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 21 of 75.
“I acknowledge the Sinn Féin motion — just words on a page — knowing fine rightly that those words on a page will have no impact or effect whatever. Yesterday, unionists were lambasted for tabling a motion about the Windsor framework and the protocol and the damage that they do to businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland. This is the first opportunity that Sinn Féin has had to table a motion, and it is on Gaza. The situation in Gaza is serious. The war in the Middle East is hell, but the motion will not have one bit of an effect — it will not change one child's life — yet Sinn Féin has tabled it. I look forward to Sinn Féin being consistent and tabling motions on Ukraine, Myanmar, Syria, Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, Congo, Mali and Haiti — I could go on to list all the countries that are involved in wars.”
“I commend the Minister for the progress that has been made on the baby loss certificate scheme. He will know that we as a party have fought for it for a considerable time. It alarms me, however, that the Bill still contains a provision for charging parents for the certificate. Has the Minister solidified his thoughts on charging parents?”
“We want them to be engaged in school; so do teachers. We want them to thrive in school; so do teachers. We want parents to have the confidence that all three of those aims will be met. What do parents think when they hear the commentary of Naomi Long, the Alliance Party leader, this morning? What should they think? It is not about anyone's ideological position, whether it be Naomi Long or Eóin Tennyson; it is about the law. It is about the law that has been defined and clarified by the Supreme Court — the highest court in this country. We have a Justice Minister who baulks at that and turns her face away from it, and who slights and insults our teachers, who have done commendable work with vulnerable people over the years. I call on her again to apologise for that slight on our teachers.”
“I am appalled by that language and commentary from the Justice Minister, Naomi Long, and so are the teachers who have contacted me this morning. They are appalled and angered that the Justice Minister would say such a thing. I call on the Justice Minister to apologise for that slight on our teachers, who have spent many long nights and days agonising over how to support vulnerable children in their classrooms and schools. They grapple with how to support children who, because of their young years, are confused. Teachers help and support those young people, yet our Justice Minister thinks that they are bullies. Enough of that nonsense; enough of that language. I call on the Justice Minister to apologise to teachers for that slight. <BR /> <BR />We want our children to be safe in school; so do teachers.”
“I have been contacted today by a number of teachers who are absolutely appalled by the stance of some of the teachers' unions and by the commentary and wording of the Justice Minister, Naomi Long.”
“He must have been told off when he made that statement. <BR /> <BR />The Member is right to point out the demeaning attitude of the parties across the way to the debate and the issues that businesses and consumers face, but would they dare to tell businesses and consumers to grow up?”
“I thank the Minister for that comprehensive answer. Has any assessment been done of how many additional parents have become eligible because of the extension of the scheme this September?”
“I thank the Minister for her answer. What benefits and opportunities does the Minister see in the Act?”
“I thank the Minister for her answer. Ballymena in North Antrim has been in the press for all the wrong reasons due to the violence. Given that footfall is down, some eateries cannot now get chefs and workers have had to flee and go home, what specific support can the Minister give businesses in Ballymena that have been affected?”
“The line that states that the council will not be able to make recommendations is crucial.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. He raises a valid and important point. Clause 6(4) states:”
“Again, that goes back to the approval of the Department. <BR /> <BR />That is all from me at Second Reading. I look forward to the scrutiny of the Bill. We have looked forward to it for a long time. I was on the Finance Committee in the previous term, when we talked about and pushed for it. It is great to have it in front of us and to have the blue pages in our hands. We look forward to the scrutiny of the Bill.”
“Chief of staff will be a very important role. Are we allowing a district councillor, an Assembly Member or a Member of Parliament to become the council's chief of staff? Chief of staff might be a full-time job — maybe you could not do both jobs. Maybe we need clarification regarding staff and who can be the Fiscal Council's chief of staff. Paragraph 13 also states:”
“Why have Members of Parliament been left off that list? I an understand why Assembly Members are excluded, but members of a district council? Why, then, are Members of Parliament and, for that matter, Members of the Irish Parliament not excluded too? We need to explore that. There might be a rationale for it — I do not know — but, on reading the Bill for the first time, it seems that that might be an omission. I am not saying that there are not Westminster MPs or Members of the Irish Parliament who could do the job, but why are we excluding district councillors who may well be qualified in that regard? Maybe the Minister will take that away and look at it. <BR /> <BR />Paragraph 13 of schedule 1 states that:”
“I thank the Minister for that clarification. I was going on to that, because clause 5(5) contains the words "approved by a resolution of" the Assembly, which are sprinkled throughout the Bill. That brings an aspect or a veneer of confidence to the Bill. We will pursue that. <BR /> <BR />Paragraph 8 of schedule 1 states:”
“That might worry me. You might have a Department that has been embarrassed by one or two reports and decides to remove functions of the Fiscal Council to relieve that embarrassment from time to time. Again, I am playing devil's advocate. I am not suggesting for one moment that the Minister or the Department would do that.”
“Yes. That is certainly something worth exploring. We could probably concentrate our resources on that in the time ahead during Committee Stage. The power to confer additional functions is maybe not the one to highlight. Clause 5(2) states:”
“Again, there are questions there as to whether it should solely be —.”
“Who attests to that? Should that be the Audit Office or the Audit Committee, or should it be the Department of Finance that attests to that? <BR /> <BR />Under clause 5, on the”
“The Committee Chair raised the issue of the Audit Committee, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Audit Office. That may well be an avenue that we could explore. <BR /> <BR />In schedule 1, under”
“The Chair of the scrutiny Committee made the point about who actually pays for it and where the money comes from to pay for the Fiscal Council. It has come out of the black box stuff and the Department of Finance. That may change with regard to the black box stuff with the other vehicle of legislation that we will debate today. There is a question about whether it is best placed to be funded by the Department of Finance, which probably has most to lose from some of the Fiscal Council reports and may well be red-faced and embarrassed by some of those reports. If we want to ensure that there is real independence and separation between the Department of Finance and the Fiscal Council, we, as a scrutiny Committee and, indeed, as the Assembly, should consider how best to fund the Fiscal Council going forward.”
“I certainly support that, because it will give reassurance and a layer of expertise that will help not only the Department and the Finance Committee but all scrutiny Committees through the reports that they will be able to read from the Fiscal Council. <BR /> <BR />We have already seen the Fiscal Council's worth, albeit on a non-statutory footing. The council currently costs around £511,000 a year. That was for 2024-25. That is money well spent — it really is — because of the calibre of the reports and the information contained in them. It helps us all — each one of us as MLAs — to scrutinise the work of the Executive and, indeed, the Department of Finance and all other Departments for that matter. It is crucial. <BR /> <BR />I may have some issues and questions as we go into deeper scrutiny of the Bill.”
“Like my colleague Diane Forsythe, I support the Bill. It is long overdue. As the Chair of the Committee said, it was to be in last year's legislative programme, but, at least, we have it in front of us today. <BR /> <BR />I am one of the MLAs who would say that we should not have more fiscal powers, simply because we do not have the capacity to deal with more or even, sometimes, the maturity to deal with more. I fear that, if there were to be more fiscal powers, those levers would be pulled upwards and would hurt our people further. The Northern Ireland Fiscal Council is the right way to go to have that layer of expertise and independence in how Northern Ireland's finances are conducted.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He makes a valid point, with which I agree. Is that not covered, however, in the fiscal sustainability reports that the Fiscal Council must produce?”
“<BR /> <BR />It has been a mockery. It is a farce. I hope that the Assembly never again goes through a process whereby we have a take-note debate on legislation. Disgraceful.”
“Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />Not only is this matter of the utmost importance to the principles of democracy, transparency, accountability and scrutiny, but it tarnishes the good reputation of the Assembly and Executive. That is how important it is. An LCM is critical: it is a function of Parliament. We, as MLAs, political parties and scrutiny Committees, have not been afforded the right to scrutinise the Bill. <BR /> <BR />The Minister talked about some of the responsibilities falling to the Department for the Economy. As far as I know, the Economy Committee had no sight of the information and saw no detail on the Bill. Therefore, it affects not only the Finance Committee but the Economy Committee, as well as the Department for the Economy, the Department of Finance and the rest of the Executive.”
“What is successful about it? Is it successful because it passed all the legislative stages in Westminster, a place that Sinn Féin does not even sit in? Is that what he is talking about as success? Not one MLA was able to scrutinise the Bill and give their thoughts on it or their consent to it. Sinn Féin: Ourselves Alone? More like "Ourselves Asleep". Not only is Sinn Féin responsible for the mistake —”
“We are a scrutiny Committee, and our job is to scrutinise. Every MLA in the Chamber should be scrutinising Bills, but a scrutiny Committee was not afforded the chance or the right to scrutinise legislation that will affect us all. It will affect not only us all, as citizens, but the devolved aspects of the Assembly and Executive. It is shambolic. Yet the Minister comes here to have this take-note debate as if everything is going swimmingly, with a motion stating:”
“My colleague Diane covered some of the positive aspects of the Bill, but we have been told by the Department that the hold-up — the confusion, if you like — was around article 2 of the Windsor framework and, specifically, concerns raised by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission about data protection standards, concerns that have been echoed by most of the parties in the Chamber. An organisation's concerns about a Bill led to the Assembly not being able to debate that Bill's provisions and give it our consent or otherwise. That is how serious it is. We, as an Assembly and an Executive, are left red-faced, having a take-note debate on legislation. It is farcical. <BR /> <BR />The departmental officials fronted up straight away and apologised. The permanent secretary came before the Committee and apologised.”
“Whilst listening to the debate, we have heard concerns from Matthew O'Toole, SDLP; David Honeyford, Alliance; and Steve Aiken, UUP, on aspects of and controversies surrounding the Bill. However, none of us — not one of those Members — can effect change or influence the decision-making process on that legislation now.”
“It is not, but let us say that it was. The fact that we, as legislators in Northern Ireland, were not able to give our consent through an LCM, which is an instrument of Parliament, demonstrates just how big a shambles it was.”
“I note all the concerns that have been shared here tonight about this process and the Act. However, all of that does not amount to a hill of beans, because we have already missed the bus on this. In one fell swoop, we have been transformed back into the zombie Assembly zone, and nothing that anyone here, including the Minister, says will make one pin of difference. It is an absolute farce that we are left in the position where we are having a take-note debate on a piece of legislation. How low can this place fall? It is an absolute shambles and disgrace that we as legislators — every Member here today — are left in this position. We are having a take-note debate on a piece of legislation that will affect all our people. I do not care if this is the best piece of legislation that was ever created in Westminster.”
“I understand that someone in some Department has to appoint the chair — it may as well be the Department of Health, albeit there is the question around independence — but how can the Department then give directions of a general or specific nature to the board? Does that not eradicate the independence?”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. We have seen examples in the past of people who were appointed to be an independent to hold Departments to account, but, because of that budgetary line, did not feel so much that they could complain or argue against the Department that funded them. <BR /> <BR />What about clause 33(1)? It states:”
“Minister, if the guilt is on the person in the case of obstruction or prevention, you need to look very seriously at having a statutory individual duty of candour.”
“That is a tariff. The Bill gives us glimpses of an individual duty of candour, without actually naming it. This is the opportunity for you, Minister, to come forward with legislation that provides for that duty of candour. An organisational duty of candour just will not cut it; there should be an individual duty of candour. The Bill states:”
“<BR /> <BR />Minister, those are just some of the things that I have come across in reading the Bill — at very short notice, I must say. I welcome the fact that we have the Bill before us, and I wish the Committee all the very best in its deliberations on and scrutiny of it. I think that it was Alan Chambers who said that no more blind eyes should be turned in our healthcare settings. I agree 100% with him on that. It remains to be seen whether the Bill will actually change the culture in our health settings. A tariff will be placed on healthcare employees who obstruct an investigation. The Bill states:”
“What about a close family member of that adult at risk? What about the father? What about the mother? What about the carer? What about the sister? What about the brother? Are they going to be consulted? Can they be consulted? Can they be interviewed by the social worker? Social workers are having to do all the heavy lifting in the Bill. With social workers having such a pressurised work environment, I worry about how they will ever have the capacity and support to deliver the functions of the Bill appropriately. The Bill has to include some sort of support mechanism, even an education facility, to ensure that social workers know their roles, their rights and their powers, especially when there are organisations, such as care homes or trusts, that would obstruct them. That is very important.”
“Some families have come in and seen, at the top of the bed, a sign saying, "Do Not Resuscitate", without their having been consulted; they should have been consulted, but they were not. Can that be investigated? All those things have to have an impact. <BR /> <BR />Clause 6, which deals with interviews, states:”
“Every clause needs to be run through the sieve of lockdown philosophy to see how it would stand up in that scenario. I hope that we never have a scenario in which we are locked down again, but you can understand the concerns that families have about the situation in which the Bill's provisions were in place and some clauses were neutered or put aside because of a lockdown philosophy. <BR /> <BR />Furthermore, does the Bill include do not resuscitate orders or the use of some medicines in end-of-life care? Does it include the situation where a person administers to adults at risk medicine that could do harm? Does it include when a person puts down a do not resuscitate order without family engagement or knowledge, as sometimes happens?”
“They met through a pane of glass. <BR /> <BR />The Minister will know of Martina Ferguson from the organisation that fights for better rights for bereaved families over COVID. Martina Ferguson and others like her need to have input into the Bill about what it would mean for them, were the legislation to be implemented in the heat of another lockdown. What would the clauses become? How could a social worker enter premises, if we were in a lockdown situation? I know that you can enter premises to administer care and medical attention, but if a social worker goes in to investigate something or assess and interview the adult at risk, is that delivering care and medical attention? We have to get clarification about what the Bill means.”
“That alarms me. I ask the Minister to address those concerns, if not today then certainly during Committee Stage. <BR /> <BR />There are massive issues with the Bill. We know that it is late, and some Members have said that there are reasons for that. I will not get into that political argument. They have every right to make those comments. The Bill was meant to come before we had lockdown philosophy. I ask the Minister to look at the Bill under the guise of seeing what it would mean for people whom I deem to be adults at risk, were we to incur another lockdown in Northern Ireland. To me, an adult at risk is someone who is not only vulnerable but isolated. We could argue that every person who lived in a care home or a hospital during the implementation of lockdown philosophy was isolated. No family members were able to visit them.”
“Where is the independence of the board? Not only does the Department appoint the board's chair and members, but it can:”
“Surely that flies in the face of independence. I will read clause 33(5):”
“Maybe that encapsulates the concern that I have about other bodies. You can see an organisational pyramid in which staff and employees bounce from one trust, council or board to another, from the Department to the trusts or from the trusts to the Department. You must then ask yourself, "Is it truly independent?". <BR /> <BR />Clause 33 is titled, "Directions to the Board", and it really alarms me. What is independence? I will read from the Bill:”
“There is no mention whatsoever of the Public Services Ombudsman, 50% of whose workload is dealing with health-related complaints. I wonder whether the Minister would clarify that. <BR /> <BR />Subject to the approval of the Department:”
“The bodies are referred to in subsection (3). They are:”
“Appointed by whom? The Department. The board must include:”
“it is actually built in. It is about the conditions under which the person has to live. There are massive issues with adults at risk and the fine definitions of who the Bill does and does not cover. <BR /> <BR />For me, it is about trust in the Department of Health. As Nuala McAllister and another colleague said, in some cases, the same people who were in post when the scandals happened ended up influencing, investigating or even being in a position of responsibility in the trust or the Department of Health when those scandals were being investigated. It has been remarked to me that, in the Department of Health and the trusts, people sometimes fail upwards. We need to take cognisance of that when we look at the words in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Part 2, which is on the establishment of a board, alarms me:”
“What about an organisation? If you remove the words "another person" from that, where is the organisation? Where is an organisation's responsibility to ensure that it does not cause harm to A, who is the adult at risk? Given that the Bill specifies:”