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 9 of 60.
“They highlighted that, in previous experience in the context of the statutory discount rate, such panels have not been helpful as the experts could not agree. <BR /> <BR />The Department was also very clear that wider societal or economic factors cannot be taken into account in setting the rate, otherwise the person who suffered serious injuries due to the negligence of another person would only be entitled to be compensated to the extent that society is able or willing to pay and that that would be a fundamental departure from the established 100% principle. <BR /> <BR />As I outlined earlier, having considered the issues raised and the responses from the Department, the Committee agreed that it was content with the provisions of the Bill.”
“Many of them recommended that the panel should go further than the panels in England and Wales, which consist of the Government Actuary, another actuary, an economist, a person with experience of managing investments and a person with experience in consumer matters as relating to investments and that it should also include economists, financial advisers and representatives of claimants and compensators, so that consideration is given to the current and future economic environment, investment options, the advice that is available to claimants and how claimants actually invest their damages. <BR /> <BR />When discussing the accountability arrangements and the different models, the departmental officials outlined that an expert panel is involved in the scheme in England and Wales, which results in extending the time taken to fix the rate.”
“The officials advised the Committee that the next review will be required in July 2024 and that, while they cannot speak for what a future Minister of Justice might do, the likelihood is that the Department will want to consult with the Government Actuary and that it may wish to take other views as well. <BR /> <BR />With regard to the accountability arrangements, a number of organisations that would, in the main, prefer the new methodology to be based on the model adopted in England and Wales, rather than the one adopted in Scotland, also stated that the Justice Minister should have the power to exercise judgement over the investment portfolio and any adjustments, but that they should be required by law to consult on those matters with an expert group.”
“It confirmed that any amendments to the portfolio would be made by regulations that would require the assent of the Assembly. The Department also stated that, when considering whether any changes are required to the notional portfolio before each review, it is likely to seek expert advice from the Government Actuary and that it does not believe that it is necessary to specify who it should consult with. <BR /> <BR />When the departmental officials attended to give oral evidence on the Bill, the Committee took the opportunity to ascertain whether the Department intended to undertake a public consultation so that all interested stakeholders can submit views on whether the notional portfolio remains suitable for investment in by a hypothetical investor.”
“As the Member outlined, before a review of the rate of return by the rate assessor is due to start, the Department must consider whether it is necessary to make regulations to ensure that the notional portfolio remains suitable for a hypothetical investor and, in considering that, the Department must consult such persons "as it considers appropriate". <BR /> <BR />In the evidence received by the Committee, several organisations highlighted that the legislation does not define with whom the Department must consult and stated that it is not clear whether, or how, the investment portfolio is to be reviewed each time a new rate is to be set. In response, the Department confirmed that the Bill places on it a duty to ensure, in advance of each review, that the notional portfolio remains appropriate.”
“It should also undertake an assessment of the potential options to gather evidence of actual claimant investment behaviour. Although it appreciates that it may be difficult to obtain information on how claimants actually invest their compensation awards, the Committee believes that there are benefits to doing that and that it could inform future consideration of the framework to set the personal injury discount rate. <BR /> <BR />I will turn to the amendment to paragraph 16 of the schedule, which was brought forward by Member Bradley. One of the key aspects of the new framework is the notional portfolio, which sets out the types of investment and percentage holdings on which the rate assessor is to determine a rate of return.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee's detailed consideration of those and other issues is set out in the report on the Bill, and, having taken all the views into account, the Committee agreed that it was content with the provisions in the Bill as currently drafted and did not seek to make amendments to it. The Committee did, however, make several recommendations for the Department to include, including that it should publish an impact assessment, setting out the potential implications of different rates on Departments and businesses when a review is due, so that the potential consequences and costs are fully understood and necessary mitigations and actions can be considered by the Government and relevant organisations in preparation for a new rate coming in.”
“<BR /> <BR />In particular, the Committee also sought further clarification and explanation from the Department regarding why the wider economic and social impacts of changes to the rate cannot be taken into consideration when setting the personal injury discount rate, and it discussed at length whether the inclusion of the 0·5% further margin adjustment provided for at paragraph10 of the schedule was necessary, particularly when considered with the notional portfolio and the other standard adjustments, to achieve as close to the 100% principle as possible or whether, as claimed by a range of organisations, it would lead to overcompensation and therefore should be removed from the Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />The key issues raised with the Committee regarding the proposed new framework included the extent, if any, the social and economic impact of the personal injury discount rate could be taken into account when setting the framework; whether responsibility for setting the personal injury discount rate should remain with the Minister of Justice rather than transfer to the Government Actuary; the provision of five-yearly reviews of the rate; the use of an assumed investment period of 43 years; whether the proposed standard adjustments to take account of the impact of taxation and the costs of investment advice and management as a further margin to recognise that there is a risk inherent in even the most carefully advised and invested portfolio are necessary and are set at an appropriate level to avoid overcompensation or under-compensation; the composition of the notional investment portfolio; and the description of the hypothetical investor.”
“Organisations representing businesses, insurance companies and public-sector bodies that are the defendants in personal injury claims, while wanting to see reform of the formula by which the personal injury discount rate is set, are of the view that the framework provided for in the Bill veers towards overcompensation, so they want to see amendments made to it.”
“We considered those not just individually but in conjunction with one another so that an overall view could be taken of the likely effect that the framework would have in its totality on the potential to achieve as close to 100% compensation or to provide for either overcompensation or under-compensation. First, it is important to highlight that all the organisations that submitted evidence to the Committee supported and were committed to the 100% compensation principle in order to ensure that a person is fully compensated for their losses. However, there was a clear divergence of views on how best to achieve that principle. While some organisations support the new framework in the legislation, the preference of those organisations representing or supporting claimants is to retain the current Wells v Wells methodology.”
“Finally, I thank the Committee team, who have supported the Committee not just to complete the Committee Stage of the Bill but to, at the same time, progress the other Bills currently in the Committee, including the Protection from Stalking Bill and the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Bill. The Minister certainly is getting her money's worth out of the Committee before the Christmas recess. <BR /> <BR />In order to assist the Assembly's consideration of the amendment to the schedule, which was tabled by my colleague and Committee member Sinéad Bradley, I want to briefly outline the Committee's consideration of the provisions in the Bill, particularly the various elements provided for in the schedule that make up the framework.”
“<BR /> <BR />I also place on record the Committee's thanks to the departmental officials who provided additional information and clarification, in writing and in oral evidence, during the process. The Committee also appreciates the support and assistance provided by the Assembly staff, including the researcher, the Examiner of Statutory Rules, the communications and broadcasting staff and the staff from Hansard, all of whom played an important role in supporting the Committee in undertaking its legislative scrutiny role in general and in the Committee Stage of the Bill in particular.”
“I thank him and Committee members for their robust and careful scrutiny of the Bill and the issues raised in the evidence during the Committee Stage. It is complex and technical work that is not easy to understand without expert knowledge, and members spent some time in consideration of it. <BR /> <BR />I also thank all the organisations who provided helpful written and oral evidence. I appreciate that there was not a consensus on the proposals for the new framework, and many of them would have liked to see additional amendments. However, they were all generous with their time when providing advice and guidance to the Committee from their expert viewpoint, and their contributions generally assisted our understanding of the issues.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee also sought the advice of the Examiner of Statutory Rules on whether the range of powers in the Bill to make subordinate legislation was appropriate. It also commissioned a research paper on the wider impacts of the changes to the discount rate in England, Wales and Scotland and a range of other matters to assist its consideration of the issues highlighted in the written and oral evidence. <BR /> <BR />The Committee considered the Bill's provisions and the issues raised at 13 meetings before agreeing its report on the Bill at its meeting on 21 October 2021. I thank the members of the Committee for their contributions past and present, because I am well aware that I have taken on the responsibilities of the previous Chair, who has gone on to higher things.”
“Thirty-one written submissions were received from a range of organisations, including from the Minister of Health, who engaged very constructively with the Committee on the proposed legislation and outlined in clear terms the likely impact on health and social care of the current personal injury discount rate and likely changes under the new framework, if adopted. The then Lord Chief Justice, Sir Declan Morgan, also provided a very useful commentary on a number of issues on behalf of the judiciary. Several oral sessions were held with representatives of medical, insurance and legal organisations that represented the viewpoints of claimants and defendants in personal injury claims. The issues raised and the evidence received were explored with the Department of Justice in writing and in oral evidence.”
“The Committee therefore undertook a detailed scrutiny of the Bill and the proposed new framework before reaching its position. The Committee had substantial engagement with the Minister of Justice and departmental officials, including the permanent secretary, on the policy proposals and the Bill's intended content in advance of its introduction to the Assembly on 1 March 2021. <BR /> <BR />Although the legislation is relatively specialised and was likely to be of interest to stakeholders operating within the personal injury field rather than more generally, the Committee published a media signposting notice in the main newspapers inviting written evidence on the Bill, as well as writing to a wide range of stakeholders.”
“It is therefore important that we get the framework right and ensure that claimants receive the compensation to which they are entitled while also ensuring that, as far as possible, the rate does not lead to overcompensation, given the ramifications that that would have for health and social care provision in Northern Ireland in terms of the costs of settlements, subscription costs for healthcare professionals, including GP indemnity costs, and the potential knock-on effect on the stability of the health and social care workforce and the implications for insurance premiums in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Achieving 100% compensation is not, however, an exact science. Assumptions have to be made about the future. That is not easy, and it clearly poses a challenge.”
“<BR /> <BR />The effect of the personal injury discount rate depends on the size of the award and the period to which it relates. The larger the award and the longer the time, the greater the effect that the discount rate has. It can therefore make a significant difference to the amount of the award. The lower the rate is set, the higher the compensation settlement that is paid to a claimant. Any new framework will set the personal injury discount rate for the foreseeable future.”
“The personal injury discount rate is a mechanism that aims to ensure that a person is fully compensated for their losses when they have suffered a serious, life-changing personal injury as a result of the negligence of another, but no more or less. That is referred to as the 100% compensation rule, and the Committee fully supports that principle. The compensation payment will include damages for any future financial losses, such as loss of earnings, the cost of future care and support and the provision of specialist equipment. Where the compensation is paid to an individual in a lump sum, he or she is expected to invest the money with the aim of ensuring that it lasts for the rest of their life. It largely applies to claims arising from medical negligence, road traffic accidents and industrial accidents.”
“The Committee is of the view that setting the rate under the Wells v Wells methodology no longer reflects how claimants would be advised to invest their lump sum and that a new framework for setting the rate is therefore needed for Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />The Committee supports the Bill. Given the difficulties that are being created with the current rate, which the Committee has been advised is the lowest in the world and has the potential to lead to overcompensation in a large number of cases, with the resultant economic and social ramifications, the Committee supports completion of the passage of the legislation through the Assembly as quickly as possible.”
“Before I address the amendment, with your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will make some general remarks about the Bill in my capacity as Chair of the Justice Committee and to set out the context in which the Committee reached its decisions on the legislation. <BR /> <BR />The Committee appreciates the need for a stable, long-term personal injury discount rate to be set in Northern Ireland, with provision for it to be reviewed at regular intervals, to replace the current methodology, particularly given the uncertainty that there has been in recent times and the reported negative impact on progressing cases under the previous rate and the more recently set rate of -1·75%.”
“To clarify, I am the same person in here as I am out there. I am happy to talk to anybody. I may enjoy a bit of banter in the House, but my message will be the same out there as it is in here. <BR /> <BR />I say to the Member from Upper Bann that it was worse than that. In the two years prior to that, Sinn Féin decided not to move on housing. It is playing a game of bluff. Now, all of a sudden, there is a rush to get everything to the Chamber so that it can get it into its election manifesto that it has done something for housing, when it has, in fact, sat on its hands for the past 10 years.”
“Thank you. I welcomed that opportunity. I said the same thing then as I say now: it is not one size fits all. It will take a combination of the private sector, the Housing Executive, housing associations and various other methods and means to ensure that we deliver good-quality homes for the people of Northern Ireland. I had the great joy of going to see the Apex scheme in the city of Londonderry, where we saw many houses that had been built in that city. However, I have to say that the party opposite bears huge responsibility for years of delay. It is time now to end the rhetoric, denial and delay. Let us see the Minister's plan. We will assess the plan and determine whether it is good for Northern Ireland plc and for housing.”
“However, housing associations are the very thing that the party opposite has problems and difficulties with.”
“Now, because there is an election — sooner rather than later, I hope — it wants to convince its people that it has done something about housing. It is time that Sinn Féin, as a party, faced up to the reality that it has let people down in Londonderry, west Belfast and other parts of the country, because it has failed. Now what does it want? It wants addressing that need to be a stand-alone issue for the Executive. It is time that that party came clean. <BR /> <BR />It must also come clean on another issue. Where does it stand with regard to housing associations? When I was Minister, I went with two Members from West Belfast to visit houses in their constituency. The ones that they showed me that were good examples were those that belonged to housing associations.”
“When I became Minister in 2014, he was the very person who obstructed the financial arrangements to change the model to give the Housing Executive the money that it needed to do the required work. Why? Because it did not suit Sinn Féin at the time.”
“Why therefore was there a delay? Let us go to that issue. Remember that the Speaker of the House, who was in the Chair earlier, was Minister in the Department for Social Development. He said in 2012:”
“The greatest challenge that I faced, however, was obstruction, denial and delay from the party opposite. The Savills report told us what investment was needed in our housing stock. When the party opposite decided to pull down this place for three years, it was not interested in housing. I was still working as a constituency MLA, and I wrote to the then permanent secretary, Leo O'Reilly, in 2018. In a letter to me, he said that it would take £3 billion of investment over 11 years to deal with the maintenance backlog, so let us not take the view that somehow the problem has crept up on us. <BR /> <BR />Fifty years ago, nationalists were complaining about poor housing, but so were unionists. It is an indictment of us collectively that it is 2021 yet there are people living in absolute squalor and people who cannot even get houses.”
“I thank the Member opposite for bringing the motion to the Chamber, and I welcome it. When I come to the House, there is one thing for which I am always thankful, and that is corporate memory, because it seems as though some people have very short memories. Although I would prefer not to make it a political issue, let us face up to some realities. <BR /> <BR />Some truths have to be told to some new Members who make glowing statements about "cross-collaboration" or who say, "Let us all work together to achieve an outcome". That is very funny, because the current Minister's party had no interest in working together when I was Minister for housing. Probably the happiest but most challenging days that I spent in this House were when I had the privilege of being the Minister for housing.”
“The Northern Trust has the lowest number of intensive care beds and a business case for 49 additional beds that has been sitting for months. In its winter plan, it states that the initial projections show a potential shortfall of over 200 beds across the acute hospital sites in the Northern Trust. Given all that, what practical steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the situation with ambulances that he described is brought to an end by the provision of beds in the hospitals?”
“Does the Member agree that countries such as Russia also need to be looked at? I believe that Russia is a communist state that rides on the back of the benefits of capitalism. Maybe it is time that Russia decided to look at its economics and at how it can help the rest of the world.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. She talks about a coherent approach. A colleague and I have four projects on the north coast that are gone because of opposition to wind or tidal from people who believed that the environment was going to be damaged. How do we get a balance? In the debate, one says, "Wind, tidal; great, wonderful", but, when we go to produce them, we find that four companies on the north coast are out of business.”
“I have listened to the Member and obviously she has raised a valid issue about insulation. Maybe she should have a word with her colleagues and ask them why, over the past number of years, her party has persistently resisted any changes to the Housing Executive. We are waiting on this new dawn for the Housing Executive from the current Minister, but that was denied by previous Sinn Féin representatives. That, ultimately, has led to a housing crisis for which she and her colleagues are responsible.”
“Minister, it is a pity that, when I was Minister in 2014 and 2015, your party did not have the same attitude to prioritising housing. Your party resisted changes to the financial arrangements that would have unlocked billions of pounds to invest in housing. Where did the Damascus road experience take place? Was it in Connolly House? Is it because there is an election pending and you now have to cover your tracks because nothing has been done to provide good-quality homes for the people of Northern Ireland?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I understand the reason why the Minister did not give way. However, thankfully, she gave us a window of opportunity, when she said that she would consider any evidence. It is not enough for PONI to determine that it adequately responded to the concerns that were raised by a court judgement. Surely, it should be in the hands of someone else to adjudicate and determine whether that was done adequately. We look forward to providing the Minister with evidence that she can consider.”
“On public surveys, will he also include some of the legal profession who have said that there are issues when you consider the number of reports that had to be amended or withdrawn, the catalogue of failed prosecutions initiated by the office and the many adverse comments by the judiciary concerning the poor quality of investigations? Maybe that would also give balance, fairness and transparency when we are looking at this organisation.”
“I thank the Member for raising the issue of the Omagh bomb. I remind the House that, as a result of the investigation of the Omagh bombing, one of the previous incumbents in that office had to issue an apology to three members of the RUC because of a complaint that was upheld in relation to what was included in that report. If we are going to talk about fairness, equity and impartiality, we need to put all the facts out there; not just some facts that some people like to labour more than others.”
“With 400 active cases, of which half are pending, that workload shows no signs of waning any time soon. Therefore, whilst we reject utterly the proposals for a de facto amnesty, the integrity of and confidence in the Police Ombudsman will only be fully restored when alternative mechanisms are agreed to deal with legacy cases. <BR /> <BR />It is clear that these problems cannot be stored up for another day, but, without clear and immediate action, that is exactly what will happen. The Minister cannot ignore the issues and problems that exist and that need to be addressed. The culture and practice in the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland must change and change quickly. On that basis, I commend the motion to the House.”
“The ombudsman's powers must be applied consistently to all circumstances and all communities. <BR /> <BR />The DUP does not believe that it should fall to the courts or the Secretary of State to ultimately hear complaints and identify poor practice within the office. PONI is investigating extremely serious and sensitive allegations, and yet there is no form of independent complaints mechanism for either complainants or officers under investigation. There needs to be consideration of how those concerns can be addressed practically. <BR /> <BR />We are clear that the predominant role of PONI's historical investigations directorate is, rightly or wrongly, influencing public perception about the focus of police complaints in Northern Ireland.”
“<BR /> <BR />Alternatively, there needs to be a deep-dive review of how the existing tools at PONI's disposal are applied. That should entail more effective and regular monitoring of their use, with additional oversight and enhanced training for the staff and investigators. We also need to look at how the public interest tests are currently relied upon by the ombudsman and how they are operating. For example, under section 60A of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, PONI has the right to launch a policy or practice investigation into the PSNI. That was used to initiate a review of the PSNI's handling of the Black Lives Matter protest. Similar dedicated attention was not granted to the events of the Storey funeral.”
“<BR /> <BR />Part of the reason that we have tabled the motion now is that the Minister is completing work on oversight of police accountability arrangements. As part of that, the Police Ombudsman is seeking further powers, including the power to compel serving and retired officers, "as witnesses and suspects", to attend for interview and the ability to "determine" a complaint where no misconduct or criminality has occurred but where there is still a "legitimate grievance". Ultimately, the balance and standard of investigations by PONI will not be addressed by a major expansion of powers. That would instead shift the focus even further towards former RUC officers and potentially create new getaways for vexatious and unsubstantiated investigations.”
“The onus is on the Minister of Justice, who is accountable to the House, to ensure the independence and efficient performance of the Police Ombudsman and to investigate and challenge poor standards of investigation and practice. <BR /> <BR />Let me be clear: the independence of the office does not preclude the Minister from taking lawful and impartial steps to ensure that PONI is performing to a standard that is acceptable and conducive to public confidence. Inspections by Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland have been sporadic and often limited to particular themes or aspects of the Police Ombudsman's remit. There is, therefore, a need for a comprehensive and fully independent evaluation of its performance.”
“<BR /> <BR />Unacceptable levels of performance affect bereaved families. For years after lodging a formal complaint, aided and assisted by my friend and colleague the MP for East Londonderry, Mr Gregory Campbell, the family of David Caldwell, who was savagely murdered by the Real IRA in 2002, are still waiting for a probe of the police investigations to be completed. That is only one example. We must always remember the damage to personal health and well-being that is caused by these inappropriate, inordinate and unexplained delays. <BR /> <BR />We accept that these failings have not appeared overnight, but they cannot be allowed to persist.”
“It is striking that nowhere in the PS did the ombudsman state that he had determined that the report did not indicate that a criminal offence may have been committed by a member of the police force. <BR /> <BR />Separate high-profile judgements, including in relation to previous investigations into the horrific "Good Samaritan" murders perpetrated by the IRA, have been scathing of the ombudsman. There has been particular criticism of PONI's failure to properly explain or provide evidence for the often significant and sensationalist conclusions that it makes. Serious failings call into question the independence and the fairness of the office. The Police Ombudsman is supposed to be the gatekeeper for the human rights of police officers as well as complainants, yet, in practice, that obligation has been shirked on numerous occasions.”
“In June 2020, the Court of Appeal ruled on the matter of whether the 2016 public statement (PS) should be struck down. The Court considered that the determinations made by the ombudsman in the paragraphs on collusion were "not ... decisions or determinations" to which the 1990 Act applied and that they:”
“In response to the judicial review of the PONI statement, which was brought by the Northern Ireland Retired Police Officers Association, Judge McCloskey stated:”
“<BR /> <BR />In 2016, the then Police Ombudsman, Michael Maguire, made a public statement on the office's second investigation into the Loughinisland murders in 1994. That included the following statement:”
“Examples of poor practice include the willingness of the Police Ombudsman to exceed the office's statutory powers in making determinations that certain crimes have taken place; the trend in the ombudsman's office to interpret court rulings in order to establish and adjudicate on offences that are not actually prescribed in law, such as collusive behaviour; the failure to demonstrate procedural failures; the failure to show fairness to officers who have been implicated in its investigation reports; the protracted delay in completing historical investigations, with some lasting 17, 18 or 19 years; the impact of investigating delays on the health and well-being of victims, witnesses and retired and serving police officers; the growing failure of the ombudsman's office to present evidence to substantiate or explain the conclusions that it draws as part of its investigations; fears about its operational independence in the light of concerns that were raised by Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) as far back as 2011; the hounding of former police officers over many years on the basis of flimsy and unsubstantiated evidence that has been provided by police informants and other witnesses; the level of reports that have had to be amended or withdrawn — the catalogue could go on.”
“Concerns regarding current operational practice in the Office of the Police Ombudsman are not restricted to one aspect or, indeed, any individual investigation. Fears have been expressed by retired officers, serving police officers and, equally and as importantly, families of victims whose murders or deaths are being investigated by the office. <BR /> <BR />Let me give the House some examples of what we are discussing in the motion.”