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 18 of 75.
“<BR /> <BR />I am calling for an investigation — a thorough review of BBC practices, not only in BBC News but in BBC News Northern Ireland, and into the current affairs programmes on Radio Ulster, so that we can get to the truth of these matters and ensure that the BBC once more becomes impartial, fair and accurate.”
“It then took a public conversation that I had on Twitter with another account about vaccine injuries and reported fatalities and injuries on the yellow card scheme. On 16 January 2023, the 'Talkback' programme ran a story entitled 'Public health experts combat new wave of misinformation'. The BBC took a small section of that conversation out of context, changing its meaning, even though, earlier in the conversation, I had clarified the very point that it was reporting. It chose to ignore that in order to take a small section of the conversation and run a narrative that has both mischaracterised my words and misrepresented my opinion on the topic. That then was reported repeatedly by other media outlets. The false pretext was represented as fact. That mischaracterisation or misrepresentation was echoed only last week.”
“It was lazy journalism, because the BBC had not practised due diligence in checking the story and getting further sources to back up it up, and it was designed to feed into a narrative with which the BBC was obliging the Government and the Executive of the day in deploying fear, which caused great anxiety throughout our people and particularly our young people. The Executive's motives were to coerce young people to take a medicine that could cause them adverse side effects. A complaint went in, and it was upheld in April 2022, but the damage was done. <BR /> <BR />Then we had the 'Talkback' programme that sensationalised me in my assisting people who had been harmed by medicine.”
“Information is the currency of democracy. I am the first politician to stand up for freedom of the press and investigative journalism. However, the priority now for the BBC must be to restore its relationship with the truth and with the people who are forced to pay for that shabby and unethical service. <BR /> <BR />The Trump speech is not the first time that the BBC has mischaracterised a politician's words, and it is not the first time that the BBC has reported false or fake news that represented a lack of editorial impartiality. On 23 July 2021, 'Good Morning Ulster' reported that the Mater Hospital was filled with young people on ventilators. That was false. It was untrue. 'The Nolan Show' repeated the story and ran with it.”
“The Minister has failed to answer my question, even though she had time to get the data that I seek. That does nothing to assuage my concerns that the Department of Justice and, indeed, the PSNI are refusing to promote the child protection disclosure scheme, meaning that parents are the last to know if there is a risk to their child. Will the Minister commit to informing the House of her plans to promote the child protection disclosure scheme in the future so that parents will not be the last to know?”
“When we should be debating issues important and significant for the children of Northern Ireland, the mask has slipped, and you have brought the House into disrepute. Shame on you all.”
“It brought thousands out on to the streets at a time of public health dangers and risks. Did Sinn Féin care? No, it did not. Sinn Féin is just as bad as Boris Johnson, yet it will criticise him. <BR /> <BR />Sinn Féin has the only Minister who has been taken to court and proven guilty on the grounds of religious discrimination against a protestant. Where was Alliance then? Where was the SDLP then? Why was there no motion then? This is drama, and you have all been spooked by the person in the corner: by the Member who tweeted, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance", followed by clenched fists, when babies were being burned in ovens and young girls gang-raped in their homes. Shame on you all.”
“At times, in my time, especially over the past five years, the Executive have been poor. They have brought in measures that have hurt our people dramatically and drastically. Anxiety levels and mental health issues are through the roof. It was the Executive — it was the parties in the House — who did that to our people. The DUP fought against it, resisted it and opened up sooner. Lockdown philosophy is your fault, and you need to be held to account for it. Even during that time, Sinn Féin had a sham funeral oration in a graveyard for somebody who was not even buried there.”
“Of course, I have no confidence whatsoever in Sinn Féin, any of its Members or any of its Ministers. However, I expect a different level from the SDLP, which has, in the past, deemed itself to be non-violent, and, of course, the Alliance Party, which models itself as being middle-of-the-road. How middle-of-the-road is this? There is no middle-of-the-road here. Instead of spending time debating the important issues that will affect our people — every one of our voters in Northern Ireland — we have this sham fight that will make no material difference. Shame on you all, because you have brought the debating Chamber into disrepute. It should not be the case, but you have, and it is shameful. <BR /> <BR />Why should I have confidence in the other Ministers in the Executive?”
“However, it is even more serious than that, because they have all been led by the nose by a Member who, to his shame, tweeted, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance", followed by clenched fists. On the day that babies were being burnt in ovens, when children were being executed by a bullet in their head and when young girls and women were being raped and gang-raped in their homes, the Member tweeted, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance", followed by clenched fists. <BR /> <BR />It is not the first time that Sinn Féin has been spooked by Gerry Carroll and People Before Profit. I remember when it voted, last term, to reduce everybody's rent by 10% and had to claw that back through legislation. It has been in embarrassing situations before.”
“Mr Speaker, what a farce; what an absolute farce. When we in the Chamber could be debating housing — we have a Minister here — or education in our own country — the Education Minister is here — what a farce it is that we are debating something that will make no material difference or have no outcome after the debate. It is an absolute farce. Members are bringing the Chamber into disrepute by bringing the motion to the House. It is incredible that we are spending and wasting time on a debate on a motion that will make no material difference. Why do they do it? Mr Speaker, I suggest that the parties have brought the motion as a sham fight — a pantomime.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He makes a really valid point. When I served in the Royal Irish Rangers and the Royal Irish Regiment, many of my colleagues treated their Irishness as what made them special. Indeed, the Royal Irish is renowned for its Irishness and proud of it. That is the difference between the Royal Irish and the rest of the regiments in the British Army. So many of those people would have voted for parties on that side of the House.”
“The Member makes a valid point, and I am glad that he mentioned the Veterans Commissioner, because we should be grateful for the commissioner's work. He mentioned the duty that is placed on the Departments. That duty should not be one that Departments see as having to be done. In doing that duty, there has to be a spirit of commitment to our veterans, not of it just being something that they are obliged to do.”
“It is important that the Departments in this place support our veterans and their families.”
“If you do not have the support of a government agency with housing, health and education for your family, it can make the feeling of alienation and the concerns about safety and security 100 times worse. They always have to check under their car, that the lights are working and whether someone is following them from their home or their work. That is real, and we need to make sure that our veterans are supported so that they do not feel alone and vulnerable. <BR /> <BR />Where should that support start? It should start with our Executive Departments; the Departments in this country that have the power and responsibility to support our veterans, our people who went overseas to foreign lands and fought on our behalf for our safety but also those who fought in this land against terrorist fire.”
“However, because of their service, and because of how they contribute to the safety and defence of our people, they sometimes are disadvantaged, or, if they are not actually disadvantaged, they feel as if they are, and that is just as bad. That is something that we should not tolerate. <BR /> <BR />These people should be commended for stepping forward to protect us, our families, our homelands and, indeed, the world from terror and wars. That is what being in the armed forces is all about. It is also about a friendship group, teamwork and being together. Sometimes, you can feel very alone when you leave that environment, because, for three, six, nine, 12, 15 or 22 years, someone had your back. Someone was always at your side. Sometimes, when you leave that environment, you can feel exposed. You can feel alone.”
“Northern Ireland has strong engineering and digital sectors, and it is uniquely positioned to contribute to the defence need for innovation. <BR /> <BR />Defence is an integral part of the UK economy and wider society. It supports 440,000 highly qualified jobs and drives social mobility through the training offered to armed forces personnel and civil servants, with over 24,000 apprenticeships. That is what reservists bring; that is what veterans bring; and that is what the armed forces bring to our communities and way of life. That is why we must support our armed forces and the people in them, be they regular forces or reservists. They are a vital cog in the machine of society and defence. That is why, through our Departments and councils, we must protect them and ensure that they are never disadvantaged.”
“— and in middle age who are highly trained professionals and an asset to our communities. They have a skill set that should be harnessed and supported. <BR /> <BR />We know that reservists are an essential part of the UK's defence strategy. They are called on as individuals for their specific skills or as units to serve alongside the regular forces when required. They have expertise in engineering, logistics and digital sectors and skills in leadership and resilience. They are an asset that can strengthen our economy and national security. Reserve-trained employees bring many professional advantages to civilian roles. The strategic defence review highlighted the overlap in leadership, programme management, cyber, digital and data skills between warfighting and modern workplaces.”
“The skill set in the armed forces could be of great benefit to our economy and the communities across Northern Ireland, if those skills were celebrated and harnessed. There is a misconception among many in our society when they are asked to think of a veteran. They imagine older gentlemen in their later years of life. However, there are also many veterans and service leavers who are young — like me”
“Strengthening the implementation of the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland is a crucial step forward in ensuring that veterans and their families can access fair and equitable support in all areas of public life. <BR /> <BR />As we look at conflict around the world, we see that peace, democracy and sovereignty can never be taken for granted. Northern Ireland is playing its part. We are proud to contribute more reservists per capita than anywhere else in the UK. That highlights the deep commitment of our people to serve us and keep us safe. The armed forces protect and serve the community from whom they recruit. <BR /> <BR />Defence and business must work closely together in the world's changing landscape. That is laid out in the 2025 strategic defence review, which said that it would put personnel at the heart of the UK's defence.”
“That can prevent them from accessing statutory or third-sector support that could alleviate the pressures on them and on public services. Much of that stems from the absence of accessible armed forces champions in Departments or services. Veterans need a clear and safe point of contact where they can ask questions and access support without fear of prejudice or disadvantage. <BR /> <BR />While the armed forces question is now widely included in national censuses elsewhere in the UK, it remains absent in Northern Ireland, leaving the local veteran population under-recognised in planning and service delivery. It is essential that veterans living in Northern Ireland are acknowledged, valued and supported. They have served with dignity and professionalism, and they should not experience disadvantage because of their service.”
“For example, a family moving from England to Northern Ireland or returning from a posting elsewhere in the UK or abroad may encounter difficulties if a child has a special educational needs statement that was issued elsewhere. Such statements are not always fully recognised, which can disrupt the continuity of educational support and care. <BR /> <BR />Veterans also face challenges in housing and health provision. In some areas of Northern Ireland, housing allocations may place veterans in locations where they feel unsafe due to past service-related experiences. Veterans may also hesitate to disclose their status to healthcare professionals, including GPs and those in hospitals and mental health services, due to concerns about misunderstanding or lack of empathy.”
“That has created gaps in communication and understanding, leaving some veterans and their families feeling that they may face disadvantage even when none is intended. <BR /> <BR />One of the key issues is the ability of veterans to safely and confidently identify their status. For many years, service personnel were, for security reasons, advised to maintain a low profile, use an alias and avoid disclosing details of their service. In a post-operational environment, where reintegration and normalisation should be the focus, that culture of concealment can hinder access to support services. For service families, that can be particularly acute in areas such as education.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am delighted that we have a motion today that has been supported by four of the parties in the House. That does my heart good not only because four parties have signed the motion and agreed its wording but because the subject matter is very close to my heart and to that of many families throughout the Province. The armed forces covenant is a vital commitment that aims to ensure that members of the armed forces community, including veterans, service leavers and their families are not disadvantaged in areas such as health, housing and education. In Northern Ireland, however, real and perceived challenges continue to affect the armed forces community, largely stemming from a lack of strategic discussion and policy implementation around the covenant.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Minister is quite right when she states that she is now using the vehicle of the Justice Bill to put these measures on a permanent footing. I welcome that, but I also regret the fact that she had to do it through an amendment that we will see and debate at Consideration Stage, instead of bringing it in the Bill at Second Reading, when we could all have debated the merits of and the reasons that we need it to continue. Notwithstanding all of that, I, as DUP justice spokesperson, am content to support the motion. I hope that there will not be too many more extensions of this provision of the Coronavirus Act and that it can be repealed in the same way in which we discussed repealing the finance provision earlier.”
“We discussed one earlier: the remote, electronic registration of deaths, stillbirths and births. The second one is what we are talking about now: wider access to the courts through live links. That has been very important to the justice system. I will support anything good that comes out of this place, no matter what vehicle it comes in, so I support access to live links and the wider access to justice that that brings about. <BR /> <BR />Over the years, the fact that we have had to roll on the extension six months after six months after six months, when it has always been a good idea, has frustrated me. It was always a good idea, even before the COVID pandemic, and we could ask the question: "Why did we not think of that before the necessity of the COVID pandemic?", and so, we find ourselves here.”
“That included consideration of the Examiner of Statutory Rules's report, which raised no issues regarding the technical aspects of the rule. The Committee agreed to recommend that the rule be approved by the Assembly. Therefore, on behalf of the Committee for Justice, I support the motion. <BR /> <BR />I will now speak briefly as an individual MLA and the DUP's justice spokesperson. You will know my views on the Coronavirus Act and what it meant for Northern Ireland and its people: how it harmed our people and destroyed democracy in the Chamber. It turned the Chamber into a zombie Assembly, which I detested. I fought every day against the harmful measures that originated in the Department of Health and were implemented by the Executive. You will all know my views, but I supported wholeheartedly two aspects of the Coronavirus Act.”
“<BR /> <BR />As the previous Committee Chairperson informed the House, the Committee has sought assurances from the Justice Minister that the continuation of the use of powers in the Coronavirus Act 2020 remained appropriate and proportionate as an interim arrangement until a permanent provision could be established by means of primary legislation. The House will be aware that the Minister indicated that she plans to introduce an amendment to the Justice Bill at Consideration Stage to make permanent provision for the use of live links in courts and tribunals. That will bring Northern Ireland into line with neighbouring jurisdictions. <BR /> <BR />The Committee continues to receive evidence on live links as part of its scrutiny work on the Bill and its amendments. The Committee considered the rule at its meeting on 16 October 2025.”
“I am pleased to speak briefly on the motion as Chairperson of the Committee for Justice. I pay tribute to my predecessor, Joanne Bunting, for her work as Chairperson. This is the first opportunity that I have had to do so in the House officially as Chair of the Justice Committee. <BR /> <BR />The Minister has outlined the intention of the statutory rule, which I will not repeat. It is the latest rule in a sequence of statutory rules to extend the provision of live links for courts and tribunals under section 90 of the Coronavirus Act 2020. The Committee has recommended that the Assembly approve all previous extensions, and, following consideration of the current rule, it maintains that position to extend the provisions until 24 March 2026.”
“I really appreciate the Minister's giving way. He has spoken to our amendment. Just so that the House is clear: given the Minister's charitable stance, given that our amendment is very similar to his principle and given what he has said about tabling a departmental amendment at Further Consideration Stage, we will not move our amendment today, in order to allow the Department the time and space to develop an amendment to reflect that principle. We will have the right to table our amendment again at Further Consideration Stage, if need be, but we trust in the Minister, given what he has said. Thank you, Minister.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. The amendment is a safeguard to ensure that no parent would have to pay for a certificate. It states that the certificate and the first copy of it would be free. Why did we go for two certificates? The mother and the father or the other parent, for that matter, might be estranged, and, in such cases, at least they would have a copy each. The amendment is a safeguard: no parent would be charged for a baby loss certificate.”
“I have had the honour of meeting some members of the Cawdery family. They have been very helpful with my private Member's Bill on an individual duty of candour. <BR /> <BR />Minister, you failed to address the question about the specific conditions that were placed on Thomas McEntee while he was on pre-release testing and whether he was allowed to frequent the Portadown area, where he would have been at risk of meeting some of the family or neighbours of his victims.”
“I thank the Minister for that comprehensive answer. How does the shortfall in rates collection impact on the overall Budget, the Departments that enjoy the Budget and the way in which councils get their budgets?”
“It adds compromise to the positions of Eóin Tennyson and the Minister. We hope that that amendment will be supported by the Minister and the Department. If the Minister makes it known that that is his intention, it is debatable whether we will move amendment No 3. We will wait for the Minister's comments.”
“We hope that there will never be a fee for any aspect of it, but we understand that the Department should have that flexibility. I go back to the point that I made earlier: this is the only place where baby loss certificates will be in legislation, not just in policy. You have to afford the Department agility around fee structures if it thinks that fees might be required in the future. At least the Department would then have the flexibility to add to that. <BR /> <BR />The point remains that it would still have to come to the Assembly to be passed. It would be in the Assembly's gift whether or not to agree to the fee structure. I suspect that, because it is a draft affirmative procedure, we would be able to amend the fee structure or even take fees out completely. Amendment No 3 adds flexibility.”
“I take that point from the Member, but just because the regulations "must" provide for that does not mean that you must impose a certificate or any action on anyone. The applicant should have the choice, on request, of whether they want one or not. I get where the Member's concerns are coming from. I do not think that it would limit secondary legislation and the regulations; it would add to and enforce rather than limit or take away from the regulations. You could argue that we are doing the same in our amendment No 3. <BR /> <BR />I will now speak on amendment No 3. We recognised what the Department was saying about having the agility to charge a fee if it needed to in the future. We accepted that. We do not want to see a fee.”
“We accept that, but the Member has talked about his concerns and his sentiment in tabling amendment No 5. I honestly do not see how it would do any harm to have that it in the Bill. There is a valid point about putting the cart before the horse — I get the argument — but you could make that argument in respect of clause 11(3) in its entirety. The Department may have just left it whereby it would make regulations, but it has added stipulation 6, through which it wants to build a framework of regulations. I do not see any harm in adding to that framework, even if it gets into specifics.”
“Therefore, the Bill does not so much remove the father as add the other parent. Due to that clarification, we are content with clause 8 and the schedule. <BR /> <BR />I turn to the other amendments that have been tabled by Timothy Gaston. We agree that the issue of termination is covered by clause 11(2), which says:”
“At the end of that regulation, the Bill inserts the following:”
“The issue predates the Bill in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, which is established UK law and means that a child will have only two parents. In some cases, that will be the mother and the father, and, in others, it will be the mother and a second female parent. In the circumstances in which a child has a second female parent, under the 2008 Act, the biological father is not recognised as a parent. That is the law as it stands, and it is not changed by the Bill. My grievance is with the fact that the father has been completely removed from that scenario, but the Bill does not do that. Regulation 13 in the Civil Registration Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012, as amended by the Bill, will state that, where both the mother of a child and the father or second female parent of that child:”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will get back to the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I will move on to the other clauses and the amendments. I was the first person in the Chamber to raise concerns about the schedule to the Bill substituting the word "father" with "other parent". I raised that as a concern. I applaud the Minister for getting back to me in a very timely way about my concerns after the Second Reading and for sharing that information with the Committee. That is a good example of how a Department, a Minister and a Committee should work together. The process has worked tremendously well. The Minister has assuaged most, if not all, of the concerns that I had at Second Reading. <BR /> <BR />Since the Second Reading, I have learned that the harm and damage to which I was trying to allude is not in the schedule of the Bill.”
“It has not been a case of a Minister dreaming up a harmful policy, reading it out to the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) in the morning, enacting it in the afternoon and enforcing it before midnight. That is no way to do legislation. This is the proper way.”
“We applaud the fact that the Bill puts that on a permanent footing, as it should have been months and years ago. In fact, I argue that we should have done it before the pandemic, but, of course, the pandemic was the necessitating factor. <BR /> <BR />The other aspect is the live links in courts, which we will discuss later today. However, when it comes to everything else in the Coronavirus Act and the way in which the Assembly, where we are now debating law, became a zombie Assembly, we should never go back to that place. It is good that we can be here and have the power to debate and vote on legislation and that the decision is not left to one person, no matter who that person is. It has taken months to go through the Bill.”
“Those provisions are being repealed. That is worthy of celebration. It is important, because the Minister could simply have let the six-month extension lapse, but he is obliterating it from legislation, historical or otherwise, and needs to be applauded for that. I was delighted to see that clause in the Bill. There are only two aspects of the entire Coronavirus Act that I see as having been fit for purpose, not causing harm and being good and positive. That is one of them. The provision was brought in because there might have been a massive wave of death registrations. That did not materialise, of course, but it made it so much easier for bereaved families, undertakers and everyone who was involved in that process. It made the process of registering deaths and stillbirths easier for them.”
“When we castigate Ministers and Departments for how bad they can be, and when we say how bad this place is or how bad debate in the Chamber can be, we should also acknowledge our successes. This is one of them, and we should all applaud it and unite behind it. <BR /> <BR />I will get into the detail of the Bill and amendments. I point first to the repeal of temporary provisions, which are:”
“That must be acknowledged in the House. <BR /> <BR />When I first saw that the Minister had set out, in clause 11, that the Department of Finance "may" make regulations, I thought, "No, we can go further than that. We can put it in". I asked staff in the Assembly Bill Office whether we could copy and paste the legislation from England. Due to my ignorance, I had not realised that there was no legislation in England and that it has purely policy. There was no legislation to copy and paste from England from which we could start. I give credit where credit is due: the Department and the Minister are putting it in legislation. It should be acknowledged that we will, I think, be the first place in the British Isles to legislate formally for baby loss certificates. That means something, and it should mean something.”
“I acknowledge the work of and support given by the Department — the Minister and departmental staff — in listening to the Committee from the very start. To begin with, the Bill was designed to put temporary legislation on a permanent footing. That is all that it was meant to do. I pushed and pushed to get it to this stage sooner, but I acknowledge that the Department and the Minister listened to the Committee. <BR /> <BR />It has been a goal of the DUP to have baby loss certificates in place. We have been fighting for that for so many years, because we recognise that a vacuum exists for those who are in the position, which is so pressurised, of having lost a baby, especially before 24 weeks. That is why it is so important that the Department and Minister listened. By adding that to the Bill, they have completely changed it for the better.”
“I acknowledge the Minister's comment about dealing with legislation as opposed to motions. You can see a marked difference in the way that legislation and regulations are debated, rather than debating motion after motion, some of which are pointless. We should leave populism outside the door when talking about regulations and legislation. I acknowledge the sentiment that the Minister expressed. I do not think that it was crass; I think that it was meant in the right way. I am always mindful that we should be careful in how we proceed when dealing with legislation. <BR /> <BR />It is great that we have got to the Consideration Stage of the Bill. I place on record my thanks and appreciation for the work of the Committee. I have now left that Committee, but, on it, I saw teamwork on this serious issue.”
“I thank the Member for taking an intervention. That is the point of that amendment and why Diane and I made it clear that the certificate would be free but the first copy of a certificate would also be free so that, if parents were estranged for whatever reason — that might even be due to them having suffered the loss of a child — they would each receive a certificate free of charge. The Department could charge for further copies if it felt it necessary.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He has been gracious with his time. The issue, though, is that, in every other jurisdiction it is policy. It is not regulations, and it is not legislation. We are the only place that is doing legislation and regulation on this. It is giving the Department that space, whereas, in England, they could change policy and administer a fee just like that. If anything, it gives the Department agility for a future event. Will the Member acknowledge that? <BR /> <BR />Can the Member explain what is the material difference in what he is amending through amendment No 6? The draft affirmative resolution, as the Minister said, means that this issue comes back to the Assembly and we can debate and amend the regulations at that point?”