Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): From the commission — I will do my best with pronunciation — we welcome Alison Montgomery and Koulla Yiasouma.

Ms Koulla Yiasouma (Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People): Well done, thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Koulla, you are very welcome. It is your first time here, so we will certainly welcome some opening remarks, but you have just, I think, heard the junior Ministers talking about age discrimination legislation: would you like to react to that?

Ms Yiasouma: I was going to leave that reaction to the end. Just to get this out of the way: I am very, very, very happy — three verys — to comment on the Minister's proposal for legislation around goods, facilities and services (GFS) in relation to age.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): We will leave the age discrimination legislation to the very end. Megan needs to go —

Ms Fearon: I will be back in a minute —

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): It is OK. We are in evidence session, so we are OK with four.

Sorry about that. Let me invite you to make your opening remarks.

Mr Maskey: It is nothing personal.

Ms Yiasouma: Thank you very much, Chair. You are right: I am delighted to be here on what I assume will be the first of many engagements with the Committee. As you know, I took up appointment on 2 March this year — it is a four-year appointment — so I am very pleased to be here. Again, for the record, I would be happy to talk about other issues that are on the agenda over the next month, not least age GFS, but also public sector reform and the possible review of the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY) legislation.

I want to introduce my colleague, Alison Montgomery, who is our senior policy and research officer, and to extend apologies from our chief executive, Mairéad McCafferty, who had other business to attend to.

I will not go on at length about what the commissioner does, and I will probably speak in the third person, although we are talking about me. You know that in 2003, the Children's Commissioner legislation was established to safeguard and promote the rights and best interests of all children and young people in Northern Ireland, mainly up to the age of 18 and in some cases up to the age of 21. I am required, under the legislation, to review the adequacy and effectiveness of law, practice and services. It is in relation to that bit of the legislation that I am here to give evidence today.

First, to talk about the Bill that you are considering, I want to put on record how much I warmly — more than warmly, hotly — welcome the Bill. I genuinely believe that it will secure greater and more effective services for our children and young people. I want to congratulate Steven Agnew on bringing this forward and OFMDFM for the amount of work it is putting in to make sure it is the right Bill for us.

The Bill reflects the fact that the lives of children and young people do not neatly fit into the departmental remit and attempts to alleviate that situation. I will quickly give some of the highlights for consideration. I will not go on and on about the need for effective collaboration across Departments, particularly when we have scarce resources. There are many examples — Ann will give you more after this session — of where more effective, joined-up working between Departments is necessary. We have been at this for many years, and not having a duty has thwarted the full realisation of children's rights and effective services.

In 2011 NICCY published a report called 'Barriers to Effective Government Delivery for Children in Northern Ireland'. You referred to it, and we sent you an extract already. It was based on the work, undertaken by Professor Lundy and Dr Byrne at Queen's, into what hinders government in delivering fully for its children. The report made a series of recommendations, but one of the most crucial ones was the need for:

the report concluded by saying:

As if further evidence were needed that children's lives do not fit into the Department of Education, the Health Department, DRD or any of our Departments.

NICCY has a plethora of research, including the 'Walking or Talking Participation?' report, which my predecessor, Patricia Lewsley-Mooney, published last year. It said that there was a lack of government coordination with regard to engaging with children and young people. Much more worryingly, in 2012, NICCY published another report called 'Still Vulnerable', which was undertaken by the social work team at Queen's. When it examined the stories of children and young people who had died as a result of suicide, it found clear evidence of a lack of coordination between the various services that were engaged in those children's lives. I could almost stop now and say, "Do we need any more to tell us why this Bill is crucial?". Next month, we will publish another piece of work, subject to everyone meeting their timetable, which will give clear examples, and, hopefully, we will publish a template with regards to how we can effectively work across our Departments. I hope that you consider that in your deliberations around the details of the Bill.

Clause 1 concerns the general duty. I have already said how important it is that we have a statutory duty on Departments to cooperate regarding the design and delivery of services for children and young people. A clear obligation on Departments and their agencies will provide an effective means of achieving cross-departmental working, which, ultimately, should contribute to improving outcomes for our children. I am also very pleased to see that clause 1 specifies the six high-level outcomes of the children's strategy. It is crucial that, in the Bill, we have the children's strategy as the framework for children and young people. Everything else around children and young people needs to flow directly from the children's strategy.

Clause 2 talks about the cooperation report. I understand that there has been some concern that that may add to the bureaucracy of government doing its work. I do not see why it should. Indeed, the drafter of the legislation has proposed a three-year reporting cycle. We propose a one-year reporting cycle. That should be part of normal government reporting on how it is delivering for its children and young people. That is primarily through the strategy, but it is also required to provide an annual report under the Child Poverty Act on the state of child poverty in Northern Ireland, so it should not be overly onerous. If we have a good and effective template, it should be incorporated quite naturally into the outworkings of the Bill.

I also suggest that NICCY has a role to play in how it scrutinises government on its delivery for its children. Consideration needs to be given to how we can execute our scrutiny role and provide some independent verification that government is properly cooperating and delivering on outcomes for children and young people. I love reading progress reports from various agencies. Often, they are too much about process and not enough about impact and outcome. If we had a proper reporting mechanism with a good independent assessment and scrutiny element to it, we could focus people's minds on achieving real change for our children and young people.

Clause 3 talks about shared and pooled funds. We have had lengthy discussions across the team I work with about whether we should insist on that. The possibility of pooling funds is an excellent idea. Again, in an time of reducing resources, it will provide for more efficient and effective services. Ultimately, it will lead to the realisation of a more child-focused and holistic approach that supports the achievement of outcomes for our children and young people.

Finally, clause 4 talks about children's services planning. I am not going to try to steal Ann Godfrey's thunder; she can talk far more expertly than I can on this issue. However, just for the record, I have been involved with Ann and others in children's services planning through the Children and Young People's Strategic Partnership since 1999. The proposals in the Bill, in my view, simply strengthen the arrangements currently in place by giving legislative effect to the work of the Children and Young People's Strategic Partnership. Many of the agencies involved in the partnership are listed under clause 4, and we suggest that it is important to ensure that all the relevant bodies are there.

Clause 4 also includes an obligation that the children and young people's plan should be kept under review and published at intervals of not more than three years. Again, I reiterate my earlier comment that it should be published annually.

Finally, there are a couple of other things that we would like to see in the Bill. One is around how children and young people are engaged with in the process. It is great; it is absolutely right that there are agencies, but surely another key partner in the delivery and design of services for children and young people is children and young people themselves, and their families. I made a bold suggestion around including children and young people as a named partner in clause 4.

In conclusion, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) emphasised that effective implementation of the UNCRC requires visible coordination to realise the rights across all Departments. By introducing the Bill, we are taking a step forward in implementing the mechanisms required to protect the rights of our children and young people. I reiterate NICCY's support for the Children's Services Co-operation Bill and welcome the unique opportunity that it offers to plan, deliver and monitor effective joined-up services and provisions for our children that will promote their rights and help the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive to fulfil their obligations under the UNCRC.

That is the formal bit. I am happy to take any questions, and Alison will help.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Koulla, thank you very much. Will you give us some examples of how the Bill, if it were in law, might have helped? I am very conscious that, in your opening remarks, you talked about suicides with a direct causal link to the lack of cross-departmental work. I am not asking for one of those, but is there, perhaps, a less dramatic example of how the Bill could have helped up to now?

Dr Alison Montgomery (Office of the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People): At a very general level, it obviously focuses on the whole child, and the commissioner has referred to the fact that children cannot divide their needs across Departments as we currently have them. Therefore, it would allow a more holistic and integrated approach to be taken when dealing with children. One of the issues that we raised in one of our reports was around transitions for young people with special educational needs and disabilities. We are very concerned about that area and feel that there is not the most effective joining up of health and education on the preparation of transition plans and preparing young people for moving on to the adult stage of life. That is another concrete example of how a holistic and a coherent approach is not being taken in how young people are dealt with.

There are also issues around the levels of collaboration that we have seen to date. In some cases, it does happen, but it is through the goodwill of Departments and individuals, and through effective relationships being in place. However, we feel that, at times, that is not enough, and the evidence, through research and through other organisations' reports, has indicated that it is not enough just to rely on goodwill; it really needs to be in place.

There would also be a better sharing of information across different Departments and agencies. At times, we found that information was not been passed on. Certainly, in our legal and investigation services, we have found that information has not been passed from an education and library board across to the health service or vice versa, and we have evidence of that.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): The thinking that you referred to about interdepartmental working is not static. It is not just us. There is always emerging thinking, and there is always new thinking. What is the very latest?

Ms Yiasouma: On the need to cooperate?

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Yes, and the best way to do it.

Ms Yiasouma: If we have a children and young people's strategy, which is a strategy of our Executive, it then becomes the responsibility of the nine, 12 or however many Ministers sit around the table to ensure that they deliver on each and every one of those outcomes. With regard to being healthy or achieving education — Alison has already talked about that — children cannot do well at school if they are living in poverty and if they have poor health. You do not need me to tell you all that. So it cannot just be the responsibility of the Minister of Education and his Department to ensure that a child achieves at school. It has to be the responsibility of our whole Government. Too often, particularly with a Department like Education, it is silos: all I have to worry about is the time between 9.00 am and 3.00 pm. But, actually, we know that that is not true. From breakfast until they go to bed and beyond, we have to make sure that our children are safe and well. We have not done it. The children's services planning process that came out of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 was an attempt to do that. With all the goodwill in the world, I have sat around several of those tables in the last 16 years. People have felt hamstrung because they did not have this obligation or duty. Departments and agencies are very good at keeping an eye on their legislation and what statute requires them to do. This is a way of ensuring that they play nicely.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I think that everybody gets the fact that most Governments are vertical and operate in silos. Effective government is actually more horizontal and cuts across that. I think that everybody really backs the intent of what is going on here; it is just about the best way to actually make it happen. Personally, I agree with you very much that we can become almost obsessive with the inputs of government and its processes without a proper focus on actually making an impact and whether we have an outcome here that makes people better off.

With regard to the process, Koulla, you are saying that, instead of the three-yearly reports, you would rather have annual reports and you do not see that as being particularly onerous. One of our concerns was how onerous the reporting process was. When was the last time that the annual child poverty report was laid in a timely manner?

Ms Yiasouma: I do not think that it has been. I think that we have not had an annual action plan on our children's strategy since 2011.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Why rely on a system that is not working?

Ms Yiasouma: I am not relying on that system: I am trying to fix the system. I am trying to make a suggestion about fixing the system. If we get more streamlined, which I think this Bill is trying to make us, and we are not all working to different strategies but to one strategy, everything that comes out of that will be part of that one holistic process, it should be easier. I do not know about you, but I do not want to wait three years to see how it is going on the lives of children and young people. If we get into that way of reporting and we gather our data and evaluate our services in a timely and ongoing basis, rather than saying, "Let us run around at the end and count our widgets", then we will know how we are doing. Three years is too long to work out where we are going wrong and to get it right. Change takes a long time. You will not see it in the first year, but if you have identified the milestones along the road, you can start saying, "We are getting there. We are achieving them." That is what good outcomes monitoring and impact evaluation tells us we should do. We should know where the end goal is, but be able to identify the milestones along the road and tick them off. Three years is too long to wait in the life of a child.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Is there a danger that, in bringing on another annual report, you will actually serve only to delay further the child poverty report, which, as you say, has never been laid in a timely fashion?

Ms Yiasouma: It should be part of the report. It should not be a separate report. I am not looking for another report. In every report, there should be a section — hopefully, we will bring forward suggestions around templates and what that will look like — about how Departments are cooperating to achieve a reduction or eradication of child poverty.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): The child poverty report, as I understand it, is an obligation that comes out of Westminster legislation.

Ms Yiasouma: Yes, it does.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): You are proposing that that report be amended.

Ms Yiasouma: I am not even for one minute suggesting that we all go off to Westminster and try to change that. The child poverty action plan, although it is part of the Child Poverty Act 2010, will also be one of the mechanisms by which we deliver on our children's strategy. What I am saying is that if we produce an annual report on progress on our children's strategy — we will get a new one, hopefully next year — we will include within that progress on our child poverty report. OFMDFM or whichever Department will be free to add whatever sections it wants because it will be part of reporting on the children's strategy. That is where I suggest that it should incorporate cooperation. In the children and young people's plan, which is coming out of the strategic partnership, there should be a clear section on how it is cooperating to deliver for children and young people. I am not going to start tinkering with Westminster legislation.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I do not want to get hung up on the process. That is the last thing that I want to do, but I still think that you need to table the discrete child poverty report.

Ms Yiasouma: Yes, you do.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): OK. What about independent input? Do you favour it?

Ms Yiasouma: I do. Independent scrutiny is what we are looking for. I am somebody who is not long out of the voluntary and community sector, and that sector is constantly required to provide independent evaluation of its delivery of services. In Scotland, we are seeing key engagement with service users and other organisations to provide some independence to evaluations. If we are going to say that we did a good job, it is much better if somebody independent says that we did a good job, rather than me saying that I did a good job. I am always going to say that I did a good job. I need somebody else to tell me that and to give clear advice and steer me in the right direction when I am not doing a good job. I am not sure why our Government would be any different.

That is where there is a role for me and my office. We are there. It should not, and would not, be any more expensive, because we already get funding. However, we have a role to play in providing that independent scrutiny. Our only focus and my only concern is the impact and delivery for children and young people and their rights. There has to be independent scrutiny or an independent role in monitoring our Government. That would, of course, be alongside this Committee; I would not want to negate the role of the Assembly.

Mr Lyttle: Would that be in the form of consulting stakeholders in the preparation of the report or another mechanism outside that in responding to the report?

Ms Yiasouma: I do not think that responding to the report is always a helpful process.

Mr Lyttle: So, would it be a statutory duty to consult relevant stakeholders in the preparation of the report?

Ms Yiasouma: Yes, in the preparation. I also think that there needs to be an element of independence.

Ms Fearon: Sorry that I had to step out.

When discussing clause 1, you referred to the high-level outcomes from the strategy. Those are designed for a strategy and not legislation and are vague. I am worried that they could be misinterpreted or interpreted in the way in which people want to interpret them. I am also thinking about the reporting. Do we need to tighten up on those? They would be hard to measure, because they are so vague.

Ms Yiasouma: I know what you are saying; it is not put within the context of the children' strategy. The Chair mentioned that you have had discussions with the Department on some of its suggestions on how it could strengthen the Bill, and I know that there have been some conversations about that section.

I would want to see an obligation to cooperate on our children's strategy. You would not know it to read it, but those are the six high-level outcomes from our children's strategy. It will take the very clever people in the Assembly's drafting department to come up with a way of saying that what we are asking you to do is to come up with a way to cooperate on our children's strategy and that those are the six high-level outcomes. I do not know whether we should have a clause or regulations that specify the high-level outcomes or whether we should enshrine it in legislation and review the Bill every 10 years when we have a new strategy. However, I would like to see the children and young people's strategy named so that people are clear that we are trying to achieve those outcomes. They are aspirational, as high-level outcomes are. It is about identifying whether we got closer to those aims between year 1 and year 10. That is the challenge. It is a little bit motherhood and apple pie, but we need to strive for the best. You are right: it needs to be tightened to be clear that it is about the strategy. We also need to have a bunch of actions and indicators to make it happen.

Ms Fearon: In clause 3, there is the enabling power that allows Departments to pool and join resources. Would you prefer to see a power to compel Departments to do that to strengthen it?

Ms Yiasouma: Again, as I said, we had quite lengthy discussions. My experience of Departments is that, if you do not make them do it, they will not do it. It should be kept under review at the moment. I would probably prefer to see them being compelled, but we are in a process, and I would like to see whether they would come to that willingly. That is where I am at with that. [Interruption.]

Is that your mum wanting to know when your tea is?

Ms Fearon: Finally, I come to the extra clause that you would like on the inclusion of young people. Obviously, there is not really meaningful participation by young people in consultation strategies involving them, so that would be good. What would that look like? What do you envisage?

Ms Yiasouma: Let us not forget that it is not just because we have an obligation under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: we also have section 75, which was referred to during your previous session in relation to equality impact assessments. Section 75 recognises children and young people as a group who have to be consulted with. It is the role of NICCY, and others, to make sure that the consultation is meaningful. It is a matter of gathering that body of evidence on what children and young people think, and what their parents and carers think, and taking that forward. Also, there should be clear evidence in all reports and decision-making showing how the views of children and young people were heard and taken into account. That does not mean that they have to do what the young people said, but it is evidence that they took them into account and had good reason for doing or not doing it.

Dr Montgomery: Ultimately, it is about seeing how the outcomes have impacted on children and young people and hearing from them, the target group or end users, that they have felt some impact from the joined-up working that should be taking place.

Mr Maskey: Thanks to Koulla and Alison for their presentation. I want to raise a couple of things. You referred earlier to the production of a template to measure some of these things. Certainly, the mindset you outline is one that I share and is probably that of most others. You try to work through a process and continually try to change it; but legislation does not work like that. If you have a Bill, you have the provisions of that Bill, and that is it. You work your way through that and you measure whatever you are going to do against it. So it is not a moving feast. Obviously, you might want, at some point, to review progress. Otherwise, as you say, you cannot really measure the legislation from year 1 to year 10, because you are just ticking the same boxes, even if they are very important ones. I am just conscious of that process, because the Bill does not necessarily give you the opportunity to measure over a ten-year period. I wonder how we might develop some types of measurement, templates or benchmarking to do that.

Secondly, and I have grappled with this, we have all agreed that joined-up government is an inherently good thing, but I struggle a wee bit with trying to get it to join up in the way we want it to. You are leaving that responsibility to what is essentially a non-departmental public body (NDPB); it is not a ministerial or departmental responsibility. I struggle with that a wee bit, because you are trying to give more power to an NDPB — in this case, the Health and Social Care Board, but it is still an NDPB, with all due respect. I struggle with the concept of giving more power to a body that is not the authoritative body itself.

Dr Montgomery: Allow me to come back to you on your first point. One of the issues that we are looking at in our commissioned research is how other jurisdictions are rolling out joined-up working across government. As you know, it is required in England, Wales and Scotland. We are also looking at Australia and some international examples. One of the issues we have been looking at is how reports are prepared and what is good practice in reporting. As the commissioner mentioned, we are still waiting on the final report, but some of the initial findings have been very interesting from the point of view of how we might go about developing a pro forma or some kind of template. One of the suggestions coming from local stakeholders is that there should be guidance issued with the Bill as to what the reporting should look like, so that people are very clear about what is required and are able to compare across Departments and agencies how such reports are completed.

There are a number of key requirements, including, importantly, a common language across Departments, a shared recognition of where collaboration is working, explicit linking in reports of actions and activities to outcomes, saying clearly what an action is seeking to achieve, and also, as another issue, demonstrating how outcomes are measured. Also relevant are good information systems, how information is shared when supporting people to complete reports and looking over time at whether there has been an impact. One of the key things that the commissioner mentioned is how reporting takes place. It is not just the delivery of joined-up working, but how it was gone about and how it was actually achieved.

I pick up on your previous point, Megan, about the pooling of resources. This will be an important way to demonstrate how resources were pooled, how that worked — did it work? — in practice, and, if pooling was not taking place, how that impacted on an outcome being achieved. The reporting is absolutely key, as is how it is undertaken and, as I say, some kind of consensus among Departments about how it is actually achieved.

Ms Yiasouma: I understand what you are saying about the Health and Social Care Board issue, but if you look at everything produced by children's services planning and the children and young people's strategic partnership, you see that it has directly complemented the strategy for children. It has worked to the six high-level outcomes. So, you can tighten that up within this. And let us not forget that it is an agency of the Health Department, so I am sure that the Minister, if he feels that it is acting out of line, will do what he needs to do.

Mr Maskey: OK. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Take me back, Koulla, to this oversight committee you are talking about. Tell me again how you see that working. You want an annual report —

Ms Yiasouma: — on our strategy for children and young people; yes, I do. Within that annual report, I would like to see a discussion of how they are cooperating together and how that is impacting on a higher quality of service for our children.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Will that be written up by the Health and Social Care Board?

Ms Yiasouma: No, this is on the children's strategy. The children and young people's plan will be something underneath that. The Health and Social Care Board plan is discussed in clause 4 — Ann will take you through that more expertly than I can, as I said. The children and young people's plan is specifically for children in need; it is for a distinct group of children identified in the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. That should report using templates similar to those that Alison described. It is almost a sub-plan of the children and young people's strategy. It should all be part of that mechanism. We should have a streamlined process that does that.

Mr Lyttle: I have a very quick supplementary. There is an added challenge in that it appears that responsibility for children and young people is transferring to the Department of Education, so maybe not right now in this context —

Ms Yiasouma: I think that I will be back to talk to you about that.

Mr Lyttle: — but I would be interested to hear whether an overarching Executive strategy lies with the Department of Education. I just want to flag it up as an issue.

Ms Yiasouma: I think that it is an issue.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Koulla is back with us, I think, towards the end of May.

Mr Lyttle: It has relevance to this, as a side-issue.

Ms Yiasouma: It does.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): You want another independent committee.

Ms Yiasouma: No, I do not.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): What independent element are you looking for beyond you?

Ms Yiasouma: I am saying that there should be an independent element. I would suggest that we are that independent element. One of the challenges associated with the NICCY legislation — I hope to be back to talk about that as well — is that we are not formally structured into some of these processes in the best way possible. While I am obliged, as I said, to give advice about how our government is meeting its obligations to its children, I am not knitted into some of those processes, nor is government obliged to respond to my advice. Our report on our children's strategy is such an important report: it provides an opportunity to knit in your independent mechanism. I am your mechanism. I am your key adviser, without being grandiose.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Sure, and you are not the only commissioner set up under the devolved Administration whose advice Ministers do not have to take on board. They have to listen to your advice, but they do not have to react positively to it. I am looking at the Commissioner for Children and Young People (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, which states:

That is core business to this, because this is law. You shall also:

which the Bill touches.

This is your core work.

Ms Yiasouma: It is, but what the Act does not say is that government has to tell me what they will do with my advice. In that respect — there are other things that I have challenges with — it has one half; you need the other half as well.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Define for me what you think the other half is.

Ms Yiasouma: Although in the world that I live in, I think that everyone should take my advice, I am not for one minute suggesting that government will say, "OK, Commissioner, you said it, so let's do it". I think that, in the same way as I talked about children and young people, if NICCY gives government advice, government should come and say, "We heard your advice, and this is what we are going to do with it. We will ignore it for these reasons or we will accept it". That is all that I suggest. I am not for a minute obliging government to take my advice, because there are other considerations.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): That second half is not something you legislate for.

Ms Yiasouma: No.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): That second half is down to your ability to make a persuasive, evidence-based argument to government.

Ms Yiasouma: I think that we can tease that out a little when we discuss how we are doing on age GFS.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I do think that the Government absolutely should come back to you, when you give any evidence, and say, "This is what we think", whether they are shredding it or are implementing it or that full spectrum in between. Absolutely. Why else would we set up a commission?

Ms Yiasouma: I am determined to try to make it a two-way conversation.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): If you feel at times that you have been ignored, from a previous life, let me tell you that you are not alone.

Mr Maskey: What is your name again? [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): We will move on to the GFS, if we may.

Ms Yiasouma: As you saw, I came in to hear the Ministers' evidence to you. I welcome very much what Minister McCann said about some of the frustrations of power-sharing. There was some discussion about whether NICCY was mildly disappointed or disappointed. For the record, I say that I am deeply and utterly disappointed. I am outraged, and you can choose any other emotive language you wish to describe how disappointed I am, that the majority of our children and young people are being ignored in this. Minister Bell talked about how, if we are going to get this legislation through by accelerated passage, we have to go with over 16 because of the complications with including children and young people and the exemptions required. I do not think that I accept that argument because all the advice was given to the Ministers by NICCY and the Equality Commission using Robin Allen's legal opinion as to how some of the challenges of the protective legislation that we have could be overcome. All that advice was given in June 2013. They have had plenty of time to construct a proper piece of legislation that takes into account the need to protect our children and young people.

There is only one other thing that I want to say, and I am happy to take some questions on it. I have yet to speak to a parent or a grandparent who does not think that this is a good idea. A lot of you have said that nobody has said. We know from talking to any advice service for children and young people, including our own advice service, that the biggest protectors of children's rights are generally — not always — their parents and carers. They are just as furious as me if you ask them as a parent or grandparent what they think about the proposal to exclude our young people. I do not for a minute doubt that our older people need these protections, and it is ridiculous that we do not have legislation that protects everyone on the basis of age. We have fewer examples. It is fair to say that there is less age discrimination against our children and young people, but it still occurs. Minister Bell talked about creating a culture where we do not find it acceptable to discriminate against people on the basis of age. By introducing the legislation in its current format, we are creating a culture that says that it is OK to discriminate against our children and young people. I am very worried about what message that sends to our children particularly but everybody else as well.

That is off the top of my head and is a direct response to the evidence that I heard earlier. I am happy to take further questions, and we will, of course, be back before you once the consultation is out.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Have you decided what you are going to do, given that you have options? You could say, "We've lost that battle; let the legislation go through". You could take Jennifer McCann's view that this is a staging post. You could look at the opportunity that may lie in consultation and the equality impact assessment.

Ms Yiasouma: I will take the Ministers at their word that it is a genuine consultation. We will do everything we can to ensure that the voice is loud and proud in the consultation that children and young people have to be included. I am mindful of the question that you asked about the equality impact assessment. I am challenged to see how a proper EQIA will find anything other than saying, with regard to mitigation, "You have to include kids". I am not an EQIA expert, but I am challenged to see how the response would be anything else if we take the Ministers at their word that it is a genuine consultation and if we hear what members say, which is that everyone who they have spoken to, including the older people's sector, have been very clear that it should be an all-age discrimination. It is my intention to engage with the consultation; to continue to engage with other organisations in the children's sector and the older people's sector; to engage directly with children and young people, their parents and anybody else who wants to talk to me; and to ensure that our Government meet their obligation by having an all-age GFS.

Mr Maskey: I will not rehearse what I said earlier. I certainly encourage people to respond to the consultation. I took assurance from both Ministers, who said that the consultation will be a serious and genuine enterprise. I look forward to that. I have no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of people will want to see anti-discrimination legislation that includes everybody. I find the rationale, as some people have attempted to put it out, completely irrational; it is a throwback, but that is my opinion.

Ms Yiasouma: Mr Lyttle's point was well made, and it has just been reiterated by Mr Maskey. I have yet to hear a reason why children should be excluded from the legislation. The fact that they do it across the water and over the border does not seem to be a good enough reason. Just because they do it does not mean that we have to. That is the question that I will be asking come May right through to July. I have seen no evidence.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): As you say, we will pick it up. Koulla Yiasouma and Alison Montgomery, thank you very much.