Steven Agnew
North Down · Green Party · Northern Ireland
“We need an independent, open and transparent process for investigating Ministers. I have always failed to understand the opposition to that from some in the House. Given recent events, if the Assembly was to oppose it again today, there would be public anger.”
“This process would involve one commissioner and one independent investigation, rather than a political investigation that, I have no doubt, some at the time called a witch-hunt, as is often said when people are defending their Minister.”
“I am delighted to make a winding-up speech on this debate, which has been the first-ever sole Green Party private Member's motion. Thanks to the election of my colleague, Clare Bailey, we have two Green MLAs, which has increased our ability to use the Assembly privileges to put such suggestions forward.”
“I absolutely agree, Mr Beggs. <BR /> <BR />Another point I will make is about the idea of the distinction between the Minister and the Department. When I was drafting my private Member's Bill, I asked, "Should that say 'Minister' or 'Department'?". The legal advice that I was given was that they are one and the same.”
“If an MLA is alleged to have breached the code, a member of the public can write to the standards commissioner and have their complaint investigated in an independent manner. The result of any investigation is published and can, if required, lead to a debate in the Assembly so that all the issues can be aired.”
“I would argue that it serves neither the Minister nor the public well that we do not have such a process. An individual who seeks to complain will be left frustrated if they feel that their concerns are ignored by those in office, who are supposed to act on their behalf.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,353 lines we hold for Steven Agnew, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 28.
“As I said, many of the poorest in our society will suffer as a result of the proposals. However, my fear is that, while we may have a better deal than GB, in four years' or six years' time, we will just have full-scale Tory cuts to our benefits system in Northern Ireland. That is why I cannot support the LCM. I cannot cede further power on this issue to the British Government. It is why, throughout our previous debates on the Welfare Bill, I asked why the concessions that we claim to have got on how we do benefits in Northern Ireland and the deal that we got for our people could not be enshrined in legislation. <BR /> <BR />I note that the reduction in the duration of sanctions will be in the Westminster legislation, but I also note that the bedroom tax will still be legislated for there.”
“It is clear from that statement that, when it comes to a choice between protecting the vulnerable and giving a tax break to big corporations, there are those in the Assembly who would put the tax break first, over the needs of the most vulnerable in our society. They would cut welfare rather than maintain our level of corporation tax. <BR /> <BR />The document that we were presented with yesterday speaks of a review after four years. If the Minister can give any detail of the nature of that review and of what power the Assembly will have in influencing and giving power to any conclusions that come from it, I would appreciate that information. Whilst this may give us a better deal on welfare reform than we had before and a better deal than the rest of the UK, I would still not say that it is a good deal.”
“I ask for his guarantee that that will never be the case in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />What happens after four years? I am very concerned about the timing. I know that no Assembly can budget ad infinitum, but I worry about the timeline. In the agreement that proposes a top-up fund over four years, there is an agreement to cut corporation tax to 12·5%. My concern is that, when that point comes, the cost of corporation tax of up to £300 million a year, which is the latest figure from the Treasury, would mean that a future Executive would make the decision that that top-up for welfare would no longer be affordable. As evidence of my fears, I will quote David Ford speaking at his party conference earlier this year:”
“Will he guarantee that, in Northern Ireland, we will never set a target for the amount of money to be saved through sanctions? To be fair to the Minister, his Department and its agencies, I have never had raised with me any suspicion that a target was being applied in Northern Ireland, but I am asking for that commitment, because we have seen the evidence from Great Britain that targets were set for sanctions to reduce welfare spend. In my view, that is immoral.”
“As I argued then, no one makes a choice that leads to their only source of income being cut. Having worked in the homeless sector, I have sat with people who have been on the receiving end of benefit sanctions and have known the circumstances, whether mental ill health, learning disability, court appearances or whatever, that may lead an individual to miss an appointment. <BR /> <BR />Knowing those circumstances, I cannot support or comprehend a system that would cease someone's benefits for up to 18 months. Can the Minister guarantee that, as is likely to be the case, the legislative consent motion is passed today and Westminster legislates for the sanctions, they will be the choice and action of last resort? I have asked him before, and I make no apologies for raising the issue again.”
“I would like to ask the Minister this: are there any circumstances in which the bedroom tax will apply? Specifically, if someone does have a change in circumstances — for example, a child leaves the home, vacating a bedroom, and there is suitable alternative accommodation available — will that family be expected to move or face a cut in housing support? Or will that be at the discretion of Professor Evason? Can the Minister say definitively that there will be absolutely no application of the bedroom tax? <BR /> <BR />Another issue that vexed my party is sanctions. We sought to amend the previous Bill to make sanctions less punitive, and we still stand opposed to a maximum sanction of 18 months — 18 months' cessation of benefits that may be for the individual concerned their only source of income.”
“So I seek the Minister's input on that. Is this a change? Is there a concealment to massage the figures of this element of the discretionary fund being added in, and, if so, to what value, because that may make a significant difference to what, on the surface, looks like an improved deal. <BR /> <BR />My next question is one I asked through all the stages of the last Bill. When we are told that there is no bedroom tax, is the Minister giving a commitment today that there will be no bedroom tax whatsoever? In a debate on the previous Welfare Reform Bill, despite assurances in the Stormont House Agreement that there would be no bedroom tax, the Minister stated:”
“<BR /> <BR />The agreement states that the sum allocated to the top-up fund incorporates the present discretionary fund. I would like to ask the Minister, in each of the past three years — or from whatever figures are available — how much that discretionary fund amounted to and whether it was a part of the original Stormont House Agreement. My understanding was that the top-up fund in the original Stormont House Agreement was on top of the discretionary fund. I liked Mr Allister's line:”
“They never added up, and they never could, to no one being worse off. <BR /> <BR />The deal we are presented with today is, I believe, a better one. There will be hurt. We cannot say that no one will be worse off, but it has been pointed out that we are in the context of an unfettered Tory Government, which, on top of its previous £12 billion worth of cuts to welfare, are making huge cuts to tax credits that are estimated to affect over 100,000 families in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />As I said, I give a cautious welcome to what I see as an improved deal, because the devil is always in the detail. Indeed, it was the scrutiny of that detail that led me to reject the previous agreement. I wish to pose a number of questions to the Minister and hope to get answers today.”
“I stand vindicated in the continual challenge that we put to Sinn Féin in its assertion that the previous deal would have left no one in Northern Ireland worse off in benefits under the control of the Assembly. That was never achievable. Even had the demands that came forward from the Green Party been met, we would never have claimed that it was achievable. It was a disservice, particularly to those with disabilities, who would have lost out under that deal had it been passed. I welcome that Sinn Féin, in the end, voted against that deal, but it did not take an ard-fheis for the Green Party to see that the figures simply did not add up. We highlighted those figures and, in my view, there was no dupe from the DUP in that case. The figures were on the surface of the Bill and on the face of the Stormont House Agreement.”
“That seems somewhat unusual, at best. However, we on these Benches do not wait to be empowered; we empower ourselves. <BR /> <BR />My party proudly stood against the welfare cuts that came from the Tory Government. We did so from the Second Stage, when there was no top-up fund; and we did so at the Final Stage, when we believed that the top-up fund was insufficient, and we asked that more money be allocated to such a fund to ensure that as many people as possible in Northern Ireland could be protected. I cautiously welcome what appears to be an increase in that top-up fund. <BR /> <BR />I stand vindicated in the action that I took to block the previous Bill, as it proposed to cut the incomes of some of the poorest in our society.”
“I welcome the fact that we are back here, debating business, albeit in this extra sitting. I welcome that an agreement has been made. I might not agree with much of the content of it, but I welcome, nonetheless, that we can get back to doing business as usual in the House. Many outside the House have lamented the time wasted with in-out Ministers, the lack of legislation and the lack of Executive meetings in the intervening period. I briefly make the point that, whilst the Executive have been away, no less than three pieces of legislation have come forward from this Bench alone. So, while the Executive have been away, the Assembly has been at work. The new deal does not enhance the powers of these opposition Benches. We have the unique situation whereby, to be in opposition, you have to qualify to be in the Government.”
“<BR /> <BR />As I say, the legislation will not fix the situation overnight, but it will create an opportunity to build on the good work that we have already done on organ donation, enhance it and make Northern Ireland a leader in organ donation rates. That is the opportunity. It requires the legislation, the goodwill and dedication of the Minister and his Department, and that public awareness campaign. Collectively, those things provide us with a tremendous opportunity that, I hope, we will not let go to waste.”
“<BR /> <BR />Figures have been discussed, so I will not go through them, but it is clear that there is support for organ donation. It is clear that the vast majority of people support it. Unfortunately, the vast majority are not on the register. That is a discrepancy and a problem that the Bill will go some way to tackling. Mrs Dobson's consultation has had a positive response. Previous polling indicates that there is positive feeling towards this type of legislation. The Committee consultation will further tease out the evidence, so, by the time the Bill makes its way through the House, it will get significant public attention and will be an opportunity for the public to articulate its views.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is not simply a matter of, "Pass this legislation and problem solved": we still have to be diligent, promote the legislation and raise awareness. We still need that conversation. Indeed, as Mr Ross highlighted, Mrs Dobson's bringing the Bill forward has increased awareness in and of itself. I go back to my own Bill: I know the frustration with the time that it takes to get to this stage. The advantage is that awareness of your Bill is now greater because of the time that it has taken; the time that there has been for discussion, media interest and debate in the Committee and in the House. That is all positive. Indeed, should the Bill be passed, as I hope it will, the two-year lead-in time will allow for that debate to take place and public awareness to be raised. Those are all necessary pieces of the jigsaw.”
“Looking at the best evidence — and promotion was raised — we still need to ensure that families know the will of the individual. That does not go away. We need to ensure that the pastoral care that Mr Poots mentioned is still there. Families will be no less grieving whether we have an opt-in or an opt-out system. The Bill does indeed empower the family; it keeps a degree of power and say with them. I know that there will be some debate about what that should look like. One of the key parts of the Committee scrutiny and amending stages will be to ensure that we have that aspect of the Bill to balance deemed consent with the views of the family. We have to ensure that we get that right.”
“We need to look at the other areas. One of the most important things is to ensure that quick decisions are made and that organs are properly preserved, transported and maintained. This is one part of the picture, but it is a positive and significant part of how we improve in this area.”
“We should look at the examples of best practice and at countries where things are being done well, regardless of whether there is opt in or an opt out, and replicate the other areas as well as the soft opt-out system. My interpretation of the evidence is that it increases the likelihood of positive outcomes in organ donation. I think that that has to be the approach. I do not think for a second that we can pass this legislation and say, "Problem solved. We have a queue of donors; we will no longer have a deficiency of supply."”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I referred previously to the evidence that, when taken in the round, the correlation is that countries that have the opt-in system perform better than countries that have the opt-out system. Whilst there may be countries that are doing other things that have improved organ donation — the Member mentioned some of the areas, such as the speciality transplant nurses — that does not preclude an opt-out system. The two can go hand in hand. <BR /> <BR />Looking at the evidence, I very much believe that the — I better make sure I get my terms the right way round — opt-out system is beneficial, but, on its own, it is not the silver bullet; it on its own will not achieve everything.”
“The evidence also suggests that the opt-out system alone is not enough to ensure greater donation. Whilst the correlation suggests that the opt-out system will lead to increased donations, on its own it is not sufficient to maximise donation. I await the Health Minister's response, but I urge him to support not just the legislation, but the other areas of best practice that are required to maximise the benefits of the legislation, because I think the legislation is part of —”
“When it comes to the Bill, the key question has to be: will it work; is it effective? There have been differing interpretations of the evidence. <BR /> <BR />I come now to some of the points that Mr Ross raised. If we are convinced that we have the evidence that it works, then, in my view, the end does justify the means. I have listened to the Member's concerns, but I am not compelled that his fears about the role of the state in any way negate my desire to see more lives saved through an opt-out system, if the evidence is available that the opt-out system will increase donation. Mr Ross has questioned that evidence. <BR /> <BR />I looked to the evidence of Shepherd et al, from 2014, which concludes that countries that have an opt-out system across the board have a higher donation rate than those that have an opt-in system.”
“That, obviously, has not been the case. I welcome the commitment of the Member to bringing it forward in the absence of progress from the Department on the way forward. <BR /> <BR />My personal connection to it is through my relationship with one of my constituents, William Johnson, who will be known to Mrs Dobson. He has campaigned tirelessly to promote organ donation. He spent the best part of a decade on dialysis, but has, thankfully, received a successful transplant and is experiencing the benefits of that. For many years, he was — I was going to say the word "frustrated", but in fact I never knew him to complain — but he was one of those people who, in the absence of an available organ, had to suffer the lesser quality of life of having to live on dialysis, without receiving a transplant, until recently.”
“<BR /> <BR />We have seen from the sponsor's consultation, the Public Health Agency polling and the UK-wide polling, the level of support out there for organ donation. Whilst I accept that there is not a direct correlation between supporting organ donation and being a willing donor, I think that there would be a strong correlation between them. That is some of the basis on which I support the legislation. <BR /> <BR />I first raised the issue of a soft opt-out system — and I was checking the date — exactly four years ago today in a question for written answer to, as it was then, Minister Poots, asking what consideration had been given to such a proposal. It was in the context that the Welsh Assembly was considering the issue. I was hopeful at that time that legislation would come forward from the Department.”
“It is one that I have chosen to opt into in our current system. I would certainly be happy to have the provisions of the Bill applied to me. I am also proud to be a platelet donor. My partner, in the birth of both our children, required platelet transfusions. I thank those who chose to donate platelets for their generosity; they helped to ensure that her life and the lives of my children were protected. With blood donation, platelet donation and organ donation, there is the ever challenging issue of keeping the awareness there and keeping the issue in the public mind to ensure that donors take time out of their busy lives, in the case of living donation, and are sufficiently aware, in the case of deceased donation, to, in advance of death, make that aspect known.”
“They said, "Well, this Bill's significantly different at Final Stage than at Second Stage". I think that it is a strength, rather than a weakness, of a piece of legislation that it is worked and reworked until it is right. Of course, a group of people working together is going to produce a better piece of work than an individual working alone. In most instances, that is going to be the case. <BR /> <BR />Mrs Dobson reminded the House that it is Green Party policy to support the soft opt-out option. That is what I rise to do this evening. Organ donation is one of the wonders of modern science. Innovation in health — what can be achieved and what human beings have managed in terms of treatment and keeping people alive — never ceases to amaze me. <BR /> <BR />The term "gift" has been used. Organ donation is indeed a gift.”
“I congratulate the sponsor, Mrs Jo-Anne Dobson, on getting the Bill to this stage. Having just finished the process of a private Member's Bill, I know about the challenges and the frustration with drafting. I have not spoken to Mrs Dobson about that specific aspect and the challenges she may have faced, but I certainly found that to be the most frustrating part. Having the idea is fairly simple, as is, to some extent, defending it to the House, but getting the idea from concept to fruition and bringing forth a piece of legislation is challenging. Indeed, going through the stages of the House and getting the legislation right is challenging. I welcome the fact that Mrs Dobson acknowledged that, where the Bill can be improved, she will work with others. I had to do that with my Bill. Some almost used it as a criticism against me.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He asked a question. In the countries covered by the Human Rights Act, and where there is an opt-out system, has there been any evidence of successful legal challenge?”
“I may not give him a satisfactory answer, but I will pose a question. There are many areas in our lives where our consent is deemed. He may have views on the example of telemarketing. It is assumed that our phone numbers and addresses are there to be used by marketing companies and, indeed, can be bought unless we opt out through the Telephone Preference Service or the Mailing Preference Service. That is something that exists in our lives, and it is for profit. This is an area where we can save people's lives and, given that people accept telemarketing, I am sure that they will be much more favourable towards something as serious as saving people's lives.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I am trying to get to the crux of the objection. He speaks of a moral and an ethical objection. Is it his contention that the evidence suggests that it will not increase organ donation? My analysis of the evidence is that it will. Or is it that he believes that the end does not justify the means — that it will increase donation, but there is a moral argument against doing it?”
“I stand in solidarity with that wider community. This attack has had ripple effects throughout Europe. I stand in solidarity with all those who absolutely abhor terrorism.”
“We must protect our way of life, but we must not do so by destroying it. <BR /> <BR />I have only questions, not answers. My fear is that the simple answer to the complex questions and situations that we face is usually the wrong one. We have to question how we respond. My party stands on a platform of non-violence. That is not to say that there should be no violence ever: violence can be acceptable only if and when it prevents greater violence. Again, I think that it is another principle with which we should underpin any response to these attacks. I do not believe that fighting fire with fire is the way forward. The way to mourn victims is not to create more innocent victims. <BR /> <BR />I wish the absolute best to those who are injured and in recovery and to the families who have been directly impacted by these attacks.”
“On behalf of the Green Party in Northern Ireland, I would like to express my condolences to the people of France, particularly those families who have suffered directly as a result of these attacks. It is hard to understand the mindset of people who are so determined to cause misery, suffering and death and to think that, whilst we all join here in sympathy and sorrow, somewhere, there are those who celebrate those actions. That is very difficult to fathom. What is important is how we respond. I look back to the response of the Norwegian Prime Minister after the horrendous atrocity that was committed by Anders Breivik. His answer to the violence was that we need more democracy and more openness, but not naivety. That is easy to say and difficult to achieve, but it has to be our starting point.”
“The Minister said that no concerns were raised during the monthly meetings with Invest NI, but, as has been said by a number of Members, UNITE raised concerns in July and was told that it had nothing to worry about. Why did the Minister not listen to UNITE, and why did he not act on its concerns?”
“If the legislation can achieve that objective, it will be well worthwhile and will ensure that families do not face the frustrations of silo working and the lack of joined-up government that we have seen in the past. <BR /> <BR />I thank Members for their contributions and their support. I thank all those who contributed to bringing the Bill this far. I look forward to it receiving the support of the House today and Royal Assent in the near future.”
“A parent was asked what integrated working meant to her, and she replied:”
“It is incumbent on this Assembly in the mandate's remaining time and particularly on the next Assembly to scrutinise the work of the various Departments to ensure that the Bill's potential and vision are realised. I hope to be in that Assembly to scrutinise the work myself, but there is the small matter of an election to fight before then, so I take none of those things for granted. However, I have no doubt that, whatever Members are elected to the next Assembly, in conjunction with the children's sector, there will be a great deal of scrutiny of the delivery of the next children's strategy and the next Programme for Government, particularly its provisions for children. <BR /> <BR />I will finish by repeating a quotation that I came across when I was doing my research for the Bill.”
“She said that it is really just the start, and that is key. The passing of the legislation is not an end in itself. The end is the effective delivery of services to children.”
“<BR /> <BR />I welcome Sandra Overend's support, and I commend her because she highlighted the work that she is doing and the important need to improve Internet safety and how the aim of protecting and safeguarding children can be achieved only if Departments such as Health, Education and Justice work together in common cause. <BR /> <BR />Excuse me, Mr Speaker, I have too many notes. Finally, I welcome Ms Pengelly to her role as junior Minister. I welcome her contribution to the debate today and, indeed, any work that she did on the Bill in her previous role, when I was working with the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. There was a collective effort in that office to improve the Bill. I welcome the commitment that this is pushing an open door and this is the direction of travel for the Department.”
“<BR /> <BR />Chris Lyttle spoke of the work of the all-party group on children and young people. That is an important point. The group is not a formal mechanism of the Assembly, but it provides vital input into the work that we do. I hope that, on this occasion, it provides an example of politicians listening, because it was through that forum that the idea of having a private Member's Bill came forward. It shows that, through civic engagement, the Assembly can deliver more. Undoubtedly, politicians do not have a monopoly on good ideas. We should listen and engage, and legislative change such as this can come about as a result.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Attwood said that this was Agnew's children's Bill, and he said that it should be about more than my children. I absolutely agree: as a father of young children, I see the challenges for parents in navigating statutory services, and I understand the frustrations. He is right in saying that this is about all children in Northern Ireland. We often talk about vulnerable children, but let me be clear that this is about all children. It is to ensure that there are no gaps through which vulnerable children can fall. When we provide the net for all, we catch all, including vulnerable children. It will ensure that those who need the support get it, because, often, we spend too much time trying to identify who the vulnerable are and not enough time providing the services required.”
“Again, that was government legislation, and there is much in it that we can look to in how we deliver for children, not least one proposal that I was impressed by, which was having a named person for all children. That is something that we should look to in this Assembly to ensure that every child has a named adult to whom they can go for support in navigating the statutory services. <BR /> <BR />Megan Fearon recast my phrase about making good practice common practice by saying that we should make good practice normal practice. I like that phraseology: we should make the good normal. Delivering for children should be what we do. She also said that it was a good day for children and families. Again, I welcome her support.”
“We only need to look at Scotland to see how much more their devolved institutions have been able to achieve for their people to recognise that we can and should do more in Northern Ireland. I hope and believe that this legislation will play its part in that. <BR /> <BR />I will reflect on some other Members' contributions. Mr Moutray — I thank him for indicating his support — talked about the Bill as a resource-efficient way of delivering shared aims and outcomes among the Departments. Indeed, he mentioned the good work in Scotland. I took time to meet the children's Minister there. She happens to be an old friend, but, on this occasion, it was purely a business meeting to see the work that they have done on their Children and Young People Act.”
“I do not think that is in doubt or that any of us here would deny that we can improve how we do governance in this part of the world. This Bill, along with that proposal, should it be implemented, the work on John McCallister's private Member's Bill and, indeed, when it comes forward, the Bill to reform the number of Departments, can be another significant step in the evolution of the Assembly and in how we deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. Change is needed, and, collectively, those proposals can improve the effectiveness of these institutions. There is a public perception — I think it is an accurate one — that the institutions are not as effective as they could be.”
“We do not want such horrific cases to happen again — I will not go back over the details, as they are considerably upsetting — and preventing that type of atrocity through better joined-up working by our services is certainly one of the key aims of the Bill. Mr Nesbitt highlighted that it is not about Ministers, Departments or institutions; ultimately, it is about the people whom they are set up to serve. The Bill is about ensuring that the child is at the centre of the work that Departments do. <BR /> <BR />Mr Nesbitt highlighted the benefit of agreeing the Programme for Government before d'Hondt is run — it was part of the Stormont House Agreement — and of how agreeing how each Department will work before we know which party will take each post could improve governance in Northern Ireland.”
“I thank the House for its consideration of the Bill from the preliminary stages, when the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister took an early interest in the Bill, until today, when there appears to be unanimous support for it. <BR /> <BR />In his contribution, the Chair of the Committee brought our attention back to the horrific case of Victoria Climbié, which caused a culture shift in England and led, ultimately, to the Children Act 2004 on the back of Lord Laming's report. It was to that legislation that I looked originally when seeking to produce this Bill.”
“I hope that it will help to build on the work of the Children's Commissioner in highlighting the parallel processes between health and education in the transition to adult services for children with various support needs and, indeed, the youth justice system, where, on release, support with housing and education is required with the Department of Justice. I hope that it will improve those interdepartmental workings. <BR /> <BR />The Bill is about making government work effectively for children. It is about making good practice common practice and ensuring that resources for children are spent on children. I commend the Children's Services Co-operation Bill to the House.”
“Finally, I thank my former researcher Ross Brown, now an elected rep in his own right, for the considerable research that he did in pulling together the evidence to show that, where a statutory duty has been implemented elsewhere, it has achieved results. <BR /> <BR />The intention behind the Bill is to improve services in a number of areas, including special educational needs and children in care. A final "Thank you" goes to VOYPIC, which has been constructive in its input on and support for the Bill. I hope that the Bill will improve early years provision by making the delivery of services more timely and allowing for the early intervention that is so key in children's lives.”
“I think that I presented to it on five occasions in total; indeed, before the legislation was produced in its original draft, it has engaged on the Bill from an early stage. The questions and scrutiny have been constructive and instructive. At all times, the Committee has challenged but also supported me through the process. The Bill is better for its input and, indeed, for the report that it produced and the evidence that it took as part of its sessions. I also thank the Assembly Bill Office. Going back four years, it was clear that this would be complex legislation, and I have received excellent guidance through the process. We have faced frustrations with drafting and, if it had not been for their continued support, the Bill would not have seen the light of day.”
“<BR /> <BR />I again thank the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, which has worked consistently to improve the Bill to make sure that it is as effective as possible. I am delighted that both junior Ministers are here today and that one of them will respond to the debate on behalf of the Department. I also thank the Department of Health and the Health and Social Care Board; a considerable amount of the Bill will have a direct impact on them. Again, they have worked constructively with me to get amendments to ensure that, from their point of view, the Bill is effective. I thank the Department of Finance and Personnel, particularly for its input on the pooling of budgets. <BR /> <BR />Furthermore, I thank the Committee for OFMDFM.”
“Its work, lobbying and research are what drove me to introduce it. I feel privileged to present the Bill to the Assembly today on the sector's behalf. I thank every organisation that has contributed to the Bill, whether through my initial consultation or the consultation by the Committee for OFMDFM. I thank them for promoting the Bill and lobbying the Departments. <BR /> <BR />I highlighted that, for me, the genesis of the Bill was four years ago. Whilst it has been a long and challenging process, that time has allowed those who at the outset may have been resistant to the provisions of the Bill to come on board and to better understand how it can improve their working and the outcomes for children in Northern Ireland.”