Debate contribution: Sentencing: Drug Dealing
Debate contribution by Ms Connie Egan on .
- MLA
- Ms Connie Egan
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 21 April 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Sentencing: Drug Dealing
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5498050
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Substance misuse can cause undeniable harm for individuals, their loved ones and our communities. As the motion notes, there has been a 47% increase in the number of drug-related deaths registered in Northern Ireland in the past decade alone. Delving further into that data, we can see that it is about access to not just one singular drug for any one person, but access to multiple drugs. Almost three quarters of drug deaths in 2003 involved two or more substances. Those who are struggling with addiction are deserving of respect, empathy and therapeutic support. The motion recognises that the hold that drug misuse has on vulnerable individuals is terrifying. However, those who are dealing drugs and are responsible for facilitating and supporting such a damaging intake of illegal substances need to face consequences. There is no way that we can bring back a loved one who has died following drug consumption, but we can ensure that those who made it happen are brought to justice, especially when they are so often tied to organised crime and paramilitary-related activity. For that to happen, we need to have a robust and accountable framework for how we deal with drug-related offences, especially when dealing has resulted in the death or serious injury of another person. I commend the immense bravery of Pauline Duddy, who lost her daughter Jasmin. That has really catapulted the public conversation about how we should be bringing accountability for those who profit from the sale of drugs. We all know of Pauline's work to update Northern Ireland's approach to the enforcement of drug-related legislation, but also the need to maintain the dignity of those who are receiving treatment. To channel such personal loss into a very public quest for change is not easy, and Pauline has done that with absolute grace and dignity. It is, of course, of note that drugs misuse policy is reserved to our counterparts at Westminster under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, but that does not mean that we should shy away from making our own positions clear as an Assembly. In that spirit, I welcome the Department of Justice having put on public record its commitment to taking forward Jasmin's mum Pauline's proposals in the scope of the ongoing sentencing review, so that those can be included in the Department's policy development and put out to public consultation.
I will, yes.
I agree with that. It is important that we get the legislation right and that it is effective. Drug dealing is not a victimless crime, and consequences must be felt and must match public expectations. It is important that we keep pace with what those in law enforcement, including the PSNI and our judiciary, need to make that happen. On that point, I welcome the fact that the Consideration Stage of Minister Long's Justice Bill will include two additional amendments that are focused on tackling organised crime. If those proposals are accepted by the Assembly, they will create specific, bespoke offences relating to participating in and directing the criminal activities of an organised crime group. That is essential for the accountability of those who profit from the misery, suffering and, often, death of others across this region. As the motion and the amendment both note, those who devastate lives need to face consequences. I and my Alliance colleagues welcome this conversation —
— and recognise Pauline's vital work.
566 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: 0.05 (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 (0.93).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
- Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.65 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.30 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:26 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.