Northern Ireland Troubles: Operation Kenova
Baroness Hoey Excerpts(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend is right that this report contains a range of recommendations; some are outside its original terms of reference, which were in the interim report published last March. Noble Lords will appreciate that many of the issues touched upon are subject to ongoing litigation, so there is only so far I can go in terms of their actions.
I say to my noble friend that the director-general of MI5 again apologised to Kenova for the late discovery of the material in 2024. The House will also note that MI5 itself has initiated an internal review of what happened, and there are the findings of the Helen Ball review, in which she raised a number of points. There is always more to learn, but as I said before, the legislative framework in which these alleged activities happened is not the same as the one that operates today.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, £47 million was spent on the Kenova report, which was made with the benefit of hindsight and makes no mention of the thousands of people who were actually saved from being murdered by the IRA terrorists precisely because of the actions of the intelligence services and brave service men and women. Will His Majesty’s Government rule out immediately the ridiculous call made this morning on the BBC by the former PSNI chief constable Sir George Hamilton for a judicial inquiry into MI5 and its behaviour? Does the Minister agree that despite the endless inquiries, our security forces acted always with the intention to save lives and not, as was the IRA’s intent, to murder innocent men and women?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The Government have no intention to commission a public inquiry. The Kenova investigation was conducted over nine years and was Article 2-compliant. We are satisfied that Kenova has completed a thorough investigation. We do not believe there is any further requirement.
Control of Mercury (Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Baroness Hoey Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hoey
At end to insert “but that this House regrets that, while the Regulations will extend the use of amalgam fillings in Northern Ireland, they do so by means of placing their provision, and thus the provision of NHS dental services in Northern Ireland, on an uncertain constitutional foundation.”
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is nice to see the noble Baroness answering on this statutory instrument, and I thank her for her outline of what it contains. I reassure noble Lords that, while the Whip’s notice says that today’s rising time will probably be about 7 pm, I have no intention—I do not think any of us have—of continuing this debate until then. That might be helpful.
Dentists in Northern Ireland are obviously relieved that the burden that was hanging over them regarding a date has now been lifted. I have brought this issue to the Floor of the House today as I feel, along with many of my colleagues from Northern Ireland, that it is important and necessary to expose how, drip by drip, the EU is taking more control over what happens in a part of the United Kingdom.
We have talked regularly about the 300 areas of law that are now out of our own Government’s hands, and sometimes it seems that no one understands the practical problems these are causing. We have seen the questions on duty-free, pet travel and the large numbers of GB businesses that are now refusing to send anything to Northern Ireland because of the bureaucracy. Just recently, in the last couple of days, we had the ridiculous situation whereby poppy sellers in Northern Ireland had to get EU leaflets and deal with EU bureaucracy to be able to sell poppies. That is outrageous, and I am sure noble Baroness would agree with me on that point.
So why am I concerned about this SI? The British Dental Association did a great job of alerting dentists in Northern Ireland to the fact that originally, the EU directive was going to ban amalgam filling from 1 January 2025 in Northern Ireland. That became a topic of much concern, and to be fair, His Majesty’s Government sought talks with the EU, which led to a Commission notice—Regulation 2024/1849—saying that instead of Northern Ireland being required to cease using amalgam fillings in June 2026, dentists could continue to December 2034.
The purpose of today’s SI is to give effect to the solution the EU Commission developed, but the solution is deeply problematic because these regulations rest on the foundation not of EU law but of a Commission notice. I am sure I do not need to remind noble Lords that there are several different types of EU law: regulations that are binding, directives that are binding, recommendations that are non-binding and opinions that are non-binding. The reality is that Commission notices do not even have the standing of non-binding law. Indeed, Commission notices are not law because, in the constitutional architecture of the EU, the Commission proposes legislation but does not make it; that is the role of the Parliament and the Council of Ministers.
The Commission is also not the judiciary; it usually adds to its statements. It usually says that
“the following is without prejudice to the fact that it is the role of the European Court of Justice to make final determinations in the application of the law”.
Indeed, after the Northern Ireland Assembly’s EU scrutiny committee had been notified of this change—and was quite pleased about it—a few weeks later the Department of Health sent it a letter regarding the standing of the Commission notice. I quote from it:
“It is described in the preamble as a ‘guidance note’ which is intended to facilitate the application of regulation (EU) 2024/1849”.
So it is not binding legislation in itself; rather, it is an interpretative aid to the application of the law in Northern Ireland, in the unique context of the Windsor Framework.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
As I said, I will reflect on everything that the noble Baroness said, and I will make sure that she receives the letter.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, having listened to the debate, I feel I should have declared an interest at the beginning, in that I have amalgam fillings. I am very pleased that the Minister reiterated that, whatever the issue is in the longer term, amalgam fillings are safe. We would not want to be worrying the millions of people out there who have amalgam fillings.
I know that the Minister is not the Minister for dentistry—and I am sure she does not want to add that to her title. It was a very interesting debate, much wider than I had intended, in the sense that it was a constitutional issue that I wanted to raise. It has been very helpful—and I now know where the dentists among us are sitting for when my amalgam fillings go.
I thank everyone for speaking, particularly the Minister for her response. I hope she knows how well she is thought of in Northern Ireland. I thought her response was, in the circumstances, given the Government’s policy positions, very helpful indeed. It might be helpful if she could write to me outlining exactly what the legal position of the Commission’s notice is.
Finally, this is not about dentistry—although, if we are to ban amalgam fillings, we need to start now, to make sure our dentists are able to cope, because they will certainly have extra costs, which will be an issue in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, in his usual way, expressed how frustrating it is now for people in Northern Ireland. At the beginning, when all this happened, a lot of people in the public thought that it was all about business—big business, small business—and nothing to do with us. Now they are seeing so many things happening—the chickens are coming home to roost, as they would say. I really hope that noble Lords listening to these Sis—which we will continue to challenge, because we need to get the information out there—will understand that Northern Ireland is being treated as a second-class part of the United Kingdom. That is not acceptable. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Casement Park: Spending Review
Baroness Hoey Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hoey
To ask His Majesty’s Government what criteria they used in deciding to contribute £50 million to redevelop Casement Park in Belfast under the Spending Review.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, before I answer the substantive Question, noble Lords will have seen on the news this morning the heartbreaking reports of a shooting in Fermanagh. My thoughts and prayers and those of the Government are with everyone touched by this heartbreak.
This Government want to support the Northern Ireland Executive with their plans for building world-class infrastructure in Northern Ireland across all sporting codes. That is why we are providing up to £50 million of capital funding to the Executive to support the redevelopment of Casement Park. It is now a matter for the Executive to decide what level of funding they will provide, and to work with other partners to fulfil the long-standing commitment to redevelop Casement Park.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her remarks about Enniskillen and for her Answer. She must realise that back in 2011 football, rugby and Gaelic got similar amounts from the Northern Ireland Executive to develop their stadiums. Football and rugby did theirs, but Gaelic did not. Casement sat empty for years. That was not football’s fault or anyone else in government’s fault either.
Given the importance of equal treatment for communities in Northern Ireland, will the Government, having given this £50 million to the GAA, now recognise that football, which is a cross-community sport—Gaelic is not—deserves the same Exchequer funding? Does the noble Baroness realise that people who opposed it in Northern Ireland—British citizens—remember that Casement Park is named after an anti-British gunrunner who was tried for treason in the same month that 3,000 Ulstermen gave their lives for the UK at the Battle of the Somme? Is it any wonder that British citizens were opposed? If the Government are giving this £50 million, will they ensure that equal funding is given to the IFA, which deserves it just as much?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises what is at the heart of this: in 2011 the last Government allocated £14.7 million of funding for the redevelopment of Ravenhill rugby stadium, £25.2 million for the redevelopment of Windsor Park, £61.5 million for Casement and £36 million for subregional stadia funds. All the projects have been delivered except Casement; the money was not spent. This is delivering on the promises that were made. We have been very clear that we have put forward £50 million. The current projected cost of the redevelopment is £170 million. It is now a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive to bring together partners to deliver the rest of the money.