Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on 1 October 2024.

MLA

Mr Paul Frew

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

1 October 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4563015

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I understand what the Minister is saying about primary legislation. I understand that the provisions must come through primary legislation, but what she is basically saying is that OLC has a capacity issue — that is basically what she is saying — and that she has not waited for her Bill to be completed before pushing it through to First Reading and Second Reading. That is an affront to accountability and democracy in this place. It is as simple as that. Not only that. That is only the live links piece, which has been in operation for the past three years. What about the other five out of six areas that she has failed to put in the Bill at Second Reading for every single MLA to look at — MLAs who are not on the Justice Committee but who have to make a decision on this Bill today? The Minister has come to the House and said: "By the way, this Bill is only half completed. This Bill is only half completed." That is not good accountability. That is not good democracy. That is not good scrutiny. I will give way again.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I question the Minister on her choice of wording in the House. The Committee has not seen the text, and we are legislators. If MLAs cannot see the text on these blue pages, we cannot do our job properly. It has been said in the House today that it is normal for Departments to clamour to bring amendments to their own Bills. That is unprecedented. At Committee Stage —.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Yes, that proves to me that the Minister has not learned anything post judgement, and I worry about that. Why I say that it is unprecedented is this — I was going to explain what I meant. A Committee Stage is very important in the life of a Bill. That is when the Committee scrutinises everything in the Bill, every line, every clause, every Part, even the schedules. It is usually at that point that the Committee communicates with the Department and the Minister and talks to the Department about amendments that the Committee would like to see. At that point, if the Minister is so minded, the Minister and Department will table amendments.

I will finish my point and then I will give way. That is a point of principled negotiation and agreement between the Committee and the Department. It is not the Minister and the Department saying that they are only going to launch half the Bill at Second Reading and that they will max it out at Consideration Stage. To have that intent at the start of a process is completely and utterly undemocratic and unaccountable, and it does not lend itself to good scrutiny. I will give way.

I thank the Member for her contribution, because she leads me on to a valid question: if the Minister cannot give us reasonable notice of when she will table her amendments, what time period should the Committee suggest? You have left the Committee in a very bad place, where it will be unable to get a time frame to scrutinise the new amendments — the amendments that the Minister intends to table at a later stage. That is what is unique about this process and Bill.

It all sounds very reasonable, but what would be the position of the Alliance Party if any other Department tried to do that? I am standing up for every other Department because it is bad practice, bad law, bad scrutiny, undemocratic and unaccountable.

Again, I remind the Minister of the position in which she and her Department find themselves with regard to the judgement that was previously laid down on a previous Act. I give this warning about how we proceed: it is not good enough for any Minister to say that they will table a multitude of amendments, covering six areas of policy, to a Bill at Consideration Stage. It is not good practice. I will not support that practice. I will call it out at every opportunity I get. I warn the House today.

I will give way again, yes.

Oh aye, the Minister is putting words into my mouth, Mr Deputy Speaker. I love a good Consideration Stage. I table as many amendments as I possibly can. It is the Minister who criticises me at every opportunity.

Mr Deputy Speaker, it is the Minister who criticises me for doing that on most occasions. She criticises me because my amendment has not been consulted on and because the Department has not formed a view on it. Those are two reasons why you would not support an amendment at Consideration Stage. It is different this time, however, because it is the Minister who is doing it without there being any indication from the Committee that it supports the amendments, that it wants them or that it wants to table anything itself. If I am minded to table an amendment at Consideration Stage, I will do that, but I will also have the good courtesy to show it to the Minister and ask her to adopt it so that she can table it at Consideration Stage. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that practice or that concept. This is about there being six areas of policy that are not in the Bill at the time of Second Reading. That is what worries me, and I warn the House that we will need to be extra vigilant, given that there have been judgements on previous legislation from this Department.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:22 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