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 28 of 75.
“The Minister has come to the House and said: "By the way, this Bill is only half completed. This Bill is only half completed." That is not good accountability. That is not good democracy. That is not good scrutiny. <BR /> <BR />I will give way again.”
“I understand what the Minister is saying about primary legislation. I understand that the provisions must come through primary legislation, but what she is basically saying is that OLC has a capacity issue — that is basically what she is saying — and that she has not waited for her Bill to be completed before pushing it through to First Reading and Second Reading. That is an affront to accountability and democracy in this place. It is as simple as that. <BR /> <BR />Not only that. That is only the live links piece, which has been in operation for the past three years. What about the other five out of six areas that she has failed to put in the Bill at Second Reading for every single MLA to look at — MLAs who are not on the Justice Committee but who have to make a decision on this Bill today?”
“I thank the Minister for her intervention, but I just do not get that the provision is under development. You know what it is designed to do and have been operating it for the past three years, yet you cannot even put it in a blue Bill that you introduced when you would, I suspect, have universal support for continuing with the practice. <BR /> <BR />Minister, I do not really understand your reasoning about the difference between regulations and a Bill. Both are examples of legislation. There is nothing impossible about legislation, and I just do not understand — I will accept clarification if the Minister wants to give it — why the provision was not included in the Bill as introduced.”
“The Minister knows full well my support for all of that, especially for the legislation that we passed in the previous mandate on domestic violence and stalking. The Minister knows my form on this. I am simply relaying concerns that I have about live links being used for interviews. I am not saying that their use is wrong. Rather, I am saying that I would like to see a wee bit more detail on how those people will be served when they use a live link for interview purposes. <BR /> <BR />My point, however, still stands, Minister, and it is this: why on earth have you not included in the Bill the live links provision that you enjoyed under the Coronavirus Act? I just do not understand why it is not in the Bill as introduced. I will give way to the Minister.”
“There is the fact that people are not in a court. Do they understand exactly the process in which they are involved? Are they tutored on this stuff? Are they supported to use live links? Those are grey areas that I have concerns about at this point, especially when we are talking about children and vulnerable adults. Are they aware of the process that they are involved in when speaking via a live link? Courts cannot —.”
“What really perplexes me, however, is that, when I first saw the Bill and saw that there was a Part on the use of live links, I thought, "Happy days. This is now the Department moving away from a reliance on coronavirus legislation". When I read Part 3, however, I learned that it is nothing of the sort. For the life of me, I cannot understand why, when we have had legislation in place for up to four years, with a practice that has been operating quite successfully, you would not slot that legislation into the Bill first off. Why would you not have it in the Bill as introduced? It seems to me to be a striking omission. <BR /> <BR />Although I have nothing against the use of live links for interview purposes, there are concerns about the context and about getting people's consent to take part in live links.”
“Penalty notices are serious enough, but retention of DNA for two years? Where is the balance? Is it being struck appropriately and correctly? I simply pose that question to the House at Second Reading.”
“I look forward to knowing the Minister's mindset and that of the Department around the periods that they have adopted in the Bill and how that could progress through the Committee, Consideration and Further Consideration Stages. <BR /> <BR />One of the issues that concerns me is fixed penalty notices. New article 63Q applies where a person:”
“Why just two years? Those are valid and appropriate questions. Then, of course, scattered throughout the Bill are periods of 75 years and 50 years. I have no doubt that, somewhere in the Bill, there will be a period of 25 years too: I just have not found it yet. <BR /> <BR />That brings me to my point that the House has to reassure itself that the balance in the Bill is right. We all know why we have to deal with biometrics and DNA and data retention: article 8 contravention. We cannot have it indefinitely; I think that we all understand and acknowledge that at this stage. There are rights and freedoms that the House and the Department must take into account.”
“Is that the balance that the Minister is trying to strike? Is that the right balance? The new article continues:”
“I ask this question, even at this stage: why have the Minister and the Department adopted those specific periods? Why have those been chosen? I get that there is a balance and that, at this stage, there will not be a right or a wrong answer. Nevertheless, it would be good to tease that out a wee bit more at Second Reading, which is an important stage of any legislation. I am concerned about some of the time periods. I am not saying that they are right or wrong. I am just asking this question: what is the Minister's mindset around this stuff? <BR /> <BR />In clause 1, new article 63G states:”
“As I do with all legislation in this place nowadays, I give the Bill a cautious welcome. We are legislators, and we are here to do a job. That job, however, should be measured not by the amount of legislation that we scrutinise but by the quality. <BR /> <BR />We all know where the biometrics, the DNA and the data retention elements of the Bill come from. They have come about after a number of court cases and breaches of European rights — the Marper and Gaughran cases — and I get that. Therefore, the Department must act and do something in that regard. Where I come from with regard to the retention of DNA and biometrics is the balance between human rights and the principles of proportionality, necessity and the presumption of innocence. <BR /> <BR />There should be strict limits on data retention.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I hear everything that he says about the additional material that the Minister will bring forward at Consideration Stage, but is the very fact that he cannot talk about it at Second Stage not a weakness in democracy and accountability?”
“Of those, 1,280 missed over 80% of school. However, in 2017-18, 1,731 children missed 50% of school, and only 523 missed 80% of school. The deployment of fear and the lockdown philosophy doubled every one of those statistics. <BR /> <BR />These are children. I would like to know how we are going to fix the mistakes of the Department of Health and the zombie Assembly. Unless we know the root cause of the problems, we are not going to solve anything. That will start with each Member looking in the mirror and at the part that they played in the deployment of fear, which scared our children. I am not saying that those stats are all down to mental health, but you can see the clear correlation.”
“I never fail to be amazed by the zombie-like collective memory loss about the part that the parties here played in the escalation of our mental health crisis through the deployment of fear and the lockdown philosophy. It amazes me that that has not been raised in any of today's debates. To prove my point, I will place on record the school attendance statistics. In 2017-18, 16·9% of children missed 10% or more of school. In 2018-19, that figure was 15·8%. However, in 2021-22, 35% of children missed over 10% of school. In 2017-18, 4% of children missed 20% or more of school. In 2018-19, that figure was still 4%. However, in 2021-22, it was 10·7%, and, in 2022-23, it was 8·7%. If you drill down into those figures, you see that it is even worse. In 2021-22, 4,145 pupils did not attend school for over 50% of the time.”
“The House and the Department of Justice need to consider further legislation to protect victims of domestic violence so that there are no barriers for victims who flee the actions that they live with every day.”
“Usually that is due to the fear of going back to the home. Sometimes it is due to there being a non-molestation order in place — as simple as that. Those victims flee the home and leave all their furniture, storage space and clothes behind. It is very difficult for victims of domestic violence to start anew and afresh when they have nothing but the clothes on their back.”
“I rise to, first of all, thank the Assembly for the progress that it has made over the past number of years on legislation to deal with and counter domestic and sexual violence. I have amended many of those pieces of legislation myself. I am grateful to the House for its support in that, but there are still many aspects of domestic and sexual violence and stalking that we have to deal with and combat. <BR /> <BR />One that I want to highlight today is the fact that, when a victim has to flee their home, they leave behind, sometimes within a matter of minutes, all their possessions — all their belongings. When the time comes that they can pick up the pieces of their lives and the trauma that they have gone through, they find that, when they get a new home, they cannot get those possessions.”
“That could bring catastrophe to a household in more ways that one. The emotion involved, which can build up in young people who need entertainment and want to go and see their favourite bands — their heroes — can do massive damage. <BR /> <BR />This issue should be looked at. The Competition and Markets Authority should investigate to ensure that people who work hard for their money and who spend their money on the entertainment business — they pay Ticketmaster a lot of money, and they pay bands a lot of money to go to see them — are not short-changed for following their dreams and wanting to see their heroes.”
“When we talk about fanatical support in the entertainment industry, you can see where dynamic pricing can do damage. There should an investigation into it and the potential for further regulation. <BR /> <BR />Businesses should, of course, be able to match supply and demand. I do not think that any of us is talking about regulating an open and free market, but it is not right that you go into a queue or a system where you do not know the price of the product that you hope to buy. That has a massive impact. Imagine a parent trying to buy tickets for their children. After hours and hours of queueing and of their young ones asking, "Are we there yet? Have we got the tickets yet?", they get to the point where they see the cost and realise that it is completely and utterly unaffordable.”
“I agree 100% that, as soon as you hit the button on your computer to enter that queue, you should know exactly the price that you will pay for the tickets. In many cases, it is not just one ticket — it could be up to four tickets. That means a lot of money going out of a family home. <BR /> <BR />It is vital that the Competition and Markets Authority leads this investigation. As has been stated here, I encourage anyone who has been affected by the Oasis ticketing experience to feed into that Competition and Markets Authority investigation by this Thursday 19 September. It would be good to hear from all those people. The Oasis ticket experience has been the catalyst for the investigation. However, Oasis is not the only band, and Ticketmaster is not the only company, that uses dynamic pricing.”
“I welcome the motion: this is a topical issue, and it is right that the Assembly should debate it. There are times, however, when I believe that dynamic pricing is a good thing. It can add competition, and it could lead to consumers getting a better deal. So, I am not necessarily against dynamic pricing. The issue here — it is referenced in the motion, which we support — is the lack of transparency. <BR /> <BR />Add in the fact that fans are involved. They are not just consumers; they are fans. What does "fans" mean? It means fanatical supporters. That brings in a completely different dynamic. People who queue up to buy tickets are not necessarily buying tickets for themselves. The chances are that they are buying tickets for their friends or their children, and that is where the emotion comes into it.”
“I have been called many a thing, Mr Deputy Speaker, but Diane is not one of them.”
“I thank the Minister for her efforts for all our constituents in that regard. Has she had any indication from the Labour Government on how long our constituents will have to wait for the spending review?”
“Late payment to people who have provided a service is absolutely despicable, yet that is what we are experiencing. Why is that the case? I cannot think of a valid excuse for Departments not paying on time for work that has been completed. It does not make sense to me. My mind does not allow it to compute. Whilst I always say that the Governments should be more like business, I want to see them supporting business in that area. So far, the practices and legacy are shameful.”
“I fear that, somewhere along the line, Departments are withholding payments not because of testing work or whatever but because it is better to have the money sitting in their accounts or coffers for a wee while longer than it going out into the private sector. It is crucifying businesses. We are losing jobs and livelihoods. We are putting companies to the wall, not because of the volatile nature of business or the environment in which those people work, operate and sell but because government is destroying those businesses. I cannot tolerate that or abide that practice, if it is happening. <BR /> <BR />I come from the private sector and the real world. This place can have an impact on the real world. Will that impact be good or negative?”
“Is it not perverse that a Department in this place sponsors an organisation like Invest NI to create jobs while withholding payments to companies? If you say that you support business, you should do it. One small change in the way that we pay companies that provide a service could make all the difference before you even put any money into the budget line of Invest NI. Why are we not doing it? Why are we withholding payments? If we find that Departments are doing that to assuage the pressures on their budgetary requirements, that is really important, and we must get to the bottom of it. The Assembly must investigate it thoroughly to ensure that practices that should not happen do not happen, but I fear that they do.”
“Some of the companies that I worked for no longer exist because companies withheld payments. Cash flow is king. If you are sitting on reserves of only three months but have been awarded a massive contract, you think that you are getting bigger, but if that massive contract does not pay out in time, you are in trouble. For so many companies, the trend and practice is to say, "We will not grow. We will not get bigger. We will not go after those big contracts". That is because the dangers and risks that are associated with late payment for the bigger contracts are just too much. The companies just will not do it. A lot of our companies that could be thriving and striving stay small deliberately. That is the opposite of what the Government are trying to create.”
“<BR /> <BR />The UK Government previously revised their prompt payment target for government buyers to 90% of undisputed and valid invoices from small and medium-sized enterprises within five days from the previous 10-day threshold. The Minister should look to replicate that step in Northern Ireland in order to instil confidence in the business community that the Executive are serious about increasing their ambition in that crucial area. I will go as far as saying that there should be legislative change to force Departments into a prompt payment process that is much more rigorous than that which the Departments have hitherto enjoyed. <BR /> <BR />I have working experience as an electrician in the construction industry, which is an industry that has been dogged by late payments.”
“That means that ratepayers potentially lose out on benefiting from the best possible bang for their buck and the most effective and efficient approach to a service. If we are serious about investing in public services that are fit for purpose, the Minister of Finance needs to deliver on the expectation of prompt payment. There should be a rapid review of current targets and reporting requirements in order to refresh the Executive's approach and ensure that there is a clear impetus for portraying more effective performance in that area. As part of that process, the DUP believes that the Department of Finance should engage intensively with the FSB to progress the recommendations in its 'Never Better Late' working paper.”
“Governments are not businesses. Sometimes I think that they would operate better as businesses, but they are crucifying our small businesses because they will not pay in time. It is not enough for Departments to publish the rate of late payments that are within their remit; we need to know the reasons for that so that future interventions to address the problem are informed, fair and effective. We need to dig deep into the psyche of our Departments. Resistance to addressing that challenge has far-reaching impacts that are well beyond the viability of individual businesses and the health and well-being of the traders that are impacted. A late payment culture has a negative impact on the willingness of local firms to engage in future tendering and procurement processes.”
“That is not a defensible or credible position. Increasingly, there is a concern that delays in payment are being utilised as informal policy to ease cash flow problems in Departments and public bodies, given the perilous state of the public finances. Any such approach is totally and utterly unacceptable.”
“We know from research carried out by the Federation of Small Businesses and other organisations that close to a quarter of a million public-sector invoices were not paid within the legal requirement of 30 calendar days in 2021-22. That spans a variety of sectors and professions. We know, for instance, that barristers took industrial action last November because of delays in paying legal aid. That is just one example. When it comes to short-term experience of late payment among small business owners and the self-employed, Northern Ireland is jointly the worst affected region of the United Kingdom.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Local businesses play an integral role in the delivery of front-line public services in Northern Ireland through the provision of goods and services. They ought to be recognised and valued rather than exploited. Late payment has a serious impact on cash flow among businesses in Northern Ireland and disproportionately impacts on small and medium-sized firms. Coupled with high interest rates and the knock-on effect on loans and credit, as well as rising input costs, it is an inescapable fact that the failure to pay small businesses on time and in full puts many to the wall. <BR /> <BR />Previous research found that, compared with larger firms, twice as many small businesses have less than three months of cash reserves and therefore have less of a cushion to absorb disruption to cash flow.”
“<BR /> <BR />When we talk about budgetary pressures, we should talk about the cost of the lockdown that those parties also supported. The cost to our people's health was in the millions of pounds, and we still live with those consequences.”
“I will not, because I have limited time. <BR /> <BR />The Alliance Party blames not supporting our amendment on the fact that we have withdrawn the "division" part of its motion, but I remind the Alliance Party that it supported division. It supported and voted for a vaccine certification scheme on the basis of the lie that it stopped transmission. The scheme coerced and discriminated against people, creating a "them and us" society. Some £21·5 million was spent on that division. The Alliance Party is a party of division. The SDLP, of course, wanted to go further: it wanted to sack nurses. The Alliance Party cannot wash its hands of that recent decision, which, of course, was implemented by the UUP. We will not let it off lightly either.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am disappointed that the SDLP and Alliance will not support our amendment, because we should place it on record every time we get the opportunity that funding for this place has fallen below need and should have been retrospectively paid. Think about it like this: if it were not for the various agreements, including the confidence-and-supply arrangement and the money that came from that, we would be in a much worse place. <BR /> <BR />I am aggrieved that the mover of the motion, of all the spending that has taken place since the Alliance Party has been in the Executive, picked on the £250,000 of spend by the Education Minister that will assist teachers and principals and assist with addressing cyberbullying and the massive mental health and well-being problem that we have in our country.”
“No, I will not, because I have only five minutes. <BR /> <BR />It is about tough decisions in this place. The question that I pose today is this: are we up for making those tough decisions to assist our people? <BR /> <BR />I am glad that we now have a Programme for Government, because, when you talk about a finance situation and a budgetary burden, money must follow strategy. It is bonkers to have a Budget without a Programme for Government, and it is bonkers to have a Programme for Government that is not aligned to a Budget. The closer we get to the position where the two are aligned and run in parallel, the better it will be for our people and for this place.”
“Devolved Governments have to settle for funding settlements: envelopes of money or, more realistically, packages of funding. Although we have limited fiscal powers, we have limited reach when it comes to the ways in which we can raise money. The ways in which we might raise money through revenue raising are primitive. That is a challenge that we have to face. The Finance Minister will have to face that challenge, along with the sustainability plan. Not only do the UK Government want a published sustainability plan but they want to see £113 million in additional revenue. That is a challenge for everyone in the House. How do we get that reve? Do we take it from our people?”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. When it comes to politics and governance, it is all about priorities and choices, especially for sovereign Governments. That is why I despair when I hear Chancellor after Chancellor talk about there being black holes here and black holes there, because there is no such thing as a black hole with a sovereign Government. If they do not have enough money, they raise more money or prioritise what they spend money on. For a sovereign Government such as the UK's, which spends billions, what they spend that money on is a choice. The Labour Government's decision to cut winter fuel payments is disastrous. It will cost them money in the long run, but it will also cost lives. <BR /> <BR />It is different in the case of a devolved Government.”
“<BR /> <BR />I leave the Chamber with the hope that each party gets it and will do its best to deliver for our people and that the Minister of Finance will be the tip of the spear in the protest to get adequate funding for our people. It is vulnerable people, who need it the most, who usually end up getting supplied through and serviced by that funding, so it is critical that we sing with one voice, say to the British Government, "What you have done is not good enough. The failed promises of the past are not good enough", and call on the new Government to fulfil the promises and pledges of the previous Government.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is vital that we stress how important the funding is and the impact that this issue and the failed opportunity has had on the people who work in the community and voluntary sector and on the people who are serviced by it. It is so painful to have to live through this. It was painful enough to live through the bureaucracy of having to apply endlessly for funding on a yearly or three-yearly basis, but how much tougher is it now, when there is not the same amount of money to fulfil the needs of our people, needs that our Government will not be able to fulfil? That is why the community sector is so important to our people.”
“Let us call it what it is. We have replaced Brussels with Whitehall, and it has let us down just as badly. <BR /> <BR />We have had a missed opportunity. The British Government put more funding into the EU and got less money out, so why are we left in a position where the Government give Northern Ireland less funding than EU funding was delivering? It is absolutely appalling to be in this position, so it does my heart good to hear the united voice coming out of the Chamber. We have an opportunity, and we should remain hopeful because we have a new Government in Labour. We will hold their feet to the fire with regard to the broken promises that the previous Government made to this place and its people on EU funding.”
“That is why this is such an important matter and why we should discuss and debate it today in plenary on our first day back. <BR /> <BR />There were a lot of thoughtful and informative contributions. I do not wish to get into naming Members and picking out bits and pieces other than to say that I valued every contribution. Whilst I am a great champion of tranquillity and peaceful debate in the Chamber, this really has done my heart good because I can see the worth. Every Member who spoke and all parties have a real opportunity to unite on this issue. <BR /> <BR />I will explain our amendment. We have not sought to amend the motion to apply pressure on the Minister or to target her. We realise that, in her position with regard to finance, she is best placed to be the tip of the spear in combating poor governance from Westminster.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />First, I commend everyone who has taken part in the debate for the sentiment that has been expressed and the demeanour of their contributions. That has happened because we all value the community and voluntary sector. Any MLA worth their salt will deal with those groups every week and will know the value that they contribute to our people in public health, mental health, transport, social inclusion, wealth, employment, regeneration and development. Every sphere of life and every sphere of governance is encapsulated in the community and voluntary sector. I want to see smaller government. That voluntary and community sector must have a pivotal role in delivering for our people — delivering better than government could ever do.”
“If a Minister will not support the Budget, while that is his prerogative, he should consider his position in the Executive, so that they can move on with one voice.”
“If we have less scrutiny, how will we cope with more fiscal powers? Does it not mean that more things will go wrong, if we have more fiscal powers? I worry about the way forward with regard to further fiscal powers. What will we do with those levers? What will we do with those additional levers of power, if we are in a challenging environment? Those levers will go only up, never down. Whom will that hurt? It will hurt middle-income earners, the people who are just managing to stay above water. That worries me too. <BR /> <BR />I also worry about the fact that a member of the Executive will not support the Budget. Two pillars of governance are the Programme for Government and a Budget to go with it.”
“From what I can see and hear, many Departments have failed to do that in monitoring rounds. The Finance Committee has also discovered that most scrutiny Committees have not had adequate time or presence from officials to discuss their budgetary bids and positions. With the more challenging Budget, fiscal framework and environment in which we operate, it seems that scrutiny has gone down and not up. That does not bode well for the future. That is when mistakes happen. I worry that mistakes could happen in every Department that is not scrutinised properly or does not afford its scrutiny Committee the appropriate information in a timely fashion to enable it to support and advise the Department. <BR /> <BR />Of course, with the challenging Budget environment that we are in, we hear the cry endlessly for further fiscal powers.”
“In the last mandate, we had the Functioning of Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 2021. I am so interested in that Act because I amended it to introduce a section that adds to scrutiny. It places a duty on all Departments that they:”
“Worse than that, when it comes to scrutiny, I see a reversal.”