Paul Frew
North Antrim · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I thank the Minister for that intervention. Nevertheless, there are concerns that I want to address. The Minister and the departmental officials will know that, even from the range of questions that I have asked. We need to make sure that we get the balance correct.”
“In the written and oral evidence received then, the Committee was advised of potential amendments that the Minister may table at Consideration Stage, including an amendment to remove the commissioner that is being considered in liaison with OLC.”
“That in itself causes some victims and witnesses bother, because they are in a system that they are not part of, which means that they do not get the support that they require. That can sometimes leave them feeling retraumatised, as though they have been put through the wringer again.”
“The Bill makes provision to offer those protections and provide clarity to victims that they do not have to face their perpetrator in court. <BR /> <BR />Members asked questions about a range of matters, including the independence of the office, the ability to review the performance of any future commissioner, the costs of establishing th…”
“I thank the Minister for her intervention. She was absolutely right to take that action, as it means that victims' voices are right at the heart of the matters under discussion. It is now obvious to us that that should have been done years ago, but it is good that it is being done now.”
“Officials explained that the Bill would legislate on the disclosure regime not to prevent an application for disclosure but to set out a process whereby the defence would have to show the relevance of the information that it was requesting. That is an important protection.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,736 lines we hold for Paul Frew, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 75.
“their material will be held for 50 years. There are differences when it comes to age. I found it difficult to get my head around why age would be a factor. If we are talking about the retention of the data of someone under the age of 18, surely there is an argument for retaining that data for a longer, not shorter, period, because, given their age, they are going to live longer than most of us. The Minister, however, settled on the structure that she has suggested in the Bill. Here is the thing, however: once a structure is in place, it is very hard to change it completely or to come up with a better model.”
“The Member makes a valid point. I mentioned victims because it is important that the police use modern technology to solve crime and bring justice to victims, to society and to the culprits.”
“In this age of biometrics and the digital world, it is important that we give the PSNI the tools that will help us defeat crime.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Minister has tackled it by using what is labelled as the "70/50/25-year model". That is complex. Reading the clauses that deal with it, you see a complicated picture of a sliding scale of offences, ages and different scenarios — they are not all offences — that comes into play. At the start, I had to chart out on a piece of paper everything that the Bill does in each clause. Seventy-five years seems like an awfully long time — a lifetime — to hold somebody's personal data, but that is for people who have been convicted of a qualifying offence, which is the most serious offence in our land. It is therefore appropriate, because, from time to time, we have historical cases that need to be investigated and could link certain crimes with other crimes. That will bring truth, if not justice, to victims.”
“I thank the Minister for that clarification. I also thank her for clarifying the changes that have been made at this point of which the Committee did not have sight. I accept her explanation about their tidying-up nature. When I read them last week, I was worried that they changed policy in some way, so I am glad that they do not. <BR /> <BR />There is absolutely no doubt that Part 1 is massive. First of all, it is really important to comply with human rights, which we should do as a state, when it comes to our personal data. However, that must be balanced with the duty that we place on our police force to protect us and keep society safe by preventing crime and catching the criminals who commit it. That is really important, so it is right that the Minister looks for a structure in which to do that.”
“Homer could not have written this, because even what was half a Bill has been transformed in its journey through Committee Stage, with massive changes proposed to Part 1. The Minister brought those amendments quickly to the Committee so that we could get sight of them. However, those amendments were stress-tested after the Bill was introduced: that stress-testing should have been done beforehand. We would not have had such a long Committee Stage. We would not have had to look at so many blue and white pages of amendments. That is not a wise way to legislate. I hope that no other Department or Minister would try to introduce a Bill in that way.”
“Yes, of course. I could not resist it, Mr Speaker. The Minister is right, because we have taken advantage of the licence given to us by the Minister with regard to the Bill. <BR /> <BR />In all seriousness, however, it is really important that we scrutinise legislation properly. This is a special day, because that half a Bill is meeting its partner: the other half of the Bill. At Consideration Stage, it is important that we are able and willing to scrutinise all the amendments. The Minister and the Assembly will know that I love a good amendment. This is the place to scrutinise and debate amendments. I wish that we had been afforded that at Second Reading. <BR /> <BR />Here we are with the Bill. Even the half a Bill has been through a bit of an odyssey to get here.”
“I thank the Minister for that intervention.”
“I take into consideration what the Minister has said about ensuring that this is done appropriately and properly, so I hope that due diligence is given to the commencement. <BR /> <BR />That ends my commentary as Chairperson of the Justice Committee. I now wish to make some remarks as DUP spokesperson for justice on this Part of the Bill. Mr Speaker, you will remember that, at Second Stage, I described the Bill as half a Bill. I was absolutely scathing about it, even before I became Committee Chair. I was here on Bench duty, and I was so aggrieved that I wanted to speak. I spoke at length about the Minister bringing half a Bill to Second Reading. Why was I so alarmed? Quite simply, given their depth and width, the text of the tabled amendments — were I to take out all my guff from inside the Bill — is thicker than the Bill itself.”
“I thank the Minister for that intervention. It is important in the debate that we can engage, confirm and clarify things, so I really appreciate the Minister's intervention. I hope that that will give succour to Members with regard to the amendment on the commencement of Part 1. Again, I ask Members to support those Committee amendments. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Minister for that clarification, because it is really important that the Committee sees work being done and progress being made in that five-year period. I hope that the Department will work with partners in the justice system and beyond to ensure that those important provisions are commenced well before that five-year period has elapsed.”
“However, the Department suggested that, if the Committee wished to proceed with such an amendment, the day to be appointed should be within five years of Royal Assent. <BR /> <BR />Members expressed some concern about the proposed timescale of five years, believing that the DNA and fingerprint retention frameworks should be implemented at the earliest opportunity, as they are necessary to address human rights concerns. However, given the risks that the Department highlighted, the Committee agreed to table amendment No 104 to require that Part 1 be commenced within five years of Royal Assent.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Department advised of the volume of complex work that needs to be done in preparation for the implementation of the new legislation. It includes a range of subordinate legislation and related consultations and the development and testing of software systems. In addition, the Home Office will be required to legislate for excepted matters before commencement. While it is estimated that the new retention framework would not be in place until 18 to 24 months after Royal Assent, that will be kept under review. Given the scale of the work required, some of which is outside its control, the Department considered that a statutory duty to commence the provisions would be problematic.”
“Given our legislative programme, the Committee has not been able to follow that work up, but I expect that we will return to it. However, I can say that that work helped to shape members' consideration of the Justice Bill. Therefore, when the Committee was determining the timescale within which the regulations on retention and use of photographs should be laid in the Assembly under our amendment, we questioned why there was no specific timescale for the commencement of the provisions in Part 1 of the Bill. Members felt it was important that those provisions be commenced at the earliest possible opportunity, given that they deal with sensitive data and are necessary to comply with the European Court of Human Rights judgements in the Marper and Gaughran cases.”
“As I have said, the Committee believes the amendment to be an acceptable compromise between what we heard in evidence and what we heard from the Department. I trust that the House will support the Committee's amendment. <BR /> <BR />Committee amendment No 104 concerns the commencement of Part 1. Clause 33(3) provides that the provisions in Part 1 of the Bill will be brought into operation on a day appointed by the Department. Clause 33 is the Bill's commencement clause. One of the early pieces of work that the Committee undertook when the Assembly returned in 2024 was post-legislative scrutiny of Acts made in the 2011-16 and 2017-2022 mandates. As part of that work, the Committee found that provisions in a number of Acts had not been commenced. It has engaged with the Department on the reasons for that.”
“The Committee felt that that was a necessary step to make sure that any proposals were fit for purpose and made in conjunction with the bodies that could best shape the regulations, such as the PSNI, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Information Commissioner. The Department must undertake further consultation on any changes to its proposals as a result of that initial consultation, and a summary of the consultation must accompany the draft regulations when they are laid. The regulations will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure and must be laid within a period of five years beginning on the day on which the Bill completes all its stages and receives Royal Assent.”
“The Committee therefore agreed to table amendment No 40, which requires the Department to make regulations about the retention, use and destruction of photographs. Before doing so, the Department must consult representative justice partners and other public bodies that are:”
“Initially, we asked the Bill Clerk whether an amendment could be drafted in such a way that, as well as photographs, it might capture emerging technologies, with the aim of future-proofing the Bill. However, the Committee was advised that the framework for the retention of material applies to those taken under the PACE Order, and that, currently, there are no categories of biometric data in PACE that such a broad amendment could be linked to.”
“We initially wrote to the Department indicating that we were actively considering an amendment to bring photographs within the scope of Part 1 and formally asking the Minister to table such an amendment. In response, the Department reiterated its earlier position: making changes to the definition of "biometric material" beyond that already in the Bill would be substantive and complex, requiring detailed work and public consultation. However, it was suggested that the Committee may wish to consider introducing a power to allow the Department to introduce regulations for the retention and use of photographs after it has had time to undertake the necessary work. <BR /> <BR />The Committee considered the approach proposed by the Department to be an acceptable compromise.”
“The Department also advised that work was ongoing in other parts of the UK on the retention and use of photographs, including facial recognition, and that it would wish to take account of that work in determining how to proceed here. <BR /> <BR />We also discussed the absence of photographs with the PSNI. The Committee heard that PSNI policy is to treat facial images in the same way as fingerprints and DNA. They will therefore be subject to the same retention regime, even if they are not included in these provisions. <BR /> <BR />While the PSNI's treatment of photographs went some way towards reassuring the Committee, members nonetheless remained concerned about the absence of photographs from the Bill, believing that that would present a significant gap in the legislation.”
“It was argued that there was a need to future-proof the Bill in order to keep up with emerging technologies. <BR /> <BR />In the first instance, the Committee sought to determine the rationale for the exclusion of photographs from the Bill. The Department advised that the Bill aimed to address compliance issues with the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 — PACE — which relates to fingerprints and DNA only; the retention of photographs could not be considered separately from the use of photographs; and detailed policy development, engagement with stakeholders and a public consultation would be required before legislation could be brought forward.”
“Whilst the Committee agreed that it was content with clauses 1 to 3 after their amendment as proposed by the Minister, that is only because the Committee agreed to table an amendment to address what appeared to many to be a glaring gap in the Bill: the absence from the retention framework of other forms of identification of a person, such as photographs or images. Many believed that the approach taken in the Bill is limited and that a broader definition of "biometric material" should have been included. The Committee heard that, in itself, a photograph is not biometric data but that, when a technical process is applied to use the photograph to identify someone, it becomes biometric data. There was also a recognition that biometric data will extend beyond photographs: facial recognition and gait analysis are just two examples.”
“<BR /> <BR />I mentioned that the Committee did not have sight of all the amendments in group 1 tabled by the Minister. I have addressed some of those, as they pertain to specific issues that the Committee considered. The other amendments — Nos 2, 3, 14, 17, 106, 107, 113, 116, 120 and 126 — include changes to the text of the versions that the Committee received. Members noted those at the meeting of 28 May, but the Committee did not have a position on them, and they are not included in the Committee report. The Committee is content with the other ministerial amendments in group 1. <BR /> <BR />I turn to the Committee's amendment No 40.”
“<BR /> <BR />During the evidence-gathering phase, in response to concerns that were raised, the Committee sought the views of the PSNI on those proposals. In particular, the Committee asked whether it would constitute a new offence if a person missed an appointment to have material taken. The PSNI advised that it was its interpretation that failure to turn up to provide fingerprints and DNA is not an offence. The PSNI welcomed the amendments, which, it advised, would allow it to plan and allocate resources more efficiently. The Committee heard that work was ongoing to determine how the provisions would work in practice and that the PSNI expects that a level of flexibility would be afforded to an individual but that that would depend on the operational environment and the resources available.”
“It felt that it was disproportionate to extend the provision to include custody photographs, which would be taken for such community orders. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 67 introduces new clause 23B, which allows the police to stipulate a time and date for an individual to attend a police station for fingerprinting. The Committee received a written submission from the former Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner in England and Wales, who felt that the amendment was missing an opportunity. He said that consideration should have been given to also allow for the taking of fingerprints or other biometric material at locations other than police stations to allow for greater flexibility in the future. His view was noted by the Department and then by the Committee.”
“I will address further the question of photos shortly, when I come to the Committee's first amendment. <BR /> <BR />The Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime queried how those custody photos would interact with the release of custody images in instances of public interest or for reporting purposes and whether their classification as biometric material might prevent their release. The Committee understands that that is a matter for the Chief Constable and that a working group has been established to develop procedures to govern the release of images. <BR /> <BR />The British Association of Social Workers (BASW) stressed opposition to the amendments, as it felt that new article 63P would allow for a five-year retention period for material taken from someone who is under 18 and completing a community-based restorative justice scheme.”
“The Committee heard from several respondents with concerns about proposed new clause 23A and new schedule 5, which introduce the power to photograph certain persons at a police station. Concerns were raised about the use of photos and whether they should be classed as biometric material and subject to the retention schedule. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), for example, stated that there needed to be further:”
“The Committee therefore sought the Department's agreement to amend the power at new article 63E(11) to the draft affirmative procedure. I am pleased that amendments were tabled by the Minister to enable that change. I thank the Minister for that. <BR /> <BR />On ministerial amendment No 99 and clause 3(10), the Committee also noted during its consideration that the delegated rule-making power at clause 3(10) was absent from the Bill. The Department undertook to correct that at Consideration Stage with an amendment to clause 31. Again, I am pleased to see that that has been tabled by the Minister. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 66, 67 and 126 introduce two new clauses and a new schedule.”
“The Department advised that it considered the negative resolution procedure to be an appropriate and proportionate control for that power. It considered that any amendment made by the power was limited and could change the disposals only in order to keep pace with any changes in terminology. <BR /> <BR />Officials explained that that would also be necessary, as the disposals mentioned in new article 63E(10) were not statutory disposals with fixed names but informal processes and could change in practice. However, the Committee was not content with that position. As I have said, that is a Henry VIII power. While narrow in focus, it relates to the regulation of biometric data, which is a matter of significance and sensitivity.”
“The text of those amendments was not provided to the Committee, but they give effect to a request that the Committee made during its scrutiny. In clause 1 of the Bill as introduced, new article 63E(11) in the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 provides the power for the Department to amend the nomenclature of disposals specified in proposed new article 63E(10), which includes references to a "caution", an "informed warning" or a "restorative caution". Our scrutiny of the Bill included scrutiny of the delegated powers in it. It was noted that the power in new article 63E(11) is a power to amend the primary legislation, commonly known in this place as a "Henry VIII power", although it was subject to the negative resolution procedure.”
“We also discussed the proposed framework with the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner, who advised that biometric retention varies across Europe and that, in his view, nobody has the gold standard. He also pointed out that it is not indefinite retention that is wrong but indefinite retention of material with no prospect of review. In the end, the Committee recognised that, while not perfect, the retention framework for DNA and fingerprints will strike a balance between protecting the rights of individuals and the need to protect the public and to prevent crime. It should deliver a workable system that will not be hugely complex to administer and deliver. <BR /> <BR />I turn to ministerial amendment Nos 4, 111, 118 and 119.”
“Questions were also raised about other aspects of the retention framework, particularly about children and those who had not been convicted of any offence or those who were arrested but not charged. While the establishment of a biometrics commissioner was also largely welcomed, there were some questions raised about the commissioner's independence, role and power. <BR /> <BR />The Committee sought clarification from the Department on the precise factors used to determine the length of the retention periods. The Department set out a range of factors that were taken into account in the development of the model and advised that it had settled on numbers that could be integrated into a model based on severity and age and that provided for a graduated approach that is not overly complex to administer.”
“<BR /> <BR />Clause 1 is the longest clause in the Bill, extending to over 16 pages. It is therefore unsurprising that the Committee heard extensive evidence on its provisions. We heard from rights groups, advocates, academics, children's groups, victims' groups, legal bodies, the PSNI, other justice partners and the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner. There was significant support for the move away from an indefinite retention regime and for the introduction of a review mechanism for those who wish to challenge the retention of their biometric material. While that approach was welcomed, many questions were asked about the rationale behind the 75-, 50- and 25-year models that had been selected.”
“I turn to the first group of amendments. On behalf of the Committee, I will speak first to the ministerial amendments in group 1 that the Committee had sight of and then to the Committee's amendments. <BR /> <BR />As I said, the Committee was advised during an oral evidence session just before the Bill's introduction that the Department had identified the need to table amendments to the biometrics section of the Bill following stress-testing of the provisions with operational partners. The Committee was understandably slightly taken aback by that development, given that it came just days after the Bill's introduction. The Committee received the text of the planned amendments in late October 2024 and noted that they made changes to clause 1, clause 3 and schedule 2. The amendments also introduced new clauses, which I will come to later.”
“The Committee also appreciates the support and assistance provided by Assembly staff, including the Bill Clerk, research officers, the Examiner of Statutory Rules, the Communications Office, the Assembly Broadcasting team, Hansard staff, Legal Services and all the others who played an important role in supporting the Committee to undertake its legislative scrutiny. Finally, I thank the Committee team, who supported the Committee not just to complete the Committee Stage of the Bill but to handle the rest of the normal Committee business, which obviously must continue during the scrutiny of a Bill.”
“We deliberated over eight meetings and agreed on a report on the Justice Bill on 26 March 2026. In total, we considered the Bill and related issues at 51 meetings during the Committee Stage. I, therefore, thank the members of the Committee, past and present, for their contribution to the robust and careful scrutiny of the Bill and planned amendments. I also thank the organisations and individuals who provided written evidence, and those who attended to provide oral evidence. Their contributions greatly assisted our scrutiny and will help inform the final shape of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I also record the Committee's thanks to the departmental officials, with whom we had significant engagement through oral evidence sessions and written correspondence throughout the process.”
“There are further significant additional policy areas, including new serious organised crime offences, changes to the rehabilitation of offenders regime, provisions relating to restorative justice, AccessNI filtering changes and a proposed repeal of the historic vagrancy legislation, which are all being introduced by way of ministerial amendments. <BR /> <BR />Over the course of its scrutiny, the Committee heard oral evidence from 26 organisations and individuals, received 36 written submissions, commissioned 14 research papers and amendments, held two informal round-table events, had multiple briefings from the Department of Justice and received several legal briefings on the human rights implications and the delegated powers in the Bill and the planned amendments.”
“<BR /> <BR />Part 4 of the Bill is essentially technical or administrative in nature. While the Committee considered each aspect, it is fair to say that our scrutiny of the Part centred mainly on clause 28, which is the restriction of the role of the taxing master. We explored the clause in detail, but towards the end of the Committee Stage, we were advised of the Minister's intention that clause 28 would no longer stand part of the Bill, but instead she would bring a new amendment relating to the reform of taxation. We will discuss that in more detail later in the debate.”
“<BR /> <BR />We know that live links are used in the courts and tribunal proceedings by virtue of provisions in the Coronavirus Act 2020. The Committee examined the proposed administrative amendments to make primary legislative provision for live links in courts and tribunals, alongside the new provisions in the Bill for the use of live links in police custody. It is recognised that the use of live links can be of benefit, not least in speeding up justice. The representations made to the Committee included the need to ensure that people were fully advised of and understand their rights, that communication needs and powers must be considered, that live links should not become the norm by default and that they are not a replacement for in-person attendance.”
“The Bill includes a detailed biometric retention framework with potential human rights implications, which was further complicated when the Committee was advised of the need for amendments to those provisions just days after the Bill's introduction. The biometrics provisions were the subject of lengthy discussions, not least about what the provisions do not cover, culminating in the Committee agreeing to bring amendments relating to that part of the Bill, which I will talk more about later. <BR /> <BR />The Bill makes changes to bail and custody arrangements for children and young people. Again, there was a detailed and lengthy discussion on that part of the Bill, as it was important that members fully explored the implications for children and young people.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Bill deals with a range of significant matters. It has 34 clauses and four schedules. The Committee knew, before the Bill's introduction, that ministerial amendments were planned that would cover another six policy areas. Members of the Committee felt that affording those amendments proper scrutiny was the right thing to do. The Committee therefore agreed that a lengthy Committee Stage was necessary, and an extension was subsequently agreed by the Assembly. Despite the best efforts of the Committee to complete its work before that deadline, it regrettably took the full 18 months to conduct its scrutiny. That was due, in large part, to the complexity of the provisions in the Bill and the planned amendments, which required detailed consideration by the Committee.”
“With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I will make some general remarks on the Bill in my capacity as Chairperson of the Justice Committee before addressing the group 1 amendments. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Minister and the Department for all their communication: the letters and the presentations and evidence sessions that they took part in to aid the Committee in scrutinising the Bill. I also thank my predecessor, Joanne Bunting MLA — now junior Minister — who was Chair of the Committee for a significant part of its scrutiny of the Bill, and all previous members of the Committee for their work during the Bill's Committee Stage. The Committee Stage was long and extensive, and there was a bit of churn in the Committee membership, so I thank everybody who sat on the Justice Committee during that time and played a part in the scrutiny of the Bill.”
“I thank the Finance Minister for his answer. He outlined the levels of need. What has he actually asked of the Treasury? Can he put a figure on that? Given that he is having difficulty agreeing a Budget with his Executive colleagues, could he release capital to, at least, allow new builds to commence?”
“— and come up with solutions to assist pupils, parents and children with how to fight and get well again.”
“That is not joined-up government, and it is not what the Executive were meant to be about. It is not good governance in any state in the world. <BR /> <BR />Mr Deputy Speaker and Sian, you will forgive me for raising the issue of lockdown. I do not care what anybody says: all or most of the issues that have impacted on the most vulnerable in society were made worse by lockdown. Those children and families suffered the most during lockdown and suffer the most hangovers from and after-effects of lockdown philosophy. I do not blame anybody in the Chamber and certainly not the Health Minister, but the Assembly has a blindness to that. The Assembly allowed it to happen, so the Assembly must come to grips with the role that it played —”
“<BR /> <BR />To me, that is a great model of joined-up-ness, but it was just three schools coming together. It is quite common and is common sense. The three principals got their heads together and funded that, and they got support from the Communities Minister at the time. Why can we not roll out such an approach for everything involving young people, wrapping care around them instead of them waiting for years for a diagnosis, with parents struggling to come to terms with children and adults' behaviours and children struggling to come to terms with parents' behaviours? Some families are in deep crisis, and they have absolutely no way of getting out of it, because no one really knows how to help them. If we help them on the one hand, we let them down on the other.”
“In my constituency, Ballykeel Primary School, Harryville Primary School and Camphill Primary School have been getting intensive support from psychiatrists and other specialists. It has been a couple of months now, and I cannot remember it all in my head, but that support was funded by the Department for Communities, which was really strange because those are educational settings. The schools were being offered psychiatric help and mental health awareness sessions, not only for the children but for their parents, yet the Department of Health had no part to play in that. The trust may not even have known that that support was going on, but everybody knew about it when it was under threat. We were able to get it put back in place. I got the Communities Minister down to visit a school where we discussed the matter with the three principals.”
“<BR /> <BR />Even when a child gets support in the medical field, in an educational setting or from the Department for Communities, everything else falls around them anyhow. Even the support that they get, intensive as it may be in that setting, does not help them in any way because they are so vulnerable in other ways. In that context, we need to get radical, especially when it comes to our young people. We cannot leave them behind, and we certainly cannot give up on them. Sometimes, however, it feels like that. When the system keeps saying no, parents can think nothing other than we are giving up on them. When the system keeps saying no, the young person considers that they have been given up on, and that will lead to all sorts of other manifestations and issues. <BR /> <BR />I have fought hard on those matters.”
“I rise to support Sian in securing the Adjournment debate on this very important and exceptional topic. The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members. Everyone knows that quote from Gandhi. However, when we consider how we measure up as a society, I am not sure that we score very well. We score a lot better than some other nations and states across the globe, but in the so-called civilised Western world, I am not sure that we measure up. That is because so many parents and children are faced with a wall when it comes to accessing the services that they desperately need. They might get help here or they might get help there, but it is very rarely joined up, nor is it intensive, extensive or wide-ranging.”
“The farmer could plead with that landowner all that he wanted, saying that his henhouse had been decimated, but the landowner would not grant him permission to pursue that fox because he could be liable to a £20,000 fine for allowing him to do so.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He raises a very valid point. Should the Bill become law, if a farmer who has a henhouse that had been decimated by a fox were to go in pursuit of that fox, and it were to go on to another farmer's land, he would have to go and ask for consent to go on to that farmer's land. That landowner would know about the new legislation and the penalty involved. He would know that it was now:”