Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Jon Burrows on .
- MLA
- Mr Jon Burrows
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 8 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5600853
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will try to be brief and to make up some time, because the issues have been well discussed and a lot of clarity has been given. I support amendment Nos 45 to 48 on organised crime. It is right that we strengthen our provisions to support the police in bringing those who engage in organised crime to justice. I can move on from that. It is important legislation, and I am glad to support it. I support the repeal of the Vagrancy Act 1824. It is legislation from a bygone era. As the Member for North Antrim said, it was often used to target those who had come back from war after serving their country and were lying rough. It is no coincidence that, some years later, in 1890, Rudyard Kipling wrote that great poem 'Tommy':
"For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!" But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot".
When the guns fell silent and the men had served their duty, they were often left on the streets and arrested under those old laws. There is one difficulty with repealing the Vagrancy Act, which lies around the ability of the police to use what is called the "enclosed premises" offence, which I have used. It is important that that offence is protected. I am therefore glad that it is protected in amendment No 71. It is important, because there are times when the police find someone who clearly has criminal intent but is not committing a prima facie offence. Let me give you an example. If you hear something in your rear garden at 2.00 am and see someone there who, you believe, is going to burgle your house, that person has not yet committed attempted burglary, because they have not even tried to get into the house. Unless they have weapons or tools with them, they have not committed the offence of "Going equipped for stealing". However, if they are in your garden and you believe that they are trying to commit a burglary, the "enclosed premises" offence can be used. I am glad that Mr Frew has filled that gap. There was a gap, because the police use that offence, and it is useful. I fully support the amendment on organised begging. It is right that we do not treat people who are genuinely begging as criminals. However, anyone who profiteers from begging, organises it or uses it as a business model is, in fact, an organised criminal. I caution — I do not see it covered by that legislation — that there are some people who are beggars, if you like, but that is a deception, because they live a different kind of life. That happens more in other jurisdictions, particularly in London, where, for some, begging is their employment, and they go home to a nice home. It is right that we target those who organise begging and use genuinely vulnerable people and that we do not treat those who are in need as anything other than people who are vulnerable and in need of support. My party and I support the amendments on blasphemy. As far as I am aware, those offences have never been used. Were they to be used today for a straightforward act of blasphemy, they would probably fall foul of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which gives you freedom of speech. I will say loud and clear however, that my concern is that there is a direction of travel, which is to say that protection for Christian speech and preaching is taken away while, increasingly, we live in an environment where free speech for Christians is heavily circumscribed.
I say some things that some Members in the Chamber recoil from. I know from having been in the police — many will know it from our society — that there are those who would recoil from arresting a Muslim preacher but would arrest a Christian preacher. You regularly see on social media Christian preachers being arrested in town centres, and on almost every occasion —.
There are documented cases across the United Kingdom; in fact, there have been some exposés. By the way, I believe in true religious freedom, and I am respectful of other religions. I tend to find people who follow a religious code, even if it is different from mine, to be the most peaceable people that there are, whether or not you disagree with their religion. Of course, there has been hate preaching by all kinds of religions. My point is that the people who are most susceptible to being arrested today in the United Kingdom are Christian preachers who are preaching in the street. That is not my kind of preaching. I do not think that that it is particularly productive, but you do see them being arrested regularly. When I follow up on those cases, on almost every occasion the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) says that no crime has been committed. I support the repeal of the blasphemy laws, but it is important that we embrace genuine free speech when it comes to Christian or other religious preaching. That means that you have to tolerate some things that you disagree with. Article 10 contains a special protection for religious preaching. I support amendment No 78, which would insert a clause on "Advertising sexual services", and I am glad to see it. I caution those who say that there are women who are willing members of the sex trade. Certainly, a lot of the research that I have read, along with my experiences of what I have seen and feedback that I have got from family members who work in this, indicates that that is often not a true choice.
I will gladly give way.
It is not a true choice.
981 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: 0.43 (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 (0.75).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.78).
- Subject area: Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice).
- The overall probability was moderate at most and none of the culture-war criteria was close to being met.
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 | 0.30 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.16 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.28 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.31 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.48 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.75 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.43 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.10 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.10 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.78 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:56 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.