Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mrs Linda Dillon on 9 June 2026.

MLA

Mrs Linda Dillon

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

9 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5601940

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I am going to shock the House by agreeing with much of what Jon has said, which is a bit scary. This is really important. I am glad that the amendments have been tabled, because they are important for the PSNI and for us as elected representatives, but, mostly, they are important for the community to have confidence in the PSNI. It is important for us to support the amendments today. They have been asked for; the PSNI and the Police Ombudsman's office have been crying out for changes to the legislation. I want to quickly address one point that Jon made about the accruing of pensions. I agree with him on that. That seems entirely and wholly wrong. It is not dealt with in this legislation, but it needs to be looked at in the future. If you are working in a factory and you hit one of your co-workers, you will lose your private pension. If you are dismissed for gross misconduct, you lose your private pension. Why are police officers' pensions protected when the officers have been dismissed for some really serious offences? That should not be the case, but that is a conversation for another day. I agree with Jon that that needs to be addressed at a later point. As I have said, the PSNI and the Police Ombudsman's office have, for quite a significant period, been crying out for changes to legislation to close the gaps. I have raised some of those issues over a number of years at the Policing Board and in the Chamber. The PSNI wants to be able to address disciplinary issues, and we, as an Assembly and a legislature, must support the PSNI to put in place effective disciplinary procedures in order to close the gaps and ensure that we are not allowing officers, some of whom have committed the most egregious crimes, many against women and girls, to benefit. At this point, it is important to note that, when I last asked, I was told that over 90% of the cases in PSD were of a sexual nature or involved domestic abuse. Those are not officers who are being brought in on a Monday morning because a minor incident happened over the weekend. It is really serious abuse, some of which is carried out against their co-workers: other police officers and female police officers. We know that there are cases in which officers have been repositioned when an allegation has been made against them and that female officer has had to work with them. They may have been repositioned to another station but, within a couple of months, are back in the station where that female officer works. That is an entirely unacceptable situation for anybody to be put in. It is an issue of public confidence. I do not want to repeat what other Members have said, so I will be more succinct than most. The Katie Simpson case has already been mentioned. That is a well-documented case that led to many recommendations. It was a horrendous thing that happened to Katie and her family, and no words in this place can ever offer enough condolences. However, Katie left a legacy of, hopefully, protecting women and girls in the future and a legacy of ensuring that, when police officers respond to a case, they do not assume that they know what happened and that, when they make a wrong call, they are held accountable for that. That is really important. A number of other reviews have led to really good recommendations, and we need to see all of those implemented. John Beggs KC presented to the Policing Board, and some of the things that he told us were really interesting and have fed into some of the amendments. There is much, much more to be done when it comes to investigations; those carried out by the Police Ombudsman's office and by PSD. We need to ensure that PSD has all the tools that it requires to deal with police officers who are subject to serious allegations and have committed serious crimes against others, whether it is people whom they have power over or people in their own homes. Whoever it is, they need to be held accountable. I agree that there are many good officers. Do you know what the good officers want? They want to make sure that the bad officers are gone. They want them out. They do not want them there. On that basis, I appeal to the DUP to support the amendments today. We are not really on different pages. We all have great sympathy for the position that the PSNI is in when trying to deal with some of the serious misconduct. We cannot allow that to go on. We should show a united front in supporting the good officers and ensuring that the officers who should not be in the PSNI and should not have power over anybody — those who do not deserve to have power over a butterfly never mind over our entire community — are out of the service and are not able, as Jon said, to take up other positions of power in other services, whether on other parts of this island, across these islands or anywhere for that matter.

If we want to deal with that, we need to support the amendments. Therefore, I appeal to everybody to do that. There are things that will absolutely need to be dealt with in regulations. We will see what comes forward in those regulations and whether they fulfil the expectations of the House. However, it is important that we support the amendments today. I welcome the amendments from the Minister and Nuala McAllister.

A number of other issues would need to be addressed in future legislation, particularly around ill-health retirement, injury on duty and the ability of the Police Ombudsman's office to compel former officers to cooperate with investigations. Those are for another day, however. They are separate issues. I am asking Members to support the amendments that are before us, and that we show a united front in support of officers who are trying to do the right thing every day.

1,034 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:51 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