Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Organ and Tissue Donation) Bill

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 27th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I join others in supporting this Bill, but particularly in adding my prayers and thoughts—and I believe that everyone in this Chamber is of a like mind—for DCI John Caldwell and his family, in connection with the despicable attack which took place last week in Omagh. It was an attack in front of children. DCI John Caldwell was making a contribution to the community and was horrendously injured. We are glad at least that he has survived this attack, and I am sure that all in this House pray for his full recovery. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and others, in saying not only that this is this fundamentally wrong but that violence, terrorism and the threat of terrorism have always been fundamentally wrong.

It is important that we learn the lessons of this attack. This House has spent some time dwelling on how we should deal with crimes of the past. The events last week show that crimes of the past have a deep resonance in the present and for the future. Every time a signal is sent out that in some way crimes of the past are to be treated differently from what happens this week, it gives a level of tacit approval, or at least acceptance, of what happens in future. We have seen this all too pointedly with this attack. Obviously, the police must do their job in bringing those people to prosecution. However, it is deeply disturbing that some of the suspects who have been arrested were born since the ceasefire and the Belfast agreement. There is a new generation which sees the prospect of using violence as something that is acceptable. Again, the signal was sent when we saw footage on social media of one of the suspects being arrested, in which his neighbours were applauding him as the police came to arrest him. Therefore, with regard to glorifying terrorism and how crimes are treated, we have to realise that the decisions taken have implications, not just in how we look at the past but in how we look towards the future.

As has been indicated, there are two main parts to the Bill. Dealing first with organ retention and donation, I welcomed the Government’s amendment in the other House, coming as it does after a similar amendment was tabled by the three main constitutional parties from Northern Ireland that are represented in the House of Commons. As my noble friend Lord Dodds has indicated, at one stage there was an unfortunate attempt to use this issue as some form of leverage. I am glad that has been abandoned and that the Government have seen sense by bringing those amendments forward. As my party and others have said, the key issue is: what is the route by which this can be achieved in the quickest possible fashion? It was always the case that attachment to legislation such as this was the quickest and easiest way of bringing this about.

There has never been a consensus on the broader issue of how best to achieve the maximum amount of organ donation. At one stage a few years ago, clinicians disagreed on the best way forward. I have always wanted an organ donation system which worked best, and have always been supportive of the sort of legislation that Dáithí’s law has brought about. I believe that I am the only member of this House who, in the Assembly, voted in favour of Dáithí’s law, which was supported by all the parties of the Assembly. Like many within this House, I am sure, I have a long-standing commitment to organ donation. I am an organ donor, although as years pass by the desirability of my organs may reduce—and I may not be unique in this Chamber on that. Nevertheless, taking action which has the maximum amount of help for those waiting for transplants is something which is deeply responsible, and us supporting this piece of legislation means that this is a good day. It is a tribute to Dáithí and his family, and to the work that they and others have done to bring this about.

The other aspect of the Bill relates to the date of any future Assembly elections. I welcome this as a level of common sense. I have seen that some cynical commentators have said that the Government have put this on the long finger for a year because they may be concerned about the results of an election. I scorn such cynicism, and I know that that would never have entered the Government’s minds. If it had, perhaps they would be restoring the 19th-century practice of having Parliament run for seven years, with the prospect of putting off an election—but I do not want to put ideas into any Ministers’ heads.

Nevertheless, this is a sensible measure. At a previous debate, when we were effectively renewing this on a six-weekly basis, I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, highlighted with a certain level of scepticism that, while he was in favour of the short postponement, he questioned whether it was really likely to sort everything out in such a short timeframe. I believe that he was right: giving a certain level of space is appropriate. The Government did not simply get themselves in a position where they were effectively renewing the law every six weeks, but we also had the slightly farcical spectacle of the Government wanting to take us to the nth degree prior to Christmas and threatening that an Assembly election would be called at one minute past midnight, while the time passed by. I think that the Government have learned from that mistake. It is right that we give a little bit of space to ensure that we can hopefully see a restoration of government. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice: as much as possible, I want to see the laws affecting Northern Ireland decided in Northern Ireland. That is one of the fundamental reasons that having 300 areas of law decided not in Northern Ireland or even at Westminster but by Brussels is fundamentally wrong. That is why we need to deal with the issues in front of us.

It is useful to give a certain amount of time to resolve things. However, that is useful only if that opportunity is taken by the Government and others to resolve the fundamental problems. Undoubtedly, the poison at the heart of our political system, which has been causing instability in Northern Ireland, is the Northern Ireland protocol. Probably in the next few hours, we will see what text has emerged from the deal by the Prime Minister and the European Union, and it would be wrong to prejudge that. But it is undoubtedly the case that any deal or any other way of resolving the protocol needs to deal with the key fundamentals. It needs to ensure that there is frictionless trade between Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom, and a restoration of the UK internal market; that democracy is restored; that our equal citizenship within the United Kingdom is restored; and, above all, that the Act of Union is restored.

To some, these concerns may seem esoteric. I appreciate that there will be some in this House for whom these are not matters of great conviction. But for any of us who feel our citizenship under threat, it is not surprising why we hold this so dear. The solutions which are required go to the very core of our existence, which is why we need to see resolution of those issues. It is how some would portray some of the concerns raised by unionists—and shared by all unionists, well beyond those on these Benches from the Democratic Unionist Party—but we are not seeking some fantastical solution or indeed perfection. In those basic demands, we seek a restoration of the basics: the basic rights of the people of Northern Ireland, and what is basically required to protect our future. These are not just for today but for five or 10 years’ time and into the future. In the hope that the Government grasp that problem and come forward with solutions that deal with all those problems is the hope that we can see a level of restoration, but that can be only when those fundamentals have been directly delivered. That is what we will judge this by. I believe that it is useful that we see the Bill passed today but, as others have indicated, it is only a means to an end rather than an end in and of itself.

Omagh Bombing

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I am of course aware of the case to which he refers. I do not think it would be appropriate for me, at the Dispatch Box, to comment directly on a case which is still live and ongoing. However, I do hear the comments of my noble friend very loud and clear and, as I said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, I will raise these issues when I next meet Ministers from the Irish Government.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I join with voices from all sides of this House in welcoming this inquiry and pass my sympathy and thoughts to the families of this horrendous and heinous crime.

In response to a number of questions, the Minister has rightly indicated that the focus should remain: we must not be deflected from focusing on the perpetrators of this evil act. Will he agree also that, whatever direction the inquiry takes, it should not be exploited by some others to try to deflect that focus, either by turning the security forces into scapegoats or by trying to besmirch the bravery of their actions down the years in Northern Ireland?

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend, who makes a very important point. Of course, the inquiry will be established and set about its work, which it will do thoroughly, and in due course a report will be published. My noble friend makes a hugely important point about the security forces. We all acknowledge that mistakes were made in the course of Operation Banner; I speak as somebody who helped to write David Cameron’s Statement in response to the Saville inquiry in June 2010. However, as I have always maintained, over the course of 30 years, over 250,000 people served in the security forces and the overwhelming majority did so with great bravery, distinction and restraint. I put on record again that, without the service and sacrifice of the Royal Ulster Constabulary George Cross and our Armed Forces, there would have been no peace process in Northern Ireland, and we owe them a huge debt of gratitude.

Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Supreme Court Judgment

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Caine (Con)]

Clearly, we do not want anybody in any part of the United Kingdom to feel like a second-class citizen. As I set out in my comments on the Northern Ireland Budget Bill on Tuesday, dealing with issues around governance and the democratic deficit, to which the noble Lord referred, are extremely important, and they will have to form part of a final negotiated agreement with the EU.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, we used to have a situation where there was a common citizenship across the United Kingdom and that every citizen of the United Kingdom was able to vote for representatives at either regional or national level who could set their laws. It is clear that the Supreme Court ruling yesterday has confirmed that that is no longer the case. As we rightly, as a nation, seek to propagate the values of democracy internationally, can the Minister tell us what message it sends to the outside world that we are tolerating a major democratic deficit in our own backyard?

[Lord Caine (Con)]

As I just pointed out in response to his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, this is an issue we are seeking to resolve in the negotiations. I cannot really go into any detail at the Dispatch Box.

Northern Ireland Budget Bill

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee negatived & 3rd reading
Tuesday 7th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, given the lateness of the hour, I will try to curtail my remarks. The Minister will be delighted to hear that I will try to ensure that he can finish proceedings on the Bill by midnight, or 12.30 am at the latest.

Much has been said about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hain. Despite a certain amount of backpedalling by the noble Lord to try to appear even-handed, it seems to many of us a fairly thinly veiled, one-sided attack on the position of unionists. [Interruption.] I hear chuntering from a sedentary position; as I said, it was thinly veiled. The position, I suppose, stands in contrast to the silence over a three-year period with regard to Sinn Féin, and over a 40-year period regarding its allowances in the Palace of Westminster. If someone tried effectively to bribe noble Lords or threaten them with the removal of salary, I think all would have the integrity to say no to that. I say broadly on behalf of the unionist community that no unionist or other person of integrity will be bribed, blackmailed or browbeaten into reducing or giving up strongly and passionately held principles for the sake of a few pounds. There is a very clear message there. Frankly, the amendment is ill judged.

Drawing from the budget Bill itself, three lessons can be learned. First is the importance of political stability. If we have learned anything over the last 25 years and beyond, it is that political stability in Northern Ireland can work only when we have the buy-in of both communities. Frankly, that will not happen until we see the replacement of the Northern Ireland protocol. It is not simply a matter of tinkering around with the implementation of it but of dealing with the fundamental problems: the democratic deficit; the lack of accountability; and the fact that, from a divergence point of view, Northern Ireland would be tied into regulations which are not simply going to be a problem on day one but will get greater and greater as time moves on. That is not simply a constitutional threat; it will be economically damaging to Northern Ireland.

At the moment, Northern Ireland is effectively being treated as a colony of the European Union. I appreciate that there are many in this House who will take a much more optimistic and sympathetic view of the EU than many who would be sympathetic to my views. If, out of generosity, we take that at face value and believe that the EU is trying to operate in the best interests of Northern Ireland, a benign colony is still a colony. That is what we need to address with the protocol. It is disappointing that we are in this position because up to this point there have been missed opportunities and wasted time.

It is eight months since the First Reading of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. It is 19 months since the Government’s Command Paper on the subject. It is just over three years since the Government, in the restoration of Stormont under the NDNA, gave a commitment to restore Northern Ireland’s place fully within the United Kingdom and the UK internal market. We cannot afford a situation in which we have another facade, where we produce any form of deal, but one which does not solve the problems.

The second lesson to be learned in relation to the budget is that there is a dire need—not just in Northern Ireland; it is a wider lesson for the whole of the UK—for public sector reform. We have seen in Northern Ireland the proposals of the Bengoa report. Within education, I and my successor brought forward the independent review on education. It is important that we all have the political courage to reform public services. Sometimes that will be painful for us but the key goal is the best possible delivery for all our citizens. Against that, there is a caveat: public sector reform does not come instantaneously and quite often comes with a price tag upfront. It is not an instant solution but nevertheless we must grasp it.

The third lesson is that we need to see public services that are adequately and fairly funded. Against the backdrop of the cost of living crisis, public services are very much falling behind. Mention has been made on a number of occasions of how generously Northern Ireland is treated in its finances. The same point could be made about a range of regions. However, as I am sure that Scottish and Welsh colleagues will testify, the convergence that happens because of the Barnett squeeze means that the figure reduces each year. We have reached a tipping point in which the objective needs of Northern Ireland, and indeed of other regions, are greater than what is being provided in finance.

Nowhere is that more acute than in education. That is why recently all four main Churches in Northern Ireland and all the major educational sectoral bodies warned of the situation we were being put in and that the Education Authority is so concerned about where the budget will be for next year. It was quite foolhardy of the Government to seek £110 million of savings in a three-month period from the Education Authority.

The cost of living has hit education so hard because around 90% of funding for education goes on necessary wages. Whatever efficiency savings you make, you cannot have a classroom without a teacher in front of it. As pressure for wage inflation builds up across the UK, it increases the burden. Much of the rest of education funding is on statutory responsibilities and legal entitlements, such as special educational needs, school transport and free school meals. As such, the room for manoeuvre is very limited in education. To keep its head above water in recent years, education has had to rely on in-year monitoring rounds to plug the gap. With pressures applying more and more on other departments in Northern Ireland, that money is simply not available.

The Minister of State in the other House highlighted how generously education was funded and referred to the additional amount that Northern Ireland had compared to the rest of the UK. But let me give one statistic. We have a very young population in Northern Ireland, and the number of state school pupils per head is 26% higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom. That highlights the level of pressure there. I ask the Minister—and I ask for a written reply, given both the time and the level of detail—if he can directly outline from government figures the level of funding per pupil for each jurisdiction of the UK, the level of statementing for each jurisdiction and the level of SEN spend, which is a legal statutory requirement. Given the additional need, can he tell me the number and percentage of pupils on free school meals in different parts of the United Kingdom?

It is undoubtably the case that we are facing a very dangerous situation for education in Northern Ireland. Education is the driver of Northern Ireland’s future. It is key to the economy and to skills, but above all education is the one intervention in people’s lives that can make all the difference. It is a great game-changer for our children, and if we do not invest in our education we will be in a dire situation. I have outlined a range of interventions in this speech that will need to happen or else we will head into a terrible crisis—not simply for education but for the whole of public services within Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 31st January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I am grateful to noble Lords. When the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, and my noble friend Lord Morrow were referring to the lack of members of my own party sitting behind me tonight, I could not help but reflect on the famous poster, with which noble Lords behind me at least will be very familiar, from the period of the third home rule Bill, with the caption:

“Deserted! Well—I can stand alone.”

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

Good choice.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

Maybe, like Ulster in 1912, I have no choice.

I appreciate the sentiments behind these amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, referred to the fact that victims groups are not a homogenous group of people. People are looking for different things. She referred to her time as victims Minister. As I have said before, I have probably met more groups over many decades than any person, certainly any politician, who does not live in Northern Ireland.

Yesterday was the 51st anniversary of the events of Bloody Sunday. I vividly recall that, a few weeks after David Cameron responded to the Saville inquiry in June 2010, I went with the then Secretary of State to the City Hotel in Derry, where we met members of the Bloody Sunday families. It will not be any surprise that they did not all speak with one voice. Some of them thought that what had happened with Saville and David Cameron’s response was fantastic: “We can now move on and get on with the rest of our lives”. Others said to us, “It was fantastic, we really appreciate it, but now we want to see the next phase of this, which is prosecutions”. I have referred to the later time when it came to taking a decision on that. Another group—by far the smallest—said to us, “Well, the Saville inquiry did not finger Edward Heath, Brian Faulkner or the military top brass and so on, therefore it’s a whitewash and, 12 years and £200 million later, we need another inquiry”. So I was struck that, even on an issue such as that, where most people suggest that the Government got it right in June 2010, not everybody was satisfied and people wanted different outcomes.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 31st January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a powerful debate because, irrespective of their party-political affiliation, where they come from in Northern Ireland or whether they reside here in Britain, all noble Lords have a deep aversion to the proposition in this Bill to eradicate, in many ways, civil actions and to provide immunity. That is very much anathema to victims and survivors.

The Minister probably finds this Bill particularly challenging. In his previous positions over many years, he will have dealt directly with many victims and survivors in discussing the various iterations of how the Government, along with others, intend to deal with the legacy issues, because that is one of the outstanding matters of the Troubles era. However, having listened to the people from SEFF yesterday evening and to other victims over the past few weeks and months, many of whom I know personally, I know that they find that part of the Bill particularly difficult. They say that this Bill is irredeemable—a word that was used last week and has been used this week.

Looking at this group of amendments, I agree that Clause 18 should not stand part of the Bill. I also agree with Amendments 120 and 121, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, which probe the Government’s general definition of immunity from prosecution. Will the Minister say a few words about that? Clause 18 should definitely not stand part.

All these amendments deal with the immunity process, which, along with the denial of access to justice measures at the heart of the Bill, is very troubling for victims. What they want is the truth about what happened to their loved ones. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, recounted the story of Pam Morrison. She told me last night about her three brothers and sister, who were heinously murdered in such a summary fashion. I know the Minister will be aware of the incidents in Loughinisland, where I have neighbours and indirect relations who were murdered, or executed, in a very summary fashion. These people were never involved in politics or anything like that. The way they were murdered impacts on the lives of their loved ones, because those people are no longer there; it is about the way that people decided to take them out of society.

I ask the Minister to talk to his colleagues in government, particularly the Secretary of State for Defence, who was in Belfast, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, referred to, only a couple of weeks ago. He seemed to be very gung-ho about this legislation, with little cognisance of the needs of victims and survivors. The Bill provides for the granting of immunity from prosecution for gross violations of human rights on the basis of participation in the review process, through telling recollections. It does not specify whether those recollections have to be detailed or whether they can be scarce in their content. To many observers, including me, this legislation and this section on immunity are incompatible with the UK’s obligations under international human rights law, particularly the European Convention on Human Rights. This has already been referred to by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which has just written to our protocol committee about this issue.

There is no doubt that the threshold for this immunity set out in the Bill is low, with a requirement that information provided is true only to the best of the person’s knowledge or belief, and no requirement objectively to test that information against evidence. Can the Minister elaborate on this? To me, there is something inherently wrong in that. It shows a terrible fault line in this legislation and the need for the legislation not to be pursued.

Finally, the government amendments, including on penalties for lying, do not in any way attempt to make changes to this part of the Bill; I come back to the issue that there remain incredibly limited mechanisms for testing the veracity of accounts. The bottom line is that the government amendments would make no change to the immunity provisions. I ask the Minister to look at this matter, because the issue of immunity and the denial of access to civil action and inquests are causing grave concern to victims and survivors who thought they would be able to get truth recovery and justice—the very things they are looking for.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, in dealing with this group of amendments, as we have to, it is undoubtedly the case, as has been said on all sides of this Committee, that we cannot get away from the elephant in the room: no matter how good an amendment is put forward—I include the amendments I have added my name to—it cannot turn what is an unacceptable Bill into an acceptable Bill. I urge the Minister and his government colleagues to listen to the clarion voices from all sides of the Committee, from all sections of society within Northern Ireland and from all groups connected with victims that this is not the right way forward. At the heart of it is the completely unacceptable anathema of the immunity that the Bill proposes. I agree with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and her call for Clause 18 not to stand part of the Bill.

However ultimately unamendable the Bill is in terms of its scope, we have no choice at this stage but to look at these amendments. It is a duty on all of us to make whatever improvements we can, however small, and at least try to take any step forward that we can, so I will touch on them briefly.

I welcome Amendments 120 and 121 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Ritchie. Along with others, I met representatives of SEFF and have spoken to other victims’ groups as well. There is undoubtedly a deep sense of hurt and betrayal among victims. It is obviously not their biggest concern, but one of the concerns that adds to their hurt is a level of confusion and anxiety over the definitions of general and specific immunity. There is a lack of clarity around that. While this will not get to the heart of the issue, at the very least, can the Minister give us some clarity around that today? I would welcome these probing amendments if they can draw out that information.

I also welcome Amendments 112 and 124, brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and others. To move from a position in which immunity is effectively compulsory to one which gives a much greater level of discretion to the commission is a sensible step forward. I think the scope of Amendment 124 has been accepted and government Amendments 139 and 140, dealing specifically with the issues around withholding information, move in a way that was not the case a while ago: at least there has been an acceptance that, if immunity is to be granted, it cannot simply be a one-off gift and that, where there are breaches, it can be revoked. That is an important principle as well.

We believe our Amendment 114 to be complementary with the provisions on the withholding of information or the giving of wrong information, because it gives a clear pathway for those prosecutions which the offence created in Amendment 139 can progress. The giving of false information or the withholding of information are of importance for two reasons. First, if we are to be stuck with this inequity of immunity, it should not be some form of tick-box exercise that anybody can qualify for no matter what information they give. Also, if there is anything to be gained from this at all in terms of truth—I very much share the views of the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, that this whole process will be entirely counterproductive rather than helpful—one of the things that will aggravate victims is if the information provided is false, if they are given false hope and wrong information about the deaths of their loved ones.

[Viscount Brookeborough (CB)]

Perhaps the noble Lord would like to ask the question of what information given to the commission by somebody seeking immunity will be made available to the victims. That is the point at which reconciliation breaks down—when the names of the other people involved will horrify most families, people who have never appeared on the radar.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

That is an entirely fair and justified point. I look forward to the Minister responding directly to it.

Where revocation takes place, there is going to be a trigger mechanism that brings that about, as in the Government’s Amendment 125. I have a slight concern—this point has been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and others in other amendments—about the length of time it takes for prosecution to take place and the amount of work required. That is why I think the wording of Amendment 126 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, which is of a similar nature to the Government’s, is better. If false information has clearly been given, where immunity pertains and continues to pertain until we reach the final point at which there is a successful prosecution for that offence, we are giving a false and wrong position of immunity to perpetrators. I prefer the wording in Amendment 126.

I have one final point to touch on; again, I do not want to reiterate everything that has been said. Our Amendment 149, which would provide for the information on immunity to be made available to the court for a post-1998 serious offence to assist with sentencing, is important for a number of reasons. As somebody who worked as a lawyer in a previous life, as many in your Lordships’ House have, I know that when you are making a claim on behalf of a client, one of the critical elements in sentencing is looking at past behaviour and, in particular, the past criminal behaviour of that individual, to establish from the court’s point of view whether the conduct of that individual is simply a one-off or whether they have a long history of similar crimes. There is protection for the guilty party in that it does not come into play until the person is convicted and found guilty. That is along the lines of what we have put forward.

This effectively brings the situation for post-1998 offences and those who have been granted immunity into line with what happens under the normal law. That is important. As has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bew, there is already a history of corruption of justice through this process, which treats perpetrators of crimes from the Troubles in a special place compared to other criminals. That is wrong. It is morally wrong, and it should be legally wrong. It is also deeply offensive and hurtful to the victims. But it is not simply a question of the impact on the past and the present. It is about what message is sent out to the future. We are seeing already in Northern Ireland, and in other jurisdictions, an almost casual attitude among some towards the Troubles, in which trite phrases are trotted out such as, “There was no alternative to violence.” If we continue to perpetrate a belief that those who were involved in Troubles-related murders are in some form of special category—that they are not really criminals on the same basis as others who have committed heinous crimes—we send a signal to current and future generations that in some way this was acceptable, and therefore there is a greater risk of it being repeated in future. It would apply only where a post-1998 conviction has taken place, rather than within a trial, but it would be a small but significant step in the direction of normality for those who have committed that crime.

I commend the range of amendments that have been put forward, but—among many in this Chamber; effectively everyone who has spoken, I think—there is a consensus that this is not the way forward. The Government, beyond this set of amendments or any of today’s amendments, need to think again, pause and withdraw.

[Lord Eames (CB)]

My Lords, apart from all else that has been said, this group of amendments takes the House to the substance of what is causing so much heartache, has united opposition and is destroying hopes of reconciliation back in Northern Ireland. The two words we have all used, “victims” and “survivors”, are very easy to use. When we really think about it, we are generalising in a way, which is doing immense harm to what those words mean. We are not speaking about some group that we cannot touch, hear or understand. We are talking about men and women who, perhaps two generations on in the same family, are feeling the repercussions of what we continue to call—and here is another word—the Troubles. We are talking about the need, somehow, to find a way—if this legislation is to have any use—to do something about the real faces behind “victims” and “survivors”.

I am sitting here listening to so much that has been said, and I am hearing other voices. I am hearing those countless voices I have ministered to over the years as a priest, a bishop and then an archbishop. I have listened to the service families, those who came out of their homes and, most importantly of all, those who, when off duty, came back into their homes in the very areas where they would be in danger. Can noble Lords imagine what that was like—the constancy of anxiety and thinking about the children? One child in particular, when I had performed the burial of her father who had been slaughtered by terrorism, tugged on my robes to draw my attention and looked up at me. As I looked down at this child—I can still see her—she said, “What have you done with Daddy?” That is the sort of human reaction we are talking about this evening. We are not talking about facts—“victims” and “survivors”. We are talking about ordinary, decent people caught up in a situation that I wonder whether we will all ever understand—its causes and consequences.

I have said publicly in this House, twice at least, that I feel so strongly for the position that the Minister is in and why he has tried to do so much to feel the tenor of what we are saying to him about this legislation. I plead with him to go beyond “victims” and “survivors” to the people who are actually asking this House and the other House to treat them as human beings. That is what they are, and they are at the centre of the need in relation to which this legislation is lacking.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly on Amendment 33, and I commend the signatories to it. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, to convey our concerns and best wishes to Lady Empey. We wish her a speedy recovery.

I have a few brief remarks on the RUC, the RUC Reserve, the UDR and the Army. It is often forgotten that the RUC in particular stood between sanity and insanity, and more than 300 RUC members were murdered. It strikes me very often that their lives and the sacrifice they made are seen to be much less important than others, but I want to state in your Lordships’ House today that we appreciate and respect all that they did. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, said, some people have used their lives to vilify what the RUC sought to do.

It was mentioned in an earlier debate that 60% of the murders committed in Northern Ireland were committed by republicans, 30% were committed by loyalists, and 10% were allegedly committed by the security forces. Of course, that is not correct; if you drill down into that 10%, you arrive at a figure of something like 2%. It seems to me that instances where the security forces were engaged are included in that 10%. On many occasions, they intercepted terrorists going about their business of murder and mayhem, but those instances are included in that 10%, so it is not accurate. I want to put that on the record here tonight. I have sought to do so on other occasions—

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Morrow for giving way. Would he agree with me that if we fail to put this on the face of the Bill and run the risk that former operatives of the RUC, the PSNI and the HET are barred from the ICRIR, we would be sending out a signal that, institutionally, we regard those organisations as being party to the conflict and that we would, in effect, be placing them on a parallel level and a par with the paramilitary organisations, given that the purpose of this is to investigate all crimes across the Troubles? That would send out a signal. If there is concern—which I think all of us share—about some who try to rewrite the past and justify what happened, this would send out completely the wrong signal. I suspect also that if there was a legal challenge in terms of a fair employment case, the provision would not survive that.

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Weir for making that very important and valid point. It would be absolutely disgraceful if, in any way, that happened. Former members of the RUC, and indeed some members of the PSNI, have also been on the receiving end of republican terrorism. I was delighted to hear earlier in the debate that someone, at long last—I must have missed this—has been apprehended for the murder of that young journalist in Londonderry, Lyra McKee. It is a known fact, or it is believed—I think the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, also made this point—that the bullet which took her life on that dreadful evening was meant for a police officer.

I sometimes think that noble Lords and others in this part of the United Kingdom do not fully comprehend and grasp what the security forces had to put up with over all those years. I say with some regret that there are a few of us, particularly on the unionist side of the community, who had very close friends—I have had them, in my family—who were blown up, but because they were members of the RUC, there was no other crime. That was the only crime. Thankfully, that particular friend survived, albeit with very serious injuries.

I ask your Lordships’ Committee not to shy away from talking about the RUC, which perhaps made the biggest sacrifice of over 300 of its serving officers. That must never be forgotten. Certainly, the law-abiding community, whether on the nationalist or unionist side, will never forget the sacrifice they made.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th January 2023 Lords Chamber

I ask the Minister to reconsider the Bill, not just tweak it in the way he has with the amendments he has brought forward, as he promised. If he had been the architect of the Bill, I think it would be very different and one we could all support. There is a different model, which I will describe. I hope that it will receive the support of your Lordships’ House. Meanwhile, I support the amendment.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I also support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. I am the first to acknowledge that many sensible amendments have been put forward from all sides of the House; there are also some that I would not be quite so keen on, but no matter how good some of those amendments are, they do not and indeed cannot deal with the fundamental flaws in the Bill.

Similarly—and I speak after a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—I am acutely aware of how difficult it is to find a way forward on legacy that is acceptable to everyone. Again, I am the first to acknowledge that, but I am completely convinced that the Bill before us is not that way forward.

The noble Baroness’s amendment goes to the heart of the process because it deals with the issue of democratic legitimacy and gives this House and Parliament an opportunity, if taken, to pause for thought. There are four good reasons why we need to pause.

First, as others have indicated, the Bill does not have a level of consensus within Northern Ireland among the political parties—indeed, quite the opposite. As someone who in a previous life served for 24 years in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and indeed for six of those as the Chief Whip of the largest party in the Assembly, I can say better than most that it is difficult at times to get a consensus within the Assembly. It is difficult to get a consensus in Northern Ireland. Indeed, in recent days on other issues there has been a level of debate as to what counts as sufficient consensus in Northern Ireland: is it a simple majority, or a cross-community majority? But one thing indicated by the proposer of the amendment is beyond doubt, as shown by the vote in 2021: every single party in Northern Ireland is opposed to this Bill. That is a complete consensus.

We may question in particular the bona fides of one of those parties, Sinn Féin, whose military wing inflicted violence for many years and was the biggest single contributor to deaths in Northern Ireland. But even leaving aside the fact that republicans were responsible for around 60% of the killings in Northern Ireland, nevertheless there is a complete consensus within all the parties in Northern Ireland that this is not the way forward.

Secondly, there is also a consensus among victims that this is not the way forward. As previously indicated, in the same way that veterans are not necessarily a homogeneous group with the same views on every subject, that is undoubtedly true of victims of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Indeed, not only do they often desire different outcomes and have different perspectives on the world, but even members of the same family of a victim of the Troubles sometimes have different views. So it is extremely rare that a consensus emerges, but it is difficult to find a single victim, let alone a single victim group, who is in favour of this as a way forward. If indeed victims are supposed to be at the centre of this, by proceeding pell-mell with this Bill we are not moving forward.

Thirdly, the Bill very clearly represents a denial of justice. When we look at the Troubles, two myths are sometimes perpetrated. They are quite lazy assumptions. The first is that everybody in Northern Ireland is a perpetrator. That is clearly not the case. The vast majority of people, from whatever side of the community, got on with their lives, tried to make progress in a democratic way and gave the lie to the idea that there was no alternative to violence.

The second myth is that everyone is Northern Ireland is also a victim. I was extremely fortunate: although I grew up throughout the entirety of the Troubles, I did not lose a family member or close friend to the Troubles. Indeed, I probably grew up in one of the safest parts of Northern Ireland. I was able to grow up in such safety because of the bravery of veterans throughout the United Kingdom, both soldiers and police officers, in keeping that peace in Northern Ireland. I cannot claim to be a victim, which makes me particularly reluctant as a Member of this House to impose a denial of justice on victims. I would be imposing that on other people.

There is no doubt that many victims out there do not seek a particular form of justice or a conviction. It is also the case—none of us should be naive, particularly in historical cases—that the opportunities for a trial and conviction to hold somebody directly accountable for the murder of your loved one are extremely remote. I believe the Bill is fundamentally flawed in that it provides the “solution” of simply snuffing out, and taking away from families that want justice, any opportunity to have their day in court. That is the third reason why this is fundamentally flawed.

There is a final reason why we need to look at this. Understandably, when we are dealing with legacy the focus is quite often on the past and the legacy of the past, but I do not believe the Bill provides reconciliation in the future. Indeed, I believe it provides a very dangerous pathway for the future.

Unfortunately, we have already seen a younger generation in Northern Ireland—sometimes fuelled particularly by comments from those who have been supportive of terrorism—effectively trying to rewrite history. It is not unique to Northern Ireland, but the glib mantra of some people is that there is no alternative to violence, and there is an attempt retrospectively to justify that level of violence. Let me make it absolutely clear: from whatever source, whether republican or loyalist, violence in Northern Ireland was never justified and never will be. But if we rewrite history by effectively whitewashing what happened and providing an amnesty, we are in danger of sending out a signal to the future that violence is an acceptable way forward. That is a very dangerous pathway and not one that any of us would intend to go down, but I think we are inadvertently going down it.

For all those reasons, this is an opportunity to think again and pause for thought. I therefore welcome the noble Baroness’s amendment. I believe it is a productive and balanced way forward, and I therefore urge the House to support it.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for the amendment and for what, if I may say so, was an incredibly powerful speech today. We have heard so many powerful speeches today from all sides of the House. I noted here that we have had speeches from Northern Ireland and not Northern Ireland. We have had the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, the noble Lord, Lord Hain—a former Northern Ireland Secretary—and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who made an incredibly powerful speech. Then there were the noble Lords, Lord Weir and Lord Alton, who also made speeches that made a very powerful case. We even heard from the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, making a slightly different case but supporting, none the less, the aims of the amendment before us this afternoon.

As I said at Second Reading, the strength of opposition risks undermining the Bill’s stated intentions of dealing with the past and promoting reconciliation—“reconciliation” is in the very title of the Bill. But the Bill is not promoting reconciliation and is opposed by so many who have spoken today. It is for this reason that on these Benches we support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. A Bill of such sensitivity and consequence cannot and should not proceed without the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly. To quote the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, who I thought also made a very powerful speech this afternoon, we need to listen to the victims and pause this Bill before Third Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

The point I am making is that there were files, and Operation Kenova has had access to those files. They are held principally by the security services but, under very strict conditions and with trust, the investigation has been able to retrieve information on a sensible basis without compromising the work of the security services, and that has been of great comfort for victims. That is my point and my concern about the noble Baroness’s amendment.

I turn to my Amendment 147. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Blair, both distinguished former Metropolitan Police Commissioners, together with the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, a distinguished former Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, for adding their names. The amendment is designed to ensure, as my noble friend Lady Ritchie has already argued, that the Bill does not prevent the continuation of the review into the Glenanne gang series, known as Operation Denton, which is expected to conclude and report in spring 2024—that is, after the Bill could have received Royal Assent.

What is known as the Glenanne gang series includes a significant number of murders and other terrorist offences committed in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland during the Troubles between around 1972 and 1978. The cases within the Glenanne gang series are connected by common features, such as individuals, weapons, areas or targets involved. In some of these cases, direct evidence has already demonstrated the collusion of police or security force personnel.

Various parties, including families, have significant concerns about the rigour and professionalism of previous investigations into these cases and have for many years sought a comprehensive, overarching, thematic analysis of the Glenanne series and the extent of any state collusion. On 5 July 2019, the Barnard judgment set out the requirement for an independent review of the activities of the Glenanne gang, a statutory requirement in accordance with Section 35(5) of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 and Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The chief constable of the PSNI requested that the former chief constable of Bedfordshire Police, Jon Boutcher, carry out this review. It was named Operation Denton, commenced in February 2020 and is part of the cases being conducted under the umbrella of Operation Kenova.

To date, Operation Denton has identified 127 murders resulting from 93 separate incidents connected to this series. It has met and is supporting families of the victims. It has had success in securing the release of material from the Republic of Ireland through lobbying for and securing the introduction of secondary legislation by the Irish Government to ensure access to records held by the Garda to assist the review. It is anticipated that Operation Denton will conclude and report publicly and to families no later than spring 2024.

Operation Denton is so well progressed and has developed such strong levels of trust and confidence with the families that it would cause unnecessary delay to the review—and, crucially, undue stress to families, who have suffered grievously already—for this inquiry to be passed to the ICRIR. It is important therefore that Operation Denton be allowed to complete its work. I hope that the Minister, who I see is nodding, will confirm that in his reply to this group of amendments. The lawyers and NGOs supporting the Glenanne series’ victims and families have indicated that they will legally challenge any decision to stop Operation Denton and will not co-operate with the ICRIR, such is their confidence in the work currently being done.

In conclusion, it is almost certain that Operation Denton’s work will be completed and families informed of its findings before the ICRIR is open for referrals. I therefore very much hope that the Minister will give the Committee the assurance that I seek and the absolute assurance that the victims desire.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I will deal first with Amendment 1. I support this probing amendment. That is not necessarily to make a judgment that what is in place at present is insufficient, but it is probing to establish whether what is placed in the legislation is comprehensive enough and whether it covers all the situations. There can be nothing worse than finding that there are inadvertent consequences and that, through a degree of misunderstanding or because we have not been exacting enough, some people are excluded wrongly, or perhaps even that the net is drawn too widely on other occasions. As I said, I draw no conclusions as to whether that is the case at present but I will listen with care to the answers given by the Minister on that.

To take the last point on Amendment 147, I have some sympathy for the case that the noble Lord put forward. However, I have some level of reservation. It is undoubtedly an investigation into one of the most horrendous series of murders that have taken place; they were horrific, and it is correct that they should be condemned. Where I have a little reservation in perhaps suggesting that the whole Bill is flawed is that if we start looking at individual operations, however well advanced, and singling them out for some level of exemption, that can create a concern that other areas of investigation into horrendous murders which are needed are not also covered. That is my concern about Amendment 147.

On Amendment 52, again, I look forward to what the Minister will say on that. I have some reservations about it. At the moment, there is a five-year period in which there is an opportunity for a request to be made. It is hard to see in genuine cases why a family would not make that within the five-year period, so I am not clear why this is necessary. Indeed, are we shifting the goalposts by making this entirely open-ended in terms of making the request? Therefore, at this stage I am certainly sceptical about that but I look forward to what will be said in connection with it.

I support the proposals put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, in Amendment 63. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, made the point that there is a concern about the inadequacy of some investigations. I take that very much on board. However, what the noble Baroness says is proportionate, fair and practical. I say that because Amendment 63 would take into account what previous investigations had taken place. Surely the aim of the investigations in review is to bring everything up to the same level. If work has already been done, that should be built on where necessary. We should not look to duplicate work; that is from a practical point of view because there is a danger of the level of funding becoming open-ended to the extent that it is simply unaffordable.

We also need equality of treatment. There would be a concern that if we simply disregarded an investigation —indeed, if we have investigation after investigation in some cases—then some high-profile cases in which people are able to shout the loudest may go to the front of the queue and get an additional level of investigation, rather than there being equality of treatment for victims.

Amendment 63 has been carefully worded. It does not say that a previous investigation would preclude a review or an investigation. It would place the onus on the Chief Commissioner to take account of what has happened before. In many cases, particularly in the early days of the Troubles, that investigation might well have been inadequate. What information is available should be a key factor in determining the level of work that must go into an individual case. What is there is balanced.

The proposed opposition to Clause 7 standing part of the Bill is also in this group. I again have considerable sympathy for what has been put forward. Undoubtedly, we must ensure that the net for what evidence is inadmissible to the courts is not thrown too wide. There is a concern that what is presently within Clause 7 is not fit for purpose and, at the very least, creates elements where clarity is needed. For example, it is not clear in what circumstances an applicant for immunity would provide information that is not connected with the application process. Perhaps the Minister can expand on this. Separately, Clause 7(3)(b) has the effect of making material that is later obtained “as a result” of material provided by the applicant inadmissible. That seems quite tenuous. We must ensure that the inadmissibility net is not any wider than it needs to be.

There are considerable concerns over Clause 7. I know that the Government are proposing some changes to it but again, there is a lack of clarity. For example, there is an interaction between admissibility of material, as mentioned in Clause 7, and Clause 23, on the provision of information to prosecutors. That needs to be clarified. If Clause 7 was to remain within the legislation, the Minister must clarify what impact Clause 23 has on Clause 7. Without such clarification, there would be a strong case at least for re-examination of what is in Clause 7, and perhaps for exclusion altogether.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 71 and 83, which are in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. Amendment 83 is also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen. I am grateful to them for their support. I too have benefited from engagement on my amendments with not only the Minister but the Bill team and his private office, and I put on record my thanks and appreciation.

Amendment 71 requires that, as far as possible, ICRIR reviews be conducted in public, providing for transparency in the conduct of reviews by that body. Transparency is not only desirable in reconciliation but a necessary precondition for it to occur. Many of the reviews that the ICRIR will be charged with conducting will have decades of mutual suspicion to contend with. My amendment to Clause 13 attempts to bring greater transparency to those reviews where possible. It is not merely a question of procedural efficiency; it will make clear to those for whom we are seeking the truth that they can be as confident as possible that there is no thumb on the scales, that the review process can be trusted, and that those tasked with handling these hugely sensitive investigations are doing so without the pressure to conform to some predetermined narrative.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a deeply respectful debate. A number of issues have come to light, and it would be helpful if the Minister could respond to them. Some of the issues are quite complex. I am grateful particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for the experience that she brings to this.

I turn first to Amendment 1, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. This definition is something that the victims’ commissioner has raised with a number of Members of your Lordships’ House. The phrase “serious physical or mental harm” is really key here. Many of us have met victims who have suffered harm that is not always immediately evident. We have to look at this again, because there is no power for the definitions to be amended. Given the Government’s fondness for Sis—not that I am recommending this route—there possibly needs to be some discretion for the commission. We discussed this briefly with the Minister, and he is rightly wary of having a list, which can never be exhaustive, but this has to be revisited and looked at again. Some discretion might possibly be the way forward.

On the amendment of my noble friend Lord Hain, I do not know whether the Minister is considering opening this up. Operation Denton is due to report in spring next year—I know that is an elastic term in government announcements. We will come to our amendment on this later in proceedings, but to have this investigation running for so long and for it then to be ended by the Bill would clearly be the wrong thing to do. It seems a sensible process, and one that started in 2020, and the point made by my noble friend Lord Hain is well made. I would like to hear the Minister’s response to that so I can understand the timing.

There is no commencement time in this Bill. It would be helpful to know when, if the Bill were to conclude all its stages and become law, the Minister envisages that it would start. That is important in this context.

My noble friend Lord Browne talked about transparency. That is clear-cut: if we are to have confidence in a process, it needs to have transparency. I think it might be a mistake in the Government’s drafting that someone could be compelled to attend but not compelled to give evidence. That seems to be a bit of a loophole, and I hope that the Minister can come back with something positive on that. did

I turn to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. I can see the point that she is trying to address, which was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Weir—that in repeated inquiries it is the people who shout the loudest who have more access to the various mechanisms in place—but it seems to me to be a very absolute point. If compelling new evidence was brought forward, in any circumstances and by anybody, surely there should be the option for the commission to consider that compelling new evidence.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

I entirely agree with the point that the noble Baroness has made. However, to be fair to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, is that not why the amendment refers to “take into account”? That then would not preclude it being taken into account and a different approach being taken.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

It may be. I do not have the amendment in front of me—I will look at it again later—but there seemed to be an absoluteness. I understand the principle, but I want to make sure that the detail and specifics of the amendment do what they intend to and not cut off options for—

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Bill

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 5th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure and an honour to make my maiden speech in this Chamber. It is a particular pleasure to follow my former lecturer, the noble Lord, Lord Bew: I will leave it to the discernment of the House at the end of my remarks to determine whether he was a good enough lecturer—or perhaps, more pertinently, whether I was a good enough student. Members will have to decide that for themselves.

I also place on record my thanks to the staff of this House for the great help they have been to me, both before and after my introduction to the House. I thank fellow Peers as well for the warm welcome I have received and for the kind remarks of those preceding me in this debate—although I say to the noble Lord, Lord Caine, that his allusion to my familiarity with the bars of Ballyholme might not have necessarily done me any favours with my party colleagues.

I hope I can bring a little bit of familiarity to the issues of the governance of Northern Ireland, to Executive functions and particularly to the Assembly. I believe that I am one of only five people to have contested all seven elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly since its inception in 1998. During that period, I have been able to both participate in and view the governance of Northern Ireland from a range of perspectives: through involvement in the Local Government Association and the Northern Ireland Policing Board; in my capacity as a Back-Bench Member of the Assembly serving on a number of committees; as a committee chair, holding government Ministers to account; as Chief Whip of the largest party in the Northern Ireland Assembly; and, finally, through serving two terms as Education Minister.

From that experience, I have drawn the conclusion that devolution is clearly the best vehicle for and the best method of governing Northern Ireland. However, to be successful, devolution requires both stability and, in particular, buy-in from across the community. It is a fragile flower that needs protecting.

I also have the great honour, as a native of the newly created city of Bangor, to be the second son of that great city to have served in this House in recent years. I have the honour of sharing that distinction with the late Lord Trimble. Although Lord Trimble was 24 years older than me and, occasionally, we did not always see eye to eye, we have a remarkably similar background. Lord Trimble was educated first at Ballyholme primary school, as was I; he went on to Bangor grammar school, as did I; he then studied law at Queen’s University, as did I; he was then called to the Bar of Northern Ireland, as was I; and he went on to become a distinguished academic lawyer—and that is perhaps where our paths diverged. While, for one term, I did teach constitutional and administrative law, it would be pretentious of me to lay claim to any of the abilities of Lord Trimble in that connection.

There is always a danger in attributing views to those who have predeceased us, but I think that I can say with a level of confidence that Lord Trimble would share with me a similar approach to the legislation that is before us—which is to see it as a somewhat reluctant necessity caused by the failure to deal with the problems created by the Northern Ireland protocol, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Bew, indicated, has not only created the issues we see today around the internal governance of Northern Ireland but has had a profound effect on both strand 2 and strand 3 of the agreement. There will be further opportunities to delve into the detail of the Northern Ireland protocol, which I will not explore today, but we should be in no doubt that not only is the Northern Ireland protocol the root cause of this legislation, but—although it is not directly mentioned in the legislation—it remains the elephant in the room when we are discussing it.

I turn briefly to some of the detail contained within the Bill itself. As the noble Lord, Lord Caine, indicated, it has a number of component parts. First, it effectively legitimises the decision of the Government to postpone an imminent Assembly election. On balance, that is a sensible approach. It would be wrong if an election was postponed simply because someone did not like the potential outcome; that is not a legitimate reason. Nor indeed should an election be used as some sort of leverage or threat over any party or individual group. Experience in Northern Ireland shows that not only would that not produce the results that were intended but it would be counterproductive.

It is the case, however, that holding an election at the moment would, at best, act as both a delay to and a distraction from the action that is necessary to resolve the issues within Northern Ireland. It would also, I believe, not tell us anything different from what we already know. It is clear that nationalist parties and the Alliance Party are, broadly speaking, able to live with the Northern Ireland protocol, albeit that they are no longer insisting on its full implementation, while unionist elected representatives, of whatever shade of opinion and whatever party they belong to, are implacably opposed to the protocol. Any election would simply reinforce that and highlight it again from the electorate of Northern Ireland.

The second part, which to be fair, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, highlighted, is probably the most difficult, is the powers conferred on senior civil servants in Northern Ireland. They form a very august body of men and women—I know most of them personally—but there is no doubt that this places them in a very difficult position regarding decision-making. It can be only a temporary measure.

However, it is difficult, in the current circumstances, to find a better alternative to what is being proposed. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, referred to the Buick decision, which challenged decisions made by senior civil servants during the previous suspension of devolution. I look forward to the Minister’s response on this, but I believe and trust that the legislation has been framed in such a way to try to ensure that a Buick-type situation does not occur again.

The third element is the power, in limited circumstances, to make appointments. Again, that is necessary. I trust it will not be abused by the Government and that it will be used only where it is necessary.

The fourth issue, which has probably excited the greatest media interest, is MLA pay. When I served as an MLA for 24 years, I took it as a point of principle never to offer an opinion or try to lobby on what my level of pay should be. It is right that there is a reduction in pay where MLAs are not in a position to fulfil their full role. I do not think that anyone could disagree with that proposition. It is right that it is not extended to the salaries of those working for MLAs, who continue to do their day-to-day work in constituency offices. It would be wrong to punish them for the sins of the MLAs. I simply say, again echoing the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, that it would be a misconception to believe that any level of reduction in or promise of restoration of pay will have any great impact in changing the principled position that my party and others have on this issue.

Finally, there is a power in the legislation to set a regional rate. Allied to that are proposals that will be brought forward on the budget. Again, this seems sensible, notwithstanding that, whenever a budget is produced for next year, many of us might well have disagreements over its configuration.

We have reached this position because there have been missed opportunities with the Northern Ireland protocol. There has at times been inflexibility from the EU and promises have been unfulfilled. But I end in a spirit of hope and optimism. If this legislation can act as a device to put in place on a temporary basis governance arrangements that take these issues away, in the short term, from the political sphere, if it effectively clears away the rubble of problems of governance and allows a forensic and focused examination of the problems that face Northern Ireland through the Northern Ireland protocol, and if those opportunities are grasped to change and fix those problems, then this will be very worthy legislation. It is on the basis of the opportunity that needs to be taken that I stand to support this legislation. Thank you.