Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on 2 June 2026.

MLA

Mr Paul Frew

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

2 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5584981

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. First, I thank all the Members for their contributions to the debate on the group 2 amendments, particularly those who spoke in support of the Committee amendments. The House has heard from other Members who have tabled amendments in the group. The Minister has spoken to her amendments and has, of course, responded to the points and comments made by Members during the debate. I thank the Minister and all the Members who gave way and allowed others to come in with debate and points, because that adds to the debate. I will focus my remarks on winding on the Committee's amendments before I come to the amendments that were tabled in the name of my party colleagues and me. Before I turn to the key points that were made, I want to acknowledge Ciara Ferguson's comments about the lack of suitable accommodation. We received representations from many who were concerned that clause 8 would not be commenced. We have urged the Minister of Health and the Minister of Justice to work together on that matter to ensure that the clause can be commenced as soon as possible. I turn to the key points that Members made about the Committee's amendment Nos 41, 42 and 43, which relate to the word "vulnerabilities". Mark Durkan stated that the amendments are "sensible and proportionate", as vulnerabilities can arise for many reasons, and we need to ensure that they are considered explicitly rather than letting them fall into broader categories. Emma Sheerin said that the amendments are "positive" and "should be welcomed". Connie Egan stated that Alliance welcomes the Committee amendments. Aoife Finnegan pointed out that vulnerabilities can impact on behaviours and decision-making and that they are often not visible or easily recognised. The inclusion of "vulnerabilities" reinforces a child-centred approach and can reduce the likelihood of future harm. The Minister had no objection to the amendments, and the Committee welcomed that. Committee amendment No 52 concerns the review of the use of live links. Mark Durkan indicated that the key question is not whether proceedings can be conducted by live links but whether people can participate "effectively". Police custody represents a different environment from courts and tribunals, so a review will allow that to be assessed. That seems sensible. Connie Egan stated that the Alliance Party will support the amendment. Ciara Ferguson noted that the Criminal Justice Inspection already inspects custody suites. She outlined that Sinn Féin believes that protections to safeguard people should be in the Bill. The Minister stated that she did not believe that the Committee's live link amendment was "strictly necessary". She thought that the "sample size" might be "small", but she recognised the benefits that could come from a proportionate review. The Minister is therefore content to support the Committee's amendment on the review of the use of live links. To conclude my remarks as Chair of the Committee, I reiterate that the amendments that seek to insert the word "vulnerabilities" into clauses 4, 5 and 6 aim to ensure that the increasing complexity of issues facing children and young people is taken into account when decisions on bail and remand are being made. Our amendment No 52 — I have got that right this time — which makes provision to review the use of live links, is important to ensure that they operate effectively and that the rights of those who participate in proceedings are safeguarded. I commend the Committee's amendments to the House and ask that the House support them when we eventually vote on the group 2 amendments. I want to give a clarification to Emma Sheerin. She had asked me to further clarify amendment No 44, but I was absent because I had run out of the Chamber to get my charger for my device. Amendment No 44 says:

"In clause 12, page 25, line 32, leave out ‘was aged 14 or over’ and insert ‘had attained the age of responsibility specified in Article 3’".

The age of responsibility specified in article 3 is basically the minimum age of criminal responsibility. We are basically trying to stop the division between children who are 14 and those who are under and make it so that a youth custody and supervision order can be used for any child who is over the age of criminal responsibility, bearing in mind that the age of criminal responsibility in the Bill could well change in the coming days, with that change enacted into law.

751 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:46 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification