Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): From the Department of Health, I welcome Ms Kerry Loveland-Morrison, head of the adult safeguarding unit; Mr Mark McGuicken, director of disability and older people; and Ms Aine Morrison, Chief Social Work Officer. You are all very welcome. Thank you very much for coming. We have your submission. I will hand over to you for some brief opening remarks, and then we will take questions from members.

Mr Mark McGuicken (Department of Health): I will keep my opening remarks as brief as I possibly can. It is always a pleasure to brief the Committee on where we are with the Adult Protection Bill. As you noted, Chair, I am joined by Kerry Loveland-Morrison, who is the head of the adult safeguarding branch in the Department. Kerry's team has been leading on the drafting of the Bill. Kerry was here with me last June. I am also joined by Aine Morrison, the Chief Social Work Officer in the Department, who is also the head of the office of social services.

Since our previous evidence session with the Committee last June, the Department and the transformation board have considered and approved a range of potential amendments to the Bill, following engagement between the Department and stakeholders, and consideration of issues that have been raised in evidence to the Committee. It is important to note that the proposed changes have not yet been endorsed by the Minister, but we will put formal advice to him in the coming weeks to seek his support for the amendments. My opening comments will cover some of the major changes, and we will be happy to address any questions. A number of the issues are covered in the written briefing to the Committee, and I will do my best to keep what I say on those as brief as possible.

On serious case reviews, we propose to add to the Bill provision for independent advocates, along with further detail on serious case reviews that will set out minimum procedural standards for the reviews, including requirements for independence, timeliness, public scrutiny and involvement of the next of kin. It is important to note that we propose to change the name of serious case reviews to "adult protection learning reviews", as we consider that to better reflect the focus on learning from the cases being examined, rather than on governance and accountability, which is not the purpose of the reviews.

There have been ongoing discussions at the transformation board, taking account of legal advice in relation to the naming of professions under the duty to report and cooperate in clause 4. As a result, the Department proposes to amend clause 4 to reference the relevant pieces of legislation that cover all medical professions regulated by law in Northern Ireland as well as social workers and social work practitioners. That is largely to avoid the inclusion of an unwieldy list of professions at clause 4, which would lead to a requirement for ongoing updating of the legislation, every time that a profession changes. As a result of that change and, again, following legal advice, we also propose to remove paragraphs 4(1)(g) and 4(1)(h), as they would be unnecessary once the proposed changes are made. The transformation board has approved a proposal to remove those paragraphs from clause 4. It was also agreed that unregulated professionals would be referenced in the statutory guidance, rather than under clause 4. That is a similar approach to that which has been taken in Scotland, with the direction that it is best practice for all health and social care professionals to report to the trusts. As I said, that will be in the guidance rather than in the Bill. Following a request from the Patient and Client Council (PCC), we propose to remove it from the membership of the adult protection board, as detailed at clause 30(3)(c).

A range of issues were raised at briefings and oral evidence sessions on the Bill, and I will touch on a few of those. At our previous briefing to the Committee, which was in June 2025, we noted the inclusion in the Bill of emerging types of harm. Legal advice has confirmed that any emerging type of harm will be covered by the Bill if it involves harmful conduct of any description.

With regard to the previous discussions on the mandating of CCTV in the Bill, the position of the Department and of the transformation board remains unchanged, in that the legal advice that has been received is that it would not be within the legislative competence of the Assembly to make CCTV mandatory in the Bill. That is because the inclusion of such a requirement would contravene article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Clarification was sought from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission following its saying in its evidence to the Committee on 6 November that it was possible to mandate CCTV. The commission subsequently clarified in writing to the Department that that should not be interpreted as support for a broad legislative provision mandating CCTV in all health and social care settings. The commission also agreed with the advice that the Department has received that such a blanket requirement would be unlikely to comply with article 8 of the ECHR or, indeed, article 2 of the Windsor framework. The transformation board has considered the proposed amendments that the Human Rights Commission put forward to the Committee, and it considers the adult protection board (APB) to already be fully compliant with human rights obligations.

The Department acknowledges concerns that the Committee raised about the pressure to fill the new adult protection social worker posts that the Bill would create and the fear that that will result in gaps in existing social work provision. Colleagues in Aine's directorate have overall responsibility for workforce planning, and that is being considered alongside a training plan. In recent years, there has been significant work to increase new social work training places. However, continued investment in training places and the ongoing programme of social work reform will be required to ensure that, when recruitment of adult protection social workers begins, positions can be backfilled with more experienced social workers into those other roles.

In the briefing that was supplied to the Committee, the Department has explained why self-neglect and self-harm should not be specifically referenced in the Bill. By way of further background, Scottish legislation refers both to responsibilities to provide early intervention safeguarding to support an adult and to protection interventions to intervene in an adult's life, but this Bill refers only to protection interventions. There are already health and social care trust systems and processes in place that work in partnership with other agencies to support adults who exhibit self-neglect and self-harm. That issue has been discussed at length at the transformation board to ensure that all parties are in agreement on the wording of the Bill. That is in place from all parties on the transformation board.

Progress has been made on the development of the statutory guidance to accompany the Bill. The guidance takes account of a number of the suggestions that were raised in the oral evidence sessions for what should be included. We hope to put the guidance out to public consultation in the coming months, and we will share the final draft of the guidance with the Committee at the same time.

On funding to implement the Bill, the Committee will be aware that the Adult Protection Bill business case was approved on the condition that the Bill would not be enacted until such time as funds were available. That means that, although the Bill has been introduced in the Assembly, implementation will be delayed until such time as the required budget becomes available. As previously explained to the Committee, new powers in the Bill cannot be enacted without the recruitment and training of a range of health and social care staff, including social workers, investigation officers and administrative staff. Staffing accounts for the vast majority of the costs required to implement the Bill. By way of example, in year 1, staffing costs are estimated to account for around £7·4 million out of the total £12 million to implement the Bill in year 1.

The transformation board will recommend the order in which the elements of the Bill should be implemented. That will take account of available funds, alongside policy and other considerations, including the Committee's views. Officials have developed a draft implementation plan, which has been provided to the Committee. It identifies the lower-cost elements that could be implemented first, subject to funding. For example, the adult protection board could be established for a relatively small amount compared with other elements of the Bill. However, that would require the development and approval of related regulations, which would be similar to the process that was followed to establish of the Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland (SBNI). As I noted, the draft implementation plan has been shared with the Committee for its information. It is important to note, however, that the plan is not, at this stage, prioritised or ranked in order of importance: it is simply a reflection of the financial implications of the various elements of the Bill.

There are several outstanding policy issues to be resolved, including naming the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) in clause 4. The transformation board has discussed that on a number of occasions, including at its meeting in September 2025 and, most recently, its meeting in January 2026. The transformation board has reaffirmed its position that prisons should be included in clause 4, although it must be noted that Prison Service and Justice colleagues on the board did not agree with that position at the January meeting. Engagement between both Departments continues, and we hope to get a resolution of that position at official level.

When the British Medical Association (BMA) and the Royal College of General Practitioners Northern Ireland (RCGPNI) gave evidence to the Committee in December, they stated their opposition to the Bill's definition of an "adult at risk", which includes adults with the capacity to make their own decisions. The Committee subsequently wrote to the Department about the issues raised, and our response to the Committee sets out our position in detail. In summary, the Department's position is that the definition of an "adult at risk", in clause 2, should apply to adults at risk with and without the capacity to consent. That is supported by legal advice that underpins our view that the duty of confidentiality is not absolute. That was acknowledged by the BMA and the Royal College of GPs in their evidence to the Committee.

Under the Bill, disclosure would be covered by the "required by law" exception if the Bill, as drafted, is passed, as the duty to disclose would be a statutory duty or a duty to comply with a court order.

The transformation board currently meets monthly to ensure effective consideration and decision-making on the proposed amendments, queries and other issues related to the Bill. Those monthly meetings will continue as the Bill moves through the Committee Stage and into its final stages in the Assembly.

We are happy to answer any questions that the Committee might have.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): Thank you very much for a useful briefing and paper. You mentioned the ongoing conversations with GPs about the consent issue. Is there an update on that? Has there been more agreement on that issue?

Mr McGuicken: We have had a number of ongoing conversations with the Royal College of GPs and the BMA, and we are having further conversations with our professional colleagues in the Department to make sure that we are all aligned on that. We have not had resolution on that yet, but we are still trying to take that forward. We believe that it should cover both those with capacity and those without.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): I understand your position, but it is an important issue, and it would be good to have consensus. That would help the Committee with its deliberations.

The time frame is important. You have sent us an implementation plan, but there are no time frames attached to it. Obviously, there will be a phased approach to the implementation of the legislation. Would it be more useful — I am asking this because I think that it would — if there were time frames in the Bill? If there are not, could it be a case of how long is a piece of string? Are you considering putting time frames for implementation into the Bill?

You mentioned that the statutory guidance should be ready for public consultation in the near future. Can you give a firmer time frame for the consultation and how long that will take?

Mr McGuicken: I will let Kerry answer your second question. The timetable for implementation will largely depend on the funding. Without having the funding in place, it would probably be false of us to give a timetable saying that we could implement it in three, four or five months. Once we agree on prioritisation, we will start the individual implementation business cases. We will have to have an implementation plan in place, however, because we do not want it to drift on indefinitely. We will look to secure the funding and then to implement the legislation: the two things need to go hand in hand, rather than us having a plan in place that may set false deadlines, without the funding being in place.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): Before Kerry comes in, I will say this: I understand exactly what you have said, but the alternative concern is that we will end up with a great piece of legislation that goes nowhere because there is no definitive time frame, so there is no pressure to get the resources to implement it. We have previously heard stories from people such as the Muckamore families, and, while I am not saying that that will happen again, we could end up not rectifying that scenario because we let things drift. If pressure is not applied to the Department and the Minister to find the money and resources needed to implement this vital piece of legislation, we may see the time frame for the implementation drift.

Mr McGuicken: I can only repeat that, until we have the money, it is very difficult to put a timetable in place. I can reassure the Committee that, as part of the process for next year's budget in the Department, we have already put bids forward for the money that we will need. It will be new money, because it is not currently being used, and we are going up against everybody else who might already have programmes in place. We have started the bidding process, however, in order to put our best foot forward to try to get the money to implement the legislation as quickly as we can. As I said, that will go up against everybody else's priorities.

We can go away and have a look at the implementation plan to try to put some timescales to it. For example, for the implementation of the adult protection board, we could look at how long the process of appointments and so on would take. We can take that away today and look at how long it would take to implement some of the things, even if we do not put a timetable against them; we would then, at least, have some indication of the likely timescales for taking some bits forward.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): That would be helpful. The more definitive information we have, the better.

Ms Kerry Loveland-Morrison (Department of Health): I will respond to your question on the guidance. We have not agreed a specific date by which the guidance should go out for consultation. We have always said that that should happen while the Bill is going through its latter Assembly stages, so that it can take account of any amendments. The guidance, as drafted, reflects the Bill as it is, so it will need to be updated as and when any amendments come through. We have also given a commitment to some of our stakeholders that we will hold pre-consultations with them so that they have a chance to contribute to the development of the guidance. In any case, we intend to consult before the summer, in the springtime.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): That is fair enough.

I have a raft of other questions, but I will allow members to come in, because they may pick up on those questions. If they do not, I will come back in at the end.

Mrs Dodds: What is your estimate for the total cost if all areas of the Bill were to be implemented? I have heard varying estimates.

Mr McGuicken: The total cost will be just shy of £121 million. We provided those figures to the Committee previously. Over a 10-year period — that is the business case that we have to look at — it is just shy of £121 million.

Mrs Dodds: You said that you were going to amend the Bill to allow for independent advocates. Have you costed that?

Mr McGuicken: We have costed for independent advocacy. At this stage, the cost for the independent advocates is sitting at around £2·6 million over the 10 years. That is for provision of independent advocates at different stages of some of the things that are going through the courts. It is based on around 530 investigations a year — the general investigations for advocacy that would be required — and the number of hours per investigation. A lot of our modelling was based on the experience in Scotland. We looked at the number of cases that went through the Scottish courts and extrapolated that back to the population of Northern Ireland. The cost for independent advocates is sitting at roughly £2·6 million over the 10 years.

Mrs Dodds: Is that included in the £121 million?

Mr McGuicken: It is, yes.

Mrs Dodds: Will an additional cost be incurred as a result of the amendments that you are making to include that?

Ms Loveland-Morrison: May I add to that? The figures that we have costed for at the moment are for the Bill as introduced.

Mrs Dodds: Yes, so there will be an additional cost compared with those figures.

Ms Loveland-Morrison: Yes. That did not build in serious case reviews, which, as Mark said, is one of the areas in which we want to make changes.

Mrs Dodds: At what level have you pitched the independent advocates so that they are truly independent and have the expertise needed to represent people properly, for example, in the case of a serious adverse incident (SAI)?

Mr McGuicken: I am not sure exactly at what level we have pitched that. We have pitched it at an hourly rate, which, I assume, is the hourly rate that we have used for other independent advocacy. The requirement to make them truly independent has been raised in some of our discussions with the PCC. They have to be employed by somebody. For the purposes of the legislation, they would probably be employed by the trusts, because we need an employing body to employ the independent advocates. Whilst they will be independent, they need to be employed by somebody, in the same way as independent advocates for some of the Muckamore patients are employed through a contract with the trusts but supplied by a third party. I envisage it being that sort of an arrangement, where —.

Mrs Dodds: In the case of a child, then, that would be by an organisation such as the Children's Law Centre —

Mr McGuicken: Something like that.

Mrs Dodds: — or something similar. That organisation would provide the advocates, but via a contract with the trust.

Mr McGuicken: Yes, via a contract with the trust.

Mrs Dodds: They would not, therefore, be trust employees; that is what I am trying to get to.

Mr McGuicken: They would be independent from the trust, yes. They would be employed via contract.

Mrs Dodds: Going back to the evidence presented by the Muckamore families, they were clear — I tend to agree with them — that "independent" should really mean independent and that the trust should have no handle on that, in any shape or form.

Mr McGuicken: Whenever we have had that conversation with some of the families, we have tried to reiterate that the advocates have to be employed by someone. If the Department employed them, or held a contract, they would not be seen as being independent of the Department. I understand the families' view, but there needs to be an employing body or contracting body of some description. In reality, the only way we can do that is through trusts, the Business Services Organisation (BSO) or somebody else who is connected in some way to the health and social care system.

Ms Aine Morrison (Department of Health): I will add to that. The trusts have experience of contracting for advocacy services. My practice experience is that, when that contract was in place with a third-party provider, they were able to speak independently and to challenge, and that that worked reasonably well.

Mrs Dodds: It is just such an important issue, and such an issue of confidence for the families. Given what they have been through and all the issues, some of which are ongoing, it is really important.

Ms Morrison: An explanation of how the trusts operate contracts in those sorts of cases may well be helpful and reassuring for families.

Mrs Dodds: I will be interested to see how that is worded in the amendment, because I would like to see some reference to how true independence works.

Mr McGuicken: I think that the amendment will simply say that provision will be made for independent advocacy in those additional cases.

Mrs Dodds: I would like to see how that works out further down the line and how you actually do that. Independence is —.

Mr McGuicken: It is unlikely that that will be in the Bill, Diane; it will be in the guidance.

Mrs Dodds: I accept that, but independence and confidence are key.

Mr McGuicken: Absolutely.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Chair.

Ms Flynn: On that point, we talk about strengthening the word "independence", which, as Diane said, will be important to the families. Will you elaborate on why that needs to be done in guidance rather than in the Bill?

Mr McGuicken: We were saying that we were including independent advocacy in the Bill — I am looking for the exact clause that we are including it in — in relation to the serious case reviews. We are not talking about changing the definition of "independence" in the Bill; we were just saying that we would include them in another part of the Bill. At the minute, they are not in for serious case reviews, but we are putting them in for such reviews. The principle of independence will not change in the Bill. We are not talking about changing that definition around having an independent advocate. I do not think that the Bill goes into the detail of "independence".

Ms Loveland-Morrison: The Bill does not go into a great deal of detail about advocates in general, but that is because we have included a power in it to make regulations that would include that detail.

Ms Flynn: OK. Fair enough. Could unregulated professions being set out in statutory guidance, as opposed to being included in clause 4, potentially create a grey area whereby someone who works in one of those professions could be unsure about their obligations when they encounter an adult at risk, because it is only in the statutory guidance? Have you had any chat around that?

Ms Loveland-Morrison: Yes, we have had quite a lot of chat around that. The policy intent behind the duty to report in clause 4 is that we want organisations that work in health and social care, and that engage regularly with potential adults at risk and those who are connected to them, to have the duty to report. That is what we have tried to capture. Mark talked about the amendment to include the lists of legislation that covers the various medical and healthcare organisations to ensure that they are all included.

We had to grapple with the fact that not everyone is captured by those pieces of legislation. It was difficult for us to get one full list that would capture everyone. It could mean ending up with a massive list at clause 4. It would be difficult to amend that if you wanted to add anyone. There were challenges associated with that.

We came to a balance and decided that we would include those pieces of legislation. That means that anybody added to those pieces of legislation will automatically be covered by the Bill without a need to amend it. Our statutory guidance would include a catch-all that would say that, where you are dealing with issues like this, you should report it as best practice. Although that would not have the same weight as it would if it were put in the legislation, there is still a requirement to abide by statutory guidance, and there is still an expectation that that would be done. That is the balance that we came to.

Mr McGuicken: We looked at who would have the most contact. Some of the issues are covered by such unregulated professionals as audiologists, medical photographers, adult psychotherapists, counsellors and family and systemic therapists. They are people who probably have less direct daily contact with somebody who may be classed as an adult at risk. As Kerry said, the statutory guidance will state that it will be best practice for all health and social care practitioners to make that report.

It is a balance concerning what we can put in primary legislation and the amendments to primary legislation every time that a new, unregulated profession comes on board or somebody comes up with something new. The drafter's advice was to stick that in regulation, put it in the Bill and put the other stuff in the statutory guidance. We are following the drafter's advice. We have had numerous discussions about who should and should not be in the Bill. We think that we have come down on the best option. Sorry for cutting across you, Aine.

Ms Morrison: We are naming professionals in the legislation and in the guidance, but organisations are also named. Many people are likely to be in contact with adults at risk, and one of the additional safeguards is that their employers and organisations will have responsibility for reporting. It was also considered that, where an unregulated professional might be working in a care home, for instance, there should be requirements for them to be registered with the manager.

In a sense, all those steps reduce the possibility of our missing something.

Ms Flynn: That is something else that I was going to ask about. Best practice should be followed: it is right that that be in the guidance. It will be difficult to monitor that. People might not know what is best practice and what they should be doing. Your point about the role of a manager in a care home in helping with that is important.

Ms Morrison: Absolutely. There will be expectations on adult safeguarding reporting, but there will also be expectations from RQIA, because care homes are regulated facilities. There is another layer of monitoring about appropriate reporting.

Ms Flynn: The paper set out the issue of the Prison Service not wanting to be named in the Bill and states that discussions are ongoing in that regard. Has a final position been agreed on whether it will be named in the Bill? If it does not want to be named, can the Department decide to name it?

Mr McGuicken: It is important to caveat that it is not simply a case of the Prison Service not wanting to be named in the Bill. The Prison Service has put out detailed arguments for why it believes naming it would impede its statutory duties, because we are suggesting that there could be people who would be outside the prison as well. Prison Service colleagues have set out to us a number of reasons why they believe that this is outside the Prison Service's statutory duties. That is part of the argument. It is not simply that it does not want to be named in the Bill. If we have given that impression, that is inaccurate. Apologies. The conversations are at director general level in the Prison Service and at deputy secretary level in the Department, so we hope to resolve it at that level. If we cannot get resolution at that level, I suppose that it will go to ministerial level to get a decision there.

Ultimately, our Minister could bring forward a proposal to include prisons under clause 4. If the Minister of Justice disagreed, it would be challenging for our Minister to bring that forward. We hope to get a resolution to it one way or another. However, it is the position of the transformation board that prisons should be named. Other criminal justice organisations on the transformation board such as the Policing Board, the Probation Board and others believe that prisons should be named and supported the transformation board's position. It would be disingenuous of prisons to say that they simply do not want to be named. They have set out a clear rationale that we are going backwards and forwards on. They have also given us a counsel's opinion, to which we will respond. However, those conversations are ongoing.

Ms Flynn: OK. Thanks a million.

Mr Donnelly: We have heard time and again that phased implementation and funding will not work, most recently from the Western Trust. What is your response to concerns that phased implementation, as is planned at the minute, will just lead to delays and more missed opportunities?

Mr McGuicken: If we had the money to do it tomorrow, we would start it tomorrow. The simple position is that we do not have the money at present to do it. We have been clear that there are some parts of the Bill where we do not believe that phased implementation would be appropriate, as there is no point in bringing forward one power to take a case only so far. For example, bringing in a banning order but not having the powers to continue to do what needs to be done in that case. When we say "phased implementation", there is only so much that it can be phased because there is the likes of the adult protection board, which is largely a stand-alone entity.

However, the punitive clauses, if you like, need to be brought forward as one. We have been clear about that. We do not believe that parts of those clauses can be brought forward when taking a case through the courts. They would need to come in together. I agree that it would not work if there was a phased implementation in that way. I suppose that it is the interpretation of "phased implementation". If phased implementation means bringing in everything in the Bill in one go, that would be very challenging. However, if we can do things that are largely standalone and then introduce the other bits that would need to be brought in together, that would be our definition of phased implementation.

Ms Morrison: There will be considerable training and engagement with a range of stakeholders, and that could be done in a phased way. We could engage with care home managers and then with various other groups. Certainly, the training element would lend itself to phasing.

Mr Donnelly: The Department's position is clearly worded in members' information packs:

Mr McGuicken: As I said, if we had all the budget available, we would do our best to go for everything at one time. As for the implications of that for the wider system, as Aine said, there will be a significant a programme of training not just in health and social care but with other partners such as the PSNI, the Probation Board and others. If we tried to do it in one big bang, for want of a better term, it would be very problematic for the wider system. Phased implementation is important to the phasing of training and to the preparedness of the wider system.

Ms Morrison: There is also a workforce supply issue, particularly in social work, which will require some phasing to build capacity in the workforce so that we have people to deliver the new functions.

Ms Loveland-Morrison: In the draft implementation plan that we shared with the Committee, there are elements that require the Department to do additional work first. For example, elements of the Bill require regulations to be brought in such as for independent advocates, setting up the adult protection board and CCTV. Those need regulations before they can be commenced. That is also part of the plan for phasing. We will bring in those elements when that work has been done.

Mr Donnelly: Thank you. My concern is that some elements of the Bill may happen and others may never happen, and that concern has been expressed to us time and time again. Have you liaised with departmental colleagues who are working on the safe staffing Bill to understand and provide for the workforce that the implementation of the Bill will require?

Ms Morrison: Yes. Under the auspices of the general workforce planning function in the Department, we have workforce planning in place for social work. In preparation for safe staffing legislation, we are developing the tools to calculate the safe caseload and workload for a social worker. We have drafted guidance, and we have made good progress with that. The guidance will require resource to implement. We have calculated for various programmes of care, but not yet for all the programmes of care.

Our calculation of the hours that might be spent on a complex case where there may be a safeguarding element has been built into the formula for a safe caseload, and it has been expressed as a range. It feeds into the overall calculations about the size of the social work workforce that we need, and that will take account of the specialist roles and additional responsibilities. There will be a range of roles, but one of them will be safeguarding.

We are fairly advanced on that road, but, like the general position, full implementation of the recommended ranges will undoubtedly be gradual and will require some additional resourcing. It is not all about resourcing. Some of it is about practice, what social workers do and whether there are other people in the teams who could do some of the work. I do not doubt that it will bring a resourcing demand with it.

Mr Donnelly: Is the demand worked into the costing that we were just given?

Ms Morrison: The costs of the additional staff are in the costing for the Bill, but additional resource will be needed for any increased supply of training places that we need.

Mr Donnelly: You have done the calculations and have a fair idea of how many social workers you will need, and that is factored into the cost of the Bill.

Mr McGuicken: It is not just social workers. There will be investigation officers, administrative staff and minute takers. That has all been costed, as have IT changes, desks and furniture and the full range of costs. It is why we get to a figure of £13 million per year, and that is not simply staff costs. As Aine mentioned, there are training costs and legal aid costs, and the outline case goes into a full range of the impacts across the whole system, and not just on social work places.

Mr Donnelly: Thank you. The issue of human rights has been raised a few times, and you are clear that the Bill is human-rights compliant. Why have human rights not been referenced in the Bill?

Ms Loveland-Morrison: We feel that the Bill is human-rights compliant as it is. Legally, it has to be. We do not feel that adding such a reference would make any material change to the Bill. Potentially, that might be a political decision.

Mr Donnelly: You do not see anything wrong with doing that?

Mr McGuicken: We have taken advice from the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) about the drafting of the Bill. We have not been advised by the OLC that we need specifically to mention that the Bill is human-rights compliant. However, we are happy to seek further advice from the OLC about whether our commitment needs to be implicit in the Bill. We have not had a direction from the OLC that the drafters thought that that was necessary at this stage. However, we are happy to reconsider.

Mr Donnelly: OK. No problem. Thanks for that.

Mr Robinson: Danny probed an area similar to the one that I wanted to ask about. If, Mark, you were to be successful in the bids that you said you submitted for next year, what elements of the Bill could be implemented first?

Mr McGuicken: The adult protection board is certainly where we would go first. As Kerry said, it will take regulations to make sure that we can do that. However, because it would replace the interim adult protection board, which colleagues from SPPG gave evidence on earlier, putting it in statute and moving it forward would be one of the things on which we would move quickly.

Aine talked about training. Statute is not required to take the training forward, but if we had that programme of training, it would then be about implementing the powers in the Bill: that will be the biggest bit of it. My advice to the Minister would be that the powers will need to be implemented in one block. As I said, there is no point in being able to take a case so far and then not being able to take it to the next level because we have not implemented the next step in the process.

That is largely where you would be. You would implement the adult protection board provision and then take forward the training, having all the regs in place so that you could have independent advocates. That would be a rough implementation plan. We would have to put that advice to the Minister for his view, and we would take into account the views of the Committee in doing so.

Mr Robinson: Given that the adult protection board is the starting point that you hope to see, Mark, I note that the estimated costs, including salaries, are sitting at £396,000. How much would the salary of the chairperson of the adult protection board come in at?

Ms Loveland-Morrison: That should be in the business case.

Mr McGuicken: I do not have the detailed business case with me — I have only the overview — but we will come back to you with the salary range that we had envisaged.

Mr Robinson: OK. What about the members?

Mr McGuicken: We mirrored the Safeguarding Board on the seniority and salary of members. We will write to you with the detail — I am sorry that I do not have it with me today — behind that.

Ms Morrison: A lot of the members will attend as part of their employment responsibilities and will not be paid separately.

Mr Robinson: Among the implementation costs, I note the reference to "basic training"; maybe you touched on that, Mark. We see the need for any training involved in implementing the Bill to be gold standard, not "basic". Is that just a slip?

Mr McGuicken: No. It recognises that, in the Police Service, the Probation Service or the trusts, for example, there will be training at the level of saying, "Safeguarding is everybody's responsibility" but that people who take the cases through the court or who are adult protection social workers will have a much higher level of training. It is about awareness training, but there is a much higher level of training for individuals who take the cases through. I am not sure whether Áine has anything to add to that.

Ms Morrison: "Awareness" is perhaps a better term than "basic" to describe the training. It is about tailoring the training to somebody's role. Our scoping identified six potential tiers, with the top tier being for adult protection social workers, and other tiers being for dedicated adult protection officers and for police officers and social workers involved in the joint protocol for investigation of adult safeguarding cases. It is tiered according to function and role. We want to provide the right training for everyone, depending on their role.

Mr McGuicken: If it helps, Alan, I will note some of the costs associated with that. We have said that the basic, low-level training will cost £750,000 over the 10 years of the programme, but that, for the more intensive training, it will be just over £8 million over 10 years. That is intensive training. In the first year, it is about £1·6 million, and it then tapers down as you get more people through. There is a significant cost to the training, so we want it to be as robust as possible so that the people who are dealing with those cases have the expertise to handle them.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): I have a couple of questions. You say that you do not think that self-directed harm and neglect should be included and that, if it were included, the system would be overrun. I am looking for the rationale or the evidence for that suggestion because, by definition, that says that there are not mechanisms currently for dealing with that issue.

Ms Morrison: I can respond to that. There are concerns about the capacity of the system, but I think that it is more about what we determine to be abuse. Our definitions are clearly that the harm is being caused by someone else, which is not necessarily the case with self-neglect or self-harm. There will be occasions where somebody is self-neglecting or self-harming where there may an element of coercion or neglect, and those could come within the scope of the legislation.

There are other mechanisms in the trusts for a referral of someone who is self-neglecting or self-harming, often delivered via mental health services but also via other adult programmes of care. With our general legislative duties to assess need, it is routine for social workers or community teams to go out to reports of self-neglect, assess the situation and the need and look out for any safeguarding implications.

The range of responses will be more about mental health support and working with somebody on a particular issue or motivation. It is not that self-neglect is not responded to; it will be responded to within the structure of the programmes of care in trusts, be that for adults, learning disability or mental health. It is a particularly complex area to address, and solutions to it are not easy. It is not that self-neglect is ignored or not responded to. It is not the abuse that the Bill deals with, because there is not another person involved.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): Fair enough. I have a couple more questions. First, on guidance, clause 22(2) states:

It is important that the Department review the guidance, but it is also important that there be a tighter definition than "from time to time". You should consider putting in a definitive period for review. "From time to time" could mean never, essentially, and that would be a bad outcome. We want good legislation and good guidance, so I suggest that you look at inserting a definitive period, whether two, three or four years. I think that that is important.

Secondly, a lot of work is ongoing on amendments. The Committee intends to start its deliberations on the clauses next week, so we want to see everything quickly. Have you any idea of when we will see all the amendments that you will be proposing?

Ms Loveland-Morrison: We are working on a submission to the Minister to get his views on the amendments. We intend to have something to you in the next couple of weeks.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): OK. The quicker the better. That allows us to do our job much better.

Ms Loveland-Morrison: Absolutely.

Mr McGuicken: Chair, I do not think that the proposed amendments substantially alter the Bill. There is a change in terminology regarding serious case reviews and a change to clause 4, but, other than that, I do not think that, fundamentally, they alter the context of the Bill. We will, absolutely, get the amendments to you as quickly as we possibly can.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): I have a question from sensing what members have asked on implementation and a time frame. I am not saying that we have not discussed any of this, but do not take this for granted. If an amendment were proposed on tightening the time frame for the implementation of the Bill, what would be the Department's view?

Mr McGuicken: It is hard to answer that in the abstract, Chair. As we said, we will take advice from the Committee on the implementation, as we have from other stakeholders. I reiterate: it will largely be based on when the funding is available to do it. However, we will certainly take advice from the Committee on the implementation plan and the prioritisation of it.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): OK. Thank you very much. That has been very useful. Thank you for answering our questions.

Mr McGuicken: Thank you.