Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (Application to Immigration Officers and Designated Customs Officials in Northern Ireland) and Consequential Amendments Regulations 2026

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, these regulations were laid before Parliament on 4 December. They will apply certain provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 to customs officials and immigration officers in Northern Ireland, thus fulfilling a commitment made by the Labour Government in 2009 during the passage of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act, or BCIA, of that same year—that was a long time ago, but the Government have fulfilled its application—and replacing stop-gap measures used in the intervening years.

By way of what I hope is helpful background, Section 22 of the BCIA 2009 was intended as a temporary measure to ensure that customs officials transferring to the former UK Border Agency from HM Revenue & Customs had access to the PACE powers they needed to do their jobs. The ultimate intention at that time was to replace this measure in due course with a separate set of regulations that would apply the relevant provisions of PACE to customs officials and immigration officers investigating crime. This was achieved for England and Wales through the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Application to immigration officers and designated customs officials in England and Wales) Order 2013. However, it was not possible to make the same provision for Northern Ireland at the time; although I can potentially guess why that happened, I am not responsible for the decisions taken between 2010 and 2024.

Immigration officers have hitherto relied on statutory powers in the Immigration Acts to discharge their duties, but these do not provide adequate powers, nor do they allow for the level of interoperability and co-operation that is essential in the modern law enforcement environment. That brings me on to the two principal reasons for bringing these regulations forward before the Committee today. The first purpose is to replace the temporary application of PACE powers in respect of customs officials with a permanent legislative solution in Northern Ireland—one that grants those officers greater legitimacy and assurance in the use of their PACE powers.

The second purpose is to bring immigration officers in Northern Ireland—specifically those engaged in criminal investigation work—in line with their law enforcement counterparts in the police and the National Crime Agency. This will remove the reliance on the incomplete powers afforded to them by the various Immigration Acts. It will also reduce the need for multiple briefings for the same operation; minimise the confusion around which officers are empowered to fulfil certain functions; and, I hope, improve the situation all round. It will also support interoperability with An Garda Síochána counterparts working in cross-border operations.

By addressing these dual needs, the regulations we have brought forward will provide the legislative framework that is needed for customs and immigration investigations conducted by both Border Force and Immigration Enforcement in Northern Ireland. The powers conferred on immigration officers and customs officials by virtue of these regulations will be limited to the exercise of their functions in relation to immigration and customs matters where a criminal prosecution is realistically in prospect. Only those officers who have been trained in connection with the exercise of these powers will be permitted to use them.

To summarise, the Government are wholly committed to tackling immigration and border-related crime throughout the United Kingdom. These regulations will aid us in that vital endeavour. I commend them to the Committee and beg to move.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his explanation of this draft statutory instrument. I declare an interest as an outgoing member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee; our clerk is presiding over our proceedings here today.

I was intrigued when I read the submission from the committee again; my noble friend the Minister referred to that. Why the delay in implementation? We had to wait until some 17 years later. The Conservatives were in government during many of those years, so perhaps this question might be better addressed to the shadow Minister on the Opposition Front Bench, who might be able to offer an explanation for the delay; it seems quite incredible that that is the situation and that we did not have a service in Northern Ireland.

I also point out that these are issues of particular relevance to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, because they are dealing with and have direct responsibility for issues to do with Article 2 of the Windsor Framework, which deals specifically with issues in the wider purview of the Good Friday agreement in relation to immigration and migrants to ensure that people are properly protected. Maybe some of those issues will impact on other legal judgments that have taken place, so perhaps my noble friend the Minister could outline what discussions may have taken place with those commissions. Could he also outline—because work is required with the Police Service of Northern Ireland—what work will take place with it and what work took place with it during that intervening period? Were reports made from the Home Office directly to the Northern Ireland Policing Board? Could I receive assurances that the PACE SI will adhere to the principles of equality, fairness and human rights? What discussions took place in that intervening period with An Garda Síochána and the Home Office to counter any potential for terrorism or for people to seek to avail of potential opportunities through movement on a north-south basis on the island of Ireland?

I thank my noble friend the Minister for his explanations. I look forward to the explanation for the lack of representation in those 17 years from the shadow Minister—and I support the PACE SI.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly on these regulations. I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this SI today. The purpose of this instrument is straightforward; it extends to immigration officers and designated customs officials in Northern Ireland the powers contained in the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989—powers that their counterparts in England and Wales have exercised for more than a decade under the equivalent provisions of PACE 1984.

Without this instrument, officers in Northern Ireland would continue to rely on a patchwork of powers under the immigration Acts, which the Government argue do not align with the framework used elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The intention here is therefore to ensure consistency, improve co-operation between agencies and provide officers with the tools that they need to tackle organised immigration crime effectively. We support these regulations today.

The equality impact assessment makes it clear that these changes are not expected to lead to a significant increase in arrests or prosecutions. Rather, the effect should be to strengthen cross-authority working between criminal and financial investigations, Border Force and the police, and to support the effective operation of the common travel area. On that basis, and given our long-standing support for ensuring that immigration officials have the powers necessary to implement existing law, we support the instrument and deem it totally necessary.

This is a modest and largely technical instrument, bringing Northern Ireland into alignment with powers established elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We support that objective while recognising the sensitivities that have surrounded the timing of its introduction. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

Before my noble friend the Minister makes his response, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, if he can provide any explanation of why, during that period, there was no implementation of this SI in Northern Ireland.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I cannot answer those questions. I was not here at the time, so I cannot. Sorry.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

I do not wish to delay proceedings. I recall that the noble Lord came into your Lordships’ House at the same time as me around October or November 2019. From my recollection, the Conservatives were in government. So, the noble Lord is bound to have had some recollection and he had Front Bench responsibilities.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I was not the Minister. I cannot answer the question, and it is not my place to answer it now.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, perhaps I can assist my noble friend with some comments. Self-evidently, I was a Minister in the Labour Governments of 1997 to 2010, and the power to make these regulations came into play originally when I was in government. But self-evidently, nothing happened between 2010 and the regulations being brought forward now.

I am not party, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, is not, to what happened in those years because for nine of them I was in opposition and, for five of them, I was not in Parliament. But I can potentially help my noble friend by saying that it was initially planned to extend the PACE powers to Northern Ireland in 2013, alongside the same processes being undertaken in England and Wales. I am advised that limited resources and/or competing priorities meant that that was not implemented. There was also the additional factor of the closure of the Belfast criminal financial investigations office between 2017 and 2022, which made it difficult to pursue those regulations until now. Questions of why those decisions on resources or legislative capacity were made and why the office was closed are beyond my capacity, but those are the facts of the assessment that has been made. That is what I have been advised.

My noble friend also asked what changes these powers make. The regulations give officers a number of powers that they do not already have. Immigration criminal investigations in Northern Ireland will now benefit from a number of provisions of PACE, notably: Section 19 in relation to powers of seizure in relation to evidence of non-immigration offences; Section 8, relating to warrants; Sections 9 and Schedule 1, which give access to excluded or special procedural material; Section 20, giving extension of seizure powers to include information on computers; Section 46A on power of arrest for failure to answer bail; and Sections 18 and 32 on simplified powers of seizure and search.

Border Force officers with customs powers will no longer have to rely on the temporary measures that were set out in Section 22 of BCIA back in the day. Therefore, officers will benefit from the following provisions not currently applied in 2007: guidance and consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions; telephone review of custody; detention after charge, search and examination; and a number of other points.

These powers have successfully been exercised in England and Wales with no controversy over the past 13 years. When the powers come into force, agreed by Parliament, which I hope will be soon, then in late February or early March, pending parliamentary approval, they will be available to customs officers on the ground. That is important because the powers will be available also to officers from the rest of the United Kingdom undertaking in-country investigations when required. Immigration Enforcement officers currently undertake criminal investigations and have powers of arrest and detention. Border Force designated customs officers do not lead on criminal investigations, which is a point that my noble friend asked about. This is done predominantly by the police or the National Crime Agency. Again, she asked about consultation with the Northern Ireland Executive. We have had no response on those issues from the Executive, and I am taking no response in terms of no comment.

I also potentially do not have the detail of the consultation with the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission at this moment but, if my noble friend will allow me, I will look into that and respond to her in due course—if need be. On reflection, I think a full equality impact assessment probably has been completed and that would have included discussions in which the two bodies that my noble friend mentioned would have had an opportunity to input.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for his response so far and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for his response. There is a particular issue here about the interpretation of Article 2 of the Windsor Framework, which is seen under the greater aegis of the Good Friday agreement as extending not solely to residents of Northern Ireland but to those who come into Northern Ireland as migrants, as part of immigration. It is important, because both organisations have a dedicated mechanism, under Article 2, and responsibility for the implementation of that.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend and, as I say, will look into specifically whether either of the bodies that she mentioned has made any comments, but I not aware of any. The point on which I give her assurance—that the full equality impact assessment has been completed—is one that I hope will assuage any of her concerns. But I will check that and write to my noble friend if needed.

In conclusion, the purpose of these regulations is to ensure that we give additional powers to tackle bad actors on immigration and criminal activity. I am grateful for the welcome from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and for the testing comments of my noble friend, but I commend this instrument to the Committee.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 308 and 309 are closely bound with Amendment 313 tabled by my noble friend Lady Goudie. If the Committee will allow me, I will ask my noble friend Lady Ritchie to speak to her amendments and on behalf of our noble friend Lady Goudie, who is unable to be here tonight. That being the case, I will then respond to both the Opposition Front Bench and any comments made by my noble friends, given that the lead amendment is mine but is very much tied up with a range of amendments. In that case, I will sit down and allow the proceedings to continue. I beg to move.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I will address the amendments in my own name, Amendments 316A and 316B, relating to prostitution, and Amendments 310 to 313 in the name of my noble friend Lady Goudie. I also support the amendments in the name of my noble friend the Minister.

Like my noble friend Lady Goudie, I wish to address the exploitation of women and girls. As she has outlined in the amendments, which have also been signed by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, women and girls are trafficked, exploited and routinely abused in prostitution for the profit of others. I fully support all her amendments, which would finally bring laws in England and Wales into alignment with those in Northern Ireland following the work of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, when he was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The other amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lady Goudie are clearly needed, as they shift the burden of criminality from vulnerable women on to the men who buy sex, the traffickers, the pimps and the platforms that facilitate and profit from prostitution. Quite simply, my noble friend Lady Goudie has my full support.

I move on to address Amendments 316A and 316B in my name. Commercial sexual exploitation is a continuum. Women move from one form of prostitution to another. For example, a women may be involved in pornography production but moves to selling sex in person or vice versa. Women often go from in-person stripping to online camming sites. I hasten to add that I do not have any particular knowledge of this issue, but I am aware of it. I thought I would add that piece of information. While the location or act may change, what rarely changes is the exploitation of the women involved.

I will focus on just one aspect of this: online sexual exploitation via camming sites. These are websites where someone is requested to perform sexual activities in front of a webcam for paying subscribers. These content creators, as they are known—although I am reluctant to use the phrase, as it diminishes the exploitation—are usually women, and the subscribers are usually men; in other words, women sell sex, and men buy it. These sites come with their own specific dangers and types of exploitation.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I cannot support the Bill, and I am also opposed in principle to assisted dying. Those in favour have spoken today of those who face physical pain at the end of their lives having personal autonomy. That is not a view that I share, but I do believe that more needs to be done to address the state of palliative care in the UK to improve the treatment of those at the end of life.

However, of most concern to me is that the Bill poses an inherent risk to the elderly and disabled. Decisions to end life are complex and not simply procedural. They take place in the context of individual daily lives. The context of many elderly and disabled people today should raise red flags about how we are caring for them and whether they will face abuse and pressure to end their lives. It is a context where 46.6% of those who have died in Oregon have cited being a burden; and where 21.1% of those who died in 2023 in Canada whose death was reasonably foreseeable cited isolation or loneliness as a factor in their decision-making. Age UK reports that 1.4 million older people in the UK are often lonely. According to Hospice UK, 90,000 of our citizens die in poverty every year—that is 247 people daily who have faced the financial impact of a terminal illness.

It is also a context where, as Disability Rights UK has observed, the Government, sadly, do not have a good track record of protecting the vulnerable and disabled—I am talking about all Governments in the past 30 years. The Bill poses a danger to disabled people. The British Geriatrics Society says that many of its members are not confident that effective legal safeguards could be developed to protect older people from unwarranted harms. Perhaps most worryingly, research from The Other Half in June stated that we should prepare for one in seven of those being assisted to die in a single year being a recent victim of elder abuse.

This is all is especially pertinent in a nation that is rapidly ageing. In 2022, 19% of our population was aged over 65, and this is expected to rise by 27% by 2072. With several millions more elderly and sick people to be expected in the coming decades, what will be our message to them? Will it be that they are a burden on our NHS and economy and should therefore consider ending their lives before they get worse? As a House, we have a duty to protect the vulnerable. Should not our response to the elders of our nation be to reverently love and support their need? Should it not be to invest in our care services such that they do not have to suffer alone?

I am not persuaded by the apparent procedural safeguards contained in the Bill. None of them does anything to ameliorate the concerns I have raised for the elderly in particular. I will be supporting the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and my noble friend Lady Berger. I believe in letting us fulfil the duty of the State to protect the vulnerable and not encouraging them to die.

Illegal Migration: Pull Factors

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I cannot give the noble Lord chapter and verse on all that detail in the half a minute that I have to answer his question, but I can say that 35,000 failed asylum seekers who came on small boats were removed last year, which is 13% more than in the 12 months previous, when his Government were in charge. There has been a 51% increase in the number of people who have been arrested and prosecuted on illegal working visits. We are taking action on these difficulties. Although he says that the figure is high now, and it is, it is nowhere near the 43,000 people a year who were coming in 2018. In 2016, only 400 people crossed the channel, and I think he knows who was in charge when that rise occurred.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, could my noble friend the Minister indicate whether the Government considered working in the social care sector as one of the pull factors for illegal migrants entering the UK when they decided in their White Paper to remove the social care sector from the list of occupations that can recruit migrant workers? Did they take into consideration the need for adequate staffing in the sector and the reported high number of vacancies?

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Bill, and the collaboration and working manner of my noble friend the Minister. The Bill is about improving the safety of the public, as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.

I am well aware, coming from Northern Ireland and having been a former public representative for a long period, of the impact that terrorism had on our local communities and people, and of how it robbed families of their loved ones, livelihoods, homes and businesses and placed many restrictions on their lives as a result of the ensuing security measures. Thankfully, political dialogue became the prime order of the day. It showed that terrorism had failed and that compromise and the Good Friday agreement succeeded. That is the issue that we have to address—the need for compromise and political development—but in many cases this new form of terrorism may not lend itself to political dialogue.

Although I support the Bill, I realise that there are some challenges, and I have some questions for my noble friend the Minister about its implementation. I am very much in favour of the concept of the protection of premises from terrorism, considering what happened in London in March 2017, when I was a Member in the other place and we were all in lockdown in the Chamber, what happened on London Bridge and what happened at the Manchester Arena in June 2017. In that regard, I pay tribute to Figen Murray and the Martyn’s Law campaign team, who have demonstrated such tenacity, fervour, diligence and determination in the face of tragedy and adversity.

However, I do not want any additional financial burdens to be placed on the owners of premises to protect their properties and restrict their civil liberties without a clear indication of adequate financial and other support measures being put in place. What assistance, including the provision of finance, will be provided to the owners of premises to ensure full protection from the ravages of terrorism? At the end of the day, there must be proportionate risk.

I have received representations from the Heritage Railway Association. In this, I am minded of my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who chairs the APPG for Heritage Rail; I know that similar representations have been made to that group. I have a heritage railway in my town of Downpatrick, and its members feel that the Bill’s provisions and its application to heritage railways are not realistic or proportionate to the risk. Many heritage railways are staffed by volunteers who operate on a part-time basis. I have also received representations from the insurance industry and from Martyn’s Law, which support this legislation and want it to move forward, but I would like my noble friend the Minister to favourably consider the position of heritage railways. The Heritage Railway Association believes that the legislation is premises-based, and its guiding principle is to require different levels of terrorism protection by reference to capacity in terms of the premises. For the purposes of the Bill, heritage railways and tramways are treated like hospitality and entertainment venues, including all parts of a railway line from end to end.

I understand that a Minister wrote a letter to the Heritage Railway Association, dated 23 December, stating that a railway line itself and passengers on a train are excluded from the Bill’s scope—I understand from his gesticulation that it was my noble friend the Minister on the Front Bench. I hope and believe that that exclusion may help to reduce the likely impact on some heritage railways, but I feel it needs to be clearly stated in the Bill. As it stands, the legislation would effectively place many heritage railways in the higher-capacity category, adding significant and costly compliance burdens. What assurances can my noble friend the Minister provide about this issue to assuage the fears of the volunteers in the heritage railway movement, and could they be placed in the Bill?

It is also felt that organisations including heritage, cultural and tourism attractions that rely on volunteers will face higher training costs or, if volunteers choose not to take on responsibilities required under the Bill, those organisations may be faced with the costs of engaging additional personnel to meet compliance requirements. What provision will be made for the training of volunteers and the owners of heritage and tourism premises? This factor was raised in a representation received today from the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health’s personnel.

The Heritage Railway Association feels that the Bill as drafted perhaps does not address the realities of dealing with those burdens. The threshold for eligibility is too low and that could make some businesses, particularly those in the tourism and cultural sector, unviable. Perhaps the Minister could advise whether effective consideration will now be given to their inclusion on the excluded list.

Coming from Northern Ireland, I suppose there is a fear about the provisions in the Bill extending there. I would like the Minister to clarify that. Why are the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive not included, since this issue was discussed by the Assembly commission? It has overall responsibility for the management of the Assembly and for the Parliament buildings at Stormont, so what is the issue there?

Do the provisions extend to tourism and heritage attractions? What additional assistance will be provided to the owners of premises? Will small premises be excluded, and what are the size thresholds for eligibility for businesses to comply with this legislation?

Finally, considering the political and febrile history of Northern Ireland, what discussions have taken place with the Northern Ireland Executive and the Justice Minister regarding the implications of this legislation? With the need for additional investment in police resources in Northern Ireland, what discussions have taken place with the chief constable regarding the implications and consequences of implementing the legislation, including capacity levels for enforcement?

In conclusion, I support the thrust of the Bill. I support it in its entirety because, undoubtedly, terrorism in any form is a divisive, cancerous menace in our society, and that is irrespective of where it comes from.

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Search, Seizure and Detention of Property: Code of Practice) (Northern Ireland) Order 2024

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

This debate relates to another statutory instrument that was debated in Committee on 11 November. I therefore will not go into too much detail on this instrument’s context but will briefly remind the Committee that it relates to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. This Act contained a wide range of reforms to reduce economic crime and increase transparency over corporate entities conducting business in the United Kingdom. This included reforms to enable targeted information sharing to tackle money laundering and remove reporting burdens on business. Additionally, the Act introduced new intelligence-gathering powers for law enforcement and reform of outdated criminal corporate liability laws.

The legislation also introduced reforms to keep pace with the use of emerging technologies to launder money and commit economic crime, including a new regime to tackle the use of criminal or terrorist crypto assets. The measure also introduced new search, seizure and detention powers when crypto assets are used illegally or for terrorist purposes. The legislation aims to remove criminal gains and disrupt the ability to use emerging technologies for illicit purposes.

I see a heavy Northern Ireland contingent here—it is like the old days, and I am very pleased to see colleagues here today. They will be particularly pleased to know that this debate relates to the order that came into force in Northern Ireland, as well as England and Wales. As of the end of October, across the United Kingdom as a whole the new powers have been exercised in over 90 cases.

I will not cover the content of the powers, as they were debated extensively by both Houses during the passage of the Bill, but will outline briefly the purpose of the instrument, which is to establish a code of practice. The code of practice being brought into operation by this statutory instrument is the search, seizure and detention of property code for Northern Ireland. Codes of practice determine and clarify the circumstances in which powers may be exercised to ensure that they are applied consistently and proportionately. This is vital, given the broad range of law enforcement agencies to which the powers can apply. The guidance on the exercise of the powers in the code in this order sets out clearly, I hope, the required powers to safeguard against improper use.

The search, seizure and detention code is made by the Home Secretary to guide the exercise of search and seizure powers in the context of criminal confiscation investigations for specified officers who operate in Northern Ireland. The order sets out the officers and the circumstances, and it gives strong guidance on reserved powers.

This draft instrument is required to complete the cycle that we started with the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. It will ensure that all the necessary legislation is in place and that law enforcement can operate the powers proportionately and in accordance with the aim of the legislation. I expect and hope to get some questions from colleagues across the Committee, but I hope that that is a reasonably clear outline of the order and its purpose. I commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my registered interest as a member of your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, in which we considered this SI in some detail. I welcome my noble friend to the Front Bench. We well recall him serving as a Minister in Northern Ireland; in fact, I succeeded him in the Department for Social Development and I remember the handover meeting very well. The following day, he went off to be a Minister of State here.

I welcome this statutory instrument. It is important that we move to a normal society in Northern Ireland, that the proceeds of crime are adequately addressed and that people refrain from crime in Northern Ireland, where we have the association of crime with paramilitarism. They are two scourges in our society that must be eliminated.

I have certain questions for my noble friend. While this is a reserved matter, the code is to be published by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland. When will it publish the code, and will it be by way of a statement in the Assembly? Maybe there has already been one. Is an assessment available of the success of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in Northern Ireland? I realise that will require a detailed answer, so I would be content if my noble friend could provide one in writing. I note that there is no impact assessment; can he indicate why? Will the police resourcing of the implementation of the code come out of the Northern Ireland block grant? There is a little difficulty there in that policing resources in Northern Ireland, in both funding and people power, are gravely overstretched.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, there is obviously a conspiracy here: the people running the Football Governance Bill have obviously decided to keep us all occupied here so that we are not dealing with them. Perhaps we should go into the Chamber later and see if we can make a contribution.

There are two sides to this: the devolved issue and the national issue. I want to explore the interface between the two and ask whether, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, mentioned, there is a resource implication. In other words, are any additional resources required? With crypto assets and so on, we are dealing with very sophisticated people who have access to complicated software and things like that. Are we capable of dealing with that as quickly as we can?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Earl for his support for the order, and I will return to his questions in due course. I am also grateful for the contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Empey, Lord Hay, Lord Browne, Lord Morrow and Lord McCrea, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. It feels like old times. I have not been a Minister in Northern Ireland since 2007. I had two fabulous years there, and it is good to see that scrutiny of government continues as it did when I was in Northern Ireland previously. It was good to hear the points that were raised.

I remind colleagues and noble Lords that the purpose of this order is to provide a code of practice to ensure that guidance is given, on a reserve basis, to officers who exercise the powers under the Act, in order to give proper accountability for the use of those powers by those officers. Colleagues and noble Lords will know that that includes scope on the search and seizure powers and limitations on the exercise of powers. It also provides for seeking senior officer approval and it gives reasonable grounds for suspicion, refusal of prior approval, limitation on the exercise of powers by immigration officers and a whole series of measures that are designed, in that code, to put a framework around the operation of the powers under the Act.

I will answer noble Lords’ points in a different order, but I hope we will cover them all. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, talked about the date of implementation and the discussion with the Northern Ireland Assembly, as well as the impact assessment and the impact of the Act. The Northern Ireland codes came into operation on 17 July 2024. Those codes have been published and are available. Northern Ireland ran a public consultation on its code and any citizen or organisation in Northern Ireland was able to comment upon this code. The codes in Northern Ireland have been approved by the Northern Ireland Assembly on a cross-party basis.

The noble Baroness mentioned the impact of the Act. From April 2014 to the end of October, 90 cases have been exercised with this new power. Those figures are for Northern Ireland, England and Wales. I am not able today to give her and others a breakdown of the particular usage in Northern Ireland, as opposed to England and Wales, but the powers have been used 90 times. Noting what the noble Earl and other colleagues said, I say that the purpose of this order is to ensure that we take action against people who wish to use cryptocurrency for illicit criminal purposes. The code we are discussing is about putting in place the framework so that the powers are not open to challenge, so that there is clarity about how they are used and so that, when they are used, individuals have the ability to challenge them—but there is a legal back-up to ensure that, when bad actors are doing bad things, they cannot wriggle out of those bad things by saying that those powers were used improperly. That is the purpose of this code. I hope that answers the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Browne, and others, but, if not, please feel free to intervene. Again, these powers were subject to wide discussion and consultation generally.

The noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown, particularly raised what happens to the assets when seized. I am pleased to tell him that, when a court has been satisfied that the crypto assets are the proceeds of crime or are terrorist crypto assets, the asset holder—whoever that may be—will be permanently deprived of those assets. They will be sold and the proceeds will go into supporting the compensation of victims—that is an important aspect, to make sure that victims are at the heart of this—or they could be retained by the state and reinvested into tackling economic crime and countering terrorism downstream.

We want to stop the type of activity that is taking place. Seizing assets means that people are still trying to get some assets through. Hopefully, we can get to a position where this is a deterrent as well and stops people wishing to act with these assets. But, in the event that they do, that they are convicted and that there is an asset recovery regime in place, those assets will be used for the wider community at home.

A number of noble Lords asked about the impact assessment. We produced an impact assessment on the legislation, which was assessed and went through a number of routines—including on 11 November in this Room—and we finalised it very recently. I point out to the noble Earl and others that there is cross-party support for the legislation. It would have possibly gone through earlier had we not had the great event of the general election in July, which has propelled me from a quieter life back here. It also meant we had some delay in our cross-party discussions and agreements on the legislation.

We did not have a specific impact assessment on the powers in the code, but I hope they have been established in the way they have so that they can be operated and safeguarded. There was a consultation, which has come forward, although there was no impact assessment.

Another point noble Lords mentioned is the confiscation regime, which is largely for the Northern Ireland Assembly and devolved matters. I am repeating myself, but it is important to reflect on what we are discussing: the code is about how UK officials in immigration, Border Force or other named organisations in the code are held to account by a standard set by this House, the House of Commons and the UK Government on those devolved areas.

I think the points the noble Earl mentioned have been covered; if not, I am happy to reflect on Hansard in due course and any points that have been made by noble Lords and try to refer back to them. However, I think and hope there is a co-terminosity of agreement between us in this House, from His Majesty’s Official Opposition through to the Ulster Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party and the SDLP in Northern Ireland.

We are trying to ensure that crypto assets under this legislation are deterred and, if they are found to be used for criminal activity, seized. There is a code of practice that monitors the use of officers for seizing those assets. If those assets are seized for criminal purposes, they are wound back into the community in a positive way. That sends a signal to both sides of the border in Northern Ireland in relation to the Administrations there that the use of crypto assets is not an acceptable way of financing criminal activity or terrorism.

I will check this outside of the Committee, but to answer the noble Lord, Lord Hay, there has not been any formal consultation with the Irish Government on these powers because they are for the Northern Ireland Assembly, under the joint leadership of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, the Justice Minister and the Home Office, under the leadership of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. However, I believe they are not areas that would cause concern as they are entirely matters for within the confines of the United Kingdom, with different responsibilities between the two different agencies.

With that, I hope the Committee can accept the order. If I missed any points, I will reflect on Hansard and write. If anybody wishes to intervene on any point I have not made, please do so now. I can see my noble friend Lady Ritchie ready to bungee jump into action, so I will let her intervene.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for his very detailed answers. Could he indicate whether any discussions have taken place with the Minister and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland? If not, will they take place on the implementation of the code and this SI?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As the Minister responsible for this order, I have not had any discussion with Naomi Long or the Department of Justice on these matters, but I hope it will give some confidence to my noble friend to know that it is my intention to meet our counterparts in Northern Ireland. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has, I believe, already met the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and I intend to do the same. I have a potential visit to Northern Ireland planned for the new year to discuss areas of mutual co-operation. I will make sure that this issue is raised as one of many items on the agenda of any future meeting in January. With that, I commend this order to the Committee.

Istanbul Convention: Article 59

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government have a very strong strategy for a mission against violence against women and girls. There are a number of points in that plan but one of its key elements is how we can raise education in schools, particularly for young males and against some role models that now appear on social media and elsewhere. It is an extremely important question that we are trying to evaluate and take forward shortly as part of the plan to halve violence against women and girls. I hope that the noble Baroness can then comment on it and help to support the Government in implementing it.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, will my noble friend take steps to talk to the Ministers for Justice in the devolved nations and regions—particularly Northern Ireland, where there have been growing levels of femicide? These have been particularly marked in the last few weeks, when a number of young ladies have been murdered and other women are now afraid to walk the streets. In that regard, will my noble friend talk to the appropriate Ministers in the devolved nations and regions about mitigation measures to safeguard women in the home and the wider environment?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It should be a fundamental right of women to walk the streets free of fear and free of potential abuse or violence of the seriousness of murder, which my noble friend mentioned. We are discussing very closely with the devolved Administrations how we can resolve the problem and meet the challenge that the Government have set of halving violence against women and girls. The Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls, Jess Phillips, will meet the Northern Ireland Ministers and, while respecting their devolved role, will encourage them to ensure that we tackle this issue on a joint basis.

EU Settlement Scheme

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Earl for bringing that question forward. The first duty of the Home Office is to keep our citizens safe and to make sure that those who have criminal activity are punished by being sent to prison or, in this case, potentially by deportation. It is very important that we reflect on that. A large portion of the 9% of refusals are individuals who have a record of criminal behaviour and therefore have been refused under the settled status scheme. We will monitor that ongoing situation, and I assure the noble Earl that criminality has no place within the EU settled status scheme.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

We have plenty of time. We will have the noble Baroness first and then the noble Lord.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, the previous Government issued EU settlement scheme status to people yet later denied that they had any rights under the withdrawal agreement. Will my noble friend the Minister provide an assurance today that the Government will ensure that everyone with status under the EU settlement scheme is a beneficiary of the withdrawal agreement?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I can give my noble friend that assurance with a firm yes.