Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Lord Browne of Belmont Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Lords Chamber

I am truly sympathetic with the problem of a democratic deficit. I was born in a different country—I was born in a colony too—so I understand what it means. However, that is not an answer to the unlawfulness of these clauses and therefore not an answer to the proposal we are making that they should be removed from the Bill.

[Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)]

My Lords, I oppose the proposition that Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill and that Clause 3 should also fall as a consequential amendment. If it was to succeed, the Bill would be rendered largely inoperative. In response to this, I am struck by two realities.

First, it is striking that the Government are saying, quite rightly, that the Bill is required urgently to avert a socio-economic and political crisis in Northern Ireland. Secondly, it is also striking that the democratically elected House has consented to that and deemed fit to pass the Bill with no amendment.

It is noticeable that many Northern Ireland Peers were yesterday copied into a letter of invitation—as already mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey—sent to the movers of this amendment about the provisions in these clauses. It asked that, before they reached any final conclusions on the matter, they visit the logistics centres in Northern Ireland run by McCulla Ireland and McBurney to find out why it is not possible to apply the laws of international trade to regional trade without causing a crisis and to reflect on what they discovered before drawing any final conclusions. These are the largest haulage operators on the island of Ireland. They have considerable expertise on these matters. As Paul Jackson, the commercial director of McBurney, explained to noble Lords on the House of Lords Sub-Committee on the Protocol, were the protocol to be implemented, it would crash the Northern Ireland supply chain “within 48 hours”.

In focusing on the negative implications of the protocol, and the consequences for international law, I want to make it clear that it is not my purpose to deny that the protocol is having positive effects for some—although these would become limited if the protocol were to be fully implemented. My point is simply that, in a context where 95% of our British Isles trade is with Great Britain and only 5% with the Republic, the negatives far outweigh the positives.

The discriminatory implications of denying the people of Northern Ireland the same economic right to trade with their fellow UK citizens cannot be dismissed lightly, because they cut right to the heart of our citizenship. In another instance, the negative impact of the protocol is in no way comparable with the inconvenience arising from having to negotiate customs borders between different states and the application of the rules of international trade to international trade. The inconvenience arising from applying the rules of international trade to intranational or regional trade is far greater than the inconvenience arising from the application of the rules of international trade to international trade, which is why, with the exception of Northern Ireland, it does not happen elsewhere. Thus, we are not merely confronting a situation where we are not affording members of the same polity the same levels of respect as their fellows—seeking to treat them as if they were foreigners, rather than citizens of the same country, for trading purposes—but we are actually putting on Northern Ireland a far greater inconvenience than we put on traders from other countries, and, in this sense, the UK is treating the people of Northern Ireland far worse than those from other countries.

To understand why this is so, and the implications of this from the perspective of international law, we need to understand the difference between international and intranational trade. With talk about globalisation, it is easy to get carried away into thinking that the world is defined by homogenous global economic flows, in which national borders are nothing more than an anachronism. But that is not the case: the borders, even between highly interdependent western countries, mark important lines of difference. For example, a lorry engaged in international trade will typically be a large vehicle and carry just one or two products. The cost of generating the paperwork associated with this, in terms of customs and SPS, will be tiny expressed as a percentage of the value of the cargo. By contrast, lorries engaged in trade within an economy often carry many different products, up to around 300. This is no problem because, within an economy, lorries can move freely. If, however, you introduce a border within an economy and require lorries travelling from one part to another to cross a customs border so that they must provide 300 separate customs declarations and 300 separate SPS declarations —or even more in the case of composite goods—the cost of generating the paperwork expressed as a percentage of the total value of the cargo becomes huge. It is so great in fact that the enterprise becomes either uneconomic or just not worth the bother. In this context, 200 companies in Great Britain have already ceased to provide goods to Northern Ireland, and if the protocol were to be implemented—let us not forget that it has never been anything like fully implemented—that number would increase dramatically, and we would be confronting a major socioeconomic crisis.

Some—such as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr—might respond to this by saying, “Well, why can’t Northern Ireland get its goods from the Republic?” It can to a degree, but only to a relatively small degree. It must be understood that Northern Ireland is a fully integrated part of the UK economy. If one looks at movements between GB and Northern Ireland, and between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, 95% is between GB and Northern Ireland. Only 5% is between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and that is the case notwithstanding the fact that Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have both been part of the European single market since 1993. It is not possible to restructure an economy overnight by cutting off the source of 95% of supply without creating huge damage.

In this regard, it is worth remembering that the Good Friday agreement is a treaty and part of international law, and the section entitled “Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity” commits to

“the right to equal opportunity in all social and economic activity.”

Yet the protocol now cuts Northern Ireland off from most of its own economy, with disastrous results. This is a real problem, because Article 2(1) of the protocol states:

“The United Kingdom shall ensure that no diminution of rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity, as set out in that part of the 1998 Agreement entitled Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity results from its withdrawal from the Union”.


In this context, notwithstanding the existence of Article 2(1), and the fact that the operation of the protocol has had the effect of diminishing the right to economic activity by cutting Northern Ireland off from most of its economy, the source of 95% of its trade, the EU has nonetheless refused to change a word of the protocol. The UK clearly has an obligation under international law to introduce the Bill before us today.

Finally, I urge noble Lords behind this group to take the opportunity to visit McBurney and McCulla before drawing any final conclusions.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I shall comment briefly on the important remarks by my noble and learned friend Lord Judge. I referred earlier to the fact that the opinion of international lawyers is more complex and variegated than, say, the first 10 speakers in the House this afternoon appeared to know. One of the most important figures here is Professor Alan Boyle, emeritus professor of international law at Edinburgh, who has given evidence to committees of both Houses. At one level, his analysis is close to that of my noble and learned friend, Lord Judge. As I understand it, his view is that the Government ought to apply Article 16 at this moment.

We have been talking about this for years. I can remember, three and a half years ago, sitting down with the noble Lord, Lord Caine, looking at Article 16 and having an initial conversation about it. The Government have, at various times, been close to applying Article 16. They did not know then how fashionable it would become in this House to say that it is the way out. Had they known that that was going to happen, I am sure they would have done it, but civilised opinion said, “That is a terribly British thing, you can’t do it.” Amazingly, there has been a change of attitude now.

The point that Professor Boyle made, and which was not made by my noble and learned friend Lord Judge or anybody who has spoken for Article 16 this afternoon, is based on the idea that he accepted the underlying logic that the approach of the Bill to protect the Good Friday agreement was correct. There was a problem that the obvious features of the Good Friday agreement —strand 3 in particular, on the east-west relationship—are not being respected in the way the protocol was working.

It is pretty well documented, historically, how that situation arose in negotiating terms, but my point is this. My noble and learned friend, whose skills are so admirable in this matter, is just following a route that was followed for some hours today, which is to say, “Why do the Government not implement Article 16?” I more than half understand it. I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Caine, and I suspect that at certain times in the last few years he might have thought that might not be a bad idea either. That is not the point. At this moment, politically, we just cannot do it. We have a serious negotiation with the EU. I have said this before: you cannot walk in and suddenly say, “Oh, by the way, chaps, we are now throwing this on top of your heads”. The moment has gone.

Further, the advocacy offered in this House is weakened by the fact that, for the majority of those people who have suddenly discovered what a wonderful device it might be, it is not accompanied by what Professor Alan Boyle did, which is to say that the saving of the Good Friday agreement is critical. He defended it on the grounds that it might be a step we have to take, and he accepted that there is a conflict between the way the protocol is working and that original international agreement, which we also have a duty to uphold.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Lord Browne of Belmont Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 11th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)]

My Lords, I support the Bill. If fully enacted, this legislation has the potential to provide tangible solutions that will free Northern Ireland from the grip of the crippling protocol arrangements and restore our rights as British citizens to trade freely with the rest of our nation under Article 6 of the Acts of Union.

Nobody who values the union supports barriers remaining in place between Northern Ireland and the rest of this nation. Equally, nobody who values devolved governance in Northern Ireland should countenance the protocol, as it has undermined the principle of consent and dealt a blow to consensus-building politics. If we do not act now, we will reach a critical point where, after the full implementation of the protocol, Northern Ireland will be subject to an ever-expanding series of laws imposed by a foreign entity without any say or vote by its elected representatives.

While the rest of the United Kingdom has secured its freedom to deregulate or go in a different direction on aid or taxation, Northern Ireland will be left behind and face fresh restrictions and challenges simply because it is tied to the protocol. The trade friction between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is fuelling the cost of living crisis in Northern Ireland and restricting consumer choice. The Northern Ireland protocol is not only unsustainable in its form but incompatible with the Acts of Union. It threatens the sovereignty of this nation and undermines devolved governance, which requires cross-community buy-in and support if it is to function fully.

As it stands, the Bill provides a clear framework to address many of the issues outlined today. It provides a framework to remove the European Court of Justice as the ultimate arbiter of the protocol, smoothing the passage of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and bringing Northern Ireland fully back into the UK’s VAT and excise duty regime.

The Bill must pass and its regulation-making powers be fully deployed as quickly as possible to avert impending political crisis in Northern Ireland. We must not waste any more time talking about checks. The economic problem is not the checks but the paralysing cost implications of applying third-country certification burdens on the qualitatively very different consignments of goods that flow within economies—as with Great Britain-Northern Ireland trade—rather than between them, which make trading uneconomic.

If the protocol were ever implemented economically—let us not forget that, thankfully, it never has been because of the grace periods—hauliers have made it absolutely clear that the certification costs associated with taking goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland would make that undertaking uneconomic and Northern Ireland's supply chains would break down within 24 hours, creating an existential economic crisis for part of our United Kingdom.

Similarly, the political problem is not at root the checks, but the fact that the people of Northern Ireland have been degraded as a result of their right to make laws in some 300 areas being taken from them. The value of their vote has been diminished. Every time a new law is opposed on Northern Ireland by the EU, the human rights provisions in the Belfast agreement with respect to political engagement are violated. That violation cuts to the quick—the knowledge that, while the people of England, Wales, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland must have the right to stand for election or vote to elect people to make all the laws to which they are subject, the people of Northern Ireland must be subject to the unique and deeply distressing indignity of being told that they do not always deserve to be afforded the same level of respect.

The Bill may be needed—and needed urgently—and I strongly urge all noble Lords to pass it today, and certainly without any six-month delay. Quite apart from anything else, this will strengthen the Government’s negotiating hand, while a six-month delay would simply weaken it. I support the Bill.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Browne of Belmont Excerpts

Thursday 13th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP) [V]]

My Lords, I was pleased to hear in her Majesty’s gracious Speech that her government Ministers will promote the strength and integrity of the union and that measures will be brought forward to strengthen devolved government in Northern Ireland. In promoting the benefits of maintaining and enhancing our great union of nations, we should emphasise that we have in these isles a history and a bond unmatched anywhere else in the world. We have a unique selling point: four distinctly original constituent parts of one nation.

We hold this key debate during Northern Ireland’s centenary year, a very significant milestone in our country’s history. One hundred years since its foundation, Northern Ireland is still very much part of the United Kingdom, and in 2021 it is in many ways unrecognisable when compared with how it looked and felt in the darkest days of conflict. One has only to look at Belfast’s harbour and skyline to appreciate the changes. In recent years we have witnessed relative peace and significant inward investment, including the growth of a strong film and television industry. International companies and studios recognise Northern Ireland’s value and potential as a location containing some of the most breathtakingly beautiful scenery in this nation. The considerable growth in tourism over the past decade is perhaps further evidence of that.

However, our union now faces several different and unique difficulties and challenges. In Scotland we hear familiar separatist rhetoric from those who wish to divide us. Despite having lost a previous referendum, some still seek to divide.

In Northern Ireland, regrettably, we are facing new realities as a consequence of trade uncertainties arising from the introduction of the Northern Ireland protocol arrangements. It is essential that we ensure the long-term prosperity of the UK and the viability of businesses. We must do all we can to protect our internal market and build on our relationships across our nation. It remains true that no part of the UK should feel disadvantaged because of the proximity of a trade border. There remain some real concerns in communities and within businesses in Northern Ireland that the protocol represents a threat to the integrity of our union. These are not concerns that will be easily swept away. I am sure the Minister will appreciate that many will seek further assurances and legal guarantees regarding these matters.

The UK’s independence from the EU now opens up a new era of opportunities for increased co-operation and trade across the globe. However, before we enter new arrangements, perhaps we should first seek to repair, improve and further the friendships and alliances on our doorstep, across these isles. Being equal partners in a shared and integrated UK economy helps all the constituent parts of our nation to deal with risks and share opportunities. Inside the union we share not only a currency, a language and common standards but we are also socially integrated. Our strongest cultural bonds, interests, histories and values are those that we share across our nation. It is an undeniable fact that strong links across these isles and our open UK markets have brought huge benefits to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The case for maintaining the union is as important as it is compelling. Though being British may be interpreted differently in different parts of our nation, there is a common understanding and appreciation of certain basic constitutional principles, such as the rule of law. Most British citizens instinctively recognise the many practical benefits of our union, such as our shared currency, which facilitates the growth of a strong and integrated economy. However, we should never complacently take those opinions for granted; nor should we use language that may alienate some when making our case. We must continue to work together, championing the union and strengthening the bonds between us.

The case for the union is a compelling one, based on future growth and opportunities. It is important to older and younger people alike. It is a case based on securing our economic future and sustaining our place on the world stage for years to come. Maintaining the union is the responsibility of all of us. Putting forward the case for it is as vital now as it was 50 or 100 years ago. All those who value and respect our United Kingdom, across all parts of it, must seize the opportunities before us to promote and safeguard it for future generations.

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [HL]

Lord Browne of Belmont Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 17th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Carlisle]

My Lords, much of what I might wish to say about Amendments 5 and 13 has already been mentioned, so I will not repeat it. However, from these Benches I would like to express my warm support for the main thrust of both amendments and briefly reiterate three points.

First, in both amendments, those applying for a divorce are not compelled to do anything, but they are presented with information that might make a difference not only to what they do but to the way in which they do it.

Secondly, with regard to Amendment 5, almost everyone is agreed that the divorce of a child’s parents is one of the so-called ACEs, or adverse childhood experiences—we have just heard about one of those—that can significantly affect the subsequent flourishing of the child. It seems to make every sense to bring that to the attention of the parents, as well as the fact that children apparently often tend to do better even with fractious parents than they do after a divorce, although I fully acknowledge that cases of domestic abuse are a different matter.

Thirdly, as for being given access to information about mediation and marriage counselling, as we have been reminded, it might seem a little late in the day for that, and I noted the earlier comments of other noble Lords. However, as I understand them, the statistics suggest that as many as 2,500 relationships are currently rescued each year as a direct result of this sort of intervention. That is obviously important not only for the couples but for any children involved. Several noble Lords have already emphasised that point.

Both these amendments seem to be simply a matter of common sense and care for everyone who is caught up in the trauma of a divorce. They would enhance, rather than destroy, the Bill, and I very much hope that the Minister will regard them with the favour that they clearly deserve.

[Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)]

My Lords, the social science evidence is very clear that divorce has a negative—sometimes profoundly negative—impact on child development. Of course, there are occasions when divorce is absolutely in the best interests of children: when they need to be liberated from an abusive environment. In developing public policy, however, we must be careful that situations where divorce is the best outcome do not cause us to lose sight of the fact that, in most cases, it is best for children to remain living in an intact family home.

Under the current law, if someone is unfaithful to their spouse, they know that they will be at risk of receiving divorce papers. There is a sense in which the law is there to protect the faithful spouse from being abused by an unfaithful spouse. The new framework, however, seems to turn things on its head. A feckless husband and father, rather than being challenged by the law in his selfishness, is actually empowered by it, and in a way that enables him to demonstrate a cruel lack of regard for his spouse and children. He can have an affair and use the law to help him fulfil his objective of liberating himself from the family unit that constrains him, in order to pursue others. The law allows him to issue a statement of irretrievable breakdown with the option of being out of the marriage in six months.

What does this Bill do for the faithful spouse, the respondent, and, more importantly, their children? It means that people who have committed no fault, but who are being divorced, will lose the warning that they currently benefit from through the requirement for prior separation in the absence of fault. They will instead receive, out of the blue, a statement of irretrievable breakdown, a breakdown that is in no sense their fault, and find that marriage will end in six months, or significantly less if the petitioner sabotages the 20-week reflection period by not telling her that a petition has been lodged until part way through or at the end of the period.

The lack of actual regard for the respondent and children in the proposed law is concerning. I know that in 2011, when David Cameron, as Prime Minister, called for feckless runaway fathers to be shamed, he was not necessarily saying that couples should not divorce. His point was that fathers should take their responsibilities seriously. As well as challenging fathers not thoughtlessly and selfishly to walk out of marriages, he was challenging fathers not to turn their backs on their responsibilities after divorce. Notwithstanding that, however, it is very difficult to square the way that this legislation empowers a feckless father to walk out of his marriage on the basis that his decision is an autonomous one, without regard for the best interests of the children until after the decision to divorce has been made. In this context, at the very least we must think more about asking parents to process the divorce decision in the context of an awareness of what the social science evidence says about the best interests of their children.

In this regard, I set before your Lordships’ House two considerations. In the first instance, a divorce decision is not an autonomous decision, because it impacts both the spouse and the children. We should be encouraging not an autonomous decision but a responsible decision, one that has regard for the impact on others, especially the children.

In the second instance, the decision to divorce is located, to some significant degree, in the legal process of divorce, and is not a foregone conclusion from the outset. As the Government’s consultation, Reducing Family Conflict, makes plain on page 31, initiating the petition amounts to something that

“puts the marriage on notice”.

The application for the conditional order for the divorce is not actually made until after the 20-week period. This is called a reflection period, for the very good reason that it is a time for reflection, to aid the decision-making process in the context of which The Family Impact Test says:

“The legal process for divorce should seek to reduce acrimony and conflict, thereby helping couples and parents to look to the future rather than providing a mechanism that facilitates and encourages the attribution of blame for past events. We want to create conditions for couples and parents to reconcile if they can – and to move on as constructively as possible in the event that this is not possible.”


In other words, the Government are saying that the decision-making process is still taking place in the legal process of divorce during the reflection period. In this context, it seems absolutely right that, rather than encouraging people to make autonomous decisions about divorce in the legal process of divorce, we should be encouraging them to make responsible decisions about divorce—decisions that do not think just about themselves but about their children.

I believe that this amendment is eminently sensible. It does not block couples seeking divorce; it entitles couples to receive information. Quite what couples decide to do with the information is up to them. Perhaps it will make them resolve to work harder at their marriage and step back from divorce. Perhaps it will not change their decision at all, but it will impact the way in which they approach it and make them more alive to the need to provide special support for their children going forward.

The state, having played a role in recognising the marriage commitment through the law and conscious of the significant public policy benefits of marriage, has a responsibility, particularly to the children of the marriage, to make sure that it cannot be exited without reflection on the implications of doing so in the best interests of the children. I am therefore pleased to support the Amendment 5.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, I start by reassuring the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, that if the President of the Family Division has said he will do something, he will do it.

Turning to these two amendments, I have the greatest possible sympathy with the proposals in each of them, but I do not think it appropriate that either should be in primary legislation. I would like to see, side by side with the application online, a requirement for the applicant to read advice about dealing with the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries; and equally, if not more important, to read something about what the children say about divorce’s impact on them. About 20 years ago, Michigan had the most wonderful video of children ranging from about six to 18. They talked about the impact of divorce on them, such as: guilt—wondering whether it was their fault; anger at one parent or sometimes both; frustration because they did not know what was going on; and so on. Children need to be informed about what is happening; they have a right to know. They are people, not just packages.

It is extremely important that this sort of information, together with the information the noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate have set out today, be provided, along with asking whether the parents realise that the children generally love both of them—it is very rare that they do not—and that the impact will include their feeling that they are responsible for what has happened, for example. I would like an undertaking from the Minister that this information, which has to be easily available, will be provided. A link is not good enough, because people do not have to look at it. It should be side by side with the application and should be provided to any applicant with children; however, it is not an appropriate provision for primary legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

“drawing from multiple peer reviewed academic sources comparing the scope for reconciliation under a fault-based divorce system with a no-fault based divorce system”.

[Lord Browne of Belmont]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 15 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. As I noted in my speech in Committee, in all our debates on the Bill we must not forget children. The Family Impact Test assessment affirms the Bill on the basis that it seeks to “reduce conflict”. However, while I fully understand the Government’s desire to reduce conflict in the divorce process, it is telling that the majority of couples who divorce are in low-conflict relationships.

The figure mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, is that 60% of couples that split are in low-conflict relationships. This research comes from Professor Spencer James of Brigham Young University. He states that these low-conflict couples are

“largely indistinguishable before they split from couples that remain together”.

These findings challenge the assumption that the majority of couples that split up are in constant conflict with one another, yet that assumption seems to underpin this legislation. James’s research comes from the UK’s largest household panel survey, Understanding Society. He found that only 9% of married couples in the United Kingdom who split could be described as high-conflict couples. He states:

“Both unhappiness and conflict are far less prevalent among couples who are about to split than one might reasonably expect.”


All of this is important when we return to research on the impact on children of family breakdown. Parents are more likely fall into poverty following separation. Therefore, they need much greater levels of state support. Some 60% of lone parents receive housing benefit, compared to just 10% of couple parents. Even when income and education are taken into account, studies find negative effects on children from divorce. One study, from Lee and McLanahan, looking at 2,952 mothers and children, revealed that instability especially affects children’s socioemotional development.

Yet the impact of divorce on children seems to depend on what came before. Children tend to do better if their parents exit a high-conflict relationship and worse if they exit a low-conflict one. As James notes in the research I mentioned earlier:

“This potentially counterintuitive finding in fact makes great sense. The break-up of a low conflict relationship comes largely out of the blue for the children. They are then left to conclude either that relationships are profoundly unpredictable or that they are somehow responsible. It’s easy to see how either of these conclusions can then undermine and sabotage their own future prospects of a loving committed relationship”.


This amendment would require the Government simply to look further into the impact of no or low-conflict divorce on children. It is a significant failing that the Family Impact Test assessment has not engaged with this. I think there will be a good deal of benefit in gaining greater understanding of why these couples divorce and therefore in investing more effort in helping them. If these married couples are saying they are relatively happy one year before divorce, what pushes them to make that decision? Understanding that would enable targeted support and help.

The research I have talked about should give us hope. If 60% of couples of are low-conflict and many of them are happy one year before they divorce, perhaps those marriages could be saved. Divorce is generally not in the best interests of the children of those families, so keeping them together would be a great benefit to them. I support Amendment 15.

[Lord Morrow]

My Lords, I wish to speak in support of Amendment 17, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I am aware that he does not intend to test the opinion of the House on it, but nevertheless I think there are some things that merit being said.

The noble Lord noted in Committee that there are no less than 27 references to reconciliation in the Government’s comments setting out their response to their consultation on divorce law reform. They include the statement that,

“the law can – and should – have a role in providing couples with an opportunity to reflect on that momentous decision and to pull back from the brink if they decide that reconciliation is achievable”.

If we look beyond that document there are plenty of other examples, including in the Family Impact Test assessment of this Bill, which states:

“The current law works against reconciliation by incentivising … a spouse to make allegations about the other spouse’s conduct which can create conflict. The alternative option which requires the couple to live apart for a substantial period of time can disincentivise efforts at reconciliation because the separation period can be affected if the couple try living together again. The current law also offers little opportunity for reflection and conciliation, as the initial decree of divorce can come only a matter of weeks after the divorce proceedings have started.”


In promoting a no-fault system, the Family Impact Test states:

“We want to create conditions for couples and parents to reconcile if they can”.


In this context, it seems to me that commissioning research on how reconciliation is best facilitated under the new regime proposed by the Bill compared to the fault-based system that we have now is vital. The Minister might be preparing to tell me that reconciliation rarely happens during the divorce process, as he did in Committee when he said that there was little evidence that divorces that do not proceed do so because the couple have reconciled. If the Government really think that, it seems completely contradictory to all their statements about reconciliation.

I hope the Minister will not try to square this circle by simply saying that the Government’s position is that while it is not worth prioritising reconciliation, of course they support reconciliation when it is possible. Multiple statements of commitment to the promotion of reconciliation in the Government’s response to the consultation, press releases and family test are such that it does not make sense for the Government then to say that, by the time the divorce process starts, it is too late for reconciliation.

I note that when the Minister suggested this argument in Committee, he cited in defence the Newcastle University study of the Family Law Act 1996 pilots. He told the House about the information meetings that were part of the Family Law Act 1996 and said:

“The purpose of that meeting included providing the parties with information about marriage counselling. Academic research into various models of information meetings found that they came too late to save marriages and tended to incline parties who were unsure towards divorce.”—[Official Report, 3/3/20; col. 564.]


He also implied elsewhere in Committee that the information meetings were not effective.

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [HL]

Lord Browne of Belmont Excerpts

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

[Baroness Burt of Solihull]

My Lords, I can see the sentiment behind considering the interests of the children in this matter. We will all have been moved by the testimony of the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, about the terrible experience that she and her children underwent, but this amendment would hand the court the impossible task of deciding what is in the children’s interests without the mechanisms to do so, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, just said.

How would you implement a judgment forcing parents to stay together in the children’s interests? You cannot force a couple to stay together any more than you can order warring parents to create a loving environment. I hope that we are past the stage where parents stay together for the sake of the children—unless it is a mutual voluntary agreement—because, on the whole, that has been shown to do more harm than good. Children may fare better from having two loving parents who live in different places, often with different families of all kinds. Love and the secure knowledge that they are loved are what matters, no matter who makes up their family. Research has shown that parents are usually the best judge of what is in their children’s interests. Where this is not feasible, the family courts are there to help.

I am afraid that we will not support the amendment from these Benches.

[Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)]

My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendments 2 and 14 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe.

I note with interest that these amendments were tabled in the last Session in another place by the right honourable Frank Field, who served with great distinction from 1979 until last November as the Member of Parliament for Birkenhead. He made a significant contribution to children’s issues and chaired the Field review on early years intervention. I am sure he will be pleased that the noble Baroness has taken up these amendments, which could not be debated in the other place.

Divorce affects a community: the adults involved, their friends and families and, of course, the children. The likelihood is that the effects on most children will be long-lasting. Children have to watch their parents go through a divorce, then continue their lives afterward. The research base demonstrating the damage to children from divorce is so widespread—the fact that it is now recognised as an adverse children experience, or ACE, has already been alluded to—that I will not detain the House by looking at it in any detail other than to note that family breakdown is now recognised as the biggest factor behind the UK’s child mental health crisis. More than a third of children whose parents had split up reported poor mental health, compared with a fifth of children with parents who were still together. Moreover, Hetherington and Kelly’s research interviewing the children of divorce later in life revealed that 20% to 25% of children of divorce continue to suffer lasting social and psychological problems in adulthood, compared with just 10% of children from intact families.

The fact is that, after a divorce, children find themselves in a difficult situation. As has been referred to, Cockett and Tripp’s work in The Exeter Family Study demonstrates how divorce changes family life. Their research showed that in parental conflict during marriage, the child may be able to remain on the sidelines, whereas after divorce, they may be obliged to take a central role; for example, carrying messages between resident and non-resident parents who find that they are unable to communicate face to face. Children in re-ordered families reported that their parents frequently told tales about each other or each other’s new partners. Children also sometimes felt that they had to suppress telling one parent about enjoyable times they had had with the other, or had actually been asked by one parent to keep something secret from their former partner.

Inevitably, the child’s relationship with their parents changes; for example, one may move away and the other may become more prominent in their life while finding their own way after the divorce, potentially with less financial resources. The child might find that they have to move to be with a parent and change school. A recent article on parental divorce or separation and children’s mental health said:

“Marital instability presents not a single risk factor, but a cascade of sequelae for children.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, I support both amendments. I want to look at Amendment 21 first; it contains a reference to Section 22 of the Family Law Act 1996 and one of the provisions supported by Professor Walker in the passage that my noble friend quoted. I regard it as absolutely essential that the Government should support families in difficulties. There are plenty of reasons for difficulty in family relationships, perhaps more than there were. But in any case, whether that is so or not, there are still difficulties, and help in overcoming these is essential as early as possible. Amendment 21 deals with Section 22 and the need for counselling in relation to the later stage.

I also support the provisions in Amendment 3, which are a last resort. It is so important that people really consider what is happening and get what help they can before it happens. The idea that it is always too late is not quite right. Sometimes reconciliation can come quite late—and better late than never—which is what Amendment 3 supports. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, was Bishop of Oxford when the 1996 Act was considered and ultimately passed. I think it was he who put this amendment in form first. The Government fully supported it, as I do now. I also support its continuation, which is in the amendment.

There are some quite interesting amendments. Section 22 of the Act says:

“The Lord Chancellor may, with the approval of the Treasury”.


I am not sure why I had to put that text in the Bill, but it must have been part of the price I paid for getting that section into it, which remains law. The amount provided for it now has fallen. I would like to press on Her Majesty’s Government that one of the most important things for the present is that our family life is preserved and strengthened. I am sure that, as was said on earlier amendments, a good deal of difficulty has arisen from the failure to support family life in the way that the Government should. Therefore, I am very much in favour of Amendments 3 and 21.

[Lord Browne of Belmont]

My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, which focuses on marriage support services. It requires the Secretary of State to make grants for marriage support services

“before and during a marriage.”

The public policy benefits of marriage are such that this is a very appropriate use of public funds. Indeed, in terms of the public finances, investment in relationships is good value for money. The estimated cost of family breakdown to the public purse is £51 billion a year. In January 2018, the Government said in another place that between April 2015 and March 2017 they had invested £17.5 million in relationship support services. That is a very small sum, given the scale of the costs of family breakdown. It is estimated that Relate’s couple counselling work delivers £11.40 of benefits for every £1 spent. Surely this should make the Chancellor consider upping the Government’s investment in supporting married couples and those in civil partnerships.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Lord Browne of Belmont Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 15th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, I speak as someone who has had the great joy of recently being married under the legislation as it applies in England and Wales. I simply observe to the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, that, as someone who wished to be married, I had absolutely no wish to do so in a place or in circumstances that other people would have found offensive. That would have been deeply offensive to me. I wished to celebrate in my community, and I did. I was quite happy to abide by the laws of this country, which insist that my marriage had to be completely secular. It was a wonderful, wonderful experience and I hope that many other people, including my brothers and sisters in Northern Ireland, will be afforded the similar dignity.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, I think we are closer on this than we are on other issues, but my one concern is this. It is to be found in proposed new subsection (1A)(e) in the amendment, which refers to education. I understand that in the preceding proposed new paragraphs, the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, seeks to obtain the same provisions that obtain in England and Wales, but I am not sure that how the proposed new paragraph is worded is exactly the same. It may go further, because in England and Wales we debated the matter of schools elsewhere. I simply say to the noble Lord that I have concerns about that aspect of his amendment, but I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the majority of what the noble Lord has put forward and address this matter in his response.

[Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 17, to which I have added my name. Once again, we should be discussing a simple administrative Bill, but instead we find ourselves considering one that would impose huge cultural changes on Northern Ireland without the consent of the people and over the head of their devolved Government. I am sure I do not need to remind your Lordships that the Bill is being fast-tracked in a manner that noble Lords who sit on the Constitution Committee have criticised as constitutionally unacceptable.

However, those present for the debates on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill will recall the protections carefully carved out for religious liberty and free speech. As has been outlined, at present there is nothing in Clause 8 to secure such protections for the people of Northern Ireland. My noble friend Lord Morrow spoke about the need to uphold religious freedoms, but I wish to focus on freedom of expression. It is a right that belongs to everyone in Northern Ireland, regardless of their religion or philosophical views. Proposed new paragraphs (d) and (e) outline fundamental protections for free speech, which go to the heart of any democracy. Discussions about marriage arouse strong emotions, and this is especially true in the context of Northern Ireland, where not only are there large religious communities, but a wider culture that holds more strongly to traditional values around marriage and the family than other parts of the United Kingdom.

There should be absolute protection for such people to discuss and critique same-sex marriage in the classroom, the boardroom and, indeed, in the street. Proposed new paragraph (e) outlines a vital protection in the specific context of educational institutions. Universities, schools and colleges are platforms for discussion, debate and criticism of ideas, and this must not come under threat following any change in the law on marriage.

Earlier this year, robust new free speech guidance was issued for universities in this country. David Isaac, chair of the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission, underlined the continuing importance of this historical principle, saying:

“The free expression and exchange of different views without persecution or interference goes straight to the heart of our democracy and is a vital part of higher education. Holding open, challenging debates rather than silencing the views of those we don’t agree with helps to build tolerance and address prejudice and discrimination”.


I am sure we are all united on the right to free speech and against compelled speech. For these simple and fundamental reasons, I am happy to support Amendment 17.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown]

My Lords, I join with my colleagues. I am a signatory to this amendment and rise to support it. Introducing same-sex marriage is a move that has been highly divisive in Northern Ireland. I acknowledge that, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, there are people who hold strong views concerning this. I certainly know that many in Northern Ireland believe strongly, as I do, that marriage is between a man and a woman and is the fundamental building block of our society, and therefore that the definition of marriage should remain unchanged. However, having listened to the debate and that in the other place, I realise that it seems this legislation is going to be forced on the people of Northern Ireland.

In a relatively short period, there has been an alarming abandonment of the teaching of scripture on marriage as ordained by God. This contempt for biblical marriage includes not only the abandonment of it as a divine institution but a direct attack on it in the promotion of same-sex marriage. This is spear-headed in open defiance of God’s moral law, and those who hold to the scripture view are held in utter contempt.

I do not wish in any way to be hurtful to any person, but I also have to be faithful to and express what I believe. That is why I am in this House. I was an elected Member in another place for some 25 years and was certainly known to express—genuinely, earnestly and honestly—what I believe. As a Christian minister, I believe that in Genesis, chapter 1, verse 27, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, Moses wrote:

“So God created man in His own image; in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them”.


This is a general statement of the creation of man in God’s image but stressing the distinction of gender. In Genesis, chapter 2, the Holy Spirit gives us further details not only of human creation but of the institution of marriage. The clear message is that God’s intention for marriage was that two human beings would come together. Chapter 2, verse 24, says:

“therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh”.

Northern Ireland people have never been consulted on whether they want same-sex marriage. One of our most fundamental social structures is being changed over the heads of those whom it will affect. It is notable that, when same-sex marriage was introduced in England and Wales, strong safeguards were included in the legislation to protect those who did not want to be forced to go along with something they disagreed with. It is vital that the people of Northern Ireland are given the same legal guarantees.

I appreciate the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, and the manner in which he has responded to the amendment. All this amendment seeks to do is address the free speech and freedom of religion concerns that inevitably arise when such a huge moral change is brought in. It will merely establish the same protections that those in the rest of the UK are afforded.

The Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill requires the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to legalise same-sex marriage, but the simple fact is that regulations do not allow for the appropriate level of scrutiny and debate that such a monumental change requires. There is a real danger that, with this legislation and subsequent regulations being rushed through Parliament so quickly, those who object to the new law will be forgotten about and their freedom to disagree threatened.

Those who are against same-sex marriage may feel they have particular cause to be concerned in Northern Ireland if this amendment is not accepted. Even while the law has always been in line with their view, they have seen a Christian-run bakery hauled through the courts for its decision not to support a campaign for same-sex marriage. That case was pursued by a body, the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, which should be protecting everyone’s freedom. Without robust reassurances, many will feel that the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland’s hostility to those with traditional beliefs about marriage will only increase. For example, many churches, as my noble friend has said, hold their services in community centres or school halls. They need to be reassured that they will not be forced to leave those premises because they hold to the biblical teaching that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 in England and Wales states on the face of the legislation that no religious organisation or minister can be compelled by any means to marry same-sex couples or to permit same-sex marriages on their premises. It also contains explicit protections to ensure that any person who publicly expresses disagreement with same-sex marriage cannot be accused of stirring up hatred under the Public Order Act. The Government equalities spokes- person at the time, the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, said:

“A belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman is undoubtedly worthy of respect in a democratic society”.—[Official Report, 17/6/13; col. 75.]


It is vital that those who disagree with same-sex marriage feel that they are valued members of society and not in any way ostracised by the new law. I and my colleagues believe that this amendment will help that. Maria Miller, the Minister in charge of the 2013 Act, said:

“Whatever one’s view about the marriage of same-sex couples, it is legitimate and the Government will protect the right to express it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/7/13; col. 1027.]


This reasonable amendment is the least that can be done.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Lord Browne of Belmont Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 15th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, the proverbial visitor from outer space might have been somewhat surprised a short time ago when we were discussing the previous set of amendments about what piece of legislation we were debating. It is the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill. I was so pleased to see a packed Chamber and all these people taking such a keen interest in Northern Ireland, but they have deserted us all of a sudden. The great, the good and the not so good have gone. It just shows how fickle fortune is in the political arena.

On a more serious note, I think that there is merit in this amendment. At the end of the day, since the 2014 date, donors have known that their details might potentially be released. I accept that it would not have been fair to release the names of donors who donated before that date because they would not have known at that stage that their names might end up in the public domain. There is a perfectly solid and reasonable case for that. Subsequent to that, people have known. I therefore see no reason why 2017 was called into account when 2014 was the kick-off date for this process. That is not an unreasonable thing to suggest and therefore I am supportive of it.

I would like to make a serious point about the proceedings relating to the previous amendment. I am sure that, when we talk about Prorogation, the people on the streets of Belfast talk of little else. They will be bemused that we have been caught up in this firefight which is not strictly speaking relevant to this legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is not in his place at the moment, but he was more than right when he called this a Christmas tree Bill last week. In fact, Christmas implies celebration and something to look forward to, so maybe that is not the right phrase for it; it is a jumble, a mess and a sorry piece of legislation, with all these things included. Then we find ourselves getting involved in a national debate on a totally different matter. Her Majesty’s Government will have to look at this. I must say to colleagues in the other place as well that I know things can be drawn too tightly, but we have gone to the other extreme with this legislation. However, I would be more than content to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce.

[Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)]

My Lords, I firmly believe that there should be full openness and transparency regarding donations and loans to all the political parties in Northern Ireland, just as there is in the rest of the United Kingdom. As many noble Lords will be aware, the Secretary of State sought the view of all the Northern Ireland political parties on this matter in January 2017. As I emphasised in February 2018, there was clear support for full transparency. However, only one party—the Alliance Party—took the rather unusual position that the implementation of the new rules should be backdated to January 2014.

I acknowledge that the earlier date was referred to in the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, but in my view retrospective legislation is acceptable only in exceptional circumstances. It is not fair to reveal the identities of those who made donations assuming that the law at the time would always apply. It is strange that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is intent on reopening issues that have been fully considered in the House and elsewhere, rather than concentrating on providing an effective framework for the future. The treatment of foreign donations to Northern Ireland political parties, for example, is an important and unresolved issue. The Electoral Commission is in full receipt of all the facts regarding donations before 2014, so although I support full transparency, I believe that the date of 2014 is a fair way to treat this.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen]

There is something which is right about the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce: the whole of the United Kingdom should have similar regulations regarding transparency of donations and loans. The Committee will be aware that for decades this was virtually impossible in Northern Ireland, because people would be intimidated and worse if their donations to various political parties were made public and they were identified as possible targets. That was an obvious reason why the law in Northern Ireland was not the same as it was in the rest of the United Kingdom. Happily, the world has changed. There should be regulations which are common to all parts of our country.

There is an issue about people who were unaware when they gave donations that their names would be revealed; would they have given them if they had known that? We must take this into account, but we must not allow Northern Ireland to be used as a back-door conduit for donations simply because the law and regulations in Northern Ireland are different from those in the rest of the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

If the Government choose to respond by further violating constitutional due process, casting aside the Sewel convention, we will be looking at a constitutional crisis the likes of which we have not seen in a very long time indeed. In a constitutional democracy such as our own, the end never, ever justifies the means. I say, finally—it is important—that ends, no matter how noble you might deem them to be, are always sullied in a manner that darkens the pretensions of any polity to be constitutional, if they are secured by means that are anything but. The Attorney-General of Northern Ireland has indicated that there are no legal reasons why the matters that this Bill properly seeks to address should not be so addressed in September. So my counsel to the Government is to pull this Bill, at least for now. Failing that, they must delete Clause 9.

[Lord Browne of Belmont]

My Lords, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Morrow. As a former Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, I do not believe it can be said enough in this place that, in 2016, the Northern Ireland Assembly considered the matter of abortion. It did not just have a general debate. It voted on primary legislative amendments to our abortion law and determined not to change the law in any way at that time.

I believe that the last time Westminster voted on primary legislative changes to a real Bill, as opposed to a 10-minute rule Bill, was back in 2008. This means that Northern Ireland has the law with the most recent democratic sanction of anywhere in the United Kingdom. In that context, it simply cannot be right for Great Britain MPs to overrule every Northern Ireland MP.

The only justification that I have heard is human rights—but there are two problems with that approach. First, there is a supposition that access to abortion services is a human right. In the other place, the mover of the amendment, the honourable Member for Walthamstow, said,

“There is a specific definition of human rights”,—[Official Report, Commons, 8/7/19; col. 106.]


implying that there is universal agreement on what human rights mean. I support honourable Members in that debate who rightly said that there is no international right to abortion. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, made the point last week that the right to an abortion is not included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There is no right to abortion under the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women—CEDAW—which is the locus of the authority cited by Clause 9.

The second supposition is that a determination by a UN committee is binding on a member state in a way that a declaration by the UK Supreme Court of incompatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights would not be. The latter can make a ruling on incompatibility with human rights in any given situation, but it is for Parliament to decide whether it wishes to act on that ruling. As the Supreme Court has said, Parliament can decide to do nothing about the court’s ruling. None the less, we are being advised that we must change the law, and change it now, in a way that is manifestly undemocratic.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie]

Does the noble Lord not acknowledge that the Supreme Court has already indicated that it believes that the law in Northern Ireland is not consistent with human rights, which evolve? There is a judgment pending from the Supreme Court that could put the law in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. The United Kingdom is a signatory to that convention. Does that not give the United Kingdom Government and Parliament an obligation to legislate on the law in Northern Ireland?

[Lord Browne of Belmont]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention, but I understand that that was on a very narrow case of fatal foetal abnormality. I will address that matter shortly, which should answer his question.

The chief commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission recognised that the recommendations were non-binding in oral evidence to the Women and Equalities Select Committee in the other place when it was reviewing the law in Northern Ireland. Professor Mark Hill QC wrote an opinion about the CEDAW report, in which he stated:

“The Committee does not have the capacity or standing to give a binding adjudication on the United Kingdom’s obligations under CEDAW or on the proper interpretation of CEDAW”,


made the point that the International Court of Justice had not interpreted CEDAW as providing a right to abortion, and said:

“The interpretative function under the CEDAW is reserved, not to the Committee, but to the International Court of Justice.”


If this is not enough to convince your Lordships that the authority being given to this Committee is flawed, I shall quote from a Supreme Court judgment —R (A and B) v Secretary of State for Health—in which Lord Justice Wilson said:

“The conventions and the covenant to which the UK is a party carefully stop short of calling upon national authorities to make abortion services generally available. Some of the committees go further down that path. But, as a matter of international law, the authority of their recommendations is slight”.


Here we come to the case that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, referred to. The judgment in that case stated:

“If the Supreme Court rules in the case of Sarah Ewart that there is a right in relation to fatal fetal abnormality, then that would create a very strong case for a small but important change to the law. It would not, however, create anything resembling a general right to abortion”.


Indeed, the basis for thinking that the court might support a right in relation to fatal foetal abnormality is what was said in relation to a case last year, in which the plaintiff did not have standing, so no rule was made. The court also gave another indication, to the effect that there is no human right to abortion on the basis of disability generally—something permitted in Great Britain.

Secondly, the medium of human rights is normally expressed as a check on the majority expressed through constitutional due process. This is highly ironic, given that the only reason we are here is the complete disregard of constitutional due process manifested last week in the other place, where we saw: dispensing with scope; debate being permitted in relation to out-of-scope issues that should have been the subject of their own Bill, even though the Bill before the House was being fast-tracked; and the imposition of a change on the part of the UK with the smallest population, and thus the smallest number of MPs, by MPs from outside Northern Ireland

The ethic that the end justifies the means is the kind of thing that constitutional checks are supposed to guard against, not encourage. If the proponents of Clause 9 press their case on the basis of the end justifying the means, as at present, that will cast a great shadow over the integrity of their human rights pretensions. If we want to live in a functioning union, by all means let us talk about human rights, but do not use them wrongly to suggest that there is a general right to abortion when no such right exists, and do not use them to dispense with the respect for constitutional due process, the presence of which can facilitate a functioning union, whereas disrespect for it will bring about its demise.

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, I wonder whether I may be allowed two minutes to look at the provision that we are considering, which is Clause 3(6). What is proposed is,

“a review of the current legal framework on abortion in Northern Ireland with an analysis of how that … could be amended by Parliament … when there is no Executive”,

followed by these very important words, which I have not heard this afternoon,

“subject to a sunset clause to respect devolution”.

I read that to mean that whatever we may do, when there is an Assembly in Northern Ireland, it will be up to the Assembly to decide what the law should be in that country. It may revert to the law as it is now—but we hope that it will not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I support the right reverend Prelates on this issue. This is one of those issues where if the Government were to take some action it might get support from the Assembly—very moderate action is proposed in the amendment. Anyone who has seen late-night or daytime TV will have seen adverts for gambling, aimed particularly at women in many cases, that encourage viewers to roll their winnings and depict all the glorious things that will happen to those who gamble. If there is a gap in legislation or enforcement in Northern Ireland—and I had not realised the extent of the differences until they were explained to us tonight—it is clearly a serious problem and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively.

[Lord Browne of Belmont]

My Lords, I fully support all that has been said about the problem of gambling in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has the highest proportion of problem gamblers. I know of one sad case where this has led to suicide. It also leads to the breaking-up of families and marriages and loss of homes. A report on this matter would be extremely useful, but to be consistent with the arguments already made, I have to say that, at the end of the day, legislation should be reserved for the Northern Ireland Assembly.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, is quite right to raise the outdated gambling laws in Northern Ireland and I thank her for her remarks.

These laws are complex, but in Northern Ireland they have not kept pace with emerging technologies such as electronic and online gambling. Such technologies have made it much easier for people to gamble, including from inside their own homes, thus changing the entire gambling landscape.

The gambling laws in Northern Ireland date back to 1985 and are modelled on a much older Great Britain law which was repealed and replaced by the Gambling Act 2005. A few aspects of the 2005 Act have been extended to Northern Ireland. In particular, if a remote gambling operator does not hold the remote gambling licence from the Gambling Commission that it would need to be permitted to advertise in Great Britain it cannot advertise in Northern Ireland either.

Although the legislation has not kept pace, I am pleased that businesses have in some instances led the way in taking steps in line with the more updated GB regulations and applied them across the whole UK, including in Northern Ireland. For example, GVC, which owns Ladbrokes Coral, has voluntarily reduced fixed-odds betting terminal stakes in all its UK operations from £100 to £2 in line with GB regulations. I understand that other NI bookmakers have committed to this voluntary reduction. Any such actions to improve social responsibility by NI operators is to be welcomed.

As the right reverend Prelate will be aware, gambling is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland. The reform of this legislation should be for a restored Executive and Ministers to consider, informed by the results of that review. I am pleased to say that I am content to accept the amendment and to commit to reporting on progress, but I repeat that this is a devolved matter and thus the depth and detail of such a report will not be something over which I have control.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Lord Browne of Belmont Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 10th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)]

My Lords, it is interesting to note that the consternation felt in Northern Ireland is given some support by the Select Committee on the Constitution, which has today issued a report expressing its very serious concerns about the fast-tracking of Northern Ireland legislation and the negative impact that this has had on the resulting law. The report says at paragraph 9:

“We reiterate our concern about the routine nature of fast-tracking legislation relating to Northern Ireland. It is constitutionally unacceptable save for exceptional and urgent circumstances. Given this will be the fourth (and potentially fifth) extension of the period for forming an Executive, and the lack of progress in the cross-party talks, it can hardly be argued that the need for this legislation was not foreseeable and that it could not have been introduced earlier and proceeded with less haste”.


Paragraph 10 states:

“In our 2009 report, Fast-track legislation: constitutional implications and safeguards, we recommended that, for legislation subject to fast-tracking, the Government should set out its justification for fast-tracking in the explanatory notes to the bill. In our recent report on the Legislative Process, we noted that the Government had observed this recommendation in respect of most recent bills that have been fast-tracked. We regret that no such justification has been provided in the explanatory notes to this Bill”.


I might add that those constitutional due process concerns have been greatly compounded by dispensing with the rule about scope in the other place yesterday. That means that the amendments that now constitute Clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill were ruled out of scope by the clerks. That in itself is hugely concerning because it means that we undermine our rules-based approach to law-making. However, the immediate implications of the jettisoning of scope feed back into, and massively compound, the problems of fast-tracking. They mean that two huge, highly controversial social issues have been added to the Bill, massively widening its remit, but without changing the fact that the Bill is still being introduced via the shoddy first-tracking procedure. It is bad enough to subject us to fast-tracking. To compound the problems by also jettisoning scope is to make the problem of fast-tracking far more serious and to treat Northern Ireland with total contempt.

To regain any sense of the problems with this, one must have some appreciation of the enormity of these issues. Abortion is a sensitive issue in England and Wales, but it is much more sensitive in Northern Ireland, where our distinctive approach to this issue is an important part of our history and identity. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, remarked, 100,000 people are alive today who would not be had we embraced the 1967 Act. Not only that, it is a matter on which the democratically elected Northern Ireland Assembly expressed a view very recently, in 2016, when it chose not to amend our law in any way.

It is naturally disappointing that we are debating legislation that should have been debated in a Northern Ireland Assembly. Bills require scrutiny, analysis and examination. This fast-tracking process does not permit the level of accountability that one should expect. At this time, the people of Northern Ireland are receiving only the bare minimum of governance. None of us wants to be in the current situation, with no local decision-makers. At this crucial time, when the current political talks between all the Northern Ireland parties are taking place, it is only right that the possible date of an Assembly election be extended. That would, I hope, allow time for an agreement to be reached.

There has been no shortage of elections in Northern Ireland in the past three years: to be precise, there have been five. There was an Assembly election in 2016, followed by another in 2017. We all know about the UK referendum in 2016 and the General Election in 2017. The electorate in Northern Ireland have had ample opportunity to express their views and to air the issues that relate to everyday lives. The clear message received by canvassers on doorsteps throughout the Province was that there was an overwhelming desire to see a functioning Assembly return. MLAs were elected to serve the people. Unfortunately, they have been prevented from carrying out their legislative function by the action of one political party—namely, Sinn Féin. None of us wants to be in this situation. The electorate cannot go on being punished because of the political stalemate. The people of Northern Ireland know the issues that need to be addressed and that impact on their daily lives and those of their families. They want to get on with their lives, just as the rest of the people in the United Kingdom do.

As it stands, the legislation continues to present many challenges to the senior civil servants in Northern Ireland, who have been tasked with taking decisions in their departments for a considerable period. Though we must commend their hard work and dedication, it is true that, in many instances, vital decisions are being put on hold or are simply not being made at all, because of the threat of court action. There is a limited scope at present for key decision-making.

We have heard that there are specific long-standing decisions in a wide range of areas such as housing and education, with school resources shortages and issues regarding school allocations. Long-standing decisions are also needed on infrastructure projects. We have a general practitioner shortage in Northern Ireland. People are living in pain and are on long hospital waiting lists. Decisions still need to be made on the budget and, on health, transformation projects to tackle long waiting lists. Victims of terrorism are still awaiting decisions. Many victims do not have work-related pensions because of their appalling injuries, nor do they have access to work. To obtain the support they richly deserve, legislation needs to be brought forward.

My noble friend Lord Morrow outlined many of the decisions and projects that have been held up in Northern Ireland and cannot proceed. I make no apology for adding to his list. For example, the next phase of the 2021-22 school enhancement programme is delayed. The School Shared Education Campuses programme—something that we all want in Northern Ireland; we want the communities to work together—is now funded from the capital pot in the department but now has affordable risk-procurement since suspension. School building schemes, 10 currently at design or feasibility stage, are not being pursued. Tender prices are increasing and projects stalling as, due to the fall in the pound, prices have now become much higher than the original estimates. We have a crisis in housing—a housing shortfall. What can we do? Addressing the shortfall in new-build homes requires policy intervention.

I turn to the environment and energy—very important, the environment, these days. We have environmental NGOs, difficult-to-plan organisational budgets and work programmes. We have the Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2017, the consultation on the draft version of which closed on 9 February 2017. The closure of the Northern Ireland Renewables Obligation scheme in April 2017 has left a policy gap. On renewable energy development, the Minister ordered research to be conducted but was unable to translate this work into new policies. I could go on and on. I will add some examples from the public sector. On public sector pay, there is delay in making awards. The Community Relations Council requires an annual business plan, but it has not been approved. Would the citizens of any other region in the UK tolerate such inaction for such a long time?

I turn to the new Clauses 9 and 10 on abortion and same-sex marriage. Regardless of our views—there is a wide divergence of views right across this House—we can surely agree that these issues deserve proper attention and debate and, in the first instance, should be decided by a Northern Ireland Executive. There is a risk that these poorly drawn-up amendments will create a dangerous precedent for interference that could have wider consequences for constitutional arrangements. If these two devolved matters can be resolved here in Westminster, why can the other 69 outstanding priority issues vital to the enhancement of the daily lives of the people in Northern Ireland not be treated in the same way? Indeed, are we about to witness the potential dismantling of the Northern Ireland devolution settlement? If we take this path, which may indeed prove popular with some, any hope of a successful outcome to the Stormont talks may be dealt a fatal blow.

The people of Northern Ireland want to see devolved government working and they deserve accountable local decision-making. My party, the DUP, entered the talks in good faith and will continue to work hard in the interests of all sections of society in Northern Ireland.

Flags (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Lord Browne of Belmont Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Lords Chamber

That solution would resolve the problem neatly throughout the United Kingdom: we would bring the order of the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, up to date and include the Council of Europe in it. It would not in any way prevent the Minister pursuing his SI today but I like to think it would be an excellent solution. It means that people who identify themselves in a European context will still be able to do so and get official commemoration right across the United Kingdom if the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport were minded to do it. The Minister might also speak to his right honourable friend the relevant Minister there. It would be good to have a cross-departmental solution happening simultaneously and I hope that would avoid any disputes.

[Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)]

My Lords, my remarks shall be rather brief. I welcome this having been a serious debate on the flying of flags in Northern Ireland and I am pleased that it is taking place in these peaceful surroundings. However, I still find it a little bizarre that we would continue to fly the flag of an organisation that we will, eventually, have left. I point out that the general public in Northern Ireland can, if they so desire, continue to fly and display the European flag, just as we have regularly witnessed the display of many European flags outside this building. Also, local councils in Northern Ireland, if they agree the policy, can fly the European flag on their civic buildings on 9 May.

People in Northern Ireland often point out, when discussing the flying of flags, that there is one arrangement whereby, for example, City Hall and Parliament buildings fly a flag but a different arrangement exists for the flying of flags on government buildings and, indeed, the Royal Courts of Justice. They are governed by quite different provisions. Does the Minister accept that this can often lead to a degree of confusion over why a certain flag is flying on a particular building but not on another? Does he agree that, for this reason, in future we may need a more uniform approach?

Finally, I once again regret that there is no functioning and workable Northern Ireland Assembly to consult on these matters. I hope that will not be the case for much longer and remain optimistic that, with political will on all sides, talks about reforming, workable institutions in Northern Ireland can resume soon. I am happy to support this statutory instrument and I concur with the decision made by the other House.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, it is estimated that 3 million to 4 million people are currently watching BBC Parliament. I rather fancy that today their attention will be drawn to the other place, and that they will have to listen to our proceedings, as they generally do, at about 2 or 3 am. If those insomniacs—who occasionally include myself—switch on, they would I suppose be bewildered that we are discussing flags in the Chamber of the House of Lords while the whole world is collapsing around us because of what is happening on Brexit.

They would of course be mistaken, because flags are a hugely sensitive issue in Northern Ireland. The unfortunate author of the Explanatory Memorandum, which says that this is a “minor, technical change”, would have to listen to only the last hour in this Chamber to realise that it is a lot more than that. I recall thinking about a quarter of a century ago, when I first started going to Northern Ireland as a shadow Minister, that only the union flag and the Irish tricolour were flags of general interest and controversy in Northern Ireland. That was until I happened to see on one occasion the Israeli flag and the Palestinian flag also flying in parts of Belfast. I had no idea what the relationship was, but apparently unionist or loyalist areas would fly the Israeli flag and nationalist or republican areas would fly the Palestinian flag.

It is a huge matter, and my noble friend Lord Mandelson, when he was Secretary of State, introduced—as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has told us—this important piece of legislation. I wonder—and the noble Lord, Lord Deben, referred to this also—whether sufficient consultation has occurred on this matter. Again, the Explanatory Memorandum says that:

“Consultation is not considered necessary”,


because this is a minor technical matter. It is necessary, because people have different views on flags. I am told by some that the last time the negotiators in Belfast talked about flags the discussions went on for 11 weeks just on that issue. Flags symbolise things in a very special way in Northern Ireland. They go to the heart of the issue of identity. They go to the heart of the problems that the other place is discussing today—the Northern Ireland/Ireland border and the issue of the backstop. All that is about identity, and flags symbolise it. It is an important issue.

These particular regulations of course refer to the union flag no longer flying on government buildings on the day commemorating the European Union. However, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and my noble friend Lord Touhig have eloquently told us that the flag is not simply that of the European Union—it is the flag of the Council of Europe as well, a much earlier institution. If we are trying to wipe the importance of Europe in the peace process from the public memory of Northern Ireland, we should remember that it brought much-needed funding through Objective 1 status and other schemes, and that the common membership of the European Union of the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom meant that we were able to be successful over 20 years in that peace process. We have been reminded tonight that a majority of people in Northern Ireland—in any event 56%—voted to remain in the European Union. If we think that taking away the right to fly the flag on 8 May also takes away the public memory of the benefits of being Europeans, we are gravely mistaken. No—the Government should think again. We have been given some interesting ideas. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, tells us, quite rightly, that we ought to think in terms of the whole of the legislation affecting flags in Northern Ireland in a fresh way, which would include the Council of Europe flag being flown. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, told us the same thing.

Cannot the Minister therefore just withdraw this Motion for the time being? It does not matter about this year, because it is extremely likely that on 8 May we will still be members of the European Union. The Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive should be deciding these matters—I hope, please God, that by this time next year, those bodies will be up and running and will be able to discuss this. Rightly and properly, it is for them to decide what happens on public buildings in Northern Ireland, and how important Europe is to them.

Therefore, there should be a rethink. People should understand the significance of the symbolism of flags and should remember what Europe, both in the form of the Council of Europe and the European Union, has done to make peace in that part of the world.

Flags (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Lord Browne of Belmont Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord Touhig (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Murphy will speak shortly from these Benches. I am reminded as I listen to this debate of the words of his predecessor, Leo Abse, MP for Pontypool and then Torfaen for 30 years and responsible for more social legislation than any individual MP. When he announced his retirement, he said: “I do not know who will succeed me. My only advice is: tolerate everyone, tolerate everything, but never ever tolerate the intolerant”.

This provision is a crass act of intolerance. It is not just silly. Those of us who have served in both Houses—a number of us in the Committee today have served in the Commons and in this House—know that at times Parliament has done some silly things, but this is a stupid and offensive thing. I have the honour to serve on the Council of Europe. Together with parliamentarians from both Houses, I will be going there on 7 April for the next full session of its parliamentary assembly.

This is the 70th anniversary of the Council of Europe —we were its co-founders—which predates the European Union. We have heard Ministers and members of the Government saying time and again, “We are leaving the EU, not leaving Europe”. That point was made earlier in the debate. This is a symbol of us all in Europe. The Council of Europe is larger, older and more united than the European Union. This is the barmiest thing to do, and it is offensive. A leading Conservative, Sir Roger Gale, leads Britain’s representatives in the Council of Europe. He does it with pride and does a good job. Please do not think this is blowing our own trumpet, but I can tell the Committee that the British delegation to the Council of Europe makes a huge contribution. We take part in most of the debates; some very powerful arguments and good ideas are put forward. We are listened to and benefit from being part of this greater, wider assembly.

The symbol of the Council of Europe, of us all within Europe, should be retained. We should use it, we should fly it and—as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has just said—if we have an issue about the date we should move it to 5 May, the date on which the Council of Europe was set up. The Government really ought to think again. As I say, this is not just silly; it is stupid and offensive.

[Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)]

My Lords, Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom where under the current legislation there are 18 designated days for flying the flag on government buildings. Usually these discussions are highly contentious back in Northern Ireland; as we have heard, in extreme cases—I am thinking of Belfast City Hall—unfortunately they can lead to civil unrest. This is a delicate matter and has to be discussed in a reasonable fashion.

I take a different point of view. I think it would no longer be appropriate to fly the flag, especially if we leave Europe through Brexit, so I support the instrument before us. On a slightly wider issue, as part of the fresh start agreement negotiated by the Stormont parties in November 2015, a 15-person commission was set up to study a range of long-standing, complex and challenging areas in relation to the expression of mutual and cultural identity in Northern Ireland. One of the issues which was to be addressed in that was the unofficial flying of flags in outdoor spaces such as on lamp-posts and so on. Has that draft report been completed? If so, can its findings be published in the absence of a sitting Executive? Maybe this committee, if it is still sitting, could take up the issue. I support the flag not being flown if indeed we leave Europe.