Mervyn Storey
North Antrim · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I thank the Minister for his statement. It will be noted that there are those who cry much about the environment and purport to be the champions of the environment who did not have the courtesy to come to the House and be present when the statement was being made.”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. Clearly, there are some in the House who want to continue with the same old, same old and get the same outcomes at a huge cost to the public purse and to farms in Northern Ireland. The Minister is absolutely right: it is a scourge.”
“I am sure that the Minister will be aware, having listened to the Member who spoke before me, that the farmers of North Antrim will make an informed choice about who best supported farmers during this mandate of the Assembly.”
“A pilot scheme has been operating with the Education Authority, the PSNI and the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust across 60 schools in the south Down area since September 2021 and was extended to a further 77 schools in the Newry and south Armagh areas at the start of February 2022.”
“As Chair of the Justice Committee, I am pleased to welcome the motion. It implements the provisions taken forward by the Committee in the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 to establish an Operation Encompass model in Northern Ireland, which is, as the Minister has outlined, a police and early intervention pa…”
“We had our final meeting of that Committee this morning, and I want to place on the public record our appreciation and thanks to our Committee staff of for all the work that they have done.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,983 lines we hold for Mervyn Storey, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 30 of 60.
“<BR /> <BR />The remaining clauses simply deal with the interpretation and commencement of the Bill’s provisions. I look forward to the support of the Assembly in taking forward those important measures.”
“<BR /> <BR />The clause outlines the properties that will be covered and provides that the depth of the window display must not exceed 1·5 metres, while the area of the window display must not exceed 5% of the floor area of the part of the building fronted by the window display. The geographical area to be covered by the regulations will be laid out in subsequent legislation by the Department, in line with the provision's commencement. Given the ongoing issue of empty shops, the clause will play a small part in allowing shopping areas to be made more vibrant and attractive to shoppers and in promoting nearby businesses, without any ratepayers being penalised. <BR /> <BR />Clause 3 and the schedule give effect to consequential repeal provisions.”
“Clause 2 ensures that, where shop fronts or shop window displays are used in empty retail premises, ratepayers will effectively continue to receive 50% empty property relief or an exclusion, if that is applicable. Without that, rates would otherwise be charged at the full occupied rate. It is a measure that was originally trialled in 2012, on foot of a suggestion from Belfast Chamber of Trade. The suggestion related to non-commercial window displays. However, the new clause extends the potential use to commercial window displays. The provision is initially time-bound but can be further extended should the policy prove to be successful.”
“That is dependent, however, on further research and analysis by DFP, and on consultation with stakeholders and others. My Department will soon be launching a consultation on the issue in order to be in a position to utilise the new enabling power in due course. The consultation will fill in the gaps in due process left from the previous initiative associated with the private Member's Bill and the useful sessions undertaken by the Finance Committee on the policy area.”
“<BR /> <BR />Subsections (1) and (3) of the clause provides that the regulations made as a result of the new provision will be subject to affirmative resolution control by this Assembly. <BR /> <BR />Members will wish to note that I am presently minded to use such powers to increase the level of rate reduction from 80% to 100% in the case of hereditaments in which intoxicating liquor is not sold.”
“A prescribed recreation is a recreation, whether conducted outdoors or indoors, which, in the opinion of my Department, demands an appreciable degree of physical effort and which is of a kind specified by DFP by subordinate legislation. Such prescription is periodically reviewed and can be found at present within the Rates (Recreational Hereditaments) Order (Northern Ireland) 2007. <BR /> <BR />Subsections (1) and (2) of the clause will insert a new paragraph (5A) into article 31 of the 1977 Order which enables my Department, by regulations, to provide that the reduction in the normal rate provided under that article may be increased from 80% to 100% in cases prescribed in regulations.”
“I think that is something to be noted; it is something to be welcomed. It is something which, I think, indicates that progress has been made. I view this short Bill as the completion of a cycle of primary legislation associated with commitments made by my predecessors during this Assembly term. <BR /> <BR />Turning to the detail of the legislation, clause 1 provides a power for the Department to increase the rates reduction under the article 31 sports and recreation exemption in the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 in certain cases. Article 31 of the 1977 Order provides for a reduction of 80% in the normal rate in respect of certain hereditaments which are shown in the net annual value (NAV) list as being used solely for the purposes of a prescribed recreation.”
“The issue of vacant properties persists, and it remains a challenge for us today. However, we can play our part. The empty shops rates concession had its origins in an idea put forward by my colleague Mr Sammy Wilson and also by the Belfast Chamber of Trade and Commerce. It has since been replicated all over the United Kingdom and has now seen 525 new businesses occupying premises in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />We also took forward our own revaluation exercise in Northern Ireland. Lisney commented on the effects of this process in Belfast only last week, stating that:”
“Its result would be to help the appearance of town centres while simultaneously highlighting other businesses in the immediate area. Building on this idea, my Department undertook a targeted consultation on the issue last year and reported on the issue to the Committee in April, after which the Committee signalled that it was content with the policy, subject to any refinements thought necessary by the Department in developing the legislation that we see before us today. <BR /> <BR />Let me be clear: no one sees this micro-policy as the answer to the issues presented by vacant units on our high streets. That trend is rooted in several factors outside the control of the rating system, let alone this Assembly. It is an issue for Members, for me as an MLA for my own constituency and for all of our colleagues in this Chamber.”
“My predecessor, who is now the First Minister, correctly viewed the option of introducing a second Bill on the same policy area at that stage as undesirable in terms of the impression it would give of the Assembly as a legislative body. To that end, this Bill comes before you today under the accelerated passage process so as to complete its passage before the end of the mandate. No alternative was open to us. <BR /> <BR />Members will be pleased to hear that the second policy given effect to by this Bill had a much smoother development process. The idea was put forward by Mr Peter Murray of the Buttercrane Shopping Centre in Newry. The policy goal was modest and would see a policy put in place to permit commercial window displays advertising shops and businesses.”
“That state aid case effectively halted development on all areas associated with any policy change in this area between the filing of the complaint and the judgement, which was not received until the end of April 2015. Following the judgement, my Department moved to finalise a Bill with an enabling power to enhance sport and recreation relief to 100% in certain prescribed cases. <BR /> <BR />The introduction of the Bill was again delayed by the introduction of the competing private Member's Bill just prior to the summer recess. The Member introduced his Bill in the full knowledge that a departmental Bill had been prepared.”
“Suffice it to say that my Department will also be moving to undertake the required outstanding consultation work on its preferred policy in this area in line with the progression of this Bill. The consultation work with the wider business sector will aim to fill in the gaps in due process that were unattended to in the process undertaken by Mr McKay. <BR /> <BR />The private Member's Bill consultation also broadly coincided with an important EU state aid case taken against the UK Government in respect of the preferential treatment of community amateur sports clubs in the rest of the UK under corporation tax and business rates. The case was taken by the Association of Golf Club Owners in 2013.”
“Those issues centred on the fact that any proposal to enhance sport and recreation relief to 100% could have the effect of placing licensed sports clubs — those with a liquor licence — in such an advantageous position so as to affect trade in the wider licensed hospitality sector. Those concerns were relayed on numerous occasions. <BR /> <BR />I do not propose to outline again the detailed issues at play in balancing those considerations today. Members can read about them in their own time in the Finance Committee's minutes of evidence. If they want to take some time during this afternoon's Budget debate, I am sure that would be one way in which they could spend their time profitably.”
“As a result of that intervention, my Department had to turn its attention to the specific proposals advocated in Mr McKay's Bill. My Department highlighted several concerns with the approach taken in those proposals. <BR /> <BR />Many of the issues raised by my predecessors were not new; indeed, they were central to the 1979 Lawrence report on this issue. They were raised again by the Northern Ireland hospitality sector, which had notable concerns about the proposals in Mr McKay's Bill. Put very generally, the hospitality sector raised competition issues with Mr McKay's proposals.”
“<BR /> <BR />Earlier in this mandate, during a debate on this issue, a commitment was given to examine the relief provided to community and amateur sports clubs. As was noted in the accelerated passage debate earlier, my Department's work on this commenced straight away. The first step was to engage with DCAL, the policy-competent Department in this area. There followed a period during which the Culture, Arts and Leisure Minister undertook her own analysis of the policy options available in this area alongside Sport NI with a view to reporting back to DFP. That work effectively ceased, however, when a private Member's Bill consultation was launched by the Culture, Arts and Leisure Minister's party colleague Mr McKay.”
“However, I think we are endeavouring to find a way through the differences. Today is an attempt to find that agreed position. <BR /> <BR />The Bill concludes a much broader range of rating legislation taken forward by my Department through this mandate and takes the opportunity presented in the closing months of the mandate to progress some final adjustments in respect of commercial rating. <BR /> <BR />I will start this debate by providing an overview of the Bill's contents and the policy background before moving into the detail of the clauses. First, I will deal with the new sport and recreation provision. Members will be aware that my party has long had an interest in securing provision in this area, on the proviso that the final policy is a measured one that weighs up the interests of the wider body of commercial ratepayers.”
“The new sports and recreation relief power within this Bill, and the subsequent subordinate legislation will, I believe, serve to complement much of his work in this area in recent years. I also want to take time to acknowledge the fact that the Chair of the Committee has actively supported the accelerated passage motion for this Bill, both earlier today and at a related Committee session back in November when the new First Minister, as the then Finance Minister, put her case for an accelerated process. I commend him for his responsible cross-party approach to the Bill, drawing a line in the sand on previous disagreements in this area despite his own clear policy preferences. That is appreciated, and sometimes that does happen where a particular Bill happens to be a private Member's Bill and there is a disagreement.”
“<BR /> <BR />Before turning to the detail of the Bill, I want to take the opportunity to thank the Finance and Personnel Committee for its policy work on this issue in recent months. I also think it is an important issue for our citizens and for the public. If the public took the time to see the huge amount of work that our Committees carry out, I think that they would really appreciate the invaluable contribution that Committees make. This is no less the case in terms of the policy work on this issue in recent months. In particular, I want to thank the Finance and Personnel Committee for the helpful evidence sessions that it held with sports bodies and the hospitality sector at the end of last year. <BR /> <BR />I also want to express specific thanks to the Chair of the Finance Committee.”
“I very much welcome the opportunity to open the debate on this short Bill, which brings forward two targeted measures to amend legislation pertaining to the commercial rating sector. I have touched upon some of these issues in the preceding debate, so I ask Members to bear with me if some points are reiterated within this Second Stage. However, given the day that it is — the Chair has alluded to the fact that we may be here for a considerable number of hours — I have no doubt that, as Minister for Finance, I will later hear many arguments repeated and repeated and repeated in relation to these issues, so I suppose, Mr Speaker, that you can forgive me for indulging in a bit of repetition for a moment.”
“I thank the Chair for his comments, and also Mr McCrea. He makes a valid point in relation to the work of the Committees. Not wishing to rehearse all that was said in this House yesterday when we discussed the Legal Complaints and Regulations Bill, I think that is another example, and there are others in this Assembly, where we have demonstrated that when a Department and a Committee work together we can actually have an enhanced outcome in relation to the original policy intent. We look forward to hearing the detail of the concerns raised by the Chair when we move into the Second Stage of the Bill in a few moments' time. <BR /> <BR />I thank Members for their help in bringing it to this stage, and I thank them for their contributions.”
“I resort to that approach in exceptional circumstances, which I have outlined. <BR /> <BR />Bearing in mind that Members will have the opportunity to raise issues on the detail of the Bill during Second Stage, I seek the support of the House for accelerated passage for the Bill and look forward to hearing Members' comments. I look forward to the Assembly showing the same all-party support for accelerated passage that was demonstrated by the Committee.”
“The Committee has been aware of the Bill's content since September of last year and has had briefings on the policy content in meetings dating back to April last year. The Bill is short, and I trust that the content is not contentious in any way; there are now significant safeguards built in by way of enabling powers; and any final policy on the sports clubs policy will not be implemented without a debate in the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />Turning now to my obligations under Standing Order 42(4)(c), as I have indicated, where possible, I believe that legislation should be taken through the normal process, as that ensures that due process is followed and the Committee is afforded adequate time to scrutinise a Bill clause by clause. I will take all necessary steps to ensure that the accelerated passage mechanism is not exercised unnecessarily .”
“The provision will help to improve high streets and shopping areas at the earliest possible date. As Members know, the enabling power relating to relief for community amateur sports clubs will permit the further consultation work on the substantive changes to be made through subordinate legislation to take place, and my predecessor informed the Committee that I intend to undertake a targeted eight-week consultation on the issue as early as possible. Early Royal Assent may enable both changes to be made in the 2016-17 rating year, subject to the consultation outcome and Land and Property Services administrative requirements. <BR /> <BR />I reiterate that accelerated passage is not an attempt to shield the Bill from proper scrutiny by the Committee or the Assembly.”
“Just as it was preparing to do so, the Department was then held up by further issues from the recent private Member's Bill on rate relief for community amateur sports clubs, which fell at Second Stage. <BR /> <BR />Members will already be aware of my party’s position on that Bill, and I do not intend to go over that old ground today. Needless to say, it had the effect of further delaying the Department’s Bill. That has all contributed to the need for accelerated passage if the Bill is to be passed in this mandate. I want to assure Members that the Bill will come to them as soon as possible following Executive-level clearance. <BR /> <BR />The commercial window displays disregard will now see the light of day, which is a signal to the business sector that we continue take the ideas promoted by it very seriously.”
“Essentially, the policy process in relation to the Bill commenced immediately following commitments made during a motion in the Assembly in 2011. From that point, the issue was taken up by DCAL as the policy-competent Department, which then referred the matter to Sport NI. <BR /> <BR />The whole concept of community amateur sports clubs and their status for tax purposes, including the matter of their treatment for rating purposes, then became the subject of a recent state aid case in GB taken against Her Majesty's Government. The decision was then not reported until 30 April 2015. It remains an issue for the Department, and a final assessment needs to be made so that we do not fall foul of state aid rules. However, it is no bar to the Department taking forward an enabling power in that regard.”
“I believe that the best way to take forward legislation is to have a full Committee procedure in which legislation can be scrutinised and any outstanding issues resolved to the satisfaction of the Committee. That is undoubtedly the way in which legislation should be advanced. There were a number of factors, however, that prevented my Department bringing the Bill forward to the Assembly through the normal passage procedure. I will take the opportunity, as required under Standing Order 42(4), to explain to the House why I am seeking accelerated passage, the consequences of it not being granted and how I will minimise future use of the mechanism. <BR /> <BR />There have been delays outside my Department's control in bringing forward the Bill.”
“The measure is untried anywhere else in the United Kingdom and is time-bound in the new clause to the end of 31 March 2017 with the potential to extend further. <BR /> <BR />My predecessor appeared before the Committee on 17 November 2015 to explain to the Committee, as required under Standing Order 42(3), why it is necessary for this particular Bill to proceed by way of accelerated passage and the consequences should it not be granted. Minister Foster had a productive session with the Committee, and I thank the Committee members and Chair for the responsible way that they recognised the need to expedite the process for the Bill and also for the Committee's support in seeking Assembly approval for accelerated passage. <BR /> <BR />The use of accelerated passage is not something that any Minister takes lightly.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Maybe the next time, you will ask the Minister of Justice to speak a little slower and that will mean that our passage here will not be just as quick. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the opportunity to address the Assembly on the motion, which will provide enabling powers for two commercial rating measures. There are two substantive clauses in the Bill. The first provides a power to enhance rate relief for community amateur sports clubs (CASCs), subject to criteria to be prescribed in subordinate legislation, which will be subject to affirmative resolution of the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />The second allows commercial window displays to be disregarded from occupation for rating purposes and is essentially an anti-blight measure suggested by businesses and advanced by my Department.”
“I welcome the consensus that there has been. Even though it has taken a considerable period of time for us to get to this point from the original Bain report, as Mr Lunn reminded us, I think this is progress, and I look forward to working towards seeing the conclusion of the Bill through the Assembly and this mandate.”
“I trust that that has given some assurance that a genuine attempt was made in relation to the Bill to find a balanced approach to dealing with issues of concern. <BR /> <BR />I think that I have covered all the main issues and concerns that were raised by Members.”
“It is not retirement; I am sure that, for him, it will be a change of focus and emphasis. I have no doubt that he still has much to contribute to Northern Ireland, his constituency and his party. I wish him a very happy future, and I trust that our paths will cross in the future. <BR /> <BR />Mr Maginness was supportive of the amendments. He asked about amendment Nos 4 and 9, which deal with apologies. This policy was raised by the society and the Committee. As the Member noted, it is a welcome addition. The clause, as he said, will free up the professionals involved in making such an apology. As I said to the Member in relation to fees, there needs, in relation to the apology, to be proportionality in terms of the challenges that that raises.”
“Equally, however, I do not want to encourage vexatious or malicious complaints. There is ample provision in the Bill for a fee to be applied to those complaints. If the complainant acts so unreasonably that the relevant complaints committee deems it to be appropriate to award costs, it may do so under clause 17(4)(h) and clause 36(4)(h). In fairness, that tries to strike a balance in relation to these things. <BR /> <BR />I turn to the comments from my colleague and friend Mr Alban Maginness. I want to do publicly what I have done personally: I thank him for his contribution to the Assembly and for the way in which we were able to work together in my time not only as a Member but when I was appointed Minister for Social Development. I wish him well in his future.”
“It will be a modest operation but one that will have significant influence in getting complaints handled properly. Using a rough calculation and without indicating the exact methodology that we will employ, I am of the view that it will cost no more than £100 per lawyer per year. I trust that that gives him some assurance in relation to that issue. <BR /> <BR />The Member then raised an issue that has been extensively discussed: should there be a fee on complaints? That issue was discussed at considerable length. I believe that the new arrangements should be free to all genuine complainants. Not all genuine complainants will succeed with their claims, for a variety of reasons, but a lack of success does not in itself mean that a complainant has not been genuine. I do not want to discourage such complaints by setting a fee.”
“I turn to the points made by my colleague Mr McCrea. He asked what assurances could be given that this would be a cost-effective scheme, that the LSOC would not lose the run of things and that there would not end up being increased costs. I trust that the Bill is a measured response to the issues that were raised during the Bain review. They were given credence by the consultation that my Department undertook in 2014, which I referred to. They were raised and discussed at length by the Committee during scrutiny of the Bill. The way in which we have approached the issue is proportionate. The approach will ensure a cost-effective and value-for-money process. Much of the cost of the scheme will be in the hands of the Law Society and the Bar, as they will be responsible for operating the schemes in terms of the LSOC.”
“There is a danger in taking academic arguments in isolation and not looking carefully at the specific context of the available evidence. As far as I am aware, Dr Hosier did not input into the original work that was carried out by Bain, and nor did she comment on the Department's consultation in 2014. I am not aware of her having carried out any specific research in this jurisdiction. The points in her paper to the Committee are, of course, important, but they are only one voice in a debate that involved stakeholders from across the spectrum. We went out to consultation on the legislation and collated a considerable amount of information over a period.”
“Although the Bill is the principal document, I assure the Chair that I am content for further work to be undertaken on the EFM after this stage to meet the points that were raised by the Committee during its scrutiny. <BR /> <BR />The Chair also mentioned the number of complaints and papers submitted by consultees, including Dr Hosier. He noted that the amendments that I propose today will address the concerns raised to the Committee and by the Committee. The new system will not fail due to a lack of information. The amendments to the powers in clause 2 already meet the goal of the Committee and of my Department to capture this relevant information. An assurance can be given that there will be no lack of information available. The Chair referred to Dr Hosier, an academic from Middlesex University.”
“I reaffirm and refer members to the fact that the Solicitors Complaints Committee can be appointed only after consultation with the LSOC and the process to appoint members must be drawn up in consultation with the LSOC. That is an important point, because this is a significant check on a possible concern that the Law Society hand-picks members. The process will follow the Nolan principles. I am happy to reiterate that assurance in the House today. <BR /> <BR />Mr McKay, as Chair, and a number of Members referred to the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM), noting that, in some areas, it lacked the required detail. My officials discussed that with the Committee during Committee Stage and have indicated that more information will be included in the EFM. Any EFM is there to assist readers with their understanding of a Bill.”
“Other members made a similar argument, including Mr Lunn, at the cost of being in disagreement with his colleagues. My colleague the Member for East Antrim made a point about the Chair reflecting on the issue and not moving the amendment. I place it on record that I plan to meet the Chair later today about the fact that I have just been put in post, and this may be something that we want to discuss. <BR /> <BR />The Chair also referred to the appointment of members to the Solicitors Complaints Committee. I need to clarify and place it on record that the Law Society council will not be allowed to sit on the complaints committee.”
“<BR /> <BR />I want to reiterate the remarks that I made earlier, taking on board the fact that the LSOC will be the central figure in the new system. It is my belief, having read the papers on coming into office — it is not simply a matter of me parroting what I have been given to say — that, when you read all that has been said, you see that the LSOC will be best placed to carry out a review, if one is judged to be necessary. It would be different if I were presenting a Bill in the House today and saying that I did not support an amendment but not able to point to a clause or schedule that gave the same outcome — the same scrutiny and the same process. If that were the case, I would feel that amendment No 10 was necessary.”
“I did that with a heavy heart, knowing that I could never replace him. However, it was an honour to serve. I always appreciated the hard work of the Committee staff and the way in which they presented the arguments. I want to place that on record today. <BR /> <BR />I believe that we have taken an important step forward in shaping the legislation. The interaction with the Committee was referred to by Mr Cree, and it is an example of how we should do business. In particular, I thank the Committee Chair for his comments on the amendments. I want to deal with his comments on the amendment that he tabled on behalf of the Committee. Yes, we have much consensus on the other amendments. However, on amendment No 10, we have not been able to get a consensus.”
“I thank all Members who made a contribution to the debate this afternoon, and I want to commence by making a few personal comments. I thank Members who gave their warm congratulations on my appointment. I assure you that I was as shocked as you are by it. However, I thank my boss, the First Minister, for the honour that she bestowed on me by enabling me to serve as Finance Minister in the Executive. <BR /> <BR />I served for some time as Deputy Chair of the Finance Committee. That brings me back almost to the time of the Bain report; in fact, it brings me back to 2007. Of course, the reason for my appointment as Deputy Chair was the sad death of my close friend and greatly missed brother in Christ, George Dawson. I was asked, after George's passing, to take the place of Deputy Chair.”
“Finally, I turn to amendment Nos 10 and 11. Taken together, they address a technical point raised by the Examiner of Statutory Rules in relation to the future provision outlined in clause 51. I am content to make the changes that the Examiner recommended to the Committee and which the Committee invited the Department to take on board. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I thank all those who have taken an interest in the Bill. When Professor Sir George Bain and his team sat down to work on this area, I doubt that they thought that almost a decade would pass before we discussed it here. It has been a long journey, but the debate has taken us closer to the aim of seeing a better system in place. I look forward to finalising the Bill in the forthcoming weeks and seeing it in operation later this year.”
“The cost of that proposed independent review would not be met by the levy — it sits outside the levy provisions — and would, therefore, have to be met by the Department. I question whether, given the facility available at clause 4, we need to have this additional, potentially costly, statutory review. In summary, I urge Members to resist the amendment tabled by the Committee. I understand the rationale for it and I agree that, at some point, the new system may need to be re-examined, but, given what we have already outlined, I do not think that a stand-alone statutory independent review after the relatively short period of three years is the answer.”
“Alternatively, things might not have gone as well before then as anticipated, in which case we would not need to wait three years before looking at a particular issue. It could be five, six or seven years before the matter needs to be examined again. My overall point is that we have the facility for a review in place, at a time most suited for it. Therefore, an additional statutory review, set at a particular point in time, is not required. <BR /> <BR />That leads me to my final point. Any review, if one were deemed necessary, would, under the existing provisions in the Bill, fall to the LSOC to carry out at the Department's request. The cost of that could be met by the levy imposed on professional bodies for the operation of the LSOC.”
“Let me explain: clause 4 allows my Department to request the Legal Services Oversight Commissioner to review any matter relating to the regulation or organisation of the professions. That broad power could include the general operation of the Act, and a review of it would fall within the provisions of clause 4. That would allow me, or any subsequent Finance Minister, to seek a review of the Act. There could be a number of reasons for seeking such a review, but it would also allow me or any future Finance Minister the flexibility to judge when any review should take place. <BR /> <BR />All the evidence in the coming years may suggest that the system has bedded down and is working well, which is an outcome that, I am sure, we all hope for. In those circumstances, we may not need a formal review in the next three years.”
“At this point, we do not know how long that bedding-in period will be or when the system will be operating as effectively and efficiently as we hope it will. To ask an independent person to carry out a review in three years might not be the right time. I believe that my Department — or whoever is in my Department in the future — will be much better placed to determine when the time is right for any review, outside of the normal post-legislative work, to be undertaken. That is my first point, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is about optics and perception to an extent, and also timing. <BR /> <BR />Secondly, I do not consider the amendment to be required. The Bill already allows scope for a thorough review of the legislation to be undertaken, and for it to be done at a juncture that it is considered appropriate.”
“I know that time has lapsed since then, but the evidence from the Lay Observer reports in the interim, coupled with the detailed consultation exercise carried out by my Department in 2014, points to an improved picture since the group carried out its work. <BR /> <BR />The Law Society and the Bar are now more than ready for the next stage of the process. Both have worked constructively with the Department and taken considerable steps to prepare themselves for the Bill. There is a lot of good faith from those bodies that they will make the required effort to make the new system work, and work well. My concern is that we could send out the wrong message if we say that the new system will be independently reviewed in three years' time. That is not a lengthy period. This is new legislation, and it will naturally take a little time to bed in.”
“It was one issue, during a very helpful interaction with the Committee, on which it was not possible to have a meeting of minds. There has been progress to date, but it is an issue where we have not been able to find a meeting of minds. My predecessor, and now First Minister, Arlene Foster, was of the view that a statutory review of the Bill when enacted is not required, and the Department, in discussion with the Committee, resisted the amendment. I share her concern for a number of reasons, which I will take a few moments to outline. <BR /> <BR />First, we are introducing, after a period of almost 10 years, legislation to give effect to a review undertaken independently by the legal services review group. Professor Bain and his team considered all the issues that led to the provisions in the Bill, and they were considered very carefully.”
“The Law Society noted that the power available to the relevant complaints committee to direct that a solicitor or barrister give an apology could have ramifications elsewhere. The Lay Observer was particularly keen on the ability of the complaints committee to direct an apology; he indicated that, in his experience, that was all that was needed in many instances. These amendments will allow a practitioner to give an apology without future consequences as the apology, in itself, will not amount to an admission of negligence in any civil proceedings. That is a useful addition to the clause. It mirrors similar provisions in other jurisdictions. <BR /> <BR />I will now speak about the amendment tabled by the Committee for Finance and Personnel.”
“That legislation provides that publications of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission are privileged unless the publication is proved to be made with malice. I am content to agree with the Committee's recommendation that clause 8 contain the same proviso. <BR /> <BR />I will deal with amendment Nos 3 and 8 together as they deal with the same point. Amendment No 3 is a technical amendment; it relates to a drafting point. It was highlighted to the Committee that clause 17(4)(a) and clause 17(5)(a), when read together, could be open to different interpretation. The removal of the words at clause 17(4)(a), as outlined in the amendment, will remove that possible anomaly. That is mirrored at clause 36(4)(a) in relation to amendment No 8. <BR /> <BR />I will also deal with amendment Nos 4 and 10 together.”