Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Empey and Lord Morrow

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd June 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, with permission, I will speak to Amendments 2, 20, 37 and 39. This set of probing amendments relates to the definition of public authorities that are subject to the Bill’s provisions. We are against it for the following reasons. We are convinced by the case for an expansionist approach to the range of public authorities captured by the Bill. Given the Minister’s insistence that the statement of funding accompanying the Bill does not give rise to any responsibility for the Government, it seems unconscionable that the Executive should have to bear the cost of UK-wide bodies adhering to requirements or requests issued by the offices created under the legislation. More than that, at a time of a crippling cost of living crisis and with mounting challenges facing our health service and criminal justice system, we believe that a precautionary approach is preferred.

Implementation should be targeted. We have consistently expressed concern about whether this legislation is proportionate or reflective of the priorities of the majority of people in Northern Ireland. There is a fear that expanding the extent even further would impact on public confidence. There is already concern about the framing of certain provisions, namely the identity and culture principles and their potential impact on competing fundamental freedoms. It may be prudent, therefore, to display caution and monitor the impact of the Bill before making further wholesale changes. There is already provision in the Bill allowing Ministers to amend the definition of “public authority” moving forward.

The proposed new clause in Amendment 39 would oblige public authorities to comply with obligations accepted by the United Kingdom under the Council of Europe’s European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. It is worth noting that the Ulster-Scots/Ulster-British commissioner would already be under an obligation to advise on the effect and implementation of the charter under proposed new Section 78R(3)(a).

I am pleased to speak to Amendment 32 in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Dodds of Duncairn, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown and Lord Hay of Ballyore. As I will reflect in more detail in the debate on subsequent groupings, the integrity of the provision of the Irish language commissioner and the Ulster-Scots/Ulster-British commissioner depends not only on the commissioner having identical functions but on their being accorded equal importance, and on this equal importance being made manifest—certainly through each having a similar cost footprint, in terms of both the running of their offices and their impact on the action and spending of public authorities. In this context, it is absolutely imperative that the existing functions of the Ulster-Scots/Ulster-British commissioner are given access to as robust an enforcement mechanism as those pertaining to the Irish language commissioner.

In this context, it is really concerning to note that, as currently defined, the Irish language commissioner is favoured with powers of enforcement on two bases that are denied the Ulster-Scots/Ulster-British commissioner, one of which we will address in this grouping and another in the eighth grouping. In my Amendment 32 in this grouping, a public authority is required by proposed new Section 78N to

“have due regard to any published best practice standards”

produced by the Irish language commissioner and to

“prepare and publish a plan setting out the steps it proposes to take to comply with”

this duty. Inexplicably, while the Ulster-Scots/Ulster-British commissioner is similarly given the responsibility of issuing guidance to public authorities, the Bill before us today contains no parallel obligation on public authorities to have due regard to their guidance. Neither does it contain any parallel obligations on public authorities to prepare and publish a plan setting out the steps they propose to take to comply with this duty.

I very gently express the hope to the Minister that the Government can understand why some within the unionist community regard this extraordinary difference of treatment as discrimination. It is vulnerable to be characterised as a crude attempt to set up two commissioners with the apparent intention of generating the sense that the two communities are being treated equally, hoping that one will not have the sense to check and see that the standards of protection afforded it are dramatically weaker than those afforded the other. This discriminatory difference of treatment can be resolved by Amendment 32, which affords the Ulster-Scots/Ulster-British commissioner the same respect as the Irish language commissioner in the form of placing equal statutory obligations on public authorities to have regard for his or her advice and to publish a plan setting out how they intend to comply with his or her advice.

I am genuinely at a loss to understand how anyone sensitive to the challenges we face in Northern Ireland, let alone a body supposedly committed to the notion of equality of esteem, can have regarded the enforcement provisions afforded unionists in the Bill as anything other than discriminatory when compared with the enforcement provisions afforded nationalism. I urge the Minister to recognise that this inequality of treatment is utterly indefensible and flies in the face of the principle of equality of esteem. I plead with him to accept this modest amendment.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I note all the probing amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. The noble Baroness raises an interesting point. Mr Adams has not gone away. He may not be the Dáil or the Assembly and he may not be here, but he has not gone away. Her point is quite interesting because the Belfast/Good Friday agreement enshrined the constitutional position very clearly. Mr Adams’s quote effectively ignores that and pretends that Northern Ireland is a condominium—in other words, a piece of territory that is being run by two other powers. The protocol is getting us into that sort of territory where we have rules made by a foreign power over which no one in this building has any say.

Dealing specifically with the noble Baroness’s point, I am not a lawyer, but we would need to be sure that there is not a gap in what we do through which some person can prosecute lawfare against the process. I take that point very clearly and will interested to hear what the Minister has to say about it. There may be an unintended consequence, which is why I said at the outset that I fear a lot of this legislation and all these bodies have the potential to form a grievance factory. That is what I fear about this legislation.

I would have signed Amendment 32, had there been space, but my colleagues took it up. The fact is that there is an inequality. We can dress it up whatever way we like, but it is there. The perception is clearly that one section of the community with certain aspirations and cultural identities is to be treated in one way and another section is to be treated in another, subservient, way. Perhaps that is not the right word, but noble Lords know what I mean. That should be avoided at all costs, because it undermines any confidence that identity and so on has finally been addressed. We are creating a hierarchy here, and the lessons of recent history tell us that that is not a good thing to do.

With regard to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, I would like an assurance from the Minister that no such premises will be left for people to pursue spurious cases or seek to pretend that the settlement that was entered into in 1998 has a clear constitutional position that is not subject to being equated with a constitutional position that does not currently exist. That is a real fear that that could arise.

I would also like the Minister to take away Amendment 32 and have a look at it, because I assure him that even those of us who are very unenthusiastic about all this are even less enthusiastic about having a hierarchy.

I shall also make a point about Mr Adams and his colleagues. If we go back to 1998 and the years leading up to that negotiation, at no stage whatever in those negotiations did his party seek an Irish language Act. They never put it on the table; they never asked for it. Its first iteration in a public document was at St Andrews, and it was a commitment by the UK Government, knowing full well that the subject was going to be devolved. Sinn Féin only got on the bandwagon after an SDLP Member of the Assembly—Patsy McGlone—put forward a Private Member’s Bill in the Assembly to bring in an Irish language Act. I am sure that the former speaker well recalls that. Sinn Féin did nothing in 1998 with regard to the Irish language Act; anything that we were asked to do in 1998 during the negotiations was done and implemented in full. I just put that point on the record.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, I will seek to be brief but I will not be as brief as the last time I spoke. I know that will please noble Lords. I will speak to Amendments 33, 34, 35 and 36 in which are tabled in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Dodds, Lord McCrea and Lord Hay.

As I have expressed previously, the integrity of the provision of the Irish language commissioner and Ulster Scots/Ulster British tradition commissioner depends not on each commissioner having identical functions but on them being accorded equal importance and on this equal importance being made manifest, certainly through each having a similar cost footprint in terms of both the running of their offices and their impact on the action and spending of public authorities.

As I noted in earlier debates, I have real concern that the functions of the two commissioners as currently defined are such that the Irish language commissioner is likely to have a bigger impact, absorbing more taxpayers’ money and engaging extensively with more than 70 public authorities, while the impact of the Ulster Scots/Ulster British commissioner is likely to be much narrower.

In this context, two things follow. First, it is absolutely imperative that the existing functions of the Ulster Scots/Ulster British commissioner are given access to as robust enforcement mechanisms as those pertaining to the Irish language commissioner. Secondly, it is absolutely imperative that while the functions of the Ulster Scots/Ulster British commissioners are not made identical, they are made similarly extensive, affording both the nationalist and unionist communities commissioners who will have an equally extensive impact on the governance of the nation and the allocation of public spending.

In this context, where there are already grounds for thinking that the current definition of the two commissioners is such that one is likely to have a significantly bigger impact on public spending than the other, it is really concerning to note that, as currently defined, the Irish language commissioner is favoured with powers of enforcement on two bases that are denied the Ulster Scots/Ulster British commissioner.

In the first instance, all public authorities are required by new Section 78N to have

“due regard to any published best practice standards”

produced by the Irish language commissioner and to

“prepare and publish a plan setting out the steps it proposes to take to comply with”

this duty. Inexplicably, while the Ulster Scots/Ulster British commissioner is similarly given the power to provide guidance to public authorities, the Bill before us today contains no parallel obligation on public authorities to have due regard to this guidance. Neither does it contain any parallel obligations on public authorities to

“prepare and publish a plan setting out the steps it proposes to take to comply with”

this duty.

I gently express the hope to the Minister that the Government can understand why some within the unionist community regard this extraordinary difference of treatment as discrimination. It is vulnerable to be characterised as a crude attempt to set up two commissioners with the apparent intention of generating the sense that the two communities are being treated equally, hoping that one will not have the sense to check and see that the standards of protection afforded it are dramatically weaker than those afforded to the other.

This particular discriminatory difference of treatment can be resolved by my Amendment 32, which affords the Ulster Scots/Ulster British tradition commissioner the same respect as the Irish language commissioner in the form of placing equal statutory obligations on public authorities to have regard for the commissioner’s advice and to publish a plan setting out how they intend to comply with the commissioner’s advice.

Unbelievably, however, the inexplicable, discriminatory difference of treatment afforded the Ulster Scots/Ulster British commissioner compared with the Irish language commissioner in terms of enforcement also extends to the provisions on complaints. Whereas a member of the public can complain to the Irish language commissioner about any public authority that has not followed the Irish language commissioner’s guidance where this has negatively impacted the complainant—which gives the commissioner the opportunity to take action—the scope for a member of the public to complain to the Ulster Scots/Ulster British tradition commissioner pertains only to the failure of public authorities to comply with one aspect of the commissioner’s functions, specifically one which is not deemed sufficiently central to appear in the principal role in new Section 78R(1), and which, when mentioned, is mentioned only in brackets.

Quite apart from any other concerns about unequal treatment, it seems clear that even at this very basic level of definition in the Bill, we are already letting go of the principle of parity of esteem and affording one community a commissioner with enforcement powers with respect to all the commissioner’s main functions, while affording the other commissioner enforcement powers only in relation to a secondary function in brackets, leaving the commissioner’s principal functions as defined by new Section 78Q(1) without an enforcement mechanism. My Amendments 33 to 36 address this discriminatory difference of treatment and enable a member of the public to complain to the Ulster Scots/Ulster British tradition commissioner if they are negatively affected if any advice issued by the commissioner is ignored and they similarly give the commissioner power to take action.

I very much hope that noble Lords will be able to appreciate why the unionist community has been shocked by the difference of treatment afforded it by this Bill. I am genuinely at a loss to understand how anyone sensitive to the challenges we face in Northern Ireland, let alone a body supposedly committed to the notion of equality of esteem, can regard the enforcement provisions afforded unionists in this Bill as anything other than direct discrimination when compared with the enforcement provisions afforded nationalism. This is wholly indefensible and inexplicable. I urge the Minister to recognise this and the fact that this inequality of treatment is utterly indefensible and flies in the face of the principle of equality of esteem. I plead with him to accept these modest amendments.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, unlike a good wine, sometimes negotiations do not age well. Sometimes we get it right; sometimes we get it wrong. I think the noble Lord has a fair point. I do not know, because I was not involved in the detail of these negotiations, what the rationale was to reach the final form of New Decade, New Approach. No doubt the Minister will say to me that he is trying to follow as faithfully as possible the agreement that was reached, but that does not mean that we have to be slavish in our acceptance of the provisions.

There is a perception issue here; there is no doubt about that. The Minister may have a very convincing explanation—he is usually very capable at providing them—but he has a bit of an uphill task, given the fairly broad, fairly substantial gap between the powers of the two commissioners. Perhaps he can put our minds at rest, but even if he is following New Decade, New Approach as far as I am concerned that does not mean that he has to be a slavish follower of it. I look forward to him perhaps considering before Report whether something can be done to remove the perception of inequality between the powers of these respective commissioners.

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

Debate between Lord Empey and Lord Morrow

Report stage
Wednesday 19th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, I will make a few brief remarks in relation to Amendments 1 and 2. At the outset, I say that most people who live in the real world acknowledge that the Belfast agreement is a flawed piece of work. It is not perfect, and those of us who try from time to time to point out the imperfections are frowned upon as anti-democratic in some way.

I and my colleagues cannot support Amendments 1 or 2, not least because they are very much outside the scope of the Bill and the New Decade, New Approach agreement, which focused on ensuring the stability of the institutions. The appropriate vehicle for scrutinising the existing rules and appointments is the Assembly and Executive Review Committee at Stormont. This should certainly not be tagged on to the coat-tails of the Bill.

Your Lordships’ House should keep very much before it that, to put it mildly, the Northern Ireland Assembly is in a very difficult and precarious position. The protocol, which has already been referred to, has virtually put the Executive and the very existence of the Northern Ireland Assembly on life support. We were always told that nothing could move forward in Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority, and the consent of the minority. Of course, no unionist supports the protocol. But, somehow, we have been told, “Just suck it up and get on with it”.

Some time ago, when Sinn Féin sought to bring changes to welfare reform, it pulled the whole edifice down. Not only did it not get its demands at that time around welfare reform, but it then added three other demands and said that it would not go back until those were met—and nor did it go back until they were met in totality. They were steamed through the other place, and the Northern Ireland Assembly was given no say whatever. So the abuse of the cross-party and the majority of the majority and the majority of the minority has well and truly been kicked into touch.

Some of us are conversant with how decisions were agreed to assist in getting devolution done. That would not have happened if there had not been a St Andrews agreement. Again, everyone who lives in the real world recognises that. I know that some, even in this House, refuse to recognise that, but it is a fact.

The DUP is also opposed to Amendment 2. The purpose of the Bill is to legislate for measures agreed under the New Decade, New Approach deal, not to undo and tear up previous commitments at St Andrews in the absence of political consensus. It should be said that NDNA is a package, not a single item on its own, but that has been ignored to all intents and purposes. I know that at a later stage we will hear about a very useful amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I add that that is helpful.

Some seem to be asking for a full reset of the institutions, but we certainly are not. That is not in keeping with the spirit of what has been agreed. I said that the Executive and the Assembly are now in a very difficult place. This House should be ever mindful of that and keep it before us in all our deliberations. I reiterate that had it not been for the St Andrews agreement element of the devolution settlement then there would never have been an Executive and an Assembly at Stormont. Those who do not acknowledge that are just living in denial.

I listened intently to what the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, said. She said that the St Andrews agreement had changed the emphasis on the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in the Belfast agreement, or the Good Friday agreement, as some call it. I say this: the identical status never existed, even in the Belfast agreement. There was always a difference between the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, which helped to make things happen, so it did.

Furthermore, in the last election in Belfast North we had a very hard-working, industrious full-time Member of Parliament, Nigel Dodds, now the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. What did the SDLP and Sinn Féin do? They locked horns and a cabal was formed to oust that hard-working Member of Parliament. Who did they put in? Someone who declared, “I will never attend Parliament”, but has a fully paid-for political office while continuing to run his legal business elsewhere. Is that double-jobbing? It seems that it is not, yet if someone were to sit in Parliament, the Assembly or a local council and do that, it would be. We really need to catch a grip of things and try to realise what exactly is going on. This behaviour should be called out. Not only did the SDLP and Sinn Féin come together in Belfast North; as a quid pro quo, Sinn Féin stands aside in Belfast South to help to elect the SDLP.

Let us be very careful about rushing ahead and doing things in Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority in Northern Ireland. That is exactly what is happening at the moment. We have a protocol that is strangling our economy, but that does not seem to matter. We will continue to work for the changes in the protocol—indeed, it has to go; it is a massive hindrance. It will be one of the uppermost things that will help to destroy the Belfast agreement, and indeed the Executive and the Stormont Assembly.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, after that contribution it is difficult to know where to start. I begin by saying to the Minister that this is the first piece of legislation of substance that he has had to deal with. He will obviously have detected that this Bill is supposed to implement elements of New Decade, New Approach, and I suspect that he will notice the absence of references to that and its substance, as people have moved on to other things. My party is not a party to the New Decade, New Approach agreement and did not support it. There are elements within it that are okay, but we did not agree with the totality of it. Of course, the Bill is before us only because various abuses of the system have taken place over the years, and this particular piece of legislation is trying to patch up holes in the bucket.

There are differences between the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and the amendment from my noble friend Lord Rogan and me. One deals with how to describe the offices of First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and the other deals with how we identify and arrive at them. The reason why we have suggested going back to the original in Amendment 2 is relatively obvious. First, it is what was agreed at the talks. Secondly, it is what was there when the people of Northern Ireland voted in the referendum to pass the agreement. Therefore, it has the legitimacy of being agreed by the parties at the time—those that participated —in strand 1 at Stormont. Neither Sinn Féin nor the DUP participated, but those parties that did put that proposal to the electorate before anything was operated at Stormont the first time.

I have disagreed with the noble Lord, the former Secretary of State, over his decision in 2006-07 to make changes following the St Andrews agreement, because the changes to the methodology for electing the First Minister and Deputy First Minister were not in the communiqué for St Andrews, but they appeared in the draft legislation immediately after it. The differences appeared at the time to be relatively modest—unless you looked at the minutiae—but they are actually very profound. The reason why we negotiated the arrangements as set out in Amendment 2 is that it was designed to give political, public and constitutional expression to the partnership of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.

The regret that I have is that we were perhaps influenced to some extent by what was happening in Scotland at the time, where its devolution was coming together, and the names of the titles of the two officeholders perhaps are misleading. Some people saw them as hierarchical; I do not. I think I am the only person in this Chamber who has held the office. I can tell your Lordships that they are equal, and I will tell you why. In the first week I held the office, with the late Seamus Mallon, we were unable to agree on the notepaper heading for the department. The department was incapable of sending out any correspondence for a week, until such time as we agreed on what the notepaper looked like.

Northern Ireland (Extension of Period for Executive Formation) (No. 2) Regulations 2019

Debate between Lord Empey and Lord Morrow

Thursday 31st October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, since my name has been mentioned, although not in the usual derogatory way, I shall speak briefly. I do not think any party is more enthusiastic than mine about the restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I have read what the Secretary of State said: that there are a few minor issues that need resolution. That begs the question: if they are so minor, why are they not resolved? We have been here so often. It gives me no pleasure to stand here and say these things; that is not where I am politically and it is not where my party is on this issue. We want to be in there, not only because we have a responsibility to be there but to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. Whatever these one or two minor issues might be—I say clearly that we have not heard about them yet—let us hear what they are and have a resolution. Unfortunately, it will not happen before the election.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is right: the parties will be challenged, and rightly so, about why we have not got a Northern Ireland Assembly up and functioning. I suspect I will be involved in some way in the election, and I am happy to take that on the chin and give an explanation of why we are where we are. I will do it with some regret.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, feels deprived because he has not been addressed in a derogatory fashion. We can easily fix that, if he feels the need.

I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that I have heard the phrase “minor matters” before. I do not think they are minor because the headline issue is not the issue. RHI was a disaster but I accept and agree that it was not “the” issue. There were underlying issues that cannot easily be put into a Civil Service box that we can tick. There are relationship issues; there is the bigger picture of Brexit; there is the political situation in the Republic of Ireland, where some parties have a role to play; and there is the whole prospect of having to take difficult economic decisions, which will not necessarily be popular with certain elements of the parties’ supporters. Therefore, I do not think it correct to say that there are only a few issues left—believe me, parties in Northern Ireland can manufacture issues. If we could turn that into an economic engine, we would be a very wealthy part of the country, because there would be no difficulty whatever in finding more issues on which to have grievances.

On paper, that is how it looks from the outside, but I suspect that it would not be the actual position when push came to shove. That is why I have continuously argued in this place that the process being used is the wrong one. We have been here before. Sometimes effort is needed to tease out the real issues that lie behind the headline ones. I think the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, knows what I am getting at and agrees. This question has come up several times today, whether on the subject of health or something else, but I think we shall have to start differentiating between issues where people’s lives are at stake—and potentially being lost—and those where people’s quality of life is permanently altered through non-action by agencies of the state.

I am a long-term devolutionist. I believe in it and have supported and worked for it, so I am in no rush to see powers brought back here. However, I would argue that there is an emergency when people’s lives are being threatened and affected dramatically. This Parliament has a role to play in that and a responsibility to take it seriously. Obviously, when we come back, the issue will still have to be addressed. Whether it will be possible to get an agreement to establish an Assembly by 13 January, I do not know. I hope it will be but I suspect it will not, and we will then be faced with the dilemma of whether to continue with the existing arrangements, via an election, and see whether it can be kick-started again. However, I maintain that, in parallel with that, we will still have to address the fact that there are issues—in particular, on health—that require action, and the people cannot keep waiting.

We have discussed money. There have been increases but everybody knows that inflation in the health service is far higher than inflation in the general economy, and that is the trap that we have been in. There is no ability to plan the workforce, and that is a contributory factor because we have only 12-month budget cycles. The point that was made about the Barnett consequentials was a very good one. Technically, if money is given to health here, Northern Ireland gets a Barnett consequential, but that does not mean that it is spent on health. That decision is taken by the Executive, who might distribute it to different departments. The Civil Service is confronted with the same dilemma. That a Minister of the Crown has to stand up here and tell the House that he, as a Minister of the Crown, cannot instruct a civil servant just illustrates the impossibility and hopelessness of the position that we find ourselves in.

Historical Institutional Abuse (Northern Ireland) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Empey and Lord Morrow

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 31st October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I understand and agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, has said. Perhaps the Minister could get across to his colleagues and the business managers in the other place the degree of anguish that would be caused by a failure to deliver this legislation, given that everybody in both Houses and in every party, both here and in Northern Ireland, supports it—a situation that is very rare. Such a failure cannot be explained away. We know that there is time next week—there will be two sitting days in the other place—and I cannot imagine that it is not possible to achieve this. I urge the Minister to make that point strongly to the Government.

Given the nature of the victims of this abuse and given that inquiries are also taking place in England, it behoves us all to show an example—to show that we are serious about it and that we intend to alleviate the suffering. I think that people would find it inconceivable that we would be incapable of delivering this legislation.

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, I endorse what has been said without repeating the multiplicity of words. It will not be understood if this Bill does not reach the statute book. It is incredible that here we have something that unites everyone, yet we now find that we are struggling to get it to its last point. That will not be understood at all, and I find it incredible that we are even questioning whether that might arise.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Debate between Lord Empey and Lord Morrow

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

[Lord Morrow]

My Lords, I intend to be brief on this because I will keep before me what has been said in the debate on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hain. I recognise that much of what was said compares with what I hope to say.

The definition of a victim has been a matter of great angst in Northern Ireland since its inception. Consideration of government proposals in the past has been coloured by the dissatisfaction people feel over an unfair definition of a victim. This has been a running sore for some 13 years. We have met many individual victims and several groups representing victims’ organisations. The victim definition is repeatedly raised with us as their key issue.

We consider the 2006 definition of a victim and survivor to be unacceptable, unfair and downright insulting. In our view, there is a clear distinction in law between a terrorist perpetrator and their innocent victim. To equate the two is morally wrong and totally indefensible. We have previously tabled legislative proposals to change the definition of a victim, but to no avail at this stage. We believe the Government should bring forward plans now to change the definition of a victim so that there is a clear distinction between perpetrators and victims. In any civilised society, it cannot be right that victims and perpetrators are treated as equals. We believe that this could improve the existing climate and context regarding consideration of the past and legacy proposals.

The Secretary of State wrote in the foreword of the legacy consultation document:

“A Conservative Government will reject any attempts to rewrite the history of the past that seeks to justify or legitimise republican or loyalist terrorism or which seeks to displace responsibility from the people who perpetrated acts of terrorism”.


A perpetrator of an unlawful act cannot at the same time be a victim of the act they have perpetrated. Someone who pulled a trigger or planted a bomb should not be treated in the same manner as their innocent victims. This matter is fundamental to victims’ views. In our engagement with a number of victims’ organisations, we have been struck by extremely powerful testimony illustrating the depth and rawness of hurt and insult they feel at their loved ones being placed in the same category as terrorist perpetrators.

The DUP has a proud record on victims and legacy issues. In government, we quadrupled funding for victims. We have stood against a rewriting of our history and efforts to introduce an amnesty. Current arrangements for dealing with the past are utterly unacceptable. There is a clear imbalance, and continuation of the status quo will lead to further rewriting of the narrative of the Troubles. Innocent victims are not seeing progress on investigations into the murder of their loved ones. I beg to move.

[Lord Empey]

My Lords, I think the exchanges during the debate on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, have the seeds of a solution within them. I would be supportive of that. He made the distinction between the provision of services and pensions for people who have been victims, so we understand that there is an issue there, but the whole question of legacy is still unresolved. There are still proposals out there, including the historical inquiries unit and other ideas that have been brought forward, which could threaten and help to rewrite the history, as has been referred to. But I believe from the exchange we had earlier that we are close to a form of words to find an acceptable solution to all of this that everybody can be comfortable with and move forward on. I certainly hope that that can be achieved.

Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Bill

Debate between Lord Empey and Lord Morrow

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 27th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey]

Before the noble Lord sits down, I ask him to reflect on the Judge Hart inquiry. If I picked up him correctly, he indicated that this would await the return of an Executive. I point out to him that every solitary MLA I am aware of supports the implementation of that inquiry. Other parties represented here can say no if they disagree. Every party supports it. Some of the material in the report is very harrowing. One lady started off in the system at four years old. She is now 87. How much more do we have to put these people through? I therefore ask the Minister to discuss with his colleagues and reflect on that.

Secondly, on the RHI scheme, although I appreciate that this is a renewal, it was originally based on no substantive information. I suggest that the Minister again consult his colleagues and ensure that a proper working party is established to alleviate this, because people are losing their livelihoods as a result of this botched scheme.

[Lord Hay of Ballyore]

Just before the Minister gets to his feet, I should like to say that I broadly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said. There is no doubt that all the political parties in Northern Ireland want this issue resolved. The issue I raised earlier was that the institutions that carried out the abuse should be made to pay for some of that abuse and repent for all of it. I do not think there is an issue in resolving this, but it would be totally wrong if only taxpayers’ money was used to resolve it.

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Debate between Lord Empey and Lord Morrow

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He refers to the potential crisis that unfolded last week. I am sure he accepts that the crisis has not gone away; rather, I suspect that it has been suspended as a result of the Prime Minister’s intervention and his announcement of a judge-led inquiry into the matter. Should that not happen, and should the terms of the inquiry not be satisfactory, then we will go straight back to where we were.

[Lord Empey]

I think that there is an element of truth in what the noble Lord says, although huge issues relating to the Human Rights Act and the Data Protection Act surround some of the conditions that were attached by his colleagues to the First Minister’s potential resignation, such as the production of a list of names. Somebody else suggested that the letters be rescinded. They have not been rescinded and I do not believe that they will be. The possession of those letters is the issue. The people who possess them can always go to the court and those Acts will be their defence. I doubt whether a court will overrule that.

In her response to the previous amendment, the noble Baroness talked about people having letters and not being investigated. However, what happens if the evidence that existed when the person received the letter is subsequently capable of further interpretation either by scientific advance or other material? What impact is that going to have on those letters, and will it be a satisfactory defence for the people who hold them?

I return to the amendment. Without doing injury to the devolution settlement, we are trying to signal that, if requested to do so, the Secretary of State would positively respond to the Assembly by providing a guarantee that opposition status could not be arbitrarily changed by the activities of majority parties at some point in the future. The purpose of the amendment is very simple. I would encourage the Assembly to go down the road of creating an Opposition but it still needs that extra guarantee. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that that guarantee is sought by the Assembly. It is much weaker than I would have liked but, nevertheless, it does what it says on the tin. It is a response to a request from the Assembly to the Secretary of State after a cross-community vote. Therefore, I believe that it is perfectly capable and compatible with the settlement that we have before us. I beg to move.