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 3 of 75.
“I will comment on the opposition to clause 28 before moving on to new clause 27A in amendment No 91. The Committee heard from several respondents about the clauses in Part 4, which is the administration of justice section of the Bill. There was a broadly supportive theme to those comments. Clause 28, however, was the exception. I appreciate that the Minister has tabled her opposition to clause 28 standing part of the Bill and has tabled new clause 27A in its stead. <BR /> <BR />Clause 28 generated a significant amount of written and oral evidence during Committee Stage. For what is a relatively small part of the Bill, clause 28 formed a significant part of the scrutiny that was undertaken by the Committee. I will put some of that on record, as it will help to inform Members' overall consideration of this group of amendments.”
“My question is simple. The Minister has said today that he is sorry. He has read words from a page and said that he is listening to the Muckamore families. If he was truly listening to the Muckamore families, he would push back against the members of his Department who do not want him to change his legislation from a corporate duty of candour Bill to that of an individual duty of candour, which is the wish not only of the Muckamore families but of the hyponatraemia families. Will the Minister change his Bill from organisational duty of candour to individual duty of candour? If he fails to do so, I will bring forward a Bill in early autumn.”
“<BR /> <BR />Overall, the Committee was content with the proposals in the amendment and with the Department's responses to the questions raised. The Committee, therefore, was content to support the amendment with the change to the delegated power, as I have mentioned.”
“We were grateful to the officials from AccessNI in the Department who came to discuss the matters with us in more detail. The officials confirmed that it was unlikely that the list would need to be amended quickly, though they would want new offences to be added to the list at the earliest opportunity in the future. However, during the evidence session, officials acknowledged Members' views and stated that they would not be resistant to changing the procedure to the draft affirmative resolution procedure if that was what the Committee wished. The Committee subsequently wrote formally to the Department to ask for that change, which, it was confirmed, would be made to the text of the amendment before it was tabled. I am pleased to see that that change has been included at new clause 29A(9).”
“We questioned the Department about why amendments to the list of non-filterable offences were not subject to the draft affirmative procedure, given that it will amend primary legislation; that is, a Henry VIII power, which I have referred to before. In response, the Department advised that the use of the negative resolution procedure would mean that the list could be updated more quickly and that consultation would be required with relevant bodies, including the child protection unit in the Department of Health, the child protection disclosure unit in the PSNI and the independent reviewer of criminal records, before any changes could be made. <BR /> <BR />The Committee queried the circumstances under which it may be necessary to update the list at speed.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Department responded to say that individuals can currently ask the independent reviewer to consider spent convictions and that the planned amendments to rehabilitation periods will enable a request to be made to the independent reviewer to consider more recent convictions. That could result in more information being removed from disclosure certificates. The Department also advised that information published on the AccessNI and nidirect web pages would be updated with the new information and that that would include worked examples and detailed information on the processes and changes. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I mentioned, when we were discussing the group 1 amendments, that, as part of its scrutiny, the Committee considered delegated powers in the Bill and the planned amendments.”
“from the list and questioned whether a gap might be created. The Department clarified that that entry has never been used by AccessNI to retain an offence on a disclosure certificate. It is, therefore, inconsistent from an operational perspective. <BR /> <BR />NIACRO, which is one of the groups that works with ex-offenders and interacts with those provisions frequently, was broadly supportive of the amendments. It raised the need for greater awareness of the changes so that they do not discriminate against individuals with unspent convictions. It also called for a stronger appeal mechanism to allow individuals to contest a disclosure where it is deemed appropriate.”
“The Department's view was that the new proposals will present the list in a more simplified and user-friendly manner, with each offence being set out alongside its relevant legislative provision. That aims to provide greater clarity in what is a complex area of the justice system. The Department stressed that the legislative changes proposed to the amendments do not pose any further or significant risks to the welfare of children. The Children's Commissioner and Children in Northern Ireland both raised concerns about the removal of:”
“<BR /> <BR />Respondents to the Committee's call for evidence were broadly in favour of the proposed amendments, with some highlighting the need to ensure that safeguarding and vetting remained in place. Again, concerns were raised about not aligning with England and Wales. The children's rights group Children in Northern Ireland questioned whether the amendments would pose any safeguarding concerns, given the vital role that AccessNI checks play in vetting those who work with children and the vulnerable. That concern was echoed by Victim Support NI, which also had concerns about the transparency of the process and the potential impact of the changes on victims.”
“Following consideration of all the issues raised and the Department's response, the Committee concluded that it was content with the ministerial amendments relating to the rehabilitation of offenders. <BR /> <BR />I will turn to amendment Nos 94 and 95 and the new schedule, 'Matters to be included in a criminal record certificate', that would be inserted by amendment No 129. Amendment Nos 94 and 95 and the new schedule deal with matters to be included in criminal record certificates — AccessNI checks, as they are much more commonly known. The amendments aim to streamline arrangements for the maintenance and ease of understanding of the list of serious and violent offences that cannot be filtered from AccessNI standard and enhanced disclosures.”
“NIACRO also called for a review mechanism for any sentence of more than 10 years. When the Committee raised those points with the Department, it replied by stating that a Supreme Court judgement had made clear that a review mechanism is not required in order for the rehabilitation regime to be considered lawful. The Department sees merit in developing policy proposals for a potential future review mechanism but advised that progress would be subject to resource availability and other competing policy and legislative requirements. The Department's priority would be to implement reforms to rehabilitation at new clause 28A to be inserted by amendment No 92, which we are considering tonight.”
“NIACRO and the Children's Commissioner did not support the inclusion of diversionary disposals completed by young people in rehabilitation periods. They considered that the completion of the disposal should bring the matter to a close and should not be viewed as a criminal record. However, the Department noted that that would represent significant new policy, which is not being considered at this time. <BR /> <BR />Finally, in relation to amendment Nos 92, 93 and 103, the Human Rights Commission suggested that consideration should be given to amending the proposed new clause 28B to provide that the Department "shall", rather than "may":”
“The Committee put that to the Department, and it confirmed that alignment with England and Wales was an option that had been considered by the Minister but that the option that was chosen was considered simpler to operate and understand. It was pointed out that, while the upper limit may have been removed in England and Wales, the list of exceptions extended to some 174 individual offences. In the Department's view, the approach that is being taken offers a greater opportunity for ex-offenders to have their convictions become spent than is the case in England and Wales. <BR /> <BR />Organisations also raised the need to ensure that proper safeguards were in place for young people and that the right to move into adulthood with a clear record should be in place except in cases of the most serious crimes.”
“The Committee heard from the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime, who asked why the Department had not chosen to make serious sexual, violent and terrorist offences disclosable regardless of the passage of time, since that was the case in England and Wales. In its evidence, NIACRO called for an urgent revision of the proposed approach in order to ensure full alignment with England and Wales, where the upper limit had been removed on custodial sentences that remain unspent. It considered that to be a more progressive approach to rehabilitation. While welcoming the amendments, NIACRO felt that there was a missed opportunity to remove the bright-line rule whereby a conviction will never become spent.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 92 ,93 and 103, on the rehabilitation of offenders, will insert two new clauses to amend the rehabilitation periods for existing convictions in order to allow more convictions to be capable of becoming spent and to create an order-making power to enable the Department to establish a review mechanism for additional convictions that are not captured by the revised arrangements. The provisions will come into operation two months after Royal Assent. <BR /> <BR />Some of those who responded to the proposed amendments suggested that an opportunity to align with the system in England and Wales had perhaps been missed.”
“We also received a helpful briefing from Department of Justice officials, who provided an update on the first application process under the new framework. That allowed us to explore the robustness of the process, the levels of accreditation, and the monitoring and oversight of practitioners. Having considered CJINI's response and heard the evidence from departmental officials, Committee members indicated that they were content not to table an amendment to the Minister's amendment to require CJINI to undertake pre-accreditation checks of prospective restorative justice providers.”
“To assist our ongoing deliberations, we sought CJINI's view on such an amendment. In response, CJINI outlined a number of areas related to such a proposal that would require due consideration, including the need for additional resources to undertake that work. The chief inspector set out her view that CJINI should not be seen as "the last hurdle", a barrier or the decision maker in respect of accreditation. She felt that, instead of CJINI having a pre-accreditation role, the Department should:”
“It was suggested that initial inspection might commence around the second half of year 2 to allow time for the process to become embedded. It was envisaged that an organisation would then be inspected during any three-year term of accreditation. <BR /> <BR />Some stakeholders expressed particular concern about the lack of pre-accreditation checks by CJINI. The view of CRJI and NI Alternatives was that checks by such an external body, with no political guidance, would safeguard the Department and the community-based providers. The absence of pre-accreditation checks was also a matter of concern to some Committee members. At the time of its report, the Committee agreed that it was content with the restorative justice amendment but would reserve its position on whether to table an amendment to require pre-accreditation checks by CJINI.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Department advised us that expertise, training and experience must be demonstrated by those who apply to provide restorative justice services as part of the criminal justice process. In addition, intensive training will be undertaken with those who are accredited and practising to ensure consistency of standards across practitioners and areas. Questions were raised about the role of Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) in the accreditation process. The Committee sought information on whether there would be set timescales for CJINI to review restorative justice providers, particularly newly accredited organisations that might benefit from early or regular reviews. The Department advised that the timing and frequency of reviews would be a matter for CJINI.”
“Concerns were also raised in oral evidence from Community Restorative Justice Ireland (CRJI) and Northern Ireland Alternatives about the initial locations that were chosen for the roll-out of the expanded services. NIACRO highlighted the need to ensure that practitioners had access to appropriate training to ensure that services were delivered safely and to a high quality. In response, the Department informed the Committee that it would not be viable initially to move into areas with little or no current provision and where future levels of accreditation were unknown at this time. However, this will be kept under review, with a view to expand services as soon as practically possible.”
“The amendment generated a degree of interest during our scrutiny. Most of the questions that were raised related to the practical aspects of the operation of the provisions and the pace and manner of their planned roll-out. Separately, though related, the Department launched the new restorative justice practice standards and accreditation framework and an application process for formal accreditation. It is fair to say that there was significant crossover in our consideration of that material and the Minister's amendments that we are now discussing. <BR /> <BR />The Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO) asked that consideration be given to ensuring consistency of access to restorative justice to prevent disparities across regions.”
“Amendment No 87 aims to expand the use and accreditation of restorative justice and makes an administrative change to allow the Minister of Justice, instead of the Secretary of State, to accredit restorative justice organisations.”
“I thank the Minister for the clarification of those changes. I appreciate that. I also congratulate the Justice Minister and you, Mr Deputy Speaker: you are two thirds through Consideration Stage of the Justice Bill. It is another milestone. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 87 on restorative justice inserts a new clause into the Bill. The text for the restorative justice provisions that was considered by the Committee included amendment Nos 15 and 16, which make related minor changes to the language of the biometrics Part of the Bill. Those amendments have already been made.”
“Thank you, Minister, for giving way. I have sat here quite patiently over the past two days and listened after making my contribution, and I took a lot of interventions too at that time. Do those two scenarios not mean the same thing? We are amending an amendment. That means that we would take away the list of five, but bring in "triable only on indictment". The Minister said that she would not support that, but that she would have, had we brought it as a stand-alone amendment. Will the Minister clarify the difference for me, please?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. The Member raises a valid point: the petition of concern's being down does not mean that something or nothing can pass. It basically means that you need a majority on one side of the House and on the other. The petition of concern is a blunt instrument, but it is the tool that we had at our disposal. However, the attitude of the other parties last night was very blunt, and there has been no effort to reach out to anyone on any sort of negotiation or even to try to focus minds.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. It has been a fascinating debate — tonight's debate, not last night's — on that aspect. The issue is this: the Minister said in her intervention that she would be prepared to compromise in the Chamber. However, my amendments had been tabled for quite a while, as was the petition of concern, to be fair. At no time did the Minister or her party come to me to discuss the amendments that we had tabled. Therefore, I did not see any inclination from the Minister, her party or the proposers of the amendment to move from their combined amendment to add or agree to the amendments that I had tabled. It is OK to say that in the aftermath of the petition of concern's being launched, but I just do not see that it would have happened.”
“I hold my hand up to say that I took up many of those pages with my amendments.”
“When that work is completed, that is when we can return to the decision on the minimum age of criminal responsibility.”
“For fear of my being lumped in with the Alliance Party, I need to clarify my position. The amendments that were tabled on behalf of the party were to try to rescue the situation from the very dangerous position in which we would have been. Of course, this party's position is that we felt that raising the age would be too dangerous a step to take. That is why the petitions of concern were submitted. I make this point to the Members, who are both Ministers. The Minister of Justice talked about her framework, on which we did not really get any detail yesterday. That work can now continue among all the Departments and all the Ministers to ensure that, going forward, young people are treated with the most sensitivity that they can possibly be treated with, with accountability alongside that.”
“The Member raises a really valid point. The amendment would destroy all the work that the PSNI could do to intervene with young people and their activities. That is why, for example, Jim Gamble, an expert in his field, has come out and commented not only on the subject matter but on the petition of concern process. He stated that MLAs should put their "overriding ethical obligation" to protect children and society above any genuine ethical discomfort about backing the DUP's attempt to block legislation on the age at which criminals can be prosecuted. We should make that point here today.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. In the Minister's exchange with you, she was referring to the fact that, if a minor tweak to an amendment tabled by a Back-Bencher is required, that can be resolved at Further Consideration Stage. I will work with any Department to iron that out. To remove the list, as the Member is talking about, would require a fundamental change to the psyche and principle of the amendment. Incidentally, it is one of the amendments that I have tabled an amendment to amend. It was clear that the Member who tabled it was not going to entertain an amendment to the amendment. A fundamental change to the amendment would be required, and no one who is pushing that amendment is in that space.”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it right and proper for Members across the Chamber to impugn a man's character, whereby he is not allowed to make a decision on the functioning of the House, namely to sign a petition of concern on a point of principle? Instead, it is being said that he has made some sort of dirty deal or engaged in some sort of political negotiation. A person will sign a petition of concern on a point of principle.”
“However, we are having this debate at the start of the process when we should have it at the end. <BR /> <BR />I will leave it there, Mr Deputy Speaker.”
“That is why all of this should be embedded in the criminal justice system in order to ensure that there is accountability, as much as anything else. <BR /> <BR />We all know that there are cases where young people go to the same house every night to attack the householders and to damage and destroy property. That is a massive issue. If those children knew that what they were doing was not criminal, they would be encouraged even more to engage in that activity. That is why accountability must come into this. If you leave out the criminal justice system, you remove the accountability piece. All of the other good stuff — the frameworks, the pathways, the care — is good stuff that needs to be produced. I want to see the day when they are produced.”
“I thank the Minister for that. It was lengthy, and I have lost the run of things and forgotten what I was going to say. The issue that the Minister has raised is the point that I make. Our system has to be better at treating young people who come into it. However, there must be accountability. The Minister talks about the impact on families when a child is caught up in the criminal justice system, but she will not be able to produce a framework, as she has said she is going to do, with end-to-end pathways with specific protocols of which we have no specific details. She will not be able to produce any framework that does not create that same stigma for those families and for others. The Minister will not be able to do that.”
“We should not do that in the criminal justice system, and I do not believe that we do or, at least, have not done for hundreds of years. That is why we treat children differently in our justice system. If the Minister is saying that that does not happen, that is a failure of our criminal justice system that needs to be fixed. <BR /> <BR />I will give way again.”
“I want to make this point while it is in my head. Sian said that, when a child is caught up in the criminal justice system, the question that should be asked is, "What happened to that child?". That is the fundamental question that should be asked. If that is not happening now, why not? Why are the police not asking that question? She said it is about asking, "What can we do to support that child?". Surely the police ask that question too. That is fundamental. I agree with Sian and others who push that, because we need to make sure that we ask the right questions to identify a child who is being exploited. We should not have a binary system whereby we say, "This child has committed a crime; therefore, they are a criminal".”
“The Minister mentions that there is fear of coming forward because they may have committed an offence, but I suggest that the real fear for those children comes from being under the jackboot of criminal gangs. They are being bullied and coerced into that activity, sometimes without a choice. They do not want to do what they are doing, and they should know that they can come forward to the police. The police should be in a position where they know that that child has been exploited.”
“The Minister has just reliably informed the House of current failures in our criminal justice system, whereby a young person could be scared to come forward to an authority figure that could help them: a police officer, a social worker or anyone else for that matter.”
“I can give way to the Members opposite if they wish, but I also promised to give way to the Minister, and I will come to her now.”
“We are not going to give children life sentences. However, your amendment will convict children of murder; attempted murder; manslaughter; rape; or assault by penetration. In that regard, there is no difference between your position and mine. You will still convict young people — children — of those offences, so how do you explain that? How does the Member opposite explain why she is justifying finding a 12- or 13-year-old guilty of murder, when they might have been coerced; attempted murder, when they might have been coerced; manslaughter, when they might have been coerced; rape, when they might have been coerced; and assault by penetration, when they might have been coerced? How does the Member opposite square that circle?”
“Yes, I will give way, and then I will give way to the Minister.”
“I thank the Member for that. I will give way in a wee minute, Minister. <BR /> <BR />I will address that. Changing the age of criminal responsibility will not do one thing for the child caught up in those drug gangs. It will not do one thing for the children caught up in terrorist outfits. It will not do one thing for those, whereas, if they can be captured, if they can be found committing an offence, there is a chance that we can rescue those children, stop the reoffending and get them away from the grip of the criminal gangs. We will not send those young people to prison. We will use diversionary tactics; we will use restorative justice; and we will ensure that those people are protected.”
“First of all, on secure care, there is not much secure about it, I am afraid. There are massive issues with our care system. That is not a slight on anyone who works in that difficult field. We know what that means for the people who are employed there. However, we also know what it means for the children who are in care. They are the most exploited. They disappear for days on end. The care staff do not know where they are. They do not know where they have been. They do not know what they have been doing, and there is little that they can do about it. That is why this matter is so important. The criminal gangs do not care about those young people, but you are incentivising those crime gangs to use children in that age range to fund and fuel their criminal activities. You are creating an incentive to use that age group.”
“You are creating a cliff edge at an age of greater mobility. That means that, if you are a criminal gang lord — I do not know what you call them nowadays — the head honcho of a criminal gang or even a terrorist outfit, you will look at your range of young people whom you can exploit, and you will group together all your 12-year-olds and all your 13-year-olds, and you will have a greater number of them than 10-year-olds. You will send those people out as drug mules, to engage in drug dealing and to move arms and explosives from house to house. Those things, if the young people are captured by the police, will not be crimes.”
“Young people who are 12, 13 and 14 years old are much more mobile and harder to keep in the house. They will be out and about and can go further distances than a 10-year-old can. There is a real difference. The four years between the ages of 10 and 14 years old is a massive period in a child's life, so it is really important that we get this right. <BR /> <BR />What I mean when I talk about mobility is that there is a greater risk of a vulnerable 13-year-old or 14-year-old being in the grasp of a criminal gang than there is of most 10-year-olds being in the same situation. That is why we are protecting people by seeking to keep the criminal age of responsibility at 10.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. Manslaughter is on the list. He illustrates a valid point, however. If someone is on trial for murder but pleads guilty to manslaughter — it is on the list — you can see how that trickles down and how a system that lists exclusive offences could be really detrimental to that young person in court. There are real issues that have not yet been addressed or even thought out, unfortunately. <BR /> <BR />I will address the issue of the coercion of young people by criminal gangs. The issue that needs to be discussed is that it is not good enough to say that young people are already being coerced by criminal gangs. Of course they are, but there is a better chance of a 10-year-old being indoors at night than a 14-year-old.”
“I thank the Minister for her intervention. There is a court process to be had, however. When the charge sheet first goes to court, the DPP will say to that person, whoever they may be — it does not even need to be a child — that the defence will be such-and-such, and, many times, at the other end of the court process, they are found guilty of another, lesser offence. There is an issue here that would need to be resolved before we could, in all honesty, vote for something like that tonight. <BR /> <BR />I will address the issue of the coercion of young people —.”
“If I am right about what the Member says, she is content that a child in court be tried for the offence of rape when they and their solicitor team or barrister team believe that they should be tried on a lesser charge. That child will have no choice but to be tried for rape. If that is what the Member is saying, that is OK. It is fine. That is where we are going here, however. <BR /> <BR />I will give way to the Minister.”
“I thank the Minister for that intervention, because she has been informative about the processes. Those are the questions that I have been grappling with that no one else seems to want to grapple with. Those questions are really important. <BR /> <BR />Nuala, do you want to come in?”