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?