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 53 of 75.
“There is no doubt, and I will admit to the House for the Hansard report, that I am still confused on the issue. On the one hand, we are told by the police that there is no provision and that they worry about information sharing; on the other hand, a live pilot scheme is ongoing. That added confusion to the round as we debated this in Committee. I am glad that the amendment will give the PSNI some reassurance. However, if this amendment does not do it, let us fix it at the next stage. <BR /> <BR />It is important to note that, because I will have to heap praise on the Minster too, the amendment that she brought forward is very thick and is very good reading. It deserves super merit, and I suspect that that is what we will be looking at in the Further Consideration Stage.”
“Yes, absolutely. I will come to training in a wee minute. <BR /> <BR />For Operation Encompass, the puzzling thing for the Committee was that we identified that there was a problem and that there was a gap — the police, no less, were telling us that there was a gap — but we could not identify the cause of the gap, which was puzzling. Therefore there is absolutely no doubt that it needs to be in to give us a cast-iron guarantee.”
“I applaud Linda Dillon for her work and her perseverance on this, because it is right that we insert this in the Bill.”
“This is my opportunity to applaud Ms Linda Dillon, another member of the Justice Committee, for her work and determination. I am mindful that my Chief Whip is behind me, and he is always encouraging us to be rough and robust. I am going weak at the knees here on him, but I just want to say that Linda Dillon has done tremendous work pushing this issue right to the forefront of the Committee and into its mindset, because it is important. It is a very small amendment, but it is the little things that count when you are under the cosh and under pressure as a parent or a child. Teachers know their pupils very well; they are caring individuals who want the best for their pupils. I suspect that they can tell when something is awry or that something is up. What this does is assure them that what they are doing and saying is the right thing.”
“How can the Member ever go past Bushmills?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Access to justice is incredibly important for everybody who needs to obtain it. What we are talking about here is the need for a level playing field. If we are concerned about cost, then hear this: that cost, if it is not on the Department or legal aid services, it is in the hands and the pockets of the victims. I know where I would rather have that cost.”
“Let us get it sorted, and let us not beat about the bush. I support Miss Rachel Woods's amendment. Let us see where it takes us. I make this plea to the House tonight: you have the time to support Rachel Woods's amendment No 14 and to support the Chairman, who has tabled amendment No 13. That is important. Do not lose the opportunity. Do not waste the time. Take it now. Grasp it. Do not be like me. I withdrew an amendment on the sound commitment that the Minister made in the House on the record . It did not work for me. Pass the amendments. Let us get this done.”
“That is money that they were prepared to save in order to ensure that their children get everything that they need — everything that is required for school, for holidays, for breaks away and for food on the table. They are being deprived. Their money is going down, and it is the court and all its legal services that are taking it off them because a perpetrator is using court as a weapon. That is the long and short of it. <BR /> <BR />That is why I support the amendment. That is why the amendment is needed. I do not think that it goes far enough, but it could be the start of a journey that leads us there. If it takes the whole gamut of legal aid to do it, let us do it. There should be no mountain too big to climb for the Assembly, Executive or any Minister. Let us tackle legal aid once and for all.”
“I thank the Minister for her intervention, but, yes, it is correct that we clearly define the problems that are out there. It is correct because we have a problem here. We have an amendment. You disagree with it. The House will decide. It is important that we elaborate on these issues and stress the importance of this and how it impacts on people's lives so grievously. It is important for the people involved that we lay all that out. <BR /> <BR />That is only one court session that I described. There was then defending the appeal in the family care centre, which robbed that person of another £1,000. Again, the person involved is a single mum with child maintenance for two children and everything that goes with it. These people are being deprived of their funding and their hard-earned cash.”
“The person involved is a single mum with a job, trying to provide for her family, with a mortgage, with car payments, with school fees and with lockdown.”
“I received an email from Women's Aid not long ago, on 13 November — I have lost track of time — that outlined the cost burden for a victim in this regard. I will not go into the itemised costs, because it would take me all night, but, from May 2019 to October 2020, there were six sittings of court. From May 2019 to October 2020, which has just ended, you can imagine the psychological burden on a victim of having to prepare for the next court sitting. May, November, July, September, October, October: when is there a free month there? When is there a month in that space of time when that victim can get their head showered? Then, of course, you have your counsel fees, your solicitor's fees, your court fees and everything else. The professional costs and outlays for that period were £2,950·50.”
“I thank the Minister for further clarification, but, as I understand it, this amendment from Miss Rachel Woods allows the director of legal aid services to disapply financial eligibility rules for victims of domestic abuse in family proceedings — for example, child contact and residence orders. This will go some way to providing financial support and access to justice for victims who are having their resources drained and are subject to retraumatisation and further abuse by perpetrators exploiting the justice system. If I am wrong in that, I am happy to give way to either the Minister or the proposer of the amendment. <BR /> <BR />Women's Aid will be watching this, and I am sure that they are screaming at the TV, because this happens every day. That organisation has to fight tooth and nail for the victims daily.”
“I thank the Minister for her intervention. It was very powerful, and she has hit the nail right on the head. Why is legal aid not protecting people like this? In fact, why are we financing people to use this as a weapon against the victims? Yes, the Minister has indicated by putting her hand up.”
“Thank you for that clarification. My memory is not what it used to be. When I heard that in Committee, my mouth hit the floor. If that is the cost burden to legal aid resulting from the Bill, equate that to a single mum's purse, equate that to a single dad's purse, equate that to a nurse, equate that to a spark, equate that to a binman or binwoman. If that is the case, that amount of money is then going out of the hands of people who have worked hard to earn it. The Department cannot have it both ways. If it is millions upon millions — yes, I will give way to the Minister, who raises her hand.”
“I could not agree more. I thank the Member for putting that on the record. When the Committee spoke about the issue last week, departmental officials were unclear on what the cost burden of the new clause would be. To be fair, it is not their area of expertise, so we got further clarification. It was cited that it could run into tens of millions of pounds, if my memory is right.”
“Yes, and you can see the unfairness in that. You can see where hard-earned cash and life savings have been reduced at each stage of the way. Court proceedings are not pretty. It is not a case of going in on the Tuesday and coming out on the Wednesday. A court process has stage upon stage and lasts month after month. There are solicitors to pay and sometimes barristers, and there is no legal aid available. The perpetrator can get legal aid, however. The perpetrator has nothing to lose, but the victim has everything to lose. It is the case that court is being used as a weapon. The house of justice — the very place of justice — is being used against a victim: a person who is a single mum, with, I think, three children. That has to be stopped.”
“There are meant to be safeguards in place in court. If a certain Member were in the Chamber, I am sure that he would remind me about that, but those safeguards seem to be failing. There are people in this country — female and male — being taken to court over and over and over and over and over and over again. Hansard will enjoy that. People keep being taken to court, and their financial capacity is being reduced to zilch, to zero, to niets. That is not fair. It reduces the capacity for people and their children to move on with their lives.”
“My colleague Jonny Buckley organised a meeting a number of months ago with a young lady — she will remain nameless, of course — who wanted to meet me and the Chairperson, Paul Givan. She outlined in great detail the absolute devastation caused to her life and her children's lives because an ex-partner would not let her go and tormented her, day in, day out. That was not through nuisance phone calls, stalking, rumour or gossip but through the court. I am sure that Members will know of such experiences and will have heard such stories, but make no mistake: people use the court as a weapon, and it is a powerful tool in the hands of the wrong person. Here is how that can happen: a perpetrator of domestic violence or any other crime can go to court to gain access to children, and they can keep going back.”
“Here is the thing, and it is very important: Rachel Woods came onto the Committee, and she gets the Bill. I think that this is her first attempt at the legislative process, and she gets it. If every Member was as committed as she is, what a Chamber and Committees we would have. I will really have to stop this. Why am I so passionate about this? I thank Rachel for her amendment because it ticks a very big box. I admit that it has taken me a while to see what the amendment does, and I would suggest that we probably need to go further. I am up for that debate. We are probably a wee bit limited in the time available before Further Consideration Stage, but I put the Minister on notice. <BR /> <BR />Why is the amendment needed?”
“I thank the Minister for her intervention. However, she must realise that an amendment to a Bill can be cooked up and produced in hours or in days. That is the process that, the Minister outlined, she will use as the vehicle. We can have a tennis game all we want tonight, but it will not serve any more purpose. I plead with the House to consider the amendment and everything that I have said about my history and my experience in this place in trying to effect change. The Committee gave the Minister as wide a scope as it could. This is a gift to the Department and the Minister. I wish and hope that she takes it. <BR /> <BR />I will move on to Rachel Woods. This is becoming a habit, and I will have to stop it. I will get into real trouble with my party, because I will have to praise her once again.”
“It is happening everywhere else but here.”
“I thank the Minister for her intervention. She can make all the excuses for her Department that she wants, but the Committee wishes to see the amendment through, and I hope that the House sees the rationale for why we need to see the amendment through. <BR /> <BR />It is not duplication, and it is not placing a burden on the Department when it is the same thing that we are asking for and the outcome will be the same. Surely the Minister and her officials can see that this is the endgame. This is where we need to get to. For the life of me, I cannot see why the Minister and the Department are so against amendment No 13, which asks her to do that. Her Department shapes the vehicle for her to move forward to protect victims of this heinous crime. For the life of me, I do not see what the problem is with that.”
“I thank the Member for the intervention. I hear her appeals. If we want to amend this so that it is a shorter time, I am up for that debate. Twenty-four months is enough time. What the Minister failed to point out is this: she has told the Committee and the House that she will bring forward legislation that will deal with the issue straight away.”
“We know that cogs turn slowly in this place — too slow for my liking — but 24 months to get something that is desperately needed —”
“You cannot be any more vague than that. <BR /> <BR />When I brought my amendment, away back then, during the Justice (No. 2) Bill, I think, to Minister David Ford, it was very prescriptive. I basically nailed my colours to the mast and asked David Ford, who was the Minister at the time, to do something. I withdrew that amendment, and, to be honest with you, I regret it. We should not withdraw this amendment; we should move this amendment. <BR /> <BR />The amendment should be passed in this House because it is affording the Justice Minister of today the ability to shape the vehicle that she wishes to use to take it forward in a timely fashion. Twenty-four months should not be too ambitious, and, if it is, there is something badly wrong with the system.”
“This is all about protecting and supporting the victim:”
“However, the Committee recognised that that would not be the right thing to do, because our Justice Minister and Justice Department needed to make sure that whatever vehicle they use is fit for purpose for Northern Ireland, which is important. It is important that we adapt the vehicle to suit us. That is why it is so vague in the way in which it is written:”
“I thought that I was doing a good thing by removing the amendment and not pushing it — I had the word of the Minister — but, with all due respect to the Minister, time moves on, things happen and things do not get done. I understand that, and I understand why it was critical that the Committee, having had the opportunity to table the amendment, grasped it. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 13, which is a new clause on interim protection for the victim, is a gift for the Minister. It is a gift that the Committee has presented to the Minister. The Committee could have gone down a more arduous route. It could have taken legislation from other arts and parts — other jurisdictions in the United Kingdom — and put it in this Bill.”
“I remember tabling an amendment in the last Assembly mandate. I think that was an amendment to the Justice (No.2) Bill, but, as my memory is sketchy, it could have been the Justice (No.1) Bill. It was to do something similar with regard to orders. The Minister at the time was Mr David Ford, and he gave me a commitment in this very House that, if I withdrew my amendment, he would carry it on. He criticised the wording and said that it was untidy — I agree with him; it probably was — but I felt that having that amendment on the list and forcing the Minister to talk to it would mean that I could effect change in that regard. That change did not happen. It did not happen anytime soon.”
“This is the second stage of the debate, which has been a good one, and I have really enjoyed it. This is definitely the business end of our job. We have a certain group of amendments and clauses to look at. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 11 reduces the age from 18 to 16. I think that we all recognise the gap, and there is no problem with that. There is no issue with lowering the age in regard to aggravation and also lowering the age in regard to the other issue. We could see the anomaly that had been created, so there is no problem there. <BR /> <BR />There is no problem with amendment No 12, which is a new clause on the meaning of ill treatment etc in offence provision. Doug told a story about that, and I agree with his assessment. <BR /> <BR />I will move on to amendment Nos 13 and 14.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. She is right to highlight the fact that it is the first time that we are putting down a domestic abuse offence in legislation. Whilst we want to create the best law possible, we also recognise that other jurisdictions have had more than one go at this. It may be the case here that we need to strengthen the legislation or add something more rigorous. I would not rule that out. That is why the monitoring and reporting of that offence is so important.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Again, I hold that up as an exemplar of how MLAs can work together with a common purpose to achieve something good. <BR /> <BR />It would also lead to the example that may be common to us all, in that, when granny or grandad sees conflict or a problem in a household, they encourage children to stay with them as much as possible. Even victims would encourage that as much as possible. You then get a scenario in which A and B's child stays with granny and grandad as often as they can to get them away from the scenario and the household where the violence and abuse are taking place. They would not be encapsulated if the clause were left unamended.”
“We need to get all the arts and parts of the judicial system trained up to cope with this legislation, cutting-edge though it may be. We have to get to a point where we start to protect the victims of domestic abuse, domestic violence and coercive control. I support the Bill 100%.”
“<BR /> <BR />The message that must go out to victims from this Consideration Stage is that we hear them; we know what they are going through and we are trying to fix it. They have an ear in this Assembly, and we are going to listen to them and pass this legislation. Do you know what? We are going to report on this legislation and come back to it when we can and strengthen it if we have to. If we have to make it better, we will in order to safeguard victims. We are saying to the perpetrators, "You must stop this behaviour. In some cases, you might not even know that you are doing it. You might be as conditioned as the victim you are creating, but it has to end. We cannot abide it any more". <BR /> <BR />We have failed our people for too long. We need to get this legislation passed as soon as possible and get it into play.”
“<BR /> <BR />So many people are living like that. That needs to change. We need to support them. Many are supporting those people, but they are fighting as if they had one hand tied behind their back. The Bill will go some way to releasing their second hand so that they can put up a fight and defend those who need defending: the victims of domestic violence and coercive control. <BR /> <BR />I will move on to the other amendments in the section. I support the change in age from 18 to 16, which the Minister proposes. Changing "may" to "must" is something that the Committee asked for, and I thank the Minister for that. It just makes it a bit stronger. It is tidying-up language, but it is very, very important.”
“Absolutely. That is the nature of coercive control: it is a crime that goes into your very soul. That is why every art and part of the judicial system could struggle with this. That is one of the reasons why we need independent supervision and reporting, which we will talk about later. Those are the safeguards that we have to play with. That is why the Committee is strengthening the Bill, and we will talk about that later. <BR /> <BR />The offence goes right to the soul of a person; it will change everything about that person. It will change their body, their form and their mindset, and it will condition them. They become coercive or they become a victim. Sometimes, they will not even know it because that is normal to them; it is what they have to live with. They get on with it and become immune to it. That is no way to live.”
“Through no fault of the child, they could be propelled into a world that is alien to them, but, nonetheless, they will live through it and grow up in it, perhaps to offend. It might be other crime, it might be frustration, or it might be a cry for help. It might be all those things. The victim's world can be normalised; they can become immune to violence and abuse and can be conditioned by coercive control, but so can the child, to the point where the child may think that such behaviour is normal. So, when that child grows up and starts to form relationships, they could become a perpetrator of domestic abuse.”
“That child will never know, and that is why we need to fill the gap and why we need the clause. Rachel will speak on this at length — it is her amendment. I simply put my name to it because I support Rachel Woods, and I argued with her in the Committee right through each meeting, day in, day out. <BR /> <BR />The amendment adds the dimension that I described. I do not know that I need to go on any further, because Rachel will talk to it. Why is clause 9 in its entirety so important? I received an email from Barnardo's and the NSPCC. They, Women's Aid and all the groups that help people and victims in this matter will be listening in. Encapsulating why clause 9 is so important, they said:”
“That is why, when we saw the Minister's amendment, we were horrified, we really were. We were horrified because of all the dialogue, all the work that we had done, all the examples that we tried to give and all the times that we held the Committee up, yet we had this. We could not believe it. I am glad that the Minister has prayed not to move it, and I thank her for that. <BR /> <BR />What is the hole? Why do we need the reasonable person clause? Again, I commend Rachel for her perseverance and determination and for tabling the amendment. It is quite simply that the child should not need to be aware. In all the scenarios that I painted for the House, the child will never be aware that they have been threatened and that their life is really in danger.”
“That person has a child, and the perpetrator will threaten your niece or nephew, and you will comply. <BR /> <BR />Maybe it is a best friend who checks up on you. They have a daughter or a son, and the perpetrator threatens violence against them. You will comply. Your next-door neighbour knocks on the door and asks, "Are you OK, love?", or, "Are you OK, sir? We heard a bit of banging last night, and we're not sure what's going on. Are you OK?" The victim replies, "Yes, I'm fine. Nothing to worry about", and closes the door. The perpetrator looks at the victim and says, "Do not tell her anything", or, "Do not tell him anything. If you run to your neighbour, you will see what happens to their son or daughter". You will comply. You will not say a word to your neighbour. <BR /> <BR />That is what we are trying to legislate for.”
“No, no. At no time did I or Rachel Woods, or anybody else in the Committee state that that was a requirement. In fact, it is not a requirement, we do not need it and we do not want it. We never did. Why? Because that excludes so many people who could be in danger. You have the perpetrator threatening the alleged victim. You then have their coercive controlling nature and you might have a family member coming around to check on you to make sure that you are OK. Maybe they know or suspect that something is going on, but they are going to be there to check on you and to try to protect you. Then, the perpetrator sets his sights on that person. Not you, the victim, but on your loved one, who has come to check on you and who has enough knowledge and experience to know that something is going wrong.”
“I believe that it would have damaged clause 9, and I thank the Minister for not moving that amendment today, but we still have to address it and talk about it because I would not want anybody getting any further ideas before the Further Consideration Stage. <BR /> <BR />The Minister, in amendment 5, added the words, "suffer fear, alarm and distress". You can clearly see that, throughout the Bill, it is not being descriptive. Yet, we are adding it here to the child aggravator. The second part of that amendment states:”
“I always struggle with that word. <BR /> <BR />That confirmed to me and to Rachel that there was a hole in this clause. Again, we thrashed this out at the Committee, week in, week out, and we talked about the EFM and the officials said, "If we add "unwittingly and unwillingly" to the whole clause, would that help?" I replied, "Yes, that would help". I would have been satisfied with that — although I do not know, because if Rachel had put down her amendment, I probably would have signed it anyway — but I was content at that point. <BR /> <BR />Then we were told by officials that the Committee's amendment would add confusion to the Bill. Then, the Minister tabled her own amendments to clause 9, and that did nothing but add confusion to the Bill.”
“That is fair enough. That is important. However, at 9(2)(ii) it states:”
“I will go into that in a minute, but when you read the EFM, it helps you to get an understanding of the clauses. That is why it is essential at this stage. <BR /> <BR />When you read clause 9 — and I do believe that there is a hole there — and then read clause 9 in the EFM, you will understand that it helps shed some light on it but confirms that there is a hole where it says:”
“I thank every single member of the Committee for their work on the Bill. Rachel Woods asked questions and persevered with a determined vigour to keep going and to push and press officials until we got to this point today, so credit where credit is due. I support her 100% and applaud her. She and I pushed and pushed. There were times when we did not think that the officials got it. We tried to formulate an amendment and were helped by the Bill Office. The Committee produced an amendment, and the Department said, "No, you are adding confusion to the Bill. It is not required". We saw straight away that it was required. There was real hole in clause 9 where it states:”
“The Chairperson outlined quite well the procedure that we went through and the horrendous task of the forensic detail that we went into on clause 9. At this stage, I commend the work of the Committee. The Chamber can be quite a bear pit. I am still getting used to the robust language and am still honing my skills. However, it is in Committee that the work is done. If we are to be proud of something about our job, it is the work of the Committees. We not only scrutinise Ministers and hold them to account — let us face it, we have no opposition so Committees are the opposition — but we work together as a team. If Committees do not work as a team, something is badly wrong and they are not functioning properly. When a Committee works as a team, it works as a dream. It works well to help to scrutinise and produce legislation.”
“You cannot rest if you live in a household where you are a victim of domestic abuse and coercive control. You do what you have to do to move away from harm. That is why this must be captured in the way that the legislation is drafted and is why I support clauses 1 to 4. I hope that I have illustrated why we cannot support amendment No 1 and the removal of clause 3. <BR /> <BR />That brings me on to amendment No 3. I see it as a tidying-up exercise, and I get that. I do not know why it is needed because I thought that clause 9 was strong enough in the way that it is drafted. However, it does not do any harm, so I absolutely support it. There is no issue there. <BR /> <BR />I now come to the clause 9 amendments.”
“When you are a victim of coercive control, you do not know whether you are up or down. You do not know what day it is or what is normal practice. You become conditioned and immune to the very abuse that you are suffering and living with daily. You live with it. That is why we need these clauses and the reasonable person clause to capture this. Your life is in despair and is not your own, because by that point you are trying to protect yourself as best you can, and, more than that, you are probably trying to protect someone whom you love. You have out-of-body experiences when you feel that you do not even own your body. That adds another layer. Every one of us in the Chamber will go home for a rest. We might be here late — I suspect that we will — but we will go home for a rest.”
“That has not caused you harm, but you will comply because you know that the perpetrator is deadly serious. That is coercive control at one end of the spectrum, but it happens, and we need to capture it in the legislation. There is absolutely no doubt about that.”