Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, first, I ought to say how I approach this debate. I had not intended to speak. The issue—passionate though people feel about it on both sides of the argument—is one that I hope I have always approached with an open mind. Abortion is a terrible thing in contemplation for anybody concerned, but it is a practical necessity for some. That is something that I have always felt strongly about.

One of the things that we could have been confused about in hearing the debate today is that the police are investigating every stillbirth and every miscarriage, which is not the case. If the death takes place or the child’s life is lost in a medical setting, usually the police are never involved. The time when the police become involved is either when there is a medical referral because there is a concern by medics or, alternatively, when there is an emergency at home or somewhere else.

I mention this because we have to be realistic, whatever the decisions made about Clause 191, about how the police respond. There are some ways the police response could be improved, but we have to give some understanding to the officers who deal with these emergencies, say, in a home or at a place of work. It could be a public toilet, or it could be that something is discovered in the middle of a field. At the beginning, the officers do not know whether they are dealing with a baby, a late-term foetus or a child who might have taken a breath or not; they have a very confused situation, and they cannot just walk away from it.

My first point is that there has to be some sensitivity. At a far earlier stage in the debate, I think the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, raised sudden death syndrome for babies. The police have got far better at dealing with that sort of situation, because 30 years ago we did not know that sudden death syndrome happened. Now we do, so it is dealt with in a different way from how it was 20 or 30 years ago.

The bottom line is that there is a requirement to freeze the scene in terms of evidence, because it is no good two or three weeks after the event when a judge, a coroner or someone turns around and says, “Well, you must have seen this at the scene and gained the evidence”, and they say, “Well, actually we did not seize it; we did not freeze it”. There is a difference between starting an investigation and freezing the scene and making sure you have as much evidence as is available, without too much intrusion, at that first point.

It is really important to be clear about this. If we set off and say that Clause 191 will come into effect and there will certainly not be a criminal investigation into the mother, that does not stop the need to collect evidence right at the beginning, when no one is sure. I think we have to be a little realistic about this.

On improving the police investigation process, there are two things that would be really helpful. Number one is that a senior detective with some experience attends the scene as soon as possible—I would say within an hour—to see what they are dealing with, so that if there is evidence to be seized, it is done sensitively and the family are protected as much as possible. Probably as importantly, unless there is an immediate need to start an investigation—for example, we could imagine that there might be injury to a child or a foetus that is not possible to explain by what appears to have happened to it medically, for example a knife or something else—you need to consider that set of circumstances. But generally, within a period of time—let us say 48 hours—the police must seek medical advice about how this child or foetus died and what, if anything, should happen thereafter. That starts to create a process that we could all objectively rely on.

My second point is that there has been a little confusion about the fact that, if the woman is coerced, Clause 191 does not mean that the coercer is innocent. It has nothing to do with that at all. It is only about the mother, if it is decided that that should go ahead.

I would like to make two final points. I just want to sit here and learn, but one thing I have not heard addressed in the debate—the problem, it seems to me—is that there are some women who, at 24 weeks and onward, need help. Whether the state says they can have an abortion or not, they might take that decision. Where do they go? We all agree that a back street abortionist is not a good idea. They cannot go to a medical professional, who would then be complicit in providing the abortion, perhaps, that they cannot legally have. If they end up with these online tablets designed for those under 10 weeks, that is not a good outcome. But I am not sure that what the state says—what we say—will help them in that terrible dilemma, because the need that they feel to have that abortion beyond 24 weeks has not gone away. If we abandon them to that decision alone, I do not think we help anyone. I would like to understand this myself, regardless of the decision about Clause 191: how do women in this position get some help?

With an open mind, there were three points that I do not think we have yet clarified. One thing that I was really interested to hear was that the pills designed for under 10 weeks are available online for people beyond that, and it seems as though that is not a good idea. They are designed for people under 10 weeks because that is when they work best. At 24 weeks and beyond they sound like an awful option—but what if they are your only option? How are we going to deal with control of those pills? I do not understand, from Clause 191 or the existing law, what we intend to do about that.

The second point, from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, was that there is this fundamental dilemma: the woman has not committed a criminal offence, but the people who enable her to do this act do commit an offence. I am not a lawyer, but that sounds like a contradiction. I think there has to be some explanation of how that gets remedied.

On the final point that was raised, I am not sure about the answers. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, did not think it relevant, but the point about sex determination as a reason for abortion seems to me a real risk. I do not know whether Clause 191 makes it more or less likely to happen, but it is a risk and nobody should allow that. It happens now, potentially, but if Clause 191 makes it more likely, what is the mitigation of that risk? I have not heard it. That needs to be addressed if Clauses 191 is to remain.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, for the benefit of the absent noble Lord, Lord Russell, I will attempt to speak in a paperless fashion, which means that if I engage in verbal streams of consciousness I hope that the Committee will forgive me. There is a range of amendments in this group, many of which I support, a number of which I have sympathy with and a few that I oppose. That is perhaps natural, given the fact that a number of amendments in this group pull in completely opposite directions.

Of the amendments that I support, I draw particular attention to Amendment 460, which would require that before an abortion could take place there is at least a clinical appointment, that guidance is given and that it is done through that route. Noble Lords have come up with a range of solutions to what we all appreciate is a sensitive situation and have tried to square the circle. The evidence from prosecutions that have taken place, and where there have been convictions, is that in almost every case there has been an absence of clinical support and someone has, in effect, gone on a form of solo run. Albeit that it may well have been in very difficult circumstances and taken with a heavy heart, nevertheless that is the route down which they have gone.

In the limited time available, I will concentrate on supporting the Clause 191 stand part notice from the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, because, with respect to those who drafted Clause 191, it is somewhat disingenuous, radical in its implications and dangerous, particularly for women. Let me explain why.

Mention has been made that it does not legally change the time limits. In a strict legal sense, that is true, but it does turn those time limits into a façade. If you have a situation in which an act that remains illegal can be carried out but the person who carries it out is immune and protected from prosecution in all circumstances—in blanket circumstances—you have a law that is utterly ineffective. It is the equivalent of saying that we will retain speed limits on motorways but anyone found driving on a motorway beyond that speed limit will not be prosecuted. It is somewhat disingenuous. A more honest approach would have been an amendment that simply said, “We want to move the time limit to the point of birth”. That is, in effect, what Clause 191 does, but the changes that it makes are disguised as the mirage that has been put in front of us.

This is a radical change. Within this Committee and society as a whole, there is a wide spectrum of views on the issue of abortion. Some, and I am one, would take a much more restrictive approach towards abortion and feel that with our current laws the balance is wrong. Others take a much more liberal or permissive view. The settled compromise between those positions is to say that, at present, the determining line between what is legal and what is not is whether a child can be born and viable at the point of birth. The point has been made that that line has shifted from 28 weeks to 24 weeks. There is a good argument that it should come down a little bit more. But Clause 191 will, in effect, shift the ground in some cases to a situation in which that abortion can take place up until the day of birth. That is a radical step that is out of sync with public feeling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, we have all received briefings on this clause, telling us that, unamended, it would allow abortion up to birth. I will address that in two ways. First, Clause 191 does not fully decriminalise abortion or alter the legal time limits. The legal framework remains for medical staff, which the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, set out very clearly. It has the advantage of stopping women facing investigation after miscarriage or a stillbirth, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, set out, but it would also ensure that the very small number of women who have ended their own pregnancies outside the law receive healthcare, mental health support and referral to appropriate support services rather than facing year-long police investigations. That is what Clause 191 sets out to do.

Secondly, I understand that some are concerned that this change in the law may increase later-term abortions. Clearly, later-term abortions have higher rates of complications than abortions at earlier gestation, but that still remains relatively low. We can, however, look at evidence from other jurisdictions. Although the noble Lord, Lord Weir, is right to point out that there are lots of different gestation limits across Europe, bringing women into the decriminalisation zone would bring us in line with 50 other jurisdictions, including France, New Zealand, Australia and the whole of the United States, where no women can be prosecuted for having her own abortion.

Evidence from these other jurisdictions shows that abortion law does not affect the likelihood of later-term abortions, and decriminalising abortion does not cause or correlate with any increase in third-trimester abortions. That is confirmed by the WHO and robust global evidence from countries including Canada, New Zealand and Northern Ireland, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, pointed out.

Looking at those in a little more detail—I am aware that it is late—in Canada, abortion was completely decriminalised in 1988. It is regulated as a health service with no criminal law or gestational limits, which goes much further that Clause 191 does. Over decades, data shows a stable pattern of early abortion and no increase in later abortion, despite that complete decriminalisation. In Northern Ireland, where abortion was decriminalised in 2019, almost nine in 10 abortions happened before 10 weeks, and there have been no reported cases of women ending their pregnancy at late gestations outside of medical frameworks.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

I appreciate the point the noble Baroness is making, but would she accept that the telemedicine is illegal in Northern Ireland? Pills by post is not an option, so the only route that any woman in Northern Ireland can use is the clinical route and within the timeframe. It is pretty obvious why there have not been any prosecutions; it is because there has not been a situation arising out of that.

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

It is not the prosecutions that I am referring to, it is the cases themselves. I absolutely acknowledge that telemedicine is not available through medical services in Northern Ireland, but the pills are available illegally online and people are purchasing them. However, because women are decriminalised, they are never prosecuted for taking them.

The proportion of abortion procedures carried out before nine weeks’ gestation has increased in most countries with more liberal abortion laws. As explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, that is why this change is so strongly supported by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of General Practitioners, and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and many other health experts. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that the meeting with these experts was really helpful. Perhaps we could do another one of those before Report so that noble Lords who have further medical questions can ask them.

Amendments 455, 456, 456B, 456C and 461F would retain the criminalisation of women in relation to abortion law, and women would still face arrest, investigation and prosecution under the law. I very much appreciate the efforts to find some compromise in Amendments 456 and 456C, and it is important to discuss whether this is possible. However, the harm that Clause 191 seeks to address would remain if those amendments were to be included in the Bill, as investigations would still be ongoing and we would still see women being pulled into the criminal justice system, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, set out.

I will briefly touch on vulnerable women. It is important to consider how this clause and the amendments would impact those women, who could be in a situation of abuse or coercion. Noble Lords have rightly raised concerns around this. Importantly, non-consensual abortion would remain a crime under Clause 191, including in the terrible case that the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, referred to.

Experts in this area have been really clear that the clause will be beneficial to women in this situation. The threat of criminal sanctioning can dissuade women from seeking help or even telling anybody what has happened to them. That is why it is supported by so many violence against women and girls groups, including the End Violence Against Women Coalition, Refuge, Rape Crisis, Karma Nirvana and many more. These groups came and did a very helpful briefing to noble Lords; perhaps we could replicate that again before Report. I understand noble Lords’ concern around coercion, but we should listen carefully to the experts in this area.

I will address telemedicine and Amendment 460, which would repeal its provision. Like other noble Lords, I was here for the legislation on its introduction, and I will present what has happened since. A large national cohort study undertaken in England and Wales published in the International Journal of Gynaecology & Obstetrics found that telemedical abortion is

“safe, effective and improves care”,

and is preferred by women. Full telemedicine is now essential for abortion provision and is being used by over 100,000 women every year in England and Wales. It has meant that once a woman decides she wants an abortion, she is able to access it more quickly and, therefore, more safely. Since the introduction of telemedicine, as the noble Baroness said, we have seen the average gestation at treatment for abortion falling substantially, with more than half of all abortions now taking place before seven weeks’ gestation. As we know, it is much safer to have an abortion as early as possible.

Telemedicine also provides a safe and confidential way for women in abusive and controlling relationships to receive abortion care. Safeguarding is an essential part of abortion care provision. Any patient that causes professional concern is provided with a full safeguarding assessment, and pre- and post-abortion support and counselling is available to all patients. Abortion providers are regulated by the Care Quality Commission, NHS England commissioners and the Department of Health and Social Care, which all have regulatory oversight.

I will address the medical complications point, which a number of noble Lords have raised. There have been 54,000 complications to medical abortion over the past five years, but that covers all gestations for all forms of medical abortion—in clinic, at home, telemedical or in person, scan or no scan, and at any gestation. Those complications are not reflective of pre 10-week medical abortion and are not exclusive to telemedical abortion care. No information has been included before 2021, when telemedicine was launched, so there is no analysis to see what has happened since then.

This also looks at the basic numbers of complications rather than rate, so it is an incomplete picture. As noble Lords have mentioned, over 1 million abortions have taken place in that five-year period. The number of abortions has gone up, which means the number of medical abortions has gone up. Therefore, sadly, the number of complications has gone up. But rather than looking just at the total figures, when you look at the rates shown by the latest abortion statistics and the hospital episode statistics, the rate of complications for medical abortion has fallen by 25% since telemedicine was introduced. That is why telemedicine is supported so strongly by medical professionals. Put simply, it is better care for women.

Telemedicine is a choice for clinically eligible women, not a requirement. A woman can always choose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has been around this circuit before, I think on a Private Member’s Bill proposed by one of his noble friends, about collecting the statistics. It shows that he does not actually seem to have checked what statistics are already collected before deciding that these things need to be done. I thought that it might be useful for the Committee to know that the annual abortion statistics already include the ethnicity of the woman and medical complications as part of the treatment. The noble Lord will also be aware that it is incredibly rare that the sex of the foetus is known, because the vast majority of abortions are carried out or happen before 10 or 12 weeks—so that is simply not known or collectable.

Complications from abortion care are extremely rare and are already reported. Abortion care providers are regulated and scrutinised through long-established accountability mechanisms, including published safe- guarding reports and Care Quality Commission inspections. These are on the public record; I am not sure why the noble Lord has decided that these things are not. Doctors are already legally required to provide information about abortions to the Chief Medical Officer, including gestation complications and grounds for an abortion.

The noble Lord is bringing forward amendments that would cause a huge amount of bureaucracy and might risk leaving medical professionals permanently unsure of the status of abortion law. I am sure that we would wish to avoid that happening. I shall be very interested to hear from my noble friend the Minister what the Government have to say about the implications of all these amendments.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. We live in what a lot of us would describe as a post-truth world, in which facts are often passed off as opinions or, worse, that terrible phrase “fake news”. Sometimes opinions are passed off as being completely truthful facts, and sometimes we have misinformation going around the globe that comes not simply from conspiracy theorists on the internet but, sadly, sometimes from world leaders.

Given that context, it is important that when this House resolves on any legislation, looking into the future, that it should be on the basis of evidence, truth and facts. That is particularly true when it comes to abortion. It is an issue, irrespective of your views on it, which is deeply sensitive, and on which raw emotions are often provoked. To some extent we saw that earlier when, at times, the atmosphere of the Committee got a little bit tense. People have genuinely conflicting views on this, so the more we can try to base this on evidence, the better.

That is particularly true for the proposed changes that are being made in Clause 191, for two main reasons. First, although there has been some mention that this has been in the ether for a number of years, the specifics of this legislation came about by way of a Back-Bench amendment to a different piece of legislation, with a limited amount of debate on it. It was not part of a government programme or manifesto commitment. Any Back-Bench Member is perfectly entitled to bring forward an amendment; that is the normal procedure. The downside of that is that there has not been a direct level of consultation on this specific proposal.

Secondly, despite what has been said, there are some concerns about the quality of the data that we have on a range of issues. I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said, and it seemed that she was putting forward two somewhat contradictory positions. You can either make the argument that all this data is already there and already gathered, and therefore these amendments are unnecessary, or, alternatively, you can make the argument that this would involve so much gathering of data that it would be a bureaucratic nightmare. You can argue either of those propositions, but the two are somewhat mutually exclusive in that regard. It strikes me that when we take decisions on this, it is important to get the data.

It has been highlighted—I think it was mentioned in a Private Member’s Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, proposed—that there are sometimes concerns over the quality of the data. Perhaps not unsurprisingly—it is not unique to this particular debate—we have heard different people on different sides of this argument quote sometimes contradictory data as to where we are.

It strikes me that there are one or two solutions to these problems, neither of which is mutually exclusive. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, in the next group of amendments, proposes, apart from anything else, that we pause things until there is a proper consultation period. These amendments then look towards the idea of producing data and a report, and gathering evidence so that there can be a review of the procedures and how things work out. They highlight the range of issues that formed a number of the concerns in the previous debate. These are issues around the level of coercion, the medical complications that arise as a result of changes, whether it leads to a driver on sex selection, and, as mentioned, the incidence of late abortion, which then leads to a live birth. This range of issues highlights a lot of the concerns that were raised in the last group.

I appreciate that we have had this debate today, and that the proponents of Clause 191 will say that the concerns that have been raised—although I am sure they will accept they are genuine—are, in their view, misplaced or perhaps exaggerated, and that we have nothing to fear from Clause 191. Various incidents of what has happened in other parts of the world have been quoted. It is important, therefore, that we test that out. These amendments would gather that data and allow us to assess that. If we are dealing with false fears then, for the proponents of Clause 191, this will strengthen their argument in a year or two years’ time, whenever these things are reviewed. If the fears are genuine and are realised, however, then it is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, says, that if we gather evidence, it is not some sort of desktop exercise where we simply look at figures. If we gather evidence then it should be on the basis of having the opportunity, if it shows that there are increased dangers, for instance, to women or concerns over any other categories, to take a level of corrective action. That seems a very sensible course of action. I do not think there is anything that anybody should have to fear in these amendments, so I commend them to the Committee.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, and what he said sounds eminently sensible, but the problem is this: the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has set out the level of detail that is already gathered. The noble Lord, among other Members of your Lordships’ House, have gone on all day about telemedicine and coercion, yet when the royal colleges set up the evaluation of telemedicine, when it came in during Covid, they took particular care to examine issues such as that. They came up with data that showed that telemedicine was safe. Actually, it not only discovered women who were being coerced; it discovered women who were being trafficked. Yet Members of your Lordships’ House still trot out the same argument time and again. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, and the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and I am afraid I rather think that it does not matter what data we collect: they will make the same arguments over and again.

My noble friend Lady Brinton cannot be here this evening, but she particularly wanted to say this: the detail of these amendments is designed to confuse and delay the safe and effective legal rules of abortion. They would also take abortion out of the clinical sphere, trying to exceptionalise it and create an environment so hostile that it would deter women and, equally important, clinicians and medical staff, as the rules become more and more complex; and it would also be at the whim of the Secretary of State to amend details or to report at various times. It is a worrying idea to use secondary legislation to make everything more complex, because it gives Ministers the powers to change things and causes confusion and distress.

Your Lordships will know that, after the overturning of Roe v Wade in the USA, abortion became a state matter—a very key objective of the anti-abortionists. That meant that all the gathering of data became a matter not just for individual states, but individual counties within states. In one county in West Virginia, a prosecutor decided that, as abortion was now illegal, women had to provide evidence of a miscarriage: in other words, physical foetal remains, no matter at what stage that miscarriage happened. Fortunately, there were other people who saw that for the inhumanity that it was, but that is what he wanted to do. The outrage—

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

I have listened to what has been said. Initially, I was not quite clear whether it was an intervention or not, but I appreciate that it is actually a speech. I think comparisons with America are somewhat facile, because if we were gathering data, it would be on an NHS-wide basis in that regard. The idea of anybody, as you would have in the United States—where an individual county will take a particular view—imposing different decisions or requiring different things is not something that could happen in this country. By all means, criticise the amendments and try to take them apart, but let us not make false comparisons based upon the very different federal system they have in the United States compared with what happens here.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

I do not think that it is a false comparison. What we are saying is that, instead of having a system that is democratically decided openly and in Parliament, we will leave it to regulation and officials. I think that is wrong.

The other thing that my noble friend Lady Brinton wanted to say relates to proposed new subsection (3) in Amendment 457. Imagine a woman who is, in the words of the amendment,

“acting in relation to their own pregnancy”,

having to identify and report medical complications. What does that mean? I do not think that that is intended to make it any easier for a woman in need to access the care she needs. I think it is intended to frustrate and, therefore, I hope that these amendments will not be passed.

Control of Mercury (Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her statement, which filled out very carefully the exact situation that we now face with amalgam fillings in a useful and important way. I am very grateful for that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, is right on one key point. I have friends in the Irish Republic who regularly use Northern Irish dental services. This is, at the very least, a loose end in the regulations presented to us in the House today, which, in principle, place a burden on Northern Irish dentists. It is difficult to see how they can deal with it in any proper way. It is the loose end in the Minister’s very elegant introduction.

This is a sensitive matter. Reference has already been made to the operation of the NHS in Northern Ireland. One of the key differences between the Windsor Framework and the 2019 withdrawal agreement is that the Windsor Framework makes it clear on page 14 that basic state functions include medical supplies. This is essentially an issue of medical supplies. It is one of the things that can be said in favour of the Windsor Framework—indeed, it was the first item in the DUP’s election manifesto for the Assembly elections that this situation had to be rectified.

The debate today raises a degree of uncertainty as to how these matters are going. In broad outline, there is a practical resolution to most of the questions, and the Minister has made that clear, but one has to understand why there is a certain neuralgia in the public mind none the less. It is related to another issue, which is in no way the Minister’s responsibility—but it is the case that the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, has brought forward an independent report on the Windsor Framework for the Government in this House. My noble friend Lord Carlile’s Select Committee, on which the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, sits, has also produced an important document on the working of the Windsor Framework. Does the Minister have any ideas of any significant EU response to the issues that have been raised and the loose ends, one of which we have discussed—the burden apparently being placed on Northern Irish dentists? Given those two reports, I hear very little about the government response.

This is a moment of reset in Anglo-Irish relations. For example, at the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, which I attended last week, the Irish Minister, Mr Lawless, said that the key thing about the Windsor Framework was that it protected the Irish position on the island economy. Actually, the Windsor Framework makes it clear on page 5 that for the foreseeable future there are two economies on the island of Ireland—but for the first time in decades there was no British Minister to reply to that at the BIPA, if they had so wished.

In this House eight days ago, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, dismissed a relatively innocent question on the green lane and its working in the Windsor Framework on the grounds that the green lane was a kind of old-style Brexit thinking. In fact, the green lane is in the Windsor Framework and is specifically referred to on page 8, so it is not unreasonable to ask how it is working out in actual fact.

For those of us who support the Windsor Framework critically but know that it leaves a lot of irritants for the public of Northern Ireland, it needs to be fully implemented. The Government cannot just pay lip service to it, as they do, but then half shy away when the Irish Government say something else, or it does not appear to fulfil commitments that were given to the electorate of Northern Ireland and are fundamental to why the Assembly and the Good Friday institutions currently operate. The fact that those commitments were given in good faith became the basis for the return of the Assembly.

A significant minority of unionists in Northern Ireland have tired of these institutions and are deeply critical of them—and, in my opinion, unrealistically and unreasonably wish to replace them. But it gives succour to that group if the Government do not just support the Windsor Framework but support it with vigour.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, earlier today we had a haul of Earls—I think that was the collective term. In this debate on issues that pertain to the protocol and the Windsor Framework, I rise as one of a number of unionist Peers. I am not sure what the collective term is, whether we are an anger of Peers or a frustration of Peers. I will allow some of my more erudite colleagues to disseminate the correct answer.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, made reference to the fact that a number of colleagues from across the Chamber are due on different flights tonight to return home to Northern Ireland. I am not, but I will forgo what I intended to do—a two-hour contextual dissertation on the impact of dental amalgam and its history over the past 100 years in British dentistry.

When looking at the issue and the regulations in front of us, we need to disaggregate two issues. One is the landing point of the regulation itself and the other—perhaps much more concerning, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and others—is the underlying issues behind it. On the regulation itself, we have heard the concerns raised in relation to the continuance of mercury amalgam. I think that has been accepted largely, not simply by the UN convention but by the World Dental Federation. I think it has been accepted that there is a need at least for a phasing out of that dental amalgam. There may be some degree of disagreement over the speed of that.

We know that if immediate action was taken, there would be financial implications for dentists. Wherever we reach in the near future, the alternatives at present are considerably more costly and time-consuming. Indeed, the real concern that was raised, particularly by local dentists in Northern Ireland, was that if we faced a cliff-edge ban in 2025 or 2026, it would lead effectively to the collapse of NHS dentistry in Northern Ireland. That was a very real fear. This does not come simply within a vacuum. We have to realise that the impact, particularly for the dental profession, has arisen from the Covid situation, when it was particularly hard hit.

With that balance in place, I think that we can, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, indicated, at least accept a level of relief that, instead of the immediate crisis that had been created, with this regulation we are now talking about the beginning of January 2035 for that phasing-out period. That is in line with what has been put forward by the World Dental Federation. It should also be indicated—I will be interested in the Minister’s response on this—that whatever happens in terms of phasing out, it should be done across the UK.

I commend the landing zone but join others in expressing concern over the underlying issues of how we got here in the first place. There are three major concerns. First, on the dental issue itself, when either a piece of primary legislation or regulations are passed, I think we all fall into the trap of then dismissing the issue—job done; we have reached a solution. It is abundantly clear that, with these regulations, we are putting it off to a particular point at the end of 2034. That does not mean that the issue can simply be ignored between now and then. As was indicated, there needs to be considerable investment and support to ensure that we have practical alternatives to the dental amalgam. As has been highlighted earlier, some of those seem to be in progress but, at the moment, it is indicated that the alternatives are roughly five times the cost in private practice of what they would be in the NHS. We need to be in a position where we can institute the alternative. That means a considerable amount of work. It means support for the dental profession and for this to be brought about on a UK-wide basis.

Undoubtedly, it is the case that even if this did not apply anywhere in the United Kingdom, there is a major problem facing dentistry throughout the UK because of the EU ban. It is quite likely that the supply chains, and the overall European market for dental amalgam, will collapse in the near future, which will create its own difficulties. The Government need to be aware, so I again look to the Minister to see what support they will give to the dental profession as we move ahead between now and the beginning of 2035.

Secondly, on the solution that has been reached today, I commend officials and Ministers in the Government on raising these concerns with the EU and negotiating a sensible final position. But it highlights that these issues should not have to be fought out on a one-by-one basis. It shows the fundamental flaw with the system itself. These decisions lack any form of democratic accountability because they lie, ultimately, with the EU, where sovereignty has been surrendered and a level of democratic and political autonomy has been given over. We are left in a situation where this solution has been reached only because the EU decided, in effect, to do us a favour and agree this. We cannot be in a position, in the long term, of having to fight each individual matter on the basis that issues will be resolved on the good will or otherwise of the EU. We need a better solution to that.

Finally, this also shows, as has been shown with a number of other issues that I will touch on briefly, a level of overreach when it comes to our relationship with the EU. It is undoubtedly the case that the argument for a particular form of relationship that impacts Northern Ireland is largely based on two things from an EU perspective: the protection of the single market and a reduction of any friction on a cross-border basis. But the relationship at present, through the protocol and perhaps to a lesser extent through the Windsor Framework, goes into a wide range of areas, from immigration, for example, to the selling of poppies, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, indicated, which is nothing to do with cross-border trade or protecting the EU market.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 24th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, as perhaps the unelected Member for North Down, it is appropriate that I follow my colleague after his remarks. This is a very net Bill, and I understand the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that this is a form of takeaway legislation. Those are valid criticisms, although I would also say that, whatever concerns we have about that, the appropriate places to discuss such matters are this House and the other House—in democratic institutions. That is why I join others from across the House in saying that any attempt to threaten or intimidate any Member from whatever source—towards whichever Member—is utterly wrong. Politics must always be decided in a democratic and peaceful manner, and had others applied that lesson over the last number of decades, we would be in a much better place in Northern Ireland.

The Bill itself is one that, given the circumstances, is, as my noble friend Lord Dodds said, effectively inevitable. As for whether an election takes place or not, I am fairly relaxed one way or the other. Perhaps, given the polls, my party would pick up an extra seat or two, but the reality is that an election would not really tell us anything different from what we already know. It would, broadly speaking, highlight where the divisions are. Similarly, we have a shift of dates, but, as have we always said, what is actually important is not the calendar but whether the conditions are met. If extra time is being provided, what the Government will do with the extra time will be the critical matter to be resolved.

In resolving the problems that lie before us, the solution does not lie in bullying or bribery through a financial package. For months, I and my colleagues in this House and the other Chamber have highlighted that Northern Ireland has been underfunded. That is not something that we have simply plucked out of the air, but the application of the Holtham formula, if it were applied to us on the same basis as Wales, suggests what the fiscal floor should be for Northern Ireland. Those figures have been worked up through the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council. We have made the case time and time again. I know that the Member for Belfast East in the other place has highlighted this.

It is useful that, finally, the Government have accepted the merits of this argument; but to tie this in with a belief that you get this only if you are good boys and accept whatever is thrown at you is unacceptable. The crassest example of this culminated last week when the Secretary of State clearly tried to use the issue of public sector pay as pressure to say, “Well, if only the DUP agreed to this, all this money would be available”. The reaction, not just across the Chamber but from the trade unions, was remarkably consistent. I saw on television a range of trade union leaders whom I know and who, frankly, would run a mile before voting for the DUP. In the advantage that we have of PR elections, they would probably vote on the ballot paper for every preference other than the DUP. Yet they consistently said, to a man and woman, “No: if the Secretary of State has the money, government should be releasing the money”. The attempt by the Secretary of State was not only ill-judged but entirely counterproductive.

What will resolve this is dealing with the constitutional issues of the Irish Sea border. From the start of this process, it has been consistently said over many decades that we will have stable government in Northern Ireland only when we have systems which both unionists and nationalists buy into. Back in 2017, the Irish Government and Irish nationalism took a very tough line on north-south trade. At one stage, to his discredit, the then and current Taoiseach raised the spectre of violence re-emerging across the border if any level of customs was put within that.

In many ways, Irish nationalism got what it wanted in terms of north-south trade, but we have not seen equality of treatment for the concerns raised by unionists. It is perfectly reasonable for the EU to say, “For trade coming into the European Union, there need to be arrangements that protect the single market”. That is perfectly understandable. What is not understandable or acceptable is to extend arrangements which interfere entirely with the internal workings of the United Kingdom. For example, goods that are never going to go within the EU are subject to a range of restrictions and pressures; democratic institutions are held hidebound because of the lack of democratic accountability. This is not simply a constitutional issue, but one which applies from a practical, economic point of view.

We have seen—and not just in a theoretical sense—some large companies already starting to divert trade away from movement between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. A question mark exists as to whether a company in Northern Ireland could produce something to the same standards as GB and sell it in its own hometown, for example. That is the level of restrictions in place. Removing that Irish Sea border is the key to unlocking this solution.

Unfortunately, I have heard at least one noble Lord—not one who has spoken in this debate—parroting the line of Sinn Féin that the real reason why the DUP is opposed to restoration at this stage is that we cannot accept a Deputy First Ministership. Well, if that is the case, call our bluff. Deal with the constitutional issues and we will either accept it or be exposed to the world. We do not seek supremacy. What we seek is equality with our fellow citizens across the United Kingdom and equality between unionism and nationalism. Only with that level of stability, of getting something that both unionists and nationalists can buy into, can we have long-term stability in Northern Ireland. We need something that is clear, transparent and does the job. Part of the problem with the Windsor Framework is not simply that it did not solve the problems created by the protocol but that it was so overspun that there is a lack of trust in anything the Government put forward. Therefore, we need solutions that can clearly be demonstrated to have solved the problem.

I hope that today, small though this piece of legislation is, can be the first step on a route map to resolving the problems—either that or we will be back in a few weeks’ time in Groundhog Day. The choice very much lies with the Government to be able to deliver on that.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow that speech by the noble Lord, Lord Weir, which was one of the most thoughtful that we have heard this afternoon.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

The noble Baroness should not dare to accuse me of thoughtfulness.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

I also agree with what the noble Lord said, and share his sentiments, about the threats to Sir Jeffrey Donaldson. As he said, such threats, wherever they come from and whoever receives them, are never, ever acceptable.

I thank the Minister for his introduction to this short Bill and echo his sentiments in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Empey, back to his place. We always enjoy his contributions, and we missed them when he was not around so much recently.

It is now nearly two years since the Northern Ireland Executive collapsed—two years in which civil servants have had to take decisions which should have been taken by the politicians elected to deal with the very difficult situation that faces the people of Northern Ireland on so many issues. As other noble Lords have said, the health system is in crisis, and vital decisions are not being taken on education, the economy and future financing. The people of Northern Ireland are being badly let down and, as others have already said, last week’s public sector strikes showed all too clearly the level of frustration that people now feel. Ample time has been provided to reach a conclusion. There have now been so many occasions when we had been led to believe that a decision was close, and then it does not materialise.

However, from these Benches, we recognise the huge amount of work undertaken by the Government in the last two years and that some progress has been made. We welcomed the Windsor Framework, and we welcome the financial package announced before Christmas—in particular, the separate stabilisation fund to undo some of the harm created by cuts and to tackle backlogs, and the transformation fund to allow Northern Ireland to improve its public services.

However, financial stability alone will not address all the issues. Financial stability requires political, constitutional and institutional stability. In that context, from these Benches, we sincerely hope that this latest attempt and necessary extension of the timeframe will result in a return to a fully functioning Executive and Assembly. For that reason, we will not oppose the Bill. We can but hope that this latest attempt is successful and that this is indeed, as the Minister has said, the last such Bill of this kind.

However, if this latest extension to 8 February does not result in the outcome that we all hope to see, will the Minister confirm that the Government intend to return with a more comprehensive Bill, which would not be subject to this truncated timetable? As the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said, this really is not the way to do business. Will the Minister further confirm, were such a situation to arise—which we all hope it will not—that he would be willing to consider more extensive reforms at that point?

Northern Ireland has to be governed and, however good the civil servants are, it is unacceptable—including for the civil servants themselves—to continue with the current situation. The people of Northern Ireland have been incredibly patient, but, every day that these issues are parked and the can is kicked further down the road, more and more damage is being done. Northern Ireland deserves better.

Northern Ireland Budget (No. 2) Bill

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee negatived & 3rd reading
Thursday 14th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I join others in thanking the Minister for bringing this forward. If I am critical of the Government, I hasten to add that it is nothing personal. To paraphrase “The Godfather”, “It was only business—tell Lord Caine that I like him”. Where I make criticisms of the Government, it is not to detract from the Minister’s contribution today. The level of disappointment here—irrespective of whether we have a devolved settlement—is to do with the inadequacy of funding provided for public sector services in Northern Ireland by this budget. As the previous speaker, my noble friend Lord Morrow, highlighted, this reinforces the position in 2022.

As anyone who has been involved with any government department will know, that department often has a wish list of things that it would like to do—desires, if you like. But this is not about desires for public service expenditure; this is about public service expenditure needs. Since the beginning of 2022, for possibly the first time—certainly since 2015, when the Holtham formula was largely adopted by the Government—we see a region of the United Kingdom funded below its objective needs. As highlighted by my noble friend Lord Morrow, the figures were produced by the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council, in addition to other bodies. It should be noted that the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council is a government body, not a think tank or a lobby group. It identified the shortfall last year as £322 million; this year it is £431 million. That is £0.75 billion over two years, exacerbated by the money that has had to be paid back over the past two years because of last year’s overspend, which would not have arisen in the first place had there been proper levels of funding.

That needs to be seriously addressed. In the long run there is a need to look at the Barnett formula in great detail. The Barnett consequential squeeze has meant that since 2019, on average, UK expenditure has gone up by about 6% per annum; in Northern Ireland it is 3.6%, with the result of where we are today. That indicates why there is a longer-term need to look at Barnett. As indicated, the Holtham formula can produce a solution, at least in the short term. It probably took about seven years of discussions between the Welsh Government and the UK Government to get adoption—I expect the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, will be more familiar with this—but when it was adopted it was meant to be a UK-wide formula so that it could be applied to Northern Ireland to provide a level of support.

I am the first to acknowledge that there is a need for reform in public sector provision, as there is throughout the United Kingdom. This is good because we should always be looking at how we can get the best value from our public services for the expenditure put in place. However, I add at least three caveats. First, any form of public sector reform often requires initial investment to produce savings. It is not something that will produce an instantaneous result. Secondly, in my experience, whatever the value of public sector reform, in and of itself it is not enough to fill the gap: we need additional expenditure. Specifically in Northern Ireland, do we believe that, even in a restored situation, Sinn Féin in particular, given its track record on public sector reform, will embrace it or even just tolerate it? In the past it has moved to block and veto any reform and we would be deluding ourselves if we think that will be an easy route.

As for the current budgets, the department with which I am most familiar is the Department of Education, where the permanent secretary has identified a shortfall of over £300 million on current activities. That needs to be contextualised because it is simply doing what it is already committed to. It does not take into account the fact that, for the last two or three years, we have not had an agreement between the teaching unions and the management side, so teachers’ pay in Northern Ireland is considerably less than in the rest of the United Kingdom. If there was an agreement tomorrow, there simply would not be the money to pay that level of uplift.

The fact is that we are unable to progress childcare. Again, the level of provision and entitlement for parents is the least of anywhere in the United Kingdom. More than 80% of the education budget goes directly in salaries to front-line workers. Much of the remainder falls under a situation in which parents have a statutory right to access various things as legal requirements. The headroom within the Department of Education to meet that shortfall is extremely limited.

That means that, like some of the cuts already made, any of the pressures in the Department of Education will have to be met by targeting the most vulnerable in our society. For example, the report A Fair Start identified that the interventions required to tackle educational underachievement, particularly among the economically disadvantaged, will not be able to progress in the way that they are meant to. It means that SEN pupils, particularly those identified, will not have the resources and support that they need. It means that, because some of the programmes designed to try to boost those who have issues around educational underachievement and the socially disadvantaged are not statutory, they are the first that any department will cut. That is the crisis we face in education.

I conclude by mentioning another subject that should have been a good news story from a financial point of view but has been handled in a deeply dismaying way. Earlier this week, we saw the announcement of a package of support, spanning a number of years, through the PEACE PLUS programme. This is designed to support Northern Ireland and the border counties in the Republic of Ireland. The source of more than 85% of its funding came from the British Government and I commend them for it. However, the presentation of the announcement by the Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, made it look largely like this was an intervention by the Irish Government. I have to say that both his recent comments on a united Ireland and the overreach from the Irish Government on PEACE PLUS are deeply unhelpful. When the Minister is winding up, I would be grateful if he could address the situation with PEACE PLUS and the presentation of its funding sources.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

I am grateful, as we are all, for the Minister’s presentation of this budget. We all recognise the need for it and agree to process it rapidly, because services in Northern Ireland depend on it. It is fair to say, however, that every speaker has identified that, in reality, it represents a shortfall.

As mentioned, there was a debate in the other House about how this almost looks like a punishment. The Secretary of State has denied that. We know, partly because of the financial mismanagement of government, that there is no money across the piece but, in this situation, why is Northern Ireland being squeezed harder than anywhere else, given the circumstances? Could the Minister explain why this is quite so tight, if it is not part of the pressure to get the Assembly back up and running?

The implications of this are, for example, that the other devolved bodies, Scotland and Wales, can negotiate pay agreements that do not appear possible in Northern Ireland, because the money is not there to fund them. This means that public sector workers in Northern Ireland will be disadvantaged relative to those in other parts of the United Kingdom if this settlement is not supplemented. Basic cash affordability needs to be addressed.

Looking at the summary of all the departments, with the exception of health and infrastructure, every single one is facing a cash cut. The real-terms cut across the piece averages 16%. The issue there is the expectation of problems for health and education. I am told that it means that no new school building programme will be followed. Although it is a very small department and the amount of money is small, the Authority for Utility Regulation is being cut by 40%, yet utility regulation is quite important. Could the Minister suggest why that is and what the implications are?

The contributions we have received have been interesting. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, went through all these points in detail and made a very clear case for why the pressures in Northern Ireland need to be addressed and, of course, why we need an Assembly up and running.

It slightly took my breath away when the noble Lord, Lord Browne, opened his speech by saying that he wished this budget was being presented to the Northern Ireland Assembly. He implied that it was almost anybody’s fault that that was not happening other than the DUP’s. I am hopeful because every single DUP contribution has said that the DUP wants this to happen. That is, perhaps, an early indication that we are getting to the point where it might happen and this will never happen again. I can look cheerfully across and say that if that is the implication, I welcome it and look forward to hearing it because this cannot continue.

On a more serious point, the argument for why an agreement cannot happen is to do with the protocol and the Windsor Framework. I think the way it is put is that a foreign power makes rules binding on Northern Ireland, on which Northern Ireland has no say. We used to have a say, because we used to be part of that foreign power and we were able to make decisions and representations through elected representatives. The DUP campaigned to end that and these are the consequences.

It is worth noting that this week Apple has introduced its new iPhone. It will have a new connection—no longer a lightning connector but a USB-C connector, in conformity with the rules adopted by the European Union. Apple is an American company. Apple and the American Government have absolutely no say in the formulation of those rules, but Apple—the biggest company in the world—has had to conform to them. That is the reality when you trade; you negotiate terms but you also have to accept terms.

The problems that I acknowledge still exist within the Windsor Framework need to be addressed; we had a debate about that earlier this week. A very good committee report suggested how they might be addressed, but I suggest that they do not justify the continued dysfunction of the Assembly. There are issues that need to be addressed but I contend that they should be addressed from inside, not outside, if they are to be resolved.

The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, basically said that the people of Northern Ireland are caught between the DUP and the Government. That is, I suppose, a practical fact. The challenge to the Minister—not the Minister here; to be fair, my challenge goes to other Ministers—concerns the initiatives that the Government are prepared to take to try to break the deadlock. They share some degree of blame for the impasse. It is not all the DUP’s fault; the Government have some responsibility for that and some responsibility for trying to resolve it. I think that was the point that the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, wanted to make.

The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, gave us a very detailed exposé of the Holtham formula. Speaking from a Scottish perspective, the problem with that formula is that it represents—I know what he will say—a significant cut in the per capita allocation that Scotland currently enjoys. It is something that the SNP is unwilling to acknowledge but it is a fact. On the other hand, it probably genuinely addresses the need, as the noble Lord, Lord Weir, pointed out, not the desires. Northern Ireland needs more than it is being given just to stand still, never mind to catch up with the serious situation it faces. So I think we have to accept that we will pass this budget today—

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I appreciate the point that the noble Lord has made in relation to the Scottish situation, but one advantage of the Holtham formula is that it is meant to provide a floor rather than a ceiling. From that point of view, it would not obviate a level of cutting funding for Scotland but ensure that areas such as Wales and Northern Ireland do not fall below a minimum.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

I accept that. It is a perfectly fair point. For a long time, Wales has argued that the Barnett formula has not worked well for it, and it has not worked for Northern Ireland. The issue has not been the Barnett formula but historic spending. I speak not as a nationalist but in terms of Scottish representation. Any suggestion that the formula should cut back in Scotland would be politically unacceptable and pretty disruptive. I accept that what it offers is a framework for Wales and Northern Ireland to get fairer allocation than has been the case. Again, that is a responsibility for the UK Government to address. The devolved Administrations can ask for it, but it is up to the UK Government to determine whether they will do anything about it. But it has real validity.

As I said, we will pass this budget, and it will provide the immediate funds that are necessary, but it will leave Northern Ireland in a powerless situation where all the issues affecting the United Kingdom are significantly worse in Northern Ireland across the whole spectrum—every aspect of the public service, whether waiting lists or the general problem across infrastructure. I therefore ask the Minister: at what point, assuming there is a point, will the Government recognise that this needs to be addressed? As I said at the beginning, if it is not a punishment, is there nevertheless a reward at some point that can be secured? There needs to be.

My final point is the obvious plea for the Assembly and the Executive to be re-established, because it is just not acceptable that the people of Northern Ireland’s elected representatives are not meeting to debate these issues, make these recommendations, draw up their own budgets and, yes, make collective representation to the UK Government if they feel the overall funding level is not adequate. We are all weary of saying to the DUP to get back to the table and get back in, but we must say to them that this cannot go on and, if it does for very much longer, then, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie says, the demand for reform will come louder and louder. I suggest that such reform would not be entirely comfortable to members of the DUP. I am trying to make a rational appeal, as it is in the DUP’s real interest. They have a better chance of having their concerns—which I accept are legitimate from their perspective in many cases—addressed if they address the democratic deficit than by sitting and making the sort of speeches that they have made: “We all wish there was an Assembly, but there is not, and it is somebody else’s fault”. That is not good enough. The DUP have it in their hands to get it right. If they do, then they can start to negotiate with other parties and the Government to say, “This budget is not enough; Northern Ireland deserves better”, and, collectively, they will get it. I hope the Minister will acknowledge that, at some point or other, if that happens, there is space to negotiate.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 12th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, it is very difficult to achieve unanimity in politics in Northern Ireland, yet the Government inadvertently seem to have achieved that through this legislation, in that all political parties, Churches and, as far as I am aware, victims groups in Northern Ireland are opposed to it. We may question the motivation behind some of that opposition, and with good measure, in particular that coming from Sinn Féin, which in its past was the victim maker. For particular selfish reasons, it has a jaundiced view of this and is opposed to it through false motivation. Nevertheless, there is a strong consensus in Northern Ireland that this is the wrong way to go.

The Bill remains fundamentally rotten. There was a good attempt, by the Opposition which put forward this amendment, at least to flag up the role of victims and give them some direct say. As was said in the previous debate, that, in and of itself, would not have made a bad Bill good, but it would at least have been a step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, we are now left with the situation that, despite the voices from all sides of this Chamber, yet again our amendment has been rejected by the House of Commons. It is deeply disappointing that both the Government and a majority of MPs have not listened to what has been said. We are therefore about to pass legislation that, whatever slight improvements have been made to it, fundamentally lets down victims and creates a situation in which justice is corrupted. The reason given for the rejection of this amendment—that it would in some way taint the process and prevent a successful outcome—is a false promise, because we all know that the paramilitary organisations will not simply give up the information. So we are doing all this for no material gain whatever for the victims.

This is a deeply dark day for democracy and for this House. Clearly, we are left with a situation where the Commons remains unconvinced. If the Opposition do not push this to a Division, we will be left with a fait accompli which we will all come to regret.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 5th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2023 Grand Committee

In conclusion, I believe that, as others have said, what is being proposed is indoctrination, not education. As a number of noble Lords have stated, this is the Government’s deliberate enforcement of their diktat and certainly is not worthy of a Conservative Government. The result of this legislation will add to the thousands of unborn babies and leave many young girls emotionally scarred for the rest of their lives. Of course, those who have presented and supported these regulations will be nowhere to be found to pick up the pieces of these distraught young people. It will be left to many in the church community to reach out the hand of love and care while others walk away. I hope that this Government and those who support them feel proud of what they are doing to the people of Northern Ireland.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I speak as a former Education Minister for Northern Ireland. I will keep my remarks relatively succinct, because a lot of the substantive ground has been covered by my two colleagues who spoke previously. We are also due to speak in the House on the debate on illegal migration. I join them in expressing concerns about the content of this and in particular the way it has been brought about. The phrase that keeps coming back to me in the context of the implementation of this SI is “lack of respect”: a lack of respect for the sensitivities around the issue of abortion, a lack of respect for the ethos and belief of many people in Northern Ireland, a lack of respect for the devolutionary settlement, a lack of respect for basic democratic process, a lack of respect for educational process—I will touch on that later—and a deep lack of respect for education stakeholders at so many different levels.

As has been indicated, this is something on which myriad steps have been taken and in which undemocratic process has been grafted on top of other undemocratic process. As has been said, it arises from Section 9 of the legislation, which itself had an accelerated passage and was grafted on top of a one-issue subject. Indeed, the CEDAW recommendations, which were meant to be advisory, were themselves grafted on to the issue of abortion within Northern Ireland. As has been indicated, in terms of democratic scrutiny, the provisions in paragraph 86(d) of the CEDAW report did not merit a single minute of debate when this was discussed in relation to primary legislation. Beyond that, we now see these regulations being introduced without any consultation whatever. The concerns raised in relation to that have been highlighted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which also highlighted that some of the provisions will—it seems uniquely—be brought in immediately rather than after the normal 21 days.

The Minister said in his opening remarks that the Government’s intention was to put Northern Ireland in a similar position to that of England, yet that is not accurate. In England, proper consultation at least took place. There are many things done by government that all of us will disagree with to different levels but, if we are all given the opportunity to have an input through proper consultation, due process will at least have taken place. This process has circumvented that and has not put the people of Northern Ireland in the same position; it has put them in an inferior position to the people of England and Wales.

This also cuts across educational process. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, rightly made reference to the Gillen report. The substance of that report around RSE focused on critical issues of consent, respect for females and ensuring that relationships were conducted in a respectful manner that hopefully means that we can reduce—and, in an ideal world, eliminate—sexual abuse within that. Yet, it has to be said, this SI tackles none of the subjects at the forefront of the Gillen report. Indeed, it circumvents the work that has been going on in the Department of Education and Department of Justice on the Gillen report. When I was a Minister alongside Minister Long, we did not hold similar views on issues such as abortion—

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

Does not the existence of a properly run relationship education include all the things that were mentioned in the Gillen report? That is why I referred to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

Indeed, the noble Baroness was right to refer to it, but the issue is that this SI does not touch on the main recommendations of the Gillen report. It made specific recommendations about what should be included in RSE and how departments could work together on that subject. This SI completely ignores that and puts the cart before the horse. It completely ignores and abrogates what was in the Gillen report.

As I said, Minister Long and I take a very different view on abortion; we are not at one, but we worked together through both departments to set up a joint working group on how RSE could be taken forward, particularly how the recommendations of the Gillen review could be best implemented. These regulations simply cut across that, ignoring the ongoing work, and seek to impose all these things on the NIO. Again, there is concern over where this leaves a wide range of stakeholders. Mention has been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, of a wide range of educational groups across the spectrum which have been completely ignored. I do not think that that is particularly healthy for Northern Ireland.

I have been inundated, in particular by school principals and teachers who are deeply concerned that they have, in effect, been thrown into the fire—it may come as a surprise that there are still some teachers who want to speak to me as a former Education Minister. Not all head teachers and teachers have exactly the same view on abortion; they have a range of views. However, they feel that they have been thrown in at the deep end by the Government without any prior knowledge and consultation. They will be left to pick up the pieces without a clue as to how these regulations are to be implemented.

Similarly, those who give their time as school governors—let us remember that it is voluntary—are left with the legal duty of implementing the regulations, again without any input into the process. I suspect that it is quite often difficult to find people who are willing to give their time and put their head above the parapet to be school governors, but frankly, if stakeholders are simply treated with contempt, that process will become even more difficult.

I agree in part with one thing that the Minister has said, about the need for “meaningful engagement”. Would it not have been better if that meaningful engagement had taken place before the SI was introduced? I urge the Government, if they are genuinely committed to meaningful engagement, to put their money where their mouth is, pause these regulations and have a proper consultation. It would not obfuscate many of the democratic flaws in this process or some of the restrictions in the SI, but at least it would ensure that there was the opportunity for people to have their proper say, rather than trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted.

[Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)]

My Lords, I rise to oppose these regulations, first, in the way that they have been set out. The issue has united communities of all backgrounds in Northern Ireland in terms of how the Secretary of State has dealt with these regulations, laid before Parliament on 6 June 2023. They require the teaching at key stages 3 and 4 of relationships and sexual education in Northern Ireland, covering abortion and the reduction of teenage pregnancy. They require the Department of Education to introduce a new RSE curriculum across primary schools in Northern Ireland, without any real consultation or prior warning.

Given the hugely controversial nature of the regulations and the strong views expressed against this policy, most people would have believed that a full public consultation would have been necessary.

When similar regulations were introduced in England, they were subject to a public consultation before implementation, as other noble Lords have already stated, as were similar controversial regulations on abortion when they were introduced in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Office has not offered any real, convincing reason why these regulations should be treated any differently.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 26th June 2023 Lords Chamber

I said earlier that I was involved with whipping back in the 1994 amendment. I would like to press this vote today if the Minister does not accept it, but I have not actually got round to the whipping and asked anyone to join me. I will wait to hear how the Minister responds before deciding whether to press the vote.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, within any democracy it is healthy and appropriate that people have a battle of ideas and their own thoughts and opinions. People are perfectly entitled to their own allegiances and opinions. What people are not entitled to is their own truths and their own facts. Sadly, when it comes to the Northern Ireland Troubles, we have seen a perverse and dangerous attempt to rewrite history to pervert the truth and the facts of what happened. In the spirit of ensuring that facts remain, let me highlight four universal facts and truths that I believe everyone in this House could unite around.

First, terrorism was and is wrong. There was never an excuse for terrorism, be it republican or loyalist—I treat both the same. There was never, ever any excuse for violence. Secondly, it therefore flows that memorialisation of that terrorism in present-day circumstances is equally wrong. Whether it is a shrine, a commemoration or the perversity of the equivalent of bouncy castles for a family fun day to commemorate those who carried out the most heinous acts within our society—again, irrespective of the source—that is fundamentally wrong.

Thirdly, we need to nail the lie that there was no alternative to violence. There are many within this Chamber, from all sections of our community, who put their head above the parapet, stood for election in Northern Ireland and used democracy to pursue often competing aims. There was always democracy within Northern Ireland; there was always the opportunity for democratic arguments to be moved forward.

Fourthly, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, there was never a democratic mandate for violence. Violence was never the majority opinion within unionism, it was never the majority opinion within nationalism, and it was never the majority opinion among those who did not identify with either. Similarly, for those who would pursue a particular Irish republican view on it, it was never a majority opinion within any section of the island, north or south.

It is upon those fundamental truths of history and the present-day situation that we must rest where we are. Any attempt to unpick those truths—and the memorialisation of terrorism goes to the heart of that—is deeply dangerous.

Unlike others in this House perhaps, although my entire childhood and much of my adult life was lived through the Troubles, I did not have any personal examples of suffering at the hands of the Troubles directly. I was very fortunate. There was never an attempt on my life or the life of a close family member. I did not lose anybody. There are others in this House who bear much greater burdens than that, and beyond. I cannot even place myself in the shoes of those innocent victims and their families, who suffered at the heart of terrorism throughout the Troubles. It is right that we commemorate innocent victims of the past, and it besmirches their name to create a level of equivalence between them and those who carried out violence. The commemoration and memorialisation, from whatever side, of those who committed those heinous crimes is deeply injurious to the memories of those victims.

This is partly about the past; it is also about the present. For those relatives to have to suffer commemoration and potential memorialisation of those who inflicted that on their families is wholly unacceptable. Even if those were the only reasons, we should be rejecting the idea of memorialisation of terrorism, but it is also, pertinently, about the future. We have seen too many examples of late of the glorification of terrorism resonating among wider society, particularly among younger people who have no collective memory of what happened in the past, be that from circumstances in which there is chanting for terrorist organisations to a recent situation which is not just anecdotal but can be looked up on social media—when the police came to arrest a suspect in relation to the attempted murder of the police officer in Omagh, the suspect was cheered by people within that neighbourhood.

It is deeply worrying that, even today, we see dissident republicans putting up posters against the PSNI and making threats against recruitment of the police and the Prison Service. That rightly drew the ire of political parties, and a joint letter condemning that was signed by four of the five major parties in Northern Ireland—my party, the Ulster Unionist Party, the Alliance Party and the SDLP. Shamefully, to date no representative of Sinn Féin has signed that letter condemning those activities. That is deeply unacceptable. A situation in which hatred and violence are stoked up by a glorification of a violent terrorist past is deeply worrying because it runs the risk of dragging young people into repeating that evil. That is why memorialisation is not simply about the issue of the past or the present but about what future Northern Ireland has.

I await the remarks of the Minister and know that the Government will say that they have no intention of allowing memorialisation. I am sure that is their intention, but in terms of this legislation and why we have put down these amendments we must, as a House and a legislature, be absolutely clear that memorialisation of terrorism in any shape or form is to be prevented. If that means that we have to go the extra mile and put the belt and braces on, beyond what is there at present, let us not be afraid of doing so. Let us ensure that the evils of the past are not repeated in the present or the future.

[Lord Morgan (Lab)]

My Lords, I intervene not as an Irish person but as someone who comes from another Celtic country, which has found another way of dealing with potential and actual terrorism, and that is called political democracy. It has been a terrible thing that, throughout so much of modern Irish history, the tendency has been to equate democratic practices and human rights with one side and not with another.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 21st June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the amendments in this group about making the Bill more victim-centred. Undoubtedly, the most important people in all this are the victims. Many of them have passed on and their families—some of whom have passed on, through the passage of time—have not seen justice and truth: the very things they were looking for. I acknowledge what both the Minister and my noble friend Lord Murphy said, on the summer solstice, the longest day of the year, which is the day that victims of the Troubles in Northern Ireland are remembered.

In relation to Amendment 2, can the Minister, in his wind-up, explain the practical application of the amendment on the operation of the ICRIR. How will the amendment really promote reconciliation in the exercise of those functions, given that the Bill has been opposed by legal representatives, such as the European Council of Ministers, political representatives from the Irish Government and all the political parties in Northern Ireland, and the victims and survivors—a wide spectrum?

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, first, my colleagues and I associate ourselves with the earlier remarks noting and indeed supporting real victims of the Troubles. It is important that they are at the forefront of our mind as we debate all these amendments today.

I acknowledge that the amendments before us in this group all represent very small steps forward. They are small ameliorations and small improvements. It is difficult to quibble with their exact wording; there is nothing that we would seek to divide on in this group of amendments. However, by their very nature, they are symptomatic of the wider problems with this Bill. Whatever small improvements are made, they cannot turn the irreconcilable and the unacceptable into something that is acceptable and worthy of legislation. They omit some of the most important aspects. Indeed, part of the problem with these amendments is that they have sins of omission, rather than sins of commission. What do I mean by that? If we first take Amendment 2, we see that it introduces the concept of reconciliation, which is on the face of the Bill, directly into the work of the commission, but there is a danger of that being seen as tokenistic. At no stage does the Bill actually define what the objectives of reconciliation are. There is a danger that this has been thrown in simply so that there can be a direct reference to reconciliation, but with no meat put on the substance.

The other, more fundamental, issue regarding reconciliation is that many victims will see this legislation as being entirely unacceptable, taking away from them any prospect at all of justice and granting immunity to those who carried out some of the most heinous crimes during the Troubles. Therefore, the idea of reconciliation being at the heart of the Bill while immunity from prosecution remains is a central paradox of the Bill that is not properly addressed by Amendment 2.

On Amendment 3, the weakness is in the reference to the

“general interests of persons affected”

by the Troubles. Having a victim-centred is something that no one would disagree with but, in this wording, no distinction is drawn, for example, between a perpetrator and a victim. Someone who, for example, could have suffered injuries or death as a result of their own terrorist actions is put on the same plain as those innocent victims. I think that, again, there has been a problem of successive Governments failing to tackle this particular problem.

Finally, on Amendment 85 and 86, the involvement of victim statements is generally welcomed but, again, this belies the flaws within this process as a whole. Victim statements are commonplace within the criminal law and give an opportunity for those who have suffered directly to have their views taken into account. However, with that, the norm is that a victim impact assessment is taken into account by the courts to establish, for example, whether a tariff should be greater or less than would otherwise be imposed. The views of the victims can genuinely be taken into account. In this case, however, while it is welcome that those views will be published, it will have no impact whatever on the potential immunity. Therefore, the question for many victims will be: what is the point if whatever they say has no impact whatever?

We do not oppose these amendments and will not be dividing on them, but they fundamentally do not change the flawed nature of this Bill.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 11th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, this part of the Bill provides for history and memorialisation. It is about creating as true and honest an account as possible—one which has integrity—of what happened during our tortured, troubled past.

This is hugely sensitive. I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has said. All I will add is that, given the fact that the eyes of the whole community will be on those who are attempting to deal with these matters, it is vital that there is equity and fairness for all.

I fully support Amendment 172 from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, in particular. It is right that no memorialisation activities glorify the commission or preparation of Troubles-related offences. We see at regular intervals events from different sections of the community, not just the republican community, which glorify individuals who contributed to atrocities and occasions that caused immense pain to so many of us, but particularly to those whose loved ones died or were permanently maimed in the attack being celebrated. Such events cause great pain; they can reignite the terrors and agony of the post-traumatic stress disorder suffered by so many as a consequence of these events. There is no justification whatever for the glorification of terrorism.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

I rise to support the amendments tabled in my name and the names of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and others, but also to give a broad welcome to this group in its entirety—notwithstanding some of the major concerns that have been expressed by ourselves and others from across the Chamber about the overall contents of the Bill. From that point of view, no amendments can make the Bill itself acceptable. Nevertheless, actions that we can take to deal with the issue of memorialisation have a level of importance.

Memorialisation can be a force potentially for good, but we also need to be aware that it can also be a major force for further problems and further evil. If done correctly, memorialisation can be beneficial in helping to remember innocent victims and, one hopes, helping towards a level of reconciliation. If we get the conditions right, that can be something of benefit to society and, potentially, to some families. But there is a real danger that memorialisation can be got wrong, which is the thrust of the amendments that we have proposed. It is about trying to provide a level of consistency.

As in previous groups of amendments, we are talking about the real danger of a glorification of terrorism, which must be prevented—certainly from anybody who seeks to benefit from this legislation. It is also the case that, if memorialisation is used as a back door to glorify or justify terrorism, it would be deeply damaging to society. It is not simply a question of rubbing salt in the wounds of the innocent victims and their families—although, if there were no other consideration, that would be a reason why Amendment 172 needed to be proposed and supported completely. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, indicated, it goes beyond simply dealing with the legacy of the past; it is about the implications for the future and the present day.

We have a generation growing up who did not experience the Troubles but who are clearly susceptible to the message that there was no alternative to violence in the past and that terrorism could be justified today and into the future. That is not simply an academic concern or one that might be moot. We have seen dissident organisations sucking in those young people to be directly involved in terrorism. That is the real danger for the future. Let us send out by this legislation, or at least through these amendments that we are putting forward, a very clear and unambiguous statement: there was always an alternative to violence. That is why, throughout the entire history of the Troubles, there was never a majority in either community for violence; it was opposed by the ordinary people throughout, and it was a minority on both the loyalist and republican sides who engaged in that terrorism and the wickedness and pain that it caused. It is critical that we send out the clear message that there was no justification for terrorism and that there was always a democratic alternative.

Allied to that, we cannot be ambiguous about those who went out to perpetrate the evil of terrorism, from whatever side they came, and those who were the innocent victims. Therefore, it is right that we draw this distinction, which is in line with some changes that the Government have made in other spheres. That is why Amendment 173 is also critical.

It is also the case—and why I welcome the amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Godson and Lord Bew, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey—that, overall, it is critical that memorialisation is approached with academic rigour and diversity, and a balanced approach that provides a fair and accurate summary of what happened. Again, if this is a one-sided process or one that in some way gives some level of light to those who would argue for violence in the past, it will do irreparable harm. Therefore, the academic approach that needs to be taken is critical.

I have a good deal of sympathy for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Godson, on an overall tone in regard to the Troubles. One thing that has struck me as a former Education Minister is that, unfortunately, at times, we see the ignorance of history. We see young people who simply do not know what happened. It is therefore important that we educate people in a neutral and fair way. There is no doubt that there are contested opinions and views as regards Northern Ireland but there cannot be contested facts. That is why we need to approach this with a level of academic rigour, and that is why I welcome the amendments.

Finally, there is an iterative process to be done, particularly with victims’ families, regarding memorialisation. It may well be that, as part of that process, there is the gathering of an oral history of the stories of the Troubles. It is important that people are able to do that through organisations with a good track record of fairness and balance, and organisations which we can trust. I declare an interest as a member of the Linen Hall Library, which for many years has taken a wide range of views and worked with all parties on reflecting the troubles in a fair and historic manner. It is a role that the library and others can play. We need to make sure that that is not one-sided or biased in any way, and in particular that we draw a clear-cut distinction between, on the one side, the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland who simply wanted to get on with their lives and the victims, and, on the other side, the perpetrators.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group, in particular those in the names of my friend the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, the noble Lord, Lord Godson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. This is an important issue. The last time we were in Committee on the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Eames, was speaking about reconciliation, and we spent some time on that. Reconciliation will come only if there is an understanding that the things that happened in the past in Northern Ireland were wrong. To do that we need a factual history, because there has been a lot of rewriting of what has happened in Northern Ireland over the past 35 or 40 years.

Just this week, Gerry Adams was reported to have spoken in a podcast to Rory Stewart about the attempted murder of Baroness Margaret Thatcher back in 1984. When he was challenged by Rory Stewart about the violence, Gerry Adams said, “We never went to war, you came to me”. That is a skewed view of what happened in Northern Ireland in the 70s and 80s but a predictable source of rewriting of what went on at that time. But sometimes we have unpredictable sources of rewriting. It was distressing, not just for victims of terrorism but for many of us living in Northern Ireland, to hear the current Secretary of State, in an address to Queen’s University at the 25th anniversary event that the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, mentioned, refer to Martin McGuinness, a self-confessed IRA commander, as a man of courage and leadership. That was astonishing, and many victims voiced their opinion and distress at those comments. Ann Travers, a victims’ advocate whose sister was murdered by the IRA on her way home from mass, said that those comments insulted innocent victims of republican terrorists. And so it continues, this rewriting of what actually happened in Northern Ireland.

Last year, we had the putative First Minister of Northern Ireland, Michelle O’Neill, telling us that there was no alternative to the violence that happened in Northern Ireland—no alternative to terrorism: that there was no alternative to the bomb in Enniskillen in 1987, when people went to remember the dead of the World Wars; that there was no alternative to the attempted murder of my friend the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, when he visited his son in hospital; that there was no alternative to placing a bomb on the bus that I was going to school on because the man driving the bus was a part-time member of the Ulster Defence Regiment. What about the alternative to lying in a hedge and waiting for police officers coming home from their day’s work, only to murder them as they stepped out of their cars?