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 5601174

Read the official Assembly record

Text

First of all, I want to say that, by and large, it has been a constructive debate. It is clear that people can be passionate and, in the main, exchange their views with courtesy.

It is important that we continue to do that, because these are important matters. Whilst we may go about our business slightly differently, there are more points in this that we agree on than we disagree on. It is important to recognise that. I want to look at each of the sets of amendments very briefly. Many Members raised the issue of organised crime and how we want to tackle that. It is important that we deal not only with participation activities, which are the most common activities that people are caught for, where they are engaged, often, in rather low-level offending, but more serious offending that they are doing on behalf of an organisation. They may be doing it willingly or because there is personal benefit, or they may be doing it to pay off a debt to somebody who is coercing them. Those tend to be the people who end up in front of the court while the kingpin sits at home with his feet up and simply benefits from the profits of the crime. It is those kingpins who I want to see brought before the courts and made amenable to the law. If we are going to stand up against organised crime in our society, it is important that we do so in a coherent way. The Member who just spoke mentioned the organised crime task force and the work that it does. I see real opportunities for the Bill to allow the organised crime task force to do more of the good work that it has been doing. Co-location with the paramilitary crime task force means that there is the opportunity for a two-way conversation to happen within the structures of the PSNI. All of that will allow us to tackle organised crime more effectively. I want to provide reassurance to the public and send a strong message that law enforcement has all the tools that it needs to ensure that no one in our society who engages in organised crime will be untouchable. As I said earlier, I reassure Members that this is not about trying to criminalise people who are vulnerable, coerced, threatened or intimidated into engaging in crime. We know that young people are often coerced into committing crime in order, for example, to pay off a drug debt or to right some other perceived wrong of the organised crime gang. They will be looked at, and the defence of coercion will still be there for them. We know, for example, that there are vulnerable adults whose houses are cuckooed. Again, if they are allowing their property to be used in that way, coercion is a reasonable defence. Finally, I want to raise the issue of how this will be implemented. A number of Members wanted to be assured that it would be implemented sensitively and proportionately. There will be robust training and guidance for operational partners to ensure that it is done sensitively, with a view to those concerns, and to ensure that we bring before the law those who are guilty and not those who are simply vulnerable or amenable. On vagrancy, I very much welcome the broadly supportive approach that we have had around the House. The proposals in the public consultation were also broadly supported. I believe that there are sufficient defences available to deal with associated behaviours that cross the criminal threshold. Those who beg or are rough sleepers should not be dealt with differently from anyone else. If they commit a crime, intimidate, threaten, alarm or cause harm to an individual, they should be dealt with in exactly the same way as somebody who is housed or someone who is earning. I consider that to be a comprehensive cross-departmental and multi-agency response by statutory and voluntary and community sector partners that addresses the underlying issues around rough sleeping and begging is a far more effective and proportionate response than the criminalisation of some of the most vulnerable people in our society. During the debate, the question of whether repeal would limit the ability of the police to engage with those who are in need of support or guidance was raised. I want to make it clear that that is not the case. On the repeal of rough sleeping and begging offences, community police will continue to engage with vulnerable people and, in line with the PSNI's Right Care, Right Person approach, ensure that the appropriate agencies become involved. That is a vital bridge between those who are most in need and the services that there are for them. I do not want to remove that bridge where the PSNI works in partnership with Health and Social Care partners. That aims to ensure that individuals are directed to the most appropriate agency for support and that we do not create the stigma of criminality for someone who happens to be rough sleeping or homeless.

The strong links between support organisations and the police across Northern Ireland will still be there, but the activity will change somewhat, in that, potentially, people will not be threatened with arrest if they do not move on. However, if they are being a nuisance, causing threat or intimidation or alarm, they can be charged with offences, just as anyone else would. It is important to recognise that, from our perspective, we want to deal with that in a proportionate manner. The PSNI has supported that. I also believe that, whilst I personally do not identify, and the Department has not identified, any gaps that will be created, there is an opportunity to assuage some of the concerns that some Members have that that would leave some kind of gap in the law. From our perspective, the DUP amendments, on this occasion, do no harm to our overall intent, which is to decriminalise poverty, and do no damage to that objective but perhaps provide the additional reassurance that is required so that people are happy to move in that direction. The PSNI has indicated that it will produce operational and policy guidance to officers when that law is repealed to guide them on how they should engage with people when they receive concerns around begging or rough sleeping and on how officers will be able to direct those people to the appropriate services. That is an important reassurance for those of us who want to ensure that there is no shame or stigma to being homeless. The only shame that should be felt about the homelessness crisis in our city is by those of us who are in a home — by those of us who are in this House, directing government, in that we have not been able to solve that crisis. There is no shame on those who find themselves in such desperate circumstances, and holding them accountable under the law is not the way to deal with that. On the blasphemy offences, I am afraid that there was much heat and very little light coming from some quarters. However, I say this as a Christian who has availed herself of the right of free speech; who avails herself of the right to practise my faith; avails herself of the right to read my Bible, both alone and with others; and avails herself of the right to pray, both alone and with others. For me, the issue is not about attacks on Christianity, as some would wish to make it. There are some who cannot see any issue through any other lens than one that shows it as an attack. There are some who cannot see the wider implications of what we are trying to achieve and the importance of it. The truth is that the laws are rarely, if ever, used, so removing them from the statute book or retaining them on the statute book is not an attack on Christianity or a protection for Christianity: it is, simply, lazy politics.

I will, yes.

That is exactly it: they are not used. They are unlikely to be used, and it is to our detriment that they remain on our statute book. I know that there were some rather disparaging comments made about me in that regard, and about my thinking that I was more important than I really was. Just to be absolutely clear, as the Parliamentary Champion for Open Doors, I sat in an office in the House of Commons opposite a number of ambassadors from countries that have blasphemy laws in place. They came to meet me when I raised those issues in Parliament, as I did consistently and persistently during my time there. They came to meet me and asked, "How can you chastise us? You have blasphemy laws in Northern Ireland. Are you going to repeal them?", and I said, "Yes, I will, at the first opportunity that I have". Unlike others, I am not a hypocrite. I do not seek the protection of my faith, nor, frankly, do I need my faith protected. If you believe in an all-powerful God, I can assure you that He does not need the Assembly's backing to do His will. However, if you believe in blasphemy laws, you are, by default, saying that you are content for people in other places, who have different faiths from us, to also have blasphemy laws that act against those who share our faith, or who persecute those who have no faith. I think that that is morally repugnant. If I am going to say that about laws in other places, as I did to the ambassador from Algeria at the time, I am going to say it about our laws. I am going to be consistent.

I believe in a free and open society. In a democracy, people should have the right to have and express a faith, to change their religion if they so choose and to live a life free of interference from religion if they choose, because it is not only about belief and faith but about conscience. People have the right to believe whatever they wish. That is an unfettered and undisputed right. That is clear from reading article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees the right to freedom of belief, thought, conscience and religion. Equally, article 9 of the ECHR guarantees those same rights. The right to belief is unfettered. The right to express belief and how to do so is in no way unfettered, because that right intersects with the rights of others, as do all our rights. What you think in your head is entirely for you, but how you express it and how you act is a matter that impinges on other people's rights, and it is right that there should be boundaries to protect people. To be clear, the nonsense that I have heard this evening that Alliance is anti-faith or that we are seeking to do this because we do not believe in the Christian faith or because we disparage it is an absolute and outright lie. It is a lie, and I find it profoundly offensive that anyone would make that case in the Chamber against me. I believe that people have a right to freedom of expression and religion, and that means not just the religion or set of beliefs that I choose but all the other beliefs that people may choose, because that is real freedom. That should be recognised. Some people will stand up and say, "I might not agree with what you say, but I would die to defend your right to say it", but they do not say that if it is blasphemous or if they do not like it in a religious setting or because someone is making a joke about their faith. How does one put those limits around what people can and cannot say? I am offended by much of what I hear, not least in the Chamber, but I do not have a right not to be offended. I do not have a right to stop other people from having their views, nor would I wish to have one.

I will not at the moment, because I am about to say something else. On the idea of simply saying that this is a remote chance, let us not forget how Ireland ended up repealing its blasphemy laws. They were also thought to be inoperable and unworkable, until Stephen Fry was on 'The Meaning of Life' programme on RTÉ. To summarise, when he was asked what he would say to God if he were to meet him, he said that he thought that it was a very vindictive and nasty God who would create people and allow them to suffer. I believe that he is entitled to have and express that opinion. I fundamentally disagree with him, but the idea that he would be taken to court for his beliefs was such an outrage in the Republic that the offence was removed from the statute book, because people recognised that to prosecute somebody for expressing a view that they were asked to express was a ridiculous situation to be in. There is no protection in saying that people will not be prevented from speaking their mind because that law is never used. It could be used, and, for that reason, I believe that it should be repealed. I also ask Members to consider the reasons that they gave as to why one religion in this country should have more protection than all the others. If you are going to apply that position consistently, it means that you should not have freedoms as a Christian in an Islamic country or as a Sikh in a Hindu country. We could go on and on.

Yet, we argue, day in, day out, and I know that I certainly do, and I have funded charitable organisations and travelled with organisations that seek to spread the gospel, and I expect a warm welcome, I expect to be respected, and I expect not to be attacked for doing so. I expect that freedom and courtesy to be extended to me. One of the key things in the Bible for those who profess their Christianity is that you should treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself. As a Christian abroad, I would wish to be treated with respect for my freedoms and have the ability to voice and display my faith as I choose. Therefore, fundamentally, I believe that I should do the same when people are here in my country. I want to ensure that we are respectful of those who come here with different faiths and none. Let us bear in mind that, while this may not be such a serious matter here, people around the globe are losing their lives because of blasphemy laws. The only way that we will change that is through constructive dialogue and consistent leadership. Countries that have blasphemy laws and do not properly protect article 18 of the UNHR or article 9 of the ECHR have the worst human rights records by far. It is not only rights of religion that are compressed and destroyed but other rights and freedoms. In a democratic society, no one has the right to control your religious beliefs. Finally, I turn to Ruby's law. Paul Frew has said that he is happy to work with us to avoid any unintended consequences. To be clear, we are all agreed that, for example, in the case of non-molestation orders and other civil orders, pets and so on are already named. We are clear that the construction of our domestic abuse offences is, first, wide enough to capture it and, secondly, that it is also reflected in the accompanying explanatory and financial memorandum. We gave some examples of pets being used in domestic abuse situations. The unintended consequence of part of the amendment would be to put, if you like, animal abuse above other forms of domestic violence and abuse. I do not believe that that was the Member's intention, nor do I believe that that would be wise. However, I welcome the fact that the Member has been constructive. If we are to pass law here that is not to be constantly contentious, I urge other Members to engage with me and the Department. We will do our best to find ways to address the issues that are of concern to you. This may be the only chance that the Department of Justice will get to progress a miscellaneous provisions-type Bill, so I want to be able to accommodate as many of Members' concerns that I can in it. My officials and I are happy to meet the Member on the basis that we can bring changes at Further Consideration Stage. On that basis, I am content to give my support. I thank all Members who engaged with good faith and in good grace this evening. In the main, these debates have been an exemplar of how we should do business.

2,874 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:57 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