Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 9 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5601559
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Minister for that intervention and for her words. I echo the point about ensuring that we retain and maintain that professionalism as the Police Service serves all the people of Northern Ireland, keeping them safe, investigating crime and bringing people to justice. We are debating really important stuff here today. I commend the Minister — I am making a habit of that — with regard to the barred and advisory lists. The Committee asked that of her, and she has tabled the amendments that will bring in those lists.
While the Committee cannot have a position on the amendments because of the time frame, we are more than comfortable with that arrangement and with the amendments and the bringing in of the police barred list and police advisory list. Those are critical, because we live in a place where people move about. Therefore, there are issues whereby, for whatever reason, people leave constabularies in England and Wales and come over here and vice versa. People in that line of work who have that trade might well travel elsewhere. It is about making sure that the constabularies throughout the United Kingdom are aligned and have parallel information that they can share to ensure that someone who applies for a transfer or to be recruited to the Police Service is properly vetted and attested and that everyone has confidence, even the management in the police, that those people are appropriate and are worthy of serving the people of Northern Ireland in that way. It is important that it applies not just to the PSNI. Most people will not realise that we have other law enforcement agencies that cover different things, such as airports and ports, and we have the Policing Board. It is important that there is a holistic approach to dealing with barred lists and advisory lists. Therefore, I commend the Minister for her work with the Committee in ensuring that the amendments made it to the Consideration Stage of the Bill and that we can all debate their content. That brings me to amendment No 68, which is a substantial amendment and covers three full pages of vast, dense text and detail, and it is really hard to get our heads around it. I understand the detail. I understand where the Minister is coming from and why she has moved in that way. I also believe that we need some way to ensure that disciplinary matters can be investigated and brought to light, even in circumstances where officers have retired. The DUP understands that, for some officers whose professionalism and conduct have been called into question after they have retired, it may be beneficial to have misconduct proceedings concluded in order for them to clear their name. However, it must also be weighed up against the implications that making provision for disciplinary proceedings to be instituted against those no longer in service and employment would have for the rights of those individuals, not least in respect of federation and legal support. Additionally, this question must be asked: where else in the public sector is that legislated for? Someone who is retired from the police force loses the services, rights and privileges in being defended but then faces disciplinary action for something that could have happened years before.
Yes, I will.
I thank the Member for her intervention. I agree that they should be held to a higher standard because of the nature of their work and the power that they have over us in enforcing the law and investigating crime. I get that, and it is a serious subject. However, the private sector gives privileges and support in retirement that the Police Federation may not be able to provide for retired colleagues, and that needs to be ironed out.
I will give way to the Minister.
639 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.04 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.93).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.93 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:47 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.