Maolíosa McHugh
West Tyrone · Sinn Féin · Northern Ireland
“At present, they are largely dependent on borrowing through the Department's capital arrangements, which can limit their flexibility and their capacity to compete with ports elsewhere across these islands. The Bill represents an opportunity to address those issues.”
“Importantly, there will continue to be accountability and oversight through board structures, including representation from locally elected council members, as is already the case at Belfast harbour. That public connection and democratic input is an important safeguard, and one that should provide reassurance.”
“Tá céimeanna beaga ann is féidir linn uilig a ghlacadh lenár sláinte a fheabhsú: scrúdú sláinte a chur in áirithe leis an dochtúir; bheith ag labhairt go hoscailte faoin mheabhairshláinte; páirt a ghlacadh i mbothán na bhfear nó i ngrúpa siúlóide; nó bheith páirteach in aclaíocht eile. Cuireann siad uilig feabhas ar an tsláinte.”
“I welcome the introduction of the Harbours Bill, and I commend Minister Liz Kimmins for introducing legislation that seeks to modernise the framework within which ports operate. <BR /> <BR />Our ports are critical pieces of economic infrastructure.”
“Tháinig deireadh le Seachtain Shláinte na bhFear ag deireadh na seachtaine seo a chuaigh thart, ar Lá na nAithreacha. Is cuí gur le linn Sheachtain Shláinte na bhFear a thit Lá na nAithreacha, nó is minic a shíleann na fir nach bhfuil an dara rogha acu ach saighdiúireacht a dhéanamh.”
“They support employment, facilitate trade, enhance connectivity and contribute significantly to our local and regional economies. My party therefore welcomes the introduction of the Harbours Bill and looks forward to engaging constructively as it is progressed through the Assembly to ensure that it delivers for our ports, our economy and…”
The complete record
Every one of 620 lines we hold for Maolíosa McHugh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 13.
“<BR /> <BR />The Bill sponsor tabled an amendment that called for a review of defamation law within two years. That is welcome because, unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of time in this mandate to consider carefully all the available evidence from England or to digest the report recently published in the South, both of which would have informed a state-of-the-art and up-to-date Bill that met the needs of citizens and achieved the right balance between freedom of expression and the right to defend one's name. <BR /> <BR />Sinn Féin, along with others, was not convinced by a number of the clauses in the initial Bill. Some of those were removed at Consideration Stage. The Bill that we are voting on today has radically changed from the one that was initially presented to the House, and we believe that it has changed for the better.”
“There was much discussion about the serious harm threshold and how it raised the bar and made it more difficult for the man in the street to defend his reputation. <BR /> <BR />The 2013 Act has not had an impact on the growing issue of online defamation, and it could be argued that things have moved on since then and that the provisions for operators of websites are outdated. <BR /> <BR />We also highlighted our opposition to the removal of juries from defamation cases. We need to be very careful, particularly in this jurisdiction, when we begin to roll back from affording citizens the right to have a jury of their peers, rather than a judge alone, to decide their guilt or innocence. People have confidence in the justice system when they see that fairness is being demonstrated.”
“While it is fair to say that the Bill sponsor has been patient, I cannot help but feel that the Bill is still being rushed, even after that passage of time. The initial draft was a straight replica of the Defamation Act 2013. From our point of view, there are a number of issues with that Act that we do not believe should be introduced here.”
“The fact that eight years have passed since the 2013 Act presented us with an opportunity to analyse those reforms and to see what has worked and what has not. Thirdly, two reports have been published that are relevant to the discussion. The first one is from Professor Andrew Scott, and the second is from the Irish Government and was released a number of weeks ago. <BR /> <BR />The Minister indicated his intention to introduce a Bill once he had carried out a proper analysis to review all the evidence from England, and with the benefit of the two reports, to inform legislation that would meet the needs of people here. The sponsor initially proposed the Bill a number of years ago. I understand that he has a background in journalism and that he has experience in the subject.”
“I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Final Stage debate on the Defamation Bill. From the outset, Sinn Féin has been clear that we wanted to see reform in the area of defamation, and a number of factors made that all the more pressing. First, we have all witnessed how online defamation has become a serious problem over the past number of years. Social media platforms are awash with anonymous trolls hiding behind fake profiles who wish to harm and defame others with impunity. Our current defamation laws date back to the 1990s, and it is clear that they are ineffectual in dealing with those issues. Secondly, England and Wales reformed their defamation laws in 2013, resulting in widely varying libel laws among jurisdictions.”
“The difference that a bustling business can make to a once empty property on a main thoroughfare is striking, and I welcome the reinstatement of this positive rates relief scheme. I support the motion.”
“A 50% reduction to the rates bill will go some way to giving breathing space to any new business and will enable it to establish itself and to start turning a profit. <BR /> <BR />The other aspect of the legislation is the boost that it will provide to our high streets. Our high streets have suffered badly, particularly during the pandemic. We have seen a rise in the number of derelict properties on our high streets. The rise of online retailers has also had a knock-on effect on bricks-and-mortar businesses in our town centres. We all want to see our town centres and shopping areas thriving. The rates support scheme aims to bring vibrancy, footfall and investment back to our high streets.”
“Ar dtús, ba mhaith liom buíochas a thabhairt don Aire as a ráiteas. As the Minister has outlined, the statutory rule will reinstate the Back in Business scheme, which was designed to encourage new businesses to open up in previously unoccupied premises. The scheme provides for a 50% reduction in business rates for two years for any new business that moves into premises that have been unoccupied for 12 months or more. <BR /> <BR />Starting a new business can be expensive and beyond the reach of many. Prospective business owners have to contend with huge start-up costs that they must invest without a guarantee that their investment will see a positive return. One such start-up cost is, of course, the rates bill, if the business operates from rateable premises.”
“There are additional protections for academics and scientists who publish peer review material and for individuals or organisations involved in the reporting of court proceedings, as long as the report is fair and accurate. <BR /> <BR />The Bill sponsor's amendments tidy up the Bill, following on from the removal of four clauses at the previous stage. We are happy to support the amendments.”
“<BR /> <BR />We still have some concerns about clause 7, which is to do with the removal of juries from defamation cases. We are not convinced that removing juries will decrease the costs associated with defamation cases, and it may be the case that clause 7 contributes to the loss of confidence in the justice system, given that judge-alone determinations can be perceived to be less credible in the eyes of the public. That said, the Bill in its current form will bring some positive changes. <BR /> <BR />In particular, we welcome the common-law defence of justification and fair comment being placed on a statutory footing as the defence of truth and honest opinion. We also welcome the statutory defence that relates to matters of public interest.”
“I thank the Member for tabling the amendments. As there are only five amendments, which are purely technical, I will keep my comments brief. <BR /> <BR />It is fair to say that the Defamation Bill that is before us today is very different from that originally introduced by the Bill sponsor. Following an interesting debate at Consideration Stage, the majority of Members voted to remove a number of provisions from the Bill as drafted. In particular, Members voted to remove the clause that would have introduced a serious harm test and the clause that had attempted to deal with operators of websites. We in Sinn Féin stated our opposition to those clauses from the outset. So, from our point of view, it is welcome that those have been removed.”
“The increases in gas and electricity are unprecedented, and, unfortunately, those who live in low-energy-efficient buildings will have to pay most to heat their home. More energy-efficient homes will provide savings in the long run. <BR /> <BR />The statutory rule makes a slight change to the fee associated with registering a certificate on to the digital database. A similar rule came before the House last year that significantly reduced the fee for non-domestic properties. This year, there is a modest decrease in the fee for both domestic and non-domestic properties. It is my understanding that the fee is reviewed each year to ensure that the scheme remains cost-neutral. I welcome that and the fact that that will continue to be the case for the coming year.”
“Additionally, the certificate provides advice on how to improve the efficiency of a building by, for example, switching to low-energy light bulbs or improving insulation. <BR /> <BR />Energy-efficient buildings produce less carbon, and, in the context of tackling climate change, it would be desirable to improve the energy efficiency of our housing stock in general. I understand that the Department is considering changes to building regulations that would set higher energy efficiency standards for new builds, and that is to be welcomed. It is also an important development in the context of the recent rise in — it is more like "the soaring cost of" — energy bills. I just saw in a newspaper that the cost of heating a home is expected to be at least £3,000 per year.”
“Ba mhaith liom buíochas a thabhairt don Aire fosta as a ráiteas. I, too, thank the Minister for his statement. Energy performance certificates provide prospective buyers or renters of property with information on the energy performance of a relevant building. The certificate rates each building from A to G, with A being very efficient and G not so efficient. That is important information, as the energy efficiency of a building will determine the cost of heating it. That is all the more relevant given the rising costs today.”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a freagra. Thank you, Minister, for your answer. Given the limited capacity of all Ministers because there is no Executive, I commend the Minister on the great work that she has already done to address some of those issues. Minister, given the scale of the Tory welfare cuts and the cost-of-living increase that we are all experiencing, is it likely that top-up payments will be necessary in the near future and on a continuing basis? As such, how can we ever take responsibility for and address those issues unless the authority is in our hands?”
“The Member commented on Mr Tweed. Does the Member accept that, as I commented, the fact that many of the people who use the internet, including social media, are unknown is what makes clause 5 unworkable? Does Mr Tweed's advice to the Member not confirm exactly what I was saying? It is unworkable because many of them are unknown.”
“defamatory material cannot be held liable. That includes online platforms. <BR /> <BR />We are also opposed to clause 11, which is on the move to non-jury trials for defamation cases. The main arguments for removing juries are that they are expensive and drive up the cost of defamation cases and that judges, alone, are better suited to making judgements in those cases. I do not accept those arguments. Juries in defamation cases have, effectively, been abolished in England since 2013, yet that has not lowered the cost; we are still a less expensive jurisdiction, despite the fact that we have retained juries. Juries are far better suited to judge whether the reputation of an individual has been damaged in the eyes of their peers, which is the essence of being defamed. <BR /> <BR />We are happy to support the rest of the clauses.”
“<BR /> <BR />We are also against clause 8, which introduces a single publication rule. The clause would prevent an action being brought following the publication of the same material by the same publisher after a one-year limitation period from the date of the first publication of that material. Defamatory statements, particularly if they have been made online, may not come to prominence or to the attention of the injured party for a year or more after their initial publication. The clause would therefore block any case from being brought in those circumstances. <BR /> <BR />Clause 10 is very similar to clause 5, in that it states that anyone who is:”
“Paul Tweed gave evidence to the Committee, and I was very impressed by his evidence. In fact, if anything, he reinforced the point, unlike a journalist who gave evidence to the Committee and who seemed to think that, if you were telling only a wee lie, that was acceptable. You can make up your own mind about how you judge Paul Tweed against the journalist who gave evidence at that time. <BR /> <BR />There are other partisan players that have the ability to influence discourse. They have a responsibility to the people who use their platforms and a role to play in the dissemination of false or defamatory material. I agree that a solution is needed, but I am not sure whether we can find a solution that will be part of this Bill. I welcome the fact that the Bill sponsor has indicated that he is no longer in favour of clause 5.”
“He described the clause as being totally unworkable. Online platforms are not the neutral facilitators of user-generated content that they claim to be.”
“What may be serious to me may not be very serious at all to others. Under the Bill, it would be for a judge to decide what constitutes serious harm. <BR /> <BR />We are also opposed to clause 5, which attempts to deal with online platforms. As we know, the vast majority of defamation now occurs online, so any defamation legislation needs to find a way of dealing with that issue. Today, many of the cases of online defamation involve anonymous accounts, and finding out the identity of the culprit can be challenging. The introduction in England of provisions very similar to those in clause 5 has had virtually no impact. Clause 5 also provides a defence for social media companies if they respond to a complaint from the defamed party in accordance with regulations. I was very impressed with Paul Tweed's evidence to the Committee on that issue.”
“We do not support clause 1, which introduces a serious harm test. That clause would make it harder for an individual to sue for defamation. Under the current rules, much of the risk already lies with the claimant. No legal aid is available in defamation cases, and the costs of bringing a case are already beyond the reach of many in our society. Clause 1 effectively states that it is OK to make a defamatory statement about someone as long as it does not cause the person serious harm. It is interesting to note that the main supporters of clause 1 seem to be media and journalistic organisations. That is not surprising, as clause 1 would protect their members if they were to publish lies about members of the public, as long as the lie has not caused serious harm. What is serious harm? That is not exactly clear.”
“In particular, we welcome amendment No 7 to insert new clause 14A into the Bill. The new clause would place a statutory duty on the Department of Finance to carry out a review of defamation law within two years of the legislation's being granted Royal Assent. We will, however, be voting against several clauses, and I will set out which clauses and give our reasons.”
“The Bill sponsor takes the view that our current libel laws are too strong. He wants to shift the balance away from protecting one's reputation towards enabling free speech. Although some of the clauses are worthy of support, I do not see the need for the fundamental move towards free speech that he is trying to achieve. <BR /> <BR />The Bill sponsor has tabled 15 amendments, and we will support all 15. They are largely technical and tidy up the wording in some areas.”
“I thank the Bill sponsor for tabling the amendments. Defamation law exists to protect people's rights. What we often see in defamation cases, however, is a conflict between different rights: the right to protect one's reputation from false statements and the right to freedom of expression. In legislating on defamation, the challenge is to strike the right balance between those competing rights. We want laws that give adequate protection to people when they have been defamed, but we also want laws that do not chill free speech. <BR /> <BR />From the outset, we have said that we are in favour of updating our defamation laws. The last substantial update was back in the 1990s. So much has changed since then, especially with the rise of social media and online platforms. We have some concerns, however, about the Bill in its current form.”
“Businesses need certainty for the future, and they want to see a three-year freeze in place as soon as possible.”
“All moneys are to be welcomed, but the British Government have not responded to initiatives that have been recommended to them around assisting us to ensure that we maintain the regional rate at the level suggested by our Minister. <BR /> <BR />As I pointed out, the regional rate is the only substantial tax over which the Executive have control. It has been at a reduced rate for the previous two years to support businesses throughout the pandemic. A freeze in the regional rate will provide a small but significant mitigation for families and businesses that are struggling at this time. The Minister proposed a three-year freeze in his draft Budget, and, unfortunately, because of the actions of the DUP, the freeze for years 2 and 3 is now in doubt.”
“Yes. She has provided the £200 fuel grant that they will now receive as part of their benefit support. Unfortunately, without a functioning Executive or an agreed Budget, it will be challenging to deliver any further schemes to support those in need. The regional rate is the only substantial tax over which the Executive have control.”
“Stormont's lack of financial powers means that we are limited in what we can do to help the situation. I welcome the action taken by the Communities Minister in the House just a short time ago. She reminded us that those people will receive that extra payment —.”
“<BR /> <BR />Businesses are also struggling. Just at the time when we seem finally to be emerging from a long and damaging pandemic and all the restrictions have been removed, people do not have the disposable income to support our businesses. We have seen with dismay the shocking figures that show a rapid rise in the levels of poverty and destitution in our society. We have heard the pleas from vulnerable people who need assistance. It is a global problem, and we need large-scale solutions. <BR /> <BR />The British Government have made the situation worse with their cut to universal credit and their hike in National Insurance, which will impact on every worker in the North of Ireland. They have refused the Minister's request to cut VAT on energy bills.”
“Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Aire as a ráiteas. Ba mhaith liom fosta cúpla focal a rá; ní bheidh mé ró-fhada. <BR /> <BR />A freeze in the regional rate for the upcoming financial year is to be welcomed. Businesses and families have suffered two long years of financial hardship because of the pandemic, and they now face the extra challenge of a cost-of-living crisis. Inflation is at its highest level in 30 years. We have seen the cost of gas and electricity soar. The cost of fuel to run a car has soared, and there have been steep increases in the price of essential goods. All that has had a devastating impact on workers and families. Let me say, too, that the current rate of inflation is not the result of a cost push — that is, a rise in workers' wages. Other factors have influenced it.”
“There has been much discussion about the benefits of multi-year Budgets, particularly for our health service, but it must also be stressed how vital multi-year Budgets are for delivering major capital projects. It is extremely frustrating for all those in our community who wish to see the projects delivered that the first opportunity for a multi-year Budget in a decade has been jeopardised by the walkout by the DUP. <BR /> <BR />I hope that the next mandate will bring a renewed determination to see the delivery of major capital projects for the benefit of all our communities.”
“We need procurement policies that are fit for purpose and that deliver high-quality value-for-money contracts. Last year, the Minister of Finance restructured the Procurement Board to include representatives from the construction industry with skills and experience in delivering public-sector contracts. I welcome the renewed focus on the security of supply and the social value of public-sector contracts. <BR /> <BR />The Audit Office report identified multiple projects that suffered from funding issues. Projects that take place over a number of years need security of funding over their lifetime. That is necessary to attract the best contractors.”
“I hope that the issues have now been resolved and that we will soon see the long-awaited redevelopment of Casement Park commence. <BR /> <BR />Planning is an issue that the Public Accounts Committee has examined more recently, and the Department for Infrastructure is undertaking a review of the Planning Act 2011. Everyone who gave evidence to the Committee agreed that the system needed to work better and to work for the people. Departmental officials need to listen to the concerns of councils and statutory consultees to ensure that reforms can be brought forward that make sure that there is a more effective and efficient planning system that delivers for all. <BR /> <BR />Procurement is another area that impacts on the delivery of major capital projects.”
“Minister Mallon has said that another public inquiry must take place before work can commence. We need the Minister to give a firm commitment to when that inquiry will take place and to expedite it ASAP. The Audit Office has been investigating the JR process, and I eagerly await the publication of its findings. Perhaps lessons can be learned so that we do not get sucked into endless cycles of public inquiries and judicial reviews and citizens still have fundamental access to legal action, should they so choose. <BR /> <BR />Planning issues also often contribute to long delays. While planning powers were transferred to councils, the Department for Infrastructure retains planning powers over regionally significant applications. The proposed development of Casement Park is an example of how planning issues can cause huge delays.”
“It is recognised by all that the delivery of those major projects will provide a much-needed economic boost, as well as developing associated sectors such health, education, transport and sports. <BR /> <BR />The Public Accounts Committee looked at the issues that give rise to long delays in capital projects. One of the main factors is the high number of judicial reviews. Of particular concern is the A5 project in my constituency, which has been beset by legal issues from the outset. Far too often, we see tragic deaths on the A5. It is one of the most dangerous roads on the island of Ireland, and my heart goes out to the families who have lost ones on the A5. The simple fact is that, the more delays we have, the more grieving families there will be.”
“These projects have faced setback after setback, including public inquiries, judicial reviews, procurement problems and funding issues.”
“I will focus my remarks on the 'Major Capital Projects' PAC report. The Audit Office report on 'Major Capital Projects', released in December 2019, was illuminating and shocking. It identified 11 major capital projects, including seven flagship projects, that experienced huge delays, for various reasons, despite the vast resources provided to ensure their delivery. <BR /> <BR />Among the projects identified in the report were Casement Park, the A5, the Strule Shared Education Campus in Omagh and the regional children's hospital. Those projects have seen little to no progress over many years, with delays and cost overruns on a scale rarely seen elsewhere. Although the House regularly debates these projects, unfortunately, progress is frustratingly slow.”
“Go raibh maith agat as do fhreagra. Thank you for your answer. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is an absolute disgrace that, in the time of a pandemic, because of the reckless decision by the DUP to bring down the Executive, funding will not now be available, particularly for cancer services, the mental health strategy and other needs in the whole health service.”
“Minister, you recently wrote to ministerial colleagues about your intention, in the absence of the Executive, to allocate £45 million this year to the health board. Will you confirm whether other Ministers were supportive of that initiative and whether that allocation has gone ahead?”
“To be effective, they need to challenge Ministers and Departments. Any review must be cognisant of the need to protect their independence. Sinn Féin broadly welcomes the findings of the report, which has called for some reforms of the NIPSO and the NIAO. Once again, I thank the Audit Committee for producing this very important piece of work.”
“The current NIPSO is Margaret Kelly, who was appointed to the role in 2020. <BR /> <BR />While those bodies provide an invaluable service by shining a light on areas where government can do better, it is also important that the bodies themselves are fit for purpose and deliver on their respective remits. It is fundamental that both bodies remain independent of any pressure or political interference.”
“Under his leadership, the Audit Office has robustly scrutinised the work of government Departments. We can all agree that he has not shied away from criticising government policy when it has been shown that it is ineffective or flawed or does not represent value for money. Kieran tá sé ag éirí as anois. Kieran is now in the process of stepping down from his role as C&AG. I wish him well for the future. <BR /> <BR />The Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman is tasked with ensuring fair and equal access to public services for all citizens. Her most recent report, the 2020-21 report, outlined that the ombudsman's office received 927 complaints from members of the public relating to, among others, health and social care trusts, government Departments and local councils.”
“We must have effective systems in place to identify problems and, crucially, to implement reforms where they are needed to improve the delivery of services. <BR /> <BR />The work of the Audit Office is well known from highly revealing reports on controversial topics such as RHI. That has shown the level of detailed and thorough analysis that goes into the reports. The reports are always of high quality, are challenging and are communicated extremely well. The work of the Audit Office covers many areas of public policy, with recent reports focusing on the planning system, the roll-out of Project Stratum, educational underachievement, and capacity and capability in the Civil Service. <BR /> <BR />For the past decade, the Audit Office has been expertly led by Kieran Donnelly, the Comptroller and Auditor General.”
“I thank the Deputy Chair of the Audit Committee for his remarks. I welcome the publication of the report on the review of the governance arrangements for the NI Audit Office and the NI Public Services Ombudsman. <BR /> <BR />The NIAO and NIPSO are two bodies that play key roles in ensuring that we uphold the highest standards of delivery in our public services. Public services need to be managed effectively to ensure the best possible outcomes for those who use them. They also need to be managed in a financially sustainable manner to ensure the best possible value for money for the taxpayer. Improving equality of access to public services should be an ongoing task for any public or local authority. Inefficiencies or flaws in the delivery of public services will always be found.”
“The Bill will also give reassurance to local councils, which will be setting their rates for the upcoming year, a process that has to be completed by next week. <BR /> <BR />Once again, I thank the Minister for bringing forward this vital piece of legislation. I am happy to support its passage at Final Stage.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Bill is not about taking anything away from businesses; it is about ensuring that we support them in the right way. Since the start of the pandemic, the Executive have offered general support in the form of rates holidays and support grants such as the localised restrictions support scheme (LRSS) and the omicron hospitality payment. Those supports have made a huge difference and kept many businesses afloat during the worst period of restrictions. <BR /> <BR />Hopefully, we are nearing the end of the pandemic. However, we still need to support our businesses as they try to rebuild and become profitable once again. It is welcome that £50 million has been included in the draft Budget to support our struggling businesses so that they can emerge from the pandemic, and it is absolutely vital that we pass the Budget.”
“The Minister said that his officials calculated that a worst-case scenario would result in £250 million of rates revenue being lost to the Executive over a three-year period. That is a real threat, and we cannot allow it to happen. That would mean £250 million being directed away from key public services, such as health and education, and local councils in particular, which rely heavily on the district rate to raise the revenue that they need to carry out local services. <BR /> <BR />It is important to remember that England, Scotland and Wales have almost identical Bills that deal with the same issue, so the problem is not unique to the North of Ireland. It is true that the Bill will remove the right of any business to appeal its NAV, but only in a limited and specific way relating to COVID. Appeals for other reasons will continue.”
“Ar dtús, ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Aire fosta as an Bhille seo a chur chun cinn. I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward the Bill and welcome the opportunity to speak in the Final Stage debate. I will keep my remarks brief and touch on just a few of the main points. <BR /> <BR />There is no doubt whatsoever that the Bill is needed. The legal advice is clear that COVID restrictions on businesses curtailed "physical enjoyment" of their premises, which, under article 39A of the Rates Order 1977, constitutes grounds for an appeal of their NAVs. The Rates Order was not designed with the COVID pandemic in mind, and I doubt whether many of us could have foreseen a situation in which nearly all businesses were forced to close at the same time as a public health measure.”
“Councils need certainty in the coming weeks as they prepare to set their business rates for the incoming financial year. Given the short time frame that we face with the end of the mandate approaching and the Assembly's heavy legislative workload, any move to hasten the Bill's passage is welcome. I look forward to it returning to the Assembly shortly for its Final Stage.”