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 40 of 75.
“Passing the Bill would effectively mean that the Assembly has decided that, without asking them, everyone in Northern Ireland wants to donate their organs on death. That is deemed consent. Some people might be fine with that — I respect that view — but I am deeply concerned that we in the House would hold that right. I worry about that. <BR /> <BR />I also worry on the grounds that I do not see the evidence that it works. We have talked about the publicity campaigns in other places, but we can also point to places where, when deemed consent was brought in, organ donations dropped. In some cases, deemed consent was reversed in legislation. We should not ignore those aspects of the debate. No one has talked yet about a downside to deemed consent.”
“I thank the Member for his contribution and his powerful story. He is 100% right: consent is good. However, I have worries about deemed consent. I have outlined some of them with regard to flipping the conversation between organ donation, which is good, and deemed consent, with the confusion and angst to family members it can bring. I worry about that, because I want organ donation to increase. Presumed consent or "deemed consent", as it is labelled in the Bill, is a legislative framework within which all adults living in this jurisdiction, with the exceptions included, will be considered willing organ donors unless they actively opt out by joining a register. That changes the default position.”
“One second, Pat. <BR /> <BR />I believe that the legislation will pass through the Assembly. I hope that I am wrong about it putting people off, but I worry that I am not.”
“I echo the Minister's words about encouraging every person to discuss with their family, in a family setting, in a comfortable place, the issue of organ donation. I fear that, with deemed consent, the conversation could be flipped to become not about organ donation but about deemed consent, and I fear that that could put many people off. I hope that I am wrong.”
“I thank the Minister for that contribution, and, of course, I thank the Member across the way, but I am yet to be convinced that deemed consent is what has produced results across the world, including Wales. You could argue that our publicity around it may not be as good as that in Wales. It is not that the legislation is not as good; it may be just that the way in which it is publicised is what makes the difference. <BR /> <BR />The Minister spoke about the angst of family members having to make decisions about deceased loved ones, and every one of us should be aware of that. I hope that no one will ever be in that position, but we know that, inevitably, we will be. That must be one of the trickiest and most awful decisions in the world.”
“I will in a wee minute, Minister, of course. <BR /> <BR />It was only after a publicity campaign that it worked. I will make this point before I let in the Minister. There seems to be confusion between organ donation, which is good and brilliant, and deemed consent. We talk about the Bill being brilliant when we should be talking about organ donation being brilliant. There is also confusion between the success of deemed consent and the publicity campaigns that can change the culture in a family setting. To me, that is the most important aspect. Once I have given way to the Minister, I will go on to outline why I think that deemed consent can diminish the culture change that we require.”
“I have no problem with trying to clarify that point. The Minister has already said that, when it was introduced in Wales, there was a very slow uptake.”
“I genuinely worry about deemed consent for a number of reasons, one being ethical and another being the fact that I have not seen evidence that it works.”
“<BR /> <BR />I would not be true to myself, however, if I did not share with you, the Members who will make the decision, my concerns about deemed consent. Having heard Members speaking today, I think that there is confusion — I mean that respectfully — between legislation and organ donation. Organ donation is very good and very positive. It is one of the greatest gifts that a human being can bestow on another human being and is to be lauded. It has to be a given, and our population has to be convinced of that. The legislation is about deemed consent, however, and I am yet to be convinced that imposing deemed consent will add to the chances of increasing organ donation. I worry about that. I have grave concerns. I want to see organ donation levels increase. I want to see them rise. I do not want to see anybody die needing an organ.”
“Sorry. It is not often that I am told that I am not heard, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. That is a novel one. <BR /> <BR />Organ donation is precious, brilliant and a gift that we can give. I encourage every person to have the conversation with family members in order to make their beliefs known and placed on record with them. <BR /> <BR />The Assembly's powers have been diminished over the past year. The emergency powers that have been passed have taken away the power, role and remit of the House when it comes to health regulations. I am totally opposed to that continuing, because this should be a place where Members of the legislative Assembly take decisions on the law for our people. I therefore welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill and on every other piece of legislation that we will pass from now until the end of the mandate.”
“I would be the first in any queue or any group to talk about the merits of organ donation; about what it means for people who are able to live out a full life; about what it means to the people who will, in death, gift their organs to people who are not as well off as them; and about what it means to their family members, who have the honour and privilege of knowing that, when they pass, they will provide life for other people. Organ donation is a great gift. It is probably one of the greatest gifts that a person can bestow on another human being. It must be applauded and encouraged. I will add —.”
“Thank you very much for that. <BR /> <BR />I speak on a serious topic that is literally a matter of life and death.”
“Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I will take any compliment that you want to send my way”
“The party opposite that tabled the motion does well to do so, but its Members sit here and lecture the British Government. They have the opportunity to go to Westminster and vote against some of those very measures, and they will not. The Member opposite talks about a united Ireland, but all I hear from Sinn Féin about the Republic of Ireland are utterances about the debacles that go on and the basket case that it is. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot ride two horses and get away with it. Even though you try to be populist in everything that you do, somewhere along the line, the rubber will hit the road and people will see through your populist policies. It is a bit of a straw man argument to propose motions here but not go to Westminster to fight against the measures.”
“I ain't seen anything yet. That disturbs me, because I want to see an effective Assembly and Executive.”
“I have yet to see the party opposite or, for that matter, any other party shift the burden from the working people. They are the very people whom we need to protect. They are the people who will grow the economy and put bread on the table for their young people.”
“The working pensioners who have held low-paid jobs to support their retirement savings will be disadvantaged, and it will place additional costs on employers at a time when the focus should be on recovery and renewal. That is what the Tory Government should look at; that is what we should encourage them to do. We should do everything that we can to endeavour to mitigate the worst excesses of those decisions and to ensure that our working people, their families and the most vulnerable in this society are looked after and protected as best we can. <BR /> <BR />Make no mistake about it: the COVID emergency that we have just come through and the lockdown measures that have been applied by the House have brought pain, and more pain is coming. Pain costs, and, when pain costs, try shifting the onus and burden from working families — just try.”
“I agree with that because the problem with the health and social care levy is not that it tries to find a practical way forward — we need a practical way forward — but that it represents regressive and unfair taxation. It applies a flat rate increase in National Insurance contributions to everyone but ultimately grants the rewards to those who are better off. It benefits those who have the most assets. Those who have more wealth in financial assets, rather than in their main home, will continue to be worse off. The levy will support those who can benefit immediately and will disproportionately hit young people, because state and private pensions will not be counted when calculating it.”
“and the lockdown measures that were implemented by not only the Westminster Government but this House. Those measures hurt businesses and business people. They were able to put their staff on furlough, but, in many cases, they could not obtain any grant funding or support. <BR /> <BR />I also support the aspect of the motion that:”
“It is important that we debate the issues; they are important to our people. Inevitably, when decisions are taken by Governments, especially in what could be termed "emergency sessions", it is the working people and the most vulnerable who pick up the tab and carry the can. The Tory Party has certainly lost the run of itself and can no longer be construed as being conservative in nature. <BR /> <BR />I can support and agree with many aspects of the motion. We need:”
“That statement is published, and it looks ahead at the next 10 years. When one looks back, those statements do not at any time forecast the problems that will be faced by the single electricity market in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in the coming years. If we think that this winter is bad, wait until we see the next winter and the winter after that.”
“The problem is that the independence of our system operator is completely and utterly compromised to the point where it does not act in the best interests of Northern Ireland consumers, because it is owned by Eirgrid, and Eirgrid has carved out the expertise in our system operator. That means that it will not act in the best interests of Northern Ireland consumers when our system is under stress. Inevitably, that will lead to rising issues around security of supply and cost, because security of supply costs us all. <BR /> <BR />I stress to the House that we cannot sit idly by any longer on those issues, which have been going on for 10 years or more. It is due to Eirgrid's incompetence that those problems are now materialising. Every year, Eirgrid produces a generation capacity statement.”
“I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. Members of the Assembly may not know — why would they? — that, over the past week, the single electricity market has experienced a large volume of amber alerts. Such alerts can have a massive impact on any electricity market for a number of reasons. One reason is the security of supply, and another is, inevitably, cost. It is true that, at this time, most electricity markets in Europe are experiencing tension, but none more so than our single electricity market. <BR /> <BR />My problem is that the single electricity market is controlled and organised by the Single Electricity Market Committee, which is made up of the System Operator for Northern Ireland and Eirgrid, the Republic of Ireland's operator.”
“That is deeply concerning for human rights, and the two Ministers involved — the Minister of Health and the Minister for Communities — should come before the House and make a statement on this issue of grave concern to many of my constituents and the wider population of Northern Ireland.”
“In light of that, there is an onus on the Minister of Health and the Minister for Communities to explain the rationale for the allocation of funding to the event and to restate their commitment to treat equally the personal freedoms that we all should enjoy in society, regardless of vaccination status. <BR /> <BR />The Minister for Communities and the Minister of Health should outline the criteria and the communications plan used to award £75,000 of funding to the event. They should also outline for the House and the public the risk assessments that have been undertaken by the Departments when awarding funding and support to the event, considering that anyone who has and is suffering from COVID at the time of the event can attend it and spread the virus, as long as they have been vaccinated.”
“Mr Speaker, you may not know and the House may not know that, for the first time in our history, an event will take place this Friday 17 September in Ormeau Park, Belfast that will refuse entry to people solely on the grounds that they are not vaccinated against COVID. The Department of Health and the Department for Communities are funding and supporting the event with public money of £75,000. <BR /> <BR />Deep concern, which I share, has been expressed to me about the human rights implications of the stipulation that tickets for the free event are available only to those who have had a vaccination. There are real fears that that represents active discrimination against those who are unable or unwilling to receive the vaccine due to age, medical exemptions or reasons of conscience.”
“Thank you very much, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the House and the Economy Committee for their support for the statutory rule. Without further ado, I commend the motion to the House.”
“The aim is to prevent action being taken by creditors to wind up those companies before they have had a chance to regain their solvency by trading for a reasonable period. To ensure that Northern Ireland companies benefit from the same easements and are not at a disadvantage compared with their GB counterparts, the same modifications to Northern Ireland's insolvency legislation are being extended until 30 September 2021. <BR /> <BR />That is the purpose of the regulations, and I now ask the Assembly to approve them. The regulations have been agreed by the Economy Committee, and the Executive were advised prior to the debate. <BR /> <BR />I ask the Assembly to approve the regulations.”
“The second is a prohibition on the presentation of winding-up petitions by creditors and the making of winding-up orders where coronavirus has had an effect on the company's finances. Those two measures, which were due to expire on 30 June 2021, are to be kept in place until 30 September 2021. That is being done with the aim of providing further support to companies in sectors such as hospitality and non-essential retail, which have been most severely impacted on by the restrictions imposed to curb the spread of coronavirus.”
“In accordance with that principle, each time a measure was extended at Westminster, regulations to extend the corresponding temporary modifications for Northern Ireland were brought to the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />With the gradual opening up of the economy across the United Kingdom, the need for the temporary easements has reduced. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has advised that just two of the temporary modifications to insolvency legislation that apply in Great Britain are to be further extended for what is expected to be a final time. The first is a prohibition on the presentation of petitions to have companies wound up where the statutory demand is served during the relevant period.”
“As we know, however, the pandemic and the restrictions imposed as a result have had a deeper and longer-lasting impact on society and the economy than was originally envisaged. That led to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) making a series of extensions to the temporary modifications as they apply in Great Britain. <BR /> <BR />One of the key principles behind making the Act was that the modifications that it made to insolvency legislation should apply equally throughout the United Kingdom. That was done to ensure a level playing field so that companies in all parts of the United Kingdom would benefit from the same support and assistance and so that none would be at a disadvantage.”
“I seek the Assembly's approval of a statutory rule (SR) that has been made under powers contained in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020. The Act came into law at Westminster on 25 June 2020 and includes permanent amendments and temporary modifications to insolvency legislation as it applies in Great Britain. Corresponding amendments and modifications to Northern Ireland's insolvency legislation were included in the Act under a legislative consent motion that was passed by the Assembly. The temporary modifications were made to assist companies that were adversely affected by the measures taken to prevent the spread of coronavirus. They were to be applied during what was termed "the relevant period". The Act originally provided for all those measures to expire on 30 September 2020.”
“Without further ado, I commend the motion to the Assembly, and I thank Members for their support.”
“I thank the Committee's Deputy Chairperson, for her very helpful comments and her support for the motion. She commented on the necessity for it. I also thank my colleagues on the Executive and, of course, the Committee more widely for considering the matter in such a timely manner. That allowed the motion to be debated today. The speed with which the matter has come has not been lost on me, and the impact of the need for that speed on not having time to consult properly has rightly been pointed out by the Deputy Chairperson. That consultation is very important to me, and, if it could have been done in any other way, I certainly would have liked that. I take on board the wider issues that the Member raised, and I give her the commitment that I will look into enforcement and into how that will work in reality.”
“The powers need to exist to discourage the use of dissolution as a way of fraudulently avoiding repayment of government-backed loans given to businesses to support them during the coronavirus pandemic. <BR /> <BR />It would take a minimum of 12 to 18 months to bring in corresponding provision for Northern Ireland by an Assembly Act. It would therefore not be feasible to do so during what remains of the current mandate. That is why I seek the Assembly's consent for provisions for Northern Ireland to be included in the Westminster Bill. I commend the motion to the Assembly.”
“However, there is an urgency that necessitates the amendments being dealt with by Westminster legislation rather than by an Assembly Bill. The amendments need to be in place in Northern Ireland at the same time as in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is because they form a key element of the UK Government's initiative to tackle fraud in connection with loan and grant schemes set up to assist companies during the pandemic. <BR /> <BR />The investigation and enforcement powers bestowed by the Bill are intended to be used where company directors have been party to the making of fraudulent claims under those schemes and have attempted to conceal their actions by applying to have their companies dissolved.”
“The amendments will ensure that directors of companies that have been dissolved without having been through insolvency proceedings are subject to the same regime as directors of companies that have been through such proceedings. It will ensure that directors can no longer use dissolution to evade their corporate responsibilities or escape liability for compensating creditors for losses that they have suffered. <BR /> <BR />My Department's policy and practice has always been to keep director disqualification legislation in Northern Ireland in parity with that which applies in the rest of the United Kingdom. Corresponding changes to the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 therefore need to be made. Clause 3 makes those changes. <BR /> <BR />Normally, such amendments would be taken through our Assembly process.”
“A company can be dissolved by the simple expedient of applying to have it struck off the register of companies. It can be struck off without having been subject to insolvency proceedings. No legislative provision in GB or Northern Ireland currently permits the conduct of directors of dissolved companies to be investigated or disqualification action to be taken. Before an investigation can take place, a company has to be restored to the register, which is a complex and time-consuming process that involves an application to the High Court at public expense. <BR /> <BR />In order to close that gap, clause 2 amends the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 that applies in GB.”
“However, if a company does not pay its debts, that in turn may have serious consequences for creditors, who may also face financial difficulty and insolvency. Therefore, there is a need to ensure that limitation of liability is not abused by individuals who set up companies and allow them to accumulate debt that goes unpaid. <BR /> <BR />Under the law as it stands, the conduct of directors of live companies and those that are subject to insolvency proceedings can be investigated. Under company director disqualification legislation, if evidence of misconduct is found, directors can be disqualified for a period of between two and15 years. Directors who have been disqualified can also be required to pay compensation if their conduct has caused loss to creditors of a company that has become insolvent. There is a gap, however.”
“The Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill was introduced in Parliament on 12 May 2021 by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. Clause 2 of the Bill amends the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, which applies to England, Scotland and Wales. <BR /> <BR />Entrepreneurship drives economic growth. Setting up in business on your own account can bring rich rewards, but there is a risk. If your business gets into financial difficulty, you will be personally liable for its debts. If you cannot pay those debts, you could end up being made bankrupt, which could mean that you lose all your personal assets, including your family home. Therefore, limiting your liability by trading through a limited company can be a safer option.”
“Officials sought legal advice on the potential legislative barriers to expanding the payment to Northern Ireland students studying elsewhere, which are in addition to the operational, practical hurdles in place, and have submitted full briefing to me to allow me to respond in detail to the Economy Committee in the first instance. I will assess that, as I am assessing all aspects of the Department, in the coming days and weeks.”
“I thank the Member for his question, which is very important. The Economy Committee and a number of other MLAs wrote to former Minister Dodds, following the recent Assembly motion, requesting an update on whether she intended to expand the COVID disruption payment scheme to further education students, part-time students and Northern Ireland-domiciled students studying in the UK and Republic of Ireland. Minister Dodds previously set out the policy rationale for not including FE students or part-time students in the scheme.”
“I will be keen to promote flexible and blended systems of working into the future, to ensure a good work-life balance but also to increase productivity.”
“I thank the Member for his question. Yes. We need to make sure that that utility — that is what it has become — is rolled out to as many people as it can be, so that they can enjoy the facilities that people enjoy in other parts of the country, with the advantages that a good broadband connection can bring to a household, not least for businesses, while people stay at home to work, but also for homework and young people, who, let us face it, could probably buy and sell us on the internet. They are more expert than anyone — certainly, I suspect, more than anyone here. It is good that we will be able to get as many people as possible hooked up to decent broadband as quickly as we can. For some people and some communities, it could be a game changer between working at home and having to travel to work.”
“That will always come with a caveat about the business case, but, if addresses are being knocked off the scheme, it is not the scheme that we thought that it was. We will need to look at that carefully to see exactly what has gone awry in that area.”
“I thank the Member for his question. First and foremost, we must appreciate the level of roll-out and support that the broadband scheme will deliver. It should be noted that it was my party, through confidence and supply, that got Project Stratum off the ground. The continuing roll-out of the programme is a good news story for Northern Ireland. I understand that there will be teething problems and that there may be other, bigger problems as the roll-out continues. I give the Member a commitment that I will meet whomever he wishes me to meet. If he writes to me to request a meeting, I will certainly consider that. If there are any gaps in provision in the area that he represents, I will be only too happy to see what we can do to roll out a more comprehensive scheme.”
“I thank the Member for his supplementary question. The practice of dismissal and re-engagement — fire and rehire — has received widespread attention during the COVID pandemic, particularly in GB. A number of big businesses have been named in media reports. In January this year, the TUC published research that suggested that as many as one in 10 workers had been told, during lockdown last year, to reapply for their job on worse terms and conditions or face the sack. That is unacceptable, when we know the scale of the support that the Government have given to businesses over the last year. There is no excuse for that, so I am totally in sympathy. I want to get the situation resolved, so that workers who are in a vulnerable position in that regard get the employment protections and safeguards that they deserve.”
“The two-year threshold for longevity of employment was rarely met. It is therefore important that we get this right and that workers be afforded the opportunities that they need to bring stability to their employment, because that will affect other things, such as a mortgage and everything that goes with that.”
“Even in those circumstances, employers must follow a statutory minimum dismissal procedure. They may have to follow a collective redundancy consultation process if a group of employees is involved. <BR /> <BR />That having been said, I am conscious that potential measures to address the worst excesses of fire and rehire, including legislation, must be carefully considered to ensure that there are no unintended consequences, particularly where measures could lead to more redundancies. My officials will continue to liaise with their counterparts in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) on the matter. <BR /> <BR />This is not a new thing. I remember the practice being in play when I was in the electrical trade in the early 1990s. It meant that people did not build up rights while working for the same company.”
“I thank the Member for his question. I make it absolutely clear that fire and rehire should not be used as a negotiation tactic. Using fire and rehire as a tactic to put undue pressure on workers to accept new and often worse terms and conditions or face losing their job is totally unacceptable. The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) published a report on the practice of dismissal and re-engagement, known as "fire and rehire", on 8 June 2021. The views expressed in that report are wide-ranging. For some, it is never acceptable, while, for others, in its most legitimate form, fire and rehire allows employers to avoid redundancies and business failure after negotiations have been exhausted. I warn employers that dismissal and rehire should be used only where there is a risk to their business.”