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 66 of 75.
“Ms Clare Bailey asked whether the pardon would be accompanied by an apology from Westminster or the Executive Office. In response, departmental officials advised that an apology did not form part of the provisions being put forward in the House of Lords. <BR /> <BR />While the Committee agreed at its meeting on 10 November that it was content with the proposal to extend the provision for pardons for convictions for abolished homosexual offences to Northern Ireland, it also agreed to ask the Minister of Justice whether she is minded to undertake a review to identify the scale of other anomalies specific to Northern Ireland that may need to be addressed in relation to heterosexual offences. The response received from the Minister was that she has asked officials to consider this matter, and her comments today have expanded on that.”
“Subsequent amendments tabled by Lord Lexden would make provision for Northern Ireland by introducing the disregard powers in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, along with the new provisions that will provide statutory pardons for abolished homosexual offences. Officials informed the Committee that inclusion of these provisions in the legislative consent memorandum would allow the UK Parliament to include Lord Lexden’s amendments and thereby provide the same arrangements in Northern Ireland as are proposed for England and Wales in relation to the pardoning of abolished homosexual offences. <BR /> <BR />During discussions, Mr Roy Beggs expressed reservations about the pardoning of abolished homosexual offences that were illegal in the context of the age of consent at that time.”
“Departmental officials attended the meeting to update members on the revised legislative consent memorandum laid on 7 November and the new provisions. Officials advised the Committee that on 7 November the Minister received through urgent procedure Executive agreement to seek agreement from the Assembly to extend the provisions to Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Late amendments to the Policing and Crime Bill tabled at Lords Committee Stage would provide in England and Wales statutory pardons for persons with convictions, including military convictions under service law, for abolished homosexual offences involving consensual activity with persons over the current age of consent. Those amendments build on existing provision in England and Wales in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which introduced a disregard scheme for such offences.”
“In relation to social media, any domestic service providers established in England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland who publish a prohibited matter in a European Economic Area state, other than the UK, may be liable to prosecution. <BR /> <BR />At its meeting on 22 September, the Committee for Justice considered all the information available to it and agreed it was content with the proposal to extend the provision for lifelong anonymity of victims of forced marriage to Northern Ireland by way of the legislative consent motion. <BR /> <BR />At the meeting on 10 November, the Committee for Justice considered for the first time new provisions that were in the legislative consent memorandum laid in the Assembly on 7 November to provide for pardons for convictions relating to now-abolished homosexual offences.”
“The Committee understands it is a very rare crime in Northern Ireland, but it concurs with the Department’s view that it is important that victims here are afforded the same level of protection as those in England and Wales. At its meeting on 15 September, the Committee agreed to seek clarification on whether anonymity for a UK citizen who is a victim of forced marriage extends to other jurisdictions outside the UK. The Department responded, clarifying that the offence of breaching a prohibition on publication of the identity of a victim of forced marriage will apply on a UK-wide basis but does not extend beyond the UK.”
“The proposed amendment to the Policing and Crime Bill would provide automatic lifelong anonymity to victims of forced marriage and prohibit publication or broadcast of any information likely to result in the victim being identified, whether that is in traditional print, broadcast or social media. The prohibition can be reversed only if the victim applies to the court to remove it. Anyone found guilty of breaching it will be subject to a fine not exceeding level 5, which is £5,000 on summary conviction. <BR /> <BR />The Committee agrees that there is significant value in making provision for the anonymity of victims of forced marriage in Northern Ireland at this time.”
“At its meeting on 22 September 2016, the Committee for Justice agreed that it was content with the proposal to extend the police powers across UK jurisdictions — these are provisions in the Policing and Crime Bill — to Northern Ireland by way of the LCM. <BR /> <BR />The Committee was fully supportive of the provision on anonymity for victims of forced marriage being extended to Northern Ireland. At present, a victim of forced marriage in Northern Ireland may be granted anonymity only at the discretion of the court, so, in reality, anonymity is not automatic.”
“<BR /> <BR />On the UK cross-jurisdictional arrest powers, the Home Office is proposing an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to fill a long-term gap that prevents an officer in their own jurisdiction arresting a person without warrant on suspicion of having committed an offence in another UK jurisdiction. <BR /> <BR />The Policing and Crime Bill will allow police officers in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to arrest a person in their own jurisdiction for a serious offence committed in another. Consequential changes will also be made to the existing powers of entry and search but only for offences that are indictable, and it is noted that consequential amendments to current PACE codes of practice will also be required.”
“On 7 November, the Department of Justice laid a further legislative consent memorandum for the Policing and Crime Bill that superseded the memorandum laid on the 27 October. The further legislative consent memorandum covered the three areas in the 27 October memorandum and an additional policy area, that is, pardons for convictions of certain abolished offences. <BR /> <BR />Now that I have outlined how we got to this point, I will cover each provision separately. I will deal with the provisions relating to UK maritime enforcement powers last, as the Committee spent a considerable amount of time on that area and not without difficulty or frustration.”
“The Committee learnt later that the Department had circulated a draft paper on the proposals for consideration by the Executive at their meeting on 27 October and, following feedback on the draft, the final paper tabled and ultimately approved did not include the provisions relating to biometric retention in relation to foreign convictions.”
“<BR /> <BR />On 27 October, the Department of Justice laid a legislative consent memorandum for the Policing and Crime Bill which included a consolidated draft motion covering three out of the four previously considered policy areas: maritime enforcement powers, not including hot pursuit powers I might add; UK cross-jurisdictional arrest powers; and anonymity for victims of forced marriage. Therefore, we had one LCM covering three out of the four policy areas considered — not four as had been originally intended — and one of those areas had changed considerably since it was last considered by the Committee.”
“It also agreed that it was content with the proposal to extend the biometric retention provisions in relation to foreign convictions in the Policing and Crime Bill to Northern Ireland by way of an LCM. Sinn Féin members of the Committee, however, indicated that they were opposed to this proposed legislative consent motion. At the meeting on 6 October, the Committee reached agreement on the LCM on maritime enforcement powers. The Committee agreed that it was content with the proposed legislative consent motion on maritime enforcement powers subject to a number of conditions. The reasons for the Committee’s conditional agreement will become clear when I come to talk specifically about the maritime enforcement provisions.”
“The LCMs covered maritime enforcement powers, police powers across UK jurisdictions and biometric retention in relation to foreign convictions. At the request of the Committee, departmental officials attended the meeting on 15 September to give evidence on the proposals. On the same day, the Committee also considered a written departmental briefing on a fourth proposed legislative consent motion on lifelong anonymity of victims of forced marriage. <BR /> <BR />At the meeting on 22 September, the Committee agreed that it was content with the proposals to extend the provisions for lifelong anonymity of victims of forced marriage and police arrest powers across UK jurisdictions to Northern Ireland.”
“The Minister of Justice has already outlined the purpose of the legislative consent motion, so I do not intend to rehearse everything that has already been said. However, I do want to outline the Committee’s consideration of the policy areas covered by the motion. Whilst the Justice Committee is of the view that, where possible, legislative change should be taken through the Assembly, on this occasion it agreed that a legislative consent motion would be the most appropriate course of action. <BR /> <BR />First, I want to set out the background to the Committee’s consideration of all the proposals submitted to it for possible inclusion in the Policing and Crime Bill. At its meeting on 16 June 2016, the Committee considered departmental written briefing papers on three proposed LCMs for the Policing and Crime Bill.”
“We should be connecting with GB more, and we should be connecting with France. Even Iceland is being talked about. That is where the future is with regard to interconnection. <BR /> <BR />I have very little time, Mr Speaker, but I ask the Minister to look at RP5 and at the fact that NIE was given £459 million in this price control, and it has not spent that money quickly. If it does not spend it, it gets to keep 50% of it because of the price control determination. I ask the Minister to investigate that and see where we are with regard to that spend in RP5.”
“It is the cost of energy to our people and our businesses that is the massive issue. <BR /> <BR />They talked about the grid, the step change and going into deficit. That is the grid if nothing happens. That is what happens if nothing happens. I take exception to the words "policy vacuum". There is no policy vacuum. Just because we do not have subsidies for renewable energy does not mean that there is a policy vacuum. Interconnection is there. Interconnection needs to happen in the most affordable way and at the most affordable price: that is overground. It has to happen because it will reduce constraint charges on our people — some £30 million in a pot that has £152 million of constraint. That is the prize for interconnection, but it is not the only prize. We should be interconnecting everywhere.”
“I commend the Members for bringing this debate. The House will know how passionate I am when it comes to energy and everything around it. I believe that it is one of the most fundamental issues that a Government can tackle or grapple with. So, I was annoyed and disappointed at the wording of the motion, but I will give credit where credit is due. The content of the contributions was very factual. It was very good, but it was all doom and gloom. <BR /> <BR />Whilst it is very important that we get energy right, it is about the energy mix. It seems that the Ulster Unionist Party has a real worry, nervousness and panic around sustainability. Have lessons not be learnt that when decisions are taken in panic, it costs. That is the most important thing that we should take away from this today.”
“Oh dear. I am aggrieved that I have only three minutes.”
“I understand what the Member says about the North/South interconnector and the Moyle interconnector, but she is talking about two different things. Does the Member realise how many problems we have had with the Moyle interconnector? When there is a fault, it takes years to fix. It has been running at 50% capacity.”
“We know them to be a real problem in our prisons, contributing to the desperate behaviour of prisoners and the state of their mental health. Will support for prison staff be ingrained in all these policies and action plans?”
“I thank the Minister for her statement, albeit it was late. I welcome the content of the report. The community response plan seems to be common sense. I also welcome the review of the suicide and self-harm policy and the work on the draft criminal justice and healthcare strategy and action plan. Even with that multilayered approach, is it still the case that psychologist reports are being, at worst, ignored and, at best, left uncommunicated? Is medication being prescribed quickly enough, and are the drugs dispensed getting to the prisoner patient quickly enough? Will the Minister reassure me and the House that that issue will be looked at seriously and urgently? Will the reviews, strategies and action plans help deal with psychoactive substances?”
“I hope the Minister will look at that and see how we can grow the Northern Ireland Open.”
“Well, I think he should get a tour invitation. You never know. I will take half of his prize money. This is a tremendous opportunity for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Open.”
“We can do this every year; we can have a tournament of that calibre every year through the Northern Ireland Open. Why should we not strive to get there and to have this as an annual event? We have the infrastructure around Ballymena, and we have the golf course. I know that the Minister has played it; I have seen him in action.”
“To go up higher, you are talking about the same professional tour as the Irish Open, the Scottish Open, the French Open, the Spanish Open and all the rest. How good would it be if Northern Ireland were to get a slot in that diary? It would be at the very peak of European golf. We can do it. I pay tribute to the owner of Galgorm Castle, Christopher Brooke, on the work that he has done on that ground and the investment that he has made. I also pay tribute to his managing director, Gary Henry, who is also the main organiser of the Northern Ireland Open. These people can put Northern Ireland on the map. <BR /> <BR />We can compete right up there with the Irish Open. It is good to have the Irish Open in Portrush, at the Royal County Down in Newcastle and, now, in Portstewart.”
“Whilst it is good that Northern Ireland can attract the Irish Open and, of course, the Open in 2019, we should look at the potential of the Northern Ireland Open. At the minute, it is a Challenge Tour tournament, which is the second division in European golf terms. It has been going only since 2013, when it had over 22,000 spectators. In 2014, it had 34,000 spectators. In 2015 and 2016, it had 39,000 spectators, and the grand total for 2016 was 39,721 spectators. It was won by Ryan Fox from New Zealand. That is the potential that the Northern Ireland Open has. It broke the Challenge Tour attendance records in the last two years. That tells me that the Northern Ireland Open has outgrown that division of European golf.”
“<BR /> <BR />I acknowledge the work of the organisers of the North West 200, which is very close to my constituency; it benefits greatly from that event. What a massive event it is, and it is free. Where else would you get that in the world? The Milk Cup — the Super Cup as it is called now — does tremendous work with young people from around the world. We also have our golfers. Look at what has been achieved at the very highest levels by Rory McIlroy, Graeme McDowell, Darren Clarke and, of course, Michael Hoey, who, I think, is now a six-time winner on the European Tour. <BR /> <BR />Michael Hoey has done a lot of work with Galgorm Castle Golf Club. He is an ambassador for the Northern Ireland Open, which is Northern Ireland's annual professional golf tournament.”
“I support the motion. I acknowledge the work that has been done to date. I invite Mr Chambers to visit North Antrim, where he can attend Ballymoney town hall and learn all about the history of road racing in Northern Ireland. On his way home, he could call into the Ballymena Showgrounds, where he will see our hall of fame, which has represented in it Willie John McBride, Eamonn Loughran, Michael O'Neill, Maeve and Sean Kyle and Nigel Worthington. There are a lot of museums that acknowledge and support the work of all sports in all guises and through all individuals. I disagree with him: if we focus on a museum, we could lose sight of the future potential. We need funding and support to make sure that we assist the athletes of the future rather than spending money on a museum that shows us what happened in the past.”
“— in agreement to make sure that we serve all victims.”
“It is important that we move forward together —”
“The Minister said, and I remember it well, that you have to be careful about how you answer that, because resource is limited. That is the crux. A lot of this comes down to cost. We have to make sure that we treat people fairly and equally. The Lord Chief Justice said:”
“No, I am not saying that it should be held up; I am saying that the legacy inquests should continue. Three have been completed this year, and the Lord Chief Justice says that he will complete two next year. I asked the previous Justice Minister — I could ask the current Minister this today — at the Justice Committee whether he was sure that all the muscle and sinew of his Department and the police force was going into tackling paramilitarism and crime.”
“You can rest assured that, when there is some outcome or something is completed and the victim and survivor of that atrocity, whatever it may be, comes forward and there is a briefing and someone says, "We have got this and we have had this and we are still not satisfied", it puts a dagger even further into the hearts of those victims and they feel forgotten — even more so. Every victim who was involved in the Troubles and every survivor who got caught up in the Troubles need to go forward, but how do we pick and choose? <BR /> <BR />I know that the legacy inquests are a special category, and there is an onus on the Government — on both Governments, in fact — on the issue. I would like to see them moving forward, but look at what money and resources we have — £150 million. Would £150 million look at 56 cases? I do not know.”
“That is the crux. When some system, Government, Department or judicial system leaves victims behind or puts other victims at a higher level, more hurt and more pain are placed on those victims. <BR /> <BR />I have worked throughout the years with some of the family members of the Teebane victims. It was horrendous. I remember the day well. I was in the development where one of the victims lived. I saw the police cars going up first to speak to his wife. I was only out on the pavement in a parked car when it all happened. I quickly realised that the atrocity had taken place and quickly realised, too, that I had lost a friend I had grown up with. I have been working with those family members ever since, especially since I became involved in politics.”
“Thank you, Deputy Principal Speaker — sorry, Principal Deputy Speaker. I always get that mixed up. <BR /> <BR />We will not support the motion or any of the amendments, although I will place on record sincere gratitude for the way that most Members so far have spoken on this sensitive issue. I also commend Doug Beattie for what he said about equality. He gave me a compliment earlier, so I will have to return that favour. What Doug Beattie said today is very close to our position. <BR /> <BR />People throughout the ages have fought and campaigned for equality. Is it not just as important to fight for the victims and survivors to ensure that they have equality and to make sure that justice is served? Nowhere in that statement does it say that one set of victims should be left behind or treated differently from another set of victims.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. How could the Member describe my contribution yesterday as "bombastic"? We were talking about addressing the past and about victims. I did not use bombastic language yesterday at all, and my tone could not have been described as bombastic.”
“Thank you very much. I commend the man's bravery; I wish that some of his colleagues would take the same option. After everything the Member has said, why on Earth would he support the naming of a play park after a paramilitary?”
“Will the Member give way? He will get an extra minute.”
“We need to make sure that we encourage such groups. We need to make sure that they do the work on the ground and that we are behind them, working with them, to support them. I would like "big house" unionism to get out of its ivory tower and see the work that is being done on the ground.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am running out of time, but I will say that Doug's language around Charter NI was irresponsible. It is not a terrorist organisation. It is a community group made up of civil servants, community activists, trade unionists and a Church minister. Where would we be if those people were not in Charter NI?”
“I noted that, when Mr McCrossan was speaking yesterday in the House, his language was violent. He should have taken interventions, but he ran away from doing so. He should be ashamed of his language yesterday, as should his leader, because his language was also violent at times. He was talking about kicking doors in on Downing Street. What sort of language is that? <BR /> <BR />There is a lot that I agreed with in Doug Beattie's contribution, but how can you say that we should spend £10 million this year urgently but in the next sentence say that the apparatus and arrangements are not in place to spend that money? Why would you throw money away foolishly without knowing whether the checks and balances are in place to achieve what you are trying to achieve? That is just nonsense. It is silly.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. That is an absolutely valid point, Lord Morrow, and I thank you for making it. No one here can turn around and say that he or she is clean when it comes to this sort of thing. Look at the SDLP leader, the SDLP party and what they have done since the ceasefires and the Good Friday Agreement; they; they should be taking a good look at themselves. <BR /> <BR />I do not blame just the UUP for letting the prisoners out —”
“It is all well and good to say, "We want this motion supported and paramilitarism to end". Why did it not end with the ceasefires? Why did it not end when the Good Friday Agreement was signed? Simply because the issue is more complex than that. <BR /> <BR />Of course there needs to be a justice element. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it was the intelligence services that brought about the ceasefires. It was not political statements or political agreements; rather, it was the intelligence services strangling the terrorist organisations to a point at which they could not operate. There will always be a justice solution to this.”
“I know from growing up that more people were recruited into loyalist paramilitary organisations after the ceasefires than at any period during the Troubles. What does that say about the parties that are now criticising the Executive for their action plan that was launched in July? If you want to talk about failure, that was failure. <BR /> <BR />Who was in charge during the ceasefires? Who was in charge when paramilitary prisoners walked out of prison with their fists clenched, with their hordes cheering and cachinnating. Who was in charge then? Have we not been picking up the crap and the pieces since? Have we not? We will continue to do that work, because it is worthwhile. We see the pain on our working-class streets. It is OK being in your ivory tower.”
“I welcome the debate. It is always good to make sure that we are trying our best to relieve our community of paramilitary activity. That is something that we have been fighting for, tooth and nail, since our inception as a party, all those years ago. It is a complex issue, which will not be resolved by a simplistic motion from an opposition party, rounded up with the other opposition parties, that says, "You are not doing enough; you need to do more, and we are not happy". Well, none of us should be happy that there are paramilitaries on our streets, that there are gangsters on our streets, and that there is organised crime on our streets. <BR /> <BR />The motion speaks true: it is 18 years after the Good Friday Agreement. Amendment No 1 speaks true: it is 22 years on from the ceasefires.”
“I thank the Member for giving way on this very sensitive and important issue. Does the Member also recognise that many victims and survivors know the truth, some way, somehow, yet they seek justice and cannot get justice at present?”
“Can the Minister update the House in any way on the test and vaccinate or remove project, which is currently going through DAERA and is something that I pushed very hard when I was Chairperson of the ARD Committee?”
“A debt of gratitude should leave the House today for the service of people in the security forces and the role that they played in keeping us all safe. That should never be forgotten. That can never be rewritten, and it is important that we acknowledge it here today. <BR /> <BR />We hope for the support of the House for our amendment.”
“The moment that we trade justice is when we are in big trouble, and I believe that there will be no closure for the many victims and survivors in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />We stand here today determined to resolve this issue. We stand here today wanting to resolve these issues. We are happy to stand over the work that we have done to date. Can we do more? Of course we can. Every single party and every single Member in the House can do more and work harder to resolve these issues. We will not be found wanting when it comes to trying to resolve the issues. We will work hard for all the people of Northern Ireland and all the victims to whose doors terror has been brought. <BR /> <BR />We will support the security forces and their work throughout those terrible years to keep the public safe and out of harm's way.”
“With the agreements already sought within that agreement, we believe that that is where we need to go. It is OK to include bits of the Fresh Start Agreement in a motion, but let us take the whole Fresh Start Agreement forward. Let us try to get a resolution to these issues once and for all, and then maybe victims will get some closure. <BR /> <BR />What Northern Ireland and what victims and survivors have come through over this generation is beyond explanation. Some of our young people do not even realise the horrors that have been inflicted on our people over the past 40 years. A light must be shone on all this, and the truth must come out. Justice must be done. That is the only way in which we will ever be able to move forward with any confidence.”