William Irwin
Newry and Armagh · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. We have worked closely together, and I hold you in high esteem. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Minister for agreeing to look into the matter. I was at the funeral on Sunday, and the family are devastated by their loss. The lady was going to get her hair done and was killed on that main road.”
“I thank my party colleagues and Members from all sides of the House who have wished me well on the occasion of my retirement. It has been an absolute privilege to represent Newry and Armagh since 2007. I think that most people will recognise that I represented everyone irrespective of their class or creed.”
“The Minister may be aware that the Bramley apple industry in County Armagh is worth in the region of £20 million to the local economy. For growers, cold stores are vital to the protection and keeping of the apples. Most of those cold stores are now 30, 40 or 50 years old. Growers need help to replace and renew those stores.”
“I thank the deputy First Minister for her response and for her efforts on the matter. The deputy First Minister will be aware that a large number of vaccines are used by the intensive farming sectors. Does she agree that it would be a serious issue if those medicines were not available?”
“I thank the Minister for his responses so far. We are aware of the reports that thousands of tons of raw sewage has been pumped into Belfast lough. Does the Minister agree that that is totally unacceptable and that something needs to be done as soon as possible?”
“That having been said, securing PGI status for the Armagh Bramley in 2012 was hard worked for and very welcome. That has been a valued and unique selling point, not only for the Bramley variety in the Armagh area but for apples generally in all their varieties, as well as apple-based products.”
The complete record
Every one of 984 lines we hold for William Irwin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 17 of 20.
“<BR /> <BR />I will now move on to the next set of amendments in this group. I have referred to the issue of costs of compliance and cost recovery, and the cost of complying with the requirements of the Bill was a major issue at Second Stage and Committee Stage. The costs of complying with the Bill could include the cost of commissioning a supervising engineer, who may decide that multiple visits to the reservoir are required depending on the condition of the reservoir. It could also include the costs to commission an inspecting engineer, the costs to commission a construction engineer, the costs of complying with safety recommendations and the costs associated with appeals and disputes. The list goes on. <BR /> <BR />Members are aware that there is little public information on the financial aspects of complying with the Bill.”
“The proposed clause 21(9) provided the Department with the power to make regulations in relation to appeals to the Water Appeals Commission on the charging of fees and the awarding of costs. The Committee felt that there would be a potential for a conflict of interest if the Department was to be a party of the appeal. Therefore, it was suggested that the power should rest with the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, which has similar appeal functions as the Water Appeals Commission for Northern Ireland and the Planning Appeals Commission for Northern Ireland. The Department tabled an amendment to that effect, which the Committee agreed. The proposed amendment will also introduce three new clauses — clauses 103(A), 103(B) and 103(C) — and a consequential amendment to schedule 3 to refer to the appeals system.”
“It may be that most reservoir owners and managers in the private and third sectors will be able to afford them, but we are sure that most of the third sector, some of the smaller farmers and some elderly people could have been facing possible bankruptcy if we had left that aspect unchallenged. <BR /> <BR />I will now talk about a further set of amendments that deal with the appeals system. The appeals mechanism was further examined during the Committee's evidence sessions, and the Committee requested the Examiner of Statutory Rules to consider the delegated powers within the Bill. The outcome of that was that the Committee sought amendments to the appeals mechanism.”
“The Committee was content with this. There was agreement that those who could afford to pay should. There would therefore be no easy way out for, for example, private-sector companies and businesses that own reservoirs. <BR /> <BR />Following agreement of the proposed amendments on cost recovery, there was a requirement to add an appeals system and to allow the Water Appeals Commission to deal with such appeals. The appeals system at new clause 71A provides the right of appeal on the decision to recover costs and the amount of cost to be recovered. <BR /> <BR />We will not know what the costs for repair and maintenance of reservoirs are likely to be until after the audit has been completed.”
“<BR /> <BR />At clause 69(6) there is provision that the reservoir owner or manager must pay the Department the costs incurred. While the Committee was of the opinion that those who could afford to pay should do so, it also recognised that some reservoir managers, particularly in the third sector, may be in this position because they are financially unable to comply with clause 69 in the first instance. In response to the concerns of the Committee, the Department proposed amendments to allow discretion whether or not to seek to recover costs. That discretion would also cover how much of the costs should be recovered. However, the Department wished still to have the authority to request full cost recovery, if it felt that was reasonable, to close any loophole allowing people or organisations not to pay just because they did not want to.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will deal with the series of amendments on the issue of cost recovery first. The Bill, as drafted, provides that if a reservoir owner or manager fails for any reason to comply with certain requirements the Department can meet those requirements and fully recover any associated costs. The Bill allows the Department to step in and take specified actions, including works, when a reservoir manager does not comply with the requirements of the Bill. In such cases, the Department would be obliged to seek to recover the full costs of such actions or works. For example, at clause 69, if the reservoir owner or manager fails to take a safety measure, the Department can step in and arrange for the measure to be taken.”
“There are a number of issues and associated amendments grouped here, and I will try to deal with them separately, but there is considerable overlap, so I ask Members to bear with me if they think that I am repeating myself. As Chairperson of the Committee, I will deal primarily with the ministerial amendments. <BR /> <BR />In the Committee’s deliberations, one of our priorities was to ensure adequate protection for reservoir owners throughout the Bill. This led us to seek a number of amendments to the Bill, which the Department has provided. Most of these amendments either place a new duty on the Department or substantially amend an existing duty. These amendments may seem minor on the surface, but we believe that their overall impact will be vital.”
“Given the large number of observations from the Commission — I think that there were over 300 — is it not inevitable that it will take longer for the programme to be approved?”
“If we accept Mr Clarke and Mr Girvan's amendment, we can at some time in the future reassess the situation, and a lower limit can be reintroduced. Mr Clarke's amendments would help those reservoirs in particular.”
“We felt that that might be a disadvantage to those three owners, but we have no idea of who they are or what they might think of that. It is just a guess. As far as the Committee could see, the impact of changing the capacity would be to mostly remove private sector low-consequence reservoirs and no reservoirs from the third sector. As such low-consequence reservoirs will be subject to light touch regulation, and the Committee had no concerns on that. <BR /> <BR />That is the Committee position on the issue. I am going to say a few words in my capacity as DUP spokesman for agriculture on Mr Clarke and Mr Girvan's amendments. They take three privately owned reservoirs out of the equation in Northern Ireland. In Scotland, 25,000 cubic metres is the norm. We are told that that is to be reduced to 10,000 cubic metres.”
“It was defined as a structure or area capable of holding 10,000 cubic metres or more of water above the natural level of the surrounding land. The Committee considered whether there would be any positive impact if the level was changed to 25,000 cubic metres. Based on the initial figure of 151 reservoirs, information from the Department showed that, whilst the proposal would remove 31 reservoirs from the remit of the Bill, only three of the reservoirs would be classed as a high or medium risk, and it would have no impact on third-sector owners. <BR /> <BR />It should be noted that, if the threshold is moved to the higher capacity, the three high- or medium-risk reservoirs will not be able to apply for initial grant aid, and maintenance and repairs costs will have to be met from their own finances.”
“Together, those amendments mean that there is a possibility that the reservoir manager, if he does everything that is required of him, can change and downgrade the risk designation. In many ways, that was an inherent unfairness that the Committee was not happy with. Those amendments, plus other amendments and the practical work that has been undertaken by the Department, have made this part of the Bill fairer. <BR /> <BR />Therefore, on behalf of the Committee, I indicate that the Committee is content with the amendments in group 1 that have been tabled in the name of the Minister. I will now say a few words on the issue of the capacity of controlled reservoirs and the amendments tabled in the name of Trevor Clarke and Paul Girvan. <BR /> <BR />The Committee considered the definition of a controlled reservoir within the Bill at clause 1.”
“The two go hand in hand. <BR /> <BR />At further briefings, when the Committee checked up on the flood maps, departmental officials were able to assure us that the use of such flood maps had enabled a much more detailed and effective risk assessment process. As a result, we have seen a change in the numbers of reservoirs, with an initial designation of 151 being brought down to 137. That means that the insistence of the Committee on the issue has taken 14 reservoirs out of the equation. The Department is continuing with that work and hopes to take at least another six to 10 out of the equation. <BR /> <BR />Let me also assure the Assembly that there is crossover between those amendments and the amendment on the frequency of visits by supervising engineers.”
“It was also pointed out that the amendment would create greater flexibility in the Bill to allow for change in designation through, for example, the ability to carry out works that would divert floodwater or change its speed and/or depth. On 17 June, the Committee considered the information provided and voted that it was content with the amendments. <BR /> <BR />In summary, the Committee was not content with the policy content of the Bill as it related to the risk assessment process. The fact that, after a long and protracted process, it accepted the second set of amendments proposed by the Department was based much on the fact that the Department was doing further practical work on risk designation. That practical work, namely the flood inundation maps, was the additional reassurance that the Committee needed to approve these amendments.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee deferred making a decision on its formal view of the amendments until 17 June, when it took further oral evidence on the issue. The Department explained that, in recognition of the fact that it was speed and depth of water, as well as volume, that created the risk to human life, and in response to Committee concerns, it was in the process of procuring new flood maps. The maps would allow velocity and depth of floodwater from a reservoir to be mapped, as well as volume. That would provide a more detailed analysis of the consequence of a flood and therefore allow for a more accurate designation.”
“<BR /> <BR />In the Department's opinion, that opens up the potential for a reservoir designation of high consequence to be changed to medium consequence where a reservoir manager has completed all the works in the interests of safety and those works have been certified by the inspecting engineer. We shall hold the Department to that by recommending that any future Committee assess whether that happened in practice. <BR /> <BR />The amendments were tabled at the Committee meeting of 10 June 2014. The Committee considered them and noted that it had not been given sufficient time to consider the policy implications and potential impacts of the proposed amendments. It had concerns that the operating regime in the new proposal did not show sufficient change and, in fact, might make the situation worse for the reservoir manager.”
“<BR /> <BR />It may appear on the surface and to the casual reader that the amendments are only terminology amendments; that is, that "risk designation" be replaced by "reservoir designation" throughout the Bill. However, that is not the case. Those amendments in the round, along with other amendments and practical undertakings, correct a fundamental unfairness in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />It is not just the terminology amendments. The Department proposes to address the concern of the Committee on changing risk designation by amending clause 22 to provide that issues such as those in paragraphs (a) to (e) of clause 22(3) — for example, how a reservoir is maintained — may be considered for consequences and probability of an uncontrolled release of water.”
“In other words, the risk assessment approach did not make reference to the urgency of repairs or maintenance, and that appeared to the Committee to be counterproductive. The Committee therefore voted during its formal clause-by-clause consideration on 3 June 2014 that it was not content with the risk designation clauses and would reserve the right at Consideration Stage to recommend to the Assembly that those clauses not stand part of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />The Committee took that position on the clear and firm understanding that, if the Assembly agreed the clauses, it would be creating major difficulties for the practical implementation of the Bill. Those difficulties would affect not only the Department but reservoir owners and managers. The Department responded by proposing amendments to address the Committee's concerns.”
“A third concern was shared with some who gave evidence to the Committee, such as the Ligoniel Improvement Association and the Belfast Hills Partnership. A representative from the latter stated on 25 March 2014:”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee discussed other concerns it had with the risk-assessment process in considerable detail over a number of meetings. It would appear that, short of the removal of the threat to life, by, for example, the removal of habitable dwellings, nothing could be done by the reservoir manager to change their designation. This was a second and more fundamental issue. It could create what could be perceived as an inherent unfairness to the reservoir manager. No amount of investment by the reservoir manager or compliance with the operating regime and undertaking of safety measures would enable the risk designation to change over time.”
“Members in Committee often referred to that as the Hoover dam scenario. You could have the safest, best built, most highly maintained dam in the world, but, because one person lived downstream, it could be deemed as high risk. The risk assessment was not based on the likelihood of failure, just the consequence. <BR /> <BR />The Institution of Civil Engineers and the Department stated that the problem with the risk-based approach was that, at the moment, there is no universally accepted standard to assess the likelihood of a dam failing, nor is there likely to be any universally accepted standard in the near or long-term future. The Committee had difficulties with that. Why put something in the Bill that was not going to be used now or in the future? That was just misleading and, therefore, unacceptable.”
“No account would be taken of the speed and depth of water. So, a long, slow and low seep of water resulting in flooding of one inch in an inhabited house would be classified as high risk. The Committee indicated that it agreed with the importance placed on human life but that account needed to be taken of the type of flooding likely. The Committee expressed concern that the risk-classification methodology proposed in the Bill was based on impact with no weighting given to likelihood or, indeed, speed and depth of flood water. <BR /> <BR />As it stands, no consideration would be given to any remedial works that a reservoir manager may carry out. In other words, no matter how safe the reservoir is or is made to be, it will continue to be ranked as high risk unless all risk to human life — the consequence — is removed from its flood path.”
“However, it soon became clear that the risk designation will not take account of the probability or likelihood of the reservoir failing, despite being specified in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />The risk-designation process will only, at this point in time and for the foreseeable future, take adverse consequences or impact into account. Clause 22(2) is at page 12 of the Bill, and I will not repeat it here. The clause takes a number of things into account, including human life or human health, the environment, economic activity and cultural heritage. Of those criteria, the most important one is loss of life, and no one would argue with that. Where a reservoir breach could endanger one or more life, it will be assessed as high impact. So, if there are any houses in the flood path of a reservoir, the reservoir will be given a high-risk designation.”
“That operating regime varies according to whether the reservoir is designated as high, medium or low. This also includes enforcement procedures, offences and penalties for non-compliance. The Committee considered that the risk-designation process was, therefore, at the heart of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />The Committee noted, however, that there is a light touch for low-risk or low-consequence reservoirs and was content with that aspect. When giving a risk designation, the Department must take into account the matters mentioned in clause 22. Clause 22 refers to the adverse consequences of an uncontrolled release of water from a reservoir and the probability of such a release.”
“I will discuss the ministerial amendments first. The Bill outlines a risk-designation process at clauses 17 to 23. This section of the Bill, as it stands, outlines the requirement for the Department to give every controlled reservoir manager a risk designation of high, medium or low. This is to be done as soon as reasonably practical after the reservoirs are registered. The Bill also outlines how a review and an appeal of the risk designation would happen and what matters would be taken into account in giving the risk designation. Each risk designation of high, medium or low would bring with it different operating requirements. The risk designation given to each reservoir would therefore create a system of inspections and supervised visits leading to a repair and maintenance programme that the reservoir manager must adhere to.”
“The Bill provides that any actions to discontinue or abandon a reservoir have to be supervised by a construction engineer and that various consents and approvals are required before that can happen. Therefore, the Committee considered but took no position on that aspect. That concludes my introductory remarks on the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I will now discuss group 1, which deals with a series of amendments on the risk designation process, including amendments put forward by the Minister and those in the name of Trevor Clarke and Paul Girvan concerning capacity.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. The issue that you raise needs further consideration. <BR /> <BR />The Committee heard from the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) that draining water from a reservoir could lead to a breach of environmental legislation due to the potential for pollution, flooding, fish kill etc. The Committee also considered the environmental, social and recreational impacts of reservoirs and that those would be lost to an area on decommissioning. <BR /> <BR />The Committee also heard that if a reservoir is decommissioned and the water level is drained below the 10,000-cubic-metre limit, because it still has the capacity to hold that amount of water, the reservoir would still fall under the remit of the Bill.”
“The Committee heard that a reservoir often acts as a collection point for large volumes of water, and if it was not there, that water would flow elsewhere, potentially causing flooding. Therefore, permissions would be needed around decommissioning to prevent such flooding.”
“The Committee recognised that the need for grant aid was essential for many community-based organisations and private owners who would not have the necessary finance to enable reservoir repairs and could, as a result of the Bill, incur a significant financial burden. The Committee therefore had no concerns with clause 105 on grant aid. We only wished that the Department could have been more specific on the amount of money available for grant aid, the rates of that aid etc. <BR /> <BR />The Committee heard that a number of reservoir owners were considering decommissioning their reservoirs before the Bill became law, as there were deep concerns about the impact that the requirements the Bill would have on them. What soon became apparent was that there was a misconception around what decommissioning meant.”
“We remain to be convinced that, if there were problems, the Bill would be the right approach to dealing with that issue. <BR /> <BR />The Committee has sought and gained changes to the Bill that, in our opinion, make it better. We have also sought and gained changes that are outside the Bill, such as the small initial grant aid to enable the audit of reservoirs and the new, more detailed flood maps. Even with the amendments and the other commitments, the Bill is not ideal or even prefect. <BR /> <BR />Before I conclude my introductory remarks, I want to say a few words about areas of the Bill that we explored and agreed, for a variety of different reasons, to not seek amendments on. <BR /> <BR />The Bill has a clause to allow for grant aid in the future.”
“Overall, I think that I can be frank and say that the Committee did not like the Bill. The reason for that dislike was the feeling that the Bill was a sledgehammer to crack a nut. In other words, it was introducing for a small number of reservoirs a potentially burdensome system that was not needed. After all, only 137 reservoirs will fall under the Bill, and, of those, 75 are in the public sector. Most of those 75 are maintained to the spirit of the legislation already. So, essentially, the Bill is about imposing a new regime on 50 private-sector and nine third-sector reservoirs. That is 59 reservoirs and 120 clauses. That is a sledgehammer approach, and, really, there has not been a problem with flooding from reservoirs in Northern Ireland.”
“The risk designation process and the lack of clarity around financial implications also created difficulties for the Committee. We also felt that there were insufficient checks and balances on reservoir engineers and that the Department appeared unwilling to accept an oversight role. However, I am pleased to say that we eventually managed to get amendments from the Department to address those concerns, thus the large number of amendments in front of us today.”
“<BR /> <BR />Let me be clear that the Committee has no concerns with the principle of the Bill regarding the protection of people, the environment and economic and cultural assets from the consequences of a dam failure and a reservoir flooding. We are firmly in agreement on that. The Committee believes that the thousands of people in Northern Ireland who live in the flood path of a reservoir need protection, and we are aware that the reservoir owners are currently liable under common law for any flooding that might occur. However, the Committee had a number of concerns on how the Bill proposes to offer that protection. We had major concerns about the lack of information on the condition of reservoirs and the cost to bring them up to scratch.”
“However, at that time, there was one area that the Committee was still unhappy with and on which it was unable to agree the amendment suggested by the Department. That area was the frequency of visits by engineers. As a result, during its clause-by-clause scrutiny, the Committee recorded that it was not content with the relevant clauses. In November 2014, the Department and the Committee returned to that issue and eventually agreed a series of amendments. Those amendments will be debated later, but, to be clear on its revised position, the Committee produced an addendum to its original report. That report was printed and distributed to Members shortly after the Easter recess. There are, therefore, two Committee reports.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Bill proposes that reservoirs be subject to a system of regular inspections and supervision visits by qualified engineers who are experts on reservoirs. Therefore, we also spoke to the Institution of Civil Engineers. We questioned its representatives for some time on a range of issues in connection with the frequency of visits, the cost of such visits, fees, the cost of capital works etc. While we were impressed with the professionalism of those engineers, the evidence collected perhaps raised more questions than it answered. <BR /> <BR />The Committee carried out its clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill and printed its report prior to the summer recess of 2014.”
“Local government owns a considerable number of reservoirs and considers many more in their area to be essential assets for community and social use. The evidence that we got from the councils, particularly from Newry and Mourne regarding Camlough reservoir, helped to shape our thinking and opinions on the Bill. <BR /> <BR />A small number of reservoirs are owned by the third sector. Most of those owners are community based, and many operate on a shoestring budget. The third sector groups were extremely vocal and gave us interesting examples of the potential negative impacts that the regulations proposed in the Bill could have on them. Their main concern, like the private sector owners, was the cost of implementing the regulations arising from the Bill. There was a fear that they could be put out of business because of the Bill.”
“Many were worried about the cost implications of compliance. The lack of information on that increased those concerns and caused real anxiety and distress. <BR /> <BR />The Committee also took oral evidence from Northern Ireland Water, which is the single largest owner of reservoirs in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland Water owns 48 of the 75 reservoirs in the public sector. We also heard from the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) on aspects around decommissioning or draining reservoirs. We are concerned about that happening as a result of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />We heard from local government, namely Belfast City Council, Craigavon Borough Council and Newry and Mourne District Council.”
“We also heard from Rivers Agency officials that this group had proved difficult to engage with during the consultation on the policy of the Bill. As a result, the Committee organised an event specifically for private reservoir owners, which was useful in enabling us to get an understanding of their concerns. We began to realise that it had come as a big surprise to many to hear that the body of water they had on their land was a reservoir. It had been there longer than living memory and was assumed to be a natural feature and part of the land. For many of the private sector owners, the fact that the structure had been standing for hundreds of years with no trouble or problems meant that they had real difficulty getting their head around why this new and burdensome system of inspections, supervision and maintenance was required.”
“The stated purpose of the Bill is to introduce a legal and administrative framework for regulating reservoir safety in order to reduce the risk of flooding as a result of dam failure in the Northern Ireland. The legislation aims to provide assurance that people, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity are better protected from the potential risks of flooding from reservoirs. A total of 17 organisations responded to the request for written evidence and the public advertisement, and a copy of the submissions received are included in the report. <BR /> <BR />The Committee noted immediately that there was a lack of submissions from one particular group, namely private sector reservoir owners.”
“It is my pleasure to speak as Chairperson of the Committee. Before I move to presenting the Committee position on this group of amendments, I will take the opportunity in my opening speech to outline the work that the Committee did in its scrutiny of the Bill. I will also highlight some of the issues that came out of that scrutiny. I thank Committee members and the previous Chairperson Paul Frew for all the work that they did on the Bill. Considerable hours of Committee time, dedication and lots of energy went into the scrutiny of the Bill, and into finding and suggesting solutions to the issues that arose. I thank the Committee Clerk and Committee staff for all their hard work and dedication. <BR /> <BR />The Reservoirs Bill was referred to the Committee on completion of its Second Stage on 4 February 2014.”
“However, in the letter to Colin of 28 October 2013, it is stated clearly that responsibility for Mr Worton's application was transferred to the Department of Justice on devolution. It is therefore the case that the Justice Minister has ability in this regard, and the motion urges him to use that ability to reach a satisfactory and deserving conclusion for Mr Worton. <BR /> <BR />It is an unacceptable state of affairs in the outworking of justice that someone who is held for so long with such notable negative effects, lasting over 30 years, cannot find redress. I respectfully put the motion to the House in the hope that the wrong can be righted.”
“In the letter to Mr Worton of 28 October 2013, the Justice Minister confirmed that he had reviewed the case under the ex gratia scheme and, importantly, in the realm of exceptional circumstances, which included the suggestion of serious default by the police. The conclusion reached by Mr Ford that he continues to be ineligible for compensation remains a source of great concern for Colin. I appeal again for the Justice Minister to look again at the case. I take the opportunity to go further and ask him to use this very serious example as a basis for improving the criteria and guidelines under which the scheme is operated. <BR /> <BR />The word "inability" is used in the amendment.”
“Colin remains firmly of the view that the methods used in his interview did indeed represent a serious default on the part of the police. This tallies with the findings of Lord Justice Kelly when, in rejecting the evidence before him, he said:”
“There is merit in the Justice Minister redoubling his efforts to seek redress for Colin, and those should be especially directed at the manner in which the confession was obtained in light of the words of Justice Kelly in rejecting the confession as inadmissible. The following quotation is on the record of the Chamber, and it is worth repeating it today to set in context the basis of the case for redress for Colin. Mr Smyth QC stated that Colin's statement:”
“Alliance Party Members have sought to make an amendment that, in effect, would end any chance of future liaising between Mr Worton and Mr Ford. I must say that I find that unhelpful.”
“In revisiting this important case, the main thrust of the motion is a request to the Justice Minister to further consider Colin Worton's case, thereby acknowledging the ongoing circumstances affecting Colin, and to move to exercise his discretion to get redress for Colin in light of the significant ordeal he has come through. With this firmly established, I am concerned that the Minister, through the amendment tabled by his party colleagues, has clearly signalled that he is closing the door on any possibility of discretionary redress. That, I believe, sends a very poor signal to Colin and is an unfortunate contribution from the Justice Minister's party. The amendment runs against the grain of the goodwill that was generated in the previous Adjournment debate.”
“Given that the Justice Minister has the necessary authority under our devolved Assembly institutions to respond to the case, Mr Ford, at the time, pledged to reassess Colin's case and gave assurances to fully take on board the contributions made by Members in the House on 21 June 2011. Those contributions, by and large, supported the case for redress to be made by the Minister. The Minister responded to Mr Worton on 28 October 2013 stating that, after a thorough review of the case, Colin was not eligible for the ex gratia scheme. I ask the Minister to tell the House today whether he believes that Colin Worton has been completely exonerated of any wrongdoing in the murder of Adrian Carroll.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention, and I agree fully with him. <BR /> <BR />The previous Adjournment debate was important for establishing the views of the Justice Minister, David Ford, and it included useful debate between Members, including those with experience of law.”
“<BR /> <BR />The previous Adjournment debate —”
“When anyone looks at the facts of Colin's case, they see that it is very clear that, of course and importantly, whilst Lord Justice Kelly acquitted him in the first instance, he had already served a lengthy period on remand. What is obviously concerning for him is that those who were convicted and then had those convictions overturned then qualified for compensation and were duly awarded it. I made the point in the House back in June 2011 that the process of exoneration and compensation in the instances of those convicted and then acquitted was much more public, much more publicised and much more conclusive in getting closure for the accused. Colin has never had a sense of closure. That is the crux of the issue and the injustice that our Justice Minister should move to put right for Mr Worton.”