I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly on the motion as Chair of the Committee for Justice and declare that I have an immediate family member who works in the legal profession.

The Committee was first alerted to the Department's intention to propose the rule at its meeting on 16 May and raised no issues with its so doing. The Committee then considered the draft statutory rule (SR) at its meeting on 30 May. We were advised that the reforms that would be made as a result of the rule would enable officers to seize crypto assets and other property during an investigation. It would also enable officers to seize crypto asset-related items and enable the courts to better enforce unpaid confiscation orders against a defendant's crypto assets. The rule would also bring crypto assets within the scope of civil forfeiture powers, as outlined in Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and would ensure that forfeiture powers were accompanied by supplementary investigative powers, as outlined in Part 8 of the 2002 Act, similar to investigatory powers that exist to support the forfeiture of cash, listed assets and funds in certain accounts.

The Committee was informed that a public consultation on the changes was conducted between February and April 2024 and that only one response, which did not contain substantive comments, was received. Furthermore, the Committee was notified that codes of practice equivalent to those that are being introduced through the rule are in place in England, Scotland and Wales and that, because the parent legislation applies UK-wide in order to ensure that there is consistency of approach and language across jurisdictions, the Department closely followed the codes for England and Wales, with appropriate adaptations.

At that same meeting of 30 May, the Committee for Justice formally agreed to recommend that the rule be approved by the Assembly, subject to the report from the Examiner of Statutory Rules (ESR). Subsequently, the Examiner reported on the rule in her report, which was published on 4 June 2024, and raised no concerns regarding its technical aspects. On behalf of the Committee for Justice, therefore, I support the motion before the House.

I turn now to the views of the Democratic Unionist Party. Our position is reflected in that of the Committee. Where assets, including crypto assets, have potentially been acquired through crime, it is right that they are seized until such times as that is determined or otherwise, and that any ill-gotten gains are forfeited. That said, where assets are seized, investigation should be progressed as quickly as possible so that there is no reason for the money to be retained, and it should also be returned without delay. Of course, crime should not pay, and any sanction should serve as a deterrent. Hitting such criminals in their pockets is certainly a worthy and valuable part of that. As the cyberworld and that of crypto expands, so must the instruments and powers to detect and address criminality within that arena. We support the rule.