Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Debate between Lord Empey and Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown

Committee stage
Monday 7th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I want briefly to follow what the noble Lords, Lord Murphy and Lord Dodds, have said. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, may be right about the European Union not wishing to negotiate with regional politicians. It has a long-standing position on that; the EU-Canada trade agreement got bogged down because of the Wallonians, I think, who blocked it for quite some time. But never mind what the European Union or Dublin thinks. This is what matters: what our own Government decide on who is going to speak for the United Kingdom at these talks. If our Government decide to involve people and politicians in Northern Ireland, that is our business. It is not the European Union’s business. At the end of the day we know what its stance is, but that is neither here nor there if our Government decide that they are going to create their own negotiations. Who they take advice from and consult in the United Kingdom is entirely up to them, so I do not see that as an obstacle.

I gently remind the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, that the first decision in our amendment to the Belfast agreement at St Andrews was to remove the necessity for cross-community consent for the election of the First Minister. Had that remained as it was, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson would be First Minister, not Michelle O’Neill.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, I shall make a short comment on Amendment 40 proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. It says that

“this section does not have effect unless it has previously been approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”

Surely that is not an honourable reflection of the Belfast agreement, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, told us, overrides all the international agreements. The spirit, and a fundamental pillar, of the Belfast agreement is cross-community support. If what the noble Baronesses are saying is that the amendment actually means “by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly with cross-community support”, I challenge them to put that in and make that clear. However, I know from the previous contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, that she does not mean that. She means a simple majority and going back to majority rule, which has disappeared in Northern Ireland over the past 50 years—much at the behest of her former colleagues.

I therefore challenge the noble Baronesses to state clearly: do they desire recognition and an honourable reflection of the fundamental pillar of the Belfast agreement? When they speak about

“a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly”,

are they clearly stating that that is with cross-community support? If they are not, then they are not upholding the Belfast agreement and all the pretension in this Committee is only empty rhetoric.

Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Empey and Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd June 2022 Grand Committee

[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.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, once again we are dealing with an issue that was the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Once again, the Government have taken it out of the hands of the Assembly. This has not just arrived since the last Assembly election; this was from before that. I remind some noble Lords that the history of this goes back to the previous three-year suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly by Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin would not come back into the Assembly but made certain demands before it would come back in. One of the demands was on the abortion legislation; it wanted abortion on demand. The second was an Irish language Act. It has to be admitted that it did not get an Irish language Act, because this is the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill, but nevertheless it was part of its demands.

The truth of the matter is that the Government yielded to the demands of Sinn Féin which is why we are having this debate here at Westminster. The new Assembly has certainly not been given the opportunity to debate it, because the Assembly election was just recently. With all the demands that are being made on public finances, I must say that, right across this legislation, I have deep concerns. When one bears in mind that people are fighting to pay their bills and all the demands on public finances at the present moment, I would certainly ask whether this is the best expenditure of public money at this particular time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

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

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

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, accepting the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, I do not believe that there is only a perception of a difference; this legislation would actually make a difference between the two. NDNA did not give acceptance or credence to lack of parity of esteem; in actual fact, it was demanding that. It was not seeking to be used for discrimination against the unionist community; in actual fact, it was demanding that both communities in Northern Ireland were treated with that parity of esteem.

Northern Ireland (Ministerial Appointment Functions) (No. 2) Regulations 2019

Debate between Lord Empey and Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown

Monday 9th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, the appointments being added to the list include such things as the Drainage Council for Northern Ireland. If the noble Lord, Lord Hain, is seriously saying that the Irish Government need to be consulted about that, that amounts to joint authority. It is not a requirement of any of the treaties or the 1998 Act. The two Governments can consult at a council that can meet periodically. That is fair enough but we must be well aware of the three-stranded process. Its integrity is the core of the agreement.

I join the noble Lord, Lord Hain, in expressing concern about the direction of travel. I had been given the impression that talks were going at white-hot pace during the summer. but that is not the case. If my information is correct, the last all-party meeting was on 5 July, which was before we left this place for the summer. I stand to be corrected, and if the Minister does so I will be more than happy to withdraw that point, but that is my understanding. There have been one or two relatively casual meetings of working parties on programmes for government and so on, but certainly in the last two weeks of August there was one interaction in one week and one in the other.

It is true that there have been some bilateral talks between the DUP and Sinn Féin but I repeat that there is no proper process, although I stand to be corrected on that also by the Minister. The two meetings on 5 July and 9 September are sufficient evidence that there is a lack of urgency, drive and ambition. Although I have no particular issues with any of these appointments—I do with some of the recent appointments but that will come up in a later debate—I say to colleagues that devolution will not be restored unless there is a proper process that is organised, timetabled and properly run. This ad hoc approach—we will meet now; we will meet again; maybe we will, maybe we will not—will not deliver. During our debates before the recess on the Executive restoration Bill, a number of us said that some of the proposals in that legislation would not assist the process of restoring the Executive, and so it has proved. We are now closing up shop until the middle of October but there are two other things that need to be borne in mind.

Unusually, the leader of Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland is to be challenged for her position in November. I do not believe that Sinn Féin has the remotest intention of doing anything until Brexit is resolved, and certainly I cannot see that happening when its leader in Northern Ireland is facing a challenge from outside. Therefore, it looks as though we will arrive at the third anniversary of Stormont being closed in January, with no Government and so on.

The noble Lord, Lord Hain, referred to the wider issues of direct rule. Personally, I do not have a preference for direct rule. We worked hard to get Stormont going again and to get devolution, and the fact that people have messed it up is another matter. However, there is one issue which I keep drawing to the House’s attention. I ask the Minister, with his right honourable friend the Secretary of State, to consider our health service, which is in dire straits.

There are 7,500 vacancies in the health service in Northern Ireland for 3% of the UK’s population. Noble Lords can do the maths. That goes for nurses and doctors and applies right across the whole card. Our system has been kept going by locums—people brought in by agencies at enormous expense. One person working on a ward at night will be from an agency on X amount of money and one will be from the regular health service staff on Y amount of money, which is far less. It is unfair and unreasonable. Naturally enough, nurses are going to these banks and agencies and are being brought in as locums. Some of them are flown over from Newcastle upon Tyne and other locations. They are perfectly good people but their flights, accommodation and food have to be paid for, and of course they come into a ward and do not know anybody. This is becoming a humanitarian crisis.

With a new Session of Parliament coming up, I have asked the Public Bill Office to prepare a Bill for me, which I hope to put into the ballot. I remind noble Lords that in the last three ballots I got positions one, one and five, and I am hoping to improve on that. The Bill would transfer health, social services and public safety powers from Stormont to here, and it would have a sunset clause whereby immediately upon the establishment of the Executive those powers would revert. We did that some years ago with social security when there was a disagreement at Stormont and those powers were returned. I appeal to the Minister: the waiting lists have become absolutely ridiculous. Professor Deirdre Heenan of Ulster University was part of a Nuffield Trust study that a few weeks ago produced sobering figures, to say the least. People are hurting and I think that lives are being lost while we fiddle around with this issue. If the best effort is a meeting of the leaders of all parties on 5 July when we are in the middle of all this, there is something radically wrong. If I have missed the boat and secret talks that I am unaware of have been going on somewhere, I will be glad to hear that, but I suspect that I am not very far wrong.

Therefore, I say to the Minister that I do not have any particular difficulty with the appointments that we are talking about, but if we can bring legislation—even though this is secondary legislation—before this House to appoint the chairman of the Drainage Council, why can we not do something about the suffering of people in the health service and the fact that that service is being allowed to go down the drain? The spending priorities set by the outgoing Executive are five or six years old and no longer match the current needs and requirements of our community. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister to speak to his right honourable colleague in the other place and to seriously consider this matter. I do not want to see direct rule a day earlier than the noble Lord, Lord Hain, does—I have the same reservations—but this is a humanitarian issue; it is a matter of life and death. This Parliament has a responsibility to people for their health and safety but that is not being exercised.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, I have listened with great care and interest to the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Empey. If either noble Lord has any magical formula to restore Stormont, I will certainly be very glad to hear it. However, there seems to be no magical formula because Sinn Féin, with the collaboration of this House, has been handed the keys of Stormont.

Let us make no mistake: same-sex marriage and abortion, as debated and legislated for recently, were two of the key demands of Sinn Féin. This House agreed to them, and if Stormont were not returned by 21 October, the legislation would be enacted. This House and the Government were warned that, in so doing, they were keeping the doors of Stormont closed because Sinn Féin has no reason to allow them to open. If Stormont returns, these issues can be debated. I know that on abortion there is a genuine desire across the political divide to see the changes in the legislation that came before the other House and this House. Rather than blame everyone else, this House has to accept part of the blame because it handed to Sinn Féin the reason for not returning to Stormont. It is therefore not good enough for people to do a pilot Act, wash their hands and suggest that the parties in Northern Ireland are responsible for the present hiatus.

The noble Lord, Lord Hain, mentioned and warned about the DUP being in cahoots with this Government, influencing and collaborating with them. I remind the noble Lord that the leader of his party collaborated with Sinn Féin—the IRA Army Council—when they were in the midst of terrorist activity, against honourable Members of this House and others in our friend and family circles who were murdered and injured. To suggest that there is somehow a great danger in the Government and the Democratic Unionist Party working together and not see the danger—what the people of Northern Ireland witnessed in their darkest days—of the then Government collaborating with Sinn Féin was certainly very hard for any democrat to take.

It certainly does not go well for some noble Lords in this House to accept what the noble Lord, Lord Hain, is saying.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Debate between Lord Empey and Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 17th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown]

My Lords, I once again listened with care to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, as he introduced this amendment. On reading it, I was rather alarmed that the words,

“through no fault of their own”,

which were evident in our previous debate and which he has repeated, were missing. I would certainly not accept that anyone who was injured through fault of their own—in other words, terrorists—should be allowed to receive a pension. That would be not only an insult but an absolute shame. I know that it would certainly be deeply hurtful to those across the community who have been terrorised and injured through terrorist activity.

I will therefore listen carefully to what the Minister says in response to this, because that was the proviso which meant so much to me when I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, on the previous occasion. He pointed out that the pension was a recognition of the great harm done to men and women through no fault of their own. We need to keep that right in front of us, so that there is no misunderstanding as regards any judgment that may follow or any judicial review that is done, with people saying, “What did the House mean by this determination?”.

As far as the other place is concerned, I think the noble Lord is long enough in public life to know that my deputy leader and colleagues in another place will carefully scrutinise the Minister’s words and then, no doubt, vote accordingly.

[Lord Empey]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, on his persistence. I come back to the point that a number of victims appeared in the local press in Northern Ireland today and one theme went right across. Yes, they would welcome recognition through a pension—we often forget that a lot of these people have been unable to earn a proper living and provide for their retirement because of their disabilities, physical and mental—however, they would all be horrified if the people down the road who caused those injuries were to get a benefit out of this process.

I am not a lawyer but I understand that one of the critical things when people take the Government to court over a piece of legislation is what the intention of Parliament was when the debate was being held. The Minister can clarify that, of course, because his statements will be part of the evidence in any case. I also ask him to give some thought to the use of terminology in the criminal injuries compensation legislation in this part of the United Kingdom. I believe that the word “blameless” appears in that legislation, so it is the eligibility, together with the fact that mental health is to be taken into account, as well as physical injuries. That is much more difficult, because the service availability to provide that kind of backup and assessment is in short supply, as we heard repeatedly earlier today. We do not want people with genuinely severe mental health problems to feel that they are second-class citizens in all this, so that has to be taken into account. The key thing is to ensure that it is blameless; that people cannot then find some loophole to climb in and get money, which would be rewarding them for their evil deeds.