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 6 of 11.
“— about shared education. It is important that we monitor those implementation processes and develop the opportunities that exist.”
“It is only proper that we pre-plan and future plan for integrated education. I again look forward to the views of the Minister and the Department. <BR /> <BR />Much work has been done, to which the Chair referred. There has been a clear commitment from the Education Minister —”
“It is important that we have robust measures in place to assess outcomes. It is critical for shared or integrated education, or, indeed, both, that we can measure and demonstrate positive outcomes. I look forward to the Minister's thoughts or comments on how that can be taken forward. <BR /> <BR />Recommendation 9 suggests that the Department should:”
“There are 11 recommendations in total, but I want to concentrate my remarks on two. The first is recommendation 6, which states:”
“<BR /> <BR />I want to reference that, on Friday, I participated in the Derry and Strabane community planning process. That meeting specifically looked at education and skills. The very stark fact from that conversation was that 23·8% of over-16s from the city that I come from leave school with no qualifications. I will be an optimist and say that the report provides us not only with an opportunity but with an opportunity to look at shared and integrated education in a meaningful way, but that will have little impact if it is not targeted at the areas where need most exists. <BR /> <BR />The Committee recommends that there be a:”
“Is integrated simply the continuum of a shared education process?" <BR /> <BR />I will start by commenting that there are many solid and robust examples of sharing and cooperation across our society, in many sectors across the North and, indeed, across the island. <BR /> <BR />The Committee also felt — the Chair referred to this point, and I want to re-emphasise it — that societal objectives are important and would need to extend beyond the reconciliation of both of the largest communities to incorporate fully all section 75 groups. In short, we cannot truly impact on positive outcomes from shared education if we fail to place issues like equality at the heart of the process. We cannot share or integrate in a meaningful way if we ignore the root causes of challenges in our society like poverty, deprivation and objective need.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I speak as a member of the Education Committee. As the Chair outlined, the Committee took a lot of evidence and had a lot of discussion on this very important issue. I want to acknowledge the role that the staff and, indeed, everybody played in this work. I think that in the region of 80 organisations gave evidence to the Committee, and I commend them for sharing their wealth of experience and views. <BR /> <BR />It is very apparent that there is widespread support for shared education and increasingly a discussion around the need for a definition of what shared education is. Quite often, the conversations at Committee were, "When does integrated start?”
“Go raibh maith agat. Will the Minister provide an update specifically on the Programme for Government commitment to the One Plan for Derry?”
“It therefore supported that amendment. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 27 to 35 all concern clause 18, which deals with regulations and orders made under the Act. The amendments take account of the amendments made to clauses 7 and 14, and specify how subordinate legislation will operate in relation to the new clause on adjustment of time periods. The Committee supports amendment Nos 27 to 35. Amendment Nos 3, 8, 11, and 14 are technical in nature and were proposed by the Minister. The Committee supports those amendments.”
“The Committee also believed that those powers should be subject to draft affirmative procedure rather than negative resolution, as envisaged in clause 18(6). The Department accepted the Committee's position and proposed an amendment to omit clause 14(8), as set out in amendment No 23. <BR /> <BR />The Department also proposed an amendment to clause 14 to require it to indicate whether, after having conducted a review, it intends to exercise any of those draft affirmative order-making powers, and, if so, to explain why; and, if not, to explain why not. The Committee was therefore content with that approach, which is set out in amendment No 22. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 24 requires the Food Standards Agency to promote the scheme, and the Committee again believed that this was a sensible idea that would, indeed, enhance public awareness.”
“Clause 14 requires the FSA to review the operation of the legislation within three years of its commencement. The Bill as drafted allows the Department to amend the legislation to implement recommendations produced by the FSA as part of its review of the scheme. The Committee was concerned that those powers, which were contained in clause 14(8) of the Bill as drafted, were too wide-ranging. It took the view that this would be an inappropriate delegation of powers and would, indeed, set a dangerous precedent. As an alternative, the Committee suggested that the clause be amended to provide for order-making powers to allow the Department to be able to alter time limits in the Bill only following review of the Act.”
“Therefore, the Committee again requested a written ministerial assurance that the power would be exercised as part of the first set of regulations made when the Act comes into operation. The Minister subsequently provided that assurance to the Committee, which agreed that it was content with the proposed amendment. We therefore support amendment No 19. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 20 is directly linked to that issue in that it amends clause 10 so that failure to comply with the duty to display a rating online would be an offence under clause 10, with the possibility of a fixed penalty notice being served under clause 11. The Committee supported amendment No 20. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 22 and 23 relate to clause 14, which deals with how the operation of the Act will be reviewed.”
“<BR /> <BR />After ongoing discussions with the Committee, the FSA finally proposed an alternative amendment to provide regulation-making powers for the Department to require food businesses supplying food by means of an online facility to ensure that the establishment's rating was provided online. The manner of display would be specified in the regulations and could include providing a link to the FSA website. That amendment is amendment No 19, which is before us today and is very much welcomed by the Committee. However, the Committee was concerned that the proposed amendment did not contain a timescale in which the regulation-making power would be exercised. It was also concerned that other priorities could mean a delay in bringing the regulations forward.”
“It suggested that clause 14 could be amended to require, as part of the review of the Act, consideration of whether it would be feasible to impose on a food business the requirement to publish online ratings relating to the establishment. If the FSA decided that that was feasible, it would bring in regulations to impose that requirement. However, again the Committee's view was that the proposal would simply mean that consideration of the issue would be deferred for three more years. Furthermore, it offered no guarantees that, following review of the Act, businesses that allow for the ordering of food online would be required to display or provide access to the rating.”
“<BR /> <BR />Furthermore, given the duty under clause 8 for businesses to verbally inform customers of their rating on request, the councils advised the Committee that they would not be actively policing compliance but would be more likely to carry out test purchases only if they received specific complaints. Therefore, the Committee expects councils to take a similar approach to the enforcement of the display of or access to ratings on websites. The Food Standards Agency proposed to deal with that as part of the review of the Act. Clause 14 requires the FSA to review the Act within three years of it coming into operation.”
“The Committee's proposal was much more limited in nature, in that we believed that only those websites that allow for the direct ordering of food online for either collection or delivery should be required to display a rating or provide access to the ratings on the Food Standards Agency website. <BR /> <BR />Furthermore, the Committee was not convinced by the Food Standards Agency argument that that requirement would require additional resources from councils for policing compliance. Members made the point that businesses should be required to provide a link to the Food Standards Agency website, rather than having to display their own rating directly. That would prevent councils having to devote resources to check whether ratings were out of date.”
“While the Committee had no issue with the proposed amendment, it did not believe that it addressed members' concerns on access to ratings on websites used for ordering food. <BR /> <BR />The Committee asked the Food Standards Agency to provide more detail on the challenges associated with the Committee's proposal, particularly on the experience in Wales. It stated that there were a range of difficulties, including the arrangements that would be required for multinational companies that operate across a number of jurisdictions, as well as the location of the rating on the website. However, in the Committee's view, many of the challenges related to having a blanket requirement for all websites linked in some way to food businesses having to display a rating.”
“<BR /> <BR />Initially, the Food Standards Agency advised the Committee that it had given consideration to the issue but had come to the view that it would not be viable for a range of reasons. Its aim is for the mandatory scheme to be as resource-neutral as possible, and it argued that introducing a requirement for business websites would introduce an additional cost for businesses and for councils for policing compliance. It also advised that the issue had been explored in Wales but that, due to the complexities involved, it has not been progressed there. The Food Standards Agency attempted to address the Committee's concerns by proposing an amendment to require it to promote the scheme.”
“We drew a distinction between websites that simply advertise a business's existence and those that allow for the direct ordering of food online for either collection or delivery. In relation to those types of transactions, where customers do not visit the physical location of the premises or talk to someone over the phone before placing an order, the Committee believed that customers should be able to have sight of the business ratings 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. Where websites that allow online ordering from a range of businesses are concerned, the Committee believed that the website should provide a link to the Food Standards Agency website.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee was concerned that the Food Standards Agency did not intend for the rating to be displayed on businesses' websites in certain circumstances. Given that customers can place orders for food through websites, we were of the view that those websites should display the business's rating.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 19 relates 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. We engaged in lengthy debates with the Food Standards Agency on it. Clause 7(1) sets out the duty for food business operators to display a valid rating sticker in a location and manner to be specified by the Department in regulations. The Food Standards Agency advised the Committee that its intention was that businesses will be required to display a sticker, made of plastic, only at the physical location of their premises. Clause 8(1) sets out the duty for food business operators to inform customers verbally of their rating on request. That provides for people with visual impairments who are at the premises and for people making a telephone order or enquiry.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I will now comment on the second group of amendments. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 6 relates to clause 2 and deals, as the Minister said, with the sticker that advertises a establishment's food hygiene rating. The format of the stickers will be set out in regulations. The amendment allows for the potential for there to be different types of stickers; for example, FSA or local council branding. It also allows for the regulations to cover who pays for the sticker, whether it is the Food Standards Agency, local councils or both. The Committee was of the view that that is a pragmatic approach that will allow for those sorts of details to be ironed out during the process of drafting the necessary regulations. We therefore support amendment No 6.”
“The correspondence advised that the Attorney General and the Minister of Justice had asked for some changes to the wording of amendment No 36. It referred to "civil penalties" when, in fact, it should have referred to "fixed penalties". The Attorney General also suggested that the reference in the amendment to "online provision of ratings" should, in fact, have read "duty to display ratings", for the sake of greater accuracy. The Committee noted those proposed changes to amendment No 36 and, at its meeting on 3 June, had no issues with it. The Committee, therefore, supports amendment No 36.”
“It will allow the Department to amend the period specified in the Bill by substituting a different time period, and it will allow councils and the Food Standards Agency flexibility in meeting the various timescales set out in the Bill because of things like Christmas closure of premises and potential exceptional circumstances. The Committee, again, took the view that this flexibility was sensible and pragmatic to ensure the smooth operation of the legislation and, therefore, supported the amendment. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 26 is technical and is supported by the Committee. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 36 relates to clause 18, which deals with regulations and orders that may be made under the Act. The Committee received a letter from the Minister relating to this amendment dated 27 May 2015 after we had completed our report on the Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 13, 15, 16, and 17 relate to clause 5, which concerns the right of reply of a food business operator. Amendment No 13 requires the Food Standards Agency to publish a right of reply online within seven days, and amendment No 15 ensures the correct linkage between the right of reply and the rating to which it refers. Amendment Nos 16 and 17 are technical amendments. All the amendments relating to clause 5 are supported by the Committee. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 18 and 21 are technical in nature and are supported by the Committee. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 25 introduced a new clause, which will do a number of things.”
“Amendment Nos 9, 10 and 12 concern clause 4, which is focused on the issue of rerating. Amendment No 9 requires a council to notify the Food Standards Agency of the outcome of a rerating within 34 days and for the Food Standards Agency to publish the new rating online within seven days. Again, this is in keeping with previously established timescales and was welcomed by the Committee. Amendment No 10 is a technical amendment proposed by the Minister and supported by the Committee. Amendment No 12 allows the Department, through subordinate legislation, to limit the number of occasions on which a business can request a rerating The Committee took the view that that was a sensible provision and, therefore, supported the amendment.”
“If a rating has changed as a result of an appeal, the Food Standards Agency will be required to publish the new rating online within seven days. That is consistent with the amendments to clause 2 and is supported by the Committee.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Department recognised that those were valid issues and proposed 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 was content with the Department’s rationale and amendment Nos 2 and 4 will achieve that. Amendment Nos 1 and 5 clarify practical matters and are proposed by the Minister. The Committee supports those amendments. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 7 relates to clause 3, which deals with the appeals process. It ensures that a council will be required to inform the Food Standards Agency of the outcome of an appeal or where the appeal has been abandoned.”
“Food businesses were concerned about that omission because they had found from experience that it could take up to two and 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 could be detrimental to a business that had improved its rating or give a false impression to consumers where a rating had 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.”
“First, there was a major issue about the display of food hygiene ratings on websites through which consumers make food orders; secondly, timescales for the notification and publication of hygiene ratings; and, thirdly, the scope of any future review of the legislation. Those are all issues to which we can return later in the debate. <BR /> <BR />I now comment directly on the first group of amendments. Amendment Nos 1, 2, 4, and 5 all relate to clause 2, which concerns 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.”
“I thank the Minister for his cooperative approach in taking on board the Committee’s recommendations. I am sure that my Committee colleagues support me in noting the good working relationship that was established between the Committee and the Food Standards Agency officials during Committee Stage. That certainly helped the process along and paid dividends when it came to agreeing recommendations for amendments. <BR /> <BR />Before I talk specifically about the amendments in the first group, I wish to provide a quick overview of the key issues we identified as we scrutinised this Bill.”
“To ensure that there was enough time to scrutinise the legislation, the Committee sought an extension to the Committee Stage until 8 May 2015. However, I am pleased to say that we finished a week ahead of schedule, thanks to the hard work of members and the cooperation of officials. <BR /> <BR />The Committee received written submissions from 15 organisations and individuals and took oral evidence from a range of interested parties in the time available. The Committee’s scrutiny led to it recommending to the Department that it make amendments to a significant number of the 20 clauses contained in the Bill. I am pleased to report that all the recommendations have been accepted by the Minister and are reflected in the amendments that we are considering.”
“Go raibh maith agat. On behalf of the Committee, I welcome the Consideration Stage. The Bill is timely and welcome. Having looked closely at the Bill and what it has to offer, the Committee is content that it will take us another step forwards in reducing the incidence of food-borne illnesses caused by poor hygiene standards. <BR /> <BR />The Bill provides 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. That will enable consumers to make informed choices, which, in turn, will provide a strong incentive for businesses to comply with existing food hygiene law. <BR /> <BR />The Bill was referred to the Committee on 11 November 2014.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for that very pragmatic approach. I agree with him that there is a responsibility on regions to develop their unique selling point, but there are also infrastructural deficits that need to be addressed. The Minister said that he is willing to explore border development zones. Does he now accept that cooperation — a number of Ministers have done this — can be done in a way that threatens no one but is for the benefit of all in a region?”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for that. Obviously, every job is most welcome in the constituency. Given the regional disparities in the north-west, will he, along with INI, deliver a subregional strategy or proposition for the area?”
“<BR /> <BR />The explanatory and financial memorandum refers to safeguards, but it appears that the establishment of a committee to authorise the processing of that information "may" only happen. There does not seem to be any mandatory or statutory requirement to ensure that it does happen. <BR /> <BR />I assume that most MLAs will have received correspondence from Cancer Focus and the Law Centre. The Law Centre has warmly welcomed the Bill, as has been the Committee's approach today, but has stressed that there is a need to get the balance right between confidentiality and the public interest. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I urge the Minister to work closely with the Committee to ensure that these issues of clarity and redress are addressed at this stage.”
“I want to highlight the concerns about the Bill that have been addressed by most Committee members. There is no doubt that the Bill's objective for the provision of a statutory framework with robust safeguards is the correct approach. My concerns lie with the principles of the Bill. It would seem that the principle of sharing identifiable information that is based on public interest can, indeed, be interpreted widely. <BR /> <BR />Another issue that has been referred to is the use of the term "social well-being". By way of example, the Bill lists a range of conditions and includes people who would require such a service for everything from pregnancy to addiction. However, at the end of that list are the words "or any other similar circumstances". It is critical that we have a clear definition of public interest and social well-being.”
“In relation to the provision of health and social care, they are not required to adhere to it. Perhaps some interpret the words "have regard" more stringently than others, but it should be crystal clear that the code of practice is a document with status. Perhaps a more robust direction should be given. <BR /> <BR />The Committee notes the Bill's Second Stage, and, should it pass this stage, the Committee will scrutinise very carefully its detail and impact, including the issues of consent and opt-out, what is meant by public interest and social well-being and how robust the safeguards are. It will also assess, based on evidence, how robust, open and transparent the entire process will be. <BR /> <BR />I want to make a number of comments as an individual MLA.”
“The only safeguard apparent to the Committee was the establishment of a committee to authorise the processing of confidential information; but, even then, the Bill, as it stands, states that the Department "may" establish a committee to authorise the processing of confidential information. Surely the establishment of a committee should be mandatory if it is intended to be a safeguard. Should the Bill not make it the Department’s duty to establish the committee rather than just give it the power to establish it? <BR /> <BR />If a code of practice on the processing of information is intended to be a safeguard, a question exists around how robust that is. Health and social care bodies must only "have regard" to the code of practice when exercising their functions.”
“The Committee appreciates that it is necessary to have some flexibility within definitions, but what does the Department mean by "any other similar circumstances"? In other words, how broadly will social well-being be interpreted? <BR /> <BR />The term "social well-being" is also included in the definition of information that can be shared. Again, how broadly can that be interpreted? <BR /> <BR />The Committee also discussed the issue of safeguards. The explanatory and financial memorandum talks about stringent safeguards. What are those stringent safeguards?”
“There is no limit to the breadth of scenarios whereby it could be deemed that the sharing of information is in the public interest. However, importantly, the Bill does not define what public interest is. It does not remove the ambiguity around what constitutes public interest. <BR /> <BR />Another issue for the Committee was the use of the term "social well-being". What exactly does that mean? The Bill defines a relevant person as being someone whose information can be shared. The definition includes someone who is in receipt of services designed to secure improvement in their social well-being. By way of example, the Bill lists a whole range of conditions requiring such services; everything from pregnancy to dependence on alcohol or drugs. However, at the end of that list we have the words, "or any other similar circumstances".”
“The legislation’s intention is to put a framework and safeguards in place to minimise the legal challenge risk that the Department and the health and social care sector could face as a consequence of using identifiable service user information for purposes other than their direct care. In other words, it will lessen the risk of an individual service user taking legal action if their information is shared without their consent. <BR /> <BR />The Committee had difficulty in understanding the principle of sharing identifiable information that was deemed to be in the public interest, because public interest can be interpreted widely. There is currently no definition of the phrase "public interest"; it is based on case law. By the Department’s own admission, the term "public interest" is broad.”
“This means that, for example, where someone has opted out of sharing their information, refuses to give consent for their information to be shared for a particular purpose, or cannot give consent because they are deceased, their identifiable information can be shared if it meets the public interest test. <BR /> <BR />Setting up a committee under the legislation to authorise the processing of confidential information will not change that. It can still override an individual’s wishes if it deems the request for information to be in the public interest. Under common law, satisfying the public interest test is complex. As a result, there is an increased risk of legal challenge for the Department and the health and social care sector.”
“The Committee’s concerns focused mainly on the principle of sharing identifiable information without consent and, following on from that, the principle of sharing identifiable information without consent if it is deemed to be in the public interest. <BR /> <BR />Most, if not all, Committee members were unaware that, at present, patient-identifiable information can be shared without consent if the request satisfies the public interest test under the common-law duty of confidentiality.”
“<BR /> <BR />As the Minister has outlined, the purpose of the Bill is to provide a statutory framework and safeguards to enable the use of health and social care information that identifies individuals to be used for medical or social care purposes that would improve health and social care or are in the public interest, without the consent of the individuals whose information may be used. The Committee has absolutely no concerns in relation to the principle of providing a statutory framework and putting in place robust safeguards to enable the use of patient-identifiable information for medical or social care purposes, with the ultimate aim of improving health and social care. It is vital that a framework is put in place to help reduce the risk of a loss of personal information.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. On behalf of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, I wish to note the introduction of the Health and Social Care (Control of Data Processing) Bill. <BR /> <BR />The Committee took evidence from officials in October last year while the consultation on the proposed legislation was live. It took further evidence in February, after the responses to the consultation were analysed, and again on 17 June, following the Bill’s introduction. During the briefings — in particular, the most recent briefing — members raised a number of issues about the principles of the Bill, and it was agreed that I would convey those during the debate today on the Bill's Second Stage.”
“Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for her response. Is the consultation process likely to include feedback on topping up funds from additional contributions from trusts or sponsors that are supportive of the peace process?”
“Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for that. I ask specifically about advice that maybe relates to the policy on non-farming dwellings in particular. If there is specific advice, even from within his Department, maybe the Minister could refer to it.”
“Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for his answers so far. I noted that he said that of the 1,200 young people who participated in the youth employment programme, 400 had moved into subsidised or unsubsidised employment. Can the Minister break that figure down further and give us an indication of how many moved into quality or sustainable employment?”
“<BR /> <BR />At this point, I want to reflect on the learning and make the point that the plans are simply a process, at this point. In my view, it is an evolving process at this point, and it is important to be particularly mindful of the recommendations in the Committee's position paper. Area plans must be reviewed and should be consulted on through a formal, meaningful and robust statutory process. Any actions emerging from area plans, such as new schools, closures or amalgamations, will and should be subject to development proposals. That means that statutory consultation must take place. That is critical. <BR /> <BR />This is now about leadership from the new Education Authority, as referred to in recommendation 1, to ensure that we learn the lessons and that area planning is undertaken in a transparent way.”