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

Debate between Lord Morrow and Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown

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.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Alterations to the Search Powers Code for Northern Ireland) Order 2024

Debate between Lord Morrow and Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

I welcome the fact that the Minister made clear her support for, and paid tribute to, the Police Service of Northern Ireland. As I am sure she is acutely aware, the RUCGC lost more than 300 of its officers during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Many of the officers who were murdered were the salt of the earth. They were in their job not because it was a job but because they saw it as a vocation. To this day, for many of those who were murdered, nobody has been brought to court to give an account of their actions. I thank the Minister for her tribute to the people in the police service, who are often forgotten.

Over the weekend, many of us—if not all—attended various services in open spaces, in our churches, in our schools and elsewhere to pay tribute to those who died during the Troubles in Northern Ireland and those who served in both world wars. As members read out the roll of honour, they were very moved because stood shoulder to shoulder with those very police officers and UDR personnel with whom they served. One of them said, “I stand here today; my comrades do not”. That is the reality of the situation back in Northern Ireland.

We will be brief—we do not plan to have a tough debate on this legislation. We are not here to pull it apart or anything like that, but we have some queries and questions here and there. I am sure the Minister is acutely aware that policing is a very difficult job in Northern Ireland. From the inception of the Belfast agreement, its stipulations and outworkings have meant that hundreds and hundreds of dangerous and unrepentant terrorists have been returned back to our streets, and today they are at large.

It is stated that the purpose of the code is to provide clarity that the threshold for making an authorisation is higher under the new powers, and that the way in which the powers may be exercised is also different. I hope we have read that correctly and that the outworking will not curtail or restrict the police in Northern Ireland in carrying out their duties. No police force anywhere in Europe is scrutinised to the degree and extent that ours is. Now, that can be a good thing, but it can also have a detrimental impact on policing itself.

I and my colleagues speak for my party on this, and we agree that there has to be accountability and that the police must always act with great discretion and responsibility. I hope that this legislation will not in any way deter them. I do not think it will, but I hope it is that way. All of us have a moral and community responsibility to support and encourage the agencies of law and order. That includes, for instance, our Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive attending graduation days, and our schools promoting the police service as a good career to follow and get involved in. That does not always happen. I sometimes think that the Government could do a bit more to encourage that line. That would go a long way to playing a good part in the full restoration of law and order.

Things are infinitely better than they were—we can all say that without fear of contradiction. However, the Minister rightly said that the threat level in Northern Ireland is still high. Other police services across the United Kingdom do not have to contend with that to the same extent as our police service in Northern Ireland. I hope that there is no discouragement in this document, which I have tried to read through, although I will not give the impression—I hope—that I understand every line of it. The Minister briefly quoted from the Terrorism Act 2000, the workings of which she is obviously well acquainted with.

Can the Minister assure us that this measure will be for the betterment and the more efficient delivery of a police service, and that those who try to thwart the police in their duties—the very people she has spoken about—and cause a great deal of concern will not benefit from this? I know that that is not the intention, and I am not in any way saying that it is. I just hope that the security forces, our police, will see that this is intended to help them deliver a duty and service that they can be proud of. I hope too that the law-abiding in Northern Ireland will be reassured that this legislation is good and for their betterment, and that we will see an efficient and effective outworking.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, I will follow on from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow. I welcome the noble Baroness leading this short debate to her place. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Caine, for the manner in which he dealt with issues of security in Northern Ireland when he held the office. I believe that he did so with courage and determination—he carried a heavy responsibility when he was in the noble Baroness’s position.

I join the noble Baroness in commending the bravery of our police officers and all the other security personnel who not only defended freedom in Northern Ireland in the past but are still doing so. I totally reject the contention of some in society that there was no other way than terrorism. That is absolutely untrue. I note that the noble Baroness said that the terrorist threat remains “substantial”. That reminds us that there is a great need in Northern Ireland to keep vigilant. Securing the safety of our people will certainly demand vigilance.

The noble Baroness mentioned the additional finance that has been given. It is certainly correct that additional finance has been provided in the recent Budget, and it is deeply appreciated, but I draw to her attention the fact that the number of serving police officers in Northern Ireland is well below what was recommended. We therefore do not have the numbers of police officers on the ground to give that adequate and proper protection for the people of Northern Ireland.

I am sure that the noble Baroness was delighted to remind us that our political party welcomed this legislation. In fact, she said that we were the only party that responded, which is strange, bearing in mind that the security of our people ought to be one of the most important issues that we face. I join the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, in saying that the police service in Northern Ireland is practically the most scrutinised police service in the world. In fact, unbelievably, we have former terrorists sitting on the Policing Board, scrutinising persons they have terrorised in the past.

We want an efficient delivery of policing, and I will therefore ask the noble Baroness a few questions. I note that the purpose of this code is to

“reflect that changes to Terrorism Act 2000 powers entirely replace those previously found in sections 44-47 of Act and are not simply a modification of those provisions”.

But the code then says that the

“new provisions carry different criteria for both authorisation and use”—

in fact, it is stricter. Paragraph 3.3 of the code says:

“To provide clarity that the threshold for making an authorisation is higher under the new powers and the way in which the powers may be exercised is also different”.


If it is higher and we still have a substantial threat in Northern Ireland, surely that makes it more difficult, rather than allowing police officers to have the freedom they need when they are out on duty and dealing with possible terrorists.

Paragraph 4.3 says:

“This Code of practice must be readily available at all police stations for consultation by police officers, detained persons and members of the public”.


I am wondering what is meant by “available … for consultation” by police officers, detained persons and members of the public, because surely these are the guidelines that are already set down—the consultation part is over.

Then, paragraph 6.2 of this document states that, for the police officer dealing with this, having “reasonable grounds for suspicion” depends

“on the circumstances in each case”.

How should an officer faced with an immediate situation actually interpret “reasonable grounds for suspicion”? If they fall foul of what a court later says is not reasonable, are they penalised because of that?

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Debate between Lord Morrow and Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown

Report stage
Wednesday 21st June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, the Minister was at pains to point out that Amendment 2 is all about reconciliation, yet no matter how much you search through the Bill, there is no definition of reconciliation in it. I am having difficulty, as are my colleagues, in being reconciled to the Bill and to have reconciliation with it, but I hope the Minister will—and I am sure he will—when he is winding up on Clause 2, give his definition of reconciliation. It seems to me that reconciliation means different things to different people. I am sure he will have observed that all the victims groups that have spoken about the Bill have not spoken in favour of it; therefore, I think he has a job to do. However, as my noble friend Lord Weir has said, we will not be dividing the House on this, but I earnestly ask the Minister why there is no definition of reconciliation in the Bill.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, I know my noble friend Lord Weir touched on this, but Amendment 3 requires the ICRIR to

“have regard to the general interests of persons affected by Troubles-related deaths and serious injuries”.

I ask the Minister to clarify: have the Government failed conclusively to rule out perpetrators, including those who died or were injured at their own hand, from the scope of this duty which is now being placed upon the ICRIR? It would certainly be wrong that those who have been perpetrators and died or were injured at their own hand should be placed on the same level as those who are innocent victims.

Scammers

Debate between Lord Morrow and Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morrow]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what advice they provide to people, particularly the elderly, who are targeted by scammers; how such advice is accessed; and at what cost.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Morrow, and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Morrow and Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 21 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern.

The Bill’s family impact test issued by the Ministry of Justice stresses multiple times that a central policy intention behind the legislation is to promote opportunities for reconciliation where that is possible. I admire the stated aim, but this amendment reflects the view that the Bill as it currently stands lacks ambition in this respect. Without funding for essential marriage support services, this policy goal will mean little to struggling families across the country. Families who desperately want to stay together, but are at a loss as to how to move forward, need support. It is one thing to provide an opportunity for reconciliation, but another thing entirely to provide a means of reconciliation.

According to Relate, the UK’s largest provider of relationship support:

“Evidence suggests that low income families are likely to experience increased strains on their relationships because of financial pressures. Their financial vulnerability also means they are less able to afford relationship support.”


This may well be having a very real bearing on family breakdown statistics. By the age of five, almost half of children in low-income households have seen their families break apart, compared to only 16% of children in higher-income households. Funding for counselling services could make all the difference to families who struggle to get by financially—families like Laura’s, on a household income of £16,000 per year, who told Relate:

“I want my husband and I to stay together because I know we truly love each other, as well as for the sake of the family, but desperate situations push people towards desperate measures, such as contemplating divorce. I am trying to stay strong for my family by blocking things out emotionally, which I know isn’t healthy but I have nowhere to turn. What we need is to speak to somebody objective who can help us to find a way forward. I agree there should be more funding for relationship support—healthy relationships create healthy families which in turn creates healthy citizens.”


Unfortunately, loving someone is not always enough and there may come a time where we all need more support and guidance. In a context where the Government are moving to reduce the time for reconciliation by promoting divorce within six months, it is vital that we invest more in marriage support and focus some of that money specifically on the shortened divorce process. This amendment rises to this challenge and is particularly important because, unbelievably, answers to Parliamentary Questions reveal that the Government are not allocating any funds for marriage support through Section 22. This is extraordinary, especially when we consider previous government undertakings in this regard. On 1 February 2017, for example, the Minister in the other place stated that

“the Department intends to continue to work very hard to ensure that marriage gets the support it needs to continue being a strong bedrock for the families and the children for whom we want to secure the best possible outcomes in the future.”—[Official Report, Commons, 21/02/17; col. 389WH.]

It also makes no sense. The Relationships Foundation’s Cost of Family Failure Index in 2018 estimated the annual cost to the Government of family or relationship breakdown to stand at £51 billion—my colleague and noble friend Lord Browne has already referred to this figure—which is up from £37 billion 10 years ago. The scale of this crisis demonstrates that proper investment in marriage support services is long overdue. The move would also be in line with public opinion. ComRes polling from 2017 showed that 76% of British adults believe that extra money should be spent strengthening families.

In this context, where the Government are proposing to reduce the time for divorce and thus reduce the opportunity for reconciliation within divorce, it is especially vital that they now adopt a new approach to marriage support. Providing funding to parents in conflict, who do not have to be married, is no substitute for marriage support, which should not be limited to those who have children. We need a significant, serious focus on marriage support.

When difficulties arise in relationships, giving up often seems easier than going on. This Bill risks making giving up easier, while doing little to meaningfully support those who want to go on. It communicates the message that marriage breakdown is often a sad inevitability and that, if you get to that point, the law will make it easier for you to “get the relationship over with”. I suggest to noble Lords that we can do better than that. Let us be a country that believes in fighting to rescue relationships, so that when they hit the rocks our response is not simply to mitigate the fallout, but to offer a lifeline of support to families in the form of counselling. Amendment 21, and indeed Amendment 3, will help us rise to this challenge. I very much hope that the Government will support this.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown]

My Lord, I support Amendment 21 and Amendment 3. Amendment 21 speaks about funding for marriage support services, and says:

“In subsection (1)(a), at the end insert ‘, both before and during a marriage’.”


The reality is that many young people are not really prepared for marriage. Many go into it with great expectations: that everything will be rosy, everything is going to be beautiful, and that they are going to have a great life. They do not realise that the reality of life for everyone can be facing difficulties and hardships—not only financially, but in family circumstances.

There are many reasons for family breakdown and, certainly, each one is a tragedy. There used to be an old statement in our home: “a family that prays together, stays together”. It is also true that a family that talks together can stay together. The tragedy today is that families no longer talk together the way that they once did, because they are talking into an iPhone or an iPad. I was raised on a farm, and when I was a child there was a large family table we sat around and talked together. The reality is that, in the homes built today, you could not do this because the kitchen or living room is so small the family could not get around the same table. So where do they go? They go to their rooms. They used to sit before a computer but it is not like that any more; they just sit with an iPad. I sat in a home recently, where a family was gathered for a family bereavement. There was a young person of 17 years of age there. We were having conversations about the grandmother at the home, the background of the family and their upbringing and the day that young person’s mother got married. That young person heard nothing. We sat for 35 minutes. He did not speak, and neither was he listening because he was completely absorbed in his phone.

The Government should do more to encourage families to talk together. Then, I believe, many of them will stay together. The tragedy is, even within relationships, husbands and wives no longer converse as they used to. If you have a problem, the best way is to share it because a problem shared is a problem halved. Therefore, there should be more preparation for young people before marriage, and during marriage they should receive more encouragement. Certainly, when it comes to the possibility of a family breakdown, society should encourage the family unit to stay together—not to make them unhappy, but to build relationships again.

Northern Ireland Budget Bill

Debate between Lord Morrow and Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 31st October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, it seems that we are again on the merry-go-round as we come to Northern Ireland. We on these Benches have said it umpteen times, but we want to keep repeating that we feel the best way forward is for the Northern Ireland Assembly to be making these decisions. Alas, there is no prospect of the Assembly sitting any time soon. There was an honest attempt to have the Assembly recalled just over a week ago, but that attempt was also squandered because Sinn Féin, again, stayed away and was not prepared to participate.

The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, made reference to the RHI, which was allegedly the reason that the Assembly was brought down, but those of us who live in Northern Ireland know perfectly well that that was not the reason; it was the excuse. A judge-led inquiry was established, which has now completed its report and its findings will be made public very soon, we hope. Therefore, if the RHI had been the reason, the inquiry would remove all the alleged obstacles to the return of devolution, but those of us who sit on these Benches and who live in Northern Ireland are not as naive as that. We know that the prospects of the Northern Ireland Assembly returning any time soon are very remote. Indeed, I suspect that we will be going through the same process again this time next year, so the Government have some responsibility to bring energy and urgency to the whole task of restoring devolution in Northern Ireland. I accept that you can take a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink. That is the situation that we find ourselves in today.

What we should be debating and discussing today are the issues that affect people’s everyday lives. Our health service is in dire straits. Why is no urgency applied to look at those who need urgent health services? Why are they ignored? Our education system is in urgent need of attention. Again, it is ignored. Our infrastructure in Northern Ireland is creaking at the hinges.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

Does my noble friend agree that there was no hesitancy in this House in legislating concerning same-sex marriages or divorce over the heads of the people, while a large portion of the people of Northern Ireland did not desire such legislation to be passed? It was raced through this House, yet people are allowed to die and there is no haste for legislation or for a Minister or anyone else to take responsibility for doing something to allow them to live rather than die. As for the RHI, is it not time that we had the fulfilment of the promise made by the Minister and mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for a chairman to be appointed to look at those enduring hardship through no fault of their own?