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 65 of 75.
“It is scary. I have been in houses when I was young, maybe staying over, and one of the parents came home drunk. It is quite intimidating. You have never really seen them in that light before. You wonder if everything is going to be OK. So, drink, whilst it is mainstream, is a massive issue for us as a society. Figures have been bandied about, and, of course, we can all recognise them. <BR /> <BR />I understand that it is a societal problem, so the whole Executive should tackle it. However, where does the burden really hit? It hits Justice and Health more than anywhere. Those Ministers should lead any strategy going forward, and I would support that. We look at the work that we are trying to do. Look at the work that the Justice Minister has been doing on domestic violence, a lot of which is drink induced.”
“We have all been in a place where we have seen somebody a wee bit the worse for wear. That is how we say it. We try our best to get that person home and to make sure that they are safe. There will be a few jokes or gibes and one thing and another. We find that acceptable at times. Hopefully the person will sleep it off and be right as rain the next day. However, that brings risks. <BR /> <BR />I remember, when I was growing up, running about with young friends from a neighbour's house. I just knew by the way things were talked about in the household and in the neighbour's household that there were issues there at night. You heard it through the walls. It was drink induced. It is not only the person who takes the drink that we should be looking at; it is the family circle. It is the young people who see that on a nightly basis.”
“Whilst most parties disagreed with my party on this issue and on these issues, they were prepared to say their piece, put down their authority where it was, tell it as they believed it was and see it out, yet one party has now walked away and failed the people of Northern Ireland. We are elected to this House to represent people, not to walk away and resign. <BR /> <BR />Alcohol-related crime is a massive issue in our society. We can talk about drugs, the harshness of drugs and why we should not take drugs and most people will get that, but alcohol is mainstream and so we have to treat it differently and do something else. That is the reason it costs so much: it is mainstream. We can all look back over our life, and — you have to really concentrate — see how alcohol has affected us growing up through the things that we have seen.”
“They have been deprived and robbed of the chance to make our people's lives better. This is just one of the issues that we should have been debating today. <BR /> <BR />Whilst we all know that this is a bear pit of a Chamber. I like the rough and tumble, I must admit. I like the debates that we have had here over the last number of months. We were able to debate and be harsh if we needed to be and say our truths if we had to, but we were able to get something done or at least speak about what needs to be done. Now we have been deprived of even that by the actions of one party.”
“I rise to support my colleague Alex Easton for bringing forward this motion tonight. It is a motion of real substance and real politics for real people. I stand here tonight heartbroken, and I am prepared to say that I back the Justice Minister 100% in everything that she said. Having worked with the Justice Minister over these past few months, I know that she was doing a good job and making real progress in that Department that would have benefited some of our most vulnerable people. <BR /> <BR />I know that we do not always get filled Chambers for debates of this nature, but I can look round the Chamber tonight and see genuine people who are here to do the best for their people — the people of Northern Ireland. Every single person in the Chamber feels the way I do and feels that they want to make a difference to their society.”
“That is what the people want to hear; they do not want to see walkouts. You are elected to this place to serve the people. Do not walk out of this place like a set of clowns.”
“Let us go forward and see whether we can organise a plan with the Finance Minister to try to draw back some of the projected spend.”
“You cannot have it both ways, Members. We are all responsible for our actions, and we are all responsible for this. <BR /> <BR />The welfare reform crisis cost this country millions of pounds, and, were it not for the actions of this party, it would have cost us £100 million every year. The grass was growing long and potholes were not being filled, and those were only what the people could see; what about the waiting lists? Where was the SDLP when that was happening? It was playing politics, as it is with this issue. People want to know what happened. Let us have an independent investigation to see what happened. Let us drive this country forward. Who is best placed to do that? The First Minister of this country, Arlene Foster.”
“There is a change. All the businesses and domestic users involved have been ridiculed in the press over the last two weeks. It is they who feel, "What is going on up there?"”
“How much longer did Adrian Cochrane-Watson want to give the scheme? <BR /> <BR />Of course, we had Jim Allister saying:”
“He went even further than that, saying that the Minister:”
“We also have Adrian Cochrane-Watson of the UUP saying:”
“The House also voted to close the scheme, but, at that point:”
“we are all guilty. We are all guilty because the scheme came before the House and we all voted for it. It went through rigorous scrutiny. I was on the ETI Committee with a lot of my colleagues and the Chairperson, Patsy McGlone, who did a sterling job and was a very decent and fair Chairperson. We scrutinised it, as we did all legislation that came before us. We scrutinised it to death.”
“No, I will make progress. <BR /> <BR />Here is the issue. I can tell you now that, if people feel that the First Minister has:”
“The Member can take Standing Orders up with the Speaker. I say to Mike Nesbitt that the public do not give a jot about what Standing Order he quotes. They want to hear information about what we will do and the facts that led to this issue.”
“For two weeks flat, the Opposition parties have been calling for the First Minister to come before them to address and answer their questions on the renewable heat scheme; yet, when they had the opportunity this morning, they walked out of this place.”
“Of course, I reject the motion to exclude a Minister whom Northern Ireland needs to get us through some of the darkest weeks of devolution. There is absolutely no doubt that these have been a dark couple of weeks. There have been massive issues and failings, and they have to be investigated. However, while they are being investigated, we need to ensure that we get something in place that can claw back into the public purse some of the money that has not yet been spent but is projected to be spent. Of all MLAs, who is best placed to do that? I believe that it is the First Minister, Arlene Foster. <BR /> <BR />I agree with Sinn Féin that today has been a circus, and I will tell you why.”
“I am sorry that the Minister did not hear me. I asked her for progress on the issuing of CAP payments. Maybe she can also tell me what percentage of payments were cleared by 1 December, which was the first possible date to issue full payments.”
“Will the First Minister take this opportunity, as I will, to congratulate Rory Best on his 100 caps for Irish rugby and to acknowledge the great achievement that is for the man himself and the great personality that he is?”
“As an MLA and someone who has been pushing the Department on VOPOs, I say that this is a good day for Northern Ireland and for the Assembly. It is good to make sure that the system is backed up and funded by the civil legal services. This is an essential piece of kit to rid our society of domestic violence and other heinous crimes.”
“The Committee also supported the introduction of the slavery and trafficking prevention orders that were introduced by way of a legislative consent motion as part of the Westminster Modern Slavery Act 2015. <BR /> <BR />On 27 October, the Committee considered the policy aspects of the Department's proposal to make the statutory rule and agreed that it was content that the rule be made. On 23 November, the Examiner of Statutory Rules confirmed that she had no issues to raise with the technical aspects of the rule. At a meeting on 24 November 2016, the Committee agreed to recommend that the statutory rule be affirmed by the Assembly and, therefore, supports the motion.”
“I am pleased to speak very briefly — you will be glad to know that, Mr Speaker, as will the House — on the motion on behalf of the Committee for Justice. <BR /> <BR />As the Minister has outlined, the statutory rule amends schedule 2 to the Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 to provide that representation in a court of summary jurisdiction in relation to applications for slavery and trafficking prevention orders and applications for violent offences prevention orders may be funded as civil legal services. <BR /> <BR />The previous Justice Committee considered the policy intent of violent offences prevention orders as part of its scrutiny of the 2014 Justice Bill and supported the creation of the order.”
“It left time very tight for us to get the LCM before the House today. <BR /> <BR />I have seen many messes in my time as an MLA. I was on the ETI Committee when it had to deal with the energy branch — horrendous — and was on the PAC when things have gone wrong in Departments, but I must say to the Minister of Justice that this mess, with its litany of errors, ranks right up there. I do not want to lose my temper. I will leave it at that, but I expect much more from the Department of Justice when it comes to engagement with the Justice Committee and with organisations that are stakeholders in any legislative process, whether it be the Policing Board, the Police Ombudsman or any other theatre of justice on legislation that the Department brings before the House. I hope that lessons have been learnt in this case. I will leave it there.”
“It has not been acceptable that we have had to extract all of this from the Department and its officials throughout the process.”
“The Committee would like to see the PSNI getting hot pursuit powers regardless of Scotland’s position, and would expect the Department’s negotiations with the Home Office to take this into account, although it is a matter for the Department of Justice and, indeed, the Home Office. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, this has not been an acceptable way of dealing with LCMs between the Department and the Committee. There has been a litany of errors throughout the process since our first briefing. It is not good enough to go the Policing Board in October when the Bill had its First Reading in Westminster in February. It is not good enough that the Justice Committee has to remind the Department of the accountability structures in Northern Ireland and to ask for the consent of the Policing Board and the Police Ombudsman.”
“<BR /> <BR />The commitment outlined by the Committee has now been given by the Minister, subject to the agreement of the Policing Board in relation to accountability and reaching agreement with the Scottish Government on the oversight arrangements for Police Scotland officers when in Northern Ireland waters. Therefore, the Committee for Justice supports the Minister of Justice in seeking the Assembly’s endorsement of the legislative consent motion. However, I want to point out that the Committee is of the view that the PSNI getting hot pursuit powers should not be dependent on agreement with the Scottish Government.”
“I think this is a lesson for everyone on the importance of proper scrutiny of LCMs by Committees, appropriate attention to detail and provision of accurate and clear information on the relevant provisions by Departments. <BR /> <BR />The Committee for Justice agreed, on 10 November 2016, that it was content with the proposal to extend maritime enforcement powers to Northern Ireland by way of a legislative consent motion, subject to the Minister giving a commitment during the debate on the legislative consent motion that work will be progressed as quickly as possible by the Department of Justice to make provision for maritime enforcement powers in hot pursuit situations for PSNI officers and to identify an appropriate legislative vehicle to give effect to this at the earliest opportunity.”
“If it is good enough for England, Scotland and Wales to come into our waters in hot pursuit, how would it not be the same, then, for PSNI officers going the other way?”
“The Department went to the Policing Board only on 22 October. This Bill had its First Reading in February, yet the Department only saw fit to go to the Policing Board, at the request, if you like, of the Justice Committee, on 22 October. It also alarms me that there was a very loose informal arrangement between the Department of Justice and the PSNI on these legislative matters. It is something of very great importance, yet it seems that the PSNI were being helpful when they did not request, require or see the need for hot pursuit powers going the other way. It was obvious to the Committee at the very first meeting that we would require or ask the Department to have those same powers.”
“<BR /> <BR />Members, I apologise for the length of time I have taken to set out details of the scrutiny that the Justice Committee has taken in respect of this legislative consent memorandum and motion, but it is vital to highlight the need to consider proposed LCMs in detail — after all, it is legislation — and to illustrate the handling of it, in particular the maritime enforcement hot pursuit element, by the Department. <BR /> <BR />I refer to the Committee's report:”
“Therefore, the draft motion included in the legislative consent memorandum, tabled on 7 November, does not cover hot pursuit powers. <BR /> <BR />In relation to maritime enforcement powers, the draft motion seeks the extension of wider maritime enforcement powers that would give the PSNI powers to seek to prevent, detect, investigate and/or prosecute offences committed on vessels in Northern Ireland waters. In practice, the PSNI would be able to stop, board, divert and detain a vessel; to search and obtain information; and to arrest and seize evidence of any offence on vessels in Northern Ireland territorial waters. This, of course, is to be welcomed and was supported by the Justice Committee.”
“When asked whether the hot pursuit provisions could be extended to Northern Ireland, England and Wales only, departmental officials advised that it was the Home Office's view that any arrangements for maritime enforcement powers in hot pursuit situations should cover all jurisdictions and be included in the same legislative vehicle. <BR /> <BR />In the absence of agreement, and given the tight legislative timescales associated with the passage of the Bill through Westminster, the Department removed from the legislative consent memorandum the provisions for hot pursuit into Northern Ireland waters. The Department confirmed, however, that it remains of the view that there was merit in seeking to resolve these issues and reach a mutually acceptable agreement in slower time.”
“<BR /> <BR />At the Department of Justice evidence session on 10 November, officials advised members that, following the Committee's conditional agreement to the proposed LCM on maritime enforcement powers, departmental officials attended a meeting of the Policing Board on 22 October and discussed the proposed oversight and accountability arrangements. The Department advised that, whilst some board members were supportive, the board was unable to reach an agreed position and sought further time to consider this matter. The Department also advised that it had not been possible to secure the agreement of the Scottish Government to oversight of Police Scotland officers when operating in Northern Ireland waters. The Department indicated that the issue was around Scottish officers being subject to greater scrutiny in Northern Ireland waters.”
“<BR /> <BR />At its meeting on 6 October, the Committee for Justice agreed that it was content with the proposed legislative consent motion on maritime enforcement powers, subject to the following: the addition of maritime enforcement powers in relation to hot pursuit being extended to the PSNI; that the Policing Board was content with the proposals for retrospective accountability by the Chief Constable to the board; and that the provision for maritime enforcement powers in relation to hot pursuit by Scottish officers in Northern Ireland territorial waters should remain only if the Scottish Government agreed the proposed model of oversight by the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.”
“The Minister informed the Committee that the Scottish Government were not in a position to agree to the proposed model of oversight of Scottish officers by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. However, the Department was working with the Home Office and Scottish Government to resolve that issue. The Minister suggested that, to progress the legislative consent motion, the appropriate provision relating to the exercise of powers by Scottish officers in Northern Ireland waters should remain in the Bill but on the firm understanding that they would remain only when all parties were agreed on appropriate accountability arrangements.”
“In relation to the legislative changes that would be required to provide accountability powers to the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, the Minister informed members that amendments would need to be made to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 and the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 and to some associated subordinate legislation. The Minister advised that the amendments would be incorporated into the Policing and Crime Bill and would ensure that the Police Ombudsman retained proper powers of investigation in relation to all officers when exercising the powers of a constable in Northern Ireland waters and PSNI officers when in other UK territorial waters. <BR /> <BR />In the same response, the Minister referred to an issue around accountability that had arisen in relation to Scottish officers.”
“<BR /> <BR />In respect of the likely resource and funding implications of the PSNI being given maritime enforcement powers in hot pursuit situations, the Department confirmed that the PSNI had purchased new boats in 2015 that were capable of going beyond the 12 miles required to leave Northern Ireland waters. The only identifiable cost, therefore, would be minimal and related to participation or training in any exercises that arose as a result of the new powers.”
“The Minister reiterated that the PSNI would welcome reciprocal maritime powers, including powers to cover cases in which PSNI officers might enter other UK territorial waters in hot pursuit circumstances. In such circumstances, the Department clarified that it had been agreed with the Home Office and the Office of the Police Ombudsman that the Police Ombudsman would continue to have oversight of PSNI officers operating in England and Wales waters. The Minister also advised that, to date, there had been no cases in which the PSNI had had to stop a hot pursuit operation because it would have resulted in officers going beyond Northern Ireland's territorial waters.”
“<BR /> <BR />In relation to law enforcement officers from any of the other UK jurisdictions exercising maritime hot pursuit powers in Northern Ireland's territorial waters, some members indicated that there needed to be an accountability mechanism to the Northern Ireland Policing Board for such operations and suggested that that could take the form of retrospective accountability by the Chief Constable. The Minister was, therefore, also asked to outline her proposals to address that issue. <BR /> <BR />In the Minister's response, she advised that engagement had taken place at assistant chief constable level in the PSNI and that the Chief Constable was also sighted on the matter.”
“The Committee, therefore, requested further information from the Minister on whether the PSNI had ever had to stop a hot pursuit operation because it would have resulted in officers going beyond Northern Ireland's territorial waters; what implications, if any, there would likely be for the PSNI in terms of additional resources and funding if maritime enforcement powers were provided; and the legislative changes required to provide the accountability powers to the Police Ombudsman, details of the amendments and how they would be taken forward.”
“<BR /> <BR />Assistant Chief Constable Todd confirmed in his response that he was content that the powers of hot pursuit be extended to the PSNI. He also clarified that the original position attributed to the PSNI appeared to be the result of an informal conversation between staff who were trying to be helpful in progressing the matter and had not been fully considered at a senior level at that time. That is absolutely astounding. <BR /> <BR />At the Committee meeting on 29 September, members considered the responses from the Minister of Justice and the PSNI and indicated that they still did not have the level of clarification necessary to reach a decision on the proposal to extend maritime enforcement powers in hot pursuit circumstances.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee agreed to seek clarification from the Chief Constable on his position on extending the powers of hot pursuit to the PSNI and on the reasons why the PSNI did not seek or support maritime enforcement powers of hot pursuit being extended to Northern Ireland in the first instance. <BR /> <BR />The Minister of Justice responded on 21 September, providing information on the proposed accountability arrangements to the Policing Board for law enforcement officers from any of the UK jurisdictions exercising maritime hot pursuit powers in Northern Ireland's territorial waters. She indicated that she was not minded to include a provision that required either the Chief Constable or chief officers of other GB forces to report to the Policing Board on the exercise of hot pursuit powers.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee considered the responses from the Minister of Justice and the PSNI and agreed to seek further information from the Minister of Justice on the accountability arrangements to the Policing Board for incidents involving law enforcement officers from any of the UK legal jurisdictions exercising hot pursuit powers in Northern Ireland waters. The Committee also agreed to advise her that it was minded to recommend that maritime enforcement powers of hot pursuit be extended to Northern Ireland but would consider the matter further on receipt of the additional information requested.”
“The PSNI was of the view that, to ensure consistency across UK waters, it would be in the national interest to extend the proposed enforcement powers to Northern Ireland by way of a legislative consent motion. <BR /> <BR />The Committee’s concerns, however, did not centre on law enforcement officers from other UK jurisdictions being provided with maritime enforcement powers in Northern Ireland waters in hot pursuit situations. Rather, the Committee was considering whether the PSNI should get equivalent powers to go into other UK jurisdiction waters.”
“The Minister confirmed that her Department had agreed an approach with the Home Office that makes provision for local accountability where hot pursuit maritime powers are exercised in Northern Ireland waters, to ensure that officers are properly held to account, and that the Police Ombudsman was content with the oversight arrangements. <BR /> <BR />The Committee also wrote to the Chief Constable asking why the PSNI held the view that maritime enforcement powers in relation to hot pursuit should not be extended to Northern Ireland. In response, Assistant Chief Constable Todd stated that while, at present, it was unlikely that the PSNI would have occasion to use hot pursuit powers in Northern Ireland waters, it was not its intent to in some way create a safe haven.”
“The Modern Slavery Act memorandum provided consent for the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland to investigate any complaints made against officers from police forces in England and Wales in the exercise of hot pursuit powers in Northern Ireland waters. However, the Bill contained a clause that would have the effect of extending the jurisdiction of the Independent Police Complaints Commission in England and Wales to the hot pursuit powers in the Modern Slavery Act and the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Following the oral evidence session with departmental officials on 15 September, the Committee agreed to request information from the Minister of Justice on accountability arrangements in relation to the Police Ombudsman.”
“However, officials highlighted that a legislative consent motion would still be required to provide legislative consent for law enforcement officers in England, Wales and Scotland to exercise their powers in Northern Ireland waters, but only in hot pursuit situations. <BR /> <BR />The officials also advised the Committee that discussions were ongoing between the Department and the Home Office on the accountability arrangements for the hot pursuit powers in the Bill, which, at the time of introduction, were contrary to that which the previous Assembly provided legislative consent for in relation to the hot pursuit provisions in the Modern Slavery Act.”
“They included powers of hot pursuit from Scottish waters into Northern Ireland territorial waters, which also required the legislative consent of the Assembly. The Department advised the Committee that, given the Scottish Government's request for powers corresponding to those conferred on members of police forces in England and Wales, officials consulted the PSNI on whether a case could be made for equivalent maritime enforcement powers in the Bill to be extended to Northern Ireland. In response, according to the Department, the PSNI advised that it had limited maritime capabilities and that there was no pressing need for additional powers to be made available to its officers at present. Based on the PSNI's view, the Department indicated that it was minded not to extend the maritime powers to Northern Ireland.”
“I thank the Minister for giving the House that clarification. It was a very, very clear statement, so thank you very much, Minister, for that. <BR /> <BR />I turn to the provisions on maritime enforcement laws and powers. In April of this year, the Home Office wrote to the Department seeking legislative consent for law enforcement officers in England and Wales to exercise maritime enforcement powers in Northern Ireland waters in hot pursuit situations. Following that, the Scottish Government requested that law enforcement officers in Scotland be provided with powers corresponding to those conferred on members of police forces in England and Wales and on certain other law enforcement officers.”