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 38 of 75.
“Yes, I will give way to the Minister one more time.”
“No, I will proceed with my contribution. All I am asking for is that democratic norms in this place be afforded so that we, as MLAs, can speak on issues that are important to our people and that we get the chance to speak on them before they come into operation and place a burden on our people and have an impact on them. That is simply what I ask. I hope that the Minister can respond to the questions that I have.”
“I take that point, and the Member is absolutely right. However, what we are talking about today is regulations on our community. All that I am doing is simply asking questions of those regulations and raising issues around errors that have taken place.”
“I thank him for his contribution, but I find it strange when he knows that, throughout the world, lockdown measures have been disputed. As the Chair of the Committee has already said, very little evidence has been produced as to their effectiveness and the damage that they have caused to our population. Again, today, the Chairperson of the Committee alluded to the fact that it is seeking evidence that it has not received.”
“Three years ago, we would never have had a debate like this in the House. These are extraordinary times.”
“I would like the Minister to give me some answers, because he has uttered his views around mandatory vaccines and vaccine certification to discriminate against people who are not vaccinated. Will the Minister tell the House today that, if he is minded to bring these measures in, he will bring them to the House first in order that we can debate them in a proper democratic fashion? I simply ask that the democratic standards of this country be upheld when we are talking about these issues. That has not been the case for 18 months. I hope that the Minister can give us some responses to that. <BR /> <BR />These regulations have been designed for a reason, and I accept that, but they have also done damage in some respects, not least to our young people. We have seen the banning of sport and of congregating with families.”
“When you look at the regulations that we are not debating today but which have already been enacted, they do not mention churches. They mention concert halls and theatres — I think that there is a third aspect — and then "all such buildings", but they do not specify churches, church buildings or church halls. That begs the question from the Member for North Antrim, which was the same question that I was going to ask. I am sure that every single Member here has the same concerns and questions to raise. I am simply asking that the House be allowed to get back to normal.”
“There have been errors throughout this draconian legislation and in the police action taken as a result of it. I could tell you many a story about the police preventing people from running to the aid of elderly family members. They were denied access and told to turn their car around on the road. That was contrary to the regulations, but that is what the police enacted. Someone was prevented from bringing hot food to an elderly family member. That was not allowed under the legislation, so the police were obviously wrong. The speed at which the regulations have been made and, sometimes, the way in which they have been written cause concern. <BR /> <BR />The Member for North Antrim asked a question that I was going to ask today about wearing masks and distancing in places of worship.”
“<BR /> <BR />Having a debate about it in the House after the event, after something has been lessened, released or enacted, is a bit of a sham. That is why a lot of Members will not take part. They ask, "What is the point of raising these issues?". I have taken the opportunity today to ask the Minister that question, and, in his response, hopefully, he can indicate when we can get back to normal in the House. People out there want to get back to normal. They want to see things get back to normal, but they have been prevented from doing that. <BR /> <BR />Another reason why the legislation should be passed in the House is the errors that have been made. The Minister has already alluded to an error with regard to something that he had to enact today.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. COVID has not gone away and will not go away. Is the Member suggesting that we work under the regulations in perpetuity? To me, that is undemocratic and unjust. All that I ask of the Minister is that he indicates in his remarks when he intends to bring further regulations to the House. It has been OK, because the last number of debates on the regulations have been about releasing lockdown measures, but there may come a time when the Minister is urged or advised to go the other way. Given the harm, pain and damage caused by lockdown measures and other aspects, which we cannot yet quantify, I simply ask the Minister to set a date for when he will come to the House to change the law in the appropriate, democratic and normal way, which every one of us in the House has been elected to do.”
“I will make progress, Minister, and then I will give way to you and to my friend. <BR /> <BR />I suspect that, if you do the numbers, you will find that he has the support in the House. Sinn Féin intimated even yesterday that it would support anything that you bring forward. The SDLP and the Alliance Party are also of that ilk; in fact, they would probably want to go further than you do in some aspects of the law and the regulations. I simply ask this question: when will the House be afforded its due respect and be allowed to pass legislation that you, as a Minister, introduce? <BR /> <BR />I will give way to my friend.”
“I will give way in a wee minute. I will try to make some advancement of my case. <BR /> <BR />It was important that decisions were taken quickly. That is fair enough. That is good and proper. However, there has to come a point — does there not? — when Ministers, even the Health Minister with all the power that he has through emergency legislation, use the House. I do not know why he would be worried or frightened about that, and he certainly should have the time to do it. We have already heard —”
“I thank the Deputy Speaker for his ruling. I will move on, but, again, the Minister has told us in the House today who drafts the regulations. I take on board everything that he has said and everything that you have said, Mr Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />When the Minister first received these powers, there was an emergency. He did not know the level of threat, and people were scared, so it was right and proper —.”
“I simply ask that you bring them to the House before you enact any further regulations. I will give way.”
“— and the fact that you choose to bring them to the Executive is something that you do, and you are entitled to do so.”
“I thank the Minister for his intervention. Interventions are meant to be short, but I grant there was a lot of information there. <BR /> <BR />Health Minister, they are your regulations. Your officials draft them. You told the House that in the last minute. They are your regulations —”
“I thank the Minister for his intervention. Yes, I agree. It is wrong for anyone to use language that intimates that there should be an attack on any individual, whether they are a public or elected representative or otherwise. It should not take place. I condemn all threats to the Health Minister. <BR /> <BR />The debates, though, cannot continue as they are, with us debating issues and aspects of draconian regulations that have already been enacted. We need to get back to a democratic standard whereby the Health Minister brings his health regulations to the Assembly in order that they may be passed. There is absolutely no doubt that, at the start of the emergency, the Health Minister needed emergency powers. He needed to act quickly, simply because he did not know the threat, and he did not know —.”
“I do not usually take part in the health regulations debates, simply because of the undemocratic way in which they are held and the fact that the regulations and statutory rules are already in operation. <BR /> <BR />Let me say first of all that I condemn any threats to the Health Minister. It is wrong — absolutely wrong — to threaten any public representative, no matter what party or hue they come from, what policy they espouse or their political spectrum or belief. It is totally wrong to threaten any —.”
“I thank the Minister for his fulsome answer. He is, of course, no stranger to north Antrim and its industries, not least Wrightbus and its work on the hydrogen hub. How can the Minister ensure that his Department can tap into industry so that we can fulfil our dreams and obligations around hydrogen?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does she agree that simply doing what the Member opposite suggested — salami slicing money from other Departments' budgets to make up the shortfall — would not cut it, because that would not tackle the root cause, which is poverty? Rather, we would just be supplementing a policy that has been delivered by the Tories.”
“A lot of those people started up their own businesses in photography and other things. They got it hard for the first couple of years and could not make a lot of money. Then, when their work was stopped and their businesses were in jeopardy, they could not apply, or, if they could, because they had not earned so much in the years before, they received very little support from the Executive and the Minister. <BR /> <BR />If we are going to talk about poverty, let us talk about it in a real way. Let us try to do something. I talked last week about the Executive and the Assembly. We need an era of decisionism like never before. We can debate motions all day long, but what about action? Let us see action. When we sit on these Benches, let us try to benefit the people who need us most. At the minute, all that I see is failure.”
“If we talk about poverty, we look at failure. The Minister and the party opposite, which tabled the motion, have impacted on our businesses by imposing regulations on them that have not been explained and have not been evidenced to work. That has impacted on businesses. <BR /> <BR />I represent North Antrim, where many lost their jobs when the JTI and Michelin factories closed.”
“Thank you very much. Of course, I will abide by your ruling on that. <BR /> <BR />Let us look at the Minister's track record on poverty. Let us look at the fact that feet have been dragged on delivering the review of welfare reform mitigations. Let us look at the failed attempt to provide more staff to process rising numbers of welfare claims during the pandemic. Let us look at the fact that we have had a cut in advice services for the most vulnerable. There is the unacceptable delay in the launch of the Job Start scheme to support those aged between 16 and 24 who are unemployed, the dithering on extending provisions in social security benefits for the terminally ill and the absolute and repeated failure on the personal independence payment (PIP). All those add up to poverty, which is what we should be talking about today.”
“They are the ones who are removing the £20 uplift. <BR /> <BR />The very essence of devolution and the reason we are all in the Chamber is to make a difference to people's lives, but, in most cases, Ministers have failed. Yet, we have one Member from across the way who even wanted to talk more about the £100 cards for the high street voucher scheme. Whatever we say about a scheme that gives £100 to every adult, it puts money into the hands of people who will go out and spend on the high street, supporting our high streets. That can become a circular event of support, money and finance. You cannot, on the one hand, criticise the Tories for taking £20 from the poorest and, on the other, criticise an Economy Minister who is putting £100 into their hands. That just does not make sense. It is perverse.”
“I rise to speak on this very important motion for I realise the impact that universal credit has on our population, not least on people on very low incomes, people struggling to find work and those people's families. I also recognise what the £20 uplift did to instil a wee bit of breathing space and even confidence to get people by in some of the worst times in our recent history. <BR /> <BR />I listen to people speak in the Chamber, however, and it is as if they will talk about nearly anything except the matter at hand, which is poverty. They blame the Tories. Really? Look at the amount of subvention we have received from the Government over the last number of years to assist with furlough and to assist businesses. There is all that money, yet they still attack them. Do not get me wrong: the Tories are easy prey.”
“Does that mean that support would stop for every applicant to the scheme, or would it apply to new applicants to the scheme?”
“I understand why you want to put an escape clause into the enabling legislation that forces the Minister to put in a scheme, but can you give us any rationale, or examples, of "harmful consequences", or any other reasons for that matter, that would allow that escape clause to be utilised?”
“Thank you for giving way. I am grateful to the Member for giving way on a number of occasions to other Members, because it adds to the debate. On that point about governance, you put into your Bill an escape clause, which is clause 4, "Suspension and revocation" of the incentive scheme that you want the Minister to enable. However, in order to revoke that scheme, or invoke that clause, the Department has to prove that:”
“That has the ability to pervert the system as we know it.”
“I thank the Member for giving way on that point. I listened to my honourable friend Steve Aiken talk about integration. The problem with that, as I see it, is that the whole incentive scheme is arranged through a priced tariff. A tariff works only if you export electricity to the grid. I do not see how that would work if you are storing electricity, even in a domestic setting. I do not see how that would work even if you are using the electricity in a domestic setting and not transporting it to the grid. Realistically, therefore, you may have the perverse situation whereby anyone who is looking to get a minimum price tariff will export all the energy that they generate to the grid — why would you not? — but still incur a massive cost through tariffs as they spend on energy for their domestic setting.”
“The Member raises a very valid point about the mixture of gas and wind. If the wind is blowing, everything is fine, but, when the wind stops blowing or if it is intermittent, which is even worse, it is very hard to crank up a gas unit, even a peaker unit. Even if you do achieve it in a fast time, that has a massive impact on the life of the unit.”
“We need transparency. We need SONI to look after Northern Ireland consumers. Time and again, over many years, it has failed to do that. I have had enough of it and, to be fair, so has the Utility Regulator. That is why it has published a report with the findings of its investigation into SONI's governance and the ownership of EirGrid. I hope that that will move at pace very soon so that Northern Ireland consumers can get the system operator that they deserve.”
“At the same time, our energy costs have increased because of gas prices, which is part of the mix problem in Northern Ireland and, in fact, in the island of Ireland. Today, practically, we have only air and gas. That is our mix. <BR /> <BR />We need to think outside the box. Does the Bill do that? No, unfortunately, it does not. It might, however, if it were to go to Committee Stage. It might be possible to repair and amend it to the point of doing something meaningful. At the minute, it does not do anything meaningful. <BR /> <BR />All of it adds regulation and cost. I plead with the House to consider giving additional powers and support to the office of the Utility Regulator, which is being hammered by the system operator, EirGrid, about governance. We will need proper governance of our markets to be able to get through this.”
“I agree with the point about interconnection. Interconnection is a good thing. It costs, and there is an upfront cost, but interconnection is a good thing, because it adds flexibility to a system that is quite rigid in island nations such as Ireland and GB compared with Europe and Scandinavia. Those are all good things. Interconnection is good, but we must bear in mind that, if the energy mix is not appropriate on our land, interconnection will cost. You and the consumers would be frightened to know how much EirGrid has paid the GB market over the past three weeks for its energy, when EirGrid has not got its mix right in the I-SEM. That costs us all. <BR /> <BR />Where does that cost fall? It is not EirGrid paying the GB market: we, the bill payers, pay for that energy. Ultimately, that is where the cost falls.”
“Surely there is nobody in the Chamber who does not realise the perilous position that the integrated single electricity market (I-SEM) was in over the past three weeks, when the wind stopped blowing. We are in a more precarious position than most of Europe. Why? First, we are small, and, secondly, our mix is not appropriate for alerts like that.”
“Germany does that too, by the way. Strictly speaking, that practice is illegal, and they are queued up to go before the European Court. They will never see the inside of the courtroom. There are massive issues around all that. <BR /> <BR />What about the current price controls? Will that skew the network and transmission price controls? How will the scheme work when people switch providers? Will the scheme add a layer of bureaucracy that will disincentivise domestic customers from switching providers? We should worry about that, because we need more switching in the retail market. It is not happening, and, when it does not happen, people pay more for their electricity. <BR /> <BR />While having and meeting renewable energy targets is a good thing, it is costing us, as I said. It also causes the system to be fragile.”
“At the minute, we have a price review mechanism that heavily involves the transmission grids, the network grids and the Utility Regulator, and they basically barter to agree a price and a forward work programme. If the Bill sponsor sets a target for 2025 and moves on from there, how does that skew the forward work programme? Those are all serious questions that need to be asked about the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Costs will inevitably fall on the bill payer. I talked about the difference in tariffs between the two elements of the single electricity market — Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland — and how those two jurisdictions have different network charges, costs and frameworks. We charge our businesses more heavily, whereas the Republic of Ireland basically subsidises its businesses with its domestic customers.”
“There are grave dangers associated with any incentive scheme that tries to incentivise what we have been very successful in doing up to this point. Before you consider any other questions around incentive schemes, the principal questions that must be asked are these: why is there a need, and where is the need? What costs will there be? The Bill sponsor talks about administrative costs, and I want to know what that means. Is that an administrative cost to the Department, to the regulator or to any other body, whether that is SONI, EirGrid, NIE, Power NI or any other provider? Where does that £1 million per annum fall? What about the costs of any network reinforcements that will be required if the scheme is highly successful? Who will pay for that?”
“That is inevitable; it is as natural as the law of physics.”
“What evidence is there for that claim? Amber Rudd of the Conservative Party closed down the ROC scheme in GB a year early. That was a manifesto commitment, and I was surprised that she did it, but she did. Mr Deputy Speaker, you know all about this. If we had continued the Northern Ireland ROC scheme for that further year, our businesses and bill payers would have been burdened with in the region of — this is a wide estimate, and I will tell you why — between £600 million and £900 million over 25 years. Using mental arithmetic, that works out at £24 million a year to keep a scheme open for one year — one year — and any successful applicant would have to be paid for 25 years. That burden fell exclusively on the bill payer. The Bill would not do that, and I accept that. In the energy world, however, the cost falls to the bill payer.”
“We have not been getting it right, and the Bill does not get it right. <BR /> <BR />There are so many other issues. The Bill sponsor claims:”
“<BR /> <BR />On the cost of an incentive scheme, the Bill sponsor can say all he likes about it going to the electricity providers, but the market in this jurisdiction is set up so that most costs fall — they always do — on business and not necessarily on domestic customers. In the Republic of Ireland, it is the other way about. If a Bill like this were to be enacted down South, Sinn Féin could be hurting the most vulnerable, namely families in a domestic setting, the most. Here, if the incentive scheme is not correct and fair, it will impact most on business, which will have an impact on jobs. We have seen that in my constituency. We lost JTI Gallaher and Michelin, both of which cited energy costs as being either the top reason or one of the top five reasons for leaving. More companies have left. We have to get this right.”
“What happens if, a year later, a rival company or neighbour builds a house beside you? They will pay for their connection to the new grid that you paid for. There is something inherently unfair about how we charge for grid connection. Set aside the cost, which is astronomical; it is the unfairness of the system. A new company could come into Northern Ireland from afar, plant itself in a green field and have to pay exorbitant prices. The next year, a rival company selling the same wares comes in, plant itself in the field beside it and pays a fraction of the cost. We should be aware of such things, which are inherently unfair, and we should tackle them, yet we do not. The burden is on business every time. We could rectify that.”
“Radio broadcasters play creepy music simply because people happened to avail themselves of an incentive scheme. That is not where we want to be and not where we should be. It is completely untrue. <BR /> <BR />What about connection costs? You decide that you want to install a generator to generate electricity, whether that is through a solar farm, one or more wind turbines or something else — biomass or whatever. You have to ask for a grid connection because, as my colleague stated, your current connection will not work, so you need an upgrade. Alternatively, you want to build a completely new outlet somewhere — a new business — and want to avail yourself of an incentive scheme. You will apply for a grid connection. If you are out in a green field with no grid near you, you will pay for the whole grid.”
“It did not go to the domestic property owners or the most vulnerable in society; rather, it went into a big collegiate pot and probably ended up on the other side of the world. That is the truth of it. Those are issues that we have to be mindful of and careful about when we talk about any future incentive scheme. <BR /> <BR />What about connection costs? Take, for instance, people who decide that they want to partake in the scheme. They think that it is a good scheme and say, "I want a piece of that". Why would they not? I know that some people who have participated in incentive schemes in the past have been treated as if they were criminal elements, just because they applied for an incentive scheme. That is completely unfair, untrue and unwarranted.”
“There is no doubt that the ROC scheme produced an industry — I call it "rent of roof" — where people come and say, "We can install solar panels for you. We'll do it at a very low cost to you, and there'll be no burden on you. We'll just stick them on to your roof. We'll even rent the roof off you. We'll give you money". The condition of the roof means that householders are sometimes in complicated territory. Do they have rights on their own roof? What about if they sell their property? There are issues there. An incentive scheme can be all well and good and exist for all the right reasons, but it can skew things and create industries that are not always good for our people. Of course, the ROC payment went straight into the hands of the bigger providers.”
“Is that timescale realistic? How far away are we from that target? Does it mean that each provider must be at 5%, or can one provider have less or more? Those are questions that we need answered. What about demand-side units (DSUs)? Where do they come in? How are demand-side units affected when the generation of renewable power is incentivised but the flip side, which is the demand side, is neglected? That is another question. <BR /> <BR />In the past, we had the best of intentions and produced the ROC scheme — the renewables obligation certificates. We have already talked about how that changes and has the potential to create new industries, which are not always good, in that the householder could be disadvantaged.”
“Again, we start to go into the world of regulation, where we could end up having an anti-competitive edge or stopping or hindering more providers from coming here. Northern Ireland currently has six providers. You are either putting pressure and more regulation onto a number of those providers or starting to twist and tweak the market itself. You do not want to dabble there, when there are already so many problems in the market. <BR /> <BR />Clause 1 requires the scheme regulations:”
“The Bill says, "Minister, you must do this. You must design it. You must shape it". The reality could be that the Bill sponsor will not like the microgeneration scheme that a Minister, whoever it might be, produces. Where does that leave the Bill sponsor? You could argue that he should have added more detail and more of his thought process and stamped more of his authority on his Bill. We can all say that we want more renewable generation and we want more people to do it at a more micro level — absolutely — but how do we get there? The Bill does not tell us how we get there. It just tells us that the Minister must do something. <BR /> <BR />Another policy objective is:”
“The domestic and all-powerful companies that generate megawatt after megawatt after megawatt are very different. <BR /> <BR />The Bill also puts an onus on the Minister for the Economy:”