Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to thank the Minister for her introduction of these SIs and to support them in both general and specific terms. I add one coda: these SIs come without an impact assessment, which is understandable enough in this context, but I keep thinking that we ought to have one at some future date.

Today’s debate and the more general public debate about foreign money in UK elections are taking place for understandable reasons, but the fact of the matter is that Sinn Féin is easily the richest political party in Ireland. It is also the case that it is easily the most likely to receive money from outside Ireland from the United States of America. It has been my duty, as a professional historian, to read the very interesting memoirs of republicans, whom I knew well. Not one does not boast of an election fixed here or there at some point by the application of superior resources, semi-bullying or whatever. That is why I say that there is a case for a delayed impact assessment. These are good measures that ought, on the whole, to improve the honesty of elections in Northern Ireland and bring them closer to the rest of the United Kingdom, but I have this yearning for a real impact assessment.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bew, with his historical perspective. I thank the Minister for her detailed introduction to these instruments. We on these Benches support all three measures; I shall, therefore, be extremely brief.

Liberal Democrats have always had significant reservations about the introduction of voter ID at polling stations. We believe that it is extremely important that nothing is done to discourage people from voting. However, I understand that the particular circumstances in Northern Ireland required voter ID to be in place well before voter ID was introduced to the rest of the UK. I am, therefore, fully supportive of measures that increase the number of acceptable documents that can be used in polling stations in Northern Ireland, such as the Armed Forces veteran card, PASS—Proof of Age Standards Scheme—cards and the blue badge for the disabled persons’ parking scheme.

I have a couple of quick questions for the Minister. First, I understand from the Explanatory Memorandum that “the permitted identity documents” will be kept

“under review in consultation with the Electoral Commission and the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland”.

Following on from the question from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, can the Minister say how frequently she expects additional forms of ID to be added, if appropriate?

My second question goes slightly beyond the scope of these SIs. Given the Prime Minister’s enthusiasm for devolution, can the Minister say whether the Government are giving any consideration to reviewing local government in Northern Ireland, both in terms of expanding the powers and budget that local authorities in Northern Ireland have and on the wider question of the wider devolution settlement in Northern Ireland? I do not necessarily expect her to reply to that this evening, obviously, but perhaps it is something that we could discuss in a future debate or in more detail at a later stage.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, before I turn to the measures before us, this is the first opportunity that I have had to pass on publicly my sincere condolences to the family of Stephen Walker, a journalist in Northern Ireland of great professional integrity whom I knew for around 30 years. I commend both of his biographies—one of John Hume and the other of David Trimble. Stephen was only 61 years of age when he died a few days ago; it is very sad indeed.

Secondly, I warmly welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. She will recall that, when we first faced each other, following the general election just over two years ago, I expressed some regret that Northern Ireland did not have a full-time Minister in your Lordships’ House. I am very pleased that that has now been rectified, and I sincerely congratulate her on her elevation to Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State.

I turn to the three regulations that we are debating today. They bring Northern Ireland’s voter ID and spending rules into line with the rules that apply in the rest of the United Kingdom, mainly England, and as such we do not oppose these measures. I have one question to put to the Minister on the issue of the veteran card. What assessment have the Government made of the possibility that veterans in Northern Ireland may be reticent to carry such a card and use it for voter identification? There has been some reluctance in the past, as Members of the Committee will know, for veterans to identify themselves in such ways. Of course, that reticence is no reason not to grant electors the option to use a veteran cards if they wish to do so, but it would be helpful to know what work, if any, the Government have done on this.

As the Minister knows, the Representation of the People Bill, which is currently being debated in the Chamber, will amend legislation to allow for bank cards—that is, non-photographic ID—to be used as a form of voter ID. Have Ministers made an assessment on the potential risk to electoral fraud in Northern Ireland of using bank cards? I ask this very conscious of the fact that it was a Labour Government in the early 2000s—in 2002, I believe—who legislated to move from paper ID to photo ID for Northern Ireland, given the historic experience of high levels of voter personation there.

On spending limits, we accept that the update is sensible, but there is a question of coherence. I understand that, on 29 August, the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government announced a review into candidate spending limits, with the implication that they are too high. How does this measure before us today relate to that review?

I assure the Minister that I personally regard votes at 16 as completely insane. If the Government are committed to pursuing this madness, what work are they doing to ensure that younger voters have access to voter ID?

Slightly more broadly, in July this year, the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland published a paper on the future of electoral registration and the canvass, in which he declared the once-a-decade canvass to be no longer fit for purpose. Can the Minister say whether the Northern Ireland Office has had an opportunity yet to study his recommendations? I appreciate that they were published only in July, but do they agree with them and do they have a timetable to take them forward?

Finally, with the indulgence of the Committee, I turn to issues beyond these regulations. This is the first opportunity that I have had to ask questions of the Minister since the President of the United States visited Ireland, in his usual understated way, at the weekend. Can the Minister say what the position is of His Majesty’s Government on the President’s remarks in support of a united Ireland? Do they, like my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition and me, regard those comments as deeply unhelpful and irresponsible? What discussions have Ministers had, or plan to have, with the United States Administration following those remarks? Can the Minister reaffirm the position of the Prime Minister using exactly the same words when he said in Belfast recently that a border poll is off the table? Can she reiterate that it is for the people of Northern Ireland alone to determine the constitutional future of Northern Ireland? Finally, can she confirm that it is the clear wish of His Majesty’s Government, as it is my party, that the people of Northern Ireland will always express their desire to remain part of the United Kingdom?

Resetting the UK-EU Relationship (European Affairs Committee Report)

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts. It is a credit to his diplomatic chairing skills, as well as the excellent committee staff, that we were able in the end to produce this excellent and comprehensive report. The committee began its work on this inquiry a little over a year ago, when President Trump had just started his second term. This week, we have marked the fourth anniversary of the devastating war in Ukraine. It is through the prism of those two events that we have to view the reset of our relations with the European Union.

June this year will see the 10th anniversary of the EU referendum. It is now quite hard to find anyone, on either side of the argument, who believes that the process and outcomes following Brexit have been positive—not least because of the strain it has put on the unity of this country, perhaps most of all in Northern Ireland. Resetting our relationship with the EU is not just a good thing to do; it is increasingly a necessity—for our economy, our trade and our security.

Last year’s summit in May was welcome but so far has been longer on rhetoric than tangible outcomes. A commitment to an SPS agreement is welcome and could do much to boost trade. However, it would be helpful to know from the Minister whether the Government expect substantial progress to be made on that agreement in time for this year’s EU-UK summit.

As the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, said, with an SPS agreement comes the issue of dynamic alignment. This raises important questions of parliamentary oversight and transparency and of how to feed into the EU’s policy development process at an earlier stage. It would be good to hear in the Minister’s closing remarks more details of the Government’s thinking in this regard. In particular, is it the intention to substantially increase the UK’s influencing capacity in Brussels? How, in practical terms, do the Government intend to ensure parliamentary oversight, particularly in the House of Commons, which no longer has a European affairs committee?

In the past the UK played a pivotal role in driving EU enlargement, which we always regarded as a process for positive change. Clearly, our influence on these matters is now much diminished, but what is the Government’s position on a fast-track approach to Ukrainian membership of the EU? Might such an approach also be in the UK’s best interest?

We on these Benches favour the closest possible relations with our European partners. The Government should be congratulated on removing some of the toxicity of the years immediately following Brexit, but I now hope that they can begin to match the positive words with concrete actions and courage.

Northern Ireland Troubles: Operation Kenova

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, I first put on record my sincere thanks to both Jon Boutcher and Sir Iain Livingstone for an extraordinary piece of work. They have set the standard both for gaining the trust of victims and ensuring that we have an Article 2-compliant investigation, which has given us very sobering reading. The noble Lord is aware that, yesterday, we published a Written Ministerial Statement, and he is aware of the ongoing litigation concerning many of the issues in the report. We will be discussing them in more detail once some of that litigation is completed.

On the noble Lord’s points about our security services, I completely agree with him. As he knows, because I have said it from this Dispatch Box, I agree that our security services and all those who wore uniforms during the Troubles ran towards danger to keep us all safe. They continue to do so every single day, both in Northern Ireland and in the rest of GB.

On “neither confirm nor deny”, the noble Lord is right: the first duty of any Government is to protect national security, and we must therefore ensure that sensitive information that is injurious to the public interest, including information that could damage national security or present a real risk of harm to life, is not released. NCND is an important protection, particularly where disclosure of information might otherwise compromise the recruitment and retention of CHIS, but it also covers a broad range of other sensitive national security activities. There will be no change.

On the role of the Irish state, noble Lords are aware that in September we published a joint framework on how we will work together on legacy. We hope and expect to see that delivered in full.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, this is an important and detailed report that is a welcome further step in trying to get to the truth of what happened. Like the Minister, I commend its authors. Families have had to wait such a long time for truth and justice. Do the Government accept the finding of serious organisational failure by MI5, as outlined in the report, and can the Minister say whether she is confident that the current legislative framework and oversight provisions will prevent similar lapses in future?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

There is ongoing litigation regarding the first point, so I cannot comment. However, I remind noble Lords that since the Troubles, there has been a new legislative framework that includes both the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021 and RIPA 2000, which means that many of the practices outlined in the report could never be repeated.

Control of Mercury (Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for her very clear presentation. I take the opportunity to wish the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, a speedy recovery. If she is watching this debate today, she should know that we are all thinking of her. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for the opportunity to have this debate, because it is an important debate. However, as ever, it is a debate about two different issues. The first is the ongoing constitutional debate about the functioning of the Windsor Framework and the democratic questions arising from Northern Ireland having to accept decisions taken by the European Union when we no longer have representation there since leaving the EU. The second debate is the substance of these regulations: the phasing out of amalgam dental fillings and the exemption for Northern Ireland to 2034. I will deal with the latter point first.

I believe the exemption to 2034 is welcome. The NHS in Northern Ireland, and dentistry in particular, is in a state of some crisis. This nine-year exemption will allow time to make the transition from amalgam to composite fillings in a planned and phased manner, and will avoid the shock to Northern Ireland dentistry which many dental professionals warned about. Clearly, I am not a dentist. I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Weir, and to the noble Lord, Lord Reay, but it is noticeable, I would say, that amalgam fillings have seen a marked decrease in popularity in recent years. People are keen to choose the more aesthetically pleasing white composite fillings.

The noble Lord, Lord Reay, powerfully made the case in his speech that the use of mercury amalgam fillings has always been somewhat controversial. They require much greater drilling in the tooth, which can have long-term consequences. They add enormously, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has said, to mercury pollution in the environment. Ahead of this debate today, I was reading that a recent medical research paper has indicated that their use might even have an impact on arthritis. I would be grateful if the Minister could, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked, clarify the Government’s position on eventually banning mercury amalgam fillings in England.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, ahead of the imminent meeting on the Minamata Convention on Mercury being held next week, from 3 November to 7 November, I would be interested to know the Government’s response to a proposal by the African nations for a ban on dental amalgam by 2030. I believe the Minister in her opening remarks said that if amalgam fillings are eventually banned for the rest of the UK ahead of 2034, Northern Ireland would follow suit and these regulations would fall. I would be grateful if she could clarify that in her closing remarks.

On the constitutional issue, as noble Lords will know—indeed, it would not be a debate on a regret amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, if I did not point this out—if we had not left the European Union then we would not be having these arguments, because we would have been able to make the case within the EU institutions on behalf of UK dentists, including Northern Ireland dentists, at the Council and the European Parliament. But she and I are never entirely going to agree on those matters.

As others have said, the Windsor Framework is very far from perfect. There is a democratic deficit, and it is something that we in the rest of the UK are going to have to face if we go further down the route of dynamic alignment. But I would argue that this set of regulations is a positive story. There was an issue, and the UK Government and the EU listened, the Northern Ireland Assembly made the case powerfully, and an exemption to 2034 was granted. That is why on these Benches we support these regulations and oppose the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, because it allows us to debate a very important subject. It is important on two counts, as we heard in the debate: first, on the constitutional issue, and, secondly, on the merits or demerits of amalgam—and some powerful speeches were made pointing out how dangerous it can be. It has allowed us to hear an excellent opening address from the Minister.

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, on two counts, the first being her assurance, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Weir, that we will finish by 7 pm. Of course, this being Northern Ireland business, I was betting on 6.55 pm. The second count is that Peers from Northern Ireland have raised the important constitutional question. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, that I do not find this tedious at all. I am afraid I share his view that, sooner or later, this is going to come to a crunch. We have yet another regulation before us here which will slowly drive a wedge between our United Kingdom and our Northern Ireland.

I had no idea about the poppies issue. I Google searched it after the noble Baroness mentioned it, and I was appalled to find that she is absolutely right—EU interference with selling poppies in Northern Ireland.

We on these Benches recognise the importance of reducing mercury use in line with the Minamata convention. We do not oppose the principle of this instrument. However, it is right that we probe the Government on how it has been implemented, particularly regarding dental amalgam and its replacement, as my noble friends have discussed.

Northern Ireland, as we know, has been granted a longer-term transition period, allowing the continued import and use of amalgam until 2034 to avoid disruption to dental services. Apart from my noble friend Lord Reay, most Members in the House seem to agree that the extension is sensible while we look for workable alternatives. What engagement has taken place with dental practitioners in Northern Ireland? How will the Government monitor the practical impacts of divergence between Northern Ireland and Great Britain? How will any future decision under the Minamata convention affect this timeline?

We note the British Dental Association’s concerns about cost and capacity. Amalgam, it says, is a widely used and affordable material, and replacing it too quickly, without proper support, could worsen access issues. My noble friend Lord Bourne also wanted reassurance on that point. On the other hand, my noble friend Lord Reay, in a very powerful speech, pointed out the severe dangers of mercury amalgam and that alternatives were available already—almost as cheap and better.

I simply do not know. I will not say that finding the answer is like pulling teeth—there is no time for silliness—but the Government ought to know. If the Government do not know now, hopefully in the next few years they will. Will we be able, before 2034, to find for the whole United Kingdom—not just Northern Ireland but the whole United Kingdom—a reasonably cheap alternative to dental amalgam?

We do not oppose this instrument, but we urge the Government to remain alert to its impact on front-line services to ensure that both patients and practitioners in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom are properly supported. I urge the Government, as soon as possible, to work with those developing alternatives to make sure that a replacement is available to Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as soon as practicable.

Northern Ireland Troubles

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Secretary of State’s Statement. At the outset, it is right that in approaching this issue, first and foremost in our thoughts are the victims and survivors of the Troubles. Over 3,500 lives were lost, tens of thousands more were maimed and injured, families were broken, and communities and livelihoods were destroyed, overwhelmingly at the hands of terrorists right here in this United Kingdom.

We also recall with pride those who stood in the front line against terrorism to protect the community, to uphold democracy and to maintain the rule of law. As the Statement acknowledges, and I welcome this, the vast majority of the more than 250,000 people who served during Operation Banner did so with the utmost courage, total professionalism, even-handedness and restraint in the face of often the most fierce provocation. Without their efforts, there would have been no peace process and no Belfast agreement, and we all owe them an enormous debt of gratitude. Unfortunately, our concern over the proposals now being brought forward is that, in honouring that debt, they sadly fall short.

I do not need reminding at all how difficult, sensitive and emotional these matters are. Finding consensus, often even within communities or the same groups, has eluded successive Governments, including, I admit, my own. Yet the previous Government’s legislation, while never perfect—as I often made clear—sought to establish a route towards providing victims and survivors with more information about what happened to their loved ones, while at the same time providing protections to those who served. While acknowledging the legal challenges, the current Government could have pursued the appeals that we had lodged. Instead, they took the political decision to abandon them, and today, however much they seek to dress this up, we have a set of proposals that will see elderly veterans hauled before the coroners’ courts to account for the events of decades ago—or, worse still, face the possibility of criminal prosecutions at a time when we all know that the chances of former paramilitaries facing the courts will be vanishingly small.

The Government will of course point to the package of six so-called protections that they will introduce, but can the noble Baroness confirm that a number of them, such as anonymity or appearing remotely, are already at the discretion of the court? The Statement says that the protections will apply to other groups, such as police officers, yet inexplicably it omits to mention whether they apply to former paramilitaries, presumably a drafting oversight by the Northern Ireland Office. In September, when asked to clarify whether the protections were for everybody who came forward, including paramilitaries, the Prime Minister said, “No, it’s for veterans”, but we know that this is not the case. Will the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister was wrong and that five of the six so-called protections for veterans will apply equally to former paramilitaries?

On inquests, will the noble Baroness tell the House how many will now resume and how many will be referred to the Solicitor-General? Will the resumed inquests include Loughgall, where the SAS prevented a murderous IRA attack on a police station in 1987? On those referred to the Solicitor-General—not, we note, the Attorney-General—what criteria will be applied to determine whether they are allowed to proceed or whether they will be taken on by the legacy commission?

At the point at which they were stopped, more than 700 civil cases had been lodged with the courts in Belfast. Can the Minister therefore tell us what additional resource will be provided to the courts service to deal with this backlog and the inevitable new wave of cases, presumably mostly directed against the state, that the Government’s proposals will unleash? Do they intend to provide extra support to the PSNI for the additional burdens placed on it by reopening inquest and civil cases, in addition to the £250 million committed to legacy by the previous Government?

On Gerry Adams, can the Minister set out in more detail how the Government’s proposals will prevent him and others receiving a single penny of compensation, not least since Mr Adams has already announced his intention to challenge this?

On the role of the Irish Government, we welcome their new-found enthusiasm to address legacy matters, when there has not been a single prosecution for a Troubles-related incident within their jurisdiction since 1998. Can the Minister tell us what “fullest co-operation” means in practice when exactly the same words were used in respect of the Omagh public inquiry, yet the Omagh families remain highly critical of the role of the Irish Government?

Finally, is it not an unbelievable approach to negotiation that the Government would agree to a joint framework with Ireland while it maintains an interstate case against the United Kingdom in Strasbourg? They criticised our legislation for lacking consensus, yet is it not a fact that the only consensus they have achieved is with an Irish Government who hold a threat over them that they will not drop this case until they are satisfied by legislation passed in this United Kingdom Parliament relating to a part of our own country?

I look forward to the Minister’s detailed replies. If she is unable to give the detail needed at the Dispatch Box today—I appreciate that she has quite a long day—will she commit to write to me?

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement that was made in the House of Commons last week. Dealing with the past is a highly complex subject that inevitably provokes strong emotions. It is not surprising but is, I believe, highly regrettable that when the Good Friday/Belfast agreement was signed 27 years ago, legacy issues were left for the most part unresolved. Time may have passed but the pain and anger felt by so many victims, survivors and their families remain very real and deeply painful.

From the nearly 10 years that I have been covering Northern Ireland from these Benches, I observe that it is relatively easy to criticise the Government of the day in their response to dealing with legacy issues, but it is rather harder to come up with concrete proposals once in government. It is extremely difficult to have proposals, as the Statement says, that are acceptable to all, but it has to be a question of fairness, balance and proportionality. Most of all, we need an approach that helps to rebuild trust in the process through transparent institutions capable of delivering reconciliation based on truth, justice and closure.

I do not doubt the sincerity with which the noble Lord, Lord Caine, with all his experience, is criticising many of the Government’s revised legacy proposals and has asked so many questions, but we should, none the less, recall that the legacy Act from the previous Conservative Government was almost unique in recent times in its achievement of uniting all Northern Ireland political parties, as well as the victims’ groups, against it. It was also challenged in the courts, proved not to be compliant with our international human rights obligations and was unworkable in practice, so the current Government were duty-bound to reverse many of the elements in that Act, notably the section on immunity.

I welcome that the Government are once again attempting to square the circle and move us forward on dealing with the past in Northern Ireland. In particular, I welcome the commitment to ensuring that the legislation is ECHR-compliant. In that regard, can the Minister confirm that she now expects the interstate case against the UK by the Republic of Ireland to be dropped once this legislation has been passed—and, I sincerely hope, even sooner?

We will have lots of time to examine this Bill in great detail during its passage through your Lordships’ House and to press the Government on how many of its proposals will work in practice, but since the Bill’s publication last week it is clear that the greatest area of concern has been that regarding the rights of veterans. As my colleague Al Pinkerton MP has so rightly put it, veterans

“need to feel that the process of prosecution does not become persecution”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/10/25; col. 257.]

I know that the Minister is an honorary captain in the Royal Navy and cares very deeply about these issues, but can she confirm that she personally has been consulting with veteran groups? Will she say a little more about how veterans will be protected from vexatious cases following this legislation? I understand from the discussions in the House of Commons last week that it is proposed that the Ministry of Defence will act as a point of initial contact, but can she say a little more about how she sees this operating in practice?

In conclusion, from these Benches we look forward to engaging constructively with the Government on this Bill and to finding ways to ensure that it keeps victims right at the heart of this process, while ensuring fairness and proportionality for veterans.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I have lots of bits of paper in front of me, so please bear with me. I need to start by putting on record my genuine thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Caine, for everything he did, and the previous Government for everything they attempted to do—some of which I agree with, and some I do not. But we are using all their work as a basis to try to fix the things that simply are not working, to make sure that cross-community faith is heard in the legacy commission, and to fix the things that, candidly, were false promises, as it turned out, for members of the veterans community. But there is no one in your Lordships’ House who would question noble Lord’s commitment to peace in Northern Ireland, nor that of his Front Bench, and the same goes for the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. I am beyond grateful for the time they give me, both inside and outside this Chamber, to try to make sure that we can actually deliver for the people of Northern Ireland, and the people who were touched by the Troubles and still do not have answers.

There is a reason why we are bringing forward this legislation. It is not because there is nothing for your Lordships to discuss or do at the moment—noble Lords will be aware that we will be sitting until quite late again this evening—but because we genuinely believe that this is the final opportunity to deliver on the promise of the Stormont House agreement and the promise of the Good Friday agreement, and to make sure that the next generation does not carry the burden of the past, but can move forward.

There are victims waiting for answers. They include the families of veterans who lost their lives and paid the ultimate sacrifice during Op Banner, when they ran to put themselves between terrorists and the general public. They are also the people who suffered horror at the hands of terrorists, and it is only right that people receive answers. That is why we are all here, and I hope that as the legislation progresses through your Lordships’ House, it is what we all seek to do.

There are many questions that were asked, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Caine. If I miss any, which is inevitable, I will write to the noble Lord. But it is fair to say that we will be discussing these issues for many hours in your Lordships’ House, so inevitably I will cover them all. Whether it is today or not, I commit to write to all Members present if there is anything I have missed.

Before I touch on the issue of veterans, on which, unsurprisingly, I have a significant amount to say, I put on record my personal role as an honorary captain in the Royal Navy. While it is an honorary role, I do have a uniform, and I consider myself part of the military family and therefore I take these issues—the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, is absolutely right—very seriously. I have engaged personally with veterans both at home and in Northern Ireland on my visits, including when I visited Omagh in August to mark the anniversary of the bombing, and met with an extraordinary group of men. I subsequently met some of the women who also were present on that day, who must deal with the consequences of what they saw every day. They are dealing with one of the worst examples of what happens when you are told the wrong location of a bomb and you push people towards it, as opposed to away from it. People are still suffering every day because of their experiences in Northern Ireland.

I want to be really clear to noble Lords, as I will be throughout this process, on the protections available to veterans. We have listened to the veterans community. The reality is that immunity was a false promise and did not deliver for them. It has never been enacted, and we must make sure that veterans have actual protections in place, not false promises—they deserve so much better. There will be, without doubt, a huge amount of contention about this. It is very important to reference the fact that this is the reality of where we currently stand. Noble Lords are absolutely right that some of the protections we are announcing apply to more than just veterans, because they have to. They must also apply to other people, other groups that served, including the RUC and others. There is not a word that helps us get to just to one point of people, but I want to reassure noble Lords that this legislation was drafted with veterans at its heart.

The protections, while they may apply to others, were designed specifically to help veterans. Those protections include protection from repeated investigations; the legacy commission will not needlessly duplicate previous investigative work veterans may have already participated in, unless it is necessary. Veterans will not need to explain historical context that is already known. It is ludicrous to me that junior officers, or non-commissioned officers, were asked to give evidence about strategic environments; they may well have been under 20, and they were having to give an overview. It is unnecessary, and the MoD has experts on hand who can provide that context. They will have the right to stay at home: veterans will not be forced to travel to or around Northern Ireland to give evidence as a witness to the commission or to an inquest. They will have the right to seek anonymity: veterans will be able to request anonymity when giving evidence. They will also have protections in old age. At the weekend I listened once again to a podcast on 50 years on from Bloody Sunday. In fact, now it is 53 years on. We are talking about people who need protection in old age. Veterans’ health and wellbeing will be taken into account by the commission and coroners if they are required to give evidence, and they may not need to give evidence at all based on those considerations.

On protections from cold calling or unexpected letters, veterans will be contacted only through official channels, with Ministry of Defence support. This is an incredibly important thing, because it will also ensure that no veterans slip through the net and end up getting contacted by accident. On the specifics raised by the noble Baroness, the MoD will also make an independent expert adviser available to remove the need for veterans to give testimony or historical context in the operations. In addition, every time they are contacted, we can make sure that the MoD can provide the bespoke support needed for that veteran. My noble friend the Minister at the MoD has been clear in making sure that this is in place, and I thank him for it.

Turning to another incredibly important thing, one of the additional parts of the legislation is the right to be heard. There will be a statutory advisory group for the legacy commission, which will provide an opportunity for the voices of all victims and survivors of the Troubles to be heard, including ones from a service background. It is very important that those voices are heard, including throughout the operation of the legacy commission.

I will move on to some of the other issues that were raised. Nine inquests will immediately restart; the others will be assessed by the Solicitor-General, as one of the law officers. There will be up to 24. She will be analysing each case based on the relevant sensitive issue, and there will always be a presumption in favour of referring that case to the commission. She will also be assessing the capacity to undertake the reinstatement of the inquest. Within 18 months of the Act gaining Royal Assent, she will provide for what will happen to the additional outstanding cases. On funding for the PSNI—a very topical question today—we have committed to £250 million. I will revert in due course to additional funding if required. Obviously, there will always be ongoing conversations. On the capacity of the MoJ, I will be in contact. I will write to the noble Lord on the question about the court service and what additional support we are putting in place, although I do not recognise the number referred to.

Gerry Adams is obviously at the heart of this conversation. There are several outstanding cases around the ICOs, but in the legislation we are bringing forward a reinstatement of the Carltona principle in the context of the interim custody orders. The previous Government’s attempt to address this following the 2020 Supreme Court judgment in R v Adams has been found by the Northern Ireland courts to be incompatible with our international obligations. We need to find a better way of reaffirming this principle. The Government’s belated attempt to do so via an amendment to the legacy Act has been found by the Northern Ireland courts to be incompatible with our international obligations. That is why we are including it in primary legislation. I look forward to debating that in due course with all noble Lords.

I realise that I am over time but I have two more points, if noble Lords will indulge me slightly. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Caine, and the noble Baroness for raising the interstate case. I would expect that as soon as this legislation gains Royal Assent, there will be absolutely zero grounds for the continuation of the interstate case and I look forward to it disappearing at that point, if not before. Secondly, on Omagh, I have been there twice this year. I have met the people giving evidence to the public inquiry and others. We are quite clear on the issue of Omagh. I welcome the MoU to the inquiry, which has been signed by the Irish Government, to bring forward more evidence. I hope that we will see genuine efforts. I want to be clear that a public inquiry is currently under way; anything that would undermine that while it is still trying to get to the facts of the case will not help us. I welcome its work and thank Lord Turnbull for the work he is doing. The Irish Government have committed through the MoU to working forward; I am really pleased with that step and look forward to seeing the outcomes.

I realise that I may not have touched on all the points, but I will write to noble Lords about the issues I have missed.

Casement Park: Spending Review

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will be aware that the Arts Council has pulled funding from the festival. The Government believe in the power of sport to bring people together and our focus is on supporting activities that unite communities across Northern Ireland, not those that divide it. On the glorification of terrorism, prosecutions are obviously an operational matter for the PSNI, but let us be very clear: community events should be about uniting the community, and we need to make sure that is the case.

Yesterday I had the genuine privilege of spending some time with footballers from a youth leadership programme called Beyond the Ball, which is supported by the Rio Ferdinand Foundation. These footballers are from the Republic and from Northern Ireland, yet they came over here to play football together against young people from Camberwell. I think they were surprised at the somewhat challenging community tensions that can exist between Arsenal and Spurs, both of which they visited yesterday, so this can happen across the piece. While I am talking about football, I just want to say good luck to the Lionesses on Sunday.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches I add our thoughts and condolences to the families and friends of those killed and injured in the shootings this morning in Fermanagh. As the Minister said, sport can play a very positive role in building community cohesion and bringing communities together. In this regard, does the Minister agree with me that the Belfast Giants ice hockey team have given a positive example of bringing people together from all communities in Northern Ireland?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, my officials told me to say, “Let’s go, Giants”, so for them, at the end of term, I say, “Let’s go, Giants”. The noble Baroness is absolutely right. My good friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, when he met his hero Pat Jennings on Thursday, said:

“Sport has this extraordinary capacity to bring people together to give joy and to unite people and it can’t be something that divides us”.


Belfast Giants have gone out of their way to make sure that they are cross-community and work genuinely for sport, through sport. That is exactly what we should deliver, not just in Northern Ireland but across the country.

Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Troubles

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. As I said in an earlier answer, the High Court in Belfast found that the legislation is compatible with human rights law in respect of independence and the ability to carry out effective investigations. To take her point about disclosure, the disclosure provisions offer the prospect of better outcomes than current mechanisms.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the ongoing uncertainty caused by the Government’s appeal against the High Court ruling on immunity is merely prolonging the pain and uncertainty for victims and their families who have already waited so long for justice?

[Lord Caine (Con)]

The noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree. The commission, as she knows, became fully operational last week and is now proceeding with its work under the distinguished leadership of Sir Declan Morgan, the former Lord Chief Justice, and Peter Sheridan, a former senior police officer.

Northern Ireland

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

Follow that, my Lords. It is always a privilege to follow the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, who always speaks with such authority, common sense and passion, and this evening he surpassed himself.

I, too, will begin by paying tribute to Lord Cormack. He was incredibly kind to me when I was a new Member of this House. He always looked on in a benign, almost school-teachery way. I found myself agreeing with him rather more often than I would have expected, as we would nod to one another during some of the debates on Northern Ireland and Brexit. His contributions were based on experience and common sense and were always extremely well judged. He will be sorely missed. I, too, from these Benches pass on our condolences to his family.

This has been a wide-ranging debate about identity, with some anger and passion. There have been some very good historical speeches; it is always dangerous to highlight some in particular, but I particularly enjoyed the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Bew. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, also brought an element of common sense and pragmatism. I even found myself agreeing with elements of the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, which was a refreshing change.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

Never again.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

Never again, no.

The context for the debate, both in this Chamber today and in the other place yesterday, is the extremely welcome return of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, which we have already debated in this Chamber on several occasions. I, too, once again place on record my gratitude to the Minister, who has personally led the way so often on taking the stalemate forward. The deal was supported by the leadership of the DUP—although, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, said, for those listening to today’s debate it has not always been apparent from the DUP Benches—and holding this debate was in fact part of that deal.

It is understandable that noble Lords from the DUP feel extremely strongly that they have been let down; there were some powerful speeches on that. They feel that they have been let down on several occasions since Brexit, perhaps particularly by the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. They feel that they have been lied to and that, rightly, some of the past agreements to try to get over the impasse have been ever so slightly overspun; the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, spoke rather marvellously on that point.

This erosion of trust has led many to feel that their place in the union was not as secure as it once was. On the other hand, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, made clear in her very strong speech that she feels that not enough has been done to give recognition in the Command Paper that there is another point of view. She even went so far as to say that she felt that it has deviated from the principles set down in the Good Friday/Belfast agreement.

On the deal itself that helped to take us to this position, I thank the Minister for his letter yesterday evening, which was still slightly short on the detail as to how some of the structures will work in practice, such as the east-west council and InterTrade UK. Instead of repeating my questions, I place on record just that I look forward to reading the guidance eventually and seeing the Minister’s future replies on these matters.

As other noble Lords have said, I hope in many ways that, following this debate, we can begin to move on. With the return of a functioning Assembly and Executive, we can begin to focus on solutions and practical alternatives, as well as vital issues for ordinary people in Northern Ireland, such as health, education and the economy. Northern Ireland has tremendous potential, with its access to trade and opportunities that other parts of the UK can be quite envious of.

The second part of the context of the debate is the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is a union made up of four separate parts, each with their own distinct and powerful histories. At present, it just so happens that all four parts of the United Kingdom have different political leaderships from different political complexions.

As the noble Lord, Lord Jay, hinted in his speech, making this work, as somebody who believes strongly in devolution, has not always been easy. In fact, respect and consultation are not all that they have been. Now that the Assembly and the Executive are back, I hope that the Minister will be able to concentrate on the consent and consultation mechanisms between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom to make sure that the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive are properly and fully consulted in a timely manner.

On a personal level, I have very much benefited from the union. I am a Scot whose father was born in Enniskillen in Northern Ireland. I have a UK passport and an Irish passport. I left Scotland in 1990 and have since lived in London and Broadstairs in Kent and in the past lived in Brussels. I am strongly opposed to Scottish independence and the break-up of the union but do not think that you can simply declare or legislate to say that the union is a good thing. As the noble Lord, Lord Hay, said in his very positive speech, we have to demonstrate the purpose and added value of the union in the context of the 21st century and the global challenges we face. It is up to all of us who believe in the union to make sure that it is fit for purpose and that people see its added value.

The third element of the context of our debate this evening is the reaffirmation of support for the Good Friday/Belfast agreement and all its strands. Many noble Lords present this evening—including obviously the noble Lord, Lord Murphy—were personally involved with negotiating that agreement. There are also many here this evening who personally experienced violence during the Troubles, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, reminded us so powerfully of the importance of remembering the past as well as looking to the future.

However, it is important to acknowledge there is now also a generation in Northern Ireland who have grown up since the signing of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement—people who have personally never known that violence. They have known only the more prosperous and peaceful times in Northern Ireland. That generation have a different world view from many of the noble Lords who have spoken here this evening. Sense of identity is changing in Northern Ireland. As my noble friend Lord Alderdice said when we last debated these matters on 13 February:

“there is an emergent third community, which has a very strong view about things and which is not partisan unionist and not partisan nationalist. It takes a view that what we want to do is to find what is in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland”.—[Official Report, 13/2/24; col. 227.]

It is also worth recalling that the Good Friday/Belfast agreement was agreed at a time when the United Kingdom was still in the European Union, and the European Union played a very important role in providing the context for the negotiations towards peace. It remains an incredibly positive and important document. It is an agreement that has been used across the world as a positive example of how a peaceful settlement can be brought about. However, the agreement is not set in aspic. Like all documents based on a series of compromises, it has to be a living document which changes and adapts to the changing circumstances in which we find ourselves. The very fact that we have had five of the last seven years—as the Minister reminded us—without a functioning Assembly and Executive shows that there is a need to revisit whether there are ways to bring about greater stability to the institutions. As I mentioned earlier, there is now also a sizeable alternative view, perhaps mostly represented by Alliance in Northern Ireland. That is another area where I believe we should look at some elements of reform.

A lot has happened since the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement but it is still, I believe, an inspirational document. I was looking at it again at the weekend just to remind myself of the text. It is worth recalling that paragraph 3 of the declaration of support states:

“We are committed to partnership, equality and mutual respect as the basis of relationships within Northern Ireland, between North and South, and between these islands”.


In recent years, some of this sense of mutual respect and trust has been eroded but I sincerely hope that, for the sake of Northern Ireland, we can begin now to see a return of these values. To quote the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, it is welcome that Stormont is back and for the future generation we should celebrate that.

Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2024

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 Grand Committee

Those issues need to be given some diligence. It is important that a police presence is there, both inside and outside our polling stations, to reassure voters.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I shall be extremely brief because we support these SIs. Trust in elections is absolutely key to our democratic system. The review by the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, identified several areas where measures could be strengthened to reduce the risk of electoral fraud; these SIs stem from that, and are welcome.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, asked about consultation, but the instruments say that consultation took place with the Northern Ireland electoral bodies and the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland. This is not always the case but I understand that, in this case, consultation took place. That is very much to be welcomed.

My only substantial question for the Minister regards training on these changes for the electoral officers in Northern Ireland and making sure that the changes are communicated properly. Can he give us an assurance that this will be done in good time ahead of the forthcoming general election? Can he confirm that there will be provision for sufficient resources to be made available in order to implement these changes?

The Minister will know that, when these SIs were debated last week in the House of Commons, some concern was expressed about the definition of “political campaigner”. Can he confirm that these changes will also be communicated to the political parties in good time? Can he say a little about how the definition of “political campaigner” will be monitored in practice?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these SIs, which put in place new rules on the handing in of postal votes in local, parliamentary and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland, as provided for by the Elections Act 2022. An equivalent SI for Great Britain has already gone through both Houses, with noble Lords participating in the recent debate here in January.

The Act established that it was an offence for a “political campaigner” to handle postal votes other than in very select circumstances. These instruments set out the new rules for members of the general public, which will sit alongside the other measures that the Act brought in. We on these Benches will not oppose the SIs but we want to probe the Minister on their impact. It is always worth noting that, long before the 2022 Act, the Labour Party had for years been signed up to the Electoral Commission’s code of conduct for campaigners, which bans campaigners from handling completed postal ballots.

We seek clarity on who is covered by which provisions. Colleagues in the Commons, as the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said, raised the issue of the need for good understanding and communication on who is covered by the definition of a political campaigner, so people have absolute clarity on which set of rules applies to them. If a person puts a party poster in their window during an election, are they a political campaigner? How will electoral officers be supported to adjudicate on whether someone is a political campaigner or not?

We would like to see more clarity for voters, so that votes are not lost by mistake. Can the Minister give more detail on how the regulations will be made clear to voters, in order to avoid any votes being lost due to people being unaware or unsure of the new requirements?

Finally, I want to pick up on support for electoral officers, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and other noble Lords. Without a doubt, these changes will place some administrative burdens on our electoral administrators. The pressure on local authorities is significant; electoral administrators up and down the country are stretched and are getting their heads around the changes the Government are making, as we pointed out several times during the passage of the Elections Bill. In the light of the numerous SIs that have come before us, these changes will create an unprecedented level of work for electoral administrators. Will electoral officers be further resourced in Northern Ireland? Will they be strengthened to deal with the impacts and changes outlined? My noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick spoke about the consultation, which is referred to in the Explanatory Notes, but can the Minister tell us about the nature of the feedback from the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland and the Electoral Commission? I look forward to his response.

Windsor Framework (Constitutional Status of Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Tuesday 13th February 2024 Lords Chamber

We desperately need, out of regard for truth, to be honest with the people of Northern Ireland about the situation that we face, and we are facing challenging times. I renew my call to fellow unionists, not only in this House but across Northern Ireland, to be faithful to their conscience and convictions but to be respectful to those with differing views. I have no doubt there are those who want to weaken and destroy unionism but together we can stand strong. I also believe that it is vital for all the people of Northern Ireland to enjoy the benefits of our precious union.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, I will try to inject a little positivity into what has been a very long and unfortunately rather negative debate, although I understand the many comments and justifiable criticisms made by the noble Lords opposite. Given the hour, I shall also endeavour to be brief.

I start by greatly welcoming that the institutions in Northern Ireland are once again up and running. That is an achievement and it needs to be celebrated. From these Benches I commend the political leadership and courage, and the ability to see the bigger picture, that have taken us to this point—not least the personal drive and commitment shown by the Minister himself. It is still early days, but I believe there are grounds for optimism that this time the Assembly will continue to sit.

The people of Northern Ireland are entitled to expect a period of stability, so that the many health, educational and economic crises can begin to be addressed. Before I turn to the details of the regulations I would like to recall, as other noble Lords have done, that we are facing all these highly complex issues, and the equally complex set of proposals and solutions in front of us, because of Brexit. I felt that the noble Lords, Lord Bew and Lord Hain, made that case extremely powerfully in tonight’s debate.

A colleague was reminding me just the other day of the excellent report on Brexit and the island of Ireland that the EU Select Committee of your Lordships’ House published way back in December 2016. That report so accurately anticipated so many of the issues that we are still trying to tackle, nearly eight years on from the EU referendum.

I would also like to commend the excellent job done by the Northern Ireland protocol committee, now the Windsor Framework committee, of this House. Several noble Lords referred to it and several are indeed members of it. It has done so much to scrutinise the realities being faced by Northern Ireland on these issues. No matter which of the latest solutions we are debating, I have always felt that it is the elected politicians in Northern Ireland who are best placed to find pragmatic solutions. They are also in the best position to resolve any continuing barriers.

This evening, so much of the focus has been on the understandable concerns about unfettered access and trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, but perhaps too little is made—at least in this Chamber this evening—of the potential opportunities offered by joint access to the EU market.

In that regard, it is important that the Stormont brake is considered only as an instrument of last resort. It is important that the recently restored Northern Ireland institutions have a strong dialogue with Brussels and are in a position to flag potential issues as soon as possible. Can the Minister say whether he has had conversations with the Executive to investigate mechanisms for ensuring that effective dialogue takes place with the EU at an early stage in the process? It is extremely important that maximum attention is given to particular concerns facing Northern Ireland businesses at an early stage of the decision-making process in the EU.

Turning to the regulations themselves, the excellent short report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on these regulations—as quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie—states:

“Given the complexity of the interaction of two regulatory systems in NI, we note the importance of the forthcoming guidance to provide clarity to businesses and other stakeholders on how the new arrangements should be applied in practice”.


When does the Minister expect that this additional guidance will be published? Can he give continued reassurance about ongoing consultation with both the Executive and Northern Ireland businesses to ensure that this guidance is as effective and user friendly as possible?

As the noble Lord, Lord Hay, said in his very powerful speech, the devil will be in the detail on how these new mechanisms will work in practice. In a similar vein, can the Minister say when he expects further details and guidance to be published on how the new independent monitoring panel, InterTrade UK and the new east-west council will operate in practice? As other noble Lords have asked, how will they work with existing institutions?

It is also very important that other parts of the UK understand these new bodies and regulations and understand how they will work. This is particularly true for the business community and the rest of the UK Civil Service. Does the Minister anticipate a communications plan to ensure that the details set out in the Command Paper, as well as the future guidance, is widely understood by relevant stakeholders across the wider UK?

In conclusion, I believe there is every reason to be optimistic, despite the many speeches this evening. But we need to learn from the lessons of the recent past. We need to see a return to trust and inclusiveness in Northern Ireland politics.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been a long night, but an important night. I hope there will be another debate in the not-too-distant future which will allow more Members of your Lordships’ House to take part on this important issue. The Opposition support the statutory instrument, as we support the deal done by the Government and the DUP. I add my own congratulations to the Minister personally, to his boss the Secretary of State and, of course, to Sir Jeffrey Donaldson and others involved in the negotiations in the last months.

It is significant that this is probably the first major debate we have had on Northern Ireland that has not been about emergency legislation and giving powers to civil servants. It has not been about bringing down the Assembly because of what has happened over the last couple of years. It is very positive in that respect. We are talking about the restoration of those institutions of government in Northern Ireland, and the Executive and Assembly in particular. That is hugely significant. I take the point about the money—it is the Treasury again, I suspect—but we will have an opportunity to debate that in future weeks. It is great news for the people of Northern Ireland, whatever their background and community, that they now have democratic government restored. For that, all of us, I am sure, should be grateful.

The noble Lord, Lord Bew, in an extremely interesting contribution to tonight’s debate talked about the Act of Union—which was a long time ago—and how that was not set in stone over the centuries. If you look back at it since 1801, particularly in the 20th century when there was the old Stormont Parliament, of course there were customs regulations. When I was an Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland, there were customs regulations on agriculture and horticulture coming from Great Britain into Northern Ireland. It is not new, and the idea that somehow or other Northern Ireland should not be different really is nonsense, because Scotland and Wales are different and Northern Ireland is different in all sorts of ways.

The issue is that it is different within the context of our leaving the European Union; of course I understand that. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and my noble friends Lord Hain and Lady Ritchie all mentioned the fact that Brexit caused it. Whatever our views on Brexit—and I was very much a remainer, and I am deeply disappointed that my country, Wales, did not vote to stay in the European Union—it was Brexit that caused this and there are two points about that I want to make.

The first one is that the majority of people in Northern Ireland voted to remain. I agree that the law is quite clear: you leave as a whole, as the United Kingdom. But it is the only measurement we have of what the people of Northern Ireland thought about the whole idea of Brexit. The second one is that I and lots of politicians failed when those Brexit referendum debates were going on to actually deal with the issue of Northern Ireland and Ireland; we were all to blame for that. We did not realise—I certainly did not—that the turmoil that would result in Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland as a consequence of Brexit would lead to the protocol and to the Windsor Framework and to this.

It is quite clear why we were in this mess and why we still have a long way to go to assuage people in Northern Ireland on the unionist side that things can only get better. This deal is not perfect; deals never are. It is a comprise; all deals are compromises. The Good Friday agreement was a compromise; the St Andrews agreement was a compromise. If we are to look at that Good Friday agreement, which is quoted all the time in the Command Paper, the two big issues that come out are the principle of consent and parity of esteem. The unionist argument over the last couple of years has been on both those issues: that the consent across Northern Ireland was not there with regard to the arrangements on leaving the European Union and, as a consequence, the parity of esteem was not there.

However many statutory instruments this House or the other House agrees, the union is safe, not because of statutory instruments but because, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said, of the people. The people of Northern Ireland by their consent will agree whether to remain in the United Kingdom. When I first came into the House of Commons a long time ago, the policy of the Labour Party was a united Ireland. When Tony Blair became the leader of the Opposition, he changed it and said you could not argue for that; you had to argue for what we agreed in the Good Friday agreement, which was the principle of consent. All this other stuff in the deal, in the statutory instruments, is nothing compared to that basic principle that it is safe so long as the people of Northern Ireland so agree. Even if they did agree to leave the United Kingdom, that would not be easy either but that is for us to consider another day; it is safe at the moment.

This deal—this restoration of the Assembly and the Executive—is about not just strand 1 but strands 2 and 3 as well. If you bring down the Assembly and the Executive, there are no north-south bodies. But strand 2 was an integral part of the Good Friday agreement, which would not have happened without it. The nationalist community had to be satisfied that it was being regarded with parity of esteem as much as the unionists—and strand 2 did that. I do not have many questions for the Minister, but I will ask this: what precisely will happen with regard to the North/South Ministerial Council and the north-south bodies as a consequence of the restoration of the institutions of strand 1?