Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Lord Bew Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th January 2023 Lords Chamber

Finally, I move to Amendment 136, which requires the provision of adequate resources for the commission. The cases arising in 1966 to 1998, as defined in the Bill, occurred very significantly during the period when Northern Ireland was subject to direct rule. We did not have our own Assembly and the UK Government were running the show: things happened on their watch. It is therefore incumbent on the Government to ensure that the resources are provided and not require those resources to be provided by the current Government of Northern Ireland out of their current budget. These events were all under the watch of the Government and it would be appropriate for the ICRIR to be appropriately resourced to enable it to conduct the work it must conduct. I beg to move.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 99 and 101 in this group, which are in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Godson. As we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, the amendments are designed to focus on the possible functioning of the commission, the ICRIR. I think I will say “the commission” and follow the Minister’s advice on that: I do not want to struggle late at night with that mouthful of letters.

I say first to the Minister that it has been a hard day’s work. He has all my sympathy and is entitled to feel, given the amount of work and effort he has put into this Bill, that he has also somebody who supports the Bill, albeit somebody who is coming up and raising difficulties, although I hope of a containable sort. That might be a little bit more than flesh can bear at this stage in the proceedings.

I want to address an issue that has been at the centre of discussion during the week in Belfast: the article by Neil Faris in the Belfast News Letter—three articles in fact—about the possible functioning or the future functioning of the commission. It is perfectly possible that some of the concerns that exist and are expressed in those articles may be overstating and the Minister can allay them. But essentially my two amendments are both directed in that respect. They seek to balance the rights of those who may be named in reports with the rights of those requesting reviews, and particularly (6A)(a), (b) and (c) in my amendment are designed to achieve that end.

In the case of Amendment 101, it is a linguistic change, again with the same objective of balancing the rights of those who are at the other side of this process with those actually carrying out any review. One key point I want to make is quite simply that we have talked a lot already about what is or is not Article 2 compliant. But the UK Government also have a responsibility with respect to Article 8, respect for private and family life, and Article 10, freedom of expression, and both these rights also must be respected.

The particulars in new subsections (6A) and (6B) draw on best practice in the world of civil litigation, particularly inquiries by public bodies into alleged misconduct falling short of criminality. I would be happier if I felt that the Government were considering this best practice and how it has evolved, particularly since 2016, to ensure fairness when the commission indeed gets up and running. There are concerns at the moment about how the commission might actually work in practice. Those are concerns that the Minister and the Government have the capacity to meet, and that is really the point that lies behind my amendments, which are also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey: Amendments 99 and 101.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, in speaking—briefly, the Committee may be pleased to hear—to Amendment 136, I again thank the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Blair, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for adding their considerable names. I am indebted to the noble Baroness for her forensic analysis and for bringing her long experience into the debate through her amendments.

We all understand that, due to the age and complexity of legacy cases, prosecutions will be rare—very rare—but it is important that the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland is sufficiently resourced, with appropriately skilled and experienced lawyers, to promptly review cases referred to it by the commissioner of investigations of the ICRIR, and that is not happening at the moment in respect of the Kenova model. Families have been waiting many years to understand what happened to their loved ones. Delays in prosecution decisions must not be allowed to prolong the wait still further.

Currently, legacy cases are glacially slow, to be decided upon by the PPS Northern Ireland, and, when a decision to prosecute does result, those cases can be expected to take five or more years to come to a conclusion. These cases involve recurring legacy issues and present specific legal challenges, such as the admissibility of evidence, hearsay and the continuity of exhibits. They need to be dealt with by lawyers with experience and expertise in these matters. As an example, Operation Kenova now has 33 files with the PPS Northern Ireland for consideration. The first tranche of files was submitted in October 2019, over two years ago. For most of these cases, families have been waiting for more than 25 years, and in some cases almost 50 years.

The PPS Northern Ireland prioritisation criteria mean that legacy files are effectively put in a queue for examination, as resourcing and demand allow. Understandably, perhaps, given the resources available, priority is given to cases relating to current offences, so the review of legacy cases slips further and further backwards, to the frustration and unnecessary additional traumatisation of the families concerned. The Bill claims to be victim-focused, but it is time that legacy legislation actually demonstrated such an intention because, as currently drafted, it does not do so.

The way that the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland reviews cases differs considerably from the way that terrorism cases are dealt with by the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales. The CPS has a specialist counterterrorism division that engages with the investigation team as soon as a file is submitted. Early joint case conferences with senior counsel and the investigation team are held to assist in understanding the evidential strengths and weaknesses of the file, enabling further evidential recovery and facilitating prompt decision-making. This collaborative approach allows a more informed understanding of the cases and speedy and effective decision-making. The PPS Northern Ireland simply does not have the resources to dedicate lawyers to legacy files in this way.

As part of this Bill, it is important that sufficient funding is allocated to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland to review files and make timely and good decisions on them. It is essential that the creation of the ICRIR is supported by robust operating practices within the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland that must be adequately resourced to deal promptly with legacy files referred by the ICRIR Commissioner of Investigations.

In conclusion, the Minister cited resources as one of the reasons why he questioned the validity of the Kenova model being inserted into this Bill, as I am proposing to do on Report. The alternative to adequately resourcing this—and Jon Boutcher has already disputed that it will involve massive resources, at least compared to what has been devoted to these legacy cases in the past—is leaving victims betrayed. What is the point of this legislation unless it is to give some relief, closure and sense of justice, as well as, crucially, truth recovery, which is the predominant objective victims are seeking? If this Bill does not deliver that, and if the model adopted does not have the resources to deliver that, then it will fail in its objective, and we might as well say so. If the Government are going for a resource-thinned, slimmed-down operation, as I am afraid this Bill seems to propose—and the Minister’s response to the previous debate seemed to indicate that resources are one of his top concerns about the Kenova model—then they will leave victims completely dissatisfied. I do not think that is where your Lordships’ House wants to be, and I do not think that is where legislation seeking to bring to a head this whole legacy trauma should be either.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I was expecting the noble Lord, Lord Bew, to speak on this group of amendments.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

I do not have any amendments in this group.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting discussion. I want to pick up on a couple of points and speak to our Amendment 198.

My comments on government Amendment 6 are not dissimilar to those made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. It seems quite prescriptive in terms of the work plan that has to be produced. Is there any flexibility within that? Is this a plan that must be adhered to? Is it for the Secretary of State’s benefit in terms of monitoring? I would be quite interested to know what the intention of the plan is and how much direction can be exercised by the Secretary of State.

Amendment 198 is a probing amendment on the timing of commencement. It would insert

“but such day or days must not be beyond the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed”.

At the moment, it is open for the Secretary of State to implement commencement when he or she considers fit. I would like some clarity on when the Government think it will come into force. The Minister is looking at me with a rather puzzled expression. I direct him to page 47 of the Bill, where he will see what I am talking about. I am surprised that he is looking at me that way, but it is not unusual. Clause 57 says that the provisions will come into force

“on the day on which this Act is passed … Otherwise, this Act comes into force on such day or days as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint”.

I am curious to know the Government’s intentions on that.

I will be interested in the Government’s comments on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. I think that the Minister will recognise that he will have to reassure and give confidence to those who have raised the issue. What he says tonight will be very important in that regard.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Bill

Lord Bew Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 5th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I support the Bill and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Weir. This is the first time I have had the pleasure of welcoming a former student of mine to this House, and I hope it is not the last. He will bring a lot of skill and experience as a Minister and politician in Northern Ireland, which will be very useful to this House.

I particularly welcome that we have not fallen, as we have on previous occasions, into the trap of having too passive a model of direct rule for this—I hope short—period of time. It is pure common sense to allow senior officials to make certain discretionary decisions; we have had enormous difficulties in the past when we have not done that. It is difficult, and I fully accept the point made earlier that, as time goes on and with tough economic decisions to be made, it will become even more difficult. I fully accept that senior civil servants do not like it, but, on the whole, it is the best way forward for this period of time, which we hope to make as short as possible. It is an entirely appropriate exercise of UK sovereignty and, in essence, a practical measure. However, this Bill is meant to be a very temporary expedient, and the longer the directive lasts, the more difficult the position of our civil servants will become.

The question remains: how realistic is the putative return to devolution? I will address my remarks in the spirit of the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, both of whom placed the Good Friday agreement at the centre of their reflections. My remarks are intended to draw attention to some of the things that might facilitate a rapid return to devolution. It is clear that interesting negotiations are taking place—very interesting, if you read some of the Dublin reports on the interplay between the UK Government and the EU—and I hope there will be continuing good progress on that front. Last week, our officials gave a public demonstration, to which journalists and other interested parties were invited, of the new technology Britain could offer. The days are gone when the EU could dismissively wave its hand and talk about unicorn technology and magical solutions. This is now quite detailed and impressive, and it ought to make the difficulties in the strand 3 area much easier to overcome.

This is very important, because strand 3 of the Good Friday agreement insists on a harmonious and modern model of relations between Great Britain and Ireland, including Northern Ireland. Currently, however, the model is anything but harmonious, given the number of interventions, delays, checks and so on. We may have done the technological work which allows us a way out of that. The EU’s response is going to be very significant, because to return to devolution we will need to have the Good Friday agreement clearly up and running—and that includes the critical area of strand 3. However, it is not just strand 3 that is important; so is strand 2, on north/south relations. Here, I want again to say something positive and helpful, but the truth is that the working model of strand 2 we have had for many years—north/south relations mandated by the Northern Ireland Assembly—has basically crashed and collapsed and is in total disarray.

But are we therefore without hope? I draw attention to two things: first, what the EU itself says in the protocol section of the withdrawal agreement, parts 1 and 2 of Article 11, where it says that all the parts of strand 2 should be working—it really wants that. At the moment, however, it is as dead as a dodo; none of its parts is working. It then says that it will be flexible to make sure that this excellent arrangement for north/south co-operation continues. This is amazingly non-controversial to anybody who the remembers the Northern Irish politics of the 1990s: unionist acceptance of north/south co-operation on the basis of consent and an assembly mandate is one of the great achievements of the Good Friday agreement, and we must not throw it away. Instead, we must build on it to get out of the dreadful mess we are in. The EU has said that it wants it working at full tilt, and that it will be flexible to help with difficulties.

Secondly, I draw attention to a letter from the right honourable Sir Jeffrey Donaldson in the Irish Times on 8 July 2019, in which he picks up on that precise point. He is following on from important analysis by fair-minded and well-known commentators on north/south relations in the Irish Times: Newton Emerson, who wrote on 27 June, and Andy Pollak, who wrote on 3 July. Donaldson says that he, too, believes that the revival of north/south institutions would be helpful in facing and dealing with the problems currently posed by the protocol. As we have agreed institutions for food safety and animal health, which are clearly issues at stake in the whole mess we are now in, it has always been a mystery to me why they are not used or even expanded in certain areas. The institutions have grown up since the Good Friday agreement, and the two issues I mentioned are actually in the text of the Good Friday agreement, so why are these institutions not strengthened as a means of finding a way through this mess and to reassure the EU, which has legitimate concerns about animal health and protection of the single market?

In conclusion, I would like to point out that there is an excise border in the island of Ireland. It was there long before the protocol and it will be there long after the protocol. That excise border means that there is a substantial amount of smuggling already, and there is a strong such tradition. It is very much in our minds in recent days because we have just seen a gangland murder in Newry that seemed to have that dimension, and there is a rather dramatic case going through the courts in Dublin at the moment that also bears on some of these issues.

I remind the House that, in the wake of 9/11, both the United Kingdom and Ireland were on the Security Council, as indeed they are today. Then, we agreed and passed Resolution 1373, which says that borders are places of criminality and we need to keep an eye on them. They are places where money gets lost and where terrorism can sometimes place itself quite easily. It makes it quite clear that border areas are areas of skulduggery. I cannot understand why, therefore, at this moment—and we have just seen dramatic evidence with the latest murder that the border is once again an area of skulduggery—we do not have an enhanced UK-Ireland agreement to work together on these matters. This should be done for its own sake, but it would also perform the function of dealing with some of the concerns that the EU inevitably has about smuggling—which is a legitimate concern about smuggling and penetration of the single market.

I offer those ideas in the hope that they may be of some use in the current debate about how we bring devolution back, because the timescales announced in this Bill are extremely tight, given the interference, for example, of the Christmas holidays in the middle of them. It remains the case that there is now a possibility—I put it no higher than that—of a new understanding with the EU. The atmosphere is certainly much better; the fears expressed in this House at the beginning of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill on that score turned out not to be correct. There is now a possibility of some kind of positive movement, but it will be done—this is where I agree with the two previous speakers—only by intense fidelity to the underlying principles of the Good Friday agreement, strand 3 and strand 2, and by trying not just to preserve them but actually to breathe new life into them and, if necessary, expand them.

Sir Jeffrey Donaldson’s letter, in that sense, is very close to what the EU says in Article 11.2 in the section entitled “Protocol to the Bill”; the EU says it is its position. So I think this is something we ought to be exploring at this point, because it is going to be a struggle to meet the timetable in this Bill.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Lord Bew Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I want to say some words in favour of this Bill. One might assume that we had a situation at present that was viable. I very much sympathise with the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and others who have looked at the word “reconciliation” and said that it is tossed around in the Bill in a way that is not entirely convincing, to put it politely. I absolutely understand that, but the truth is that we have an entirely rancid situation in Northern Ireland. The continuation of lawfare is just a contributory to what is perfectly obvious to anybody who pays the most casual attention to public opinion in Northern Ireland: there is an increasing mutual contempt between the two communities. There is a reason why the Government are trying to introduce this Bill. I fully accept the point from the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, that in part it is to do with a manifesto commitment and the issue of veterans, but it is also to do with the fact that the status quo is simply not tolerable, and in our discussions I think we should acknowledge that.

I was very impressed by the introduction to the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Caine, not just because of the careful and calibrated way in which he spoke and acknowledged the difficulty, even the anguished way he spoke, but also the precise way that he spoke. But he did not really have much effect on the broader tone of the debate. As the debate went on, we learnt that the Bill was obscene and again and again it was said that it was depriving people of hope.

The noble Lord, Lord Hain, talked about Pinochet’s Chile. Perhaps it is because I was at Cambridge with people who suffered under Pinochet, I thought that was a slight stretch. I accept that the noble Lord was a remarkably effective Secretary of State. He has made it clear tonight that he is on a journey and that he has now modified some of the positions he previously held on this matter in the light of his hopes for what might come from the Boutcher inquiry. I must say, as someone who knows Jon Boutcher, that that is a big wager; it is a Pascal’s wager of a big sort that that inquiry will somehow challenge the terms of this debate, for all the brilliance of his police work. Everybody who knows about his career in London knows that he was—indeed, still is—a very fine policeman.

This language is striking and so different from the tone that the noble Lord, Lord Caine, adopted in an attempt to be precise and face up to difficulties. Again and again tonight, reference has been made to the fact that there were sexual crimes. In fact, the Government have tried to move on this; it is there, but you would not know it from anything that been said in the past two or three hours.

The crucial thing, above all, is that I find myself thinking again and again about the friend of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, at the time of the initial report, which he has talked about so eloquently tonight. Everybody knows that his friend, Denis Bradley, is no particular friend to British Governments. When this Bill was published and it was clear that the Government were going to act in this way, did Denis Bradley talk about “obscene”? Did he talk about depriving people of hope? No. He went into a television studio and, to the annoyance of people who expected him to use that sort of language, he said, “There is no realistic hope. Politicians are merely playing a game if they try to defend the idea that there is hope somehow. They are making a public display. They are actually misleading people.”

It is important to remember the tone with which he spoke at that time. He said, “We cannot deliver more justice now, but we may be able to deliver more truth”; again, that is part of the thinking behind the Bill. That is what Denis Bradley said in the immediate aftermath of this Bill’s publication—quite different from the tone of so much of what has been said tonight, but at least it respected what the Government are trying to do. I am absolutely certain that, if he were here tonight, he would say, “There are loads of things in this Bill that I really don’t like,” but that is a different point. The noble Lord, Lord Caine, has already acknowledged that there are problems in the Bill and creative work will have to be done to sort it out. However, given the tone of what we have heard, it is worth remembering Denis Bradley’s initial response.

Again, the reason why I am sympathetic to the sceptical talk about reconciliation is that I was a historical adviser to the Bloody Sunday tribunal. As historical advisers, we all thought, “This is it. The Government’s great failing is that they won’t fess up to the things they or the state did wrong. We will put a line under it.” When the report came in, David Cameron made a fine speech, partly drafted by the noble Lord, Lord Caine, fessing up to what the British state had got wrong. The hope was, “Well, that’s it. That’s a dividing line. People will accept that we’re not afraid to criticise ourselves or our state’s performance.” The hope was that things would move on and the mood in Northern Ireland would change, but the mood did not change at all. It is as simple as that. I accept that it was a fine industry for the lawyers who worked in it, but the mood of the people did not change at all and the impact that David Cameron was aiming for in his speech ultimately amounted to zero. I am prepared to accept that it would have been worse had he not given that speech. But that is why I accept the talk that it is going to be difficult to achieve reconciliation and why I respond so sympathetically to what the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, said.

However, it is important to understand that the status quo is radically unacceptable, defective, and helping to create an increasingly rancid and divisive public mood in Northern Ireland. At this point, the Bill has unified both communities, but it is a false unity. They each simply want the terrorists of the other community to be brought to law. The unity disclaimed against the Bill is not a real unity.

What has surprised me most this evening is how the Supreme Court ruling in the McQuillan case in December 2021 has not been discussed in any serious way. It has a very significant impact. The headline in the Times law report on 10 January stated that the Supreme Court had said that Northern Ireland police are not required to reinvestigate incidents from the Troubles. That is not being said by the Minister or the British Government, and nor is it a clause in this Bill. It is a very firm statement of Supreme Court policy.

I am sure that there is debate about this, and that many do not like or accept it, but it is a Supreme Court—

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

Does the noble Lord accept that the Times headline writer might not have been quite accurate, and that the judgment in the McQuillan case might have been slightly more complicated than that?

[Lord Bew (CB)]

It is no more inaccurate than any other headline that I have seen. I accept that it is a complex ruling. However, the Northern Ireland police force issued a statement after the judgment:

“The Police Service welcome the clear legal ruling that there are no legal obligations arising from Article 2 ECHR to investigate these cases. We will now carefully consider the judgments and their impact on the legacy caseload.”


The Government have been attacked for depriving people of hope but, at the minimum, fairness requires us to say that the Supreme Court is depriving people of hope. Only this week we have had an attempt to assassinate two policemen, and serious business with loyalist paramilitaries. Anyone who thinks that the Northern Ireland police force does not look at that ruling and think it significant—and significant enough to be mentioned in this debate—is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. Yet apparently, no one thinks that because it is better to say that this Bill is obscene, is depriving people of hope, et cetera.

I am insistent because we have a problem. The public debate in Northern Ireland now—the way that lawfare operates and the way that these cases are now exhumed on a regular basis, which the Government are responding to—does not relate to what happened in the Troubles. To give a very simple example, the RUC, as was, suffered 309 deaths. It killed 53 people, including 10 of its own in error, carrying heavy weapons in police cars and so on. RUC officers were killed at five or six times the rate of their killing. This is very crude but factual. The killings committed by the republican movement were something like five times the rate of their own deaths, but no one would know that if they looked at the cases running through the courts in Northern Ireland, and at how lawfare was operating. No one would consider that to be the balance of killing and of suffering. Nobody would know that.

That is the problem that we are trying to address with this Bill and why I am willing to give it a degree of support. It is not in doubt that there are problems with the Bill. The Minister has made it clear that the problems are significant. The House can do a lot of work to improve it. Yet everyone must remember that the Bill does not exist on its own but alongside a Supreme Court ruling that unquestionably moves the dice—moves the balance. There is no question that it does that. It may not move it 100%. There may be requirements for other developments, but it certainly moves the discussion in a way that we have not acknowledged in several hours of debate tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, with that interesting comparison because everybody has said that the one thing the Bill does not do is promote reconciliation. We certainly need to have a debate about what would promote reconciliation.

I join others in showing appreciation to the Minister for his opening speech. I think we all genuinely appreciated his sincerity. When he said that the Bill is challenging for us and for him, it was pretty obvious that there was a very sincere situation. He has our sympathy, which is perhaps not what he wants, but I believe he will get engagement. What we will get at the end of it is obviously yet to be determined, but it is important to put that mark down.

Another thing that has been said is that the term “Troubles” is euphemistic. It is a terrible understatement for what was a bloody conflict. It convulsed Ireland and Northern Ireland for 30 years and has left, as we now appreciate, a tragic and very complicated legacy. It is also worth saying that while none of us who live on the mainland can possibly appreciate what it did to the communities in Northern Ireland—we have heard so much about that and all appreciate the contributions made—it has left deep scars across the whole of the United Kingdom. This is not just because of the atrocities committed in Great Britain. In so many meetings over many years just as a local MP, I heard the sense of inadequacy, guilt and despair at the conflict and the inability to bring it to an end. I think that affected people right across the UK; we were just so used to news bulletins about another bombing or shooting, and we wanted it to stop.

The Good Friday/Belfast agreement laid down hope for the whole of the UK, as well as the island of Ireland. The question now is: will we be able to celebrate the 25th anniversary of that agreement with a process of reconciliation and a functioning Executive and Assembly? That would attract well-wishers from across the world. Right now it does not look likely and if not that, what?

Reference has been made to the Stormont House agreement. I recognise that the Ulster Unionist Party said that it did not support the agreement but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, I hope it did not reject the basic principles: any legacy solution should promote reconciliation and uphold the rule of law; it should acknowledge and address the suffering of victims; it should facilitate the pursuit of justice and be human rights-compliant. That is surely not a point of contention.

The other thing we are all concerned about is the switch in the Government’s position. At the 2017 general election, the Government said:

“We … continue to believe that any approach to the past must be fully consistent with the rule of law … Conservatives in government have consistently said that we will not introduce amnesties or immunities from prosecution.”


That was said by Karen Bradley, the Secretary of State at that time, but we have had an election since and the world has changed. The Minister has been here throughout that and will of course have his own appreciation of that change and development.

I think all of us accept the views of some that the uncertainty over possible prosecutions of service and security personnel causes stress and anxiety—of course it does. But surely that does not justify setting aside human rights issues and the rule of law; it cannot do so. We have to recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, did, that the security forces did an incredible job, took huge casualties, were brave, saved lives and kept the peace, but some of them clearly did not conform. In fact, it is in the interests of the overwhelming majority who performed absolutely professionally that those who did not should not be given absolution.

It is important to say that this is not simply a domestic issue: it affects our reputation as a nation and an upholder of human rights, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said. We uphold human rights and the rule of law, but this has been seriously damaged by the conduct of this increasingly discredited Government who, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said, now think that law should just be taken into account, rather than respected and followed.

I was a member of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe—its political wing, if you like —and I am concerned when I hear debates within certain sections of the Conservative Party calling for Britain to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, alongside Belarus and Russia, the only non-members of that organisation. I am glad that Dominic Raab said that he does not think that useful, but that was not a robust defence of our membership, nevertheless. The idea that we should do that is unconscionable, and a dying Government with no mandate have no right even to consider it.

The problem, which has been mentioned, is that all of this should be happening in a debate among the elected representatives of Northern Ireland, who need to make an honest assessment of the role. We are here because they are not there, and that simply has to stop.

The Minister said that he has had many meetings recently, and I believe him; he probably listened and engaged sincerely and genuinely. But the fact is that the stakeholders are all saying that they have not been properly consulted and certainly have not been listened to, perhaps apart from in their engagement with the Minister. So we have to recognise that the Bill is supported by no one in Northern Ireland. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bew, that it is not good enough to say that, because they all have different motives, the fact that they are united against it is not valid. For a Government to pursue a Bill that no one in Northern Ireland supports shows total contempt for devolution, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said. It is unacceptable.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

I absolutely take the point the noble Lord is making, but some polling suggests that significant groups on both sides of the community do want to draw a line under this dispute, to use that horrible phrase. I am not suggesting that it is a majority, but you cannot deduce from the political parties their hostility. Do not forget what I said about Denis Bradley. The parties are playing a game whereby they apparently offer justice to people, but realistically there is no chance of justice. So you cannot deduce anything from the parties’ positions. Some of the polling is more mediated, and there is the position of the veterans’ groups, which has been referred to.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

I do not for a minute dispute that people have different motives for their objections, and they may have motives that I do not like or respect. But it is indisputable that no political party in Northern Ireland supports the Bill, yet the Government say they are determined to legislate against the wishes of all of the elected representatives of Northern Ireland. I repeat: those elected representatives should be sitting in Northern Ireland—

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Lord Bew Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has again referred to the issues raised in the eloquent letter read out by the noble Lord, Lord Browne. First, I want to say something directly to his constituent on behalf of the House. This is what the House of Lords does. We have a big thing about Henry VIII powers and would do this with any Bill. I fully expected that and nothing I have heard has been the remotest surprise in several days of debate on the Bill. There has been not even the slightest tincture of originality. However, the problem is that the Bill, unlike the other Bills the House deals with, is not quite being dealt with in the normal way. This is part of a three-dimensional strategy of the Government. The other dimension is negotiations with the European Union. When I said weeks ago in this Chamber that these negotiations would proceed and would clearly not be badly affected by the existence of the Bill, I was greeted with howls of disapproval. In fact, we all know that they are proceeding and they have not been affected by the Bill. That is one dimension and the reality.

The other point is that this is related to a strategy that may very well fail to get the institutions of the Good Friday agreement up and running before the 25th anniversary of that agreement. This strategy may well fail, but anybody who thinks that the immediate dropping of the Bill now would help with the return of the Good Friday agreement and that strategy is also wrong. The UK Government are acting under the international agreement—Article 1(5)—which permits the Government with sovereign power to address the alienation of one or other community, as we did over the Irish language a few weeks ago and as we are now trying to do with this issue, because there is significant alienation in the unionist community over the cause of the protocol.

I simply want to make the point that, although I have been slightly cold in response to the noble Lord’s constituent’s resentment, I understand it—but this is what the House of Lords does. It will do its thing about regulatory powers, delegated powers and so on, and it ought to do that thing. What we and the noble Lord’s constituent are entitled to ask is that it should take some account of the fact that we are involved in a three-part process. The Bill is not quite just a thing in this way. It coexists with other key elements: the negotiation with the European Union, which the House now accepts, somewhat grimly, is going on unaffected by the Bill and is by far the best outcome; and the need to act under our international obligations to address the alienation of one community. I simply suggest that it would be less irritating to the noble Lord’s constituent if those points were at least acknowledged.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I will briefly follow the noble Lord, Lord Bew, because he raised a point of great importance: we are breaking our teeth on a problem with three parts. At the moment, the Government are giving us absolutely nothing in terms of reporting on what is going on in Brussels. It is simply described as a “running commentary”, as if that were answer to the problem—well, it is not.

I lived through the last time the United Kingdom negotiated with the European Union as a third country, known as our accession negotiations. The process of the negotiations was reported on regularly to both Houses of Parliament by the Heath Government. No one said that was a running commentary or the wrong thing to do. We cannot go on like this, without the slightest idea of what is going on in Brussels, because it very much affects what we are discussing here. As the noble Lord, Lord Bew, rightly said, there is not the slightest sign to show whether our discussion here, and the Government pushing this absurd legislation through in an untimely manner, are either helping or hindering what is going on in Brussels.

I plead with the Minister to programme a moment at which the Government will give both Houses a progress report—not of everything going on in Brussels, but so that we have some idea of how that piece fits in with the others.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for introducing these amendments and for the focus on food and agriculture for the first time in our discussions. I understand the reasons behind the amendment, but there is a context here that has a particular sensitivity for the Government, which is that the obvious thing about the protocol is that, under the Good Friday, agreement we already have food safety and animal health bodies. Those institutions are not mentioned in this amendment, but when the Good Friday agreement was functioning it was agreed very early on that they were in play.

We have working arrangements to deal with major animal health problems and so on, and the protocol implies a totally different set of arrangements from those that any casual reader of the Good Friday agreement would say we have made no use of. We already had north/south bodies in place to handle difficulties of animal health, food safety and so on, which will now be reappearing in Brussels.

The difficulty for the Government is that they are well aware that they have to find some way to redress that, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has therefore raised a serious area of concern that requires widespread consultation. However, we will not get any real progress here without returning to the Good Friday agreement and without getting to the idea that Europe extracts powers to deal with veterinary health and food matters and lays down the law.

We already have in place north/south bodies where these things are dealt with extremely well—and have been for a long time. There is a reason why there is a problem here for the Government but, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is quite right to raise this general issue of consultation. It is very pertinent, and I am indebted to him that, for the first time in these many days of debate, we are talking about food safety, animal health and what needs to be done. If we act under the principles of the Good Friday agreement, something that is currently very controversial—such as the veterinary clauses of the protocol—could be put into a calmer place acceptable to both communities.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Lord Bew Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 31st October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, has done the Committee a great favour by detailing this particular aspect of the Bill. She has shown that the powers which the Government are seeking to take cover so much that none of us has any idea whatever as to what it may mean. No doubt, the Minister will be able to write a letter which details the answers to each of her excellent questions, but behind those questions is the fundamental falsehood of this Bill. The Bill gives to Ministers powers the strength, width and depth of which none of us have any idea, and the Government have even less idea, clearly, because if they did, they would have restricted those powers and would not have asked this House to accept a proposition which is manifestly undemocratic and which could not be accepted by any democratic House in any country in western Europe.

By the noble Baroness’s detailed forensic explanation of her particular interest, she has revealed the basic falsehood in the Bill and the reason that many of us are not going to allow it to pass, because it is contrary to everything that we have ever done in our political lives. I have been in politics in one House or another for more than 40 years, and no one has ever suggested a Bill of this kind ever before. Ministers had better understand just how serious this is.

I want to say one thing about Ministers too. Having been a Minister for 16 years, which is longer than most people are in post, I learned how important it was to have parliamentary restrictions—how important it was that civil servants could say to you, “I’m afraid, Minister, you can’t do that because that requires Parliament’s acceptance.” It was a vital part of the democratic process. We are being asked to remove that from Ministers, and I say to my noble friends that it is very bad for them, as Ministers, because it is that restriction and control which ensure that they do not move beyond where they ought to go merely because it is convenient.

The last thing that I will say about the excellent offering of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, is this. However detailed the answer is, it will not overcome the fact that any promise made in this House can be taken apart if we give the Government these powers. It is not for Ministers to promise us things, because, if the Act gives them powers, however fine they may be—and what a fine list of Ministers we have—their successors will be able to use these provisions in a way which undermines any promise made to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. That is why I wanted to come in particularly to congratulate her, because she has revealed the fundamental falseness of this whole proposition and the reason why this Bill, of all Bills, should not be passed by this House.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to comment on the nature of the Bill, which has now taken on gargantuan proportions. It is a raging beast running through our constitutional rights and liberties.

However, to be clear cut, it is a good deal more modest. It says that there will be no hard border. It guarantees that it will protect the European single market. Just before the dinner break, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, pointed out that, even if the Bill were implemented, it would not restore Northern Ireland completely to the UK single market in some pure form. He was quite right but it rather misses the point that this Bill is significantly more modest.

As for human rights, a very serious topic—the record of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, in this respect is unequalled—the fact of the matter is that the Bill’s focus is the trade aspects of Articles 5 to 10. It is an attempt to remodel them so that it could reasonably be argued that the commitment in the protocol that the UK single market will be protected is lived up to rather better than it currently is. This seems entirely reasonable to me. I understand that there is a new doctrine in the House: if we read a document, we are all struck dumb by what was in the protocol and cannot even think. All further thought and debate about it is now over, as some mental trauma afflicts us all and we are so lost in admiration for it, but it is a problem. One of the many problems is this: there is a commitment to protecting the UK single market but we have many examples of how it is not protected.

However, the Bill is more limited than many would guess from listening to our discourse today. The crucial point with respect to this amendment is that Article 2 is not the target. That article and its points on human rights remain untouched by this Bill. It is Articles 5 to 10, which deal with the way trade is to be conducted, that are the target of the Bill. The Bill is therefore much more limited, and possibly less of a threat to our constitutional traditions, than has been said.

Above all else, there is a very simple thing that nobody seems to accept is critical: rather than saying, “We’re terribly sorry about the democratic deficit and so on,” how do you respond to the communities in Northern Ireland, who have a right under Article 1 of the international Good Friday agreement to have their aspirations protected by the sovereign Government and are saying, “We have a major problem here: the major issue of our alienation”? That seems to have disappeared entirely. For all its problems, at least the Bill is an effort to do this.

I am not convinced that the constitutionality of the United Kingdom and its great provisions are incredibly protected or defended by saying, “We just could not care less about that question.” This is about a more complicated balance. Is it not obvious that there is a balance to be found here? I desperately hope that it is reached in the negotiations with the EU. Is it not obvious that these strong, dramatic statements on both sides are not helpful in the struggle to reach the balance that must be found?

--- Later in debate ---

The third and final point I want to make in support of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, is that two committees of our House have now highlighted the unprecedented nature of this. With his experience as a Minister operating and then implementing legislation, he should be listened to. Whenever a Parliament passes something considered unprecedented, it immediately becomes precedent. Of course, we cannot bind our successors, but Ministers will be able to say as soon as this is done that this precedent is not tightened; of course it is not tightened. This is why we have gone from Henry VIII to Donald Rumsfeld. The breadth becomes wider and wider and, unless we say no, the ability to prevent that precedent becomes even harder; that is why these amendments are so important.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I will comment again briefly. I have said on the Floor of this House during these debates that I did not consider it necessary to reopen the mandate. If the EU can genuinely commit itself, as it is committed in the protocol, to defending the Good Friday agreement in all its parts, although it has not really understood what that means, my personal view is that that would be enough. I can understand why the Government feel the EU should reopen the mandate, but it is not a problem for me. I accept the point and I believe there could be successful talks without the reopening of the mandate; that is, providing that the EU accepts what it said itself that this is about protecting the Good Friday agreement in all its parts. As long as that part of the commitment, which has already been made, is upheld, I think there is a good prospect for these talks.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I open by thanking my noble friend Lady Ritchie for tabling this group of amendments. It has provoked an extremely interesting debate, with some strongly held views. First, in welcoming these amendments, my noble friend built on the contribution of my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, who spoke last week about the importance of preserving the rights of people from all communities. The withdrawal agreement was not about the practicalities of trade; first and foremost, it was about setting out matters relating to the rights of citizens. Article 2 of the protocol reflects this, with the Government having committed to

“no diminution of rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity”

under the 1998 agreement.

The concerns raised by my noble friend Lady Ritchie are legitimate and need a detailed answer from the Minister. The Government’s obsession in relation to the European court is not helpful when it comes to questions about the rights of individuals. As my noble friend said, this is indeed an opportunity for the Government to show that they are protecting Article 2 at all costs.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, asked a couple of very important questions. I think I wrote down correctly that he said that the Government do not even know the extent of the powers they are asking for in this Bill. That is quite a statement to make. He also gave a very telling comment about the importance of parliamentary restrictions when one has the responsibilities of a Minister. I thank him for making those points.

The noble Lord, Lord Bew, had a different view. He said that the Bill is less important than the noble Lord, Lord Deben, seemed to imply and that really the focus was on Articles 5 to 10; they are really the target of the Bill, not Article 2. I would be interested to see how the Minister reconciles those two points of view.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, spoke of the law of unintended consequences. She went into some detail—almost the same level of detail as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie—with a number of questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer, maybe in writing at a later stage.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked some interesting questions and reminded us all that two committees have highlighted the unprecedented nature of the Bill. This is an opportunity for the Minister to reassure us that the Article 2 rights can indeed be dynamically maintained through the Bill.

Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill [HL]

Lord Bew Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I support the Bill and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Caine, for his excellent introduction. I felt his pain when he recalled the many hours and days he had spent working on this in a previous life, and I enormously respect that.

The noble Lord, Lord Caine, laid a lot of stress on this as the outgrowth of the NDNA agreement. He is quite right, but the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, was also quite right to say that the roots of this approach lie in the Good Friday agreement. There is reference to the Irish language in the Good Friday agreement; I can recall the Thursday night before Good Friday when the special adviser to the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, Dr Steven King, played a key role in the negotiation of those sections. It is rooted in the Good Friday agreement and it was quite right for the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, to remind us of that.

I will say something about what the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, just said about trust, but I do not want it to be taken in the wrong way. Trust is a good thing if you can get it but, actually, political agreement between bitter opponents does not depend on trust. I recall very little of it in 1998—I see the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, nodding. That agreement did not come about because of an outburst of trust on one side or the other; it was based on narrow, hard-headed political calculations. So it will be with respect to the protocol, the EU and relations between the parties in Northern Ireland. Trust is desirable but it is not an essential feature of agreements. The essential feature is that people make a rational assessment of where their interests lie and think they could go with that particular agreement.

However, I believe very strongly, just as both speakers before me have emphasised, in the tremendous importance of the Good Friday agreement here. We tend to forget about the international agreement that accompanies the Good Friday agreement and imposes on the sovereign Government—in this case the United Kingdom Government—a responsibility to look after the economic and cultural rights of Northern Ireland. It says that this power—it is a power—should be exercised with “rigorous impartiality” and “respect” for the cultural rights of the people of Northern Ireland, and that there should be an attempt to provide

“just and equal treatment for the … aspirations of both communities”.

This what the Bill is about. It has to be admitted that enthusiasm for it is far greater in the nationalist community than in the unionist community. That is a simple fact; there is an attempt to find a degree of balance but essentially, in most cases, support for the Bill comes from the nationalist community. I make the same point about the Bill that the Government will shortly be bringing to this House and to Parliament as a whole with respect to the Northern Ireland protocol—which responds more to a demand from the unionist community. The sovereign Government have a difficult balancing act to perform. That is what we are seeing here and what we will see with the Bill on the Northern Ireland protocol.

You cannot flout these opinions. You cannot say that nationalist communities should not be so keen on the Irish language—for lots of good reasons; it just will not wash—and you cannot say about the unionist communities, as the recent American delegation did, that their concerns about the protocol are “manufactured”. You just have to accept these realities and then try to work with them. It will be an act of great subtlety and difficulty for the UK Government but this is demanded by the Good Friday agreement, the prior international agreement; this is how it says that the British Government —the Government with sovereign power in the area—should behave. They must accept that obligation under the agreement; it is the prior agreement.

This is the view not just of this Government but of the May Government. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, in this House in March 2019, as well as the then Brexit Secretary, stated that the prior international agreement was the Good Friday agreement. The UK Government believed that they had a case in international law to disapply elements of the protocol to the withdrawal agreement in the unlikely event that these should conflict with the working of the Good Friday agreement. The lonely hour of that unlikely event has arrived fully and is now upon us, with the institutions down and, east-west, north-south, the strands not working at all.

Returning to the language Bill, I am sure that before the debate ends people will talk about Wales and Scotland as comparators and it is entirely correct that they should do so; but in the case of Northern Ireland the truth is that the most important comparator is language policy in the Republic of Ireland. There is a paradox here. In 1947, De Valera told the British ambassador that the Irish people, having gained their political freedom, were no longer so interested in the language. Those who fought for Irish freedom would be amazed by the low number of people in the Irish Republic who filled in their census forms in Irish; that was not what they thought it was all about. It was a central part of the cultural certainty and definition that led to Irish independence, but just not how things have actually worked out in practice.

On the other hand, one aspect did work out in practice. I refer to the words of Myles Dillon, son of the last leader of the great Irish Parliamentary Party in this Parliament, John Dillon. Myles Dillon was the greatest Irish language scholar of his generation. Like his father, he was an Irish language enthusiast. In 1958, he said, it had become an “instrument of discipline” as a means of excluding Protestants from key jobs and cultural institutions of the country. He spoke of this as arising from the Catholic nationalist tradition, and found it horrifying. He said this bluntly and clearly. He said that this factor destroyed the value of the Irish language as a means of building up an Irish national identity.

We cannot approach this problem without realising what the real history of the Irish language has been in the Irish Republic. That is not to say that there are not, for example, many people who love the language, speak it as a first language and so on—there are—but there is a darker side to the history of the Irish language in the Irish Republic. It is therefore inevitable that unionists looking at this Bill will feel somewhat wary.

One thing I would say is that, the more deeply a man or woman loves the Irish language, the less inclined they are to use it as a political instrument against others. Myles Dillon, probably the greatest Gaelic scholar of his generation, is an example. I therefore question the role of the commissioner and argue that it would be the best of all worlds if we could have a good, deep Irish language scholar who passionately loves this beautiful language. The more one gets somebody of that sort for the job—I am not drawing up the ads—the more this legislation will be progressed in the right and correct spirit.

I have one final word to say about the reference to the Ulster-Scots/Ulster-British tradition in this agreement. I note that the commissioner has a purview with respect to the media; the Explanatory Notes state this explicitly. In Northern Ireland, there is a growing danger of parochialism, particularly in the local media. For example, in the 1990s BBC Northern Ireland used to have regular coverage of this House and Northern Ireland Questions in the House of Commons; for some time, they were really quite interesting. There is no such coverage now.

In March 2019, the then Brexit Secretary, with the authority of the Attorney-General, stated a thesis that the Good Friday agreement was the prior international agreement and that, in international law, the UK Government had a case that conflicted with the protocol—although they hoped it did not. As far as I can see, that was never reported in Northern Ireland. A very significant moment in government life just passed by. Now, we have the idea that, when a position is returned to in part by the current Government, it is seen as something new. It is not new at all; British Governments of different hues have been stating it for some time.

To take another recent example, I watched BBC NI’s coverage of the local election results for three days. There were endless hours of discussion but not one of the pundits referred to the fact that, on the Thursday morning, senior London journalists had published a great deal of detail on the Government’s proposed legislative programme for Northern Ireland. Nobody referred to it. They might as well have been whispering in a box, because people in Northern Ireland do not read London journals any more. The local commentariat does not do so either.

There is a role here for the Ulster-Scots/Ulster-British commissioner with respect to the media, as is stated. The role is this: the increasingly great danger in Northern Ireland is parochialism. We know from the horrible example given in the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Caine, that sectarianism has far from gone away; it is a horrible, ugly example that brings shame to everybody connected with it. I am very glad that he made that reference. We know that sectarianism is the greatest evil. I am not saying that parochialism is an equal evil—it most certainly is not—but it is one of the growing evils in Northern Ireland. It is therefore my hope that the Ulster-Scots/Ulster-British commissioner will not see this role as an attempt to be an exciting driver forth on the intricacies of the Ulster-Scots dialect, but will see it in its broader terms, which are about requiring the sort of settlement that reflects both identities: the Irish nationalist identity and the British unionist identity in Northern Ireland.

Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Lord Bew Excerpts

Thursday 7th April 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, who not only is responsible for this debate but has loved the Province for so long. It is not always the easiest place to love so I am really grateful to him.

I will begin by making the core point about the protocol and the current destabilising effects of the protocol in Northern Ireland. A year ago now, Maroš Šefčovič wrote on behalf of the European Union to the noble Lord, Lord Frost, saying that the protocol was the only means of protecting the single market. I accept that the United Kingdom has a responsibility to protect the single market, although it has turned out, with grace periods and so on, that the threat may not be anything like as great as imagined in theory. He also said it was the only way to preserve the Good Friday agreement. The history of the past year has not dealt kindly with that remark. The Good Friday agreement is dead. All three strands are kaput, not merely in a crisis, but dead. It really has to be brought home that this is where we now actually are.

The crucial question now is did the EU mean it when it said in the withdrawal agreement that it was determined to maintain the Good Friday agreement in all its aspects or is this simply a responsibility of the UK Government? The UK Government have a responsibility under international law to maintain a prior international agreement from the time of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, that says that the UK Government have a responsibility to maintain the economic rights of the people of Northern Ireland and to deliver political solutions on the basis of equality of esteem.

At this point it is quite clear that the unionist community is ferociously alienated from the protocol. We have to discover where the EU really is on that. Some of the academic commentaries on the protocol, published by Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press, are saying that all the things in it that you might have thought would give comfort to the United Kingdom are actually meaningless and there is no comfort there at all. Does that include the commitment to maintain the Good Friday agreement and to work to preserve it? That requires substantial movement on the UK side. If it does not, the UK must say that it will live up to its obligations under the prior international agreement to maintain the GFA.

Briefly on the union, I will say something that may not go down terribly well with unionist opinion in Northern Ireland. It is very important not to fall guilty of a belief in the project of high unionism. It is dead. The Act of Union, what it says about trade, disappeared with the Government of Ireland Act 1920. One cannot imagine a world in which Irish nationalists do not exist, either in Northern Ireland or elsewhere on the island of Ireland. They took 26 countries out of the Act of Union. To take as an example the Second World War, in which Northern Ireland made a major contribution to the eventual British victory, there was no conscription in Northern Ireland because of the pressure of Irish nationalism. Margaret Thatcher’s Anglo-Irish agreement of 1985 was affected by the pressure of Irish nationalism. Again and again, Northern Ireland has had to mutate due to the pressures that come from Irish nationalism, and the protocol is just the latest in a long line.

I read things saying that before the protocol we had equality of citizenship. There has not been equality of citizenship. The Labour Party does not organise in Northern Ireland. All these things pre-dated the protocol. The union survives only by being flexible. The part of the world that I now live in, County Antrim, has been represented in this Parliament for 222 years. The latest polling implies that it is going to be represented in this Parliament for decades to come, but it is up to the people of Northern Ireland to make what they can of that and not to chase the chimera of a perfect world in which nationalists do not exist and the changes that they have effected in British legislation do not exist. That is incompatible with any serious capacity to maintain the union.

The strength of the union lies in its flexibility. Its durability is related to its flexibility and therefore its ability to deal with many gritty compromises. The protocol is extremely unsatisfactory. The EU has to change its position. The UK has to win the argument that it has obligations to the people of Northern Ireland under its previous international agreement which must be upheld, but there will still be elements of the settlement which reflect the interests of Irish nationalists and the people of Ireland as a whole. This fantasy world that is now developing, where a pure, high union can be restored, having existed before the protocol, simply is not true. It is a delusion and a snare.

Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill

Lord Bew Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 29th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support the Bill and to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Caine, to his position. It is wonderful to have in this House somebody with so much expertise on this subject and so much genuine, heartfelt concern for the people of Northern Ireland and their future prosperous development. I am also glad to see here tonight the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who was such a distinguished representative for his party as shadow spokesman on Northern Ireland in the other place.

First, I support the Bill’s basic principle: to provide further durability and flexibility to the institutions of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I have one particular concern. It relates to new paragraph 1(1)(c), as proposed by Clause 4—titled “Ministerial Code of Conduct”—and the reference to Ministers upholding the Nolan principles. There is a pre-history here. I do not expect the noble Lord, Lord Caine, to be able to resolve it tonight because it is rather messy but the pre-history is that, in 2011, the then Government decided that it was not desirable for the Committee on Standards in Public Life have a role in the devolved regions, particularly Northern Ireland—or Northern Ireland in particular in the context of this Bill. As it happens, I became the chairman of the committee a few months later, after that decision. Nobody in Northern Ireland noticed that Northern Ireland had been removed from the sway of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Throughout 2013-14, Members of the Assembly constantly insisted that my committee play a role with respect to this or that issue—indeed, at one point, it gave evidence to a Select Committee in the Assembly on these issues—but we had in effect been removed.

There is one thought here. The issues that brought down the Assembly were in a sense Nolan principles issues. I completely agree with the observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Godson, earlier, reflecting on the remarks in this House of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, on 6 December 2018. He said that the collapse of the Assembly contributed greatly to what he saw as the deep flaws in the 2018 withdrawal agreement. The overall problem is the way in which that agreement—and you can also argue this about the 2019 agreement—is an imposition from the top down on the people of Northern Ireland. That was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. This is a dangerous and risky thing to do, and it was made much more possible by the absence of the Assembly in the years leading up to the 2018 agreement, and indeed the 2017 joint report that set in stone so much of what subsequently followed.

I cannot honestly claim that, if the committee on standards had had a role in Northern Ireland, it would have averted the collapse of the Assembly, because there is such a thing as the selfish strategic interest of a number of parties that helped to bring that about. However, I can say that it is now slightly airy and weak for there to be a reference in this document to the Nolan principles as being central to the functioning of Ministers, when the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the guardian of the Nolan principles, is not actually present in Northern Ireland.

I would like the Minister to inquire within government: is there any way this question can be looked at again? We seem to have lost something. We certainly lost something by the loss of the Assembly in the lead-up to the 2018 withdrawal agreement. That was the point made so powerfully that day by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy.

Before I conclude, I will make one point about the underlying principle of the Bill, which I strongly support, and one comment. The underlying principle shows that the UK Government are determined to achieve stability in Northern Ireland. Last Thursday I was speaking in Dublin at one of the Royal Irish Academy series of discourses, which started in the late 18th century. Afterwards I talked to a number of people involved in political and economic life in Dublin. What slightly surprised me was an idea in their minds that the UK Government were not committed to stability, that the current debate going on between the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and Maroš Šefčovič is not about real issues—well, I think they thought it was about real issues; everybody knows there are real issues, including medicines for Northern Ireland and so on—and that somehow there was no point in responding to the concerns of the United Kingdom Government because fundamentally they just liked and were addicted to having rows in and around these issues.

First of all, there are real issues and I do not think the UK Government are doing anything other than the correct thing in raising them. Indeed, the very fact that the EU has made substantial moves in response to the initiatives from the noble Lord, Lord Frost—moves that would not have been made absent his efforts—shows that there are real, substantive issues here.

The point I really want to make about the Bill is simple. It is coming from a Government who are much criticised but determined to defend the institutions of the Good Friday agreement. That is exactly how the Minister opened his speech tonight. It is about stability and maintaining the institutions in and around the Good Friday agreement. It sends out a clear signal that we do not wish or need to see these endless, difficult debates and threats to the institutions continue for ever. We want to see stability.