Daithí McKay
North Antrim · Sinn Féin · Northern Ireland
“Will the First Minister give us a more detailed update on the civic advisory panel? Would she also agree that, as we face what is, undoubtedly, a political and economic abyss, it is more important than ever that we hear from civic voices in society as well as political leadership?”
“I thank the Minister for her answer. I recognise much of the work that is ongoing. Given the recent reported and alleged race crime in the Minister's constituency involving several members of the police, will she give us an assurance that a proper and fully independent investigation will be carried out?”
“<BR /> <BR />In recent years, it has become harder and harder to secure your vote. In that context, it does not make sense that support to secure the vote is withdrawn from those on the ground when they need it more than ever. I am sure that most people picked up anecdotes when canvassing in the recent election.”
“We should move forward with confidence and take on more powers to ensure that we protect local services and workers. <BR /> <BR />Look at the list of offices to be impacted: Ballymena, Banbridge, Omagh, Derry, Newtownabbey and Newtownards. If all those were to close, it would leave a huge gap in rural constituencies.”
“I thank the proposers of the motion for bringing it to the House. I am moving the amendment on behalf of Sinn Féin. <BR /> <BR />I think that all 108 Members received a letter from NIPSA concerning the action that has been taken. The letter also highlights the lack of accountability regarding local politicians.”
“I did so along with other MLAs from all the parties locally, so we are unanimously opposed to the decision there. But, we are all 108 locally elected politicians who are powerless to do anything about this. That is why we should see these small — I have to say they are small — but significant functions being transferred to Belfast.”
The complete record
Every one of 737 lines we hold for Daithí McKay, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 15.
“In line with good practice, the Department helpfully provided the Committee with its draft amendments before the Committee undertook formal clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />The Committee therefore agreed clause 2, subject to amendment No 1; clause 29 was agreed subject to the changes set out in amendment Nos 5, 6 and 7; and schedule 1 was agreed subject to the changes in amendment Nos 12 and 13. I believe that those amendments will enhance the transparency of the new arrangements. In that regard, I reiterate the point I made during the Second Stage debate:”
“<BR /> <BR />From the evidence presented by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC), it was noted that, under Scottish legislation, neither the Law Society nor the SLCC has the ability to monitor what happens to the handling of complaints at first tier. The SLCC stated that an amendment may be needed in the Scottish legislation to address that gap in order to provide visibility as to the true level of complaints. While the Committee was prepared to bring forward amendments to address the gap in information, the Department confirmed at the Committee's meeting on 25 November that, after careful consideration, it would bring forward the necessary amendments.”
“Dr Hosier argued that it is, therefore, difficult to accept assurances that the level of complaints is of a lower order than that which has been recorded in other jurisdictions. To help to remedy that weakness, she suggested enhanced powers to enable the Legal Services Oversight Commissioner to compel the professional bodies to provide accurate information on the total number of complaints received by their members and also by professional bodies in relation to their members. It was also suggested that the oversight commissioner should be under a duty to accumulate such data annually, and that it should be made available to the Department.”
“The Law Centre's written submission, for example, pointed out that there is no empirical evidence on whether the relatively few complaints here is due to high levels of satisfaction with the work of solicitors, a lack of awareness of the complaints mechanisms or a lack of faith in a solicitors' body investigating its own members. <BR /> <BR />Dr Maeve Hosier, an academic based at Middlesex University who has expertise in the regulation of the legal profession, also highlighted the Law Society's acknowledgment that it does not currently have reliable information on the overall level of complaints, including those at first tier. She pointed out that the statistics that have been cited are those complaints that have been made known to the Law Society and that that may represent only a small proportion of the total number of complaints.”
“The reports of the Lay Observer cite that the number of complaints is, on average, less than 200 a year. However, in noting that those reports represent the second and third tiers of the existing system, the Committee questioned witnesses on the current arrangements for recording complaints made across all three tiers. In response, DFP officials advised that complaints are captured only if and when they have progressed to the Law Society — that is, to the second tier. That was confirmed in the evidence from the Lay Observer. <BR /> <BR />Arising from the evidence received, a number of other stakeholders raised issues about the figures on complaints against solicitors.”
“The Lay Observer reports on the nature of complaints made to the Law Society but does not have the powers to investigate. The Bar is not subject to any statutory oversight. <BR /> <BR />In that regard, during evidence from the Bar Council, the Committee queried the number of complaints made against barristers. In response, the Bar Council acknowledged that there had been an increase in the number of complaints but that that was considered to be as a result of a better awareness of the complaints process rather than a deterioration in standards. <BR /> <BR />In querying the level of complaints made against solicitors, the Committee was advised by officials and the Law Society that, over recent years, the number of complaints has decreased.”
“<BR /> <BR />I shall now address amendment No 1, which relates to clause 2; amendment Nos 5, 6 and 7, which relate to clause 29; and amendment Nos 13 and 14, which relate to schedule 1. <BR /> <BR />A fundamental concern of the Committee throughout its scrutiny has been on the need to capture information on the complaints against solicitors that are made at what is referred to as the first tier. We need to do that to establish a more complete picture of the number of legal complaints than that which is presented in the figures published to date. During scrutiny, members raised concerns about the extent to which the published figures for legal complaints here represent a realistic picture or merely show the tip of the iceberg. Currently, only the solicitor profession is subject to oversight from the Lay Observer in relation to complaints.”
“From a policy perspective, the Department did not consider it necessary to make comparable provision to that for the Bar, instead arguing that there are significant checks and balances in the Bill to ensure that the Law Society will have to act in the most open and transparent way in making the appointments. The Committee welcomed the Department's assurances that there are sufficient protections in the Bill to safeguard against the notion that the laypersons on the Solicitors Complaints Committee could be hand-picked by the Law Society. The Committee, therefore, agreed that it was content with clause 30 and schedule 3. <BR /> <BR />Secondly, the Committee has received assurances from the Department that it will provide an improved explanatory and financial memorandum to clarify issues identified during the Committee's scrutiny.”
“<BR /> <BR />First, arising from the evidence received, the Committee highlighted to the Department a concern about the provisions under clause 30 and schedule 3, which provide that the Law Society is responsible for appointing laypersons to the Solicitors Complaints Committee. That contrasts with the provision for laypersons on the Bar Complaints Committee being appointed by the benchers, who are independent of the profession. That, therefore, achieves functional separation between regulation and representation in the case of the Bar. In response, the Department highlighted that, in law, the Solicitors Complaints Committee is a subcommittee of the Law Society, so there would be legal issues in appointing members to it from an independent body.”
“In that regard, the Committee acknowledges the contribution of stakeholders, including the Law Society and the Bar Council, in informing the Committee's deliberations and the responsiveness of the responsible DFP official in seeking to provide clarification, explanation and assurances on issues arising from the evidence. <BR /> <BR />We set out a number of recommendations on amendments aimed at strengthening the Bill. I welcome the fact that, save for one, these have been taken on board by the Department and the Minister and are reflected in the amendments before us today. I shall speak to the specific amendments in a moment, but, in terms of the assurances received, I wish to highlight two areas at this point.”
“<BR /> <BR />During our pre-introductory and Committee Stage scrutiny, we received written and oral evidence from a range of stakeholders, including the Department, the bodies representing the legal profession, expert witnesses, consumer groups and other interested parties. In addition, comparative research and evidence were collected on the arrangements for handling legal complaints and regulation in other jurisdictions. That detailed work, which was informed by stakeholder evidence collected in advance of the Bill's introduction to the Assembly and during Committee Stage, resulted in a wide range of issues being raised with DFP, upon which some helpful clarification, explanation and assurances have been received.”
“The Committee's report noted that the proposed changes will not result in the type of root-and-branch reform leading to independent structures for legal complaints and regulation that has been legislated for in England and Wales, Scotland and that is planned in the South of Ireland. However, the Bill will provide for what has been described as a copper-bottoming of the present complaints handling arrangements here. This will include, amongst other things, a shift to layperson-led control with enhanced powers and oversight, including the establishment of the post of Legal Services Oversight Commissioner.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I start by congratulating the Minister on his appointment to the post. I am sure that he will bring that well-known north Antrim quality of financial prudence to the post, except, of course, when it comes to considering projects for north Antrim itself. I look forward to working with him for the next number of weeks at the very least. <BR /> <BR />As Chairperson, I would like to take a little latitude to refer briefly to the Committee's scrutiny of the Bill. Given that the Bill will bring about significant and long-awaited reform of the existing system for handling complaints against solicitors and barristers, the Committee considered it at length.”
“The beauty of devolution is that we can lead for ourselves, and we should not leave it to others to lead in areas that are of greatest importance to the people we represent. <BR /> <BR />I look forward to the Committee consideration of the Bill and to the amendments that will come forward, as I believe that it is a vehicle to help improve the health of the general public. There are a lot of public health aspects to the Bill, and that is why we will table our amendment regarding the levy.”
“Gabh mo leithscéal, a Cheann Comhairle. We should ensure that those funds are directed back at some of the adverse impacts of those products. There will be an argument about the nanny state — of that there is no doubt — but we cannot continue to do nothing. As the Minister and medical experts have said on many occasions, the pressures on health and the projections on obesity and diabetes are frightening and will have huge financial ramifications if we do not make targeted interventions such as this. <BR /> <BR />Devolution gives us the opportunity to lead. Of course, we have had the debate in Committee on the Human Transplantation Bill about waiting to see what happens in Wales.”
“We have seen that there was great resistance to the smoking ban in bars, and, when the plastic bag levy came in in the South for the first time, there was resistance to that. Today, there is no issue with any of those.”
“Yes. I think that moneys raised from that should remain within the Department of Health. Of course, it is a very large Department. I think that, when you raise revenue from something like this, you need to target it back on the effects of those drinks. You should look at obesity and diabetes and at those general areas. At this point, we are not saying that there should be anything specific, but we need to have a debate about what the revenue should go to. I do not believe that revenues raised should go to the Department of Finance, as I do not think that that would assist in getting public buy-in. <BR /> <BR />The public want to see us take brave steps, put our heads above the parapet and make unpopular decisions at times as well.”
“It also says that the greatest effect is on our young people. It is very clear that, any time you go into a filling station or a shop, you see queues of young people in uniform buying their Cokes, Diet Cokes and Sprites. There is a high rate of consumption of fizzy drinks among young people, and that is not good for their health.”
“Given the growing pressures that there clearly are on public health and on the Department in terms of a growing cost to the budget and given the frightening increase in the levels of diabetes and obesity, it is clear that the issue needs to be given serious consideration by Members. Will it be popular? It probably will not be popular, to a large degree. It may not be popular with certain companies either, but the question we need to ask ourselves is whether it is in the best interests of public health and the people we represent. There needs to be a full debate on that issue. <BR /> <BR />There has been research carried out. The most recent, in the British Medical Journal, states:”
“<BR /> <BR />I also welcome the news that the Minister, in conjunction with the Chair of the Committee, will table an amendment to ban smoking in cars carrying children. For me, that is a common-sense amendment; it should have been done long, long ago. I do not think that there should be any opposition to that. <BR /> <BR />Sinn Féin will table an amendment relating to the introduction of a levy on sugar-sweetened beverages or fizzy drinks. We believe that moneys raised from such a levy should be ring-fenced and put towards health needs. Of course, this issue has been debated to an extent among the public and in the media, but it needs to be considered more fully by the Assembly, the Department and, indeed, the Executive.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I support the principles of the Bill. It is important legislation that will help to improve public health and deter people from taking up nicotine-related products. For me, the jury is still very much out on e-cigarettes, though many see them as a lesser evil to cigarettes. I still feel uneasy when I see advertisements in newspapers and magazines for those products. It reminds me very much of the time, 20 or 30 years ago, when cigarettes were advertised in the same way. Regardless of what the effects of e-cigs are or are not, there does need to be some regulation. The prohibitions to be brought in regarding these products are much to be welcomed, given that there are no restrictions on selling these products to children at present.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Minister, given the British Chancellor's announcement pertaining to tax credits, what discussions will now take place at Executive level to reach consensus on what is done with the money that was set aside to address the needs of the most vulnerable?”
“Of course, we are all well aware of examples of public-sector workers on low to medium pay who will be impacted adversely after working in the public sector their entire career, and I outlined some of those earlier. There are quite a number of examples of that in education, as Members will know. <BR /> <BR />To conclude, we in Sinn Féin are in agreement with the Minister that there should be a cap on exit payments. However, given the local factors that have been brought to our attention, it is clear that we need a local solution, and this LCM is not fit for purpose in this circumstance.”
“At its meeting on 2 December, the Committee discussed the fact that this plenary debate was scheduled for today and noted that a number of issues and concerns were still outstanding, as highlighted in the Committee's report on the LCM and subsequent correspondence. That concludes my comments on the Committee's position on the LCM. <BR /> <BR />My position and that of my party is that we strongly support the principles of the Bill, but we believe that it fails to deliver. This is not obviously targeted at lower-paid workers, but they will certainly be impacted by its introduction. That may not have been the intention when the legislation was drafted for England, but it certainly would be the effect if it were copied and pasted here.”
“It reiterated that the cap will not impact on any accrued entitlement or benefits that an individual has built up and paid for in pension contributions to a public-sector pension scheme. While the Department acknowledged that some lower-paid staff with very long service could be affected, it maintained that the policy was:”
“<BR /> <BR />The Equality Commission also highlighted the "significant financial impact" on individuals who could be subject to the cap in a compulsory redundancy situation. In addition, the commission highlighted the current NICS voluntary exit scheme and the potential for equality data analysis after the first three tranches of staff leave that could be used to inform future requirements for positive/affirmative action measures. <BR /> <BR />A departmental response to the various outstanding issues was not received in time for members agreeing the Committee report on the LCM; therefore, a majority of members agreed that the Committee would reserve its position. The subsequent response from the Department was noted following the Committee agreeing its report.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Equality Commission highlighted a number of points relating to the Department's equality screening and the decision not to carry out a full equality impact assessment (EQIA). It pointed out that equality-screening decisions must be informed by evidence, whether that be qualitative or quantitative. The DFP screening exercise noted an adverse impact on long-serving older members of staff and no impacts on any of the other equality categories. However, the Equality Commission has highlighted that the Department provided no evidence for how those conclusions had been reached. The commission queried that, especially in light of the wide range of data available to the Department, given that it completes the NICS article 55 fair employment review and gender reviews.”
“Obviously, that correspondence was received after the Committee had completed its consideration of the LCM. <BR /> <BR />The Committee was also concerned about the lack of clarity provided by the Department on the projected savings from implementing the cap locally, particularly when it was informed by the trade union representatives that Scotland was not minded to apply such a cap to public-sector exit payments. <BR /> <BR />Members were also concerned that there was an indication from trade union reps that they would consider legal challenges to the cap, should it be introduced. The Committee has asked DFP for assurances that the risks in that regard have been fully assessed.”
“The authority also raised the issue of the potential fairness and equity treatment of staff exiting with different severance packages, depending on whether they were released before or after the cap was introduced. The LCM clearly poses issues for the sector. <BR /> <BR />We received correspondence this morning from Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council that stated that the introduction of the cap is likely to create a major issue — potential equal-pay claims or compulsory redundancies in the case of staff scheduled to leave cancelling their request to do so. The council is requesting that an exemption be applied to local government or that, if it is approved, the cap be delayed for local government until January 2020 to allow completion of the RPA severance scheme.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee noted in particular the concerns over the wide range of public servants in diverse roles who could be disadvantageously impacted on as a result of the cap. To put it simply, there is a worry that the cap could in practice affect more long-serving public servants than it does highly paid ones. <BR /> <BR />That particular concern was raised in correspondence from the Education Committee. Members may wish to reflect further on the education worker on a moderate salary who would be affected by the cap. The Education Authority is particularly concerned about the impact that the cap will have on its ability to facilitate staffing reductions through voluntary severance, as well as about the difficulties that the cap could present if it were to lead to a surge in staff wanting to exit before it came into effect.”
“<BR /> <BR />In the evidence session with them, trade union representatives raised a number of concerns, among which were that the consultation carried out by Treasury did not apply the Woolf-Gunning principles on fair consultation, leading to what they believed was a limited opportunity for local discussion and consultation; the potential impact that the cap would have on any voluntary exit schemes carried out in other areas of the public service, including the health service and the Education Authority, after the cap comes into operation on 1 April 2015; and the inconsistent application of the cap on local government workers, particularly the lower-paid who have already agreed entitlements under the review of public administration.”
“The Department also underlined the point that the cap would not affect any pension that an individual has already accrued and paid for by member contributions. DFP also stated that it did not agree with NILGOSC's concern over the effect of a cap on employee-funded early pensions, which are currently a feature of local government schemes. <BR /> <BR />I am afraid that, given the time pressure created around the whole issue, Members are going to have to judge for themselves the extent to which those and other substantive issues have been addressed by the Department. It was certainly the view of various stakeholders, most particularly the trade unions who gave evidence to the Committee, that there remained unresolved concerns.”
“The departmental officials also advised that the power to apply a waiver would be delegated to individual Departments or employing authorities and that the Department of Finance and Personnel would issue appropriate guidance. On the latter point, however, no such guidance was provided, even in draft form, by way of further explanation. Moreover, it is not clear what the implications might be from a differential application of the waiver and how the costs of applying it would work. <BR /> <BR />Some of the other issues raised by stakeholders were addressed, at least to some extent, by the Department. It was confirmed that there would be no implications, in the Department's view, for the protection conferred by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE).”
“In follow-up correspondence, the Department gave members further information on the possible application of a waiver process. For example, if there is clear evidence of a justified business need to disapply the cap:”
“However, they did not give an assurance that such a waiver would be applied in the case of the specific example, which was cited by members, of a 55-year-old female public-sector worker with 35 years’ service and earning £27,000 who could be impacted by a cap of £95,000.”
“<BR /> <BR />Departmental officials clarified some issues for members, including an assurance sought by the Fire Brigades Union that the cap would not impact firefighters who cannot maintain operational fitness beyond the age of 55. In response to concerns raised about specific circumstances in which the cap would impact on lower- or moderately paid public-sector workers, however, the Department made no promises. When pressed, the officials commented that there was scope for the Department or employing authority to grant certain flexibilities and waivers in certain circumstances.”
“First, however, the Committee took evidence from the Department on 4 November, and members raised a number of issues and concerns with the proposed LCM. Further detail can be found in the Committee’s report but, briefly and for the record, they included concerns about the use of the LCM process; the limited nature of the Treasury consultation; concerns over equality impact and screening; the impact of the cap on current voluntary exit schemes in the local public sector; concerns about potential legal challenges should the cap come into effect; and the potential for lower-paid public servants to be impacted by the cap.”
“The Committee was further told that the Minister had sought agreement to this approach from the First Minister and deputy First Minister through the urgent procedure in the ministerial code. The memorandum accompanying the LCM was subsequently laid on 22 October, thus beginning the short 15-day period for the Committee to scrutinise the provisions of the LCM. <BR /> <BR />In line with the Committee's previous approach when scrutinising LCMs, it sought an urgent briefing with the Department and written briefings from relevant stakeholders, including the collective consultation working group, the Equality Commission and Assembly Statutory Committees. Furthermore, and in light of the apparent level of discontent with the proposals, members agreed to hold an additional Committee meeting to take oral evidence from a trade union panel.”
“<BR /> <BR />On 16 September, the Committee was first informed about the relatively short consultation carried out by the Treasury during the summer on proposals for a cap on exit payments. Given the conventional approach followed here of providing broadly comparable pension and compensation arrangements for equivalent public service employment, it was noted that this could have implications locally. <BR /> <BR />Further correspondence highlighted the fact that the Minister was minded to agree with the Treasury’s preference for a single legislative approach, which could be achieved by means of an amendment to the Enterprise Bill and a corresponding LCM through the Assembly.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. On behalf of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, I wish to outline the extent of the Committee’s work on the LCM. The finer details of the Committee’s deliberations are set out in a short report that was circulated to all Members on 18 November. I shall, however, summarise the key points for Members’ convenience and for the Assembly record. <BR /> <BR />As outlined, the Enterprise Bill at Westminster contains a number of government initiatives intended to support the growth of enterprise. In the Bill, however, are measures to restrict public-sector exit payments, most notably capping the total value of exit payments at £95,000.”
“In the event of a corporation tax reduction, as outlined in the agreement, what efforts will the Minister undertake to ensure that VAT and other revenues generated by a corporation tax reduction, which will go to London, will come back to the Executive where they rightly belong?”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I start by congratulating the Minister and all those involved in reaching the agreement, particularly for securing protections for welfare claimants and also help for families on tax credits. That is something that many other jurisdictions do not have. I am sure that many families in a similar situation in places like England would greatly appreciate a similar support mechanism being put in place. <BR /> <BR />The Minister made reference to longer-term Budgets, and we need to start to look towards 2016-2021. Does the Minister agree that we need to ensure that we get corporation tax right?”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I congratulate the Minister on her appointment. What plans does she have to develop the EuroVelo to include the north coast, perhaps linking to two potential greenways: from Ballymena to Cushendall and the Armoy greenway from Ballymoney to Ballycastle?”
“I believe that it is a no-brainer and should be supported by Members. I look forward to Committee Stage. We need to look at experiences elsewhere. We need to look at the Welsh experience, given that they have just come through the introduction of legislation. Given the size of Wales in comparison with this part of Ireland, it is only proper that we look at the Welsh experience, and then we can look at amendments. At this stage, we are only discussing the principles of the Bill. Given its importance to people who are worried about their lives, it is a simple decision to support the Bill at Second Stage.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is a simple decision for me. We are debating the broad principles of the Bill, and Members are in agreement with those broad principles. They may want to make amendments at a later stage, but they should not try to kill the Bill at this stage without giving the opportunity for it to be discussed at Committee Stage. I reiterate: lives are at stake. Members will have an opportunity, if they want, to vote the Bill down at Final Stage, but, at this stage, the proper and mature thing to do is to allow it to proceed to Committee Stage, so that we can look at the issues and concerns that all Members and some parties may have with the Bill. <BR /> <BR />As far as I am concerned, the evidence that I have seen shows that the Bill will save lives. The introduction of a soft opt-out system has saved lives in other countries.”
“I congratulate the sponsor of the Bill for bringing it forward. She has obviously invested a lot of time and effort, and, as someone who has brought forward two private Member's Bills, I can certainly understand the frustration when a Bill is killed off at Second Stage without getting a fair hearing. In that context, supporting the Bill is simply the right thing to do. The evidence is overwhelming. On the whole, when variables are accounted for, countries with a soft opt-out have 30% higher donation rates than those that are described as informed consent countries. The Westminster Government commissioned research by the York group. It concluded that the available evidence suggested that presumed consent was associated with increased organ donation rates, even when other factors were accounted for.”
“Where it has been introduced in other countries, culture change has soon followed. <BR /> <BR />The Committee discussed scenarios such as where a next of kin opposed donation, even against the deceased's wishes. In such cases, it is important that the wishes of the donor are protected. <BR /> <BR />With the introduction of the system in Wales, people have a better chance. If we have a soft opt-out here, people will have a better chance. Those in need of a successful transplant need to be given a better chance of life: in essence, that is what we are talking about. By passing the Bill, without or without amendments, we can give people a better chance of life. <BR /> <BR />The way that I see it, the Bill is one of the most important Bills in the lifetime of this Assembly. That is the magnitude of what we are talking about.”
“I support the principles of the Bill and support its passage to Committee Stage, because it is about saving lives. The Welsh Assembly realised that: their Health Minister said, quite simply, that it would give hope to people on the register. This is a soft opt-out system. We do not want to see a system that in any way adds to a family's grief, but paramount is the need to offer hope to those people and to protect a person's wish to donate. <BR /> <BR />At present, there are over 650,000 people on the organ donation register, but, as Mr Donald Cairnduff told the Committee, many of them have not told their loved ones or their families. In many cases, they do not wish to have that conversation and would feel uncomfortable doing so, so we need to see a culture change as well.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Many Members will be aware of Mr Owens's case; he has campaigned and canvassed for many years on the matter. Is the Minister willing to meet Mr Owens to move the matter on?”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the announcement by the Minister. He is absolutely right: it has to benefit those on the front line. Indeed, I have received a number of complaints from nurses in Antrim Area Hospital about a situation in the emergency department there. I will discuss it with the Minister tomorrow at the Committee. <BR /> <BR />What contact has the Minister had with trade unions about his announcement and the implications for staff?”