Maeve McLaughlin
Foyle · Sinn Féin · Northern Ireland
“However, as the Minister outlined, the Bill widened somewhat as a result of its passage through the Assembly, with the inclusion of the provision on smoking in cars carrying minors, the promotion and reporting of organ transplantation and organ donation, and the study by the Department on a levy on sugar-sweetened drinks.”
“Our amendment, which has been further amended by the Minister, provides an evidence base of the impact and details how a levy on sugar sweetened drinks would be administered, and I welcome the fact that it has progressed to Final Stage.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. On behalf of the Committee, I welcome the Final Stage of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />The objective of the Bill, as the Minister outlined, is to modernise the model of the code of conduct used by the Social Care Council to bring it into line with other health and social care regulators.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee considered the provisions on transplantation and organ donation as part of its scrutiny of the Human Transplantation Bill. The majority of the Committee supported the duty to promote and report on transplantation and organ donation.”
“This is simply to protect children from the effects of second-hand smoke or from even taking up smoking. The stark fact remains that 2,300 people die every year in the North from tobacco-related illnesses.”
“However, stakeholders were content with the provisions as made. <BR /> <BR />There was significant comment on what was not included in the Bill: the banning of smoking in cars carrying minors.”
The complete record
Every one of 502 lines we hold for Maeve McLaughlin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 11.
“That represents real value for money because, unlike regions within Britain, which rely on drawing on the resources and personnel of neighbouring regions to meet large-scale emergencies, the service here is largely stand-alone, with some, but very limited, cross-border cooperation. <BR /> <BR />I reflected on and thought an issue that was brought to my attention by the service to be quite stark. The Fire Service here must stockpile foam because, if it runs out, as has happened, electrical fires will have to be left to burn until more foam can be brought from Britain by ferry. I ask anyone in the Chamber to suggest or indicate that that somehow will not have a detrimental impact or will not at least increase risk. <BR /> <BR />We need to reflect on the facts. They are stark, and some Members alluded to them.”
“That means that appliances designated to save lives from multistorey buildings are often left in stations with their trained crews out on other appliances dealing with incidents. An example of this in my city just last year was a very serious blaze in a Chinese restaurant. Crews had to leave the incident to go back to their station to get the appliance. Those are very clearly risky situations for the crew and, indeed, the wider public. In my view, that is simply not acceptable. <BR /> <BR />It was alluded to that the Fire Service has additional statutory responsibilities, such as rescues from serious flooding, and that it has not received any additional funding for those statutory duties. I think that we have to reflect on cost. The cost of the service here breaks down to 11p per day, compared with 13p per day in Britain.”
“I question whether anybody can stand, hand on heart, and say that a budget reduction of £12 million is not having a detrimental impact on the service. I suggest that the Members opposite reflect long and hard on that. Clearly, the evidence in front of us today and on a daily basis on our streets and in our cities and towns points to that detrimental impact. <BR /> <BR />The Chief Fire Officer is very clear on the effect that the cuts are having. It has been well documented. In relation to this financial year, the figures clearly demonstrate that the Fire Service is a cost-effective service. As it stands, the service in my constituency, for example, can no longer primarily crew aerial appliances. It cannot do that in Derry or Belfast.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome this opportunity to speak in what is an important debate. I acknowledge not only the members of the Fire Service who are here today but the role of the proposer of the motion in bringing it to the House today. I am pleased to have the opportunity, as Sinn Féin's health spokesperson, to speak in what is an important debate. I do not think that anyone in society could be in any doubt as to the life-saving and vital role played by our Fire Service. I support the motion and, indeed, the amendment tabled by Mr McKinney, Mr Diver and Mr Dallat. <BR /> <BR />I listened to the Member who spoke previously in relation to the DUP amendment.”
“Extending the Committee Stage of this Bill by three days will build in a small element of additional time in order to allow the Committee one further meeting for its scrutiny before producing the report.”
“The Health and Personal Social Services (Amendment) Bill passed Second Stage on 1 December 2015 and should, under the 30-working-day rule, complete Committee Stage on 2 February 2016. Its main objective is to modernise the model of conduct used by the Social Care Council in order to bring it into line with other health and social care regulators. A further feature of the Bill is to extend opportunities for the recognition of the continuous professional development activity of social workers post-registration. <BR /> <BR />The Committee, at its meeting on 2 December 2015, agreed to call for written submissions from interested organisations and individuals. Although this is likely to be uncomplicated legislation, the Committee is conscious that it has a further two Bills to scrutinise and report on by the end of the mandate.”
“<BR /> <BR />As I said, the Committee did not have sight of the text of the remaining amendments in this group, so I will make no further comment at this point.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee shared the concerns expressed in the evidence received about the breadth of the term "social well-being", which cannot be easily defined. The Committee wrote to the Department to ask whether it would be prepared to remove the term "social well-being" and replace it with "social care", which is already defined in the 2009 Reform Act. The Department indicated that it was prepared to make the amendment, and we have it before us as amendment No 11. The Committee, therefore, supports amendment No 11. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 13 and 14, which remove the word "services" are supported by the Committee, because the word is superfluous in that the definition of "social care" refers to the 2009 Reform Act and means any services designed to secure improvement in the social well-being of people.”
“However, it later clarified that the public interest provision does not stand alone. The Department went on to advise that information sharing would not be permissible solely on the basis of public interest, in that all uses must be connected to a health or social care purpose such as medical research, management of healthcare services or the provision and management of social care services. That is an important point about the breadth of the initial legislation. <BR /> <BR />The Department subsequently forwarded an amendment for consideration by the Committee that it would make it clear that information sharing would not be permissible solely on the basis of public interest and that all uses must be connected to a health and social care purpose. The Committee, therefore, supports amendment No 3.”
“Amendment No 3 was a key issue of concern for the Committee to do with the definition of "public interest". The general view was that, as the Bill was drafted, the definition was too wide. The Committee also questioned whether the Department's intent on the policy objective was reflected in the Bill. The Bill appeared to give the impression that there were two separate issues: processing information for health and social care purposes; and processing information that was in the public interest. The Committee raised its concerns with the Department. Initially, the Department responded by advising that the processing of information would be considered for health and social care purposes that are in the interests of improving health and social care or in the public interest.”
“Clause 1(1) attracted considerable commentary from stakeholders and members. The first amendment to clause 1(1) is amendment No 2, and it is supported by the Committee. It will provide clarity on the purpose of the Bill by replacing the term "medical or social care purposes" with "health care or social care purposes".”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I will now add my comments, and those of the Committee, to the second group of amendments. <BR /> <BR />In relation to the amendments to clause 1, the Committee considered only amendment Nos 2, 3, 11, 13 and 14 during Committee Stage, although it was aware that consequential amendments would be forthcoming to clause 1 and others.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. I ask the Minister to join us in reflecting on the fact that his own analysis in his response said that it is likely to have an impact. That is something that we need to test. It can also be quite difficult for an individual to manoeuvre the current data protection process by demonstrating considerable distress and within a very limited time frame.”
“It responded by advising that a code of practice was guidance to be followed and not meant to be prescriptive or rules for every occasion, and it highlighted that a code of practice was an officially sanctioned code and not a document issued on a voluntary basis without statutory authority. <BR /> <BR />However, the Committee remained of the view that it should be in the Bill that a court or tribunal may take into account a breach of the code in any proceedings it considered relevant, and we therefore agreed a Committee amendment to that effect. I, therefore, urge the House to support amendment No 20. <BR /> <BR />That concludes my comments on the first group of amendments.”
“Amendment No 20 is a Committee amendment that also relates to the code of practice. As I mentioned, the Committee felt strongly that the code of practice had the potential to be a more robust safeguard against the unlawful processing of information. Although it was content that bodies would have due regard to it when carrying out their work, members felt that more could be done to make the code more robust. The Committee therefore wrote to the Department asking whether it would be prepared to strengthen the code by proposing an amendment to insert words to the effect that a court or tribunal must take into account a breach of the code in any proceedings it considered relevant. The Department did not feel that the amendment was necessary.”
“Given that this goes some way to strengthen the status of the code of practice, the Committee supports amendment Nos 18 and 19.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 18 and 19 concern the code of practice on the processing of information. The Committee had particular concerns about the status of the code, one of which was that health and social care bodies were only required to "have regard" to it. The Committee felt strongly that the code of practice had the potential to be more robust against the unlawful processing of information, and was of the view that it should be strengthened. We therefore wrote to the Department asking whether it would be prepared to make amendments to make the code a compliance code. The Department proposed amendments to strengthen the provision to require health and social care bodies and other relevant bodies to "have due regard" to the code of practice as opposed to "have regard" to it.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 16 is about the establishment of a committee to authorise the processing of confidential information. The Committee was firmly of the view that the establishment of this authorising committee should be mandatory. That view was echoed in the written and oral evidence received. The Committee felt that that safeguard was of the utmost importance in ensuring that confidential information is protected and, indeed, that due process is followed when applications are received and considered. The Committee wrote to the Department to ask whether it would consider an amendment to make the establishment of the authorising committee mandatory. The Department responded by proposing an amendment to that effect. The Committee therefore supports amendment No 16.”
“However, it was unclear how the Committee's amendment might impact on the 1998 Act. In light of that uncertainty, the Committee decided that it would defer moving amendment No 8 until Further Consideration Stage, if appropriate, and, in the meantime, seek legal advice in relation to the issue. I will therefore not move amendment No 8 today. <BR /> <BR />On 5 January, the Minister provided the Committee with the text of what he called alternative amendments to place a requirement on the authorising committee to disseminate information about the rights of individuals in relation to their confidential information, including opt-out. They are amendment Nos 15 and 17. Given the late notice of the amendments, the Committee did not have an opportunity to form a view and, as a result, agreed to note them.”
“<BR /> <BR />Whilst acknowledging that an opt-out provision already exists in health and social care under the 1998 Act, the Committee was of the view that the protection of an individual's right to a private life and the potential for raising public awareness of the right to opt out was of such importance that provision should be in the Bill. The Committee therefore agreed the wording of an amendment to place an opt-out provision in the Bill. The Committee received correspondence from the Department on 5 January advising that the Committee's opt-out amendment is likely — I stress "likely" — to impact on the operation of section 10 of the 1998 Act, which is a reserved matter. At the Committee's request, a departmental official attended the Committee meeting on 7 January to brief members on the matter.”
“However, during the Committee's consideration of the issue, it became clear that many individuals are not aware of their existing right to opt out of having their identifiable information shared. When asked by the Committee about opt-out, the Department clarified that there is no intention to override the decision of an individual to opt out of information sharing. In other words, where individuals opt out of having their information shared, their wishes will be respected. However, the Committee remains concerned that individuals were unaware of their existing right to opt out.”
“The Department proposed an amendment to make that clear in the Bill, and we have it before us today as amendment No 6. The Committee therefore supports amendment No 6. <BR /> <BR />The next amendment, amendment No 8, is a Committee amendment. The written and oral evidence received by the Committee highlighted major concerns about the right of an individual to opt out of having their information shared. A number of fairly thought-provoking questions were asked about the protection of an individual's right to a private life and the potential impact of the Bill on that right. As the Minister said, the Department advised that an opt-out provision already exists in health and social care under the Data Protection Act 1998.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee was concerned that the regulations to be made by the Department did not have to specify that a person’s confidential information could be processed only if authorisation was granted by the committee to be established to authorise the processing of such information. Given that the authorising committee is one of the safeguards built into the Bill, this was a very important point. The Committee wrote to the Department asking it to remove any ambiguity and to strengthen the safeguard through an amendment, which would mean that information could be processed only if it was authorised by the authorising committee. The Department assured members that the authorising committee will be responsible for scrutinising each application and that processing will be enabled only if it so authorises.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will now comment on the first group of amendments. Amendment Nos 1, 6, and 8 relate to clause 1, which sets out the circumstances for which the Department can make regulations to provide for the processing of health and social care information. Based on the evidence received and members' consideration of the issues, the Committee felt that the Department should be absolutely obliged to make regulations dealing with the processing of prescribed information. We did not want this to be in any way optional as the Bill is about the strict control of data, so there should be a statutory basis for that. The Committee raised the issue with the Department, and it responded by proposing an amendment that would impose a mandatory duty on it to make the regulations. The Committee, therefore, supports amendment No 1.”
“It is the Committee’s view that, if the amendments to address these issues are passed, the Bill will meet the objective of providing a clear statutory framework for sharing information for secondary uses, coupled with robust and appropriate safeguards. <BR /> <BR />The Committee also had concerns about the open-ended definition of "processing", although this issue is not the subject of an amendment. The Committee was firmly of the view that prohibiting the selling of identifiable information was of such importance for the protection of individuals and public confidence in the Bill that a ministerial assurance should be sought that regulations made under the legislation will not make provision for the selling of information that identifies individuals. I am pleased to say that a written ministerial assurance to that effect was provided.”
“<BR /> <BR />Before I talk specifically about the amendments in the first group, I wish to provide a brief overview of the evidence taken by the Committee and the key issues we identified during Committee Stage. The Committee received written submissions from 23 organisations and individuals and took oral evidence from a wide range of interested parties in the time available. Significant concerns were expressed and shared by the Committee about the use of the terms "public interest" and "social well-being", the right of individuals to opt out of having their identifiable data shared and, as I mentioned, the robustness of the safeguards, including the code of practice.”
“The Committee had this in mind throughout its scrutiny, which is why we agreed two Committee amendments that will, in our view, go a long way towards protecting individuals’ information and privacy and ensuring that those who have access to such information do all that is required of them to process it properly and to protect it. However, one of the amendments will not be moved at this stage, and I will explain why when I come to it. <BR /> <BR />The amendments proposed by the Department have largely come about through issues raised by the Committee, and we are grateful that the Minister saw fit to take on board and address the Committee’s concerns, some of which were fairly serious.”
“The Committee scrutinised the Bill in considerable detail, and there is no doubt about the widespread strong support for a robust statutory framework to regulate better the processing of health and social care identifiable information. There is also no doubt about the numerous benefits of sharing data to help in the prevention of diseases and in improving the quality of life, treatment and service provision for sufferers of a wide range of conditions. <BR /> <BR />The stringency of the safeguards built into the Bill caused concern to members and to those who provided evidence. The unanimous view was that the safeguards needed to be as robust and stringent as possible to ensure that due process is followed and that public confidence is not adversely affected.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. On behalf of the Committee, I welcome the Consideration Stage of the Bill. As outlined by the Minister, the main purpose of the Bill is to provide a clear statutory framework with appropriate safeguards to enable, in certain circumstances, the processing of health and social care information that identifies individuals. <BR /> <BR />The Bill was referred to the Committee on 30 June. To ensure that there was enough time to scrutinise it, the Committee sought an extension of the Committee Stage until 20 November. That extension was subsequently approved by the Assembly.”
“The Committee believes that that amendment significantly strengthens the Bill, as it reflects how people today make choices about ordering food and the role of technology and the Internet. <BR /> <BR />I conclude by saying that the Committee is pleased to see the Bill come to Final Stage. The prevention of illness through proper food hygiene practices is a significant public health issue, and the Assembly can congratulate itself on getting the Bill onto the statute book.”
“To be clear, the amendment was not about a blanket requirement for all websites linked in some way to food businesses to display a rating; the Committee’s proposal was much more limited, in that we believed that only websites that allow for the direct ordering of food online, either for collection or delivery, should be required to display a rating or to provide access to the ratings on the Food Standards Agency website. <BR /> <BR />The Department has made an amendment to the Bill to provide for regulation-making powers to require food businesses supplying food by means of an online facility to ensure that the establishment’s rating is provided online. The manner of display will be specified in the regulations and could include providing a link to the FSA website.”
“For transactions where customers do not visit the physical location of the premises or talk to someone over the telephone before placing an order, the Committee believed that they should be able to have sight of the business rating on the website through which the transaction is made or be provided with a link to the Food Standards Agency website, which contains ratings for all food business establishments in the North. <BR /> <BR />In relation to websites that allow online ordering from a range of businesses, the Committee believed that the website should provide a link to the Food Standards Agency website.”
“The Food Standards Agency advised the Committee that its intention was that businesses would only be required to display a sticker made of plastic at the physical location of their premises. The Committee was concerned that the Food Standards Agency did not intend ratings to be displayed on businesses' websites in certain circumstances. We were of the view that, given that customers can place orders for food through websites, those websites should display the business's rating. We drew a distinction between websites that simply advertise a business's existence and those that allow for the direct ordering of food online, either for collection or delivery.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Department recognised that those were valid issues and made an amendment to require councils to inform the Food Standards Agency of a rating within 34 days, as well as an amendment to require it to publish a rating online within seven days after the end of the appeal period. The Committee believes that those amendments strengthen the Bill and provide more assurance to businesses and consumers. <BR /> <BR />Another important amendment related to clause 7, which deals with the duty to display the food hygiene rating. It is fair to say that that issue exercised the Committee the most, and we engaged in lengthy debates with the Food Standards Agency on it. The Bill sets out the duty for food business operators to display a valid rating sticker in a location and manner that will be specified by the Department in regulations.”
“Food businesses were concerned about that omission because they had found from experience that it could take up to two and a half months between an inspection and the rating being published on the Food Standards Agency website. That means that, for that period, the Food Standards Agency website could be displaying an out-of-date rating, which is either detrimental to a business that has improved its rating or, on the other hand, gives a false impression to consumers where a rating has fallen. Food businesses also pointed out that the Bill did not contain a timescale within which the Food Standards Agency must publish a rating on its website. Again, that could lead to delay in an up-to-date rating being displayed on the website.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Bill has been significantly improved and strengthened because of amendments that the Health Committee persuaded the Department to make. The Committee's detailed scrutiny led to it recommending to the Department that it make amendments to a significant number of the 20 clauses in the Bill. Again, I thank the Minister for his cooperative approach and for taking on board the Committee's recommendations. <BR /> <BR />There are a number of amendments that have been made that I believe deserve particular mention because of their importance to the Bill. A key set of amendments related to concerns around the notification and publication of a food hygiene rating. Originally, clause 2 did not contain a timescale within which councils must inform the Food Standards Agency of a rating.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for opening the debate on the Final Stage of the Food Hygiene Rating Bill. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the fact that we have got to the Final Stage of this legislation. It is very timely and welcome. Having looked closely at the Bill and what it had to offer, the Committee was content that it will take us another step forwards in reducing the incidences of food-borne illness, which, as the Minister said, are caused by poor hygiene standards. The Bill will provide for a mandatory food hygiene scheme, which will give consumers information about food hygiene standards in places where they eat out or shop for food. It will enable consumers to make informed choices, which, in turn, will provide a strong incentive for businesses to comply with existing food hygiene law.”
“I thank the Minister for taking my intervention. I appreciate his analysis that this is only part of a wider series of initiatives that will be required when we look at health inequalities generally. I suggest to him that, as this debate and the legislation progress, we should consider committing to a public consultation on the need for policy and on what a policy remit would look like. Go raibh maith agat.”
“The consumption of sugary drinks is higher among young people and those on low incomes. My amendment will deal with the issue of a levy on sugar. I urge Members to support the Second Stage of the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />If I may, in conclusion, I wish to say a few words as a Sinn Féin MLA. In a strange outburst of cooperation today, I had planned to announce my intention to table an amendment to ban smoking in cars carrying children. I very much welcome the Minister's intention to do that and look forward to working directly with him in that spirit of cooperation to bring forward a robust, comprehensive ban that is ultimately about the public health of our children and young people. <BR /> <BR />Finally, if I may, I indicate my intention to table an amendment on a sugar tax, thus ensuring that the Department will consult on a levy on sugar-sweetened drinks. They are a major source of ill health, particularly among our children and young people, causing conditions such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and tooth decay.”
“The first was the inclusion of the ban on e-cigarettes from vending machines, and the second was the increase in the fine for sales from tobacco vending machines to a level 5 fine. During the briefing, the Committee asked questions on the detail of the Bill, but no objections were raised about its overall aims and objectives. Questions asked sought clarification on the difference between nicotine replacement therapy and nicotine-containing products and whether the legislation would apply to licensed nicotine cessation products. The possibility of a ban on domestic advertising of e-cigarettes was also raised. Members also sought clarification on the Department's rationale for the technical amendments to the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008 on the listing of dentists, pharmacists and opticians.”
“Part 3 makes provision in respect of the interpretation of the Bill, subordinate legislation and repeals and sets out the title and commencement dates. <BR /> <BR />The Committee first took evidence from departmental officials on the proposals for the legislation on 1 October 2014. That was during the Department’s public consultation on the draft Bill. Back then, officials advised that it was the Department's intention to introduce the Bill in the Assembly by February 2015. It was, however, introduced late last month. On 23 September 2015, officials came before the Committee again to provide a further briefing on the Bill and to update us on the changes that had been made to it following the public consultation. <BR /> <BR />Two changes were made to the draft Bill after consultation.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. On behalf of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, I support the Second Stage of the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. <BR /> <BR />The Minister has outlined that the Bill is split into three parts. Part 1 contains provisions to enable the Department to make regulations prohibiting the sale of nicotine-containing products to minors. A provision to allow the Department to create an offence of proxy purchasing is also included. Part 2 makes provision to amend the 2008 Act in respect of areas such as primary dental services, pharmaceutical services and charges for services provided to persons not ordinarily resident.”
“They also felt that it was important that the Committee agree a timetable that would make it possible for the Bill to succeed in this mandate. The proposal was therefore carried. <BR /> <BR />I therefore ask, on behalf of the Committee, that the House support the motion to extend the Committee Stage to 5 February 2016. Go raibh maith agat.”
“<BR /> <BR />At our meeting on 18 November, the Committee discussed its timetable for the Committee Stage of the Bill, and an extension of Committee Stage to 5 February was proposed. This would allow for written and oral evidence from stakeholders to be requested and, indeed, considered and would still allow enough time for the Bill to complete its stages through the Assembly before dissolution. The Committee did, however, divide on the proposal. Those who were not in favour felt that an extension to 5 February would not allow adequate time for the Committee to conduct proper scrutiny of the Bill and suggested a longer extension to Committee Stage. Those who were in favour, while they were acutely aware of the limited time for scrutiny, felt that it could be scrutinised within the proposed time frame.”
“The Human Transplantation Bill was referred to the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety on 16 November 2015 for its Committee Stage. The Bill should, under Standing Order 33(2), complete its Committee Stage on 19 January 2016. As is stated in the explanatory and financial memorandum, the principal objective of the Bill is to save lives by changing organ donation laws, introducing a new soft opt-out system with safeguards and placing an additional duty on the Department to educate the public on organ transplantation. The Bill has the potential to affect every one of us. There is a wide range of opinion on the subject of organ donation, and it is an extremely complex and, indeed, sensitive issue.”
“So, there is a huge challenge to the system to do better. It was concluded that there is inadequacy in the joint working between education and health; there is also a lack of data collection or analysis by the Health and Social Care Board. Even a survey in 2010 found that only 14% of teachers felt that there was a coherent or consistent approach across health, social care and education. So, it is important that we reflect on the blockages in the system and allow the Bill to be part of looking at formal duties to cooperate between both Departments. <BR /> <BR />I support the amendments, with the exception of amendment No 8. Go raibh maith agat.”
“So there is no doubt that the amendment changes the dynamics. <BR /> <BR />It is worth reflecting that the whole remit of the RQIA was informal guidance by the Commissioner for Older People advanced in terms of a need for review. So it is apt that we explore that changing relationship in the Bill. The proposed obligations on health authorities will undoubtedly more closely align the SEN framework to other progressive pieces of legislation that recognise the fundamental importance of health therapies to children with SEN. <BR /> <BR />I want to take a minute to reflect on the need to cooperate. As a Committee, we sought evidence and requested research papers from our Assembly research team. We found that 59% of statements were granted outside the 26-week limit, and 74% of those statements were as a result of delays in health.”
“It is crucial that we see cooperation across all areas of SEN provision. It is important that jointly planned and delivered health and education services be delivered for children with SEN. We would all expect, and advance, the concept of having robust regulations and a code of practice that will follow the legislation and provide that detailed model of how cooperation will work. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 6 deals with the oversight of cooperation and extends the remit — this has been challenging for some Members — of the RQIA to encompass oversight of cooperation between Education and Health. That is an interesting change in the dynamics of the role of an organisation such as the RQIA. Reflecting on the RQIA, many see it as one part of the health system scrutinising another part of the health system.”
“There were some 73,435 pupils with SEN in 2014-15. So, there is a stark and clear need to advance this legislation. <BR /> <BR />I will concentrate a couple of remarks on a number of amendments, in particular amendment No 5, which places a duty on health and education bodies to cooperate with one another to identify and assess children with SEN, provide services to them and share that information. This, again, was a stark piece of evidence that came through in the Education Committee's work and in my work as Chair of the Health Committee. It places a duty on the bodies to share the information on request and prepare a joint and integrated plan for exercising their functions. That is, effectively, a power to pool budgets and to share resources. That is a welcome requirement, and one that I have advocated for some time.”