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 29 of 73.
“It must continually look for new and better ways of delivering its services, challenging what it does and how it does it while engaging and consulting with the people it serves. The potential for greater partnerships and collaborative approaches to the provision of emergency services must be further explored and developed to deliver better outcomes for the public. <BR /> <BR />We must look to the future and continue to support and build a modern and efficient Fire and Rescue Service that its staff and firefighters are proud to work in and that the community has full confidence in. My Department will continue to work closely with the Fire and Rescue Service to ensure that it provides a professional, responsive and value-for-money service. Firefighter and public safety remain my priority.”
“<BR /> <BR />As I said, I have yet to take any final decisions on the 2016-17 financial allocation for the Fire and Rescue Service but, in common with all public services, it needs to continually demonstrate that service delivery is based on a sound evidence base, with deployment of its resources in line with the appropriate professional risk assessment and ensuring the continued safety of the public and firefighters. <BR /> <BR />In closing, I fully appreciate the importance of the Fire and Rescue Service, and my position on the service is quite clear. The services that it provides must be of the highest quality, with a focus on prevention and protection. Its resources must be allocated across Northern Ireland based on the professional assessment of risk.”
“Over the last four years there has been an underspend of some £13·2 million by the Fire and Rescue Service, including an underspend of £2·7 million last year, which was the year in which some parties in this House were seeking to give more money to the Fire and Rescue Service. When you are asking for more money, it is sometimes worthwhile bearing in mind financial performance as it stands. I am sure that the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel will be interested in those points on underspend within the Fire and Rescue Service.”
“So there are no suggestions; just the usual, as I have become well used to in this and previous jobs, asking for more money but not suggesting where that money might come from. <BR /> <BR />While we are on the point of finances, in respect of the Fire and Rescue Service's budget, which I acknowledge has been reduced in its opening position over the last number of years, Mr Poots mentioned reductions in budgets from £81 million in 2011-12 down to £73 million this year. He rightly mentioned that, for many of those years, there had been considerable underspend within the Fire and Rescue Service. If we are debating more money for the Fire and Rescue Service, I think it is important to bear in mind what its financial performance has actually been over the last four years.”
“The Member was no exception to that, nor were Members from the SDLP or any other parties that asked for more money for the Fire and Rescue Service. There were no bright ideas about where and what other Departments the money should be taken from or, in the event that there was no protection offered to the totality of my Department's budget — let us not forget that my Department got the most generous Budget settlement of all the Departments for next year, coming at the expense of significant reductions in other departmental budgets — there was no suggestion made as to where else within Health and Social Care that money should come from in the event of there being no protection for my Department's budget.”
“<BR /> <BR />More money for one service would come at the expense of money from another service. I heard Daithí McKay in his contribution saying that what he was looking for, which he did not define, was not a big ask. I suppose that is true in the context of not just the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Department's budget but the whole Executive Budget — a Budget, of course, which he and his party have supported. He was like other contributers to the debate. There is a Budget debate tomorrow at which similar contributions will be made. There will be all sorts of asks for money for here and there and this, that and the other, but precious few ideas as to where the money should come from.”
“— mentioned about the budget. Everyone says in this chamber that they understand the budget pressures that my Department and the whole Executive are facing, but we do not always hear in this Chamber, or sometimes outside of it, a demonstration of an understanding of the pressures that my Department's budget and the Executive's Budget as a whole are facing. I would be quite content if there was full protection afforded to my Department's budget. I would be quite content if the Executive agreed that — as, indeed, one of the amendments is suggesting — but I also have to be, as I would urge the whole House to be, realistic about these things in a situation where we are facing considerable downward pressure in the actual resource that we have and, indeed, all the other pressures that the Executive are facing.”
“Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I think there has been some scaremongering today and some talk of "savage cuts", which was I think, one of the things said by one of the Members, but, at this point in time, as I have said before, there are no budgetary proposals in place for the Fire and Rescue Service or indeed for any other aspect of the Department's budget. <BR /> <BR />While I mention budgets, I think it is worth turning to some of the points that were —”
“I reiterate that no decisions have yet been taken in respect of the Fire and Rescue Service's budget for next year or, indeed, any aspect of the Health and Social Care budget at all, and none will be taken that jeopardise or endanger firefighter or public safety. No proposals have been made, other than the evidence-based changes that have been put forward, suggested and proposed by the Fire and Rescue Service itself. They are changes that are not — I repeat, not — about efficiency or savings but rather are about delivering services more effectively. Those proposals are being consulted upon by the Fire and Rescue Service, and it clearly states a point ignored by some in their contributions:”
“Existing emergency response standards are under review, and any changes will be subject to public consultation. <BR /> <BR />The Fire and Rescue Service faces many challenges in the coming months and years. Unlike Health and Social Care, its budget has not been protected by the Executive. I have yet to take any final decisions on the 2016-17 financial allocation to the Fire and Rescue Service. That is an important point that was, perhaps, deliberately ignored by some during the debate. The 5% and 10% reductions that were talked about were carried out as an exercise not just by my Department but by all Departments on the instruction of the Department of Finance and Personnel in planning for what was a difficult Budget, as Members will know very well.”
“No. Firefighters working with other emergency responders have the potential to relieve pressure in other areas of the health and social care system, and I know that such joint approaches have been trialled successfully in several English fire and rescue authorities. Working in partnership is at the very heart of the Fire and Rescue Service's activities, and, going forward, I believe that collaboration is key. Continuing to work with and build on partnerships with other agencies will be vital. <BR /> <BR />Emergency response standards must take into account the most recent available evidence base and risk assessment. The Fire Service considers that the current emergency response standards, which were introduced 10 years ago, are no longer fit for purpose.”
“I encourage people to look carefully at the proposals and provide feedback to the Fire and Rescue Service. The Fire and Rescue Service must continually look for new and better ways to deliver its services while ensuring that firefighter and public safety continues to be the priority. I recently met the chair and the Interim Chief Fire Officer of the Fire and Rescue Service, and I know how keen they are to explore opportunities for new ways of working, particularly in joint approaches to improving front-line emergency services and tackling wider societal issues, including health and well-being.”
“The first is the proposals made by the Fire and Rescue Service, which I will come to now, and the other is concerns about cuts in next year's budget, which I will come to later. The professionals' view is that the proposals that are out for consultation would result in improved cover in rural areas and in areas west of the Bann. That would apply to stations like Downpatrick, Dungannon, Strabane, as was mentioned during the debate, and Enniskillen. One of the main benefits outlined in the Fire and Rescue Service proposals is a significant increase in the number of life-threatening incidents that could be attended by whole-time firefighters across Northern Ireland as a result of redeployment. <BR /> <BR />As I mentioned, the proposals are out for public consultation, which will run until 7 March.”
“The reduction of incidents combined with the development of up-to-date risk profiles provides an opportunity for the Fire and Rescue Service to review how and where it deploys its resources across Northern Ireland to address the risk to the public and ensure firefighter safety in delivering its services. It cannot stand still. <BR /> <BR />The professional opinion of the Fire and Rescue Service — not mine but that of the Fire and Rescue Service — on the level of current risk suggests that the existing whole-time firefighter resource could be rebalanced appropriately and proportionately across Northern Ireland to address better the level of risk to the public and to firefighters. Having listened to the debate, I think that two issues have been conflated.”
“We must recognise that there has been a continuing reduction in emergency calls received and mobilisations of firefighters to reported incidents. Some 22,781 incidents were mobilised in 2014-15, and that was down 5·3% on the previous year and down 26% on 2010-11. The long-term trend of reduced mobilisations and reductions in the number of dwelling and secondary fires year on year in Northern Ireland mirrors that in England. In England, that has been matched by a 22% reduction in central funding for fire authorities and 14% fewer full-time staff being employed by English fire authorities since 2010. In Northern Ireland, the comparative figures are approximately 9·7% and 3·3% respectively, which is a far more favourable situation.”
“In providing its services, the Fire and Rescue Service must be efficient and effective in providing the best possible fire and rescue service informed by a sound evidential base and risk analysis. Public and firefighter safety will not be compromised.”
“First, I join practically every contributor to the debate in personally thanking our brave firefighters and acknowledging their dedication and professionalism in carrying out often dangerous duties daily to protect life and property across Northern Ireland. That has been particularly evident recently in their responses to a number of serious fire incidents that have been mentioned by Members today, road traffic incidents and the widespread flooding in parts of our Province in the last number of weeks. <BR /> <BR />The Fire and Rescue Service is a vital front-line service. The very nature of its work dictates that. I have no issue with what has been said about that and have not decided otherwise. It is not, as the motion asserts, a service under attack.”
“I hope to be equally brief, not short. I thank all those who have contributed to the debate this evening and, again, the Committee for its input and scrutiny. In the context of things, these are minor and small amendments, but they are important amendments which, I believe, clarify some of the Bill's key provisions. I hope that the House can support the amendments that are contained within group 2.”
“Those, again, are technical amendments; the word is unnecessary because the definition of "social care" in the Bill refers to the Health and Social Care (Reform) Act 2009 and means any service designed to secure improvement in the social well-being of the people of Northern Ireland. Amendment Nos 21, 22, 23 and 24 remove the definitions of "health care" and "social care" from clause 3 and reinsert them into clause 5, which is the interpretation provision for the Bill. Those are technical amendments to ensure that the definitions apply to the whole Bill rather than just clause 3. <BR /> <BR />That concludes my comments on the second group of amendments, which seek to clarify certain provisions in the Bill. I hope that Members will support them.”
“That amendment has the effect of removing the term "social well-being" and the phrase "any other similar circumstances", both of which were the subject of a considerable amount of comment during Committee scrutiny of the Bill. Amendment No 12 changes the name of the definition of "medical purposes" to "health care purposes". The substance and scope of the definition have not been amended. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10 are technical in nature and will ensure that the amended definition of "relevant person" applies throughout the clause as appropriate. Amendment Nos 13 and 14 remove the word "services" from the definition of "social care".”
“The second group of amendments seeks to clarify certain provisions in the Bill. Amendment Nos 2 and 3 provide that information can be processed only for healthcare or social care purposes in the public interest. These amendments clearly link the purpose of the Bill with the general duties of the Department as set out in the Health and Social Care (Reform) Act 2009. They make the link between healthcare and social care purposes and the public interest clear and explicit. They also introduce consistency in the terminology used throughout the Bill. Amendment No 11 defines a "relevant person" in the Bill as an individual who is in receipt of healthcare or social care.”
“Not moving forward with the amendment at this stage and taking legal advice and considering it further is absolutely the right way to do it. It is a mature way to proceed by the Committee. <BR /> <BR />Notwithstanding that one area of slight disagreement, I welcome the Committee's scrutiny and strengthening of the Bill through the amendments that it is bringing forward plus the ones that it has suggested to the Department, which the Department has taken on board and reflected in the amendments in my name.”
“We are taking the right approach on this. I welcome the leadership shown by the Chair in saying, "We'll not move this amendment today". We are right to take our time. I am just making the point that amendment No 17, which compels the committee to disseminate information and campaign and raise awareness around the rights of individuals in respect of the Bill, including their right to have an opt-out, is a far more sensible and practical way to address the Committee's concern than simply putting it in a piece of legislation. If, in so doing, it is likely to have a negative impact on the operation of the Data Protection Act, we are right to be concerned. That is why amendment Nos 15 and 17 are a much more practical way of dealing with the problem that has been highlighted by the Committee.”
“That is why I welcome the Chair saying that we should take some time between now and Further Consideration Stage to look at further legal advice, which I think the Committee has asked for, to make sure that it does not have such a negative impact that it would negate the whole piece of legislation and, therefore, mean that there would be no point in moving forward with it. <BR /> <BR />It is worth doing that, but I am not convinced that the argument put forward is the right one. If the argument is that we need to highlight to people their ability to opt out of the use of their personal information, I am not sure that putting it in this Bill is the right way of doing it. Quite frankly, I do not think that that highlights to anybody that they have an opt-out.”
“Officials have expressed concerns to me that how it operates in practice might have an impact. As the Data Protection Act is already there, if this provides another ability to opt out that might impact on the whole legislation and the ability to process any information at all. I think that we are all now agreed that the purpose of this legislation is a good one and that we want to see it move forward. Yes, there is a convention, but it would not be the first time that convention has been breached. If there are concerns, it is worth testing.”
“However, I was thinking about it as the Chair was speaking. Whilst I understand the point being made, I am not sure that the argument being put forward by the Committee is the right way of doing it. If the argument, as put forward by the Chair, is that people are unaware of their ability to opt out of the use of their information as it is currently permitted under the Data Protection Act, I am not convinced that putting a similar opt-out ability in this legislation will have any more of a positive impact. We have not exactly elicited the interest of the House in this piece of legislation. I am not sure that there are too many people who would understand the finer detail of it. I am not entirely sure that it will tackle the point that the Member made.”
“However, it is worth bearing in mind that, as I said previously, it is our contention that the Data Protection Act 1998 already adequately covers the issue of people having the ability to opt out of health and social care information. There is a convention, although perhaps not always observed, that we do not legislate for the same thing twice in two pieces of legislation. I do not think that it is necessary. I was thinking about this issue. It is absolutely right that we pause and reflect where the advice coming through is that this may have a negative impact on the operation of section 10 of the Data Protection Act. <BR /> <BR />It is right that we take our time, and I welcome the fact that, as the Chair indicated, this amendment will not be moved today and that legal advice will be sought. I welcome that step.”
“However, I know that there were concerns, and I hope that they have been allayed. In part, they will be allayed by the amendments, whether in my name or in that of the Committee. Those safeguards, including the Committee ones and indeed my own that have embraced the concerns expressed by the Committee, by and large strengthen the Bill. When the Committee suggests amendments, with the exception of one, it is right that I embrace them, particularly where they strengthen the legislation. In respect of the regulations, having due regard, the establishment of a committee and the robustness of a code of practice, I am very happy to take on the Committee's suggestions and put forward the amendments before us today. <BR /> <BR />Before finishing, I will say that I believe that I understand the Committee's thinking in suggesting amendment No 8.”
“They saw the benefits of it, as Mrs Cameron outlined. I agree with her comments that patients were keen that their information be used. That was also the feedback that I received when I was at the Cancer Centre, again in the City Hospital. The people who have experienced cancer — it will be the same with other conditions, or it has the potential to be — are very keen that their information and experience should be used if it can benefit other people. I understand why people would be precious about their information, but, when you think about it, it is understandable that those who have experienced cancer and conditions like that want to help so that others do not have to go through what they went through. The point that Mrs Cameron made is absolutely right.”
“I understand the concerns that were expressed at that time, and I hope that at the various stages of the process — if not at Second Stage, then during the Committee Stage — I allayed those concerns. Not proceeding with the legislation would have meant a missed opportunity to have what the Chair rightly described as a "robust statutory framework" for the sharing and processing of identifiable information. <BR /> <BR />Mrs Cameron mentioned the Rare Disease Partnership. I met them and discussed the legislation with them when I was at the City Hospital some time ago to make an announcement about investment in the Northern Ireland Genomics Medicine Centre. While we were celebrating that investment and the cutting-edge work that is going on in that field, in the City Hospital they were concerned that this legislation might not go through.”
“I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate. There was a reasonable representation of the Committee among those who spoke in the debate, and I thank those Members not just for their contributions tonight but for their work in scrutinising the Bill to this point. <BR /> <BR />Listening to the Chair's contribution and those of other members of the Committee, I feel that this is a good example of the Department and the Committee working together to strengthen legislation. There was a time when there was uncertainty in some quarters — it would not be fair to describe it as "opposition" — about the legislation to the point where some members in Committee voted against the introduction of the Bill in the House.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 18 and 19 will amend the Bill to require Health and Social Care bodies, and others that provide health and social care, to have due regard to the code of practice in exercising their functions relating to health and social care. In addition, the Health Committee proposed a further amendment. During its scrutiny, it felt strongly that the code of practice, which the Department must publish, had the potential to be a more robust safeguard against the unlawful processing of information. The Committee was of the view that a provision should be inserted in the Bill to say that a court or tribunal may take into account a breach of the code in any proceedings where it considers it relevant. Any provision that will strengthen the Bill is to be welcomed, and I therefore support amendment No 20.”
“For the reasons outlined, I do not support this amendment. However, taken together, amendment Nos 15 and 17 will place a duty on the new data processing committee, which will be established by regulations, to disseminate information to the public about the legislation and other relevant matters, in particular the rights of individuals in the processing of their confidential information. That will include information about how individuals can opt out of the process. During its scrutiny of the Bill, the Health Committee suggested that the provisions relating to the code of practice, which the Department will prepare and publish, should be strengthened. Again, I thank members for their input to this issue.”
“For any approved application, it will ultimately be for the data controller to decide what information is released. In that way, the wishes of those who do not want their information used for purposes beyond the immediate provision of care can be respected. <BR /> <BR />The Data Protection Act 1998 also places an obligation on data controllers to ensure that information is fairly processed. Fairness requires data controllers to be transparent, clear, honest and open with individuals about how their information will be used. That enables people to make informed decisions. <BR /> <BR />During evidence sessions with the Committee, departmental officials gave a commitment that, at the appropriate time, an awareness campaign that will provide information about the opt-out will be undertaken.”
“Members will appreciate that that would be an undesirable and unnecessary course of action. However, by virtue of clause 1(8), all applications for access to information will be subject to the Data Protection Act 1998. Section 10 of that Act already provides that an individual has the right to object to the processing of their personal information if it would cause unwarranted and substantial damage or distress. <BR /> <BR />Furthermore, the Bill will establish a statutory basis that will only allow for the sharing of information. The new data processing committee that is being established by regulations to robustly scrutinise and make decisions on applications to access data will not have the power to compel the data controller to share information.”
“If I may, I will turn to those amendments that relate to the safeguards in the Bill. I will first consider amendment No 8, which was tabled by the Health Committee and which is in the name of the Chair. During the Committee's scrutiny of the Bill, concern was expressed that individuals were unaware of their right to opt out of having their information shared. Whilst acknowledging that an opt-out provision already exists in Health and Social Care, the Committee was of the view that the opt-out should be in the Bill. Adopting this amendment is likely to impact on the operation of section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1998, which is a reserved matter, by effectively introducing the further test of merely notifying or telling the Department to cease or not begin processing.”
“I am therefore grateful to the Health Committee for its input, and I believe that this amendment will provide a further safeguard and strengthen the Bill.”
“Amendment No 1 places a mandatory duty on the Department to make those regulations. That amendment was suggested by the Health Committee during its scrutiny of the Bill, and I thank the Committee for its input. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 6 introduces a mandatory requirement that regulations made under the Bill must provide that information can be processed only if that processing is authorised by the committee. Amendment No 16 will impose a mandatory duty on the Department to establish a committee. The Health Committee suggested that amendment during its scrutiny of the Bill, as a committee will have to be established and authorisation for processing information will have to be given by that committee to ensure that the process operates as intended.”
“I begin by thanking members of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee for their detailed consideration of the Bill up to this point. As always, the Bill has got to this stage due to the partnership that has existed between the Department and the Committee. In total, there are 24 amendments that reflect the detailed work carried out by the Committee, the Office of Legislative Counsel and officials in my Department. I want to thank everybody who has been involved for their efforts. <BR /> <BR />The first group of amendments relates to safeguarding and technical changes. I want to consider first those amendments that relate to technical changes. The Bill provides a power for the Department to make regulations to provide for the processing of confidential service-user information.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I beg to introduce the Rates (Amendment) Bill [NIA Bill 75/11-16], which is a Bill to amend the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 to enable regulations to be made permitting an increase in the level of reduction in the normal rate to 100% for certain hereditaments used for prescribed recreation; to provide that certain hereditaments are not to be treated for the purposes of the Order as occupied by reason only of them containing certain window displays; and for connected purposes.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I begin by saying that it is nice to be back doing DFP business —”
“That type of role, standing up for Northern Ireland on a global stage, will be incredibly important in her role as First Minister as well. <BR /> <BR />I know that Arlene, like many of us, believes that, great as Northern Ireland has been throughout its nearly 100-year history, in spite of all the challenges that we have faced, our best days lie ahead. At this time in the history of Northern Ireland, we are fortunate to be led by somebody of the calibre of Arlene, with her stature and experience. I am confident, as I know that many others are, that Arlene will continue to lead Northern Ireland on its journey to better days.”
“When you know somebody for that long, you get to know them pretty well. What I have learnt over the years about Arlene, which is most relevant to today and her taking up the post of First Minister, is the fact that she loves Northern Ireland greatly. She has an abiding love for this place and its people, and, given the important role that she has taken up in leading everyone in Northern Ireland, it is important that she has that attribute. She has, of course, displayed all of her other many abilities down through the years in this place in various ministerial roles, including Environment Minister, Finance Minister and Economy Minister. Particularly in her role as Economy Minister, she stood up for Northern Ireland and went around the world, as she said, fighting for Northern Ireland and trying to bring investment here.”
“I begin by echoing earlier tributes to Peter. This party, the Assembly and, indeed, Northern Ireland as a whole have a lot to be thankful for in Peter's service down through the last 40 years. I am sure that we all wish to thank him and his family for his service and for the sacrifice that they have all collectively made down through the years. <BR /> <BR />Today is a significant day for Arlene and her family. It is, as other Members mentioned, a significant day for women in Northern Ireland. Colum Eastwood talked about a glass ceiling having been broken. For the Arlene Foster whom we know, there is no glass ceiling, and, if there were one, she would bust right through it, as she has done today. <BR /> <BR />I have known Arlene for many years; not as many as Mr Farry and others have known her, but probably for the best part of 20 years.”
“I am certain that the Bill will provide a strong incentive for businesses to achieve and maintain compliance with existing food hygiene law, especially because it is mandatory. Indeed, it will almost create a sense of competition between businesses. The food hygiene rating scheme presents a real opportunity for local businesses to demonstrate how seriously they take food hygiene by displaying their ratings for all to see. The consistency and transparency of the scheme make it easy for consumers to use, and it should bring increased business to the food outlets that take pride in their hygiene. <BR /> <BR />I believe that the Bill will have an overwhelmingly positive impact on the health of the people of Northern Ireland. I am delighted that we are seeking to move to a mandatory scheme. I thank Members for their support so far.”
“In particular, I praise her tenacity in ensuring that that amendment is now in the Bill and will hopefully pass into law very soon. I praise her for her efforts in that respect. I agree with her: I do not see why doing that needs to be a particularly onerous or complicated thing for online food businesses. The suggestion that she made is perfectly appropriate. I will certainly come back to the Member about what might be done about a lead-in time. Again, it is not something that we would want to do in a complicated way to make life difficult for food businesses. <BR /> <BR />I am confident that the Food Hygiene Rating Bill will provide a simple but effective public health measure that will make it easy for everyone to identify the businesses that are committed to complying with food hygiene requirements.”
“I thank Members who contributed to the debate for what have been largely positive and encouraging comments. What has been clear from the debate and, indeed, previous debates on the Bill is that there has been broad all-party support for the legislation as it has progressed through its stages in the House. Members did not raise a lot of issues for me to address, with perhaps the exception of Mrs Cameron's contribution at the end. <BR />I thank the Committee in general for the amendments that it tabled, which have enhanced and improved the Bill. I highlight in particular the amendment on technology, websites and the selling of food online and the amendment on the necessity to display or, as Mrs Cameron said, link to the FSA's website.”
“I believe that this is a timely and important Bill that is good for customers, as it will allow them to make informed choices about where they purchase food. I want to see food hygiene standards improved and maintained throughout Northern Ireland. I am convinced that the introduction of the Food Hygiene Rating Bill will make a positive difference to the health of people throughout Northern Ireland. I encourage all Members to support the Bill.”
“To achieve the top rating of five only requires compliance with food hygiene law. In my view, if some owners are doing it right, there is no reason why all owners should not be doing it right. The Food Hygiene Rating Bill will make it mandatory for food businesses to display their food hygiene rating sticker and, in so doing, will ensure that customers have access to the information directly at the point of choice. <BR /> <BR />I am aware that officials have had positive engagement with the Health Committee during its scrutiny of the Bill and I am grateful for the amendments proposed by the Committee, which I believe have improved the original legislation that was introduced back in November 2014.”
“Secondly, the legislation recognises and rewards businesses that have been doing the right thing by their customers, because a good rating is good for business. <BR /> <BR />Food establishment owners with good ratings are very proud of their rating, and I can understand that they might feel somewhat aggrieved that other establishments that have not scored well may be concealing that fact from their customers. It is not surprising to learn that, in the current scheme, display rates are much lower among establishments with a rating of zero to two. I am aware that the Food Standards Agency and district councils are encouraging all businesses to display their rating, but the reality is that a scheme that operates on a voluntary basis is likely to have little impact on those businesses with a low rating.”