Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Steven, we thank you for joining us in Ballymoney today. We are well under way with Committee Stage, as you know. It is normal practice for the Bill's sponsor to come back to brief the Committee towards the end of Committee Stage. However, following a technical briefing from Daniel Greenberg, we thought it best to have you back now to address some of the issues that have been raised. Would you like to make some short opening remarks, given that we have given you sight of Mr Greenberg's observations?

Mr Steven Agnew (Northern Ireland Assembly): Sure, Chair. If it is helpful, I will give the Committee a brief update on our meetings with OFMDFM before coming to Daniel Greenberg's recommendations.

As you will know, I have been engaging actively with OFMDFM. We have set up joint meetings with voluntary sector organisations — largely those in the children's sector — and Departments. In some cases, those meetings are to be with Ministers. Their purpose is, first, to help OFMDFM, through demonstrating the drive in the children's sector, to understand fully the intent of the Bill and, secondly, to hear and address any concerns that Departments may have and to learn of any drafting changes that may be required.

Clause 4 seems to have caused the most concern. The Department has suggested that we look at having a stand-alone clause rather than amending the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, the reason being that the Bill is intended to apply to all children, whereas the aspects of the 1995 Order that we seek to amend are to do with targeted need. They have suggested that, rather than rewrite the 1995 Order to meet my needs or the needs of the Bill, we have a stand-alone clause and amend where necessary. For example, rather than having two reports, the reporting requirement in the Children Order would be repealed and include that in the new clause. Some of the amendments that we might be looking to table are starting to take shape.

At this stage, my understanding is, certainly from the last meeting that I had with OFMDFM, that no one from the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) has been appointed to work on the amendments. It may be the case, because Executive Bills take priority, that it has to outsource that work. That is the most recent update that I have had. I have impressed on OFMDFM the commitment that we have made to giving the Committee sight of any proposed amendments for scrutiny in advance of your closing date, so we are aware of the timeline involved. As I say, to some extent, appointing a drafter is out of my hands. I have made it clear that I want to meet the commitment, because, ultimately, I am answerable to you if we do not honour it.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): While we are on the subject, do you have any idea of the cost implications of outsourcing?

Mr Agnew: I do not. I have not asked about that. I understand that it is fairly common practice, but I have not asked for the cost. In drafting the Bill, the Bill Office used outside drafters. I do not think that it is unusual. From my point of view, it would be preferable if it were the Office of the Legislative Counsel drafting the amendments, because part of the advantage of having the Department on board is that we get to use its drafters. That is certainly my preference, but I appreciate that Executive Bills take priority over private Members' Bills.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I guess that the Stormont House Agreement has added to the weight of responsibility on the OLC.

Mr Agnew: Absolutely. Anything that you can do to keep the Assembly up and running so that I can get this through would be appreciated.

I do not know whether you want me to go through the Daniel Greenberg submission point by point or to give my overall view and then take questions from Committee members.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): We want to work through it, Steven, if that is OK. Do you want to give an overarching view at the end or the beginning?

Mr Agnew: My overarching view is that some of the points made identify a clear need for amendments, and I will refer to those specifically. I am happy to explain other points and give my point of view, but I am open-minded on the issue of potential amendments from the Committee. If you like, I will go through the specific points.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Let us start with clause 1, which is on the general duty that is to apply to Northern Ireland Departments:

It is not clear why that qualification is needed. What is your view on the assertion that a Northern Ireland Department could use that to undermine the whole point of what you are trying to achieve?

Mr Agnew: The purpose of having that wording in there is that Departments are not being required to work. There is some discussion about whether to include all Departments, but we wanted a catch-all. We believe that all Departments will have some responsibility for children, but, undoubtedly, some will have more responsibility than others. Therefore, the intent of that wording is for it to apply where a Department's functions are relevant and where the proper exercising of its functions will impact on children. Therefore, where its functions do not impact on children, that is not in the scope of the Bill. I am open-minded to an amendment that withdraws that line. I still feel that there may be a need to keep it in there, but concern has been expressed, and I suppose that I understand that concern. If the Committee were to feel that that form of words could undermine the Bill, I would be very open to an amendment.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Let us look at it the other way. If that were not in there, and the clause just stated that the Northern Ireland Departments must ensure that they work in such a way as to further the achievement of the specified outcomes listed in clause 1(3), how would that change your intent?

Mr Agnew: Having looked at the clause, I am not sure that things would be worse off. It is in there to stop the situation in which a Department is acting on an issue that does not impact on children and has to consult another Department to see whether it does impact. It appears that there is advice that it is not necessarily in order to that. My own reading is that that might be a fair point. It is a relatively new point that is being made, and I appreciate seeing these things in advance. At present, I do not have a strong view one way or the other. I have given you the rationale for the wording's inclusion, but I am not an expert on drafting and the unintended consequences of legislation. We were trying to avoid the unintended consequence of Departments having to consult and cooperate on each and every issue where there may not be an impact on the six high-level outcomes, but, given that the wording is to do with furthering those outcomes, the line may not be needed.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): OK. The next point that Daniel brought up concerns the long title, which states that the Bill requires Departments:

in order to meet objectives, but then only clause 1(1) mentions discharge of functions. The rest of the Bill is entirely about cooperation. Do you need some balance?

Mr Agnew: I suppose that I came at it from the other way. Departments are already required to discharge their functions, so I suspect that the wording in the long title is superfluous. From looking at the comments, that is how I had interpreted it. I had not considered that we might need to put more in about Departments' discharge of functions.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I suppose what is happening, Steven, is that, if you take a common-sense approach, you think that, by mentioning discharge of functions right at the very beginning, in the long title, everybody knows the intent. However, I suppose that a common-sense approach to a document is different from a legalistic view of a statute. The fact that it is mentioned in one clause but not in another certainly opens up the potential for those who would wish to say, "Well, it doesn't say that, and that's why I didn't do it".

Mr Agnew: The general duty refers to the discharge of responsibilities. I suppose that the clause 4 duty does not refer to discharge of duties. I kind of came at it from the other way — removing the reference from the long title. Is the proposal that we perhaps need something in clause 4 that replicates the language of clause 1 on discharge of functions? Obviously, I have a copy of the written briefing. I do not know whether you got an oral briefing as well.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I think that the question is one of consistency. Again, the point is being made that there is effectively an omission at clause 1(2), because it does not specify the outcomes as they pertain to the well-being of children and young people, as indicated in clause 1(1). Without being overly presumptive, I wonder whether you felt that, because you had mentioned it in clause 1(1), you did not need to repeat it in clause 1(2). However, as it is a piece of legislation, perhaps that is what needs to be done.

Mr Agnew: I will certainly look at it again and see whether I can get further advice. I think that I may have misunderstood the problem that was identified and, as such, came up with a different solution.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I suppose that Daniel is looking for the loopholes.

Mr Agnew: Absolutely, and I certainly consider all of this as being constructive.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): If you were relying on people to cooperate, you would not have brought forward a Bill in the first place.

Mr Agnew: Absolutely. It is about the discharge of Department's functions through cooperation in order to contribute to achieving the outcomes.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Daniel had an interesting point to make about the specified outcomes, which are dealt with in clause 1(3). You reference in the Bill the high-level outcomes that are contained in the strategy for children and young people for 2006-2016. He suggested that it is really not appropriate to transpose language from one type of document — in this case, a strategy — to legislation. He suggests that, unless you tighten up that subsection, you will not have good, objective law.

Mr Agnew: I have a couple of points to make on that. The Children Act 2004 in England and Wales contains similar high-level outcomes:

Those are the outcomes that their legislation is pinned to. The two appear to be similar in language. I suppose that there is the danger that, just because something is in law somewhere else, that does not mean that it is good law. I accept that that may be a point. In that sense, though, my legislation is not vastly different from the English and Welsh legislation.

My other point is that there appears to have been a difficulty in putting action to the 10-year strategy, which the Department itself identified. It believes that there needs to be more clarification of what the high-level outcomes mean. It is proposing to be more explicit in the new strategy that it is working on. The Bill and the new strategy are being worked on concurrently, so the proposal is to amend the clause to reflect what is going to be in the new strategy. At this point, I have not seen a draft of it, but the intention is to give a more specific definition to each of the outcomes. My understanding is that the Department intends not to deviate in a major way from the outcomes but to explain them more clearly.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): At this stage? In clause 1(3), you are saying that you wish to put into law a requirement for Departments to cooperate to make sure that children are healthy, that they enjoy learning and achieving, that they live in safety and with stability, and so on, as contained in the other three high-level outcomes. All of us around the table might put our hands up and say that it is a very good idea to make each of those a statutory duty. Then the very next subsection, clause 1(4), states:

"The Office" is OFMDFM. Therefore, it can just turn around and change everything.

Mr Agnew: It would be done through the affirmative resolution procedure, so any changes would have to come before the Assembly. You will be aware of the different levels of subordinate legislation, and various levels of scrutiny come with those. If you do not include that ability of the Department, the only way in which to change subsection (3) would be by primary legislation, but there is no absolute that we put this into law and it is for ever unchangeable. I suppose that it is a matter of the level of scrutiny that we want before any changes are made. Obviously, primary legislation is the highest level, so if we were to take that subsection out, it could be changed only through primary legislation. All secondary legislation would be subject to the draft affirmative procedure, which, to me, is the highest level of scrutiny.

It is in there to recognise that those outcomes are what have been agreed by OFMDFM, the children's sector and other stakeholders as being most broadly reflective of children's needs. However, as research evolves, as evidence is gathered and as the Bill is enacted, if it is the case that we have missed something or that we have an unintended consequence, the power is there for the Department to change clause 1(3), but any changes would still be subject to the scrutiny of the Assembly.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): If OFMDFM were bringing a draft order and laying it before the Assembly, would you expect it to have consulted in advance?

Mr Agnew: I think that I am right in saying that it is required to consult, but I am not 100% sure. I will have to check.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): It does not state that in the Bill, so it might be useful to include it. Perhaps it is not required, because there is already an obligation. However, it is certainly worth checking.

Mr Agnew: I will check that, because it is a very good point. It is certainly my intention that the Department would consult before changing the high-level outcomes.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Clause 2 is about the duty that you want to place on OFMDFM to prepare and publish a report on cooperation. General questions arise. What consultation do you expect would be required to produce the report? What would successful cooperation look like? Would there be a sanction if there were deemed to be a failure? Was any consideration given to independent input into pulling it all together?

Mr Agnew: Independent input is an interesting proposal. I am not sure how it would work for accessing information. Obviously, anybody producing an independent report would have to be able to access the information from the various Departments. If you were to ask somebody to come in from outside and say how Departments have cooperated, you would almost be talking about an audit situation. I would have to look into the practicalities of doing that, but I would have no problem with an independent report.

I do not want to mention the recent Welfare Reform Bill, but I tabled an amendment that called for an independent review of it. In principle, where independence can be brought in, it should be. As I said, I am just not sure of the practicalities for each of the Departments and the scope, but I would not be opposed to it if it were deemed to be something that could practically be done.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): What about sanctions?

Mr Agnew: Different levels of sanctions could be applied. For example, Departments can face sanctions when it comes to environmental laws. A Department can be fined if it breaches environmental laws. For this legislation, I am not sure whether adding in fines is necessarily the way in which we want to proceed. The report is there as an accountability mechanism. OFMDFM would be accountable to the Assembly, but given that it would be a published report, it would be accountable to the wider public, particularly the children's sector.

The ultimate accountability mechanism is judicial review. If Departments were not deemed to be cooperating, they could be subject to judicial review, as with any legislation. That is always there as the big stick, to put it crudely. We looked at other legislation to try to see whether there was any further sanction that could be added to the Bill, but we were unable to come up with anything that we thought would be beneficial. As I said, I am not sure about putting in a fine. It is public money. Where would the money go? It would go to another to another public body. Who would collect the fine, and so on? It did not seem to be an appropriate mechanism to use.

A balance has to be struck. The previous time that I was in front of you, you will recall that some members suggested that reporting is onerous and bureaucratic. I believe that reporting is necessary for achieving that accountability. It is required to show how cooperation happens, to show whether and how efficiency has been increased and to identify where further cooperation could result in improvements. Those requirements are helpful to achieving that accountability and to driving further cooperation. A balance needs to be struck between the level of bureaucracy — to use the term — required and how the report is helpful and not just in there for the sake of being in there.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): We heard from the Health and Social Care Board last week. It was my impression from what it said that a lot of that is being done, so there would not be a huge additional bureaucratic burden.

We will move on to clause 3, which deals with the establishment and maintenance of a pooled fund. Let us say that Bronwyn is Minister of Health and Alex is Minister of Education —

Mr Agnew: Congratulations.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): — and we have voted through a Budget, from which they get allocations. Bronwyn knows that healthier children will do better at school but that there is huge pressure on her health budget. We, as an Assembly, have voted through a budget for health, yet you are now proposing that she put some of that health budget into a pot that will benefit the Minister of Education.

Mr Agnew: I think that it is about shared objectives. The Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Bill, which is fresh in my memory, is an example of where cooperation was not happening at the level that I would like it to be happening. My big criticism of another Department of Education Bill, the early years Bill, was that it was a Department of Education Bill alone. However, early years needs, at least, the input of the Department of Health and the Department for Employment and Learning also. We have the SEND Bill presented to the Assembly, but it is from just the Department of Education. As I said, it should, at least, involve the Department of Health and the Department for Employment and Learning. Where there are shared objectives, it makes sense to me that you share resources to achieve those objectives.

I think that I asked my colleague Ross to forward to the Committee a very good document, 'Guidance to local areas in England on pooling and aligning budgets', from the Department for Communities and Local Government. It outlines the differences between an aligned budget and a pooled budget. My understanding is that the early intervention transformation programme is a good example of an aligned budget but that it does not quite go as far as a pooled budget. The difference is that in that there are shared objectives there. My understanding is that the Atlantic Philanthropies money might prevent that programme from ever being done as a pooled budget, as there is a non-governmental organisation involved. An aligned budget is where I agree to spend x amount from my budget and you agree to spend x amount from yours. Everyone retains their own accountability mechanisms and, indeed, accounting mechanisms, but, in my opinion, you have more bureaucracy. Therefore, having a pooled budget has more advantages. If you agree to put money into a pot, you collectively agree the objectives, but one set of civil servants administers it.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Which set of civil servants would that be?

Mr Agnew: That is where the difficulties come in, and that is where I find the guidance really interesting. It talks about a pooled budget as something that almost grows through cooperation. An aligned budget is almost taking baby steps, and it is something that we are comfortable with. Pooling budgets is not something that we do. We all have our accountability lines, and we are comfortable with those, but the end goal should be pooled budgets. The efficiencies will really come when pooled budgets happen and you can cut down on bureaucracy. I tried to make the point in the debate and when I was before the Committee last time that the ultimate end to this is to increase efficiency and make better use of resources. I believe that the pooling of budgets, where there are cross-departmental, shared objectives, is the optimal way. The optimal way of using resources is to pool budgets. As I said, you reduce that back-end bureaucracy.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Do you accept that there would be pooled bureaucracy, for want of a better phrase?

Mr Agnew: If there were five Departments involved, you would have one line of bureaucracy rather than five. That is how I see it.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): All five Departments would have to have an input into the administration of the money, because it is their money. Ultimately, they would have to be accountable for the portion of their budget that they had surrendered to the fund.

Mr Agnew: Yes. The challenge for the Departments is to find a way of doing that without involving five accountants. It can be done, and it is done between other organisations outside of government. Indeed, it is done in England, which is where the guidance relates to. It is not how things are done, but it is how they should be done.

The one thing that I will say, because I want to be as candid as possible about this, is that the evidence is that, in the short term, making those changes would create a resource issue. The evidence is that there would be a cost in the short term but, in the medium to long term, there would be savings.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Why would there be a cost in the short term?

Mr Agnew: Putting in new structures. Any transitional arrangements would require resources to work out what new arrangements are needed to change cultures and so on, so there would be an initial investment. I cannot give you an example of the sums.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Give us an example of how it would work, even if you cannot put a figure in the bottom right-hand corner.

Mr Agnew: One thing that I will say about the Bill is that the Bill states "may", so it allows for this to happen rather than says that it must happen. My contention is that it should happen. With the current situation, each Department has its accountability lines and is used to doing that. It will have its own accountants and so on — whoever does this behind the scenes. Not having worked at a senior level in the Civil Service, I cannot explicitly tell you how it works; Departments will be better placed to do that.

We are seeking to get them to move to a situation where they get together and say, "We will have one pot; your Department will administer it through your lines". How do they make those arrangements? There will have to have discussions with DFP and with each other to decide whether they can do that. When I talk about costs, I mean mostly people resources: these meetings taking place and the time taken to work this out. This question was alluded to: "How does my Department show the Finance Minister that the money that we were given to meet health objectives — even though we had given the responsibility to DE to spend the money — contributes to meeting our shared agreed objectives? How do we convince DFP that we are still meeting our requirements?".

When I talk about resources, I mean those conversations, meetings and changes of culture and reporting that will take time, effort and, therefore, resources. However, as I say, the evidence is that that time and those resources are well spent, because the outcome creates greater efficiencies.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): We heard that there are issues with regard to the Children and Young People's Strategic Partnership in this regard. It seems that everybody involved accepts, without question, that the principle is great. However, getting people to put their hands in their pockets and put the money into a central pot remains hugely challenging; and, in the current economic climate, I cannot imagine that it will be anything other than that for Departments.

Mr Agnew: There is an incentive. Early intervention is a good example. It is in the interests of the Department of Justice to have Health delivering services in early years, because that will improve outcomes. It is very hard to measure; that is the difficult part. However, all the evidence shows that if justice agencies start dealing with young children it just brings them into the justice system and they should not be there. Health is the best place to deliver those services. The evidence is that that is how you get the outcomes that Justice wants to achieve, but Health has the agencies to deliver. So there is an incentive to put money in.

It is hard to prove that, if we put money in, through the Department of Health, to this child when they are two years old and, look at them now, they are 16, and they are not committing crimes: we did that. That is very hard to evidence, but the evidence is there that it works. However, to say of any individual child that they are not committing crimes because we invested in them early is very difficult. You can never make that causal link. However, the evidence is there that, if you invest early, on the whole, fewer children will grow up to be teenagers who commit crimes.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I just think, Steven, that the challenge remains in getting people to, figuratively, put their hands in their pockets. Perhaps part of the solution is what was agreed at the Stormont House negotiations: that we would try to agree a Programme for Government before running d'Hondt so that the parties will have agreed on cross-cutting outcomes before they know whether they have a role to play in delivering them.

Mr Agnew: That would certainly be helpful. We agree; that is a better way of doing government.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): The Greens endorse the Stormont House Agreement. Thank you very much.

Mr Agnew: One element thereof.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I understand that you did not actually say that.

We move to clause 4, which is probably the most discussed aspect of the Bill. You said in your opening remarks that you were thinking of changing it.

Mr Agnew: It has been proposed. The approach that I have taken with OFMDFM and with the other Departments is that I am open to changes, subject to seeing the drafting, of course. They said to me that they agree with the objectives of the Bill and that they are not seeking to change them, so any amendments would be designed to make the Bill more effective, rather than seek to move away from what I am trying to do. I am learning things through this process. A Department of Health amendment will still come through OFMDFM, because it is the Department taking the lead on this.

I will wait to see what the draft amendment looks like. In principle, however, the concerns that have been raised with me about clause 4 appear to be legitimate, and the objective of the amendment helps the Bill to do what I wish it to do. In that regard, I am minded to support it, as it will improve the Bill and improve the working of it.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): The Health Minister has tasked his permanent secretary to look at some administrative structures in the National Health Service, including the Health and Social Care Board. At this stage, do you have any idea how that may impact on what you propose?

Mr Agnew: I do not. My colleague Ross Brown and I had a meeting with the Health Minister, and, along with OFMDFM, we have since met the Department of Health. Most of the discussions have been on the operation of clause 4 and how an amendment might look. We have not addressed those particular issues.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): What about the implications of another aspect of the Stormont House Agreement: moving from 12 Departments to nine and the expectation that Health will take on board more children's services?

Mr Agnew: You may have evidence to counter this, but, from what I have read and from the First Minister's statement, most of what currently sits with OFMDFM in relation to children will go to Education, which means that clause 2, which relates to the co-operation report, would sit with Education. There was a particular sense to it sitting with OFMDFM, in that it would have oversight and it was the link between all the Departments to some extent. The decision to put it in the Department of Education is out of my hands, but it could be argued that the Department of Health would be a better place, given that it is the bigger spending Department.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): OK. It is more the question of saying that if one Department, whether Health or Education, has all these services under one roof, does that negate the need for a Co-operation Bill?

Mr Agnew: Absolutely not. My understanding is that none of the powers of Health is to go into Education, so we still have the situation where anything involving children up to at least age three will not be covered by Education because it does not have any powers or jurisdiction in relation to early years, other than jurisdiction over the new strategy; but Health would still need to be involved in the delivery of the new 10-year strategy. Again, the responsibilities of the other Departments, including Justice, will remain.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): As I understand it, the Children and Young People's Strategic Partnership deals statutorily with children at risk, whereas you are talking about all children. Is there a need to amend the 1998 Children Order?

Mr Agnew: That is the intention of the proposal to bring this clause out of it being a Children Order amendment to it being a stand-alone clause and, where necessary, to avoid duplication or repeal elements of the Children Order. That is the intention so that that conflict does not arise.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): OK. I have a final question. The Health and Social Care Board is the centre of clause 4 at the moment. Is it appropriate that the remit rests there when the cooperation is broader?

Mr Agnew: I still contend that the only power conferred on the Health and Social Care Board as part of the Bill is to be the central reporting line through which the other agencies and Department feed into. So, it has a responsibility to collate and prepare the report. I do not see it in any way being given jurisdiction over those other agencies or Departments; I saw it as being a central point of contact and collation. I know that it seems to have exercised the Departments, and I will await any amendments that they may propose, but, at this point in time, I have yet to be convinced that it is a problem. However, if there is another way of doing the same thing that somebody can come forward with, I am very open to looking at it.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): OK, Steven, I appreciate it. Do members have any questions?

Mr Attwood: Thus far, are you satisfied that you are getting every proper assistance from FM and DFM?

Mr Agnew: I am, I have to say. We set up a series of meetings at which there has always been at least one official; two on occasion. My one concern, which I mentioned before, is the drafting services, because I am conscious of your timeline, and we have given a commitment to you that we will bring amendments before the Committee before your deadline. That is out of my control, so it makes me nervous.

Mr Attwood: Has any precision been given to you about when somebody might be appointed, because what might happen is that, if this mandate continues, there will, as always, be a rush of legislation. I suspect that, when it comes to some of the Stormont House Agreement legislation, there will be outsourcing as well. There are not many people in the system, never mind outside it, who have the capacity to draft. Is there any certainty? If not, it might be useful for us to encourage certainty from FM and DFM in that regard.

Mr Agnew: I would certainly welcome that, because, as I said, it is my biggest concern. A concern that I went in with was that, once I was in there, they would try to get me to somehow water down the Bill; there has been no evidence of that so far. I can honestly say that I feel that OFMDFM and, indeed, the other Departments have been constructive. That is my one concern. If I am left in a position where amendments that I want to see made are not being made because draftsmen are not available, I will go through the Bill Office. However, the purpose of having OFMDFM on board is to make the Bill better and to bring in expertise that is not available to me through the Bill Office. That is my preference, but, if I have to seek my own amendments through the Bill Office, of course, I will do that to ensure that I meet my commitment to the Committee.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Just as an impression, Alex, I sense that the Department is keen to work with Steven on the Bill to make it happen; the Health and Social Care Board last week seemed to be broadly supportive. Members, for information, I am conscious that, because a lot of it rests with the Department of Health, I would not want us to put an awful lot of work into it only to find that, down the road, the Committee for Health is not content. The Clerk and I met the Chair and the Clerk of the Health Committee this week, and we have agreed on an early warning system, for want of a better phrase, to make sure that if there is any tension we know about it early and address it in a timely manner. Are members content?

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Steven, thank you very much. Again, I appreciate you coming up to Ballymoney.

Mr Agnew: Thank you very much, Chair. As I said, the input from the Committee and Daniel Greenberg has been very helpful.