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 60 of 75.
“Of course, when we were speaking in the Budget debates, which were before the COVID-19 emergency, many of us asked, "Where is the vision? Where will we do things differently? What about investment in infrastructure? What about bringing in an age of decisionism? What about aligning the Budget with an outcomes-based Programme for Government?". Now, we ask what about major recovery plans for businesses that have been affected by COVID-19? What about mitigation measures for our community? What about — it has also been raised today — our ageing housing stock? Those were issues and emergencies before the current emergency took hold, but have we dealt with them? No, we have not — not according to this Budget. <BR /> <BR />I worry about the future.”
“When you look at the small percentage of our rates payout, what we receive compared to our overall income, it does not compare to what businesses have to deal with in their budgetary positions. Rates could be the final straw and, if it is not rates, it could be something else. Let us try to support those businesses as best we can by not placing a burden on them. <BR /> <BR />With the Minister's statements so far this financial year, it is clear that he has added flexibility to the system. That is good. It is well and good for Departments to be able to move money about and move money into the centre and one thing and another. It is essential that that takes place. However, have I yet seen a strategic vision or a plan? No, I do not think that I have.”
“Remember, businesses were affected by the revaluation in the first place, and there was a massive change in some quarters. They were struggling and wondering how they were going to see it through. Now, they have been hit with COVID-19. Some of those businesses are in a very difficult place. <BR /> <BR />4.00 pm <BR /> <BR />I appeal to the Minister, the Department and, by extension, the Executive to think strategically about how we can provide the best support to our businesses. In some cases, it will be throwing money at them, but, in many others, it will be about ensuring that the financial burden that is placed on them going forward is not too great.”
“Of course, money was floating down, nearly on a daily basis, to help us and the Executive to formulate plans, some of which we mirrored from GB and some, then, we have taken upon ourselves because things are different, and that is fine as long as we have a strategic vision and plan. <BR /> <BR />I am worried. Whilst the original Barnett consequential float-down of £120 million went directly to provide a three-month rates holiday, I do worry that we have not yet been able to expand on that. The rates that we bring in make up a very small percentage of our income, but for some businesses, especially in this day and age, the rates holiday will mean everything.”
“It has been difficult for a lot of the Departments, not least the Finance Department, to manage, cope with and get to grips with the crisis. However, some Departments have handled it better than others. Some have had more of a burden than others, and some have had to learn more quickly than others. Some, if you like, have not really been affected, and some have been at the heart of the battle. Therefore, that should be reflected in any Budget settlement that we can produce, and that is where I worry. <BR /> <BR />I worry that we have the capacity and the ability to actually think strategically. Thank goodness, as many Members have said here, for the Barnett consequentials and the benefits of being in a strong union, with the financial power and weight that it brings.”
“I support the Budget, knowing that what we are actually debating here — the facts and figures and the numbers in front of us — is not really a true reflection of what the Budget will be. In that sense, whilst it is useful to put our concerns, queries, wishes and wants on the record in Hansard, we do so with the caveat that, given the crisis that we are in, the Budget will probably be completely different by the end of the financial year. I also realise that the slow cogs of government turn at a different pace than the emergency dictates, and that is why most of the Barnett consequentials have been left out and are on a different page, if you like. <BR /> <BR />Therefore, I come with the knowledge that we are in unprecedented times and that things are very fast moving.”
“You are quite right: people abuse the intimidation points system at the minute because they get their mate Jimmy Hard-knuckles to ring something through and vice versa, and two toerags end up getting homes when they do not need them. Who needs a house more than a victim of domestic violence who needs to leave their home and needs to be persuaded to leave their home.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I will simply reinforce the points that the Member and Linda have made. One of the reasons why victims do not leave their home is because they contemplate the future being worse or unknown, so better the devil you know. If they could just be persuaded that the future will be better, and that comes with a home, that would go some way to helping victims to take that first step of raising the issue of domestic violence with the police, knowing that the journey that they are on will lead them to a better place, to a home and comfort and protection. That is why it is very important to link this up with the future and with housing points.”
“Many of us in the House have taken the subject up — this horrible crime — and have run with it and worked with it and tried to make life better for so many people in our society. They should be thankful at this point that we have a Bill going through that, hopefully, will soon be law and will allow the police to use the full force of the law to keep people as safe as possible. I commend the Bill, and I certainly support it. It is a good day, and I thank the Minister for bringing it forward.”
“I struggle to find what could be deemed as harassment but not domestic violence if it is in that setting and it is cumulative over a period of weeks and months. <BR /> <BR />I look forward to our time in Committee scrutinising this. I look forward to getting visits from the Department and the Minister on this and from all the witnesses, all the people who have fought hard to get the legislation in place. I include Men's Advisory Project, Women's Aid, Hourglass, Victim Support, Nexus and all who have contributed and have engaged with the Department for so many years on the issue. We are finally at Second Stage and going into Committee Stage, and I am glad to see this day.”
“I have a lot of sympathy for the Bill writers and the Minister in that regard. Getting it right will not be easy, but this will happen because there are bad people out there, and these things could well take place where it is used as a weapon, just as children are used. What shame that you would use your child as a tool against your victim. It is insidious. These people are evil, and they need to be stopped. However, I worry about having that inserted. Clause 13 might be a safety net to ensure that people are convicted of something, but, if it allows a step change — a lowering of conviction and lesser sentencing — and barristers and the defence are geared up for that, it could become part of the line.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I got my computer back on. He is also absolutely right: it is such an insidious crime. Most perpetrators know what they are about; they are not stupid. They will use any tool at their disposal to intentionally inflict more pain on their victim. That may mean passage through a court process, whether a family proceeding on the custody of children or with regard to legislation that is designed to convict them. What is to stop a perpetrator who thinks that the police are gaining ground on them and building up a case against them adding to the mix by reporting things to the police against the victim? We have to ensure that this is robust and watertight enough to protect the victims and not be used as a tool. Again, that is very hard.”
“That is something that I have been toying with as I have read the legislation. I know that harassment is something completely different — I get that — but, surely, domestic violence is harassment and a lot, lot more.”
“<BR /> <BR />Clause 13 provides that, if a coercive control offence cannot be proved, an alternative conviction with a lower threshold, like harassment, can be made. Again, I can understand why the clause is here — so that there is a safety net of conviction, to put it that way — but I worry that, if harassment comes with lesser conviction rates and tariffs, it could be used by barristers as some lesser charge: "We will try to get you off the charge of domestic violence and get you on to a harassment charge". What would that mean for conviction rates? Given what we have read about what domestic violence and coercive control are, can someone explain to me how a person who does not meet the threshold for domestic violence convictions, with the cumulative effect at play, could ever meet the criteria for harassment?”
“I can understand why we have an aggravation where a child is being used for coercive control, but I will need some explanation of why we have aggravation of the offence where a victim is under the age of 18, given that we also have protections for parents that I 100% agree with. Clause 11 provides that the offence would not apply where a parent is responsible for a child under the age of 18, as child protection arrangements are already in place. Again, maybe it is just my simple mind, but I will need an explanation of what clause 8 means and is designed to do. <BR /> <BR />Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I am going blind here because my machine has just dropped off and I did not put in the right password. I will try to wing the rest of my speech as best I can.”
“They will say that it was their fault and that no harm was caused, but I think that clause 16 covers that by referring to what "a reasonable person" would think about a person's actions and whether crimes have been committed. We have to look at that. Of course, we do not want to leave the legislation open to abuse in any shape or form. That is why we want it to be as tight as possible. <BR /> <BR />Clause 8 is about the aggravation of the offence where the victim is under the age of 18. Maybe it is just my simple mind, but I will need an explanation of what we mean by that. Surely, there is already legislation in place to protect children.”
“Surely, if a victim has been beaten up, threatened or had perks taken away from them and thinks that it is their fault because they smashed a glass, made a noise or went out for a walk, that is harm. Surely, that is the person being harmed. It is not physical harm; it is worse than that. It is psychological harm. Whilst I understand why you would have a clause to guard against that, it is important that we get it right, so that a perpetrator cannot use this very legislation against a victim. It is important that we seek clarification in Committee to ensure that it is watertight and cannot be used by the perpetrators. I give the Department warning of that; that is why the debate here is useful. I get that victims will not necessarily come forward.”
“Listen to what I just said about a victim not wanting even to breathe until they are told to breathe. Their whole mind has been hijacked. They believe what their perpetrator wants them to believe. I understand why there is a clause that says that victims do not have to consider themselves to be victims. In many cases, victims think that it is their fault. The victim thinks, "I have upset the perpetrator. I have done this. This is my fault. Why did I do that? I shouldn't have done that. Why did I go out today? Why did I make a noise in the kitchen? Why did I drop that glass? It's my fault". I understand why a safeguarding clause is needed, but I think that that clause is clause 16. It talks about what "a reasonable person" would think. Clause 3, however, states that it is not necessary for a victim actually to have been harmed.”
“Will we eradicate this sickness, this evil, this sin? No. However, we will try our best to save as many victims as possible and to make sure that children do not grow up in that atmosphere with that threat hanging over them and hanging over a parent. It was, I think, Dolores Kelly who said that, sometimes, people do what they see. We want to break the endless cycle of violence, and we want to do that to the point where we, at least, have hope of eradicating it. <BR /> <BR />Our job over the next weeks and months is to scrutinise the legislation. There are clauses that I fully support, 100%. There are others that we need clarification on. I will go through them in numerical order. First, clause 3 sets out that it is not necessary for a victim to have actually been harmed or to consider themselves a victim.”
“The fear that that strikes into a victim cannot be measured. It cannot be measured in bruises. It cannot be measured in the number of black eyes, sore arms, sore legs or even broken bones. It is much more than that. It is much more damaging than that, and it will make the victim subservient to the point where they are not even in control of their body, mind or soul. It rips the heart clean out of you to the point where you do not want even to breathe until the perpetrator tells you to. The House cannot abide that. We cannot allow it to take place in the homes and streets in the towns and villages that we call "home". It cannot happen. It has to stop. The Bill must go some way to stopping it.”
“There is absolutely no doubt that perpetrators do not necessarily have to lift a hand, or they have to lift a hand only once, for the threat to be embedded. There is also the threat of using family members, such as using a son or daughter against the victim. There is the threat of ensuring that the son or daughter witness the perpetrator beating the victim up or, worse, committing sexual crimes.”
“The body-worn camera could be a great tool for providing evidence that will help safeguard victims and convict perpetrators. <BR /> <BR />We want to make sure that the legislation is the best that it can be, but we also want it to work on the ground. We want to ensure that everybody has buy-in and knows how to use the legislation to its best effect. There is absolutely no way in which we could ever do justice to and pass a domestic violence Bill without tackling the very harsh issue of coercive control. What does it look like? What should it not look like? What is coercive control and what is not coercive control? Those are all things that we need to grapple with as we scrutinise the legislation. <BR /> <BR />I think that it was Linda who raised this point.”
“<BR /> <BR />I know that a lot of people have grappled with the issue since we first started to debate coercive control. I am talking about elected Members and society, but the judiciary has also grappled with the problem of what coercive control looks like, how we can legislate for it and how we can enforce it. Those are all valid questions that people have been asking themselves over the past number of years. One of the tools that could be used, which the police are now using, is the body-worn camera, especially as coercive control is very much a cumulative offence, whereby instances of behaviour that might not have been deemed a crime before are counted up. It is the telltale signs. It is the body language, and the language itself: what is said and also what is not said.”
“I would therefore like to think that a year is a very conservative guess and that things will be enacted much quicker. <BR /> <BR />I issue a warning, however, because we have had legislation passed in the House before that has not been effected and not had the rigorous and robust implementation that it should have had. I am talking about the child protection disclosure scheme. I am so annoyed and frustrated that we are still waiting for a relaunch of that scheme, which will do much to protect children. It is a number of years now since that legislation was brought in. As such, there are warnings there for us to ensure that, when the legislation is enacted, the spirit of the Bill is implemented robustly and that it will help and protect victims and society.”
“I thank the Chair for his contribution. He makes a very valid and important point about scrutiny. It is always best if we can get to scrutinise draft amendments as early as possible. As the Chair said, there is an onus on Members to get their thinking caps on and move sooner rather than later, in order to give us all, including the House, a chance to scrutinise any amendments. <BR /> <BR />I will talk about the police. I am concerned when I hear the timelines for implementation from the Department. The Minister outlined them herself at the Committee. She said that it will take about a year for the legislation to be embedded in the police's psyche. When I speak to the police, however, they tell me that it should not take that long. In fact, they will be keeping an eye on proceedings as the Bill goes through the House.”
“I say that to the Minister and the Department. <BR /> <BR />Before I move on to the detail of the Bill, I must say that I also worry —.”
“Whilst we want to pass this legislation as quickly as possible, anyone can stick in an amendment at Consideration Stage, so it does not really slow down the process as such, but surely it is always better that the Department do it than a Member.”
“They were around protection orders and coercive control. Through no fault of the Minister, they have not been enacted. There is that warning for us all: if we think we need to do something, then we really need to do it, and as quickly as possible. <BR /> <BR />There is no better piece of legislation to enact some of the things that we are talking about than a domestic violence Bill. In order to get completeness, therefore, Minister, please consider the voices in this Chamber when they talk about possible amendments, because the chances are that, if the Department does not word the amendments, the Assembly team will, whether it is through a Committee amendment or a private Member's amendment. That is healthy; it is a very healthy place to be in as a legislator.”
“That is why the Justice Committee, like all Committees of this House, has to take the role of scrutiniser very importantly. I am also mindful that there are many in the House who do not sit on the Justice Committee but who will also want, and have, a massive say in that. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Minister for her speed in bringing this legislation to the House, despite all of the difficulties around the virus and everything else that we are contending with. However, I repeat Linda's point about the completeness of this legislation. Minister, I am not sure if you were in the House at the time, but my colleague Dolores Kelly and I brought amendments to the Justice (No. 2) Bill in good faith. We did not move them, because we were given guarantees and assurances that they would be legislated for very quickly.”
“But she will always treat you with fairness and respect, and I hope that I have always been able to treat the Civil Service and the Department of Justice with the same respect that I have received. So I thank the people I have mentioned, and of course Veronica's team, who have worked around her to produce and publish this Bill. Obviously, people do not work in silos, and one person could not have produced this piece of work on their own. <BR /> <BR />It is important, now that we are here and it is a good day, and now that we have legislation for domestic violence, that this legislature does its job — that we scrutinise this piece of legislation, well meaning and well needed as it is, to make sure that it is the best possible piece of legislation.”
“That is why we have to make sure that we are here to legislate and to do the job that we are meant to be doing. I am glad to see this day. <BR /> <BR />I know that civil servants do not usually like to be named, but it would be remiss of me not to name Veronica Holland, who has done tremendous work, through all the difficult years that I have just described, to assist the Minister and provide the Department with expertise in order to bring this Bill to the House today. Veronica is very proactive, amenable and approachable; she will work with you. There are times when I argue with Veronica, and she knows that too well. There are times when she has to enact policy that I do not agree with — indeed, am completely opposed to.”
“After that legislation was passed, the stalking piece, with the Committee having done its investigatory work and reports, would have been handed over to the Department, and it would have progressed a stalking Bill. That all still needs to be done. And in that time — that vacuum — there have been more victims, there has been more misery and there have been more children witnessing violence in their own homes. It must be said in this House that it is a shame that we have not been able to progress that Bill and bring that legislation into action. What we should be doing now, actually, is reviewing the implementation of the legislation, how well it has done and what bits have not worked. We are behind, and that means that we have failed. We have failed the victims of domestic violence, and it is not good enough. It is not good enough.”
“I support the Bill. It is a very good day for Northern Ireland that we are at the Bill's Second Stage. It would be remiss of the House not to mention some people who have been successful in the past to get it here. I mention, of course, my colleague Claire Sugden, who worked tirelessly as a Minister in order to get the Bill to the House and, through no fault of her own, was not able to proceed. <BR /> <BR />It became clear in Claire's time as a Minister that she was willing and very able to work in partnership with the Justice Committee, which I chaired, to produce legislation that would have been fit for purpose and would have protected lives and made lives better and safer. We had arranged, at that time, that the Justice Committee would work on a piece on stalking, whilst the Minister took forward the domestic violence piece.”
“I am deeply worried that I have heard reports of activists from his party intimidating and harassing businesses to close completely. Can the Minister please address the House on that issue?”
“There may well be 2,500 of those businesses in Northern Ireland, and it may well cost in the region of £25 million, but I ask the Minister to consider a mop-up exercise so that those people could maybe be supported in the future and to consider further mitigations and recovery measures that will aid businesses to crank up on the other side of this horrendous crisis. I ask that the Minister takes those on board. <BR /> <BR />I add now, Minister, that I am deeply worried when I hear reports of intimidation by republicans and activists from his party of businesses, employers and CEOs of manufacturing plants who are striving to stay open and on whom the Assembly may well call on to redirect resources and make things for us that will save lives.”
“However, as inevitably will be the case, there will be people who fall through the cracks, including new start-up businesses that are on our high streets and small businesses that maybe fall below the £15,000 for NAV and maybe were getting the industrial derating. It may include artists in small shops who manufacture frames and sell prints and artisans. Those people will not be able to avail themselves of the £10,000 but will still have massive cash flow problems and bills to pay.”
“I welcome the Minister's statement today and the further funding that we have received from the Government. I also welcome the Minister's statement on the 18% reduction in rates on the 2019-2020 figure. Although you have given this reduction, if businesses are not in a position to pay their rates or do not exist, that rate base will not exist. I ask the Minister to consider extending his three-month holiday for industrial rates and to match other devolved regions of the UK. <BR /> <BR />We welcome the small business rate relief grant of £10,000. I know that some of those businesses are starting to receive that support, as we speak.”
“I say this to the NIO: what you have done here in imposing these guidelines and legislation on the people of Northern Ireland is shameful when you know fine well what the people think — it has been well-documented throughout the years, even decades, when we have had different legislation from the rest of GB; you know how strong the feeling and mentality is in Northern Ireland around these issues, yet you ride roughshod over the people's will. We must change this, we must correct this, and we must get into place legislation that protects the most vulnerable and also protects the mother, father and family of the unborn. The business of the House over the next couple of weeks will be about saving lives, yet the Department of Health is now having to deal in death.”
“It is a shame on the British Government and a shame on the NIO that they would bring in guidelines such as these. I give you the commitment, Mr Speaker, that I will fight with every breath and every sinew that I have in my body to turn these guidelines around and to get to a place where we protect the most vulnerable in our society, where we value people of all ability, and where no one feels that their life is under threat because of disability. The most vulnerable people in our society are people yet unborn but who have a heart that beats and a body that grows. We are failing all those people.”
“In one fell swoop, the British Government, and by extension the Northern Ireland Office, have made a mockery of consultation, with 79% of the people who responded, including myself, being ignored; a mockery of legislation and how it should be produced, with time taken to go through each clause to scrutinise it and be accountable for it; a mockery of our healthcare system; and a mockery of how we help and assist the most vulnerable in our society.”
“How did we ever get to this place and this day, where the life of the most vulnerable is now in jeopardy? I got into politics to assist the most vulnerable and to make a positive contribution to society in Northern Ireland, a place that I love.”
“On the point about being under instruction and seeking advice from outside people, it would be interesting to know what expertise those individuals had of an RHI scheme, or any sort of incentive scheme for that matter. Does that tell us that there was nobody in a ministerial post in Sinn Féin who could have read anything to gain expertise?”
“I thank the Member for giving way on the point about whether it would have taken place. I believe that it would have done because the Bill only fixes one part of the panoramic view of governance. You would still have a dysfunctional energy branch, and you would still have senior authority in the Civil Service not chasing down the detail. I do not believe that the Bill would have solved that issue, and nor will it do so in the future. Even with this Bill, if it gets support at its further stages, we will still need wider, holistic reform of governance in Northern Ireland.”
“We are getting into quotes tonight, which, of course, we should. The most senior civil servant in the Finance Department, Mr David Sterling, believed that the then Finance Minister may have been "acting under instruction". On 21 January 2017, David Sterling sent a text message to his fellow permanent secretary, Andrew McCormick. Mr Sterling said of his Minister:”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He hits an important note in the debate. The PSNI's 2015 assessment stated that the Provisional IRA army council was still overseeing both Sinn Féin and the remaining structures of the terror organisation, the Provisional IRA, with an overarching strategy. We then learn from the evidence of the RHI inquiry that Sinn Féin Ministers were under instruction from people who were not accountable or democratically elected. Surely that sends shock waves through the democratic world, in this place and outside.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Did the Member hear me when I said that MLAs should get respect? He knows fine well that any Member can bring legislation to this House. For him to reduce that in some way, compared to the Executive, is a very bad and telling thing.”
“I hope that Members seek ways to amend the Bill to widen its scope and to bring in a panoramic view of governance that allows us to make tangible changes so that we can better serve the public. <BR /> <BR />There is absolutely no doubt that the Executive must bring forward a reform Bill to pick up all the other aspects — the panoramic view — that this Bill will not. Such a Bill should come sooner rather than later so that we can introduce reform as quickly as possible. We have had three years of wasted time and opportunity in this place. We have two years to make it right. Let us get our skates on.”
“If there are measures whereby spads can behave badly, whereby Ministers can behave badly, and a Civil Service that is not fit for purpose, well really, the Committees might be the last defence. It is important that we get this right. <BR /> <BR />I could go on about the failures, at departmental and Committee level, that I have witnessed as an MLA, but this probably is not the time, and there will be many people wanting to speak about this Bill. We should and will revisit it. <BR /> <BR />I hope that the Bill can be used as a vehicle for change, and that we can change the practices that we have had to live with regarding spads: their appointment, their behaviour and the input that they have had into departmental offices.”
“A sustained and faithful implementation of the 44 recommendations of the RHI inquiry report is only the start. We have nothing to fear and much to gain from a better system of government, with a transparent challenge function and an accountable Executive. We can never ever go back to business as usual. We will not get a second shot at this. We need to treat the public with respect. The Executive need to treat MLAs with respect. MLAs have to do their job, which is to scrutinise through asking ministerial questions and in the scrutiny Committees, and the Departments must furnish all information to the Committees so that we can do our job. Committees are not only here to scrutinise Departments but they are here to support and advise.”
“In some areas, this Bill may be the right vehicle to take forward systemic improvements and reforms. For others, we may need further legislation to cover all aspects of governance. I welcome the Bill sponsor's decision to name the Bill as "miscellaneous", which allows the greatest scope for amendments. Delivery for the people of Northern Ireland in a transparent and accountable way must be our aim in this place.”