Ms Tara Coogan:

I agree with the Deputy. We are not going to be making a blanket provision to have absolutely everything in public. There will be a provision. The way it is proposed to be drafted, the policy will be that it is for parties to raise the issue with an adjudication officer and the parties will be given an opportunity to state their cases. This means that there will be a decision made on this particular issue. Obviously, there will also be an issue in the context of the naming of decisions because there is a public website, which is very useful and which is a very good way for justice to be visible. Again, that is another matter the adjudication officer will be given absolute discretion to enquire into but also decide on. That is one of those situations where an adjudication officer could, in the interests of special circumstances and depending on the types of people making claims, whether individuals who do not have legal representation may not understand what is involved or the fact that there could be a minor at the heart of a particular complaint, especially on the equal status side, make a decision and offer reasons therefor. Again, there would be an understanding why something was done in a specific way. That kind of discretion will be built into the legislation.

I agree that when this settles down we will have a better understanding of what is involved. At the moment, depending on which side of the House I am speaking to, we almost have Supreme Court procedures being introduced, on the one hand, and then others looking for something else. The WRC is a very unique place. It deals with very simple matters and very complex matters and what we are trying to do is find the right balance whereby we are ensuring the administration of justice, that fairness is at the heart of it, that it is transparent and of a standard but at the same time it does not become a ten-year process.

The other issue the Deputy mentioned was what will happen to hearings currently in train. I suspect some that have been halfway heard and that, where there was an adjournment, may have to be started again. This might have to be before a new adjudication officer, in certain circumstances. This is due to the fact that there might have been evidence obtained or a situation that took place without the oath provision. As a result, there will be some disruption. There is no point in me telling the Deputy this is all hunky-dory. There will be some challenges. The people in the WRC are doing their utmost. They are consulting, talking and engaging with and writing to parties in order to try find solutions. What everybody is being offered is an opportunity to revert to mediation which is a quick and private process. Unfortunately, some of these issues will arise in the next few weeks as matters proceed. There are some cases which will be able to proceed and to be concluded but there is now this issue, which is a real risk issue.

On the review clause, I have spoken to the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to the Government, OPC, about the inclusion of such a thing and welcome any other members' views on it. I see no problem with something like that. As a civil servant, I must carry out reviews. Every 12 months there is a post-enactment review, which I carry out. There is absolutely no harm in doing something like that so I will talk to the OPC about that.