Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I invite to the table Ellen Finlay from Children in Northern Ireland; Ellen is the policy officer. Colin Reid is the policy officer and public affairs manager for the NSPCC. Lisa McElherron is the policy manager for the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA), and Alan Herron is the director of service delivery and development for PlayBoard NI. Ellen, I begin by thanking you for pulling this panel together for us. We have your written submissions. I do not want to deny you the opportunity to make short opening comments, but I ask you to be two minutes, tops. I will put the clock on it.

Ms Ellen Finlay (Children in Northern Ireland): Thank you, Chair, for inviting us today. I would like to place on record Children in Northern Ireland's support for the children's Bill. In addition to our written evidence, I will make a few points before handing over to my colleagues, who will provide you with examples of why we need the Bill.

We believe that the children's Bill should be viewed in three parts. First, it should place the children's strategy at the heart of government. Secondly, it should ensure a delivery mechanism for achieving the outcomes of the children's strategy. That is the doing part, which is about cooperation and pooling budgets. Thirdly, it should monitor transparency and accountability. That is the reporting part. We have three things to suggest to improve the Bill further. The first is, at the start of the Bill, to have a clear narrative as to the outline of the essence of the Bill and to break down what is needed, not just at departmental level but at agency level. We also think that there needs to be guidance notes and a memorandum of understanding for Departments and agencies so that everybody knows what their statutory obligations are and how to carry those out. Finally, we would like to see a yearly reporting cycle. We would go further on the yearly reporting cycle. We think that it should be laid before and debated by the Assembly so that we can understand what is happening in terms of the outcomes. We believe that that is needed to ensure accountability and transparency.

Mr Colin Reid (NSPCC): Thank you very much, Chair. I will be two minutes. The NSPCC is very supportive of the Bill. It takes a fairly light touch to addressing a gap in cooperation and coordination between Departments. Clause 4 develops the children's services planning arrangements and modernises the regulations in a system that is well embedded already. Importantly, it should not, in our view, cost anything significant for Departments or organisations to implement and should make for better and more cost-effective policymaking. Government policymaking for children is very important. It often sets the strategic context for operational delivery for us all. The NSPCC's observation is that, the more Departments are involved in policymaking, the more difficult it can become to make progress. There are some illustrative areas — for example, a big one and a little one. We have found it difficult to make progress on Internet safety, which impacts all our children. There are small areas such as female genital mutilation. That problem has been identified in other parts of the UK and is probably a small problem here, but nonetheless it needs a coordinated approach across a range of Departments. That is not to say that work has not been done in both those areas by Departments — quite the opposite — but coordination and leadership could perhaps be better at times.

We have two suggestions in relation to clause 1. Ellen mentioned some sort of statutory guidance and we echo that, to ensure that Departments do not just do what they have been doing already and that there is some structure to how we do that. We would also like to see the creation of a non-governmental organisation (NGO) or forum where agencies can have a discussion with Departments. One was formed in the early years of the children's strategy and we found it a very useful and beneficial body for us all to look at action plans and debate issues with government. That might very well help. We hope that this legislation will make a difference to policy development for children.

Ms Lisa McElherron (Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action): Obviously, NICVA is not a children's organisation, so I have a slightly different perspective from that of my colleagues. I will take a wider view of why we support the Bill and the potential that we see in it. You will all know that NICVA has been doing a lot of work on public sector spending and the implications of budget cuts for voluntary and community sector organisations and the people, families and communities whom they work with. At the end of last year, for our sins, we arranged for 170 people from the voluntary and community sector to meet 80 officials to discuss the 2015-16 Budget. The key learning from that meeting and our subsequent analysis of the spending plans and cuts plans — there is lots of learning — resulted in three things that I wanted to share with you that are particularly relevant to what we are talking about today.

The first is that there is very little sense across Departments of the cumulative impact of the cuts that are happening. Very little attention has been paid to the cuts that are being made in terms of the impact on the services that are being lost, the types of people who are being adversely impacted and the Programme for Government targets in terms of cutting things that we are going to need to help us to deliver those targets now and in future.

The third thing, and probably the most worrying, is that early intervention and prevention work seems to have been hit the hardest because it tends to be the kind of work that is delivered by the voluntary and community sector. We heard from RNIB and other colleagues earlier about the importance of early intervention and prevention work. Separately from that, NICVA has carried out a cuts watch survey, and we have detailed information from only 77 organisations that have faced cuts recently — cuts that have already happened. That very small sample of just 77 organisations has given us information on more than £5 million of cuts. What is relevant to your discussion today is that the overwhelming majority of those are organisations that are delivering services to children and young people. Those are the services that are being impacted.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): That is two minutes, Lisa.

Ms McElherron: OK. I will just finish by saying that it is very clear to us that in a situation of tough and constrained public finances, a Bill such as this is really desirable for two very practical reasons; it encourages better use of scarce resources and it will provide that overview that we think has been missing so far in the services for children and young people that are being cut.

Mr Alan Herron (PlayBoard NI): I thank the Committee for the opportunity to come along today. Like our colleagues, we support the Bill. As you know, play is central to children's lives as it provides development opportunities across a range of areas including health, education, skills and learning. From a policy perspective, the planning and decision-making processes that have an impact on play span across all Departments. For us, that is the reason why this is such a critical Bill.

With regard to the duty to cooperate, I want to give a couple of examples of how we feel the Bill could support and enhance the delivery of services. I am sure we would all agree that cooperation should be the cornerstone of the planning and delivery of children's services. However, in our experience, cooperation between Departments can often appear to happen by accident rather than design and depends on external factors and relationships. One recent example relates to the play and leisure strand of Delivering Social Change. In January's monitoring round there was an allocation by OFMDFM to the Environment Agency to develop natural play in Crawfordsburn. In this case, the connection between Departments came about not as a result of direct cooperation aimed at delivering an implementation plan but as an offshoot of engagements that our organisation had with DOE. That led us to make a connection between the two Departments resulting in support for the initiative, meeting both play and leisure and wider departmental objectives.

A further example historically of where the duty to cooperate would have been very beneficial relates to the play and leisure implementation plan. As you will be aware, it was signed off by the Executive in 2011 after quite an intensive period of cross-sectoral and cross-departmental cooperation. Our assessment of the actual impact shows that the implementation has fallen significantly short, due in part to a lack of subsequent cooperation at the delivery stage between Departments and agencies. We feel that a duty to cooperate would have supported and enhanced the situation.

It is our view that placing cooperation on a statutory footing would ensure that effective relationships are developed and maintained in the interests of outcomes for children as opposed to being led by external factors, relationships and, at times, chance.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): That is two minutes, Alan.

Mr Herron: In closing, I will highlight two areas. We strongly endorse the adoption of an outcomes-based focus across government, which would help to ensure that Departments collectively contribute to overarching outcomes as opposed to individual departmental objectives. Furthermore, with regard to the reporting, we strongly advocate a review of the impact arising from cooperation on an annual basis leading to a more comprehensive three-year report against the outcomes.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Thank you all very much indeed. Ellen, you talked about a clear narrative being absent from the Bill at the moment. Articulate a clear narrative for me, please.

Ms Finlay: I was thinking about the essence of the Bill in that it is about cooperation and delivering on the children's strategy and on outcomes. The other aspect was the guidance and the memorandum of understanding. A lot of discussion is still needed with Departments as to how that could be implemented.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): There seems to be a common theme in the submissions, which is that you are looking for statutory guidance to be issued. What is the rationale behind that?

Ms Finlay: It is probably because, at the moment, we are relying on goodwill in Departments and agencies. If there were to be statutory guidance, people will do what they are supposed to do because it is in statute.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Colin, did I mishear you or did you say that you want some sort of new body — an NGO or whatever — to help to coordinate?

Mr Reid: We are not talking about creating a whole lot of new structures, but, in implementing the Bill's requirements, it would be helpful to have some dialogue between the NGO sector and government about children's policy development. It existed in the past in the previous children's strategy and OFMDFM's children's unit, and we found it very beneficial, as did officials, to share experiences and talk through issues to try to take the debate forward. We would like something like that in this Bill as well.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): What about the Commissioner for Children and Young People, who has a statutory duty to review services?

Mr Reid: She plays an important role in governance, to echo David's point. No doubt the Children's Commissioner will play an important role in benchmarking, overseeing and holding Departments to account. However, we are talking about the delivery of a range of services and policy that various children's organisations have and the need for regular dialogue with government.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): What about the Children and Young People's Strategic Partnership? Does it not perform that sort of function?

Mr Reid: It does at that level. That partnership is at an operational level, which is different to a strategic and policy level in government. That is also reflected in the legislation. We think that those arrangements work well, and we have those dialogues, but the challenge is to ensure that it happens at a governmental level in a more effective way.

Mr Lyttle: May I ask a quick supplementary question about that? How does that compare with the like of the NEET forum? Would it be a similar type of forum?

Ms Finlay: I guess so. It comprises Departments, organisations and agencies, so that could work.

Mr Spratt: Thanks to all of you for the presentations. Colin, you made a couple of statements at the start, and I am looking for some clarity. You said that this was a "light touch" in legislation. What is a light touch in legislation? That sounds like a pretty funny statement to me. Does it mean that it is just scraping over the top of things, has it not been written properly or is it not all that enforceable? You made that statement so I am looking for clarity. You then said that it had no significant cost. Can you tell the Committee now in evidence what costings your organisation has done that allows you to make such a statement?

Mr Reid: In answer to your first question, there are various ways in which, I assume, you can write legislation. You have already had a discussion with the previous witnesses. You could create duties, offences and so on. Looking at other experiences, let me give you the example of public protection arrangements in Northern Ireland. We have similar facilitative legislation that creates a framework for cooperation. It does not have any sanctions for failing to cooperate, but that has facilitated agencies in Northern Ireland, some of which are Departments, which have very good arrangements and work collectively together without any form of sanction. Rather than create huge duties for Departments, the Bill, in our view, potentially facilitates better joined-up policymaking without causing a whole structure of governance and accountability and facilitates the broad direction that we need to go in.

Mr Spratt: Is there not a danger in that type of law? Earlier, you heard me refer to fat-cat lawyers. Is there not a danger in creating a situation in which you are continually in judicial review or legal processes, which takes money away from where I assume you want the money to go?

Mr Reid: I do not think that we see the Bill doing that.

Mr Spratt: You do not see it, but is there not a danger of that happening if the legislation is not watertight enough?

Mr Reid: We hope that the legislation would facilitate and enable good practice and develop what needs to take place without creating legal challenges.

Mr Spratt: I assume that you accept that, if you go into continual legal processes, judicial reviews or anything like that, you are creating a situation in which money is being taken out of the system. There is only one pot of money. It is being taken out of the system to pay for something and is not getting to the coalface and to the children and young people whom we want it to get to. I assume that that is the outcome that all of us collectively in this room want.

Mr Reid: We do not want to see that either, but we do not think that this legislation, as it is written, would do that. We think that it would facilitate better, more joined-up policymaking at government level.

Mr Spratt: If it is light touch, is there not a danger that that could happen?

Mr Reid: No, I do not think so. Our experience of other types of legislation that facilitate —

Mr Spratt: I have to say that what you have said to me has not convinced me.

Mr Reid: Based on our experience of dealing with other types of legislation like this, I can say only that, if it facilitates better policymaking and operation, that is a good thing. Our experience is not that there are judicial reviews and so on. You asked me about finance. I have not costed this out. Based on our experience of arrangements —

Mr Spratt: How can you then make a statement that there is no significant cost? You made that statement in evidence to the Committee. We are trying to put something through, and I suspect that all of us want to ensure that there is not another level of bureaucracy, cost to government or the chessboard of moving papers around desks and tying people down to more policy documents, reports and stuff like that. Let us face it, Colin: all that has a cost.

Mr Reid: I agree with you, but the children's services planning arrangements are currently in place. The legislation simply develops those. There is nothing new there.

Mr Spratt: Your statement was that there is no significant cost. It has not been costed. You do not really know what the cost is. Yes or no?

Mr Reid: No, I do not agree with that. I am saying that, based on our experience —

Mr Spratt: You made the statement, Colin —

Mr Reid: I am making a statement based on our experience.

Mr Spratt: — that there was no significant cost, but you are now telling us that you have not costed it.

Mr Reid: Our view is that it does not create any new structures or mechanisms. It simply facilitates —

Mr Spratt: Did you cost it? Yes or no? You made the statement that there was no significant cost.

Mr Reid: I am saying that, in our view, there is no significant cost.

Mr Spratt: So the answer is no; you did not cost it. Thank you.

Mr Lyttle: Thank you for your presentations. I found them extremely helpful and very useful. I will make a couple of quick comments on children in Northern Ireland. I agree with and support the call for an annual report to be laid and debated in the Assembly. I think that the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister evades openness too frequently with written statements rather than Assembly statements, which allows it to promote the good progress that has been made rather than seeing what needs to be done better. I also take on board Lisa's comments about not taking heed of the cumulative impact of cuts. Recently, the all-party group on children and young people was reviewing childcare, and that became quite clear. Hopefully, a positive outcome will be that the OFMDFM unit that is responsible for childcare, which had not been quite as sure or aware of cuts that were happening to DSD and ESF funding for childcare, will now be able to factor that in to the provisions that it is making for childcare. One would think and hope that the Bill will contribute to slightly more joined-up thinking on the issue.

My questions relate to the age definition and sanctions. We have touched on sanctions. We said that there are none, but one would presume that there is recourse to judicial review if necessary. I wholly agree that the hope is that it would be a deterrent and an encouragement to good policy rather than litigation. Previous briefings have suggested extending the age range. Does anybody have any particular view on the age range that should be included or, indeed, the issue of penalties?

Ms Finlay: For children with disabilities, extending it to the age of 21 would be welcome.

The ultimate sanction is a judicial review, and that comes with costs. The Child Poverty Act 2010 creates a statutory obligation, and the officials always produce the report. It can be slightly late, but they still get the job done. I am really not sure what other sanctions you could include. Maybe we should look at it from another point of view and say that it should be a carrot and not a stick in that, if you work together, you will improve outcomes and get better results and, ultimately, could save money by making that investment at the start.

Mr Maskey: Thank you, members of the deputation. Each of you has made compelling arguments for the need for much greater cooperation, and, as I said, whatever about various opinions on aspects of the Bill as it stands, most people have a view that we want the intentions of the Bill to be enacted and enabled. The illustrations that have been given are all very important and continue to underpin our view that we need to do something. The sponsor of the Bill has been made well aware that we are all keen to see this progressing. We have to try to make sure that, if we do something, we understand clearly what we are doing and what the impacts may be. Whatever about the good intentions, it about the expressed purpose of the Bill and how we state in the legislation the outcomes that we want to see. That is better than guidelines, which, at the end of the day, are not compulsory. The bookend for us is this: what is the expressed purpose of this and what outcomes do we expect from it? I thank all of you for giving us the continuing evidence to underpin the wisdom in having such legislation. Ellen, you outlined the purpose of the Bill. Will you elaborate a wee bit on that? Most of us will be getting our minds into the base of all the evidence that we receive from stakeholders and Departments. What is the expressed purpose, and how will we deliver it? You mentioned your concerns earlier.

Ms Finlay: I see it in three parts. I read the Bill and broke it down to make sure that we understood what the Bill is about. For us, it is, first, about the children's strategy. That is coming up for consultation shortly, so the consultation outcomes will be at the heart of the Bill. The two delivery mechanisms are cooperation between Departments and agencies, and the pooling of resources. While you have those two aspects, you also need to monitor it and to have accountability and transparency. That is where the reporting comes in. That is how I view the Bill. Through the yearly reporting, you look to see what outcomes you have delivered and whether they are turning the curve or making a difference. If they are not making a difference, you ask why they are not making a difference and whether we need to put money into something else that will make a difference and achieve the outcomes. That is how I see it at the moment.

Ms McElherron: May I add something, Chair, about its purpose? I mentioned that we had information on reductions and cuts to services for children and young people. We asked the providers where those cuts are coming from. I will read the list, and you will get a sense of how easy it is for a small cut in one Department to affect that. None of this is done intentionally. I do not believe that any budget holder goes to work and says, "How can I decimate services for children today?" They are dealing with very difficult situations in their Departments. People told us that the cuts came from the Department of Education, neighbourhood renewal, health and social care trusts, the European social fund, the Public Health Agency, the Victims and Survivors Service, the rural transport fund, core funding from health, the DOE, the Environment Agency and Peace III. That does not include things like the removal of the early years fund in DE, the removal of Pathways to Success in DEL, reductions in Sure Start and other things. So you can see how easily a cumulative impact can happen without individual Departments being aware of it. We think that a Bill like this will be a really positive and practical way at least to try to get a handle on all that.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): You are very clear, Lisa, on the idea that nobody is taking the overarching or helicopter view.

Ms McElherron: From our experience, no.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Your submission makes it clear that you feel that this statutory duty could do away with, or certainly guard against, duplication. Will you give us examples of where there is waste and duplication?

Ms McElherron: With so many Departments, voluntary and community organisations and public-sector bodies that have responsibility for what happens to children and young people in Northern Ireland not working together effectively, of course there will be waste and duplication; Mr Spratt mentioned that. All of us across all sectors have a vested interest in working together to ensure that that is minimised.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Alan, your submission makes a reference that made me think that you believed that the Children Order 1995 could be outdated. Is there an opportunity to address that in the Bill?

Mr Herron: I think that there is. That was in 1995, and we feel that there may be an opportunity to bring it forward and into line. Many years have passed since 1995, and I think that it is time for a review and certainly to bring it up to date. This may be an opportunity as part of a wider movement by government. We certainly feel that it would be a timely move.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Do you agree, Colin?

Mr Reid: No. I do not disagree with looking at refreshing the Children Order, but I think that that is an entirely separate exercise. The Children Order is a very large piece of legislation, and many of the principles are sound. It needs to be modernised, but I do not think that this Bill is the mechanism to do it.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): One of the areas that the Bill focuses on is the role that would be given to the Health and Social Care Board. Does anybody have any concerns about that?

Ms Finlay: I have read Hansard and noted members' concerns. I think that input from the Department of Health may allay some of those concerns. There could also be an opportunity to amend the Bill so that the duty is placed on the Executive, for example. That could be an option.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Another concern, which has been expressed in a general sense, is that the Bill, as drafted, does not achieve its stated aim of helping all children but is more focused on at-risk children. Does anybody have particular views on that?

Ms Finlay: I am not sure about that. If you look at the children's strategy, which is at the heart of the Bill, you will see that it is for all children and young people and not a specific group of children and young people.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I think, Ellen, that you would like to see the requirement to pool budgets and resources extended beyond Departments to agencies.

Ms Finlay: It would be helpful.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): How?

Ms Finlay: Again, to improve outcomes. I have evidence from GB that pooled budgets can deliver a more efficient and effective service. There is evidence for that.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): The final question for you is one that we were discussing with the previous witnesses, which is the fact that there are no sanctions for anybody who fails to deliver on a statutory obligation. Again, Colin, I think that you highlighted that. How do you feel about the lack of sanctions?

Ms Finlay: The ultimate sanction for any legislation is a judicial review. I still think that we should be thinking about the carrot and not the stick with this legislation. Everybody agrees in principle with the Bill and the fact that we want to improve outcomes for children and young people. Surely that should be at the heart of our business.

Ms McElherron: The discussions that I have heard today have not mentioned the ultimate oversight, which is, of course, you — the Committee and the Assembly and your powers and responsibilities to ensure that the Bill, should it pass, is implemented effectively and efficiently — and the other powers that sit in the Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee on monitoring how budgets are spent. As for who reviews it, the most important people are probably in this room.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I know that you are all in favour of an annual report rather than one every three years.

Mr Herron: With sanctions, Ellen made a point about the carrot and the stick. For me, this is potentially a way to create more effective government and delivery of services. I hope that there will be an element of peer pressure in Departments. If we have an outcome to deliver, and a Department is not playing ball or coming along, there will be sanctions from within. As Lisa said, the Assembly would have the ultimate sanction, certainly at Executive level. It is important to focus on that.

Mr Maskey: In view of the discussion on whether this is the appropriate vehicle for upgrading legislation, for me, it is not exclusive. It is a timely reminder that we might need to refresh, reboot or update aspects of legislation or some Departments' policies, but that is not what the Bill is about. Whatever policies or strategies are in existence, the purpose of the Bill is to make sure that they cooperate with each other. Passing this legislation is not an exclusive issue.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Alan, Lisa, Colin and Ellen, thank you very much indeed. We appreciated your oral and written evidence.