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 51 of 75.
“I thank the Member for giving way on that issue. One of the reasons that I did not put dates in amendment No 23 is the flexibility that is required with having monitoring rounds and a Budget process every two years. That is why I put in a time frame of days rather than include a date for a Minister to have a duty to come to the House.”
“Yes, I will try to tease that out, Mr Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />If the amendment stands, something could be done with it. Again, I put the welcome mat out: if Members see fit to amend the amendment and make it better, I am absolutely there with you. Let us see what we can do. When MLAs work together, whether in a Committee, by consensus or in partnership, we get things done. That is where we want to be. I encourage Members to knock on my door, speak to me, speak to other Members or speak to the Bill's sponsor, and let us ensure that the legislation that we are about to pass is fit for purpose and will do the job that it is designed to do.”
“I am teasing that out in my head, and my head is quite primitive —.”
“The Agriculture Committee will be about suckler cows, beef cattle stock and less-favoured areas. It will not necessarily be about finance, although there is a lot of finance involved, not necessarily at the monitoring-round stage. This is a way of ensuring that all MLAs on all Committees will get good, timely information so that they can see drops and increases in a more consistent way. <BR /> <BR />I could have gone further, and I retain the right, at Further Consideration Stage, to go further. The Assembly votes for the spring Supplementary Estimates much later in the financial year. I toyed with the idea of tabling an amendment that the House votes on every monitoring round. That would just bring an added layer of accountability. I still have not worked out in my head whether something good could go wrong with that accountability.”
“There will be times when Departments give back and times when it is right that Departments give back. I am not saying that I want the information so that I can see that there has been a big net fall in a Department and can say, "Oh, big bad Finance Minister; you've taken money off a Department. Big bad Finance Minister"; I am saying, "Well, hold on. Why was that money handed back, and why was it good that that money was handed back? If that money is put to the centre, what use will it have in the centre?". Those are just primitive questions from MLAs who maybe do not sit on the Finance Committee. <BR /> <BR />I have sat on other Committees, and I have noticed that, sometimes, financial aspects of scrutiny are neglected. I am not saying that as a criticism; it is just a mark of life.”
“I accept that argument. There are two aspects to it. The first is that I hope that it is not necessary; I hope that it is uniform and standard procedure; I hope that that is what takes place. However, I am not sure about the other Departments and Committees. This is a way of ensuring uniformity and speed. Let us face it: it is the Assembly that votes on the spring Supplementary Estimates much later in the year, which is, basically, the combination of monitoring rounds anyway. In a way, it is about making sure that MLAs, who make decisions, pass legislation in the House and clear Budgets and everything else, get sight of that in a way that allows us to see the change. <BR /> <BR />It is not always the case that we throw more money about at monitoring rounds.”
“One thing that I have learned from being on the Finance Committee is that Budget material is hard to read. You need to be an experienced MLA or a master craftsman like Matthew O'Toole, the Member for South Belfast, who had daily experience of it, to really get into the detail and see what the figures mean. Sometimes, you see just a blur of numbers with a lot of zeros; sometimes, the zeros are not even provided. It is hard to read the Budget. I have attempted to make sure that something is published that specifies the changes in each Department's net Budget allocation.”
“Again, that is an attempt to get some speed and consistency into the process. <BR /> <BR />The third limb states:”
“I say this to Members, especially members of the Committee: if you think that you can better the amendment, please do. Please come and talk to me, and we will see what we can do. I am open to that. <BR /> <BR />The second limb states:”
“There is that risk, but there is a balance between accountability and the role of the Committee in supporting, scrutinising and assisting. I do not mean that Committees will have any way of shaping submissions if they are brought to Committees in advance. A Minister signs off on their monitoring round; it is the Minister and Department's monitoring round. They will know best what they need and what they do not. That should not really be the role of the scrutiny Committee at that point, but it is a way of getting that information to members through the vehicle of the Committee, which could then populate the thought process of the parties represented on the Committee. If that were the case, there would be no surprises with regard to bids. Hear this: I am open to amendment.”
“They should do that. What I find, though, is that, across Departments, that information can be inconsistent. There might be reasons for that, but I do not know why. It should not be the case, but it is the case. The amendment in some way tries to regulate for a uniform approach. <BR /> <BR />I have not been too hard on the other Ministers, simply because there is time for things to bed in. There will be a Further Consideration Stage, but there will be other opportunities throughout the legislative life of —.”
“It could simply be that a Minister is querying something or is not sure of something or is dotting the i's and crossing the t's and that type of thing. That may delay the process, and it may be just a case of good, sufficient and thorough ministerial governance. That could well be the case, but the Committee should have a role to play in it. <BR /> <BR />Subsection (1) of my amendment — the first limb — places a requirement on Ministers and their officials to:”
“It was a necessity, however, because there had not been a Bill passed in the House. The only duty that I can see on the Minister of Finance is a requirement to bring a Budget by the end of March, before the start of the new financial year. That is an excepted matter, however, so it seems that we cannot touch it. I will keep pushing and probing to see what we can do. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 23, which deals with monitoring rounds, is the next best thing. In my experience, not just in this phase of devolution since we came back, but over the past 10 years, I have seen massive inconsistencies in the way in which Departments handle Committees when it comes to providing monitoring round information.”
“I tossed and turned, and I really wanted to go after the procedure used in the formation of a Budget. I see the Budget as being a two-yearly thing. I spoke in the House on the Budget Bill a couple of weeks ago on that very matter and laid the groundwork. I served notice that I was going to do this. Quite simply, I wanted to make sure that there was a statutory duty on the Minister to commence a Budget cycle and to lay it before the House in a timely fashion. <BR /> <BR />We have had experience of a Finance Minister failing to bring a Budget to the House. The Assembly fell, and the country was left without a budgetary process. Civil servants took over, and Ministers in Westminster had to put in place emergency legislation in order for us to get by. That was nowhere near a sufficient process; it was a terrible process.”
“I cannot lay everything at the door of the Finance Minister and his officials. It also happened on the Justice Committee with monitoring rounds. Unforgivable. That is not the place that we need to be. We need to be in a far better place, and let us hope that this, in a small way, goes some way to correcting that imbalance and removing the disdain that some of our officials at the highest level and some of our Ministers have for their Committees. That cannot be abided and should not be abided by anyone in the House, and I will not support anything less. <BR /> <BR />I move on to my amendment No 23. I will speak to that and then sit down, Members will be relieved to hear. The amendment has three limbs. To be fair, I wanted to do much more, I really did.”
“I communicated with the Bill sponsor, I communicated with the Chairperson, and I communicated with the Committee members. Hopefully, what we have produced here is a Bill that we in the Assembly can all be proud of. <BR /> <BR />I therefore support amendment No 21 and the new clause that brings added accountability to the Assembly with regard to the provision of information. That is a no-brainer. It should not even have to be said, and it should not even have to be written in a Bill. However, it has to be, because I have no confidence — no confidence — that a Committee will get everything that it requests. It has also happened in the Justice Committee, so it has not just affected the Finance Committee.”
“It is therefore critically important for me as an MLA, even though my party is part of the Executive, to know that there are safeguards and fail-safe mechanisms in place so that, if — God forbid; heavens above — a Minister, no matter which party they belong to, makes a mistake or does something that is not quite right, the scrutiny Committee is there not only to scrutinise but to support — to support — the Department and, sometimes, yes, to fix. I have evidence of that. I have experience of that throughout my career as an MLA, and it is very important. It is also very important that Committee members take that role very seriously. That is why I embraced this Bill when it was introduced. There are things in it that I did not like. I did not like the direction of travel in some places, but I embraced it, and I engaged.”
“However, I have been in this place long enough to know that lessons do not get learned. That is why the new clause is so important. The legislation is there, and it has to be rigorously applied. This is echoing that legislation, bringing it to a more modern piece of legislation and echoing the fact that we should not be treated with disdain. <BR /> <BR />Scrutiny Committees fulfil a very important role in this place, not least given the fact that we have a five-party coalition Executive and that we have a very small, fragmented opposition.”
“It was the same one being repeated over and over again until we were provided with the information that we received. It took weeks. In fact, I think that it took months to get that. Then we were able to look at the bigger, wider picture. <BR /> <BR />The reputational damage that was being done to the Minister, to the officials, to the permanent secretary and to the Department was mighty. It was mighty not because of what was contained in those emails, although that was quite embarrassing, but because a vacuum was being created at will by the Department in opposing the release of that information to the very scrutiny Committee that is designed to scrutinise it. That is no way to behave. That is no way to have a relationship between scrutiny Committee and Department. I hope that lessons are learned.”
“However, I have not seen those improvements, and I have not seen that culture change. I still see a Civil Service and Ministers prevaricating on information that the Committee has requested. <BR /> <BR />I will give you one example, Mr Deputy Speaker. In this Chamber, a good number of months ago, I raised — in my gentle manner, as you know I do — the issue of the emails on the PPE order that we had requested but which had not come forward to the Committee. We had asked for all emails and correspondence connected to that. "All" is a very small word. It has three letters: A, L, L. It is very simple to understand, yet we did not receive "all" those emails. We kept asking the same question, but it was treated like a different request. It was not a different request.”
“I most certainly support laying a biennial report in the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />I will speak to the new clauses. Amendment No 21 would create a new clause on the provision of information. It is massively important. Once we started to talk about it, I lapped it up and said yes, yes, yes. I am sick of the way that Departments treat Committees. I am sick that we have to wring information out of Departments and Ministers. At times, Departments and their officials treat Committees with great contempt. We have seen it, even since the Assembly came back. It seems as though nothing has changed, nothing went wrong and we are back to square one. That is not where we are at, and it is never where I will be at. I will never go back. I will never go in reverse. I want to see improvements.”
“I had not read that in, but I will bow to the Bill sponsor's wisdom on that. It is his Bill. After all, he knows it best. He knows it better than any of us, so I thank him for that clarification. <BR /> <BR />I will talk about amendment No 22, which would amend clause 12 on the biennial report. Yes; I see that as the way forward, because laws will be passed in the House that people — I mean individuals, Ministers and parties — could well try to ignore. It has happened in the past. It is very clear that we need a reporting system that monitors things that change, things that are not enacted and things that need to change in the future. I think that reporting is the way to go. We had it last week on the domestic violence Bill when talking about reporting and monitoring that legislation. I believe that that is good practice going forward.”
“However, I think that that is fitting and just because of the reasons that I outlined with regard to the decision-making powers, policy development and, at times, harsh decisions that Ministers have to make. You cannot please everybody all the time.”
“I am sure that he knows that and supports it, most definitely, because it removes that possibility. <BR /> <BR />Whilst it might add another layer to the standards commissioner's role, it is a quicker and more efficient way, so if there are those frivolous and vexatious complaints, they can be moved to one side and the commissioner can carry on with the work that they have been assigned to do. That is important because we do not want the system to be bogged down for fear that that work will not get done for the other MLAs that there may well have been complaints about. It is, most definitely, correct that a Minister should be held to account by the same standards as us. The Bill's sponsor said, "MLAs do not get the protection that we are now putting into the Bill".”
“One of the issues that I pushed on was the fear that Ministers may be more liable to get more complaints than MLAs simply because of the position that they are in and the decisions that they have to take. Even though it is right that Ministers in this place, who were MLAs before they became Ministers and joined the Executive, should be held to the same standards and account as MLAs, there is that difference in the processes, the policy development and the decision-making powers that they have. I would not want to leave any Minister open to a whole raft of complaints to the standards commissioner because of a planning application, policy development or the closure of a school or something of that nature. That is why I asked for that to be included. I am glad that the Bill's sponsor ceded to that.”
“I will speak to the amendments and clauses in the group. I will start with clause 5 and the amendments. I thank the Committee and the Bill's sponsor for their work. I echo the sentiments of the Chairperson in thanking the Bill's sponsor for listening to the Committee.”
“I appreciate the Minister giving way. I do not need an answer immediately, and I am sure that he has advisers and support staff here. Will he provide dates for when the Executive settled on opposition to the Bill?”
“I appreciate the Minister's giving way on this. I recognise what he saying, because his argument is consistent with the argument that he brought to the Finance Committee along with David Sterling, the then head of the Civil Service, and his own permanent secretary, Sue Gray. I can tell the Minister that, whilst he was conducting and relaying that argument to the Committee, it was alien to me because at no time during which I have been tasked by my party to sit on the Finance Committee, at no time during Second Reading and at no time during consideration in the Committee was I ever informed by my party that it was against this Bill and at no time when I asked did it say that it was against this Bill.”
“Can the Member prove at any time that I was disrespectful to anyone at the Committee? If I was, I would have apologised there and then. Can the Member give the House any sort of evidence or proof that that was the case?”
“I wait to hear other Members speak to the clauses and amendments so that we can get the fullest picture that we can on this.”
“Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that the Member misses the party life, and I would love to see him fully back in the party some day. We all look forward to that. I think that I speak for the Members here and for those who are not present that we would like to see him back, and, hopefully, he will not experience anything similar to what he spoke about today. Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, we will get back to the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I have summed up as much as I can on clause 1. We will support clause 1 and all the amendments that have been proposed to it, apart from amendment No 4. I put the Bill sponsor on notice about the pay structure and pay cap to see whether any flexibility can be added to the statute book at any given stage in the process going on to this. I support the Bill, as I said, and I wish the Bill sponsor and the Bill well.”
“<BR /> <BR />I do not know what sort of relationship the Member had with some of the elected Members and non-elected members in my party, but I can certainly tell him that I have never experienced the horror show that he depicted. I have never experienced a horror show like that, and I suspect that I never will. <BR /> <BR />Does the Member want another intervention?”
“The Member knows me well, and I know the Member well, and he knows that we as a party decide these things together. I consulted as many elected Members as I could, along with everyone else in the party. <BR /> <BR />I will correct the Member in this regard: I have been consistent. In Committee, I raised issues about the flexibility of the pay cap and the appointment procedures for spads, because they are political appointments. The Member is wrong in that regard, and he will have to go through all those Committee meetings to pick out the moments when I raised those concerns. Members will be aware of that because they had the same concerns.”
“We support the aspect of the Bill that reduces the number of spads and removes the junior Minister's spad. We do not believe that they are required. We believe that three spads each are sufficient for both parties. That does not mean that you have to fill those posts, by the way. You do not have to populate three posts; you can have two spads if they have sufficient expertise. You can have one, two or three spads, but three is the balance. Three spads would assist the Executive Office to perform the functions that it is required to perform on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />I support all the amendments in group 1, except for amendment No 4.”
“I ask the Member opposite, who made an intervention earlier, whether he supports his colleague Mr Lynch, whom he replaced on the Committee, when he said that six in TEO is the appropriate number. If that is the party position, that is fine. That was the only party position that the party opposite ever gave on the Bill. That is why it is so remarkable and why it has been logged in my memory ever since.”
“Why is that so remarkable? It is so remarkable because that was the only time that members of that party gave any commentary on the Bill. They were opposed to everything. I remember it clearly, because I thought, "Oh, here we go. We are getting a wee bit of engagement here", but that was it. Mr Lynch is no longer on the Committee. He was replaced by my colleague from North Antrim. It is good that we have that colleague from North Antrim on the Committee and in the Chamber today. Mervyn was here earlier. He has gone now, but I wish he were here, because then we would have the good team of North Antrim pushing through reform, quoting scripture and everything. It is a great day.”
“However, they did make this interjection, or I should say that Mr Lynch, when the Chairperson asked him what he thought of that aspect, made this interjection:”
“When we looked at it, it was clear that having three each would be suitable. I know that the Bill sponsor wanted to run with two each — four in total — thereby halving the current allowance. I genuinely think that that is just too tight. It is too tight for the parties that populate the Executive Office. I must commend the Bill sponsor for his adaption of the clauses. I agree with what he has done in removing the junior Minister's spad and allowing the three positions at Executive level to sit as they are. Most of the parties are, I think, content with that. <BR /> <BR />There was a remarkable intervention at Committee Stage. All through the Committee Stage, members of the party opposite hardly spoke at all. They opposed everything, including the Bill's long title.”
“Again, when the appointment of a spad by a party is purely political, that is an interaction with a political party and the Department. Again, whilst the spad will be accountable to the Minister, the standards, the codes, the disciplinary codes and everything else that goes with it, that is a further tier and connection to the Department. I am not sure that that is necessary, and I am not sure that some parties would not try to circumvent that process to advance a desired outcome. <BR /> <BR />I will move on to the numbers game. This was always going to come down to a numbers game. On that, I thank the Bill sponsor, because he was very gracious in considering amendments that came forward, and that is to be commended. Most of the parties recognise that eight spads in the Executive Office is too many.”
“As I was about to go on to say, I just do not want it to become a sham, shadow process whereby there is an outcome already realised. If you have to go through a process to get to that point, it becomes a sham, and it weakens the Bill. <BR /> <BR />We are also concerned about subsection 2(d). Again, if that amendment is passed by the House, there is absolutely no bother with trying to work through it with the Bill sponsor. Subsection 2(d) states:”
“Freestyle is correct. You can say that again, Pat. <BR /> <BR />There you have it. Again, let me be brutally honest with the Bill's sponsor and the House: there will be things that my party wants and things that it does not want. We are prepared to engage, work alongside others, compromise and reform. That is the democratic process.”
“I am sorry. It is just my style. I cannot help it. I am not good at this. Thank you very much for your correction.”
“If a pool were created of three, five, seven or 10 people, and you could appoint only one person, I doubt whether the other people who did not get the job would be of your political persuasion any more. Therefore, there are issues around the appointment process. The last thing that I want is for us to put something in legislation that any party could circumvent, put up a sham and run a process but come to the same conclusion and outcome.”
“<BR /> <BR />Whilst the Bill works on the function and operation of a spad, and also on the conduct of a spad and Minister, amendment No 4 deals with the appointment of a spad. I have concern about amendment No 4 for that reason. I take Mr Allister's argument on the issue. However, other parties and Members also had difficulty with it and, probably, still do. They will speak to that in their own words. They are quite capable of doing that themselves. If it is a purely political appointment, the chances are that, if you were a Minister, you would know who you wanted to appoint. You would try to headhunt people, to use a term from the private sector, whom you thought could help you to stay in the real world as best they could.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I do not disagree that a ceiling is needed; it is a case of what that ceiling should be and where it should be placed. It might well be the case that something needs to be put down in statute. What I am saying is that that still needs to be teased out at Further Consideration Stage. I am still open to debate on the Member's proposal. We will see how that works out. I want to ensure that the Member is aware that I do not oppose clause 1 as it stands at present. I am talking about my party's concern with that subsection of clause 1. We might want to do something at Further Consideration Stage. I am simply putting Members and the Bill's sponsor on notice, if you like, in that regard.”
“I will in a minute — that could lessen the attraction for someone who works in a specialist field and would be quite useful to have in a political party and in a political context.”
“So, whilst I take the Member's point, it is splitting hairs. <BR /> <BR />He raised a valid point about the codes, saying that they could change more easily than statute. I agree; they could. There is a risk in that, but, moving forward with reform, as an MLA, I would not support that increase. That would be a political decision, but it is the inflexibility that statute brings with it —.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. We have to remember that when he talks about the accountability of Ministers, spads are not in that place; spads are a public, political appointment. They are also attached to the outside world. They are not attached, or they should not be attached, to the political bubble. Sometimes, it is hard for Ministers, with the busy hours and everything that they do, not to become attached and encapsulated in that bubble, and that is where you need a spad in the real world. In the real world, you are competing with the private sector. It is about the flexibility to attract the right person. We are not talking about the £90,000 that the Member quoted. With Mr Allister's clause, there is a ceiling of £80,847, but, at the minute, the top band is £70,000 to £85,000, so you are talking about just over £4,000.”
“We need more dialogue on that, and we need to do a bit more work on that at Further Consideration Stage.”
“It helps remove the barrier to that. Let us hope that, when the Bill is passed, if it is passed, all Executive parties adhere to it and adopt it in the spirit in which it is being passed. <BR /> <BR />Although we will not be opposing clause 1, I still have an issue with putting a cap on the pay structure. That is not because I disagree with capping the figure but because of the inflexibility that may arise from the figure being in statute. It is not to do with the figures, because what the Bill's sponsor is proposing is not far off the pay structure that we have at present. There is only £4,000 of a difference in the highest band ceiling from what the Bill's sponsor is proposing.”