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 48 of 75.
“He was, of course, referring to the Finance Minister. <BR /> <BR />That is one of the reasons why we need reform. We need reform of spads and how they conducted their business and daily lives. We are not all innocent here. I have alluded to and spoken directly about the past sins of individuals in my party and how they conducted themselves. I am voting positively for change and for the Bill, but it is a sign and acknowledgement for me that there are parties in the House that will not recognise those faults, the past or the activities of their Members and employees. It is that lack of recognition that warns me that we have a long way to go and a mighty long road to travel before I can sleep securely in my bed knowing that the democratic principles of the country and the Province are safe with the people who sit within them.”
“That is very clear, and there is a reason why that clause is in here. The Bill's sponsor has spoken about it many times, but so have the permanent secretaries. The most senior civil servant in the Finance Department at that time, Mr David Sterling, believed that the then Finance Minister may have been acting under instruction. The RHI inquiry brought to light many emails and text messages that showed that the previous Finance Minister was in constant contact with veteran republicans outside of the elected Assembly. In fact, on 21 January 2017, David Sterling sent a text message to his colleague and fellow permanent secretary Andrew McCormick saying:”
“Clause 1(6) deals with section 8A(1) and the issue that:”
“The Bill that we are debating, Mr Speaker, is very clear. Clause 1 is a mighty, in-depth clause. It contains a number of things and instruments.”
“Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I will adhere to your ruling on the Bill. <BR /> <BR />George Orwell said:”
“<BR /> <BR />When my party looks at Bills and reform like this, it will always look at good governance, efficiency and effectiveness. However, unfortunately, we will always look to the party opposite us, its past and where it has come from. Whilst it is good that it has travelled so far, all indications state — even police evidence states — that it is still linked to an IRA army council that still controls it. We have to consider and be cognisant of that fact. We cannot ignore that. If you ignore that, we are in a very bad place. We need as many checks and balances as possible to ensure that the democratic process that we are involved in is efficient, effective and safe for our people. I believe that is why some of those clauses are in the Bill.”
“It is vital that we keep an eye on how government functions affect the lives of every one of our people. It does not matter where you sit on the political spectrum or the constitutional position, we all want to make sure we have good, efficient, effective government that does not encroach too much on our peoples' lives. Therefore, this is a small step in that direction. <BR /> <BR />Even if government was quite ambivalent and mundane and all about laws and taxes, we would still need reform. Unfortunately, given our tortured history and where we have travelled from, it is vital that we have more checks and balances than any other place — any other normal place, if you like — in our society, the world, this country of the United Kingdom and, indeed, Western Europe.”
“It is vital to ensure that our Government, the Executive, do not encroach on the lives of our people to their detriment. Ronald Regan also quipped:”
“We need oversight of a greater piece of reform that, I hope, the Executive will bring forward. The reform was committed to, it was promised to us, and we look forward to seeing it. It is about reform, and, we, in the House, must use every avenue available to make government better. Even if you think that we have the best government structures in the world, we still have to strive to improve it. Ronald Regan said:”
“They may not necessarily have the right to vote, but they should have a presence and be allowed to attend and ask questions. That would create a much healthier dialogue and process, and, of course, we are all here to improve the process. <BR /> <BR />As Deputy Chairman of the Finance Committee, I thank its staff and members, as well as the Bill Office staff, who have been very helpful. I thank the staff of the Assembly and the Speaker's Office for their conduct in the passage of the Bill. It has been very good. <BR /> <BR />Why do we need reform? Of course, this is a very particular piece of reform. It is not a massive wide-ranging piece but is very particular in what it does.”
“The Committee on Procedures should look at that very carefully, because it is an important point. Having the Bill's sponsor on the Committee adds something to the Bill's sponsor, but it also gives a greater awareness to the Committee of the questions that we may ask officials and the answers that they provide. Having the Bill's sponsor, who has known the Bill inside out from the get-go, asking pertinent questions of witnesses — departmental officials, outside bodies or vested interests — and hearing their responses was very informative in shaping dialogue, questions and commentary throughout the process. <BR /> <BR />The Assembly should look at allowing a Bill's sponsor a place, even if it is in an ad hoc fashion, on Committees to ask questions.”
“I will, but I do not want to leave yet what I am saying about the Bill's sponsor. It is a bit unnerving when you hear the Bill's sponsor talk in very conciliatory terms. That was welcome, and I commend his workmanlike approach, his respect for all members of the Committee, and, indeed, his respect for all Members of the House as his Bill has progressed through its stages. Sometimes, Members have been more focused on the Bill's sponsor than on the Bill, and that is regrettable. We are now at the end of the process and look forward to the Bill, hopefully, passing today and becoming law. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Bill's sponsor. I have enjoyed working with him and all the members of the Committee in scrutinising the Bill. It was very useful to have the Bill's sponsor on the Committee.”
“I support the process that the Bill has seen; it has been through the democratic wringer. I commend that process and the democratic accountability that makes a Bill as fit for purpose as possible. <BR /> <BR />I also thank the Bill's sponsor for introducing the Bill. It is a healthy sign that Members, whether as part of their party or independents or simply as private Members, can introduce a Bill and can do so with the support of the Bill Office, Assembly staff and the Speaker's Office. It is up to us to vote on it and to support it or not. That is democracy. I welcome that system.”
“I thank the Minister for her answer. While I agree that interconnection, in general, is very good because it adds flexibility, it can also cause issues, especially in our environment, where EirGrid owns the System Operator for Northern Ireland (SONI) and is quite aggressive on governance issues. In 2013, the no load loss sharing (NLLS) policy was changed without any consultation with or explicit approval by the Utility Regulator or the Department. It was reduced to only 100 megawatts, which means that, in stress or alert positions of low capacity, where both jurisdictions will struggle, the Republic of Ireland will struggle more because of data centres, but they can then suck power from Northern Ireland, leaving us very vulnerable. Will the Minister undertake to investigate that matter?”
“Given what the deputy First Minister has just outlined and the tremendous roll-out of vaccines in Northern Ireland compared with that of the Republic of Ireland, with its torturous delays in vaccinations for its citizens, does she agree that the Irish authorities should look towards the UK for support in that regard rather than to the EU, which has let them down quite badly?”
“A total of £430 million is unallocated, and £346 million of that is resource. The Health Minister alone, with all the Department's pressures and waiting lists, has returned £90 million. What explanation goes from the House and the Finance Minister to the plethora of people who have been deprived of earning a living to provide for their family and have received very little support this past month, if any, and all the people who rely on healthcare at this time and are sitting on waiting lists? What explanation, Minister, can you give?”
“The Minister will argue that, but I argue that it will lead to a more transparent process. Does the Minister think that it is beyond the remit and capacity of a Committee to realise what are unrealistic bids and then assess that?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Sinn Féin across the way here has said that the Bill should not go ahead and that the Executive parties should not support it, because of an agreement. However, a subcommittee was set up to review the RHI inquiry and its findings. Surely, if that is all that the Executive can come up with, we have been short-changed as a people. Surely, there has to be more reform from the Executive on the RHI inquiry that the Bill could be part of.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member realise that the way that he comes across makes it sound like a personal vendetta against the Bill's sponsor? Given the way the Bill was designed and notwithstanding the Minister's amendments, I was able to table an amendment that had nothing to do with previous clauses. I was able to add it on. Perhaps that is a positive, not a negative, for the Bill.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He is very gracious with his time. <BR /> <BR />Nowhere in clause 13(1) does it say that any Minister has to gain the approval of or get ratification from their respective Committee before submitting a bid to the centre, and I would not request or support that. It is not a Committee bid or a shared bid; it is the Department's bid. The officials will have spent months on these issues. One thing that I have learnt is that Committee members usually give due respect to the expertise of officials. It is not a Committee member's job to formulate or ratify a bid.”
“I appreciate that the Members have tried, in their eyes, to make the clause better, but I do not see that. That is not what the clause was designed for; it is prolonging it. I have spoken to all the Minister's amendments, and I seek clarification on some points. I look forward to the rest of the debate.”
“That is why it is vital that, especially as we have a Budget process, albeit that it is consulted on, uniquely throughout the world, through the monitoring rounds — I think that there are three stages now — Committees for every Department get a grip of what is taking place. They need not only the information, the numbers, the noughts and the pound signs but the context. The Committee may say, "What did you bid for, Minister? You bid for £50 million, but what did you get? You got £1 million". That is a debate that is to be had, and it can be had only in the Committee. It is vital that scrutiny Committees are furnished with that information in advance. <BR /> <BR />I have said enough on that point, and I am sure that Members will agree. We will not support that amendment from the SDLP.”
“Remember, some of those bids take weeks to formulate, and there will have been brainstorming throughout the Department on what it does and does not require and what it wants to do and pursue and what it does not. It will have taken weeks — months, in fact — to formulate a bid for a monitoring round, so there is no way that a Committee can just throw its size nine into the middle of that process; it just would not be right, nor would I want it to be the case. It is about transparency and respect, and surely every Department can give that. <BR /> <BR />Alas, that is not the case, because even the Finance Committee has received complaints from Chairpersons of Committees about late information flow from the Departments on monitoring rounds, no less.”
“If that is done in advance of any bid going to the Department of Finance, it means that the Committee will get good and timely sight of that bid. It does not mean that they can effect change or pressure the Minister or Department into changing the bid, nor does it mean that they have the power to change it; it just means that they get it in good time. It is about respect, more than anything, for the Committee. The Committee's role is not only to scrutinise but to support and advise. Amendment No 45 prolongs that information flow by at least seven days following submission. I really do not see the need for that delay after everything that I have outlined. <BR /> <BR />It is right that Departments submit their bids, in either written or oral form, to their Committee in advance of them going to the Department of Finance.”
“That sounds like a really good and positive story, but if the Health Department or Education Department had asked for £1 billion, it then becomes a very negative story. In that light, context is added to the bid. Remember, I am not asking for departmental officials to come before their relevant Committee before they submit a bid; I am asking for a written or oral briefing on a Department's submission in each monitoring round in advance of the bid being submitted to the Department of Finance. <BR /> <BR />Committees get oral briefings all the time, but we also get written briefings. Documents come to the Committee staff before going into a pack. Members then get the pack in advance of the meeting, at which we discuss the written briefings.”
“What does that really mean? We had a bit of a debate the last time around, and Mr O'Toole said that it is not really for the Committee to change or make a Department do something to a bid to the Finance Minister. I agree 100% with that; it is not up to the Committee, nor do they have they vires, to do that. However, it is just good government for a Department, before submitting a bid to the Finance Department and the Finance Minister, to allow the Committee sight of that bid for the very reasons that my colleague, the Chairperson of the Finance Committee, raised, especially when it comes to financial matters. For example, it is all well and good if the Finance Minister declares, in a positive light, that Health or Education will receive £1 million.”
“This amendment strives to change clause 13 which, as it sits, states:”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. He holds a very esteemed place and position, and he will know better than anyone how these things are dealt with. <BR /> <BR />It is not good enough for a Committee to have to ask repeatedly for the same information and for the Department to treat that as a new request rather than a repeat of the original request. That takes up a lot of time and effort that could be used by a Committee to support and advise the Department. If we are chasing the Department's tail for information that may not be of any great relevance except that the Committee wants to know, it becomes a major issue; a major story, even. That can erode confidence, not only among the population or the media but among members of the Committee who sit in the House. That is just not acceptable.”
“In fact, my experience is that the opposite is true and that Departments still treat Committees with a certain disdain. I wish that I did not have to say that but I believe that it is the case. When Committees ask questions, some are not answered, and other answers are delayed. Sometimes, our questions are only half answered and so much effort is then wasted trying to get to the truth. That is simply not good enough.”
“I do not see the need to take "civil servant" out, but the Bill sponsor has moved in that direction, and I am sure that he did so after liaising with other parties and other members of the Finance Committee. I can only welcome that engagement, because it was very proactive and very important to the political process and the scrutiny of this place. I will not say any more on that. <BR /> <BR />I do not seem to have any other problems except for the amendment to clause 13 from Mr O'Toole and Mr Catney, which is similar to one that I tabled at Consideration Stage. I have great problems with this issue. The problem is not that Members are trying to amend it — absolutely not — but the impact and effect of it. Since we came back, I have not been 100% convinced that Departments treat Committees with respect.”
“Thanks for that very useful clarification, which has reminded me to go back to amendment No 36, in which the Bill sponsor proposes to leave out "civil servant". I know that the Member who has just intervened was very concerned about the Civil Service being encapsulated in clause 10. I do not share that concern, because I think that it has to be the case that there should be standards here for all, not least the Civil Service. However, I will not die in a ditch over it or divide the House on it. Ministers and spads should be held in the highest esteem, and their standards should be beyond all reproach. However, the same should and could be said for the Civil Service.”
“Amendment No 37 is to clause 10. When I first read this, I chuckled to myself — I did not mean to do so — because of how it reads. I am sure that the Members did not mean to word it so that I would interpret it in this way, but it sounded as though it was OK to gain financial benefit and other improper advantages as long as you were liaising with your own party.”
“I give the Bill sponsor credit: he moved from a position at the start of the Bill process and amended the clause, having taken regard of the work and the belief of the Committee at that stage. I think that we could support it. <BR /> <BR />I have no problems with amendment No 35, which is one of the Minister's.”
“I may not be reading that correctly, or perhaps my primitive mind cannot get round it, but I ask the Minister to elaborate on what exactly paragraph (e) is designed to do and what it means. I suspect that it has something to do with community groups, chairpersons of community groups, and that type of thing, but it would be good for the House to hear further clarification on it. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 34 is the Bill sponsor's attempt to get back in the Bill a provision on the use of official systems, which was negatived at Consideration Stage, albeit without the tariff and the offence. There was merit in the provision. I know that there were concerns in the House about the tariff and the sentencing, but there should be standards.”
“The Member makes a very valid point. Whilst I did not have long to look at it, it was remiss of me not to mention it. I thank the Member for raising that issue; I am sure that he will speak to it in his contribution. I wait to hear what he has to say and then, hopefully, what the Minister has to say in winding up. It is a fundamental issue. We have not resolved to vote one way or the other on the amendment. I welcome the debate on amendment No 23. <BR /> <BR />I have no problems with either the Bill sponsor's amendment or the Minister's amendments from amendment Nos 24 to 28. They are tidying-up and stylistic amendments. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 33 amends clause 8. Paragraph (e) reads:”
“I would just like a wee bit more clarity on why the Department of Finance and the Minister needed to list all the legislatures mentioned in amendment No 23. <BR /> <BR />I have no problems with amendment Nos 24 to —.”
“When I first read that, I was a bit nervous about adding those, because surely when a Minister visits any of those legislatures there would always be civil servants present to support the Minister in his work or to keep a record of action points and matters that were debated or discussed with other Ministers or MPs. <BR /> <BR />I understand the need to amend clause 7. I am not, however, sure why we need to go into detail on all the different legislatures. I suppose that I am worried that we could leave something vital out. Just because it is in legislation in clause 7, if it is amended, does not mean that you do not have to have civil servants there; they should be there in most cases.”
“I thank the Member for that clarification. It is very important. We probably all agree that that is the case with regard to the Minister's amendment No 22. It provides much more clarity for everyone involved, including the Civil Service. That should be welcomed. <BR /> <BR />On amendment No 23, the Minister stated that they all range together. I agree with him with regard to clause 6, "Records of meetings"; clause 7, "Presence of civil servants"; and, if you like, clause 8, "Record of being lobbied". The Minister has had a stab at amending clause 7 in its entirety by adding all of these legislatures and other political arenas.”
“If I recall correctly, the sponsor of the Bill tried to amend what is now clause 6 at an earlier stage, so that was always going to be a natural movement. I do not know what the SDLP's latest position is, but, whilst I have no problem with amendment No 21, the Minister's amendment contains a lot more clarification and detail.”
“I welcome that, whatever guise or form it comes in or direction it comes from. <BR /> <BR />Here we are, scrutinising the Bill. I thank the Minister and the Department for coming forward with a raft of amendments that make the Bill even better by tidying up some of the wording and clarifying some places and positions that maybe needed to be tidied up. I welcome those, and I will support the Minister in his endeavours with regard to most of those amendments. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 18, 19 and 20 are all very stylistic; they tidy up language and wording. That is to be welcomed. Amendment No 21 is from the SDLP and my colleagues Matthew O'Toole and Pat Catney; we share time together in the Committee. Amendment No 22 seeks to completely amend clause 6.”
“We have to learn from our mistakes. That is how you will achieve better government, because we cannot get everything right. How could we? <BR /> <BR />It is important that all those aspects be enshrined in everything we do at every level of government. That is why my party supports reform in those areas. In fact, we always have. It has been in countless manifestos, year in and year out: reform of spad positions, reform of the numbers of spads, reform with regard to transparency and scrutiny. It is all there for anyone who cares to read DUP manifestos. This is a very consistent approach for my party to take. It is one that I will champion for as long as I stand here in the House. It is essential that we keep moving forward and endeavouring to change for the better.”
“Record-keeping is also critical to transparency and scrutiny. All of these things are linked; they are tied together. Ultimately, they lead to better functioning of government. With that in mind and all of those aspects coming together, maybe — just maybe — the people of Northern Ireland will have a Government that actually functions as best it can. Clearly, that has not been the case to date. Whilst there are many good things that happen because of the Executive, the Assembly, all the scrutiny Committees and everything that goes on, there have also been cases where there has been failure. There have sometimes been cases where there has been a failure to be transparent about failure. That is a road to no town. That has to cease. When we make mistakes — and we all make mistakes — we have to be upfront and honest.”
“Transparency should not stop at any one sector, whether that be a ministerial post, a permanent secretary's post or a spad's post, or, indeed, the Civil Service in its entirety. For that matter, nor should it stop at ministerial decisions or Committee structures. Every single function of government should be as transparent as possible in order to allow information to flow, and, with that, scrutiny. It is important that we enhance the requirements of scrutiny in this place, whether that be through the House or through Committee structures. It is vital that we scrutinise every decision that is taken and ensure that those decisions are as solid as they can be and are in the appropriate direction of travel.”
“Again, I welcome the debate and commentary so far from the Members who have taken part in the debate on the second group of amendments, as I did from those who spoke to the previous group before lunch. <BR /> <BR />I know that my colleague across the room Mr O'Dowd will not like me talking about reform again, but it is essential to do so, because this group deals with transparency. It deals with the transparency of the functions of government, which is transparency that allows members of our public and the media to light up the mechanisms and look into the structures, actions and decisions that are taken across all arms of government. That can only be a healthy thing and a healthy place in which to be. The more transparent that we can be, the better that it is for having good government.”
“I thank the Minister for his clarification, but he neglects to realise that, just because parties agree on a certain stance, that stance cannot be added to and enhanced by other ways and means. That is simply what we have considered. If you come to a political agreement between parties to advance something and somebody else then has a better idea that will enhance and add to it, we should look at and review that, and, if it is worthy and acceptable, we should accept it.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. The Minister well knows, as do I and the House, that the Department of Finance and the Minister are completely and utterly separate from any political party, namely Sinn Féin this time. However, both the Department and Sinn Féin have failed miserably on this legislation.”
“I thank the Member for giving way; he knows that I always give way too. I reserve and protect his right to oppose any Bill, legislation or amendment. However, what the Member is saying is that he is opposed to the Bill, not because of the content but because of the sponsor. That is really bad form. I ask the Member, if he opposes the content of the Bill, is there not one clause that he can support on a blank blue page?”
“I support that engagement by the Department and the Minister. We have come a long way from the Civil Service telling us in Committee that the Bill could not be amended and was not good enough to be amended. Now we see amendments, and about time too. I welcome the engagement by the Minister and the Department and hope that we can all support a Bill that will bring good and decent reform, which is only the start, not the finish. We await the reform Bills that, I hope, the Executive will produce in the very near future.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 48 allows a period of six months, beginning on the end of the day on which the Bill receives Royal Assent. I suppose that, if it is OK for the Bill sponsor to adopt a time period in the Bill as opposed to an arbitrary date, we should allow the Department flexibility with regard to its duties and responsibilities. However, the six-month period may be an issue and may need clarification. Why is it six months? Why is it required? If the Bill receives Royal Assent in March, April or maybe even May, what does that mean for the process coming up to the end of a term? I worry about that and the need for six months when it is clear what is being asked of the Department and what its duties are. <BR /> <BR />Most of the amendments are non-contentious. They tidy up wording and make the Bill read better, which I support.”
“Amendment No 13 is noteworthy because it tidies up and gives more detail on the role of a spad in the Executive Office. While I agree that junior Ministers do not need a spad, there may be times when they need assistance, guidance or advice. It may well be appropriate for the appointing Minister to task a spad or spads to assist, advise or help a junior Minister. That adds flexibility to the Bill, and there is merit in that. I have no problem with that; it adds welcome clarity and flexibility. <BR /> <BR />On amendment Nos 16 and 17, I understand what is happening. We are running out of time in the legislative process, so they make common sense. I give the Bill sponsor amendment Nos 16 and 17. I support them and think that they make common sense.”