David Ford
South Antrim · Alliance Party · Northern Ireland
“All I can say is that I remember officials coming back into the Department and saying, "You wouldn't have been very pleased with what Trevor or Stewart said at the Committee yesterday, Minister".”
“<BR /> <BR />When I listened to the start of the debate, I welcomed the comments that Mr McGuigan made, but, as Alex Attwood said so forcibly, even when he intervened and asked what had changed, there was an inability on the part of the Sinn Féin representative to explain anything other than to say that there is an election in six weeks'…”
“<BR /> <BR />No doubt, what we saw from in/out Ministers not so long ago and the failure of the outgoing First Minister to accept her role when she was Minister in DETI to deal with the issue has further added to that.”
“There is an inability in all that we face at the moment to recognise the public disgust at the behaviour of certain people in this place and, most particularly, in the Executive.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In his question to the Minister on that statement, Mr Paul Girvan suggested that some judges spin out cases inappropriately in their own financial interests.”
“Less than the full truth emerged and facts were eventually slowly dragged out from the bunker, sorry, from Stormont Castle. It is a classic example of why people have lost trust in the way that this place operates; it is a classic example of why the ministerial code needs to be enforced at least as rigorously as we enforce procedures agai…”
The complete record
Every one of 2,469 lines we hold for David Ford, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 35 of 50.
“I support the motion that is before the House and, although I might quibble with the precise wording of it, I entirely endorse its sentiment and that of the amendment. I commend them both to the House.”
“I believe that the NCA will give all the support it can to the police and other agencies in the fight against fuel laundering, as well as other organised crime. I understand that work is now well under way to ensure that the NCA is ready to work to the fullest effect from day one. We should remember, in particular, that a key part of the NCA's role will relate to asset seizure — something currently not possible, even where the NCA is able to operate in the reserved field. <BR /> <BR />Fuel laundering is a difficult problem that needs a joined-up effort from all to tackle it. The introduction of the new marker will help. OCTF will continue to focus on other strategies. I believe that we are now in a significantly better place than we were just two or three years ago.”
“HMRC is also reviewing the penalties for those fuel stations that sell illicit fuel. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I should also mention that to take stock following the introduction of the new marker, and in light of concerns that have been expressed by different bodies and MLAs, OCTF is planning a focused workshop on fuel laundering before the summer. The Fiscalis European conference will be held in June. It will be the second time that it is held in Northern Ireland because of the work that is being done by HMRC and the Irish Office of the Revenue Commissioners, and the recognition across Europe of the work that is being done here. <BR /> <BR />The amendment makes clear that the National Crime Agency will now be fully operational in Northern Ireland. It will come into place on 20 May.”
“<BR /> <BR />With regard to sentencing, my Department introduced legislation that means that any excise evasion sentence that appears to the DPP to be unduly lenient can now be referred to the Court of Appeal. That was a response, in part, to the view that sentences here were too low. HMRC and the OCTF strategy group are monitoring the outcome of cases. In addition, the judiciary has produced guidance cases on tax evasion, so far specifically on tobacco. Furthermore, duty evasion and smuggling is on the Lord Chief Justice's programme of action on sentencing. Where there is a suitable case for further guidance on excise duty relating to fuel, guidance will be issued. Decisions are, of course, for the judiciary in individual cases, but the unduly lenient sentencing provision is now available.”
“That was part of the last tender process, but in the weighting of different factors, it did not emerge as the crucial issue. Clearly, the faster that there can be a turnaround of testing, the better. <BR /> <BR />We need to ensure that all the relevant agencies work together to fight this problem. HMRC is backed by the PSNI, the National Crime Agency and others in tackling this crime. They need the support of the public. We, as MLAs, can help in that by giving a clear, public signal of what needs to be done. Those who have suspicions about a laundering plant or filling station can report it anonymously to Crimestoppers if they fear for their safety. The same goes for those who know of a business that is using illicit fuel anywhere.”
“I appeal to businesses and individuals who knowingly, half knowingly or with some suspicion buy fuel to think about whom and what they are supporting. I also warn people that if they know that they are buying illicit diesel, they are committing an offence themselves and can be dealt with by the courts. <BR /> <BR />HMRC has equipment to check storage depots, lorries and cars, and it uses it. Furthermore, HMRC is undertaking a tender exercise to strengthen that testing capability. The new contract for forensic testing, which will be tendered shortly, will have a requirement to have at least one accessible forensic site to allow same-day turnaround on the laboratory condition tests that underpin the roadside programmes. The benefit of roadside testing was mentioned by Mr Ross, I think.”
“I thank Mr Humphrey for that point. I think that there is probably a case that Treasury does not view it seriously enough because it is of much less significance in other parts of the UK. The issue is not the question of fuel being brought across a land border, which is at least benefiting the Irish Exchequer, but the laundering process that occurs close to the border on both sides, whereby neither jurisdiction gets any financial benefit. <BR /> <BR />We also need to recognise the problem that people are buying fuel because they think that they are getting a bargain and do not realise the full implications. It is an old adage that if the price of something looks too good to be true, it probably is. In the case of fuel, if it looks too good to be true, it certainly is.”
“That view is based on engagement with scientists at the Laboratory of the Government Chemist — a full scientific assessment, not the comments of those who might have interests in other particular systems. <BR /> <BR />There is also an issue that has been raised today about naming and shaming stations found to be selling illicit diesel and the current legal position that they cannot be named in such a way. I have written to the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury on it because I believe that it is important that we should allow naming and shaming. I hope to have a meeting with the new Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury after the election.”
“<BR /> <BR />However, steps have been taken to improve detection. HMRC now uses a scenes of crime officer to capture evidence, and evidential pictures can be built up in different sites over time. In addition, and contrary to the impression that has been given here today, most notably in the last contribution, from Jim Allister, there have been prosecutions here — 53 prosecutions in Northern Ireland since 2011, and a number of cases are pending. There is clearly an issue of sentences, which I will return to later. <BR /> <BR />The new fuel marker introduced should have a significant impact as well. No one is claiming that it is impossible to remove, but HMRC believes that it is difficult to the point that it should make laundering uneconomic.”
“The nature of fuel laundering, because most of it is automated, means that sites do not need to be attended, making it difficult to identify those responsible and achieve successful prosecutions. I visited one particular plant as HMRC was breaking it up in south Armagh, very close to the County Louth border, and it was clear that, in that place, somebody could drive in a tanker and connect up a hose to the filtration mechanism to an underground tank, could drive back the next day and, in half an hour, pump the proceeds into a different tanker. These are not factories or industrial-scale processes with large numbers of operatives available. That is why it is frequently very difficult to catch people and, even if people are caught, they are not Mr Big; they are the guy driving the lorry for €100 or £100.”
“I think it has probably been at every meeting that I have held since I became Minister. Laundering also features regularly at meetings of the full OCTF, and that subgroup continues to do detailed work, bringing together the relevant agencies, including the gardaí and the Irish Revenue Commissioners, to ensure the best possible cross-border action. <BR /> <BR />My experience is that HMRC does have a clear focus on the issue. The motion mentions prosecution, quite properly, but we should note that disruption and detection are also important parts of the process. In the past three years, HMRC has found and dismantled over 90 laundering plants, but prosecuting those responsible is, we accept, a difficult task.”
“I thought that is what I said. The point is that it is not devolved at all. <BR /> <BR />As chair of the local Organised Crime Task Force and as Justice Minister, I do have a close interest in the subject, and work is done within the OCTF to deal with the issue. In response to Mr Attwood, there is no specific subgroup of the OCTF dealing with waste, although the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) has attended meetings of the OCTF, but waste is principally a matter for the NIEA. There has been a co-hosted seminar between the DOJ and NIEA, so there has been that kind of joint working. <BR /> <BR />The subgroup on fuel operates on a cross-border basis, and, as I report regularly when I report on meetings of the IGA with the Irish Justice Minister, the issue is discussed regularly.”
“No; the issue of excise evasion is excepted and is operational. It is not really for the DOJ at all.”
“A short-term saving can lead to major costs for vehicle repairs in the longer term. There is also the very real concern that that crime is supporting organised crime groups and that some of them are using the profits to fund other serious and organised crimes, such as drugs. <BR /> <BR />I think every Member who has spoken today recognises those problems, so I now want to set out some of the steps that are being taken across the justice system to address the crime, but, before I do so, I should exercise a little caution and remind people that excise evasion is a reserved matter, and that responsibility for tackling fuel laundering lies firmly with HMRC, which answers to the Treasury for its results. A number of Members, such as Lord Morrow and Mr Craig, suggested that it was principally an issue for the Department of Justice.”
“There are the losses to honest businesses: those who are either selling legitimate fuel or in an industry such as haulage who are seeking to compete with the criminals — that is what they are — who are undercutting them through the use of illicit fuel. There is the damage to the environment. As we have heard repeatedly today, fuel laundering produces toxic waste, which is dumped with no regard for the potential impact on the environment and on the health of people round about. <BR /> <BR />There have been a number of recent media reports about fuel laundering. There is the direct financial impact locally. The cost of cleaning up the waste, whether by HMRC, DOE or local councils, is money that could be used for more productive purposes. Additionally, it has been established that this sort of fuel can damage vehicles.”
“For those who are buying laundered diesel, it may seem like a victimless crime — a cheap fill-up, with nobody losing out except the Government — but that is certainly not the case. First, the loss of revenue to government is very significant and important. As a number of Members highlighted, fuel laundering in Northern Ireland costs the Exchequer in the region of £80 million every year, although it should be pointed out that, since excise duty is a non-devolved issue, not all of the £80 million would be available for services in Northern Ireland were it to be achieved. <BR /> <BR />There are other important aspects.”
“I start by congratulating the junior Minister Mr Bell, who has now resumed his customary Front-Bench seat, on securing the Back-Bench debate on this important topic. I welcome the motion and the amendment before the House. <BR /> <BR />The debate is very timely, as it coincides with the recent introduction of a new rebated fuel marker — the Dow marker — on 1 April. That was the culmination of a detailed joint project involving Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and the Irish Revenue Commissioners. I welcome that step at the outset. It is a very significant development, and one that the Organised Crime Task Force hopes will have a major impact. <BR /> <BR />The comments that I have seen locally have been positive about the introduction of the fuel marker. As others said, fuel laundering is a total scourge on our society.”
“There would also be the significant issue of the retrospective effect of legislation, which is not something that the Department of Justice could promote unless it was done in the context of wider arrangements for looking at the past. That is why I believe that it is not possible, with all the information that has been placed before me, to provide specific, individual compensation for Colin Worton at this stage. That is why I believe that the amendment moved by my colleague Stewart Dickson accurately reflects the position as it stands today, and that is why I believe that the amendment is a more accurate reflection of the position than the motion. I cannot support the motion as it stands.”
“I appreciate Mrs Foster's point, but my advice is that the remarks at the initial trial were that, even though he rejected the statement by Mr Worton, the judge did not state that there was improper behaviour on the part of the police. That would have been a serious point. The precise details of that are difficult for us to get to almost 30 years on, but that was part of the information that was put to me. That is where I believe that, if we are to look at something that will provide compensation for Colin Worton, it is an issue that the House will have to address within the Stormont House Agreement discussions, looking at wider issues of the past and recognising that it would take into account a very significant number of cases.”
“I appreciate the point that Mr Maginness makes, but my advice, on the basis of the remarks made by the trial judge that there was no improper behaviour on the part of the police and on the basis of the decision in the judicial review relating to the Secretary of State's previous refusal to award compensation, is that it is not possible to make that case of serious default. That is why, having explored all the information that has been put before me in the almost five years since the case was raised with me, I do not believe that there is discretion open to me.”
“I thank Mr Kennedy for his point. I must confess that I did not realise that he could read my handwriting over my shoulder as effectively as he has done. <BR /> <BR />The issue of whether there would be a different scheme is one that the House may wish to consider, but it has to consider it in the context of what is being done to deal with the past under the Stormont House Agreement. It is not something — this is a point that Mrs Kelly made — that could be introduced solely for one or two difficult cases, and it is clear that there is no immediate and easy consensus in the House on that point.”
“Danny Kennedy said, "whatever the legal niceties": I am very sorry, but, as Minister of Justice, I have to adhere to the legal niceties. As a private individual, I may have sympathy for lots of people in different cases, but, as Minister, I have to go with the legal niceties.”
“I therefore have no further avenues to explore in the case. I appreciate that that is not the answer that Colin and many in the House, including most of those who have spoken today, want, but I hope that the House will understand that the matter has been considered fully by me and that, unless new evidence is available, it is not possible for me to reconsider the case. I cannot, therefore, accept the motion. <BR /> <BR />References were made during the debate to the discretion of the Minister. The discretion of the Minister is not to pick and choose individual cases as he sees fit; it has to be discretion within guidelines that is applied uniformly in all appropriate circumstances. Whatever sympathy we may have as individuals, there is no ministerial pick-and-choose discretion in that respect.”
“From my discussions with Colin, I very much recognise the pain and hurt that he has described to me, and I was happy to state publicly in the Assembly for the comfort of Colin and his family that there was no stain on his character: he was acquitted by the court. I am happy to restate that today, for the benefit of the House and others: there is no stain on Colin Worton's character; he was acquitted by the court. <BR /> <BR />I appreciate that my decision to refuse compensation was disappointing to Colin, but I repeat that I have given careful and detailed consideration to all the relevant aspects of the case. Colin has been provided with all the papers held relating to the information that I considered as part of my deliberation, and my decision has been explained fully to him in person and in writing.”
“I trust that the response to that letter provided Colin and his lawyers with all the information that he required to conclude that I had made a careful and detailed consideration of all the relevant aspects of his case before making my decision. Colin had the right to apply for a judicial review and ask the court to review my decision, but he did not do so. <BR /> <BR />The general principle behind any payment of compensation is to make reparation where the normal machinery of justice has demonstrably failed the accused person. In Colin's case, the due process of law occurred, and he was acquitted at first trial.”
“I also consulted the Department of Finance and Personnel to determine whether there was any scope to make an ex gratia award. However, I had no evidence to present to DFP that might help to justify the payment of such an award. DFP was unable to provide approval, as Colin did not qualify for the statutory scheme, and there was insufficient justification to provide an ex gratia payment, as the Department was not at fault. <BR /> <BR />Shortly after our meeting in 2013, Colin submitted an FOI request and was provided with copies of all the information held by my Department relating to my deliberations of his case and his claim for compensation. Colin's solicitor then contacted me, asking me to provide adequate reasons for Colin to understand how I had arrived at my decision.”
“<BR /> <BR />While an award under the statutory scheme was clearly not available, I also explored whether an ex gratia payment of compensation would be appropriate. An ex gratia scheme operated prior to 2006, as other Members have said, but it was closed to new cases from that year on. Nonetheless, I considered whether an exceptional case could be made for making an ex gratia payment in line with the terms of that previous scheme. However, my review concluded that Colin's case also failed to meet the criteria for the ex gratia scheme. The fact that Colin had challenged the Secretary of State's refusal by judicial review but was not successful was an important factor that I had to consider. The judge agreed that the requirements of the ex gratia scheme had not been satisfied.”
“The key issue is this: the statutory compensation scheme applies only to people who have been convicted. Although Colin spent two and a half years on remand, he was not convicted by the court, unlike the four men who were tried with him. Compensation is not available on the basis of a charge dropped or an acquittal secured. If that were the case, every failed prosecution could attract an award. Last year alone, my Department would have been responsible for compensating over 2,000 adults who were acquitted by the courts in Northern Ireland. I simply cannot provide compensation to Colin Worton without changing the entire basis of the scheme as it applies across the whole of the UK.”
“I explained to him the factors that lay behind the previous decisions and that I would necessarily have to give regard to the same eligibility criteria as those behind the consideration of compensation by the Secretaries of State. However, I said that I would certainly look at the decision, particularly in light of any new material being available. In particular, I wanted to consider any relevant material from the Historical Enquiries Team's report on the murder of Adrian Carroll. Following receipt of that report, it was confirmed that the review did not provide any new information relevant to Colin’s case. <BR /> <BR />As I promised, I explored all aspects of the case and had no legal option but to refuse his claim for compensation. I met Colin on 17 April 2013 to confirm my decision with him in person and to explain the reasons for it.”
“It is fundamentally important that those charged with crimes should be held in custody only when it is absolutely necessary, that their continuing remand is periodically tested and reviewed and that they be brought to trial without undue delay. Delays in delivering justice are always deeply regrettable, which is why an extensive programme aimed at speeding up justice is now in place. <BR /> <BR />The motion specifically calls for me to provide redress for Mr Worton. I am aware that he has sought financial compensation for many years. Prior to the devolution of justice, several Secretaries of State considered his case on a number of occasions and concluded that he did not meet the criteria for either of the compensation schemes that were then in place. Following devolution, I first met Colin to discuss his application in October 2010.”
“That point was reconsidered in the judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision to refuse compensation, which was held in February 2010. Unlike the four co-accused, Colin Worton was not convicted, as many have said: he was acquitted at the initial trial. He is innocent in the eyes of the law, but being innocent in the eyes of the law is not the test that applies for compensation in this jurisdiction or elsewhere in the UK. He was released immediately and returned to serve in the Ulster Defence Regiment for the remainder of his contract. <BR /> <BR />Mr Worton was held in custody for two and a half years awaiting his trial.”
“<BR /> <BR />Jim Allister — I acknowledge that, unlike some others, he at least apologised to me and to the House that he would not be here for my speech — said that Colin Worton had served the same time as the other three: he did not. He served the same time pre-trial as the three who were convicted and had their convictions quashed. They served a period post-conviction, and that is the basis for the compensation scheme. <BR /> <BR />In Colin's case, the trial judge had first to decide whether to admit the only evidence that was put forward against him: his confession. After thorough consideration, with detailed oral evidence from Colin, the police and expert witnesses, the judge concluded that that confession should not be admitted. He did, however, conclude that there was nothing improper in the police questioning of Colin Worton.”
“Let me begin by stressing that, at the heart of all our discussions about Colin Worton and the UDR four's case, is one important fact that is not in dispute: Adrian Carroll was murdered on 8 November 1983. Every time we discuss the issue, we add to the burden that his relatives and friends bear from that dreadful time. I have no doubt that this debate will create difficulties for them, as, indeed, it will for Colin Worton and his family. <BR /> <BR />The murder trial took place in 1986. Let us remember that, after exhausting the judicial process, one man, Neil Latimer, served 14 years before he was released under the Good Friday Agreement. Three others — Noel Bell, James Hegan and Winston Allen — were convicted but had their convictions quashed in 1992.”
“If they are unwilling to contact the police directly, there are other agencies, principally obviously the Crimestoppers charity, and other ways in which information could be brought forward to allow the recovery of Lisa's body. Certainly, as Justice Minister, I would wish to see justice, but it is clear what the family wants most of all. <BR /> <BR />On that basis, I can say little more about the operational matters that affect the police, but I urge whoever may have any information whatsoever to come forward. I commend Lisa's family for the courage with which they have put forward their case in recent days, as indeed they have done over 10 years. I wish them every sympathy as they deal with their continuing loss.”
“That may or may not be possible, but what is absolutely clear is that the campaign that is under way, involving the family, the police and others, must be given the utmost support. The opportunities must be given in order to bring forward the information that will finally bring closure to that family. <BR /> <BR />Regardless of whether it is possible to make that legislative change, much needs to be done in the interim. Certainly, I would hope that those who know something — because there are people who know a lot, which they have never brought forward, and there may be others who know a little, which they have never brought forward — will listen to the appeal from the family, recognise the trauma that they are still subjected to and come forward.”
“Very good work is being done by the police in support of that, and I understand that there has been a significant response to that work over the last couple of weeks, with a number of people coming forward. It is not just the number of people who have brought information to the police; detectives believe that there is a significant quality to some of the information that has been brought forward. That must give hope that it is possible that Lisa's body can be recovered and that her family can have the comfort of giving her the Christian burial that they so clearly crave. <BR /> <BR />I noticed the references, which Stephen Farry made first and others have made, about the potential to treat Lisa as one of the disappeared and to bring her within the remit of the commission.”
“It must have brought back, in an even more difficult way, what they have lived with for 10 years as they have dealt with it. <BR /> <BR />As Minister, I commend the good work being done by the police. That has been highlighted by other Members, and I do not need to repeat the statistics of the number of interviews, potential witnesses traced and all that has been done with searches. That showed a significant effort on the part of the police. It is also clear that we have seen a significant and imaginative renewal of the campaign with the work that is being done on social media, the video that will be shown in local cinemas, the advertising on billboards and so on. That all shows a family facing that difficulty with great courage because of their desire for their daughter to be given a Christian burial.”
“I am grateful to Peter Weir for bringing the debate to the House, and I am personally grateful and appreciate his acknowledgement of the limitations of my role as Minister in this context. Just as it is entirely appropriate that the matter should be debated shortly after the tenth anniversary of Lisa's disappearance in a debate in which all six Members from North Down, and two representatives of parties that are not represented in North Down, have taken part, it is also appropriate that I, as Minister, should respond, even though my role in the area is very limited. It is important that the Dorrian family should have the sympathy of the House and the Executive on record. <BR /> <BR />Our thoughts have to be with her parents, John and Patricia, and her three sisters, who so movingly and courageously helped to relaunch the appeal.”
“Again, I thank the Chair and the Committee. It becomes something of a joke in the House when regulations go through so speedily, but I wish to acknowledge that, even if regulations are presented formally to the Committee only once, it involves a fair deal of work on the part of the Committee. I am grateful for the ongoing positive relationship that was highlighted by Alban Maginness and the Committee Chair in the way in which this business has been handled. I am genuinely pleased about the good work being done between my officials, the Committee and the Committee staff. We should acknowledge that much work is done in this place, not in the Chamber but in the Committee rooms, which means that we have a better justice system for the people of Northern Ireland. I commend the draft rules to the House.”
“These rules are, specifically, a further part of the suite of subordinate legislation to set out the limit on costs ordered against an assisted party and to prescribe the periods during which cost protection applies and does not apply. Cost protection applies in respect of costs incurred by the unassisted party in relation to funded proceedings, costs incurred after the issue of a certificate and costs incurred up to the date that funding is withdrawn. Cost protection does not apply if a funding application is subsequently revoked. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Committee for its careful consideration of this, as with the other rules. It is with its support that I bring this draft statutory rule to the House and commend it.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I note a sense of relief in your voice at this stage. I beg to move”
“I thank the Chair for his support, along with all the Members who have spoken in the debate and those who have come in to ensure that we have a quorum for the vote shortly. The details have been given by me in the opening speech, and also by the Chair. It is clear that, as we seek to move legal services into an executive agency of the Department, it is appropriate that we should modernise the legislation under which civil legal aid is administered. These regulations are part of that, and I commend the draft regulations to the House.”
“At this stage, I again wish to thank the Justice Committee for its careful consideration of the draft regulations and its swift scrutiny of the revised regulations, allowing us to bring the matter forward as speedily as possible. It is, again, with the Committee's support that I bring the draft statutory rule before the House today and commend it to the House.”
“Those circumstances are: where it is in accordance with the law of Northern Ireland; where it is for the purpose of some civil court proceedings; where it enables or assists the Department, a court, tribunal or other person to discharge their functions under the 2003 order for civil legal services and the 1981 order for criminal legal aid; for the purpose of investigating or the prosecution of any offence; and for the purpose of facilitating disciplinary functions by a tribunal. There is a safeguard that ensures that the director and the Department cannot disclose information if it relates to the defence of an individual and may be used for the purposes of the prosecution of that person in that case.”
“Under the Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, my Department is responsible for the administration of what is currently termed civil legal aid. On commencement of parts of the 2003 order, civil legal aid will become civil legal services. <BR /> <BR />The Access to Justice Order (Northern Ireland) 2003 makes it an offence to disclose information, except as may be allowed under regulations. The draft rules provide the circumstances in which the Department, any court, tribunal or other person or body, in connection with the case of a person receiving criminal legal aid, can disclose information.”
“You see the advantages of making four speeches at once, Mr Deputy Speaker. As the Chair has acknowledged, the Committee approved the regulations both times they were laid before it. That also followed consultation with the offices of the Lord Chief Justice and the Attorney General. I should point out to the House that the rules require the approval of the Department of Finance and Personnel before they can be made, but, on the basis of support from the Committee and no dissent from the House, I happily commend the draft regulations.”
“There is a safeguard that ensures that the director and the Department cannot disclose information if it relates to the defence of an individual and may be used for the purposes of the prosecution of that person in that case. <BR /> <BR />At this stage, I wish to thank the Justice Committee for its careful consideration, as ever, of the draft rules and for its swift scrutiny of the revised regulations, in recognition of the time pressures involved in bringing forward the complete suite of legislation to commence civil legal services. I thank the Committee for its support and commend the statutory rule to the House.”
“The Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, as amended in 2014, makes it an offence to disclose information, except as may be allowed under rules. The draft rules provide the circumstances in which the Department, any court, tribunal or other person or body, in connection with the case of a person receiving criminal legal aid, can disclose information. Those circumstances are: where it is in accordance with the law of Northern Ireland; where it is for the purpose of court proceedings; where it enables or assists the Department, a court, tribunal or other person to discharge their functions under the legislation governing legal aid; for the purpose of investigating or prosecution of any offence; and for the purpose of facilitating disciplinary functions by a tribunal.”
“Under the Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, my Department is responsible for the administration of criminal legal aid. These rules ensure that the provisions regarding disclosure of information in respect of civil legal services should apply equally in respect of criminal legal aid.”
“I appreciate the good humour with which the Chair referred to it and the fact that the Committee was prepared to reconsider the rules a second time. I trust that, as future things come up, we will not need to. <BR /> <BR />In closing, I commend my colleague Stewart Dickson for his ability to make four speeches in one, thereby saving the time of the House somewhat later on. It is clear from the quality of the debate that those who have taken an interest in this are fully supportive of the process. I believe that this will significantly improve the operation of the legal aid system by the provision of a new procedure for appeals. I commend the draft regulations to the House.”