Northern Ireland Assembly, 29 January 2001

103 contributions from 31 members. The official report.

The Late Mr Tom Benson MLA

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

A memorial service for the late Mr Tom Benson will be held in the Senate Chamber on Monday 12 February at 1.00 pm.

Assembly: New Member

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

On 22 January I informed Members that Mr Tom Hamilton had been returned as a Member of the Assembly for the Strangford constituency to fill the vacancy resulting from the death of Mr Tom Benson. I invite Mr Hamilton to take his seat by signing the Roll of Members.

The following Member signed the Roll: Tom Hamilton.

I am satisfied that the Member has signed the Roll and confirmed his designation. Mr Hamilton has now taken his seat.

Clerk to the Assembly

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Assembly Commission has asked me, as Chairman, to announce to the Assembly the appointment of Mr Arthur Moir as Clerk to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Mr Moir is a lawyer and is currently chief executive of the Land Registers of Northern Ireland. It is intended that he will take up his post with the Assembly on 2 April 2001.

Ground Rents Bill: Consideration Stage

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Members have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments. The amendments have been grouped for debate.

I draw to Members’ attention a corrigendum: amendment 15 contains a typographical error. The amendment concerns schedule 2, page 24, line 18. The clause referred to in the proposed new article should be 15, not 12.

As Members will note from the list, there are six groups of amendments. We will debate each group in turn. The first debate will be on amendment 1. We will then debate amendments 2, 14 and 16, and so on, with Questions that clauses stand part being taken at the appropriate points.

As no amendments to clauses 1 and 2 have been tabled I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to take them together.

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 (Exceptions to, or restrictions on, sections 1 and 2)

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I beg to move amendment 1: In page three, after line 42, add

"(9) Section 2 does not apply to the conveyance or transfer of a dwelling-house to —

(a) the Northern Ireland Co-ownership Housing Association; or

(b) any other housing association (within the meaning of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 (NI 15)) specified by an order made by the Department for Social Development subject to negative resolution."

The Chairman of the Committee, Mr Molloy, is abroad this week and has asked me to move all the amendments tabled in his name. These amendments were agreed by the Committee. I express my appreciation to the Committee for its work in completing the Committee Stage. This is a complex Bill, and a great deal of work was required to get through it. The Committee met on 12 occasions, heard a great deal of evidence, and deliberated at some length.

I also thank the staff of the Office of Law Reform and the Office of the Legislative Counsel for drafting the amendments sought or proposed by the Committee. Without their help it would not have been possible for the Committee to complete its consideration of the Bill in the timescale.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Will the Member — indeed, all Members — please project their voices as strongly as possible. Not all Members can hear clearly.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

The amendment to clause 3 ensures that when the Northern Ireland Co-Ownership Association, or any other designated housing association, purchases property for inclusion in a co-ownership scheme, it will not be required to redeem the ground rent under the compulsory provisions of clause 2. The amendment protects those organisations offering affordable social housing from incurring additional costs which they would then have to pass on as part of the purchase price of the property to first-time buyers.

I emphasise that although the amendment exempts designated housing associations from the compulsory redemption procedure under clause 3, should a housing association, in a particular circumstance, wish to redeem a ground rent, the voluntary procedure under clause 1 would still be available. This amendment would not negate that opportunity.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I accept the amendment. It has been agreed with the Minister for Social Development, Maurice Morrow, who believes that it will further facilitate the provision of social housing in Northern Ireland.

I take this opportunity to thank and congratulate Mr Leslie and his Colleagues on the very thorough role that they played in scrutinising this Bill. I welcome Mr Leslie’s comments on the co-operation that they received from my officials in the Office of Law Reform and from the Office of the Legislative Counsel.

The Finance and Personnel Committee’s report and Mr Leslie’s remarks this morning make it clear that this scrutiny exercise was a collaborative venture between members of the Committee and officials. The amendments that will be tabled today have been agreed by the Finance and Personnel Committee and myself and have also been endorsed by the Executive Committee.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Amendment 1 — moved or not moved?

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

Moved.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 (Disposal of money lodged with Land Registry under section 4(2): claims thereto)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I beg to move amendment 2: In clause 6, page 5, line 33, leave out

"issue out of the Consolidated Fund and"

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 14 (schedule 2):

No 16 (schedule 3):

"and in the definitions of ‘rent owner’ and ‘rent-payer’ the words ‘,without prejudice to Article 32,’ ". — [Mr Durkan]

These three amendments are of a minor, technical or drafting nature. Amendment 2 deletes from clause 6 of the Bill the requirement that redemption money paid to the Land Registry be issued out of the Consolidated Fund to the rent owner of the property whose ground rent has been redeemed. This is a technical amendment, which ensures complete compliance with the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 regarding votes and allocations out of the Consolidated Fund to individual Departments.

Amendment 14 tidies up an existing amendment to article 35 of the Property (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 contained in Schedule 2 to the Ground Rents Bill. It does so by disapplying clause 13(9) of the Ground Rents Bill in its application to the 1997 Order.

The application of clause 13(9) to the revised provisions of the 1997 Order is unnecessary. The amendment is purely technical.

No 16 is a technical drafting amendment. It removes from article 3 of the Property (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 the definitions of "rent-owners" and "rent-payers" in the context of settled land. Those definitions have been replicated in clause 18 of the Ground Rents Bill.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

The Committee supports amendment 2 and the reasons advanced by the Minister. I will comment on clause 6, as it provides the mechanics for the payment of money to redeem a ground rent. The Committee spent a great deal of time discussing possible means of simplifying this procedure with the Land Registry and the Office of Law Reform. It is evident that one of the reasons that the current procedure for redeeming land rents is not widely used is that it is a tiresome procedure. The objective of this Bill is to have a more straightforward procedure as well as introducing an element of compulsion.

We therefore examined whether the mechanics of redeeming the ground rent, certifying that this had been done, and the paying over of the redemption money, could be simplified in any way. While investigating that — and discussing the matter with the Land Registry — it emerged that it might be appropriate to amend clause 6. However, after subsequent consideration it became clear that the matter could be addressed satisfactorily under the rules. Although the rules have not yet been drawn up, they will go before the Committee for scrutiny, which is when any efforts to streamline the procedure can be brought into force. Clause 6, as drafted, and accepting the amendment moved by the Minister, should prove satisfactory for mechanical purposes.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 (Mortgages and leases)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I beg to move amendment 3: In page 10, line 27, at end add

"and any provision in the instrument providing for an estate acquired by the mortgagor to be held in trust for the mortgagee or appointing the mortgagee as the mortgagor’s attorney in relation to such estate applies to the fee simple".

The following amendment stood on the Marshalled List:

No 4 (clause 15):

Clause 15 deals with the position of mortgage lenders on leasehold estates. Amendment 3 was suggested to us by mortgage lenders in Northern Ireland as an assurance that existing mortgages on residential property would continue to affect the enlarged freehold interest in the property. It is a measure to clarify rather than change the effect of the Bill.

Amendment 4 removes from mortgage lenders the requirement to submit to the Land Registry for Northern Ireland the certificate of redemption issued by that same body.

The original policy aim of that provision in clause 15(3) emanated from the redemption provisions in the Property (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, when it was thought that the vast majority of redemption cases would be dealt with between the rent payer and the rent owner, with a minimal involvement by the Land Registry. Since all redemption of ground rent is now to be processed by the Land Registry, it would impose an unnecessary burden on mortgage lenders to have to submit to that body a document which it had issued. The Land Registry has power under clause 13 of the Bill to make any necessary corrections to the register of title or the register of deeds, as appropriate. The effect of these two amendments will be to reduce the cost of the redemption process when the property redeemed is subject to an existing mortgage.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Amendment 3 — moved or not moved?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Moved.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

Amendment (No 4) made:

Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 (Covenants)

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I beg to move amendment 5: In page 12, line 6, leave out from "his" to end of line 11 and insert

"other participants in a relevant building scheme immediately before the redemption of the ground rent by virtue of that scheme."

My comments in support of amendment 5 apply also to amendments 6 to 10, all of which deal with the treatment of covenants under the new arrangements envisaged in the Bill.

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 6 (clause 16):

"(j) any covenant, not falling within any of the preceding paragraphs, which is contained in a lease granted by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive before 10th January 2000 and relates —

(i) to a district heating supply provided by the Executive; or

(ii) to the repayment to the Executive of any discount of part of the purchase price under a house sales scheme made under the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 (NI 15)." — [Mr Molloy]

No 7 (clause 16):

"(2)(i) —

‘building scheme’ means a scheme (express or implied) under which land (whether freehold or leasehold) is divided into two or more parcels subject to obligations which are reciprocally enforceable (whether at law or in equity) between owners of the parcels; and

‘relevant building scheme’, in relation to any land, means a building scheme which includes the land or which is taken to subsist in respect of the land by virtue of section 17(6)." — [Mr Molloy]

No 8 (clause 17):

No9 (clause 17):

No 10 (clause 17):

"same meaning as in section 16(2)(i)"

and insert

"meaning given in section 16(7)". — [Mr Molloy]

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

The Finance and Personnel Committee paid close attention to the issue of covenants, as there seems to be a groundswell of feeling that the sweeping away of ground rents would be a good thing in simple terms. However, the case of covenants is not so straightforward.

In particular, many ground rent owners regard the covenant as being of considerably greater value than the monetary value of any ground rent. Indeed, in many instances a sale of land for the purposes of building a dwelling would not have taken place without some of the arrangements provided by covenants. Consequently, it is important that covenants survive the redemption of ground rent and the consequent uplifting of the property title from leasehold to fee simple.

A number of tidying-up measures were needed for clauses 16 and 17 to ensure that this proceeded competently. Amendments 5 and 7 seek to ensure that the amenity covenants listed in clause 16(2)(g) survive the redemption of the ground rent and are enforceable between neighbours — that is participants, in a building scheme. The covenant will be enforceable by any person by or against whom such covenants would have been enforceable if the redemption had not occurred.

Amendment 10 is consequential to the change introduced by amendment 7. Amendments 6 and 8 make special provision for common covenants contained in leases by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to sitting tenants who purchase property under the statutory house sales scheme. This protects the position of the Housing Executive by ensuring the enforceability of covenants that are included in deeds under which dwellings are sold to sitting tenants. Amendment 8 is consequential to the change introduced by amendment 6. Amendment 9 provides clarity in respect of a rent owner’s successors by ensuring that the reference relates to successors in title.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

As I said earlier, I accept amendments 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 as moved by Mr Leslie on behalf of the Committee. Those amendments relate to the question of covenants.

I accept the amendments to clause 16 relating to covenants surviving the redemption of a ground rent.

I also fully support the amendments to clause 17 and concur with Mr Leslie that several of these amendments are consequential upon each other.

Amendment 5 agreed to:

Amendment (No 6) made:

"(j) any covenant, not falling within any of the preceding paragraphs, which is contained in a lease granted by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive before 10th January 2000 and relates —

(i) to a district heating supply provided by the Executive; or

(ii) to the repayment to the Executive of any discount of part of the purchase price under a house sales scheme made under the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 (NI 15)." — [Mr Leslie]

Amendment (No 7) made: In page 12, line 26 leave out from (2)(g) to the end of line 28 and insert —

"(2)(i) —

Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 (Enforceability of Covenants)

Amendment (No 8) made:

Amendment (No 9) made:

Amendment (No 10) made:

"same meaning as in section 16(2)(i)"

and insert

"meaning given in section 16(7)". — [Mr Leslie]

Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 18 to 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 (The Redemption Money)

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I beg to move amendment 11: In page 22, line 36, leave out

"is more than 12 years after the application date"

and insert

"falls after the expiration of the relevant period".

My comments in support of this amendment apply also to amendment 12.

The following amendment stood on the Marshalled List:

No 12: In page 23, leave out from "is 12 years" in line 1 to the end of line 9 and insert

"falls within the relevant period, the yearly amount of the ground rent shall be determined in such manner as may be specified in an order under paragraph 2.

(4) In this paragraph ‘the relevant period’, in relation to a ground rent, means the period commending on the application date and consisting of the number of years fixed by order under paragraph 2 as the number of years purchase applicable to ground rents (or, as the case may be, applicable to ground rents of the same class or description as that ground rent)." — [Mr Molloy]

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

Both amendments deal with the intention that where the ground rent is subject to a provision for increase, the redemption money takes account of that provision but is subject to a discount of 8% per annum. Where that increase would occur more than 12 years after the application date, it would be ignored. That was the intention of the Bill as originally drafted. This amendment to schedule 1 relates to the discount payable upon the redemption of a ground rent, subject to a future increase.

The effect of the amendment is to remove the figures of 12 years and 8% from the face of the Bill, leaving it to the Department’s Order-making power to fix the relevant number of years and the appropriate discount rate. As these figures may change over time, it is proposed that the primary legislation remain neutral in regard to the actual figures to be used. The Department’s Order-making power will be subject to scrutiny by the Assembly Committee, and further consultation and consideration will occur when such rules are drawn up. These remarks relate to the Committee’s rationale in putting forward this amendment.

I want to make some personal remarks on the structure and some of the implications of schedule 1 in relation to how the multiplier is set. I had intended to put down an amendment, reflecting my comments, to give the Minister and his staff an opportunity to focus on those matters, but, because I was indisposed, I regret that I was unable to do so in time. I apologise to the Minister that he did not get as much warning of this issue as he, and I, would have preferred. We do, however, have a further Consideration Stage available.

I will set the scene on this issue. Clause 3 exempts from the Bill any ground rent with an unexpired residue of a term of 50 years or less. The owner of a ground rent with, for example, 40 years to run will not be able to use the provisions of the Bill, nor will the payer of the ground rent be able to use the provisions to redeem that ground rent. The ground rent will therefore continue to be paid for the balance of the term.

As I indicated at the Second Stage, it could be argued that that would imply that the multiplier could be anything up to 50 times — although I agree with the Minister that that would be excessively generous. It emerged in discussion with the Minister that the basis on which he set the multiplier at nine times was the received wisdom on the state of the market in the sale and purchase of ground rents. That implied a field of between nine and 12 times for the multiplier.

During the hearings I expressed concern that no notice seemed to have been taken, in deciding the correct level of the multiplier, to the replacement value of the asset in financial terms. I would automatically seek to calculate the multiplier by reference to an equivalent interest rate, and this is perhaps a reflection of my professional background. As a ground rent is usually undated or very long-dated, this would entail looking at the yields prevailing on undated or very long-dated Government securities to obtain a benchmark.

On one hand, somebody could own a ground rent that entitled them to £5 per year for the life of the lease — and many of these leases extend for very long periods. On the other hand, at current interest rates, somebody could deposit £100, and also receive £5 per year. So, prima facie, it could be argued that the value of the ground rent should be the same, if one were to sustain the payment of £5 per year. That would therefore imply a multiplier, at a 5% interest rate, of 20 times. That figure would change according to current interest rates. Had we been discussing the issue around 10 years ago, when interest rates were over 10%, by the same calculation one would have devised a multiplier of 10 times rather than the current 20 — that reflects the change in interest rates. We need to bear in mind that interest rates change over time. I felt that the Minister should take this into account when setting the multiplier and that he should be prepared to consider it in the future when revising the multiplier.

I concede that, for two reasons, a ground rent is not precisely analogous to a Government. First, the cost of collection needs to be taken into account. Secondly, there is the risk of non-payment and the tiresomeness of pursuing payment. It would therefore be entirely justifiable to discount the yield deemed to be appropriate. The issue is how much that discount should be — that is a matter of opinion, and many opinions could be expressed. In my view a discount of about one third would probably be appropriate, given those two factors. However, the multiplier of nine times that has been set implies a discount of slightly over 50%, which is a quite harsh level.

The calculations that I have used are based on the fact that the current yield on war loan — which is undated — is 4·6%. To replicate that would require a multiplier of 21·7 times. I agree that that could be discounted. If it were discounted by one third, the multiplier would decrease to 14 times. If it were discounted by a half, the multiplier would be reduced to 10.8 times. Both these figures are higher than the nine times that has been proposed by the Minister.

I have also been led to consider whether the limited use that has been made hitherto of the existing section 35 procedure for redeeming ground rents might partly reflect the fact that the amount being offered for a ground rent was not, in most cases, very tempting. It might well be that more ground rents would have been extinguished had a higher price been offered. I therefore invite the Minister to consider taking the factors that I have outlined into account when setting the multiplier.

I am aware that this matter is dealt with by Order and is subject to the scrutiny of the Committee, and there will therefore be an opportunity to discuss the matter. It is particularly pertinent to schedule 1, paragraph 4, to which amendment 11 relates. There are certain cases, for which paragraph 4 was devised, in which the person framing the ground rent has deliberately set out to protect its future value by including a provision for an increase of the ground rent. This could, for example, be linked to some measure of inflation to preserve its real value. I was concerned that the original wording of paragraph 4 would confiscate a provision which somebody had prudently made to protect the value of a ground rent and offer a compensation that, in my view, does not reflect the financial value of that ground rent.

There is a considerable view — certainly in the legal profession — that this Bill will be very helpful in tidying up part of the land law and will, in due course, make conveyancing easier. However, we have to be conscious that it does, at the compulsory level, involve a measure of confiscation. The Government should always be cautious about proceeding in that manner. That is why I have raised these concerns. I invite the Minister to reflect upon them and revisit them, possibly at the next Consideration Stage, or, alternatively, through the Rules.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

As I indicated earlier, I am content with these amendments to the provisions in schedule 1 to the Bill. They deal with the calculation of the redemption money payable to a rent owner. They give my Department a greater degree of flexibility when determining the period after redemption to be applied when calculating the redemption money and the rate at which future increases should be discounted. My Department’s power to make orders under schedule 1 will be subject to scrutiny by the Assembly.

Mr Leslie has gone further than this on behalf of himself rather than of the Committee. He has asked me to consider a further amendment, which would require me and future Ministers of Finance and Personnel to have regard to the average dated yields on Government securities when fixing the multiplier under schedule 1 to the Bill.

Notwithstanding Mr Leslie’s points, and the professional credentials that he cited, I am unable to give any commitment on this matter now. I am not inclined to move in that direction, but I shall carefully consider the issue with my officials.

Mr Leslie pointed out that we will have a further Consideration Stage. If I were minded to agree an amendment, I would have to clear it with the Executive Committee, which will not be meeting before the Further Consideration Stage. I accept Mr Leslie’s mitigating point that, although this is not the most appropriate form in which to advance the matter, his recent ill health did not allow him to table this as an amendment in the normal manner. Although I sympathise with him in that regard, I am still not minded to move in the direction that he suggested.

As I said at the Second Stage debate on this Bill, while I intend to fix the multiplier at nine times the annual ground rent, I will obviously keep the matter under review, and I have no doubt that future Ministers of Finance and Personnel will also do so.

The decision to fix the multiplier at nine times the annual ground rent was based on the advice of expert valuers, who said that that rate reflects current market value. Those who wanted to be less precise cited eight to 10 years. In my opinion, therefore, nine is a reasonable rate at which to fix the multiplier in this instance.

Mr Leslie contended that nine is a low and punitive figure, but our expert valuers from the Valuation and Lands Agency have indicated that the purchase price of a ground rent for certain properties in a state of disrepair would be just five times the ground rent. Such considerations must also be borne in mind. Notwithstanding Mr Leslie’s observations, the Committee, when it looked at these issues, took account of a broader range of factors and interests, as have I. The proposals contained in the legislation and schedule 1 are reasonable, and I certainly believe that they were acceptable to the Committee.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his response to the remarks I made in parentheses about the calculation of the multiplier. Neither of us is wholly persuaded by the other’s view. While I am well aware of the evidence and of the advice that the Minister has received about transactions over ground rents which have taken place in recent years, we must nonetheless bear in mind that those were commercial transactions between willing buyers and willing sellers. On the other hand, what is being instituted here is a compulsory transaction, and I suspect that quite a number of owners of ground rents are not fully aware of this proposed change.

For the most part, the value of these ground rents is low, and this will not be of great significance. Nonetheless, that will not be so in every case. It should therefore be borne in mind that when a ground rent is created, it will have some effect on the value of the property concerned. If a ground rent of £1,000 a year is set on a property, the capital value will be less than that which a potential owner of the lease of that property would be prepared to pay if he were getting a transfer or fee simple with no ground rent. That is self-evident. This also happened in the past when ground rents first started to emerge. Ground rents can be used as a means of reducing the purchase price in return for an ongoing commitment, and that is sometimes overlooked. In that case a purchaser would pay most of the capital up front and a certain amount on tick, in perpetuity. The impact of inflation on eighteenth and nineteenth century ground rents, in particular, has reduced that to almost nil. Exceptions to this are those ground rents referred to in paragraph 4, where a specific provision is made to preserve the value of the ground rent by allowing for increases to be made over time.

I acknowledge the Minister’s comments about the professional advice he sought. However, I ask him to bear in mind that there may be some difference between the market that has pertained hitherto, with willing buyers and willing sellers, and the attitudes that there may be to compulsory purchase. However, this matter can be revisited by the Minister, and that revisiting can then be scrutinised by the Committee. We can therefore continue to address this issue over time.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Amendment 11 — moved or not moved?

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

Moved.

Amendment 11 agreed to.

Amendment No (12) made: In page 23, leave out from "is 12 years" to the end of line 9 and insert

"falls within the relevant period, the yearly amount of the ground rent shall be determined in such manner as may be specified in an order under paragraph 2.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 2 (Amendments)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I beg to move amendment 13: In page 23, line 34, after "35(8)" insert "or 35A(7)".

The following amendment stood on the Marshalled List:

No 17 (schedule 3):

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

These amendments deal with the redemption of nominal fee farm rents.

Members will be aware that amendment 15 has been tabled in the name of Mr Leslie, and I will leave it to him to speak on the substance of that. The two amendments tabled in my name, 13 and 17, are consequential to the substantive amendment.

I support Mr Leslie’s amendment, which will provide a system whereby owners of nominal fee farm rents may, by declaration lodged with land registers, discharge the property free from the ground rent. It complements the existing well established procedure contained in article 35 of the Property (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 for freeing leasehold properties of nominal ground rents.

Amendment 13 is technical in nature. Its purpose is to amend the Land Registration Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 to include reference to the new provisions that would be inserted by Mr Leslie’s amendment.

Amendment 17 is technical in nature and removes from article 3 of the Property (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 a now-redundant definition of a nominal ground rent. A new definition of a nominal ground rent is included in article 35 of that Order.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I shall move amendment 15: In page 24, after line 18, insert

"( ) After Article 35 insert —

‘Redemption of nominal ground rent

35A. — (1) Subject to paragraph (2), this Article applies where the rent payable under a fee farm grant is a nominal rent.

(2) (This Article does not apply at a time when —

(a) the land is used wholly for business purposes; or

(b) the rent-payer is prohibited by any term of his title from using the land otherwise than wholly for business purposes;

but land is not prevented from being used wholly for business purposes by reason only of the fact that part of it is occupied as a dwelling by a person who is required or permitted to reside there in consequence of his employment or of holding an office.

(3) The rent-payer may by deed "the deed of declaration" declare to the effect that the ground rent is discharged and may, in accordance with rules, make application to the Registrar for the purpose mentioned in paragraph (4)(a) or (b).

(4) On an application under paragraph (3) —

(a) if the land is registered land, the deed of declaration is sufficient authority for the Registrar (subject to compliance with rules) —

(i) to discharge any burden such as is mentioned in paragraph 2 of Part I of Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act; and

(ii) to make such alteration in the class of title with which the land is registered as appears to him to be appropriate;

(b) if the land is not registered, the Registrar may register the rent-payer’s title with such class of title as appears to him to be appropriate (and until the rent-payer’s title to the land is so registered, the deed of declaration has no effect);

(c) in either case, the deed of declaration is sufficient authority (notwithstanding any caution or inhibition) for the Registrar to make in the register such consequential entries, changes, cancellations or notes as appear to him to be appropriate;

(5) Except where the Registrar is satisfied that the land was subject to no or nominal superior rent on the date of execution of the deed of declaration, the Registrar shall enter on the register a note to the effect that the fee simple estate is subject to a rent charge of so much (if any) of any superior rent as would have been redeemed by virtue of section 11(1) of the Ground Rents Act (Northern Ireland) 2001 if a ground rent to which the land was subject had been redeemed under section 1 of that Act on that date; and such a note may be discharged in acordance with rules, and it is sufficient to satisfy the Registrar as to the matter mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph that he is furnished by a solicitor with a certificate to that effect.

(6) Subject to paragraphs (4), (5) and (7), the deed of declaration operates by virtue of this paragraph to discharge the estate of the rent payer from all estates in the land of the rent owner and any superior owners to the extent that those estates carry entitlement to ground rent or a superior rent or relate to matters connected with the rent and to that extent those estates are exinguished.

(7) Where a ground rent is discharged under this Article, section 13(8) (read with subsection (10)) and sections 12(2), 16 and 17 of the Ground Rents Act (Northern Ireland) 2001 apply in relation to the land as if the ground rent had been redeemed under that Act; and, accordingly, for the purposes of this Article those sections shall be read with the necessary modifications.

(8) For the purposes of paragraph (6) matters are connected with rent if they are concerned with the amount of the rent or its payment or recovery or are otherwise concerned (directly or indirectly) with the rent.

(9) In this Article "nominal rent" has the same meaning as in Article 35.’ "

I would like to explain the background to amendment 15, and I thank the Minister for moving the other two amendments that relate to it.

Article 35 of the Property (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 applies only to a leasehold estate. The article 35 procedure is not therefore available to fee farm rents, which are a type of freehold. Although the standard redemption procedure in this Ground Rents Bill does not distinguish between ground rents and fee farm rents, and it quite deliberately encompasses both, the article 35 procedure is available only for ground rents.

As drafted, the Bill amends the article 35 procedure to include nominal ground rents, but it does not amend the procedure to include fee farm rents. This amendment addresses concerns that were raised by the Law Society in relation to nominal fee farm rents. The amendment will ensure that nominal fee farm rents can be redeemed in future under the article 35 procedure.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I reinforce the point that these amendments are necessary as a result of the change in the definition of a nominal ground rent contained in this Ground Rents Bill. It differs from the definition originally contained in the Property (Northern Ireland) Order 1997. The policy aim is to ensure that the redemption procedure does not apply to nominal rents and that those small rents can be discharged through a different and simple mechanism.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Amendment 13 — moved or not moved?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Moved.

Amendment 13 agreed to.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

An amendment to schedule 2 — No 14 — has already been debated.

Amendment (No 14) made:

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Amendment 15 — moved or not moved?

May I remind Members of the corrigendum: In page 6 of the Marshalled List — paragraph (7) of the proposed new article — delete "12" and insert "15".

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

Moved.

Amendment (No 15) made: In page 24, after line 18, insert

"( ) After Article 35 insert —

‘Redemption of nominal ground rent

35A. —

(2) This Article does not apply at a time when —

(a) the land is used wholly for business purposes; or

(b) the rent-payer is prohibited by any term of his title from using the land otherwise than wholly for business purposes;

(4) On an application under paragraph (3) —

(a) if the land is registered land, the deed of declaration is sufficient authority for the Registrar (subject to compliance with rules) —

(i) to discharge any burden such as is mentioned in paragraph 2 of Part I of Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act; and

(ii) to make such alteration in the class of title with which the land is registered as appears to him to be appropriate;

(9) In this Article "nominal rent" has the same meaning as in Article 35.’ "

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 3 (Repeals)

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

An amendment to schedule 3 — No 16 — has already been debated.

Amendment (No 16) made: In page 24, line 29, column 2, at end add

"and in the definitions of ‘rent-owner’ and ‘rent-payer’ the words ‘, without prejudice to article 32,’ " — [Mr Durkan]

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

An amendment to schedule 3 — No 17 — has already been debated.

Amendment (No 17) made:

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Ground Rents Bill, which now stands referred to the Speaker.

Assembly Standing Orders

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I beg to move

In Standing Order 40(4) delete "may by leave of the Assembly" and insert "shall";

and after Standing Order 40(4) add "(5) A Bill shall not be carried forth if the Assembly stands dissolved".

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Standing Order 40(4) states that where a Bill has not completed its passage by the end of an Assembly session, it may by leave of the Assembly be carried over and its passage continued into the next session. The vote of the Assembly must be unanimous or the Bill will fall. It has been brought to our attention that that disadvantages the legislative process as a whole, and in particular parity legislation. The Committee on Procedures has considered that and recommends that the Assembly adopt the proposed changes to Standing Orders. Those changes will allow Bills that have not gone through all stages of the legislative process to be carried forward automatically into the next session. However, this does not apply when the Assembly stands dissolved at the time of an election.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

No Member has requested to speak, therefore I assume that a winding-up speech is not necessary. Let me remind Members that amendments to Standing Orders require cross-community support. I have indicated before that where there appears to be no objection to a motion, and there are indications of Ayes from all sides of the House, I shall not require a Division for cross-community support to be demonstrated. However, if there are objections, because of the requirement for cross-community support, a Division will be called.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

In Standing Order 40(4) delete "may by leave of the Assembly" and insert "shall"; and

after Standing Order 40(4) add "(5) A Bill shall not be carried forth if the Assembly stands dissolved".

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Further amendments to Standing Orders are to be moved, and I will explain how I propose to conduct the debate. As the next eight motions relate to the Committee of the Centre’s role in dealing with legislation, I propose to conduct only one debate, after which I will ask the Clerk to read each of the motions. I will then ask the proposer to move each motion formally. I will put the Question on each motion without further debate. My earlier comments about the need for a cross-community vote will also apply. If that is clear and there is no objection, I will conduct the debate in that fashion.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I beg to move

After Standing Order 31(1) add

"(1A) Where the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly are in charge of a Bill, the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee of the Centre unless the Assembly shall order otherwise; and the provisions of this Standing Order and Standing Orders 33 and 48 shall apply in relation to the Committee of the Centre acting by virtue of this paragraph as they apply in relation to a Statutory Committee."

This series of proposed amendments to Standing Orders is an attempt by the Committee of Procedures to deal with some of the questions surrounding the fact that the Committee of the Centre, which is meant to scrutinise the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, does not have the same powers as the 10 Statutory Committees. It is not an attempt to address all of the arguments about the Committee of the Centre and its relationship with the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. However, it is a bid to try to ensure that legislation that comes from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will automatically be able to be referred to the Committee of the Centre, without a motion having to be put to the Assembly.

Section 29 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 provides that Standing Orders must make provision for conferring on Statutory Committees the powers described in strand one of the Good Friday Agreement. One of these powers is the approval of relevant secondary legislation and the taking of the Committee Stage of relevant primary legislation.

Standing Order 31 states

"On the Second Stage of a Bill being agreed to, the Bill shall stand referred to the appropriate Statutory Committee."

Standing Order 41 states

"Every Statutory Rule or draft Statutory Rule … which is laid before the Assembly … shall stand referred to an appropriate Statutory Committee".

There is rarely a difficulty in deciding on the appropriate Committee, but, as Members are aware, there is no Statutory Committee to deal with the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. This is not an attempt to conclude that argument or debate, which has been raised several times in the Assembly; it is about trying to deal with matters as we currently find them. Standing Order 59 says that the Committee of the Centre shall examine and report on the functions of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

The Committee of the Centre is a Standing Committee, not a Statutory Committee. Until now, when progressing any piece of legislation from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, it has been necessary to put a motion to the Assembly seeking leave to refer it to the Committee of the Centre — as happened recently with the Electronic Communications Bill. In moving these amendments the Procedures Committee is trying to overcome this anomaly.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Committee of the Centre welcomes the opportunity to be able to conduct its business more efficiently, as a result of the Standing Orders being amended. The situation was, indeed, an anomalous one, in that the Committee could not deal with issues coming from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister without a motion being put before the Assembly.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Do you wish to speak, Mr Nesbitt?

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I thought, Mr Speaker, that you had indicated a procedure whereby I was to speak.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member needs to understand that if he wishes to speak in a debate, he needs to catch the Speaker’s eye or put his name down. This is in respect of a motion.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I am not speaking as a non-Executive Member.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

That does not make any difference. If the Member wishes to speak, he has to put his name down. This is not a ministerial reply; it is a procedural motion. Does the Minister wish to respond?

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

On behalf of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, I welcome these amendments. They have been given clear, careful consideration, and, taken as a group, they represent an important step forward. They recognise that the Committee of the Centre, as a Standing Committee, does need to have that scrutiny role in respect of legislation. I commend them to the Assembly.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

This motion will require cross-community support. I remind the Members of the rubric I described earlier: we will proceed through the other motions in regard to this matter without debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:.

After Standing Order 31(1) add

Resolved:

In Standing Order 31(1), at the beginning of paragraph (1), insert

"Subject to paragraph (1A),". — [Mr C Murphy]

Resolved:

In Standing Order 41(1), line 6, delete "Statutory". — [Mr C Murphy]

Resolved:

After Standing Order 41(1) add

"(1A) In this Standing Order "Committee" means:

(a) a Statutory Committee; and

(b) in the case of a Statutory Rule or draft Statutory Rule which has been made or is to be made by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly, or by the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, the Committee of the Centre". — [Mr C Murphy]

Resolved:

In Standing Order 41(2) delete "Statutory". — [Mr C Murphy]

Resolved:

In Standing Order 41(5)(a) delete "Statutory". — [Mr C Murphy]

Resolved:

After Standing Order 59(1) add

"(1A) This Committee shall also have the functions conferred by virtue of Standing Orders 31(1A) and 41(1A)". — [Mr C Murphy]

Resolved:

In Standing Order 12(1), after "Statutory Committee reports,", insert

"Reports of the Committee of the Centre made by virtue of Standing Order 31(1A) or 41(1A)". — [Mr C Murphy]

Assembly Statutory Committees: Membership

Children’s Commissioner

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have received a request from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement on a children’s commissioner.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Deputy First Minister and I have an important announcement to make today about the safeguarding and upholding of children’s rights. If there is one matter on which there is common ground among all parties in the Assembly it is surely our common desire for a better, more secure future for our children. To achieve that, we must act now to ensure that children can grow and develop in an environment where their rights are upheld, their safety secured and their needs met.

The Deputy First Minister and I, and our Colleagues in the Executive, are in full agreement that this should be a high priority for the Assembly. We also acknowledge that this is a matter of concern for many, and we have received representations from political parties across the spectrum, individual MLAs and children’s organisations. We told the Assembly last October that we were determined to ensure that our arrangements for upholding children’s rights were based upon best practice. Since then, we have given careful consideration to how best to achieve that objective.

We examined the position in other parts of the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and the rest of Europe. It was clear from that that our current arrangements lag some way behind. In England, for example, a children’s rights director will be appointed next year. In Wales, a children’s commissioner has been appointed, and in the Republic of Ireland a children’s ombudsman will be appointed. The Scandinavian countries, in particular, have led the way. Countries such as Norway established commissioners for children many years ago. The children of Northern Ireland deserve no less.

The Deputy First Minister and I, and our Executive Colleagues, are convinced that we need a commissioner for children to carry out this role. Therefore we are pleased to announce our intention to bring forward proposals as soon as possible to establish an independent commissioner for children for Northern Ireland. There are, of course, complex issues to be worked out with regard to the precise role and remit of the commissioner — the statutory powers and responsibilities that the office will have and its relationship with other statutory authorities. We also need to consider issues such as how the commissioner can best represent children’s interests and advocate their needs. The commissioner’s role might, for instance, include challenging public authorities and investigating complaints. It might involve advising Government on policy, including the measures required to meet our commitments under key international human rights instruments such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

It is also important to have a wide ranging debate and discussion before finalising proposals, including an opportunity for children and young people and the organisations that represent them to influence the way forward. Therefore we have decided to initiate a comprehensive consultation process to give interested parties an opportunity to express their views. We aim to begin consultation as soon as possible and bring legislative proposals before the Assembly at the earliest opportunity.

The establishment of a commissioner for children is the most important proposal in the field of children’s rights for many years. It has the full backing of the Executive, and I hope that the Assembly will warmly welcome it. The Deputy First Minister will now consider some further possibilities.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I fully endorse the First Minister’s comments on the need for a commissioner for children, and I commend the proposal to the Assembly. It is a fundamentally important initiative and one that will enjoy not only broad political support but the overwhelming support of people in Northern Ireland. We have before us an opportunity that should not be missed; an opportunity to shape new arrangements for protecting children and upholding their rights, an opportunity to put Northern Ireland at the cutting edge of world practice.

I, like the First Minister and my Executive Colleagues, believe that the single most important element of those new arrangements should be a commissioner for children. Too often our children, particularly the most vulnerable, are neither seen nor heard, with the result that their needs can be, and sometimes are, overlooked. With a commissioner for children acting as their champion, we hope to change this and ensure that no voice in our society goes unheard.

However, a commissioner alone will not be enough. To be truly effective, the establishment of a commissioner for children needs to be part of an overall strategy to address children’s rights and needs.

Within that strategy a commissioner will act as an independent champion for children, outside Government. Other elements of the strategy will be needed to ensure a joined-up approach to children’s matters within Government and the Assembly, to give children and young people a stronger voice, and to ensure that legislation and policy continue to be shaped by research and best practice.

We intend therefore to introduce such a strategy, and we will develop proposals covering four key areas: first, examining how the Executive might ensure the development of co-ordinated policies on children’s issues; secondly, suggesting how the Assembly might exercise its interests in scrutinising policies on children’s matters; thirdly, looking at how best we can consult with children and young people and assess how our policies affect them; fourthly, considering how research and development needs might be met.

We intend to further develop these proposals, initially through the Executive, and thereafter through public consultation as part of the consultation exercise on the role and remit of the commissioner for children. We have consciously come to the Assembly at the start of the process, not the end, in order to give Members the chance to propose and influence the direction that we take and not just to scrutinise actions proposed by the Executive.

Members will recall that a focus on young people was central to the vision of the Programme for Government. We committed ourselves to combat social exclusion and poverty, with a particular emphasis on children. The First Minister and I believe that these proposals demonstrate that commitment and complement the initiatives that we are already getting under way, such as the establishment of the Children’s Fund.

The proposals outlined today are bold and imaginative. They have been shaped, to date, by the best practice throughout Europe and careful consideration of representations made to us. They represent an opportunity for this Administration to secure the well-being of our children and mark another step in our human rights agenda. We commend them to the Assembly.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

We now have up to one hour for questions to the First and Deputy First Ministers on their statement.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I give a general welcome to the proposal. Some time ago, I went to table a motion in regard to this matter, only to find that on the previous day the Alliance Party had tabled one, which was worded virtually the same as mine. Although I did not get to put my motion down, I welcome the thrust of today’s statement.

Bearing in mind that there will be a consultation process and, therefore, that they cannot give definitive answers to some questions, I ask the First and Deputy First Ministers how long they perceive the consultation process will take. When do they envisage that the commissioner will be in post, and what funding have they set aside to enable the commissioner to carry out his or her job?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

First, I thank the Member for his welcome of these proposals. I appreciate — as we said in the statement — that other parties in the Assembly have been looking at this issue also and clearly wish to see progress on the matter, as do we. The impetus for this, apart from a natural concern with regard to children and young people, has been the recent developments from the Waterhouse Report and other matters as well.

We are anxious that the consultation should proceed rapidly. Although we want progress to be as speedy as possible, we do not want to rush the process. An interdepartmental working group, which will be chaired by the junior Ministers in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, is being set up. One of the priorities will be to engage in a thorough and extensive consultation process on the precise role and remit of the commissioner, and the other elements that could be included in the strategy.

Legislation will, of course, have to be made to establish the appointment, and we hope to introduce that during the next Assembly session. The appointment will be made as quickly as it can be after the legislation is passed.

I am sure that we will be able to meet the funding of a commissioner, but we will have to examine the funding that the other elements in the strategy require.

Joe Hendron (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

I welcome the statement that a commissioner for children is to be appointed, and I congratulate the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on that. The statement says that too often children, particularly the most vulnerable, are neither seen nor heard, with the result that their needs can be overlooked. I appreciate that there will be wide consultation on that.

May I draw the Assembly’s attention to the report ‘Inquiry into Residential and Secure Accommodation for Children in Northern Ireland’ that was produced by the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee. I do not need to draw this to the attention of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. That report recommended the appointment of a commissioner for children. Will the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister explain how the Assembly might exercise its interests in scrutinising policies on children’s matters?

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I appreciate the Member’s reference to the report. It is an important and substantial report which will inform us all in progressing this matter. When the Executive bring forward their strategy they will consider how the Assembly might wish to examine children’s issues. That is a matter for the Assembly, not the Executive, to decide upon; we are very conscious of that.

However, as part of a wider framework to ensure the vindication of children’s rights, it seems appropriate that we make some suggestions. The setting up of a Standing Committee on children and young people is a matter for the Assembly to decide. Members may wish to table a motion proposing the creation of a Standing or Ad Hoc Committee. The Assembly would then decide on the need for such a Committee and its role, but it could facilitate co-ordinated scrutiny by the Assembly of policies affecting children.

In the Republic of Ireland, as part of the wider strategy, a Dáil Committee on children has been established, and its first meeting is due to take place shortly.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat. I welcome the statement of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. It is a positive first step to ensuring that children’s rights are centre stage.

The statement mentioned the Children’s Fund. This fund has been around for a number of months. When will Members receive relevant information on it?

Will the commissioner for children have a remit for children in the juvenile justice setting? This falls within the remit of the Northern Ireland Office and is still a reserved matter. That is a concern.

Also, what progress has been made with regard to cross-border child protection? The First Minister has refused to nominate the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Minister of Education who were dealing with the issue. Has progress been halted with the refusal to nominate them?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

There is a need for co-operation with the Republic of Ireland in some matters, particularly with regard to the register of offenders. There is provision for information to be exchanged. People can move easily between one country and another so there is a need for information to be exchanged. That is taking place and will continue.

With regard to the juvenile justice system, the Northern Ireland Office will be represented on the interdepartmental Committee and will have the opportunity to look at that issue.

The Children’s Fund is one of the five new Executive programme funds, and we are in the process of beginning to develop procedures to address those funds. The funds are limited for this year, but next year the Children’s Fund has an indicative allocation of £2 million which will rise to £10 million and £15 million for the two subsequent years. The Executive are trying to define their procedures with regard to how they will consider the programmes and the projects those funds will be used for. They will be developed as we develop our own procedures and consider proposals on them.

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

I welcome this statement. A number of parties have been lobbying the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and I am very glad that we have been listened to. I applaud the sentiments expressed, particularly in seeking to ensure a joined-up approach to children’s matters in Government and the Assembly and to give children and young people a strong voice.

Will the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister assure us that the consultation exercise and the appointment of a commissioner for children will be based on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995? Do the First and Deputy First Ministers agree that in order to be effective and credible to children and young people, the commissioner must be independent and non-partisan?

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for her question and for her personal interest in this matter, which has been obvious for a long time. The commissioner must be independent of Government and of the Assembly. In effect, the commissioner for children must be the independent voice and force who guides the protection of children in Northern Ireland. The most important point is that the process envisaged is a consultative one, inviting all to participate fully and completely. The first task of the group will be to develop proposals for consultation.

We welcome this opportunity to hear the first reaction of the Assembly, and I have no doubt that Members will contribute to the wider debate. An interdepartmental working group will quickly be established in the devolved Government; it will comprise senior officials from the relevant Northern Ireland Departments and will be chaired by Ministers Haughey and Nesbitt. The Northern Ireland Office, which is responsible for juvenile justice, will also be invited to participate.

We are also interested in hearing proposals on how to involve interest groups outside Government. As in so many other crucial areas, the working of the social partnership between Government and interests outside of Government is absolutely crucial. We want to ensure their input in the most potent way.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

I thank the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for their very thorough statement. It is good that we are entering a huge period of change throughout Northern Ireland. We are already aware of the enormous reviews of acute health care, primary and community care and of post-primary education. That is another element of change that Northern Ireland will be glad to hear about.

I welcome the proposals for legislation. Mr Speaker, you may be aware that later today we will be putting down a Private Members’ Bill on the children’s commissioner. Like Mr Poots and the Alliance Party, the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition has a major interest in this area and has gone as far as drafting, with the assistance of secretariat members. Will the consultation process include proposals for legislation? What is the time frame for the terms of reference? When will they be published? Is there a closing date for the consultation period? The First Minister said that the Children’s Fund would have an indicative allocation of £2 million. Do they intend to draw down money from the Children’s Fund to finance the establishment of a children’s commissioner? Where will the finance come from for this post?

12.00

I note, in their statement, that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister said that the office would include development and scrutiny functions in relation to policies as well as having a research element. What powers of investigation would the commissioner have?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for welcoming this legislation, and I acknowledge the interest that she and her colleagues have displayed in this area. It clearly has broad support in the Assembly and is very much in keeping with our present needs.

I am sorry that I cannot give further details of the consultation. We intend the consultation to be genuine, as broad as possible, and we hope to move forward as quickly as we reasonably can. We would like to be in a position to introduce legislation in the next session. Of course, the need to carry legislation through in the next session means that we would want to introduce the legislation early in the next session. Consultation will have to be completed with that target in mind.

An obvious area for the children’s commissioner is that of investigation of complaints. The purpose of the consultation will be to look at the detail of that and see what other functions need to be added. Dealing with complaints and investigations is obviously a core area. One of the things that has prompted the creation of a commissioner, here and elsewhere, is the revelation of various scandals that have occurred in care. We are very anxious to ensure that when children are taken into care they are better off as a result and that they are protected and looked after. We are very concerned about the examples we have had from a variety of places. In Northern Ireland, we are not immune to this.

The examples show that children are being exposed to dangers when they are being brought into care and many have suffered as a result. Clearly, the commissioner will have a central role with respect to that. The Member may be interested to know that the Commissioner appointed in Wales, as a result of the legislation following the Waterhouse Report, has an estimated budget of £800,000 per annum. That gives you an indication of the general cost of an equivalent post in Northern Ireland. We hope that the position would not be financed from the Children’s Fund, but, for obvious reasons, I do not want to give an absolute commitment on that or on any financial matter at the moment.

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

I apologise for being absent when the statement was made; I was involved in other business of the House. I welcome the statement and support the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in all their plans.

The Health Committee report identified a number of areas, including the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, on which agreed actions had not been taken. Pending the establishment of a commissioner for children, will the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister undertake the responsibility to keep a close watch on the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to ensure that children’s rights are protected and not neglected?

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

The Member touched on a very valid point. In regard to departmental responsibility, this is a very substantial cross-cutting issue. It is a matter for a number of Departments in terms of ministerial responsibility, and, as pointed out earlier, the Northern Ireland Office is also involved as regards juvenile offences.

I can give an assurance that all Ministers within the Executive will be aware of the importance of this issue and its implications. The appointment of a commissioner and the community involvement in the widespread consultation will, of itself, highlight areas of childcare and responsibility for children that we must collectively — the Executive, the Assembly and the political process — protect at all costs and at all times.

Patricia Lewsley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Lagan Valley)

I welcome the announcement. It is not just about appointing a commissioner for children but about the effect that that will have across this Administration. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister mentioned the national children’s strategy in the Republic of Ireland. Do they have any details of that strategy, and can they give us a commitment that those details will be included in their consultation?

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

We have looked at experiences in many countries: not just the Republic of Ireland but Wales, Scotland and the Scandinavian countries, where Norway is far in advance of the rest of us on this. The Irish Government launched a national strategy for children in November 2000. The comprehensive package of reform establishes an ambitious series of objectives to guide children’s policy over the next 10 years. It identifies a number of guiding principles and provides a more holistic way of thinking about children.

New structures are proposed in order to deliver better co-ordination between Government Departments and agencies providing services to children — for example, a national children’s office within the Government, a Cabinet subcommittee, and a national children’s advisory council. The Government have also approved the drafting of a Bill to establish an office of ombudsman for children. It is proposed that the office will be independent and that the ombudsman for children will be appointed by the President and accountable to the Oireachtas.

The principal functions of the ombudsman for children will be to promote the welfare and rights of children, to respond to individual complaints, to establish mechanisms through which there will be regular consultation with children, and to advise the Government. The annual budget for the ombudsman for children will be approximately IR£1·3 million. The annual costs of the other elements of the strategy are approximately IR£3 million.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. I welcome the statement. It would be useful to know who is likely to be on the interdepartmental working group? Can the Committee have a list of names as soon as possible? I want to stress the need for involvement from the voluntary and community sectors to ensure that there is a real and relevant decision-making role for those groups within our community. Go raibh maith agat.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

We are setting up an interdepartmental working group, which will be headed by the junior Ministers in our Department. It will include the Departments that have responsibility for children’s matters: Health, Education, Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment and other Departments. The Northern Ireland Office will also be represented. The intention is to have senior officials from all the Departments that are concerned with children’s issues on the working party. The list I have mentioned is not exhaustive, and we will publish further details when appropriate.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

I welcome the announcement. The issue of sex offenders has been described by another Member as a North/South matter. What measures are being taken across the Administration to protect children from sex offenders?

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

That is a crucial question. The protection of the public from offenders is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Office. However, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is represented on an inter-agency steering group on sex offenders which recently approved a guidance manual for the assessment and management of the risks posed by sex offenders.

The Department of Education and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety are working with Government Departments in England, Wales and Scotland to introduce a reciprocal mechanism to prevent unsuitable people from working with children. This development is also being pursued by colleagues from the Department of Education and Sciences and the Department of Health in Dublin under the auspices of the North/South Ministerial Council’s joint working group on child protection.

Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the statement. It is a welcome development, and one that I am particularly interested in, because I have worked in the Health Service. It is also my party’s policy, which is now being implemented. How will the money be made available? While I appreciate that the budget is finite, this is an important post and one that we are all deeply interested in.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The policy has been developed by several Assembly parties, and that accounts for the broad support it has received.

The children’s commissioner for Wales is expected to cost up to £800,000 per annum. The Deputy First Minister has mentioned the cost for the Republic of Ireland, which is IR£1·3 million for the commissioner, and a further IR£2 million to IR£3 million for associated programmes.

Those figures give some indication of the range involved. It may be that it will cost a little less here. However, certain basic costs apply in all cases, such as the establishment of an office. I do not anticipate any difficulty in funding this, in terms of our overall budget. I hope we can find the money from the resources without having to have recourse to the Children’s Fund.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the statement. Will the community and voluntary sector be involved in the working group?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The community and voluntary sector will be involved in the consultation. At present, the working group is envisaged as comprising senior officials headed by Ministers. It would not therefore be appropriate, in that context, to involve a voluntary organisation as members of the group. However, they should be involved in the consultation, as indeed a wide range of interests will be. That will certainly happen.

Joe Byrne (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

How will the office of the commissioner for children affect the workings and management of the Children’s Fund as outlined in the Programme for Government? Furthermore, does the Minister recognise that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) has a proud record in dealing with vulnerable children in Northern Ireland? It is currently dealing with an average of 800 children.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Two issues have been raised. The amount of money to be derived from the Children’s Fund in the Programme for Government will be a matter for judgement. The issue surrounding the commissioner for children is more widespread and fundamental to the protection of young people.

I pay tribute to all groups and organisations for their work throughout the years. I pay tribute to those voluntary organisations — some well known; others less so — that have made such an enormous contribution, both at regional and local level. Without such organisations, the type of consultation that we hope to make would be incomplete.

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

I give the statement a guarded welcome, because I want to see what statutory powers are given to the new body. Should we not be using those community groups and other organisations that have been referred to today, given their wealth of experience? Will this commissioner have investigatory powers in regard to juvenile detention centres?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I understand the caution expressed by the Member. We intend to draw on the expertise available, here and elsewhere, from both Government and voluntary bodies.

On the question of complaints, we hope that the obvious core role of the commissioner will be to look at complaints and conduct investigations, et cetera. We cannot say whether those will extend to the area of juvenile justice, because that is a reserved matter. However, that is the reason for the inclusion of the Northern Ireland Office in the interdepartmental working group, and we hope to be able to proceed in co-operation with it.

The sitting was suspended at 12.16 pm.

On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the chair) —

Organs of Deceased Children

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes with concern the announcement on 12 January 2001 by the Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, that the organs of deceased children have been stored without parental consent during the past 50 years; and calls on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to outline the measures she will take to alleviate the distress caused to the families of the children concerned and to confirm that this practice was not carried out at other facilities in Northern Ireland.

I am glad to move this motion. The removal of children’s organs has concerned many people in the Province and in my constituency, primarily because they had children who died at the Royal Victoria Hospital. The issue encompasses the interests of all political parties in the Chamber, and I hope that it will find support. Every one of us sees this issue very clearly.

(Mr Deputy Speaker[Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)

First, I want to express my concern, anger and dismay that children’s organs were in the possession of the Royal Victoria Hospital from 1944 to 1994, without the consent or the knowledge of the parents who had lost their children. It is disgraceful that the Royal Victoria Hospital should have had the organs stored — allegedly for training purposes — for so many years, oblivious to the feelings and knowledge of the parents.

We have reached the end of January, and we have witnessed another revelation, this time from Londonderry’s Altnagelvin Hospital. A statement from the hospital said that the organs of 15 babies had been retained without the consent of the parents. Altnagelvin has told one lady whose son lived for two weeks that his brain and heart had been retained. This lady had only consented to a post-mortem examination of her son, and now she is facing the harrowing prospect of having to dig up her son’s grave to place his organs with him. Where is the dignity in that?

The disclosure has caused great embarrassment to Altnagelvin Hospital, because, when the news of the scandal at the Royal Victoria Hospital broke, hospital officials in Londonderry replied to media enquiries on 12 January about its policy on the retention of organs following post-mortem examinations. They said that one brain and spinal cord had been retained for pathological examination and that this had been done with the parents’ consent. The facts indicate clearly illustrate that that was not the case.

We cannot allow this situation to spiral out of control, leaving every parent who has ever lost a baby to wonder if that child’s organs were removed and retained without his or her knowledge. This is why we need to know urgently whether this practice has been carried out at other hospitals across the Province.

After the Royal Victoria Hospital made the announcement a family came to me in my constituency office in Newtownards. They were distraught, annoyed and very upset. The family lost a baby some 19 years ago and, having come to terms with this and having had three other children, this announcement brought the pain of their loss right back. The family felt that pain as if the 19 years had never passed. The parents were confused and did not know how to go about finding out if their child’s organs had been kept without their knowledge or consent. They have been placed in an extremely unfair situation, and many questions need to be answered.

I want to pay particular attention to the announcement made by the Royal Victoria Hospital, to its content, and to the timing of the statement. It was truly heartless to make the announcement on a Friday afternoon, when many people would not be able to contact the Department until Monday. In my opinion it was a calculated move by the hospital to allow time to research the issue more thoroughly.

That weekend, thousands of distressed parents throughout the Province sat at home in a state of mental torment, anxiously waiting to find out if their baby’s organs had been removed. This, I believe, illustrates that the RVH has had little or no thought for the feelings of the families concerned. We must not forget that these families had to find out about the situation through the media. We cannot begin to imagine the pain of having to find out in such a public way.

This announcement will have brought back all the painful memories and emotions which the parents have already endured once before. Many now feel it afresh. The phrase "Time heals everything" can have been of no comfort to these families, as the years spent coming to terms with the death of their child were wasted by one abrupt and insensitive announcement. These parents have effectively been catapulted back to square one in the healing process. I am sure that the light at the end of the tunnel has been totally switched off for many of the families involved.

Unfortunately, to this day many families are still waiting to find out if their children’s organs were involved. It is ridiculous to leave people waiting for an answer for this length of time, and it further exacerbates an already terrible situation.

I want to know why the Royal Victoria Hospital made a statement to the media without first contacting the parents involved to warn them that the story was about to become public knowledge and to explain the situation to them. Did the Royal Victoria Hospital make this statement because it was faced with the threat of the news breaking without the hospital’s knowledge, which would have reflected badly on its reputation? Did someone who knew of the practice of retaining babies’ organs at the Royal Victoria Hospital threaten to blow the whistle by going to the media? We need to know whether the hospital released the statement willingly or was forced into it.

And why did the Royal Victoria Hospital leave it up to the parents to contact the hospital to find out if their babies’ organs were involved? Could the situation not have been made somewhat easier by contacting the families involved and clarifying the situation for them? These families should have been offered counselling and some form of emotional assistance; instead, every family who lost a baby while in the care of the Royal was left wondering if its baby was involved. The handling of the entire situation, from start to finish, has been deplorable.

It is quite inconceivable that the Royal should have made the decision to remove a baby’s organs without the consent of the families involved and that it was oblivious to the trauma felt by the parents at the time of their loss. The death of a baby, at any stage in pregnancy or around the time of birth, is a sad and traumatic event. What must not be forgotten is that, even though a baby has died, a woman has carried that child for nine months and has become a mother, if only for a very short time. This can never be taken away from such a lady, but, unfortunately, the Royal Victoria Hospital, given its practices, has not taken this into consideration. It is as if there were never a life. The few minutes or hours that the parents had with their child must have been the most precious time ever.

We need to know under what criteria the children’s organs, some 361 in total, were removed. In a statement issued by the Royal Victoria Hospital, it said that the organs were looked after sensitively and securely, but this is of no comfort whatsoever because the parents’ permission had not once been asked for. They were never consulted; they were never told; and they were never asked.

In its statement the Royal also said that many parents had finished their grieving and moved on. Surely this new disclosure will have brought all those very raw emotions of grief to the surface again and wiped out the years that it took to overcome the loss of their babies.

If we sit down and think about this situation, we see a horrific picture. Some people were able to block the event from their minds, but there are many more out there, thousands indeed, who were unable to do so and became involved unwillingly in this situation. How will they get back to normal and carry on with their lives? A counselling service could now be offered to these people, a service that was not offered when they lost their children many years ago.

The Royal Victoria Hospital has not once issued an apology to the families concerned. Instead, in a statement released since this shocking practice was revealed, the Royal has backed up its actions by saying that consent to retain organs was not sought because it was felt that the suffering of families would only be increased by detailed discussion of the autopsy and that what it was doing was with the best of intentions and in keeping with best practice. Many people disagree with this, and I also think it is in dispute.

The Royal has stressed that the retained organs were not used for research purposes. This will have been of little or no comfort to the parents involved. At the end of 1999 the Royal Group of Hospitals introduced procedures that required parents’ written permission for organ retention. At least this gives the parents a say now in what happens to their babies. Parents who have lost babies are also now given detailed information about the autopsy procedure so that they can fully understand why an autopsy has been requested and what it involves. This enables the parents, armed with knowledge that was never offered before, to make informed decisions.

Many parents caught up in this deplorable situation will feel that they have not laid their children to rest properly, as certain organs remain in a hospital laboratory. The discovery will be heartbreaking for them. How will parents of babies who died up to 25 years ago cope with the revelations after coming to terms with the death of those children? That announcement has opened old wounds, and brought back the heartache and pain as if the events happened only yesterday. All those parents who have lost babies deserve an explanation as well as an assurance that no organs are being stored unknown to them.

Hard on the heels of the scandal at the Alder Hey Hospital in Liverpool, the shocking announcement in Northern Ireland chills our blood. We tend to think that this happens elsewhere. However, the reality hits home when it happens on your own doorstep. In the news last night there was a reference to Alder Hey’s being involved in the "systematic harvesting of children’s organs". That puts the matter into perspective. Will any other hospitals in the Province be making announcements, as yet more parents try to come to terms with this unspeakable news? We need an assurance that other hospitals are not retaining children’s organs.

The Royal Victoria Hospital and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety cannot wash their hands of the situation. Their handling of the matter has been both insensitive and heartless, and they must be prepared to answer the many unanswered questions. The scandal cannot be brushed under the carpet. It must be brought out into the open, with no stone left unturned, so that all parents can come to terms with their grief and try to get over it. What other hospitals have yet to make an announcement? We need to know the answer. Have they taken decisions to remove children’s organs without consulting with parents and without their consent?

We need an assurance that this will not happen again. The announcement was made on a Friday, in the knowledge that it was the weekend and that parents would not be able to contact the Department until Monday. Indeed, some of those who did contact the Department are still waiting on an answer. For that entire weekend, people were living in torment.

We suggest that the parents affected should have been notified, but in this case they were not. Their viewpoint was not considered. Are the Minister and her Department aware of the hurt and emotional distress caused?

On the radio today we have been assured that new legislation will be introduced across the water to ensure that in the future the retention of children’s organs will be with parental consent only. We want assurances that that legislation can be brought in here quickly and, in the short term, that the policy of the past is at an end. We also need an assurance that counselling will be provided for those who have undergone trauma and emotional upset. I urge Members to support the motion. It has been moved for the right reasons. Let us have the answers.

Tommy Gallagher (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I support the motion. We are all aware of the widespread concern over this issue. Public concern was heightened last week following the announcement by Altnagelvin Hospital that it had stored the organs of both children and adults for some years. That has caused deep distress for the many families involved. The trauma affects the parents, but it also affects brothers, sisters, grandparents, uncles, aunts and the family circle.

Last week in County Fermanagh — part of the constituency that I represent — two families were informed that Altnagelvin Hospital had retained the organs of their deceased children without their permission. Given the importance of adequate support services at a time when that sort of distressing news has to be broken to families, the arrangements made by the hospital for dealing with those families could have been much better. For example, the information leaflet provided to the families about counselling services carried a Derry telephone number. Some family members told me that they felt that the particular service on offer was very far removed from them. They felt isolated from it and therefore felt that it was of little value. In those circumstances, I appealed to the local hospital in Enniskillen, which is under a different trust —

Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

I am stopping the Member for a moment to get the view of the House. Two Members have mentioned hospitals other than the Royal Victoria Hospital. I am perfectly willing to accept, with the approval of the House, that we should not limit the debate to the Royal Victoria Hospital. Does everybody agree with that? If not, I will have to stop any Member who mentions another hospital.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Am I to understand that the proposition is that we expand the scope of the debate?

Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

Yes; the motion simply refers to the Royal Victoria Hospital. I am prepared to extend matters, if Members so wish.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I have no objection to the issue. However, I would be wary that it might be used as a precedent in the future. That would make it a difficult proposition to support.

Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

That is my difficulty.

David Ervine (PUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I feel that there is substantial latitude within the motion for those Members taking part. Some will concentrate specifically on their own constituencies, and the motion does say that the Assembly

"calls on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to outline the measures she will take to alleviate the distress caused to the families of the children concerned and to confirm that this practice was not carried out at other facilities in Northern Ireland."

The mention of "other facilities" provides the opportunity for discussion of all such facilities.

Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

Does everybody accept that?

Members indicated assent.

Tommy Gallagher (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I appreciate that clarification.

The trust with the greatest responsibility did not make appropriate arrangements, so another local trust had to be involved. In this case, Enniskillen very readily responded and made sure that the services were available for the affected families in their own homes, or elsewhere. It should not have been necessary for elected representatives, or anyone else, to have to intervene at such a distressing time for the families.

The upset caused has been mentioned before. The revelations around this issue have been dreadful, and the repercussions will continue for a very long time. There is therefore a greater need for reassurance for the families — reassurance from the highest level. First, the practice cannot continue without the express consent of the family. Secondly, the Minister should immediately outline a departmental strategy to make sure that not only will this not be repeated in the future, but all who need support will have it readily available at a local level.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, Mr Deputy Speaker. I support the motion and thank Mr Shannon for bringing it before us.

We agree that the announcement made by the Royal Victoria Hospital on 12 January was a shock to everyone, but more so to the families and the parents of the children involved. I accept Mr Gallagher’s point that it affects the wider family — from brothers and sisters right through to aunts and uncles. When the statement was made by the Royal Victoria Hospital the Minister pledged to do everything possible to improve procedures governing the retention of children’s organs. She also said in a media statement that her thoughts were with the families affected and the extreme distress that this has caused them.

Everybody has been aware — and it has already been mentioned by some Members — of the continuing scandal at the Alder Hey Hospital in England. We have been told that over 40,000 organs were retained. I want to place on record that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has asked her officials to monitor developments closely to see what emerges from that. The report into the scandal at Alder Hey is due to be published tomorrow, and according to media speculation it is going to be a very damning one. I suggest that the Minister and her officials look closely at this report.

Everybody is shocked that hospitals removed organs from children without the consent of the parents. The key issue is that it happened without consent. I am thankful that the procedure has changed. However, it has come too late for those who were involved. I am shocked by the announcement that the retention was standard practice and that there was therefore nothing wrong with such action. It was standard practice a number of years ago to send children up chimneys; that was not right either. I do not accept the line that it was standard practice. Without consent, it is wrong.

Some Members mentioned the announcement from Altnagelvin Hospital in Derry that it had retained organs. How many hospitals are we talking about? I was shocked that Altnagelvin Hospital stopped this procedure just last May. We need to discuss that issue as well.

Who sets these procedures? The doctors? The hospitals? Questions must be asked about accountability. The Minister has said that she will take on and implement recommendations from the Alder Hey inquiry. The retention of organs is wrong. The seeking of consent from parents would have solved many of these issues. What were the hospitals afraid of? Parents would have supported the need for research into the deaths of their children. I cannot see what the problem was with asking for consent.

Mr Shannon and Mr Gallagher also mentioned that this has caused parents to revisit the deaths of their children, and it is shocking for them. I agree that hospitals need to provide proper long-term counselling — it should not be just a one-off measure — which includes the wider family.

We need to monitor standard practice every year, because standard practice can change from one year to the next. We need to touch on the whole issue of accountability by the Health Service.

I support the motion, and I thank Mr Shannon for proposing it. Go raibh maith agat.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

It is noticeable that for once we are debating a topic in a fairly sombre mood, without any attempts at political point scoring. This is clearly an issue of major concern to the entire community and certainly in all parts of this Chamber.

The issue that we are examining is the fundamental right of people — in this case, the next of kin of recently deceased people — to be told the truth or, if dressed up in appropriate professional jargon, to be allowed to give an informed consent.

The central point is that for too long doctors have not been putting people in that position. Until very recently there was a major presumption that if doctors felt that something was right, it was right, and that patients should really do as they were told. This might or might not be good for the patients, but it is certainly not good for the doctors. That is the issue we are facing here. Doctors, who had been put on a pedestal, assumed that they should base their decision on what best suited their clinical needs, rather than what gave full respect to other people.

In a sense, I say that as a criticism, but I am conscious that my own profession of social work might be seen by some in a similar light. However, we learned, rather earlier than doctors did, that professional competence and decision-making are not excuses for getting away with concealing matters from those most directly involved.

Mr Shannon talked about how this practice was carried out with the best of intentions and about how it was best practice. Clearly, it is not best practice to treat any deceased person’s organs, especially a child’s or a baby’s, in that way. It was bad practice. It was just plain wrong. It is right that the Assembly should look at this issue and examine the lessons for the future, so that from now on these matters, which cause considerable grief to parents and, in many instances, a wider family circle, are dealt with in a sensitive, caring and professional manner.

Having criticised doctors, I acknowledge the difficulties under which they were operating. Bereavement causes enough trauma for a family, particularly in the case of a sudden or tragic death — and the death of a child or young person obviously falls into that category. It was natural to try to soften the blow. It is difficult to criticise those who sought to soften that blow by not providing a full explanation of what a post-mortem required.

Hospitals in general, and the Royal Victoria Hospital in particular, have improved practices considerably, especially in regard to written material. That should be welcomed, and we should congratulate them for it. However, the fundamental point is that they failed to provide the necessary information in a sensitive and caring way and because of that a situation was created which left families even more traumatised when the information emerged.

I will not go over all the points made, particularly by Mr Shannon, about the difficulties that individual families have faced. We are aware of the details, and we do not need to prolong them. However, we must ask the Minister today for an assurance that procedures will now be implemented to ensure that such trauma does not occur again. We must also ask the Minister what exactly is being done in the Royal Victoria Hospital, and in other hospitals, to deal with those who are traumatised and suffering either because they know that their loved ones’ organs were retained or because they still do not know the full story. Some may still be in that position.

In addition, I ask the Minister to deal with an issue which I believe has been clouded by the use of the term "retention". As I understand it, in almost every case where a post-mortem is carried out, it is necessary to retain some of the tissues taken as samples, because further tests may be required or the lab might have to examine them again. In a large number of cases where the term "retention" is used, it is possible that only a small amount of tissue is retained for a few days for testing. Clearly, as Ms Ramsey said, parents might understand the need for a post-mortem if it were explained that the procedure could help to save other children’s lives. We must do everything to ensure that scientific advances are made possible from tragic deaths.

Danny O'Connor (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Antrim)

You mentioned the retention of tissue samples from post-mortems. Do you not agree that parents at Alder Hey Hospital were duped into allowing the retention of their children’s organs —

Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

Please address the Chair.

Danny O'Connor (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Antrim)

I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Member will agree that parents at Alder Hey Hospital were asked to sign a consent form to allow tissue samples to be taken from their children. However, that tissue-sample authorisation led to the retention of children’s organs.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I do not want to become too involved in the Alder Hey issue. In the light of your earlier comments, Mr Deputy Speaker, that would definitely be beyond the Minister’s responsibilities. However, there is no doubt that some people believed that a sample was being kept only to subsequently discover that an entire organ was being kept. That is the kind of problem that arises because of a lack of complete information. Perhaps the attempt to mitigate trauma actually created a situation in which the trauma was increased.

As for the specifics of retention, the Minister must explain if statistics on retention refer to small samples that are retained for specific reasons in the short term. Is there a case for the retention of samples? One hospital lab staff member whom I spoke to raised the possible scenario of another Dr Shipman, whose behaviour necessitated the examination of a large number of his patients’ samples.

Subsequently, if no tissue is retained, it is not possible to carry out the checks necessary to ensure criminal prosecutions and to provide lifesaving measures for other patients. We therefore need to compare that to the suggestion that some 300 organs were retained in the Royal and to the concerns about Altnagelvin Hospital and others, where organs were retained for lengthy periods for apparently no good reason. That is the opinion of the families concerned, although possibly in the eyes of medical staff at the time they were being retained with very good reason. We need to be sure that when the Minister gives statistics, those relating to the retention of complete organs for long periods without due cause are not included and, therefore, hidden.

We need to be assured that there will be no repeat of such trauma as parents’ facing two funerals, or three, because the issue of retention has not been clarified.

I welcome the motion that was proposed by Mr Shannon. It should concern us, but the important thing that we can learn is what steps the Minister is taking to ensure that families are protected from such trauma in the future and that those who have suffered trauma in the past are helped through it.

David Ervine (PUP, Belfast East)

This controversy has been raging for some time, and it has now found its way to our shores. The first thing that we should acknowledge is that nothing will ever be the same again. It might give us a sense of how we can make a difference to people’s lives, even though people have suffered. I am sure that the Minister will be aware of the importance of the decisions she makes and the guidelines she lays down, given the effect they may have on people’s lives.

It seems to me that there is little point in castigating the doctors, and I am sure that some of them will feel very vulnerable at this time. Any profession, including that of politician, runs the risk of becoming case-hardened. You can deal with circumstances all day, every day, that can overtake you and become part of your working ethos. Perhaps you become a little less human than you would normally be to those who are suffering, or perhaps we laypersons just expect you to be.

We have to be conscious of the balance needed. There has been a lot of hype, especially on the mainland where it has been drip-fed, and it has almost taken coaches and horses to draw out of the authorities what actually happened. When the Minister is finally able to reveal everything, the Assembly will be able to know exactly what happened. Not only will we know everything, but every parent who is remotely affected by what has gone on in our hospitals — our "theatres of excellence" — over the last 50 years will also have access to that information.

As an aside, if I had been fortunate I would have had an older brother. However, I do not know whether any organs were taken from him in the Royal Victoria Hospital. I do not know whether I want to find out or if my 89- year-old mother wants to know, for it has been a long time. I think she has got over it, but there are people who lost babies a short time ago, and who are still grieving for them. The babies in some sense have been passed on "unwhole". If we are to strike a balance, we need parents in the future who will allow their babies to be passed on "unwhole".

We will have to strike a balance between protecting life and investigation or exploration. There must be no ambiguity in any guidelines that may be laid down, and it is important that the Minister say that it is not just necessary to obtain consent; the consent must be informed.

The retention of organs is not the issue, provided that the hospital asked permission first. Hospitals may even want to ask for a degree of "ownership" of the organs. However, the parents and wider family must be made aware of what is happening at every step — they must be informed of every dot and comma.

There is no easy way to deal with the issue. It is a sombre and difficult subject, and a hurtful circumstance affecting humans. However, I implore Members to be careful to avoid taking a populist attitude towards the matter. When the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety tells the House, as I expect she will, what the future may hold, it is to be hoped that she will give society the option to have access to those doctors operating under an ethos that cares and that shows it cares. It is to be hoped that the Minister will also tell the House that a life lost was an opportunity for a life to be saved.

I am sure that the Minister and her officials, or the medical staff from the Royal Victoria Hospital, Altnagelvin Hospital and other hospitals around Northern Ireland, are not relishing the media attention surrounding the debate. They too need to be protected. They can be protected by processes, guidelines and the politicians in society who must strike that balance.

It would be disastrous if we were to buy organs from Africa, or carry out some other such shameful transaction, in order to carry out research. Medical science must explore and develop. However, that should not stop us from commiserating with those who do not know if their loved ones were treated like commodities — as we have seen in Alder Hey — or treated with love and consideration, or, as I suggest, dealt with by someone who was case- hardened.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

I will be brief, as most of the key points have been made. This is a depressing and distressing situation. However, we must remember that the medical ethos, customs and practices of the past 50 years are not necessarily the same as those today. There was a need for research, and, rightly or wrongly, it was considered acceptable to use organs in the interest of medical science.

However, it is surprising that those practices continue in this day and age when we are familiar with most aspects of the human body and when the understanding of human genetics has reached such an advanced state. It is appalling that those practices still go on without families’ being consulted.

It is to be hoped that hospitals have learnt from this crisis of confidence in their judgement. There now needs to be a clear protocol between doctors and families. If doctors wish to engage in this sort of activity, it should be done in a way which is clear and above board. I call on the Minister to develop such a clear system. I support the motion.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I too support the motion, and I was impressed with the sympathetic manner in which it was moved.

When the notices were published a couple of weeks ago and the information was given to the public by the Royal Victoria Hospital, followed by a less informed bulletin from Altnagelvin Hospital, it is no exaggeration to say that a shock wave passed through the community, particularly among the thousands of people who, over the years, had passed through the portals of those hospitals for one reason or another. They were left with a terrible question in their minds. While we know that, statistically, this would not apply to the majority of people, nonetheless it applied to some, and people do not know whether they were among them.

This has caused great distress; I know that for a fact. Many representations have been made to my office by traumatised and distressed families asking me to find out what happened to their children, their loved ones, because they felt that they could not do that themselves. I have heard references to involvement by politicians — unfortunately, whether we like it or not, we are involved. In many cases, we will be a buffer between the hard reality of the facts and the conveying of those facts to the families — the parents and relatives of those involved. There is still an element of doubt in the public’s mind as to whether we have, or are going to get, a full disclosure of what happened, and whether we will be able to have confidence in the new procedures which we all hope will be put in place.

In a statement issued two weeks ago Altnagelvin Hospital said that one organ was being held for pathological examination. However, two weeks later in another statement it said that organs which belonged to no less than 60 people — 15 children and 45 adults — were retained between 1992 and May 2000. This is not some old practice; it was ongoing up until May 2000. There is nothing to suppose that it did not continue from May up until the recent exposure. That has caused immense distress, sorrow, pain and grief to the parents. It has also caused other emotions, which I discovered personally, of anger and outrage that they had been so treated.

Whatever happens and whatever the Minister does must assuage those totally understandable emotions, which are deeply held. As a salve almost, we have been told that this is past practice and that "those sorts of things were done in those days." However, we are not talking about "those days"; we are talking about recent history. As I mentioned, in the statement from Altnagelvin Hospital it said that this happened no later than May of last year.

Information was withheld from parents and relatives. This was not done accidentally; there was a policy of ignoring the rights of patients, families and parents. Let us not get away from that. There was an arrogant regime in the medical profession. Its members assumed that the ignorant patient knew no better. The reality is, however, that in what are often very tragic circumstances where bereavement is only a couple of hours old, it is enormously generous of parents and relatives to allow autopsies to be done for medical purposes and for organs to be donated or researched. It is not a question of importing organs from Africa. The goodwill to enable research to go ahead is in the community and has been for many years. We all know that research in these circumstances is essential.

The need for research can be immediate, if the relative or child died of a disease, disorder or complication that might affect immediate family members and may be part of their physical make-up. There is also long-term research into more modern and beneficial medicines. I have no doubt that people will respond, but they resent the deceit that they feel is being practised on them. I tend to agree with them. We have heard about the "tick in the box" forms, which do not really allow for any appreciation of what is happening. A much more open regime is needed.

When the news first broke, I asked the Minister whether she would hold a public inquiry. Her response was that she had asked the Chief Medical Officer to inquire into the issue, but that is, in a sense, an in-house inquiry. I do not want to go into the detail of individual cases, but I think that it would be appropriate to establish the extent of organ investigative work. We need to know for how long it was practised, how many patients were involved, what has happened — and what will happen — to the organs that were removed.

Further information and counselling should be given directly to the families, who have been caused great distress. The hospitals involved should develop an outreach programme to enable them to assuage the suffering. The families must be given answers that will lay to rest their fears. We need not wait for legislation in Great Britain. The medical profession has said in its defence that its actions were custom and practice. Most of custom and practice is prescribed by legislation, so why would we need legislative changes? The practice could change today or tomorrow; the key matter is the ethics. The situation was created by arrogance and disregard for the rights of the bereaved parents or relatives at a difficult time for them.

Anyone who has experience of attending a hospital when someone has died will know that it is difficult for consultants or doctors to ask for permission for a post- mortem, a biopsy, an autopsy, an organ transplant or organ investigation in such circumstances. Nonetheless, our society demands that it should be done, as it is the only way of protecting the health of others. I am no psychologist, but at least some of the pain of the immediate bereavement could be assuaged if the family knew that the death was making some contribution to future betterment. People would understand, if it were explained to them. However, what I resent is the arrogant attitude of ignoring the patient and relatives, which created the situation that has been exposed.

Will the Minister consider having an inquiry, following the Chief Medical Officer’s investigation, to reassure the public that what happened took place in a specific context, that it is not happening now, and that there will be new guidelines on the matter? People will not get that reassurance from a piece of paper that has been handed to them in a hospital at a traumatic time.

We need an openness that will be of benefit to the future. In those circumstances, and with such a modern understanding of the need for organs to be used for all the reasons I gave earlier, I have no doubt that many parents and relatives will donate their children’s organs, not gladly, but with an understanding of the need for them.

I ask the Minister to consider in her response, or at a later time, whether the terrible trauma — and it is increasing, not decreasing — can be better assuaged by the introduction of some inquiry, in the fullness of time, which will expose what has happened and what the new regime will be.

I support the motion, and I compliment Mr Shannon for bringing it before the Assembly.

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

I support the motion. I thank Mr Shannon for bringing this timely issue to the Assembly.

I understand, as many people do, that in order to advance medical research it is necessary to use donated organs. However, the important words here are "donated organs". It is a scandal of the highest degree that for 50 years medical staff at the Royal Victoria Hospital have been guilty of removing and retaining babies’ organs without the prior consent of the parents. The shock waves that have followed that announcement on 12 January still reverberate around the Province. Like many others in Northern Ireland I believed, wrongly, that it was against the law to remove organs without a signature of consent by the child’s parent or parents.

This announcement could have far-reaching consequences. In future, many bereaved parents will refuse to give their permission for doctors to remove organs because of this recent disclosure. Hospitals that have followed correct procedures in obtaining organs could also suffer.

The mental anguish of losing a baby is just too horrible to contemplate. Adding to that anguish the news that organs from the dead baby were removed without prior knowledge or permission is bound to bring fresh waves of grief and despair to the many unsuspecting — until now — parents.

Let me give you an example of the impact that the news has had on one couple who contacted my office and related their experience. Their child died in 1993. The parents were asked whether they wished to bury the baby themselves or leave the arrangements to the hospital. The family, in its grief, gave permission to the hospital to arrange the burial. In 1995, a member of the family — still grieving over the loss of that child — went to the cemetery to see the grave where they believed their child was buried. They discovered that there was no record of the child being buried there.

When inquiries were made, it transpired that the infant’s body was still at a hospital other than the Royal. When the parents asked why this was so, they were told that the paperwork had been lost for some time. There was also the excuse that, due to the security/political situation in Northern Ireland at that time, a number of bodies were being handled and so the baby remained at this hospital. The parents eventually took possession of the baby’s remains and the baby was buried in 1995 — two years after its death.

Now, because of the news and publicity surrounding Alder Hey in England and the Royal Victoria Hospital’s admission of organ retention over a period of 50 years, those same parents were once again thrown into turmoil as they wondered if their dead child’s organs had been removed also. After lengthy enquiries and few answers, they were eventually told that the organs had been removed at the time of the post-mortem in 1993. When the parents asked where the organs were, the hospital admitted that it still had them. The hospital asked the parents whether they wanted the organs back for burial or would prefer the hospital to deal with them. Déjà vu.

No one here can begin to imagine the trauma that this family has experienced — not once, but twice — since their child died. The disregard for the family’s feelings beggars belief, and surely Members will agree that no one should ever have to go through such a nightmare again. For that to happen, the Minister must take steps to identify how many other hospitals have been guilty of the practice of removing organs from dead babies without the written consent of the parents.

The Minister’s recent directive to halt the practice must be strictly monitored, and swift action must be taken against those who might persist in this callous action. The Minister must ensure that all parents and relatives affected by the recent announcement are informed and offered immediate counselling, should they need it. To do anything less would be adding insult to injury. We have a duty to protect the rights of parents to choose whether they wish to donate the organs of their dead children, to respect that choice and to strictly adhere to it.

The investigation initiated by the Minister must be thorough. She must discover how many other hospitals have been carrying out this practice; how many babies were involved; what lessons can be learned; and what ongoing changes need to be made to the procedures for governing the removal and retention of organs.

I support the motion.

Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I too support the motion. It is such a sensitive issue and, it is unfortunate that we have to debate such an issue in the Chamber today.

On first hearing of the scandal at the Alder Hey Children’s Hospital, Liverpool, which Mr Shannon described as the systematic harvesting of children’s organs — that sentence alone was a dreadful indictment of a caring organisation — it was so far away from us, and we gave it scant attention. We did not give it the attention it deserved. It was only when we heard the news that the Royal Victoria Hospital had, for the last 50 years, retained organs of children that we began to sit up and take notice.

Although I have worked at Altnagelvin Hospital for many years, I still feel that the Royal Victoria Hospital is my alma mater, and I know of the good work that has been done there throughout the years, particularly during the troubles. Today, while I do not feel defensive, I do feel a certain reluctance to criticise something that happened in a hospital that I know gives such care and attention.

However, it is indefensible that parents who lost a child should be put in such a traumatic position today. It is indefensible that parents were led to believe that they had buried the complete remains of their child, only to discover — perhaps nine years later — that that is not the case. It is indefensible that they had to go through the trauma once again of opening a grave for the reburial of a child. Regardless of what we say or do here today it will be very difficult to advise those parents that what happened to their child was in their best interests — if that is what is now being said.

I understand that the hospital has put out a second statement. We accepted the first statement in good faith, but the second statement informed us that the organs of 15 children had been retained and that the families had been contacted. That was the least that could have been done. At least it was done before the media announced that organs had been retained.

Those families have been placed in the invidious position of wondering whether they have been advised fully, or if there are other things that they do not know. They have been told that the organs were retained purely to establish the cause of death. It is difficult to understand why they were kept for over nine years if not for research or commercial purposes. That is why we must ask the Minister to establish exactly why the organs were retained. Why do we need to retain organs to establish the cause of death of someone who died nine years ago?

That is poor consolation for the parents who grieved at the time, and who grieve again. Having worked in the hospital for many years and witnessed children die on an operating table, I know that it is a terribly traumatic time for the staff also. At times such as these, people do not take in what is said to them. A period of time must be allowed for grieving before they can be approached and told what has happened. Sometimes that is not possible because of our custom of burying our dead. However, some time should elapse before people go through the trauma of being asked if a post-mortem can be carried out.

We are talking about the post-mortems which are carried out by a hospital, rather than by a coroner — they are entirely different. If organs are retained during a hospital post-mortem, we are not aware of it. In this instance, we must ask for answers, and I thank Mr Shannon for proposing the motion. When I first saw the debate listed, I did not think that the issue affected us in Derry and in the north-west, because it had not happened there. Unfortunately, however, it has happened. We really need to know if Altnagelvin Hospital and the Royal Victoria Hospital are the only hospitals involved. Are there others which have not come clean? We need those answers.

I support the motion, and I ask the Minister to do everything she can to implement the recommendations that are now so urgently needed to reassure both parents and the public.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh mait agat, a LeasCheann Chomhairle. I thank Mr Shannon for proposing this motion. It is timely, and I congratulate him.

The issue that is central to the motion is consent. Once that matter has been resolved, everything else will be peripheral. It is good to see that the emotive element has been kept out of this debate. Consent ought not to be tied up with the emotion that it could engender.

We should also pay tribute to the system of voluntary organ donation, and we should not allow that to be confused in the public’s mind with what has been happening for several years in some, or perhaps all, of our hospitals. Bad as things are, what happened here is not comparable with what happened at the Alder Hey Hospital.

I am not qualified, but I assume that there are three steps — removal, retention and the very noble matter of transplant. There is then the matter of the post-mortem and the autopsy. These are all tied to the subject being discussed, as is the difference between research and diagnosis. In certain circumstances there must be a diagnosis. Dr Claire Thornton said in her statement that it is very important to have a post-mortem to find out why a baby died, because there are implications for the rest of the family.

Those are positive steps. However, the issue of consent is central. I rang Dr Thornton this morning to give her a chance, in fairness, to indicate her feelings about the situation. I was not speaking to Frankenstein. These are people who, within the parameters in which they work, have made a very sincere effort to explain what happened over the years. To return to Dr Thornton’s statement, I was not aware, until she informed me, that one of the organs dates back to 1944. The senior consultant confirmed that the hospital still has 361 babies’ organs — mainly hearts and brains — in a secure store.

In all cases the organs were removed without the consent of the parents. It is good that the people who were there are beginning to admit that those acts were carried out without the parents’ consent.

Dr Thornton also said that they felt that any baby was a little person and that all babies should have the same respect and dignified end. With regard to Mr McGrady’s comments, if people at that level can retain such an outlook and such a respect for a baby, we are on the way to ensuring that such activity will not happen again.

I thank Mr Shannon for introducing the matter. Most of what needs to be said on the issue has already been said.

I would like to mention the issue of post-mortems. For example, if someone is killed, accidentally or otherwise, on a Friday or Saturday, it is possible that no forensic pathologist will be available to perform the post-mortem because they will be very busy. In my constituency, an 18-year-old girl was killed on a Friday night and her body was not released until the following Monday. That is a traumatic experience, and we ought to look at the issue. It is perhaps outside the ambit of today’s discussion, but we are talking about trauma, difficulties, suffering and bereavement.

I support the motion. If we can solve the central issue of consent satisfactorily, everything else will fall into place.

Danny O'Connor (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Antrim)

I support the motion in the name of Mr Shannon, and I thank him for tabling it.

I appreciate the need for sensitivity in dealing with this important matter. Many Members have already discussed organ donation, but that is not what we are debating. The parents of those children did not donate their organs; the organs were taken without consent. To take something without consent is to steal — some may feel that that is strong language, but it is a fact that the law determines theft as the taking of property belonging to another without that person’s consent. Why should doctors be above the law? It may have been custom and practice, but custom and practice is not the law and is not necessarily right.

In regard to full disclosure, I appreciate Mr Ervine’s point that there may well be those in our society — perhaps people who are old or infirm — who do not want to know about cases that date from over 50 years ago. Mrs Iris Robinson recounted an incident that occurred in her constituency. I can touch on a case that happened in my constituency, where a baby girl was born in 1954 and died shortly after birth. Her mother, having been told by the hospital at the time that it would take care of the burial, died in 1979 not ever knowing what happened. That woman carried to her grave a suspicion that something was not right.

People need to be made fully aware of what documents they are signing and what the implications are. There can be no repetition of the cases in England where people were told that a baby’s tissue sample was being taken, only to find that the baby’s heart and lungs were retained. Most people in our society get comfort from the fact that if a loved one dies he or she receives a Christian burial. If something like this happens, we cannot begin to contemplate the trauma inflicted.

We must deal with this issue with the degree of sensitivity it warrants. We need a statement from the Minister that this has not happened in other hospitals in Northern Ireland. This has come right onto our doorstep, and people throughout the country are now worried that similar retention has happened in their local hospitals. The public needs to be reassured.

On the question of full disclosure, I appreciate that some people might not wish to know about that, but for those who do, the information should be made available. They should be given whatever help or counselling is required to ensure that they can fully recover from the tremendous grief they have suffered.

I support the motion.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ar dtús caithfidh mé buíochas a ghabháil le Jim Shannon as an díospóireacht thráthúil seo a thionscnamh. Ceist í coinneáil orgáin páistí, agus go háirithe saincheist thoiliú tuismitheoirí i ndiaidh scrúdú iarbháis, a bhaineann leis an Teach seo, agus is ceart go mbaineann; is ábhar mór imní í do na teaghlaigh lena mbaineann agus don phobal i gcoitinnne.

Le linn na díospóireachta chuala mé sonraí teaghlach ar chuir foilsithe gur coinníodh orgáin gan fhios dóibh agus gan chead uathu go mór leis an bhrón phríobháideach a d’fhulaing siad nuair a cailleadh páiste dá gcuid. Tá an tráma seo os comhair cuid mhór tuismitheoirí. Ní amháin go gcaithfidh siad cuimhní pianmhara a athbheochan, ach caithfidh siad an dara tórramh a bharraíocht. Caithfear aghaidh a thabhairt ar an ábhar seo le tuiscint agus le hoscailteacht. Ní bhaineann an t-eolas gur le dea-rún agus chan mioscais a coinníodh orgáin páistí nó gur gnás coitianta é SSN seo a dhéanamh gan chead tuismitheoirí, ní bhaineann sin de bhuaireamh na ndaoine ar bhain seo leo.

Tuigim gur glacadh leis san am a chuaigh thart, agus leoga go dtí le deireannas, nuair a thoiligh teaghlach le scrúdú iarbháis ospidéil go gcuimseodh sin coinneáil fíocháin agus orgán iomlán i dtosca áirithe. Bhí an gnás seo coitianta ar fud na SSN ach is léir nach bhfuil sé inghlactha agus gur cúis mhór buartha é. Caithfidh mé a rá go soiléir agus ar taifead go bhfuil coinneáil orgán gan lántuiscint agus toiliú dearfa na dteaghlach lena mbaineann iomlán doghlactha.

Agus mé ag tabhairt aghaidhe ar an ábhar seo, ba é na teaghlaigh lena mbaineann mo phríomhchúram. Is é mo thosaíocht a chinntiú go bhfaigheann siad an t-eolas agus an cuidiú atá de dhíth orthu go gasta agus go tuisceanach. Tuigim gur chuir na hospidéil iomchuí socruithe speisialta teagmhála ar bun agus go bhfuil siad ag tairiscint comhairliú agus tacaíochta eile mar is gá. Tá coinne agam go ndéanfaidh siad gach ar gá le baint den strus atá ag teaghlaigh sna tosca deacra seo. Tá sé tábhachtach go bhfaigheann teaghlaigh an t-eolas atá de dhíth orthu go gasta agus go dtugtar aghaidh láithreach ar cibé ábhair chúraim atá acu agus ar cibé éiginnteachtaí atá orthu faoin mhéid a dúradh leo.

I thank Jim Shannon for initiating this timely debate. The question of the retention of children’s organs and the issue of parental consent in regard to a post-mortem are matters that rightly concern the House. It is a matter of great concern to the parents involved and to the general public.

In the course of the debate I have heard details of families whose private grief at the loss of their children has been compounded by revelations about organs being retained without their knowledge or consent. Those are harrowing stories. Many parents face the trauma of not only reliving painful memories but having to cope with the prospect of a second funeral. The matter needs to be approached with sensitivity and openness.

The knowledge that the retention of children’s organs was undertaken with good intentions, not malice, and that the practice of doing so without express parental consent was common practice in the NHS does not diminish the anguish of those affected. Indeed, as Mr Ford said, attempts to mitigate the trauma have ultimately increased that trauma.

My understanding is that in the past, and until fairly recently, consent given by the family for a hospital post-mortem was taken to include the retention of tissue and whole organs in certain circumstances. That was common practice throughout the NHS, but it is clearly not acceptable and has caused much distress. I must state clearly, and on the record, that the retention of any organs without the full understanding and explicit consent of the families concerned is unacceptable. People need full and open information and explanation.

My first concern in regard to the matter has been for the affected families. My priority has been to ensure that they obtain the information and help that they need, promptly and sensitively. The hospitals concerned have set up special contact arrangements and are offering counselling and other support, where required. I expect them to do everything necessary to minimise the stress experienced by families in those difficult circumstances.

Mr Shannon, Mr J Kelly, Mrs Courtney and other Members referred to parents’ need for — indeed, right to — full information. It is important that families now receive the information that they require quickly and that any concerns or uncertainties about what they have been told are addressed immediately. I welcome Mr Gallagher’s emphasis of the need for local support for affected families, particularly those not living near the hospitals. He spoke of the support that Sperrin Lakeland Health and Social Care Trust provided for families in his constituency. I am determined to ensure that our health authorities collaborate to support the affected families. That must include firm arrangements to assist families living at a distance from the hospital in question.

Mr Shannon asked about the timing of the RVH announcement. That was dictated by the reconciliation summit that had taken place in London the previous day, which led to a specific enquiry from the media to the hospital. As a result, over that weekend the hospital put in place arrangements with Dr Claire Thornton to deal with the many calls from parents who had gained the information in a way which caused great distress.

As soon as the issue emerged, I set up an immediate departmental investigation. I aim to establish the exact position of each of our acute hospitals. That work is continuing as a matter of urgency. The current assessment is that around 400 individual children’s organs have been retained since 1944. The Department’s investigation continues and I will keep the House informed of the latest situation.

The organs have been retained primarily at the Royal Victoria Hospital and at Altnagelvin. That hospital is in direct contact with the 15 families affected. The state pathology service has also retained some organs following post-mortems conducted under the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959. Some are held at the Royal Group of Hospitals and have been included in the census of retained organs there. Others are held by the state pathologists outside the hospital service, and I have no information on those organs. I will ensure that when I establish the full facts, as I have set out to do, Members, families and the wider public will be made aware of those facts.

I am informed that the regional paediatric pathology service, based at the Royal Group of Hospitals, revised its working practices in 1999 and that the changes introduced were underpinned by the Chief Medical Officer’s interim guidance issued in March 2000. Copies of the interim guidance, the current consent form of the regional paediatric pathology service and an accompanying explanatory booklet have been placed in the Assembly Library.

While public concerns to date have understandably focused on children’s organs being retained, similar practices have occurred with adult organs in the past. To establish the situation, I have asked for detailed information about the retention of adult organs in the North. I am clear that absolutely no organs should be retained by the Health Service without the explicit and informed consent of the family of the deceased. That is essential. I have received assurances that all post- mortem examinations now carried out are in accordance with those guidelines. This means that proper informed consent to a post-mortem must be obtained, with parents given explicit explanation in regard to the removal and retention of organs as part of the consent process.

Any organs that are retained following consent are subsequently either returned to the family or otherwise handled according to their wishes. Information provided by the hospitals indicates that, for those organs being retained by the hospital service, there is appropriate documentation and organs are sensitively stored.

Mr McGrady asked whether an inquiry should be set up subsequent to the departmental investigation that I have already launched. I am still establishing the full facts concerning the retention of organs without informed consent and I will take whatever steps are necessary. I am determined to move quickly to repair the damage done by former unacceptable practice and to ensure that such practice cannot reoccur. At this point, I am ruling nothing out. I assure Members that I will be taking careful account of their comments this afternoon. I believe that the investigation that I have commissioned will cover the ground highlighted by them.

Mrs Robinson, Mr McFarland, Mr McGrady and others talked specifically about the need for a change of practice. I absolutely accept that any change must include the requirement for informed consent. I am committed to taking whatever steps are necessary to honour parents’ wishes regarding the organs being retained at present. I will expect the hospitals to deal with all inquiries promptly and sensitively. I also expect hospitals to review their arrangements for responding to parents’ enquiries and to establish a mechanism for addressing any problem identified by parents.

Before reaching any decision on the necessary actions — which may include changes in current legislation — it is important that I be in possession of the full facts. I have outlined how I am setting about that process. I also want to benefit from seeing the report being prepared by Dr Liam Donaldson, Chief Medical Officer in England, offering guidance on the handling of the 40,000 organs retained in NHS hospitals in England.

It is difficult for us now to understand how the practice of removing tissues and organs from children without parental consent developed. However, I am advised that our paediatric pathology service is now working closely with parents and clinicians in this regard. I will give careful consideration to the many points emerging from today’s debate in determining the way forward, along with the information emerging from the departmental investigation and from the report by Dr Liam Donaldson. I reiterate that at this point I am ruling nothing out.

One of the key issues to which Members returned many times in the debate is that many parents coping with the loss of a child have not been given the full information and explanation.

Indeed, as Sue Ramsey and David Ervine said, many parents coping with the loss of a child may have given consent for the removal of tissue and organs in the knowledge that others would benefit. However, as Members said, the point is that they were not asked. They should have been asked; they must be asked.

The death of a child is a traumatic experience for a family. We are under obligation to deal sensitively and comprehensively with the question of organ retention to ensure that proper respect is afforded to the wishes of the families affected. In doing so, we must work in partnership with parents and not take them for granted as has happened in the past.

The interim guidelines that were issued, copies of the consent form and an information booklet have been placed in the Assembly Library. Members will be able to see how that is currently being handled.

With regard to legislation, I want to see what emerges from Dr Liam Donaldson’s report and the departmental investigation before progressing.

I am absolutely committed to ensuring that the legacy of past practice is carefully and sensitively dealt with. Future arrangements covering post-mortems and organ retention must be open and transparent. Future practice must be based on the principle that informed parental choice is paramount. No parent should be left in the position that so many find themselves in today. My Department and, I believe, all sections of the Health Service are now committed to taking the necessary steps to ensure that this is what happens.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I thank Members for their honest contributions to the debate — it was conducted in a fair manner. Members made valuable comments, and all were able to tell a story from their constituency that clearly illustrates where the system has fallen down.

The theme evident in all the speeches is that there is need for criteria and a system that is suitable for today’s modern society. Mr Ford discussed that, as, I belive, did every Member who spoke. Iris Robinson provided the illustration of parents who lost a child. The hospital was meant to bury the child, but the family discovered that it did not, and they had to bury the child two years after the death. That shows that the system was cold, unfeeling and unaccountable.

Perhaps, the Minister and the Health Department are today providing some commitment to important changes. Mr McGrady showed that the old practice did not finish years ago by stating that organs were being retained in May 2000. The Member also illustrated, as did I in my contribution, that Altnagelvin Hospital issued one statement in which it said that it only retained a brain and a spinal cord, but it subsequently emerged that it had retained 15 organs from children. This shows that the system is not, and has not been, accountable, at least until now.

We want openness, and a commitment has been given along those lines. We need to learn the lessons that have been raised in today’s debate. We also need to learn from what has happened at the Royal Victoria Hospital and Altnagelvin Hospital and to know why the state pathologist is retaining organs.

We welcome the inquiry, the investigation by the Department and the fact that the Department has decided that it is necessary in order to address people’s concerns. People need to feel that the issue has been addressed.

That is vital to the constituents who are represented by every one of us who spoke today, and many others who were not able to speak. The consent process is essential — people must feel that they are part of it and must not feel ostracised by it.

The Department is starting to address the fact that many people should have received counselling and did not. I know that the people who came to me needed counselling. They shed real tears, even though the twins were lost 19 years ago — the loss was just as real as it was on the day that they died. Counselling is needed, not just for them but for everyone affected.

We want an assurance that the findings of any investigation will be made known to the Assembly. We are looking for that assurance from the Department so that, whatever investigation or inquiry takes place, we can see what happens and that it is acted upon. We all want to see that. That is where we are coming from.

The change of practice on informed consent was also mentioned. We welcome that as a very satisfactory way of making progress. We need a strategy that will take all our concerns on board so that we can tell our constituents that we have achieved something: that there will be an investigation, that it will be acted upon and that this will never ever happen again.

The theme of this debate has been parental consent. It is crucial that they feel part of the process. They have not done until now. Those parents whose children’s organs were removed were never asked for their opinion. They were never asked "Would you agree to it?", "Is it all right?" or "What is your opinion on it?". They were ignored; they were never asked. They still feel the trauma, pain and emotion of what happened.

The Minister said that the Health Service is committed to providing a new or better service. That is something that we all wish to see — a better and more accountable Health Service that every one of our constituents can feel part of. It is important that they feel that it represents them and their concerns well. The Health Service has let them down. It is time to address those issues fully to meet the interests and demands of the people whom we represent. That is a way forward.

The Minister also mentioned a review of the system for dealing with parents’ enquiries. One of the aspects that always grieves me, and many other elected representatives, is that the inquiries that we ask for are not always carried out as we would like. There will be a review of that — and we will hold the Minister and the Department to that — and we will have a better system at the end of it. If we achieve that, at least we will have made progress.

Our thoughts at this time are with all those parents who have had to go through trauma and emotional pain. I ask Members to support the motion, because that is the will of the people that we represent.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

Adjourned at 5.40 pm.