Fearghal McKinney
South Belfast · Social Democratic and Labour Party · Northern Ireland
“We need to do everything we can to bring investment and job opportunities. A prosperity strategy should also include a massive programme of workforce training and skills enhancement.”
“In particular, we want the Programme for Government to adopt a much more joined-up style of government that delivers much greater accountability and transparency and will itself say that it wants Northern Ireland to work.”
“<BR /> <BR />We can point to collective achievements — local government reform among them — but just months ago the echoes of our past threatened our political future, reinforcing the challenges to our delicate political system that the Good Friday Agreement could never have foreseen.”
“Creating much better social cohesion and integration must be another Programme for Government requirement. <BR /> <BR />Health reform, job creation, better infrastructure, creating world-class education and tackling social deprivation are issues on which the SDLP is not prepared to compromise.”
“There are many big challenges facing Northern Ireland, perhaps the biggest of which is to get people into work. It is our job to create the infrastructural and educational opportunities and to maximise those opportunities.”
“It is our job to ensure that our people can and should dare to dream that life can be better; that our children will not be forced to leave these shores for the promise of work in Australia or America because of a failing economy — I referenced the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's latest research; that our health service provides a service th…”
The complete record
Every one of 708 lines we hold for Fearghal McKinney, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 15.
“<BR /> <BR />Amendments to clause 1 make provision for the sharing of information for "health or social care purposes", rather than "medical or social care purposes", which inextricably links, through amendment, the Bill with the Health and Social Care (Reform) Act (Northern Ireland) 2009, which prescribed robust definitional terms as to when a patient's data can be released without consent. Specifically, amendments to clause 1(11) also create more robust provision with regard to when information can be released, specifically if it removes the phrase "or any other similar circumstances", which limits the scope of the provision. That is an important issue and I believe that the amendments offer a greater level of safeguards for patients.”
“Some of that has been already outlined, in terms of safeguarding and protection for patients whose data might be shared without their consent. I am glad that the Minister and the Committee have tabled a number of amendments aimed at addressing those concerns to ensure that the legislation is as robust as possible. <BR /> <BR />A major issue with the Bill concerns definitional problems, which could have afforded a very wide margin and could lead to the potential for the commercialisation of patient data. Such concerns have been raised not just here, but in Westminster, where similar legislation to this Bill has drawn criticism from some MPs and privacy groups. However, I am glad that the Minister has listened to the Committee's concerns and has tabled amendments to clause 1 to address the wide scope of the provision.”
“It involves a public-interest test as part of the duty of confidentiality. There are also considerations to be given to data protection. However, it is clear that this alone is not enough, and we have seen England and Wales move to close that legislative gap. <BR /> <BR />I am glad that we have reached the Consideration Stage of the Bill. It is also important to commend all those involved in bringing forward the Bill. It has been an arduous task by any measure and I would like to thank all the stakeholders and departmental officials who engaged and consulted. <BR /> <BR />During the Committee Stage of the Bill, I and other members raised a number of issues where we felt that the Bill fell short in offering an equitable level of safeguarding and protection.”
“<BR /> <BR />In this regard, we must acknowledge the work of clinicians and others involved in medical research and clinical audits. I want to put on record my appreciation and the appreciation of my party for their invaluable work in improving health outcomes. <BR /> <BR />It is important that we look at ways to build systems and devise ways of working that meet the standards in services that clinicians, researchers and the public expect. So, through engaging with many clinicians and charities on the Bill, and considering the invaluable work undertaken by the cancer registry at Queen's University, and indeed other disease registries, it has become explicitly clear that there is a need for change. The disclosure of patient data without the patient's consent is currently covered by common law.”
“I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate, and I do so as SDLP health spokesperson and member of the Health Committee, which considered the provisions of the Bill in detail, as you heard, and received a number of briefings from the Department on amending the legislation. <BR /> <BR />The SDLP supports all measures and actions undertaken to ensure that the provision of health and social care services are the best they can be and that patients receive the most up-to-date and effective treatment. As part of that, disclosing patients' data can be used to improve diagnosis and treatment outcomes. That can be welcomed only when there are effective checks and balances, when consent has not been expressly given to the issues at the heart of the Bill.”
“I particularly thank the Food Standards Agency for its diligent work and advice to the Committee as well as our local councils and the many stakeholders who engaged with and gave evidence to the Committee. The SDLP supports the Bill, and we look forward to the first review, which I hope will prove that it has been hugely successful.”
“It builds, as I said, on the voluntary scheme and removes the weakness associated with the scheme, whereby a number of businesses that were getting a lower rating failed to display their rating stickers. <BR /> <BR />Issues about the nature of the website and linking were highlighted, which involved plenty of debate among Members. The Committee, as has been said, largely backed all the issues. Moreover, it has to be underscored that stakeholders from the private sector were healthily involved in the debate and provoked good outcomes. As described, the Bill has undergone extensive amendment that has further strengthened its provisions, with 36 amendments tabled at Consideration Stage. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I commend all those involved in bringing forward today's Bill, including the Minister and the Department.”
“<BR /> <BR />The experience with the Welsh hygiene rating legislation, which was heralded as a great success only last week, gives us a great deal of confidence that today's Bill will be a success too. The latest figures released by the Welsh Government show that 60% of food businesses in Wales have been awarded a five-star rating. That is up from 45% before the legislation came into force. Almost 100% — 94·4% — of businesses have achieved a rating of three or above. A rating of three is awarded where an establishment is rated as being generally satisfactory. Importantly, those figures also reveal that the percentage of businesses in Wales getting a rating of zero is 0·2%. If we can achieve such statistics, we will have done very well. <BR /> <BR />The Food Hygiene Rating Bill can only be welcomed as a step in the right direction.”
“Today's Bill can only be welcomed in that context, as the health budget continues to face significant pressures. <BR /> <BR />It is also important to remember that we are not going into this area of law blind; we have come to learn the value of the food hygiene rating scheme in promoting public confidence in many establishments. As Members highlighted, that scheme was a voluntary one, and it has played a valuable role as a pilot by establishing an overall authority. Without doubt, the voluntary food scheme has been very successful, and I underscore, like other Members, the fact that it operates on a completely voluntary basis. When the Committee heard that only 56% of establishments here were adhering to it, it underscored the need for action and further reinforced the need to bring forward today's Bill.”
“As SDLP health spokesperson, I welcome the Final Stage of the Food Hygiene Rating Bill, which, as described, is designed to build on the voluntary food hygiene scheme and prescribe in law a mandatory obligation on restaurants and other eateries to display food hygiene rating stickers. We have already heard how it will give customers valuable information to make informed decisions and provide a strong incentive for businesses to comply with existing hygiene law. <BR /> <BR />This is about protecting public health. It is shocking that a bill in the region of £83 million annually is attached to cases of food poisoning, with hundreds of hospitalisations and, sadly, over 20 deaths. That underpins the need for the legislation, particularly when you hear that only 10% of food poisoning cases are reported.”
“In that context, it is the SDLP's intention to table such an amendment to ban smoking in cars with children. In light of today's debate, I urge every Member on both sides of the House to support that amendment. I look forward to considering the Bill's other provisions when it reaches Committee Stage.”
“I welcome the Minister's announcement that he would do so too. <BR /> <BR />There have been worries that doing such a thing would bolster the concept of the nanny state. The loss of jobs in some constituencies has also been a concern. I respect those concerns. However, I have to say to Members that a ban would not say that you could not smoke in your home or that you could not smoke when alone or when adults are in your car. A ban would say that you could not smoke in your car with children, who are unable to make decisions for themselves. <BR /> <BR />I welcome what the Minister has said, although I have to note that, last October, when the opportunity came in Parliament at Westminster for just such a ban to be introduced on a UK-wide basis — a ban that would have extended to here — his colleagues voted against.”
“As I said, what the Minister is doing is welcome, but there is a great risk that, without a ban, children here will be left behind to suffer the detrimental effects. <BR /> <BR />I must commend the actions of the many organisations that have called for the introduction of the ban. It has overwhelming support from the royal colleges, health experts and leading authorities on public health from across the UK. The Chest, Heart and Stroke Association has been an avid campaigner for bringing in such a ban. In fact, it conducted a public opinion poll that revealed that a staggering 82% of people here agree with a ban, which reinforces the need to include it in the Bill. I welcome the remarks of the Chair of the Health Committee, who was speaking as a Sinn Féin member, in backing the concept of a ban.”
“Scientific evidence also shows that ventilation does not eliminate the risks to health of passive smoking in enclosed spaces. <BR /> <BR />It is against that backdrop that, as with many health issues, early intervention and prevention are key. That is why the anti-smoking narrative from 2007 to today has been so valuable. We must continue that narrative. The only way to provide effective protection for children from passive smoking in cars is to prevent them breathing it in in the first place. That is what has happened in other jurisdictions: Scotland, Wales and the Republic are all legislating on the issue, and England has already introduced a ban that came into force in October.”
“Passive smoke poses a serious health hazard, and studies have shown that there is no safe level of exposure, not least in an enclosed vehicle. Every time someone smokes a cigarette, they breathe in a lethal concoction of toxins and other harmful chemicals. Every time that a person breathes in passive smoke, the danger increases, as it contains over 4,000 chemicals. Studies have shown that passive smoke is detrimental to children's health, causing a variety of adverse health effects, including increased susceptibility to respiratory tract infections such as pneumonia and bronchitis. We also know that children are more vulnerable to passive smoke exposure in vehicles as their immune systems are not yet properly developed. They breathe more rapidly and inhale more pollutants than adults.”
“Last year, we passed the Tobacco Retailers Act (Northern Ireland) 2014, which aims to restrict the availability of cigarettes to children and targets the adults who buy them for children. Next year, Westminster regulations on plain cigarette packaging will come into force that, I hope, will act as a further disincentive to young people taking up smoking. All that is something of a progression that must be welcomed and one that is ever more welcome and important given the prevalence of smoking here. <BR /> <BR />What we have not done so far is to legislate on smoking in cars carrying children. The Department's statistics show that 15% of adults smoke when their children are in their car. That has serious health implications.”
“<BR /> <BR />The rationale that underpins the majority of the Bill is protecting people's health, especially the health and well-being of children, from the dangers of nicotine and tobacco products. In that context, I welcome the fact that the Minister is considering an amendment to ban smoking in cars carrying children, although I regret that it was not in the original Bill. It is important to remind ourselves that smoking remains the greatest cause of preventable illness and premature death here. Each year, approximately 2,300 people die from smoking-related illnesses. The Assembly has made great advances in changing societal attitudes to smoking. The hugely successful smoking ban in public places and public vehicles, for example, was introduced in 2007. In 2008, we raised the age at which tobacco could be purchased to 18.”
“I also welcome the provisions on proxy purchasing that will prevent adults from buying e-cigarettes on behalf of children. It is already illegal to buy cigarettes on behalf of underage children, so it does not make sense that the same offence does not apply to e-cigarette products. I am also pleased to support clause 2, which prohibits the sale of e-cigarettes in vending machines. That is a logical and reasonable provision, as unregulated vending machines could provide an easy point of access for children to e-cigs. The provision makes sense, and I do not have any issue with it. <BR /> <BR />Part 2, as has been articulated, deals with changes to dental, general ophthalmic and pharmaceutical services. At this stage, those changes seem uncontroversial, and I look forward to scrutinising them more thoroughly at Committee Stage.”
“As SDLP health spokesperson and a member of the Health Committee, I welcome the opportunity to speak at the Second Stage of the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. The SDLP welcomes the provisions in the Bill that deal with nicotine-containing products. I agree with the Minister that it is sensible to prohibit the sale of cigarettes to under-18s. I will return to the under-18 issue later, in the context of passive smoking. <BR /> <BR />E-cigarettes can help smokers who are trying to quit smoking, but they should not be available to children, especially when there are serious questions about their long-term health effects and genuine concerns have been expressed that e-cigs might act as gateway products that could lead some young people to take up tobacco smoking.”
“Is it not the real issue that justice is not being served because of the considerable tensions as a result of the dispute? Has it not gone beyond the point of urging barristers to continue to represent their clients? Is it not the situation that the Department should be taking the initiative and attempting to resolve the matter so that justice can be served?”
“Clearly, people are dying while they wait. Can the Minister assure the House that, given the many millions of pounds that have become available under the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme (PPRS), appropriate moneys will accompany any new system?”
“At his annual conference, the Minister pledged an extra £1 billion in Health spending over the next five years. Could the Minister detail where this money will come from? Has he had discussions on that with his Executive colleagues?”
“Perhaps the Minister could outline what further steps are then taken as part of the process to reach accommodation on what are clearly, as he articulated, differing views on this issue.”
“That does not instil me, and I am sure that it will not instil other Members of the House, with any confidence that these discussions are being had or are being productive.”
“The question referred to discussions with the Minister for Employment and Learning, and I noticed that there was no reflection on whether there were discussions. However, I have a comment that the Minister for Employment and Learning made yesterday in the Chamber, principally around Fresh Start discussions. He said:”
“I appreciate the Minister's giving way. The point that I am trying to make is that we have regulation and we should have regulation. We should have robust regulation. I am saying that it should be matched by a government commitment to ensure that they invest in the careers associated with this need so that people in the sector feel valued as well as regulated.”
“I was steering myself back there, as you can probably tell, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. I appreciate your advice. <BR /> <BR />Ideally, let us get the social workers regulated and empowered, and let us ensure that the work is attractive. We need to be making a career for them, and to be paying and training them properly. <BR /> <BR />The SDLP supports the Bill's general principles. We believe that it is a step in the right direction to protect some of the most vulnerable and disabled in society, which, as I said at the outset, needs to be its principal element. Any change to the provision or to work practices needs to be understood by the Assembly, by the Committee and, principally, by those who are working at the front end of the industry.”
“<BR /> <BR />The 2011 TYC plan recognised that there was going to be a growing older population. I have rehearsed this over and over, but I do not mind doing so again, because it is important to say that TYC was right. It recognised that there were going to be growing needs, and it needed to match that recognition to an understanding of what those needs were going to be and of the accompanying service provision. <BR /> <BR />I make those remarks in the context of the provisions, in the sense that the provisions are stating one thing but the system is saying something else. Indeed, the regulations may find themselves being undermined by a system that is not matching them. <BR /> <BR />Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, have I run out of time?”
“We have a regulatory process, but we do not have investment in the structures or in the careers of those at the front end of the care system. It is important to say that. The warnings that are coming, particularly from the private sector, about the service are that people's jobs are under threat because of a rise in the minimum wage, which is a story in itself. Many of them are receiving only the minimum wage. The care providers are going to be affected by that, which threatens their business model. That is the point that I was trying to make to the Health Minister yesterday. We have certain provisions in the public sector that are not matched in the private sector. If we are to continue to have a private sector that can adequately care for a growing older population, we need to invest properly in the service.”
“It is one thing regulating workers, but, if they are not getting paid properly, will the regulation be as effective as it should be? In the last few days, we have heard of the planned closure of seven residential homes through the Four Seasons announcement. That will cast a number of workers out of work and, of course, it means that older people will be removed to other centres of care.”
“I reinforce the point that has been made: will the Committee have sufficient time, not just for us as legislators but to ensure that those who work at the front end of the system benefit, and understand that they have benefited, from our considerations and that those considerations have been timely, thorough and robust? <BR /> <BR />We must look at the bigger picture of adult social care. In particular, I am concerned about the regulation of the domiciliary-care sector. New reform is a welcome move, but we need to adequately resource those workers, or the full effectiveness of reform may be lost. We need first to ensure that staff are adequately paid, skilled and have proper training. I want to reflect on that point for a moment.”
“The briefing paper mentions power to make provision for the payment of such fees. Who will pay the fees? What cost will there be to caregivers, especially those at the lower levels, such as domiciliary-care workers? If the council must provide a way in which a standard can be obtained, will that cost anything? Will current workers be automatically offered new training? If not, will that create a threat to, or issues with, jobs? <BR /> <BR />We have no issues with clause 5, which provides further robust safeguards and enforcement mechanisms. <BR /> <BR />Those are questions that I am sure can and will be resolved at Committee Stage, and I look forward to taking a deeper look at them.”
“Once again, those are issues for further scrutiny in the Committee. Is a 14-day limit for providing relevant information to the council the best-practice approach? <BR /> <BR />In clause 3, it is proposed that all those registered in England, Wales and Scotland be registered in one database in Northern Ireland. I ask the Minister whether there will be any consideration of those who are registered with CORU in the Republic of Ireland. What conversations, if any, have taken place with that organisation, which is the body in the South responsible for social-care workers? Would a greater syncing-up of services provide more effective care? Do they register domiciliary-care workers, and have any discussions been undertaken in that regard? <BR /> <BR />Clause 4 relates to extending power to give awards.”
“<BR /> <BR />As has been reflected, the Bill contains nine clauses, some of which are uncontroversial and have gained a great deal of support in the Health Committee's preliminary meetings with the Department. I note, however, that there are a number of issues with the Bill that need to be considered. <BR /> <BR />Clause 1 refers to giving warnings or advice to registrants. I ask the Minister how the Bill will change that. What is the nature of advice and what levels of warning, informal and formal, will exist? <BR /> <BR />Clause 2 refers to the ability of the NISCC to publish or disclose information in relation to a registrant's fitness to practise. At what stage will that be invoked? Does it afford the NISCC the power to publish details of workers who fall short of the standards expected?”
“<BR /> <BR />While poor performance is unfortunate, officials told us that the delays caused by the current system were hindering the conduct and professional development of social work and that we are probably not achieving as much through regulation as we could in improving care standards and in helping to address shortcomings and deficits experienced in the sector. <BR /> <BR />The deficiencies in the system must be recognised when we consider new reform. In that regard, the policy intent of the Bill, in giving the NISCC move powers, is to be welcomed. It will directly impact on every social worker and carer in the North and will allow for more serious action to be taken against those who fail to uphold the highest standards in delivering high-quality care.”
“Given what I have said about the proposed new rules and the extent of the work that is undertaken, the workforce needs to know that matters of this importance are properly scrutinised. <BR /> <BR />One issue is that, occasionally, workers fall short of the standards that are expected of them. For example, last year alone there were 36 complaints made against social workers, 156 against social care workers and three against social work students. Of these, 58 registrants have been removed from the NISCC — 10 social workers, 47 social care workers and 1 student. Having considered that, it is only sensible that we consider reform that will ensure the best practice possible, and achieving the best practice possible will come about by full, robust and, if needed, lengthy scrutiny of the Bill.”
“Before considering the principles of the Bill, it is important — I attempt to do this in all contributions — to recognise the vital role that social care workers play in Northern Ireland in looking after some of the most sick, disabled, vulnerable or frail people in society. The vast majority of these workers undertake their duties to the best of their ability — often, it has to be said, under extreme and intolerable pressures — and I believe that their dedication needs to be recognised today. <BR /> <BR />I also concur with the Chair's remarks in relation to not pursuing this legislation. It is not that we do not support the general principles but because of the Committee's ability to scrutinise.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak at the Second Stage of the Health and Personal Social Services (Amendment) Bill. The Bill focuses predominantly on the whole social care workforce and aims to give the Northern Ireland Social Care Council additional powers over workforce regulation, including sanctions for malpractice, and more powers in relation to achievement awards. <BR /> <BR />As articulated by the Chair, the Committee received a number of briefings from the Department on the Bill. There is, we understand and accept, a need to update existing legislation if we are to have a social care system that is fit for the twenty-first century and has recipients of care at the heart of the decision-making process.”
“I am glad that the Minister has reflected on the financial nature of the company at the centre of all of this, because that only underscores that the Minister knew and knows intimately of the pressures on this company and, therefore, of the threat to the 254 residents and 300 staff. Will the Minister now reflect again on the perilous nature of the situation that those staff and patients face as a result of the continued mechanism, if you like, of private sector provision? Will he now begin to underscore that it is the public sector that can intervene most profitably for patients in this case?”
“Does the Minister agree that, for corporation tax to work properly and benefit all in society here, we need a highly skilled economy with high productivity and high wages, and that his recent cuts to university places is entirely counter-strategic to the introduction of corporation tax here and to that ambition?”
“Given the Minister's answers, I am assuming that the new mental health strategy is also being negatively impacted, as the Enabling Success strategy also aimed to encourage positive mental health through work.”
“I too am concerned, following the recent atrocities in Paris, that enough should be done on working with the IFA to ensure that fans get the proper advice on travelling. Rather than getting to the stadium in France, would the Minister consider inviting both teams here for a special event to acknowledge their qualifying for the tournament?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. In that context, will the Member reflect on what the group or committee that will look after mitigation here will do when it looks at that in the context of an envelope imposed from Westminster?”
“Thank you for giving way again. I appreciate your giving me the time. Given that you raise such a fundamental issue, how can you say that you have already decided that you are going to vote this through?”
“Will the Member perhaps reflect on what assurances he has had or understands that that will be the case?”
“I hope that we have not done that at the cost of people who need our help.”
“I am about to conclude, so I will let you do it in your contribution rather than now. <BR /> <BR />We have seen what has happened here today. I would like to quote, finally, a remark from a senior politician as we neared the conclusion of the talks. I will not say who it was, but they said:”
“I do not know if the Member was listening more intently to my latter comments than my earlier comments, in which I did reflect on the money. I wonder where the money is coming from and whether there is sufficient to deal with the issues. <BR /> <BR />We should all be concerned about this. The reason I am re-emphasising so much what Sinn Féin is about to do is that we are handing over power. We are emphasising the fact that child poverty targets are nowhere to be seen in this. Of course mitigations are welcome, but are they going to apply to the extent that we could and should have argued for? We do not know that, and that is of major concern to the SDLP. <BR /> <BR />I will finish by quoting Mr O'Dowd again. After the election, he said to the unionists:”
“That is the point that Mr Maskey was making. At the first opportunity they have of standing up to them, they do the opposite. <BR /> <BR />At the first opportunity they have of standing up to them, they do the opposite.”
“I know that Sinn Féin is fond of rewriting history from 40, 30, 20 and 10 years ago. It is now going to rewrite history from a few months ago. That is why I want to read into the record in this debate exactly what they said then and exactly what they are going to do now. <BR /> <BR />Mr O'Dowd continued:”