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 2 of 75.
“I will address the Minister's points, and I will then give way to my colleague Brian. <BR /> <BR />The Minister read out paragraph 181 of Judge Lady Ross's ruling, which I was going to read out. I will not read it out again. I was going to read the complete paragraph, which she has done. I was going to be fulsome in that regard. <BR /> <BR />Paragraph 182 states:”
“That cannot be clearer. The ruling continues:”
“Of course we all have rights, and of course trans people have rights, but they are obviously qualified rights. Judge Lady Ross stated:”
“I know exactly what he is trying to do, and I support the amendment. It is common sense. It is what we need to do. Timothy Gaston tabled the amendment before the Minister could have, but we should all support it. When you look at court cases in Scotland in particular, including the opinion of Judge Lady Ross in the petition of For Women Scotland as recently as last week, in which she clearly defined the law in that regard, you see that there has been a misstatement of the law in Scotland. That view can and should be replicated here in order to protect people.”
“I will take a moment to talk about amendment No 97. Tabled by Timothy Gaston, it is to do with the accommodation of women prisoners.”
“I accept that from the Minister. That is why, at present, my amendment includes only adult sentenced prisoners. I was surprised by the level of discernment of all groups when I got them into a room and explained what my amendment did. Whilst they acknowledged that these were the prisoners in most need, they asked, "Why does it not just cover all prisoners? If it makes sense in this regard, it should make sense for all prisoners". Of course, as I have outlined, however, there are five different types of prisoner and five different ways in which they can be released on a Friday or, in some very limited cases, on a Saturday. I commend the amendment to Members.”
“I hope that we can do more work to see whether we can expand the amendment at Further Consideration Stage to include more groups of prisoners. There will be prisoners who are completely supported and are prepared for their release date. We know the work that goes into preparing those prisoners for their day of release. They get temporary release dates: they are allowed out for a period in order to become accustomed to leaving prison, and that is all well and good. However, these adult sentenced prisoners do not get that support and are simply released into the world after serving a sentence for their crimes. <BR /> <BR />I believe that my amendment is essential and that we should explore how to expand it in order to accommodate further groups of prisoners.”
“There is science out there on that topic, there are evidence bases, and assessments will have been done. I am not saying that my amendment will resolve reoffending, but we have to do better on that, and that goes for everyone who is involved in the criminal justice system. I believe that, from the human side of things, my amendment will be of assistance to people who are getting out of prison and want to make a better life for themselves. Having paid for their crime, they are out of prison and free of that sentence, and it gives them a chance. If it gives them a chance, it might just reduce reoffending, and it might stop someone else from becoming a victim. <BR /> <BR />That was me levelling with every single Member in the Chamber. I hope that everyone will assess the amendment for what it is and that it will be passed by the House.”
“We are talking about allowing release on two days, which would allow people to get the services that they require, to get bedded in and to get a roof over their head in accommodation where they can safely lay their head. That would ensure that those who need support with drug addictions, or any other addictions for that matter, could get that help during the week — on Wednesday, Thursday or Friday. They would stand a chance of getting the support that they require, and that might get them off to a good start in getting on with the rest of their life. <BR /> <BR />There is absolutely no doubt that adult sentenced prisoners are prisoners who are serving short-term prison sentences of two, three, four, five or 10 years. For whatever reason, those prisoners are more likely to reoffend.”
“In purely numeric terms, Prison Service release figures from the previous financial year, 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026, show that a total of 1,208 prisoners in that category of adult sentenced prisoners were released. The figures show that 151 were released on a Monday, 173 on a Tuesday — that is, any given Tuesday throughout the year — 209 on a Wednesday, 215 on a Thursday, and 454 on a Friday. Interestingly, six were released on a Saturday, but they were in the category of fines only. Out of all those days, we see that more prisoners are released on a Friday. My amendment allows the Prison Service to release those prisoners on a Thursday and also have the option to release them on a Wednesday. Why is that so important? It is so that we do not create a bottleneck on Thursdays. That is really sensible.”
“Whilst it strives to release prisoners early on a Friday, that sometimes does not happen until lunchtime. When prisoners are released on a Friday at lunchtime, they will come to the point where some of the offices and services that they need to support them are shut. They might shut on a half-day on Fridays, or the phones might go off a couple of hours before staff go home. It is very hard for those prisoners to get support, and it means that they do not get support until Monday morning. Who knows what could go on? People can fall into old networks and friendship groups. Where does that lead them? <BR /> <BR />What are we talking about here? I have already said that this concerns about 50% of the sentenced population at present.”
“Whilst there is no statutory requirement for the Prison Service to provide support to that group, prisoner development units offer some advice in relation to housing, finance, employment, addiction etc, and complete any necessary referrals to internal and external agencies prior to and on release. I do not believe that that is good enough, and there are massive gaps. Who tells me that? The charitable organisations, such as NIACRO, the Turnaround Project and others who work in that field. They have identified a gap and I have identified a gap, and I believe that the amendment is worthy of being passed by the House and supported by the Minister and the Department to ensure that prisoners are not released on a Friday. <BR /> <BR />The Prison Service will always be engaged in trying to get prisoners to court.”
“I thank the Minister for that intervention. I ask that that might be the case to explore the potential. <BR /> <BR />It really shook me how all the groups were aghast that my amendment did not cover all prisoners. Members should be aware that my amendment deals only with what they call "adult sentenced prisoners". They make up around half of our sentenced population at present. Those are the adult sentenced prisoners who are not subject to any form of supervision or licence conditions following their release from custody. Moreover, that group cannot be recalled to prison. My amendment would mean that, under prison rule 30(6) on remission of sentence, any individual in that category whose release date falls on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday is released on the Friday.”
“I ask the Minister to consider that also, because I would not want to do anything at Further Consideration Stage — if the amendment passes in the House tonight or on Tuesday — that the Department was not in lockstep with and supportive of.”
“However, in some instances, where the Probation Board has not supported release, resettlement arrangements, including accommodation, will not have been made. However, release must take place, regardless. Therefore, there are areas in which prisoners are released that will not fall under the amendment. However, when I spoke to all the sectors and all the charitable and other organisations that were involved, they wanted my amendment to release all prisoners. Therefore, I ask, depending on how the debate goes, that we, if the House passes the amendment, consider, at Further Consideration Stage, thinking about those other prisoners.”
“In those cases, releases take place on the next preceding eligible day. We should also state that, in those cases, there will be a period of work whereby people are prepared for release. <BR /> <BR />The fourth group are prisoners whose release is directed by the Parole Commissioners for Northern Ireland (PCNI) on a Friday. With the exception of life-sentenced prisoners, the Prison Service is expected to release a prisoner on the day on which their release is directed by the Parole Commissioners. Therefore, PCNI-directed releases can be on a Friday. In most cases, as in the one that I have just talked about, those releases will have been planned some weeks in advance, so issues such as accommodation and other resettlement matters will already, hopefully, be in place.”
“<BR /> <BR />The third reason is for prisoners who are sentenced under the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008. Those individuals are released on the day that they reach their custody expiry date, unless it falls on a Sunday. Individuals who are due for release on a Sunday are released on the Saturday. Article 8(6) of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 eliminated remission of sentences that previously allowed prisoners to be released early, so prison rule 30 does not therefore apply to the prisoner group. Instead, those offenders must now serve their full custody period, followed by a period of statutory, post-release supervision. The only days that those prisoners cannot be released on are a Sunday, Christmas Day and Good Friday, a custom that is enshrined in section 12(2) of the Prisons Act 1898.”
“I thank the Minister for that. <BR /> <BR />The second reason that prisoners are released on a Friday or a Saturday is that those are remand prisoners who perfect bail on a Friday. That is where bail may be granted by a court on any day from a Monday to a Friday. Despite bail being granted, it is common for conditions to be set by a judge that must be perfected or met before the prisoner can leave custody. Experience suggests that more bails are perfected towards the end of the working week, for example, where solicitors work with the PSNI to agree bail addresses, as sureties are met, and when other conditions, which can take some to arrange, are satisfied. Once bail is perfected, the Prison Service must release the individual, regardless of day of the week. Any work that gets going on that will be much welcomed.”
“The problem there, of course, is the number of people whom we have on remand. However, 42% of remand prisoners are released by court, so there is that problem when they are just released —.”
“Currently, five different kinds of release can take place on a Friday or Saturday. First, we have individuals who are released from court on a Friday after time served on remand. That is where a remand prisoner is produced to court on a Friday and sentenced to a period of custody that is shorter than the time that they have already been held on remand, and they are released forthwith. At that point, the Prison Service has no lawful warrant to further detain them. That can apply to adult sentenced prisoners and those who are sentenced under the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008. For both cadres of prisoner, release is immediate. Of course, having time served, and, in fact, in some cases, having already spent more time served on remand, they are released and free to go, because they have served their sentence.”
“I also thank the Turnaround Project, the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO) and everyone else in the sector, in charitable organisations and other organisations, who support prisoners in that guise. They all came together and met me to discuss the amendment. <BR /> <BR />Some of them — in fact, most of the groups that I met — were quite disappointed when I actually went through the detail of my amendment and they realised that it does not cover all prisoners. The amendment covers adult sentenced prisoners because only they are captured in paragraph 6 of rule 30 of the Prison and Young Offenders Centre Rules (Northern Ireland) 1995, which I hope to omit. I will explain a wee bit about that because Members need the explanation.”
“It is not just about housing; it could be assistance with health, drug awareness or support, financial issues or a whole raft of things that might then lead to that person reoffending. <BR /> <BR />The amendment is not just about tackling reoffending rates. My party has always been tough on crime. This is about ensuring that we are smart on crime and smart on justice. The amendment goes some way to achieving that by supporting people who have served time in prison but have the same human rights as everyone else. They need that support. Many of those offenders have vulnerabilities that led to their imprisonment. We should acknowledge that. <BR /> <BR />I want to take the opportunity to thank the Prison Service officials, at the highest level, who met me to discuss and work through the amendment.”
“I am heartened by the calibre of the debate that we have had in the House on the very detailed clauses and amendments and by what we have grappled with as legislators in this place. I thank every single Member for taking part. <BR /> <BR />My party's amendment No 96 relates to the day of release from detention. Our objective is to amend the Prison and Young Offenders Centre Rules (Northern Ireland) 1995 to allow for the release of a prisoner on a day other than a Friday or any day before a bank holiday. The rationale for that is that prisoners who are released on, say, a Friday afternoon without having accommodation organised often find themselves in a situation where Housing Executive offices are closed and will not reopen until the following Monday. That leaves them without accommodation for a whole weekend.”
“These will be my final opening comments of the debate, so I want to take the opportunity to thank the Justice Committee staff; particularly the Committee Clerk, but all the staff who have supported members throughout the Committee Stage of the Bill. I also thank the officials in all the areas of the Department who have engaged with me in my capacity as my party's justice spokesperson and as Committee Chair. I thank them for their engagement not only with the Justice Committee but with all the Members who have taken an interest in the Bill and taken part in the debates. Finally, I thank the Minister for her contribution to all the debates, and I thank all Members for the calibre of the debates. There was only one night when it went off-piste. The rest of the time, there has been really good debate.”
“I will commence the debate on group 9, which is the final group of amendments to be debated at Consideration Stage of the Justice Bill. We are into the sixth day of debate, although they have not been complete days of debate. That just shows the importance, the depth and the detail of the Bill.”
“I thank the Minister for her intervention. She is right to say that this goes back to the Public Accounts Committee report from 2016. We should all acknowledge that there is an issue that needs to be resolved. What we have to grapple with is whether new clause 27A is the right way in which to go about it. We hear about the independence of the taxing master, and we know about the accountability gap that there is in spending public money. That is what it will come down to tonight, but rest assured, Minister, that we will assess the debate, listen to what you say in your winding-up speech and to what the other parties say and then vote accordingly.”
“There needs to be further accountability when it comes to legal aid. Our books are qualified every year because of it, so it is a massive issue. I do not know how we will do legal aid better. New clause 27 might be the way, but I am really nervous and concerned about what the regulations might state and mean and how legal aid remuneration will be stepped if amendment No 91 passes tonight.”
“I am talking as the DUP spokesperson, and Committee members from other parties will talk about other aspects of the meeting, but it was really uncomfortable to be put in that position. As members of the Justice Committee, we did not know what was ahead of us and what we were meant to be scrutinising in new clause 27A. We had the text of clause 28, as it was in the blue pages, but we were not sure how the Minister was going to proceed with her new clause. We were not sure whether it would be a stand-alone clause or amend clause 28. We now know about the Minister's intention to oppose the Question that clause 28 stand part of the Bill, and we have new clause 27A. <BR /> <BR />The issue is something that we will have to grapple with tonight. We cannot keep going on as we are.”
“I will now speak in my capacity as DUP justice spokesperson. My colleague Brian Kingston will speak further on the amendments, so I will not take too much longer, you will be glad to hear, Mr Deputy Speaker. The DUP has been frustrated with clause 28: with what it meant; with how new clause 27A was arranged with clause 28; with whether new clause 27A was compatible with clause 28; with what would happen to clause 28; and with whether new clause 27A would be a new clause or would amend clause 28. <BR /> <BR />When the Committee met the Lady Chief Justice and the taxing master, it became clear that there was a difference between our understanding of clause 28 and new clause 27A, which we had not seen at that stage, and what the Lady Chief Justice thought was coming.”
“The Department reiterates that is has only a finite budget. Its aim is to set a rate that is reasonable and enhances accountability for public expenditure, which is not currently available with brief fees. The Committee noted the update from the Department in response to the concerns of the Bar and the Law Society. As I said, however, because of the time that the matter was brought to us, the Committee does not have a formal agreed position on amendment No 91, which is the Minister's new clause 27A regarding the taxing master.”
“I thank the Minister for the intervention. I take her point. That is the dilemma and the question for tonight about what we do. The taxing master in their current role strips millions off those bills yearly, so there is a massive gap between what barristers apply for and what they receive. The question is how we make that more accountable. The Minister has gone down the policy route and is within her rights to do so, but that is the question that faces us. <BR /> <BR />I will continue with my speech. Before making the necessary remuneration orders, which the Minister hopes to implement by the end of the mandate, consultation with the Lady Chief Justice, the Law Society and the Bar, and, if necessary, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) will be required. They would also be subject to public consultation.”
“In addition, if the Department has it in-house — it is a demand-led issue, notwithstanding all the opaqueness about how people come to conclusions on bills — there is a fear that its being a departmental opinion, burden or responsibility to lift the fees means that the budget settlement could come into the equation. That, of course, is the argument set out by the Bar.”
“I thank the Minister for that intervention. She is right about the vagueness around the detail and how people arrive at their bills. There is no doubt that that has to get better, and we have to be better informed, as do the public, by the way; we are representing the public. The Minister is right about how the scrutiny will go regarding what she has to do with the budgetary processes to go to the Finance Department to get something back for her budget. I get all that, and I agree with her that bringing the process in-house would provide more of an evidence base. However, because fees had not been raised for a long time, the Department was surely thinking that they would be lifted at some point.”
“It is also fair to say that, while the Minister has been frustrated about the burden that the lift in fee has placed on her budget, it is a bit of a stretch to say that the Minister or the Department did not know that it was going to happen, considering that it had not been lifted for a period and that there have been periods in which the Department has lifted its fee structures. Sometimes, that has taken a long time, and those percentages can be hefty too. Therefore we need to do something better or reform things so that they are done better.”
“I thank the Minister for her intervention. I hear what the Minister says. I can recall when that issue was raised and when the fee was raised by the taxing master. At that time, I had had a meeting with the Minister and the Deputy Chair of the Committee. The Minister set out her position and the reasons why she was going down the route of new clause 27A. It is fair to say that there has been a lot of confusion about clause 28, new clause 27A, whether we would still have clause 28 and whether the amendment would be to clause 28, but we now have a settled position.”
“It argued that the new clause would simply clarify that fees and rates set out in secondary legislation can apply to anyone assessing legal aid costs, including the taxing master. The Department advised that that would be more open to scrutiny by the Committee, given that recent fees were uplifted without any recourse to the Committee or the Assembly. Before making the necessary remuneration orders —.”
“It also expressed concern that the new amendment would undermine the role of the taxing master. It advised that it could not support the amendment. <BR /> <BR />The Department subsequently wrote to the Committee to address the points raised by the Bar and the Law Society. The Department disagreed that it was a legislative blank cheque or skeleton legislation. The Department advised that fees and rates in relation to proceedings in the lower courts are set out in remuneration orders and that claims are assessed by the Legal Services Agency. It went on to say that remuneration in the Crown Court is based on a framework where fees and rates are set by the Department in secondary legislation.”
“The Committee also heard from the Law Society on the new clause. It, too, was not content with the proposal. It repeated its earlier view:”
“It reiterated the same concerns about judicial independence and said that a dangerous precedent would be set if:”
“It also commented on the timing of the further amendment and said that it has:”
“It considers new clause 27A to be skeleton legislation, with little detail on the substance of the changes being made to remuneration or the factors being taken into account when making those changes.”
“The text of the amendment that we had been advised that the Minister would table was only received by the Committee on 3 March 2026. We therefore did not have time to consider it in detail or reach a Committee position on it before the end of the Committee Stage. Since that time, in order to help inform Members before the debate on the amendment, the Committee heard evidence from the Bar of Northern Ireland on this further change to the taxation process and, as per the previous views, it is not content. In evidence to the Committee, the Bar described the amendment as a "legislative blank cheque", which I think that we can all agree is a fairly blunt viewpoint.”
“However, as it progressed, it became evident that there was a lack of clarity around the table about whether the amendment that the Department had advised the Committee of in November would make changes to clause 28 or whether it would be a new stand-alone provision. A few weeks later, the Department wrote to the Committee to inform it that the provisions in clause 28 no longer reflected the new policy direction and that therefore the Minister would seek to remove clause 28 from the Bill. In noting that position during our formal clause-by-clause consideration, the Committee agreed that it was not content with clause 28 as drafted, and I put that on the record. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 91 proposes a new clause 27A.”
“During that session, the Committee heard that the Department proposed to expedite its approach to taxation reform following a recent increase in fees. The Department proposed to therefore table an amendment to the Justice Bill to make provision for the Department to set legal aid fees and arrangements for the taxing master to apply when assessing legal aid bills. The Committee subsequently received oral evidence from the Lady Chief Justice and the taxing master, Master Moore. Whilst the judiciary does not comment on policy, it provided evidence on the role of the taxing master and what it believed the impact of taxation reform on the role might be. That session was informative and helpful to the Committee.”
“The Department advised that it was not anticipating that changes caused by clause 28 would negatively impact on access to justice for citizens. The restrictions on the ordering of taxation of legal aid costs would only commence when alternative remuneration orders, to be made by delegated legislation, would be in place. The Department added that, with regard to a review mechanism for any new remuneration framework that it anticipated, the taxing master would still have an adjudication role in respect of requests for redetermination of decisions made under the framework, as is currently the case with criminal remuneration in the Crown Court. <BR /> <BR />In November 2025, the Committee received a policy briefing on the enabling access to justice programme.”
“Yes. I thank the Minister for her intervention, and I acknowledge that there is a difference between the Bar and the Law Society. <BR /> <BR />The Law Society also expressed concern that clause 28 aimed to remove the role of the court, which would have a significant impact on the independence and fairness of the taxation process. It failed to see how the proposed change could improve accountability and predictability over legal aid fees in relation to the fees of solicitors and said that it would be a significant departure from current practice and could reduce judicial oversight and undermine the fairness and independence of the process. <BR /> <BR />The Committee had further meetings and correspondence with the Department to seek to gain an understanding of the detail and implications of clause 28.”
“It pointed out that a separate review of taxation was at an early stage and that, in the absence of information on any alternative measures that would be introduced, the Assembly was being asked to vote on principle only.”
“It considered that it sought to restrict the independence of the taxing master, who is a judicial appointment performing a judicial function, and who is already legally bound to protect the legal aid fund. The Bar also felt that the measures could put barristers off wanting to take on legal aid cases if they could act in non-legal aid cases where the taxation of costs would still be available, which could potentially result in a two-tier system of access to justice.”
“Its genesis was the Public Accounts Committee report from 2016, which recommended bringing the taxation process under greater departmental control in order to make spending more accountable. The Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime felt that that would be an important step in the legal aid system, as the current model is unsustainable. In her view, victims require a sustainable legal aid system that provides fair remuneration for the legal profession. Perhaps not surprisingly, the Committee heard conflicting views from the Bar of Northern Ireland and the Law Society on the one hand and from the Department, on behalf of the Minister, on the other. <BR /> <BR />The Committee heard at length and in detail from the Bar about why it opposed the clause.”
“<BR /> <BR />Clause 28 focuses on the reform of legal aid taxation. The explanatory and financial memorandum advises that it:”