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 17 of 75.
“<BR /> <BR />I am glad to say that the Bill has been improved because of pressure from the Committee and because the Department and the Minister listened and amendments were put down in the name of Eoin Tennyson and the DUP. The Minister listened and saw what we were trying to achieve, which was to ensure that parents would not pay a fee for a baby loss certificate. <BR /> <BR />It is also commendable that this is the first place in the British Isles to legislate for a baby loss certificate, and we should be proud of that. If we compare it with the policies in other parts of GB, we have to afford the Department and the Minister the latitude to bring forward regulations under the provisions that will give the flexibility to ensure that the baby loss scheme is fit for purpose not only now but into the future.”
“The Committee and my party and I pushed for the baby loss certificates. It proves that the Department, the officials and the Minister are listening, and moves were made to add the baby loss certificate provisions to the Bill. It took time and effort to get clause 11 and everything that comes with it into the Bill. That is to be applauded, because the Assembly is here to pass legislation. It is not good enough just to pass legislation: the Assembly, the Committee and the Department, with the officials and the Minister, should aim to improve legislation. From the First Reading until the Final Stage of the Bill, our job is to make the legislation better as we go through the process.”
“Therefore, it is good news today that we have achieved a small victory with the repeal of a piece of the Coronavirus Act 2020, albeit one of the most positive pieces of that legislation. It proves that it can be done. Even though the Coronavirus Act apparatus is still in place and although the Assembly has removed the practices of the Act, it proves that we can repeal the Coronavirus Act and completely remove it from the statute book, even though most of it is now dormant. The Assembly should take up that cause.”
“The Minister and departmental officials will know that I badgered them to introduce the Bill as soon as possible. Of course, we kept getting the six-month extensions to the Coronavirus Act.”
“I welcome this day in the Chamber. It is a good news day, and that is for a number of reasons, not least because of the sensitivity of the Bill. It is a very heartfelt, sensitive Bill, and it proves that the House is listening to the people out there. <BR /> <BR />The Bill started off as a very dry, mechanical Bill to move what was temporary legislation in the Coronavirus Act 2020 on to a permanent footing. That concerned the registration of deaths and births, which are very emotive, sensitive issues. It was basically a functional Bill to move good ideas from being temporary to permanent in order to lessen the burden on people who had to register deaths and births, as well as all the people who work in that field, such as undertakers and registrars. It is a very common-sense piece of legislation.”
“Minister, you failed to answer the questions from my colleague Phillip Brett and the leader of the Opposition. Will the First Minister explain why her party, Sinn Féin, moved to immediately suspend an employee from the Assembly who, if we are to believe the revised accounts provided by the Sinn Féin Chief Whip, made no admission of being present at or involved in the incident in the City Hall on the night in question? Why would you suspend someone in that regard? Or were you right the first time, when, on 22 October, you said:”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. His answer contained everything but the terminology around discretionary spend, which our Ministers are increasingly using daily. When the Minister is deciding a Budget or considering a Budget, does he take discretionary spend into consideration before he allocates that funding?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. It should be acknowledged today when we are having a debate about the census, that, not so long ago, Sinn Féin claimed that the census was a British tool for spying on nationalist areas of Northern Ireland. That was at the time when they murdered Joanne Mathers, a lady of 29 years of age who was collecting census data. That should be acknowledged here today.”
“I thank the Health Minister for answering a question that was submitted as a question for written answer, and which was to be answered on 14 April 2025. That in itself is a question. <BR /> <BR />There could be hundreds of people a year contracting delirium. How does the fact that there are only 28 beds — only six within the NHS — impact on waiting times in other wards? How can the Minister be sure that people are being diagnosed correctly and receiving the appropriate pathway to care in respect of delirium or some of the other long-term conditions, such as Alzheimer's and the like?”
“Of course, many people breached their own COVID rules and were heavily criticised or fined, but Sinn Féin walked away from that horrible episode without a touch on them. No fines were administered, whereas households in my constituency — grannies, grandas, mums and dads — were fined £250 each because they dared to go to their grandchild's first birthday party. That is the disgrace, and, given the number of people who suffered during that time, it is unforgivable.”
“Then, of course, there was the grandest breach of the rules: bringing thousands out on to the streets at a time of COVID restrictions to glorify a dead terrorist and, worse than that, to have a sham funeral oration in a graveyard in which the man was not even buried. What a disgrace. <BR /> <BR />It is a disgrace for the people who could not attend the funerals of their loved ones and friends. The tragedy is that so many people died alone in care homes and hospitals without their families present; that is where the harm has been done. Michelle O'Neill and Sinn Féin enticed and encouraged thousands of people to breach the COVID restrictions, when people were being fined £250 for seeing their grandchildren: that is the level it went to.”
“My first thoughts are with the families who lost and suffered during the COVID years, when the Executive were making decisions on behalf of the people of this country. It is fair to say that the criticism from the Hallett report is damning, but it is also centred on decisions that Michelle O'Neill took in her time as deputy First Minister. It was Sinn Féin that first breached the Executive's collective responsibility when it came out in public utterance about the decision that the Executive had taken on school closures. That was only a day after that decision had been taken at an Executive meeting at which Michelle O'Neill had not raised it as an issue. That was diabolical — diabolical.”
“I will. I thought that I was getting an extra 10 minutes, Mr Deputy Speaker.”
“When I see a fireworks display, my first question on leaving it is always, "How much did that cost?". Drones that could be used year in, year out could be of great benefit with regard to financial constraints.”
“I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, that that merits a 10-minute extension for me. <BR /> <BR />The Member makes a valid point. Imagine that you are a veteran who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and that you happen to have a pet for company. Imagine the devastation in that one household. Based on that alone, the matter merits consideration. We need to take stock of it and use the opportunities that come before the end of this Assembly term to change the law to protect the most vulnerable in society: people, pets and, of course, wildlife. We owe it to people and to society. <BR /> <BR />It is not about ruining anybody's fun. It is not about taking away fireworks displays, although the modifications to them that involve drones produce sophisticated displays that can be just as incredibly entertaining as fireworks going up.”
“We have come a long way, and we are in a better and safer environment, where we can have controlled fireworks displays. However, that has a downside, too. This debate is relevant, because it is time to take stock.”
“I am showing my age, Minister. I know you are laughing.”
“You had what was classified as indoor fireworks — these silly things coming out of sheets of paper — and that was all that we had when I was young.”
“<BR /> <BR />We also have the issue of the overall control of licensed fireworks and how we can change behaviours and raise awareness of the potential damage that large-scale firework displays can have on people's pets. It amazes me that we always talk about pets, and the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (USPCA) say that 80% of pet owners report that pets were distressed or frightened as a result of fireworks. I suspect that figure is replicated for wildlife in the environment. For every display we have or bang that goes off, even if it is a domestic thing such as a family having a fireworks display, the wildlife could be devastated, and we do not know that that is taking place when we decide to have a fireworks display. <BR /> <BR />When I was growing up, we did not have fireworks displays.”
“If the Minister and the Assembly have the will, it could be achievable in the not-too-distant future. <BR /> <BR />One thing I am sure of is that, when people are preyed on by antisocial behaviour, the use of fireworks takes it to a new level. When people are the victims of antisocial behaviour, they are traumatised, they cannot get a break, they cannot get a rest and they are worried in their homes, and if fireworks are fired at your property and, on some occasions, at your person, put through letter boxes or banged against windows when you are trying to sleep, it can have a devastating effect on people's lives. That is where we need to target any real change in sentencing.”
“I see merit in the motion and the amendment, and it is a pity that we cannot splurge the two together because, if the amendment passes, we lose something from the motion, but if the amendment is not made, we lose something by not having the amendment. It is a pity that the two cannot be splurged together. They are coterminous, because we need a comprehensive review of fireworks legislation to ensure that it provides the appropriate safeguards; promotes responsible celebration; and better protects the welfare of people, including veterans, and animals, including pets and wildlife; and, of course, victims of terrorism and antisocial behaviour. The comprehensive review may then feed into the pending sentencing Bill, and the two may be coterminous in some way.”
“How have legal advice and the views of schools informed the guidelines?”
“That has come to pass. <BR /> <BR />Today is a really good day for the Assembly, and it is a better day for all those who have been and those who will be bereaved, especially those mourning the loss of a baby before 24 weeks. My heart goes out to those who have suffered in that way, but at least they know that the Assembly and the Department are listening.”
“We took the Minister at his word at Consideration Stage, and we have been delighted with the engagement since then. <BR /> <BR />This is an example of the House operating in the best way possible. When we work constructively together, we should acknowledge it. Therefore, I thank the Minister and the Department and its officials for the work they undertook, with not only us — myself and Diane Forsythe from the DUP — but also Eóin Tennyson of the Alliance Party, to ensure that the amendment was tabled today and the House, including the two parties involved, was content and supportive of its wording.”
“I place on record my thanks to the departmental officials, the Department and the Minister for listening and working with Members to get the best possible legislation. On this side of the House, we recognise that the Department, because it was making provision for baby loss certificates through legislation, needed to ensure that there were parameters in the regulations to which it would otherwise not have wished to stretch. However, it needed that cover in legislation in case something arose in the future. With that knowledge, we proceeded down the route of a compromise amendment to send to the Minister and ascertain his thoughts on it. We did not move it at Consideration Stage because we felt that there had been good engagement from the Department and the Minister.”
“I will limit my remarks to the amendment. <BR /> <BR />The debate is welcome, and the amendment brought forward by the Minister is very much welcome. The Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill is a very important piece of legislation for a number of reasons, one of which is that it deals with death. It is important, therefore, that we treat it with respect and sensitivity. Throughout the Bill's passage, we have done that in both the Chamber and the Committee for Finance. <BR /> <BR />I commend the work of the Committee for Finance, which I have now left. I took great interest in the Bill from the start and pushed the Department to bring it forward as quickly as possible and include baby loss certificates. <BR /> <BR />That brings me to the amendment.”
“Regulations should be made immediately to protect victims and survivors of domestic violence, to keep them in work and ensure that their workplace is a safe place for them. That is a noble cause, and I will continue to press the Department for the Economy on it.”
“The Northern Ireland Assembly passed the Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Act in 2022. It was a private Member's Bill, but it was fully supported by the Minister for the Economy and the Economy Department, yet we still do not have it enacted. Why is the Minister for the Economy dragging her heels on that important issue? <BR /> <BR />The Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Act creates a right of 10 days' paid leave for all victims of domestic and sexual violence. It was good enough to be voted for and passed in the House, yet the Department for the Economy drags its heels. It was the first legislation of its kind to be passed in the British Isles, yet the Department for the Economy is now failing victims of domestic and sexual violence. Why is that?”
“<BR /> <BR />This issue affects everybody, no matter who they vote for. Once again, it is the DUP that is stepping up and raising the legitimate concerns of our people, while the other parties are very flippant about it. Members on the other side of the House can laugh about that, but we will continue to fight for our people in order to ensure that those barriers are removed.”
“Yet, those parties cannot get over themselves about the decision that was taken by UK citizens nearly 10 years ago. <BR /> <BR />We are where we are. The practicalities of the protocol and the Windsor framework are upon us, so it is incumbent on all of us in the Chamber to make sure that the people whom we represent, no matter what church they go to or what their political philosophy is, are not damaged and that their trading relationships and consumer practices are not damaged by the protocol and the Windsor framework. We are facing a really serious issue with regard to veterinary medicines. We have tabled the motion so that we can air those concerns. Instead of having the concerns of our people echoed across the Chamber, however, they are thrown back not just in our faces but in the faces of the people whom we represent.”
“It changed tack, but it did so because it saw a point of division that it could exploit. Boy, has it tried to do that. Sinn Féin is not trying to resolve the issues; it is just trying to divide. Of course, all the other parties are aligned with that. <BR /> <BR />The "suck it up, buttercup" mentality, however, will not work in North Antrim, Lagan Valley or Upper Bann, where so many people voted for Brexit but then experienced the ill effects of the protocol. That is where the violence was done. The violence was done by the protocol. The Windsor framework was labelled as some sort of remedy when we knew that it was not. It was this party that said that it was not. It was this party that fought against the worst excesses of the protocol and fought against the Windsor framework in order to make it better for all our people.”
“However, it seems to me, from listening to the debate, that Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party have no concerns about those issues and no complaints from their constituents. Going by the level and tone of their debate, it seems that, if they do, they basically reply, "Suck it up, buttercup. You should have listened to us during the Brexit debate". That is simply not good enough. The Brexit debate and referendum were run nearly 10 years ago. It is time for the parties here to get over themselves, get over the result and move on. I know that they are angry, and I know that they love to be EU fanatics. Well, most of the parties do. Sinn Féin has only really adopted that policy in the past 10 years because, before that, it was Eurosceptic. In effect, it was probably the most militant party against the EU on this island.”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I support the motion. It is a very topical, serious issue for many of our constituents and businesses, small and large, and it is a big issue for many consumers who are trying to buy their wares from GB companies and are finding it increasingly difficult. I know from my mailbag and my email lists the amount of concern out there. <BR /> <BR />We, as a party, have a very good sense of organisation. When we get emails regarding the protocol, we pass them to the central party, and it engages for us, on our behalf, with the relevant departments in Westminster. It has proven to be a very good way of getting information down to constituents.”
“I thank the Minister for her answer. Given her worrying differences with Invest NI, and given the fact that the Utility Regulator has had to step in on EP Ballylumford Limited, can she assure the House that she is fully across her brief and is ensuring that her Department's energy branch is protecting the consumers of Northern Ireland?”
“Will the Minister explain and describe the engagement with the Department of Health on this serious issue?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He points to the DUP's reason and motivation for tabling the motion, which is simply because we have been contacted by people, consumers and small businesses in our constituencies. It seems that the only MLAs who are being contacted about those issues are Members on this side of the House.”
“There is a very simple answer: do not comply. I will never have a digital ID. If everyone across the United Kingdom were to take that approach, the scheme could not be implemented. That is the exclusion that he is talking about. You do not need to create a differential between GB and here in order to create that exclusion; just do not have a digital ID.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I hear what the Member said about identity, and that is fine. However, does he realise that, if he were to change job or any of his family members were to go to GB to work, they would have to have the digital ID? Call it what you will, but they would have to have that ID, so why did he have that exclusion in his motion?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He alludes to the British character in not accepting ID, and so we should not. The debate has been illuminating for a number of reasons. The Member was not here, but his colleague was when the DUP and the TUV opposed vaccine certification. It has been illuminating to see that Alliance, the SDLP and the UUP have moved away from digital ID and to see that Sinn Féin has completely forgotten about workers from the Republic of Ireland.”
“However, it is very clear from the LucidTalk poll that 80% of people aged between 18 and 34 — I fall just outside that bracket — are totally opposed to digital ID. Surely that speaks volumes. In my age range, which is 45 to 54 — I fall just inside that category — it is also 80%. I am proud to say that those are the two groups that have highest resistance to digital ID. <BR /> <BR />It is a non-runner. It is an absolute no-brainer to resist digital ID, given all the dangers that it would bring not only to our freedoms but to our personal information, which could fall into the hands of all sorts of unscrupulous people, including the current Prime Minister.”
“Whether that be through our Minister rightly restoring the winter fuel payment to our pensioners or our principled stand against the unfair tax on family farms, the DUP will continue to fight on issues relating to schemes such as the digital ID that are not in the best interests of people in Northern Ireland or across the UK. Included in that are the Irish people from the Republic of Ireland who go to GB to work whom Sinn Féin has forgotten about. We will not forget about those people; we will fight for those people. It is not right for the British Government or any Government or state to impose digital ID on any one of their citizens, no matter who they are. <BR /> <BR />This is fascinating: I have spoken about digital wallets and other such things, and you would think that young people would be OK with this.”
“We give data to private organisations, but they cannot compel us to do so: we have a choice. We can choose whom we give our personal data to, whether that be an organisation, a business or a private entity. Only the Government of the day can pass laws to control people's lives and actions and use a digital ID to make us comply. <BR /> <BR />It is worth noting that many Members on the other side of the Chamber were happy to cheer the arrival of the new Labour Government. As a party, we will always stand up for the rights of people in Northern Ireland.”
“Enforcing a digital ID scheme raises serious concerns about the protection of an individual's private data in a world where cybersecurity is becoming ever more threatened. Forcing people to store personal information, all in one place, in the form of a digital ID would be deeply unwise. The first question in the debate should not be what it is called — BritCard or otherwise — but why the state is making it mandatory. Why are they enforcing it? If it is such a great idea, make it voluntary. The state should not force people to do anything that could put them and their private information in jeopardy. <BR /> <BR />I hear people out there say, "But I have a digital wallet for all sorts of services on my phone: I hand over personal information all the time, and it makes my life so handy".”
“He then looks towards the camera — a bit like Big Brother, just softer and gentler — and says:”
“Really? Does he think that we are stupid? Needing it in order to work is a pretty big deal, so, if digital ID is mandatory for that, it is, basically, mandatory for everyone of working age. He goes on:”
“It did not care about personal rights or privacy then, so what has changed? I warned at the time that that was a precursor to digital ID, and I am glad that all the other parties have rowed in behind me on that serious matter. <BR /> <BR />The Government could easily change the scope and conditions of every sphere of life because of the digital nature of the ID, and we would have no say in it and no choice but to comply. They have already done exactly that, as the Prime Minister stated on his social media page. That shows footage of him talking about digital ID to customers in Barclays bank, of all places. He tells them that the digital ID will contain their basic information. He then says a peculiar thing:”
“If employers do not check visas, why would they check digital ID? <BR /> <BR />A digital form of ID is not a harmless card in your hip pocket that can be shown to a person in authority. The British people have baulked at such a proposition, even in the worst of times. Such measures can and have been used, even in recent history, to coerce people into a position that they did not wish to be in. They enable the Government to widen the scope to cover all other matters and control what people can and cannot do. That is what vaccine certification did during the pandemic. It is worth noting that the motion has been tabled by Sinn Féin, the party that, along with the Alliance Party, the SDLP and the UUP, was a passionate advocate for digital certification for COVID vaccinations.”
“<BR /> <BR />This scheme is a so-called solution that is trying to find a problem, and the Government just happened to select the number-one issue that has vexed so many British minds of late: immigration. Do not be fooled: illegal immigration and illegal working are totally unacceptable, and the issues need to be resolved immediately. They need to be resolved across the UK, and that includes Northern Ireland, but this scheme will not do that. It is not even designed to do that. The scheme is state overreach, and, as is always the case, it is about making people a lot of money. We do not need to give over 70 million people a digital ID to stop 0·05% of that number from arriving illegally. We already have a visa system that displays people's right to work, but it is not even enforced.”
“I thank the Member for his contribution and his Eurosceptic tendencies. However, there is one weakness in the motion: what about the workers from the Republic of Ireland who work in GB? They will get the digital ID card — or the BritCard, if they call it that. Sinn Féin has completely failed and discarded the people of the Republic of Ireland in its motion, whereas we are fighting for all the people who work in the United Kingdom, even citizens of the Republic of Ireland. Sinn Féin has completely forgotten about the Irish people, and that is because it is so hung up on this. It is the most British thing to do to oppose digital ID. It is the most British thing to do to oppose mandatory ID of any form, because the British people have never suffered or accepted it, and nor should they ever accept it.”
“Sinn Féin is so wrong-headed on this subject, it is crazy. The reason why it is so wrong-headed on this is that it is hung up on the nickname "BritCard". If this was brought in in the Republic of Ireland, or if it was brought in in the EU, which there are plans to do, Sinn Féin members would lap it up. They would all sign up for their digital ID cards.”