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.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I think the noble Baroness was in danger of no longer wishing to be heard. That is where the Committee was moving. When the Whips tell us to conclude, we really should conclude.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, some of us have been sitting through this debate right from the very beginning. Others have come in late and then made certain speeches. I notice that the noble Lord had to read what he had to say as well. Therefore, I will just say to him very gently, and as graciously as I can, that this is a very vital issue. There are those of us who believe that it is important to say what we have to say carefully and clearly, and we are therefore seeking to put a point on the record.

People are watching this. I must be honest, having sat here for so long, one can be very confused in our debates. On Friday, we were debating allowing and encouraging sick and elderly people to end their lives as quickly as possible, but now we are debating something that does not allow healthy babies to even live their lives, so people outside are confused about where we stand. Therefore, there is a matter that we need to deal with on this issue.

I say this as a father; my wife and I have five children, and we lost one child. I therefore resent anyone saying that I do not know what this is. As a father of five children who has brought them up through all those years, I certainly know, even to this day, what it is to bring up children. Women who are pregnant, whether it is an intended pregnancy or not, deserve compassion, support and honesty from us in this place as we debate these matters—as do children who are capable of being born alive. My concern is that Clause 191 unsettles a delicate legal balance—one that many of us already feel is too casual—on the rights of the unborn child, without the security that such a change demands.

In the other place, two hours and 15 minutes were found for a Backbench Business Committee debate to consider government support for the fishing industry. Debate on the forthcoming business lasted one hour and 17 minutes. These are important matters. I do not cite those figures to denigrate either the topics that were debated or the business managers in the other place. I am pointing out that I find it remarkable that the entire debate on this issue in the other House, which concerned not only Clause 191 but the more extreme decriminalisation proposal—as well as a sensible, reasoned amendment to reinstate in-person consultation before prescribing abortion pills—lasted just two hours.

In fact, it is even worse: some 46 minutes were available for speeches from the Back Benches. That is how long the other place took to come to a conclusion on decriminalisation concerning this issue. This is not responsible lawmaking on a matter that carries profound consequences for the status of the unborn and the safety of women. That is why I strongly support the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, in opposing Clause 191, and associate myself entirely with those who have spoken on that issue in support of her.

This is not simply a matter of differing worldviews or perspectives on the subject of abortion. Legal opinion, including that of Stephen Rose KC, confirms that Clause 191 would permit a woman to perform her own abortion at home for any reason, right up to the moment of birth, with no legal deterrent. We have heard another legal opinion, but, as we know, lawyers make their money by disagreeing with one another.

I am clear that science tells us that life begins at conception, but I also accept that this is not currently reflected in our law. However, whether one agrees or disagrees with the law as it stands, it is at least clear. In removing women from the existing criminal framework, as Clause 191 does, we upend our current settlement. As the gestation of a pregnancy advances, the state’s interest increases. This is not arbitrary: it recognises the view that with increasing viability must come increasing protection for the unborn. This is an explicit recognition not only that are two lives involved in any pregnancy but that they both require protection.

This is also a matter of safety. On complications, a government review published in November 2023 found that medical abortions after 20 weeks, even in clinical settings, have a complication rate more than 160 times higher than that of abortions under 10 weeks. The Government’s own commentary on the publication of abortion statistics for England and Wales in 2023 acknowledges that data on complications does not present a true picture. It says that,

“where … medication is administered at home, complications may be less likely to be recorded”.

Without an in-person check, women can obtain pills, perhaps mistakenly or through pressure, far beyond the 10-week limit for pills-by-post abortions. As it is, this seems a recipe for a disaster, but, with the deterrent effect of the current law removed by Clause 191, I fail to see how this problem will not be exacerbated and how more women will not be placed in precisely these higher-risk situations.

This is why Amendment 460 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, ably supported and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, matters. By restoring in-person consultation before pills are prescribed, the amendment simply returns us to a best practice model with regard to women’s safety and the protection for viable unborn babies. It provides a crucial opportunity to assess gestation accurately, to screen for potential harm and to identify coercion or abuse. This is not a restrictive or regressive measure but a pro-safety one which, according to the poll of 2,103 adults by Whitestone Insight shortly before Clause 191 passed in the Commons, is supported by two-thirds of women, with only 4% in favour of the status quo.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is that this amendment is not going to solve all problems in this area, but it is going to make a significant contribution. She is concerned about hard cases, and she identifies some of the possible hard cases. My answer to that is that the CPS will prosecute only in a case where it believes there is a more than 50% chance of a conviction and it is in the public interest. Many of the examples that she gives are most unlikely to satisfy those criteria.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, if noble Lords in this House do not believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, is giving the answer to a problem that is a reality within our society, then I hope that the Minister, if he is not accepting this, will tell us what the answer is. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, talked about going into the campuses and talking to these young people. You will never shame the likes of Gerry Adams, so just trying to talk them away is not going to solve the problem.

I am speaking for those in Northern Ireland who went through 30 years of terrorism. Every day you went out, your loved one went to the gate and watched you get into the car, believing it was the last time they would see you. Society cannot live under that. It should not be asked to live under that. Therefore, if the Minister says this is not the answer to the problem, I respectfully ask him to give us the answer and not close his eyes to reality. We have to deal with it, and we need to deal with it now.

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to make a few points in this debate. To be fair, there is legislation that covers the glorification of terrorism. The problem—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and others have tried to make this point—is that it is not strong enough and does not do what it is supposed to say on the tin. If we look back at the case of Fusilier Lee Rigby, two people were convicted and jailed for that. In 2021 there was a conviction for encouraging terrorism and collecting information after posting messages. In 2023 there was another conviction for sharing a video of National Action, a proscribed neo-Nazi group. In 2024 someone was jailed for encouraging terrorism.

I do not want people to think that there is no legislation; there is, but the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, is trying to improve it, particularly for those victims. We hear, in summary, that the law allows for the conviction of people who glorify terrorism. The vast majority of the UK population has not been convicted of any offence and prosecutions require specific evidence. I also picked out from a report that, in the year ending March 2023, 169 people were arrested for terrorism-related activity. Only 46 were charged with terrorism-related offences and we have no idea how many were actually convicted. What we are trying to do here is to make things better.

I ask noble Lords to put themselves in a situation; the examples I give are live examples. There is a group of young people playing in a junior band and a busload of adults pull up who are coming from a Gaelic football match and they start singing pro-terrorist songs and chanting “Up the Ra”. What does that do for those young people who are out playing and enjoying music? I give another example. A man during the Troubles, because he was a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment, was murdered. That evening, his three young children and his widow were in the house and groups of people drove past in cars, cheering at his murder. Those were his neighbours who were doing that—cheering at his murder and shouting “Up the Ra”. Tell me that that is not an offence. If it is not, it should be. Tell that man’s widow, who is still alive, and his children that that is not an offence. If it is not, it should be.

We need to tighten the glorification of terrorism legislation. I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and I have to say that she gave some examples that are not akin to what we are talking about here. You cannot stop some of those chants and singing “The Fields of Athenry” or “The Sash” at a Rangers-Celtic match—and, by the way, that is not illegal, but there is a significant difference between singing that and going out to publicly antagonise people by shouting “Up the Ra”, “Up the UVF” or support for other terrorist organisations. So I support the amendment.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful that the Chief Whip will offer me the chance to speak for a couple of minutes. We have always agreed that this is an expert House, and it helps to make sure that legislation is best addressed by expertise where it can be. One of the things we might want to consider in this debate is that there are at least two Members of this House who have given at least 100 years in total to the management of people having terminations of pregnancy —so we do know quite a lot about it. There is also a large number of people who have not spoken who are fellows of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, who I think have been rather insulted by some of the things they have heard today because they do not represent the views of most members.

Having said that, I just want to say two things very simply. I firmly believe in decriminalisation. There is a great deal of misapprehension, as was just shown by the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman. The fact of the matter is that you cannot induce a pregnancy close to term. In fact, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Patel, will agree with me that it is virtually impossible to induce labour in a woman who does not have ruptured membranes at term with drugs. It just does not work. In fact, both he and I—numerous times, if I am not wrong—have been faced with caesarean sections that we did not want to do as the only way we could get a baby out of the womb when it was in danger. We could not use drugs to induce labour, because they do not work. That certainly applies to pills but even to drugs given intravenously. It is therefore important to understand that a termination of a pregnancy conducted by a woman herself will be an extremely rare event. It would be very difficult, and the idea that pills will work is nonsensical.

Moreover, we have heard a lot about pills, but nobody has told us yet what pills they are talking about. That is very important. The hormones that are usually used in early pregnancy would not work in late pregnancy. The other thing I have already mentioned is that pretty well all late terminations of pregnancy are done for very serious medical conditions. One of the commonest ones is where there is an extremely deformed baby in the womb. I described this during the earlier stages of the Bill, and I will not go through it again. The indications of these late pregnancies are always very carefully and scrupulously observed. They are not done lightly.

I should also add that, sadly, babies born much after 24 weeks still are very likely to be highly abnormal. Even though people often miscarry them when they do not want to, sometimes it can be the very best thing that can happen because these babies will eventually die early with very severe abnormalities.

Recently, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, chaired a committee on this very issue to see how we could reduce the number of premature births. It is a big problem in medicine because of the risks to the babies when they are born after 28 weeks. I shall say no more except that I firmly believe we should really try to understand this from the woman’s point of view. No woman tries to interrupt her pregnancy except with the deepest grief and the deepest unhappiness.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

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

We will have a short intervention, but we need to move on shortly to the Front Benches. That is what the House wants, I believe.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, throughout this debate Northern Ireland has been mentioned, yet not one Member from Northern Ireland has been allowed to speak until now. We have had to force the issue to be allowed to speak in this debate. When the new abortion laws, the most liberal and extreme laws in the United Kingdom, were forced on Northern Ireland, few across this House really cared. The lobby for abortion in Northern Ireland was on the basis that women there had fewer rights than in England and Wales. Now that same lobby is using the same arguments for a change in the law in England and Wales. In the previous debate, it was suggested that this would bring England and Wales into line with Northern Ireland, but that is misleading as, crucially, Northern Ireland does not have pills by post.

I genuinely believe that even many of those who support abortion know in their hearts that this is not the way to go about things. This hurried parliamentary process, the rewriting of one of the most sensitive and serious areas of criminal law, is surely unworthy of our democracy. A clause passed in the other House last summer was passed after 46 minutes of Back-Bench debate. Is that what our democracy has come to? If noble Lords think that this is a good idea, why are they not prepared to allow public consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny, instead of rushing it through?

Clause 208 means no justice for the death of a full-term unborn child, even in the most grotesque circumstances. I ask supporters of Clause 208: what would you do if a woman told you that she was taking abortion pills, perhaps obtained from an NHS provider via telemedicine, in the 39th week of pregnancy because she had changed her mind about having a child? What would your conscience say to you, knowing that you made that possible through the support of this legislation?

We heard a great deal about unwelcome investigations, but what do supporters of Clause 208 think the police should do if they discover the dead body of a 39 week-old baby in a rubbish bin? The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, explained in Committee that investigations would often still be required even if Clause 208 passes, as police would need to investigate the circumstances if a deceased full-term baby body is found away from a clinical setting. Is that the option that supporters of Clause 208 really believe in?

To conclude, I could give many reasons why I support Amendments 425 and 426 but, because of time, I am not able to do so. Let us remember that when we are talking about the life of an unborn child, we are talking about not an it but a real, living person with the expectation of being born, being protected by a caring and loving society, and being held in loving arms. I do not think that is too much for a child to ask or expect.

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

We need to move on to the Front Benches.