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 54 of 75.
“Imagine being threatened by the perpetrator not that you will be raped but that a child will be raped. Your own child, your niece, your best friend's child or your next-door neighbour's child. You are threatened with that.”
“That is a bit like harm in this sense, where you will modify your position and your daily habits and be conditioned because of that harm. It is not just the harm that can be inflicted but the threat of the harm. There are times that people can threaten you with the most horrendous thought that you can ever have in your head, and you will comply. You do not need to be told twice. You will comply. <BR /> <BR />To me, coercive control is the little digs, the little things and the manipulative behaviour that makes you change your course because you are reasonable, because you want to make peace, because you do not want to create a fuss and because you do not want your child to experience anything robust or even horrendous. That is at the start, but then it becomes much more than that. There is the full spectrum here.”
“I can see that. The Bill does not necessarily have to mention it to encapsulate it and capture it, so I guess that that has satisfied me in that regard. I have a fear, however, that removing any of the first four clauses would diminish that strength and remove the coercive, controlling nature of domestic abuse that we are trying to capture. <BR /> <BR />That brings me on to my point about harm. It is human nature to tend to move away from harm wherever we can. If it is a hot ring in a kitchen, we try to remove ourselves from that. It does not mean that we leave the kitchen but that we stand clear of the hot ring. It has an effect and an impact, and you will function differently around that hot hob. You will beware, change tack and change direction.”
“That is why we have been moved in this House by the Minister and the previous Minister to move on a Domestic Abuse and Family Proceedings Bill. It is because it is required. When you get to the point at which you know that it is required, you have to piece it together. When you piece it together, I struggle to find how you could leave out clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4. <BR /> <BR />This is a mystery to me yet, and perhaps the Minister will refer to it in her remarks. We have a Bill that is titled the Domestic Abuse and Family Proceedings Bill, but what we really want to do is create an offence of coercive control, yet not once in the Bill is that mentioned. Not once in the Bill is parental alienation mentioned, yet we are told that it is covered. I read the clauses, and I can see where what I believe to be coercive control has been captured.”
“I understand that — I get his arguments 100% — but what we are trying to do is something completely different. Although we need to ensure, and satisfy ourselves, that this is the best legislation possible and that there can be no unintended negative consequences, I think that clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4 speak of coercive control in a way that has never been legislated for before. <BR /> <BR />Mr Allister talked about other offences and other legislation that can and could have been used, but I simply say to him at this point that that legislation has not been used. There are so many victims and, before he tells me off, alleged victims who suffer this on a daily, weekly and yearly basis who have never, ever received justice. The perpetrators and the alleged perpetrators have never, ever been brought to justice.”
“I apologise, Mr Speaker, and I accept your ruling on that. I thank the Minister for placing that on the record also, because that, again, is useful and commendable. So, I thank you, Minister, and I thank you, Mr Speaker. I accept your ruling and will try to resist further distortion of the debate on the Bill. <BR /> <BR />We are talking about the formation of the offence. My experience of this issue goes back to when I was first on the Justice Committee. When I met groups of barristers and judges, even solicitors and everyone else involved with the legal world, it was clear that everyone was grappling with how we could deal with coercive control. That has played out today with Mr Allister's interventions and his moving the debate.”
“I thank the Minister for that intervention and for putting that on the record, because that is very helpful. I await to see how that plays out. <BR /> <BR />Another issue is the rough sex defence, and I looked at doing something around that. However, the departmental officials were concerned, so we were concerned, that to add in such a defence on specific matters could hurt the Bill because of the way that the Bill is formed. So, I take that point, but I reserve the right on that, too, and will keep people on their toes.”
“I know why that is in there. That is the reason why I could not attach even one clause on the stalking piece. I wanted just one clause to give those victims some succour and hope in the future, but, of course, we have stalking legislation coming forward as promised. It is nearly at the door of the Assembly, and I cannot wait until I see that legislation also. <BR /> <BR />I wanted to do something on strangulation, and I reserve the right to do something on strangulation at the next stage. It is important to talk about it to engage people's minds. Strangulation is one of the most horrendous crimes in domestic violence. It is not coercive control — I will talk about that later.”
“You think about those people sitting in their home really suffering while this place was not meeting. It is unforgivable — it really is — but we are here now. What do we have to do now? We have to make sure that this law is the best law that it can be. <BR /> <BR />I must admit that I have struggled with the Bill, because of the way in which it is written and compiled. I have sympathy for the Department, but there was so much that I wanted to do and so many amendments that I wanted to add. Most Members know me by now: I would not shy away from that. I try to test things, to form things and to persuade people into my way of thinking. I wanted to try to attach a stalking offence to the Bill, but that was ruled out very quickly. When you read clause 1, you see very clearly that it states:”
“<BR /> <BR />I cannot let go of the fact that I stand here today with a sense of regret, because the Bill should have been passed three years ago. This Bill should already be in statute. We should already be seeing reports about how effective the law is and what the crime statistics are, and such reports would maybe suggest that we need to introduce a second Bill to ensure that the legislation is fit for purpose. We have been deprived of that up to now, and so have the victims. That is unforgivable. Three years? Unforgivable. <BR /> <BR />I also stand here today with a sense of regret about the suffering that people had to go through while this place did not meet over those three years. Just think about that. This is only aspect of law. It is only one Bill. It is only one subject.”
“When Claire first took office, she made this her number-one priority. When I first took office as the Justice Committee Chairperson, I, too, made it my number-one priority, along with the issue of stalking. Very quickly, the former Minister and I came to an arrangement that she would push forward with a domestic violence Bill and the Committee would work on a stalking report that we could hand to the Minister when she had developed her domestic abuse Bill. She would then pick up our report and run with it to produce stalking legislation too. I commend and thank the former Minister Claire Sugden for her priorities, her activities and her work in that regard. That was right, and it was needed, so I thank her for that.”
“Thanks also have to go to — this has already been alluded to today — the many victims and many people who have been impacted by domestic abuse, domestic violence and coercive control. Those are horrendous activities. For the first time in our history, domestic abuse will be an offence, and that is really, really important. The Assembly should shine a light of hope to not only the victims who suffer but their families, who watch it, sometimes in slow motion, and feel as though they cannot do anything to help or assist or to change the course of events that take place. That is horrendously hard for anyone to watch, even if it is indirect. Even neighbours who watch it on a daily basis cannot affect change, but maybe they will be able to do so now. <BR /> <BR />Acknowledgement must also go to the former Justice Minister, Claire Sugden.”
“Without that support, we cannot do our job properly and provide legislation that is fit for purpose. We do not stand a chance.”
“I rise to welcome this stage of the Bill. It has been a long road. Before I get into the Bill and amendments in depth, people need to be acknowledged. As the Chairperson has already said, they are the Committee staff. MLAs can populate a Committee. We can do as much hard work as we can in the hours that we are given. However, when we leave the Committee, it is the staff who continue that work until we, again, hit that room and function as a Committee. I want to give my deepest thanks to the Committee Clerk and team, who I have known for considerable time now, and who, I must say, are at the top of their game. There is absolutely no doubt about that. The detailed report that they have helped MLAs to produce is second to none. They have helped and facilitated us, as MLAs, to scrutinise the Bill as best we can.That is vitally important.”
“I thank the Minister and his officials, who gave the Finance Committee a very useful and informative briefing on this last week. Minister, you state that £16·5 million has been secured to date by 64 partners. How much of that money has come to Northern Ireland? Out of the 96 projects for Peace and the 34 projects for INTERREG, how much of that money is forecast to come to Northern Ireland?”
“I have no doubt that we will do the same with the Criminal Justice (Committal Reform) Bill, because I have faith in the Committee members to scrutinise diligently and get to the kernel of the issues and the point of the Bill. We will probably make it better, as we did with the Domestic Violence Bill. <BR /> <BR />I support the Bill's Second Stage and look forward to its Committee Stage. I would welcome commentary and comments from all Members at the Committee Stage.”
“We have not had any appeals this side of lockdown, which is wrong, because there is no reason for that, but the buildings and the court setting have to be utilised better. Over the years, they have not been well utilised. <BR /> <BR />All of those issues are in the mix. Even though the Bill is only five clauses long, the Committee will take its time. It will scrutinise it as only the Justice Committee can. I have been very impressed with the Justice Committee's work on the Domestic Violence and Family Proceedings Bill. We have done an enormous piece of work — a very good piece of work — and we will bear that out tomorrow.”
“That is the point that I make now. Passing the Criminal Justice (Committal Reform) Bill is the start, not the end, of the journey. It is important that we encourage and increase efficiency, even in our Crown Court proceedings. We must ensure that there is no bottleneck as a result of losing this layer, and make sure that our court proceedings are much more efficient than they are currently. That is vitally important. <BR /> <BR />I also want to touch on the utilisation of our estate — our court buildings and every art and part of those buildings. It is vital that they are utilised and maximised completely and utterly. If we do not have court proceedings, we should maximise the use of that building by using it for DLA and personal independence payment (PIP) appeals. That is what we do in courtroom 3 in Ballymena, and it works very well.”
“We should probably be closer, but we are close enough to the courts to know how they work. Many Members will have experienced court proceedings over the years and during their lives, and it is a daunting prospect. Even when you know you are right, if you are involved in a case, the buildings and the process can be alien to everyday life. Unless you are a trained barrister, solicitor or judge, it is alien to you and it is not your place of work, so it is daunting. It should not be the case that an alleged victim is asked to give evidence, and to give evidence again, or that a witness is asked to give evidence, and then to give it again in a different setting. We do not need that. It has been proven in other jurisdictions in the United Kingdom that it is not required. We need to cut away the layers that are not needed and speed up justice.”
“We need to grapple with that. We need to make sure that that is quicker, slicker and more effective. We should remember that it is not just about punishing people but about rehabilitation, and we will have no chance of rehabilitating if the perpetrator cannot link the offence that they have committed with the punishment that they have been given. That is very important. <BR /> <BR />I will move on to costs. How will this save money and how much money will it save? That is a hard question to answer, because it changes and is so fluid over the years and, of course, it all depends on the rate of crime and everything else, but we need to see meaningful change in the area of saving money. <BR /> <BR />Let us not get away from the impact that this might have. Members of the Justice Committee are close to the courts.”
“It is highlighted in some of the intelligence-led reports, and some of the organisations have commented on that over the years. It is very important that we cover and protect those people. <BR /> <BR />It is not only about the alleged victims and their families but the perpetrators — or the alleged perpetrators, before I get told off. It is quite right that every single one of us should expect swift justice, even the perpetrators. That is hard to say, considering some of the horrendous crimes that have taken place, but everyone deserves quick, speedy justice outcomes. When you read all the reports, you will know that, especially for young people, delayed justice, if it is years in the making, can lead to a lack of responsibility from the perpetrator and that person not linking their crime with their punishment.”
“We will want to scrutinise that issue to make sure that the changes that we are trying to make will bring real reform, real meaning and real positivity. <BR /> <BR />I thank the officials for coming to the Committee to give us a briefing before the Second Stage. One of the questions I asked was: how will it affect crimes and offences that are carried out by suspected terrorists but are not terrorist-related? With that comes the fear, the presence and the spectre of the fist and, in many cases, worse. We know that there is real fear out there in the population, not only among alleged victims but among the families of alleged victims. We need to ensure that we cover all bases and that, as much as possible, we try to protect the people involved from the gangster, the terrorist and the gunman. That is very important.”
“I note Mr Allister's earlier commentary, and that is why I cannot wait to get the Bill into the Committee Stage. I am sure, given the Member's interest and expertise in this, that he will contribute to the Justice Committee's scrutiny, and I welcome and encourage that from the Member, as I am sure the Minister does. She is nodding her head. The more people we can get to scrutinise the Bill, the better. It is the same as with any Bill in the House.”
“There is no point abolishing a stage of a hearing process, horrendous as it is, if we still have the same outcome and it will not assist. We know and are told time and time again by all the experts that justice delayed is justice denied. We will keep repeating that and we have done for years, but we have not seen any change, so here we have an opportunity for real change.”
“I hope that the Minister heard that. Yes: I support that intervention and key question. The Committee will want to look at that issue.”
“We cannot have a bottleneck and for people to wait just as long, albeit it would do away with a horrendous stage of the court proceedings for the people who are involved. If outcomes take the same length of time, we will have failed. That is a sobering picture.”
“of hindsight with regard to England and Wales. Of course, they abolished committal proceedings quite some time ago. I think that it was the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 that did away with committal. Therefore, they have had a lot of time. Something that they realised about that — it was in a National Audit Office report — was that, while abolishing committal hearings had reduced waste in the system, getting rid of those hearings had added little value because that had, instead, added to pressure on Crown Courts, where a backlog of cases gathered more quickly.”
“, the Department and the judicial system for a long time. Therefore, I believe that we are taking a positive step forward in the right direction. <BR /> <BR />It is a very small Bill. There is not much to it. Most of what it contains relates to abolition of preliminary investigations and the committal process. That brings me to some of the problems that we might see. We have the benefit”
“Of course, anybody who has had any experience on the Justice Committee will know that it is a problem that has dogged the Committee, the Minister”
“of course, we all know that it is years —”
“There are even all the political agreements, which I will not go into because they bore me as much as they do everybody else in the public. Then, there is the Intelligence and Security Committee report on Northern Ireland-related terrorism, published in October 2020, which states that:”
“Even recommendation 110, I think that it is, of the much-valued Gillen report states that:”
“; not only are there reports from the judicial system but from experts who have reported on the justice system of late. <BR /> <BR />Recommendation 3 from the Northern Ireland Audit Office's 2018 report on speeding up justice states that:”
“It is clear that when one looks back at the catalogue — and it is a catalogue — of reports, there are some from all arts and parts”
“This is the business end for us as legislators. I am delighted that we can get our teeth into Bills. I thank the Minister for that. Of course, legislation is a bit like buses: you wait for a long time for one Bill to come along and, then, a number of them do. I can only impress upon the Minister to keep them coming. No matter how many there are, let us see legislative change for good. <BR /> <BR />I think that we all realise how long the Bill has been in the system and has taken to get to this point. I welcome that. I welcome the fact that some good can come out of it. It is only Second Stage. I cannot wait for the Bill to get to the Committee, where we can get into the nuts and bolts of what it is designed to do.”
“I rise to speak on the Bill. First of all, I welcome the fact that we have legislation coming through the Assembly. That is what the Building and Chamber were designed for. We are legislators. Is it not great to have a late-night sitting, and the atmosphere that it brings, when we could be at home or anywhere else? This is where we are, and this is why we are here.”
“The Minister will know — I have corresponded with him about it — about the growing number of vulnerable residents in north Antrim who have been unable to avail themselves of the flu vaccine because they have had to drive into a practice instead of walking in. Can the Minister shed some light on that issue? Is it a growing problem? How does he fix it?”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. Mr Deputy Speaker, is it right that the Minister would misinterpret my wording? I have never denied COVID; in fact, in my speech, I talked about it being a dangerous disease and virus. The reason that I would not want further fiscal powers for the House is that in front of me is one of the most dangerous political parties in western Europe.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Given that we have a five-party coalition Executive, that those five parties all come from different directions and go to different places and that we have no Opposition in this place, is it not right and proper that we, as MLAs, should all challenge where we can? Whilst we have members on the Executive, no one has a majority on the Executive. It is vital that we, as an Assembly, do not become compliant and that we challenge where we see the need arise.”
“Does the Member recognise that even members of the very Executive that he talks about have spoken in those terms? Even this morning, the First Minister, from this very Bench, spoke of the impact on businesses. This is not an issue in-house; it is the Assembly performing its function, using its power to hold the Executive to account. That is our job. When will the party opposite realise that its function is to challenge, not to be led like some troop through the Lobbies?”
“I am interested in what the Member has to say. Does the Member agree with me, albeit it is a very primitive thought at present, that we should be looking at some sort of statutory duty being placed on Ministers to come to the House with regard to the financial process?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I think that I acknowledged in my speech that it is a deadly virus and that we need to take measures to protect people. Does the Member realise that the Executive persuaded and incentivised businesses to put in safety measures — barriers, shields, face masks, gowns and safety equipment — and that some even went as far as putting in motion-sensor lighting so that people would not have to touch light switches, which came to an investment of thousands of pounds? Does the Member accept that it was criminal to tell those businesses that they then had to close?”
“That is not of those people's own making; it is because they cannot make a living. They cannot earn a pound; they cannot get benefits. They are waiting on compensation from the Executive, the very Executive that closed them down. They cannot see that compensation, they do not have it in their bank accounts, and they cannot spend it. <BR /> <BR />I suggest that the furlough scheme is the game changer and the only thing that has kept most of those businesses afloat. However, the furlough scheme came from Westminster. What have the Executive offered? Nothing but pain and suffering in these past three weeks. Where is the money? Where is the funding? Where is the support for people? They cannot see it or feel it. Now, they do not even know whether they are opening on Friday. That is a shame and disgrace.”
“Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. If only the thought police mattered. This is a place of challenge. That is what the Assembly is meant to be; it is how it is meant to function. I say to the Member that I know the real world out there. I see the people who go into hospital; I see the people who need operations but cannot get them; I see the people who have been on waiting lists for years and will, now, have to wait further years. I know how the pandemic has affected families because it has affected my family. My very brother had it. Even today, my sister has it. I will not take any lectures about the real world from Members across the House. I will not. However, I will plead with the Member to walk with me around Ballymena, Ballymoney, Ballycastle, and every village and art and part in between, and he will see real struggling and suffering.”
“Do not get me wrong: I do not blame the Executive for all of it; it was caused by the pandemic. However, when people needed the Executive to support and help them in the midst of this cruel pandemic, in which people are dying, what have the Executive done? They have destroyed livelihoods and businesses by the decisions that they have taken. They need to change step; they need to go out into the real world and see the suffering in it. Will the Budget help those people? Money has been lying at the centre for months. There are business owners lying at home, not knowing what to tell their employees about Friday. It is shameful.”
“There is not a chance that I will support more fiscal powers for an Executive that have made decisions this month to destroy livelihoods and jobs and to ruin businesses. There is no chance. I ain't going there. Maybe I will be persuaded. It is up to the Minister to persuade the House. I ain't seen anything yet. I say this to the Finance Minister: get that money to those people. Last week and the week before it was the time to do it. Do not leave those businesses hanging any longer. Some of them are already gone; some will not reopen. This is a record month for redundancies.”
“We do at the spring Supplementary Estimates (SSEs) stage, which is in February, and thus after the event, so why not allow the Assembly to vote to pass the monitoring rounds? In that way, we, as MLAs and as an Assembly, have a say. In that way, we can ensure that the Executive take cognisance of what our Committees have to say and what the Finance Committee has to say. That is the way forward. <BR /> <BR />One thing that I have learnt in my time as an MLA, and since I came back to this place, is this: there is a lot that we get right, but there is a lot that we get wrong. We cannot abide by that. Where we see problems, we should fix them. We need to repair, we need to fix and we need to resolve. Fiscal powers? Not a chance.”
“We need laws in this place that place statutory duties on the Finance Minister and on all other Ministers to bring information to their Committee in proper time and information that serves its function. That information would then be scrutinised. It would then go into a centralised system whereby we all, as an Assembly, could see and scrutinise that work. When we got to monitoring rounds, they would then become vitally important, if they are not already important, of course. <BR /> <BR />It is not good enough that the Assembly rubber-stamp or vote on something for which the Executive have decided to move money around. With the democratic deficit that we already have in this place, I say that the Assembly should perhaps have that say and agree to pass the monitoring rounds.”
“Sometimes the financial side of things does not get the time and scrutiny that it should. <BR /> <BR />We have problems. We should all see that, and, if we do not, we are blind. What, as an Assembly, can we do to fix those problems? Codes do not work: quite clearly they do not. I do not believe that a memorandum of understanding would work either. It would just not be strong enough. The Finance Committee can produce a series of platforms and produce pro formas that Committees and Departments can fill in. That has helped to a certain degree, but it has helped identify the weaknesses. It has helped us see the holes in the system. <BR /> <BR />That is why I say that we need statutory reform.”
“Surely he should see that there is a democratic deficit in the way in which we do a Budget, because it is an excepted matter. There is a duty on the Finance Minister to provide a Budget to this Assembly, and that is it. There is so much more that the Assembly needs to see on budgetary and financial matters, however. I am talking not just about having a memorandum of understanding but about having deep, meaningful reform. I am talking about reform that will make the Assembly the place where the power resides. By that, I mean that Departments take an inconsistent approach to bringing their information to the Committees. Some are late with it, which is unforgivable. Some provide scant information to their Committee, and, let us face it, sometimes Committees have other priorities.”