Crime and Policing Bill

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, I r support Amendment 450 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster. Like the noble Baroness, and many others in this Chamber, the legacy of terrorism is not merely an abstract term for me. It is not a sentence on a piece of paper. It is a real legacy that still affects people to this very day. It is remembered in empty chairs at the dinner table, in empty pews at church, physical and psychological scars, and in communities still working hard to build trust after decades of fear. In that context, the glorification of terrorism is not simply offensive but harmful. It reopens wounds, undermines reconciliation, and sends a message that the suffering of victims is somehow secondary to a warped narrative of heroism or resistance.

The noble Baroness’s amendment addresses a serious gap in our legal system. At present, the offence of encouraging terrorism includes the glorification of terrorist acts only where it can be shown that such glorification encourages others to emulate that conduct; in other words, the prosecution must demonstrate not only that terrorism was praised but that the praise was likely to inspire imitation. Of course, I fully support that extent of the existing legislation, but the threshold should be raised further to account for the rampant glorification of terrorism.

We know that radicalisation and normalisation do not operate only through direct instructions. People are rarely told in explicit terms to copy an attack. Instead, extremist messaging often works by celebrating past acts, portraying perpetrators as martyrs or heroes, and presenting violence as justified or necessary. That justification that there was no other way than terrorist acts came from the lips of the First Minister, Michelle O’Neill.

Over time, that steady diet of praise and romanticisation of violence can shift perceptions, especially among the young, making the step towards active support for violence feel less extreme and simply a culmination of calculated indoctrination. In Northern Ireland, we have witnessed at first hand how cultural and political narratives can remake paramilitary violence into something that is lauded and, disgustingly, admired.

References to paramilitaries appear in murals, slogans, music, and online spaces, endlessly. Everywhere we look across Belfast, in our schools and universities, in shops and on street corners, there are daunting inscriptions of acclaim about the IRA. We even have an entire political party that is yet to find it within itself to admit that IRA terrorism was wrong.

This amendment is so important because we have to think of the future and our younger generation, who now chant “Up the Ra” carelessly, believing it to be an act of rebellion and resistance. They look to their political leaders, who tolerate this: indeed, they encourage and applaud it. Let us pause for a moment and think about that. They may not be glorifying terrorism with a view to directly inciting others, but they are normalising it so radically that it would make it acceptable for someone to engage in terrorism, believing it to be morally right after years of repeated misinformation and miseducation. Yet for victims and their families, these are reminders of the bombings, shootings and intimidation, not symbols of pride.

This is a very personal and touching amendment because, like the noble Baroness, I and my loved ones were victims of terrorism too. For a moment, I take you to two young people, a young girl of 21 and her brother of 16. That day she was engaged to be married. She went to get her engagement ring and, of course, she was excited to show her engagement ring to her aunt and to her loved ones: this was wonderful. The future was her oyster and the future was wonderful. They left to show the engagement ring. Some family members joined them in the car. As they went down the road, they were stopped because they were told by another person that there was a car over the hedge. They went to help and noticed the car had its nose into the field, but there was no one in the car. Somebody said, “Just watch, there could be a bomb”, and as they walked from that scene, the car blew up. Those two young people, aged 16 and 21, were blown to bits.

How do I know? I was the one who was sent to the morgue to identify them. That girl was a beauty queen but, as I said before, there was nothing beautiful that day in what I saw. The 16 year-old lad did not even get on to the slab. His few bits were lying on the floor and I was not allowed to look. But then they did pull it back to show just a few bones. That was all that was left of the lad, a boy of only 16. This is reality. Their mother died of a broken heart shortly after that. I understand why. But who really cares? Who really cares except those who carry the burden, day after day.

Then they hear “Up the Ra” as a chant by young people, encouraged by their political leaders, who think that it is acceptable and normal. That is why we have broken hearts. So when I say to noble Lords that this amendment is necessary for the safeguarding of our younger people and the safety of our future, and to prevent the further glorification of terrorism, know that I say it with the full emotion of remembering everything that terrorism took from my life and the many people who would be here today if it were not for it.

Even when there is no expressive call to take up arms from individuals who glorify, the effect can still be to sanitise a campaign that caused immense suffering to all of us. If a statement stops short of urging others to replicate violence, it may fall outside the offence. That creates a loophole where the celebration of terrorism can circulate freely, so long as it is carefully worded. This amendment would remove the requirement to prove the encouragement of emulation and recognises a simple truth: glorification itself can be dangerous.

The same principle applies to contemporary terrorist organisations across the world. Groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis are associated with serious violence against civilians and are proscribed under UK law, yet we continue to see instances where their actions or symbols are publicly praised or celebrated without an explicit call for others to follow their example.

This amendment would not criminalise discussion, analysis or criticism of past events. It would not prevent historians, journalists or communities examining the causes and the consequences of conflict. This distinction is between explaining or debating terrorism and praising it. Leaving this loophole in place risks sending the wrong signal that, so long as no one says, “Do it again”, the public celebration of terrorist violence is acceptable. It is for that reason that I support this amendment.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, we have heard a variety of opinions, and I wish to express mine on what is a vital issue: that of life and death. As a gospel minister, I have been present at the sick and dying beds of so many of my fellow travellers to eternity. It can be a difficult and heart-breaking experience for the individual and their loved ones. But sickness is a reality for us all at some time in our lives and death is inevitable; we all must needs die. Death passes no dwelling, whether the occupant be rich or poor. It is a great leveller.

I thank those who sent me numerous letters and emails, from deeply concerned individuals, health professionals and organisations expressing various viewpoints. We in this House must made a decision about the legislation presented to us. I unashamedly state that I believe that human beings are unique among God’s creatures in being made in the image of God. When our first parents rebelled against the revealed will of God, they chose their own way and nothing has changed, for the accepted opinion of society today is “It’s my body, my life and nobody can and should tell me what to do”. As in the Book of Judges, every man did that which was right in his own eyes. I know that philosophy is very popular today. Not one of us decided when we would be born, and the cardinal question is: have we the right to decide when we should die? Again, the word of God says that it is appointed unto men once to die, not appointed by them. We live in a secular society that has pushed God out of its reckonings, and it wanders on aimlessly and hopelessly, seeing little reason or meaning in life itself.

Each of us can mention individual harrowing cases of the severe struggles endured in life and the pain of death suffered by our fellow human beings. Some conclude that the answer to these stories of human suffering is to assist the person to end their life, rather than improve the management of the end of life.

The Bill makes it a legal right for patients to access assisted dying, but does not mandate a comparable right to access other end-of-life services. We are aware that patients with a diagnosis of a terminal illness are very vulnerable and weak, and that elderly people are at serious risk of coercion and left to feel that they are only a burden to their families. I have heard that so many times in my ministry.

Estimating how long a patient will survive is also, at best, very difficult, even for specialists. I know of patients who were given a three or six-month prognosis who are still alive today three years later, enjoying life and making cherished memories with their loved ones. Were they to act on a similar prognosis using the Bill, that decision would be fatal and final.

The legislation before us is called the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, but, in reality, it is assisted suicide. Euthanasia is killing and, in most countries, killing another person is considered murder, even if the intention is to ease the pain or if the person has a terminal illness. Giving one category of sick people a legal right to exercise autonomy by killing themselves logically opens the door to, and creates the legal conditions for, expanding it to others. Indeed, an expansion has already been supported by some of the groups that are supporting the Bill.

It was only last Wednesday that we marked World Suicide Prevention Day. Today we are debating a Bill that creates an exception. One day we tell them, “Don’t give up”, but at the same time we make legislation to allow the NHS to give drugs to make people end their lives. Some years ago, Parliament rejected capital punishment on the basis that, if one innocent life was taken, it would be one too many. I ask: how many innocent elderly or sick people will die through this legislation if it is enacted? I have no doubt that the number will be great and I strenuously oppose the Bill.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 16th July 2025 Lords Chamber

I say respectfully to the Minister—and his words at a previous stage were very warm—that I hope that tonight, collectively, with the Government, we can come to a conclusion and find a way forward so that every family that faces this unthinkable choice finds that, finally, the state is on their side.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, I want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey- Thompson, for introducing this amendment. I also want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for the very powerful personal testimony he has given in this House. It is never easy; there is nothing more difficult for any parent than to walk the pathway of the serious illness or death of a child. In fact, at best it is often a very lonely pathway that lasts not simply until the time of the child’s passing, but for many years after.

This is a very compassionate amendment, and I trust that the House will support it. I am happy to support it if the noble Baroness puts it to a vote.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I speak for these Benches in support of Amendment 97 from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Noble Lords will remember that it was regrouped, and I referred to it in an earlier debate, as so many of these issues are interlinked. Rightly, it introduces a right for parents to take paid leave

“to care for a child between the ages of 29 days and 16 years who is receiving … specified types of medical or palliative care”.

The amendment is a valuable addition that recognises the significant demands placed on families caring for seriously ill children. I was amazed when I discovered that our laws provide only for parents of babies under 28 days via the neonatal care Act.

I found the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, very moving, and I thank him for sharing that sad history with us. This is a sad history, and we are just trying to put right the problems in some way. It has been referred to as Hugh’s law, after the child diagnosed with cancer, and I think that is how many of us will remember it.

Amendment 97 would close the gap and create a stand-alone entitlement, modelled on neonatal leave, to ensure that no parent is forced to choose between their child and their livelihood. The proposal, according to figures I have, would cost between just £6 million and £7 million a year, yet the difference it would make to families in crisis is immeasurable. It is targeted and reasonable, and it is a compassionate step forward to protect some of the most vulnerable working families in the UK. It is a positive and complementary amendment, and I commend it to the House.

Public Order Act 1986: Section 5

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government are absolutely committed to free speech and to ensuring that we are an open, diverse country where freedom of speech is valued and freedom of religion is maintained. If the noble Baroness is referring to a particular case that I am aware of in relation to the burning of the Koran recently, I take the view that the law should apply no matter what the religion or faith that is potentially impinged upon. The offence there was not because burning the Koran was illegal. The actions of the individual were seen by the Crown Prosecution Service, following police investigation, to be harassment and abusive action. In that case, the police investigated and collected evidence and put it to the CPS. The CPS looked at that evidence and the case was put before a court, where the individual was found guilty. The individual concerned is now appealing. I cannot say any more about that case. However, whatever we do, it is important that the law is applied equally, fairly and across all religions.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, if such a review were to take place, would the Minister and the Government reaffirm that exercising the freedom to stand silently praying in a public place is not an act of hostility and should therefore not be considered a criminal office within the United Kingdom?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The act of standing and making a protest is a fair and open act. It will not be covered by Section 5 of the Public Order Act. If the noble Lord is referring, as he may be—and if he is not, I apologise—to the question of abortion clinics and abortion legislation, the Government have passed legislation on this matter. Silent protest is allowed, but not within a limit set by law. That is fair and appropriate for people who wish to protest, as well as for people who wish to access a service that this House and the House of Commons have passed as being legal.

Terrorism: Glorification

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Foster for securing this debate asking His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to deal with the glorification of terrorism. Page 3 of the helpful House of Lords Library paper outlines the definition of terrorism. It says that the 2000 Act covers anyone who

“promotes or encourages terrorism, including the unlawful glorification of terrorism”.

Section 1.2 is headed “How is glorifying terrorism defined?” and says:

“Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 makes the encouragement of terrorism an offence”,


including any offence that

“glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences”.

Michelle O’Neill, who is now First Minister of Northern Ireland, stated in a BBC interview in 2022 that there was “no alternative” to the IRA campaign of violence before the 1998 Belfast agreement. I believe that the overwhelming majority of people were appalled at that sickening statement in her BBC interview. The continuing campaign by Sinn Féin to seek to justify and glorify the IRA campaign exposes what Sinn Féin leaders still believe. She said that

“the war came to Ireland”,

which is republicans’ effort to rewrite historical reality and must be strenuously challenged, not only by unionist politicians but by this Government.

There has always been an alternative to terrorism and there has never been a justification for such murderous activity. Does Michelle O’Neill believe that there was no alternative to shooting the innocent, butchering those whom the IRA interrogated, planting bombs to blow up men, women and children indiscriminately, kidnapping mothers such as Jean McConville in their own community, destroying families, targeting neighbours, terrorising communities and causing mayhem? Sinn Féin/IRA may try to sanitise itself but it must never be allowed to forget the devastating legacy of its violence, which is inflicted on the people of Northern Ireland and the mainland. Does she really think that there was no alternative to taking 10 innocent workmen off the bus at Kingsmill and shooting them like dogs along the road, simply because they were Protestant? The remarks made by Michelle O’Neill inflict further pain and suffering on the families of the victims who died as a result of the IRA’s murderous campaign.

It should also be remembered that the IRA holds the distinction of killing more Roman Catholics in the Troubles than any other protagonist in the conflict. So much for its claim that the IRA was established to defend the Catholic community from the British invaders. The IRA has a toxic legacy of murder; to suggest that there was no alternative seeks to poison future generations and to normalise terrorism, making it a legitimate way to get your way if you claim to be denied your political ambitions or aims. No wonder that, even today, across many nationalist areas, young people in clubs shout “Up the IRA” et cetera, as though what the Provos did should be glorified.

When challenged, Michelle O’Neill dismissed criticism by saying that

“we need to be mature enough … to agree to differ”,

glibly casting aside the hurt of her words. Of course, in reality, the mask slipped and exposed the heart of Sinn Féin philosophy: her shameful and arrogant defence of IRA terrorism for more than 30 years. As the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, mentioned, even as First Minister, Michelle O’Neill attended a commemoration in December to mark the deaths of three IRA men in my town, where I live, who killed themselves with their own bomb while on a murder mission more than 50 years ago. The men were said to be on a so-called active service mission at the time, but it was worthy of the First Minister of all the people of Northern Ireland to commemorate it—a further illustration of Sinn Féin being an integral part of the IRA.

Two weeks ago, I took part in a service along the roadside near Cookstown to mark the 33rd anniversary of the murder of eight innocent workmen at Teebane. I will never forget that night, for I assisted the injured in getting into the ambulance after that atrocity. I witness to this day the scars of some of those on that workmen’s bus who survived.

Never forget that I and other noble Lords here today lived through those 30 years of terror. We are not speaking about something we do not know. I know what it is to have my heart broken by the murder of my loved ones—to see them lying on a slab, with their bodies blown asunder. I know what it is to see a 16 year-old boy with only parts of his head and a few bones left because the rest of his body was blown to bits. He was not nothing; as a matter of fact, the one he was with was engaged to be married that day and was going to show her engagement ring to her aunt. I know what it is to see my children terrorised: 40 to 50 bullets were shot at our home when they were in it, and I received a real bomb packaged as missionary material.

There is nothing glorious in terrorism, irrespective of which community it comes from. We must unreservedly condemn it and ensure that our grandchildren never face that evil ever again, but we must also learn the lessons of the past. Because Governments failed to protect our people, innocent people faced the tragedy of 30 years of terrorism. May we learn the lessons of the past and never allow a generation to suffer such consequences again.

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

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, first, I apologise for my earlier indiscretion; I thought my phone was on silent but it was not.

I am looking at the extension of powers in relation to restraint orders. I hope that it is as good as what it says here; in fact, I would like it to be even better because, in the past, we have often been the victims. In saying this, I am not casting aspersions on anyone sitting here today, but we have been the victims of political restraints. We often find that, if it is not politically expedient for things to happen, they do not happen. I hope that, as a result of what we are hearing here today and this draft statutory instrument, that will not be the case.

In paragraph 13 of the code of practice, which is headed “Extension of powers in relation to restraint orders”, we are told—I have no problem with this—that this measure will align Northern Ireland more with the United Kingdom. As the noble Lord, Lord Empey, rightly said, we have too much unalignment at times. If this is implemented—it is a sincere piece of work—we can look to better days. In the past, in Northern Ireland, bordering the Republic of Ireland, there has always been this element of smuggling from one territory to another; some people have gotten very wealthy on it. I just hope and trust that, when this SI comes into force, there will be co-operation between the security forces on both sides of the border to bring this scandalous activity to an end.

In the past, in terms of government, there has been too much of us turning our heads and looking the other way; it is a feature that happens here. I trust that that is going to cease and that we will no longer have to tolerate an activity that, to put it mildly and succinctly, is illegal criminality—as well as everything that goes along with it—happening on our borders. I hope that this instrument will go some distance, if not the full distance; I would like it to go the full distance but, if it does not, I welcome the fact that, as is mentioned here, there will be a genuine effort to stamp these criminals out and take them out of activity, no matter whom that hurts. In the past, it has perhaps not been politically expedient to do that, so I ask the Minister to assure us that that will not be given any account as a result of this instrument here.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, I, too, will welcome the Minister’s reply. I regard him, as I have done for many years, as a friend; I am delighted, therefore, that he is here answering our questions. May I make a statement? First, it is so important to put anything that makes life more difficult for criminals on the statute book because no one should benefit from criminality, irrespective of where they may come from.

The truth is that criminals always seem to be ahead of the game and Governments always seem to be catching up. No matter how far you go, criminals’ skills and craft to carry on their criminal activity seem without bounds. Therefore, we have to do all we can to ensure that their programme is impeded.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, said that the code is not as yet drawn up, but I noticed that paragraph 5.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum says, “The codes require”. If they are not drawn up, how can they require? It says:

“The codes require an officer who is contemplating using the powers to consider the impact on the community in their use, balanced against the public interest and the benefit the use of the powers would add to the case”.


My noble friend Lord Morrow, mentioned that point. This is what concerns me because, as my noble friend pointed out, we had this scourge in the past: if it somehow impacted on a particular community, you did not act. People were therefore not only surprised by the authorities’ inactivity but annoyed because it seemed that they could act if it was a different community but, in a certain community, they did not. I want the Minister to assure me that, when it comes to this statutory instrument, no officer will be compelled

“to consider the impact on the community in their use, balanced against the public interest”,

because criminals do not care who they impact on. Therefore, we have to ensure that their programme is impeded and that the proceeds of their crime are taken.

Paragraph 6.1 of the EM says:

“POCA provides powers to recover the proceeds of crime”.


Can the Minister clarify where the proceeds of crime go when they are seized? Who benefits from the proceeds that are seized? Knowing exactly where the proceeds go is important.

The last thing I want to draw attention to is paragraph 7.2, which says:

“On the codes generally, law enforcement agencies’ responses requested clarification of certain definitions in the legislation and additional guidance on the practical operation of the powers to seize cryptoassets and related items”.


I would like the Minister to clarify whether these clarifications on the definitions were requested by the people who responded. Has proper clarification of certain definitions in the legislation and guidance been given?

Finally, it is right to say that the resource implication is so important, because we know that we do not have sufficient officers to carry out policing on the ground in Northern Ireland. We are well below the target that was said to be necessary to police Northern Ireland. I do not want resources to be taken from that and put into this; rather, money needs to be given to ensure that we have the proper agency to tackle those who carry on with criminal activity.

[Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)]

My Lords, I want briefly to bring noble Lords back to the whole issue of resources. I welcome this statutory instrument but I worry about resources. You will continue to hear the chief constable of Northern Ireland talk about the lack of resources. With these new powers, there certainly need to be additional resources.

As a former Minister in Northern Ireland, the Minister will be aware that these criminal gangs sometimes work fairly freely, not only in Northern Ireland but across the border. These criminal gangs will have all the resources they need to do what they are doing. Unfortunately, the different agencies that have to deal with them do not have the resources to do what they need to do. That is more of a worry than anything else. I keep coming back to the chief constable: most times when he is interviewed, he says, “No, I don’t have the resources within policing to do what needs to be done”.