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 32 of 75.
“If the First Minister is truly a First Minister for all, will she meet the COVID-19 vaccine injured and bereaved?”
“That is the reason that other systems in our health service are failing. Fix it at the very top, by caring for people at home, and you will go some way to fixing some of the other ills that infest our health service. The only way is to pay people appropriately, make sure that their terms and conditions are solid and make sure that they get the allowance that means that they can travel about the country, as we ask them to, to care for the people whom we so love.”
“It strikes me that one of the easiest ways in which to reform, because it is about people and because, in many ways, it is simple, is this: pay those people what they deserve and what they require. Make sure that their terms and conditions are appropriate, and make sure that they get a decent travel allowance, because they are the ones who drive up lanes that are miles long, in all weather, to get to the patient. We can all appreciate that to pay them appropriately will still be a lot cheaper than patients being in a hospital setting or bed. <BR /> <BR />I have a case that came to my attention only last week. An elderly gentleman has been in hospital for 12 weeks when he should not have been. The man's ailment was a broken ankle. Twelve weeks in hospital for a broken ankle. Think of the repercussions of that throughout the health service.”
“The rot has crept right down into lowlands and population centres. Something is therefore going dramatically wrong.”
“While the health service needs dramatic reform in more ways than one, it strikes me that this is one of the easiest areas to reform because it is all about people. <BR /> <BR />When I first became an MLA in 2010, it was clear, even then, that it was difficult to get a care package for someone living in a high area or a countryside area like Newtowncrommelin or Glenwhirry. Here we are in 2024, and people in villages such as Broughshane and Kells struggle to get care packages.”
“<BR /> <BR />Every policy direction that the Department of Health has taken around health and care has been in order to keep people at home. That is all well and good, but, if you cannot support those people, you create further casualties and further ill health and you increase the number of people who need care. The burden on a family when you have a sick relative at home who is not getting the care that they require is absolutely mighty. It is strangling, and it can destroy family relationships, not just with the principal patient but with siblings and others. It can poison a family relationship for ever, even when that principal patient has gone. <BR /> <BR />If the drive is to keep people at home longer — I am not saying that that is the wrong drive — we really need to do better at investing in the right places.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your new role. <BR /> <BR />This is a very important and touching subject, and I am so glad that the contributors have spoken about the most important element in this: people. Nearly every one of us has spoken about people: the people who receive the care and the people who administer the care. It takes a special type of person to go into a private home and administer intimate care to someone who could well be in the twilight of their life or be so severely disabled, no matter what age they are, that it is hard for them to live. It takes a special type of person. It is also true to say, as has been mentioned, that those people, special as they are, are so undervalued. It should drive a stake through our hearts that they are so undervalued.”
“When the Minister responds to the debate, perhaps he can say how much it will cost so that we can get it programmed into the Executive's psyche before anything else. There are other burdens and pressures, but this is one of the greatest burdens that our people face nowadays. It is not only about childcare. People with young families are trying to keep down a home and hold on to not one job but two jobs in many cases.”
“It is not just about supporting the family but about supporting the infrastructure around the support for government that we need. <BR /> <BR />If we go about producing a Programme for Government, which we have not really talked about yet, we should see this embedded right through it so that every Department can carry the burden. As a Member of the Assembly, that is what I would like to see. I would like to see the Executive pick this up and support families in the way that they should. This Executive should not hurt families in the way they have over the past two years or over the two years before. Let us try to get policies that support families instead of hurting them. I look forward to that day. <BR /> <BR />That will all come at a cost, so it is vital that the Executive know the full cost.”
“We know that that is not enough, but that was embedded in the psyche of the Department so that we would not go in reverse. It is critically important that we advance those arguments and policies. <BR /> <BR />I am so glad that this is the first day of real debate, and it is the first day that parties, namely Sinn Féin today, can choose a debate, and I am so glad that it has chosen this subject, so credit where credit is due. I am so glad that we have been able to debate the issues, but it is vital that the Executive work together to deliver this, because out of the policy will so much more flow that will help other sectors and Departments. The Department for the Economy, the Department for Infrastructure and all the places that are workforce-intensive will benefit if we get this right.”
“Thank you. I thank the Member for his contribution. He is right to mention single parents. However, it is not about being a single person, because they will have a family. I fear for those single parents, as their families come under massive pressure. It is not just the single parent who struggles with childcare but the whole family. The Member is right that those things should be tailored to suit the most vulnerable in our society. I absolutely agree with him. <BR /> <BR />We have made strides in this regard. In September 2022, my colleague and the then Education Minister, Michelle McIlveen, announced the first steps towards that commitment, having instructed her officials to develop a timetable and a costed delivery plan to provide a minimum of 22 and a half hours.”
“Raising children is the greatest privilege of all, but it is not easy, so the Government must do everything that they can to make sure that families get as much support as they can give, away from the family setting. If there is a message that can go out of this place today to send a clear signal to those hard-pressed mums and dads, it is, first, that we listen and, secondly, that we are driven to action. We have always said that we have been listening, but we have never acted. Let us hope that things will change in this place.”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I could call you something else that you were promoted to last week, but I will not. I congratulate you on your post. I also congratulate all Members who have made their maiden speech today. It is not easy, and it has been on a big subject, so congratulations to them all, not least to my colleague from East Antrim and to Nick Mathison, who mentioned Lord Weir and his contribution to this place. We are very appreciative of that, so I thank him for doing so. <BR /> <BR />The family is the brick of society. If there is one thing that the Assembly and the Executive, which is a different place, can do, it is support and build on those bricks.”
“I thank the Member for raising that percentage and making us all aware of it. Does he realise that it is not only the direct cost of childcare but taxation on the family home that causes hardships too?”
“Alliance told the group that this is not the place for them and that they should meet in a community centre. I ask now and plead with every Member of the House to search their heart and give those people the recognition and acknowledgement that they deserve.”
“Why do so many people in the House turn their face away from people who have serious injuries that just happen to be from medicine? Why do you turn your face away from those people? <BR /> <BR />I have worked extremely hard with the support groups, in Northern Ireland and in the UK: VIBS-NI (Vaccine Injured and Bereaved Support, Northern Ireland) and UK CV Family and Vaccine Injured Bereaved UK. They do tremendous work to support those people, some of whom have injuries that leave the medical profession completely flummoxed. The profession just does not know what way to go or how to create a care pathway for those people. They need your support, they need people to represent them and they are being ignored. <BR /> <BR />An event was to be held in this place for VIBS-NI, but parties here, Sinn Féin and the SDLP, blocked it.”
“This Chamber — the elected Members in it — is supposed to represent society. Yet it turns its face away and tries to ignore a certain type of people who have been seriously injured and bereaved. Of course, I talk about the COVID-19 vaccine injured and bereaved. Over the past two years, I have met people who have lost loved ones and who have been seriously damaged. They live with that damage every day, to the point where some wish to take their own life. However, what hurts them just as much as their injuries is the fact that, when they try to gain assistance from their MLAs and MPs, they are given the cold shoulder. They are ignored or gaslit. That is not acceptable. For as long as the history of man and medicine, we have known that medicine can cause side effects and adverse reactions.”
“Yes, I will. When you look through the key findings of the RHI inquiry, you realise that there is so much more to do. The recommendations have not even been touched, and the Civil Service needs to get moving now.”
“I get that, because its understanding of the subject is probably nil, and that is why the party opposite wants to close the scheme and to turn its face away from the scheme. It wants to run away from the scheme instead of trying to fix it so that people can see out their days on it with a relevant and appropriate return for their investment. Sinn Féin wants to run away from the problem. It just wants to close it up. We all know that Sinn Féin's three years out of government were not really about RHI. When you look through —”
“The inquiry produced a three-booklet summary of its report and recommendations: so far, it has sat on shelves. If you go out to the constituencies, you will see real pain and fallout from the scheme and the actions since. There is no recovery for those people. <BR /> <BR />Sinn Féin spent its whole time here attacking a political party, the DUP, when it was clear that its Ministers promoted the scheme as much as anyone else when it was being rolled out. They toured up and down the country, going to farmers' halls and emphasising the need for farmers and others to transform their technology and take up the scheme. Yet, that party wants to wash its hands of any culpability.”
“As a party, the DUP is clear that the public inquiry made a strong case for a full appraisal of the functions of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. There are many criticisms, but that should not be a surprise to any politician who has worked alongside Departments. I have been on many Committees and dealt with many Departments, and I have seen failures that scared me. I have seen incompetence that shames me — it should shame us all — yet the wherewithal and the awareness in the Civil Service are just not there; instead, there is this establishment groupthink where it is everybody's responsibility, so it is nobody's responsibility. We cannot allow that to continue. <BR /> <BR />President Reagan, I think, once stated:”
“<BR /> <BR />Just as the political level of the establishment had a duty to deal with failings on its part during that period, the leadership of the Civil Service cannot simply abdicate its responsibility for addressing its failings.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate on behalf of the Democratic Unionist Party and to share some of the sentiments expressed in the Committee's motion, including its frustration. Having briefly sat on the Finance Committee and enjoyed my time there, I was frustrated, as were all members, at the lack of haste when it came to the disciplinary approach, if you could call it that. <BR /> <BR />I have no doubt that the public will find it hard to understand why, after the significant and scathing commentary in the RHI inquiry report and elsewhere — in Committee, in the House or from outside bodies such as the Audit Office — only one person from the Civil Service has been disciplined in any way. I think that that is still the case; it is a fact.”
“I assure the Minister that, if I were Minister of Health today, I would not have brought forward this motion. Thank you.”
“What if we are not? That power would still reside with the Department, but it would be worse than that. There would be no scrutiny at that point. There would be no Committee at that point. There would be no Assembly and no voices of dissent like mine. Yet the Minister will have power like no other politician, probably in the history of this state. We must think carefully about our next step before we agree to something like this, which has caused real harm, real pain and, I believe, death. That is the action that the Assembly will take today, so I say this: think again. We should think carefully before we proceed down this road.”
“If they are extended because there might be another virus or another strain, that same pretext will apply from September when we walk into this year's autumn and winter pressures. <BR /> <BR />We cannot keep giving an extension to these draconian, sweeping powers to the one person and the one Department, no matter who its Minister is, and think that things are going to go well. They have not gone well these last two years. The regulations have been confusing and incoherent. The police cannot manage to enforce them, and they should not. Why should they? They are not designed to do that. It is not that type of police force, yet, with the extension, we are going to give the Minister the power to keep administering the powers. No. I say that we should not. <BR /> <BR />We are on the eve of an election, and we hope to be back in this place.”
“A family of two parents, three grandparents and a nanny, who were celebrating a child's first birthday, received a £200 fine. Who can afford that in this day and age? Yet, that is what the regulations brought, and there is no science behind it. There is no health strategy behind it. It just does not make sense. <BR /> <BR />The proposed order provides sweeping powers to the Health Minister outside of an emergency. We now know what we are dealing with. It is not like two years ago, when not one of us knew what was coming down the track. What was the mantra from the Ministers then? It was that the powers will not be used a day longer than required. That day has long gone past. I say that the powers should lapse. There is no evidence from the Minister or the Department that says why the powers need to be extended.”
“Legislation that was written quickly, without due scrutiny or consultation, was often harmful, incomprehensible, incoherent and confusing, so much so that the enforcement agencies, such as the PSNI and councils, could not cope. They could not enforce the legislation properly and made so many mistakes that thousands of people who broke the law did not face any consequences. People were prevented from attending the cremation of loved ones. Think about what we have lived through over the past two years, and yet the Assembly would grant the same power to the same Minister and Department? I say no. There must be a better way. <BR /> <BR />People were fined because they wanted to swim in the sea. A police officer said to a lady, "If you leave me now and run across that sand into the sea, you can expect a £200 fine when you come out of the sea".”
“They had to prove that they were healthy before they could gain entry. What message does that send out? They had to prove that they were healthy before they could partake in everyday life while someone who just happened to be vaccinated could walk in without proving anything. Where was the health consideration in that? Where was the science in that? There was none. It was to put pressure on people. That, in itself, is a place where government should not go. <BR /> <BR />The Coronavirus Act and the extensive, draconian powers that flowed from it have been a shambles, so why would the Assembly want to give any sort of extension to them? There must be a better way.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am not making light of the coronavirus and the potential for people to get sick and die. However, we should be responsible for the actions that we take. We have to take into consideration the balance that has to be struck between the good that you do and the harm that you do. I hear nothing from the other Benches about the harms that will come from the powers that have already been used. Those powers have discriminated against people. They prevented people from going to a restaurant, a local pub and other venues just because they waited a while and did not take government advice. Imagine a Government discriminating against somebody because they did not take government advice. Where do we live? How dare the Government encroach on people's rights in that way. People have been treated as though they were unhealthy.”
“The regulations left vulnerable people alone and isolated from other family members. They closed gyms but kept off-sales open. They closed schools. They closed down active sports when young people were crying out for comfort, friends and mentors. They closed down active behaviour. In fact, they kept us imprisoned in our homes. There was a time when I had to deal with constituents who had been turned away from attending a loved one and providing them with hot food. Their car was turned away a mile from their loved one's house. That was not even in the regulations, but the police struggled to enforce draconian legislation that they were never designed to enforce. The impacts on our people have been mighty. The lockdowns will have a detrimental effect on people's health for many years.”
“Yet the Assembly is going to give the power to one person and one Department. How is that democratic? How is that accountable? How is the Assembly doing its job properly with regard to scrutinising legislation? It does not make sense to me. Look at the impact that those regulations have had. They are so powerful, but they can be wished up in the morning, written up in the afternoon, enacted in the evening and enforced on the same day. They have the power to close down business and prevent people from earning a living — a God-given right.”
“I thank the Member for her contribution. I will try to keep the debate as civil as possible. The Member has obviously not been listening when in the Chamber. One Minister moved, amended and enacted legislation for the certification scheme. The Member will recall that, when the Executive decided one scheme, on the Friday before the Monday on which it was to be implemented, the Health Minister amended it to remove coffee shops. I am happy to give way to the Member again if that jogs her memory. That was one instance when the Minister in question amended the legislation unilaterally. The power was always there to do that. <BR /> <BR />We have to ask ourselves this: is the Health Department clued-in to all the other factors of government in this place? Does it have the expertise? My suggestion is no: why would or should it?”
“<BR /> <BR />The House cannot say that about the legislation that has been born of the Coronavirus Act, however. Many of those pieces of legislation caused great harm. They were wished up in the morning, written up in the afternoon and implemented in the evening; they were enforced that same day. At times, that was catastrophic for folk. <BR /> <BR />What will the Assembly do today? How can it be sure that one person, no matter who it is — it could be a member of my party — or one Department, no matter what that Department is — it happens to be Health — will act in the best interests of all of Northern Ireland, not only in health but in the economy, in education, in industry and in communities?”
“Has any Minister written to the Health Minister about the controversial and cross-cutting aspect of today's motion? If they have written to him, will he enlighten the Assembly about that in his closing remarks? <BR /> <BR />The motion is before the Assembly, so the Assembly needs to decide what to do. What will it do? The Assembly is a legislature; it scrutinises and then passes legislation. It rightly takes its time. Each line and clause is deliberated on, and that takes time. The legislation then goes to a Committee, which deliberately takes its time to make sure that each clause is appropriate, and it then comes back to this place, and we take more time and have further stages to ensure that the legislation that we pass is the most appropriate and will not cause any harmful effects.”
“Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will abide by your ruling, because I value your role, just as I value the role of the Assembly in scrutinising legislation. The motion will grant the Health Minister, no matter who that is, and his Department extensive, sweeping and draconian power. I ask the Minister to address this in his closing remarks: if he feels that he cannot use those powers after today because of the lack of an Executive and because they are controversial and cross-cutting, how can he come before the Assembly today when those same powers and the motion are cross-cutting and controversial? How does the Minister have the vires to even ask for that extension? <BR /> <BR />I think that I heard the Minister say that no ministerial colleague of his had any objections to the extension.”
“Perhaps the Minister could address in his closing remarks what his plans are for that consultation and what its findings were on the way forward for the vaccination status of healthcare staff in our trusts.”
“Those people who have yet to receive that one-off payment feel hurt today. <BR /> <BR />I also pay tribute to those healthcare workers on the front line who are still being discriminated against on close contacts and isolation periods just because they have not, as yet, had their vaccinations. That is a disgrace. I support — 100% — those healthcare workers. They need to be treated the same as everyone else in order for the health service to function efficiently, appropriately and properly. They should not be treated differently. <BR /> <BR />Then, there was the issue of the consultation on vaccinations for staff. That, of course, has disappeared out of all psyche.”
“First, I pay tribute to all the people who, over the last two years, have worked on the front line, most notably in our health service and all its side departments, including pharmacy and home care. I pay tribute to every person in all the elements that make up our superb health service, some of whom struggled grievously at the start of the emergency as they sought PPE and went to work not knowing what they were stepping into and were going to face or how it would affect their health and that of their family. Yet, they marched into wards and cared for grievously ill patients. <BR /> <BR />I also pay tribute to those healthcare workers who have yet to receive — they may have no hope of receiving it — the one-off reward payment, even though they did an enormous amount of work and did the same hours as the people working alongside them.”
“I thank the Minister for her update on a junction that has concerned many residents, drivers and pedestrians for many years. At a time, there were plans to stop right turns there, similar to what was done at the Cromkill junction 2 miles down the road. Has the Minister now ruled that out completely?”
“The built form can transform teaching and learning, and the Minister is not only listening to but delivering for North Antrim and Ballymena in particular, with Ballymena Academy and Cambridge House school being on that list. What must the schools do now in the process?”
“I thank the Member for her intervention. The people out there have not seen that evidence. When the Minister has mentioned some evidence, on most occasions, it has been outdated and scant. It has not been sufficient for the population out there, yet the Minister wants to extend his powers, in the midst of an election period when there will be no Executive and no Assembly to hold him to account. That is not sufficient or appropriate. <BR /> <BR />I ask the Minister why he is bringing that information to us on the back of another piece of legislation. Why does he not even make a contribution to the House on its own by making a statement justifying why he needs those powers?”
“All of that was done without sufficient evidence, justification, information or data being provided to the population. No transparency or openness was provided to our people. People have suffered; in fact, people will suffer for years on end.”
“I rise to welcome the move by the Health Minister today but also to show concern that he uses this opportunity to slip into the House the fact that he intends to extend his powers for a further six months. Those powers were used to discriminate against people by preventing them from entering premises solely on the basis of their vaccination status, due to the vaccine certification scheme; close down gyms but leave open off-sales; close down businesses providing a service and a living; prevent people from earning a living and going to work; isolate people in care homes, away from their families and their care; and prevent loved ones from even attending vulnerable loved ones in their own homes or providing food and assistance in care. Those powers were also used to fine people who were swimming in the sea or walking along a beach.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I have listened to the debate with great interest. This is not the first time that the interface between us as legislators and the legal profession — the courts — has caused friction. Again, I simply plead that we are here as legislators, and we should be allowed to do that job without having one hand tied behind our back. There should be balance but there should also be the measuring of risk whereby amendments should go forward. I do not know that that balance has been struck.”
“That is undeniable. It is shameful that that was allowed to happen.”
“That, however, is the reality of the clauses that we have debated in the House. <BR /> <BR />Let that be a lesson for the House: as we try to push through so much legislation in the limited time that we have at the end of the mandate, we must think clearly and correctly about every action that we take and every inaction. Think about it, and let us do it right, not because it is populist or because there is an Assembly election in two months' time. Let us get legislation right. It is not about how much legislation is passed; it is about the material in and the content of the Bills. Let us make sure that we do legislation right in this place so that we do not have any negative impacts on the people whom we are meant to serve. Those who struggle to pay their rent would have been the victims of this shambles. They would have suffered.”
“Why the haste on this issue? <BR /> <BR />This has been a shambles from the word go. The Private Tenancies Bill could have done much more. The scope could have been a lot wider. I take the point about the end of the mandate, and that is a real threat for doing a big piece of legislation, but what the Bill does is not even done well, and now, because of party politicking from West Belfast, it is an even bigger shambles. <BR /> <BR />There was real concern out there, and I suggest that the amendment being passed at Consideration Stage has probably already had a negative impact on the market. It probably already has skewed people's practices, and it may already have provoked landlords to change their terms, stop a tenancy agreement or put up the rent. I hope that that is not the case.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Department consulted on the notice to quit issue in the midst of the Bill being considered. At Committee Stage, the Department announced to us that it was going to consult on notice to quit and that it was going to do an eight-week consultation and try to bring the findings and conclusions to the House. I have been here for a long time — 12 years — and I know that cogs turn very slowly. I get so frustrated when cogs turn very slowly, but, sometimes, it is for good reason; it is to slow down the process in order to prevent mistakes happening. Yet, on this issue, there is urgency to the point that the Department would consult, bring in all those findings and, within weeks, produce an outcome for that consultation when most consultations take half a year or a year to be announced or to be published.”
“That is the Department trying to bring regulations in to set exemptions. That is fair enough. I support exemptions, but the whole clause is subject to regulations made under amendment No 5. The tiers will not come in until regulations are made. Screeching brakes again from the Communities Minister because of an amendment from her party colleague. <BR /> <BR />Why are we allowing seven months? Why is seven months required? It is better than it was before. I think that it was eight and a half months or seven and a half months — 196 days or 224 days. That was ridiculous. The amendment improves the situation, but it still does not bring us to a suitable landing zone, completion or a destination. That is probably because it has been a shambles from the word go, and I will tell you why.”