Paul Frew
North Antrim · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I thank the Minister for that intervention. Nevertheless, there are concerns that I want to address. The Minister and the departmental officials will know that, even from the range of questions that I have asked. We need to make sure that we get the balance correct.”
“In the written and oral evidence received then, the Committee was advised of potential amendments that the Minister may table at Consideration Stage, including an amendment to remove the commissioner that is being considered in liaison with OLC.”
“That in itself causes some victims and witnesses bother, because they are in a system that they are not part of, which means that they do not get the support that they require. That can sometimes leave them feeling retraumatised, as though they have been put through the wringer again.”
“The Bill makes provision to offer those protections and provide clarity to victims that they do not have to face their perpetrator in court. <BR /> <BR />Members asked questions about a range of matters, including the independence of the office, the ability to review the performance of any future commissioner, the costs of establishing th…”
“I thank the Minister for her intervention. She was absolutely right to take that action, as it means that victims' voices are right at the heart of the matters under discussion. It is now obvious to us that that should have been done years ago, but it is good that it is being done now.”
“Officials explained that the Bill would legislate on the disclosure regime not to prevent an application for disclosure but to set out a process whereby the defence would have to show the relevance of the information that it was requesting. That is an important protection.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,736 lines we hold for Paul Frew, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 75.
“Paragraph 2 ensures that all facilitators at every level of the trafficking infrastructure are captured, not just those who take a visible cut of the money. <BR /> <BR />Paragraph 3 aligns penalties with existing offences in the 2008 Order, providing for imprisonment for up to six months on summary conviction and up to seven years on conviction on indictment. That ensures proportionality and consistency while also recognising that some people in the trafficking infrastructure will be more culpable than others. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 78 is not the end of the matter. The Assembly has much more work to do, and Westminster and Dublin also have work to do if those sites and the exploitation that they enable are to be ended.”
“It is extraordinary to think that there is no law here against such advertising already. The amendment ensures that old-fashioned, analogue adverts as well as those on websites, apps, AI and social media will all, hopefully, be captured. It will close a gap in our law. <BR /> <BR />Paragraph 2 makes clear that the offence applies regardless of whether or not a person profits financially. That is essential, because the infrastructure of exploitation networks often utilises layers of intermediaries. Some people in the exploitation network will facilitate the posting of the advert, some key in the data to the online platform, some coordinate activity, and others ensure that the online infrastructure is managed and remains online. Many receive no payment, or, at least, no traceable payment, for that work.”
“for sexual services. That extends to coercing someone to do so against their will. Therefore, if someone tries to get around the law by having a trafficked victim publish the advert themselves, that will also be caught by this law. The amendment is carefully constructed. It captures the entirety of the infrastructure of trafficking: the website owner, who publishes and displays the advert; the pimp, who may control and advertise women in Belfast; the individuals who manage those women on a day-to-day basis and allow that to happen; and those who go out into our communities and entice girls into exploitation. They will all be captured if a victim is advertised on one of the online platforms. <BR /> <BR />Paragraph 1(a) applies to all adverts, whether they are online or offline. The amendment is technologically neutral and future-proofed.”
“All that we can do in the House is play our part, which is to bring in a criminal sanction, and the amendment gives us the chance to do that. Hopefully, our actions will be a spur to Westminster to bring in the change to regulation that is required there and that will cover us. That is what is needed. <BR /> <BR />What exactly does amendment No 78 do? Having set out the policy background, it is important to take some time to do exactly that, so I will now turn, in detail, to the provisions of amendment No 78. The amendment creates a new offence under the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008. It provides that a person commits an offence if he or she:”
“<BR /> <BR />In a recent debate on the issue that was secured by colleagues on the all-party group on modern slavery and sexual exploitation, the Minister rightly pointed out that she has no power over regulation. Regulation of telecommunications is a reserved matter. However, combating this issue is not just about regulation; it is about helping people exit prostitution and getting our criminal law into a state that is fit for purpose. We do not have the power to regulate, but we do have the power to make modern criminal law. We have the power to be a leader across the UK's legislatures and pass the law that is needed to start the process of dismantling the infrastructure of trafficking. That is what the amendment seeks to do. Criminal law change is needed to ensure that those websites are shut down.”
“There is no explicit offence in Northern Ireland prohibiting the publication of advertisements for sexual services, whether online or offline. We have no law to dismantle the infrastructure that connects trafficking gangs and the people in our cities who seek to exploit the women who are brought here. Many police forces, including ours, have sought to cooperate with those websites, but evidence given to the Home Affairs Select Committee at Westminster confirms that voluntary cooperation does not work. The Committee found that cooperation led to limited prosecutions and resulted in absolutely no dismantling of the structures of trafficking.”
“in the UK. I do not apologise for labouring the point and for setting out in detail the exploitation that the amendment seeks to end. It is important that the issue is set out fully and comprehensively, so that no one can turn a blind eye and say, "I didn't know the scale of this problem". <BR /> <BR />Members may ask, "If the problem is so prevalent, why is nothing being done? Why have those sites not been shut down?". The reality is that we have a plethora of laws on the statute book relating to combating pimping and ending the demand for the purchase of sexual services, but those laws were designed for an analogue era. The problem is this: while individuals involved in prostitution may be criminalised, the platforms and intermediaries that build the infrastructure and profit from exploitation often sit beyond the arm of the law.”
“Critically, it all happens online. <BR /> <BR />The shift from street corners or adverts in telephone boxes or magazines to online is the defining feature that has led to the massive increase in modern sexual exploitation. The Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner's recent report makes for alarming reading. Tens of thousands of such adverts appear across the UK, and almost 60% of those adverts contain multiple indicators of trafficking or exploitation. It is trafficking on an unimaginable scale. The National Crime Agency describes those websites as:”
“I thank the Minister for that really important intervention. I echo the sentiments in her speech on that. It is horrific. It takes great courage for a woman who finds herself in that position to actually speak up, get out and seek the support and help that she needs. For most of the time that she is in captivity and being trafficked, that will be denied to her. That is really important. It is vital that we get to grips with it. <BR /> <BR />Modern slavery referrals in Northern Ireland have increased. They went up by 50% in a single year and by 1,000% over four years. What is fuelling that increase? It is fairly obvious: it is demand. Those websites drive demand for women to be bought and sold across Northern Ireland. That is happening in each and every constituency that is represented in the House. It is organised by criminals.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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 is human trafficking on an industrial scale. It is happening on our doorsteps, yet we turn a blind eye.”
“<BR /> <BR />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.”
“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.”
“I can assure the Minister that, if we need to reword anything, we will work together to do that.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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 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 do not wish to bring in any law that criminalises begging.”
“I thank Homeless Connect for that commentary. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 72 is a proposed new clause entitled:”
“In response to that amendment, Homeless Connect stated:”
“<BR /> <BR />There is no doubt that some bodies are nervous about criminalising people who beg or are rough sleepers, and I want to address that. The evidence provided by Homeless Connect has been very helpful to the Justice Committee and to parties. Amendment No 71 from my party, which proposes new clause 23A entitled:”
“That was the police's view at the start of this year. That is why it is so important that we modernise this law. Absolutely, we can repeal Acts that contain atrocious, historical and archaic language; in fact, it is right to repeal them. We should repeal more laws in this place, but let us see what happens later on. There is an issue here, which is that we need to be quicker at modernising law. A law that goes back hundreds of years to a different age takes no account of technological advances or, for that matter, the Industrial Revolution, so we have to sit up and take stock. If we can repeal such law, we should. It is important to modernise the law so that law enforcement agencies see no gaps whatsoever.”
“You will be glad to know that. <BR /> <BR />It continues:”
“I will read from that letter into the record:”
“<BR /> <BR />When Retail NI gave evidence to the Committee — I have spoken to it since — it said that none of the above legislation covers cases where a person enters a shop with the intent to cause antisocial behaviour, harassment or assault below the level of GBH, which is what is required for burglary. There are, I believe, clear gaps. For the life of me, I could not understand how the police had not got to that position at that time. Thankfully, the police clarified their position. The Minister said at the time that, when the Department was engaging with the police, they had not offered up any concerns or problems. I acknowledge that, and the Minister and the Department can only take people at face value in that regard. <BR /> <BR />The Committee wrote to the PSNI on 2 December 2025. We got a response back, dated 7 January.”
“Now, those are all very relevant laws and should be effective in dealing with everything that they are targeted to deal with. However, I believe that there is still a significant gap around trespass with intent. Importantly, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which is UK-wide legislation, only covers trespass on land in the open air. That is relevant when a group of protesters is causing disruption on someone else's land. It was very clear that many people out there are nervous about repealing the vagrancy laws — archaic though they are, with horrendous wording — how that would work in practice in the modern day and how they would be protected, whether they be shopkeepers, people who live on the street or people who commute, shop or work in certain areas, impacted on or affected by the repeal of those laws.”
“It cited article 10 — "Wrongful taking possession, or use, of premises" — of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 and sections 68 — "Offence of aggravated trespass"— and 69 — "Powers to remove persons committing or participating in aggravated trespass" — of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.”
“It cited section 9 of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, on burglary, under which it is an offence to trespass in a building with intent to steal, cause damage or commit grievous bodily harm.”
“He offered an amendment on some of these matters that I thought it best not to table, because, at that point, we had reached a compromise with the Department, so it did not go ahead. I commend Professor Brown for his work on these matters and on the amendments that we, as a party — Brian, Maurice and I — tabled. <BR /> <BR />However, it is not right to say that there is currently enough law to adequately deal with the problematic aspects of begging and rough sleeping. Whilst the Department acknowledged that the repeal of the vagrancy laws would repeal an existing offence of trespass with intent, it stated that there was no need for a replacement offence. The Department referred to three existing offences, stating that they were adequate to deal with criminal trespass.”
“That, again, does not deliberately criminalise begging, activity around begging or "beggars", if you want to use that term, but criminalises problematic aspects of behaviour around begging. <BR /> <BR />We can all visualise and recognise how and why someone ends up being homeless or rough sleeping. I repeat that such people — they could well be our family members; who knows what the future holds? — should be treated with respect and dignity and that we should support and assist them where we, as a state and as a people, can do so. <BR /> <BR />I mentioned Professor Kevin Brown in my speech as Committee Chairperson. I do so again at this point to place on record the assistance that he gave, to the Committee and to me as an MLA, from his informed expertise on these matters, which was really helpful and insightful.”
“Section 11, on trespassing with intent to commit a criminal offence, creates a very narrow offence whereby, if a person trespasses on any premises — a building, part of a building or an enclosed area — with the intent to commit an offence, whether or not that is on those premises, they commit an offence with a summary sentence of up to three months in custody or a level 3 fine. <BR /> <BR />Section 12 of that Act creates the offence of arranging or facilitating begging for gain, which has a summary-only penalty of up to six months' custody, rising to 51 weeks on commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which should be read alongside existing public order and antisocial behaviour measures that are used to deal with problematic aspects of begging.”
“It is therefore right and proper that no one should be criminalised, even in the modern day, simply for begging, being poor or having no home to live in or bed to sleep in, so it is right that those laws be repealed. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Minister and her Department for working with us so that we could illustrate and address our party's position on the laws and so that she could support the modernisation provisions in the new clauses in amendments Nos 71 and 72. We believe that they are required. They are required because similar provisions have been made through sections 11 and 12 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026.”
“That was the worst year of the Famine, yet the state thought it right to pass legislation that prevented people getting help. <BR /> <BR />It is simply right and proper that we look to repeal such laws, mindful as we stand in this great place — this Assembly Chamber — of representing our people and making sure that the laws that we pass are appropriate. I am glad that we do not live way back then. The Minister said earlier that it was Dickensian; in many respects, it was before Dickens. It was this that led the way, not the Dickens's novels, which illustrated the poverty on the streets of England, particularly in London. That was the mindset of the state — those were the laws that were passed — and it is little wonder that people struggled through poverty and in trying to find a means of living.”
“Worse, the state not only did not help — there was no social safety net — but actually made things worse not only for the soldiers but for their dependants. Many soldiers went from these shores to fight against a tyrant and totalitarian power, leaving behind wives and children who would be destitute if their husband or father came back unable to work. Yet, the state thought it right to pass laws such as the 1824 Vagrancy Act, which refers to "rogues and vagabonds". In those days, soldiers got a really hard time. That law typified how they were treated during and after their service to this country and, in many respects, the world in fighting for freedom in the Napoleonic Wars. There was then the Vagrancy (Ireland) Act of 1847.”
“It is the Minister's position that begging and rough sleeping should not be treated as a law and order issue as it is societal. I agree with her about the social aspects. It has always been the DUP's position to support the repeal of that legislation while making sure that the law is modernised to suit the present day. <BR /> <BR />I will paint a picture. The Vagrancy Act 1824 came into force nine years after the Battle of Waterloo and the end of the Napoleonic Wars. You can imagine the scene of so many Tommies or redcoats, as they were called in those days — I prefer to call them soldiers — who had fought in the Napoleonic Wars coming home from those endeavours with limbs missing, after cannonballs took off legs, arms and all sorts. In those days, there was no social services.”
“We must do all in our power to protect our people as best we can by having robust tools at our disposal, at police and court level, to deal with organised crime, which is truly global, scientific and advanced and is hurting people in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the proposed new Part 2A regarding organised crime groups. I hope that, when that law is enforced, it will make a real difference to people's lives by keeping them safer and that people can see how it keeps them safe. Most people get on with life and do not really know how they are being protected or how the police, or bodies higher up, deploy in certain situations, but I hope that we can make a real difference to people's lives. <BR /> <BR />I move on to vagrancy.”
“I am speaking now as a justice spokesperson for the DUP, but I want to make it clear that I respect all members of the Justice Committee for their work ethic, the way in which they work as a team and the way in which they scrutinise legislation. Hopefully, some of the things that I am going to say are taken in good spirit. <BR /> <BR />I start with the Minister's amendments around organised crime groups — the new Part 2A. We recognise the need for robust legislation to tackle the growing influence of organised crime and the global nature of it. Those groups do not respect boundaries or borders, and they do not respect our people.”
“as I speak on the Justice Bill in my capacity as the DUP's justice spokesperson and as an MLA. <BR /> <BR />I will repeat what I said at the start of my speech as Chairperson of the Committee. The first day of the debate was a good day for the Assembly. We moved on some law and voted on amendments and clauses. The spirit in which the debate was conducted was good and healthy, and it was a standard that we should set for the rest of the Consideration Stage. <BR /> <BR />There are some good things in this group of amendments, if I do say so myself. My party has brought forward some amendments. I commend my colleagues Brian Kingston and Maurice Bradley who sit with me on the Justice Committee and who worked diligently alongside me. I also place on record my heartfelt thanks to all members of the Committee.”
“Mr Speaker, you can rest assured that you will not get anything obnoxious from me”
“The Committee considered the draft text of the amendments in March. Members were in agreement that the 1824 and 1847 legislation should be repealed, but we could not reach a consensus on the way to do that. Formal proposals were put on two options: to proceed without replacement legislation or to proceed with replacement legislation. However, as the votes for and against each proposal were equal, both proposals fell. Therefore, while it was keen to see the legislation repealed, the Committee did not reach an agreed position on an amendment by which that should be done. <BR /> <BR />That ends my speech as Chairperson of the Justice Committee. I will make comments as an individual MLA and spokesperson for the DUP. However, I suspect that you will want me to stop now if that is in order.”
“The Committee had draft amendments drawn up to incorporate elements of Professor Brown's draft text along the lines of clause 10, the offence of trespassing with intent to commit criminal offence, and clause 11, arranging or facilitating begging for gain, in the Westminster Crime and Policing Bill, as introduced, which is now an Act.”
“The PSNI suggested that powers similar to clause 10 of the Crime and Policing Bill, as introduced, in England and Wales, and section 11 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 could be used to plug the gaps for trespass with intent. Clause 11 of the Crime and Policing Bill, as introduced, could be used to tackle the facilitation of begging for gain. <BR /> <BR />In our deliberations, it quickly became clear that all members supported the repeal of the antiquated legislation. However, we had to decide whether that could be done with or without putting replacement legislation in place. The Department wrote to the Committee on 27 February to ask whether any agreement had been reached and whether the Committee proposed to make any amendments in that area.”
“The PSNI, when giving its initial evidence to the Committee in April 2025, advised that it did not believe that simply arresting people for begging was the appropriate pathway or response to the issue. It also said that, where it feels that there is no alternative to a criminal justice process, there were other offences that could be used. Those include disorderly behaviour, breach of the peace, public nuisance or provocative behaviour, to deal with problems in the behaviour of those unfortunate enough to end up on the streets. However, in subsequent evidence that was given in November 2025, the PSNI indicated some concerns that repeal without replacement legislation may leave some gaps, noting that provisions for alternative offences had been implemented elsewhere in the UK and the Republic of Ireland.”
“The Department also advised of the potential interference of the proposed measures with article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998:”
“He provided the Committee with the draft text of an amendment for begging causing harassment, obstruction or public order concerns. He also pointed out that a further unintended consequence could be the gap on trespass with intent. The Committee forwarded Professor Brown's comments and suggestions to the Department for its views. The Department responded to advise that it did not support the proposals:”
“Professor Brown did not consider that existing legislation would appropriately fill that gap and that repeal might leave us without a replacement. He argued that there should be:”
“He went on to explain that, in most cases, begging is passive and harmless but that, in a small number of cases, it can become:”
“The Committee heard that view echoed and expanded in other evidence. Retail NI, for example, agreed with the repeal of the legislation but felt that there was a need to address replacement powers for when rough sleeping and begging crossed over into problematic or criminal behaviour. Again, it was clear that this was a complex issue. <BR /> <BR />Some of the most detailed and considered evidence that the Committee heard on the issue came from Professor Brown, who is a criminal law specialist at Queen's University Belfast. Professor Brown advised that he fully supports the repeal of the relevant section of the 1824 Act and of the 1847 Act, providing his view that a complete ban on begging and rough sleeping would criminalise a person for being destitute or without shelter.”
“However, some respondents who supported repeal expressed the view that simply repealing the legislation may leave a gap in the powers for the police to deal with certain other behaviours that can arise from begging and rough sleeping. The Committee heard from the Simon Community and Homeless Connect that it is not appropriate to criminalise someone for simply begging or sleeping in the street. They supported the PSNI's decision not to prosecute for rough sleeping despite the powers being available to do so. The witnesses from Homeless Connect stated that they recognised:”
“The Committee's call for evidence attracted universal support for the notion that simple begging should not be an offence and that more work was needed to address the wider social and societal issues that lead to begging and rough sleeping. The Committee heard the view that rough sleeping should be considered a crime of "status", which, in the words of Professor Kevin Brown, is:”