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 In that context, it does not make sense that support to secure the vote is withdrawn from those on the ground when they need it more than ever.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 9 of 15.
“— if it is not tough enough already. <BR /> <BR />Most of the experts agreed that convergence appears to have occurred in the North to some extent, although the influences and complexities of that were discussed in some detail. While convergence can slow or reverse during a period of austerity, the Committee noted that it will depend on the particular mix of influencing factors that exist at any point in time. Moreover, Dr Gudgin cautioned:”
“A number of experts highlighted how convergence with per capita spending in England — the Barnett squeeze, as it is known — means that the North is likely to be in the same position as Wales in a few years' time, whereby funding has gone below the level that needs-based formulae would provide. In this regard, Professor Alan Trench cautioned:”
“In light of this and the apparent commitments to retain the formula, the Committee commenced its review last autumn, taking evidence from a range of expert witnesses over seven months. Research was commissioned, and several members visited Edinburgh in May for discussions with senior Scottish Government officials and members of the Scottish Parliament’s Finance Committee. <BR /> <BR />I expect others may wish to cover some of the detail of the Committee’s findings during the debate, including the pros and cons of the formula. I shall, therefore, focus in very broad terms on the four key areas that needed to be addressed. <BR /> <BR />I mentioned the risk of being underfunded.”
“In light of the vow by Messrs Cameron, Clegg and Miliband before the independence referendum in Scotland, Professor Heald had pointed out that that could mean different things, including that Barnett is kept in name only; that the population-based mechanism continues and is combined with a needs assessment; and/or that it will be about maintaining Scotland's level of per capita spending. In short, therefore, we do not know what the future holds for how or whether the Barnett formula continues. <BR /> <BR />In February 2012, the Committee received preliminary evidence from a panel of expert witnesses that indicated that, whilst historically the Barnett formula, or the original block allocation, may have worked in our favour due to various factors, we could soon reach the point at which we are underfunded in terms of relative need.”
“The possibility exists that, as a result of the way in which the formula works, we could end up being significantly underfunded in relative terms, certainly when we turn the corner with austerity, which, I am sure, we all hope is sooner rather than later. There is also the very real possibility that the status quo will be changed for us as a result of wider constitutional reform across the water in the wake of the Scottish independence referendum and the May general election. <BR /> <BR />The Committee had the privilege of a briefing from Professor David Heald, one of the leading lights on devolution funding, who is accredited with giving the Barnett formula its name.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I open what I believe to be a very important debate strategically. While it focuses on our future funding arrangements, the issues are ultimately concerned with the longer-term prosperity of our local economy and the wider community. <BR /> <BR />In terms of the headlines arising from the review of the operation of the Barnett formula, let me make two points clear up front: first, the Committee is not necessarily calling for the Barnett formula to be scrapped, at least not in the short-term; secondly, the Committee has identified two key areas of risk.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. We all recall that he and his party stood on a Tory manifesto not so long ago, so it is no surprise that he is defending that particular Government. Of course we knew that if the Tories got into Government again, they would continue with these ideological cuts. These are in no way economical. It is crushing our economy and it is squeezing any opportunity that we have of economic recovery. The Member can criticise us all he wants, but what is his view on what the Tories are doing? Does he or does he not agree with their economic policies?”
“<BR /> <BR />I firmly believe that there are areas where more efficiencies and savings can be achieved, including in the current financial year. The scrutiny by the Assembly and its Committees can add real value to the Budget process in that regard. However, for that to occur, the Committees need to be provided with the information and afforded the time to enable them to undertake constructive scrutiny and to exercise influence at the most appropriate stages in the process. <BR />In the context of the immediate business before us today, however, on behalf of the Finance and Personnel Committee, I support the general principles of the Bill.”
“That is a welcome acknowledgement, because in its inquiry into flexible working, the Committee found that the local public sector appears to lag behind other jurisdictions in adopting new technology. On a recent visit by some of the Committee members to Edinburgh, it was clear that we still have some lessons to learn about public-sector efficiencies. One example was the Smarter Workplaces initiative that the Scottish Government are driving forward to reduce the Government estate by 25% and to achieve significant savings. While I accept that some efforts have been made by our Departments in that area, the Committee's conclusion was that a more strategic and joined-up approach is needed to maximise savings.”
“On a related issue, which is again connected to the implications of the voluntary exit scheme, the head of the Civil Service advised the Committee that, in downsizing the Civil Service by 10%, it will have to do things differently, including using:”
“The provision of that information is important for the Finance Committee's cross-cutting scrutiny and for the other Statutory Committees in monitoring progress at a departmental level. More generally, the role of the Committees in scrutinising spend and in monitoring savings and service delivery will continue to increase in importance, given the budgetary challenges that are before us.”
“To date, however, the detail on this has not been forthcoming. <BR /> <BR />I can fully understand that these are projections and are, of course, subject to change. Surely, however, there are specific calculations for the pay bill savings within the administration cost figures in the Estimates that were considered last week and, in more global terms, within the Bill before us today. Given its central coordinating and monitoring role, I would expect that DFP has a handle on this already. I would therefore welcome clarification from the Minister today on the pay bill savings figures that have been factored into each departmental budget and which also cover the arm's-length bodies.”
“<BR /> <BR />A further issue which the Committee has been pressing, and which, I think, the Department also recognises, is the need to maximise the use of financial transactions capital, which is becoming an increasingly important source of investment in infrastructure. <BR /> <BR />During last week's Supply resolution debate, I highlighted that the Committee had been advised that the voluntary exit scheme estimated a Civil Service pay bill reduction of £26 million for the second half of this financial year and a total saving of £70 million across the wider public sector. During recent briefings from the head of the Civil Service and various senior DFP officials, the Committee sought to establish a precise breakdown of the projected savings within the budgets for each Department for 2015-16.”
“I think that there was a collective sense that ways need to be found to work constructively in moving things forward. Notwithstanding the obvious sticking points, I noted some key issues upon which I think there is some common ground. Not least amongst them is the need to consider the regional economic impact of the British Government's austerity, or deficit-reduction, policy. I think that we all share the view that local needs and circumstances have to be taken into account and respected. I think that there was also recognition of the importance of having a mature debate on budgetary pressures and revenue-raising options, which will also serve to increase the wider public understanding.”
“The Committee noted that this matter has been considered by the Comptroller and Auditor General and reported on by the Public Accounts Committee, which recommended that the necessary sums be provided by Excess Votes by the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />As on previous occasions, DFP has highlighted the need for the Bill to progress through the Assembly before the summer recess. In this regard the Committee, at its meeting last week, agreed to grant accelerated passage to the Bill under Standing Order 42(2) on the basis of having been consulted appropriately on the expenditure provisions in the Bill. I wrote to the Speaker's Office to confirm this decision. <BR /> <BR />I believe there was positive engagement with the Minister during her first appearance before the Committee last week and I hope that that sets the tone for further meetings.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. As already outlined by the Minister, the Bill makes provision for the balance of cash and resources that are required to reflect the departmental spending plans in the 2015-16 Main Estimates. These are based on the Executive's one-year Budget for 2015-16 which was approved by the Assembly in January. <BR /> <BR />As outlined, the Bill also includes provision for excess cash and resource requirements by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety; the Department of Education, and the Public Prosecution Service which were not anticipated in the spring Supplementary Estimates.”
“Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for her answer. Her party colleague Sammy Wilson has already mooted that he would support cuts to welfare in the Budget, which would result in a reduction in our block grant. Can the Minister be clear and unambiguous in stating whether her party supports those cuts?”
“<BR /> <BR />These, and other issues, remain to be teased out in more detail at Committee Stage. The Finance Committee will issue its call for evidence and invite formal written submissions from all who have an interest. I expect that it will also wish to commission further research and look more closely at any lessons that we may be able to apply from how the arrangements in Scotland have worked in practice and what is proposed under the new legislation in the South. <BR /> <BR />To conclude, a LeasCheann Comhairle, on behalf of the Committee, I welcome this important Bill to the House today, and I have no doubt that the Committee will ensure that it plays its part in the robust scrutiny of the detailed provisions of the Bill as it is referred for Committee Stage.”
“However, the headlines are that the Committee has raised queries on a range of key issues, including the scope for a robust mechanism for recording all complaints, not just those that are logged once the later stages of the complaints process has been instigated; the role and functions of the Oversight Commissioner, including the adequacy of the various powers and duties provided for in the Bill; the potential for the Bill to apply some aspects of the model in Scotland for handling conduct and service complaints; how the Oversight Commissioner will be appointed and the term of office; how a complaint can be defined to ensure consistent application by both professions; how laypersons will be appointed to the respective complaints committees in the Bar Council and the Law Society and how this will be overseen by the Oversight Commissioner; the funding arrangements for the Oversight Commissioner; and the rate of levy applicable and how that will be proportionate to the size of the legal practice.”
“The system, therefore, works on the basis of complaints being filtered upwards. This, in itself, may be appropriate, but I believe that, in tailoring the new arrangements, we need to be clear on the quantum of complaints and that the Oversight Commissioner is not just seeing the tip of the iceberg of issues that go unresolved. <BR /> <BR />Given that we are debating only the principles of the Bill today, I will not go into detail on the Committee's deliberations to date.”
“The Department argues that this approach, as opposed to fully independent structures for complaints and regulation, is proportionate for this jurisdiction. The Committee has not, at least not at this stage, disputed that assertion. It has noted that the Law Society and the Bar Council state that barristers and solicitors receive few complaints. However, members also noted that, in the case of solicitors, for example, information on such complaints is not recorded by the Law Society until it becomes involved in the process.”
“<BR /> <BR />Subject to the Bill passing this stage today, I am sure that the Committee will build on the preliminary scrutiny to produce an evidenced-based report to the Assembly, with robust conclusions and recommendations for Members to consider in advance of Consideration Stage. As indicated, it will be important that the Committee explores how the views of the end users, including hard-to-reach groups, might be heard directly, thereby ensuring a balanced body of evidence on which the Committee can base its recommendations. <BR /> <BR />In terms of the principles of the Bill, the explanatory memorandum describes the chosen option as:”
“The Law Centre also queried whether the legal profession had ever done any surveys of consumer confidence in complaints-handling procedures, and, if so, what the outcomes were. <BR /> <BR />Secondly, the complaints system needs to be easily accessible and transparent. Thirdly, we need to be sure that the oversight commissioner will have the necessary powers and duties to fulfil the role effectively. <BR /> <BR />On behalf of the Committee, I take this opportunity to thank departmental officials and other stakeholders, including the Law Society, the Bar Council and the Lay Observer, who have contributed with their evidence to date. I look forward to that continuing as the Bill progresses through the House.”
“First, we need to be sure that we have the full picture of the level and scale of complaints on the ground, particularly those that go unresolved. Only then can we be confident that we are striking the correct balance in making informed decisions on the issue of proportionality. The lack of certainty on this was highlighted in comments by the Law Centre in a written submission to the Committee. In reflecting on the apparently low number of complaints here, it cautioned:”
“I mention that at the outset because it is important that the detailed provisions are carefully scrutinised at Committee Stage to ensure that they are sufficiently robust in that regard. It has already been noted during Committee discussions that a power relationship exists between lawyer and client. We need to be careful to factor that in when identifying and assessing evidence. Obviously, the consumer perspective can, to a certain extent, be gauged through representative bodies. However, the question arises of whether such channels receive only the most persistent of complainants in that area. <BR /> <BR />While we must ensure that a balance is struck and that the new arrangements are proportionate, they also need to command the confidence of the general public. To achieve that, we need three things.”
“<BR /> <BR />It was noted that, in August 2010, the then Finance Minister, Sammy Wilson, indicated that, while he believed that the review group's recommendations were a step in the right direction, he had some reservations that they did not go far enough. At that time, he stated:”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. In anticipation of this important Bill being introduced to the Assembly, the Committee for Finance and Personnel has been endeavouring to gather evidence proactively on its policy aims and has commissioned research into the approaches being taken in other applicable jurisdictions on the regulation of the legal profession and the handling of complaints. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the fact that the Bill has finally been introduced to the Assembly, especially given the significant delay in moving things forward since the legal services review group, chaired by Professor Bain, reported with its policy recommendations in 2006. I echo the Minister's earlier acknowledgement of work carried out by Professor Bain and the group on behalf of the Committee.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. She refers to the £9·6 billion. Indeed, other members of her party referred to a £10 billion deficit. That figure comes from a report by her Department and her predecessor. Obviously, we have a great deal of difficulty accepting it as a credible report. The London Government and their Office for National Statistics clearly do not accept that it is credible either.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he and his Department fully support recommendations made by disability groups in relation to the development of the regulation of pavement cafes?”
“As locally elected politicians, we have to act in our people's best interests, and that is not about bending the knee to a Tory Administration.”
“All of the Governments concerned — in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh — are being increasingly undermined by a London Administration who ignore the fact that none of those Administrations are interested in the economic ideology being pursued by the Tory Government. Of course, London was in economic crisis four to five years ago. At this point, it was supposed to be out of it, but it is not, so it is quite clear that those economic policies have failed and need to be challenged by all the parties in this Executive. <BR /> <BR />We do not need a softly-softly approach from some parties in the Assembly. I believe that, if we adopt a collective voice with Scotland and Wales, the Tories will be forced to sit up and take notice. The situation that we are in at the moment is untenable and unsustainable.”
“We need a robust position and a defence of our Executive and our planning in relation to the economy, not only for a number of months ahead into the financial year, but for the next four to five years. The British Government make these decisions with little reference to the devolved Administrations. Scotland did not vote for the Tories; Wales did not vote for the Tories; and the North most certainly did not vote for the Tories. Those three jurisdictions most certainly did not vote for the economic policies that are being shoved down our throats year after year. <BR /> <BR />There is no doubt that there are huge challenges ahead, and I believe that we need to act collectively and to stand shoulder to shoulder with Wales and Scotland, who find themselves in a similar position.”
“On Friday, 77 of the best-known academic economists outlined huge concern at the British Chancellor, George Osborne's, new budget surplus law proposal. It ignores basic economics and shifts debt to households, consumers and businesses. The risk of a personal debt crisis to rival 2008 is very real indeed. <BR /> <BR />The Scottish Finance Minister, John Swinney, has blasted cuts to this year's Budget as being completely and utterly unacceptable. The Scottish Parliament has already agreed its Budget. The Welsh Finance Minister also attacked George Osborne for his £50 million cut to their in-year Budget. We need a similar position from the Finance Minister and Executive here.”
“<BR /> <BR />To give a party view on the motion before us today, it is quite clear that there is potentially — indeed there has already been — wave after wave of cuts from London, from an economically incompetent Government blinded by ideology. The crisis, referred to earlier by the proposer of the amendment, does not come from here, but from London and the budgets that have been foisted on us from there. Those financial decisions are ideologically led and, increasingly, economists in Britain are finding it quite difficult to live with the basic economics of them. <BR /> <BR />As MLAs, we have to ask ourselves whether we are here to stand up for people, local communities and local businesses, or to act as puppets for a Tory Administration who cut budgets so deep that the Executive cannot effectively function.”
“While the Minister has responded with a contrary legal view, focusing more on the setting of limits, I believe the clarification that the Committee has obtained could be a helpful contribution for all concerned, should such circumstances arise in the future. <BR /> <BR />Today’s Estimates, and the related Bill, present a further scenario in anticipating the full implementation of the Stormont House Agreement. I therefore look forward to receiving further information and clarity on the issues I have highlighted ahead of the Committee’s decision regarding accelerated passage on Wednesday. Given that the Committee will not receive a briefing from the Department about the Supply resolution for the Excess Votes 2013-14 until Wednesday, I am not in a position to reflect a Committee position on that today.”
“Given the risks around unresolved issues, the Committee invited the Minister to attend last week's meeting to discuss scenarios that could arise if no progress is made, and what the available options might be. While the Minister did not take up that particular invitation, the Committee received independent legal advice from the Assembly's Legal Services on the concern around whether Departments would have the power to use accruing resources in the event of the Budget (No. 2) Bill not being agreed by the end of July. That detailed and robust advice — the gist of which was shared with the Minister — set out a logical and lawful way forward in that scenario, given the Department's powers of direction.”
“<BR /> <BR />It would also be helpful to receive clarity, at this stage, on the further budgetary reductions resulting from the Chancellor's recent announcement of £3 billion in reduced spending with the prospect of additional in-year austerity measures by the Conservative Government in the coming weeks. The figure of £38 million has been referred to, and the implications of that and what is down the line are very worrying indeed.”
“Given the savings opportunity offered by the voluntary exit schemes in the face of the current difficulties over further budgetary reductions, the Committee questioned officials at last week's session to establish the scope for decoupling the borrowing power or finding other flexibility to progress the schemes and achieve the projected pay bill reductions in the current financial year. For some months now, we have been seeking a briefing from DFP on the outcome of the validation study of welfare reform costs, which was commissioned last autumn by the previous Minister. That is a significant delay which has been on the Committee's books for some time, and it is a further issue on which it would be helpful to receive clarification.”
“According to the previous Minister, the schemes will realise estimated annual pay bill savings of £500 million per annum by 2018-19 across the public sector. The Committee has also been advised that the Civil Service pay bill reduction for the second half of this financial year is estimated at £26 million and that the anticipated savings figure for the wider public sector is £70 million. However, the Committee has not received confirmation of the precise figure for projected pay bill savings, which has been included within departmental baselines for this financial year, including the breakdown across Departments and other public bodies, and perhaps that is something that the Minister can provide in closing today's debate. <BR /> <BR />Two further points on the schemes require clarification.”
“I thank the Minister for agreeing to come before the Committee to answer any questions that it may have at this week's meeting. <BR /> <BR />The Committee will consider whether it is satisfied in that regard, and I will write to the Speaker on the outcome of its deliberations. Normally, the Committee would have received an oral briefing from DFP on the Estimates and Budget Bill before the Supply resolution debate. That did not occur; nonetheless, given that the Estimates and Bill reflect the Executive's agreed Budget for 2015-16, I can confirm that there was significant engagement between the Committee and DFP on both the draft and final Budgets. <BR /> <BR />On voluntary exit schemes, the Committee heard from the head of the Civil Service and other senior officials on the overall position across the wider public sector.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Minister and senior DFP officials are due to brief the Committee for Finance and Personnel at its meeting this Wednesday in relation to the Main Estimates and the associated Budget (No. 2) Bill. The Committee, in its scrutiny function, has an important role in deciding whether to grant accelerated passage to Budget Bills under the power in Standing Order 42.2. Importantly, that is on the basis that:”
“Given that we are returning to this issue three years on from a previous debate, it does, as Máirtín Ó Muilleoir said, highlight the fact that we do not have a full suite of fiscal powers. It most certainly highlights the fact that we do not have enough at present. We need to see APD devolved. If the British Government decide to abolish it altogether at some point in the future, so be it. We will receive financial compensation at that time. <BR /> <BR />There is clearly a message coming from the tourism industry, from airports, and from B&Bs in places like East Derry and North Antrim, that we are not punching above our weight, and there needs to be some radical changes in economic and fiscal policies here to ensure that we punch above our weight and are getting our fair share of the tourism pie on an all-island basis.”
“We need to explore greatly. We not only need to raise with the British Government the fact that this rate does not suit us, but we need to find local solutions where possible, regardless of the many barriers that are put in place in that regard. <BR /> <BR />The Scottish Parliament will be receiving some power in terms of the receipts from VAT — I think that it is some 10% — and they can use that and be responsible for the actions arising from it. We need to look at whether there are other solutions to this issue. If we are restricted in the VAT rate, are there other solutions that the Executive can look at by using money more creatively? That is if we get more money in the first place, which is an entirely different issue.”
“I raise that point because I certainly sense that there is frustration among the airports and those who work in the tourism industry that there are restrictions in place. They are helplessly watching many of their potential customers coming onto the island through Dublin and going elsewhere on the island but not coming north. That is a problem that we all need to get to grips with. <BR /> <BR />There are benefits. The Member for South Antrim said that we should go lower than the South on some of the taxation rates. I think that we need to see an equal rate in APD and tourism VAT. We need to see an equal playing field, first and foremost. Of course, there are many issues with having a different rate than Britain, but there are examples in Europe, such as Austria, where a different rate applies in different regions of that country.”
“That, coupled with other bizarre economic policies that we have as a result of the policies set at Westminster — air passenger duty being the most obvious one — leads to a situation where our tourism industry, fantastic and all as it is — and it has done much, despite some of the restrictions that have been placed upon it — cannot punch at or above our weight at the moment. <BR /> <BR />I do not know if any Members have seen today's 'Irish News', but Uel Hoey from Belfast International Airport cites the fact that there has been a 52% growth in Northern passengers at Dublin airport. He gives plaudits to the Finance Committee on our work and also says that he hopes that Ministers will see the light after a recent report by both the present Finance Minister and the present Health Minister, who was acting as Finance Minister at that time.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion, and I congratulate the sponsors on bringing it forward. It sounds as if the House is fairly united on this issue. Of course, it has come before the House before. There was a debate three years ago on the same issue, and, in some ways, we have not moved on much since that. Yes, we have made progress on tourism in general, and the success has been widely mooted already, but in terms of economic policy, in some respects we have not moved on at all since that time. Based on that fact alone, there are issues that we need to look at. <BR /> <BR />The high level of VAT that is levied on local tourism here is a grave concern. Other Members have mentioned the lower rates across the rest of the EU and the rest of this island.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Again, will the Minister ensure that this is not a consultation with a predetermined outcome as has been the case before, as the previous contributor said? Is he taking the rural impact into consideration? How will this decision be rural-proofed when he reaches his conclusions?”
“Given the role of the Health Department in the rule, the Committee agreed to copy the initial briefing paper on the proposed rule to the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety for comment. That Committee noted that at its meeting of 11 March. Having received no further comments, the Finance and Personnel Committee proceeded with its scrutiny. <BR /> <BR />The Committee formally considered the statutory rule at its meeting on 29 April, together with the accompanying report from the Assembly's Examiner of Statutory Rules. The Examiner raised no issues by way of technical scrutiny. The Committee agreed to recommend that the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 (Disclosure of Patient Registration Information) Regulations (NI) 2015 be affirmed by the Assembly. Therefore, I support the motion.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her opening remarks. Indeed, I congratulate her, as this is the first time that I have spoken since her appointment. On behalf of the Committee, I wish her well in the time ahead. <BR /> <BR />As the Minister outlined, the regulations will enable DHSSPS to disclose selected demographic information from patient registration records to the Statistics Board and onwards to NISRA for the purpose of producing population statistics and assessing census returns. The information disclosed under the regulations will not include the health or condition of, or the care treatment provided to, any patient. <BR /> <BR />The policy proposals contained in the rule were considered by the Committee on 4 March.”
“In terms of the concerns that the Minister raised, I know that the Committee for OFMDFM took evidence from Dr Frawley on those issues and noted that the Department of Finance and Personnel's response did not highlight any problems with either the Commissioner for Complaints's remit or how it has operated. I further note that the Committee was of the view that SMEs may not necessarily have the resources available to pursue public procurement complaints against Departments through the courts, given the high legal costs involved. Whilst the Finance and Personnel Committee has not had the opportunity to consider those differing perspectives on the practical outworking of the public procurement provisions, perhaps they will be explored in more detail today or later in the legislative process.”