Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on 23 June 2026.

MLA

Mr Paul Frew

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

23 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5637653

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will start off in that trend and mode of thought by thanking again the Committee Clerk and staff for their diligence and work in supporting the Committee members over the past year and a half. I also thank the Assembly's Bill Office for all its work over that period. I do believe that its staff were overworked, but they were able to step up very well and cope with all the demands that the members placed on them. Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Minister beat me by a couple of minutes: I wanted to thank you and all the Speakers who have led on the debate, given guidance during the debate and kept us all in check, albeit some needed more checking than others. I also thank the Speaker's Office and everyone who supports the Speakers in that regard. I will now go into some of the Members' contributions, but I will not be long, so we will not have to break for dinner —

We will get the work done, and then we can go home to our families. Sinéad McLaughlin, Emma Sheerin and Nuala McAllister all spoke in support of amendment No 96: the DUP's amendment to avoid the release of prisoners on a Friday. I thank you very much for that support. I really do. Some did not really speak much on it, but Sinéad went into her experiences with the bail hostel in her constituency close to her office. She also talked about the support that was needed and the dignity that was required for people getting out of prison. Emma Sheerin also said that she would support amendment No 96, as did Nuala McAllister. I thank them for that support; my gratitude is genuinely heartfelt that we will get support for that amendment from right across the House. I am starting to get somewhat worried that someone like me can produce an amendment that gets incorporated with the support of the entire House, but I will take it and bank it when I get it.

They all said that they would not support amendment No 97, which is Timothy Gaston's amendment, and they outlined their arguments for that position. Nuala said that it did not make sense and was not about safety and that we should wait for the Equality Commission's guidance. My North Antrim colleague Jon Burrows commended amendment No 96, which was tabled by my party. He talked at great length about amendment No 97 and how he supported it. He said that, when we deal with legislation, we need to deal in facts, not ideology. He said that, generally speaking, biological men are stronger and commit the most crimes, whereas, generally speaking, biological women are weaker and are the victims of most crimes. He noted that people in prison have the propensity to commit crime and that, when prisoners are confined to that space, they become vulnerable in their own right by virtue of that. He said that safety is a fundamental duty of the state and that, thanks to the Supreme Court opinion, which is so clear-cut, we should not need to wait for guidance from the Equality Commission. Brian Kingston spoke on our amendment No 96, which is all about services and support. He said that we should assist those getting out of prison and that the amendment should lead to breaking the cycle of reoffending and re-imprisonment. We sincerely hope that that will manifestly show itself in the years to come. He stated that we would support amendment No 97, and I give that assurance and guarantee to its proposer. Brian said that women-only protected spaces must be preserved and protected, and he referred to the situation that Scotland now finds itself in. Of course, he mentioned Lady Ross's opinion on that. Timothy Gaston spoke to his amendment, of course. He said that it was steeped in biological reality, whilst those who oppose it are all about ideology. He went on to thank his North Antrim colleagues — Sian Mulholland and Jon Burrows — for their long-winded speeches, which meant that he had the opinion of Lady Ross to back up his amendment when we debated it today. I will pass that thanks on to Sian and Jon for their long-winded speeches. I feel the pain of the Member for North Antrim. The Member spoke about the Prison and Young Offenders Centre Rules (Northern Ireland) 1995. He talked about Part X and rule 90, on which, of course, his amendment is based. He went on to speak about the law in Scotland. He stated that the Equality Commission hid behind article 2 of the Windsor framework and referred to the Dillon judgement, saying that it blows a hole in the Equality Commission's guidance. The Minister of Justice spoke first on amendment No 96 and talked of the opportunities that it could lead to. She talked about engagement with the Department for Communities and how it would manage the pressure. She said that it was happy enough with that. The Minister addressed my point about extending the measure. She said that, while she has concerns, she is content to engage on the matter over the coming weeks in order to see whether it is possible. She went on to speak about the ending of remissions at that stage, what that meant and the pre-release support that other prisoners get. She addressed the issue of remand prisoners being released on bail and the work that the judiciary has been doing in that regard. I echo the Minister's sentiments on that. The Minister went on to talk about amendment No 97. She did not support it. She said that it was not about which Member proposes an amendment but the detail of the amendment. She talked about the assessments and decisions that the Prison Service takes every day. She talked about its respect and diligence in keeping the prison population safe. She also talked up the Hydebank Wood establishment as a model of European standards.

1,009 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:12 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