Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

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

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, reads far too much into this simple amendment, which is unambiguous and makes the point that power should rest not with the Executive but with Parliament. It would require Ministers to report on a Bill’s progress where progress is essential, such as with this Bill. Of course, most importantly, we should not give the Prime Minister of a minority Government, whoever he may be—let us all, particularly those of us on this side of the House, recognise that we are talking about the Prime Minister of a minority Government—the opportunity to suspend our constitutional proprieties.

I should like to make another point. I deplore the fact that the rules of my party have allowed this decision to be protracted over almost five weeks and to be taken by 0.3% of the electorate, a number of whom are 15 years of age; they are entirely eligible to vote, as I established earlier today. Many people do not realise that; I did not realise it myself until two or three days ago. The party in the country has had great power—way beyond what any party should have, particularly when it represents such a tiny percentage of the electorate. I believe that the real constitutional impropriety that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, seeks to deal with is that of conferring on the Prime Minister of a minority Government—I repeat: a minority Government—the powers to dispense with the services of Parliament and to absolve himself of being answerable to it. As I said on Monday, the Government are answerable to Parliament, which must never be the creature or subject of government. This is a safeguard. We should support it.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My noble friend Lady Deech would have made a marvellous Permanent Secretary. We heard about a dangerous precedent, unripe time and the risk of judicial review. I cannot see that risk; the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, seems designed to reduce the risk of a situation that might go to judicial review arising.

I support the noble Lord’s amendment. As he said, it is strange and alarming that we should find ourselves in this situation, having to resort to a device to prevent a constitutional outrage—which it would be if Parliament were sent away so that the Prime Minister of the day could follow a course that both Houses of Parliament have consistently and regularly rejected.

To add one more point, I hope that the noble Baroness the Leader—I am sorry she is not in her place—is pursuing with the other place the proposal that we in this House put forward a fortnight ago for a Joint Committee to examine the costs and implications of a no-deal crash-out. In this House, the Leader represents not just the Government but all of us. We put forward the proposal but, to my knowledge, the other place has not yet done us the courtesy of even considering it. I hope that the noble Baroness is advancing our proposal and urging the other place to respond positively to it. I support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shinkwin]

The question is actually directly related to the House, so if I may I will continue.

I wonder if my noble friend, or indeed anyone in the House, could tell me why—I can quite understand why the noble Baroness would perhaps not like me to ask this question—as someone who was born with a disability, I am good enough to sit in your Lordships’ House, but this Bill suggests that someone diagnosed before birth with a disability such as mine in Northern Ireland would only be considered good enough for the incinerator. Because that is the brutal message of this Bill: if you are diagnosed with a disability before birth in Northern Ireland, you will not just be worth less than a non-disabled human being; you will be worthless—you would be better off dead. What a dreadful message for this House to send the people of Northern Ireland, without even having consulted them in advance.

As a disabled person, I am used to people feeling sorry for me, but today it is I who feel sorry for my party. What a desperately sad position this Bill puts my party in. Not only does it make a mockery of any pretence at government neutrality on a matter of conscience; it also enshrines inequality in law for Northern Ireland—and all this without consulting the people of Northern Ireland or their MLAs. How ironic that this is happening just before we celebrate a quarter of a century since my party, the Conservative Party, introduced the Disability Discrimination Act, which championed disability equality.

Perhaps saddest of all is the legacy the Prime Minister leaves if this Bill becomes law—a legacy of discrimination and death. Instead of ending burning injustices, if this Bill becomes law she will be leaving office after the creation of one of the biggest burning injustices imaginable.

Earlier this evening, my noble friend the Minister read out part of a letter to the Prime Minister concerning the amendments on same-sex marriage. I will do the same, only mine is a letter to the Prime Minister from more than 500 people with Down’s syndrome and their families. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister has it in his briefing pack—perhaps not. This is what they say:

“Theresa May, do you really want to look back at your time in Parliament and see one of your final acts being to introduce a change in the law that would be discriminating against our community and likely lead to many more babies with Down’s syndrome being aborted in a time of equality”.


How do they know the likely death toll for Down’s syndrome diagnosis? They know because in England and Wales, 90% of human beings diagnosed before birth with Down’s syndrome are already aborted. Indeed, while the last 10 years have seen amazing advances in medicine and technology, they have also seen a 42% increase in abortion of human beings with Down’s syndrome.

So, the writing is on the wall. If human beings diagnosed before birth with disabilities such as mine were wild animals, they would be given endangered species status and protected by law. But we are only disabled human beings, so instead we face gradual extinction. That is what this Bill imposes on Northern Ireland, without consultation.

I close with two questions for my noble friend. He is rightly respected as a leading advocate of LGBT rights and I take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, on her recent marriage and to wish her and her wife every happiness. Love is love. It is a wonderful thing, as is the personal and societal security, stability and happiness that flow from it. My point is this: I would never presume to invalidate anyone’s love for another human being, including by denying them the right to get married. But why, then, do my noble friend and the Government use this Bill to invalidate the most fundamental right of all: every human being’s equal right to exist? For that, ultimately, is what this Bill does, and without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland or their MLAs.

My last question is this. Recent reports in the media suggest that the day is fast approaching when a predisposition to same-sex attraction can be established before birth. Yet there will be nothing to prevent abortions on that basis, although another reason would presumably be given. Would my noble friend stand at the Dispatch Box and defend the right for people to make such a choice, or would he stand with me and say that such discrimination would be unacceptable and wrong? If, as I hope, he would join me in opposing such discrimination, how can he possibly defend such discrimination against human beings whose only crime is to be diagnosed with a disability before birth?

It is no less unacceptable and wrong for us to impose such inequality on the people of Northern Ireland without their consent. It is vital that, at the very least, that consent is secured by introducing a requirement that a majority of MLAs support regulations before they are laid before Parliament. I urge noble Lords to support Amendments 16 and 16A.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

My Lords, that was an extremely impressive speech and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, but it was surely a speech about Amendment 12, not Amendment 16.

[Baroness O'Loan]

It has been said so often: Amendment 16 is an amendment to Amendment 12.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

Amendment 16 is entitled:

“Requirement for majority of MLAs to support regulations”.


I confess that I have huge admiration for Amendment 16, because I wish that I had thought of it when we were considering the question of possible prorogation and a crash-out deal with no consultation with Parliament. It is a wonderful thought that we could have written a prescription like this into the law, which would have required the Prime Minister to ring me up and ask, “What’s your view?”, and then work out whether there was a majority in both Houses for and against the crash out.

Actually, it does not make sense. Individually consulting Members of an Assembly that is not meeting does not make sense, I am afraid. It is of course open to the Secretary of State to consult whomever she wants, but to prescribe that she can proceed only if a majority consulted on the telephone or the internet agree is an absurdity.

I also remind those speaking to this amendment that the Minister made it absolutely clear that the consultations would be not about “whether” but about “how”. A number of the speeches that have taken place on Amendment 16 are more appropriate to Amendment 12 because they seem to assume that the consultations will be about “whether” and not about “how”.