Patsy McGlone
Mid Ulster · Social Democratic and Labour Party · Northern Ireland
“Limiting the power to dismiss charges involving the death of or serious physical harm to a vulnerable person will enhance the fairness and integrity of those criminal proceedings.”
“The SDLP welcomes the provisions for the long-overdue establishment of a statutory Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses of Crime. That is a significant step forward in the development of our justice system.”
“Putting the office on a statutory footing will ensure that the commissioner's role is legally recognised and accountable to the public and the justice system. The Minister outlined a number of the measures in the process of accountability.”
“OK. I thank my colleague — indeed, the Minister — for responding. It is, as the Minister said and my colleague highlighted, a sensitive area. People who are approached to give a reference should think long and hard about the implications of the references that they give: where they might wind up; the circumstances in which they give them;…”
“The SDLP welcomes the Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill and the opportunity to debate it, alongside the Chairperson — or should I say, "Mr Amendment" — at its Second Stage.”
“I accept that the Minister's Department, as she has stated repeatedly, does not have the capacity or resources to develop those legislative provisions during this mandate.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,995 lines we hold for Patsy McGlone, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 30 of 40.
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee is of the view that the legislative consent motion is the most appropriate means of enabling small businesses in Northern Ireland to access the services of a UK-wide Small Business Commissioner. The Committee supports DETI in seeking the Assembly’s endorsement of the legislative consent motion. With that, I conclude, and I support the LCM.”
“However, in oral evidence to the Committee on 8 December 2015, departmental officials stated that the Department had engaged with a number of representative bodies in the North. The Department learned that late payments were an issue and small businesses would welcome the extension of the commissioner’s remit to Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />The commissioner will be based in England and will provide an advisory service and will direct issues or complaints specific to Northern Ireland to the appropriate mediation or arbitration services based here or in the South of Ireland. The commissioner will not have the legal basis to make a legal ruling on any issues and will be obliged to report annually on any specific Northern Ireland items or issues.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment wrote to the Committee on 20 October 2015 to advise that the Westminster Government had introduced the Enterprise Bill to the House of Lords. The Minister informed the Committee that the Bill included a range of measures that are intended to support the growth of enterprise in the UK. <BR /> <BR />The LCM is to enable the extension to Northern Ireland of provisions in the Bill relating to the establishment of a UK Small Business Commissioner. The Westminster Government undertook a public consultation. Time pressures precluded consultation in Northern Ireland, would you believe it?”
“As Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, I commend the Final Stage of the Bill to the House.”
“The Committee was content with the Department's assurances that it would review the legislative framework underpinning credit unions and cooperative and community benefit societies after completion of work on the Bill, including consideration of whether future legislative change was considered appropriate. <BR /> <BR />The passing of the Bill will unlock the potential of all credit unions to become full and trusted players in the financial services sector. As community-based organisations, credit unions know the communities in which they operate and their individual members. This legislation will enable them to compete on an equal footing with the for-profit sector and to act as trusted, objective and professional financial advisers and lenders to individuals and groups in those communities.”
“<BR /> <BR />In relation to clause 8, Co-operatives UK highlighted to the Committee that current Northern Ireland legislation does not require the registrar to make a rigid distinction, at registration, between cooperative societies and community benefit societies but that the new legislation will create three separate legal forms where now only one exists. According to Co-operatives UK, that has caused significant uncertainty and concern for societies in GB. However, they remain hopeful that the Financial Conduct Authority policy will achieve the necessary refinement and flexibility.”
“There is a provision for a maximum of 10% of surplus funds to be applied to such purposes, and the Committee agrees that that provides the appropriate balance. <BR /> <BR />There were some initial concerns during the Committee's pre-legislative scrutiny that expertise in social finance may be required to ensure that credit unions would not put their members' money at risk. However, having seen the legislation, both the Irish League of Credit Unions and the Ulster Federation of Credit Unions are content that there is sufficient protection in the provisions.”
“Clause 6 removes the 3% minimum amount of dividend that must be paid before surplus funds can be applied to social, cultural or charitable purposes but retains the requirement for some level of dividend to be paid to members before surplus funds can be applied to those purposes. That was a key recommendation in the previous Committee's inquiry. Clause 6 provides the opportunity for credit unions to contribute back into the communities in which they operate. For that reason, the Committee very much welcomes that provision in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />As the legislation stands, a credit union could not make any contribution for social or charitable purposes unless it had declared a 3% dividend. In the current financial environment, that is a highly unrealistic expectation for any credit union.”
“It believes that, based on the principle that a credit union is a smaller form of financial institution, it should be enabled to undertake and partake in any financial activities and offer services to its members. It believes that the credit union movement will have to be competitive, as the level of uptake will be determined by the market in much the same way as a bank sets the interest rate at which a deposit account will be guaranteed over a one-year period. <BR /> <BR />The Irish league also helped to allay the Committee’s concerns in relation to any perception of a two-tier system. Whether or not a credit union member avails of interest-bearing shares will have no impact on voting rights, and no concerns have been raised in jurisdictions where that facility has been available for some time.”
“The Ulster Federation of Credit Unions had concerns that the introduction of interest-bearing shares may tend to muddy the waters in relation to the traditional view of credit unions on the one hand as being solely owned by their members and banks, and, on the other hand, being commercial operations in business for the benefit of shareholders. <BR /> <BR />The Ulster federation did not think that interest-bearing shares was something that their members would be interested in. On the other hand, the Irish League of Credit Unions sees interest-bearing shares as an extra tool in a credit union’s armoury for its asset-liability management.”
“However, a number of other issues arose during the Committee Stage of the Bill, and I would like to ensure that the Committee’s consideration of those issues is put on the record. <BR /> <BR />Clause 3 permits a credit union to offer interest-bearing shares in addition to shares entitling the holder to a dividend. The Committee had some concerns that the introduction of provisions for interest-bearing shares may have the potential to create a two-tier system, by which some members held only non-interest bearing shares, whilst others were able to avail of interest-bearing shares.”
“<BR /> <BR />I would like to put on record the Committee’s gratitude to the Irish League of Credit Unions and the Ulster Federation of Credit Unions and to the individual credit unions that participated in the Committee’s call for evidence. Their experience as grass-roots practitioners is invaluable. <BR /> <BR />The passing of the Credit Unions and Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Bill will provide a tremendous opportunity for credit unions across the North to fulfil their potential as trusted, professional, community-based financial advisers and financial service providers. <BR /> <BR />A number of amendments to the Bill were brought by the Department on the Committee’s recommendation, and I do not propose to rehearse them here today as they were appropriately covered at Consideration Stage.”
“<BR /> <BR />On behalf of the Committee, and, no doubt, previous Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committees, I offer my sincere thanks to the Minister, to his predecessors, and especially to their officials in the Department, past and present, for their hard work, their expertise and the dedication and professionalism that they have demonstrated to help to get this legislation to where it is today. Their cooperation, their knowledge, and, indeed, their good working relationship with the Committee, and with Committee officials — whom I have to especially thank for the great work that they have done — have brought us to where we are today.”
“I want to pay tribute to previous Committees and their membership and to former party colleagues, Mr Alban Maginness and Mr Mark Durkan, for their sterling work. <BR /> <BR />On 13 March 2008, the previous Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment commenced an inquiry into how to support credit unions here to expand their range of services. The Committee reported on 5 February 2009, and its report contained only eight recommendations, which were broadly accepted by the Department. However, there were a number of major difficulties in implementing the recommendations, as changes were required to primary legislation here and at Westminster. The appropriate legislation could not be put in place in this House until the appropriate changes had been made in Westminster.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire chomh maith. I thank the Minister. On behalf of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Final Stage of the Credit Unions and Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Bill. <BR /> <BR />The passage of the Bill through the House represents the culmination of almost eight years of work by the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment in this and in previous mandates to enable credit unions to expand their range of services and to offer the same facilities that their counterparts in GB, and in the South of Ireland, have been able to offer since 2002 and 2003 respectively.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Mo bhuíochas leis an Aire fosta. I thank the Minister. Will she confirm that the recently announced and much-vaunted support scheme will not, in fact, be retrospectively applied to those farmers and businesses around the shores of Lough Neagh that were worst affected by the ravages of the floods?”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Mo bhuíochas leis an Aire. Can the Minister advise us what resources will be provided to the advice sector to help people, particularly pensioners and those who are about to be pensioners, work their way through what can often be a very complex maze of entitlements?”
“Perhaps he would care to explain what he means by "greater efficiencies". For the rest of us who have listened to this bad news, efficiency usually equals further cutbacks. I would not like to think that that was indeed the case.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Mo bhuíochas leis an Aire as an ráiteas sin. Thanks very much, Mr Speaker. I will not need latitude; all I want is some answers with a degree of precision. <BR /> <BR />I note that the Minister stated that he had met the management of Bombardier on five separate occasions. I also noted, with some interest, that he — that is the Department — will:”
“The Lords asked the Government to carry out a review of section 44, and we understand that that has not yet commenced. Owing to the wording of section 44, which is the same as our clause 256, a situation could arise in which two patients are mistreated and neglected by the same individual with the same intent but a prosecution for ill-treatment and wilful neglect can be brought only in respect of the treatment of the person who lacked capacity. That was brought up during evidence and seemed extremely disconcerting. Nevertheless, I welcome the relatively technical amendments to clause 256 and support it as amended.”
“It may be difficult to have the decision revoked. I hope that the new clauses in the Bill can help address that potential difficulty. <BR /> <BR />Clause 256 will make it an offence to ill-treat or wilfully neglect a person who lacks capacity. The clause largely reflects section 44 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. In its report on the 2005 Act, the House of Lords noted that the number of prosecutions brought under section 44 was low. Stakeholders have considered that that may be a consequence of the requirement to prove that a person who has been neglected or ill-treated lacks capacity. In particular, the decision-specific and time-specific nature of the capacity assessment in the 2005 Act was considered to present a difficulty.”
“However, as the Southern Trust and the Western Trust have a jurisdictional border with the Republic, and, as movement occurs across the border, the Mental Capacity Bill represents the opportune time to agree procedures in statute for transfers of persons who are either detained or deprived of their liberty under the law in either jurisdiction. Agreeing the roles and responsibilities of social workers concerned etc is an important aspect of that. Once an individual is transferred to Britain, the responsibility for care and treatment is devolved, and there appear to be few or no routes to appeal or to revoke a decision should the individual or family be unhappy with their treatment.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the group 5 amendments, and I do so as a member of the Ad Hoc Committee. One of the first things to consider in the group is the removal of subsection (5) from clauses 248 and 249 and the inclusion of new clauses 303, 304 and 305. The SDLP is content with the Minister's new clauses, as they represent a better realisation of the Committee's intentions and those of stakeholders. <BR /> <BR />We have heard through evidence that situations can occasionally arise when people, both EU and non-EU citizens, need to be moved between countries, and, as we know, those arrangements are managed by the Department here in the North.”
“In the House of Lords post-legislative scrutiny review of the Mental Capacity Act, witnesses provided evidence that the process of applying for an LPA was complex and that the paperwork was considered onerous. We must avoid that. <BR /> <BR />A petition of concern has been tabled to amendment No 116, which attempts to reduce the age at which a donor may appoint an attorney. We will support that Sinn Féin amendment. We voted for 16-year-olds to be able to vote, yet we would deny them the opportunity to appoint an attorney should a situation arise in which they might need to do that. That would be entirely inconsistent, so we will support the amendment and the other group 3 amendments on EPAs, LPAs and oversight bodies.”
“For example, the Commissioner for Older People made some very interesting points about LPAs, indicating that the introduction of lasting powers of attorney will have a significant impact on the lives of many older people. The LPA may influence where an older person lives; what care home they reside in; how they are looked after, including the provision of care; and the types of care, including top-up fees that have to be paid. <BR /> <BR />The legislative framework extends existing powers to allow the attorney the authority to make decisions not just on financial but on welfare and health matters. We in the SDLP stress, however, that the LPA process should be made as simple as possible for those who wish to use it.”
“According to the KPMG fraud barometer published this month, fraud on families perpetrated by one of their own grew by 384% in the first half of 2015 compared with the same period in 2014. It was KPMG's view that that was largely due to the frustration of family members having to wait longer for their inheritance as a result of increased life expectancy. There you go. By value, 72% of family fraud was committed by fraudsters aged over 45. <BR /> <BR />It was the view of the Law Centre, and of many other stakeholders, that the EPA system has operated very effectively in the North without any evidence of widespread fraud and that the introduction of LPA alone will not solve the problems that exist. That is not to say that the introduction of LPAs is a bad thing in itself; the opposite is true.”
“The simplicity of the current EPA system has led to its widespread use by members of the public. It has also meant that the legal cost of putting an EPA in place from assisting with the completion of the prescribed forms and the court fees for registration of the EPA has been kept low. Many related to the Committee that an LPA introduction without EPA would see costs increase and act as a barrier to some utilising the service. <BR /> <BR />One of the main drivers for the introduction of the LPA is the intention to decrease fraud and to provide more protection for the patient. However, in England and Wales, much larger numbers of fraud cases are being prosecuted than under the previous EPA system. There were 2,200 safeguarding referrals to the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) in England and Wales in 2013-14.”
“<BR /> <BR />The society noted with concern, however, that the Bill proposes to abolish enduring powers of attorney entirely. It is the society's view that EPAs have brought benefits to Northern Ireland and that the current system of EPAs should be retained. Retention of enduring powers of attorney alongside the new lasting power of attorney would give, it says, the client maximum flexibility and accessibility to meet their legal needs. It is for that reason that we welcome the Sinn Féin amendment No 119 and the Minister's intention to oppose clause 110. To remove EPA would be a premature attempt to reduce potential fraud and make the system more efficient. <BR /> <BR />Most of the rest of the amendments, bar amendment No 116, on which a petition of concern has been put down, are technical.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to address the group 3 amendments considering EPAs, LPAs and oversight bodies. Clauses 95 to 110 set out lasting powers of attorney in the Bill. In evidence sessions, there were numerous representations on enduring power of attorney and lasting power of attorney. The Law Society broadly welcomed the majority of the proposals in the Bill. In particular, it welcomed the proposal to introduce the health and welfare lasting power of attorney, which will give attorneys the ability to make decisions on health and welfare matters. We too welcome that proposal because, if used correctly, it can provide more certainty for people when deciding their future.”
“I am glad that the Member has referred to the agrifood sector. I am sure that he is aware of the fact that the Ulster Farmers' Union has been in touch about the potential risk to upwards of 50 projects if the scheme is denied to them. <BR /> <BR />Will the Member also accept that, for many of those SMEs, what this does dissipates and crashes public confidence in the ability of the Department and Executive to do things effectively and efficiently and with some degree of dignity and honour? It just crashes it. I trust that the Member will take that point.”
“Does the Member also accept that, with the downturn in the construction industry, many associated with that industry sought gainful employment in the renewables sector, carved out a niche for themselves and became specialists?”
“That must be a few of those firms waiting for us outside. The Minister should live up to commitments given and comply with the date that the Department gave. That is what people worked to and committed their businesses to.”
“Thanks very much for giving way, Mr Lunn. The scheme does not trundle on interminably, as the Minister said. It is for the Minister to bring in fresh legislation on this. What most of us are arguing this evening is that the Minister should stick to what he said. He should live up to the commitments given and live up to the —”
“<BR /> <BR />Trust is lost with businesses and others who wanted to engage in the scheme and contribute to the protection of the environment, as well as people who took out loans and invested in stock because they were committed to the environment. Who will compensate those people for the investment? Who will compensate them for job losses as a consequence? Who will compensate people who took out loans in good faith? It really is an unmitigated mess.”
“In summation, I will say a few words in my capacity as an SDLP Member for a constituency where a number of the businesses are located. Many feel deeply let down. Indeed, some of the business organisations that have been in touch with me feel that it is an issue of honour. If they cannot plan with certainty on government decisions, why depend on an Executive? Why rely on an Executive? Why even make those decisions on investment if the commitments that have been given on behalf of government — DETI, in this case — are fly-by-night commitments that disappear like snow off a ditch without any notification to those people?”
“<BR /> <BR />As I said at the outset, the Committee was given very little time to consider this highly complex and very controversial issue. It is also evident from my contribution that the evidence from the Department has raised many more questions for the Committee and, indeed, others outwith the Chamber than it has answered, which is why the Committee was only able to note the statutory rule.”
“There is also the issue of DFP approval, which was missed for a deadline to seek re-approval for the non-domestic scheme, and the audit will check that there has been no breach in obligation of the scheme there too. So we are not seeing a happy picture over at the Department. The permanent secretary informed the Committee that, as accounting officer, he has concerns about the scheme and will make sure that it is examined objectively and transparently, which is why the audit is being conducted on his behalf. Given the short time until dissolution, the Committee for the Economy will no doubt wish to consider the outcome of the audit, and the Committee will want to include the matter in its legacy report.”
“I thank the Member. He is well across this, and I thank him for his expertise in the area. Obviously it raises that question too. Why? What was going on over there? Again, why was it not revisited when an increase in demand became evident in March 2015? Why was it not included in the consultation that issued on 22 July 2015? The need for it was actually mentioned in the document that it issued in September 2015. Gone; not there. <BR /> <BR />The permanent secretary outlined the details of an audit of the scheme that the Department would undertake. It will consider whether the scheme was adequately designed to cope with an unprecedented increase in demand, look at whether there were administrative errors and examine whether the budget situation may have been clarified at an earlier stage.”
“However, that was not implemented here. Officials said that it was not considered because the scheme was underperforming and resources were limited. There you are; not exactly that now. These questions need to be asked: why was that option not revisited in November 2014 when it was seen that the applications were over three months ahead of expectations, and why was it not —”
“These questions arise: how many people out there now wish they had exactly that facility to avail themselves of, and would such a facility or even a facility for preliminary notification, which would give advance warning that an application is coming, have given the Department some earlier indication of what it could expect? <BR /> <BR />That leads me on to the next part of the process, which is about exactly that type of management. Officials were questioned on the demand management measures that had been put in place in GB and asked why similar measures had not been put in place here. In GB, in a process known as digression, an assessment of applications is set out against a budgetary position, and, if applications approach certain budgetary levels, the tariff is automatically lowered to dampen demand.”
“<BR /> <BR />Committee members also questioned officials about any safeguards that could or should have been put in place to protect businesses and the Department's budget. The Department provides preliminary accreditation for very large applications; however, there have been few of those. Preliminary accreditation is provided before the plant is built, but it applies only to plants over 200 kilowatts, which take a lot longer to plan and involve a lot more finance. Officials said that smaller installations did not have that facility because they did not need it. I bet you there is a whole lot of them out there today — hundreds of them — who wish they had that protection.”
“The Department must therefore have made some assessment of the number of applications that it could have anticipated until the end of March. How difficult would it have been to use that measure to estimate the impact of early closure on jobs, businesses and the economy? When questioned about the risk of a legal challenge to the legislation, officials informed the Committee that the Minister was aware of the risk of challenge and that the analysis presented to the Minister included analysis of the risk. My question is this: what was the analysis of the risk that the decision would be challenged? Was the view taken that it would be less expensive to face legal challenge than to continue with the scheme? That is a risky one.”
“When asked about the uncovered liabilities for businesses that had already invested in stock for unfinished projects and whether they had been left high and dry, officials stated that the potential consequences were part of the analysis, that all factors had been considered and that there was no provision to compensate any business or individual affected. <BR /> <BR />When questioned in more detail about the Department’s assessment of the economic implications of the proposals, the officials said that they had limited information on this because it was hard to predict the number of applications. However, officials were able to say that, if the scheme were left open until the end of March, it would roughly double the pressure over the next five years; in other words, they were predicting the level of applications.”
“<BR /> <BR />When officials were questioned about the impact of closure on people who took business decisions to buy stock to develop schemes on the strength of the renewable heat incentive, the Committee was told, "That would be a matter for themselves". When they were asked if any consideration had been given to the economic implications and whether any consideration had been given to putting the proposals out to consultation, the Committee was informed that the options were considered and a judgement made that the need to stem the flow of uncovered expenditure was the overriding consideration.”
“Another business informed the Committee that it has a large number of clients who have borrowed money for investing in renewable heating systems that are part way through installation and repayments have been calculated to banks and other lending institutions on the strength of obtaining payments under the scheme. The businesses say that the clients will not pay for work currently being installed if they cannot obtain the RHI. As other Members will be aware, one supplier company has invested over £600,000 in stock for projects that will probably be cancelled as a result of closure, and the business is now under threat of going into administration. That is the harsh reality of this unusual decision.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee has received considerable correspondence from industry representatives, as we all have as individual MLAs, about the impact of the legislation on their businesses and on jobs. I was listening to the Minister speak about this earlier, and I will give him a few examples that he obviously has not heard. One business has indicated that, if it stops work now, it will lose over £100,000 in committed supplies and equipment, but, if it keeps working on jobs that are already in place but will not be covered by the scheme, it stands to lose over £1 million and 25 jobs.”
“Officials said that, if they had gone through proper procedures and had come to the Committee, that would have allowed time for a spike — a spike that was coming because people had been anticipating the March deadline anyway since a consultation had been brought forward last July for legislation that was introduced last November. They knew about the date. Is it the case that the Department has only now anticipated a further spike during March and has decided, without regard to the consequences for jobs, businesses, homes and the environment, to close the renewable heat incentive to avoid facing that spike? As I said, the Department acknowledged that it was reasonable for homeowners and the industry to expect that the scheme would run until 31 March, given that that was the date until which the tariffs were valid.”
“When questioned about the failure to follow proper procedures, officials stated that the Department had been looking at how to resolve the issue since December and that to have opened the problem up at an earlier stage would, in itself, have carried the risk of increased applications. They said it; I did not. They said that the previous spike had occurred because people had had time to consider and make applications. That is usually the whole idea behind a scheme. <BR /> <BR />When the legislation came into effect last November, announcing that the tariffs would apply until 31 March 2016, would it not have been reasonable to assume, given recent history, that there would be a further spike in applications before the 31 March deadline?”
“Can the Department explain how the tariff runs until 31 March but the scheme ends on 29 February? It is bizarre. <BR /> <BR />When it was put to officials last week, they agreed that it would be reasonable to infer that the reference in the statutory rule would raise the expectation that applications at this level would be received until that date. They said that it would be reasonable to expect it to run until that date. However, as officials put it, there was the overriding issue of preventing a further increase in the financial pressure faced by the Department.”
“It is in the text of the statutory rule at paragraph 10(3): "31st March 2016". Not 15 February 2016, not 29 February 2016, but 31 March 2016. Would that deadline, in the text of the legislation, not have raised a reasonable expectation in the industry, and, indeed, among householders, that that was the deadline to which they could work in order to avail themselves of the current tariff levels?”