As Chairperson of the Committee for Justice, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. I declare that I have an immediate family member who works in the legal profession.

As the Minister outlined, the draft statutory rule will make changes to the statutory methodology by which the Government Actuary has to set the personal injury discount rate for Northern Ireland. The Committee took its time to scrutinise the proposal for the statutory rule. In addition to considering a number of papers from the Department of Justice, the Committee scheduled two oral evidence sessions and received a number of items of correspondence from stakeholders. In the interests of openness and transparency, as I informed all Members in a letter issued last Friday, the Committee agreed to publish on its website the documentation that it considered when scrutinising the statutory rule, alongside the Hansard transcripts of the relevant evidence sessions.

The Committee was first informed of the Department's intention to propose the rule at its meeting on 25 April 2024. The Committee was not content for it to proceed based solely on the information that we had received at that time. As a result, we agreed to schedule an oral evidence session with officials from the Department of Justice. That oral evidence session took place on 16 May 2024. The officials provided background information on the proposals for the rule and lots of detailed information on the methodology used for setting the rate, including the rationale for using that methodology. The Committee was advised that the change from using the retail price index was necessary because the way that the retail price index is calculated is due to change in 2030 and that, as a result, it was no longer an appropriate method to use.

Many respondents to the consultation stipulated their preference for a CPI+ model. We were advised that using a CPI+ model was not an option at this time because the current legislation does not allow for that. However, officials did state that there is a commitment to review the legislation before the next review of the discount rate in order to:

"see whether it is possible to provide more flexibility on what the legislation says about inflation."

Additionally, we were told that the rationale for the change to using annual weekly earnings as a measure used in allowing for the impact of inflation was based on advice from the Government Actuary's Department.

After the oral evidence session with the Department, the Committee agreed to write to the Department to emphasise that the Committee does support the principle of 100% compensation, which was never in question; to ask for clarification on the modification of the standard adjustment from 0·75% to 1·25%; and to ask for more information on impact assessments, as recommended by the predecessor Justice Committee. The Committee then scheduled another oral evidence session, this time with officials from the Government Actuary's Department, and that took place at the meeting on 30 May 2024.

The officials outlined the role of the Government Actuary's Department in the process, including advising the Department. We were told that its advice had five broad conclusions: that the current notional portfolio and period of investment of 43 years remain appropriate; that RPI is no longer suitable as an appropriate index for damage inflation; that the standard adjustment of 0·75% for tax investment cost is no longer appropriate; that the standard adjustment of 0·5% for the further margin remains appropriate; and, finally, that a single-rate mechanism, rather than one that varies by term or, indeed, another factor, remains appropriate. At that same meeting, the Committee agreed unanimously that it was content with the proposal for the statutory rule. I quote from the minutes:

"The Committee agreed to write to the Department to emphasise that it fully supports the principle of 100% compensation and to outline a number of concerns about the proposed Rule. The Committee highlighted that everybody wanted a CPI+ model but acknowledged that that could not be done at this time ... The Committee noted the move to the average weekly earnings measure instead of RPI. The Committee noted the modification of the standard adjustment for the impact of taxation and the cost of investment and management advice from 0·75% to 1·25%; that the Government Actuary's Department ... considers that that is appropriate; that GAD is content with the assumed investment period of 43 years; that the Department and GAD are unable to consider anything beyond the principle of 100% compensation; and that GAD said that the 0·5% margin was appropriate. The Committee noted that the increase is because tax paid has increased and wished to highlight that a number of concerns have been expressed about insurance premiums and the potential impact on policyholders and defendants. Concerns were also expressed about the potential implications for public bodies. It was also pointed out that Northern Ireland has the highest insurance costs compared with other parts of the United Kingdom and [the Republic of] Ireland."

At its meeting last Thursday, the Committee formally and unanimously agreed to recommend that the rule be approved by the Assembly. I therefore support the motion on behalf of the Committee for Justice.

I will now speak in my capacity as an individual MLA. The position of the Democratic Unionist Party is reflected in the position of the Committee. We were conscious of the views of the respondents, defendants, claimants and stakeholders, and we sought to reassure ourselves about the factors under consideration around the issue as much as possible, given its technical nature. We were pleased to receive answers to our queries around CPI+ but remain concerned about the potential impact on insurance premiums for citizens and public bodies. However, we acknowledge that the actuary is not permitted to take into account such factors when striking the rate.

The key to the entire subject area is to ensure that claimants, over the course of their lifetime or the term of their claim, receive as close to 100% as possible — no more and no less. To that end, we agreed to support the rule. That was after we had raised questions and recorded our concerns with the Department and received the comprehensive advice of the Department and the Government Actuary, who also informed us that, through that process, Northern Ireland would likely be much more closely aligned with Scotland on review timings and, indeed, the rate, as stipulated in the Hansard report of the evidence session. As a result of all that, we are content to support the rule.