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
- 2 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5584042
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Minister for that intervention. It is important in the debate that we can engage, confirm and clarify things, so I really appreciate the Minister's intervention. I hope that that will give succour to Members with regard to the amendment on the commencement of Part 1. Again, I ask Members to support those Committee amendments. I thank the Minister for that clarification, because it is really important that the Committee sees work being done and progress being made in that five-year period. I hope that the Department will work with partners in the justice system and beyond to ensure that those important provisions are commenced well before that five-year period has elapsed. I take into consideration what the Minister has said about ensuring that this is done appropriately and properly, so I hope that due diligence is given to the commencement. That ends my commentary as Chairperson of the Justice Committee. I now wish to make some remarks as DUP spokesperson for justice on this Part of the Bill. Mr Speaker, you will remember that, at Second Stage, I described the Bill as half a Bill. I was absolutely scathing about it, even before I became Committee Chair. I was here on Bench duty, and I was so aggrieved that I wanted to speak. I spoke at length about the Minister bringing half a Bill to Second Reading. Why was I so alarmed? Quite simply, given their depth and width, the text of the tabled amendments — were I to take out all my guff from inside the Bill — is thicker than the Bill itself. This is a special day —.
Yes, I will.
I thank the Minister for that intervention.
Yes, of course. I could not resist it, Mr Speaker. The Minister is right, because we have taken advantage of the licence given to us by the Minister with regard to the Bill. In all seriousness, however, it is really important that we scrutinise legislation properly. This is a special day, because that half a Bill is meeting its partner: the other half of the Bill. At Consideration Stage, it is important that we are able and willing to scrutinise all the amendments. The Minister and the Assembly will know that I love a good amendment. This is the place to scrutinise and debate amendments. I wish that we had been afforded that at Second Reading. Here we are with the Bill. Even the half a Bill has been through a bit of an odyssey to get here. Homer could not have written this, because even what was half a Bill has been transformed in its journey through Committee Stage, with massive changes proposed to Part 1. The Minister brought those amendments quickly to the Committee so that we could get sight of them. However, those amendments were stress-tested after the Bill was introduced: that stress-testing should have been done beforehand. We would not have had such a long Committee Stage. We would not have had to look at so many blue and white pages of amendments. That is not a wise way to legislate. I hope that no other Department or Minister would try to introduce a Bill in that way.
536 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).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.49 | No |
| 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 | 0.88 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.05 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.05 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:42 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.