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 59 of 75.
“I thank the Member for the intervention. I agree 100% with him. I am glad that he supports me in this, and I suspect that every single MLA in the House should too because that is where we need to be. We need to get to a place where there is total transparency and openness between Departments and the MLAs who sit on these Benches, irrespective of party politics or what party you are from.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will take heed of your warning and your ruling on that. It is everything to do with this Budget Bill and this Vote on Account, this very peculiar second Vote on Account. If the Department cannot even furnish the Committee with emails that we know exist, where are we all in the Assembly when it comes to scrutiny? It makes a joke of this place. It really does. It destroys the credibility of the Assembly, it destroys the credibility of the scrutiny Committees and it destroys the credibility of democracy. That is something that I will guard very carefully.”
“If we do not see the emails, we will compel witnesses, and it will not be Ministers and permanent secretaries. We will compel the very people who constructed the emails.”
“That cannot take place. I will play no part in that and nor should any MLA worth their salt who values their job and has personal pride in the scrutiny role that they play to scrutinise the Departments and to support, guide and advise. That is not the place that we want to be. <BR /> <BR />I am aggrieved at having to stand here today to talk about these issues because we were promised a better place. We were promised that Departments would be more accountable. There would be no secrecy, yet we have Ministers and Departments on a weekly basis now preventing the work of the scrutiny Committees and trying to hold up the work of the scrutiny Committees. It is unacceptable, it cannot take place, it should not take place, and I will play no part in that. I expect to see those emails as does the rest of the Committee.”
“Is that where we are in this place? Is that what we are going to pass here today? That is totally and utterly unacceptable and cannot take place. <BR /> <BR />I, as an individual MLA, cannot and will not support accelerated passage any more for any further legislation that comes before this House or a Committee, nor will I play ball with officials when they want to break deadlines, as the Chair mentioned, passing cans down the road with regard to the scrutiny Committees, yet not changing deadlines for Committees to scrutinise the work of the Departments. That is unacceptable. That rot will creep in to every single Department in this place and will affect transparency and accountability to the point where, even in this House, we cannot get a panoramic view of what is being conducted by our officials and Ministers in our Departments.”
“Better than that, Mr Deputy Speaker, a BBC freedom of information request was issued on the same lines, with similar requests, and the Department of Finance has refused that freedom of information request. <BR /> <BR />We conduct serious business in the Assembly and every single piece of legislation that we pass will affect every single person in our country, not least a Vote on Account and a Budget Bill. Yet the very people who should have first sight of those things, on a scrutiny Committee, are refused access to those emails. That cannot take place. We were promised that we would not be going back to business as usual. Yet what I see is even more secrecy in our Departments and even more subterfuge. We were given the explanation that the emails are too dry and too factual for a scrutiny Committee. Really?”
“We would like to see all emails when we ask for all emails, so I am very aggrieved that we are in front of the Minister and the Department and that we are in the House to pass very important legislation through accelerated passage — in a way that we have never done before because of the second Vote on Account — and the Department cannot even furnish the scrutiny Committee with the emails that it requested. How long do we have to wait? <BR /> <BR />When the Minister gave us the explanation as to why the officials did not send us the emails from those two days, he did not even furnish us with those emails, so they are still being withheld.”
“The original request was for all emails in connection to that issue; not some, not a wheen, but all emails. All emails. The Minister said that the officials did not think that we would want to see them because they were all about dry stuff like volumes, products, specifications and pricing. Every single one of the emails that we did read was about volumes, products, specifications and pricing, so what is the difference? <BR /> <BR />When a scrutiny Committee asks for all emails, we expect to get all emails. It is not up to an official or a Minister to decide what the Committee should get or what the Committee would like to see.”
“It is a budgetary matter, in the crisis that we are in, that will effect the Budget to no end in the coming months and, in fact, probably years. When the Committee asked for all emails concerning that issue, it received a raft of emails that could be easily itemised and timelined. Members realised that there were two days on which there were no emails: 30 and 31 March. Therefore, we asked whether there were no emails on those days, and, if there were, why had we not been given them? We received a response right on the limit of the deadline. That response was from the Minister, who stated:”
“We have asked deep and meaningful questions; not because we want to be awkward or troublesome but because we want to do our job thoroughly, efficiently and effectively, so that the scrutiny Committees can not only scrutinise the Departments but that they can be of assistance and offer guidance and support to the Departments and the Ministers. I must say that I am aggrieved and really concerned by the stance that has been taken by the Department of Finance around financial and budgetary matters. <BR /> <BR />Mr Deputy Speaker, you will recall the debates that we have had and the media interest in the information around the failed personal protective equipment (PPE) order from China. The scrutiny Committee asked for all emails concerning that issue.”
“He, quite aptly, raised the issue that I raised during a debate last week about the way in which the Justice Department has treated the Justice Committee, of which I am also a member. <BR /> <BR />If I knew then what I know now, I am not even sure that I would support the Department of Finance in the accelerated passage of the Bill. I know that it is the norm that a Budget Bill, for good reason, receives accelerated passage, but I have grave concerns about the transparency of these Departments, the secrecy in which they still conduct business and the way that they treat scrutiny Committees with disdain. We have raised issue upon issue in the Committee. We have done our job in the Committee for Finance.”
“I thank the Chairperson of the Finance Committee for his contribution and for reinforcing the issues of transparency and accountability and the scrutiny that is placed on our shoulders to ensure that we pass legislation that is fit for purpose. A Minister may well bring a Bill to the House but it is the Assembly that passes the legislation, so we have a critical role, as do the scrutiny Committees. There is absolutely no doubt that we are in unique times and that things are fast-moving, but this is more of a time to scrutinise further and deeper into legislation that the House passes. I am tremendously worried about what we all heard the Chairperson of the Finance Committee say about scrutiny.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I respect his ability to do so. If it were not for austerity, would money actually have been spent on PPE? Would money have been spent on ventilators? That would have been a political policy direction, a decision that would have to be made. The Member opposite, like his party, talks all the time about Tory austerity, but never do they mention the terrorist campaign that raged here for 30-odd years. How many ventilators could have been purchased with the money that was spent on rebuilding our cities and towns?”
“You can see how messy that is going to be and how easy it is going to be to miss things when scrutinising it. That is not the place that any one of us wants to be. Every pound that we spend has to be accounted for. It does not matter whether it is the £0·9 million that the Justice Committee has found out about in respect of the Justice Department. As I said earlier, that may as well be £9 million, £90 million or £900 million. It is about accountability and transparency, and the scrutiny of this place doing its job, and we are being prevented from doing that when we do not receive all the information from the Departments. That worries me, Mr Deputy Principal Speaker.”
“It is a necessity that we do this. We have to wait for the Main Estimates in September, but the Finance Committee was looking forward to the draft Budget for the next year in September. Where is that? Can the Minister enlighten us as to whether a body of work is ongoing to draft that Budget, because that should be going out to consultation? Work on that Budget should be going on now, but we are having to go through this process. It is not their fault; it is not the Minister's fault that we are in this COVID-19 situation. We need to step forward in a strategic fashion. We need to see the draft Budget for the next financial year, in September, so that we can scrutinise it. However, by that time, we will be looking at the Main Estimates for this Budget.”
“That is a vacuum and space in the debate. I suppose that it has always been missing from our Budget debates. Maybe it would be different if we got to a strategic three-year Budget; maybe it would be different if we could align the Programme for Government with the Budget, because that would justify every Budget stream to a Programme for Government output. Maybe that is where we need to get to, but we are not there yet, and that troubles me; it worries me.”
“<BR /> <BR />Some Departments would have run out of money had we not voted for the Vote on Account this morning, but can we really say that those Departments are saying, "Here is what we will save, here is where we will cut back and here is why we need to do that"?”
“We should be progressing our thought processes and saying, "Let us do something differently because it is more effective and efficient and we will save money". That is the sort of debate that I want to have in the Chamber. I do not want to have a debate about a list of pressures but one about having the foresight and the imagination to make sure that the public pound goes as far as it can and to ensure that what we are spending it on is exactly what we need and will help to raise money or help people to raise money in the future. That is what I want to see the money invested in. I want to see it invested, not spent. That could be invested in people, in business or enterprise, but, ultimately, we have to look through all of that.”
“We may be able to wait until we see what the climate looks like after this event, to see how the economy is performing and how it has recovered, to see what money we have got through taxes, Barnett consequentials and the block grant and then move forward from there. <BR /> <BR />As my colleague mentioned earlier, there is a necessity for police officers, but that pressure is not being met because we have a raft of other things to spend on. That raft of things that we are spending money on has always been there. Are those things needed? There is surely something in each Department that does not require the money, the funding and the spend. It may be because of COVID-19. It may be because we are doing things differently. It may be because it was not really a good thing to do in the first place.”
“If we were to list all the pressures and all the wants, needs and requirements, we could probably spend our Budget four times over, but we cannot because there is not enough money there. I want to see not only the money that we need to spend but the money that we will save. This is not the time to push forward with projects that Ministers may want. This is the time for necessity and the time for hard-knuckled maths to get us back down to necessity and to make sure that the money that is spent by the Executive caters for all our people and not just some of them. There will be vulnerabilities among our people that need to be accounted for, and that is totally and utterly acceptable, but other things may be able to wait.”
“I know that it is funded differently and that none of the bodies that I listed are funded identically or do the same work, but it seems strange to me that you would not afford the Utility Regulator all that money in case it needs it before the Main Estimates come in September. The Minister stated earlier that it has received 90%. That could be the case, but I cannot see it in either the Bill or the Vote on Account, and I would like him to go over it one more time for me. I might be wrong. I certainly do not understand it and I would like him to clarify that position for me. <BR /> <BR />We have heard today, as we hear every day when we talk about budgets, about the pressures on our system, on our infrastructure, on our communities and our education and health systems.”
“The second table is about cash, and we are talking about a figure of £1·3 million, of which it has received £330,000. If my maths is right, that is about 25%. I am not saying that the Utility Regulator needs more money, but I am asking: why we would not give the Utility Regulator more money? It is the only body that does not receive money and the only body that is not mentioned in the Bill. We are allowing latitude for the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission and the Northern Ireland Audit Office. Those bodies do not even need money for COVID-19, but, like the Departments, they are being allowed to get more of their money through the Vote on Account. The only office that is not is the Northern Ireland Utility Regulator.”
“Maybe it is just the way that my mind works, but, in the previous debate on the Vote on Account, the Minister said that the Utility Regulator for Northern Ireland had received 90% of its funding for this year. I am not saying that that is wrong; what I am saying is that I cannot see that in any of this detail. Maybe I am looking at the figures wrongly but what I see is two schedules. There are two schedules to the Budget Bill but not once do they mention the Utility Regulator. I think that that is because it is not getting any more money in this Vote on Account. I could be wrong, but I am putting it out there. <BR /> <BR />What I see is that in table 1 in the Vote on Account relating to resources, the Utility Regulator has received only 45% of its yearly spend and is still without some £144,000, having received £119,000.”
“That issue needs to have a light shone on it and it needs to be taken further because we have to get to a place where we, as individual MLAs, and the Assembly are treated with respect. If we are not getting the information that we require, that is not treating Committees and MLAs with respect but with disdain, and that cannot happen. That has to be completely removed from this place. There can be no more business as usual. We are in a different place, where decisions have to be made. Let us see those decisions being played out and let us have full scrutiny of them. <BR /> <BR />I made a point earlier and I ask the Minister to forgive me, but I need to make it again.”
“That paper advised that the costs associated with the scheme would be administered from the existing legal aid budget and gave no indication that a bid for that pressure had been submitted. Here we have a Minister and a Department that, granted, have to think quickly because it is a COVID-19 issue, not even thinking it right to give the Committee that information or, at least, being blasé about it. Is it not good that we have the structure whereby the Department of Finance gives that information to the Finance Committee which, then, can be passed back to the Justice Committee? That, however, is a very convoluted way of doing business, and I do not like it. <BR /> <BR />That is one case that I have picked up on but there are probably many others that Members will have to pick up from their Departments.”
“The details of the £38·8 million were, instead, provided to the Finance Committee, on which I sit, by the Department of Finance. The details highlight the inclusion of an estimated pressure of £0·9 million for the legal aid COVID-19 interim payment scheme. We are not talking about big money, but that is not the point. It is £0·9 million but it may as well be £9 million or £90 million; it is about the fact that the Department of Justice did not give that information to the Committee for Justice. <BR /> <BR />That was, in fact, in direct contradiction to the information that had been provided to the Committee in the Department's policy paper on the payments scheme.”
“However, it did not inform the Justice Committee of the amount of the bid that had been submitted to manage pressures resulting from the pandemic, which was £38·8 million. It did not provide the Justice Committee with any information on the breakdown of the COVID-19 resource requirements that were submitted to the Department of Finance. <BR /> <BR />That is unacceptable in this day and age, when we have come back to this place, when we cannot have business as usual and when we can have no hidden things in this place. It is totally and utterly unacceptable that Departments would withhold that information from Committees — the very scrutiny Committees that are designed to assist the Department and the Minister. It is unacceptable that we would not have sight of that.”
“<BR /> <BR />Most Members may not know this, but the Committee for Finance, through the RaISe office, pushed through a template — a uniform document — to all Committees, to get answers from Departments. That is the way to go. It is the way to make sure that we get consistent information down to our Committees, so that we can look at things in a comparative way. It is a very good exercise, and I believe in it. What it has done already is to shine a light on the information that Departments are not giving us. In this case, that is the Department of Justice. I have been aware of that because I sit on the two Committees. The Justice Department had submitted responses to information requests from the Department of Finance and had provided details of costs that were identified across the justice system.”
“<BR /> <BR />I have the blessing that I sit on the Committee for Finance and that gives me a bit of an overall umbrella approach and panoramic view. I also sit on the Justice Committee. Members will have been in the Chamber when the Chairman of the Justice Committee raised his concerns — he did so in a manner that was robust but timely, right and appropriate — about the Justice Department giving information to the Justice Committee. It is deeply disturbing and totally unacceptable that the Department failed to provide information on a range of high-profile matters, categorised as other significant pressures, particularly given that no other Department left pressures uncosted in the templates completed for their respective Committees.”
“We cannot even lift our head up to get to grips with any of that because we are still dealing with the COVID-19 emergency. <BR /> <BR />I fear for the future with regards to what this place can achieve in trying to answer the big-ticket questions for society. That really worries me, but what also worries me is the level of detail that gets down to our Committees. It strikes me that our last line of defence is the Committee structure. The Committee members are there to get right down into the detail of their Committee's particular Department, and they can do that only through the information that they receive from the Department. That really concerns me because, while some Departments are better than others, not all Departments are giving out that information.”
“Really, to do our job properly, in this forum — in the Assembly — we need to have as much oversight and as much of a panoramic view as possible, and it is just not possible to have that, at this time. That really worries me. <BR /> <BR />We should be having debates in this place about aligning a Budget with a Programme for Government, but we are not; we cannot. That really worries and concerns me. Let us forget about COVID-19 for one second, please. Some of our public finances are in a very bad place. You hear about infrastructure, the road network and water and sewerage plants holding up the development of homes for our people. Those are big-ticket issues that will tax the most experienced of Assemblies and Governments, and, yet, we have not even got to grips with any of that.”
“I understand the procedure that we are in. I do not like it; I understand it. We are, of course, prepared to accept it, simply because it is a necessity, but I really worry. I really worry about the level of scrutiny that the Chamber and the Committees can give to the budgetary settlements to our Departments and the spends within our Departments. Whilst we should be looking at a Main Estimates booklet very soon, what we have here is a loose number of pages that give us headline figures of what each Department will get. We do not see any real detail on or scrutiny of that in depth. Some Committees will have that. The Finance Committee's members may have a bit more latitude in delving into the figures.”
“This is a funny sort of day. The Bill has already had accelerated passage, but we are now going from First Reading to Second Reading within an hour. That is accelerated even for accelerated passage, I think. These are surreal times. My tendency as a scrutiniser is always to put the brake on. Of course, I realise that, in order for me to put the brake on, it is for me to try to get my head around the figures, to scrutinise them and to do the best job that I can of scrutinising them. I know that that is not possible, because of the emergency that we are in and because we need to draw down money quickly.”
“I am puzzled by that percentage. I might well be wrong but, looking at the figures in front of me, I want to know how the Minister gets to 90% with the information to hand. It seems to be that, last year, it was sitting at 25%. How does that go from 25% last year to 90% this year? I know that there is a difference between resource and cash. Can the Minister enlighten me?”
“Those bodies have received funding that is not related to the COVID-19 response. Why is it the case that the Utility Regulator is working on 25% of its budget from the previous year and has received no money from the Vote on Account? It seems bizarre to me. I worry about that going forward.”
“I know how it is funded and that it is not the same as the Department. I know that it is not the same as the Food Standards Agency, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission or the Northern Ireland Audit Office. However, the principle remains because those three bodies — the Food Standards Agency, the Assembly Commission and the Audit Office — have all got higher Vote on Account allocations that are not related to the COVID-19 response but rather recognise that their 2020-21 Budget outcomes are higher than their 2019-2020 positions.”
“I am yet to see a Budget that is aligned with a Programme for Government that would help with most of those issues, because of the way in which it is written at present. I know that we are talking about another Programme for Government. However, the previous draft Budget was not far off the mark. It was all about making people's lives better and the sorts of things that will be needed in the recovery. <BR /> <BR />I will mention one thing about the details of the Vote on Account that has worried me since it first appeared. It seems to be the case that everyone — every Department, every arm's-length body and everything in between — will get finance, even when they are not running out of money. It worries me that the only body that will not get money is the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation.”
“<BR /> <BR />We should be thankful that we are in the United Kingdom, where we have the capacity to draw down Barnett formula money of £1·2 billion. That has helped and saved our people through this crisis. We would not have had that ability if we were in any other jurisdiction, or on our own. Being in the Union is invaluable. You cannot measure it. It is much more than £1·2 billion: every year, it is much more than that. It is not just about financial or monetary terms. It is about being in the place, the nation of the United Kingdom. This is just one illustration of the capacity and the strength of being in the Union. <BR /> <BR />Many Members said that we need to get to a point where we are not only fighting the crisis but have a strategy or plan to move forward and recover. I am yet to see that recovery plan.”
“Is it the case that we have had to purchase at above inflationary prices, because the demand is there? How will that information get through to the scrutiny Committees so that informed decisions can be made as to how we move forward and learn lessons? <BR /> <BR />I do not for a moment suggest that, after this is all over, we look back with rose-tinted glasses, or blinkers, and be critical of Ministers who have had to make fast decisions. I am not saying that. However, I worry about value for money and how the public pound is spent. It is bound to be the case that, when we have excess flows of money in quick time, mistakes will be made. We have to make sure that those mistakes are kept to a minimum and, at the end of it, they do not happen again, if we go to another situation like this.”
“We have been left in a position where the Department has had to bring a further Vote on Account. We are in a surreal situation. We understand the mechanics of that, and why it is the case. We have no choice but to support this further Vote on Account. However, what really worries me, in this House of scrutiny, is how the money is going out. Out of necessity, it is flooding out the doors to get money on the ground to finance the emergency. Where is the scrutiny, the value for that money? Where is it going? Is it going to service providers and contractors that may not exist to fulfil contracts in the coming months? Is that something that we need to be careful of? What about value for money in purchasing some of the stuff that we have had to acquire?”
“We are left in a position where Departments will run out of money. <BR /> <BR />This is not normal. As an Executive and Assembly, we have to deal with this surreal problem. I give credit to the officials who have had to work and firefight through this emergency, with all these figures, facts and pressures. I give credit to the Executive, and the Minister, with regard to last week's decision on the rates. It is a game changer. The rates decision means that businesses that were contemplating going out of existence can now survive. It is massive weight off their shoulders. It has to be welcomed, and I take the opportunity to welcome it in this debate. It is a massive thing for businesses. <BR /> <BR />We have a situation where a number of our critical Departments will run out of money.”
“I will have to wing it. Of course, I always wing it, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />We find ourselves in a completely unique situation. One of the biggest worries that I have is that officials in the Department are out of sync with the normal practices that they have always gone through. We should not forget the fact that, for a long period, there was no Assembly or Executive. Circumstances were not normal to start with, which would have put officials at a disadvantage straightaway. Then the crisis happened; this emergency that we have to deal with. We have tried, since we cranked up the Assembly and Executive, to get into a normal situation where we have a Budget and a Vote on Account. Things were cranking up to normal, and then we were blasted by this emergency.”
“I was not expecting to be called so soon, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, but I will carry on.”
“To hear its members speak in the media and demand that the British Government pay for their evil and for the cause, harm and pain that they dealt out to those innocent victims, is quite galling.”
“The pension criteria apply to those who were injured through no fault of their own, and the pension was to be backdated to 23 December 2014. The legislation was in place long before the New Decade, New Approach deal, and those victims who are suffering were suffering during the years of direct rule. There is no doubt in my mind that the pensions must be administered and that the victims who have lost and have been hurt deserve this. Let us face it, for all that it is, the pension will never ever recoup the loss that they have felt. <BR /> <BR />It must be mentioned that there is a party opposite that was the political wing of the IRA, which caused so many of those victims.”
“This is a very worrying time for victims; for those who suffered throughout the Troubles and for those who are suffering even in this relatively peaceful time because of their injuries and, in most cases, because of their loss. The pension, when it was announced, was a massive step forward for innocent victims. I urge the Secretary of State to stand by the legislation that was passed at Westminster to fund the pension. It is terrible that those deserving people are being let down again. I urge the Government to release the funding. <BR /> <BR />The Northern Ireland Civil Service should administer the pension, but, surely ,the scheme should be funded from Westminster, as that is where the legislation was passed. Of course, innocent victims go right across the United Kingdom and the British Isles.”
“I welcome the decision today. I have been calling for it for so long and I think that it is a no-brainer. It is the difference between businesses existing and not existing. One business in my constituency is due to make a loss of £200,000; its rate burden is £170,000, so this is the difference between existing and not. <BR /> <BR />The Minister has been pretty good at spending Barnett consequential money. The cost of the business rate support exceeds the funding that is available. Will the Minister tell us by how much it exceeds the funding and what work is being conducted to see what needs to be changed, or stopped, with regards to normal Budget functions. Households have made sacrifices on a daily basis, so when will they see the Executive make difficult decisions and make sacrifices themselves?”
“One thing that strikes me is the 72·4 % jump for the Executive Office. I take it that that is the £37·5 million for the implementation of the historical institutional abuse scheme, but the Minister could clarify that for me.”
“It does not seem to be that strategic and just seems to be a layering up of the big beast Departments, while giving a lesser amount to the smaller Departments.”
“Do we have the capacity to get us out the other side of the emergency and win the war, and then win the peace given the outlying issues that have always been there and that we have not been able to grapple with and fix up to this point? The water infrastructure and the energy issue. They are all sitting there buzzing away waiting to be fixed, and they are not being fixed. That will hurt people in recovering and getting through this — even if we get through the health emergency and make some kind of economic recovery, those burdens will still lie with us, and we will still not have resolved them. I worry about that. <BR /> <BR />I have some queries about the actual detail of the Budget. I can understand the uplift, the percentage change, in most of the Departments.”