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 34 of 75.
“I will speak on the Bill and the amendments. I thoroughly enjoyed the scrutiny of the Bill and the company of members of the Committee and of the officials who came along regularly and answered all our questions in a relatively timely fashion. I thank everyone for their participation. It was very useful. <BR /> <BR />The first question to ask about the Bill is this: is it required? With the growth in the private tenancy sector, it is required in order to help to raise standards, to inject fairness and to achieve balance. When I look at the amendments, I want to see balance and fairness. That includes both sides of the sector: the tenants who need a home and the landlord who has property and allows that property to be let. I declare an interest as someone who owns a rented property. <BR /> <BR />I will go through the amendments.”
“The Minister will know well that all politics is local. Did the Minister's work there impact positively on any companies from the north Antrim area?”
“We should distinguish between on-course bookmakers, who only operate 22 days a year, and land-based bookmakers, who are open every week. I will be honest: when you go to a course, it is more of a social event. You go there and you know that you will spend only, say, £45 or £70 on so many races, and you stick to that. It is more of a social event. Whilst there should be a levy on on-course bookmakers, it should not be of the same value as the levy for ordinary, land-based bookmakers. That is one thing that I would say on the development of a levy. I will leave it there.”
“If you put a limit on the use of debit cards, people would bounce around all the bookies until they had reached their limit of £200, or whatever. If you banned the use of debit cards, there could be an issue with a future virus and future restrictions on the use of cash. I get that, so I reversed out of tabling that amendment. <BR /> <BR />There has been much food for thought in the contributions tonight. Whilst it is a step, I do not know how big a step it is. I look forward to the day when the 1985 Order is repealed and we start with a fresh canvas in tackling problem gambling. It affects 40,000 households, which means 40,000 families and their friends. We need to deal with that effectively and efficiently in the next term. <BR /> <BR />It is only fair that I raise an issue about clause 14.”
“And so it goes on. Where are we getting the invention that there are gaming machines out there that only take credit cards? That is a scary thought. Where are they? How many are in Northern Ireland? If they are in Northern Ireland, I want to know about them because I think that they should be banned, not regulated. There has to be a more meaningful, deeper conversation on that. I know that this issue is coming late because we have tabled an amendment, but we need to explore it. I want to see in the Bill a ban on the use of credit cards for gambling. You should not be able to gamble with someone else's money. That should not be allowed. <BR /> <BR />I had thought about tabling an amendment on debit cards, but I realised very quickly that it would only disperse the problem. How could you ever enforce it?”
“I get how that might ripple through the 1985 Order, which is pretty extensive. We may well have missed things, because we are not perfect. If the amendment were to pass, it could lead to gaming machines that accept only credit cards falling out of the definition and not being regulated. My goodness. I sit on the Committee, and I have not heard of any gaming machine that takes only a credit card. That would be perverse. In fact, article 108(6) of the 1985 Order states:”
“It is about the signal that it sends. No one should be able to gamble with money that they do not have. That should be fundamental. If a problem gambler is given access to money that is not his or her own, it will be spent. It could be spent in minutes. There therefore should be an amendment made to the Bill to ban credit cards. I do not know how we work in such an amendment. I will work with the Department to do so. Having it in the code of conduct is not strong enough, however. It needs to be in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />There was an issue with the way in which we worded amendment No 6 and with what it would do. The amendment would change the definition of "money" in the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 to remove using a credit card.”
“They might not think that it is a great amount, but that money would be far better in their bank account, accruing interest, albeit a very small amount, than being given to the National Lottery, as those people do not have control over where that money goes. That is very important to say. <BR /> <BR />Our amendment No 6 concerns a ban on credit cards. It has caused the Department a bit of concern since we tabled it. Yes, I know that it is to be in the code of conduct, but I am not satisfied with that. Bookies tell me and others that they do not accept credit cards. They did not really accept debit cards until COVID came along. Most of the transactions were in cash, but, when transmission of the virus from cash became a problem, they allowed debit cards. Even though bookies have a voluntary ban on credit, that needs to be strengthened.”
“I support strengthening the code of practice, but we have to make sure that the balance struck is correct so that we do not do something that affects bookmakers disproportionately. Remember that the levy will disproportionately affect land-based bookmakers. It will not touch the gambling companies everywhere that go into your heart and eyes through your phone. It will not affect the National Lottery. I agree 100% on the issue about the availability of scratch cards. If you are an impulse gambler, every time that you enter a newsagent's, a shop or a supermarket to buy ordinary groceries, you will be enticed into walking out of there with at least one scratch card. That is an issue not only for problem gamblers but for people who spend money on scratch cards every week.”
“There are times when gambling establishments look after their punters in that regard. They will take their money off them — do not worry about that — but, sometimes, they keep an eye on people or get them home safely. We do not want something in the code of practice that disperses that problem, resulting in punters bouncing from one bookies to another, with nobody keeping an eye on them, or, worse still, hiding in their bedroom and gambling away all their money on their phone. <BR /> <BR />There is therefore a place for bookmakers, as perverse as that may sound when I am talking about problem gamblers. We have to acknowledge the nuance and try to work with it in the code of practice.”
“This is a perverse thing about the issue: if a problem gambler is going to gamble, I would honestly rather that problem gambler to be in the bookie's than in their bedroom, gambling on a phone.”
“We need a gambling commissioner in Northern Ireland. That is the only way that I could really be sure that the money raised through a levy would be spent effectively and not wasted on programmes that do not hit the target. We can all tick boxes and talk about this or that programme and about how we spent £2 million here, £10 million there and £100 million there, but do we ever really assess the output and the effectiveness of that? It is not good enough to say that you spent it all; did you spend it effectively? <BR /> <BR />On clause 15, I have problems and worries about the code of practice. Even though amendments have been tabled that would give it more teeth, we have to ensure that the code of practice is correct and balanced.”
“I agree with the principle of a levy but I have this issue: where does the money go? Where does that money go if we do not know the scale and depth of the problem and do not have a gambling regulator to ensure that it is well spent? To be truthful, I usually take the default position that a pound of anybody's money is better in their own pocket than in government coffers, because, nine times out of 10, it is not spent effectively from government coffers. I want to know exactly how the money from the levy will get to the heart of the problem and solve it for folk. The Gambling Commission in GB regulates:”
“<BR /> <BR />I will go on to talk about clause 14, "Industry levy". I again thank the Minister for tabling amendment No 3. The amendment was required, because of the issues and the problems around that clause. Amendment No 3 would insert:”
“Is that easy to read? No, it is not; it is quite difficult to read. I am glad, therefore, that the Department has committed to changing the explanatory and financial memorandum to make it easier for ordinary folk — not least bank managers and customers — to read. We will need more than that, however, because not every bank manager lifts an EFM; it is only us sad folk who do that. There needs to be a customer leaflet to make sure that all staff and customers of banks, building societies and every other financial institution know exactly what their rights are and know that they will now be able to partake in UK-wide customer draws; that is probably the best way to put it. That has been very important to me as we have gone through the Bill. It is important to some of my constituents who have raised the issue with me time and time again.”
“I will move on to clauses 8 and 11, which have been dear to my heart. I created bit of havoc over this issue in the Committee, because I believe that it is fundamentally important. There are constituents of ours — let us say that they live in Ballymena — who are treated differently from people in Bristol simply because the bank, building society or financial institution that they put their money into will not offer them the same service that it offers to customers in Bristol. That, in turn, is simply because, in this country, those institutions are not allowed to offer prize draws without payment. <BR /> <BR />I am glad that clause 8, "Arrangements not requiring persons to pay to participate", and clause 11, "Prize competitions not requiring persons to pay to participate", both of which refer to schedule 15A, are in there.”
“As we went through the deliberations, I thought that it was important that we put another figure on that. You could argue about what the figure should be. The Department and the Minister have come up with £100, and we will not divide over that. Am I right that £100 is the right limit? I honestly do not know, but it had to be set at something. A decision had to be made to put a figure in, and I respect the Department and the Minister for that.”
“They open in late morning and remain open until late evening. Those are already unsocial hours for people who have youngsters coming home with homework that needs to be addressed, and, of course, when those people get home, their children who are of a very young age will be going to bed. Sundays may therefore be the only day that a family like that, as a complete unit, will have a day off in common. That is a massive issue. We in the House talk about work-life balance. Why are we not catering for it here? I will say that the instruments in clause 3 will assist in allowing for protections in that regard. <BR /> <BR />I will take things in order and move on to talk about the amendment to clause 9. I thank the Minister for her amendment. It is right that the £1 limit had to be repealed; I get that.”
“We can all crack jokes about bingo, bets and everything else, but I do not see how I or my party can support those clauses, because they add further access to bookmakers, which will not solve the problem. If there was more in the Bill, you could understand Sunday opening. I think that it was the Institute of Public Health that said that it would not support Sunday opening without there being a gambling strategy and a regulator in place. You can understand that balance, but it has not been met, so I will not and cannot support clause 2 and clause 6. <BR /> <BR />Clause 3 speaks of workers' protection. That is another issue that is to do with Sunday opening. It is not about a Christian ethos or a sabbatarian mindset but about time off in common. Bookies already have unsocial hours.”
“You have to then take into consideration the advice of the Public Health Agency, the Institute of Public Health and groups like CARE, which have all said that they do not agree with Sunday opening. The Public Health Agency states that Sunday opening may exacerbate existing harms. If we recognise that there is a problem and that it is a very big one, why would we do anything that could escalate and exacerbate it? I do not understand the logic of that. I therefore do not support clause 2 or clause 6, although bingo, which is dealt with in clause 6, is not as harmful in any shape or form as gambling per se; it is more of a social event. I get that. <BR /> <BR />I live in the real world.”
“I will now address clauses 2 and 6, which are on the further opening of bookies and bingo halls on Sundays. Having said that the enemy is in our pockets, I will add that there is a massive issue with people's betting in their homes, at their kitchen tables and in their bedrooms at all hours of the day any day of the week. That is a major problem. We will not fix that problem by allowing further access to bookmakers on Sundays. To me, that does not solve any issue. <BR /> <BR />I know that the bookmakers will say, "You can bet on a Sunday through your phone, so why not let us open?". I get that argument, because it is perverse that people can bet on a phone at any time of the day.”
“I will bow to that order, rise to the challenge and speak about the amendments. I thought it important, however, to set the context and describe the scale of the problem at hand. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Minister for her amendments. True to form, and true to the commitment that she gave to the Committee, she intends to amend clauses 9 and 14.”
“We have not collected that data since 2016. My guess is that, given COVID and all the restrictions that were imposed, the problem may be worse now. Consider the mental health issues connected to the COVID restrictions and lockdowns. Have we even tried to measure the problem? If you do not measure it, you do not know its scale, and, if you do not know that, you do not know how to overcome or beat it. <BR /> <BR />Those are the worries that I have. With those worries in mind, when I look at the Bill, I do so with sadness.”
“That is how big a problem this is. <BR /> <BR />Look at our figures compared with those of England, Wales, Scotland and even the Republic of Ireland. We must realise that we have a massive problem, not only with problem gamblers but with people at moderate and low risk. Look at the figures: for Northern Ireland, moderate risk is at 4·9%; in England, it is 0·7%; in Scotland, it is 0·9%. For low risk, the figure for Northern Ireland is 6·7%; the figure for England is 1·9%. What is wrong? Is it just our nature, or is it the support that we give those people? <BR /> <BR />There are many issues. When the Department reported in 2016, the problem gambling rate in England was 0·5%; it was 0·7% in Scotland; and it was 1·1% in Wales. All the other jurisdictions have reported improvements since. Where are our improvements? Do we know?”
“Anyone engaged in the debate knows only too well the damage that gambling does in our communities. It causes issues with debt, public health, family breakdown and increased risk of suicide. It is all there. <BR /> <BR />It is difficult to believe that the most recent data that we have available on gambling-related harm is from 2016. A study undertaken by the Department found that 2·3% of adults surveyed were deemed to be problem gamblers. If scaled up to the population as a whole, the number of individuals experiencing gambling-related harm would equate to more than 40,000 adults. As my colleague from North Antrim said earlier, it is not just 40,000 adults; it is 40,000 adults and their families and friends. It affects not just the person who gambles but everyone around them, including, probably, employers and employees.”
“In my engagement with the Minister and the Department in my time on the Committee, I have had one fundamental win, which is the fact, the promise and the commitment that, in order to do something about problem gambling, we will need to repeal the 1985 Order completely. We need to rip it up and start afresh. That will mean ripping up this Bill. That is OK, because I do not believe that we repeal enough law in this place in order to make better law. So, I suppose that that is a big win for me. If, however, you recognise that problem gambling in Northern Ireland is an issue, you must realise that the Bill is a failure in that regard. It does not touch it or cope with it. <BR /> <BR />The prevalence of gambling-related harm in Northern Ireland is well known. We all know it.”
“Thank you very much for bringing me back, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was just putting into context the length of time that it has taken us to amend this legislation. <BR /> <BR />The law in Northern Ireland has not kept pace with technology. That is one of the fundamental problems with trying to legislate in that regard. We are not trying to legislate for an enemy at the gate. We are now, unfortunately, trying to legislate for an enemy in our pockets. That is the blind side of all this. That is where we cannot effect the meaningful change that we want to make. I recognise that that has to be done at a higher station for a global problem. <BR /> <BR />That said, we could have done so much more with this Bill. As I stand here and see the Bill going into law, I will have an eternal regret because I believe that it is a missed opportunity.”
“I will clarify that, because that is a good point of record. It was the 1986 World Cup that I was looking forward to. That was very good, Mark. We did not qualify for the 1970 World Cup, unfortunately.”
“The Bill was scrutinised in Committee over many weeks, and I enjoyed my time questioning the officials — as I always do — and I value the engagement. I put on record my thanks to the Minister, the Department and the officials for their work and steadfastness in coming forward with answers and for engaging with the Committee. That is always valuable and leads to a far better legislative outcome. <BR /> <BR />The Bill represents the first major change in gambling law in Northern Ireland since the 1985 Order. The current legislation is clearly out of date and not fit for purpose. I do not want to give away Robbie Butler's age, but I was 11 and looking forward to Northern Ireland playing in the Mexico World Cup. I was not necessarily concerned about going to big school. I was more worried about —”
“You are meant to be truthful in the House.”
“I believe that these amendments and clauses will do that. It is a step in the right direction; it is a further step on our justice journey. I welcome these amendments and clauses, and I hope that this Assembly sees fit to place them onto the blue pages of the Bill. I commend the work of the Minister and the Committee and hope that the amendments that I have spoken on pass. Thank you.”
“Reading that out is chilling, but it is necessary to have that in the statute book to make sure that we change behaviours in this land of ours. There is sickness out there, there are depraved minds out there, and we must do all we can to protect people from those who would act in such a way.”
“Again, that is something that I have looked at previously, and it was out of the scope of other Bills. I commend the Minister for acting on that also. The amendment adds a very long clause, and I have not got through all the ins and outs of what it actually does. In my limited understanding of the amendment, it covers a loophole whereby people think that that behaviour is acceptable. There should be no acceptance of that behaviour. I will read down new clause 19B:”
“I am delighted to see that amendment now, and I hope the House approves and passes it. There is absolutely no defence or justification for seriously harming anyone, either by wounding, grievous bodily harm or actual bodily harm, through a sexual act. There is absolutely no justification or defence, and no one should try to make that case. Of course, as the Minister rightly pointed out there is a history of courts believing that a person cannot consent to serious harm. It is great and good that we will put it down in law so there is no question or grey areas around that, and that we protect people who may be manipulated, bullied or coerced into sexual acts as best we can. <BR /> <BR />That brings me to the other amendment that is very close to that, and that is on the offence of non-fatal strangulation or asphyxiation.”
“Of course, the cameras follow the people as they walk out of the court, and that is before anyone has been proven guilty. That can be harmful not only for the victim but the accused. I take the points that Mr Allister raised about article 6. We have to be careful about what we do. Whilst I acknowledge and agree that something needs to be done, we have to be careful how we do that. It strikes me that the best place for that to be decided is in the court, but we will see how that develops as the debate goes on. <BR /> <BR />As I promised, Mr Deputy Speaker, I go to amendment Nos 18 and 19. Amendment No 18 is a new clause, titled "Consent to harm for sexual gratification is no defence". The amendment is very important. It is something that I looked at in other pieces of legislation, and it was out of scope.”
“In most big cases, usually, you only hear one side on any particular day. When one side of a court case is reported — the defence or whatever — the other side of the argument may not be presented until a week or two later, and maybe, the journalist or broadcaster will not give that the same attention that they gave the other side two weeks before. Unfair reporting can skew and have an unfair bearing on any given case.”
“If you have that threat hanging over anyone, you can alter their behaviour. You can demand all sorts of that person. So, the crime should not be the disclosure, which is criminal in itself: there should be legislation that covers the threat to disclose. That is where the leverage is and where there is potential for real harm and damage. So, I thank the Minister for tabling the amendment. <BR /> <BR />Before I move to amendment Nos 18 and 19, I will address amendment No 9, because I understand why the Member tabled it. I engaged with Gillen at the time of his review, and it struck me that something had to be done. The way that cases are reported in the press is sometimes deeply unfair. Time and time again, we see camera crews outside courts, and they will report on the court cases of that day.”
“It is vital that we recognise that potential and try as best we can to legislate to protect the children who could be at risk. I suspect that a very small percentage of people are inclined to act in that way, but it is right that we protect every single child as best we can from the one or two people who are involved in such behaviour or have thoughts in that regard and would use their position of trust, as a community champion, for their own sexual gratification or anything else for that matter. So, it is important that that is legislated for. <BR /> <BR />I am glad to see amendment No 5 because it is not just the disclosure of a photograph, a picture or a video that does the damage; it is the potential and the threat of release or disclosure that can upset and change the course of somebody's life.”
“It is very good to be in a position where we have people who I class as being community champions, and we should utilise them more in the justice setting to help steer young people who might not necessarily make team sports away from areas where they could get themselves into trouble and might end up with a criminal record. <BR /> <BR />There is great potential for community champions in that setting, but with that is the powerful flip side where a community champion can exact pressure or leverage on a young person, which has the potential to become really dangerous. So, it is important that we legislate for that to protect those people so that, when pressure is applied to get a place on the team or to please your coach, it is not used by the coach for their own ends.”
“I turn now to amendment Nos 4 and 5. Amendment No 4 relates to positions of trust, which is an issue that I have thought long and hard about. There is no doubt about it: when you are in a position of trust, you become a very powerful person. We must congratulate all those people who sacrifice parts of their lives to help coach, train, teach, supervise, instruct our children and pay a general interest in their growing up. They are an absolute godsend to parents, and, sometimes, when a parent cannot get through to a child, the local football coach or boxing coach can. Those people can have a massive positive bearing on the potential of a child, so it is a very powerful position to be in.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am glad to see that new clauses have been tabled. When I first read the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Bill, I was disappointed that items that, I thought, would have made great law had been omitted. I am glad that the Minister is now pursuing such amendments, and I thank her for that.”
“It is important that we have a law against upskirting and downblousing. A colleague across the Chamber has already said how important it is to protect people, as have the Chair and the Minister. We all know of a case here in Northern Ireland. Adults, children and professional people need to be protected in that regard. With technology as it is nowadays, with a camera in everyone's hands, it is vital that we protect people. That is what law is all about, and clause 1 is a good clause. <BR /> <BR />On sexual grooming and the potential harm or danger to children in this age of technology, where you cannot necessarily see the person with whom you are communicating, it is vital that, when their parents cannot always see what they are at, children be protected in law as best they can be. It is important that clause 2 is in the Bill.”
“It is important that they be fully informed and are not the last to know if someone poses a risk. I know that time is short in the mandate, but I plead with the Minister to promote the child protection disclosure scheme in any way that she can. I would be grateful. <BR /> <BR />I also record my thanks and appreciation to the Minister for this term of work. I have always enjoyed jousting with her in the Chamber on various pieces of legislation. That leads to good legislation. Good, robust debate always helps in that. I also pay tribute to the Chair of the Committee, Mervyn Storey, my colleague in North Antrim, for his work in the Committee on scrutinising the Bill over the past year. We are grateful for that. <BR /> <BR />It is important that we support the Bill. It is part of the journey.”
“Every time I look at any legislation to do with sexual offences and trafficking victims, I look at it through the prism of Lord Morrow's work and the foundation that he laid to ensure that it builds on his work and does not diminish it in any shape or form. <BR /> <BR />I have always taken a keen interest in such matters. In a previous term, I was able to amend the Justice Bill that brought in the child protection disclosure scheme. I must admit that I am still aggrieved at the way in which that scheme has been rolled out and used in practice. I do not believe that it is promoted enough or that people know about it enough in order to keep their children safe from individuals who are deemed to be a risk to them. Knowledge is important to parents.”
“I have not been on the Committee for Justice of late, but I have always taken a keen interest in justice matters. During my time in the Assembly, I have seen the clear journey taken by legislation since justice was devolved to Northern Ireland. In the 2011-16 mandate, there was the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 and the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2016. There is now the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Bill, to which we can add domestic violence legislation and the stalking piece that is going through the Assembly. It would be remiss of me not to mention the contribution that Lord Morrow made to that journey.”
“This is yet another Minister who, in the past week, has been playing silly games, this time with the people's money. The subregional stadia funding for football and the Casement Park funding have both been approved by the Executive. Why have the Finance Minister and the Communities Minister made sectarian decisions to proceed with Casement Park but to halt the football stadia programme?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. It would be much more nuanced than that. It would not be as blatant. It would happen over time. When somebody is saying that they want a minimum level of education or health or whatever, those are all great aspirations in this political House. If that is being determined through the courts, the judge does not have to say to a Minister that he is not spending enough on health. It would be a basic truth at that point, as deemed by the court.”
“Will the Member explain to the House how a bill of rights will impact his people in a way that the laws that we create in here will not?”
“If you go and put those aspirations into the superior form and level of law — ie rights — you will have courts imposing their will on the legislature here, and every single pound that we take off our people to put into a Budget that we want to enact and spend in a certain way will be contradicted and challenged in the courts. Then, the judges will reign supreme in a democratic system. That will take away the balance of the democratic institutions that has been a strong pillar of this nation for decades and centuries. <BR /> <BR />Let us not dabble in things. Let us have the conversation, let us see where we can improve people's lives, but let us mark very clearly the difference between the Executive, the legislature and the courts.”
“There is this thing coming in now about positive rights — Lord Sumption, of all people, talks about this — whereby people now demand a minimum standard of something: a minimum standard of living, a minimum standard of health and a minimum standard of education. All of that is really good and aspirational stuff, but it should not be at the superior level of rights and the superior level of law; it should be the democratic process that achieves that for our people. This legislature and the Executive should achieve that for our people so that we have good standards of living, good standards of health and good standards of education.”