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 5 of 75.
“Connie Egan raised an issue about, I think, the new article 17CB(6), which says:”
“That is why it is really important. We understand that there will be operational matters around that. We understand those sensitivities. Stephen, Brian, Maurice and I commit to working with the Department and the Minister on any amendments that may need to be tabled at Further Consideration Stage.”
“Jaidyn Rice's family was deprived of that at the time. There is a real issue with regard to making sure that those tests are done so that the most thorough evidential base can go to a police file, to the PPS and, then, on to court.”
“I will not keep the House too long on the matter. You will be thankful that I will not go through a full winding-up speech, other than to say, "Thank you very much" to every person who has contributed to the debate. There were others on these Benches who wished to participate, and I thank them for their perseverance and endurance and for lifting their name off the list at the last moment. Thank you very much for that. I acknowledge that, because you all had something powerful to contribute. <BR /> <BR />I will raise some of the issues that were raised with me. The Minister responded to an intervention from David Brooks on the level of drugs in someone's system. One of the reasons why that is so important to bring in is that it provides an evidential base when police are investigating and when it goes to court.”
“If amendment No 90 passes, we will have removed from article 65 paragraphs (4) and (5) , which are about police powers of seizure without issuing a warning. <BR /> <BR />It is really important that the Assembly support the three amendments in group 5, and I hope that it does. We tabled them because we think that they represent good law and are good for public safety. The Assembly is at its best when it creates such law at pace while knowing that it is the right law, especially when it is supported by all parties. <BR /> <BR />Thank you for giving me the time to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker.”
“It is really important that the Assembly grapple with such issues, so I pay tribute to Patsy McGlone and Nuala McAllister for working on amendment No 90 to change article 65 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 for:”
“We may not go down the regulation route, because there may be other ways, such as prohibition. It is a really important matter, however, and people need to be wise to the dangers on our roads. <BR /> <BR />It is not right or fair that a driver who is being diligent, careful and safe could be driving along a road, when, the next minute, someone darts out on a scooter and is hit. Think of the trauma that that would cause the driver, not least because of the injuries sustained by the person on the scooter. Think of the trauma that would live with that driver for the rest of their life for having, through no fault of their own, hit and caused grievous harm to them.”
“I say this to adults who buy such vehicles to get from A to B and to commute: think about what you are doing and about how you use them. Please drive them safely, if you have to drive them all, because you are in breach of the law. <BR /> <BR />Be aware that the Republic of Ireland, among other jurisdictions, has gone down the road of regulation. There was a hue and cry among owners of such scooters when the regulations came out. Most of the scooters that were purchased prior to the regulations being introduced did not make the grade and were deemed not fit for the road. There is therefore a real issue that someone could purchase a scooter this week or next week, only for the Department to decide to do something by way of regulations. I may be pre-empting what happens in the future.”
“I agree 100% with the Minister. I will not be hard on parents, because those vehicles are the next new, shiny thing, and children say, "I want, I want, I want". We all know how hard it is to parent. We also know how much children crave things, especially if their mates have them, but that can add to the danger, because, in groups, children tend to go a wee bit wild at times. There is a bigger danger from having groups of children on scramblers. <BR /> <BR />The Minister makes a really valid point. Young Joshua will recover, but, if he had been hit on the head, he could be dead now. There have been cases involving off-road vehicles in which young people, even in my area of Ballymena, have died, so it is really important that we grapple with the issue.”
“Absolutely. The safest place for people with a visual disability should be a footpath. We should make our footpaths as safe as we possibly can for people with visual impairments or disabilities. Yet the e-scooters can zoom down the streets at 30 mph.”
“The scooter hit him, and Joshua had to go to the hospital because his elbow had been shattered and his arm and shoulder had been hurt in several places. Joshua was due to go on holiday the next week with his family, but his family missed out on the holiday. That is the impact that e-scooters can have. The young boy should make a full recovery. He has missed the holiday, but he should make a full recovery.”
“An e-scooter has smaller wheels, and it cannot travel over rough ground. Therefore, why are parents buying their child an e-scooter? If you buy a child an e-scooter to travel along the carriageway, you are breaking the law; they will be breaking the law, but you are putting your child in grave danger because they may go out on the scooter and do 30 mph without protective clothing or a helmet, and you are taking the risk that your son or daughter will be injured. <BR /> <BR />A number of weeks ago, there was an issue in my constituency, where a young person was hurt. A boy called Joshua was walking down the footpath, and an e-scooter came up behind him. He noticed the e-scooter and tried to get out of the way. He moved left or right, but whatever direction he moved in, so did the scooter.”
“Patsy will speak to this aspect of the amendment later on. However, the amendment makes it easier for the police to seize the vehicles, and there will be no requirement to issue a warning to the person driving the vehicle. Basically, when the police stop somebody and have their hands on the e-scooter, they will be able to seize that vehicle without prior warning. That is common sense; it is not everything because we did not have the time to do more. I suspect that if we had more time, we could have done more work together, but it is a start. I appeal to the parents who buy their children e-scooters to be mindful that they are for off-road use, and that they should be used on waste ground. An e-scooter is not conducive to waste ground, unlike a scrambler bike or a trials bike.”
“<BR /> <BR />There have even been cases where constituents have walked out of my office door and nearly been cleaned by people on scooters doing up to 30 mph on a footpath. Sian Mulholland is my neighbour. Her office is on the same street as mine, and there are jewellers, barbers, hairdressers, estate agents, opticians and furniture stores. All sorts of clientele, young and old, use our footpaths as they have a right to do, but they have to dodge e-scooters. We need to deal with this massive issue.”
“Not a week goes by without me getting a complaint in my constituency office from someone who has nearly been hit by an e-scooter or from a driver of a car, who nearly hit someone who has darted across the road as they were driving down it. It is not only young people who use them; it is also older people. Some use the vehicles to commute to work. While they are handy and get you there more quickly, they are off-road vehicles. We need to look at it more thoroughly. We might need to have a Bill in its own right to deal with it. Whether that be through regulation or tougher prohibition, I do not have the answer, but what I do know is that, when multiple parties worked together in the House, we came up with something that will make it easier for the police to deal with the current problem.”
“Stephen will talk a bit more about that and about his experiences of meeting the police. <BR /> <BR />I will move to the amendment regarding scooters. It has been an absolute pleasure to work with my colleagues Patsy McGlone and Nuala McAllister. I know that other Members were also interested in it. When we put out on social media that we were proposing the amendment jointly, a lot of my colleagues shared it, took it for themselves and put it on their social media platforms. I welcome that awareness raising, because there is absolutely no doubt that the prevalence of e-scooters now is mighty. The growth in the number of those vehicles darting around our streets is immense.”
“Therefore, when the police are called to the scene of a road traffic accident where there is injury or death, it will be mandatory to drug test the people involved in that accident. You would expect that to be the case with alcohol, so why should we not expect that with drugs? <BR /> <BR />That is why the amendments are so important. It is why, along with Stephen Dunne and my colleagues Maurice Bradley and Brian Kingston, I was fully motivated to table the amendments. I think that society requires that of us because of the ills around drug taking. It will not be the answer. It will not stop things happening on our roads, but it will allow families to get truth and justice in a far better way than is currently being done, where there are gaps, and the police say that there are grey areas.”
“If the police stop someone because of reckless driving, careless driving or any other offence, they should test that driver for drugs. <BR /> <BR />Paragraph (5) applies if:”
“So that no one is in any doubt, I clarify that paragraph (4) applies:”
“Moving on to paragraphs (4) and (5), the change in the amendment is:”
“That is why I ask the House to support amendment No 74. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 75 is on "Duty to administer preliminary tests". Currently, there is a power to administer preliminary tests under article 17 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. In article 17 on the power to administer preliminary tests, it states "any of paragraphs (2) to (5)" — there is a range of five items. What we are saying is that it should read:”
“I thank the Minister for that vital intervention. I agree wholeheartedly with her. I look forward to working with her and her Department on the sentencing Bill as it progresses. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 74 adds a new clause to amend the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. It sits alongside what is already in existence in article 17CA, "Breath testing at authorised check-points", which deals with alcohol testing. What new article 17CB will do is bring drug testing at authorised checkpoints up to a par with alcohol testing. It is vital that the police have the power to stop and organise a checkpoint to test for drugs. It seems like a no-brainer, but we need to make sure that the police have the powers and the vires that they need to combat this scourge on society and to make our roads safer.”
“When that spills on to our roads, it can hurt anybody and everybody — young and old — and it can affect their lives forever.”
“Amendment No 74 is on "Drugs testing at authorised check-points". It is important that drug testing be on a par with alcohol testing. Who knows the measure and the scale of the problem out there? I suspect that the police do not even know how many people on our roads are under the influence of drugs. It is very hard to detect. It is very hard to know. As I said earlier, there will not always be a visible clue. For decades, we had campaign after campaign on alcohol and drink-driving, but I think we are now in a position where drug-driving is probably more prevalent than drink-driving. That is a testament to the society in which we live and the state of society with regard to drugs. Drugs are dangerous in their own right, and if they are abused, there are major problems.”
“I pay tribute to him, because he has walked with the family through it all, including the meetings that he has had with the Minister, the Infrastructure Minister, and the police. We have come to the conclusion that the House should pass these amendments.”
“In the most serious cases, that means eliminating any grey area and the resulting, added trauma caused to families by their loved ones' lives not being regarded as "reasonable cause" for testing. That is why this is so important. <BR /> <BR />I will speak to, and through, the amendments that I tabled along with Maurice Bradley, Brian Kingston and, importantly, Stephen Dunne, who first brought this to our attention. I pay tribute to Stephen for his work not only with me on the amendments but for the family of Jaidyn Rice; I commend the Member for that. In our lives as MLAs, we sometimes have to deal with horrific, serious cases, and that which Stephen, with the family, has had to deal with, is just one such case.”
“<BR /> <BR />This matters because, when a road traffic collision results in death or serious, life-changing injury, families must have confidence that every possible step has been taken. Mandatory testing ensures that no evidential opportunity is missed, that no family is left with unanswered questions and that every serious collision is treated equally under the law. <BR /> <BR />The aim of Jaidyn's law is to make a proportionate and practical amendment to modernise road traffic enforcement in Northern Ireland and to align the investigation of drug impairment with the procedural certainty that is applied to alcohol testing. The reform is not about expanding police powers. It is about ensuring that those powers are applied consistently and transparently.”
“Current legislation depends on an officer's suspicion, so impaired drivers might not be tested, vital evidence might be permanently lost and investigations might, at a later time, face evidential challenges. Mandatory testing ensures that every serious incident is investigated to the same evidential standards. <BR /> <BR />The benefits of that law are that it will remove the grey area in enforcement; provide clear operational direction for the police; protect officers by replacing judgement calls with statutory procedures; and preserve crucial evidence in the case of serious incidents. It will strengthen prosecution outcomes and support transparency and justice for victims and families. It will act as a strong deterrent against drug-impaired driving, which is where we want to be.”
“<BR /> <BR />Jaidyn's law proposes a clear amendment to article 17 to introduce mandatory drug testing in defined, serious circumstances. Testing would become automatic where a driver commits multiple offences while the vehicle is in motion or where a road traffic collision involves serious injury or results in death. That would remove the reliance on individual officer interpretation, replacing it with a consistent statutory requirement that, I believe, the police will support and welcome. <BR /> <BR />Why is that change necessary? Often, drug impairment is not visibly detectable at the roadside. Unlike in cases of alcohol intoxication, drivers may appear outwardly normal despite having significant impairment that affects reaction time, judgement and hazard awareness.”
“I pay tribute to the bravery and courage of our police officers and the traffic police officers who, day and daily, combat that sort of thing and keep our roads safe. This is not a slight to any police officer; it is about making sure that we take a consistent approach where, in practice, as policing bodies acknowledge, a grey area has been created. Testing decisions may vary between officers and incidents, meaning that, even in the case of serious road traffic collisions, including those involving multiple driving offences or fatalities, drug testing is not automatically carried out. That inconsistency risks the loss of crucial forensic evidence, unequal investigative standards, weakened prosecutions and, for bereaved families, stress and uncertainty.”
“Therefore, the family believes that this specific legislative amendment is required to ensure that drug testing forms a compulsory element of post-collision procedure in fatal and serious injury cases. <BR /> <BR />That is the family's stance, and I support it. Drugs are prevalent in our society. They are everywhere, all types of drugs doing all sorts of damage to people's minds and bodies. It is inevitable that those people who take or abuse drugs spill out on to our roads. That is where the danger lies, and we, as a party, are trying to address that. Under article 17 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, police officers have the power to require preliminary impairment testing where reasonable suspicion exists, but the power is discretionary and relies on the personal judgement of the attending officer.”
“It further believes that mandatory drug testing should be available to the Police Service of Northern Ireland in a manner equivalent to existing breathalyser provisions so that testing becomes an automatic and routine safeguard rather than a discretionary power dependent on subjective thresholds or subsequent developments. The family notes that article 17 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 provides powers for the taking of specimens. It is firmly of the view, however, that those powers are too limited in scope and insufficiently robust, particularly in cases involving a loss of life or serious injury, and do not deliver the certainty or consistency that such grave circumstances demand.”
“The family is particularly concerned that the current framework risks creating an unintended gap when a collision causes life-threatening or catastrophic injuries but death occurs some time later following a period of hospitalisation. In such circumstances, the absence of mandatory testing at the point of collision may result in the loss of crucial evidence and failure to identify impairment at the relevant time. <BR /> <BR />The family believes that that represents a clear risk to public confidence and the integrity of post-collision investigations.”
“I listened to them that day and saw at first hand the work that Stephen, the family and their supporters had done to try to change the law on public safety, through Jaidyn's law, by making it tighter with regard to drug testing. I will not go into the details now, but I pay my respects and pay tribute to Jaidyn's family for the fight and campaign that it has led. <BR /> <BR />The family asked us to consider the current legislative framework governing post-collision testing in Northern Ireland as it is no longer sufficient. In particular, the family believes that the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 requires an amendment to introduce stand-alone statutory provisions mandating drug testing where a road traffic collision results in a fatality or serious injury.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will open the debate on this group of amendments, which deals with drink- and drug-driving measures and police seizure of vehicles. This is a really important issue, one of public safety for those on our roads and footpaths, and I will delve into more detail on why I think that that is the case. <BR /> <BR />I was motivated to table amendment Nos 74 and 75 because my colleague Stephen Dunne MLA asked me to attend a meeting in his constituency with the family of young Jaidyn Rice, who, sadly, lost her life on 8 July 2025 on our roads. It was clear that the family was motivated to do something as a legacy for Jaidyn.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He raises a valid point. This is not a reason for not doing it by the way, but there could be a danger that a raft of police officers who are guilty of misconduct will retire on the eve of the Bill receiving Royal Assent and not be touched. Then, you would have a raft of police officers who feel that they are not guilty and have not done anything wrong staying in the force and being caught by the law and investigated for it.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. That will be critical. You would not want to test somebody on a standard that they were not aware of at the time of the activity. If that could be enshrined in regulations, that would be really important. A fairness needs to be added to that process.”
“I thank the Member who proposed the amendments for her intervention. The DUP offers these comments in a constructive spirit, realising what we are trying to achieve. I look forward to listening to Members' contributions and to the Minister's winding-up speech on the group 4 amendments.”
“Those are very special conditions that help to inform the amendments and add reassurance. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I ask whether the Member, the Minister and their party will commit to examining whether the amendments could be strengthened and another layer of safeguards added to protect against those powers being used in a way that brings the ombudsman and the PSNI into conflict or potentially forces the hand of the PSNI to determine proceedings in a certain way. We wonder whether it might be appropriate to have not only PSNI agreement to fast-track those cases but a requirement for the PPS to attest that the exercise of the powers in amendment Nos 76 and 77 in any individual case would not prejudice ongoing criminal proceedings.”
“The Member makes a really valid point. She comes from a very learned position, because she is on the Policing Board and spent time before that dealing with similar issues on the Justice Committee. I get that position, and I hear the Member loud and clear about how moving those things on is as much for the police officers involved and their colleagues as anything else. I hear the points about the significance and importance of the measures, and I thank the Member who tabled the amendments. She knows that I have great sympathy for all Members who table amendments and try to change the law, so I commend her on that. <BR /> <BR />I also commend the fact that Nuala put special conditions in her amendments, which are:”
“I thank the Minister for that intervention. Again, there were important points that are good to place on the record.”
“I will give way to Nuala and then the Minister, or, if you want to sort it out between you, the Minister can go first.”
“We have some hesitation in supporting the amendments, because they largely depend on the Police Ombudsman's assumption of what the PSNI would do in any given circumstances. That sits uncomfortably with us, in that, in times past, the ombudsman's recommendations have not always been accepted, either partly or fully, by the PSNI as the appropriate authority for disciplinary matters. From the framing of the amendment, it is not clear whether the PSNI or the Chief Constable would have to agree to receiving a report from the ombudsman in those cases. <BR /> <BR />Let me explain what I mean. We are giving the power to the Police Ombudsman to fast-track or to put in a report on an investigation or proceedings, but we want to know whether there is another way, the other way, with regard to the Chief Constable agreeing to receive that report —”
“We support the intention of the amendments, which is to ensure that, where gross misconduct is identified in a Police Ombudsman's investigation and before criminal proceedings are concluded, that information can be passed to the PSNI in a timely way that enables the swift dismissal of the officer responsible. It is, of course, in the public interest for officers who malign the reputation of the PSNI in such a way and whose offending may represent a threat to the public or result in serious criminal convictions to be dealt with speedily and robustly. However, that aim must be operationalised in a way that does not prejudice ongoing criminal proceedings or live investigations, undermine the role of the PSNI as the employer in those cases or, indeed, set aside due process for police officers who are affected.”
“I thank the Member for her intervention. That is helpful. We will proceed with the debate and see how it plays out. <BR /> <BR />Another worry is that we cannot be certain of the practical consequences of the amendment if too much detail is left to regulation. That can be teased out with the Minister, the various parties and even the Committee, as she rightly said, over the coming months, in order to allay or assuage any concerns that my party and others may have. <BR /> <BR />I will move on to amendment Nos 76 and 77 from Nuala McAllister.”
“It needs to be serious misconduct. That might be in the text of the amendment, but what defines "serious misconduct"? We need to tease that out in the coming hours.”
“In general, we are clear that, given Northern Ireland's unique circumstances in the past and in the future, the way we police here, the divided nature of our society, the terrorist threat and everything else that goes with it, it is far from straightforward to say that, because those powers are in place in England and Wales, they should apply here and be copied and pasted. We will explore that in the coming hours and days as we proceed. <BR /> <BR />We also see no real clarity in new clause 23A that misconduct proceedings would not be initiated or resumed for what could reasonably be viewed as allegations of trivial matters. The Minister said in one of her interventions that it would have to be gross or serious misconduct, if I quote her correctly.”
“I thank the Minister for that intervention. It is right that we try to close the loophole that allows people to retire with the intention to evade scrutiny and investigation for misconduct. The trick here is how we do that effectively without unintended consequences. I suppose that we are yet to be convinced about that, Minister, to be completely open and honest with you. We have concerns about amendment No 68. I am happy to work with you, your Department and your party over the next few weeks and months to iron out some of our concerns about that.”
“The Minister will know that we had an issue about the retrospectivity of any amendment. I thank the Minister for the clarification. On the face of it, however, the amendment does not deal with the fact that there is no statute of limitations for the types of allegations that can trigger proceedings of that nature. In theory, that could mean that, where a PSNI officer has 25 or 30 years' experience and is still employed at the time that the new clause takes effect, they could retire yet still face the threat of being investigated for allegations relevant to Troubles-related investigations from the 1990s, for example, or other allegations of misconduct.”
“I also commend the Members from my party who sit on the Policing Board for the sterling work that they do in really difficult situations to support the police while being a critical friend. They do that to ensure that the police force is the best that it can be. There will be issues that we need to iron out. This is about discipline and making sure that our Police Service is professional. It is about keeping people safe while making sure that people have confidence in the police. As MLAs, we need to make sure that we have confidence in the processes that we put in place. <BR /> <BR />The Minister stated her belief that amendment No 68, which is the new clause on police discipline, will not be retrospective in its application and will affect only those retiring after the provision has been commenced.”