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 56 of 75.
“How would the money that we raise through tax-varying powers be spent? Would we spend it on doing the same thing over and over again, like we do every year?”
“Why should we have more fiscal power when we cannot handle the money that is given to us here and now? Why would we need more fiscal power if we cannot spend the money that is coming down from Barnett consequentials? Why should we need more fiscal power when we keep doing the same thing over and over again, year in, year out, and when we do not have any creative thoughts on how we could spend our money more efficiently? <BR /> <BR />The party opposite has not made a hard fiscal decision yet. It has never brought forward a live Budget for the following year. We are still waiting. How does the Member think we should get more fiscal power? It is bizarre. Why would we put that pressure on a Finance Minister? Should we really have tax-varying powers? "What way would the taxes go?", I wonder, Who would it impact on most?”
“If everything was running smoothly, you could argue that we did not need the financial transactions money, but look at the crisis in COVID. Beyond that, look at the crises in housing, in NI Water and in Translink, and look at the support required for businesses and sports clubs. I could go on. We have an inability to spend money that is there for us to spend, so who are we letting down? We are letting down the people of Northern Ireland. That is where the buck stops. That is who feels the impact. The Executive are failing those people. <BR /> <BR />The Member from the party opposite talks about Tory austerity: how much more money do we need to prove that we are not very good at spending it? We have £2·4 billion, but we cannot even spend all of that money, which we surely need. The Member talks about more fiscal power.”
“It is doing the same thing, and it is giving approval to carry on, to carry on like the greatest 'Carry On' movies, but this one is not funny. There is no strategic thought here whatever. We are in the midst of a crisis and an emergency — we are being forged by fire — but we think that we can do the same thing over and over again. <BR /> <BR />We are thankful for the massive lump of Barnett consequential money: it was £2·4 billion, I think, at the last count. It has been invested in schemes that we required, but we cannot even spend all of it. We are sitting with, I think, £55 million in the centre, and we have £600 million going to the health service. We cannot spend that money, and we cannot maximise borrowing. We cannot even spend or draw down the financial transactions money that is there for us.”
“I see where there has been a massive increase for some Departments, where it is needed, and I see less of an increase in others, where it is not needed. Of course, that is good, because we need that money. That money has been drawn down from Barnett consequentials, and it is good that we can get money directed to help to fund the support schemes. <BR /> <BR />Today, we are approving additional spends and flexibilities to finance the support schemes and so on, but it is also to ensure that Departments do not run out of money. Some Departments are getting dangerously close to doing that. That is why we are at the Budget (No. 3) Bill and why we have had to have a couple of such processes in-year. I understand that. However, today is also giving approval to do the same thing over and over again.”
“I have a lot of sympathy for the fact that the Finance Minister, along with others in the Executive, has been fighting a crisis on many fronts, not least COVID, and there is a lot of uncertainty, which increases the crisis and escalates the emergencies that we all face. Therefore, I have a certain sympathy for everyone who is mixed up in that process and has to work in it. <BR /> <BR />I see the blue pages, and may I say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is great that the Bill Office is starting to publish Bills again? Imagine a legislature that was not even publishing Bills. It is an absolute disgrace, if you ask me. It is good to have a Bill in your hand. In the Bill, I see figures; I see big figures.”
“<BR /> <BR />Again, even this week, the Finance Committee asked questions about authority. As the Committee Chairperson stated, we saw a scramble whereby authorisation was given at late notice and after we had requested to see the authorisations. It is clear that not all is well in the Finance Department. I have no reason to believe that it is working tickety-boo in any of the other Departments either. There is a lot to learn and a lot for those of us on Committees to scrutinise. <BR /> <BR />The Bill is the Budget (No. 3) Bill. The title itself sends a signal that we are not in normal times. These are strange times. I suppose that I have a certain sympathy for the Department and the Minister over the massive influx of moneys into the centre that have to be distributed to Departments.”
“There will be many things that we will miss and many that we do not request, but, when we request information, the fact that we do not get it, that there is delay or that we have to put in the same request over and over again, which is then treated as multiple requests — as if that would get them off the hook for the late delivery of documents and emails — is not good enough. Let it go out loud and clear from the House: no official should take for granted the accelerated passage of a finance Bill. We do it for the greater good, but, some day, the balance of greater good might tip and it might not be for the greater good any more to allow a finance Bill to go through without proper Finance Committee scrutiny, like the scrutiny that we give to every clause of every other Bill that goes through the House. I put that marker down.”
“I want to put a marker down — the Chairperson of the Finance Committee suggested this earlier — that no Minister or official in any Department, not least the Finance Minister and his Department, should ever take it lightly or for granted that the Finance Committee, whoever populates those chairs and benches, will give accelerated passage to a Budget Bill as a matter of course. If departmental officials fall into that trap, they may well get a rude awakening some day, because, during my time on the Finance Committee, I have been less than impressed by what I have witnessed of the engagement and information flow that goes from the Department to the Committee.”
“It is vital that our scrutiny Committees get to see the information that they need to see in order to do their job right at an early stage and then to support and advise their Department on how that revenue should be spent. Scrutiny Committees are very useful things, not just for scrutiny but for advice and support. Believe me: our Departments need all the help that they can get. <BR /> <BR />The Estimates are published, and we go through them here. The Finance Committee does its part. There will be sufficient dialogue and scrutiny there. Then, at last, we get a Budget Bill on the Floor. A Budget Bill is treated differently from any other Bill — most other Bills, anyway — in that, in most cases, it is given accelerated passage.”
“I have sat in for most if not all the debate today, and some valid points have been made. There has been some rough and tumble, as you would expect. I will try to be the voice of reason, as I always am. <BR /> <BR />This is an important Bill. Anybody with any experience here has seen Budget Bill after Budget Bill, and there is a tendency to take them lightly, but it is fundamental to the governance of this place that finances are placed in the correct columns and for the correct Departments and that, when that money gets to those Departments, it is used in the appropriate way. Scrutiny of a Budget Bill and a process are vital, but it does not start and end in the Chamber.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. She is correct that words are important, but so are deeds. Does she accept that the actions of her party, in attending the Bobby Storey funeral, paid great damage to that message and the attitude of the population?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. There are issues with the new scheme that the Finance Minister produced last week. First, it is nowhere near enough money. Secondly, it is based on the rates base, which is a very blunt instrument. Thirdly, given that it is not enough, the people who obtain that money are worried that they will disqualify themselves from further support in the future.”
“It is an absolute shame and disgrace that an Executive can make a decision like that.”
“I have yet to see any evidence to suggest that those businesses were the places where the virus was contracted.”
“<BR /> <BR />I met businesses last week, and none of them is in a good place. This week, some of them will be making the decision to close shop forever. I know of a hairdresser's that employs 18 people — six at any given time in the shop — that has been cutting hair safely, with all the measures that it invested in. Yet none of the staff knows where their next pay cheque is coming from or whether they have a job. That is a sad state of affairs that should not be. The Executive will say, "We are doing this for your own protection. It is for your own good. We are here to protect you". Who is here to protect the people from the very Executive making those decisions? I see no rhyme nor reason for closing businesses that have put in place measures to safeguard staff and customers.”
“That is fine, Mr Speaker. Thank you for your judgement. <BR /> <BR />I agree with the Member entirely. That will have to be a vital cog, especially when we move to multi-year Budgets, and, of course, this year's Budget, with all the uncertainty that it brings. <BR /> <BR />You can have all the big-ticket issues and ideas in your head that you like, but the best way to support businesses at this time is to allow them to trade safely. The Health Minister talked in biblical terms at the start of this crisis, so let me talk in biblical terms: it is a God-given right for a person to endeavour to earn a living to provide for his or her family. It is a God-given right, yet the Executive removed that right without having any idea about the support mechanisms that will be in place.”
“The Minister says that he is waiting for bids and Ministers say that the bids have gone in, yet here we go along.”
“3) Bill and the uniqueness that that brings with it; it is really, really strange. Yet out on the ground, after all the months that we have had to cope with this crisis, there are sectors that have still received no support. Haulage companies, travel agents, taxi services, the newly self-employed, social enterprises and the supply chains of business that no longer need their supplies have not been supported as they should have. Of course, there were the big-ticket issues that came down from on high. There was the furlough scheme and the rates holidays, which were gratefully accepted because they were, without doubt, game changers; they were the big-ticket issues. However, we seem to have struggled to spend all the other money that has come down, and there is a central pot yet to be allocated.”
“<BR /> <BR />One query I ask of the Minister for when he is preparing his statement — I know that his officials will be listening — is about table 1.3, which is a summary of total amounts. With regard to the Vote on Account, the resources do not match up, bar two, with the Vote on Account which we passed months ago in the Assembly. I am asking this genuinely because again, I do not know: why are they different? Is it due to injections of money that they have had over the months? If so, why are they based in table 1.3? Why not start off with the Vote on Account sums and then build up the balance and total provision? I am seeking clarification on that from the Minister and the officials. <BR /> <BR />Here we are, having to go through what will be called the Budget (No.”
“It has been stated here, even by the last Member to speak, that we should have multi-year Budgets. I think that all of us recognise the advantage of having multi-year Budgets. That is how we deliver our budgets at home — of course it is — so why would that not be the case in a Government and in a devolved Assembly like this? <BR /> <BR />However, you can have all the multi-year Budgets that you like, but unless you bring strategic thought to those Budgets then one year will roll into the next, one error will roll into the next error, and instead of having errors on a yearly basis, we will have them on a three-yearly basis and nothing will change. So again, yes, the cry should be heard loudly about multi-year Budgets, but unless you have strategic thought injected into that by the Executive, it will count for absolutely nothing.”
“I will say at the outset that these are unique times. It is a strange year, not least for the officials in the Department of Finance. I have a certain sympathy for officials — it may sometimes not seem like it in the Committee — who have had to work extremely hard on the budgetary process this year, and of course for the next year, with all of the unknowns that that brings. However, this difficult year has brought with it an influx of money and whilst I am certainly not blaming the officials on this, it is clear that we seem to be struggling to spend the additional Barnett consequential money. It is very clear, not least in the last week, that we need more strategic thought injected into the Executive's decisions, and the Finance Minister is at the heart of that.”
“Given the recent comments and behaviour of Gerry Kelly MLA and, of course, the past of that party, will the First Minister take the opportunity to remind the House of the obligations on MLAs to keep to peaceful means?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He makes a valid point. While slavery has been a stain on the history of every nation, it was the Royal Navy that worked so hard to end slavery in the traditional sense at that time. If it had not been for the Royal Navy and the British Empire, slavery might not have ended then. Of course, every nation, including Ireland, has had its run-ins with slavery. Ireland was a big market for slavery, the slavery of Britons and Picts.”
“<BR /> <BR />I therefore support the Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill, because the immigration rights that it would provide will apply to all victims, regardless of nationality. Clause 2 would help to reduce the risk of victims being re-trafficked. It would provide much-needed certainty and stability for victims, who have often gone through deeply traumatic experiences, and it might enable victims to provide more evidence to the PSNI for the purpose of seeking prosecutions. <BR /> <BR />I hope that Members across the House can and will support the motion and show the Government that it would be a positive move forward for victims here. It is a global issue and a global problem. Let Northern Ireland, and the UK, play its part in bringing an end to modern trafficking and slavery.”
“<BR /> <BR />The needs of EU victims post-Brexit were recognised by the House of Lords last week in a vote to ensure that victims get leave to remain if they meet very similar criteria to those currently applied to discretionary leave. EU victims are trafficked into Northern Ireland, so clause 12 as it stands of the Westminster Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill will impact on victims here. Those sorts of immigration rights should be available to all nationalities, as needed, however. Some victims will want to return home, but others, who are currently required to leave the UK, will be put in circumstances that led them to be vulnerable to trafficking in the first place.”
“Thank you for that intervention. I agree that we need to look at this again and resolve the issue once and for all. Remember that, when we pass legislation, it is not set in stone. It can be amended and improved on. That agility should be welcomed, pushed for and persevered with. <BR /> <BR />Victims of all nationalities, including British citizens, are trafficked in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, there is no data on how many victims have or do not have leave to remain. We know that the UK Government consider discretionary leave to remain to be an option only in exceptional circumstances. Different data sources suggest that only 8% or 12% of victims get discretionary leave.”
“Being identified as a victim of trafficking does not currently provide any right to remain, in contrast to the welcome provision for refugees, where recognition as a refugee grants an initial period of five years' leave to remain in the UK. Currently, discretionary leave to remain can be granted to victims of trafficking. It is, however, granted only when victims are not eligible for any other form of leave.”
“I commend Lord Morrow for his foresight in his cutting-edge Bill, which really made a difference to this jurisdiction and victims. <BR /> <BR />Lord McColl's Bill will provide immigration leave for confirmed victims in two circumstances: first, during the time that an individual receives discretionary support under section 18(9) of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation Act, and, secondly, a victim who meets particular criteria could receive leave to remain and recourse to public funds for at least 12 months.”
“<BR /> <BR />I note the comments made by Lord Kennedy of Southwark, representing the Labour Front Bench, during the debate on the Westminster immigration Bill last week. He stated that Northern Ireland's legislation on trafficking is generally regarded as more superior to the legislation in England and Wales. He went on to call for England and Wales to follow what we have done on support for victims. I add my voice to that call. We should commend ourselves in the House when we make historic and brave decisions around legislation. <BR /> <BR />At this point, let me commend Lord Morrow, because he saw something before anybody else. He saw a route, through legislation, to provide resolution and safety for people and victims.”
“I commend the Member for East Belfast, my colleague and friend Joanne Bunting for tabling the motion. It is a very good debate, and it is good that we have consensus across the House. <BR /> <BR />The Conservative peer Lord McColl, a long-standing campaigner for the rights of trafficked individuals, has tabled the Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill, which awaits debate in the House of Lords. The Bill has two aims. It will provide statutory support for potential victims of trafficking in England and Wales through the National Referral Mechanism process. It will bring that jurisdiction into line with what we already have in Northern Ireland. The Bill also has an impact on the immigration status of confirmed victims of trafficking who are identified here. As Members know, immigration is a matter reserved for Westminster.”
“I thank the Minister for her very clear statement last week on the issue. In that statement, the Minister said that it was some three months between her Department knowing about the issue and her knowing. Will the Minister clear up for the House whether she had any inkling or received any sort of briefing before she was informed, or was she kept completely in the dark for three months?”
“Thank you. Was it not a monumental error, and therefore a matter of regret to the Minister, to not put in place the apparatus to furlough Translink staff? Has the Department calculated how much the furlough scheme could have saved Translink?”
“The Minister makes several requests to the Government, none of which I could disagree with, but, when he calls for proper involvement in the spending review, the same could be said of this Assembly and the Finance Committee having proper involvement in the Executive's Budget process. The Department has, over the past few months, proven how agile it can be in delivering and spending additional moneys in year. There is no excuse for the current delay in the Budget process and the lack of detail being provided to the Committee and, indeed, this House. The Minister may be right when he says that he has no idea about what could be in the spending review, but he is always proving that he has no clue about bringing forward a Budget to this place. When will the Minister publish details on the Budget?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. Given that the call went out for everyone to be immunised with the flu jab, I ask the Minister if he is confident that the most vulnerable who get the flu jab every year will be able to access it this year?”
“Given the public assets and the dilapidation claims when Departments leave a building, will the Minister commit to undertaking a survey into the grave discrepancies between what the landlord and the Department think that a dilapidation claim should be? Given the massive discrepancy between those two figures, will the Minister undertake to survey and assess that?”
“— how are we left seeking a commissioner for victims when the justice system should do that ably?”
“Our court system is very robust — there are reasons for that — but the fact that we have a robust justice system that can be very confrontational in court is no reason not to support the victims that the justice system here is designed to support. <BR /> <BR />We will support the feasibility study on the appointment of a victims of crime commissioner, but the fundamental question that we, as legislators, must ask ourselves is this: why the need? Why have we got to a place where we need a commissioner to look after victims when the justice system should be the very instrument that seeks redress for those victims and supports them? With all the legal professions and the clear, balanced systems of justice —”
“Victims of crime have to be supported by the justice system that is in place to protect their rights and to give them equal treatment in this country and within the law. When someone becomes a victim, there should be redress. We have heard the horror stories that the Victim Charter, with all its significance when it was brought in, is now being treated like a tick-box exercise. If you look at the fundamentals, you can see very quickly how the justice system can rapidly fall down and fail the victims — the very people that it is designed to protect — time and again. <BR /> <BR />It is not easy to suffer crime. No one here should wish crime on anyone or for victims to be created, but, when you become a victim, you have to go through a process of inquiry, answering questions and being placed in a court, and that is horrendous.”
“<BR /> <BR />If we are saying to ourselves, as a legislature, that we need a victims of crime commissioner, even though we have a justice system, we have to ask ourselves how the justice system is working. Of course, government cogs turn slowly, and it is clear and it is a reality that justice has been devolved only recently, but that should not be the excuse for doing nothing. That should not be the excuse when we roll out improvement and it becomes a tick-box exercise. It should not be an excuse when you have countless CJINI reports talking about the failures of the justice system and countless Committee for Justice reports seeking redress and a better way for victims, yet nothing is done or it becomes a tick-box exercise. Nobody in this society deserves that.”
“I support the motion, but, as with my colleague Mr Givan, my first, frustrated question is why it is needed. Surely, in this day and age, in the liberal democracy in which we live, justice should be an ultimate right. What is the duty on government, devolved or otherwise, other than to keep its people safe and to establish and maintain justice? What is justice? Justice is a balance. When somebody commits a crime, the victim can expect redress and closure, if they can. They are compensated in a number of ways, and that compensation can come in various guises. There is balance. If a Government cannot produce balance, you have to ask this question: what good are that Government to their people? That is the fundamental question that we are debating.”
“The Member raises a very important point. I think that it was Sinéad who said earlier that it is not only the disclosure, it is the timing of the disclosure to families. That very important point should be taken into consideration, too, because the perpetrator might disclose information just to get a more lenient sentence.”
“— we will move on and produce something for the loved ones today.”
“It is the essence of power that a perpetrator wields on a family, not just on the murdered victim but on the family of the murdered victim. We cannot abide that. The House should not abide that. The House can do something about it. The Minister of Justice can do something about it, and —”
“What would that disclosure bring? It will not bring their loved one back. Absolutely not. However, it would allow the family to lay to rest the remains of their loved one, but, not only that, as I said earlier, it may well help to piece together the final hours and minutes of their loved one. Horrendous as that may seem, they will be able to piece together that story and maybe even some of the experiences of their loved one as they went through their final hours. That is a horrendous thought and story, but that would bring so much closure to the loved ones of the murdered, and I cannot for the life of me understand why it is not natural to place a duty on the parole board to take this into statute. <BR /> <BR />It is not good enough to place this in a sentencing review. It has to be much more than that.”
“It is a deliberate act, and that act heaps more power onto the perpetrator, but, not only that, it impacts on the family every second of their lives. It rocks them to their core every second of their lives. Some of these people are elderly and they have to live with this and face this every waking second of their lives. How could any of us ever manage to fathom what that means for loved ones who are facing this cruelty? For these loved ones, it is a sentence that they will never, ever overcome. They will never, ever get over it, yet the perpetrator will sit in there and decide upon a deliberate action not to disclose.”
“If they do, the power over information becomes much more sinister. Sinéad Bradley said that a prisoner's non-disclosure is a deliberate decision.”
“It is on all of us to make sure that something happens after the debate. We can all argue and debate the motion and the amendment, but we need to make sure that we come together to send a message to those victims and loved ones that we are with you, we hear you, and we want to make a difference to your lives. That would be a very powerful message for those loved ones. <BR /> <BR />When someone commits the heinous crime of murder or unlawful killing, or is involved in sexual violence towards or abuse of young people, it is a heinous crime. An act of murder may be a one-off action, but it brings misery to loved ones forever and a day. However, a perpetrator who commits murder has a certain power. They may have that power inside them, and, in some hideous way, they may enjoy it.”
“I commend my colleague Alex Easton for his opening remarks and also the spirit in which the debate has been conducted, with some very powerful contributors voicing their opinions. I value that. I really value the parliamentary spirit in which the debate is taking place. At times like this, you feel proud to be an MLA. I believe that most if not all of us want the same thing. We may take different routes of travel, but we want exactly the same thing. That said, it was Lord Castlereagh who said that he despised:”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that it is not only a hideous crime to prevent a family from laying to rest their loved one but to deny them knowledge of the final hours of their loved one's life? That disclosure, in itself, would, at least, put to rest that aspect of the heinous crime of murder.”