“It is a broad term, and it’s a broad department,” Simon Hamilton comments.

He admits that upon first inspection, his conclusion on the social development remit was that it didn’t tie together that neatly: “It’s not like health, it’s not like education [and] it’s not even like regional development. With other things like liquor licensing and gambling laws, it seems to be a melange of different issues.”

First and foremost, though, for the Chair, it is about helping the most vulnerable in society. Admitting to having heard the department referred to the ‘department of poverty’, it is about providing a safety net for people who need it.

“If you look at the whole idea of community and voluntary work in Northern Ireland, it far surpasses what is there in other parts of the UK,” he states, and there is a “pressing need” to get the sector to strengthen itself so that it can help communities.

Upon taking up the brief in July 2009, Hamilton was struck by how dissimilar it was compared to his previous roles on the Finance and Enterprise Committees. “This was something completely different but when I did a breakdown of my own constituency work, between 40 and 45 per cent of my constituency work was DSD-related. Although I didn’t know it myself, there was already an understanding of the issues that the department [deals] with.”

While the twice-weekly committee meetings are necessary, on his watch members have been keen to move away from the formality of the committee room and have held numerous stakeholder meetings with representative groups, focussing on “one or two pressing issues” at a time.

Balancing act

Committees in general, Hamilton says, are legislation-heavy after a three-year settling in period for the Assembly as a whole. The scrutiny role can often take up too much of the committee’s time, he admits, and it is difficult to strike a healthy balance but the Chair is very aware of that problem: “If the committee is going to have any value it has got to do, one, its fundamental roles and scrutinise the department but it’s got to interact with the general public as well.

“There is so much coming out of the departments, you can easily get distracted with just purely departmental work and you don’t spend the time [out and about].”

A heavy legislative programme, however, is not always a bad thing. That there are many Bills coming to the committee’s table has meant that the stakeholder events have become more of a feature, but getting the balance, he says, is “dreadfully difficult”.

Hamilton is keen that the committee pursues its own interests outside the scrutiny role: “If you wanted to let yourself, as a committee, you could get bogged down very easily in just doing the scrutiny of legislation, doing what effectively the department gives you; it would be easy to fall behind them and not actually plot your own course.”

The forthcoming housing inquiry is certainly an example of that independence. The housing argument is well-known, but Hamilton believes that it is for the committee to move away from that orthodoxy. “The argument goes ‘there’s not enough money, there’s high demand, we need more money’. It’s easy then to knock on the Finance Minister’s door and ask for more money,” he says. So the committee’s aim is to look at what can be done differently.

“Other jurisdictions are doing different things to achieve the same aim – to deliver more social housing and trying to develop alternative funding models,” the Chair adds.

All five Executive parties have members on the committee, so if an alternative idea is put on the table and receives some support then it will go to the Executive for further discussion.

Review and reform

The common selection scheme has been on the committee’s radar since the Housing Bill in June 2009. The main criticism of the scheme is that where areas are oversubscribed applicants need an extremely high number of points to be in contention. As an elected member Hamilton candidly alludes to the system being “played”: “For example, politicians will encourage people – do this, do that and you will increase your chances – and it can result in people getting housing that is inappropriate for them.”

One hopes, he says, that the system can iron that out, but often it cannot. Retired couples, he says, can be allocated threebedroom houses and the current system “isn’t flexible enough”.

Drawing on his accountancy background, Hamilton says there is scope for a review of the Housing Executive.

“You’ve got in excess of £3 billion worth of assets sitting within the Housing Executive’s portfolio. The way things are currently constructed, they can’t access any finance off the back of that. This is the way business is done everywhere,” he contends.

“You’ve got in excess of £3 billion worth of assets sitting within the Housing Executive’s portfolio. The way things are currently constructed, they can’t access any finance off the back of that. This is the way business is done everywhere,” he contends.

It is known, however, that the Housing Executive would prefer to retain the stock as part of a renewed landlord function, perhaps as NIHE plc.

“Given the financial climate that we’re in and what we’re going to move into, to have that [money] sitting there and not at least explore what to do with it would be wrong,” he surmises.

Any funding surpluses could then, the Chair believes, be reinvested in programmes such as Supporting People, which looks after the more vulnerable tenants. A pilot scheme has been put in place in Derry whereby houses have been transferred to a housing authority and the committee is still waiting for the results.

The executive is not the only body which will likely have its profile reviewed. While the committee, along with the housing sector as a whole, appreciates the good work of the housing associations, Hamilton believes that they could have a wider community development role by contributing play areas in new developments and helping to lobby to bring bus routes out.

He points to the progress on mixed tenure in the South where developments will include owner-occupied, private-rented and social housing all in the same space. That has not been pursued here, partly because of legislative barriers, but also because of residents’ opposition. Those obstacles need not be a problem given how prevalent social housing has been in Northern Ireland’s past and that “everybody knows somebody or they themselves have lived in social housing”.

‘Parity is paramount’

While housing gets the most coverage from the DSD remit, the largest issue in monetary terms is the welfare system. In an ideal world he would like to see some changes in the system but he is of the view that having a £3 billion social security bill paid for out of Whitehall is advantageous.

“I think you particularly see it at times like this when people are finding it difficult out there that you have that safety net there. And it’s better that you have that safety net there than tamper with it, tweak it and risk losing it. That’s my biggest fear, if we make a change, do we risk losing it?” the Chairman queries.

Parity does, though, significantly reduce the committee’s role and Hamilton has also personally questioned the committee’s influence on welfare. Up until now he believes the committee has simply “karaoked” the legislation but he is encouraged that the Minister has not sought accelerated passage for the Welfare Reform Bill. Having a committee stage has its problems too. “We’re finding a lot of evidence coming back from people saying the system for [vulnerable] groups just doesn’t work … Even though your heart bleeds, if you make that change, you’re risking the whole system,” he concedes.

“I feel that the committee is in an invidious position and I feel that the department has kicked a very awkward ball on to our toe and the committee is going to be in a position to say: ‘We’re not making that change’,” he adds. Parity, he acknowledges, is “paramount”.

Speaking just before Alex Attwood took over from Margaret Ritchie, he was looking forward to working with the West Belfast MLA: “Alex and I have crossed swords many a time but what we’ve got to remember is that we’ve both got a job to do.”

He had become familiar with Ritchie and had built up a relationship with her, not least because of their constituencies’ proximity.

Hamilton does not expect the committee’s approach to change, which is one of being a cheerleader when it shares the Minister’s agenda but criticising when it is appropriate: “If you’re critical when you need to be critical, the public, and more importantly the Minister, appreciates what you’re doing. We are the critical friend.”

Committee members

Chair
Simon Hamilton (DUP)

Deputy Chair
Carál Ní Chuilín (SF)
Billy Armstrong (UUP)
Mary Bradley (SDLP)
Mickey Brady (SF)
Thomas Burns (SDLP)
Jonathan Craig (DUP)
Alex Easton (DUP)
David Hilditch (DUP)
Anna Lo (Alliance)
Fra McCann (SF)

“We are the most important committee” is Jim Wells’ contention as he talks through the Health Committee’s work to date. For evidence for that claim, in his view, readers need not look further than the main daily stories in the news.

“There’s not a day goes by that there isn’t a story in the media on a health-related issue. Frequently, it’s the headlines and it’s inevitable that as Northern Ireland becomes a more and more normal society, health will be more and more dominant as an issue.”

In lobbying terms, Northern Ireland’s 169 health charities, the professional organisations and unions are always at the committee’s door. Wells finds himself “constantly in demand” compared to the Regional Development Committee, where he was Deputy Chair and received only occasional requests for meetings.

He succeeded Iris Robinson in the post last July, after the DUP decided to stand down MPs from Assembly chairs. Climbing up Slieve Binnian, in the Mournes, he was offered the choice between health and social development over the phone and asked for 24 hours to consider it: “I think I made the right choice but I never for one minute could contemplate what it involved.”

Health’s complexity can be seen when the basic numbers are added up. Seventy thousand staff are employed and the spending review sets aside £4.3 billion in current expenditure next year, making up 48 per cent of all day-to-day spending.

“Somebody told me recently that health in Northern Ireland spends more than the Government of Afghanistan [on all areas] – and they’ve got 28 million people and we’ve got 1.7 million,” Wells says. He adds that the comparison could be an unfair one, given that country’s poverty, but it shows the size of the challenge.

Scrutiny

While the committee is technically tasked with advising and assisting the Minister, he sees it more to scrutinise and hold him, his finances and policies to account. The Chairman must oversee the committee neutrally and without bias.

“The committees do generally reach consensus and don’t split. We’ve a common aim of holding the department to account,” he states.

Like Barry McElduff, he separates his comments as Chairman from those as party spokesman, although many of his latter views are similar to other parties. He has criticised bonuses for hospital consultants and thinks most other members would do the same. The committee has not had to go to a vote during his term to date.

Put to him that separating the two roles completely would avoid any conflict of interest, he replied that as the Chairman should be the most informed Health Committee member, he or she has a better grasp than another backbencher. Wells thinks it would be unreasonable to put that pressure on another committee member.

“It’s not party political in the sense that there’s no great division between nationalism and unionism or between urban and rural,” Wells says of its work. “The split is between the Minister demanding more resources for health and other members of the committee and other MLAs and ministers saying: ‘Where are we going to get this. Could we not be making better use of the huge budget we have already?’”

Ulster Unionists on the committee naturally support the Minister but his view is that any extra money would have to be cut from schools, roads or other areas. Like every other committee, it will be focusing on budgets going forward; the spending review demands £113 million savings in health.

The committee has highlighted where it thinks money has been wasted e.g. employing 57 press officers across the Health Service and the use of branded drugs rather than their generic equivalents. Some GPs, he points out, demand the right to prescribe the branded product, even if it costs £26 compared to £1 for the generic. A “vast saving” could be made here and he claims the Minister has been “very reluctant” to oppose this practice.

“I think the Minister simply has got himself into a repetitive mantra: ‘More money, more money, more money.’ I think before he does that, he has to prove to the public that the vast budget that we have – £1,830 for every man, woman and child in Northern Ireland – is being spent effectively.”

Achievements

Among its success, the committee counts its obesity reports, which highlighted that problem’s potential to overwhelm the Health Service. Twentyfour recommendations were made and Wells is pleased with the positive answers now coming from DHSSPS.

“The value of criticism is greatly devalued if it’s used constantly and without reason,” he points out, emphasising that the committee does work with the department where it thinks the public will benefit.

On swine flu, it strongly supported the department and gave it credit for tackling the problem well. Wells suggested that the staff of special schools should be vaccinated as well as their children, and the department went to work on the idea immediately; it was carried out within two days.

The committee has taken a strong line on public health and wants to see a ban on tobacco displays coming into force in October. Opposition will come from the tobacco lobby, retailers and some constituency MLAs e.g. from North Antrim for the Gallahers factory. However, Wells warns: “You can’t possibly be on a health committee and advocate anything that increases or maintains the use of tobacco.”

It also supports a ban on under-18s using sunbeds, which may be opposed by some beauty salons. Scotland has pioneered this move; MSPs voted it through in June 2008.

“At times, the committee can give political backing to the Minister in doing unpopular things as well as criticising him when he does things we don’t agree with,” he explains.

Plans

Child protection is a major item on its forward work programme. As the committee looks at plans for a safeguarding board for Northern Ireland, it wants to learn from the successes and failures of similar boards in Great Britain. Visits to social services in Bolton and Bradford are planned.

Following the Bamford review, Wells also expects “probably the largest piece of legislation Northern Ireland will ever see” to come forward after the next Assembly election; the last major mental health reforms look place in 1983. New laws on adoption are also due.

Meanwhile, the committee deals routinely with a large workload, including the framework documents i.e. strategies for specific conditions such as cancer and dementia. Following the critical RQIA report in hospital hygiene, the committee held a series of public evidence sessions, which put the spotlight on those responsible for lapses.

Relations between members are “surprisingly good” although he admits the chair would say that. They obviously come from contrasting backgrounds but the meetings are “normally very goodhumoured”. Some have relevant experience from their careers e.g. Dolores Kelly in social care and GP Kieran Deeny.

He finds that people leave their party political baggage at the door but can be forceful when defending their constituencies; with the shortage of acute services in Omagh, it’s no co-incidence that three West Tyrone MLAs are there.

Previously, Wells’ own interests in health policy were also local but he does enjoy his job, despite it coming out of the blue.

“[I] wondered how I would take to it but it has been exceptionally interesting,” he surmises. “It’s never dull. It might be very demanding and frustrating but it’s never tedious.”

Committee members

• Chair: Jim Wells (DUP)
• Deputy Chair: Michelle O’Neill (SF)
• Thomas Buchanan (DUP)
• Dr Kieran Deeny (Independent)
• Alex Easton (DUP)
• Sam Gardiner (UUP)
• Dolores Kelly (SDLP)
• John McCallister (UUP)
• Conall McDevitt (SDLP)
• Claire McGill (SF)
• Sue Ramsey (SF)

Ryan Jennings talks to OFMDFM Committee Chair Danny Kennedy on the intricacies of being a chairman and building a consensus.

Like the department, the central point of the OFMDFM Committee’s work, Danny Kennedy says, is the Programme for Government, or in its lesser-known guise, the “government manifesto”.

While his party of course are aspiring to greater things, Danny Kennedy believes that both his and the committee’s work is “critical” to the good working of government up on the hill. As a statutory committee, it has full scrutiny powers but he prefers instead to focus on its improvement work.

“We make recommendations to perhaps improve legislation or look at consultation documents – whereby improvements can be made,” he says.

“The trick of the role I have as Chair is to make sure the committee’s view is reflected fairly in terms of proposals that the department are making.” Each of the parties represented, he says, should feel like they have had an opportunity to have an input. From that point, the committee will seek to reach a consensus, both within itself and with the department.

That is not to say that a friendly agreement is always reached. Realistically, Kennedy concedes, “this is a coalition government and yes, political parties will have their differences,” but he points to the committee’s two recent reports into Europe and child poverty as proof that it can be done.

A cynic would say that it seems hard enough to achieve a consensus in the other two branches of government; the Assembly and Executive, so naturally the committee system is open to the same accusation. “Certainly I think we have to make efforts and I think politicians on my committee certainly make strenuous efforts to look at the critical issues from a point of view of bringing them forward,” Kennedy offers.

He again cites the committee’s work into Europe and child poverty. While, of course, most reasonable thinking people would like to see child poverty eradicated, Europe has proven to be more divisive in Northern Ireland, as well as over the water. The report is analysed in detail on page 120 and centres more on the ‘what we can do now from our position?’ than the ‘should we be in Europe?’ question. For example, its flagship recommendation is for an Assembly Brussels Officer to be appointed. That position would be set alongside the Executive’s standing presence there but also act separately, so “the left hand would know what the right hand is doing”.

Recommendations such as that, he continues, have had the “full support” of the committee and indeed he is keen to state the “positive nature” with which the members approach their work. Relations, he says, have “improved well”, to the extent that there is a good working relationship.

The report on child poverty produced 40 recommendations and, not surprisingly, a consensus on the committee. Kennedy is though, at pains to explain that the report goes much further than just agreeing that child poverty is a bad thing, focussing rather on practicalities such as “how best and how quickly to [alleviate and eradicate it].”

Standing slightly apart from the other 10 scrutiny committees, which generally have a fairly confined forward work programme, the committee mirrors the department’s cross-cutting remit.

That being the case, for him the committee plays a central role in government: “I see it as an advantage as [the committee can] highlight issues with other Assembly committees who then in turn raise those with their respective departments.”

He adds: “We’re not in the business of dictating terms to other committees or other departments. We’re in the business of trying to seek consensus to highlight where action is necessary.” That, he says, is the cross-cutting element of the committee.

One example of following that role can be seen in the committee’s recommendation in its report into child poverty to “encourage the Committee for Social Development to carefully monitor the delivery of the commitment investment strategy”.

On a wider note, although the committee system as a whole does and should, he stresses, have the power to keep the Executive accountable, there is no ‘threat’ involved in that as “it’s a clear democratic principle that the Executive should be available for scrutiny. It doesn’t necessarily have to be confrontational”.

The times when that is the case, he says, are not going to be often but he admits the nature of a coalition government, and in particular one in Northern Ireland means “every attempt” should be made to find consensus and conciliation.

Proof that the committee generally overcomes the traditional political divisions, he concludes, is the fact that the committee can bring forward reports. “Yes, members are coming from a different political basis and perhaps even different ideological stand points, but the important thing is that with agreement and debate you can produce a piece of work.”

Justice Bill

As Danny Kennedy stated, like every committee his has to take on board the political differences of its members.

The committee had several meetings on the Justice Bill – on 9 September, 7 October, 14 October and 21 October.

On occasion, it is fair to say that committees are not best placed to make amendments. Alex Attwood, for example, the most outspoken SDLP MLA on justice devolution, suggested an amendment to the committee to leave out the now famous ‘sunset clause’ in the Bill. Like much on the wider debate on devolving those powers, the committee vote divided along Sinn Féin/DUP and UUP/SDLP lines.

Tom Elliott proposed that the committee should seek legal advice on the potential consequences of the sunset clause. Again the committee voted along those party lines.

Attwood’s proposed amendment, of course, was debated in the Assembly but only because it was put forward in the SDLP guise. The committee did not put forward any amendment to the Bill.

Child poverty

In June 2008, the committee published its two-pronged report into child poverty.

Chief among the recommendations is that the department should quickly adopt the Lifetime Opportunities Strategy as the framework to counter both poverty and exclusion.

The committee said that would allow for a three to five year regional anti-poverty and social exclusion plan.

A ministerially led Poverty and Social Exclusion Forum was also mooted as well as establishing a regional children and young people’s action plan.

Junior Minister Gerry Kelly told the committee on 17 February that the Assembly had given legislative consent to the Westminster Child Poverty Bill which aims to eradicate the problem by 2020.

Child poverty figures for 2008 in Northern Ireland, the junior Minister said, were on a par with England, better than Wales and catching up with Scotland (currently ahead in the UK).

Committee members

• Chair: Danny Kennedy (UUP)
• Deputy Chair: Naomi Long (Alliance)
• Martina Anderson (SF)
• Alex Attwood (SDLP)
• Tom Elliott (UUP)
• Barry McElduff (SF)
• Stephen Moutray (DUP)
• Francie Molloy (SF)
• George Robinson (DUP)
• Jim Shannon (DUP)
• Jimmy Spratt (DUP)