Report Pursuant to Sections 3(1), 3(6), 3(7), 3(8), 3(9) and 3(10) the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure that we all delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Bew, has got the message and we hope to see the results of this in due course.

I add my brief congratulations to my noble friend Lord Caine for a wise, perceptive and thoughtful speech, indicative, I am sure, of many that he will give in your Lordships’ House—not just on Northern Ireland—in the years to come. My only regret is that he had three years of, I think, unnecessary purdah. He has been—the noble Lord, Lord Empey, referred to this—a wonderful demonstration of a prudent adviser. I sometimes wish that I could whip up the money to buy two tickets on Richard Branson’s spaceship and give one to Mr Cummings and one to Mr Seamus Milne.

We are talking about a very serious subject tonight and I am delighted and grateful that my noble friend Lord Duncan has introduced these reports. Every word of them underlines the shameful situation of not having an operating Assembly and Executive. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is obviously a mind reader because I wish to stress this yet again. As I indicated in an earlier debate, I am ashamed of the fact that we are going into Prorogation later today. I think it is shameful. However, even out of the most shameful situations, good can be rescued, and I say to my noble friend Lord Duncan that he will not be required to come to Parliament. I ask him, please, with his colleagues, to devote all his time over the next four or five weeks to trying to bring people in Northern Ireland together; to set up a scheme whereby the Assembly can be summoned; to create a system in which committees can meet; and, above all, with the Secretary of State to choose a moderator and mediator who can bring the parties together.

However honest and good the intentions of the Government—in respect of my noble friend Lord Duncan they are exemplary—the fact is that it is perceived that the Government are on the side of one particular party in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that they are behaving in a partisan way but that is the perception, and perceptions are important. Therefore, it is crucial that during these coming weeks we do not waste time but get on with trying to ensure that the parties are brought together so that by the end of the year at the latest, and before the third anniversary, we have an operating Executive and an Assembly that meets.

In the preceding debate, the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, talked about the inexorable drift towards direct rule. It would be a condemnation of us all if that were the result. I was in Northern Ireland at the start of the remarkable partnership of Ian Paisley—the late Lord Bannside—and the late Martin McGuinness. That was the stuff of which political miracles are made. I well remember many conversations with the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, who is justifiably held in the highest repute in Northern Ireland. He and Denis Bradley conducted their inquiries and we discussed them, and many of us felt that we really were on the way to the consummation of a remarkable transformation.

Then, we had the sad and unfortunate events at the beginning of 2016, since when there has been no real progress at all. My noble friend Lord Duncan has had to come to the House time and again, going through the mantra, “The parties are going to come together” and “We’re doing our best”. Of course he has done his best, but it has not yet worked and it is crucial that it does work.

We are in the middle of a great national crisis—one in which Northern Ireland is the most vulnerable part of our United Kingdom. I had thought that the whole Brexit scene would be transformed had we had an operating Assembly and Executive. Therefore, I say to my noble friend: please try to get people together during the next few weeks so that, as we move towards what I hope is a deal—no deal would be particularly catastrophic for Northern Ireland—we have an operating Assembly and Executive that are ready to come in from the wings to play their part in the crucial governance of a beautiful part of our United Kingdom but one that could so easily be lost, as could Scotland, from the country that we all love.

Northern Ireland (Ministerial Appointment Functions) (No. 2) Regulations 2019

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument. As we have seen, with the lack of any operational Executive in Northern Ireland for the last two years, it is now necessary for Ministers here to make those key appointments to offices in Stormont and to make strategic legislative interventions to ensure good governance once again in Northern Ireland; this should have been exercised by the Executive themselves and we hope it will be again as soon as possible.

At this point, I make note of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, about the health service in Northern Ireland. It is indeed quite shocking that so many vacancies exist; we really must do something to help the situation. We have been here before. Back in February we approved the appointment functions of several key offices: the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland; the Commissioner for Children and Young People for Northern Ireland; member of the Commission for Victims and Survivors for Northern Ireland; member, chair or vice-chair of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, et cetera. This statutory instrument adds nine other offices to those in which the appointment functions of the Northern Ireland Minister can now be exercised by the relevant UK Minister.

My noble friend Lord Bruce of Bennachie, who is unable to be present in your Lordships’ House this evening, and who spoke on these matters at the time, said that,

“effectively we are going on and on in this limbo of democratic nihilism … having to institute ad hoc measures as and when necessary to fill the gap in the absence of real political initiatives”.

He asked what practical steps the Government would take to ensure that we would not get to the end of August without having reached a position where functioning decision-making by the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland could return. He added that,

“a Secretary of State in a UK Government who are propped up by a hard-line unionist party in Northern Ireland is likely to find the perception of her office somewhat compromised … is it not time to find some independent authority that might bring parties together and start to identify what it would take to break the deadlock and get things back to normal?”

He asked,

“what were the criteria that made these urgent, and what other appointments are coming down the track that may require us to be back here in the very near future?”

Now we know. He continued by asking,

“what assurances can we have that there is any reasonable momentum to try to ensure that we get the political process back?”

The Minister, in response, told the House that,

“the appointments have been identified by the Northern Ireland Civil Service. The principal criterion for that identification was obviously timing”.

He said that on Friday 15 February, all the parties had gathered together in Northern Ireland for the first time in more than a year, in,

“an attempt to move things forward in a fashion which would ultimately lead to the creation of a sustainable Executive”.—[Official Report, 18/2/19; cols. 2041-45.]

Yet here we are again. The Government’s Brexit chaos is constantly distracting from the real issues affecting citizens across the UK, and the formation of a Northern Ireland Executive is crucial to stability in the region. We are deeply concerned about the progress being made towards restoration and urge the Minister to do all he can to stress the urgency of this to the Prime Minister, who obviously has other things on his mind at the moment.

We will discuss these issues in more detail in the debate to come later today, but can the Minister give any update on the Government’s efforts to make progress on the restoration of an Executive in Northern Ireland? The last time an instrument under the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018 was deployed, my noble friend Lord Bruce asked the Government to think outside the box for solutions to the issues at hand. I echo this plea. Have there been any efforts to find an independent authority to try and bring the relevant parties together?

Finally, does the Minister foresee any further appointments being made in the near future? Is he confident that Parliament can prorogue without any outstanding matters to be addressed? We very reluctantly agree to this statutory instrument going forward.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I want to speak only briefly as I hope to contribute to the later, main debate. I just want to take up the last point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond. Even had we had the so-called Conference Recess, we would have been sitting throughout this week, up to and including Thursday, which would have given us time for a whole day on Northern Ireland. Would that be too much when we have the ultimate responsibility in this Parliament during the continued and deeply regrettable absence of an Executive and Assembly in Northern Ireland?

Grenfell Tower: Rehousing Update

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, in the immediate aftermath of this dreadful tragedy we have, as my noble friend will know, contacted other local authorities to ensure that there is not a replica of this situation elsewhere. Everything we have done since then in terms of testing and action has been to ensure that that does not happen. There has been only one case to date, in Camden, where we have had to evacuate blocks, although we have found non-compliant cladding in, I think, 202 cases. My noble friend said that this case was easy to handle but I would dispute that. It might have been geographically concentrated, but the nature of this tragedy was such that it was, and still is, very difficult to address. I have no particular knowledge of detailed plans for the type of disaster he talked about, but the suggestion by my noble friend Lord King and the Prime Minister of some sort of civil action disaster task force is an appropriate one to deal with such awful occasions, which do happen over time—we can think of transport disasters or Hillsborough. Such situations would be helped by having an appropriate body with legacy ideas passed on from one awful disaster to another. It is an idea that is worth pursuing on a non-partisan basis.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, indicated that they would like to accept the invitation extended by my noble friend to see the properties that these unfortunate, tragic people are being offered. Clearly, we do not want to place strains upon those who are working so hard, but could we possibly have a little exhibition in the Robing Room or somewhere else illustrating the sorts of properties that are being offered so that Members of your Lordships’ House and of another place can see these things and the specifications?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, in relation to the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Beecham, seeing the properties, I was of course repeating a Statement in which the offer was made by the Minister in the Commons, Alok Sharma, to John Healey MP. That is not to say that I cannot make provision for that, but the most important thing—as I can see from the response of noble Lords opposite, and it is my own feeling—is that we should allow people to get on with the work which they need to do on an urgent basis. I would say the same to my noble friend in relation to any follow-up with the type of housing that is being offered. The first thing that is really important is for the people concerned to get on with their job. I know that civil servants from my department are working tirelessly at weekends and pretty much round the clock, and I would not want to impose any additional burdens on them at this time.

House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Friday 21st October 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, the name of the House is a hugely important issue. Now that the final ethnic cleansing of hereditary Peers that started in 1999 is going to take place, in my view it is appropriate that this House should no longer be called the House of Lords. The question is: when is a suitable date to make the change? Why should it be called the House of Lords when a section of Peers have been refused entry to it? It is absolutely fine as long as a number of hereditary Peers are here, but as a result of the vote it is now clear that the 1999 agreement has been shredded, and in due course the number of hereditary Peers will drop to zero. The purpose of this amendment is to take account of that situation—

[Lord Cormack]

Is my noble friend really suggesting to the House that the only legitimate Peers are hereditary Peers?

[The Earl of Caithness]

No, I am saying that a section of Peers in the broader sense will be prohibited from sitting in this House and therefore it is not representative of the House of Lords. The House of Lords will not be representative of all the Peers. I know that my noble friend is very keen to get rid of the hereditary Peers. After achieving that goal, it is quite right that the name of the House should change. That is the reason for the amendment. The question is: when is a suitable time for that to take place? I have suggested 1 January 2020, but of course I am open to suggestions. There might actually be a book as to who is going to be the last hereditary Peer to sit in the House of Lords. Let us hope that, long before that, we have a fully elected House of Lords and that it can then properly change its name. But as I believe the majority of Peers in this House wish to retain an appointed, unelected, undemocratic system, I think it is appropriate that the name of this Chamber should change. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, to be honest, I was completely agnostic about this amendment. My initial reaction was that it was another matter outside the scope and intent of my Bill. However, no one has spoken against it, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Lea, is correct that the origin of this practice was that Members of the House of Commons could vote in their Chamber and that we had a voice and a position here. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, is right that the powers of this House have been diminished over the years, which no longer stands up to scrutiny.

[Lord Cormack]

This is a very important matter that has far-reaching consequences and implications, so could we not return to this matter on Report or at Third Reading? I am not saying that I am against it at all, but I do think that we need to reflect, particularly in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Wright, said a moment or two ago, on the implications and on the differences between being a permanent Member of this House and not being a Member at all of the other place during the election campaign.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

I think my noble friend is correct. I said that I was agnostic about the amendment, but I am actually quite sympathetic to it. I just wonder whether it is right to make such a fundamental change in just a few minutes’ debate. I will take it seriously, and if the noble Lord will be kind enough to withdraw his amendment, I will certainly discuss it, again with the other House authorities and with the Ministry of Justice, with the other things that I am discussing. If there is no objection, I will be happy to bring back the amendment in my own name on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Selsdon]

I am not in favour of this at all, due to certain bad experiences in my life. The noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, will recall that we were both joint treasurers of the Conservative Group for Europe when the European referendum took place. I ended up having to raise very substantial amounts of money because, although the referendum went through, it was very difficult to explain to people what this European lark was all about. In general, people were slightly anti-European. The Labour Party was totally anti-European; when the referendum said that we should go into the EU, it refused to send a delegation to the European Parliament.

My concern about these matters is that it is very difficult to explain things. I speak in my capacity as a member of the Information Committee. We have a major problem, even though we have the outreach programme, in explaining to the outside world what we actually do. It is easier to explain it to young children than it is to those of teenage or later years. I shall use my grandson as an example. He sums it up very brilliantly, by saying that we work at Big Ben and we make rules. That is easier for people to understand—but what does the House of Lords do? In the outreach programme, when you talk to different people, it is very difficult because they all think that we are a bunch of old fogies who do nothing but sit on our backsides and drink tea. This explanation of what we do is very important if a referendum comes up. At the moment, if you were to have another referendum on the EU, you might have some very interesting results. So I am totally opposed to introducing to this Bill the referendum concept at this stage.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I am certainly very much opposed to having a referendum on this Bill. This is a series of modest proposals, which is—as my noble friend Lord Steel said, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, accepted—a housekeeping Bill. It is a modest Bill, which would certainly perplex any electorate if put to it for a referendum.

The point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is entirely different. I have never been a fan of the referendum; indeed, I did not want a referendum in 1975, and made that view quite plain in another place at the time. But we had it, and you cannot uninvent things. We have reached the situation in this country where we have had referenda on a number of major constitutional issues. We had them over devolution; we had one, which I thought was wholly unnecessary, earlier this year about alternative voting. But if you argue that alternative voting is of sufficient importance constitutionally to merit a referendum, you cannot argue that the abolition of a House of Parliament and its replacement by something totally different—because that is what it would be about—is not a fit subject for a referendum. So if by chance there is a proposal that we should have this House replaced by an elected one, there is an unanswerable case for a referendum, particularly if, as my noble friend indicated, the three major parties subscribe to that general ideal in their manifestos. We know that, whatever was said in the manifestos last time, there are a significant number of Liberal Democrats who are unhappy about the concept of an elected House. There is a very much larger number of Labour voters and Members who are unhappy about an elected House, and there is an overwhelming number of Conservative Peers and a very large number—we do not know how many—of Conservative Members of Parliament who are against it. If the hierarchies and leaders of the three parties put this forward in manifestos, that would be all the more reason for a referendum. That would be on the significant and central issue of whether this House was to be replaced by something different.

Here, I slightly disagree with my noble friend Lord Selsdon. I believe that the people of this country are sufficiently mature and adult to understand whether they are being asked to have an assembly of 300 paid, elected party politicians to replace what they have in this House at the moment. If they decide to go down that route, having had the issues thoroughly debated and explained, I would be very sad but so be it. That would certainly be the right subject for a referendum. The noble Baroness’s party is right to have that at the heart of its manifesto commitments on this particular issue. I urge my noble friend Lord Selsdon not to press his amendment as far as the Bill is concerned.

[Lord Selsdon]

My Lords, my noble friend talked as though we were going to be paid in future. This is quite sensitive. If that was put to the electorate, they would certainly not approve.

[Lord Cormack]

I entirely agree with my noble friend’s reaction to that proposition but that is what is in the White Paper—the draft Bill. Something very different may come out of the Joint Committee—we know not —but that is what is before us. Incidentally, I am sorry that I said “Lord Selsdon” when I should have said “Lord Caithness”. It is his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, we are anticipating that the main Bill, subject to the scrutiny by the Joint Select Committee, will somehow not succeed. I do not agree with that.

[Lord Cormack]

We are anticipating no such thing. Some of us hope that these proposals will come to naught. Others wish them to succeed. At the moment, none of us knows. Although the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and I take diametrically opposed views on the composition of a future House, we both recognise that there are certain urgent housekeeping duties that should be put into effect in this present House. That is all that my noble friend Lord Steel is seeking to do. To delay it until after the next general election would be an absolute nonsense. We would either then be having the first elections, or we would have nearly another four years of the imperfections which we are currently seeking to put right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Astor]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply, but there is presumably no reason why Part 3 cannot be enacted, because the enactment is then followed up by a Standing Order. Therefore, there is no reason why it cannot be enacted immediately, and the Standing Order can follow whenever the Government wish. I do not see that there is any advantage in having the period of three months.

[Lord Cormack]

It would be enacted. There are very many Bills that we enact, and there are provisions within them for certain of the measures which they contain to come into force in three months—it is 12 months in some cases. There is nothing constitutionally inaccurate or peculiar in that; it is perfectly normal.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

I do not wish to be offensive to my noble friend Lord Astor, but the amendment would be incompetent, because if you left subsection (2) on its own, it would not make any sense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Higgins]

My Lords, it is true, as has just been said by the Chairman, that Amendment 163 is in the wrong place; it should come right at the end. However, I think I am also right in saying, although it does not say this on the notice of today’s business, that this is a provisional grouping and that it is open to anyone to move the amendment where it actually falls in the Bill. In which case, one can perhaps then take Amendment 163 at the end but, in order to get to that, one would need to deal with the matters which are ahead of it.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I strongly support what both my noble friend Lord Steel and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, have said. My noble friends Lord Trefgarne and Lord Caithness have tabled a series of amendments because they are unhappy about the appointments commission. My noble friend Lord Steel wishes to delete all of those clauses, so in that sense there is no difference between us. We have dealt with housekeeping matters. The votes this morning indicated that there was a broad consensus across the House, with all parties and the Cross Benches wanting to see these matters of housekeeping addressed, and addressed expeditiously.

It would be extremely unfortunate if the House allowed this Bill to be talked out this afternoon, when we can rise in a seemly and proper manner earlier than we had originally planned. We can then come back on Report and Third Reading, where my noble friend Lord Steel has already indicated that he is more than willing to take on board a number of the important points that have been made by colleagues in all parts of the House. We will then have done what we should rightly do, which is to put our own House in order, which is what this Bill seeks to do.

Whatever the ultimate aspirations or ambitions of any Member present are for the future second Chamber—whether appointed, elected or hybrid—none of those views is in any way dealt with by our dealing with this housekeeping matter and putting our own House in order. Therefore, I very much hope that, in the spirit of geniality that has prevailed for most of this debate, we can now draw our proceedings to a conclusion and come back on Report at a fairly early date.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, it may help the House to know that my noble friend Lord Dubs does not intend to move his amendments this afternoon and will come back to them on Report.

[Lord Cormack]

If we took the advice of my noble friend Lord Shutt and deferred everything remaining until Report, that would be the other way to do it. The least satisfactory way is to end untidily today, not having completed Committee and therefore having Report at some indeterminate time in the future, with another Committee day having to intervene. Either we go through with automatic not moving, as it were, or, if that is not considered appropriate by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne—I would fully understand it if that were his view—can we not do what was done with the Localism Bill: defer the other issues to Report, when at least it will all be done tidily?

[The Earl of Erroll]

Can I just alert your Lordships to a danger? If we say that all the amendments are withdrawn and that we should leave them until Report, there are two issues. First, if Amendment 163 is then voted through, none of the amendments will qualify for Report. Part 1 will not be there any more. If it has been removed from the Long Title, I do not think that Part 1 can exist. Therefore, as none of the amendments can be debated on Report, it is a cunning way of getting rid of them by the back door. Secondly, there will be a very lengthy Report stage.

[The Earl of Erroll]

I bet it will be because you have made sure that there are enough people on your side to get it through. It is a very cunning way of getting this through without the whole House being aware that we are trying to reform the House of Lords and not looking at how people will get here. A half measure is being put in place, which is very dangerous for the future. How people get here is just as important as trying to get rid of people.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, that is not what has been proposed. If the Report stage solution is adopted, Amendment 163 will come at Report. We will not be rubberstamping something today and in so doing, preclude debate on issues that the noble Earl feels should be debated. It is very simple. We will have a Report stage that will be slightly longer, as with the Localism Bill. We are dealing with it in a tidy and seemly manner. We are anticipating nothing; we are pre-empting nothing. If we end untidily this afternoon, all we will do is reflect discredit on our proceedings today. As we have made such good progress in a reasonable and constructive spirit of consensus, surely the noble Earl can see the wisdom of the suggestion that has been made by my noble friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, like my noble friend I am in some confusion and difficulty. We have nine clauses left to consider. There are a number of amendments to all those clauses. Some of them were tabled by my noble friend Lord Caithness, some by me and some by other noble Lords. Would it not be better to adjourn the Committee now and find another comparatively short occasion on which we could complete the Committee stage and thereafter proceed to Report stage in the normal manner? I am not trying to squash my noble friend’s Bill. That is not for me to do; that is for your Lordships to decide. I am asking that it be considered in a proper and orderly manner. At the moment we are not doing that. I beg to move.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, it will be considered in an orderly manner on Report and we will have the benefit of having concluded the Committee stage. That is the crucial point before the House. Then we will have proceeded in an orderly, tidy and satisfactory manner. We will have silenced no one, anticipated no one and pre-empted no one, and we will have reflected credit on the House rather than otherwise. I hope that, as his noble friend Lord Caithness has taken the line that he has over Report stage, my noble friend will feel moved to do likewise.

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, I have suddenly realised that the difficulty with that is that if we go to Report stage, one can speak only once, whereas in Committee one can come back and ask questions for elucidation. That was done today in the happy progress that we made. Will my noble friend Lord Steel recommit to Committee Parts 1 to 9 of the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cormack]

Perhaps I may respond to the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. The fact of the matter is that at any stage he and a number of his friends can, if they wish, bring proceedings to a halt at Report or Third Reading if they are totally unsatisfied. All I am asking is that we move through Committee this afternoon, we move to Report and that the noble Earl takes part in those debates in a constructive spirit, as we should all try to do. Then we are reflecting credit on this House, rather than ending in a very unsatisfactory, untidy way today.

[Lord Northbrook]

The reason why the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, changed his thoughts is that I think the goal posts seem to have moved. I do not understand why we are not going to recommit Clauses 1 to 9.

Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of duration of non-jury trial provisions) Order 2011

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

This was a limited consultation in terms of the numbers invited, but all political parties based in Northern Ireland were invited, as well as the Committee on the Administration of Justice and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. There was not a 100 per cent return in terms of invitations to respond. I am told that not many political parties did in fact respond. Of the 11 responses, nine were that we should continue with these provisions and two took the view that we should not.

The number of non-jury trials in Northern Ireland remains relatively low. So far in 2011, the DPP has issued 12 certificates for non-jury trials. In 2010, 14 certificates were issued. These figures are low but significant and show the ongoing need for non-jury trial. The Government want to see a return to full jury trial in all cases in Northern Ireland as soon as possible. However, given the current severe threat from residual terrorist groups in Northern Ireland and its bearing on criminal trials, the renewal of these provisions for a further two years is the right thing to do. I commend the order to the House.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I strongly support the speech of my noble friend. Noble Lords will know that I was chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee for five years before the last general election, and in that capacity conducted inquiries into organised crime, among other things. When we conducted our inquiry into organised crime, it was quite plain that many people were not prepared to give evidence to the Select Committee in public, for fear of intimidation. Things have moved on and it is a very good thing that the majority of trials in Northern Ireland are now trials by jury. However, my noble friend is right to point to the real threat from dissidents, about which both Sir Hugh Orde and his successor have consistently and repeatedly warned us. It is notable that so few responded to the consultation exercise with a negative view.

I will just refer to two particular crimes that my noble friend did not cite: not only the ghastly murder of the police constable this year but also the murder of PC Carroll; there was also the most barbaric murder of Paul Quinn, for which no one has yet been brought to trial. The last inquiry that my committee conducted was into the Omagh bombing and we must remember that nobody has been brought to trial in a criminal court and convicted of that most terrible of all atrocities in Northern Ireland. Against that background, where the most despicable criminals have not yet been brought to trial, largely because of the fear of people giving evidence, it is absolutely essential that the provision in the measure before your Lordships’ House is retained for two years.

There are many noble Lords in this House who know far, far more about Northern Ireland than I do because they come from that glorious part of the United Kingdom. They must feel, as I do, that real progress has been made—all those present tonight contributed to it, and one of the particular contributors was my noble friend Lord Trimble. We are well on the way to normality but we are not there yet. Until we are there—until there is no fear of intimidation—we have to retain this provision. It is right that my noble friend brought the measure before us tonight. It is right that your Lordships’ House should support it. In conclusion, I very much hope that in two years’ time he does not have to come here again and ask for a further extension, but if the circumstances are still as they are today he will have to do so.

[Lord Maginnis of Drumglass]

My Lords, I support the Motion before the House, albeit with some disappointment, as one who 13 years ago sat beside the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, during negotiations and hoped that we would no longer, and certainly not at this stage, have non-jury trials. However, a number of people in Ireland want to keep alive the distrust that exists between two traditions. Those people do not have—and I say this with some confidence—the sort of grass-roots support that previous terrorist organisations had. None the less they have the ability to kill policemen and civilians. Just recently they have issued a threat against prison officers, saying that they intend to kill prison officers because the “hotel” at Maghaberry is not quite to their liking. The reality is that this, though it may be a last stand, still presents a difficulty and presents huge challenges to the security services and to the community as a whole.

There are certain things that are going for us. I am optimistic—I am never quite sure that I can be as optimistic as some of my noble friends from this side of the water. There is always a threat, always a hiding place, but I think that it is appropriate at this time—and it is not every day that I say this—that I praise the Garda Siochana, whose attitude, under the leadership of the very recently retired Commissioner Fachtna Murphy, has been exemplary. There is no equivocation, there is none of this, “Well, we’ll find the arms dump, but we’ll let the culprits escape”. They have found the culprits, they have taken them to court and convicted them. That has sent a huge and very important message to Northern Ireland that there is no all-Ireland desire to have violence continuing.

For somebody who has been involved in security and Northern Ireland affairs for as long as I have, there is always the temptation to say that we did it better when it was more difficult. I simply hope that our police service, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, does not slip into a comfort zone which assists people who are dissident IRA and a number of other people who would embark on loyalist violence again—I have never, I hope, been someone who looked purely at one side of the community, or the threat to one side of the community. There is a necessity now for a common-sense approach, a need to ensure that fewer people are put under pressure. I am talking now about juries and I think that the Minister is very wise in what he has suggested this evening; that we have to protect not only those who would be targets of the potential terrorists but those who would become targets as members of a jury. Indeed, as recently as this week we have seen prison officers being highlighted for targeting.

I should not sit down without saying something that I hope will be heard by all the authorities in Northern Ireland, particularly the Northern Ireland Office. I have said one or two kind things, I am going to say one or two unkind things—perhaps one unkind thing—and that is that the degree of communication at the moment is not satisfactory. I hope that the Minister will take that message away. There are those of us sitting in this House who have many years of experience and whose advice is never sought. More than that, I feel that sometimes our advice is avoided.

With that, I simply say that I support—like the previous speaker, I hope that in two years’ time, I will not have to support it again—the continuation of the non-jury trials at this stage.