Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Members, we are now in open session. As we turn to our deliberation of the Children's Services Co-operation Bill, I remind you that the session is being reported by Hansard.

We have heard from stakeholders who are generally in principle supportive of the Bill, but they also have issues and concerns. We have also heard from the Department about its concerns and how it believes they can be addressed. The Bill's sponsor has given us his response to issues that have been raised and has suggested amendments that have been put forward during our evidence gathering. Finally, we had the benefit of input from Daniel Greenberg.

The purpose of today's session is not to formally consider and agree the clauses but to go through them, weighing up evidence received and considering whether we wish to explore amendments. There are three ways that we could bring forward amendments. First, we could agree amendments with the Department, where it would address our concerns. You will recall that the Department outlined amendments that officials considered could improve the Bill. Secondly, we could do it by way of agreed amendments from the Bill's sponsor. Thirdly, we could do it by way of our own amendments. There may be other policy issues that do not need to be included in the Bill but that we may wish to consider making recommendations on in our report, such as streamlining the various reports required in respect of children. I suggest that, if you are content, we leave those issues until a later date and concentrate on the Bill.

We will start with clause 1, which is on the general duty. It sets out six high-level outcomes for children and young people and places a duty on Northern Ireland Departments to cooperate to further those outcomes. The high-level outcomes are those listed in the current children's strategy, which runs out next year. Clause 1 will also allow OFMDFM to amend outcomes by subordinate legislation. We heard support for the general duty from a range of stakeholders. Many agree with specifying the six high-level outcomes. However, the Children's Law Centre considered that the Bill should not fetter or predetermine the development of the next children's strategy. It suggested an amendment to link the high-level outcomes specified in the children's strategy. They used the two words "currently operative". We will take that first, members. Rather than spell out the current six high-level outcomes, we suggest an amendment that says that it is aligned to what is currently operative. It seems to me that that gives a flexibility. It covers the current six high-level outcomes. If they were to become five or seven, or if one of the six were to change, there would be no need for further legislation.

Ms Fearon: It seems to be a good enough suggestion, because I know that there was discussion about the fact that those outcomes are vague and hard to measure. How do you measure the outcomes of growing and learning? It might be better to link them to the strategy.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): OK. I am not hearing any objections. David, are you reasonably content?

Mr D McIlveen: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I think that the Children's Law Centre came up with another recommendation to amend so that there is specific reference to the obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). I suppose that that would tie us into international best practice.

Mr D McIlveen: You cannot argue against it, I guess.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): The Children's Law centre also recommends the inclusion of an obligation on Departments and agencies to further respect the delivery of children's rights and states that there should be a duty to cooperate at the earliest opportunity. The "earliest opportunity" is the proposed amendment. I will let that one float, members.

To go back to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, should we seek urgent clarification on the Department's position on that proposition to see whether we are in tune or whether it has any reason for objecting?

Mr D McIlveen: That would be sensible, Chair. I have to be honest: I would be surprised if it was not already doing that. There is no reason not to put it in legislation, but it would be interesting to hear what the Department is doing.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): And what the implications are of putting it in the Bill.

The Department of Education advised that it is uncertain that the Bill will actually bring about greater cooperation and collaboration beyond what is already taking place. The Health Minister also questioned whether it is actually necessary to introduce a statutory duty or whether that would simply add a further layer of bureaucracy. OFMDFM has a view on this. It thinks that the clause could be amended to place a duty on the Executive to ensure that Departments, agencies and relevant partners cooperate in the delivery of outcomes that are in the best interests of children and young people as set out in the children's strategy. That would change the emphasis and put the duty on the Executive. A new clause could also be inserted that would require the Executive to bring forward a strategy for children and young people. That would allow flexibility, should the outcomes need to be changed over time. You will remember that we were assured that the strategies and outcomes would be developed in cooperation and consultation with key stakeholders, including children and young people.

The first thought on that is whether this becomes a duty on the Executive. Beyond that, the Bill's sponsor indicated that he would be concerned if the Bill was to link solely to the children's strategy. He felt that an amendment to pin the Bill to that strategy alone would mean that instances where Departments have failed to cooperate in the best interests of children and young people through other strategies, like the early years strategy, would therefore not be covered by the legislation. I think that there is some merit and weight in the argument that this is a Bill that is not simply about the children's strategy.

Ms Fearon: What way would that sit with the Children's Law Centre's suggestion to specify the children's strategy instead of naming the outcomes?

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I suppose, Megan, it depends on the extent to which the new strategy coming next year embraces something like the early years strategy and whether it becomes fully embracing. There would be an argument that it really needs to be like that if the Bill becomes law. There is a bit of a chicken and egg there. As currently constituted, I kind of get the sponsor's point, but the current dispensation may not necessarily continue. In fact, the Bill may force a rethink. I think that that is one to take away at this stage, members.

Mr Maskey: You would perhaps have a conflict when the outcomes are determined, because clearly, Departments will have their policies and Programme for Government commitments, for example, which would be the starting point for anything. If outcomes change, hopefully for the better, and they are not included in the Bill by default, you would be in a bit of a pickle, would you not? It is a chicken and egg. What you want is a Bill that maximises the obligation of cooperation.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Again, that is one where we might want to seek further assurance from the Department about its intentions.

Mr Maskey: A wee complication in my mind is this: if it is not a Programme for Government commitment for Departments to do something, how will we get a Bill to get them to cooperate? Who defines what they will cooperate on, if you know what I mean?

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): You are a Minister, and you have Programme for Government commitments; that is your bible. Now you are being told that you have another statutory duty to cooperate.

Mr Maskey: That, in itself, is fine. That is important. It is what the Bill is designed to do. The sponsor of the Bill or someone else might say, "You have a duty to cooperate to deliver A", but the Department might say, "A does not fit within the Programme for Government commitments that we are bound by". How do we avoid that clash?

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I suppose that ultimately it requires a revisit to the Programme for Government.

The Clerk Of Bills: It may be helpful to recall that the duty to cooperate, as far as I understand it, was aimed at cooperation to achieve those outcomes for children, rather than to deliver set policies that would be named. It is more about these high-level outcomes that would be listed in the children's strategy. That might address some of the concern on that. It may be something that you want to pick up with the Department just to seek further information.

Mr Maskey: We are getting some conflicting evidence. People are saying, "It is important to specify them", while others are saying, "Do not specify them; link them to a strategy".

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): There is still a tension there, as there is a tension between strategies for vulnerable children and the Bill, which is for all children.

Members should note that the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA) raised a fairly technical issue requesting that consistency be applied to the term "outcomes" throughout the Bill.

Finally, clause1(4) allows OFMDFM to modify the specified outcomes at clause 1(3) by subordinate legislation, which would be subject to draft affirmative procedure in the Assembly. You will see in the examiner's comments that this is a:

He is pointing out that it is for the Committee to consider whether the power to modify the outcomes by subordinate legislation should be included, as it goes to the very heart of the Bill. The examiner is suggesting an amendment to the next clause. We can consider that in a moment. Are there any other comments for today's session on clause 1?

Mr Lyttle: In response to OFMDFM's view that the duty should be on the Executive, rather than Departments, my initial reaction is that that seems a bit wide-ranging. I am not sure how the Executive are held to account in comparison with Departments. I would be slightly wary of that approach. I can come back on that.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): OK. Before we move on to clause 2, I want clarity on whether we are simply going back to the Department at this stage asking for those points of clarification or whether anybody around the table is settled on wanting one or more amendments to clause 1.

Ms Fearon: We are asking for clarification.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Clarification, OK. Thank you.

Clause 2 is on the cooperation report. It requires OFMDFM to publish a report at least every three years on how Departments have discharged their functions and cooperated to further the achievement of the specified outcomes. Departments would be required to cooperate with OFMDFM in preparing the report. Many of the people who responded to our call for evidence welcomed the principle of a cooperation report, but a number of respondents considered that reporting should be done at annual intervals rather than every three years. Some proposed an annual report with a more comprehensive review every third year. During oral evidence sessions, a number of members voiced concern about the risk of increased bureaucracy with this reporting regime. The Department of Education also noted that being required to report to OFMDFM may place a greater administrative burden on Departments. OFMDFM noted that the focus of the report appears to be on cooperation, rather than on the achievement of policy objectives and improved outcomes for children and young people. It also states that additional reporting duties are unwelcome —

Mr Lyttle: I am sure they are.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): — especially if there is potential for duplication of existing reporting arrangements. The Department proposes an amendment requiring the Executive to report regularly to the Assembly demonstrating how the strategy and the plan are being delivered to achieve and improve the best interests of children and young people. This report would also consider how effectively the duty to cooperate is working. OFMDFM did not propose an annual report but acknowledged in its oral evidence that there may be a compromise, which would be, funnily enough, every two years. I will just pause there, members.

I suppose that one of the key points is that you can cooperate from morning till night and not achieve anything.

The point, again, is that the focus of the report appears to be on cooperation, rather than on the achievement of policy objectives and improved outcomes. Is that a fair point?

Ms Fearon: It is hard to know. Maybe there should be one, two or three years of reporting. You would possibly get a more comprehensive report if you left it for two or three years, but where the burden is concerned — it is considered their job, so it is not really a burden — if they have that pressure, they are more likely to try to meet the outcomes.

Mr Lyttle: It is a fair point. I do not think that it means that you remove reporting on cooperation; rather, we maybe try to find a form of words that requires that the reporting on cooperation includes how that contributed to the achievement of the objectives and the outcomes.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I think that you are right, Chris. To me, it is the same sort of thing as the difference between promoting a cause and advancing a cause. You can go out and promote a cause all day and not actually achieve anything, but, if your objective is to advance a cause, that is measurable by considering whether the cause is better off. It sounds to me that the Department is working on an amendment to that. Is that the understanding? I think that it is.

Mr D McIlveen: I am not clear on how this will differ from a private Member's motion, which anyone can bring at any time, and asking the Department to update us on what it is doing to further the needs of children and young people. I am just not really sure how effective this will be. Anybody in the Assembly can, effectively, call the Minister to the Dispatch Box at any time, so how does this differ from that?

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): It is all very nice to be reading a report that says, "We have cooperated by having 27 meetings on the following dates with these various officials", etc, but what you really want to know is that literacy and numeracy levels amongst young people have improved by x and that poverty is down by y.

Mr D McIlveen: I am all for focusing minds, and I think that it is good and right that we should do that. This is probably more of a general point than a point on the specific clause, but in all the evidence that we took, there did not really seem to be anybody who was cheerleading for this legislation. They accepted that more needed to be done and that there needed to be —

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): That was not my impression.

Mr D McIlveen: I asked pretty much the same question to everybody about whether what was being suggested and proposed as legislation could be dealt with by other means, and very few people really seemed to consider it. If you ask somebody whether they want a Bill that will potentially improve the quality of lives and opportunities of young people, of course everybody will say yes, but that does not mean that it would be a good Bill. That is where I probably need a little bit more time to try to get my head around it. If it is decided that legislation is the best way to deal with it, let us do it. Let us just go for it and make sure that it is as good a piece of legislation as it can be. I am still remaining to be convinced on that.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I accept your views. My take is different. I felt that a lot of the witnesses said that we are going in the right direction and that this could kick it on significantly.

Mr Maskey: I had the impression that most of the people who gave evidence were keen for there to be legislation. I am not so sure that everybody quite understands how it might have the best impact. They are separate things, I suppose. I suppose that what we are doing now is working our way through the clauses and the various arguments. Ultimately, when we get to the end of that process, you will have an idea and you can make your mind up on where it is going. Do you know what I mean?

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Yes. OK.

The next issue in this clause is the lack of sanctions. We heard from Steven Agnew that he basically felt that a judicial review was the ultimate sanction. Against that, you could say that an election is the ultimate sanction at the Assembly. Do we want to dwell on this?

Mr Lyttle: Despite identifying a lack of sanctions, no one identified a possible sanction, so it is hard to remedy that.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): OK.

I mentioned the examiner and a potential amendment. That is specifically related to making an amendment to clause 2(1)(d) on the better achievement of objectives with or without modification under clause 1(4). The proposal is that that could link the modification of the specified outcomes by subordinate legislation with a recommendation for modification in a cooperation report.

Basically we are saying that one way of doing it is by subordinate legislation, but the alternative is to say that you are putting in place all these reporting mechanisms, which could be the way of focusing minds on achieving your specified outcomes.

Mr Maskey: What would be the trigger for bringing forward subordinate legislation? Would it be the progress reports? I am reading that and seeing that people are essentially advocating an annual reporting mechanism and a three-year full review of the progress, which, in other words, is when you do an overview. What would trigger subordinate legislation?

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): On the one hand, OFMDFM might say, "Right. We want to change things, so we're bringing forward subordinate legislation"; on the other hand, the report, whether it is annual or every two or three years, comes for debate in the Assembly. We may look at it and say, "This isn't working as well as we want". That report then becomes a mechanism for saying, "We are now going to vote to change the high level".

The Clerk Of Bills: It may be worth remembering that this may be a moot point if the Committee is content that the six high-level outcomes in the Bill are in the children's strategy. They have been taken from the children's strategy, but, if you move to a case where the Bill signposts you to the children's strategy and binds the Executive to pay heed to and work towards those objectives, they will be changed when the children's strategy is changed. Amending this will become a moot point if the Committee accepts FM and dFM's proposal for amendments.

Mr Maskey: In other words, you would not need subordinate legislation.

The Clerk Of Bills: No, because it will be in the children's strategy.

Mr Maskey: That is what I thought initially.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): We will return to that if we need to.

Mr Maskey: That is the value of linking it to the strategy, which may change.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I am not sensing any suggested amendments to clause 2 at this stage.

Mr Lyttle: I am inclined to support annual reporting. It looks as though OFMDFM will bring forward a form of words to tighten up reporting on cooperation with a link to achieving specific outcomes. That would be helpful as well. It also proposes requiring the Executive to report. Does the Bill require a particular Department to report? Is it OFMDFM?

The Clerk Of Bills: Yes.

Mr Lyttle: There is a bit of vagueness there, in that responsibility for children and young people shifted, as far as I am aware, from OFMDFM to the Department of Education. Will OFMDFM retain responsibility for the children and young person's strategy, or will that go to the Department of Education as well? That makes me think that we need to seek some clarification from OFMDFM.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): As far as I am aware, Chris, the implementation group on Stormont House has not drilled down or had a paper at that depth of allocation. We know the names of the nine Departments, and we have some high-level allocation.

The Clerk Of Bills: Chair, once again, it is worth keeping it in mind that the Committee will not be able to understand fully the detail and the implications until it sees the text of the amendments. People sometimes refer to the Executive when they mean that the Departments individually and collectively have to do something. The way that the amendment is worded might address some of your concerns. It could well be that the Departments might contribute their bit of the report on any policy areas for which they have responsibility.

Mr Lyttle: That is helpful. Forgive my cynicism around who would actually do the reporting if it was left to the Executive rather than to a Department. I suppose that we have to see the wording of the amendment and maybe seek some clarification of that. We should maybe check with the proposer of the Bill what his views are on who exactly should do the reporting. The idea of the Assembly being awash with Ministers coming to give detailed annual reports on performance against agreed outcomes is nonsense, to be honest. It can only be a good thing if someone gives a detailed report on an annual basis.

Mr Maskey: There is a wider argument around accountability and, as somebody said earlier, the final recourse is maybe a JR or an election. There are clearly deficits. The report that was published yesterday and debated in the Assembly clearly shows that there are deficits around accountability. I still think that a lot more can be done in the institutions if people apply themselves, including us, as members, through all the Committees, because, in my opinion, we can do a lot more and be a lot more robust in our scrutiny. I include myself in that. It is not an accusation about anybody. I just think that we can do a lot more on scrutiny and accountability.

It is a wee bit of a conundrum. I took it that putting it to the Executive is an advancement. I thought that it was an improvement. It puts it at the door of the Executive by putting it into legislation. It is not that the Executive will have a discussion; it puts an obligation on the Executive. I thought that was an improvement on what was suggested by the sponsor. Unless somebody convinces me otherwise, I think that it would be a good thing. It may not always deliver what everybody is looking for, but the fact is that you are putting it, through the Bill, on the table of the Executive.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Yes, and as a cross-cutting and cross-departmental matter.

I will move on, because we will come back to who has authority and where responsibility lies later on in clause 4. Clause 3 is the enabling power that allows Departments to establish pooled budgets and share resources to achieve the outcomes. Many stakeholders supported that provision and considered that it would make it easier for Departments to share resources and staff with the objective of delivering outcomes. It was felt that resources could be targeted in a more cost-effective manner and that savings would ensue. NILGA suggested that it could be strengthened to include the collaborative use of resources by public bodies in general and the alignment of plans. PlayBoard suggested that the power should be extended to include agencies and that an approach to the joint commissioning of services should also be adopted. The Children's Law Centre believes that it should not simply be an enabling power but a statutory obligation on Northern Ireland and UK Departments and agencies. Some stakeholders pointed to Delivering Social Change (DSC) and said that it was an example of good practice in pooling budgets. In their evidence, officials advised that pooling budgets can be effective where a common goal or vision is shared by two or more Departments but said that processes exist to move money around to deliver on that. A number of stakeholders, including the Department of Education and NILGA, stressed the need for the establishment of clear governance and accountability. OFMDFM states that provisions on the arrangements for such funds would be required, such as, for example, a memorandum of understanding, objectives for a fund and procedures for managing and the accounting of those funds. Finally, the Bill sponsor was of the view that, once the accountability structures and systems were in place, there would be a much more efficient system and that resources would be freed up to be put into services. Pooled budgets are also a way to prevent an issue falling between the cracks when no one Department has the overall responsibility for driving the matter forward. Do members have any thoughts on that?

Mr Maskey: Local government has the power to address well-being, which allows councils to intervene in certain cases where they feel it necessary. Is there potential conflict in that? In community planning, for example, there is an obligation on all Departments and agencies to work together. Is there a parallel for that, for example? Is there potential conflict in that or is it in addition to that? Councils can then say, "Well, actually you're not doing that. We're going to do that now, and we'll bill you for it".

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Certainly, the local government reps who came in thought that there were implications that had not been fully thought through. I am not sure we are any further forward.

Mr Maskey: It is about getting the balance. You want people to cooperate and Departments and agencies to put their money where their mouth is. It is just about getting that balance between Executive authority and Departments, and what is, in essence, a non-departmental public body (NDPB) dictating. I am not nervous about that, but I am conscious of it.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Are you proposing that we seek further information and clarification?

Mr Maskey: Equally, you could have some provision in the Bill that would be akin to the power to address well-being. I am not ruling that out, but I would think about it.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): OK, we shall do that. Thanks, Alex.

The famous clause 4 is next. This proposes to amend the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 with the aim of strengthening the work being carried out by the children and young people's strategic partnership. The clause specifies a range of agencies and Departments that will be required to cooperate in the planning, commissioning and delivery of children's services.

The Department has noted that the balance of powers between the Health and Social Care Board (HSCB) and other public bodies in this clause appears to be inappropriate. During oral evidence, some members voiced their concerns that it appeared to give the HSCB powers over and above Departments, which, of course, impacts on democratic accountability. That was not a view that was necessarily shared by all. However, Children in Northern Ireland did suggest that the clause could be amended to place a duty on the Executive.

The Children's Law Centre advised us that it wished to see the insertion of a clause requiring consultation with children and young people, and with relevant public bodies, regarding reviews and modifications to plans. The Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY) considers that children and young people should be included as a named partner in this clause. Include Youth suggested that the Department for Employment and Learning should be included.

You will remember that Ann Godfrey gave evidence to us. She wished to add the voice of children, advised that all relevant bodies should be included and early intervention referenced. Ms Godfrey provided suggested text for an amendment, which is in members' packs.

It was pointed out to us in evidence that the Children (Northern Ireland) Order focuses on children in need, and that is at odds with the intention of the Bill, which applies to all children and young people. That point was made earlier. The Bill sponsor acknowledged that point and advised that he is working with departmental officials on potential amendments to deal with that tension.

OFMDFM suggested that the Children (Northern Ireland) Order should not be amended. Rather, there should be a stand-alone clause, which would mean that a relevant Department, under the authority of the Executive, would be responsible for the development and delivery of a children and young people's plan. That would be developed with regard to the strategy and in collaboration, and it would detail four key areas. The first is how children's services will be planned, commissioned and delivered by relevant partners. The second is the key actions, programmes and services that are to be taken or commissioned by the relevant partners. The third is detailing the targets to be used in assessing the effectiveness of the action taken. Finally, it would define how the key outcomes detailed in the strategy would be supported and achieved.

Members, I also direct you to correspondence from the Health Minister in your tabled packs. The Minister notes that legal advice to the Health Department indicates that clause 4 cannot amend the Children (Northern Ireland) Order to achieve the policy purpose of the Bill in respect of children's services planning and that a stand-alone provision will be required. The Minister also considers that, should the provisions relating to the Children (Northern Ireland) Order be removed, there should still be a level of focus in the new clause to cover planning and reporting. He also raised a number of matters that should be given consideration. As I understand it, health officials are meeting this afternoon with officials from OFMDFM and others with a view to taking this forward, so there is not a lot that we can do except be aware that that meeting is taking place and ask for a brief on the outcomes, if you are content.

Finally, on clause 4, the second power to make subordinate legislation is contained in this clause. This allows DHSSPS to amend by order the list of consultation bodies in a new paragraph, which is 2A(7). Those are the bodies to be consulted in a review of the paragraph. This is subject to draft affirmative procedure, and it is the Examiner's view that this seems to be an appropriate level of Assembly control.

There is a lot to consider, members. Primarily, it is about who does what in terms of the children and young people's strategic partnership and, perhaps above all, the HSCB. OFMDFM does not think that there is an appropriate balance of power here, so it is working on an amendment.

Mr Maskey: As I said, that is the only concern that I have. I am not clear about an NDPB having the Executive-like powers that it might end up with. It might be a good thing, and I might be happy with that. I do not see how that will work out in practice. You could end up with an unnecessary conflict.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I propose that the most sensible thing to do is for each member and each group to take a view so that, when we see the amendment from the Department, you are able to make a pretty swift assessment on whether that concurs with your position.

Mr D McIlveen: I think that we are discussing something that could be very fluid at the minute, so it would probably be sensible to take that approach.

Mr Maskey: It is one of the key questions that we have to address.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): It is at the core of it, so I propose that we move on with the recommendation that we not only seek some clarifications from the Department on foot of this discussion but we ask for the earliest possible sight of any proposed amendments that it will bring forward. That will help to feed the process, which I think everybody is interested in.

Clause 5 is on interpretation. It defines children and young people in accordance with the meaning prescribed in the Commissioner for Children and Young People (Northern Ireland) Order 2003. In reacting to that, NILGA noted that there is no standard approach to how councils define young people. In fact, the inclusion of under-25s applies in certain areas and on certain occasions. The witnesses representing parents of children with an acquired brain injury advised in their written submission that the Bill should cater for young people up to the age of 23. The Bill sponsor indicated that the legislation defines young people as being up to the age of 21 in line with the 2003 Order, but he was also open to feedback and an alternative definition if proposed. The Children’s Law Centre advised that it wished to see the inclusion of a definition of functions in the Bill in line with the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I believe that the 1998 Act talks about functions as being powers and duties. There is another Northern Ireland Act from1954 that talks about powers, duties and jurisdiction as the definition of functions. I think that we should usefully seek the Department's current thinking on what it considers the definition of functions to be.

The Clerk Of Bills: Chair, I will comment on that, if it is helpful. "Functions" is referred to in the Interpretation (Northern Ireland) Act 1954, which gives us a list of terms that do not need to be defined in each and every piece of legislation. Terms that are commonly used include "functions".

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): That 1954 Act has "jurisdiction" as well as "powers".

The Clerk Of Bills: I cannot comment on that in particular, but I looked up "functions", and it is listed as including duties and powers. Section 46 of the Act states:

That means that, unless you want to give it a particular unique definition in the Bill, you can rely on the Interpretation Act to give you the definition.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): So, if we do not amend it, the word, as it appears in the Bill, refers to jurisdictions, powers and duties. Again, members, you can mull that over.

My final point on clause 5, which deals with interpretation, is that the NSPCC felt that it should be made clear that references to "the Department" in clause 4 are not references to OFMDFM but to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. If it is ambiguous —

The Committee Clerk: Because it is amending other legislation, it is referring to the Department in the other legislation, which is the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. In some ways, it is clear, but, in some ways, I can see where the confusion might arise.

The Clerk Of Bills: Given that you are expecting a fairly comprehensive amendment on this to redo the entire provision, I imagine that point will be addressed by the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC).

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): So, it is unlikely that we will need to have to worry about it.

Clause 6 is the short title. There were no problems with that.

I move now, members, to the long title. Ann Godfrey suggested that the long title should be amended to include the requirement on the agencies to discharge their functions and cooperate in order to contribute to the achievement of the specified outcomes through an amendment to the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. OFMDFM suggested the insertion of a new clause clearly setting out the intention of the Bill. Children in Northern Ireland also felt that there should be a clear narrative setting out the essence of the Bill and outlining what is required at departmental and agency level. One of the points made to us during the expert briefing was that we should sit down the Bill sponsor and ask that person, "What are you trying to do?". That should be an articulation of the intention of the Bill. Are we reasonably content that we would like that amendment?

Mr Maskey: Do you mean Ann Godfrey's amendment?

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Ann Godfrey suggested a specific amendment which would say that we are spelling out that there is a requirement on agencies to discharge their functions, but Daniel Greenberg said that if you are unclear about the intent of a Bill you should ask the sponsor and that, normally, that transcription is as good as you will get.

The Committee Clerk: The other thing about Ann Godfrey's suggested amendment is that it leaves in an amendment to the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. It depends on the potential for that not to happen. That would have to be reconsidered as well.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): OK. In the absence of any other comments, that is it until a proposal —

Ms Fearon: Sorry, Chair, I want to comment on clause 4. NICCY and the Children's Law Centre suggest an additional clause to include the voice of children in consultation. Will that be dealt with by the Department?

The Committee Clerk: I think that the Department suggested that any changes on reporting etc would be done in consultation with stakeholders, which would include children and young people, but we can seek clarification on that as well.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): At this stage, members, as we are finishing for today on this issue, we have some points of clarification. We are also seeking early sight of proposed amendments from the Department. I think that we should do the same with the Bill sponsor. Are you content that we indicate to the Department that we are broadly supportive, in principle, of where we think it is going with its amendments but we really need to see the text before we can take a formal view?

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): It is proposed that we consider draft amendments on 27 May and have our formal clause-by-clause scrutiny on 3 June, but, of course, that is dependent on getting those amendments. Thank you very much.