Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): We move to consideration of the Children's Services Co-operation Bill. Last week, we heard from the Department that it has a revised Bill setting out the direction of its proposed amendments. You will recall that officials advised the Department that they wish to make further amendments following ongoing consultation with other Departments. We also saw correspondence from the Bill's sponsor giving his initial views on OFMDFM's proposals for the Bill.

Today, our task is to undertake formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill. Eilís Haughey joins us to aid our consideration. As ever, the Clerk and staff have prepared a number of useful and relevant papers. Departmental officials are not with us today to answer questions, but they have undertaken to provide responses if we submit any issues and will do that as quickly as they can.

Are there any general comments at this stage, members, before we get into clause-by-clause scrutiny? If not, we will proceed.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): This clause creates a duty for Departments to work towards the achievement of six specified outcomes relating to the well-being of children and young people and to cooperate with one another to further the achievement of those objectives. The objectives are consistent with those listed in the children's strategy. Clause 1(4) allows OFMDFM to modify those objectives by subordinate legislation. That is the Bill as Mr Agnew envisaged it.

The Department proposes the inclusion of a new clause, "Well-being of children and young people", which will serve as a purpose clause and explain that the Bill is for the purpose of improving the well-being of children and young people. The six high-level outcomes are used to define well-being, and the text of the clause is at page 1 of the Department's revised Bill. The Committee indicated that it was content in principle with that proposal at last week's meeting. OFMDFM also proposes that clause 1 be amended to place a duty on "children’s authorities" to cooperate with other children's authorities and other bodies in the provision of children's services. The meanings and definitions are set out in the interpretation clause. A duty is also placed on the Executive to make arrangements to promote cooperation. The text of that clause, "Co-operation to improve well-being", is provided at page 2 of the Department's revised Bill.

You will recall that officials agreed to consider with Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) colleagues whether the word "advance" could be used instead of "promote". That aside, the Committee indicated that it was content in principle with the proposal. Mr Attwood advised that he would reserve his position on all the proposed amendments until they have been considered further.

Mr Agnew suggested that clause 2(1) in OFMDFM's revised Bill should be amended to remove the wording:

That is the potted history of clause 1.

Mr Maskey: Is there any understanding on why he wants that amended? It is in the original Bill at clause 1.

Mr Lyttle: I understand that it is a Greenberg suggestion because it is considered a bit of a "get-out clause".

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Daniel Greenberg thought that the Department might be able to use that form of words to say, "I cannot help you because it is not consistent with the proper exercise of my functions". Eilís, can you add to that?

The Clerk Of Bills: As far as I understand it, the explanation from the Department has been that "children's authorities" can include any Department. Departments may, at times, be filling potholes, cutting hedges or doing other things, and the Department thought that that phrase would ensure that there was appropriate room to exercise a function without a procedure around consideration of children's well-being where that is genuinely not required rather than saying that, even if you are filling potholes, you need to stop and consider children's well-being. The argument was that:

suggests that, where those functions could have an impact on the well-being of children, you should consider that. That was consistent with the sponsor's advice and explanation at the start. So you have conflicting advice before you.

Mr Maskey: It does not register in my mind as a significant consideration; it is a bit subjective, to say the least.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Ultimately, whatever legislation you put before officials, they will make a judgement call on it. They may say, "I have limited resources, and you are telling me to do this and do that.".

Mr Maskey: If it ends up coming down to petty — I do not mean petty, but I cannot think of another word at the moment — considerations, it would mean, to me, that the Bill will be fundamentally flawed from the outset.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): In the real world, officials will make a judgement call on whether there is a stronger legislative demand on them to do a rather than b because if they do b, somebody will judicially review them and say that they should have done a because of the strength of the legal obligation.

Mr Maskey: What is the suggested amendment? If Steven is saying that he wants it amended —

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): He is just going to take it out.

The Clerk Of Bills: He wants to take the qualifying phrase out.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): There is no qualification for that. It diminishes the ability of Departments to say, "What you are asking me to do is not consistent with the proper exercise of the children's functions that rest with me.".

Mr D McIlveen: My concern with it, Chair, is that to remove that sentence and remove the opportunity for government to challenge would effectively make the assumption that government is always wrong and that the other service providers are always right. There are very well-meaning groups and representatives in the sector, but, like everyone, they can get it wrong. If you remove that and set it in legislation that every children's authority must cooperate with other children's authorities and children's services, you are effectively removing the opportunity to challenge. That is something that we should always try to preserve as much as possible when writing legislation, so that, ultimately, the views of a group can be challenged if required. To me, reading it as a relative layman, removing that line would remove the right to challenge, and there would be a legal statutory obligation on everybody to cooperate, whether what they were cooperating on was right or wrong.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Members, can we take a step back for a second? Normally, in clause-by-clause consideration, we would take the Bill as laid, in this case Mr Agnew's Bill, and consider it against amendments from the Department, but, in this case, we do not have amendments from the Department so much as a new Bill — a total rewrite, almost. This clause-by-clause consideration is of Steven Agnew's original Bill. We can bear in mind what the Department is thinking, but it is not as neat as it would normally be, because it actually has a different number of clauses, and they indicated last week that there will be further amendments, not just to clause 4. In fact, I do not think that we can have confidence that any of the clauses, with the possible exception of the short title, might not be amended. So, we are not in the position that we would like to be in. That is not a criticism of the Department; it is just an observation of where we are.

First off all, it seems to me that, if we are broadly content with the direction of travel of the Department, we can, in this clause-by-clause scrutiny, as it refers to the original Bill, say that we are not content. We might also indicate that we are content with the direction of travel that the Department has indicated to us, but that we are also aware that, at this stage, we cannot have confidence that we have had sight of the final wording. The explicit purpose of clause-by-clause scrutiny is to look at the final wording, and leave it at that.

The Clerk Of Bills: The Committee would be within its rights, if it wished, to pursue that course and to indicate if there were replacement clauses or directions that it would support.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): OK, so, what I said, plus, if we have consensus, we could say, "These are specifics that we have not seen that we would welcome.".

Mr Maskey: Are you suggesting that we go through the original Bill, clause by clause? I was wondering whether there was a hybrid scenario, because, in a way, we are going through an exercise that is near enough pointless.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): It is academic, to an extent.

Mr Maskey: It has been changed with the consent, albeit caveated, of the sponsor of the Bill in the general direction of travel.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): As I understand it, in an ideal world, every word that we look at today would be in the Bill that would go to the Floor. Clearly, from what we were told last week, that is not the case, but we cannot wait because we have taken an extension to the Committee Stage and we cannot have an extension to an extension, so we have to do it today.

Mr Maskey: Do we have to go through it formally clause by clause?

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Yes, but it is the original, so, if we are content with the direction of travel that the Department is taking, we can say that we are not content with the original clause. If we take it step by step, are we all happy that we are not content with the original clause 1?

Mr Attwood: I am a wee bit cautious about that. I can understand why, on one reading of clause 1(1), it could be a get-out clause. You would have to read it in such a strict and suspicious way, and I do not think that that is the proper way to read it. On the other hand, I remember having an experience where the Department tried to argue with me that doing something was not consistent with the proper exercise of the functions of the Department.

I will give you an example. Money came from the Coastal Communities Fund in London, and DFP asked which Department wanted to take it on. I got advice that it was outside our competence and that we would not want it, as it was not consistent with the functions of the Department. Of course, I said that coastal communities are environmental and developmental and that those aspects fall within the competence of our Department, so we took it. If they can find a bit of space, officials will sometimes say "This is not our business, so goodbye.". I do not have the sort of global suspicion of the Department that might be suggested by saying that this is a get-out clause. I am not trying to go as far, in my position, as to say that we are more inclined toward the Department at this stage. That might well be case, but not at this stage.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I take that point and, yes, of course there will be opportunities, as with almost all legislation, for officials to take a position and a judgement call.

I propose that there are three things that we can do for clause-by-clause. First, on each clause, we can decide whether we are content with what Mr Agnew has laid; if we are not, whether we are broadly content with the Department's direction of travel, which is another yes or no question; and, thirdly, whether there is something further that we would like to see included. We may have to vote on some of the issues, and that is fine, because we are not where we would like to be.

The Clerk Of Bills: It is worth reminding members that the sponsor has indicated to the Committee that he has been working closely with the Department and with other stakeholders and is heavily engaged and quite supportive of what has been achieved so far with the alternative proposals that will come forward.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): To cut to the chase, if the sponsor was sitting here with a vote, he would oppose clause 1? He would oppose his own clause 1?

Mr Lyttle: Exactly, yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Because he has been persuaded through his journey, particularly with officials, that it can be better. Right at the beginning —

Mr Maskey: That is without dealing with the issue of "so far as is consistent", because I would prefer to keep that in.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): We might decide that we have not taken a position on that. It would be fair if we say that we do not have a consensus on whether that should be in or out, would it not?

The Clerk Of Bills: That is a separate amendment that comes from the sponsor rather than the Department. The Committee would be doing the right thing to make a decision on the departmental amendments before you and to take a separate decision on whether you agree, do not agree, or just note the —

Mr Lyttle: I have a brief comment in addition to that. You have the original direction of travel from the Department; you also have amendments that have been suggested to the Department by the sponsor. Do we need to take a view on those as well? There are three things to take a view on, effectively, even if the third is very brief and only affects, I think, three clauses.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): You are quite right, Chris. The first thing that we will take a view on is the clause as laid in the original; the second is a view on the amendments that we are aware of, bearing in mind that we know that there will be more from the Department; the third is whether there is anything outside the other two that we wish to see included.

Mr Lyttle: Can I run an example of that? Not content with clause 1 in the original Bill; not wholly content with the direction of travel proposal by OFMDFM; content with the suggestion from the sponsor for the amendment to OFMDFM's direction of travel for clause 1. That would involve the removal of "so far as is consistent".

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Are members content with that approach, at least as a way of getting started?

The Clerk Of Bills: One final technical point. The amendment from the sponsor to remove "so far as is consistent" would technically be an amendment to the Department's amendment. They are not necessarily competing with each other. You can support the Department and then decide whether it should be amended to reflect the member's point.

Mr Lyttle: It is not an ideal way of doing things, but there is probably no other way.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): We have to find a way to kick this on. Members, we have the original clause 1 as laid. Are we content with that?

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): No. We have a proposed new clause from the Department, "Well-being of children and young people", at page 1 of the revised draft Bill. Are we content with that?

Mr Maskey: I suppose this is to protect everybody, because we are all very conscious that there could yet be some changes, minor or major. Everybody wants to caveat what we are agreeing to. We are agreeing to this, subject to further information. You might get a line in there that covers everybody. I agree with the version put forward by the Department. It might change depending on clause 4 and something else —

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Are members broadly content with the direction of travel of the Department's new proposed clause, "Well-being of children and young people", subject to sight of the final wording?

Mr Attwood: And answers to the points raised by Steven Agnew in his memo. Steven says that the Department uses different words in clause 1(2). They may seem minor, but he wanted an explanation for the differences. Officials also indicated that there would be a consultation before any of the outcomes were changed under clause 1(4).

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I get all that, Alex. I am just wondering whether, "subject to sight of the final wording" does not cover all that, and give you the ability to come back and say —

Mr Attwood: As long as it means that, I am happy.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): — "I do not accept the final wording, and the reason is that I am not satisfied that you consulted as you promised with the Bill sponsor", or whatever number of reasons you may wish to propose. Is that OK?

Mr Attwood: That is how I will interpret that.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Are we content, members?

Mr Lyttle: I am probably not, Chair. I am more supportive of the third way proposed by Stevie, which is not to include:

In his email, he proposes another new clause 1. His suggestion for clause 1 was just the removal of "so far as is consistent", then?

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): We are not content with clause 1. Chris, I will go back again, you were making an objection to the second part.

Mr Lyttle: Yes, I was slightly mistaken there, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): It is very confusing.

Mr Lyttle: Is, "so far as is consistent" in clause 2?

The Committee Clerk: It is in clause 2.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): We will come to that in a minute. We are content with the direction of travel of this new "Well-being of children and young people" clause, subject to sight of the final wording. We now have the other part of what was clause 1, which the Department is now calling "Co-operation to improve well-being".

Apart from Chris, who we are going to come back to in a sec, is anybody else not content with the broad direction of travel of this new "Co-operation to improve well-being" clause, subject to sight of the final wording?

Mr Attwood: That is my position as well, as I outlined.

Mr Lyttle: That probably covers my position on this, in fairness. As I understand it, the sponsor has made a suggestion to the Department to make a change to the Department's version. It is conceivable that the Department may accept that proposal, and your form of wording would give us scope, if it changes in that way, to be content with the general travel.

Mr Maskey: So we are not content with clause 1 of the original Bill. Are we now asking whether we are content with the new clause 1 proposed by the Department, subject to final wording?

Mr Attwood: We are now at clause 2, though.

Mr Lyttle: But that is what happened for clause 1; you are correct.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): The original clause 1 has become two clauses. We have done the first bit, and this is the second bit. This is where:

comes in. The Department wants it, but the Bill's sponsor now does not.

Mr Maskey: We want it in, but, if somebody comes up with a better formula, we will look at that. We would prefer to go with what —

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): So, you want it in, you want it out, you want it —

Mr Lyttle: I think that that form of words allows me to. The state of flux is that the sponsor is working, as far as I am aware, with the Department. There is a good working relationship there. It is possible that the Department — well, I do not know —

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Everything is possible.

Mr Lyttle: It is a possibility that the Department may accept that suggestion. If it does not, the form of words that says "subject to the final wording" allows me, if I am not content with the final wording, to say that I am not content.

The Clerk Of Bills: Chair, I should have said earlier that, in relation to the phrase:

the Committee had been talking about how that was in the original Bill and how the Department has it in this version. Actually, the Department's version in this Bill is different; it is talking about:

whereas the original Bill was talking about:

Arguably, that departmental version is narrower again.

Mr Lyttle: That is a good spot.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): OK, but I think that everyone is content that, subject to sight of the final words — whatever form of words — it gives everybody the opportunity to come back and say, "I'm not happy, and here's why."

Mr Lyttle: I think that "children functions" is too narrow, so that is fair enough.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Having agreed clause 2, we are going on to clause 2 of the original.

The original clause says that OFMDFM is required to publish a report at least every three years on progress towards achieving the specified outcomes, the extent of cooperation as required by clause 1 of the Bill as drafted, and efficiencies achieved or opportunities identified for further cooperation. Other Departments are also required to cooperate with OFMDFM in the preparation of the report, which will be laid before the Assembly. That is the original.

The Department proposes to amend the clause to expand the report to include outcomes and progress as well as cooperation. The report will be produced every three years. It will consider how the well-being of children and young people has improved or not, and it will reference cooperation across Departments. Mr Agnew has suggested that the Executive should commission an independent report on the operation of the Act.

Mr Attwood: We do not know, but I understand Steven to be saying that he is satisfied that, on the co-operation report clause 2 from OFMDFM, he is satisfied with the broad direction of travel but not the part that refers to who does the report. That seems to be what he is saying. I would support Steven on the requirement for an independent report, but it seems to me that the broad direction of travel of the new clause 2 is right.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): So, can I say, going back to our formula, that, first, we are not content with clause 2 of the original Bill as laid?

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Secondly, are we broadly content with the direction of travel of the departmental amendments, subject to sight of the final wording?

Mr Maskey: That is now clause 6, is that right?

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): But, in this case, we have a proposal, I think, from Mr Attwood — and this is beyond agreeing with the direction of travel — that we accept Mr Agnew's amendment, which would give the reporting function to an independent body.

Mr Lyttle: I think it should be every year.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Here is Mr Agnew's amendment, folks:

It does not say who the independent body would be.

Mr Maskey: I think the institutions have to produce the report, whether or not an independent report is done. Every Department has to report on what its duties are. We can understand that.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): However, Steven is specific in stating that it is given to an independent body rather than, say —

Mr Maskey: That would have to be over and above what the Departments would have to do anyway, whether annually or —

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Departmental officials would not be doing it. They would simply be servicing an independent body with the data.

Mr Maskey: I cannot see any situation whereby a Department would not have to produce a report on what it is doing. You may have an independent report also, but I would not be agreeing with that. I am happy enough to support the direction of travel of clause 6 until somebody brings something additional or new into it that I can live with or work with. At this moment in time, however, I would not be not content with any additional —

The Clerk Of Bills: The Committee could consider that or table that as a Committee amendment if it wished, in addition to the reporting clause. So you would have clause 6 requiring the Executive to produce the report, and the Committee would be within its rights to propose that an independent report be an additional obligation and additional clause. It does not have to be a yes or no to what is being proposed by the Department and the sponsor at this point.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): OK.

Mr Lyttle: That would give us an opportunity to debate it at the next stage.

Mr Maskey: If people are agreeing to that, that will be over and above what the Department would have to report on anyway. The Department cannot do work and spend money, and not report on what it did. An independent review or report might be additional and worthwhile. I am not supportive of that at this point in time, but I might be convinced later. Éilis is right.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): The Department is saying that for each reporting period, the Executive must prepare a report on the operation of the Act. Steven is saying that for each reporting period, the Executive must commission an independent report on the operation of the Act. Are you proposing a Committee amendment that says, in addition to the requirement on the Executive to prepare a report on the operation of the Act —

Mr Maskey: I am saying that I am content with clause 6 as proposed by the Department.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): OK, so you do not want an independent report.

Mr Maskey: No, I am not convinced of the necessity of it. I think Éilis has explained it for me well. Even if you do agree to have an independent report, the Department will still have to report on its work.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): You are content with the proposed clause 6(1) from the Department.

Mr Maskey: I might — [Inaudible.]

— but that could be done by way of a Committee amendment.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Does somebody want to propose Steven's amendment?

Mr Attwood: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Do we have a seconder for Alex in proposing? Do we need a seconder? We do not need a seconder. We will just have a vote. Any other thoughts?

Mr D McIlveen: It is too vague, given what Steven has said. At this stage, it could mean anything. Does he mean a rapporteur? Does he mean the Human Rights Commission? Does he mean an arm's-length body? There is no detail.

Mr Lyttle: I presume that the proposer may well bring that as an amendment at the next stage, whether we do or not.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Do members want to go to a vote on this?

Mr Attwood: That point that I was going to make is a general point. The correspondence from OFMDFM is from 11 June, and Steven's reply is from 16 June. Everybody was working to a tight deadline because of the Committee meeting last week. I get a sense from Steven's document generally that there could be more to come or that there will be more adjustments to what he has in the document, including on an independent report. The principle of independence is what I support, because draft clause 6 from OFMDFM is all about the Executive. You can restrict it to the Executive doing it themselves, in whatever way they choose, or you can stretch it to say that it has to be independent. Remember that this is every three years: it is not like they are going to have an ongoing review of what is happening every six months.

Mr Lyttle: Can I check whether it is three years? I cannot find a time period. OK, it says, "not more than three years".

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): And because it is every three years, it will become a very significant report. NICCY would have a legal, statutory obligation to pore over it, and NGOs and voluntary and community sector bodies would be poring over every word in every line. So there would be a lot of independent scrutiny.

Mr Maskey: These are three-year reports, which is grand. I cannot see a situation where, in between, you would not be having an annual one.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Sure.

Mr Maskey: As long as we were conscious that that is what they were going to do. That still does not deal with the issue of independence. I would prefer to deal with that at a later stage, because I could yet be convinced.

Mr Attwood: I am not going to push it to a vote, because the independence thing is a principle rather than something more concrete. I note that Alex said he could yet be convinced, so we could go about that bit of business. I definitely think that, if we just give this to the Executive to do in any way of their choosing, we close down our options. Our job is to ensure that the greatest rigour is brought to these things. The likelihood is that the greatest rigour is going to come from someone who is independent.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): OK. So, we are not content with clause 2 as laid, and we are saying that we are broadly content with the direction of travel indicated by the Department, subject to sight of the final wording.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Clause 3 of the original Bill is the enabling power that allows Departments to establish pooled budgets and share resources to achieve the specified outcomes. OFMDFM’s revision retains the enabling power to pool budgets and share resources, but it amends clause 3 to reflect the requirements in the revised Bill in respect of cooperation and the adoption of a children and young persons' plan. So, staff, goods, services, accommodation or other resources can be provided to another authority and contributions made to a central fund. Members may recall that the officials advised last week that a further amendment may be required to enable Departments to establish the fund in the first instance, before they can start pooling. Mr Agnew has other ideas in respect of pooled budgets, but the actual final text for potential amendments has not been worked up. Do we have a consensus in saying that we are not content with clause 3 as laid in the original Bill?

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): What about the broad direction of travel with regard to Department versus sponsor?

Ms Fearon: I would like to see it tightened up a bit and tying the fund or the pooling of resources to the agreed children's plan in clause 4, because it leaves it quite open.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Megan, the departmental amendment, as we stand at the moment, on sharing of resources and the pooling of funds — clause 5(1), says:

Do you want "as defined under section 4"?

Ms Fearon: It just says "a plan". It could be any plan.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): So if we said:

Mr Lyttle: Is that a mistake, potentially, by the Department? There is no plan mentioned in section 2.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Subsection (2) has "arrangements under section 2 (co-operation)".

Mr Maskey: It needs to be linked to what —

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): It would be consistent with 5(1)(a) to make 5(1)(b) "under section 4", and also clearer. Is that what you mean, Megan?

Ms Fearon: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Is everybody content with that?

Mr Lyttle: Can we ask why the Department has linked it to section 2 as opposed to section 4? I do not know why it has.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Section 2 is on cooperation.

Mr Lyttle: It is not a mistake. The Department is aware that section 2 is on cooperation. It has cooperation in brackets. I am just not clear why it has section 2 rather than section 4.

The Clerk Of Bills: In legislation, there is a convention that, where it is defined elsewhere in the Bill, you do not necessarily need to say. In the first, the Department has said "arrangements" because clause 2 involves various things. The start of clause 4 says that the Executive must adopt "a children and young persons plan". Thereafter in the Bill, that allows you to say "a children and young persons plan", and that should guide the reader back to the inverted quote. It is tied to that.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): So this is the conventional language of a Bill.

Mr Lyttle: Yes, I think it is all right.

The Clerk Of Bills: At first glance, I can see why —

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I liked it.

The Clerk Of Bills: There is no harm done. There is no problem to signpost the reader back to the earlier provision.

Ms Fearon: If it is already defined, that is not needed.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): OK, so we are not content with the clause as laid. Are we broadly content with the direction of travel as indicated by the Department's amendments, subject to sight of final wording? Is there anything else that we would like to propose?

Mr Maskey: Sorry, this is my own fault. I do not have my glasses with me, so I am struggling. Is that an amendment to clause 3 or another clause?

The Committee Clerk: It is new clause 5.

Mr Attwood: This is where Steven has some amendments to new clause 6, if you like, although it is the one where he least makes the argument in his short paper. I have a feeling that the tension between clause 5 and where Steven is might be the least of all of the comments that he raises in his email, except that he says that Departments "must" consider opportunities for collaboration, whereas everywhere else it is "may". He creates a stronger obligation, although OMFDFM's clause 2 may capture what he is at. Again, it is subject to the Department's response to that, although I have a feeling that this is an area where the differences might be more narrow than elsewhere.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I think that what you are saying is that he is aware that, without the funding and the resource, the rest remains aspirational, even in the Bill.

Are members content?

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Clause 4 as laid is at page 2 in the Bill and page 4 in the EFM. We are back to tab A in your folders, members.

Clause 4 amends the Children (Northern Ireland) Order with the aim of strengthening the Children and Young People's Strategic Partnership (CYPSP). A range of agencies and Departments are specified, and they would be required to cooperate with each other in the planning, commissioning and delivery of children's services.

Members will recall that concerns have been raised with regard to this clause. To address some of them, OFMDFM has proposed a couple of things. It has proposed a new clause — Children and young persons strategy — which would require the Executive to adopt a strategy setting out how they propose to improve the well-being of children and young persons. The text of that clause is at page 2 of the revised draft Bill at tab B. The Department is also proposing that the Executive are required to adopt a children and young persons plan — and, as we have just discovered, the clause has the same name — which will be developed with regard to the strategy and will detail how children's services will be planned, commissioned and delivered. The text of that clause — Children and young persons plan — is on pages 2 to 3 of the Department's revised draft Bill at tab B.

Officials have also advised that a further clause may be required with regard to a statutory partnership, which would comprise members of the Health and Social Care Board, the trusts, the Education Authority and other relevant agencies within the Departments of Health and Education. So, that is the Department.

Finally, Mr Agnew has suggested the removal of clause 4(3)(b) in the Department's revised Bill, and that is in his paper at tab C.

So, once again, is the Committee not content with clause 4 as laid?

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): We move to the Department's proposals, which are very substantial. I am not trying to foreshorten this, but given that the Department was very clear that it will do more work on it, I am back to the form of words again.

Is there any further thought on Steven's proposal?

Mr Lyttle: I am inclined to be content with the proposer's proposal, but the form of words that you have agreed gives me scope to do that.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I do not sense a great appetite to push for further specifics.

Mr Attwood: Given that there is a lot more caution about this clause because the Department will come back with further amendments, I think that that should be reflected in what we decide, rather than simply saying that it is as before with the other clauses. There should be a wee bit more caution about it.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): OK. I suggest then that we note the Department's proposals to place a duty on the Executive to adopt the children and young persons strategy, as per page 2 of the revised draft Bill, and the proposal to adopt a children and young persons plan, as at pages 2 and 3 of the revised draft Bill, but that we understand that the Department is giving active consideration to further amendments and that our support or otherwise would be dependent on sight of the final wording. Are members agreed?

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Clause 5 is on page 5 of the Bill and page 5 of the EFM. We are back to tab A.

Clause 5 defines children and young people in accordance with the meaning prescribed in the Commissioner for Children and Young People (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 to ensure that this legislation mirrors existing legislative definitions of children and young people.

Once again, OFMDFM is proposing to revise this with an extensive interpretation clause, and you will find that at tab B, page 5. That reflects the amendments proposed for the Bill. At last week's meeting, officials answered some questions on whether it was necessary to separately name organisations, particularly CCMS, and advised that an amendment may be required to their clause 7(3), which is at page 6 of the revised Bill. Clearly, this is a clause that the Department recognises is requiring of further work and consideration.

To recap: in the original Bill as laid, clause 5 — Interpretation — was extremely short. The Department has gone into a lot more detail and, in doing so — as is often the case — has discovered that further consideration is required.

So, once again, is the Committee not content with clause 5 as laid?

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Is the Committee broadly content with the direction of travel as indicated in the Department's amendment, but, conscious that a further amendment will be required, we cannot endorse that until we have sight of the final wording?

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Just when it was going so well. Clause 6 is at page 5 of the Bill, at tab A. It states:

No further issues have been raised by the Department or the Bill's sponsor, save that it will become a different clause number in the Department's Bill and goes from clause 6 to clause 9. There are no proposed amendments.

For the first time, I ask the Question.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Hurrah. Oh, one more question.

Mr Lyttle: Chair, what happens if it is not enacted in 2015? I presume that that can be changed. That would be common sense.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): What happens if it is not passed in 2015?

The Clerk Of Bills: We just change that by editorial correction.

Mr Lyttle: So, you have the discretion to do that. Fair enough.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): With that great victory, Stephen leaves. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): The long title of the Bill is:

The Department has proposed an amendment. It is:

Ms Fearon: Take the Department's typo out of it — "well-bring".

Mr Lyttle: I find the first one easier to understand if I am honest, but fair enough.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Do we have agreement on the Department's long title, or do we prefer Steven's?

There might not be an amendment to the Children (Northern Ireland) Order, so even on practical terms, it is the Department's one. Are we all agreed?

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I have to put the Question formally, if you do not mind.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Members, thank you very much. Éilis, thank you very much.