that in which the common-law rules were developed and which has not yet been attempted anywhere else. Simply following the English approach is not the answer in our circumstances.”
“This is a significant policy amendment that I have agreed to make in light of the Committee's scrutiny of the Bill. I should like to begin my brief comments on this by saying that the Committee was right to devote time to it. It is not straightforward, as I hope I will explain, and the conclusion ultimately reached by the Committee reflects that. As Members may be aware, an advance decision is a decision that a person makes when they have capacity to refuse a specific treatment in the future should they lose capacity. Clause 11 gives statutory recognition to advance decisions but does not include provisions on how they should be made or operate. That will continue to be governed by common law. <BR /> <BR />The main reason for adopting this approach is flexibility.”
“Amendment Nos 76 and 94 are related. They aim to clarify the nature of information that may be disclosed to a nominated person and the independent advocate, and they serve to align the language in the Bill with that in the Data Protection Act 1998. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 82 addresses a concern raised by the Law Centre and the Committee about the independence of independent advocates, which is a further safeguard provided for in Part 2. It removes the words "so far as practicable" from clause 84, with the aim of strengthening the requirement for independence. The amendment was endorsed by the Committee, as noted in its report. <BR /> <BR />That brings me to amendment No 331, which inserts a new clause into the Bill relating to advance decisions.”
“I believe that this is a reasonable, sensible and proportionate restriction that the proposed amendment would remove, creating what I consider unnecessary practical difficulties. For example, what if the default nominated person lives in Australia and the person who lacks capacity is here in Northern Ireland? Surely it is preferable to have someone close by who may be consulted as frequently and freely as necessary. I do not, therefore, support that amendment to clause 73.”
“<BR /> <BR />Taking into account all those various access routes to the tribunal, I do not believe these amendments are necessary. Furthermore, they would have an obvious cost implication that cannot be ignored in the current financial climate. Tribunals would be convened more frequently, requiring significant additional resources and an accompanying increase in the legal aid bill. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 75 relates to clause 73, which deals with the nominated person additional safeguard in Part 2. Clause 73 currently provides that, where a person is unable to appoint his nominated person himself or herself, and one must be appointed, the default nominated person cannot be somebody who lives outside the UK, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or Ireland.”
“First, the person in respect of whom an authorisation has been granted under schedule 1 or schedule 2, or his nominated person, can apply to the tribunal at various times during the authorisation period. Secondly, at any time during an authorisation period, various people can refer the person's case to the tribunal to consider whether the criteria for that authorisation are still met. Those referrals can be made by the Attorney General and the Department, as well as the Master of the Office of Care and Protection, if directed to do so by the court. There is an additional duty on the trust to notify the Attorney General if somebody in its care lacks the capacity to make an application to the tribunal. The Attorney General can then decide to make an application to the tribunal if not to do so would be a breach of that person's rights.”
“With limited time available, there is a risk that not all of those further amendments would be identified in time, increasing the risk of needing a further Bill in the next mandate to deal with the issue. <BR /> <BR />I now turn to the issue of automatic referrals to the review tribunal, which is the subject of amendment Nos 48 and 49. Those amendments would change the duty on health and social care trusts to refer a person's case to the tribunal, where it has not been considered, from two years to one year, or, if the person is under 16, from one year to six months. In my view, those amendments are unnecessary because there are other mechanisms in the Bill that can be used to bring a person's case to the tribunal.”
“<BR /> <BR />There is a real risk, therefore, that those amendments might negatively impact on the Bill's compatibility with the ECHR, particularly when it comes to the provisions relating to deprivations of liberty and the associated authorisation process in schedule 1. As I said, this issue has been on our radar for some time and was raised by the Committee, which accepted the Department's position. <BR /> <BR />I should also make Members aware that, from a technical standpoint, the proposed amendments are likely to necessitate further changes to the Bill, which would have to be identified before and then made at Further Consideration Stage.”
“That aim is to widen out the professional roles provided for in the Bill. This is not a new issue; it came up in the consultation phase and at Committee Stage. The main difficulty with those amendments, as I see it, is that the term "clinician" is very wide and, based on our legal advice, could capture practitioners who would not be suitably qualified to perform the functions and duties envisaged in the Bill. Those functions and duties relate to some of the most serious interventions that might be made in a person's life and require objective medical evidence in order to comply with the relevant legal obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 29 is the first of 101 amendments that add "approved clinician" or "approved responsible clinician" to references in the Bill to "medical practitioner" or that replace "medical" with "clinical" to describe reports that must be made for very specific purposes in the Bill. The amendments in question are amendment Nos 29, 39 to 41, 43, 46, 57, 59 to 63, 137, 140, 145, 146, 176, 178 to 180, 183 to 186, 189, 196 to 202, 204 to 207, 209 to 214, 216 to 221, 230 to 232, 234 to 238, 244, 246 to 248, 369 to 378, 409 to 412, 421 to 423, 425 to 429, 432, 434 to 436, 438 to 440, 442 to 449, and 459 to 462. Now that should fill somebody's bingo card. <BR /> <BR />You will all be glad to hear that I propose to deal with all those amendments together as they all appear to be motivated by the same aim.”
“I will say more about those orders when debating the fourth group of amendments, but, in essence, amendment No 26 seeks to align the protections available to people, subject to a supervision and assessment order, where it is proposed to treat them, and that treatment is serious, with the protections available to people who are being similarly treated when subject to a measure of a compulsory nature under Part 2 of the Bill. That means that authorisation by a health and social care trust must be sought under schedule 1 in such cases in prescribed circumstances. I hope that Members will support that amendment, which has been accepted by the Committee, as is noted in its report.”
“Such a lowering of the threshold for detention is not something that we as elected Members should countenance without a full and open debate, particularly when it is not advocated by stakeholders who are deeply committed to the Bill and when the reasoning that I just outlined was explained to, and accepted by, the Committee. <BR /> <BR />Before dealing with the issue giving rise to the largest number of amendments in this group — again, tabled by Ms McCorley and others — I briefly refer to amendment No 26. That amendment relates to the proposed new schedule 7A, which provides for supervision and assessment orders.”
“It means that the person proposing the interventions must reasonably believe that they are necessary to prevent serious harm coming to the person who is unable to consent to the care or treatment required or to prevent serious physical harm coming to others. That is a very high bar, and rightly so. <BR /> <BR />The effect of the proposed amendments would be to permit the detention of, or the provision of serious treatment on a compulsory basis to, vulnerable individuals who have not done anything unlawful, never mind illegal or criminal, on the basis of there being a risk of something less than serious physical harm to another person. Specifically, it would permit such serious infringements of a person's liberty on the basis of a risk of psychological harm to another person, which is notoriously difficult to prove.”
“That is proportionate and workable, but also to require a doctor to be satisfied that, in all such cases, the treatment is necessary to prevent serious harm would not be. I would therefore be concerned if those amendments were to be supported today. As I said, although well-intentioned, they may do more harm than good, which is not the outcome that any of us wants for those who require the protections that the Bill aims to give them. <BR /> <BR />That brings me to amendment Nos 19, 20 and 21, which were tabled by Ms McCorley and others and which also relate to the prevention of serious harm condition. It is perhaps worth explaining that, as it stands, the Bill requires that condition to be met where it is proposed to deprive people of their liberty or to treat people on a compulsory basis.”
“Although I fully understand the motivation behind the amendments, which were prompted by evidence from the Law Centre during the Committee's deliberations, when you work them through, they could produce some very perverse outcomes for the very people whom the Bill is trying to protect, and that would be difficult to justify. It could, for example, result in people not receiving treatment because they are unable to consent to themselves even though it is clearly in their best interests. For example, a fear of needles or a belief that the doctor is trying to poison them may cause them to resist that treatment. There is already a power in the Bill to prescribe circumstances in which a trust's authorisation would be required where a person is resisting the provision of serious treatment.”
“The effect of amendment No 14, which I am proposing on foot of points raised by some stakeholders during Committee Stage and agreed by the Committee in its report, is to require the doctor to examine a person who is lacking capacity and any relevant health records before providing a certificate. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 16 further strengthens the second-opinion safeguard by making it clear in the Bill that the doctor providing the second opinion should be independent of the doctor providing the treatment. Amendment No 17 is a technical amendment that is consequential to that. <BR /> <BR />I now turn to amendment Nos 18, 22, 23, 24 and 25, tabled by the Chair of the Committee, which relate to what is referred in the Bill as the "prevention of serious harm condition".”
“Although I am sympathetic to that view, I am more persuaded by the counterargument that, if it is not expressly mentioned in clause 16, the Bill could be perceived to be weakening protections for persons who are undergoing ECT. ECT is specified as requiring a second opinion in the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, which is to be replaced for over-16s by the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 14, 16 and 17, all of which amend clause 18, also relate to the issue of second opinions. Among other things, clause 18 requires the doctor giving the second opinion to do certain things before he or she gives it in the form of a certificate. For example, the doctor must consult with those treating a person generally.”
“Those amendments fall into the second group of amendments to be debated today. They better address the perceived problem that perhaps motivated the Members' amendments. <BR /> <BR />I also do not support amendment No 11 to clause 16, the effect of which is to remove electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) from the list of serious treatments requiring a second opinion under the Bill. While it is for the Members proposing the amendment to explain their rationale, I suspect that it might have been prompted by the view expressed by some stakeholders during the public consultation and Committee Stage that to single out ECT goes against the underlying aim of the Bill to destigmatise mental health.”
“The intended effect of those amendments would appear to place a duty on my Department to make regulations prescribing the types of people who are suitably qualified to carry out formal assessments of capacity for the purposes of clause 14 and who can gain access to the home of a person, subject to a community residence requirement for the purposes of clause 31. It is already the case that neither clause 14 nor clause 31 can come into operation before the relevant regulations are made. In other words, the proposed amendments are unnecessary. However, when reviewing those clauses following their introduction, the Office of the Legislative Counsel suggested rewording the relevant subsections in recognition that the word "may" could cause confusion. Amendment Nos 9 and 30 resulted. Those were accepted by the Committee, as noted in its report.”
“I confess that I am not clear as to the motivation behind that amendment. Perhaps the Members proposing it will enlighten us when speaking to it during the debate, but, at this point, I do not see what it adds to the clause or what objective it aims to achieve other than to create a drafting issue with the repetition of the words "to use force". That would have to be corrected at Further Consideration Stage if made by the Assembly today. Therefore, I do not support the amendment to clause 12. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 10 is to clause 14(4). It would make sense to cover that with amendment No 31 to clause 31(3), both of which are tabled by Ms McCorley, Mr McCartney and Mr Lynch.”
“I am advised that, strictly speaking, the amendment is unnecessary as personal injury would already be caught by the wording of clause 10(1)(a) as it stands. I do not, therefore, support the amendment to clause 10. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 8 seeks to replace the word "threat" in clause 12(4)(b) with the phrase:”
“I am pleased that we were able to address that point to the satisfaction of the Committee, as noted in its report. <BR /> <BR />I will now deal with amendment Nos 7, 8, 10, 11 and 31, which have been tabled by Ms McCorley, Mr McCartney and Mr Lynch. Amendment No 7 adds the words "or injury" to clause 10(1)(a), which provides that the protection from liability in clause 9 does not extend to any:”
“Added to that the pressing nature of the timetable as we fast approach the end of the mandate, the conclusion of the Committee Stage is a significant achievement. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge that today. <BR /> <BR />I will start with amendment Nos 1, 2 and 177, which relate to clauses 4, 5 and 158 respectively. Together, the amendments address a point raised by the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists and by the Committee about the important role of communication support. The amendments make it clear in the Bill that help and support must be given to enable a person to communicate his or her decision, for example, by involving someone who can provide communication support, such as a speech and language therapist.”
“Amendment Nos 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16-26, 29, 31, 39-41, 43, 46, 48, 49, 57, 59-63, 75, 76, 82, 94, 137, 140, 145, 146, 176-180, 183-186, 189, 196-202, 204-207, 209-214, 216-221, 230-232, 234-238, 244, 246-248, 331, 369-378, 403, 409-412, 421-423, 425-429, 431-457, 459-462. <BR /> <BR />Just another 500 or so to go. With your indulgence, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I will begin by placing on record my thanks to the Chair, members and staff of the Ad Hoc Joint Committee for the extremely thorough and efficient manner in which they conducted their scrutiny of the Bill. The Committee's report, which was published on 28 January, is testament to their hard work, and it speaks to the magnitude of the task before them. Not only is the Bill one of the largest, if not the largest, to come before the Assembly, it is also one of the most complex.”
“We have to be very careful about moving forward with policies like that and to make sure that they are grounded firmly, or else there is a risk in some cases of doing more damage than of achieving positive outcomes.”
“The Irish Government have indicated their desire to move ahead with minimum unit pricing for alcohol, and we continue to monitor that. We do so in the context of the judgement in the recent Scottish case. That was an interesting judgement in that it was not clear one way or the other whether it was legal. It pushed it back to the Scottish Court of Session to take a decision, and I am not sure where it is in its consideration. <BR /> <BR />It is an issue that we have carefully considered and that we have to carefully consider. It is worth noting that, whether it is a minimum unit pricing on alcohol or a sugar tax on sugary drinks that some are calling for, none of those interventions are, in and of themselves, a silver bullet that will resolve all the issues with the overconsumption of alcohol or sugary drinks.”
“That was a very admirable attempt by the Member to get that subject matter into the questions on the statement. Minimum unit pricing has been considered carefully by my Department for some time. We have obviously looked at it in a broader UK context, but we have particularly looked at it in a cross-border context to see what impact it would have on one jurisdiction if the other moved ahead with it, and so on and so forth. To that end, a study was carried out by, I think, Sheffield Hallam University, and its outcomes have been published recently.”
“<BR /> <BR />The fact that we have invested so much in a state-of-the-art radiotherapy unit at Altnagelvin, which has all the best equipment and a fantastic team that is well networked and is international in its focus, is something that, in and of itself, attracts the best people to it. That is something that I want to see in Northern Ireland, not just in cancer care but across a range of different specialisms.”