Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Debate between Lord Robathan and Lord Murphy of Torfaen

Wednesday 12th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Government on listening to their lordships and accepting these amendments.

Fifteen years on, I am a bit like the Good Friday agreement myself—that much older and that much greyer.

[Mr Robathan]

And wiser.

[Paul Murphy]

Not so much wiser, I think.

I vividly recall that we decided on the final number for the Assembly in the middle of the night on Maundy Thursday. There was an argument that the Assembly should be bigger than it turned out to be—some of the smaller parties thought it was essential that they should all be represented—but we came to what appeared to be something of a compromise with 108 Members. I absolutely agree with the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). When the Government were dealing with the United Kingdom parliamentary boundary changes, they were challenged—I challenged them, as did the right hon. Gentleman and others—about the consequences of reducing the number of MPs in Northern Ireland for the Assembly, and therefore for the whole balance that had been agreed. That is now water under the bridge, so it is not an issue today, but it shows the mentality at the time.

In Wales, we have a population of 3 million compared with a population of 1.5 million in Northern Ireland, and an Assembly of 60 Members compared with an Assembly of 108 Members in Northern Ireland. That is obviously quite a difference. The Government recently appointed the Silk commission, which has recommended that the number of Members of the National Assembly for Wales should be increased because it has now achieved primary legislative powers and therefore has an insufficient number of Back Benchers to scrutinise legislation.

I very much take the point that there is no great merit in having a set figure if there is agreement to reduce it. My only mild criticism of the amendment is that it specifies a figure of five, and if, with agreement, the parties said that it should be four, the Bill would prevent them from implementing that. Nevertheless, a reduction from six to five is a start. Two important principles lay behind the number that was chosen: first, the need to make the Assembly in Northern Ireland as pluralist as possible so that as many points of view as possible are represented, which was a good approach; and, secondly and crucially, the need to ensure that changes are agreed with the political parties in Northern Ireland. I would be interested to hear what the Minister says about any consultations he or his predecessors had with Northern Ireland’s political parties to come up with the final figure and final recommendation that we are considering.

A few weeks ago, Northern Ireland was, in a sense, captured by a crisis about a so-called one-sided deal that may have occurred some years ago. I do not want to go into the details of that, but merely say that anything that is one-sided will eventually flounder. Everybody has to agree; otherwise, eventually, the deal will not last. This can be very difficult. For example, our agreeing on the release of prisoners in Northern Ireland—perhaps the most difficult part of the Good Friday agreement—was based on the agreement of the parties involved in the talks. Therefore, the key aspect of the amendment, which I wholly support, is the importance of getting general agreement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Murphy]

The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) referred to what the reduction would be if two seats were lost. There would be a reduction of 10 Members of the Assembly. There would be a further reduction of 18 Members if the number of Members per constituency were reduced to five. That is a reduction of 28 Members. The Minister does not seem to grasp the fact that the situation in Northern Ireland is totally different from the situation in the rest of the United Kingdom. The very fine balance of cross-community support could be affected by doing that.

[Mr Robathan]

On the contrary, I do grasp that fact. I do understand that the situation is different. The right hon. Gentleman worked very hard on the Belfast agreement and afterwards as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He will know that the settlement is not perfect and that many people would disagree with the current boundaries. We believe that the Assembly should be enabled to determine the reduction in its size. That is what clause 6 does, with the safeguard of Lords amendment 2. It is only an enabling clause, because we have devolved the matter to the Assembly and are allowing it to sort it out. I am sure that it will do so.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 and 3 agreed to.

Clause 10

Civil Service Commissioners for Northern Ireland

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

Currently, I understand, the civil service commissioners for Northern Ireland answer to the UK Government, but by devolving this issue, they will answer to the Northern Ireland Executive. I believe that to be the case, but just in case I am wrong—[Interruption.] Yes, the proceedings and functions are currently reserved, whereas the appointment is excepted. We intend to change that, so that appointment will also be reserved. I think that is a sensible way forward, and I thought it was supported.

[Paul Murphy]

I am not sure about this, but the Minister may know the answer. What is the position of civil service commissioners in Wales and Scotland, and particularly in Scotland?

[Mr Robathan]

Since the right hon. Gentleman was once Secretary of State for Wales, he might be better able to answer that than I am. I will write to him and let him know because I do not know the situation in Scotland and Wales.

Clause 11 proposes moving responsibility for appointments to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and its functions, from the excepted to the reserved category, making it possible for those responsibilities to be devolved in future. As with civil service commissioners, that raises questions about the commission’s independence, including its accountability should it be devolved in future.

Lords amendments to clause 11 set out a similar procedure to those to clause 10, and also require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament at least three months prior to introducing any order on the devolution of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. In that report, the Secretary of State is required to set out her view about the effects that such an order would have on the commission’s independence, the application of internationally accepted principles relating to human rights institutions, and the relationship between the commission and the Assembly. We recognise that these issues are of real concern to those concerned with the effective operation of the commission.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Lord Robathan and Lord Murphy of Torfaen

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robathan]

1 beg to move, that this House disagrees with Lords amendment 6.

The amendment inserts a new clause in the Bill which would permit members of the armed forces and Crown servants who are, or who have been, awarded Commonwealth medals to wear them without restriction. The debates in another place on the subject of medals leave no doubt about the emotions surrounding this important issue. The amendment raises questions about the process and rules for deciding on the acceptance and wearing of awards given by foreign and Commonwealth nations, about the position within that process of Her Majesty the Queen, and about recognising and supporting the Commonwealth.

The Government’s position on the fundamentals of how the system should work remains the same as that of the last Government, who, I remind the House, were in office when the issue of the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal was considered. It has been held by every previous Government since King George VI established the current system. The Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals—the HD committee—was set up to advise the sovereign on all issues relating to honours, decorations and medals. It consists of senior Crown servants from the Departments most involved. Where relevant, the views of service Chiefs of Staff are fed in and reflected in the advice given to the sovereign.

The thinking behind this approach is straightforward. When British citizens, whether civilian or military, carry out their duty to the sovereign and to their country, it is for the sovereign to decide on the award of honours for that service. That allows us to be consistent in our response to all foreign or Commonwealth states. It prevents a situation in which, if other states were free to honour UK citizens as they chose, there might be suggestions of patronage or influence. It also means that the advice given to the sovereign about the grant of honours is consistent across Government and, as far as possible, dispassionate. Decisions on whether to reward service should not be made in the glare of public or political debate. I do not pretend that absolute consistency has been, or always can be, maintained. Sometimes exceptions have been, and no doubt will be, made. This amendment would lay down for the future a new rule about medals: that those awarded a Commonwealth medal shall be entitled in all circumstances to wear it. However, it would also apply that rule to Commonwealth medals awarded in the past, including the PJM medal.

I do not wish to dwell today on the issues surrounding the PJM or any other specific medal. The Government will remain engaged with the Lords, who have argued strongly that the present arrangements for the PJM are not right. I recommend that the House should disagree with amendment 6 as this is not an appropriate matter for legislation.

The amendment overturns past decisions made on Commonwealth medals. In doing so, it establishes the precedent that Parliament may overturn—after any length of time—any decision of the sovereign as the fount of honour. It takes away from the sovereign—and, indeed, from the United Kingdom—any control over the acceptance of Commonwealth medals in the future. It is drafted in terms which apply whenever a Commonwealth country chooses to honour members of the armed forces, veterans or other Crown servants, even if that was against the wishes of our armed forces or, indeed, the sovereign. More generally, it establishes a further precedent that Parliament can lay down and change the rules which are to be applied to decisions on the acceptance of honours. It does away with the safeguards I have mentioned, such as the need for a basically consistent approach to awards by all friendly and allied states. It takes us to a system where decisions on the award of past, present and future honours are made in the party political environment of parliamentary consideration, rather than through the largely non-political approach set up by King George VI. I believe this is wrong in principle.

In addition, the amendment would create a different principle for the wearing of medals awarded by Commonwealth nations from that which applies to those awarded by other allies. The operations in which our armed forces are involved are increasingly international, with British units working alongside United Nations, NATO or European Union partners. We could not readily explain to non-Commonwealth allies, and especially to the individuals they wish to reward, why we treat their awards on a fundamentally different basis from those offered by a Commonwealth nation. Making a distinction of this kind is not the way to reflect our respect for the Commonwealth.

No system is perfect. As my noble Friend Lord Astor has stated in another place, officials have been instructed to look at the process by which advice about the institution of medals and the acceptance of foreign awards for military service is put together, considered and submitted to Her Majesty, and at how decisions are promulgated. They will then consider whether any advice should be given to Her Majesty about the need to review the process and make changes. We aim to conclude this work before the end of the year.

Lord Astor also said that, in the light of the continued strength of feeling about the PJM, we would put in hand representations to the HD committee to reconsider the position. That is the right way to handle such matters. The wrong way is for Parliament to overturn Her Majesty’s decisions and to establish a precedent for Parliament to lay down new rules. In particular, we should not make a rule which removes all further involvement of Her Majesty and the United Kingdom from decisions on Commonwealth awards.

These awards should be made in a measured, dispassionate and independent manner away from the glare of public debate. I urge the House to disagree with the amendment.

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I will not detain the House for long. The Minister said party politics should not be involved in the granting of awards and honours, particularly those from Commonwealth countries. I entirely agree, and I think he will agree that this amendment is intended not necessarily to change the law on these issues, but rather to bring attention to the situation with regard to the PJM medal. Our constituents have great difficulty understanding why these veterans, who are probably in their 60s and 70s and who have been awarded this medal by Malaysia, can receive it but cannot wear it. The approach is strange and very inconsistent. The Minister has said that there has not been complete consistency in the past on how these medals and awards are dealt with. I do not think for a second that a precedent would be broken here, because precedents have already been broken on who can and cannot wear particular medals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

The right hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent case for reviewing the entire system, and we are currently carrying out a medals review. I assure him that it is a genuine review, not a—[Interruption.] Not one as conducted by the Government of whom the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) was a member.

[Paul Murphy]

The Minister has already indicated that both Governments did not really resolve this issue. The previous Government examined it carefully. Lord Touhig, the then Member for Islwyn, raised it on a number of occasions, both by way of an Adjournment debate and elsewhere, but he got nowhere with the Government of whom I had been a member. Nevertheless, it is important that the Minister understands the huge strength of feeling on this issue up and down the country. This is not about taking away the powers of the sovereign and it is not about the prerogative; it is about dealing with the simple issue that veterans who fought in Malaya in the 1960s should be allowed to wear the medal which they have been allowed to accept.