Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Doug Beattie MC on 8 June 2026.

MLA: Mr Doug Beattie MC
Party at the time: Independent
Date: 8 June 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Executive Committee Business
Heading: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5601136

Text

I will make remarks on a number of the amendments in group 3. First, it has been a really good and informative debate. I have picked up quite a bit from it. It has, of course, had passion, and it has, without a doubt, been robust and challenging. However, everything that has been said has been fair and been delivered in the manner of somebody trying to get their point across. I thank the Justice Minister for introducing the legislation to the House and explaining it as best she can. I particularly thank the Chair of the Justice Committee, who was on his feet for an hour and 10 minutes. I thought that he was very good, not because of the length of time that he spent on his feet. I thought that he was very informative, so well done to him
He told me that he would be finished in just 10 minutes. These are nuanced amendments and clauses. They start off dealing with organised crime, and they make it better understood. I will therefore support amendment Nos 45 to 48, which deal with organised crime. I will now go down a little bit of a rabbit hole with the Minister and get on my soapbox, because I have been screaming about this issue for a long time. I have long called for paramilitary groups to be classed under the organised crime category and for the language that is used about paramilitary groups to identify the fact that they are organised crime groups. Although paramilitaries are not mentioned in the amendment, the definition of an organised crime gang is very clear. It is a group of three or more people working or acting together for the purpose of:
"carrying on of criminal activities with a view to obtaining (directly or indirectly) any gain or benefit".
It does not have to be just financial "gain or benefit". That is the definition of what paramilitaries do in our society now. If we take that to its fullest, there are intended and unintended consequences. We now find that all loyalist paramilitary organisations and all republican paramilitary organisations fall under the same clear category as organised crime gangs.
It levels up something that has annoyed people on this side of the House for some time, which is why does the PSNI deal with loyalist paramilitaries while covert agencies, such as MI5, deal with republican paramilitaries? We do not need that any more.
Yes.
My point is that some of those organisations are no longer just about terrorism. It is not just about national security; it is now about the organised crime in our society. It is clear that the PSNI, MI5, the National Crime Agency (NCA) and other covert agencies should be employed to monitor and investigate all the paramilitary groups as organised crime gangs. This is where my soapbox comes out: if all paramilitaries are to be classed as organised crime gangs, why do we have a separated prison regime? If we say that they are just criminals, why are we giving them a separate prison regime? My question is not for the Minister; it is for the Secretary of State to look at the matter. However, it is something we need to revisit, and I have been screaming about it since 2016. There are organised crime gangs that stretch across our constituencies. There is an organised crime gang called "The Firm" in South Down, and it is an insidious group of criminals that gets into all walks of life, and it does not choose which flag it flies because it is everywhere. They are criminals in exactly the same way as paramilitaries, and they should be treated in the same way with no special treatment. The amendments on organised crime groups allow society to move on and treat criminals as criminals and change the language around crime that has plagued us for years. It is something I have argued for over a number of years. In simple terms: a drug-dealing organisation is a drug-dealing organisation, not a paramilitary drug-dealing organisation, and should be treated as such. I welcome the amendments on organised crime. I have sat on the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime (EPPOC) working group for some time, and we have looked at those things. Changing the language is incredibly important. We had a lot of discussion of amendment No 70, and, in truth and regardless of what they say here, everybody thought that the Vagrancy Act 1824 should be repealed. However, we always have to be mindful of unintended consequences and do not strip away a law that gives the police the power to support those who need it. Someone could be breaking the law on paper, and the police can turn up — not to criminalise them but to help them. If we take that away, the police do not have to turn up, because rough sleeping will no longer be a crime. I will be clear that I support getting rid of the vagrancy legislation, but amendment No 71 is important and supports the gap in the legislation that was outlined by the Chair of the Justice Committee. It is good to see the Justice Minister and the Chair of the Committee coming to common ground in the Chamber and saying that they will work together to tie the matter down before Further Consideration Stage, and that is something positive to take out of the debate. I support amendment No 72, as it gives the police the power to tackle organised begging, which, in many cases, is the direct outworking of human trafficking, exploitation and coercion. However, the focus must be on those who direct the begging, not the vulnerable people sitting on the street. In many ways, they are the victims and the people whom we have to look after. It is about the ones who are directing it. Remember: they are not on their own; they direct it with a network of people. What does that make them? An organised crime group. Let us be really clear when we talk about getting rid of that. We are trying to get rid of organised begging, particularly when organised crime gangs exploit vulnerable people.
As an advocate of free speech, I support amendment No 73 on the repeal of blasphemy laws, which was tabled by Connie Egan. People have spoken passionately about it, and I have no issue with people doing that. However, I have worked and lived in countries where blasphemy laws are used to the detriment of people and to the detriment of Christians, and it is hard to stand in those countries and say that what they are doing is wrong when we have the same thing in our country. I have seen it. People do not realise how bad it is in other countries. I know that we are not in other countries and that we will not influence other countries, but there is something about saying, "I am standing up for what I believe". We do not need to have this, and we can still protect people's rights. By the way, I am always accused of being an atheist, but I am certainly not. I am not with Mr Carroll yet; I am just in his corner, in this little community that we have found here.
Amendment No 78 deals with the advertising of sexual services, and, again, many of those involved in the sex trade are victims of trafficking. I have seen trafficking at both ends, by the way. I have seen the genesis of that trafficking and where it ends up. Many victims of trafficking are victims of organised crime, coercion and violence. They are victims of poverty as well — it is important to say that — and of poverty exploitation. In some cases, they are victims of debt. Again, I am heartened that the Minister will work with the Chair of the Justice Committee to make sure that we tie that down and ensure that the language is right. That is what we should do in places like this. I am slightly mindful of something that the Chair of the Justice Committee said. He said that we are no longer looking at stickers in phone boxes, people on street corners and kerb crawling because it has all gone online. My concern is displacement: you take it offline, and, all of a sudden, it turns back to the street corners and the telephone boxes. The victims — the people who are being exploited — could be in more danger. We need to make sure that the resources are there to ensure that, if we have displacement, we have ways of dealing with it.
I thank the Member. Do you know what? After an hour and 10 minutes, it all got mixed up in my head.
However, your point is well made, and you are absolutely right that you did an awful lot of it as a DUP Member. I support amendment Nos 88 and 89, which deal with domestic abuse and threats to animals in the form of companion or domestic pets. Again, we need to tie down the language to make sure that we have that absolutely correct before it goes forward. I will also support all the other amendments in the group. As I said at the start, it has been a good debate that has covered an awful lot of very nuanced stuff. People are passionate about it, but that has not detracted one bit from the debate. It is right that people should be passionate, and we will all have our say when we come to the vote. At the end of the day, we need to make sure that, as regards this group of clauses and amendments, we get the wording absolutely right so that the legislation supports the people in our society.

1,651 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification