Northern Ireland

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hoey]

At end insert, “; but regrets that, in a manner inconsistent with Strand One (5)(d) of the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement and section 42 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, cross-community consent remains disapplied for the Article 18 procedure, as it relates to Articles 5 to 10 of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, and further regrets that the continuing effect of the Protocol is to over-ride and suspend the provisions of Article 6 of the Acts of Union 1800.”

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I move this amendment to insert what I see as some honesty into the humble Address and to make clear what the legal and political reality is, because it is quite different from the words in the Government’s humble Address.

I accept that this humble Address, solemn as it is, has no legal status; we are neither changing nor making legislation. It does not alter one word of the protocol or its effect on the Belfast agreement. However, if we are sending this from your Lordships’ House to His Majesty King Charles, it is important that we get it right and make it honest. I am trying not to be too legalistic, but I want to refer to legal judgments and specific provisions because it is important to have on record for the future some material that confounds many of the claims made by the Government and, sadly, by the DUP leadership. This may well be the last time we have an opportunity to put all the arguments on the record.

Almost exactly a year ago, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson said in the other place that the Supreme Court had issued a judgment, and that the protocol has subjugated Article 6 of the Act of Union. He continued that it also changes a key part of the Good Friday agreement,

“which is the need for cross-community consent on matters of import to the people of Northern Ireland … These are the things that need to be addressed in UK law to restore our place within the United Kingdom”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/2/23; col. 892.]

This humble Address pledges fidelity to the Belfast agreement and to the foundational importance of the Acts of Union. The two issues that Sir Jeffrey said had to be addressed—his words, not mine or anyone else’s—were the disapplying of cross-community consent in a manner inconsistent with the Belfast agreement and undoing the subjugation of the Acts of Union. That is what he said was necessary to restore Northern Ireland’s place in the union. Yet cross-community consent remains disapplied and Article 6 of the Acts of Union remains suspended. Noble Lords are asked to support a humble Address which does not say that. Instead, we are urged to play along and say that the Belfast agreement has not been changed and the Acts of Union are not still vandalised.

I listened last night to the debate in the other place. Sadly, I again heard the leader of the DUP attacking the very people he stood with over years of campaigning and protest—the people he now says talk nonsense, who do not know facts or history and have not read the Acts of Union. This latest attack on other pro-union people who, incidentally, he refuses to debate with in public, is based on a claim that such persons urged restoring the Acts of Union. It seems that now, perhaps after spending some time with the Northern Ireland Office—too much time—anyone who thinks that are fools. Whoever would suggest such a ridiculous thing as restoring the Acts of Union, our foundational constitutional statute?

The problem for Sir Jeffrey is that on 21 July 2021, he said in Parliament:

“what does the Prime Minister intend to do to fully restore the Act of Union for Northern Ireland and remove the Irish sea border?”—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/21; col. 971.]


As I said earlier, he stood before on platforms all over Northern Ireland with myself, Jim Allister, Ben Habib, Jamie Bryson and many others campaigning in pursuit of that objective. Furthermore, he actually wrote a foreword to Jamie Bryson’s book on the Acts of Union, commending it to fellow unionists.

Being blunt, the only person who seems to have U-turned on all this is the leader of the DUP. His outburst on the Acts of Union is, I believe, about covering his U-turn. He is making efforts to create a puff of smoke around the Acts of Union to conceal the reality that, far from undoing the constitutional damage to that foundational legislation, he now accepts and implements it and thinks that, by talking nonsense about tariffs in 1801, everyone will be confused.

In October 2022, the DUP leader also said:

“Some lay great emphasis on cutting the number of checks on goods”


moving from GB to Northern Ireland. He continued:

“If that were to happen they say all our problems would be sorted … The truth of course is that the checks on the Irish Sea border are the symptom of the underlying problem, namely that NI is subject to a different set of laws imposed on us”.


That is very different from the Sir Jeffrey Donaldson in 2024. I hope that he will reflect on his comments. There is nothing wrong with changing one’s opinion; there is nothing wrong with people changing their views. I respect people who do that if they say it with intellectual honesty rather than lashing out at those who have not changed and have remained true to their principles. He clearly wanted to get the Assembly back, and that is fair enough, but you do that by being honest and straightforward with people, not trying to do a deal with the Government to produce words that are meaningless.

Of all the deceptions in the humble Address, those concerning the Acts of Union and the Belfast agreement are probably the most insulting. It pledges support for the Belfast agreement “in all its parts”, meanwhile omitting that the core cross-community consent safeguard found at Strand One 5(d) of the Belfast agreement and given effect in Section 42 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 remains disapplied for the Article 18 protocol vote later this year. What is really meant by the words about upholding the Belfast agreement in all its parts is the Belfast agreement as constitutionally vandalised by the protocol and framework.

The previous government claim was that the cross-community consent mechanism applied only to devolved issues. That was the Government’s defence, but it is wrong on many levels, and I want to put why on record. Most fundamentally, if the cross-community consent mechanism was never applicable and we are all so misguided, why did the Government pass regulations to disapply that which never applied anyway?

Another part of what seems to many people to be duplicity is that the cross-community mechanism applies to a matter to be voted on by the Assembly. There is no limitation as to only matters which are devolved or within legislative competence. That is obvious from paragraph 107 of the Supreme Court judgment in the challenge to the protocol that I and others were involved with. The Belfast agreement is not upheld at all; it has been made subject to the protocol—in this instance Article 18—and gives way to it.

We have come full circle. We were told that the protocol was about protecting the Belfast agreement in all its parts, but now we are celebrating an altered Belfast agreement, with safeguards disapplied to the detriment of unionists in order to protect the protocol. It is shameful, and what was so disappointing to me was that neither the deputy leader nor the leader of the DUP in the other place highlighted this most obvious deficiency. That is of profound concern.

I turn to the next bold claim in the humble Address, which is

“the foundational importance of the Acts of Union”.

I believe that the Command Paper, and the way the DUP leadership presented its endorsement of it, is an exercise in deception on the Acts of Union. No other word describes it. It said a lot, much of it inaccurate, about the Acts of Union but then tried to convince everyone that black is white. It said that we must believe that the Supreme Court did not say what it said, close our eyes and pretend that the Acts of Union are not subjugated and in suspension. We must delude ourselves that we are all confused and there is no conflict between the protocol framework and the Acts of Union, and that if there is then we should embrace it because if we do not—most bizarrely of all—tariffs might be brought back on Bushmills whiskey.

I do not like the word “subjugation”, but it is not my word. It was first used not by unionists or loyalists but by this Government in their written and oral submissions to the Court of Appeal, in which they said that the Acts of Union were subjugated. This argument was accepted and repeated in the judgment of the Court of Appeal and upheld by the Supreme Court. People sometimes get annoyed when I refer to subjugation of the Acts of Union, but I am using the Government’s words, or at least their words prior to their U-turn. We are now supposed to believe that the interpretation that the courts and all of unionism applied to Article VI of the Acts of Union was wrong and instead embrace the new inventive interpretation which amounts to nothing more than meekly accepting the fundamental change to our constitutional status, while pretending otherwise.

Sir Jeffrey Donaldson now puts his case—in a way much different from what he said on platforms prior to partnering with the Northern Ireland Office to sell his deal—on the basis that we cannot restore the Acts of Union because that would mean putting them back to 1801 and, as I said, there would therefore be tariffs on, for example, Bushmills whiskey. This sounds good symbolically and gets a good headline, but in substance it means that, because the Acts of Union have changed before since 1801, there is no issue. If you make this case, you must be willing to embrace the changes to the Acts of Union made by the protocol. Why else would previous changes add anything to your argument? When Sir Jeffrey talks about 1801, he is deflecting from the central point. The constitutional damage we have all campaigned on was inflicted by the protocol, and that is the cause of the suspension of Article VI. The fundamental issue is whether that has been undone.

Let me put it simply, as this question must be responded to. Quoting the court, Sir Jeffrey talked about the subjugation of Article VI of the Acts of Union, which he said must be addressed to restore Northern Ireland’s place in the union. That has not been addressed. As it obviously has not, how can anyone claim, using his test as a measuring stick, that his deal restores Northern Ireland’s place in the union? That has not been answered by Sir Jeffrey or the Minister. Amid all this spin, there is a very simple question: as a matter of legal reality, the Acts of Union remain subjugated and in suspension—in the court’s words, not mine—so are the Government now willing to accept that as a legitimate change to the Acts of Union?

What we mean by restoring the Acts of Union is very simple. It means undoing the damage inflicted by the protocol. This has been turned around into a bizarre argument about tariffs on whiskey which is designed to confuse everyone. The reality is that, in 1801, there were no more tariffs or duties to be added to a specified agreed list unless they were equalised. These are known as countervailing duties. In simple terms, Schedule 1 to Article VI of the Acts of Union exhaustively specified certain items that would continue to be subject to tariffs and duties. This was an agreement between what was then Ireland and Great Britain; it was not imposed or agreed with a foreign power.

More fundamentally, it was designed to be transitional. As such, under the Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1879, Schedule 1 was repealed. There have been no tariffs since. Contrary to the attempts to confuse and mislead people, doing exactly what Sir Jeffrey called for—repairing the damage done to Article VI by the protocol—would not, as if by magic, cause to spring back to life Schedule 1 and its list of tariffs abolished in 1879. It is silly and beneath such an experienced and eminent political leader, as well as others, to say such utter nonsense designed to create confusion because he will say nothing on the substance of the point around the Acts of Union.

The Acts of Union, prior to the protocol, remained in force. In the words of Lord Justice McCloskey, the intent of Article VI from 1801 was “unmistakable”. Yet now, listening to some senior members of the DUP and Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office, we are all supposed to believe that everyone has just fallen into one big misinterpretation, including our courts. The notion that, if the subjugation of the Acts of Union were lifted and the damage of the protocol undone, somehow Schedule 1, which was repealed in 1879, would come back to life and there would be tariffs on Bushmills whiskey—which would really upset the honourable Member for North Antrim—is complete and utter nonsense.

I will also address the claim in the Command Paper that the Supreme Court did not address the inconsistency between the Acts of Union and the protocol, as Ministers have said time and again. Yes, it did. It expressly proceeded on the basis that there was an inconsistency, as upheld by the High Court and Court of Appeal before it, the highest courts in Northern Ireland. This is set out clearly in paragraphs 54 and 64 of the Supreme Court judgment. It confounds emphatically the claims of the Government. The most remarkable thing is that the Government accepted there was such an inconsistency and did not cross-appeal to the Supreme Court. Now they are trying to tell us something different. The inconsistency was held by the courts to be: first, the continued application of EU law; secondly, the ongoing fetters on trade; and, thirdly, Northern Ireland having privileged access to the EU single market, the price of which was our exclusion from being a full part of the United Kingdom internal market.

The noble Lord, Lord Bew, who is in his place, has said repeatedly in this House that the Acts of Union have been changed before. That is quite true, but the basis of his argument, as with Sir Jeffrey’s new position, must be that, because they were changed before, the present change should not offend unionists. Sometimes he seems to be urging us to embrace it. If he wants to deploy that argument, he should be honest about what it means: accepting the constitutional damage to the Acts of Union inflicted by the protocol. It means accepting that change on the basis that the Acts of Union have changed before. That is what some, including the noble Lord, have said. We should be honest about that.

It has also been said that EU law was never one of the DUP’s seven tests. Members of the DUP answered that pretty strongly in our last debate. An MLA called David Brooks set out last week in the Belfast News Letter that it was never a DUP test. That is really odd, because the leader of the DUP said in October 2022 that the core issue was EU law, and he said it again in February 2023 in an interview with Tracey Magee of UTV. The very first of the DUP’s tests was directed to the Acts of Union. You cannot restore the Acts of Union without removing EU law, because EU law is the most fundamental breach of them. It is very simple. A mention of restoring the Acts of Union cannot be anything other than a commitment to end EU law; otherwise, achieving such restoration would be impossible.

Practically everything I have said has been lifted more or less directly from the court judgment, which I hope many noble Lords will read, because it is clear that they are inconsistent with the Acts of Union.

If there are those who are willing to forsake the fundamental principles of the Acts of Union—as determined not by me but by the courts—in favour of the arrangements giving effect to the protocol, they need to be clear about what that means. What is happening here is something quite different, aided and abetted by the Northern Ireland Office: to evade the political costs for accepting the recasting of Article 6 of the Acts of Union by pretending—yes, pretending—that it is not happening at all.

This is important, and I have gone on about it —although I have not gone on as long as Sir Jeffrey did yesterday—because I want to get it on the parliamentary record that I and others here have not engaged in this con trick, for that is what it is. That is why I have said what I have said today and why I tabled the amendment to draw out this debate. In the weeks and months ahead, we will see all the glitter fall away. Unionist people and people in this House and elsewhere in Parliament will see what has been tricked, pulled and put out to deceive people. No matter how hard those who have participated in this and have gone along with it may wish it not to be so, there will be a political cost to pay, because they have been warned.

All this, as well as being in the courts, was also agreed to by the independent lawyer, the former Attorney-General John Larkin, in his published legal advice. There has not been one single piece of legal advice produced, by the Government or the DUP leadership, to support the increasingly bold claims that they have made—I wonder why not.

I will conclude. The Acts of Union remain suspended. The cross-community consent mechanism central to the Belfast agreement remains disapplied. The Irish Sea border remains. The green lane, for which you are required to provide information for customs purposes to obtain authorisation to trade a little more freely in your own country, remains. The red lane, which operates on the basis of an at-risk category over which the EU has a veto, and which catches a significant amount of material and goods that go nowhere near the EU, remains. EU law continues; it is law that we did not make and cannot change. The protocol, in all its core aspects, remains in full force and continues to reign supreme. The only thing that has changed over the last year are the views of the DUP leadership, who now seem to accept all those facts and have returned to Stormont to implement them. If we are going to address His Majesty the King, we should tell him the truth. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it was appropriate in this debate to hear so much about Lord Cormack. I hope that his family will have been in some ways helped by so many people saying such warm words about him. I served with him for many years on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I found him to be someone who always liked people to say what they thought and to speak out.

I remember going to Crossmaglen with the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. It was the week of Remembrance Sunday. Lady Hermon and I were wearing our poppies. One or two of the members of the committee suggested, as we drove into Crossmaglen, that it might be a good thing for us to take our poppies off. Lord Cormack was very clear that we should be able to wear our poppies. After the meeting, a lady came up to Lord Cormack and me and said, “Thank you for wearing your poppy. We couldn’t wear ours around here”. That made me feel that Lord Cormack was genuinely interested in people in Northern Ireland. As we all know, he will be greatly missed in this House.

I thank everybody who has spoken. I was particularly pleased that five Members who are not from Northern Ireland spoke. I welcome that very much, because in most of the debates I have been involved with here over the past couple of years there has been only one, perhaps—sometimes not even one. Even if I did not necessarily agree with everything they said, I welcome the contributions of those five: the noble Lords, Lord Lexden, Lord Lilley, Lord Godson and Lord Jay, who chairs the very important committee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie.

I particularly welcomed the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, speaking, because we go back many years to when he chaired the Friends of the Union—a very good organisation. The work he did then is still bearing fruit. There might be a need for him, even at this late stage, to regenerate the Friends of the Union, because it gave the Northern Ireland diaspora in Great Britain a way to be involved. Of course, the Irish embassy is brilliant about doing that for the Irish diaspora, but there is nothing to help people from Northern Ireland living in Great Britain. You could go to the Irish embassy practically every week and there would be some kind of reception. There is nothing like that here.

I also welcomed what the noble Lords, Lord Lexden and Lord Dodds, said about the reluctance of Ministers to give proper Answers when we ask Questions. It is even more important that the committee on the Windsor Framework gets answers correctly, quickly and fully, but when noble Lords themselves put in Questions we get back the same Answers on practically everything—the kind of waffle Answer that does not actually answer the question. That means that we simply have to keep asking. I am very pleased that that the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, raised that as well.

It is very interesting that, apart from a little bit at the end from the Minister and from our eminent historian, the noble Lord, Lord Bew, no one actually contradicted anything in my amendment. Nobody took it on or said it is wrong. I have to take from that, given that anyone who mentioned the amendment supported it, apart from in terms of the detail, such as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and other Members on the Benches opposite, that it is absolutely correct, right and true.

There is no point trying to bring up all these warm words about looking to the future and progress. Of course we all want that for Northern Ireland and its people, but if Stormont is coming back, as it has, it must do so on the basis of honesty and truth about the protocol. Many of these new things and new ideas that the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, referred to about bringing Northern Ireland closer and supporting the union are very good and welcome, but the most important, simplest thing—yes, it is simple—would be for our Government to stand up for our own people and say that the protocol is not right for part of our country. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, held up the number of laws that are being put on us by a foreign body that we have no say in whatever. How can that possibly be right?

So I am very pleased, in a way, that we have put all this on the record. It will be read in the future—not just my speech but everybody’s speeches, and people will be able to judge what is happening. All the warm words and all the waffle do not change a single fact. I have a great deal of time for the noble Lord, Lord Caine, and I know his interest in and general support for the union; but it is very interesting that he never, ever answers the question about consent. He was against it at the time, so it is a difficulty for him, but he never answers the question why the Government had to change the issue of consent. This is the one important thing to be on the basis of a majority vote and not cross-community consent. It is quite outrageous—and quite outrageous too that we never get a proper answer. Of course, we do not get a proper answer because there is no answer. There is no justification whatever other than pressure, presumably from the Irish Government and from the European Union.

I end by saying again that I am pleased that everything is on the record. I again thank all Members for speaking, particularly those who are not from Northern Ireland. In light of the fact that this is going to His Majesty the King—I am sure he will read Hansard—I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.

Windsor Framework (Constitutional Status of Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 13th February 2024 Lords Chamber

I have one final point about the achievement embodied in these statutory instruments and the re-establishment of the Assembly. The Conservative Party is in the position where it supports the union willy-nilly; it has no conditions on that. That is not the Labour Party position in recent times. Since Tony Blair’s famous speech at Balmoral, which I and the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, remember, the position of the Labour Party is that it supports the union, so it is not neutral on that, but only on the basis of a working power-sharing devolved north-south set of arrangements. That is the classic position of the Labour Party as I understand it, and I do not hear any sign that it has changed. As a result of this agreement, the instability that might have flowed from the possible election of a Labour Government will not flow because we now have power-sharing devolution. The possible tensions between a London Government and Northern Irish unionism will not be there. That is a very significant point but so far, in all the recent debates, it is not a point that I have heard made on behalf of the deal that has been done.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I start by stating strongly, at the beginning of my contribution, my agreement with the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Morrow, that not one word of the protocol, rebranded as the Windsor Framework, has been altered. That is reality. The Irish Sea border remains with the same force that it always did. Despite the claims made by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and Sir Jeffrey Donaldson that the Irish Sea border is removed and the Act of Union restored, nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, a quarter of the glossy Command Paper is spent basically explaining why the Acts of Union must remain suspended, as the Supreme Court said they were, while at the same time trying to mislead people into believing that in fact they have not been. That is confusing, but that has been the purpose of the way this whole thing has been presented: smoke and mirrors to distract, mislead and cause enough confusion that the deal would be accepted by those who had not looked at it in great detail.

There is a natural desire among MLAs to get back to the Assembly and the Executive. Indeed, whenever the protocol was mentioned in this place, noble Lords would say, “Oh, if only we could get the Executive back”, as if that would sort everything out. Many of the MLAs wanted to get back because they thought that they would be able to sort out the health service, the public service problems and other issues. We will see how that works out.

Before I turn directly to the statutory instruments themselves, I pay tribute to the grass-roots movements in Northern Ireland that, along with many members of the DUP, stood firm on their promises to the electorate, and to the MLAs who stood firm and were not taken in by offers of Speakerships, red boxes or committee chairs. The noble Lords, Lord Morrow, Lord Dodds, Lord McCrea and Lord Browne, and the MPs Carla Lockhart, Sammy Wilson, Paul Girvan—my MP—and Ian Paisley were also opposed to the deal.

It is interesting that Sir Jeffrey and indeed other new Ministers in the Assembly spent the first few hours having a go at, and being really angry about, Jim Allister, the leader of the TUV. They went on about how he had simply shouted and not achieved anything. That is interesting because I appeared on lots of platforms all over the country in Northern Ireland with Jim Allister, Sir Jeffrey, Jamie Bryson and a number of others at the anti-protocol rallies, and it is rather ironic that they turned their fire on Jim Allister for shouting when I recall many occasions when Sir Jeffrey shouted even louder.

The reason that Sir Jeffrey and others turned their fire on Jim Allister and others was to hide the embarrassment of not having kept their promises. They had shredded all their promises. The word “honesty” has to come into politics. When people make promises and then do not keep them, that does not do the cause of politics and politicians any good.

I want to deal particularly with the red lane in the statutory instrument, and how that is being dealt with. We have heard over and again that the red lane is acceptable because it pertains only to goods that are going to the Republic of Ireland. If that were so, that would not be a problem. The difficulty is that this legislation does not touch the definition of the red lane, so it continues to be concerned with goods going to the Republic and with the crucial inputs that go into Northern Ireland manufacturing that come from the rest of the United Kingdom. It is important to be very clear that the green lane—or the UK internal market system—pertains only to completed consumer goods. The initial name for the green lane was the internal market system, so that has not been changed. The idea that it pertains only to completed consumer goods is deeply worrying, suggesting that the Northern Ireland part of the UK economy had become a consumer element, not a producer. Economic life based just on consumption is completely unsustainable; it must be based on a balance of consumption and production.

The ultimate destination of the inputs that travel on the red lane to facilitate manufacturing in Northern Ireland is completely unknown at the time that the inputs travel. The products that will result from the productive process in which they play a part have not even been made at that time. The majority of goods that are made in Northern Ireland and do not remain in Northern Ireland end up going to Great Britain but, because there is a chance that they will be sold in the Republic, the EU says that those goods must be produced to EU standards, in line with EU law and that, to secure this, the whole of Northern Ireland must be subject to the EU and not UK law in that aspect of trade.

That takes us to the very heart of the problem with the protocol—it is EU law. It is because of the possibility that goods manufactured in Northern Ireland entirely on the basis of Northern Ireland inputs could be sold in the Republic that the EU claims the right to make Northern Ireland law, notwithstanding that Northern Ireland is not in any way represented in any parts of the EU’s legislative chambers or the European Parliament. It claims the right to make not just one law for Northern Ireland or 300 laws, but law in 300 areas.

Some try to suggest that it is no longer a problem because of the Stormont brake. Although the Stormont brake gains a new reference in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland regulations 2024, nothing in this statutory instrument changes how the brake operates in any way, as has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. It suffers from the same fatal flaw—rather than addressing the problems of the Windsor Framework, it partly disfranchises 1.9 million UK citizens so that in 300 areas of law, people in Northern Ireland can no longer stand for election to make the laws to which we are subject. The brake fobs us off with the demeaning lesser right of standing for election to try to stop laws coming into force that have already been made for us by a foreign parliament.

This problem must be understood from both the domestic and international sides. Viewed domestically from within the UK, the essence of our political settlement is that we all have the positive right to stand for election to make all the laws to which we are subject, not a negative right to try to stop laws made by legislators from other countries. The idea that any UK citizen, from any part of the UK, should be asked by Parliament to settle for such an arrangement is really extraordinary. I believe it effects a breaking of faith with respect to the basic covenant that underscores our politics. It also creates two classes of citizens: UK citizens in England, Wales and Scotland continue to have the right to stand for election to make all the laws to which they are subject, while in Northern Ireland we have the right to stand for election to make only some of the laws to which we are subject. As someone living now in Northern Ireland and from Northern Ireland, but who represented an English constituency in another place for 30 years and was elected eight times, I cannot admit this profound breaking of faith within the body politic. This is a real rupture and it is doing untold damage overall to politics in this country.

Of course, that is not the full extent of the difficulty because the brake does not apply, as has been said, to all the laws imposed from Brussels. To that extent, rather than being fobbed off with a negative rather than a positive citizenship, we have to make do with no citizenship at all. That is not all: if the change in the imposed law is made to existing law, any attempt by Stormont to block the law can be stopped by the EU—and if the UK does not agree with the EU then the matter goes to international arbitration, which could side with the EU against Stormont. If the change is by way of creating new EU law, meanwhile, the Government can overrule Stormont if the Minister believes that there are exceptional circumstances that justify the adoption of the decision.

These limitations were in the brake as introduced last year and the regulations before us do nothing to address them in any way. In this regard, the suggestion that Regulation 2 of the Windsor Framework (Constitutional Status of Northern Ireland) Regulations provides reassurance is based on a complete misunderstanding of our political system and of the people of the United Kingdom. The sovereignty of Parliament is not in doubt. It is precisely because Parliament is sovereign and yet has decided to partly disenfranchise 1.9 million UK citizens, in response to European Union pressure—when it could just as well have decided not to give in to that pressure—that makes the current arrangement so objectionable and so destructive of the trust upon which our politics depends.

How can we tell the people of Northern Ireland that it is important to go out and vote when we so happily acquiesce to the process of undermining the value of the vote in Northern Ireland? Indeed, how can we tell citizens that it is important to go out and vote in other parts of the UK when our actions in Northern Ireland suggest that having a voice is so unimportant that its value can be rendered null and void in so many areas of law? It is a shameful arrangement. It is very sad that so many noble Lords and Members of Parliament in the other place do not seem to realise this. This shameful arrangement places the trust and integrity on which our whole body politic depends in jeopardy.

If we look at the international aspect, that is exactly the same. It is wrongly asserted by some that international law rests on the foundation of pacta sunt servanda—that agreements must be kept—but that is not the case. If it was, a treaty effecting disenfranchisement or slavery would be unimpeachable because it rests in a treaty. In truth, however, in international law there is a clear understanding of certain ground rules that must be respected in making valid treaties. These testify to respect for the first move of international relations: the move of recognition, when one state recognises the right of another to exist and its territorial integrity, with state A thus renouncing any claim to making law for its territory or any part of its territory, in return for reciprocation from state B.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 24th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the chairman of the Democratic Unionist Party, the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and to listen to his words of real experience. I hope that some of that gets back to the Secretary of State.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Empey, I listened to a lot of the debate in the House of Commons earlier, and I was pretty horrified by the Secretary of State’s short and contemptuous speech of less than two minutes to introduce the Bill. Like others, I thought the shadow Secretary of State tried very hard to deal with some of the issues. It was as if he genuinely understood the issue and the problem. I did not necessarily agree with his final analysis, but at least he made an attempt. The Secretary of State has continued to show contempt for unionists, unionism and the very important issue of why we are here.

Let us face it; it is not about money. The DUP was perhaps rather short-sighted in getting the money aspect and the constitutional issue linked. But I agree with all those noble Lords who said that it is disgraceful that the Secretary of State, knowing that the money is there to solve and to end the public sector workers’ strike, has refused to do that and simply said no. He probably thought, “Great—all the trade unions will now blame the DUP”. Of course, from the headlines—even yesterday in one of the Northern Ireland papers—we have seen the trade unions fairly and squarely blaming the Secretary of State. So that has backfired very much on him.

The contempt shown today has been going on for some time. All the things it was said that the Windsor Framework and the protocol were going to solve have proven to be nothing: there has been no real change. Northern Ireland is in the UK customs union, they said—but then of course we have to apply the EU customs code. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, mentioned something that happened last week. It was very nice to see the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, moving the amendment, which clearly showed that, once again, a Bill that we were saying extended to Northern Ireland—most people would think, “Great, Northern Ireland is part of it”—in fact does not apply to Northern Ireland. That is quite disgraceful.

Again, there is an attempt to hide things with words and flannel, almost as if the Secretary of State feels that Northern Ireland people are not clever enough to understand and see through some of these words—for example, saying the framework removed the Irish Sea border. What nonsense. That contempt now continues with the fact that there is no transparency whatever in what is going on. Even very active members of the Democratic Unionist Party probably do not know what is in this so-called deal.

I expect noble Lords will be very relieved to hear that the Public Bill Office ruled out my two amendments because this is a very narrow Bill—probably designed very carefully to make sure that we could not extend the discussion too much. However, when it comes to discussing Northern Ireland, we all find ways of hammering home some of the issues and points that so many noble Lords have not engaged with. I was trying to table an absolutely crucial amendment that was a real indictment of how the Government behaved right at the beginning of all this when they changed, in a statutory instrument, the mechanism at the end of this year for the Northern Ireland Assembly to approve or disapprove of the protocol from cross-community consent to a straightforward majority. Nothing else gets through via a majority, but suddenly, somehow, the Government felt that it was fine to change that from cross-community consent.

I was also trying to move that we should absolutely ensure that, when there is something in writing—I do not even know whether there is anything in writing being discussed—it should be published within a very short period of time. If there is any draft legislation, we need it as early as possible. We need clear answers from the Government on how long they will continue with these kinds of discussions. We keep hearing, “There’s progress and we just need a little bit more”. I have no idea what that “little bit more” is and neither do the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland—but we should know more about what is happening and what the Government are offering. Deep down, we all know that they have not been negotiating with the European Union. The EU has not been involved and, therefore, it is very unlikely that anything in the Windsor Framework will change sufficiently to satisfy the DUP’s seven tests.

So let us not try to put the blame on the DUP or say that it created the problem that we are dealing with today. This problem was created squarely by a United Kingdom Conservative and Unionist Government who decided that Northern Ireland was expendable when it came to leaving the European Union. As I say every time, we had the same ballot paper and the same discussions; it was a United Kingdom vote, but Northern Ireland has not got Brexit.

Forget talking about the Act of Union—the question for me is whether, at the end of all this, Northern Ireland will still be under EU law for substantial parts of its trade agreements. Everything coming to this House and the other place now needs additional bits about not applying to Northern Ireland. The one that is quite disgraceful, which we will discuss in a few weeks’ time, is the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill. Hardly any live animal exports go from Great Britain to the European Union, while lots of live animal exports go from Northern Ireland and the Republic to the European Union. Yet the one area being left out is Northern Ireland, because the EU does not have the same law and we quite rightly want to keep the flow between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The Government have now used the excuse that the WTO will not allow it. Why have they not tried even to challenge it? That is perhaps an issue for another day.

I want to say one more thing about how the Government have handled and are handling this issue. Without doubt, a former Secretary of State has been ringing round senior DUP people, senior unionists and others, making suggestions about how they might be rewarded or that they should definitely begin to think about giving in.

I think that is absolutely shocking from any ex-Secretary of State, who has probably been brought in by the current Secretary of State because they feel that he knows quite a lot about what is going on in Northern Ireland. Those kinds of threats in a nice way will not work with people. We have seen some of the things that have been done in the past by Secretaries of State who did not listen, and perhaps in the whole working of New Decade, New Approach, who handled it in a way that was seen to be more in support of the Irish Government than our own Government. That is something that I hope the Minister—who knows Northern Ireland very well—will take up.

Obviously, I condemn any threats to Sir Jeffrey, and any other threats. However, all of us who come from Northern Ireland or have relatives in Northern Ireland who are involved politically or are living there now have all had threats of different kinds. It is important that, while we condemn that, we do not think that it is just one person who is being threatened. Threats come in different ways and in different strengths and are taken very seriously by the PSNI.

Everyone says that this Bill is inevitable. It is not inevitable. The Government could have said that they were going to go along with what they have said, that if by such and such a date, the Assembly was not back, there would be an election. They do not want an election, because they know that the mandate that the unionists—the DUP, in particular, and the TUV—would get to stay out until the seven tests are met and until we are back as an absolutely integral part of the United Kingdom would be bigger. That is why they do not want an election, and that is why, in a sense, the Bill is something that could have been solved by simply having an election. However, I am afraid we may well be back in a few weeks’ time because a two-week gap is pretty ridiculous.

In the end, the Government will realise that from day one they have handled this extremely badly. They have not stood up to their commitment to be Conservatives and unionists. Probably very soon, we will see a new Government, who I hope might take a slightly different approach from the way they have been handling unionists—pro-British people in Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland: Industrial Action

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Wednesday 17th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his many questions. In respect of the cost of living, I remind him that this Government have delivered on their pledge to halve inflation, and from the beginning of this year have cut taxes to ease pressures on household incomes.

The noble Lord will be aware that the Government do not have the powers directly to negotiate public sector pay in Northern Ireland. This is a devolved matter for a Northern Ireland Executive. The package to which I referred a few moments ago remains on the table for an incoming Executive. Of the £3.3 billion, somewhere in the region of £580 million is earmarked for relieving pressures on the public sector. So far as the Windsor Framework is concerned, he will not be surprised to hear that I do not share his characterisation. I believe the Windsor Framework is the right basis for reforming the Executive and having the devolved institutions back up and running in Northern Ireland, delivering for the entire community.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Minister knows Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland people very well, and he must know that Northern Ireland people are not going to be bullied and blackmailed. I am afraid the truth is that the Secretary of State—perhaps not just this one but previous Secretaries of State too—have pushed hard to use this as a weapon against the DUP. Even the trade unions know, despite their views differing on the DUP and whether the Assembly should be back, that this is not about that; it is about blackmailing and bullying. I am very disappointed. I know this is above his pay grade, but the Minister must know that what is happening to the trade unions and people in working positions in Northern Ireland is quite disgraceful. He and the Secretary of State are allowing the people of Northern Ireland to suffer for something that could be solved today.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness. She will not be surprised to hear that I do not share her characterisation of the Government’s approach as one of bullying and blackmail. In fact, as I set out a moment ago, the funding package on the table is extremely generous and would allow an incoming Executive to deal with all these matters and help the transformation of public services. The imperative in Northern Ireland is to get the Executive back up and running and functioning.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 5th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, these amendments are really an attempt to respond, in a way, to the way in which the Minister has engaged with this Bill. Before I speak to them, let me say that I am speaking on behalf of my noble friend Lady Suttie, who has been very engaged on this Bill but is unable to be here today. I know that she was appreciative of the engagement from the Minister; indeed, I have sat in on one or two of those meetings as well as these debates.

Many of these arguments have been rehearsed many times. We do not need to say them over and over again. I want to say only two or three brief things.

The heart of this Bill is an attempt to provide immunity, yet it was driven by a minority in the Conservative Party who really wanted to give immunity to one side only. It is not possible to do that without giving immunity to the other side. That is why nobody can support this Bill—because nobody can feel satisfied that they can secure justice in that environment.

A question has been raised about compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights and, indeed, the possibility of tests in the court. I have had the honour of serving as a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and was a member of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. Most of the democratic members of the Council of Europe—all of them are democratic, in fact, which is why Russia is no longer there—recognised that the point of the convention and the existence of the court was to try to avoid matters going to court while recognising that the court was there for when failures had taken place. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, I therefore find it extraordinary that the Government and their representative in this context are saying, “Let’s test it in the courts”.

The question I have for the Minister, then, is this: if a case is taken to the ECHR and the court determines that this Bill is in contravention of the convention— all that will take time, of course; no doubt the measures that the Bill provides for will have been implemented and followed through by then—what will the impact be? Will it mean all the decisions taken under this legislation being invalidated? In the meantime, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, said, many inquests that are currently nearing progression, at least to a point where they could continue, will have been abandoned. I suggest that this Government or their successor would find themselves in an extraordinarily difficult situation, which would also be difficult to remedy because so much damage would have been done.

All of us in this House, apart from on the Conservative Benches, are quite clear that this Bill should not go ahead. However, the Minister should acknowledge, as we have in turn acknowledged of him, that there has been genuine engagement to try to move the Bill to the least damaging place, if you like—even though we all agree that it should not be here at all. These amendments are designed to be helpful and in that spirit. Frankly, it would do the Government a lot of good if they were prepared to accept them because it would show that the good will goes in both directions. I certainly make it clear that, if a Division is called on either of these amendments, we on these Benches will support it.

I hope that he will forgive me for saying so but the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, made what was a short intervention for him. However, it was so passionate in terms of his dismay and hurt, as he put it. I think many of us know how uncomfortable the Minister must be when almost anybody and everybody who has been involved in this matter in Northern Ireland says, “This is wrong. This should not be happening”. I do not think that the Bill will stand the test of time as anything other than a dishonourable and disreputable course of action by a British Government.

At this stage, I want to pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. The Bill is supposed to provide reconciliation. As has been said on many occasions, it does not do that, but the noble Lord’s speech demonstrated that it not only does not provide reconciliation but aggravates grievance, which is the exact opposite of its intention and that is extremely disappointing.

The amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Murphy, are constructive and helpful. In particular, the point about the Kenova process has been well respected by everybody. Given the necessary resources, it could have led to progress; the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, is commendable for that reason. The right of victims to be consulted properly, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, seeks, is also essential. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, said, the victims are at the heart of the problem, yet they are the people who have been most ignored by this legislation.

In that context, I hope that the House will be prepared to support these amendments, which means that we will of course be back here debating them again in the not-too-distant future.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I do not support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who seems to be attempting to turn the ICRIR and its reviews into the sum of all the existing legacy reinvestigations that have already happened, by the PSNI, the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and by Operation Kenova under Jon Boutcher. His amendment is complicated but would effectively mean that the new arrangements would be no different from what went before, and that the time required and the funding involved would be limitless, as I have said in the past. Given that to date we have already spent some £2 billion on Troubles reinvestigations, for little resultant value, if we are honest, this is not an attractive prospect.

The amendment also attempts to bind the ICRIR to the international standards required by the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg. I thought that the Government had already dealt with that aspect in a very late amendment by invoking the Human Rights Act. That Act has a domestic UK effect which is exactly appropriate for the ICRIR, rather than it having to respond to the political machinations of the court’s enforcing body—the committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

In the earlier stages of this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and others, presented the Kenova process as a model for the ICRIR. That option seems to have disappeared from today’s amendment. I am not quite sure why the name has been removed. However, it is important to look a little at the background and history. The noble Lord knows that he played a very important role in an earlier stage of legacy policy, as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland between 2005 and 2007. In July 2005, seven years after the Belfast agreement, the IRA, in its words, “dumped arms”. A few months later, the Government responded with the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill. This proposed an alternative justice system, outside the existing institutions, to deal with the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past.

Government Ministers have not mentioned this precedent for their current Bill, but they could well have cited this attempt to further the process, conducted by then Prime Minister Tony Blair and Jonathan Powell on behalf of the Government, and by Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness on behalf of Sinn Féin and the IRA. The political situation in 2005-6 was not unlike that prevailing during the course of this Bill. The then Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, was opposed by all local parties except Sinn Féin. However, Clause 1 of the 2005 Bill referred to offences

“in connection with terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland (whether committed for terrorist purposes or not)”.

This meant that the amnesty provisions—and it was an amnesty, which the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, was very honest about in his speech—could extend to the security forces. Immediately, in the other place in December 2005, Mark Durkan, the leader of the SDLP, asserted that the Bloody Sunday soldiers, still being inquired into by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, could benefit from the Bill. Sinn Féin immediately withdrew its support for the Bill and, in January 200,6 the noble Lord, Lord Hain, dropped the Bill. However, it is important to remember that the Republicans—the IRA/Sinn Féin—did not lose out. Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness had been working on the on-the-runs scheme, which would soon move into its Operation Rapid phase, with comfort letters being issued to several hundred IRA men, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has said.

Now, 20 years on, this Bill with its many imperfections sets out what the Government believe is a new model for addressing the legacy of the Troubles, something that—everyone is now being honest—was not considered back in 1998, and which the local political parties have not been able to agree on since. I therefore oppose this amendment, as it brings us back to where we started and is not moving us forward in any way, no matter what we think of the Bill.

I want to mention the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen. I am pleased that I was signature to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, in his amendment, which did not get put to the vote. This amendment, picked up by Labour’s Front Bench, is beginning again to put the victim at the centre of the whole issue. I feel that, if the person who is the victim has gone through the whole process of listening to someone who has come forward and given what they say is the truth, and everyone has listened and a great deal of time has been invested, and in the end the victim—the person who has really suffered—is prepared to accept that that person can have immunity, we can live that. I am disappointed that the Government have not moved a little bit on that, because some sensible suggestions were made in Committee, particularly by the noble and right reverend Lord. I hope that today perhaps they will come back and look at that.

Overall, this legacy Bill is—and I hate to use this expression—a dog’s breakfast. It has been cobbled together in a way that tries to please everyone and is ending up pleasing absolutely nobody. The Government are determined to put it through, which is why I have, in the past, supported certain amendments that would make it slightly better. I think that is all we can do at this stage, but I certainly do not think that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, is moving us forward in any way.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I rise to deal particularly with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and support, in as far as it goes, the good intentions of his amendment. I say “as far as it goes”, because I think the noble Lord himself would be the first to admit the limitations that can be brought forward at this stage of any amendment. There have been, throughout this process, as my noble friend Lord Dodds highlighted, from all sides of this Chamber, attempts to mitigate and ameliorate this Bill. I am glad that at least some of those have been successful, and I think we should acknowledge where improvements have been made. It is undoubtedly the case that, despite of all that, we are left with a Bill that is unsalvageable and insupportable and which perverts the course of justice to the detriment of victims.

Nevertheless, as a House, I think we are left with no alternative but to seize, where possible, any opportunity to make any improvements that we can, however small. I support in particular the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, because it seeks to put the rights of victims much closer to the heart of this Bill, irrespective of what community those victims come from, irrespective of whether they come from Northern Ireland or are external to Northern Ireland, and irrespective of what organisation has been responsible for making them victims. It is right that the ultimate focus should be on victims.

When dealing with Northern Ireland, there are two glib but dangerous lies that are often told. First, it is said that collectively there is guilt for what has happened —that we are, in some shape or form, all perpetrators. That is fundamentally wrong. The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, from whatever community, were never involved in nor supported violence. They got on with their day-to-day lives. If there is acceptance of the idea that, in some way, there is a collective guilt, it gives credence to the notion that there was no alternative to violence. The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland pursued that alternative—the democratic alternative—and the violence was imposed by tiny minorities on both sides, and victims suffered as a result of it.

The second lie that is often told in Northern Ireland is that somehow collectively in our society we are all victims. There are many—indeed, there are some in this House—who have suffered that victimhood at first hand, and there are far too many victims in Northern Ireland, but we are not all victims. For my part, I was fortunate enough to grow up in as relative normality as I could. I was not a victim. I cannot and do not claim victimhood, which is one of the reasons why I am particularly disturbed by this legislation, because it seeks to impose on others a system that denies them their opportunities.

The principal reason why I was not a victim in Northern Ireland was because of the brave work of the men and women of our security forces in keeping us safe. I particularly want to highlight the brave women of the security forces, because they are sometimes forgotten. In particular, this month represents the 50th anniversary of the formation and first enlistment of the UDR Greenfinches. I think they were the first units in the British Army to serve alongside men on the front line. Four of the Greenfinches—Eva Martin, Jean Leggett, Ann Hearst and Heather Kerrigan—paid the ultimate sacrifice for protecting ordinary citizens like me against terrorism. That is a very good reason why we cannot throw justice out of the window.

Relationships and Sexuality Education (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2023 Grand Committee

Today’s regulations are a major interference in the lives of the people of Northern Ireland and should be the responsibility of a devolved Administration. The Secretary of State cannot do anything about those other things, but this is put above them all. In my opinion, that is such hypocrisy. The more he forces on the Northern Ireland community legislation like this, the further he hinders the pathway to the restoration of an Executive. There is no more important issue than that of life and death of the unborn. This legislation is being forced on Northern Ireland by a Government who have not one Member of Parliament elected by the people of Northern Ireland. Indeed, it is good to remember that, as my noble friend Lord Morrow said, not one Northern Ireland Member of Parliament who takes their seat in the democratically elected House of Commons voted for Section 9 of the executive formation Act of 2019.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way and I agree with what he is saying and with what the noble Baroness said earlier. He says that there is no elected Member from Northern Ireland in the government party. Is it not even worse, in that we could end up in a year’s time with a Labour Government who do not even allow their party members in Northern Ireland to stand for election, yet profess strongly to be interested in Northern Ireland?

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

The noble Baroness makes her point very clearly. It is beyond challenge. The Labour Party does not permit its members to stand in Northern Ireland, so it could not have an elected representative in the other Chamber, yet it wants to impose its will on the people of Northern Ireland.

The insertion of Section 9 was deeply controversial. I believe that a majority of the people of Northern Ireland find it an offensive amendment, for which there was no prior consultation or proper scrutiny. It was added to a Bill that was supposed to be subject- narrow to the formation of an Executive, yet that legislation was brought through. In fact, not only did the Government bring it through but they did so having presented it on that narrow basis, and it was then deemed appropriate to be granted accelerated passage.

As my noble friend Lord Morrow said, the situation with these regulations is even more anti-democratic and intolerable. As other noble Lords have pointed out, the Secretary of State decided that these regulations, on education provision regarding abortion and reducing teen pregnancy, were not even worthy of consultation. What kind of democratic society are we living in where even the people are not worthy of consultation? These regulations are being imposed over the heads of parents without being preceded by any primary legislative debate at all, in terms of the regulation-making powers as they applied to education. Indeed, the Secretary of State has not bothered to consult or even give himself the semblance of democratic cover before forcing this legislation through. That is arrogance.

As I said, the democratic deficit in relation to these regulations is even worse than that relating to abortion. That is in spite of the fact that, when the abortion regulations were taken to court, the point was made that the Secretary of State had consulted on them and the court stated that,

“in the event that Regulations or Directions are made in the future to deal with those issues”

of education and sexual and reproductive health and so on,

“there will be an opportunity for the Secretary of State to carry out a consultation”.

Whenever the NIO was asked about consultation and whether it was necessary, the response was, “No, it’s not. Why would you talk to those people?” It said that it was not necessary because each school must have a written policy on how it will deliver regulations and sexuality education, and that this policy should be subject to consultation with parents. The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee pointed out that,

“school policies will only be able to operate within the already-established government guidance, meaning that such consultation is too late to affect the framework of RSE delivery”.

However, the committee also noted that,

“when comparable regulations were introduced in England”,

a full consultation was carried out. I wonder whether that was because the elected Members in the other place would have to answer to their electorate. Maybe that was the reason: the electorate had the power to change them or remove them—but not in Northern Ireland. Our Secretary of State feels that parents in Northern Ireland are too far down the pecking order to be worthy of being heard or consulted. That is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, which states:

“In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall”—


not might—

“respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions”.

Notice the word “shall”. But it has not been done.

We are witnessing a deliberate abuse of parliamentary procedure in the development of these regulations. As the Minister listens to the debate today, in the light of what he is hearing, I ask him what he will do to stop any Secretary of State abusing the powers that they feel they have over the people of Northern Ireland.

The Northern Ireland Secretary of State and CEDAW have demonstrated a total lack of respect for faith, which is very important to many in Northern Ireland. Paragraph 43 of the CEDAW report states:

“The designated members observed that young people in Northern Ireland were denied the education necessary to enjoy their sexual and reproductive health and rights. Most children in Northern Ireland attend denominational schools, either Catholic or Protestant”,


but that is not true. It is not true. Of course, does truth really matter? It seemingly does not, because that statement is totally false.

It goes on:

“Church representatives play active roles in school management boards, and the result is that relationship and sexuality education, although a recommended part of the primary and post-primary statutory curriculum of the Department of Education, is underdeveloped or non-existent since it is at the school’s discretion to implement the contents of the curriculum according to its values and ethos”.


On the one hand, it is saying that schools are either Catholic or Protestant. It goes on to tell us that the contents of the curriculum are at the school’s discretion and accord with its values and ethos. It goes on:

“Where relationship and sexuality education is delivered, it is frequently provided by third parties and based on anti-abortion and abstinence ethos”.


This attack on Northern Ireland’s Churches, at the heart of the educational problem, lacks any sense of human rights balance or cognisance that religious freedom is also a human right, let alone any appreciation of the important and constructive role that Churches have played in education, including RSE.

Just because CEDAW is supposed to be a human rights body, it does not excuse its lack of concern for religious liberty. Religious liberty and freedom were hard fought for and obtained—and cost many a life. On the right to religious freedom, this stunning failure to attempt to understand the faith ethos beggars belief.

It seems that the NIO and CEDAW are unaware of Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR, which states:

“No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions”.


There has certainly been no attempt to respect these rights, when one considers the lack of consultation with parents.

The attitude of the department in the Explanatory Memorandum exposes its ignorance to its human rights obligation under Article 2 of Protocol 1. It says:

“Timing for the Department to make regulations about the circumstances in which a pupil may be excused from receiving education on the updated curriculum is a matter for the Department. There is no guarantee this will be in place by January 2024, the point at which the Department is under a duty to issue guidance to schools on the content and delivery of the updated curriculum. This may attract criticism from faith-based schools, and some teachers and parents”.


It seems to say, “So let it be. Who are they?”

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 26th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, support this amendment, so powerfully moved by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Butler. I realise that behind the amendment is the wider concern of protecting the Carltona principle from being undermined—and I shall come to that a bit more in a moment.

It may help your Lordships if I explain some of the detailed background of how we operated during this period in Northern Ireland and Belfast after the fall of Stormont in 1972. In doing so, I draw from extensive personal notes that I made of almost every occasion during the two or three years I served there, and what they emphasise and remind me of. I will share with the House a brief picture of how we worked and the plan that we had to devise in order to operate in a very violent, dangerous and fast-moving situation.

There was the Secretary of State, the late Lord Whitelaw, and three Ministers with him, of whom I was one, with about 12 or 13 departments that we had to take over between us in the Northern Ireland Government. We each had quite a lot of departments to cover. The plan was always to have one duty Minister at Stormont right through the weekend at all times. During the week, there was one Minister usually out in the field, visiting hospitals, victims, violent situations and communities, doing the work of their departments. We tried to keep one Minister at Westminster, constantly accountable and ready to meet Members of Parliament and Members of your Lordships’ House, answer PNQs and so on.

This was a very dangerous moment; the violence was very great indeed, and people were being killed all the time. At all times, the four of us—the Secretary of State and the three Ministers—kept in very close contact with each other; my notes refer to a lot of telephone calls that we had with each other and our constant movements. One moment the Secretary of State would need to be in the Cabinet and the next moment he would have to fly back to Belfast—then the next moment he would be in his own constituency. The same applied to the two others of us as well. Of course, Lord Windlesham was a Member of this House at the time.

This is a recorded picture of an extraordinary situation, which I do not believe has ever been repeated, for British Ministers or a department of government. Just to give an example, I see that I noted in my memoirs that one week I crossed the Irish Sea five times—and I am sure that my fellow Ministers were having the same experience of constant movement, all the more so as the Government at the time had quite a narrow majority and the Whips were saying, “Why aren’t you here instead of in Belfast?” You had to be in two places at once.

Throughout all of this, dependence on the Carltona principle and being able to conduct matters in accordance with that principle was absolute and unquestioned. We could not possibly have managed without that principle operating. It was for that reason—and this has possibly been missed by some commentators—that, when we put the provisions about Carltona in the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, we strengthened it—it is a strengthened principle there, because it limits the permission to sign to Ministers rather than to officials, referring specifically to Ministers and Under-Secretaries of State. The provision is absolutely crystal clear; it is in print and a parliamentary clear wish, passed without any opposition at all and applied in good faith, because we knew that that was the law and the wish of Parliament.

I have no doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, has wisely reminded us, that, if the judgment is allowed to stand unreversed, it would severely constrain normal government operations. Looking backwards in the rear-view mirror, as it were, it would have made our work in Northern Ireland absolutely impossible, as we moved towards the power-sharing agreement of 1973, which is said to have been the foundation for the Good Friday agreement some 20 years later. We could not have conducted affairs in that atmosphere of violence and killing—indeed, the IRA called it a war, although we did not—without the Carltona principle being applied. Of course, the judgment opens the door to all sorts of meritless litigation and unreserved compensation, which would be completely wrong.

I am astonished, frankly, that such a legal error could have been made. If the Government are not able to meet this—as I hope that they are, from indications by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks—and are not able to respond in a positive way, I shall be even more astonished that such an error could be perpetuated.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, when I asked a question about this some six months ago I was assured that something would be done to sort it—I think that was the word used—so I am very pleased to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Godson. I am pleased and waiting to hear what the Minister will say, because I am very hopeful now that this will get sorted and that we will not have to have a vote on it. It would be good if he were able to make it very clear that the legislation will definitely be amended, so that we get the result before Third Reading. I think it is useful to remind noble Lords; the noble Lord, Lord Howell, gave a very clear view of what things were like back in 1972.

In the judgment, Lord Kerr said that the law said that it had “to appear” to the Secretary of State that the person in question was suspected of organising terrorism. Ironically, the case of Gerry Adams was one where it could unquestionably have appeared to Mr Whitelaw that a custody order was appropriate; his personal consideration was just not recorded in the archives. I am sure that the Secretary of State knew, rather than suspected, that Adams was a key figure, because he had him flown over for negotiations with the IRA at Cheyne Walk in 1972, a year earlier. Lord Kerr also said that Mr Whitelaw should have been able to sign all such custody orders, as

“there was no evidence that this would place an impossible burden”

on him or be “unduly onerous”, given that Merlyn Rees, his Labour successor from March 1974, managed to.

I think this is a reflection of an unhistoric assertion lacking context, given the terrible violence outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, of 1972 and 1973, let alone the logistics involving Ministers, one of whom had to be in England and one in Belfast. Furthermore, it took no account of the differing political circumstances involving Secretary of State Merlyn Rees, who was very keen to end internment and sought to minimise the number of orders being placed in front of him. In fact, internment ended a year later.

Noble Lords should also remember that the Supreme Court President, Lord Reed of Allermuir, in effect supported a correction when he spoke to the House’s Constitution Committee in March 2021. There he said, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Howell:

“I cannot say very much about the particular case because I did not sit on it myself. Lord Kerr wrote the judgment. The Lord Chief Justice and some other justices were sitting with him. I am well aware that it is a controversial judgment ... I really cannot remember the details of the case. From what you say, it sounds like a wayward judgment, in which case it will be put right in another case”.


I believe that this amendment and what the Government are now going to do are a valuable substitute for such another case at the Supreme Court, which could otherwise take years to appear.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, when this amendment was introduced at a very late stage in Committee, I expressed concern that this is a complicated matter and should be examined in greater detail. While the amendment is focused on the specifics of the Supreme Court case in 2020, it is clear that the judgment might well have wider implications for the Carltona principle and therefore also for wider government.

I remain firmly of the view that this important matter requires deep and careful consideration; indeed, longer consideration than we have had between Committee and now. I think that is what the Minister said in his earlier meetings with the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. Will the Minister commit to taking this matter away for further discussions within and across government? Perhaps most importantly, will he endeavour to update this House on the decision well in advance of Third Reading?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord Dodds and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, in supporting Amendments 114A and 114B in the names of my noble friends Lord Dodds, Lord Weir and Lord Morrow.

Recently, the absentee MP for North Belfast, John Finucane, was the main speaker at what was billed a “South Armagh Volunteers commemoration and fun day”. Let me remind noble Lords of just one action of these South Armagh IRA terrorists—there is certainly no reason to celebrate it, or even commemorate it. I want noble Lords to imagine a young husband leaving home and going to work as usual. His family hear later on that their loved one has gone missing; his young wife is pregnant and has three young children already. Think of the agony this family circle is going through as it becomes clear that the IRA have abducted this young man. Think of the absolute terror he is feeling as he is hooded and taken captive by IRA terrorists.

Then there comes that—in many ways inevitable—phone call that tells the family that that young man has been found dead. However, that call also tells them that his body cannot be recovered, even though it is seen lying in a field in south Armagh, because it is surrounded by Claymore mines. Yes, that body is booby-trapped to explode if moved. A huge, 500-pound bomb is attached to him in milk churns, with command wires leading across the border. Any attempt to move him will blow his corpse to pieces, along with anyone attempting to retrieve him. The authorities have to let him lie there, dead, covered in blood and mud, naked except for his pants and on display for all to see, until the explosives are defused by the bomb squad. Can anyone with a heart have any idea what that dear wife, her three young children and the family circle have to go through as they wait and wait?

In another place, a Member of Parliament at that time said:

“One of his relatives said that they were horrified at the look of torture and agony … on the face. The fingers of both hands were blackened to the knuckles and holes were punched in the finger tips. Handfuls of grass and earth were clutched in the hands. One side of the face was smashed … to the extent that the nose was broken and displaced to one side. Both arms seemed limp and the genitals had been kicked until swollen out of all proportion. The teeth were smashed, he was shot through the wrists, the mouth, the neck, the throat and several times in the chest”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/5/72; col. 1788.].


What was his crime? His crime was that he was a part-time UDR corporal. Of course, Sinn Féin said that he was therefore a legitimate target; he was a part of the British war machine, simply because he wore the uniform and tried to keep people safe from those who so cowardly and viciously ended his life. Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill has claimed that there was no alternative to such IRA activity and yet, amazingly, she is lauded and applauded by Presidents and Secretaries of State, and John Finucane thinks such deserve to be commemorated—actually, their names written on a marble scroll as if they were heroes and then celebrated with a family fun day.

I ask you: what sort of persons could be so evil as to commit such torture on another human being? What sort of mentality justifies this in any shape or form? Nobody has ever been charged or convicted of this murder, this torture, and those who directed it are equally guilty. The so-called IRA Army Council has not been brought before the International Court of Justice. Rather, some of its leaders are lauded and applauded too. The Sinn Féin leaders and John Finucane talk much about and demand inquiries, they pontificate about human rights, equality and justice, but they do not want justice for them. They do not want inquiries into their leadership role in some of the most vile atrocities ever carried out against mankind. All they want is to blame the police, the Army and the part-time soldiers—indeed, everyone who stood against their 30-year campaign of slaughter and murder in their quest for their dream of a united Ireland. Sadly, on many occasions, successive Governments rolled over to Sinn Féin demands and granted it concession after concession. Even just over a week ago, we found that the chief constable apologised to those who were called the hooded men. I ask the Minister: does this legislation stop the memorialisation and glorification of those terrorists across our community?

I finish by saying that every year, in January, I gather with others at the side of a road outside Cookstown, the Teebane. The men there were returning from doing an honest day’s work, but they were murdered, slaughtered, on their way home. We stand at a roadside. Yes, there is a stone there with the names of those lads on it: not to glorify but to humbly remember that they were cruelly done to death along that road.

We cannot have the glorification of terrorist acts. They are to be condemned. While many tell us that everyone, every political party in Northern Ireland, is against this legislation, let me make it clear that the party which I belong to is not to be equated with Sinn Féin/IRA, because its objection to the legislation is that it does not want its comrades to be prosecuted, but it wants the security forces to be persecuted. I will not lend my hand to that.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I speak to support Amendments 117 and 118 in my name but agree with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, as well.

I want to look at the academic research clause, because it addresses a problem with the Government’s funding body, UK Research and Innovation and its councils. Many of us interested in legacy are genuinely concerned about what seems to be the one-sided nature of much of the academic research into our past and the way that the funding has been monopolised by what could be seen as a single legal view that is radical and investigates only faults with the UK state and its security responses during the Troubles.

I need to refer to the Queen’s University Belfast’s transitional justice department, which produced the model legacy Bill and many briefings that Opposition and Cross-Bench Peers will have been provided with. That department alone has received the huge amount of £4 million in funding for legacy research—nobody else has. The transitional justice department works in open conjunction with the Committee on the Administration of Justice, the CAJ, which is a largely anti-state nationalist body in Belfast that encourages legacy litigation. Indeed, it is leading efforts to get the Dublin Government to take an inter-state case against the United Kingdom at the European Court of Human Rights over this very Bill once it receives Royal Assent.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 21st June 2023 Lords Chamber

I ask again, which is more important in the process of reconciliation: to create a technical process for immunity or to recognise by involvement the needs of suffering people who are carrying in their hearts and minds the scars of our Troubles? In my opinion and, I think, that of many of my colleagues who, like me, have given so much of their lives to this process, it has to be stated for the record that the immunity process has to climb over the reality of victimhood. Until it does so, it will be very unsatisfactory as an attempt at reconciliation. I beg to move Amendment 9.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as a signatory to Amendment 9 in the name of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and the amendments that follow from it, I support it very strongly. Realistically, we know that the Government are going to push the Bill through, so rather than trying to wreck it completely, it is important that we try to make it as good as it can be.

Fundamentally, Amendment 9 seeks to make what is imperfect legislation that little bit less imperfect. It would do so by at least making the immunity process absolutely victim centred. To put it simply, save for exceptional circumstances which we have set out in the amendment—such as a disagreement among family members as to whether to consent—the core principle will be that an immunity certificate cannot be granted unless there is the consent of a victim.

We have built in a provision whereby if a close family member requests a review, that is taken as consent. Once consent is given, a perpetrator—within the scope set out in the Bill—can obtain immunity, the family can obtain information and the chief commissioner can publish a report of his findings. But crucially, if there is no family consent, none of those things can happen. The chief commissioner may still conduct a review if a referral is made by one of the specified statutory bodies, but he may not grant immunity, provide information to families or publish a report if there is no consent. That means that the wishes of victims’ families are central to the process.

We would prefer that the Bill in this format was not here at all—but it is. These amendments seek to make the best of a bad situation and at least give victims, in all but exceptional cases, a veto over perpetrator immunity.

It should be noted—I raise it now because it is central to the whole issue of outcomes for victims—that if you look at paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 11, it appears that Section 4 of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 is being amended to, in effect, reduce the tariff to zero or at the most one day. At the moment, it works out as a two-year sentence for anyone convicted of a pre-1998 offence. On the face of it, this seems to mean that even if one were to be convicted of an offence on referral to the DPP by the chief commissioner, there would be a term of imprisonment of, in effect, one day maximum. That may not be called an amnesty, but it is a de facto amnesty. I am very sad about that and regret it. It is wrong. It was wrong in 1998, it is wrong now and it will be for ever wrong.

If the Government are determined to force the Bill through, at least our amendment would put victims at the centre of an imperfect process. I ask a simple question: how could anyone reasonably object to elevating the interests of victims over those of perpetrators?

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, first, I join with other noble Lords who have thanked the Minister for his engagement in relation to both the amendments he has tabled on Report and the amendments we considered in Committee and have brought forward again on Report. I think it has been a genuine engagement. I am pleased that the Minister has listened to some extent and that there have been improvements as a result of the discussions that have taken place, and indeed following amendments tabled in the other place which the Government responded to.

In paying tribute to the Minister, we should also pay tribute, as others have, to the innocent victims of terrorism, murder and mayhem in Northern Ireland over many years. We should pay tribute to their enormous tenacity and fortitude in the face of what has been happening in recent days in Northern Ireland, with the continuing eulogy and glorification of murderers and criminals by elected representatives, including those who purport to be the First Minister “for all”.

In relation to the Bill being brought back, given the pause and the length of time that has passed, and the universal opposition to it, some had hoped that this would be one area where the Government might actually listen to all the parties in Northern Ireland, but that does not appear to be the case. The Minister and your Lordships will be aware that on 19 June, the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, and others wrote to the Prime Minister asking, even at this stage, for the proposals to be withdrawn. The letter restated our fundamental opposition to an amnesty—which is what the Bill in effect creates—paid tribute to the victims and recognised that while we and other noble Lords have tabled amendments, that should not be misconstrued in any shape or form as providing tacit consent to this regime, which undermines confidence in the rule of law and has done so much harm to victims.

I will speak to the amendments in my name and those of my noble friends, but I say initially that I have a lot of sympathy with Amendment 9, moved by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, on putting the victims at the centre of this immunity process if we are to have it. It talks about those cases that involve death; I would prefer it to cover all cases. Having said that, I think it is worthy of support, and I hope the Government will consider it.

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, talked about hypocrisy in relation to mentioning reconciliation, yet we have the Bill before us. That was a very powerful but correct description, and I often hear that word mentioned by victims in relation to the approach taken in the Bill by the Government.

Amendment 59A, standing in my name and in the names of my noble friends, would require the commissioner for investigations to refer a file to the PPS when an individual is found to have provided false statements to the ICRIR. At present there is no explicit provision in the Bill to require the ICRIR to provide material evidence of false statements to the prosecutor in aid of proceedings. I would be grateful if, when the Minister responds, he can address that point and reassure your Lordships that this is not some kind of loophole that can be exploited but that, in the absence of this amendment, there will be no gap and that we will ensure that there is a joined-up approach to pursuing convictions.

Amendment 61A would require an individual to be disengaged from activity which would be reasonably regarded as precluding reconciliation in order to be eligible for immunity from prosecution, Although the concept of immunity is in our view irredeemable, a further problem is that the Bill as drafted places no impediment to a perpetrator gaining the protection of immunity and then going on to publicise, promote or commemorate—the favourite word now used by terrorist apologists—his or her deeds in such a way that harms victims and generally offends the cause of peace and reconciliation. The Government have brought forward new proposals allowing immunity to be revoked in instances of glorification of terror, and I welcome that. However, I think it could go further in capturing activities that do not necessarily constitute offending but which will cause deep harm to victims, survivors and their families. Our Amendment 86A follows on by requiring the permanent revocation of immunity of individuals engaged in the sort of activity that I have outlined.

It should not be acceptable in general terms that political representatives of the IRA and Sinn Féin, including the potential First Minister or anyone else, and especially people who have taken advantage of this system, should go around the country, not doing enough to fall foul of the “glorification of terrorism” legislation but doing enormous harm psychologically to victims and their families by their continuing commemoration, eulogising and glorification of the perpetrators of some of the most heinous criminal and obscene acts that we have seen anywhere over the last 30 years. The purpose of these amendments is to address that point and to urge that the Government do something about it. It is not only causing trauma to victims and retraumatising their families but is toxifying the political atmosphere in Northern Ireland as people try to get the Assembly up and running again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 13, which is also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and which simply requires the removal of the word “reasonably” from Clause 5. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, is unable to be with us today, but he associates himself with my remarks.

The Government told us that one of the purposes of the Bill is to provide families with information that was not previously available to them, and another is to gather all investigative and review functions within the ICRIR. This was always the proposal under the Stormont House agreement, and I have no difficulty with it, except for the way in which it is done and the immunity clause. But the powers accorded under the Bill do not provide to the ICRIR the access to information that will be necessary to obtain the information that families need, without lengthy judicial reviews and threats of judicial reviews, which have bedevilled inquiries such as the Saville inquiry and, indeed, the Kenova investigation.

In normal criminal investigations, there is a proviso that an investigator will not do anything which would prejudice national security or put someone’s life at risk. There is law that deals with this. The law also provides mechanisms which include a power to recover information, such as the search process when a warrant has been obtained. For example, police will seize all the computers in a house to determine whether the contents of any of them may be relevant to the matter under investigation. Those are general statutory investigation powers. Those charged with criminal investigation also have powers to require the provision of information from agencies and individuals. For example, under Section 17 of the Police Reform Act 2002 there is a simple duty on every chief constable and local policing body to provide information to the IOPC. Similarly, Section 66 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 says:

“The Chief Constable and the Board shall supply the Ombudsman with such information and documents as the Ombudsman may require for the purposes of, or in connection with, the exercise of any of his functions”.


There is no qualification, simply a duty to provide information. However, this Bill as drafted states that a relevant authority

“must make available to the ICRIR such … information … documents, and … other material as the Commissioner for Investigations may reasonably require”.

This provision applies only to information which the ICRIR reasonably requests. Of course, an investigator must always act reasonably and in compliance with the law. However, there is no process for which a chief constable may, for example, say, “No, it’s not reasonable for you to make that request for information”. I had those conversations in the early days of my tenure as Police Ombudsman. I was told, for example, that it was not reasonable for me to ask for sensitive information, such as information held by Special Branch—now the Intelligence Branch. I was able to point to the law, which said that the chief constable

“shall supply the Ombudsman with such information … as the Ombudsman may require”.

That is how it is in criminal investigations. It is not required that the investigator demonstrates the reasonableness of any request for information.

The Minister has said that a requirement that information shall be reasonably required is to be found in other statutes. He cited one, the Finance Act 2008, so I looked it up. Section 113 of and Schedule 36 to the Finance Act 2008 provides that an officer of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs can require a taxpayer to provide information reasonably requested by the officer for the purposes of collecting a tax debt owed by a taxpayer. There is a big difference in the powers required to collect an unpaid tax debt and those required to investigate a murder, as is evidenced by the current state of the law, which provides necessary protections for privacy in appropriate circumstances under the GDPR and the Data Protection Act, for example, but also empowers criminal investigators to access information. This is the proper working out of UK compliance with its obligations under the Good Friday agreement and the European convention.

If an agency could respond to a request for information by the ICRIR by challenging the reasonableness of that request, there would be inevitable and very lengthy disputes, possibly—indeed probably—involving judicial review, about why what the ICRIR was asking for was reasonable. The reality is that the investigator—the ICRIR in this case—may be in possession of material justifying the reasonableness of the request for information, but that material cannot be disclosed at this particular point in time without compromising the integrity of the investigation. The result is that an agency may be unaware of the material which the investigator holds, but it may be very aware that information which is held by that agency is highly compromising of the agency and may indicate how it came about that, despite an agency, for example, being aware of a proposal to murder someone, it did not intervene to stop that murder. It has happened.

The necessary unqualified powers to compel the production of documentation, especially documentation held by the other agencies, security intelligence services and police intelligence units, will not be available to the ICRIR because of how the Bill is drafted and the definition of sensitive information. The proposed powers to identify and gather information will also be subject to veto by the Secretary of State under the extensive provisions of Clauses 29 and 30. Access to information could be severely curtailed through the exercise of powers conferred on the Secretary of State in this Bill, because it gives the Secretary of State powers to give guidance about how the ICRIR is to identify sensitive information such as that held by police intelligence units and how that information is held and handled, et cetera, and even to create new criminal offences in relation to such matters.

Last year, the European Committee of Ministers exposed serious concerns about the Bill, and the Commissioner for Human Rights has now said that the amendments proposed by the Government do not sufficiently allay those concerns. This emphasised again that it is crucial that the legislation, if progressed and ultimately adopted, is in full compliance with our convention obligations and will enable effective investigation into outstanding cases.

The Committee of Ministers has called on the Government, first, to ensure that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland’s role in the establishment and oversight of the ICRIR is more clearly circumscribed in law, in a manner that ensures that the ICRIR is independent and seen to be independent. Secondly, it has called on them to ensure that the disclosure provisions unambiguously require full disclosure to be given to the ICRIR. Thirdly, it has asked that they ensure that the Bill adequately provides for the participations of victims and their families for transparency and public scrutiny, which is fundamental to Article 2. It has again stressed the importance for the success of any investigative body of gaining the confidence of victims, families of victims and potential witnesses.

I also put my name to Amendment 31 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, supported also by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, who has spoken at length about it, as well as the noble Lords, Lord Blair and Lord Murphy. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, is unable to be with us today. I shall support that amendment if a Division is called. I do not think that I need to describe the reasons for it, but I shall say that the National Police Chiefs’ Council has said that the Kenova model could effectively be scaled up for the purposes of the ICRIR.

I regret that I cannot support Amendment 28 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lords, Lord Bew and Lord Godson, because it requires that, when a family is seeking a review or investigation, they will have to be able to show that, if there is to be a review, and there has previously been an investigation or an inquest, for example, the ICRIR should not decide to grant a review unless there is compelling new evidence. To require a family to provide compelling new evidence would be to deprive them of their Article 2 rights to investigation, in particular in older cases where investigations and inquests were not as thorough or impartial as they are now. It is not the role of a traumatised and bereaved family to gather compelling new evidence. They have neither the powers nor the access to do so. That is the job of the investigator—in this case, the ICRIR.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, with regard to Amendment 28 in the name of myself, the noble Lords, Lord Bew and Lord Godson, I tabled similar in Committee and have changed it to take note of what the Minister then said, deleting the parts that he found objectionable, which related to family requests for reinvestigations. I hope that what remains the Minister will find acceptable, given that the purpose of my amendment to Clause 11 is to ensure that there will not be duplication by the ICRIR in relation to previous investigations, despite what the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, has said, without compelling new evidence. This is the concept that was used in the overseas operation Act, and I cannot understand why it cannot be used in this legislation.

If the previous investigations listed in the amendment, such as those by a public inquiry, HET, or the police services Legacy Investigation Branch are not added to the Bill, thus narrowing the ICRIR’s potential range, I repeat what I said at Committee: namely, that the ICRIR could end up reinvestigating every one of the nearly 4,000 deaths, the cost will be £1 billion at least, not the budgeted £250 million, and the process will last for many years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)]

My Lords, it is unusual for me to start by saying that I could not disagree more with what I have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. I was Metropolitan Police Commissioner at the time of the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, and it was a tragedy. I do not actually understand the connection that she is making with what is happening in relation to Operation Kenova.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

Strasbourg.

[Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)]

I shall stop there on that point.

I support Amendment 31 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and the other signatories to it. It concerns Operation Kenova—the multiple investigations being carried out by ex-Chief Constable Jon Boutcher into some 200 murders on both sides of the conflict in Northern Ireland. I last spoke on Kenova on 24 January this year, when I read into the record of the House comments made by Jon Boutcher the previous October. I will not repeat all of that, except to remind noble Lords of his summary of his focus, being on the Provisional IRA,

“which committed these murders and whether steps were, or were not taken by the security forces before these abductions and murders occurred to protect people”.—[Official Report, 24/1/23; col. 161.]

I am not an expert on Northern Ireland, but I bring before the House two aspects of my own professional experience which I believe are of relevance. First, I have investigated murders and I know how difficult it is to tell families of victims that the trail has run cold and the investigation is, at least for the time being, being closed. Secondly, I have led some very large and complex investigations and watched many others. Never have I seen such a comprehensive, transparent and outstanding investigation as Kenova. Mr Boutcher has meticulously worked to gain the trust of families and has submitted a number of files, as we heard during the debate, to the Northern Ireland prosecution services. The submissions await a decision and the families know that. To discontinue all those inquiries by an Act of Parliament in these Houses seems to me to be an extraordinary step.

Of course, like many others in the House, I am a great supporter of the truth and reconciliation process in South Africa, but that process took place instead of investigations, not after they had been completed. Moreover, entering into such an approach has to be a voluntary process; and, having come this far, from a position of deep cynicism to trust in Kenova’s approach, I doubt whether many families will wish the completed investigations into these deaths just to be put to one side. With respect to the Minister, he knows that the continuance of Kenova is supported by politicians of every stripe in Northern Ireland, a position which I believe is not a common occurrence on any topic, let alone one as explosive as this. Any suggestion that the Kenova model is too expensive is risible, given all the suffering and all the costs that have preceded it.

I hope that when the House returns to this subject next week, it will ask the Government to think again.

--- Later in debate ---

Before I finish, I shall mention Amendment 104, which provides that the Secretary of State should defray the fees and costs already incurred by litigants, and maybe also by potential litigants, whose proceedings are either terminated or banned by this legislation. If the Government wish to bring such proceedings to a precipitate end, it is incumbent on them to meet the cost of so doing.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support the Government’s intention to set a deadline on the issue of inquests. I oppose Amendment 110 because it is a—“wrecking amendment” is probably wrong because there are lots of things about this Bill that we all want to wreck, but the reality is that, without incorporating all inquests into the new body at some stage, it might as well not exist. We would see what I have mentioned before: lawfare would recommence with a vengeance at a very high cost, forcing reinvestigations that, if we are honest, would never occur or be enabled to occur here in England.

As it is, the ICRIR is already showing signs of becoming just a one-stop shop for reinvestigations of historic deaths currently or previously undertaken, as I mentioned on the previous amendment, by the PSNI’s legacy investigations branch, HET, the Police Ombudsman, Strasbourg, public or judicial inquiry, civil suits or inquests. The 50 or so currently outstanding promised inquests are almost all reopened ones that the courts, the DPP or the Attorney-General have decided were inadequate previously. Inquests were apparently being reopened according to two loose criteria: first, the usual one where collusion was alleged, such as Glenanne and Finucane; and, secondly, where the deceased was a terrorist but the command and control arrangements of the security forces were in question—in other words, once again only the state was being reinvestigated.

At the height of the Troubles, as we know, evidence gathering was next to impossible for fear of another death, so inquests tended to be brief, especially for the 700 murdered soldiers. It is worth remembering too that in the case of the IRA’s 1974 Birmingham bombing there was never an inquest.

Reopening has been granted when some new information has come to light after inspection of, for example, new files in the National Archives at Kew. Quite often the new information is not that compelling and, increasingly, judicial reviews do not succeed when the killings occurred up to 50 years ago. Judges accept that memories fade and become unreliable.

The Human Rights Act and thus the ECHR Article 2 procedure, much quoted in recent days by the Secretary of State, do not require deaths to be reinvestigated prior to its commencement in 2000. The Supreme Court has of course suggested that the cut-off date should be a decade earlier but certainly not the 1970s, so I think His Majesty’s Government are absolutely right on this and I oppose Amendment 110.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak in favour of Amendment 110, to which I have added my name. It would remove Clause 40 from the Bill and would have the effect of leaving the inquest system as it currently stands. I shall be extremely brief because the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Loan and Lady Ritchie, have made the case so powerfully in favour of the amendment.

The Minister will know that the victims’ commissioner, Ian Jeffers, is deeply concerned that removing the current inquest system would be an additional blow to families who have already waited decades for an inquest, and it is just not clear how and when the ICRIR will work to deal with them. Does the Minister agree that, when an inquest has begun and the preparatory work has been done, it seems inefficient and impractical to start a new process with new personnel?

Northern Ireland (Interim Arrangements) Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

3rd reading & Committee stage
Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Lords Chamber

I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, says about having the Executive to deal with these issues. Regrettably, when the Executive was in place, the issues were not dealt with because, as I have indicated, the Finance Ministers of the day did not bring forward budgets. So it is important to listen to the independent voice in Northern Ireland, and that is the Fiscal Council. I hope the Minister will take that on board in his response.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I strongly support this amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord Dodds. I agree very much with what has been said by everyone who has spoken so far, although obviously I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, that somehow the only way in which this can be dealt with is by getting the Executive back. There is no reason for that, given that the Fiscal Council said what it did, and the Minister knows that Northern Ireland is not being fully funded because the Barnett squeeze is getting greater. Surely if the Government know that that is happening to a part of the UK, they should be able to act without waiting for an Assembly or an Executive, which, given what has been said, is very unlikely to come back in the near future. I urge the Minister not to treat this as some kind of bargaining point with politicians in Northern Ireland; that is not the way to deal with this serious financial situation.

It is important that the point about consultation be included in the Bill. Being realistic, there are things in Northern Ireland that—forgetting the whole issue of the Barnett formula and the overall funding—could raise more money. That has always been difficult because controversial decisions are very difficult to take between the two mainstream political parties and the two factions —or perhaps three factions—in Northern Ireland. There are some things that are not the same as in the rest of the UK but should be. No doubt I would be slated by the media in Northern Ireland for saying this, but I genuinely think we should be looking at prescription costs. There is a huge amount of waste due to the fact that prescriptions are free for everyone in Northern Ireland. That is just one small thing, but I am certain that, if the public were properly consulted on it, talked about it and understood it, there would be support in many areas for that way of raising extra funds.

There are other such issues but I will not go into any of those. I know the Minister is particularly knowledgeable about and supportive of Northern Ireland, but he may not have a Secretary of State who is necessarily quite so knowledgeable and supportive, so it is important that the Secretary of State listens to what people who understand Northern Ireland are saying.

As we are on finance, I will ask the Minister about policing in Northern Ireland, which is in a particularly difficult situation over its funding. Morale among the Police Federation there is very low. Are the United Kingdom Government giving extra money to the police to make up for the huge amount that it cost to have the very short visit of President Biden and all the other dignitaries who flew in and flew out again as quickly as possible, having joined in the commemoration of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement? It cost a huge amount of money to bring over police officers from Great Britain. Have the Government given any extra money for that? If not, why not?

We had a wide-ranging debate at Second Reading, so there is no point going over all the arguments again; we cannot in a debate on an amendment anyway. But let us not forget that we are here discussing the Bill only because we have no Executive, and we have no Executive because this Government—our Government—have decided that Northern Ireland is to be treated differently. We are being left under EU trading rules, which have set us apart and will set us further apart as time goes on. That is the really important issue that noble Lords need to remember.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, I too am sorry that I was not able to be present, along with other noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have spoken, for the Second Reading of the Bill last Thursday because of other commitments in Northern Ireland. I put it on record that it was somewhat strange that the Second Reading was scheduled for the day of the local government elections in Northern Ireland. If nobody in the Government realised that, it tells us a lot about competence; if they did realise it and scheduled it anyway, it tells you a lot about their regard for Northern Ireland. I would like to know what actually happened that such a thing should be scheduled in that way.

I am glad that we have the opportunity to debate the amendment in the names of my noble friend Lord Morrow and me. It raises an important issue because, despite what is constantly said about the restoration of the Executive and the Assembly, if they were back tomorrow that would not make the slightest difference to the underfunding of Northern Ireland. In fact, Ministers—newly installed Ministers—would have to go about the business of slashing public services in health, education, policing and so on to an unprecedented degree. I do not agree with the idea that we should wait for the Executive and the Assembly to be restored. The need is here and now. The underfunding is taking place as a result of decisions taken here, in Whitehall and Westminster, by the Treasury.

It used to be the case over many years that the Northern Ireland Office was the advocate for Northern Ireland vis-à-vis central government and the Treasury, but it now appears that the current Secretary of State’s position is to become an advocate for the Treasury against the interests of Northern Ireland. He came on the other day to say that there would be no problem finding £100 million for a sports stadium. That is somewhat controversial in Northern Ireland but he was saying, “No problem at all—we’ll find the money if the bid’s successful”. But he cannot find an extra penny piece to deal with extraordinarily long waiting lists in the health service, education underfunding, police underfunding and the rest.

That sort of glib response to the crisis in Northern Ireland by the current Secretary of State, married to the refusal in this Bill to bring forward powers to give direction to civil servants, is an absolute abdication of responsibility by government Ministers who will no doubt respond and say, “Well, you should get into the Executive”. But they themselves are responsible for the current position in Northern Ireland by their refusal to restore the power of the Northern Ireland Assembly to make laws over 300 areas. Right across the economy of Northern Ireland, there are powers that do not reside in Belfast or here at Westminster or in Whitehall; they reside in Brussels with the European Commission—unaccountable and unanswerable. The Government need to recognise the current situation as it exists.

My noble friend Lord Morrow has very ably and in considerable detail set out the arguments behind our amendment. The Government may respond by saying that for many years they have funded Northern Ireland considerably well; the Minister referred to this at Second Reading. But whatever the past, what we are dealing with is now. As a result of government decisions taken by the Treasury, Northern Ireland is more below need on a funding-per-head basis than has ever been the case in any constituent part of the United Kingdom in the last 40 years. That is unacceptable and should not continue a moment longer. They cannot justify underfunding today on the basis of past settlements. Today’s budgetary position in Northern Ireland means social, economic and political dislocation. That is agreed and assented to by all the political parties in Northern Ireland across the board. It cannot be justified by looking backwards to previous financial settlements.

We will no doubt be told that Northern Ireland receives 20% per head more than the UK average spend. But, as we have heard, the true measure is spending against need. In Wales, steps were taken despite spending per head there being above the UK average. This is a question of asking not for favours or a privileged position but that the funding is structured so that services for the people of Northern Ireland meet the level of need, as is the case elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It is a quest not for privilege but for a level playing field. It is not a question of comparing Northern Ireland spending per head against England; it is about comparing Northern Ireland spending against need.

Of course, many people in Northern Ireland suspect the real game that the Northern Ireland Office is playing. I do not include in this the Minister answering on the Front Bench today, who has displayed time and again a willingness to fight Northern Ireland’s corner and stand up for the union. There are people within the NIO who no doubt believe that, by imposing this kind of budget and underfunding Northern Ireland both in the short term and going back some years, we will fix all this or come forward with a package if only the Executive and Assembly are restored and unionists operate the Northern Ireland protocol/Windsor Framework. That would entail operating measures that are injurious to the union and breach the Belfast agreement, the Acts of Union and the New Decade, New Approach document—the basis on which Northern Ireland devolution was restored in January 2020.

We have to face the reality that the failure of the Government to restore Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom—subjecting it to arrangements that undermine democracy and are a breach of the agreements—is the fundamental problem we are grappling with. Unless that issue is tackled, we will continue to have a lack of devolved government in Northern Ireland. We have to accept the fundamental reasons why we are in the present position. Of course we do not want to see legislation having to be passed in this place to deal with the situation and would far rather have the Executive and the Assembly restored, but we have to have it back on the basis that we have powers to make the laws that affect and govern the economy of Northern Ireland. That cannot be avoided, and the fact is that the restoration of devolution lies in the Government’s hands.

The DUP stood on a manifesto in which we made it clear that the Northern Ireland protocol—the Windsor Framework—needs replacing

“with an arrangement that passes our seven tests”,

including getting rid of the Irish Sea border. It means restoring democracy and giving us the power to formulate and pass laws over our own economy, which seems very simple, straightforward and basic in terms of equal citizenship for all citizens of the United Kingdom. We are asking for something that would be seen as a matter of fact and common sense in every other part of the United Kingdom. Indeed, those who advocate different arrangements would never accept it for one minute for their own constituency, region or country in the United Kingdom.

Northern Ireland (Interim Arrangements) Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 18th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Minister said it was with profound regret that he was bringing forward this Bill; I think we all share that sentiment. I do not want to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, said, but it is important that we remind ourselves why we are here: we are here because the United Kingdom Government decided that Northern Ireland could be treated differently, and our citizenship is being eroded in many ways. The internal market has gone and all the hype about the Windsor protocol, as I would call it, is being exposed more and more. Therefore, we are here through the Government’s own making, and because they are not committing to the whole of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union—which was what was on our ballot paper in Northern Ireland as well.

Of course, we have to go ahead with this Bill; it is important. However, I think we should also remind ourselves that the 1998 devolution process, which we have been commemorating recently, is inherently unstable. It may have enhanced peace, yet there have been over 150 terrorist murders in that period, mostly killings between terrorist groups and each other. None were caused by the state, although around five involved the deaths of security force and prison staff. You could be forgiven for thinking otherwise, given the ceaseless list of 1970s legacy cases going through the courts in Belfast—every week there is another one—all of which are trying to rewrite history by reallocating blame for killings from the IRA to some element of state forces. It is really important that your Lordships realise and remember that.

A working Executive could do various things. They could agree on dividing up the money from the block grant. However, as we know in this House, any issues which require the two communities to yield on their particular hard and fast views mean we in Parliament end up legislating time after time: on legacy, abortion, gay rights or welfare reform—anything that is really controversial ends up here. We need to remember that as well.

The 1998 consociational structure means that Stormont operates on two tracks that do not meet. Local government works because it operates more on a committee system that cannot be boycotted easily. We see, and it is quite sad, that the Government, having changed the date of the local council elections to today, then put Northern Ireland legislation on the agenda for today. My personal view is that we should be strengthening local government in Northern Ireland, increasing the numbers of Members of Parliament, and doing away with and abolishing the whole Stormont set-up.

The current Secretary of State will not remember it, unlike the Minister, but when David Trimble twice pulled down the Executive over decommissioning, or the lack of it, he experienced the same wave of outrage that we hear in the media in Northern Ireland about what is not happening and Stormont not sitting. Today that rage is compounded by the strategic budget cuts. I believe that Northern Ireland needs the same focus on the Barnett formula, and how it works, that Wales got—it really is time for that. People in Northern Ireland are not stupid. They know that some 98% of government spending in Northern Ireland will proceed, regardless of whether Stormont is sitting or not. The financial situation is dire, and of course some of that happened under Stormont. The Sinn Féin Finance Minister could not get his budget through Stormont, so the idea that if we all get back to Stormont tomorrow the finances would be sorted is rather silly.

We have a legislative lockdown, but with only the minimum of law changes needed to keep the show on the road and to stop the lack of money supply actually wrecking sections of the economy. However, I feel the Secretary of State has perhaps decided that punishing the Northern Ireland people is the way to get devolved government back. We have seen senior civil servants—who I am sure are taking soundings from government Ministers—choose the most conspicuous cuts, such as this week’s cut to nurse-training funding, to frighten the public. I am sure this is being given the green light by certain people in certain positions. That health cut is going to inflict a major workforce shortfall in three years’ time, when those nurses who should have been graduating and entering the local profession will not do so—and of course there is a huge shortage of trained nurses in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

There is some common sense in the Bill. Clause 2 gives powers for the Secretary of State to direct departments to provide advice or information, and even to oblige them to carry out a consultation. There might be a seed of a possible return to what I think would be a more sensible solution, and that would be a form of direct rule.

I know the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, on the Front Bench, will probably have a different view, but I think the Orders in Council system could have been a better way. We are going to find it extremely difficult to get Stormont set up and working well. It is time we started to think about that and to realise that Northern Ireland does need the direct attention of this place, and not treat devolution as some way of getting rid of it. We need to remember that while we have the Windsor protocol we will not have devolution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, obviously, I join the Minister and other Members of your Lordships’ House in referring to the work of Lord Brooke. Peter Brooke was a man of huge decency and integrity. He was a colleague of mine in the House of Commons, and obviously a very effective Secretary of State in the sense that he actually progressed the peace process. Also, and sometimes forgotten, he was a very effective chairman of the Northern Ireland Select Committee. He will be missed. He played his part in Northern Ireland history; there is no question about that.

We of course agree with the necessity of the Bill. It has a very innocuous name, the Northern Ireland (Interim Arrangements) Bill. What it actually means is that we are going to carry on with a sort of direct rule until we can resolve the problems with regard to the restoration of the institutions. That is not good, of course—we deeply regret it and I will come to that in a second—but with regard to the Bill, particularly on the issue of finance, there are important questions that the Government have to address. They have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and others. There is a case—I speak as a former Finance Minister for Northern Ireland—for a re-look at, reform of and rethink of how the Barnett formula applies to Northern Ireland.

The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, quite rightly referred to Northern Ireland, in the formula sense, being underfunded. He referred to the position of Wales, which I know a little about. It is quite interesting to reflect that the settlement changed for Wales because of the work that was done and the pressure that was put on the Government by the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh Government. Would that have happened without devolution? It might have done, but I doubt it. A sitting Government in Cardiff and a sitting Parliament could address these issues in detail and then negotiate with the United Kingdom Government. Therefore, the issue which the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, referred to is best addressed in the context of a restored Executive and Assembly in Northern Ireland.

I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, that we could exist without an Executive and an Assembly in Northern Ireland. If we completely forget about the Good Friday agreement and the peace process, with a Parliament in Edinburgh and a Senedd in Cardiff, it would be impossible not to have a devolved Parliament in Northern Ireland, irrespective of the peace process. We must live with that, and we should, because it is the only answer to the problems of Northern Ireland. Every time a Member from Northern Ireland gets on their feet in the Commons or in this House, ultimately it is not good enough. Those people in the Assembly in Belfast are elected directly by the people of Northern Ireland to address the specific issues which are devolved to Belfast. The Minister knows that there are dozens and dozens of huge decisions which cannot be taken by civil servants. It is totally unfair, in a modern democracy, to put on the backs of people who are unelected the burden of having to make huge decisions which only politicians can decide, particularly regarding finance.

Obviously, we still understand the problems that the Democratic Unionist Party has with the settlement in Northern Ireland regarding the European Union. However, the Windsor Framework is a real step forward and should be the basis of proper negotiation to arrange a settlement. This morning I was looking, yet again, at Section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act1998, which I had the privilege of steering through the House of Commons a quarter of a century ago. It says specifically that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom and will only cease to be so if the people of Northern Ireland so decide by a majority. I cannot see that happening for some time to come—who knows?—but that is what it says. The principle of consent—

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way and I agree with that part of the 1998 Act. I am sorry for going on about a very simple thing, but it is the kind of basic thing that makes people in Northern Ireland feel very left out: duty-free. Why can people flying from Belfast to anywhere in the EU not get duty-free, when you can fly from the rest of the United Kingdom to anywhere in the EU and get it? I got an answer recently which almost implied that part of the reason was because you could fly from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland. Of course, as the noble Lord knows, you cannot fly from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland, but that is just a simple thing that sets us apart.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

I do not think that in any way alters the position that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom. The noble Baroness will recall, because she comes from Northern Ireland and lived the early part of her life there, that there has always been a difference between Northern Ireland and the rest of Britain in certain respects. For example, livestock and agriculture have always had to be checked as they came across the Irish Sea, for various reasons. There was a separate Government for decades in Northern Ireland which imposed various restrictions, but that in no way affected the fact that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, so long as the people in Northern Ireland decide it should be. I do not underestimate the problems that have arisen, frankly because of Brexit. Without Brexit, this dilemma would not be in front of us, but we have to live with it. It seems to me that the Windsor agreement is a good start.

There are elections today in Northern Ireland. We will not know the outcome for another day or so. The marching season will soon be upon us. The recess is not far away. However, that should not stop the Government from planning for proper structured negotiations with the political parties in Northern Ireland and the Irish Government, so far as they affect the agreement. There should be a big role for the Prime Minister in the weeks and months ahead to work with parties in Northern Ireland to get a settlement. Despite the problems which we have had in Northern Ireland over the last two years regarding the protocol and the difficulties about the suspension of the institutions, there is no doubt from when we celebrated the Good Friday agreement some weeks ago in Belfast and elsewhere—and I do mean celebrated—that there has been a huge change. The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, said quite rightly that, tragically, there have been 150 deaths in Northern Ireland over the last 25 years, mainly as a result of terrorism. However, that must be set against the 3,500 people who perished in the 25 years before the Good Friday agreement. That is the real measure of where we are in Northern Ireland.