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 70 of 75.
“There has been agreement and compromise: some fees have increased, some have changed and, in some cases, there are no fees. It is in a much more fit-for-purpose state, and I think that everyone will welcome the changes. I do not wish to speak on any of the other amendments. The Chair of the Committee has outlined the position of the Committee very well, so I will finish.”
“I believe that it will free up police time and that the burden that it places on firearm dealers is one that they will be able to cope with. As long as the amendments and changes are made and put through the system to the PSNI, this will be a system that works very well for people who hold firearms. <BR /> <BR />These are positive changes. I welcome the work that has been done over the last number of months, and I welcome the spirit in which the Minister and officials came to meet stakeholders and produced the legislation. We wish that we could have gone further, but, alas, we are where we are, and everyone is in a much better place. Issues relating to fees have plagued this country for too long. They are being resolved, along with these changes.”
“Some of the wording in the amendment has come from the stakeholders and specialists, and one phrase that I want to place on record is " appropriate supervision". That should reassure Members, because you have to attain the age of 21 and have held a firearm certificate for a shotgun for at least five years. That is you getting to a suitable age, and it means that you are through the vetting process twice. I think that that has tightened the law and helped with supervision, and I welcome the fact that anomalies on the other side of the legislation have been corrected. <BR /> <BR />The amendment on the banded system is common sense. When you talk to firearm dealers, especially, and firearm holders, you hear that this could have been done years ago. I am glad that it is being done now. Common sense has been injected into the system.”
“It is an important issue for us, the three Members who took this on board. We worked with the officials, and we put pressure on when we had to. When we had to be constructive, we were, and I believe that we have a very good piece of legislation. It is not all that we want, and it is not all that the stakeholders want, but they realise more than anyone that nothing can be achieved unless we all work together. <BR /> <BR />On schedule 4, whilst we would like to have gone further on the age, we recognise the position that the Minister is in and where he has moved to. We also recognise where the stakeholders and the clubs and dealers were and where they have moved to. There has been compromise on both sides.”
“We are dealing with a very specialised group of young people who take this sport very seriously and could well wish to compete in competitions throughout the world, including the Commonwealth Games and the Olympics. It is important that their skills are honed and that they can use them in the appropriate manner to practise and compete where they can to bring back silverware for Northern Ireland. We should be proud of our young sportspeople and give them as much encouragement as possible. <BR /> <BR />Schedule 4 is technical, and some members of the Committee either were not interested or left it to people who were interested or maybe it just went over their head. Sometimes, when the officials came to the Committee, only three members were talking, and, other than that, you could have heard a pin drop.”
“When you look at the controversial nature of gun law in some states and countries around the world, you can understand why any Minister would want to apply the safety catch. It is not required in this regard because, in Northern Ireland, there are approximately 59,500 firearm certificate holders, with roughly 2% of them being female. The average age of a firearm certificate holder in Northern Ireland is about 53. I know that some Members showed concern about the age at which you will be able to shoot under supervision here, but I reassure the House that I do not see that as an issue at all; in fact, I would like to go further and make it younger. There are roughly only 35 firearm certificate holders between the ages of 16 and 18.”
“The problem, I believe, is not so much to do with licensed firearms but with firearms that are on the black market having been brought in from eastern European states. It is those firearms that do harm with regard to terrorist actions and individuals who wish to do harm to persons. <BR /> <BR />I suppose that the trigger for all of this came in the Justice Bill, when Patsy McGlone, Edwin Poots and I made the bold step of tabling amendments. We met the stakeholders, who desperately wanted to resolve the issue that had plagued their industry for many, many years. I believe that we are at the point where the stakeholders — the firearms dealers and the enthusiasts who take part in the sport — are in a far better position for it.”
“That is important as we go forward. This can be used as an example of how it should be done in future, not only in the Department but throughout government. I refer the Minister to the directive. I am sure that he knows where it was born out of and the measures contained in it.”
“I will concentrate on amendment Nos 59 and 82. Before I do that, I refer Members to the European Commission directive 91/477/EEC on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons. That should be in our sights today is because it could do harm to some of the amendments that we are putting through. We have worked hard and done well on those amendments. <BR /> <BR />This is a good example of how government and politics should work alongside stakeholders. Once everybody got to grips with that issue and saw where their place was, you got an effective partnership, which came up with these amendments. I commend everyone who took part in that, including the Minister and his officials. Whilst it came kicking and screaming, the PSNI has a massive part to play too. We have always wanted a more agile system with common sense in it.”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. Is he aware of my constituents' concerns? It seems to be the case that BT is degrading its copper system and its other old systems. What can he do to make sure that BT meets all its obligations and does not let people wither on the vine with a copper system? People are experiencing even lower speeds than they were at Christmas.”
“We are in the House and Ministers are in the Executive to make hard decisions, and I would like to see that happening more quickly and efficiently. <BR /> <BR />I hope that the Bill will not be the end. My party has fought hard and struggled long to get a reduction in the number of MLAs and a reduction in the number of Departments. We would like to go further, but we will bank what we have in this mandate and move on accordingly. We will not let up, and our energy will not reduce in trying to meet the aims and objectives of the DUP in that regard. We will push on to get to a point at which we have a voluntary coalition with a proper opposition. I will leave it there. I welcome the Bill.”
“I, of course, support the Departments Bill. As I have said before, I think that it is a good move and a great thing for the Assembly, the Government and the people of Northern Ireland, as it will go some way to streamlining government. I hope that it will go some way towards breaking down the silo mentality that we have in some of our Ministers and parties and lead to a more streamlined, focused Government all going in the one direction, as opposed to what we have sometimes witnessed and experienced, whereby parties go their own way on solo runs. <BR /> <BR />It will not happen without Ministers making hard decisions. I share many of the frustrations of other Members, and, over the last number of years, we have seen at first hand that all our people suffer when Ministers do not make hard decisions.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. It is important that we acknowledge the movement that the Alliance Party has made to come on to our ground. We hope that it will stay there and will work with us in the new mandate to make even greater progress.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Is the Alliance Party comparing the work that it has put into what will be a failed amendment with the progress that this party, the DUP, has made over those years in securing the agreement, banking it in this mandate, and ensuring that this will come to pass? Is it comparing that work and energy with an amendment that is clearly going to fail in the House?”
“Every day is a bonus. I thank the Member for his contribution. That is the way that we should come to politics. That is the way that we should come to the table. We should not be regretful or negative. I would say to Mr Lyttle that, if it is about saving money, why not have in his amendment a reduction to four Members per constituency? That would be more meaningful and it would suit our agenda and our aims and objectives much better. It is not just about simply saving money. I want to sprinkle some of my rejoicing over the way in order to get the Bill passed, get it banked and make progress for the good of all our people. <BR /> <BR />I have said enough at this point, Mr Speaker, so thank you very much for the time that you have given me.”
“Mr Maginness acknowledges that and agrees with it, just for the benefit of Hansard.”
“I thank the Member for his contribution, albeit a wee bit downbeat in demeanour. I apologise for that; I try to rejoice every morning when I wake, and I try to be forward-thinking and positive in my outlook.”
“Why would this party jeopardise that when we can see that it will help to move this country and our people forward?”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. If the Alliance Party were so keen to see this amendment through — they are speaking passionately on it now, and I am glad that the Member acknowledges that I am trying to challenge the party robustly — why has it come so late in the day? Why was it not in the Fresh Start Agreement? Why did they not stand side by side with us when we wanted these changes? Why did they not speak up in the Stormont House Agreement? Why did they not push this view then, when we could have got agreement on this and could well have had it settled? Maybe we could have got what the Member now wishes for, which is a change at this election. <BR /> <BR />We are where we are, and we have the Fresh Start Agreement. Again, I ask the Member this: why would we jeopardise that good work and that agreement?”
“I will in a minute. <BR /> <BR />It could well unravel or jeopardise the Fresh Start Agreement — not only this aspect of it, but the whole agreement. The Member will know full well the issues and problems that we had before the Fresh Start Agreement. Does the Member want to go back to those days? Does the Member want to go back to the days when nothing was agreed, government and politics stagnated and the hard decisions were not made for our people? Does the Member want to go back to those days? I worry that amendments like these, which can be seen as stunts, could well unravel and jeopardise the very agreements that we have made through painstaking negotiations. <BR /> <BR />I will give way, if the Member still sees fit.”
“I hope the Member and his party will stick with us in working towards an agreement to reduce it to four Members per constituency. That is where we want to get to, and we will keep going, we will keep working, we will keep influencing and we will keep negotiating with all parties in this House, come what may, after this election in order to achieve that. That is how progress is made. <BR /> <BR />The DUP could have brought a raft of amendments to this Bill, but we have already agreed what could be agreed as part of the Fresh Start Agreement. We pushed for more, we got what we got and we are going to bank it. Why would any party that agreed the Fresh Start Agreement bring forward amendments? That could well unravel —”
“The Member will know fine well about bringing any amendment to the Floor of the House without having first sought out the other parties' views on it, spoken to them and negotiated with them to see where they stand on it. He will know fine rightly that the majority of amendments like that will fail, especially when we were all party to the Fresh Start Agreement, which actually settled this point in this mandate and was agreed by the very MLAs who were elected in this mandate. <BR /> <BR />The Member will know fine well that this amendment of his could be construed as an election stunt. I hope that it is not and that the Alliance Party will stick to this policy, even in the next mandate, when we see this agreement come to fruition.”
“I thank the Member for his contribution. Again, it comes back to the very point that I made the last time we talked about this: we negotiated an agreement. We signed the Fresh Start Agreement and, within that, we banked the progress that we had fought for for so long. The Member talks about his party having this policy for so long. It is a shame that, even as recently as the Stormont House Agreement, the Alliance Party could not support the DUP in its position of reducing the number of MLAs in each constituency to four. Through the Chair, I ask the Member why that is the case. The Stormont House Agreement was only a number of years ago, and the Alliance Party, along with all the other parties, could not support the DUP in going to four per constituency. Mr Speaker, I will gladly give way on that point.”
“I do welcome the change in stance and policy of the Alliance Party.”
“One thing that we do in this party is honour the agreements we make. It is not everything we want. Of course we want more. We will keep going until we get more but we will bank the progress we have made and will continue to bank it when we can every time that we can.”
“<BR /> <BR />We wish that we had done it sooner and that we had it now, but we could not do it. We realise that through the agreement that we have made.”
“I again welcome that we have finally reached agreement, albeit painstakingly, year in and year out, and then, of course, during the days of negotiations that led to the Fresh Start Agreement. <BR /> <BR />It is only a small part of the Fresh Start Agreement to have a Bill that proposes a move from six MLAs per constituency to five. Of course, we would like to have gone further. We wanted to reduce more MLAs per constituency, and we would like to have done that before now. In fact, as I said the last time, we would like to have done it yesterday. This party, the DUP, has been campaigning on such a move since 2002. We rejoice that we are here today at this stage of the Bill and that we will get agreement that will see that aim of this party finalised, agreed and realised for 2021.”
“I will speak on the legislation and on the amendment that has been moved by the Alliance Party. I will again put on record our support for the legislation and the welcome change that it will bring with the reduction in numbers of MLAs, as well as the reasons why that is the case. Of course, we rehearsed those at the last debate, and we will not need to go over the same ground — hopefully. <BR /> <BR />I also welcome the change in stance by the Alliance Party. I very much welcome that it is now on the same plateau as us in the DUP. It is a pity that it has taken all parties so long to get on the same wavelength as us and to get an agreement on a reduction of numbers.”
“It is happening; it is happening in this mandate. We have agreement. Where is the effort from the Member? How will he achieve his goal of a voluntary coalition?”
“I will stick strictly to the Bill. The Member knows well our stance on voluntary coalition, as I know his. My point is this: what effort is he making? How would he achieve it? I can quote the Member from past debates:”
“I thank the Member for giving way. It was Herodotus who said that man's greatest torment was having the knowledge of everything but the power over nothing. Does the Member agree that, over the last number of years, he has stated that we would never get agreement on a reduction in the number of MLAs? He talked about a Sinn Féin veto and said that we would never get agreement on a reduction in the number of Departments. Now that we have delivered that, how will he deliver what he is talking about? I do not see any effort from where I am sitting. We are trying to correct the mistakes of the Good Friday Agreement: when will he make that effort?”
“It has really frustrated me, this term, when decisions have not been taken for political reasons, and I would like that to stop. I support the passage of the Bill and I look forward to the day when I see it. Why is it going through now? Why can we not just wait until the next mandate? The simple reason is that it is the Members and the parties in this mandate who have made this agreement. Let us get it agreed, banked and set in stone now, and we can think about progressing it even further in the new mandate with existing and new Members. Let us not lose this part of the Fresh Start Agreement. Let us bank it, secure it and move on to deliver even more for our people.”
“It is important that we evolve with our people. That is why I think that the reduction is good. It means that we make savings, although not a lot. Should we be more efficient than we are? Of course we should. Should we equate the numbers with efficiencies? No, we should not, as Mr Attwood pointed out, but let me tell you this: we need to get to a place where hard decisions are made and Ministers stop acting in silos. The lesser parties in particular seem to think that it is OK just to sit on their hands and not agree anything for political reasons. You have to ask yourself whether that is serving the people best. <BR /> <BR />I am all for inclusivity and consensus politics but we all come to the table with a responsibility, which is to serve our people.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will love to see the day when we get to a point where we are grown-up enough to have a voluntary coalition. However, as my colleague said, it does not end there. When we tick the box to say that we have landed in utopia, it does not stop there. We will keep working hard to evolve this place into something even better than it is. Those things have to happen. Of course we are over-governed in this part of the UK, and we know the reasons for that. We also know that there was a level of democracy here at council level that was the only level in this Province; it was either the councils or Westminster. <BR /> <BR />As devolutionists, this is a great place to be. This is a great adventure for Northern Ireland. This place is designed to help our people and our businesses, as I keep on saying.”
“I am happy enough for the Member to pose any question that he wants to any of the parties involved in any of the negotiations since the Good Friday Agreement. If he is asking me to second-guess what is in the heads of other parties around this place, when we have struggled for the last five years to achieve that, he is asking for a bit of an impossibility. <BR /> <BR />Do not equate size with efficiency; we have been in a five-party coalition Government for most of this mandate and it is very clear that, when parties, Ministers and individual MLAs do not make the hard decisions, our people suffer. Politicians are here to make hard decisions and when they do not make them, our people suffer. We are here to do that, and this is only one of them; the reduction in the number of Departments is another.”
“I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I love the cut and thrust of this place when it is lively, and I welcome all contributions and take interventions when I can. <BR /> <BR />We are here to serve the people. We are here to help business. Let us be as lean as we possibly can. There is no fat in business, so why should there be fat or excess here? That is a massive point. People are right when they say, "Do not equate the size of this place with its efficiency". They are absolutely right, because one thing that I have learnt since I have been here is that the cogs turn very slowly. You do not get that out in the real world. The cogs turn too slowly and they need to speed up.”
“That is why you walked away. Let the people judge.”
“What I am saying is that you walked away from an agreement and an Executive. Why? Because it suited you, you thought, politically.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. We are not here today to debate the Fresh Start Agreement. We are not going to go over each negotiation or each painstaking day.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention, and he is absolutely right. What are we scared of? What are we frightened of? There are those who are saying, "We need an inclusive Government. We maybe should not reduce the number of Members because of that inclusivity". It is like a shroud. It is like the foundation of the Good Friday Agreement itself, when we have moved on so much. Remember this: do not trade democracy for inclusivity. The people know all too well whom they want to vote for, and the people vote for them. That is why we are all here. No one in the Chamber should fear democracy. If you do, you have to ask yourself the hard questions.”
“They are not doing themselves any good, and, more importantly, they are not doing their constituents any good and not making the country any better.”
“To convince and to even cajole to get agreement. That is basically the nub. It is not rocket science. Why is it 2021 and not 2016? It is because of a consensus agreement — the Fresh Start Agreement. I wish that we could do it sooner. I would do it yesterday. But we are where we are, and we are making progress. <BR /> <BR />There are some in the House who criticise everything and anything but have not moved one inch to make things better, to form relationships or to make agreements that will make it better for our people.”
“There was no fat in business. Why should there be fat in the business of the House when we are representing those businesses out there in the public? There should be no excess at all when we are representing our people. We should be as lean and efficient as possible. <BR /> <BR />I now want to address some of the issues that Mr Lyttle and others raised. They asked, "Why not now?". We want it as quickly as possible. In fact, we want it yesterday. When you work a system in which you have a five-party coalition — we have been informed today that there are four parties, not that we noticed much — and that is so difficult to work, you have to use your skills and your agility —”
“You go down a series of roads, and, sooner or later, you have to ask yourself what needs to change. What reform has to take place? Whilst I do not support the Good Friday Agreement and what flowed out of that, we accepted the referendum result and where we were at that time and in that space. This party has worked tirelessly ever since to get to a point where we can change and reform this place and other aspects of the Good Friday Agreement to the point where it serves our people better. Of course, when I talk about our people, I mean the people of Northern Ireland whom we all represent, day in and day out. <BR /> <BR />One of the greatest things about devolution is how we in Northern Ireland can help our businesses. I worked on building sites for 20 years, and I saw how businesses had to go small and grow big when business dictated it.”
“I, of course, support the Bill. I believe that it ticks a box in the aims and objectives of this party and, indeed, this House as we move forward. <BR /> <BR />I have heard the debate today. It went right back to the architecture of the Good Friday Agreement. I understand the reason for that architecture. I lived at that time; I grew up in that era and can see why the British Government were so keen to have as inclusive an Assembly, let alone an Executive, as possible. I note the points of historical fact from the SDLP and, indeed, the Ulster Unionists about how that progressed and the rationale and logic of how that happened. <BR /> <BR />Maybe some of us are not, but most of us are, devolutionists, and we want devolution to work as best as we can.”
“Will the deputy First Minister make a fresh start today and welcome the trial and conviction of Mr Murphy, or does he believe, like his leader, that Mr Murphy is a good republican?”
“I agree with the Minister that organised crime is a scourge on civilised society across Northern Ireland and, indeed, in the Republic of Ireland. It is also a source of funding for further criminality and, indeed, paramilitarism. <BR /> <BR />The Minister talks about good results; can he tell us what good results look like? We see and hear of plenty of seizures with regard to fuel laundering, but very rarely do you hear of arrests and convictions. Could the Minister provide evidence that that is and will be the case? Also, does he think that the cross-border policing strategy published in December 2010 has been a success? If so, can he provide examples as evidence?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I do not think that anyone in the House in this debate has said that having nine Departments is a panacea for good government. However, what makes bad government is when elected representatives do not make hard decisions. Not making hard decisions will affect our populace and make their lives worse. That is what makes for bad decisions and bad politicians in the House.”
“A lot more decisions than just that on this Bill have to be made, and I am glad that those will be made in the following months to try to get the legislation over the line before the mandate is finished. Let the Committee scrutinise the transfer of functions order, which will be the subordinate legislation.”
“The functions, roles and responsibilities of Departments will not change. Some are being merged and some grown, but that is a good thing. That will take away the silo mentality that I talked about and result in more efficient and effective government. With that, there will be savings in pounds and pence in the everyday functions of Departments, and those savings will filter down into the everyday lives of our population. Again, that has to be welcomed. <BR /> <BR />There is not much more to talk about. It is a three-clause Bill. It needs to happen, and I put it to the House that it should be passed. This is good business, as it is us moving forward. Let us keep going and let us keep making hard decisions.”