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 50 of 75.
“I thank the Minister for her intervention. I will have to look at Hansard because my mental arithmetic is not great. I thank her for that detail; I think that that is the first time that Members have received it. How long have we been looking at the Bill? How long have we been looking at clause 27? I rest my case in that regard. <BR /> <BR />This is a golden opportunity. When we put that clause in the Bill, the impact on victims' groups was mighty. If you were to speak them, they would tell you that they have been searching for a way of assisting victims in that regard for years. I think that it has been 20 years since we last had a chance to do so in legislation. That is why it is so important that we have a commencement order.”
“I thank the Minister for her intervention, because that is an interesting point. What we, as a House, need to know now is this: what is the present cost to victims? The Minister cannot tell us that. She can tell us that the top line is £14 million if clause 27 stands and that, if her amendment is successful, that bill will be reduced to half a million pounds. Now, that is still a lot —.”
“When I look at the £14 million cost, I do not see it as a burden; I see that as the amount of money that is coming out of the pockets of victims of domestic violence.”
“Before I go on to that, it is clear that amendment No 3 stifles clause 27, which reflects the will of the House, because of its restrictive nature and the safeguards that are in it. I know that this is a democracy, so it will be on the Floor that these things are decided. That is why the Minister should have moved the Further Consideration Stage last week. It will be the House that decides which amendments it sees fit to go into the Bill and which it does not. I have grave concerns about amendment No 3, but I am happy to support it because of the concerns that the Minister has relayed and because it is a step forward. Clause 27 was vague so that the Minister and Department could amend it. However, amendment Nos 4, 5 and 6 expand amendment No 3. In Committee, the Minister said that clause 27 would cost £14 million.”
“When members of the Committee said, "No, we're not happy with that, Minister", for the reasons that I have outlined, the Department was very good, went away, looked at it again and came back with another amendment. Let me be fair: amendment No 3, which relates to the eligibility of victims for civil legal aid and would replace clause 27, would restrict the provisions of clause 27 so much that, it seems, it would reduce the risk and everything else that the Minister is concerned about. She seems happy to move amendment No 3 but is not so happy to move the commencement order, which is amendment No 13.”
“I thank the Member for that. <BR /> <BR />We have to remember the Department's position on clause 27. The Minister opposed clause 27. The Department opposed clause 27, and what the Department brought to the Committee after Consideration Stage was what is now amendment No 7, which proposes a report on access to justice and allowing a level playing field. What the Department was trying to do, then, after this House had made its determination at Consideration Stage, was to reduce that clause from one of action to one of reporting: a two-year report, no less. That basically means a delay that would have affected victims.”
“We are just trying to level the playing field to allow victims that same right and to ensure that the resources and savings that they have worked hard for to raise their families do not dwindle over 10 years or more.”
“She said that sometimes the only relief that a victim gets is when their child turns a certain age. Is that not a horrendous prospect: that you are trying to raise a family, and you realise that you are going to be pulled through the courts year in, year out until your child reaches adulthood? Victims who have suffered a horrendous experience are now having horrendous experiences in court, of all places, and they then get to the point where they wish their child's life away to adulthood so that they can get respite. That is how damaging that aspect of domestic violence is. That is why we are determined to ensure that there are safeguards in place for victims in that regard. <BR /> <BR />It is not about access to justice. We are not trying to prevent people from gaining access to justice.”
“Here is the rub of this whole issue: why is clause 27 so important? When I was on my feet late that night — I think that I walked out of this Building at 2.15 am — I realised then, by the amount of engagement, messages and phone calls, even at that late hour, that we had completed something quite special. I had more correspondence on that one issue — clause 27 — than I had about the whole Bill. Now, I am not rubbishing the Bill; of course not. There is a lot of good work in this Bill, but that is the one issue that the Bill did not tackle. People out there are crying out for assistance, because this is one of the most harmful tools in the abusers' hands. It struck me last week when Sonya McMullan from Women's Aid graciously came to see us at short notice.”
“That is the reason that the Minister tabled amendment No 3, which we welcomed and had asked the Minister to bring forward at the previous stage. A new clause was therefore proposed, and clause 27 now stands part of the Bill. The Member who proposed that can speak for herself if she wishes to make an intervention, but she welcomed the Minister's engagement at that time to try to make the Bill better and safer, and I support that engagement. <BR /> <BR />Before I move on to the actual wording of the amendment, one thing that I would say is this. The Minister states that she remains to be convinced that the waiver is the best way to support victims, Well, I can tell her now that it is not the best way to support victims, but it is an essential tool going forward that will assist victims.”
“I listened to the Minister speak about clause 27 in her opening address. She asked us to take her on trust. When did we ever make it about trust in this House? It is not about trust but about scrutiny. It is about democratic accountability. It has never been about trust, because trust is a personal issue for an MLA and between an MLA and a Minister. The House has never been about trust. It is about scrutiny, accountability and the democratic process, which we — every single one of us, MLA and Minister — should defend. <BR /> <BR />I will pick up on some of the things that the Minister said about clause 27 in her opening remarks. She said that there was nothing to prevent abusers using that clause. The first thing that struck me was that there is nothing to prevent abusers getting legal aid. We see it day in, day out.”
“What we know, however, is that, seemingly, the Department of Finance had raised the issue on the Thursday, yet the Committee Chair received correspondence only on the Sunday. Although that might seem to Members to be a quick enough turnaround, what the Minister was then asking the Chair to do within 24 hours or less was not reasonable. We have to be fair with time and allow the collective body that is the Committee time to meet, assess and come to a collective decision, or not. That is what we were able to do last week. <BR /> <BR />After meeting the Minister, we did remove the then amendment No 15. We felt the need to table the new amendment No 13, however. It brings about the commencement of clause 27 after a year in order to allow the Minister time to do due diligence around that aspect.”
“<BR /> <BR />I now come to what is probably the crux of the matter: clause 27 and the proposed amendments to it. That is what led to the delay last week, which concerns me greatly, simply because the Minister sent the Committee Chair a letter on the Sunday, which she followed up with another letter on the Monday, seeking for him not move the amendment. The Chairperson does not have the power to make that decision without the Committee's backing and say-so. It was therefore very important that we, as a Committee, had the collective sense to meet. It was hard for me to take that the Minister did not move this stage of the Bill last week. She had her own reasons for that, and I respect her right not to move it.”
“Mr Speaker, as you know, we are also there to assist the Department. We were very keen to ensure that we gave ultimate flexibility to the Minister and the Department. That is why we wanted the amendment not to be strictly about orders and, perhaps, to include something other than orders. The Committee and the House realise that there may well be problems with orders down the line: how effective they can be, how much impact they can have and how hard they are to get. There may well be different tools out there, now and in the future, that will lead to better protections for victims and their families. Again, it is a given that this provision needs to be in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />We then have the report. Amendment No 8 merely leaves out what we had inserted, which, because of amendment No 1, the new clause, is fine.”
“Children do not necessarily have to be the direct victims. If a child experiences or feels the aftermath of domestic abuse, without even realising it, it has a tremendous impact. It will affect them for the rest of their lives. Children who see it, and even those on whom it has an indirect impact, cannot get over it. This is therefore a very important piece of the Bill. As Doug rightly said, we need the child to be surrounded by caring, loving people. There is nobody better in that role than the teacher. It is vital that this amendment is passed and that the provision is included in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Moving on to amendment No 2, I repeat what I have said about the Department and the Minister. Amendments were brought to the Committee quickly, and we were able to assist the Department.”
“When we put down our amendment, we tried to give the Minister and the Department as much latitude as possible. I commend the Department and the Minister for bringing forward a very fulfilling, robust and thorough amendment on sharing information with schools. As I have said, I welcome the fact that they came early to the Committee. When they came early, the Department could ask the Committee what it thought of the amendment. When we batted an amendment back to the Department, it was gracious enough to amend it before seeking to insert it in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />We have been able to include not only schools and colleges but, for whose who are younger, nursery provision so that the package of care that needs to be provided to young people who fall victim to this heinous crime is complete.”
“I agree completely with your sentiments, Mr Speaker. I will move on. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Committee Clerk and staff for their excellent work over the months that we took to scrutinise the Bill. I also offer my thanks to the Bill Office for its sterling work and advice to the Committee. All of us, as a team, from the Minister and the Department right down, have made this a much better Bill for victims. I commend the democratic process and everybody who deals with that part of it. <BR /> <BR />I will go to the amendments. Linda and Doug mentioned information sharing with schools, which has always been a no-brainer. The Committee caught this very quickly and was disappointed that it was not in the Bill from the start. The Committee was therefore determined to ensure that its voice was heard.”
“As I walked this journey with Committee members and the Assembly, I saw good things, positive things, scary things and things that puzzled me, and I will get to those later. What I have also seen is the curtailment of the democratic process, which horrifies me, and I will talk about that a wee bit later. <BR /> <BR />I will thank the Department for moving the Bill at this stage and the Minister, of course, for bringing forward the amendments early between Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage. That is what a Committee would expect, and that is what a Committee had sought during the summer months, but it was not forthcoming. I would ask the Member to reflect on that and look back on the history of the good work that this Committee has given to the Assembly.”
“I have enjoyed my time on the Committee. I have enjoyed my time scrutinising this Bill, and I very much believe that the members on that Committee made a massive and positive difference to the Bill. In a positive way, as best I can, I wish that the Department had been more forthcoming with its amendments so that the Committee could have done its work in good time instead of having the delays that the Member opposite just talked about. <BR /> <BR />I will commence by thanking the Department and the Minister for moving the Bill at this stage. Last week, it was in doubt. I never thought that the Domestic Abuse and Family Proceedings Bill would have been put in jeopardy and delayed as it was because of amendments that the Committee sought to put down in order to strengthen the Bill, and that really worries me.”
“How will the Minister encourage and promote that fund with faith-based communities and organisations and other communities and organisations that have a Christian ethos and may not have a relationship or connection with the National Lottery? How will he ensure and inform those groups that the money is from the dormant accounts fund and the lottery is being used as a vehicle by which to distribute it and that it is not purely National Lottery funding?”
“I also support the move. It is common sense, and, having looked through all the evidence at the Committee, I am satisfied that it is the right thing to do. It seems to be needed as a result of progression in inflation throughout the years, and, in most decades, the legislation has been amended. It is therefore common sense and right and proper. When people pass on, their affairs can sometimes be tricky, and you have grieving families and other persons in amongst it all. The order will allow a good bit of latitude for all those financial institutions that deal with this type of thing, so, as a party, we must welcome it.”
“Public protection arrangements in Northern Ireland (PPANI) manage sexual offenders, and there have always been concerns, problems and blind spots about offenders travelling across the border multiple times. That has nothing to do with Brexit, of course. Will the Minister enlighten the House on improvements over the last number of years on the management of sexual offenders between two jurisdictions?”
“I thank the Minister for her answer. She is no doubt aware of the massive impact that this has had directly and indirectly because of the lockdown. It has massive implications throughout wider society for other reasons. The problem with driving test appointments affects the mobility issue, job applications, loneliness and mental health. Has an impact assessment been completed in the Department on the impacts of not testing during lockdowns?”
“Mr Speaker, I have just rushed from Committee, and I thank you for your latitude.”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. I can certainly tell that he is hungry — hopefully, hungry for reform. I want to pay tribute to my colleague William Humphrey, the Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee, who has been pushing for some time now for private-sector influence on the Procurement Board. The Minister said that compliance with the guidance had not been entirely consistent in the past. Can he outline to the House what he means by that? Also, he told us that procurement guidance notes will now go to the Executive for approval. How were they approved before?”
“I thank the Minister for her statement. Have the Ministers in either country conducted any detailed impact assessment of how cultural activity and sport have been impacted by lockdowns? Has the Minister identified the long-term damage involved, and has she been able to adapt her strategies to suit?”
“It could actually also pick up the scenario of a Minister standing here at the box at Question Time and then, with their head fried, walking down the corridor to their office. Bold Jim or Paul could bounce up on them and say, "Minister, can you do A, B and C for me?", and then they walk into their office with their head fried after Question Time.”
“This is not about orange and green but about good government. Let us embrace it, take it on and improve it. This is the first step on a long road of reform that the Assembly must take and that the Executive must heed for the betterment of our people and our children and for their prosperity.”
“I support the offences that are created in the Bill. They will add to the deterrent and, as the Bill sponsor rightly said, make people think twice about what they do in this place. There will be times when there is pressure on. There will be times when the press are hounding people for a policy development piece or the direction that a Minister has taken or that a Department is going in. That will lead to pressure from the press and MLAs and rightly so, because we must ensure that this system of democracy is as robust and transparent as possible. Do you know what? Democracy is fragile. Surely, we in the House know that, having been out of this place for three years, and for what? Let us make it better. Let us improve on what we already know and bring confidence back to the House and to all of our people.”
“There is no need for that to happen, and I hope that nobody falls foul of them. Why should they? This should be a standard that is set. Everybody should know the parameters and abide by the standards that the Assembly sets. They are not unreasonable standards or draconian standards but, in many ways, common sense.”
“There is absolutely no leeway there. It is wrong to do that for improper benefit of any person or third party, and there needs to be a deterrent. It could be that you have completely skewed a contract to favour one company over the other. That is not fair and it should not happen, so I welcome this amendment to clause 11. Again, the Bill sponsor has listened, because he has completely changed this. He has also listened to other Members who were concerned and worried about the level of tariff, and he has reduced that from five years to two years, which I think is proportionate. Again, I will say that I do not want to see anybody convicted of any of these offences.”
“We have a tough job and we are servants to the people, but we also have privileges and access to things and to powerful people such as Ministers, permanent secretaries and all of that, so it is right that we have a public register of interests. Why should that not also apply to a Minister or a spad? To me, that is just common sense and adds to the transparency and accountability of government. <BR /> <BR />I will move on to the other offence that is created. It is completely and utterly improper for a:”
“You can see that, in the formation of amendment No 16, Mr Allister has given the person every opportunity to correct the wrong. I think it was Mr Jim Wells who said earlier that "reasonable" and "Jim Allister" did not always go line to line in the same sentence, but let us give credit where credit is due. It is reasonable what the Bill sponsor has produced here, and, again, I support it, because he has also added in a defence of public interest. Again, I support that. <BR /> <BR />Clause 10 is "Register of interests", and no one should be against a register of interests. It is clear that we are in a privileged position as MLAs.”
“That is where doubt creeps in and where transparency needs to take over. Again, it is as much about protection for that official, that Minister or that spad as anything else, and it is so that things can be retrievable and so that information can be retrieved and the public can get access to it. It is as simple and as plain as that. <BR /> <BR />The Member has also put a time limit on that, which is:”
“There have been many times when I have formulated an email, have hit "send" and have then realised that I have sent it from the wrong email address. It is easy to do, and it should not be a crime. The easiest thing to do is to then forward that on to your official email account so that your staff can pick it up. What would be wrong if a spad, Minister or permanent secretary had to send, or sent by mistake, an email from their personal account and then, having realised they had made that mistake — a genuine mistake — forwarded that on to their official email account? That is it logged, because you have got it through the system. It is as simple as that. You have to ask the question: why would you not then log, register or forward that email? Why would it not be reasonable to expect that official, Minister or spad to do that?”
“I would have to do that all year round in order to make sure that I had the confidence to know that I could truthfully tell or read a report out to a Committee or organisation and that I would be thorough, truthful and accurate. Surely the record-keeping of a Minister, a Department, a spad or an official is incredibly important. I have no problems and no issue supporting the amendments. <BR /> <BR />I then come to the offences that are created. Again, the Bill sponsor listened, because he has completely changed clause 9, where it would have been an offence even if you had made a mistake and emailed something to a private account. I know that Ministers should have their own business phones, apparatus or laptops, but in my private phone here, I have two accounts: my MLA account and my personal account.”
“We all need to be protected from that from time to time. There will be times when people will be cunning and will try to entrap you just because of the job and the position that you have. All sorts of dilemmas could creep up with that, so there has to be a certain degree of protection. Recording things offers you a level of protection. <BR /> <BR />I have held office in various community things and organisations throughout my life, and if, for example, I was in a treasurer's post and thought that I was £1 out in the accounts at the end of the year, I would be horrified. I would want to keep a record of everything — I mean every expenditure and income — to ensure that I was correct.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I am happy to give way to an intervention from any Member because that is good dialogue and open debate, and I encourage that. <BR /> <BR />On amendment No 15, which would introduce new clause 8A, I will give the Bill's sponsor credit because, again, he listened and added the liaison with the Minister's political party. There has to be space for debate and policy development in most of these things. That should give comfort to the party on the opposite Benches about party policy development and party political activity. <BR /> <BR />All the proposed amendments to the clauses that we have gone through — those are clauses 6, 8 and new clause 8A — offer protection from being wrongly accused of something, being somewhere, saying something or committing to something that you did not do.”
“My mind would not be on the pothole, so I would have to write it down. What is the problem with having logged it already in real time, either on my phone or on a notebook that I carry with me for constituency issues? What would be wrong with pulling a leaf out of that notebook and handing it to the private office, even if it is about a mundane thing like a pothole or a street light? Do you know something? In real life, that can annoy people to the highest degree. I would rather see that than see nothing recorded on lobbying, because that is the scale that we have tipped. That is through the history of what we have learnt from the inquiry, and it is what we are trying to guard against.”
“I requested that of him and he listened. That is a credit to him and an improvement to the Bill. <BR /> <BR />That brings me to new clause 8A, which is proposed in the Bill sponsor's massive amendment No 15. That creates a new clause that deals with keeping records of being lobbied. Of course, that will hopefully replace the former clause 7, which dealt with records of contacts. We will vote on that. I heard what the Bill's sponsor said about the Minister's query and concern about requests over every pothole or street light being recorded, but — thank you, Mr Chairperson — as an MLA, if I were walking through Tesco and a constituent asked me about a pothole, if I did not write it down, it would not be done, because my mind would be on Jaffa Cakes, Frosties and everything else.”
“That is to be applauded. What we do not want — it was a scenario that the Minister painted — is to have an unworkable situation in which Ministers, spads and civil servants feel as if they are hamstrung and tightened and in which they are frightened or scared to move. They are real people in real-life situations. They may sometimes be criticised for being in the Stormont or Executive bubble, but they are real people with real lives and they need to get out and about, and anything that would make them hamstrung should not be allowed. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 14 deals with the presence of civil servants and refers to "non-departmental personnel". I thank the Member for putting in place an exception for:”
“I will move on to the clauses and amendments. The Bill's sponsor is right: clause 6 — it was clause 7 — clause 8 and clause 8A is a triumvirate of clauses. They very much tidy up the clauses and the Bill and have been tabled because of our concerns, requests and everything else. In amendment No 13, the Member proposes to change the wording of clause 6 from:”
“We are here to do a job; let us do it mightily.”
“Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. Threats have not worked in the past, and they will not work now.”
“The party opposite has missed a massive opportunity by not engaging with the Bill's sponsor or interacting with the Committee on changes that it could have brought to the Bill with amendments and new clauses on things that it might have seen as being needed or fit for purpose.”
“Hansard will not be able to record this, but you have only to look at this section in my copy of the Bill to see the black and red type, with the red type showing the amendments that the Bill's sponsor made to his Bill after listening to Committee members. That can only be a good thing and can only be welcomed. I appreciate the Member listening to Committee members when he could have turned his face away, just as I could have turned my face away from some of the things that he wanted to do and his motives. <BR /> <BR />I genuinely believe that the Bill's sponsor wants to make good legislation. It is a matter of personal pride, but it is also to make this place better. Why would you not support, look at, gauge, listen to, communicate and engage with the Member on that?”
“Yes, I will. My point, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that, having engaged with the Bill's sponsor in Committee, the great potential that could be churned from the Bill was clear to see.”
“However, we have been placed on the Finance Committee together. I thoroughly enjoy my time on the Finance Committee, and I —.”
“I encourage all Members to consider introducing one, as I have in the past. We are here as legislators, but it gives you a real buzz when you can change law and bring in law that will make a positive difference to people's lives. I encourage all Members who have not already done so to attempt it. <BR /> <BR />The Bill sponsor and I are from different parties. We are usually at loggerheads on all sorts of issues, policies and everything else. Of course, it is not only that; there is also the dynamic that we are constituency rivals. At election time, there is no quarter given — absolutely not — and I would not expect there to be. In a constituency setting, we always work on cases together. There are cases where people come to all five MLAs and we all work together for the common interest and good of our people.”
“As this will probably be the last time that I speak, I take this opportunity to lay on record my thanks to the Committee Chairperson for his thorough work in relaying to the House the views and work of the Committee. It was very adequately done, and I thank him for that. It would be remiss of me if I did not thank the Committee Clerk and all his backroom staff for the work that they have done in supporting Committee members in their deliberations on the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I also take the opportunity — if I have not done it already, but I think that I have — to thank the Bill sponsor for his work, first of all, in producing a Bill. I encourage every single Member of the House to consider a private Member's Bill. It is the way to go. All sorts of weird and wonderful laws can be created with private Member's Bills.”