Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Empey and Lord Deben

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd June 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to associate myself with those noble Lords who are sad that this is not being debated in the Assembly. Let me say how sad I am that it is not recognised by some in Northern Ireland that it is their responsibility to be part of that Assembly and that that is the deal. It is a deal that the rest of the United Kingdom, a little bit of which I hope to be able to speak for in this Committee, wants to hold them to instead of being held by them.

Secondly, I opposed the Government’s successful attempt to impose on Northern Ireland changes that were opposed by both communities. I thought that it was wrong. It is not subsidiarity and we should not have done it. However, in this case, we are having to discuss something that has been agreed in principle and which we must carry through. This is therefore a different circumstance, which is why we are doing this. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness who last spoke from the Opposition Bench.

I say to my noble friend that the reference to the European Court of Human Rights is important. It is extremely important that we tie this into the international agreements that we have. If I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, I do not much mind what Mr Raab has said. The truth is that we signed up to it—we more or less invented it—and we did so to make sure that everybody stood to the same standards in this area. If ever there were a case for making sure that we insist on the standards enforced by the European Court of Human Rights, this certainly is it.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Deben, I deeply regret that this issue is being dealt with here. It is obvious from the first quarter of an hour of debate, from the many local issues that have arisen, that local MLAs would understand the nuances far better. It is a crying shame that this is not being dealt with there.

I have one point to make to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. My party did not agree to New Decade, New Approach. In fact, I deeply regret a lot of the proceedings that led up to it and a lot of what is included in it because I fear that this Bill has within it the seeds of a grievance factory, where it is going to be very difficult to make everybody feel that their particularly identity is being represented. Indeed, it may be a shock to many that people do not go round the place wondering who they are each day; it is not something at the top of people’s agenda when they cannot even put money in the meter to keep their lights on. We must understand that it is not the sort of thing that is necessarily top of people’s agenda.

We must avoid two things. First, because this Bill is not subject to debate in the Assembly where implementation of it would take place, this House cannot amend it —because, if the Assembly is not there, the only process is here, and therefore we should not be afraid to do that. Secondly, and equally, we must be wary of imposing conditions that prove to be difficult for the Assembly.

I think there is some merit in what is suggested in Amendment 1. I take the point about other languages, but one has to be careful about who is included in that and who is not. Within the past 36 months, we have had the arrival on our shores of people from varying backgrounds—from Syria and Afghanistan—we have had a significant indigenous Chinese population for as long as I can remember, and we have had people coming from eastern Europe as part of the European Union for many years, who have built up considerable numbers, particularly in the past 15 years or so. So who is included in that and who is not is very difficult. I ask colleagues to bear those points in mind.

My noble friend Lord Morrow makes a valid point about the boundaries where one public body ends and another begins. There could be quite a lot of overreach and overstretch there. If an office dealing with identity issues becomes specifically involved in rights and equality, there is some overlap, but they would be two quite distinct areas, and we must take great care that we do not create a scrambled egg of bodies all competing about where the boundaries of their activities begin and end. I urge a bit of caution from the Minister in that regard.

Bearing in mind that it is a matter of very deep regret that we have to do this, I suggest that the one thing that we try to avoid is making things worse by confusing the role of one public body with another. I do not think it was ever the intention of the negotiators of New Decade, New Approach that the existing equalities and human rights commissions would be subject to override in this area. In the event that somebody feels that their human right has been overruled, they still have the opportunity to have their case taken up by those bodies. The right to do that is not conflicted in any way by anything in this, but we must avoid confusion. The existing lines are relatively clear, and I think we should adhere to them.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Empey and Lord Deben

Committee: 8th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 19th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, before I speak to the amendment in my name, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, tempts me down memory lane. I served on only the first two terms of the Committee of the Regions; he is a veteran with many stripes on his arm and much more experience. I recall that when it began we had a president, Jacques Blanc, who was the president of Languedoc-Roussillon. We invited him to Belfast and he came in a pillar of fire, having hired a private jet. By the time he came to Belfast, he was Jimmy White and not Jacques Blanc. He then proceeded to tour the European capitals in that jet, much to the chagrin of our paymasters in the European Parliament. I do not know whether the jet has yet landed—but, whatever it did, President Blanc ran up against the buffers of the accountants in the Parliament. Nevertheless, it was an interesting body, but it was a mixture of those of us who were from local authorities and the very powerful—the Bavarians were on it and others with enormous resources. So it was not a balanced body, but it was interesting and at least everybody could have their say.

This probing amendment would require the UK Government to seek agreement with the European Union during the withdrawal discussions—which would of course include the transition period—that the current legal framework underpinning the regulation of medical devices in the EU will be maintained after 29 March 2019. This would enable notified bodies hosted in the United Kingdom, such as the British Standards Institute, to continue to perform conformity assessments on medical devices both from within the UK and across the EU, and issue CE safety label marking after the UK’s withdrawal. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, earlier introduced a number of amendments concerning the welfare of women and young girls and said that she was hoping to put this clearly on the agenda that was moving forward—and this is what I am trying to do this evening.

On 14 September 2017 the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, our Health Minister, gave a speech at the Association of British Healthcare Industries on the future of medical technologies post Brexit. He set out the Government’s commitment to the medical tech sector and discussed the opportunities and challenges it faces as the UK leaves the EU and what support the Government were going to offer. There were some core principles in the speech about regulation and conformity assessments post Brexit, including that patients should not be put at a disadvantage and that the industry must get its products into the UK market as quickly and simply as it does now. He said:

“I want to give this promise; no matter what the outcome of the negotiations—on basic patient safety and public health issues—the UK will be, as it always has been, a willing and reliable partner for Europe”.


Furthermore, the European Commission recently warned manufacturers within the EU that CE safety labels provided by notified bodies based in the UK may no longer be valid after Brexit. The Commission document states:

“Subject to any transitional arrangements that may be contained in a possible withdrawal agreement, as of the withdrawal date, the EU rules in the field of non-food and non-agricultural products, whether for use by consumers or professionals no longer apply to the United Kingdom”.


That means that the UK will no longer operate as a host country for EU notified bodies as it currently stands.

Significantly, the European Commission has advised manufacturers to consider the legal repercussions of their current conformity assessment procedure, advising that in future they will need to gain their CE certification through an existing EU member state after the UK’s withdrawal, or to transfer existing files to an EU notified body. It should be noted that, while manufacturers can obtain a CE label from any notified body in the EU, the UK has built an expertise in this area, with approximately 40% of medical devices and 60% of high-risk medical devices on sale in the EU having been certified in the UK by a notified body. The British Standards Institute has led the way in such testing and has recently set up an office in the Netherlands so that it will continue to have an EU-country representation post Brexit.

The development with the European Commission regarding the publication of the notice to stakeholders mentioned earlier would impact on the five existing UK-based notified bodies working in the area of medical devices, including the BSI. BSI chief executive Howard Kerr has previously suggested in media interviews that he believes that a mutual recognition agreement on medical devices between the UK and EU will most likely be achieved during the course of the negotiations, allowing for retained aligned standards after Brexit. As for the possibility of the UK hosting notified bodies after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, some so-called third countries are able to operate as host nations for a notified body, including Turkey, Switzerland and Norway—so it is possible that an agreement can be made between the UK and the EU.

I believe that mutual recognition agreements and related conformity assessments post Brexit will be vital for sustained patient access to medical devices post Brexit. Although not always at the forefront of the current debate on the EU withdrawal Bill, they are still important so that treatment is consistent for patients. I believe that this approach is also in the spirit of the broad principles and objectives of the Bill: to make sound provision for the transfer of EU law into UK law. Mutual recognition agreements will be the mechanism within the necessary new trade arrangements to transfer into UK law the rights with regard to conformity assessments that the UK currently has in the area of the regulation of medical devices.

The second dimension to this is that there are a number of manufacturers of such devices in the United Kingdom, not only in my own region but elsewhere. They tend to have concentrated in the higher-value and higher-quality areas of the sector. So I believe that this item, although it may not attract the full House that we had earlier on other aspects of the debate, is nevertheless a significant matter. I believe that it should be drawn to the attention of the Government so that it is included in the agreement. It can be done—we know that—and I believe that it is something we should pursue vigorously. I beg to move.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Empey. It seems to me, though, that one should put them into a wider picture, because this is yet another example of how the best outcome of the negotiations is worse than where we are. I do not think that this Committee has to remind the country as a whole that this is what we are negotiating. We are negotiating a situation that we already have but in which we will of course have no say. Even if we get the very best deal we can, and protect our industry and the excellence of our regulatory structures—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, rightly pointed out, has meant that in one case 40% and in another case 60% of these devices are brought here, whether or not they are manufactured here, because of the excellence of our regulatory control—we will no longer have a say in the central issue of how the regulatory structure is changed in future. This is crucial in this case because, as we all know, medical devices are constantly changing and improving. If we accept that, then we recognise that the way they are regulated—the way in which we set the standards—will also change, and that we will play no part in such decisions.

I am a patriotic person. I object strongly to the intention of sidelining my country from these things and us being the beggar, because that is what we are going to have to be. To compare us with Turkey, to put it delicately, does not fill me with enthusiasm. I suggest that this is another example of the intended consequences of Brexit because the people who are enthused by Brexit—and I see few of them around just at the moment—want to believe in a world in which we can operate on our own without any drawbacks. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, has rightly pointed out that that is not possible, and that the world we live in is a world of co-operation and joint concern in getting the right answers.

I wanted to intervene because I was unhappy with one part of what the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said. He talked of the need to protect ourselves and the importance of this to his own Province as part of the United Kingdom. I want to turn it round and refer to the importance of our contribution to these decisions, the important place that Britain should have in these discussions, not only with regard to medical devices—and the curious expression in the amendment that I particularly like, which refers to the “safeguarding of public health”—but of course to any medical aspect. We have had several debates in the Moses Room on precisely these issues. What this means, of course, is that Britain is saying, “We no longer want the opportunity to play a proper part in seeing that we do this right”.

Wales Bill

Debate between Lord Empey and Lord Deben

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, far be it from me to intervene in a discussion among the representatives of the people of Wales on their devolution, but I wanted to make an observation. As someone who was involved in negotiating a reserved powers model some years ago, I can tell noble Lords that it is not the Valhalla that they expect it to be; it has its downsides as well as its upsides.

I wanted to comment on some of the remarks from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon. First, on the consistency issue throughout the United Kingdom, I do not think that it will be achievable to have an entirely consistent model everywhere. Indeed, why should we necessarily have one? The famous vow issued immediately before the Scottish referendum had a section in it that almost supersedes devolution, by almost implying that the Scottish Parliament will be a totally free-standing and permanent institution that is not in future perhaps capable of being legislated over by this Parliament. That is one interpretation of the vow.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, made a significant point when he said that the people of England may feel left out of the constitutional debate. There is quite a bit of substance in that, but I point out to him that it is the Government who have brought forward in this year alone the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, which brought more powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly, as well as the Scotland Act, which gave more powers to Scotland—and now they are bringing forward the Wales Bill. Parliament can respond only to the legislation that the Government of the day bring on to the Floor of the House—and it is the Government who are bringing forward these Bills.

[Lord Deben]

The noble Lord is saying what I said—that this is how it is being approached and I think that it should be approached in a different way.

[Lord Empey]

The noble Lord will get no argument from me on that. How we are going about our business is a tragedy in many respects. Obviously, this Government have tried hard on the economic front, and so on, to help us recover, but their Achilles heel has been how they have dealt with constitutional matters. This is only part of it; there are other examples from the earlier days of the coalition Government, when things were brought forward that were not successful. So there is no question that we need to get a grip. There are those with much more parliamentary experience than me—and, whether it is through conventions or royal commissions, we have got to get a grip on this.

I see that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, the Lord Chairman of Committees, is in his place. The question of how this Parliament relates to the devolved institutions has not been satisfactorily resolved. The Minister will know that on a number of occasions I have raised issues about the fact that the Sewel convention operates in a particular way; it was a product of its time. By removing this House from anything to do with the day-to-day running of the devolved regions is a mistake. It was a historic mistake in my own part of this country because, if Parliament had had some engagement between 1920 and the late 1960s, we might not have ended up in the position we were in. Noble Lords should not believe that it is not possible for something similar to happen in Scotland, Wales or any other form of devolution. This Parliament cannot absent itself, because it is voting on how the resource, in very large measure, will be dispensed by these devolved Administrations.

In our devolution debates, I said that there was a risk that the devolved institutions would become giant ATM machines, and that local people would see all this money flowing out and the local politicians all at it, cutting the tape. I am sure that the Minister has had her day of glory doing that, as did many of the rest of us who were devolved Ministers. The fact is, if we run out of money or do not have enough, as is the position at home, the evil Westminster Parliament is to blame. We cannot have our cake and eat it, so there is an issue to be resolved on how the people of England are dealt with. They are becoming frustrated and angry, which cannot be right. That cannot be good for the United Kingdom.

I also just observe on this amendment that, as the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, has already conceded, the six-month deadline is neither practicable nor realistic. I am sure that he will bring forward proposals to amend that in due course.

The Government are continuing to introduce these Bills, and they are being brought forward in a totally independent process from looking at the wider constitutional issues. The more Bills on devolution, the less consistent the United Kingdom becomes. That only exacerbates the position of the people of England, which must be resolved. It is entirely inconsistent that the regions get these powers, if indeed that is what they want; if anybody thinks that the people of Northern Ireland are queuing up for more powers, with the sole exception of corporation tax, I have to say that that is not our position. On the idea that we have income tax powers devolved to Stormont, for instance, I do not particularly look forward to paying 99p in the pound. I think that is where we would end up. At the moment, I believe that the incremental process is the right model to follow. I hope that we get off the blocks, whatever we do in England, but things cannot be left as they are. I think that everybody knows that.