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 36 of 75.
“As for that "we know best" approach, it is simply not good enough to say that the evidence exists and to keep repeating it as if it was true. Produce the evidence, publish the evidence, let us all see the evidence. It just does not exist. <BR /> <BR />I will keep quoting:”
“One of the recommendations in the House of Commons report, by the way, is that the certification measure should have been primary legislation. That would have afforded the Committee the time for all evidence to be gathered from stakeholders. That is what we do here — we are legislators — but we are not given the time. <BR /> <BR />Hospitality Ulster stated, on 29 November, that it had a concern due to a lack of information, evidence published by the Scottish Government, and anecdotal evidence from its counterparts in the Republic of Ireland that showed a downturn in footfall of 20% to 40%, increased costs and high levels of abusive behaviour against staff. I quote:”
“When I read the document, I see the similarities between here and GB — it is incredible — yet nobody here who would vote for the motion seems to take cognisance of the evidence in the document. I could go through it, but I will not, because others want to speak. However, I refer this document to you, and I plead with you to read it and then to step back from these regulations. <BR /> <BR />What I do want to illustrate in great detail is how the regulations will affect business in Northern Ireland. Hospitality Ulster represents many of our licensed premises and tourist centres. It is important that we get its words on record, because it has not been able to go to a Committee in the way that it should for primary legislation, and this should be primary legislation.”
“It is important to put on record that it was printed on 10 June 2021, several months ago, but remember this: vaccination levels have increased considerably for first vaccination, second vaccination and now booster, which is important. It is clear, however, that the only real scrutiny that has taken place on COVID status certification shows that it simply will not work. In fact, the document refers to abandoning any plans for COVID-status certification. Those are strong words for any scrutiny Committee, not least one in the House of Commons. <BR /> <BR />It is imperative that MLAs read that document, because it is the only scrutiny that we have. How many have looked at its conclusions and recommendations? It is a powerful document. It is from June, but the same logic applies now.”
“By what margins does the Health Minister envisage that hospital admissions will reduce or case numbers will fall by way of this measure? No targets have been set, by the way, but if they were set, would he then commit to reversing the certification policy, because the measures simply do not work? The Department of Health has provided no modelling on the likely impact of COVID certification. Is that because it has not done any modelling since April, or is it because the benefits are minimal? <BR /> <BR />We have had no scrutiny. No Committee in this place has looked at this in depth. We have to look to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, appointed by the House of Commons, which has done a robust piece of work on COVID-status certification.”
“That is only one question that we needed time to answer, and we did not get that time. Throughout the world, we have seen that these measures simply do not work. In Québec in Canada, representatives of licensed hospitality indicated that sales dropped more than 40% — 40% — in the first three weeks after COVID passports were imposed. <BR /> <BR />These regulations have been implemented without the most rudimentary understanding of how success will be measured. How will we know that these measures work? We have no indication from the Health Minister as to how he will monitor the impact of COVID-status certification. What does success look like? If there is absolutely no logic to their implementation, how will there ever be logic for removing them?”
“No, I will be consistent. <BR /> <BR />Imagine dementia sufferers or Alzheimer's sufferers: how will they cope with certification? It is essential that the implementation of this policy is paused. I make the plea tonight in the House that it is paused until those equality concerns are at least addressed in an open and transparent way. <BR /> <BR />We were told that COVID decisions are taken on the basis of economic and societal factors as well as health. What assessment has there been of the economic implications of mandatory COVID certification? The reality is that the regulations carry the threat of the same level of fines for a small corner café, a licensed premises or a restaurant as they do for large multinational companies. Is that fair and proportionate?”
“Vaccine passports may be viewed as a small inconvenience to many, but for so many others, including the elderly and the frail, they will disproportionately affect access to social settings and activities, some of which are the very lifeblood of existence. Then there are those who suffer from dementia and Alzheimer's —”
“Coronavirus regulations are permitted only where they are necessary, proportionate and evidence-based, but that threshold has not been met. Since the Executive voted on 17 November, the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientific Adviser have said that case numbers have peaked, that the R number has come down, and that hospital admissions are on a downward trajectory. Among the parties here that cloak themselves as parties of equality, many of the self-proclaimed champions of rights in the Executive were only too willing to rush these regulations through without any equality or human rights impact assessments being produced, let alone being published.”
“So, since April, why has he not produced any evidence at all, let alone scientific evidence, that these measures and this regulation will work?”
“It is not like me. <BR /> <BR />I am mindful of the tone of the debate, and I wish to keep it that way, because we should be respectful, but I asked the Minister, at one of the last debates on health regulations, if he was minded to bring in certification, to bring it before the House before enactment. It is with deep regret that that has not taken place. It would not be sufficient with regard to scrutiny, but at least it would have been something. Where is the scientific evidence for these regulations? The Department has had months now to produce evidence. I think it was in April when the Minister changed his mind about certification. I think it was one day, from 21 April to 22 April, but nonetheless he changed his mind.”
“No, I will not. I will be fair and consistent across the board, and, if I have time after making progress, I will give way.”
“<BR /> <BR />The failure to bring the regulations to the Assembly until now is deeply alarming and sets a dangerous precedent. It is unacceptable that, despite cross-Bench support for an opportunity to debate the policy, the Health Minister could not bring the regulations until now, two weeks after their enactment. Even in Scotland and Wales, an affirmative vote from the legislature was sought prior to introduction. How can Northern Ireland be the only legislature where the Minister cannot bring the regulations to the Floor in time?”
“I know. We also have to remember the spectre of the coffee shop. Coffee shop owners thought that they would be included in the regulations, and, on the Friday before the Monday — in fact, I think that it was at 5.00 pm — they were told that they would be excluded. Is the Minister settled on that, or is that a stay of execution for those businesses? <BR />What grieves me more than anything else about the regulations is the lack of proper accountability and scrutiny. I get health regulations and why they were invented in the first place, which was to enable us to make regulations and legislation quickly, but when that legislation is so impactful, and when it affects so many people and there is no evidence to suggest that it will work, surely that is when we should step back and consider our actions.”
“No, I will not give way at the minute. I want to make progress, and then, I will see how I get on.”
“That has wide-ranging ramifications, yet the penalties and tariffs seem to be the same right across the board. Of course —”
“Those are wide-ranging regulations that affect everyday society and businesses. They also affect:”
“Our people, like everyone, deserve that the regulations that we pass in the House are fit for purpose and evidence-based and that proper accountability and scrutiny takes place. <BR /> <BR />The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2021 (Amendment No. 19) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2021 sounds very official, but the impact is mighty. It is probably one of the harshest statutory rules that we have been asked to scrutinise. <BR /> <BR />The media keep saying that it is only about licensed premises, businesses, pubs, nightclubs and licensed restaurants, as if that makes it better, but it will have a massive impact and not just on those businesses. It includes:”
“First, let me pay tribute to all the healthcare workers and staff, who have worked under considerable pressure the past number of years in the most intensive settings trying to save as many lives as they possibly can. Many of them contact our offices. I also pay tribute to every family and every household in Northern Ireland, because everyone has been touched by the virus and/or the restrictions placed on them. They have had a massive impact on our people and on society.”
“Let us do something right by the people who have had a hammer blow of a diagnosis or prognosis. Their days on this earth are short and should be filled with meaningful engagement with their loved ones. They should be out in the open, getting fresh air, looking at the scenery and the environment and spending time with their loved ones, including their children and grandchildren. The last place that those people should be is in a business centre, an appeals room or a courtroom in front of three, four or five strangers and us, as their representatives. Let us remove that burden from those people and have them spend the rest of their life in dignity with their families and with the support that they deserve. They should not have to prove anything.”
“However, whilst it is in its broken state and whilst we can do something for people who are terminally ill, the least that we can do for them is to take that rigmarole, that process and that horrendous journey away from them and their families. <BR /> <BR />Who will be affected by the change? It will be people who suffer from motor neurone disease, chronic heart failure and COPD, conditions for which it is difficult for a GP to give an accurate prognosis or time. A doctor's best guess might be horrendously wrong. They might make a best guess of a year and a half, and that person could be dead in three months. <BR /> <BR />Surely, this is the least that we can do in the short time left in this term. Surely, if there is a Bill that is worthy of the Assembly, it is the Social Security (Terminal Illness) Bill.”
“For that 20 minutes or 40 minutes, alas, they must spill their guts in front of strangers, which is hard enough, and in front of their loved one. Worse than that, sometimes, the appellant clams up and cannot speak, and it is the loved one who has to pick up the pieces and tell the appeals panel, in their words and as seen through their eyes, what their loved one has been through. For the appellant — the constituent — who has to hear that from their loved one, it is nearly too much to take. <BR /> <BR />Going through an appeal process is a horrendous ordeal, and I am glad that most people have to do it only once or twice in their lifetime. Most are unnecessary, because the system is broken from the start, and that needs to be fixed.”
“Some GPs have concerns around having to give that information out, but, believe me, that is healthcare as much as treating a person is. That information is usually the difference between a successful appeal and an unsuccessful one. It is usually medication or a letter from the GP to a consultant or a specialist that does it. It is nothing that you do as a representative or politician; it is usually about the evidence that you produce from the GP. It is essential that those medical notes are shared. That in itself is an invasion of privacy. It is an indignity for the appellant, who is sitting beside their loved one. It is probable that they have hidden some of their symptoms for months or maybe years. They may have been putting on a brave face in front of their family but not for that 20 minutes or 40 minutes.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. He raises a valid point. I usually spend three or four times as much time in what I call "pre-appeal meetings" with constituents and their loved ones, with my staff, to prepare them for what an appeal will look like. I even go through the geography and topography of the room, staircases, lifts, what the room looks like, who may be there, what to expect, the long wait beforehand, the evidence gathered from the GP and how that evidence is sifted through to ensure that no third parties are involved. That is an issue for GPs too, of course. <BR /> <BR />GPs have a massive burden: they have to produce all of the medical notes for the person who is going to an appeal. There are weaknesses there. Why can that information not be shared earlier in the process?”
“They have to recycle and relive conditions that they and their family live with daily, usually in the presence of a loved one: a wife, husband, mother, father, son or daughter. They have to go through scenarios about washing and bathing with three strangers and with me, a person in the secretariat and maybe even a person from the Department.”
“Then there is the time delay — the months and months and, over the past number of years, because of COVID, even the years of wait. Some people get no support. Some people get support but wonder whether it will come to an end. That brings its own pressures. Then there is trying to prepare somebody to go before an appeals panel. The vast majority of appeals panels — the chairperson, the medically trained person and the expert on disabilities — are very professional and always do a good job of trying to go through the process allowing as much dignity as possible. However, they are there to do a job, and they have to ask hard questions. I have yet to see a constituent who breezes through an appeal process. On most occasions, it causes grave torment.”
“It has not even adopted its own principles, rules and requirements with regard to assessments and questions.”
“They have so many other aspects to take care of and consider when they go for their assessment. We know the issues with Capita over the past number of years and about how it has utterly failed our constituents in many regards.”
“I believe that this is only a stepping stone. Whilst this is essential legislation, we need to get to the point at which there is a clinician-led approach in that a GP or any specialist doctor who is seeing a constituent is given a wee bit more freedom to inform the system about the person's condition. That is the optimum place to be. I know that we have no time in this mandate, but the Minister, whoever that might be, should look at that in the next mandate. <BR /> <BR />When you look at the process and the work that you have to put in to assist someone in a PIP assessment, you see what they will go through. First, there is the form, which, nine times out of 10, is not filled in right. Why would it be? Those people have so much more on their plate.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. He explains in apt terms the indignity of the process at times. We all see it, because we all live through it with our constituents, whether it is about PIP or ESA, which are the two that I focus on while my staff take care of the other aspects of welfare. I employ a staff member to deal with ESA appeals and form-filling and with ongoing PIP work because, when I am here, I cannot be at an appeal. That is a vital cog in our work. It means so much to people when you get a result.”
“Their families had to suffer. Those people had to fight for support from the state to which they were entitled in the first place. <BR /> <BR />We have a lot of robust rules and laws around our welfare support systems. Of course, I support most of those laws, because they need to be robust. We need to ensure that the people who need help and assistance get it and that the people who tell lies, who do not require it and should not get it, do not.”
“— much more meaningful. On those occasions, you usually end up speaking a lot to not only the principal constituent but their family. You can see the worth in your work. I suppose that one of the reasons why we are all in politics is to make a difference to people's lives, but to do so at the end of someone's life can echo in eternity for the family and the people who are left behind. <BR /> <BR />What we are talking about today, then, is a matter of grave seriousness. Hitherto, we have seen people who could not obtain the form, who could not qualify, but who still realised that they had only months to live. That is not to say six months — who knows for sure? — but nobody could quantify it. No doctor could put their name to that. Those people had to suffer in the knowledge that their life was coming to an end.”
“I support the Bill. My party and I have campaigned for this for many years. Many of my colleagues have tirelessly sought this change in the years up to now. Most notably, our Chief Whip, Joanne Bunting, has done a tremendous amount of work in the field, and I thank her for that work. <BR /> <BR />Of the forms that we see during our constituency work, when people come to us seeking help with form-filling or with chasing welfare entitlements such as PIP or ESA, the DS1500 form is one that we most definitely do not want to see. When we see that form, it has a massive impact not only on us and our staff but principally on the constituent who brought it to us, and on their family. From that day forward, your seeking to help that person represents a different level of constituency work. It becomes finite and crucial, and — dare I say it?”
“With indigenous, minority and lesser-used languages usually comes pride in place and community. What is the Minister doing to promote pride in this small part of the United Kingdom, which itself is a strength of the United Kingdom?”
“In this place of coalition, this champion of democratic openness and accountability and this House of relevant debate and proper, important scrutiny, one person can make, amend and enact, on this very day, regulations. The ironic thing is that that action and the impact of that regulation discriminates against one family member over another, treats them differently and prevents them from entering everyday services. What will the House do? What will the parties that make up the House do in this scenario?”
“Mr Speaker, thank you for reminding this place of its milestone of 1,000 plenary sittings — this bastion of coalition, this champion of democratic openness and accountability. In this House of relevant debate and important, proper scrutiny, it is important that we also mark this day, 29 November 2021, as the day that we see, as I have warned for many months, that one person — one person — can make, amend and enact legislation and regulation. Let those words sink in. Not only that but, during this 1,000th plenary sitting, that person does so without bringing forward any equality impact assessment and with no economic impact assessment and no evidence whatsoever of positive health outcomes.”
“It seems to be the case that healthcare staff will be disadvantaged because of their shift patterns. Does the £500 payment reduce if the Department deems that workers have not worked what it classes as full-time? If that is the case, what does the Minister deem "full-time"?”
“I want to be able to say that the Committee that I sat on did its job diligently, looked through the Bill and collected all the evidence that it could to make this legislation the best that it could be. <BR /> <BR />Are there are gaps in the Bill? Absolutely. Could it do a lot more? Yes, it could. Are we coming to the end of a mandate and struggling for time? Yes. However, we will scrutinise what is in front of us and see whether we can make it better. If we cannot and are happy enough with it, we will pass it through Committee Stage. That is our job and our role. My plea to Ministers is not to impede that work. It is a democratic process, and it needs to be in place.”
“However, that is precisely why we need to take our time and be diligent. We are coming to the end of the mandate, and Bill after Bill is coming before Committees. It is the time when we must be at our most diligent. <BR /> <BR />I support the principles of the Bill at Second Stage. I look forward to it coming to Committee, as will all the other Bills that the Minister, and any private Member for that matter, have brought forward. We will do our job as diligently as we can, and we will do it professionally. We do not need anybody handicapping us or holding us back. When the Bill becomes an Act, we will have to answer to the population on the role that we played in it.”
“The Committee becomes the Opposition. Using the evidence that we are given by outside experts, we can scrutinise every clause. It is, in essence, the model of co-design. It is exactly what we want to push and get to in our deliberations. To produce or invent an expedited stage does away with all that and does great harm to the democratic process of which we are the guardians. <BR /> <BR />Once again, I feel the need to defend the democratic procedures of the House against Ministers who want to change them. This is not the first time, and it is not only this Minister. In fact, this is the first time that I have had to speak about it with this Minister. I understand why the Department and the Minister want to push through as many Bills as possible, including this very important one: we are coming to the end of a mandate.”
“It is not the Executive; it is the House. <BR /> <BR />Why should we not have an expedited Committee Stage? Quite simply, it is because a Committee's work on any Bill is probably one of the most important stages of the democratic process. It is where you have the space and time to be devil's advocate, the space and time to assess evidence and the space and time to collect that evidence. To collect that evidence, you need time. You need time to go out and consult, seek out experts, communicate and gather the evidence that people submit. It then takes time to diligently go through every scrap of evidence that you have collected. <BR /> <BR />That is the duty and role of a Committee. It is even more important — it becomes vital — in an Assembly like ours, where we have an Executive with a mandatory five-party coalition.”
“It frightens me that officials and Departments think that they can do this and think that they can push an Assembly and its Committees into positions that are not necessary, are not procedurally correct and, in some cases, will be dangerous to the democratic process and, by extension, the people out there whom we serve. <BR /> <BR />I put on record that there is no such thing as an expedited Committee Stage that takes 15 days. There is no such thing. It does not exist and, more importantly, should not exist. There is only a Committee Stage or, alternatively, accelerated passage, and whilst I have misgivings about accelerated passage, I know full well that, at times, it is required. When it is required, it is used, but it is the Assembly that decides whether to grant accelerated passage, not any other body, collective or organisation.”
“We should treat it as an asset, as we do with our own assets and our own money, because we are the guardians of public money. It is a very important Bill. <BR /> <BR />If the Bill is very important, it needs to be given the parliamentary respect that the House provides, so I find myself on my feet, not for the first time in this term, having to defend the very good practices and procedures of the House from a Minister who wishes us to do something else. She is not alone in doing that during this term. It strikes fear into me that the Assembly would even contemplate some of the wishes of Ministers and the Executive or the asks that they have made of it over this last term.”
“It also provides for charges securing support for mortgage interest loans to be registrable in the statutory charge register. The second clause deals with the commencement date and the short title of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I agree with Members across the House. When you read the title of the Bill — the Support for Mortgage Interest etc (Security for Loans) Bill — it suggests all sorts of manifestations, yet it does not really produce what it says on the tin. The title of the Bill is slightly misleading in that I do not think that it gives support or succour when it is not there. However, I understand the technicalities around this and why it needs to be done, because, as Members across the House said, we need to be careful with public money and how we protect it.”
“First, I apologise to the House for my voice. I was up last night shouting at Italians, telling them that they were a very ordinary-looking San Marino, so you will forgive me if my voice fails. I am sure that it would bring great comfort to the House if my voice were to fail. <BR /> <BR />The Bill is very short — two clauses — and seems to be technical in nature, and it is fair to say that most people will never be affected by it at all. However, that does not negate the importance and significance of the Bill, and, when I read the advisory notes, it is clear that the Bill contains only two clauses. The first clause allows regulations to impose a charge on the property in respect of which a support for mortgage interest loan is made.”
“Mr Speaker, I assure you and the House that there are many games left in the legs of Steven Davis if he chooses to play on, and every one of the green and white army will support him in that decision. My family and I hope that we will see Steven Davis play football at Windsor Park and anywhere else that Northern Ireland plays for many years yet and many games yet. I encourage Steven to continue. He has the backing of us all. He is the greatest Northern Ireland player of our lifetime and is most certainly one of the greats. We will miss him when he retires — but not yet, Steven.”
“I rise today in appreciation of the greatest Northern Ireland footballer of our generation, who would probably be in any all-time greatest team that Northern Ireland has produced. That is the super player Steven Davis from Cullybackey in my constituency. He has graced our football pitches for many a year, and I have enjoyed him as I have grown older, as have my children. It is a remarkable occasion when we can share in that joy as a family and watch him grace Windsor Park and anywhere else for that matter. <BR /> <BR />I was incentivised to rise to my feet today because there is a rumour going around in our media that Steven Davis is to retire.”
“Given the need to protect and enhance our peatlands for carbon storage, improved water quality, flood mitigation and biodiversity, what steps could Departments take to ensure that those outcomes are achieved?”
“There is no doubt that the money was very slow in getting to the people on the ground who needed it, not least the travel agents. Minister, what discussions are taking place with our sovereign Government in order to reassure travel agents and travellers that they will not be unnecessarily impeded from travelling and leaving these shores?”
“The Health Minister should make a commitment in the House to abandon any plans that he may have to impose mandatory vaccines on workers and certification to discriminate against people that would prevent them using hospitality and services. At the very least, he should publish the evidence that demonstrates the positive health outcomes from both those measures.”