King’s Speech

Lord Bew Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am keen to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, whom I have known for a long time as a fellow professional historian in this House, for his work and the tremendous influence he has rightly had on the life of this House. I would also like to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Case, whom I have also known for a long time—it is the shared vibe of the Cambridge history department.

The noble Lord, Lord Case, in his role as Cabinet Secretary, was a fundamental defender of the national security of this country. He was also there when the message came from the European Union that it was looking for a way out of the protocol and the Windsor Framework. This was at the time of the Truss Government, and he played a major role in bringing back the Windsor Framework, which is a difficult and, in some ways, messy compromise that still leaves a democratic deficit in Northern Ireland; but it is still an improvement.

The King’s Speech has an important passage on the union:

“My Government is committed to the strength and integrity of the Union of the United Kingdom”.


It recalls the words of Keir Starmer when he was leader of the Opposition—that in the event of a border poll, he would campaign for the continuation of the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The remarks in the King’s Speech are in the same spirit. The most important legislation with respect to the union, however, is the legacy Bill. There is an important explanation of the legacy Bill in the glossary published by the Government alongside the King’s Speech, and there are the Minister’s important and very helpful remarks at the beginning of this debate.

I still have two queries or problems. The legacy Bill announces a new relationship with the Irish Government, but it also says that there are new protections for veterans, while the Irish Government say there are none. At some point or other—perhaps the Minister can help me tonight—this has to be clarified. Either the Irish Government are correct or our Government are correct.

On legacy, I have another point that is perhaps worth making. I was the historical adviser to the Bloody Sunday tribunal. I return to a point made earlier in the day, especially by the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Loan and Lady Hoey, about the costs of the ICRIR. I am a supporter of Sir Declan Morgan and the ICRIR, and they need to have the money to carry out their work in Northern Ireland. It is worth remembering that the Government announced that the Bloody Sunday tribunal would cost £12 million. That was in old money; in the end, it cost some £200 million. As the Government continue to discuss the legacy question, the money needs to be made available; there is no point in having an ICRIR without giving it resources. None the less, there needs to be absolute clarity, particularly on how the legal profession in Northern Ireland may or may not share in these fruits. I speak as a former chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. We now talk about duty of candour. There needs to be openness, clarity and transparency on this issue, because there is no doubt that the Government’s legacy Bill, for which they have a mandate, is going to be incredibly expensive. We have not really heard an explanation of where exactly the Government stand on that.