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 61 of 75.
“Sir Patrick's recommendations cover a wide range and a panoramic view of that governance: the Executive and the decisions and policies that they wish to adopt; the behaviour of Ministers; the behaviour of spads, the roles that they play and the parameters in which they operate; the interactions between Departments, Ministers and spads; the interactions between Departments and Statutory Committees; the transparency of Departments; the information that is offered to Committees; the respect for MLAs in this place as individuals, when we ask questions of Departments; the respect for MLAs as they perform an important role in the Statutory Committees; and all interactions with the public.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I now speak on behalf of my party, the DUP, and as finance spokesperson. We support the core principles of the Bill. In light of the findings of the RHI inquiry, every party and every Department has a responsibility to pursue reforms that rebuild public confidence in the governance of Northern Ireland.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee did not raise any issues in relation to clause 12, which establishes a process for the First Minister and deputy First Minister to report to the Assembly every two years. Should the Bill pass this stage, the Committee for Finance will work with the Committee for the Executive Office and relevant Standing Committees to ensure robust scrutiny of the Bill's clauses. <BR /> <BR />There was a range of views in the Committee on the general principles. As I said at the start of my remarks, the Committee for Finance did not wish to form a view on the general principles of the Bill. I believe that, in most cases, it is good practice for a Committee not to form a view on a Bill, even the general principles, until it has had time to scrutinise it in detail.”
“<BR /> <BR />Concerns were expressed about the potential for clause 11 to capture many forms of communication with the media, including informal briefings that helped the media to do a good job in holding Ministers to account. Mr Allister agreed that, in a modern Government, there is a role for such press briefings. <BR /> <BR />Mr Allister outlined why he considers the tariffs appropriate under clauses 9 and 11, and, should the Bill pass Second Stage, the Committee will consider those tariffs in detail. He indicated that he would be willing to consider an amendment to clause 9 relating to the construction of a reasonable excuse and a suitably framed amendment to clause 11 that would exempt authorised briefings. Should the Bill pass Second Stage, the Committee will consider in detail the provisions outlined in clauses 9 and 11.”
“Clause 9 deals with the electronic communication of government business via anything other than departmental systems and email addresses. Clause 11 deals with the communication of confidential government information to a third party. Mr Allister was questioned about the requirement to always use departmental systems and email addresses and the potential for that requirement to impede good and agile government. Officials acting in the interests of the Minister and the Department outside those parameters would have to do so in the knowledge that they would have to construct a reasonable excuse defence. Mr Allister's view was that there could be no prosecution unless there was a reasonable prospect of conviction and the case passed the public interest test.”
“That would mean that, under clause 7, a Minister would have to make a written log of that encounter. Mr Allister informed the Committee that, although clause 7 would capture such an encounter, what he had in mind when drafting the clause was of the more serious side, where someone with a vested interest persuaded a Minister off the record that certain action should be taken. When questioned about the potential and incentive for fictitious and inaccurate claims from people who were opposed to the Minister, Mr Allister acknowledged that that could occur, but he felt that it was a question of balance between the need to address any mischief that may have occurred and avoiding any inconvenience to a Minister from having to record such an encounter. <BR /> <BR />Clauses 9 and 11 deal with criminal offences.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will now address the Committee's consideration of clauses 6 to 11, which, Mr Allister advised the Committee, address specific issues that have arisen as a result of the renewable heat incentive scheme. <BR /> <BR />Clauses 6 to 8 deal with meetings. Members considered it important to define what the Bill sponsor meant by a "meeting". Mr Allister's view was that, where two or more people came together, it had the capacity to be a meeting. That could include any contact whatever. He suggested that, even where a Minister encountered a member of the public informally in, for example, a supermarket or a coffee shop, if departmental matters were discussed, it could have a bearing on the shaping of future policy or decision-making. That encounter should fall within the scope of the Bill.”
“There was concern that the provision could lead to large numbers of vexatious complaints relating to ministerial decisions on policy issues that may be considered unpopular. Mr Allister assured the Committee that, for a complaint to be considered valid, it would have to relate to a breach in the ministerial code and that the commissioner had the discretion to decree that a complaint was vexatious and therefore quickly dispose of it without the need for an investigation. He stated that he was considering tabling an amendment at Consideration Stage to prescribe that a petition of concern may not be used on an issue relating to clause 5.”
“Mr Allister informed the Committee that that provision had arisen as a result of the use of a prerogative order of the First Minister and deputy First Minister in the appointment of an Executive press secretary. The Bill sponsor believes that the provision should be repealed and any future amendment of that order should be made not by prerogative powers but only by affirmative resolution in the House. <BR /> <BR />There were no concerns raised in the Committee about clause 4. The clause will provide for compensation for any special adviser who loses their job as a consequence of a reduction in their number. <BR /> <BR />The Committee questioned Mr Allister in detail on clause 5, which would extend the powers of the Commissioner for Standards to investigate complaints against Ministers.”
“When questioned further, Mr Allister acknowledged that an amendment may be required to make provision to compensate special advisers who had or would have their salaries reduced. <BR /> <BR />There are six special advisers in the Executive Office. The facility exists to appoint eight. The proposal outlined in the Bill is to reduce the number of special advisers in the Executive Office to four. When questioned by Members, Mr Allister agreed that it would be open to debate and amendment as to whether four was the right number. <BR /> <BR />The proposal at clause 3 is to repeal the Civil Service Commissioners (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2016.The order makes provision for the First Minister and deputy First Minister to appoint:”
“<BR /> <BR />On the proposed cap on pay for special advisers, as outlined at clause 1(5), the Bill sponsor reminded the Committee that, when special advisers were initially appointed, the salary level was in the region of £70,000 but the First Minister and deputy First Minister subsequently agreed to raise it to £90,000, which is why he proposes to link special adviser pay to Civil Service pay at grade 5. Mr Allister acknowledged that the action already taken by the Executive to reduce special adviser pay and introduce banding was good in that the issue needed to be addressed. However, he stated that, in addressing it through the code, rather than through legislation, there would be more scope for the cap to be removed.”
“They also asked whether it would have been preferable to await the outcome of the RHI report before seeking to legislate for a code of conduct under the Civil Service (Special Advisers) Act (Northern Ireland) 2013. Mr Allister's view was that the amended codes were guidance and did not have the binding authority that, he believed, was required and would be provided through his Bill. He suggested that putting matters into a code rather than into legislation would not meet the public expectation of significant action being taken to deal with the issues arising from the RHI inquiry.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Allister informed the Committee that he had deliberately drafted the long title of the Bill so that it lent itself to a wide range of amendments. During the evidence session, members explored aspects on which amendments may be appropriate, should the Bill pass Second Stage. <BR /> <BR />Clauses 1 to 5 propose changes to current legislation. I will first address the Committee's consideration of those clauses. Members questioned the Bill sponsor on how the recent changes to the code of conduct and the code for the appointment of special advisers had impacted on the provisions of clause 1 and whether those changes had addressed his concerns.”
“I speak on behalf of the Finance Committee. The Committee took oral evidence from the Bill sponsor, Mr Allister, at its meeting on 26 February 2020. I thank Mr Allister for his comprehensive evidence to the Committee, and I thank Committee members for their detailed and in-depth questioning of the Bill sponsor on aspects of the Bill. It is worth informing the House at the outset that, following the evidence session, the Committee did not wish to form a view on the general principles of the Bill. Rather than rehearsing the evidence provided to the Committee by the Bill sponsor, I will confine my remarks to aspects of the Bill on which Mr Allister addressed issues raised by members during the evidence session.”
“I will be quick. Now that she is a Member and not a Minister, she will realise that, when she submits questions to some Departments, it seems to be business as usual, whereby we as MLAs are not treated with respect and do not get the transparent answers that we sought through the question.”
“We need to know our brief and learn the detail.”
“That has never really been brought to the surface, but it should be. I hope that the root-and-branch review of the Civil Service, Departments and their staff will result in all those things coming out in the wash and that we can get a transparent system in which we can all work together. <BR /> <BR />We have to be mindful of the fact that a scrutiny Committee will work adequately only if its members take their role as scrutinisers seriously.”
“I am happy to put that on the record. I agree with him. <BR /> <BR />I will mention another issue, because there may well be more RHI-type failures in the system. I take you back to the summer of 2015 when the then Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment wished to push through a Northern Ireland renewable obligations certificate (ROC) scheme. It brought the scheme to the Committee three or four times. I, along with a number of other Committee members, blocked it. That was the right thing to do, but, at the time, DETI's energy branch misled the Committee. There should also be an investigation into that, because it would have been an even bigger disaster for this country if a Northern Ireland ROC had been pushed through. Businesses would have gone to the wall because their energy bills would have gone sky-high.”
“If we want to ensure that we have a robust, transparent and accountable form of government, it is vital that the scrutiny Committees do their job well.”
“I thank Claire Sugden for her intervention. She is absolutely right; she is spot on. That is something that the House must put its mind to in order to resolve this issue. <BR /> <BR />It is clear that there have been systemic failures across every aspect of government here. Along with fixing the RHI scheme, as we have talked about, a full appraisal and root-and-branch reform of the Northern Ireland Civil Service is now required, along with a clear determination of a healthier relationship between the Executive, the Civil Service, the scrutiny Committees and the Assembly itself. We are the people; we speak for the people. <BR /> <BR />The Chairperson of the Economy Committee has raised the issue of the scrutiny Committees. Finding 84 of the inquiry report states:”
“A lot of those recipients are still suffering. That scheme needs to be fixed; those people need relief. One of the things that must come out of the inquiry is that we fix the RHI scheme for the duration that it has still to run so that people's welfare does not suffer and businesses do not crash.”
“I welcome the statement from the First Minister, my party leader, in the House. We should consider these issues and how people were treated over the past number of years with a human face. I take this opportunity to thank the Right Honourable Sir Patrick Coghlin for his comprehensive inquiry and report into his findings. <BR /> <BR />When the report was published, the people who were most disappointed were the media, because there was no evidence of corruption and malice. I am glad that there was no such evidence. There is certainly evidence of wrongdoing and systemic failures across the board, but none of corruption or malice. <BR /> <BR />Throughout the reporting of the inquiry, there was much sensationalism. That led to recipients of the RHI scheme being treated as villains, criminals and fraudsters.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. She hit a note today that no one else did. Has she concerns that, even on this day, lessons have not been learnt in the Departments?”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. Whilst we will have to see what will come out of the session with the Committee for Finance, I think that we all understand the total amounts. However, the Minister has not addressed the issue of duplication, whereby it is on two different pages and budget lines.”
“It would be remiss of me not to add that all those processes will be undermined if the Finance Minister does not give some sort of closure to the Quinn family. This is not about politics but about decency, so I appeal to the Minister: please give the Quinn family some sort of closure; please say that Paul was not a criminal; and please cooperate with the gardaí investigation and answer the questions that they put to you.”
“Through the Budget Bill, £9 billion of public money for the next financial year will be authorised without any indication of how allocations will be distributed within each Department. But we look to the future. This week's Budget on Wednesday must start a process for a new and fresh Budget by the Executive. That is one prong of the process. The other prong must be that the Executive also puts in place procedures and measures to commence the work on the Budget for 2021-22 as soon as possible so that there is maximum input from the Assembly, all the Statutory Committees and, of course, the public with a timely and sufficient public consultation, hopefully in the autumn.”
“Once we know the detail of the Budget later this week, the Committee for Finance will ensure that consultation with the Committee provides sufficient time for meaningful consultation, provides sufficient information to give informed consideration and is at a sufficiently early point in the process to give the Committee an opportunity to influence decisions. That will enable the Committee to provide a comprehensive response to the Department to help inform the final budget allocations in the Main Estimates. On behalf of the Committee for Finance, I support the motion. <BR /> <BR />I now wish to speak as the DUP finance spokesperson. Whilst today will feel like we are going through the drill, having already debated the Bill with no amendments, there should never be a feeling of routine for the House.”
“The Committee for Finance and other Statutory Committees have, therefore, been able to undertake some scrutiny in that respect and get some idea of where the priorities and pressures are for Departments. I thank the Chairpersons and members of all Statutory Committees for requesting the information and for responding to the Committee for Finance on that important matter in such a timely manner. <BR /> <BR />The Committee will continue to consult on spending priorities and pressures and to treat the budget process as a key Committee priority.”
“However, the Committee considered the fact that approximately £9 billion of public expenditure for the next financial year was authorised through the Budget Bill without any indication of how allocations would be distributed within each Department. It is, therefore, much more than merely routine. Statutory Committees — the Committee for Finance in particular — have a duty and a responsibility to scrutinise how that £9 billion of public money is being used. It is also important that the House knows where money goes and how Departments intend to spend it between April and the Budget (No. 2) Bill receiving Royal Assent in late July. The Committee was grateful to have received information from all Statutory Committees on the spending priorities for their Departments in the 2020-21 financial year which forms the Vote on Account.”
“That said, it is worth mentioning that, in most cases, the Department of Finance responses to Committee queries and departmental papers for Committee evidence sessions have been provided to the Committee promptly and within the agreed timescales. I thank the Minister and the Department of Finance officials for their commitment in adhering to those agreed timescales, and I look forward to that continuing as the mandate progresses. <BR /> <BR />I recognise that this is about tidying up the 2019-2020 financial year and making provision for the first part of the next financial year. The Department considers the latter to be routine.”
“Mr Speaker, I am aware of the agreed timescales for interaction between Departments and Committees and the agreement that the Department has 10 days to respond to questions raised in Committee. The responses were received from the Department within that target. However, because they were not received in time for the Committee to consider them in advance of today's debate, I am not in a position to provide the House with a Committee for Finance view on these important issues. I ask the Department and, indeed, all Departments to remain mindful that the agreed timescales refer to deadlines and not targets.”
“<BR /> <BR />At the meeting on 19 February, the Committee asked the Department for clarification of the adjustments in DAERA between the Main Estimates position and the spring Supplementary Estimates. The Committee also asked the Department to provide more detail on the breakdown of the Department of Finance's resource requirements of £24 million for 2020-21. Those responses were emailed to the Committee on Friday morning. <BR /> <BR />It is apparent from the response to the Committee that the Department of Finance faces considerable pressures of over £24 million in the coming financial year, including more than £8 million relating to the 2020-21 census, the loss of almost £4·5 million in land registration income and just over £4·5 million in costs associated with EU exit.”
“He referred specifically to black-box provisions of more than £105 million in the Executive Office for victims and survivors. That provision was duplicated in black-box provisions in the Department of Justice. Almost £15 million of black-box provisions highlighted in the Department for the Economy's budget for Northern Ireland Screen appeared again as grant resource for Northern Ireland Screen. The Committee considered that further at its meeting on 26 February and is due to receive oral evidence from the Department on the matter at next week's meeting. Perhaps the Minister is in a position to update the House on those black-box issues during his winding-up speech.”
“As Members will be aware, the Budget Bill provides the statutory authority for expenditure in 2019-2020, as specified in the spring Supplementary Estimates, which take account of what happened during the in-year monitoring rounds. The Bill also includes the Vote on Account, which allows public expenditure to continue in the early part of the next financial year until the Assembly votes on the Main Estimates for 2020-21 in June. <BR /> <BR />The Committee for Finance took evidence on the Budget Bill from Department of Finance officials on 19 February. As I alluded at Second Stage, that session marked a very short period of Committee consultation on the Bill. The Committee was grateful to Mr Allister for raising an issue at Second Stage about the:”
“<BR /> <BR />I know of loved ones and elderly folk who have never recovered from that crime — they never ever recovered — and their health has failed because of it. That is something that we should not tolerate, we should not abide it, and we should do everything in our power to reduce this criminality and take these people off our streets and put them in prison where they belong.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. Of course, yes, there has to be some sort of educational scheme whereby we, as family members, can help to alleviate the fear of crime, but the advocacy service will be for when there has been a victim of crime. We need to wrap and support ourselves around that victim and see through the process that they are in, which is not of their choice or making. We should also realise that when vulnerable people are attacked, it is most often a burglary, where people have invaded their space and home and sometimes wreck it, but nonetheless leave that person vulnerable in their own home where they have nightmares and do not want to stay there. That is catastrophic for people.”
“Some of us have experienced it, some of us will not, and hopefully not ever, but it is a very scary thing, and it is much more so for somebody who is vulnerable, elderly and who does not understand it and maybe gets confused. After looking at the report by Eddie Lynch, the Commissioner for Older People, I see that his recommendation 5 and particularly recommendation 6 talk about an "advocacy scheme" for older people, and that should be looked at seriously. <BR /> <BR />I am on the Committee for Justice, and I know that the Chair has alluded to this, but we need to ensure that —.”
“She was not being derogatory about the Department; she basically meant that this needs to be more joined-up, because, ultimately, if it is not joined-up the Department of Justice has to deal with it. I hope that something will come out of the sentencing review that will protect elderly people who are vulnerable because of their age and isolation. <BR /> <BR />There is also some truth in this: it can take some time for court cases to materialise and then to get to an outcome. That is something we have been grappling with as a society for a long time. We need to be cognisant of the length of time it takes to bring cases to court and to get them out the other end. <BR /> <BR />The officialdom of court should be considered. It is really scary when you have to step into a courtroom.”
“<BR /> <BR />Just while I am on my feet and have reminded myself of this, I commend Claire Sugden's comments from last night. She alluded to the current Minister and said that the Department of Justice really is the:”
“We all have loved ones who are getting older, and we recognise their vulnerabilities. We recognise the fact that, as we get older, we worry more. That is certainly true for people in the upper age range — the over-75s. They could be living alone out in the country, in an isolated farmhouse up a big long lane. There is absolutely no doubt that their age creates a vulnerability that we may not understand, but we need to. <BR /> <BR />I have no doubt that those vulnerable, elderly, isolated people are targeted by criminals. That is the reason why I agree with Members' comments that there should be a sentence that identifies that vulnerability. We have aggravating factors, but we need something stronger. The opportunity is there through the Northern Ireland sentencing review, which the previous Justice Minister launched.”
“I commend the motion and my colleagues Mervyn and Joanne for tabling it so that Members can discuss this important topic. <BR /> <BR />We have debated three motions about crime: that is an important fact. It tells us something about where our Members are at, their psyche and how they have the pulse of the communities that they represent. It is good that we can debate the issue <BR /> <BR />I put on record my thanks to Eddie Lynch, the Commissioner for Older People for Northern Ireland, for publishing the report, the first of its kind to shine a light on this important issue.”
“There is no glory in lying on the concrete floor of a safe house with no company but your conscience after you have done an act of criminality and terrorism. There is no company and no glorification in that. There is no glorification in being an informer and telling your agents all the information you know. It is true that terrorism was beaten in this place. It is true that the security forces strangled terrorism to the point where it could not operate. That is why we got a peace process. We should have known, when, only weeks after the signing of the Belfast Agreement, prisoners got out of prison with clenched fists and "Yo-hos", what we were going to be in for and the prolonged period of terrorism and criminality that we have had to face ever since. We want to see an end to it. There can be no toleration of it. It must end now.”
“I plead with the younger Members of Sinn Féin to take away the shackles of the army council, to remove the coercive control that you are all under from the bogeymen in the shadows and to cut that loose and concentrate on pure politics to make our society better. You have the power, and you have the choice, if you choose to take it. I hope that you do, because no one else can do it but you. It is not right to condemn the actions of others and then say that it was OK in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s. It was not. <BR /> <BR />To the young members of Sinn Féin I say, "Do not fall for the spin of the glorification of terrorism". There is no glory at all. There is no glory in being on the run.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I agree perfectly with that statement. I commend you in the SDLP not only now in the days and hours that we are in this place but for the years when you took the abuse in republican areas and from republican representatives for standing strong and saying that violence was wrong. I commend you for that: violence is wrong. <BR /> <BR />I will centre on hope — hope for the future. We are all moving on and getting older, but we are seeing a younger generation of politicians. I say to those politicians now, especially those from the party opposite, that there is an issue that undermines the House. Of course, the debate is raging in the Republic of Ireland also, because that party might glimpse a bit of sovereign power, and, of course, that is a dangerous place for the Republic of Ireland to be.”
“We have a Finance Minister who just will not say the words, "Paul Quinn was not a criminal". The Finance Minister does not get it. It is not what he said years ago, in 2007, which really did slur the family and hurt them deeply. It is not what he said then; it is what he is not saying now. It echoes and hurts the —.”
“Even if you come out and say that it is not right to bomb up a street, a town or a busload of workers and you condemn that now, does it not undermine your argument and is it not hypocrisy and duplicity when you go the next night to some shindig to celebrate a prison break or tell stories about taking a round in the leg when you were getting chased by the RUC and you managed to nip over the border? <BR /> <BR />There is an onus on all of us to tell people fairly and squarely that terrorism is wrong. It has always been wrong. It wrought death and destruction on our people. You are not any great saviours of your people; in fact, you hurt your own. There is absolutely no doubt about that. It is not in the past, because it is happening now, and it is challenging the whole House.”
“I welcome the motion. As was mentioned earlier, the crime motions that we have before us today tell a tale about Members and how they have their fingers on the pulse of the community. <BR /> <BR />We have a responsibility in the House, as elected representatives, to be role models and to show society how we can behave, what we should tolerate and what we should not. It is not good enough to justify actions of the past when actions of the same ilk happen today. It is not good enough to say that it was in the past and that it was OK then but is not OK now. It is not in the past. There are victims and survivors who live with this on a daily basis. It is not in the past. It is there day to day.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is very important that we protect the people who protect us and that we give tougher sentences for assaulting them. Such assaults have a double impact. They impact on the victim, and, if that victim is out of service or cannot do their job, someone will die, so it has an indirect impact on another family's life. The connection will probably never be made, but it means devastation for yet another family, and that is very important. The House should take cognisance of that and protect the people who protect us in this country.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Member for his intervention. Yes, we must shine a light and open the doors on this. No one should be victimised or subjected to domestic violence or any sort of violence. <BR /> <BR />In the time remaining, I want to raise an issue that is close to my heart, and I would like the House to take cognisance of it. Before the Assembly fell, I had a private Member's Bill going through, and it was to protect accident and emergency staff — nurses — who are at the cutting edge and are abused daily, sometimes violently. We really need to pick up on that, and I look forward to miscellaneous Bills coming forward so that I get the chance to do so. I know that Dolores is very keen on miscellaneous Bills, too. Maybe we could work as a double act, as we have always done.”
“Violence is not acceptable, whether it is at home or at a sporting event.”