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
- 8 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5600733
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Minister for that very important intervention. I hope that that gives confidence to people out there and gives confidence to the House that it can vote positively for those two amendments to modernise the law around vacancy and to repeal the past law, which was archaic and included bad language to describe people. "Rogues and vagabonds" is the terminology that was used. The text of that legislation is damning — the history of the state and its lack of support for soldiers and their families and also people who suffered from hunger. I ask the House to support those two amendments to modernise the law and to arm the police with the tools that they require to deal delicately, passionately and effectively with people breaching and breaking the law. I also commend the Minister and the Department for the way that they worked with and engaged with me, my colleagues and my party on this stuff to get to the point where we can repeal vacancy law and modernise the law. I will turn to amendment No 78, which is about advertising sexual services and is in my name and those of my two colleagues on the Committee, Maurice Bradley and Brian Kingston. First, I make it very clear to the Minister that I am absolutely agreeable to working with the Minister and the Department to try to make sure that this law fits our legislative framework and fits in with the scope of what we have the vires to do. That is a given, and I can state categorically that I and my party will work with the Department over the coming months before we get to the Further Consideration Stage. I can assure the Minister that, if we need to reword anything, we will work together to do that.
Amendment No 78 addresses a profound and evolving harm that has blighted the whole of the UK for over a decade and is now receiving the attention that it deserves, namely the role of online advertising that enables sexual exploitation and trafficking here in Northern Ireland. The recent BBC documentary on the life and death of Caitlin Hanna brought the issue into sharp focus. Caitlin was not brought here from South America or eastern Europe; she was a young woman who was groomed, drugged and trapped in the grip of a criminal gang and advertised on a website in Belfast for sexual services to which she did not consent. Caitlin was not alone. According to the BBC, over 500 women per day — 500 women per day — are advertised for sexual services in Northern Ireland. Just last Friday, Christian Action, Research, and Education (CARE), the organisation that helped me with the amendment, checked three of the main sites used to advertise women for exploitation. On those three sites alone, there were 472 advertisements to purchase women in Northern Ireland. The SERP Institute in Dublin, in its study of one of those websites — the main website used by traffickers in Northern Ireland — estimated that 85% of the women on that site during that research period were coerced, controlled or exploited.
That is human trafficking on an industrial scale. It is happening on our doorsteps, yet we turn a blind eye.
Yes, I will.
I agree with everything that Connie Egan said. I thank her for her contribution and intervention. It is despicable that that has been allowed to happen. I am not blaming anyone for that; such has been the growth of that evil that we have not really had time to comprehend or deal with it. However, this is an opportunity to do so. Women are moved from location to location across the UK and Ireland. They are also moved within cities and towns from one place to another. That is human trafficking under our laws. Women in those advertisements are described as being available for an "out call". That means that they are taken by a man from one location to another. That is trafficking. Not only that but adverts describe people as being "on tour". That means that they have been moved from Dublin, Glasgow, Manchester, Cork or from elsewhere outside the UK to Belfast. Those sites are filled with clear indicators of organised trafficking operations. Police investigations bear that out. In one case, six women in their twenties were trafficked into Northern Ireland on false promises of employment and then forced into prostitution for the profit of an organised crime group. More broadly, modern slavery referrals in Northern Ireland increased markedly by up to 50% in a single year.
769 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: 0.06 (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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.86).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.07 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.86 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.14 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.71 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.26 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:55 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.