Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on 8 June 2026.

MLA

Mrs Naomi Long

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

8 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5600367

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move amendment No 45:

Amendment Nos 45 to 48 create two new offences: participating in the criminal activities of an organised crime group and directing the criminal activities of an organised crime group. Specifically, the proposed provisions are intended to create specific legislation for prosecuting an individual involved in criminal conduct linked to serious organised crime in Northern Ireland; criminalise those who, at any level, are involved in the commissioning and undertaking of serious organised crime; and pursue those who work together to commit or conspire to commit serious crimes that are intended to generate material benefit directly or indirectly. The legislation will provide a more effective approach to addressing the specific issue of involvement in organised crime, and the clauses define what constitutes an organised crime group and set out what it means to participate in the criminal activities of an organised crime group. Some might ask why the amendments are needed. To that, I would reply that Northern Ireland is the only area of the United Kingdom or Ireland without bespoke organised crime legislation. While existing offences are utilised for prosecuting individuals for their specific offending, they do not accurately reflect the extent of offending or the potential larger role that those individual offences play in the overall operations of organised crime gangs. The provisions will bring us in line with neighbouring jurisdictions and ensure that Northern Ireland does not fall behind in its response to organised crime. The new offences will be an additional tool for law enforcement to tackle organised crime, and the provisions, coupled with the associated significant penalties, will provide reassurance to the public by sending a strong message that no one is untouchable. I am sure that all of us have heard complaints from our constituents that, often, it is those on the fringes of organised crime who get prosecuted and those at the centre directing it who get away. This is a deliberate attempt on our part to ensure that those who orchestrate organised crime gangs and direct their operations are as amenable to justice as everyone in that organisation. I trust that the amendments will have the full support of all Members. Amendment No 70 introduces a new clause and a new schedule to the Bill to repeal section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, which criminalises rough sleeping, and the Vagrancy (Ireland) Act 1847, which criminalises begging. That outdated and archaic legislation criminalises some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Rough sleeping and begging are often linked to underlying issues such as homelessness, poverty, alcohol, drug addiction, poor mental health, sexual and domestic abuse, family breakdown, adverse childhood experiences and low educational attainment. I firmly believe that those complex and cross-cutting issues require a multi-agency response of support rather than the criminalisation of people simply because of their personal circumstances. My decision to repeal without the need for replacement legislation followed a detailed review of existing legislation and public consultation on the legislative proposals. The aim of the review, carried out in liaison with the PSNI and preceding the consultation, was to determine how existing legislation was used and whether replacement legislation was needed in the event of repeal in the context of existing offences that could be used to deal with associated problematic behaviours that crossed the criminal threshold. No criminal behaviours encountered by the PSNI when dealing with those who beg or sleep rough were identified by the police as incapable of being addressed under the existing criminal legislative framework. The only gap left by repeal would be an inability to deal with what was referred to as "simple begging" through an out-of-court disposal or prosecution. In a modern society, no one should be criminalised for simply begging who is not otherwise behaving in way that would attract criminal sanction for people who are not begging. Poverty and destitution should not be a crime. The public consultation that followed the review sought views on my proposals to proceed with the repeal without the need for replacement legislation. The majority of respondents supported my proposals, stating that criminalisation exacerbated the existing vulnerabilities of those who begged or slept rough. Some respondents were keen to change the narrative around homelessness and begging, with the view that, rather than punitive measures, we should focus our collective efforts on providing support to those involved in such street activity, and I concur with that. Many commended the police for their compassionate and supportive approach, which I echo unreservedly. Police initially adopt an engage-and-explain approach and direct those who rough-sleep or beg to wider partners in the statutory voluntary and community sector, a sector that I want to recognise for the incredible and difficult work that it does in providing support to some of the most vulnerable and marginalised in our society — work that is often done with limited public interest or support. While I received significant support for my proposals, I am fully aware of the concerns of the business sector. Two Belfast business improvement districts, representing a large number of businesses in the city centre, responded to the consultation that repeal would require replacement legislation. I subsequently met retail representatives, as did my officials separately, to address related concerns and explain the rationale better. Where people begging or rough sleeping conduct themselves in a manner that is disruptive or causes a breach of the peace, there are laws to deal with that. Harassment, intimidation or threatening behaviour are genuine policing matters, just as they would be if someone who was not begging or sleeping rough was behaving in that way. The vagrancy laws that I seek to repeal with the amendment criminalise poverty, destitution and desperation. Poverty is not a crime. Being destitute is not a crime. Being desperate is not a crime. In this day and age, we must have better methods to address those who are in poverty or destitution, coping with trauma, addiction or poor mental health, and find themselves with nowhere to go but the streets. The phrase "There but for the grace of God go I" is a reminder of the role of chance, luck, upbringing and opportunity in people's life outcomes. I know that Members would agree that they would not swap their lives for those who find themselves in such desperation, but none of us knows what lies ahead for ourselves or, indeed, for members of our families. The response to seeing others in desperate straits should be one of compassion, not censure. It is Dickensian that people can be threatened with arrest simply for sleeping rough or asking for a cup of coffee or a sandwich in a town centre. My amendment will repeal those outdated and harsh laws, and I commend it to the House. I now want to discuss two amendments that Paul Frew, Maurice Bradley and Brian Kingston tabled, which are contingent on repeal of the vagrancy amendment. Their first amendment, amendment No 71, would provide for a new offence of trespassing with intent to commit a criminal offence and would replace the provision in section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 of being found on premises for any unlawful purpose, which, in the past, has been used to target individuals who were sleeping rough. A similar offence is provided for in the Crime and Policing Act 2026, and it was that provision that led the PSNI to raise concerns at Committee that a similar offence might be needed in Northern Ireland, although those concerns were not raised with the Department during the review.

The current section 4 offence is primarily used as a support charge in cases in which, for example, proof of burglary is not made out. It does not appear to have been used to arrest offenders; rather, it has been added to the principal charge in case it has not been made out in court. While I understand that the use of the offence in recent years has been declining year on year, I am willing to support the Members' amendment, provided, of course, that the vagrancy legislation is also repealed. I am concerned that, in the absence of repeal, such an offence would have unintended consequences and could be used simply to target those who sleep rough or beg. That aligns with the approach being taken by the UK Government, who intend to commence the new trespass offence in the Crime and Policing Act 2026 in tandem with the commencement of vagrancy repeal. The same approach can apply here. The second of the amendments, No 72, relates to organised begging, which the Justice Committee raised as a particular issue during its scrutiny of my proposals. It was concerned about the PSNI's ability to deal with organised begging in the event of repeal. I highlight the fact that the existing legislation in the Vagrancy (Ireland) Act 1847 does not address organised or coerced begging. The 1847 Act criminalises only those who beg, not those who coerce others to beg. Therefore, my proposed repeal does not create a gap in that provision. There is current law to address such behaviour. Section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 on slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour and section 2 of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, which was introduced by Lord Morrow, are available to prosecute those who are found to have forced persons to beg or who have arranged or facilitated the travel of others with a view to those persons being exploited in that way. No evidence and no concerns have been raised by the police, the wider organised crime task force (OCTF), the modern slavery human trafficking subgroup or the NGO engagement forum, with which we regularly engage, that organised begging is an issue in Northern Ireland. That said, the amendment provides for a new offence of arranging or facilitating begging for gain. Again, that mirrors provision in the UK Crime and Policing Act 2026 to be enacted on repeal of section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 as it applies there. While I remain of the view that the provision of new offences should be developed only on the basis of an identified gap, I am willing to support the amendment, as it will not impact negatively on those who simply beg or sleep rough. I turn to amendment No 73. I very much welcome Ms Connie Egan's proposal to repeal the blasphemy offences. The common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel are archaic and have no place in a modern society. When I was in Parliament, I was the parliamentary champion of Open Doors. We remarked that, where there is freedom of and from religion, other rights are often better protected; yet, around the globe, many places continue to have and, indeed, to implement blasphemy laws that are often not just archaic but draconian. That is something that I have been committed to changing for most of my adult life and that we need to show leadership on in this corner of the globe. I am fully committed to freedom of and from religion, so I am sympathetic to and support the removal from the law of those outdated and mainly unused offences. Northern Ireland is now the only jurisdiction in these islands that has not abolished the offence of blasphemy. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression and religion without fear of prosecution, however remote that fear might be. I ask why any religion would continue to have or to need more protection under blasphemy law than others. I am grateful to Ms Egan for tabling her amendment, and I am happy to support it. Amendment No 78, another provision tabled by Messrs Frew, Bradley and Kingston, aims to tackle the advertisement of sexual services. As Members know, I am fully committed to protecting victims from all forms of abuse and exploitation. Sadly, such deplorable behaviour is mainly targeted at women and girls. Advertising people who are trafficked or sexually exploited as though they are merely a commodity to be used and abused is completely unacceptable. The terrible thing is that many people do not know that they are being traded and objectified in that way. Pimps and traffickers create the profiles and collect the profits, while their victims are powerless and continue to be exploited and abused.

I therefore very much support the intention behind the amendment to strengthen protections for those who suffer such sexual exploitation, many of whom are also victims of human trafficking. I will always support measures that are designed to help reduce the terrible harms and abuse inflicted on some of the most vulnerable in our society by some of the most despicable in our society. While I support the intention of the amendment in principle, I have some concerns about the intended scope of the offences, in their proportionality and where they may encroach on telecommunications law, which, as Members will recognise, falls within the reserved space. As such, the consent of the Secretary of State would be required for us to legislate on that. However, if the Member indicates that he is agreeable, I am willing to work with him between now and Further Consideration Stage to ensure that the amendment is an appropriate fit within our existing legislative framework and that it meets its aims in addressing relevant behaviours. The last amendments in this group are amendment Nos 88 and 89, which, again, have been tabled by Messrs Frew, Bradley and Kingston and Ms Diane Forsythe. I begin by acknowledging the intention behind the amendments: to introduce the corollary of Ruby's law in Northern Ireland, with a view to strengthening domestic abuse legislation by explicitly recognising harm or the threat of harm to companion animals as a form of coercive control. I recognise that that is a growing area of concern and have met, for example, the Links Group, which includes the Dogs Trust, Cats Protection and others. I am aware of the work that it is doing with the British Association of Social Workers (BASW) and the British Veterinary Association (BVA) to raise awareness in both professions of the linkages between harm caused to animals — companion animals and, indeed, farm animals — and domestic and sexual violence and abuse. I very much recognise Members' concerns about the role that pets and animals more generally can play in patterns of domestic abuse and coercive control. There is no doubt that threats against animals, harm to animals or animals being used as a means of intimidation can form a part of domestic abuse. Those behaviours are wholly unacceptable, and it is right that they should be condemned without any qualification. I therefore understand the desire to frame those matters explicitly in the legislative framework. Amendment No 88 would make changes to the Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, with a view to enhancing protections for victims of domestic abuse by preventing anyone from perpetuating abuse by harming or threatening to harm a pet or animal. The amendment would require a court, when considering whether and how to make an occupation order or a non-molestation order (NMO), to have regard to the likelihood and likely effect of any such order or decision on the welfare of an animal cared for by the person whom the order is intended to protect or their child. Responsibility for the Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 falls to the Minister of Finance, who has advised that it is already implicit in the 1998 Order that a court must have regard to all circumstances when determining whether to issue an occupation order or an NMO. It is therefore already possible for animals to be referenced in such orders. However, it is the Minister of Finance's view that, on balance, making it an explicit requirement in the 1998 Order could serve to reinforce the legislation and therefore assist the courts in making the orders and victims when applying for such orders. While the Minister believes that further policy development and engagement with stakeholders would be beneficial, both he and I recognise the potential benefits of the amendment. As such, I will be supporting it, and I encourage others to do so. Amendment No 89 would amend the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 to give effect to two separate key provisions. First, it would amend section 2 of the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act 2021 to explicitly include harm or the threat of harm to an animal within the behaviours that constitute domestic abuse in the Act. As I have noted, I recognise that the threat of harm and harm to pets and animals can be used to perpetuate domestic abuse and coercive control, and I wholly condemn it. As an animal lover, I need no convincing that harm to pets and animals could be part of domestic abuse and coercive control. I have heard numerous stories from victims with direct experience of that kind of abuse, who have written to me and met me. However, for that reason, I was determined to adopt the broadest possible definition of domestic abuse in section 2 of the 2021 Act. Section 2 of the Act does not provide an exhaustive list of behaviours, but rather was intentionally framed in broad and flexible terms to empower the courts to consider the full context of abusive conduct rather than relying on a prescriptive list. Ruby's law was originally conceived as an amendment to the English legislation, which had a prescriptive list that did not include the abuse of animals. In that context, it made sense for the abuse of animals to be specified. However, as our law is framed differently, with a more expansive approach that can include animal abuse, it would seem slightly contrary to have only animal abuse listed and specified as a form of abuse. Neither harm nor the threats of harm to pets are explicitly listed in section 2 of the Act. We sought to make it absolutely clear in the explanatory notes, which provide insight into the policy intent, that the provisions extend to behaviour concerning animals, and we provided some specific examples of behaviours towards animals that could constitute abuse under the Act. The broader approach to defining abusive behaviour was previously accepted and supported by the Assembly when the Act was first passed. As such, I am satisfied that the existing framework already permits the courts to take account of behaviour involving animals where it is relevant. I have also not seen any evidence that the current legislation fails to address the issue in practice. Whilst I acknowledge Members' intent that explicitly referring to animals could provide additional clarity, there is a risk that rather than filling an identified gap in the law, the effect of that aspect of amendment No 89 would be to inadvertently place more focus and emphasis on one type of abuse than on others, which would not be helpful, and I do not believe that that is the Members' intent. The second part of amendment No 89 would amend section 27 of the 2021 Act, which provides an enabling power for my Department to make regulations to give effect to protective measures for victims of domestic abuse, now commonly referred to as domestic abuse protection notices (DAPNs) and domestic abuse protection orders (DAPOs). Members will be aware that DAPNs and DAPOs have not yet been introduced in Northern Ireland, and my Department continues to work with partners to develop a model that will be appropriate and effective in this jurisdiction, having first been informed by early lessons learned from pilots in England and Wales. I hope to introduce regulations and to launch a pilot DAPN and DAPO scheme for Northern Ireland towards the end of the financial year. That aspect of amendment No 89 would allow regulations made under section 27 of the 2021 Act to provide powers for the court to include such requirements for pets as it considers relevant in a DAPO. I believe that that could help to prevent the use of harm or the threat of harm to pets to perpetuate abuse and/or coercive control over a victim. In addition, subject to amendment No 88 receiving the support of the Assembly, the provision will allow the regulations for DAPNs and DAPOs under section 27 to be framed in such a way that there would be a consistent and aligned approach with non-molestation orders and occupation orders made under the 1998 Order. There is a benefit in ensuring that those various protective regimes can operate consistently with one another, and I am supportive, in principle, of that aspect of amendment No 89. Given that it is important to have consistency, we need to look at how we handle amendment No 89. The first part of the amendment is not helpful, but the second part is very valuable. Whilst I support the intention behind amendment No 89, and of the proposed amendment to section 27 of the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021, I am concerned about the unintended consequences of the amendment to section 2 of the Act. However, again, if the Members who brought the amendment will undertake to review the provisions and amend them at the Further Consideration Stage to remove the changes to section 2 of the 2021 Act, I would be content to give it my support today. That is all that I wish to say about the amendments in the group, and I look forward to hearing from those who have tabled complementary or competing amendments in those policy areas. I look forward to a healthy debate on those matters.

3,626 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:48 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