Children's Services Co-operation Bill: Consideration Stage

Private Members' Business – in the Northern Ireland Assembly at 11:00 am on 29 September 2015.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker 11:00, 29 September 2015

The next item of business is the Consideration Stage of the Children's Services Co-operation Bill. I call Mr Steven Agnew to move the Bill.

Photo of Steven Agnew Steven Agnew Green

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to oppose clause 1 of the Bill and speak to the other amendments. The original intention of the Bill was to introduce a statutory duty on Government —

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

I just need you to move the Bill at this stage.

Photo of Steven Agnew Steven Agnew Green

Apologies, Mr Speaker.

Moved.—[Mr Agnew.]

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

I salute your enthusiasm.

Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There is a single group of amendments. The debate will be on amendments Nos 1 to 10 and Mr Agnew's opposition to clauses 1 to 5 stand part, which deal with a children's strategy, services and cooperation.

Once the debate on the group is completed, any amendments will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate. The Question on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Clause 1 (General duty)

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

We will now move into the debate. Mr Agnew has signalled his intention to oppose the Question that clause 1 stand part of the Bill. With that Question, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 1 to 10 and opposition to clauses 2 to 5 stand part, which relate to a children's strategy, services and cooperation.

Members should note that amendment Nos 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive with clause 1 standing part; amendment No 4 is mutually exclusive with clause 3 standing part; amendment No 5 is mutually exclusive with clause 4 standing part; amendment No 6 is mutually exclusive with clause 2 standing part; and amendment Nos 8 to 10 are consequential to earlier amendments. I will alert Members before putting the relevant Questions.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

I now call Mr Steven Agnew to address his opposition to clause 1 and the other amendments and clauses in this group.

Photo of Steven Agnew Steven Agnew Green

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will try again.

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 1: After clause 1 insert

<BR/>

&quot;Well-being of children and young persons


 


1A.—(1) The functions conferred by this Act are to be exercised for the purpose of improving the well-being of children and young persons.


 


(2) For this purpose the “well-being” of children and young persons includes?—


 


(a) physical and mental health;


 


(b) the enjoyment of play and leisure;


 


(c) learning and achievement;


 


(d) living in safety and with stability;


 


(e) economic and environmental well-being;


 


(f) the making by them of a positive contribution to society;


 


(g) living in a society which respects their rights.


 


(3) In determining the meaning of well-being for the purposes of this Act, regard is to be had to any relevant provision of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (which is to say, the Convention of that name adopted by General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989).


 


(4) The Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister may by regulations make such amendments to subsection (2) as it thinks appropriate.


 


(5) Regulations must not be made under subsection (4) unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly.&quot; — [Mr Agnew.]

No 2: After clause 1 insert



&quot;Co-operation to improve well-being


 


1B.—(1) Every children’s authority must, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of its children functions, co-operate with other children’s authorities and with other children’s service providers in the exercise of those functions.


 


(2) The Executive must make arrangements to promote co-operation of the kind mentioned in subsection (1).


 


(3) Every children’s authority must co-operate with the Executive in the making of the arrangements mentioned in subsection (2).


 


(4) “Children functions” are any functions which may contribute to the well-being of children and young persons.&quot; — [Mr Agnew.]

No 3: After clause 1 insert



&quot;Children and young persons strategy


 


1C.—(1) The Executive must adopt a strategy (the “children and young persons strategy”) setting out how it proposes to improve the well-being of children and young persons.


 


(2) The strategy must in particular set out?—


 


(a) what outcomes the Executive intends should be achieved for that purpose;


 


(b) what actions will be taken by Northern Ireland departments (among others) for the purpose of achieving those outcomes;


 


(c) how it will be determined whether, and to what extent, the outcomes have been achieved.


 


(3) The strategy must state the period within which it is intended that the outcomes should be achieved (the “lifetime” of the strategy).


 


(4) Before adopting the strategy, the Executive must consult?—


 


(a) children and young persons,


 


(b) parents and guardians of children and young persons,


 


(c) such persons representing the views and interests of children and young persons as the Executive thinks appropriate, and


 


(d) such other persons as the Executive thinks appropriate.


 


(5) The Executive may?—


 


(a) revise or replace the strategy if the Executive is satisfied that changes in circumstances justify doing so;


 


(b) amend the strategy by extending its lifetime.


 


(6) The Executive must?—


 


(a) lay the strategy, and any revisions to it, before the Assembly, and


 


(b) publish it, and any revisions, in such other manner as the Executive thinks appropriate.


 


(7) At the end of the lifetime of the strategy, the Executive must adopt a new one.


 


(8) Subsections (2) to (7) apply to any new strategy.&quot; — [Mr Agnew.]

No 4: After clause 3 insert



&quot;Sharing of resources and pooling of funds


 


3A.—(1) This section applies to a children’s authority for the purposes of exercising any functions in accordance with arrangements under section 1B (co-operation).


 


(2) For those purposes, a children’s authority may?—


 


(a) provide staff, goods, services, accommodation or other resources to another children’s authority;


 


(b) make contributions to a fund out of which relevant payments may be made.


 


(3) A “relevant payment” is a payment in respect of expenditure incurred, by a children’s authority contributing to the fund, in the exercise of its functions.&quot;. — [Mr Agnew.]

No 5: After clause 4 insert



&quot;Children and young persons plan


 


4A.—(1) The Executive must adopt a plan (a “children and young persons plan”) setting out how it is proposed that children’s services will be provided.


 


(2) The plan must in particular set out?—


 


(a) how children’s services will be planned and commissioned;


 


(b) what actions will be taken by children’s authorities and other children’s service providers for the purpose of achieving the outcomes set out in the children and young persons strategy;


 


(c) how children’s authorities and other children’s service providers will co-operate with each other in the provision of children’s services and in the taking of the actions mentioned in paragraph (b).


 


(3) Every children’s authority must?—


 


(a) co-operate with the Executive in the preparation of the plan, and


 


(b) so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of its functions?—


 


(i) exercise those functions in accordance with the plan, and


 


(ii) co-operate with each other in doing so.


 


(4) Before adopting the plan, the Executive must consult?—


 


(a) children and young persons,


 


(b) parents and guardians of children and young persons,


 


(c) such persons representing the views and interests of children and young persons as the Executive thinks appropriate, and


 


(d) such other persons as the Executive thinks appropriate.


 


(5) The Executive must review the plan?—


 


(a) not later than the first anniversary of the date on which it was adopted, and


 


(b) not later than the first anniversary of that review;


 


and the Executive may revise the plan as it thinks appropriate in consequence of a review under this subsection.


 


(6) The Executive must?—


 


(a) lay the plan, and any revisions to it, before the Assembly, and


 


(b) publish it, and any revisions, in such other manner as the Executive thinks appropriate.


 


(7) Not more than 3 years after the date on which the Executive adopted the plan, the Executive must adopt a new plan.


 


(8) Subsections (2) to (7) apply to any new plan.


 


(9) The following provisions (which are superseded by this section) cease to have effect?—


 


(a) paragraph 2A of Schedule 2 to the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (children’s services plans);


 


(b) the Children (1995 Order) (Amendment) (Children’s Services Planning) Order (Northern Ireland) 1998 (S.R. 1998/261);


 


(c) in section 7(2) of the Children (Leaving Care) Act (Northern Ireland) 2002, the words “and in paragraph 2A(1)(a)”;


 


(d) paragraph 14(28) of Schedule 3 to the Education Act (Northern Ireland) 2014.&quot;. — [Mr Agnew.]

No 6: After clause 4 insert



&quot;Report on the operation of this Act


 


4B.—(1) For each reporting period, the Executive must prepare a report on the operation of this Act.


 


(2) The reporting period is?—


 


(a) for the first report prepared after the adoption of a strategy, the period since its adoption;


 


(b) in any other case, the period since the preparation of the preceding report under this section.


 


(3) The report must include statements on the following matters, so far as relating to the reporting period?—


 


(a) what actions have been taken by the Executive, and Northern Ireland departments, for the purpose of achieving the outcomes set out in the children and young persons strategy;


 


(b) what progress has been made towards achieving those outcomes, or the extent to which they have been achieved;


 


(c) how children’s authorities and other children’s service providers have co-operated with each other in the provision of children’s services;


 


(d) how children’s authorities have exercised the powers conferred by section 3A;


 


(e) how the well-being of children and young persons has improved.


 


(4) The report must also identify?—


 


(a) any further opportunities for co-operation between children’s authorities and other children’s service providers that could help to achieve the outcomes set out in the strategy,


 


(b) any other ways in which the well-being of children and young persons could be improved, and


 


(c) any ways in which the children and young persons strategy might be revised in order to contribute to those improvements.


 


(5) The Executive must prepare a report under this section?—


 


(a) not more than 3 years after the date on which it adopted a children and young person’s strategy,


 


(b) thereafter, during the lifetime of that strategy, at intervals of not more than 3 years, and


 


(c) at the end of the lifetime of a strategy.


 


(6) But subsection (5)(c) does not apply if a report was prepared under this section less than 6 months before the end of the lifetime of the strategy.


 


(7) Children’s authorities must co-operate with the Executive in the preparation of a report under this section.


 


(8) The Executive must?—


 


(a) lay the report before the Assembly, and


 


(b) publish it in such other manner as the Executive thinks appropriate.&quot;. — [Mr Agnew.]

No 7: After clause 4 insert



&quot;Guidance


 


4C.—(1) The Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister may issue guidance to children’s authorities, or to any particular children’s authority, on the exercise of functions conferred by this Act.


 


(2) A children’s authority must have regard to guidance issued to it under this section.&quot;. — [Mr Agnew.]

No 8: After clause 5 insert



&quot;Interpretation


 


5A.—(1) In this Act?—


 


“children and young persons” means persons who are?—


 


(i) under the age of 18, or


 


(ii) aged 18 or over and fall within subsection (2) or (3);


 


“children’s authority” means any of the following?—


 


(i) a Northern Ireland department,


 


(ii) a district council,


 


(iii) a Health and Social Care trust,


 


(iv) the Regional Health and Social Care Board,


 


(v) the Regional Agency for Public Health and Social Well-being,


 


(vi) the Education Authority,


 


(vii) the Northern Ireland Housing Executive,


 


(viii) the Police Service of Northern Ireland, or


 


(ix) the Probation Board for Northern Ireland;


 


“children’s service” means any service which is provided (whether by a children’s authority or by any other person or body) wholly or mainly to or for the benefit of?—


 


(i) children and young persons generally, or


 


(ii) children and young persons of a particular description or with particular needs;


 


“the Executive” means the Executive Committee of the Assembly, established under section 20 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998;


 


“other children’s service provider” means any person or body, of whatever nature, who provides a children’s service or is engaged in activities which contribute to the well-being of children or young persons (but does not include a children’s authority);


 


“well-being” has the meaning given by section 1A.


 


(2) A person falls within this subsection if services are provided to or in respect of the person by, or on behalf of, or under arrangements made with, the Regional Health and Social Care Board or a Health and Social Care trust by virtue of?—


 


(a) Article 34D, 35, 35A or 35B of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (which provide for the continuing duties of those bodies towards young persons), or


 


(b) regulations made under Article 34E of that Order (which may provide for the appointment of personal advisers for certain young persons).


 


(3) A person falls within this subsection if the person?—


 


(a) is under the age of 21 years, and


 


(b) is a disabled person within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.


 


(4) The Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister may by regulations make such amendments to the definition of “children’s authority” as it thinks appropriate.


 


(5) Regulations under subsection (4) are subject to negative resolution.&quot;. — [Mr Agnew.]

No 9: After clause 5 insert



&quot;Commencement


 


5B.—(1) This Act comes into operation on the day after the day on which it receives Royal Assent.


 


(2) The first strategy under section 1C must be laid before the Assembly before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent.&quot;. — [Mr Agnew.]

No 10: Leave out from first &quot;Northern&quot; to end and insert



&quot;co-operation among certain public authorities and other persons in order to contribute to the well-being of children and young persons; to require the adoption of a children and young persons strategy; and for connected purposes&quot;. — [Mr Agnew.]

Photo of Steven Agnew Steven Agnew Green

I rise to oppose clause 1 and speak to the amendments. The Bill's intention all along has been to introduce a statutory duty on Departments and other agencies to cooperate in the planning, commissioning and delivery of children's services. The aim is to cut out the waste of resources that results from Departments operating in silos, which ultimately leads to wasted potential in children's lives. Whilst the Bill is very much about processes, its ultimate aim and ambition are to improve opportunities for all children in Northern Ireland.

Since the Second Stage debate in January, a lot of work has been done on the Bill. Indeed, on the face of it, with opposition to various clauses and significant amendments, in one sense, it is a Bill rewritten, but the original intentions that the House debated and supported at Second Stage remain at the core of the Bill. In that sense, the Bill is unchanged: the words are different, but the intentions are largely the same.

I express at the outset my gratitude for the cooperation from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, the Department of Health as well as other Departments, the OFMDFM Committee, which I have engaged with on such a number of occasions that I have lost count, and the children's sector, which has been there all along. This is very much its Bill. The children's NGO sector and, indeed, the Children's Commissioner have been calling for this Bill since 2007. Whilst I stand here today presenting these proposals, they very much came from that sector. I also thank the Bill Office, which has assisted me throughout the process and provided invaluable support to me and my team, whom I also thank at this stage.

The work that has gone on since January has ultimately been about making the Bill more effective. Cooperation has ensured that expertise has been brought to the table and that conversations have happened between stakeholders to ensure that what started as a single private Member's Bill has very much become collaborative work between Departments, officials, the sector, the Committee and me. That process highlights the value of cooperative working and why a Bill such as this is needed.

I admit that, when going into the process of engaging with the Department, my fear was that I would have to protect my Bill from possibly being compromised and watered down.

I can honestly say that that has not been the case. Every step of the way, OFMDFM officials sought to improve and enhance the Bill and, in their engagement with other Departments, make it more effective. In my view, that has been the intention of all who engaged.

It is disappointing today that these amendments were not tabled jointly by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and me. That was due solely to the current political situation, which meant that Executive sign-off was not possible on amendments that are, in many cases, cross-departmental. Undoubtedly, that made tabling the amendments and moving forward with Consideration Stage more difficult to navigate and negotiate. However, I am grateful that, individually, parties have continued to engage, even though, due to the current political situation, the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister could not put its name to the amendments. I wait to hear from the individual parties, but, in the discussions that have taken place to date, that spirit of cooperation and goodwill towards the Bill appears to continue.

I had to make a judgement call on whether I waited until the current political situation settled down, but, at times, these institutions have been hanging by a thread, and the fear that the Bill would fall entirely, given the possible collapse of the Assembly, drove me to press on. At this point, I have worked for four years on the Bill and sought at all times to get it right rather than do it quickly, but it is now time to press on. Further delay could, I felt, only harm the Bill, and we are at the stage where decisions have to be made, amendments have to be made and, ultimately, the Assembly has to make a final decision on whether it becomes law.

The amendments tabled today are largely those that were shared with the OFMDFM Committee in June. I will seek to highlight where additional amendments have been made. Further work was done over the summer and during this month, but the amendments are largely those that were presented to and scrutinised by the Committee. Amendment Nos 1 to 3 would replace the original clause 1, which I intend to oppose today. One of the aspects of the original clause 1 that ran into difficulty was the six high-level outcomes. From the outset, I was keen that the high-level outcomes that were lifted from the 10-year strategy for children and young people be included in the Bill. However, the Department and I received legal advice that whilst the language was suitable for a strategy, it was perhaps too loosely defined for legislation. That is why there is a shift in emphasis from the outcomes to the concept of well-being, which is more clearly recognised in law and is defined, as referenced in the amendment, in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Within that definition, we reference and have regard to the six high-level outcomes.

One change made from the amendments shown to the Committee is that the six high-level outcomes have become seven. This is simply about giving greater definition to the outcomes; their original purpose remains the same. I will give Members some insight into why they are deemed so important: since the writing of the 10-year strategy for children and young people, in which the children's sector has been heavily engaged, the sector as a whole has based its strategy for the delivery of its provision around these outcomes. They remain at the core of the sector's work, and the sector very much believes that they should remain at the core of government's work in Northern Ireland.

For that reason, any changes to those outcomes in the Bill would be subject to draft affirmative resolution, ensuring that consultation would have to take place on any changes. As was done with the children's strategy and the Bill to date, the sector and government would step forward together.

Amendment No 2 enshrines the duty to cooperate. Where that has changed, the intention of the original Bill has remained. The original Bill separated the duty on Departments from the duty on other authorities and agencies that worked with children. Amendment No 2, with the definition at amendment No 8, allows the term "children's authorities" to capture Departments and agencies collectively. This improves the Bill whilst keeping the original intentions.

The requirement of children's authorities to cooperate with one another and the Executive underpins the Bill and its purpose. There is an additional requirement for the Executive to promote cooperation. There are concerns around the word "promote". The duty on children's authorities is that they must cooperate. The word "promote" is very much about the Executive putting the structures in place to ensure that that cooperation happens.

Amendment No 3 is a new aspect of the Bill. It very much came from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister but is an amendment that I wholeheartedly support. It would enshrine in law the production of the children and young people's strategy. Officials are working on an updated strategy. The last strategy had widespread support in its ambition and scope. It was the implementation rather than the strategy that was criticised. It is the application that this Bill seeks to address.

I welcome in this amendment the outcomes-based approach and enshrining in law that there must be an outcomes-based strategy, and included in the production of any such strategy is consultation with the sector, outside stakeholders and, importantly, children. That underpins article 12 of the UNCRC, which requires that children be included in decisions that affect their lives.

Amendment No 4 would replace the original clause 3. This is around pooling funds and resources to achieve the objectives of the Bill. This is a key element of the Bill. I have done a lot of research into how pool funds work in other jurisdictions. I hope and believe that should this Bill become law, the pooling of funds and resources will become a necessary outworking, because this is where a lot of the inefficiency arises. Take early intervention work. Five Departments are working to achieve the same objectives but with separate pools of resources and administrators. Pooling those resources will increase efficiency, improve delivery for children and underpin the joined-up working that the Bill seeks to achieve.

The changes to the original Bill that applied to only Departments now include all children's authorities.

Again, that brings in more stakeholders and will improve the effectiveness of the Bill compared with the original draft. The new amendment also reflects the new language in these amendments.

I will skip amendment No 5 for now and come back to it because it is perhaps one of the most complex aspects of the Bill and one of the areas where it has been hardest to get the drafting right. Much work has gone into bringing it this far. As I say, I will return to it.

Amendment No 6 is on the reporting clause. It is key that we not only put the legislation in place but that we continually scrutinise its operation and review its effectiveness. The Executive would be required to report every three years and lay a report to the Assembly. That replaces the original reporting requirement in clause 2.

There is a degree of cynicism about reporting mechanisms at times but, for me, one of the key aspects of the reporting requirement is not just what you have done but what further opportunities you can identify for cooperation. That continual challenge to cooperate more and better is key and will mean that reporting cannot simply be a tick-box exercise but is a continual assessment and critique of the work of Departments and, indeed, children's authorities in terms of how cooperation is taking place and how delivery on the outcomes is being achieved.

Amendment No 7 introduces another new clause, simply to give the Executive the power to issue guidance on the operation of the Bill. I think that it is a sensible amendment.

Amendment No 8 is about interpretation and, as I mentioned previously, defines "children's authorities". This aspect of the Bill was always difficult in its original drafting. Again, I appreciate the Department's input into this. It brings in the Departments, the agencies of the Departments and the membership of the current Children and Young People's Strategic Partnership and includes them all under the catch-all term of "children's authorities". It tidies up the language and means that, at various stages of the Bill, one group can be referred to as "children's authorities". It adds definition and clarity to that aspect of the Bill.

The term "young people" also needed to be defined. The definition of "children" in law is fairly straightforward, but "young people" must go beyond the age of 18. The definition contained in amendment No 8 mirrors that which is used in the legislation that established the Children's Commissioner. That was to ensure consistency and therefore includes vulnerable groups up to the age of 21. I know that, in some aspects of the work of Departments, some of those vulnerable groups will receive support until the age of 25, but this is about a working definition for the Bill and I do not want to produce something that may require significant resource when this is really about changing cooperation. For example, I do not believe for a second that those engaged in working with young people up to 25 will say, "We are not included by the Bill. We are not going to cooperate". The Bill is about enshrining cooperation as good practice and standard practice in Departments. Whilst the current definition is not a catch-all, I think that it is a good, workable definition that mirrors other legislation. Should, through review of the Bill, that definition be required to be extended to other groups, I would be open to that. I think that, at this stage, this is a definition that has received a level of consensus and is workable in the context of the Bill.

Amendment No 9 is on the commencement, which would be immediate on Royal Assent. Amendment No 10 is on the Long Title, which has been revised to adequately reflect the new drafting of the Bill.

I said that I would come back to amendment No 5 because, since I laid the Bill before the Assembly, clause 4 of the original draft was that which caused the most concern. I have worked with officials in OFMDFM with the sector, and I have engaged with the Department of Health, which I know has worked continuously with OFMDFM on getting this amendment right. I mentioned previously the desire to press on with this Bill, and I had been asked for more time to get this amendment right. As I said, at that time, the Assembly was hanging by a thread, and it is not out of the woods yet with political instability. My fear was that the whole Bill could fall. Amendment No 5 is an improvement on the original clause 4. It is that which was brought forward by officials and presented to the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. I think that it takes us in the right direction.

In terms of additional time, I am willing to not move this amendment today in the hope of getting an agreed amendment for Further Consideration Stage, but that timeline is still tight. I am keen to see this Bill reach its Final Stage within the next number of weeks, but, as there is an opportunity to make further amendments to get this aspect of the Bill right, I am certainly willing to work with anyone who seeks to do that and give every opportunity for getting there. I do not think that the Bill can be delayed indefinitely. I certainly do not think that it can wait until such a time when we have Executive meetings again because I have no certainty or clarity as to when that might be. I think that there is a window of weeks to get that amendment right, but there is the danger that we allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. I think that the amendment is a good one.

I will speak to the amendment's content. It is about updating the plan and bringing within the Bill the requirement that already exists in the Children Order to produce a plan for that commissioning and service delivery for children. It is to ensure that that includes all children, as the Bill does in every other aspect. The current Children Order is about children in need, but I think that the research, the evidence and, indeed, the work of the Children and Young People's Strategic Partnership (CYPSP) has moved towards working for all children in order to capture those who are most in need, rather than seeking to identify those in need and often missing children who fall through the gaps. I think the catch-all approach is the right one. I think that it is the direction of travel, and I know that, in my discussions with the Department of Health, there is enthusiasm about enshrining that. I know that there were concerns about the original draft couching this within the Children Order. This current draft moves it out of the Children Order and simply repeals aspects of the order to avoid duplication.

I have listened to the Department's concerns, and those are reflected in the Bill.

From the beginning of this process, the work of the Children and Young People's Strategic Partnership has been highlighted as good practice within government. I know that there has been further work to enshrine the good work of the CYPSP. What this amendment seeks to do is to put it on a statutory footing. There have been some areas of concern with that but, as I say, this does appear to be the direction of travel. It is something that the children's sector is calling for. It is something that there has certainly been a willingness in the Department of Health to take forward. We have a number of weeks to get that drafting right and, hopefully, bring forward a very good, if not perfect, amendment. As I say, the Bill must progress. We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the various stakeholders: OFMDFM, the OFMDFM Committee, the Bill Office, the children's sector and my own team, particularly Ross Brown, who has worked tirelessly on the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to make good practice common practice. It is to make cooperation in the planning, commissioning and delivery of children's services the norm. I hope that a change in culture can come out of that. We hear a lot about the failure of parties to work together, but those of us who work in this place know about the difficulties in Departments working together. We have to get this right for children. I hope that, should it receive the favour of the House, this Bill and the proposed amendments, along with Mr McCallister's opposition Bill and the proposed reduction in the number of Departments, can collectively improve governance in Northern Ireland.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Dallat] in the Chair)

It has often been said that, if the first phase of the peace process was about getting stability, the second phase has to be about good governance. I believe that this Bill is part of that good governance. I believe that other Bills will come forward and take steps in that direction. What I want to see with this is the ending of the waste that arises from duplication, the ending of silo mentality, and the creation of the structures to work together for the best interests of children in Northern Ireland.

I ask Members to oppose clauses 1 to 5 as originally drafted and support the tabled amendments. I reiterate that I will not move amendment No 5 today in the hope of getting a draft that will receive favour from all sides of the House and from the Departments and the sector alike. As with all the other aspects of the Bill, I hope that we can achieve a consensus on the way forward.

Photo of Mike Nesbitt Mike Nesbitt UUP 11:30, 29 September 2015

I commend Mr Agnew for bringing his Bill before the House today for the first of its amending stages. As you know, the OFMDFM Committee has, for some time, been working on its own legislation to reform the office of the Northern Ireland Ombudsman. We, therefore, have some appreciation of the time and effort required to get a Bill to this stage.

Before commenting on the amendments, I would like to briefly inform Members about the Committee's consideration of the Bill. Having provided earlier briefings to the Committee on the development of the Children's Services Co-operation Bill, Mr Agnew attended the Committee on 14 January following the Bill's introduction to the Assembly. On that date, the Committee also heard from OFMDFM officials, who indicated that, while the Department was in principle supportive of the Bill, it was expected that significant amendments would be required to ensure that it met its own objectives. The Bill was referred to the Committee following the Second Stage debate on 26 January, and the Committee Stage was subsequently extended to 3 July following the approval of the Assembly on 2 March.

The Committee received 27 substantive written submissions from organisations and individuals, a number of whom indicated that they also wished to be considered to give oral evidence. To enable the Committee to hear from as wide a range of stakeholders as possible, themed panels of stakeholders were invited to give oral evidence. Those panels included representatives from children’s groups, the voluntary sector, disability groups, occupational health practitioners and councils. In addition, we heard from the Health and Social Care Board, the Children and Young People’s Strategic Partnership, the Children’s Law Centre and an individual with a background in children’s services planning.

Two further evidence sessions were held with the Bill sponsor. That allowed Mr Agnew to respond to a number of technical issues that had been raised on the Bill at an early stage of our scrutiny. At the end of the evidence-gathering phase, it provided him with an opportunity to respond to all the issues that had been raised to us. OFMDFM officials briefed the Committee on the Department’s initial views on potential amendments to the Bill on 27 April.

At this stage, I acknowledge the work of departmental officials, who not only cooperated as fully as possible with the Committee but engaged with the Bill sponsor and the sector as they carried out their deliberations on the Bill. Indeed, while officials were not in a position to present the Committee with a draft of final amendments before we undertook our clause-by-clause consideration, they provided us with a revised draft of what the Bill could look like, and they discussed that with the Committee on 17 June.

Although not having the final text of amendments was not ideal, the Committee took account of the Department’s revised Bill in its clause-by-clause consideration. Members were also mindful that the Bill sponsor had indicated that he was content with the proposed direction of travel by OFMDFM, subject to sight of the final amendments.

In completing its deliberations, the Committee concluded that it was not content with all but one of the clauses. I stress that that was in no way an outright rejection of the Bill. Indeed, the Committee agreed that it had always been broadly supportive of the principles of the Bill. It is, rather, a reflection of the issues that had been raised and the concerns that the Bill would not, in fact, achieve its own objectives. By opposing the clauses today, it seems apparent that the Bill sponsor is, to some extent, of the same opinion.

All the Committee’s deliberations are available to read in its report, which was published in July. The revised Bill is included, and those who have had a chance to look at it will note that there is much similarity between it and the amendments that have been tabled by Mr Agnew and others for our consideration today.

Before turning to the amendments before us, I will highlight one issue that was of concern to some stakeholders but that is not directly a subject of the amendments under consideration today. That issue is sanctions. Several stakeholders noted that there are no provisions regarding penalties or sanctions for non-cooperation or limited compliance. The fear from stakeholders was that the duties placed on statutory authorities would become a simple tick-box exercise. The Committee explored that further during the final evidence session with the Bill sponsor. He advised that, while he had considered the issue of sanctions, he was unable to identify any that were appropriate. He told the Committee:

"the ultimate sanction, a judicial review, is a sufficient method of holding the Government to account."

I will highlight that the Committee has not had the opportunity to collectively consider the amendments before us today. However, as I indicated, they broadly mirror the text of the Bill as seen by the Committee.

I will turn now to amendment No 1. During its evidence-gathering session, the Committee heard representations from stakeholders regarding the high-level specified outcomes, which reflect the outcomes detailed in the Executive’s 10-year children and young people’s strategy. There was a recognition that the outcomes in the children and young people’s strategy were widely accepted by stakeholders, who had been consulted extensively during the development of the strategy.

It was therefore felt by some who responded to the Committee that the high-level outcomes should be replicated exactly as they are in the strategy. Others, however, suggested that, as a new children and young people's strategy is due post-2016, rather than specify high-level outcomes, the legislation should simply link to high-level outcomes in the children's strategy currently operative. It was believed that that approach would not predetermine or fetter the development of the new strategy.

In responding to that issue, the Bill's sponsor advised the Committee that he would be concerned if the Bill were to link solely to the children's strategy, as that would not cover other relevant departmental strategies or initiatives; for example, the early years strategy in the Department of Education.

In presenting their revised draft of the Bill to the Committee, officials advised that they did not believe that it would be appropriate to include high-level outcomes from the children's strategy in legislation, but to include high-level policy outcomes instead. Officials also indicated that including an enabling power for the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to amend the legislation if required would provide the appropriate mechanism for any necessary changes. A provision for OFMDFM to amend subsection (2) by means of affirmative resolution is included in the amendment.

In its deliberations, the Committee agreed that it was broadly content with the Department's proposal. While the Committee did not have an opportunity to reach a position on the amendment before us, I note that it is largely similar, with the addition of:

“the enjoyment of play and leisure” as one of the specified high-level outcomes — the seventh such outcome, as referred to by the Bill's sponsor.

Amendment No 2 would introduce a new clause, titled "Co-operation to improve well-being". The amendment mirrors that in the revised draft of the Bill presented to the Committee by officials. In their briefing to the Committee, officials explained that not only would that require Departments and other statutory bodies to cooperate but that they would have to pay regard to and work with other bodies delivering children's services, such as non-governmental organisations. In considering the revised draft, Committee members discussed with officials the use of the word "promote" in proposed new clause 1B(2). There was a suggestion that the word "advance" might place a stronger duty on Departments to cooperate. Perhaps the Member can clarify his views on "promote" versus "advance" during the debate.

The Committee was content with the direction of travel indicated by OFMDFM. It has not had the opportunity to reach its final position on the text of the amendment before us today, although I note that there is no change to what was presented by the Department at Committee Stage.

Amendment No 3 would introduce a new clause that requires the Executive to bring forward a strategy to improve the well-being of children and young people. It sets out what should be included in the strategy and the requirements for consultation, including consultation with children and young people, parents, guardians and representative bodies. Consultation with children is therefore embedded in the Bill, and the text before us replicates that which was included in the Department's proposals.

Amendment No 5 is a new clause that would provide for a children and young persons' plan. The new clause proposes that the Executive would be required to adopt a plan setting out how children's services will be planned, commissioned and delivered to support the achievement of the strategy, and it is the same as what was proposed in the Department's revised draft of the Bill. However, in our discussions with officials, they advised that they did not believe that their proposal was sufficient at that stage to deliver what is required and said that a further clause might be needed. In that regard, discussions are ongoing with CYPSP, the Department of Health and the Department of Education on a statutory partnership comprising members of the Health and Social Care Board (HSCB), the health and social care trusts, the Education Authority and other relevant agencies in the two Departments. That statutory partnership would be enabled to develop and deliver the plan.

During deliberations on the OFMDFM proposals, which relate to amendment Nos 3 and 5, Committee members recognised that further amendments were actively being considered. The Committee was therefore unable to reach a position and, as such, agreed that its support or otherwise would be dependent on sight of the final amendments.

Amendment No 4 would provide an enabling power for Departments to pool budgets and share resources, and it broadly reflects the text of the revised draft provided to us by officials. The original Bill also contained an enabling power to permit Departments to establish pooled budgets and to share resources to achieve the high-level outcomes.

Many stakeholders welcomed the provisions regarding the pooling of budgets and sharing of resources and believed that it would make it easier for Departments to share financial and staff resources to deliver the specified outcomes. Indeed, Delivering Social Change, coordinated by OFMDFM, was cited as an example of good practice in this regard. Stakeholders also stressed the importance of clear governance and accountability arrangements. The Committee agreed that it was broadly content with OFMDFM’s direction of travel on this issue, subject, of course, to sight of the final wording of the proposed amendment.

Mr Deputy Speaker, a key provision of the Bill, as introduced by the Member, is a report on cooperation, which was to be published periodically on Departments' progress towards achieving specified outcomes; the extent to which they had cooperated with one another; and any efficiency achieved through cooperation. Amendment No 6 provides for a much more substantive report, again reflecting the draft revised Bill prepared by OFMDFM officials. The report, as provided for in this amendment, will include a range of information, such as actions to be taken to achieve the outcomes in the strategy, progress made in the achievement of the outcomes, whether or not the well-being of children and young people has improved, and the cooperation that has taken place across Departments and how it could be improved. It also provides for reporting to take place on a three-yearly basis. The amendment may address concerns that, while the report provided for in the Bill as introduced would focus on how Departments have cooperated, it would not necessarily show how that cooperation had led to better outcomes for children.

The principle of a cooperation report was welcomed by those who responded to the Committee, although a number of those considered that reporting should be at annual intervals rather than every three years. Against this, concern was expressed about placing an extra administrative burden on Departments through additional reporting requirements. Perhaps the Member could advise as to the rationale for a three-year reporting cycle. The Committee also noted that Mr Agnew had also expressed a preference for the report to be conducted by an independent body. He may also wish to provide some clarification on that issue.

Amendment No 7 is a new clause that grants an enabling power to OFMDFM to issue guidance on the exercise of functions conferred by the legislation. Although guidance for Departments was an area raised by some stakeholders during Committee Stage, the Committee has not had sight of this amendment and so does not have a position on this.

I note that amendment No 8 relating to interpretation reflects the similar provision of the draft revised Bill provided to us by officials. In its consideration, the Committee was aware that further amendments would be required. It was therefore not in a position to endorse the OFMDFM proposals at that time and has not had the opportunity to consider the amendment being discussed today.

Mr Deputy Speaker, amendment No 9 is a new clause dealing with commencement, and amendment No 10 amends the long title to reflect the changing nature of the Bill. I can advise Members that the Committee has not had an opportunity to consider those amendments or to come to a position on them.

Photo of Megan Fearon Megan Fearon Sinn Féin 11:45, 29 September 2015

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to speak to this important piece of legislation and, indeed, congratulate Mr Agnew on getting it this far. Given that amendment No 5 is not being moved today, I do not foresee any major disagreements on the amendments. So, hopefully after today we will have a good Bill going forward to Further Consideration Stage, where we can work together to improve it.

We are very supportive of the principles behind the Bill and its intentions. We all know that there is a lot of existing good practice when it comes to cooperation. The Bill and the amendments tabled seek to make that good practice systemic in order to achieve better outcomes for children and young people.

We believe that the amendments tabled by Stephen Agnew, myself and others will ensure better outcomes for children and young people. The statutory duty will bring a welcome focus on children's and young people's needs and service delivery. Cooperation as it stands on children's issues is largely informal and dependent on relationships developed over time between relevant officials and workers. That means that the degree of sharing across a range of children's services is varied. Placing a requirement to cooperate in statute will ensure that the interests of children and young people are put first across all services and responsibilities. Of course, the most important people in all of this are our children and young people.

Amendment No 1 — basically a new clause — specifically outlines the core aims and intent of the Bill, which is essentially to support improvements to the well-being of children and the delivery of children's services, all with the benefit of the recipient of that service in mind. The new clause specifically defines well-being and makes links to the children and young people's strategy by way of the high-level outcomes listed. I have to say that the links to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child are welcome. I think that it is a progressive step and important in recognising children as rights' bearers in their own right, which is too often ignored.

Amendment No 2 is on the duty to cooperate in order to improve well-being. This is possibly the most important new clause if not one of the most important clauses in the Bill. A statutory duty will make it easier for Departments to come together, share resources and work collectively; basically, to solidify what is already happening on an ad hoc basis. Collaborative approaches to children's services will undoubtedly improve outcomes, remove duplication and, ideally, lead to budget savings as we try to make the best use of public funds available.

The amendment clearly states:

"Every children's authority must ... co-operate with other children's authorities and with other children's service providers".

This clause will also allow for the Executive to promote cooperation: I know that Steven referred to this and Mike Nesbitt raised it earlier. I think that concerns around loose language have been assuaged since the title of the Bill now places a requirement and this clause states that cooperation is clearly a must.

Amendment No 3 states:

"The Executive must adopt a strategy ... to improve the well-being of children and young persons."

This amendment does the job of amendment No 5 in some ways, but not all, although it needs to be progressed given that it is so outcomes-focused. For example, the strategy must detail the outcomes that have to be met, what actions will be taken, how to determine the extent of the outcomes that have been achieved and when that should happen. I am particularly happy with the reference in amendment No 3 to the Executive's having to consult with children and young people. I think that that is an important step in having their voices heard in service delivery that affects their lives. Obviously, that applies to those who represent the views of children and young people as well. Practically speaking, it is important that we ensure that a range of young people's voices from all socio-economic backgrounds are heard in that consultation, particularly those who are in most need and are most vulnerable.

Amendment No 4 is potentially another hugely important element of the Bill, particularly in breaking down the silo mentality of Departments. Sharing resources and funds in this regard is basic common sense and can only really be described as a good thing, if it is done properly. In the last debate, I made reference to Delivering Social Change, which I believe is an excellent model for this. Its budget has come from all relevant Departments for the delivery of signature projects, so this Bill epitomises the spirit behind that practice. I think that this approach is almost a safeguard to ensure that no decisions will be taken to the detriment of cooperation and the core aims of delivery for children. I hope to see that practice spread across other Departments and areas, not necessarily just children's services.

Amendment No 5 is, as Steven said, possibly the most complex and contentious amendment to date. We would not have been able to support clause 4, as was stated at the previous stage. It would have meant, in our opinion, a transfer of control of children's services to a non-departmental public body — and one that is already top-heavy and over-bureaucratic. I believe that that original clause would have seen the usurpation of ministerial autonomy and would have taken away from democratic accountability rather than strengthening it. It is hugely important that Ministers are able to retain the right and the ability to develop their own plans in accordance with their own priorities.

I know that amendment No 5 is not being moved today, and we would not have been able to support it in its original form, but we are happy to look at it in the future and come to an agreement on it because it is an important part of the Bill. One of our main concerns was in relation to subsection 9, which would repeal paragraph 2A of schedule 2 to the Children (NI) Order 1995. This amendment would move duties currently placed on the Health and Social Care Board to the Executive, resulting in the Executive being responsible for the planning for the most vulnerable children and young people in our society. The Health and Social Care Board has statutory responsibilities for vulnerable children under the Children Order, and it is important that that continues and that it continues to plan for their needs. We and others have genuine concerns that very vulnerable children could be placed at risk by removing that responsibility from the Health and Social Care Board. Although I believe that that result would have been unintentional, it would still have been a possibility.

It is appropriate that the Executive take responsibility for the strategy document and set out its key objectives and aims across the board to improve the well-being of children and young people. However, and this is all up for discussion, it may be better that the actual services plan is drawn up and implemented by a single Department or body that is more directly involved with children's services. Again, we can come to that at a later stage.

Another issue that we had with amendment No 5 was that one of the original intentions was to place the Children and Young People's Strategic Partnership into statute. The amendment did not achieve that, and, on the face of it, it does not appear to improve the effectiveness of that body. However, we can look at all those things, and there are many ways in which those can be progressed before the next stage of the Bill. We welcome the opportunity to engage further with Mr Agnew and other parties on that issue.

Amendment No 6, which deals with reporting, is the last amendment that I will address, as the rest are pretty self-explanatory. A report must be produced every three years detailing actions taken and progress gained on the agreed outcomes, as well as identifying further opportunities for cooperation and good practice, which Steven mentioned. That is an important part of the Bill. I am aware that some may have wanted annual reports, but I believe that the nature of reporting and the actions behind those reports are much more important than their frequency.

Overall, with the amendments, this is a good Bill that will make a positive contribution to our society and, most importantly, to the lives of children and young people. It is an important first step in changing mindsets and breaking down the silo mentality that I am sure everyone in the Chamber has been frustrated with at one point or another. I would like the roll-out of this collaborative approach to be extended to other areas, such as job creation and tackling poverty, as it ensures that the outcome is kept to the fore of each Department's decision-making process.

Sinn Féin will support the amendments, with the exception of amendment No 5, which will not be moved. I congratulate Steven Agnew on the Bill, and we hope to see the positive impact that it is capable of having in the near future.

Photo of Alex Attwood Alex Attwood Social Democratic and Labour Party

As is always the case with a private Member's Bill, I acknowledge its primary sponsor, Steven Agnew. If you look at the narrative around private Member's Bills in the Chamber, you will see that it is arguably an area in which the Chamber has shown its greatest authority, or certainly a lot of good authority, when you consider the Bills that have been introduced or passed in this and previous mandates. This legislation is no different. Steven Agnew in particular, and all those who worked with him — I will refer to that in a second — need to be acknowledged and affirmed, not least in this vital policy area with this important part of our community.

In its very nature and character, the Bill makes a statement about our Government, which is that they are too dispersed and siloed in their approach and do not adopt a coherent, cohesive and integrated approach. If you look to the Government of Scotland — I always tend to do that — which is the best Government on these islands, as advertised by their success in the Westminster election and confirmed by their success in the campaign on Scottish independence, you will see that they have a fluid approach to Departments. They do not have a silo approach whereby Ministers work and do not relate as fully and effectively to other Ministers and Departments as they might. That is only one example of what we should learn from the Scottish Government about how they conduct ministerial and departmental work. It is a fluid approach.

There are echoes in the Bill and in Steven Agnew's comments of something that the SDLP argued for and succeeded in securing in an earlier mandate: Executive programme funds. That model recognises that there are issues that, by their character, are either of such priority or diversity that you need an Executive programme approach as opposed to a single departmental approach. Given the clauses in the Bill, even the clauses about pooling resources, that demonstrates that there are models that can be applied to policy areas beyond the Bill for pooling resources and pooling approaches.

I agree with the proposer's comments on OFMDFM. It was my concern that, once the Bill had been introduced, it would go into the bureaucratic system and either not emerge or emerge in a much-changed format. Mr Agnew will confirm the conversations that I had with him about my worst fears. Maybe tensions in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister got in the way of the ambition and scale of the Bill, but, as Mr Agnew rightly pointed out, the experience of working with OFMDFM officials has been to work up this legislation and then get it over the line. It is not the failure of the office or its officials that Mr Agnew rightly made the decision to bring the Bill to the Chamber at this time, given the uncertainty around our political institutions. I recognise the good authority shown by people in OFMDFM in their response to Mr Agnew's Bill.

I also acknowledge what Mr Agnew has done for the children's sector. As he said, this is their Bill. Whilst he is the sponsor, mover and architect in legislative terms, the ambition, need and policy intent in the Bill come from the children's sector, and we need to acknowledge that.

Mr Agnew also acknowledged the work of the Bill Office. It is always the case in the last year of a mandate that the Floor of the Assembly, or of any legislative Chamber in these islands, can get very busy and crowded, and that places particular burdens on the Bill Office. In the event that our institutions continue for the residue of the mandate, that burden on the Bill Office will become more intense, given the current work-to-rule that we experience. Again, we see that there is nobody on the Benches opposite from the Democratic Unionist Party — nobody. The one person who was there earlier has now absented themselves, maybe for good reason — I do not know. In the event that we get through the current negotiations and the institutions continue for their full mandate, the burden on the Bill Office will become more intense. We need to acknowledge that as we move forward.

The policy content of the document has been corroborated and advertised over the last couple of weeks. The Churches in Northern Ireland and DSD gave huge evidence on the scale of poverty and relative poverty in Northern Ireland, particularly the poverty of our children. In my view, that is the policy background — in fact, the policy foreground — that should surround the Bill because, if we want to have cooperation in children and young people's services, the first task of that cooperation must be to address the objective circumstances experienced by children and young people — children in particular — not least, the scale of relative poverty. That is what DSD confirmed last week.

I make my next point not just in respect of the content of the Bill but in respect of the content of the talks that continue a few hundred yards from here in Stormont House. These figures have relevance to the Bill and to the negotiations, and they should, for reasons that will I make clear in a second, inform both. Just last week, DSD confirmed that, in 2013-14, some 376,000 people in Northern Ireland remained on a relatively low income, with the average household income dropping by 1%. Among the households, 213,000 working-age adults and 63,000 pensioners were living on the breadline. When you probe further into the 376,000 people who are on relatively low incomes, the child poverty figure was 23%, or 101,000 people, which was up from 20% the previous year.

So, according to our Government, according to DSD, child poverty is up from 20% to 23% in a year, with over 100,000 children living in poverty. As one of the children's charities said, that number is expected to rise even further. There was an ambition to get the level of child poverty down over the lifetime of this mandate and up to 2020, yet some of the figures from the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) suggest that relative and absolute child poverty will be above 30% by 2020. Some people dispute some of the figures, but they are all going in the wrong direction, even if you dispute the conclusions drawn from them.

Here we are in 2015, having gone up from 20% to 23% against one of the indicators in the last year, and the evidence indicates that the figures are going in the wrong direction over the next four or five years. That policy content is one of the features that is in the foreground and background of the Bill. It should be in the foreground of the negotiations that are going on a few hundred yards from here.

Quite a number of us are getting weary of the single transferable speech that is coming from the Secretary of State and the Treasury about there being no more money, when we have much more poverty. Whether it is an issue of money for welfare or more money for work, will the London Government get it into their heads that the ambition of the Bill and tackling the scale of child poverty will be damaged and undermined if they do not fully understand the scale of the issues that we face when it comes to child poverty and the scale of response required to protect those who are in poverty, be they children or families, help the children affected to get work when they grow up and help their parents to get work now?

The London Government need to recognise that we are trying to legislate for our particular circumstances because they are trying to damage our ability to tackle those particular circumstances. The Children's Commissioner, writing in the 'Belfast Telegraph' yesterday said:

"The highest levels of child poverty and mental ill-health are in those areas most impacted upon by the conflict. Our children experience unacceptably high rates of mental ill-health, with more children in Northern Ireland dying through suicide than anywhere else on these islands."

In the talks, it has been the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party who has been making the point about the provision of a mental trauma centre and the needs of our people when it comes to mental trauma, remembering that one in 10 of our people receive incapacity benefits. In Britain, the figure is one in five — no, it is one in 20. I have to correct myself: the scale of people on incapacity benefit here is twice that in Britain, whatever those figures look like. When you interrogate those figures somewhat further, you see that the highest levels of child poverty and mental ill-health are in those areas impacted by the conflict.

Therefore, not only does there have to be a joined-up response from our domestic Government but the London Government need to recognise that, if we are to deal with the trauma of our conflict, including the good proposals that are coming forward in respect of mental trauma, on which I think there is probably unanimity across all the parties in the negotiations, they need to work through that. If they want to help us deal with the legacy of our conflict — they say they do and, today, they have shared with the parties elements of the Bill that is to be tabled in the House of Commons to deal with the past at an institutional level — they also need to recognise that we need to deal with it at a practical level. That includes dealing with the issues of the highest levels of child poverty and mental ill health in areas that have been impacted by the conflict. If we are to deal with our child poverty, we have to deal in the talks with the emotional stress and difficulties that are being experienced by our children.

To conclude that argument, I want to quote from what the Church leaders said last week. They said:

"The unacceptable level of child poverty, affecting over 100,000 children, roughly 6% of Northern Ireland’s population, constitutes a real crisis. Supports that have proved to be effective in recent years in addressing inequality and closing the gap in crucial areas such as educational disadvantage are now being withdrawn through lack of funding. The failure to invest adequately in the future leaders of our society is a cause of deep frustration among young people, leaving many feeling disconnected from political processes."

London should hear that, and the Bill is an effective response to that narrative. By having joined-up government across Departments and putting life on the various clauses of the Bill, you will end up addressing what the Church leaders recognised last week, which, to use their words, is "a real crisis".

I want to make some passing comments on the amendments that have been tabled. Amendment No 1 seeks to introduce a new clause. That is where the Bill defines the well-being of children and young persons and, in that regard, refers to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. That is a wise approach: to state in legislation, especially by reference to international codes, what the ambition of that legislation is, in this instance the well-being of children and young persons. That should also be part and parcel of the legislation that was shared with the parties this morning, with respect to international and European standards — the rights under article 2 of the European convention — that are involved in how the legacy mechanism, the HIU, should conduct its affairs. I acknowledge that model of putting the ambition of a Bill into a Bill by reference to international convention, as well as defining the nature of the issue and the challenges as new clause 1 would.

At an earlier stage, the SDLP and I commented on our concern about the words in new clause 1B of:

"so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of its children functions".

I look to the sponsor of the Bill to confirm in his reply that that language does not limit the intended ambition of the Bill. In anticipation of confirmation that that is not the case and that that is not a word that dilutes or limits the ambition of that particular clause, we will support the clause.

Photo of Steven Agnew Steven Agnew Green

That is a phrase about which the Committee took its own legal advice or additional scrutiny from Daniel Greenberg. I also met him, and I think that he referred to it as — I am trying to remember his term, but I remember that the word "heffalump" was used. He said that it was an "avoidance heffalump", or something like that. I tried to seek other opinions and got reassurances from other legal opinions that that was normal practice in drafting and not simply a loophole through which a Department could escape. In that regard, I was content. I waited to see whether any other amendments came forward to seek that out. However, I am guessing that, whilst there are concerns about it, people are content that it is normal practice.

Photo of Alex Attwood Alex Attwood Social Democratic and Labour Party 12:15, 29 September 2015

Certainly, we are reassured by that. We are also reassured by the fact that people who have been drafting other clauses seem to have been shaping them in an expansive and positive way, which reassures me that other words that might be open to interpretation will not be interpreted in a negative and limited way.

Amendment No 3 inserts a new clause stating:

"The Executive must adopt a strategy".

That is a critical clause, irrespective of the fact that there was a previous strategy. It is critical not least because of the decision of the High Court in July on the failure of FM and dFM to adopt an anti-poverty strategy. The Committee on the Administration of Justice took a judicial review of the conduct of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister on that. Subject to correction, it is my understanding that the argument of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister was that the Programme for Government was an anti-poverty strategy, and that, rather than adopt a dedicated anti-poverty strategy, the Programme for Government was somehow "the" anti-poverty strategy. If I am correct, that argument was rejected by the High Court when it required OFMDFM to adopt an anti-poverty strategy. Therefore, this new clause, which will shape an anti-poverty strategy and the process around all that, is very important, given that High Court ruling on a related matter.

Amendment No 4 proposes a new clause, and Steven Agnew made the point in his opening contribution that this is the place in the Bill where it moves from process to product. This is a pivotal clause, because whatever legislation says and whatever its ambition might be — there is so much in the Bill that is good — unless there are resources to do the work and there is a pooling of resources, we could end up with limited outcomes or less joined-up outcomes. So, critical to the ambition of the Bill is the implementation of this clause for a pooling of resources. If Departments, especially in times of limited resources, protect and do not pool, the Bill could end up being frustrated.

I also acknowledge amendment No 5, which is on the children and young person's plan, noting that it is not to be moved. This clause on the children and young person's plan provision is where the processes are given dynamism. That is because you can have the best processes, but at the end of that you need the best plans with the best follow-up of resources, including pooled resources. That makes dynamic the ambition of the Bill.

Amendment No 6, which will insert a new clause reporting the operation of the Act, is also critical. I note that it has been said that a report may come forward more often than every three years. It is my view that, in the early life of this new duty, it will have to come forward more regularly, because my experience in government is that there will be a natural resistance to the ambition of this legislation, be it to having a joined-up approach on policy or the pooling of resources in practice. There will be a resistance. If some who may resist think that they have to account only every three years or a Minister thinks that he has to account only every three years, that could, in my view, especially in the early life of these new legislative responsibilities, frustrate what the Bill, its authors and the sector want.

However, subject to all those comments, in the days that are in it when Ministers are in and out, when Members are in and out of the Chamber — I acknowledge that there could be very good reasons in respect of Mr Moutray, so this is not a personal criticism but more of a party criticism in general — this is actually the Assembly showing its good authority, as well as government and government officials showing good authority.

More than anything else, it is the children's sector, on behalf of whom it advocates for, showing the very best of authority. That is why I hope that, even if the Assembly were to go into adjournment, an election or whatever it might be, the Bill gets through all its stages before that day and hour were to come so that, at this time of turbulence, the Assembly shows good authority. If there is to be more turbulence, and I do not believe that there will be, and I trust there will not be, it will perhaps be a willing conclusion to this mandate that, in its latter days, legislation is passed that responds to the human condition and the needs of those who are most vulnerable in our society — children in poverty.

Photo of Chris Lyttle Chris Lyttle Alliance

I welcome the opportunity to speak to this stage of the Children's Services Co-operation Bill. The Alliance Party has had a long-standing manifesto commitment to support a statutory duty for Departments to cooperate as part of our commitment to step forward for better government in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I have been glad to support the principles of the Bill to introduce a statutory duty to cooperate on Departments to achieve better outcomes for the well-being of children and young people in society. Indeed, I was glad to engage proactively with the Committee Stage. During it, we gathered a significant amount of evidence to support and progress the Bill to this stage. We welcomed OFMDFM's contribution. It presented a revised draft of the Bill to the Committee. The Committee was broadly content with it, as was the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. It is regrettable therefore that a full, final draft was not presented by OFMDFM, meaning that the Executive did not have a full opportunity to respond to such a draft. It is also regrettable that we do not have full party and ministerial responses to this stage of the Bill. To be honest, I fail to see how a ministerial resignation or a ministerial boycott is doing what is right for Northern Ireland, given the opportunities that we have in the Assembly and at the Executive table to deal collectively with some of the difficult challenges facing society in Northern Ireland, not least to endeavour to improve the outcomes for children and young people. It is not ideal that we do not have that final draft, or for us to be at this stage today, but I appreciate the sponsor of the Bill's desire to see progress made with this important legislation. I am glad that we have an opportunity to respond today.

Improved cooperation is needed on many issues in our society, such as early intervention in health and education and the delivery of a shared and prosperous society, but it is absolutely required to improve the well-being of children and young people. Cooperation is vital in any Government but perhaps most particularly in a multiparty Executive. We have some positive examples of cooperation in our Executive. Parties may not be surprised to hear me cite the Alliance Party Ministries of the Department of Justice and the Department for Employment and Learning as examples of where work is being done, such as to improve learning outcomes at the Hydebank Wood young offenders' facility. I also recognise the work of the DRD cycling unit, in cooperation with the Department of Health's Public Health Agency, to pool resources to improve the Active School Travel programme. That has had positive active travel outcomes for children and young people.

I welcome the amendments under consideration. Amendment No 1 sets out good, high-level outcomes to be monitored and achieved as part of the Bill. Those are physical and mental health; the enjoyment of play and leisure; learning and achievement; living in safety; economic and environmental well-being; enablement to make a positive contribution to society; and living in a society that respects the rights of children and young people. These are all issues that I have worked on as an Assembly Member and indeed on which I have worked with the proposer, Steven Agnew, on the all-party group on children and young people. Indeed, it has been a pleasure to work closely with the children's sector on all those issues.

I welcome the placement of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in the Bill, as other Members have done, and the opportunity that any amendments to those high-level outcomes would require the positive approval of the Assembly and full consultation with it. I welcome therefore amendment No 2, the key amendment to the Bill, on the introduction of the statutory duty to cooperate and the provisions that are being made for all children's authorities to cooperate on the key high-level outcomes.

Amendment No 3 to put the adoption of a children and young persons' strategy in the Bill is also a positive inclusion, as is the provision to ensure that it achieves specific outcomes, has specific actions, and is achieved within specific timescales.

I support amendment No 4 on the sharing of resources and the pooling of funds. Indeed, I have asked a number of questions of OFMDFM to seek updates on work that it has done on children's sector budgeting. That would be a positive provision in the final law that comes forward.

The proposer of the Bill has said that he is willing to reflect on the provision in amendment No 5. I will therefore do the same if and when it returns at Further Consideration Stage.

Amendment No 6 is a very important amendment, as it ensures robust reporting on progress on the work that would be carried out as part of the new law when it comes forward. There can be no more important task for an Executive than to report to the public on whether they are achieving what they said they would achieve. We could improve drastically the Executive's reporting on the Programme for Government in general. I am glad that such specific reporting mechanisms for children and young people are being included in the Bill.

The other amendments are all positive. With regard to amendment No 8's definition of the age of children and young people, I think that it is important that we appear to have provision for that age to be stretched to up to 21 years under particular categories. One particular piece of evidence that was given at Committee Stage was that the transitionary period between the ages of 18 and 21 and 23 and 25 can be extremely important for some of the most vulnerable children and young people in our community. I welcome the provision in the Bill of a duty to cooperate on those key age groups.

In conclusion, it is absolutely essential that the Assembly require the Executive to coordinate services and maximise resources as effectively as possible, particularly on behalf of children and young people in our community. We have heard stark warnings from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the UN and, today, in statistics that have been presented by DSD on the growing issue of child poverty. The UN has warned that the failure to achieve positive outcomes for children is one of the most costly mistakes that this society can make. I certainly hope that the Bill will go some way to ensure that we do not make that mistake in Northern Ireland and that we can deliver for children and young people.

Photo of Christopher Hazzard Christopher Hazzard Sinn Féin

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to speak on what I believe is a very transformative Bill, like Daithí McKay's private Member's Bill on the plastic bag levy, which had a transformative effect on the environment, society's use of plastic bags, and its approach to recycling.

This Bill will have hopefully have a very transformative effect on the delivery of children's services right across Government, so I congratulate Steven Agnew for bringing it forward.

I think that this is a great win for the children and young person's sector and, indeed, for the working of the OFMDFM Committee. Mike Nesbitt, the Committee Chair, outlined some of the work that it has done to date on reporting and working through a variety of issues. Coming to the Bill recently, I have looked through a lot of the reporting and some of the work done by the OFMDFM Committee. It is quite clear that the stakeholders out there and the sector have big things to say, and they are unanimous in their approach to this.

The Health and Social Care Board has said that more can be done when it comes to cooperation. NSPCC said:

"where a policy issue crosses several government departments and their remits, it becomes increasingly difficult to progress in terms of determining leadership and priority."

NILGA said that much work needs to be done to overcome the silo approach to work towards a single outcome. The Commissioner for Children and Young People talked at great lengths right throughout all the reports about the extent of the barriers that are there for children and children's services.

At the heart of the issue, it is about putting children and their rights first. For too long, government processes have focused on the interests of institutions at the expense of the rights of the child. I think that the ongoing education reforms such as the upcoming Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill, coupled with this private Member's Bill, are crucial in finally giving children and young people a say in their own personal journey and in that of all children and young people in our society.

For too long, the management and configuration of vital services such as health and education have not taken into account the need to strategically plan, deliver and evaluate to meet the needs of all the children and young people in our society. Like much of what government does, that silo mentality of Departments and their agencies has remained an incorrigible barrier to progress and has, undoubtedly, lead to a huge duplication of services in recent decades. With the ever-increasing pressures on the public purse, there is a real and urgent need to explore ways in which we can collaborate between Departments and deliver across agencies, and I think that the Bill does that. It is wrong, of course, to suggest that relationships and sharing have not developed extensively in recent times, but I think that we have reached the point of solidifying those partnerships and putting concrete expectations in place to build upon the good practice that has, indeed, flourished.

I now turn to the amendments. It is fair to say that amendment No 1 captures the spirit and the intent of the Bill. It really focuses upon the centrality of the child. I think that it is hugely welcome to see the link with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. That is a very welcome step. As has been outlined already, far too often, institutions neglect the fact that children are rights-bearers. They are the ones who bear the rights in this regard. Bringing that into the Bill is a very welcome step indeed.

If amendment No 1 captures the spirit of the Bill, it is fair to say that amendment No 2 goes to the very heart of the issue. Moving from this permissive notion of cooperation to requiring collaboration between Departments is, I think, going to be a very transformative step indeed. It is going to be a real game changer, and I think that all the stakeholders will, indeed, welcome it.

Again, having a children and young person's strategy in amendment No 3 is to be welcomed. One of the most important parts — we have seen this again in the Committee for Education's deliberations on special educational needs — is about consulting children. We must start to put the child right at the centre of everything that we do, and this amendment certainly looks at that.

Again, continuing on from the analogy about the spirit and the heart, I think that amendment No 4 will be the engine for real change when it comes to sharing resources and pooling funds. No doubt, yes, it is important that we get a more efficient use of public funds, but I think that what is vital here is a realisation of the hopes of many families when it comes to the services for their children. That will be a catalyst for real and welcome reform in Government and will build upon the good practice. We see it with Delivering Social Change programmes, and this development can undoubtedly make a real difference to children and their families.

I came across an issue in my constituency lately when it came to meeting the special educational needs of a particular child. Along one road in the Mournes area, one education authority said that it would fully cost and meet the needs of a child with autism, and at the other end of that road, a different education authority said that it would not meet the needs and the family would have to pay to meet the needs. That was an absolutely disgraceful situation, but it has now been remedied, of course, with the establishment of the Education Authority. However, it highlights the need for Departments and their agencies to work together. No family should ever have to go through such a circumstance. Again, the outworkings of the Bill will give us a great opportunity to relegate those sorts of stories to the past.

I welcome the fact that amendment No 5 will not be moved. That gives us time to bridge the gaps and work in partnership going forward. Amendment No 6 is the last amendment that I will touch on. When it comes to reporting, quality rather than quantity is important. I would like an innovative and diverse approach as to how we report and come back. From government, we also need a rich diversity in how we use the information that is gathered. This has the scope to do that. I will not touch on amendment Nos 7 and 8.

In conclusion, this is a well-deserved win for all those who work in the children and young persons' sector. As I outlined, not only is it a real game changer for children and young people, but, if done right, it will provide a template across government for how best practice can be rolled out. I have no doubt that the issues that we have dealt with today will inspire those people who work in the sector and result in a great improvement. It is about rolling it out. There is no reason why this model cannot help us to tackle environmental issues, the need to build a more socially just economy and issues to do with education in a more holistic and joined-up way. Overall, I welcome the Bill and call on all parties to support the amendments and continue working in a partnership approach that befits the very nature of what we are discussing today.

Photo of Sandra Overend Sandra Overend UUP 12:30, 29 September 2015

I commend Mr Agnew for getting the Bill to Consideration Stage. It has noble aims and worthy objectives behind it. Although I am not a member of the OFMDFM Committee, which scrutinised the Bill, as the Ulster Unionist spokesperson for children and young people, I have a keen interest in this legislation.

The Bill, as Mr Agnew pointed out, is for the benefit of all children in Northern Ireland. Its purpose is to increase the efficiency of service through effective cooperation and to ensure better outcomes for children and young people in Northern Ireland. The lack of cooperation and joined-up government has been detrimental to the people of Northern Ireland time and time again, but, with issues relating to children, failings in their early years have the potential to have an effect on the rest of their lives.

My party colleague Mike Nesbitt has spoken before of the silo mentality in government, as have a number of those who gave evidence to the OFMDFM Committee on the Bill. The ability to cut across Departments and work horizontally is essential for effective policy delivery, and, at present, there is a concerning lack of this type of cooperation. When Dr Alison Montgomery of NICCY gave evidence on the Bill to the OFMDFM Committee, she said:

"children cannot divide their needs across Departments as we currently have them."

Indeed, the Commissioner for Children and Young People noted that, not having a duty to cooperate:

"has thwarted the full realisation of children's rights and effective services."

As a constituency MLA, I have been dealing with numerous cases in which children are experiencing difficulties in getting education and health authorities to take action and deliver the care to which they are entitled. I am sure that other MLAs are experiencing that in their own daily work. We have many powerful examples of how Departments, when left to their own devices, can often revert to the instinct of seeking to pass the buck to others, hoping that a problem will go away. Likewise, in my pursuit of the development of a cross-departmental Internet safety strategy, I know only too well, unfortunately, how such an important issue can be dealt with like a hot potato. These attitudes are exactly why I am particularly drawn to the intent of the Bill to ensure:

"Each Northern Ireland department must cooperate with the other Northern Ireland departments so as to further the achievement of specified outcomes".

The consultation on the Bill received overwhelming support, and I understand that the vast majority of the amendments received broad support prior to being moved today. I welcome that and the groundwork done by Mr Agnew. The Bill is aimed at all children, and, in essence, it is hoped that it will be a preventative mechanism. It is about creating a culture of cooperation so that all Departments have a role, and all children benefit from the very beginning of their lives. This is a forward-thinking idea, but the question is whether legislation is needed to create this culture. If so, will this proposed legislation be effective? The problem, which has been noted time and time again, is the silo mentality of our Departments.

Will this legislation, if enacted, provide the basis for a better system of cooperation between Departments? It is difficult to say, especially without clearly set out sanctions outside that of judicial review, although that seems to be the only reasonable and appropriate sanction available.

The original Bill sought to put into legislation the Government's six high-level outcomes from their children's strategy and establish a requirement for Departments to discharge their functions and cooperate to further the achievements of those outcomes. The Bill, as amended, focuses more on a legal definition of the well-being of children and young people. At the very least, the Bill would, in its current state, create a floor of cooperation below which Departments must not fall.

The children and young people strategy, guidance on reports on the operation of the Act and the guidance available to children's authorities from OFMDFM should provide clarity to bodies that are to cooperate and ensure effective work towards positive outcomes. I look forward to further amendments to the plan, as per amendment No 5, which I believe is not being moved. However, I am slightly concerned at the phrase in amendment No 2:

"The Executive must make arrangements to promote co-operation of the kind mentioned in subsection (1)".

That was discussed in Committee, and it was noted that using the word "promote" rather than "advance" or "achieve" was easier to measure. However, as with DETI in recent years, where many jobs have been promoted but fewer realised, that could harm the efficacy of the proposals. The flexibility permitted by the Bill would allow areas of weakness and ineffective plans and strategies to be amended, with proper oversight from the Assembly. That seems to strike the right balance.

Permitting the pooling of funding and sharing of other resources, although not legal requirements in the Bill, would allow a flexible method of cooperation. Mr Agnew spoke of his hope that through the required departmental cooperation, the pooling of resources will happen organically. That is a vital aspect of the Bill, and a lot rests on the successful pooling of resources to ensure not only efficiency savings in the long run but the effective implementation of strategies to improve outcomes for children and young people. That will be the true test of these proposals.

It is important that cross-departmental work is successful, not only across Ministers but across government officials and workers in various Departments. We need this, and the Bill has the right tools to ensure effective delivery. We will support it, and it will be up to all parties in the Executive to use it to the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland.

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

I declare an interest. I am the chair of the Carrickfergus children and young people's locality group, which works with a range of government agencies and the voluntary sector. The group feeds into the Northern Ireland Children and Young People's Strategic Partnership. I am a committee member of Horizon Sure Start, which tries to assist expectant mothers and parents with children of nought-to-four years. I am also a Boys' Brigade officer and a governor of Glynn Primary School. I have a general interest in this area and feel that it is very important.

I am minded of information that I received about Professor James Heckman and the importance of investing in the young. I see that the Bill tries to avoid duplication. The amendments require cooperation and aim to get better value for money. In that, I support the Bill and the amendments to it. We must not only invest more in the young but make better use of the money that we invest.

I thank Steven for his efforts. The Bill is the right direction of travel, and Mr Agnew's detailed engagement with officials and the Committee have helped to refine it.

I can see, in his amendments, that he is still trying to achieve the original objectives but perhaps in a more practical and workable fashion by altering the wording.

I will turn to amendment No 1. The idea of trying to improve children's well-being is important, and we must look at a wide range of activities. I note that new clause 1A(3) states:

"In determining the meaning of well-being for the purposes of this Act, regard is to be had to any relevant provision of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child".

I think that that is the correct wording. Regard has to be given to them, but we should not necessarily slavishly follow everything that is there. I am content with that wording. If there is international good practice, we should try to follow it, but we should not follow everything slavishly. We have to satisfy ourselves that it makes sense.

I will turn to amendment No 2, which requires cooperation between different authorities that are working with children and young people. This is essential, and, in my previous experience of working in this area, I have come across some quite surprising things. Originally, I got drawn into educational underachievement not through the Department of Education but, believe it or not, through the Northern Health and Social Services Board's children and young people's planning section, which was concerned with levels of exclusion, suspensions and, indeed, absenteeism in parts of my constituency. It was very surprising that the Department of Health was appreciating the long-term adverse effect that this could have on children and young people and the frequent need for a range of services and support, not just the school, to intervene, and the need for a wide variety of bodies to work in a coordinated fashion.

There are a range of interventions that public bodies can make when families get into crisis. That crisis is sometimes shown by a child's behaviour and perhaps lack of attendance at school, but there can be involvement from social services, the Department of Health, the Education Welfare Service and the Department of Justice.

It is very important that you do not have a wide variety of engagements, because, potentially, you will not have a consistent message or may have several people engaging with an individual. This does not bring about the best results. Generally, in my experience, it is important that there is coordinated working between the range of officials who are trying to assist a family and that someone takes the lead and coordinates all the information required to bring about the best outcomes. I agree that there is a need for close working between all the Departments and that this is an important method of direction.

Some of that engagement can bring about very dramatic improvements in the short term and in the long term. Through the Action for Children Choices programme, engagement with families in which children were seen to be at risk of offending brought about dramatic improvements in the family situation. Additional parenting skills were given, boundaries were given, consistent parenting became much better and children's attendance at school once again improved. It is important that that type of work continues in a coordinated fashion, not through multiple government officials but in an efficient way that brings about the best outcome.

I am generally content with the remainder of the amendments. I, too, welcome the Member's decision not to press amendment No 5 at this stage. If practical discussions are needed to further refine it, to try to bring about improvement and to enable it to cross the line, that is a wise decision. I hope that the time between this stage of the Bill and the next stage will not be too long and that it can be finalised and come into statute.

Photo of John Dallat John Dallat Social Democratic and Labour Party 12:45, 29 September 2015

I call Mr John McCallister. I inform the Member that, if his contribution extends beyond 1.00 pm, I will have to interrupt him for the Business Committee, which meets at that time.

Photo of John McCallister John McCallister UUP

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Normally, when people assure the House that they are not going to take long, they usually go on and do exactly that. I think that, on this occasion, I can say with some degree of certainty that I will not take long.

First, I congratulate Mr Agnew on the work that he has put into the Bill and for the engagement generally around getting the Bill to this stage. I welcome, of course, some of the change in direction that the Bill has taken during its Committee Stage that is coming out here at Consideration Stage. I have a few points that may be useful, and I apologise for not being able to stay for the first part of Mr Agnew's winding-up speech. I note the references to "economic and environmental well-being" and:

"the making by them of a positive contribution to society".

I am slightly concerned how government would measure such a thing. I welcome the reference to:

"the enjoyment of play and leisure".

It is no secret that I have long been an advocate of the councils, particularly with their new powers of community planning, all developing a play park strategy. I would like to see much more emphasis on the importance of that and local government trying to deliver. I am a little concerned about how those aims would be measured, and I would like some ideas from Mr Agnew on how he sees that. Are we creating something in legislation that, quite frankly, we may not ever be able to achieve, as laudable as the goal and the anticipation of it might be?

I, like Mr Beggs, welcome the Member's not moving amendment No 5, which is to insert a new clause. It will be interesting to see at Further Consideration Stage what the work that he has done on that has developed into and what it looks like.

I think that the Chair of the Committee made a point about the lack of sanctions, and that is a worry to me, given the nature of our government and how good it is at delivering on things. Do we need to look at and seriously think about whether we build in some form of sanction if government does not measure up to this? Almost the only recourse available is taking Departments to court to try to exercise that. Is there some other sanction or mechanism that we can use?

On the broader policy debate that we have had around the amendments to the Bill in this Consideration Stage, I think that, as Mr Agnew touched on in his opening remarks, there is a huge onus on how this place does its business and the actual ability of an Executive to formulate an agreed policy agenda. There is an onus and an emphasis on political parties to come up with agreed policy agendas and not always be passing the buck. I have heard others, including Mr Attwood, who talked about child poverty figures, always looking to London and blaming what is happening there and what other Governments are doing, sometimes forgetting that he is in a party that is in the Government. It is incumbent on all those who hold office in the Executive arm of the Assembly to formulate agreed Government policy to tackle the very issues that Mr Agnew wants to see tackled and that his Bill is driving to do through having a collective approach to dealing with children and young people's issues and services. It is about how best to get those innovative policy advancements, instead of always cutting those services at the very times we need them the most. Many of us speak about early interventions, but we do not seem to be able to deliver them.

I wish Mr Agnew well on the passage of the Bill at this stage. I will certainly be voting in support of him and his advice on these amendments.

Photo of John Dallat John Dallat Social Democratic and Labour Party

The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I therefore propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

The debate stood suspended. The sitting was suspended at 12.56 pm.

On resuming (Mr Principal Deputy Speaker [Mr Newton] in the Chair) —

Notice taken that 10 Members were not present. House counted, and, there being fewer than 10 Members present, the Principal Deputy Speaker ordered the Division Bells to be rung. Upon 10 Members being present —