To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the destabilising activities in the Middle East of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and refer the House to my registered interest as the honorary president of Conservative Friends of Israel.

My Lords, the Government regularly assess the impact of the IRGC’s destabilising activity throughout the region, including its political, financial and military support to several militant and proscribed groups, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, militias in Iraq and the Houthis in Yemen. Such activity compromises the region’s security and ability to prosper and it escalates high tensions. It is for this reason that we have over 200 UK sanctions listings in place against Iran, including the IRGC in its entirety, and support the enforcement of UN prohibitions on the proliferation of weapons to non-state actors.

My Lords—

I thank my noble friend for the Answer, but has he had time to read Roger Boyes’ article in today’s Times? We have failed to hold the IRGC to account for its regional destabilisation activities, such as the downing of Ukraine International Airlines flight 752 in January 2020 or the killing of British citizen Adrian Underwood on “MV Mercer Street” in July 2021. Roger Boyes concluded that

“Iran is led by a toxic alliance of aggrieved religious leaders and a corrupt revolutionary guard with a brief to sow discord”.

Her Majesty’s Government rightly proscribed Hezbollah. Hezbollah was a creation of the IRGC, so can I ask my noble friend to press his colleagues at the Home Office to fully proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps?

I thank my noble friend for his question. I have read Roger Boyes’ article and agree with his sentiments. We have been clear about our concerns about the IRGC’s continued destabilising activity throughout the region. It is for this reason that the IRGC is sanctioned in its entirety by the UK, as I mentioned. The list of proscribed organisations is kept under constant review, but we do not routinely comment on whether an organisation is or is not under consideration for proscription.

My Lords, I apologise for my early intervention. The revolutionary guards appear to have more power than the Iranian Government. Does the noble Lord agree that the continued unlawful detention of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is largely due to their malevolent influence? Did the British Government support the pre-emptive assassination of military commander Qasem Soleimani by the American Government in 2020?

I thank the noble Lord for his question. I do not know whether the continued detention of Nazanin is related to the IRGC and I am afraid that I cannot comment on the British Government’s opinions on that particular incident.

My Lords, when we debated the proscription of Hamas, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, agreed to meet me and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. Her office has not been in touch, so could the Minister chase that for us, please? Hamas is one of the organisations with a link to that malignant group, the IRGC. Since America proscribed the corps in April 2019, the UK presumably has been in constant contact. The Government gave a lot of detail on the proscription of Hamas, so I am not sure why the Government are not prepared to say what differences we have from the United States, given the fact that the US has proscribed it.

My Lords, I will certainly take that back and ask the department to get in touch with the noble Lord. I am obviously not qualified to comment on the opinions or actions of the United States. I can only reiterate what I said about the proscription of the IRGC.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that religious fanaticism, on which groups such as the revolutionary guard, ISIS, and some here in the UK thrive, is best countered by a far more robust questioning of dated negative culture, which attaches itself virus-like to religion? If religion is used in this way, it should be countered by vigorous debate. It is certainly not a private matter. Does the Minister agree that that discussion and debate should be given priority?

I entirely agree with the noble Lord.

My Lords, one month ago the Iranians exercised a practice dummy rum attacking the Dimona nuclear facility in Israel using 16 ballistic missiles and lots of drones. A number of agencies are now assessing that Iran will have a nuclear weapon capability within months. Where have we got to in trying to restart the JCPOA discussions to try to stop what is rapidly rushing towards a situation where there will be a war in the Middle East as well as in Ukraine?

The noble Lord is right to raise the issue of ballistic missiles. It might be worth my pointing out that UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which was unanimously adopted in the Security Council and underpins the JCPOA, calls on Iran not to undertake activities related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering a nuclear weapon, including launches using such ballistic missile technology. Those ballistic missile restrictions remain in place until 2023. The noble Lord will be aware that negotiations under the JCPOA have restarted. They were suspended in the middle of last year while there was a change in the Iranian Government. We still believe that the JCPOA offers the best way forward.

How is it possible that the JCPOA has achieved anything, when, since signing up to it in 2015, Iran has carried out several ballistic missile tests, built new fortified missile bunkers, lied about the development of nuclear weapons to target our ally Israel and waged a shadow war against shipping in the Gulf, in addition, as we have heard, to kidnapping and killing British citizens? Do we not need a much tougher and robust approach when dealing with Iran, with a much tougher regime of sanctions, including against the new president?

My Lords, the JCPOA is not perfect, but it still represents the best and currently only framework for monitoring and constraining Iran’s nuclear programme. Our objective is to realise the benefits of the deal. A restored deal could pave the way for further discussions on regional and security concerns, including in support of a non-proliferation regime.

My Lords, I was pleased to hear the Minister say that he had read Roger Boyes’ article in today’s Times. Iran has been training drone pilots at Kashan. This week they attacked Abu Dhabi airport. Will the Minister inform your Lordships’ House of the involvement of the revolutionary guard in the training and belligerent activities of these drones?

The UK strongly condemns the Houthi-based claimed attacks on the UAE. We are in contact with our Emirati partners and have offered the UK’s solidarity and support. The Foreign Secretary tweeted about this on 17 January. She said:

“I condemn in the strongest terms the Houthi claim to terrorist attacks on the UAE”.

My Lords, can I push the Minister a little more in response to my noble friend’s question on the JCPOA? We have a lot of evidence about the Iranian Government, the IRGC and the detention of dual nationals—all evidence of their refusal to comply with international law. Can the noble Lord tell us whether there have been more detailed discussions with our allies about how we broaden the scope of the JCPOA to include the issue of ballistic missiles?

As I mentioned in answer to an earlier question, the negotiations in Vienna were suspended in June—the Iranians halted talks on 20 June—but they restarted in Iran on 29 November. We are in constant contact with our allies and partners on this, including the E3 and of course the US.

My Lords, given that, as we have already heard, British citizens have died as a result of numerous actions of terrorism by the IRGC, can my noble friend indicate what sort of British body count we are looking at before the IRGC is proscribed as a terrorist group?

My Lords, I cannot do that. However, I can condemn the unlawful and callous attacks to which I think the noble Lord may be referring and to which others have also referred, which were committed on a merchant vessel off the coast of Oman, killing a British and a Romanian national. Obviously, our thoughts are with the friends and family of those killed in that incident. For what it is worth, we believe that that attack was deliberate, targeted and a clear violation of international law. The UK used its presidency of the G7 to co-ordinate a very strongly worded statement against Iran, which I think was the first of its kind.

My Lords, among those who were killed on flight 752, when 150 people were left dead, were UK nationals. Will the noble Lord return to the question asked to him by his noble friend Lord Polak and tell us what progress is being made on the claims for restitution that have been made by the families of the UK citizens and citizens from many other countries?

The UK is committed to securing justice for the victims on the flight to which the noble Lord refers. The UK is working closely with partners in the International Coordination and Response Group to achieve this. My right honourable friend James Cleverly is a member of and co-ordinates UK interests in that group.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the government of Colombia about investigating human rights abuses, including killings, by police during the protests in that country in September 2020 and May 2021.

UK Ministers and senior officials regularly raise human rights issues as well as specific cases of concern with the Colombian Government. Most recently, on a visit to Colombia last November, the former UK Minister for Europe and the Americas, Wendy Morton, spoke to Vice-President Ramírez regarding the human rights situation. We look to the Colombian authorities to investigate fully any reports of excessive use of force against protesters and to take appropriate action against those responsible.

I thank the Minister for his Answer. However, despite that engagement between the UK and Colombia, human rights abuses continue, including in November last year with the abduction and murder of a teacher trade unionist. Does the Minister agree that it would be proportionate to suspend the invitation to Colombia to join the UK-Andean trade agreement—a call made by the TUC—until police abuses and impunity are properly addressed? Will the Minister meet me, other concerned noble Lords and the TUC to discuss this matter?

I commend the noble Baroness for her efforts on the subject of Colombia— I know that she is very involved in it—and of course we would condemn any further abuses. Perhaps I may give a slightly longer answer on what the Colombian Government are doing—obviously, we are pushing them on this. The national police have opened 231 internal investigations against members of their own institution for alleged excessive use of force during the 2021 protests. Currently, 111 inquiries remain open and the rest are being closed. Six police officers have been sanctioned and two have been dismissed from the institution. The prosecutor’s office confirmed that it had opened 200 inquiries for the alleged excessive use of force by the national police during the 2021 protests. Ninety-four disciplinary processes are currently under way and three officers have been prosecuted. It is fair to say that the Colombian Government are taking this seriously.

My Lords, the difficult situation in Colombia continues to develop. As migrants from across Latin America and indeed other parts of the world head north towards the United States, the almost impenetrable Darien Gap between Colombia and Panama is becoming a breeding ground for people traffickers, smugglers and other criminal networks. Given that our embassy in Bogotá is the largest in the Americas after that in Washington DC, can my noble friend encourage our embassy to take a lead in urging regional co-operation to support the Colombian Government?

I am very happy to reassure my noble friend on that basis. She will also be aware that the UK is the lead on the Security Council on matters regarding Colombia.

My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord said to my noble friend in respect of the actions of the police. Is he aware that members of the Colombian senate have warned that a new security law will further criminalise protests and weaken human rights protections? What discussions have the noble Lord’s Government had with other Ministers in the Colombian Government on a new security law?

I cannot answer the noble Lord on that specific issue, but I can tell him that in the last three months there have been a number of high-level discussions between the UK Government and the Colombian Government. That includes a meeting in September last year between the Prime Minister and President Duque. I have already referred to the visit to Colombia by the Minister for European Neighbourhood and the Americas, Wendy Morton. As I say, there were a number of other recent interactions —I think there were about 10 between September and December. It is very much an open channel.

My Lords, Global Witness reports that Colombia is the most dangerous place in the world to be an environmental activist—65 people were killed in 2020. Given that the FCDO oversees the climate fund, will the Government review environmental funding to Colombia to ensure that protecting environmental and indigenous activists is a key priority?

My Lords, Colombia is one of our strongest partners on climate and the environment, with a leading regional influence and an ambitious nationally determined contribution of 51%. The UK-Colombia Partnership for Sustainable Growth, which was signed in June 2019, formalises the relationship between the two countries on clean growth and climate change. The reason I mention all that is because Colombia is a COP 26 priority country, and the UK has committed over £240 million of international climate finance in Colombia since 2011. We believe that the promotion of sustainable economic opportunities will help tackle some of the root causes of ongoing violence.

My Lords, during the 2021 protests, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights received over 60 reports of sexual violations allegedly perpetrated by the Colombian police, many in the context of arbitrary arrests. Given Her Majesty’s Government’s commendable lead on the prevention of conflict sexual violence and the forthcoming conference I believe we will be hosting on this topic, have the Government raised these reports with the Colombian Government and if so, what has been their response?

I am afraid I do not know the answer to that question, but I go back to my earlier answer. The Colombian police and Government are investigating a large number of various allegations of poor behaviour and I will certainly take back the question and ask my colleagues.

My Lords, I am sure the Minister agrees that full implementation of Colombia’s historic 2016 peace agreement remains crucial but advocates for peace continue to face violence and intimidation. In December, a group calling itself the Black Eagles issued death threats against Colombian senators Iván Cepeda, Victoria Sandino and Maria José Pizarro and a number of civil society activists. Will the Minister condemn these threats and make representations to the Colombian Government over the safety of the named individuals?

We should all condemn all threats to individuals in a functioning democracy. The UK has, as I said earlier, been a leading international advocate of Colombia’s peace process which, as the noble Lord rightly points out, is five years old—indeed, Wendy Morton went to Colombia to celebrate the fifth anniversary. We commend the Colombian Government on their commitment to implement the 2016 peace accords and we have contributed more than £68 million in support through the UK’s Conflict, Security and Stability Fund. We are the second largest donor to the UN trust fund for Colombia and, of course, we continue to raise these issues.

My Lords, political activism is one of the clearest examples of personal freedom. The BBC has reported that 145 activists were killed last year in Colombia. The Foreign Secretary says that British policies for trade and diplomacy are now combined to support personal freedom. Now that we have an independent trade agreement with Colombia, what discussions have we had with regards to the human rights and trade policy with that country to protect personal freedom?

I thank the noble Lord for his question. He may remember that my noble friend Lord Ahmad discussed this issue at length during a virtual visit to Colombia last year, including with the Government and members of civil society. We are taking forward their suggestions of further assistance that the UK could provide.

Regarding the trade relationship, I am sure the noble Lord is aware that we are on a bridging agreement at the moment. The Colombian Government—actually, it is the Colombian courts, not the Government—have not yet ratified the agreement. Continuity for the framework governing UK-Colombia trade is provided by this bridging arrangement but, of course, those matters are enshrined in the agreement for when it is signed.

My Lords, the UK has a long-standing £2.1 million training programme with the Colombian police. Not only did the December UN report into the April/May 2021 strike protest conclude that there was a

“unnecessary or disproportionate use of force by police officers”;

but Amnesty International’s November report into the protests found that the Colombian security forces, particularly the mobile anti-riot squad, inflicted more than 100 eye injuries with non-lethal projectiles in a pattern of deliberate behaviour that it concluded was intended to punish victims for

“exercising their legitimate right to social protest”.

After lots of requests for this, is it not time for a formal review of our continued support for the police training programme?

My Lords, obviously we are aware of those reports of eye injuries. As I said earlier, all these things are being investigated. We have made representations to the Colombian Government as regards police activities but, in terms of our activities with the police, I assure noble Lords that everything that we are doing there is intended to support the development of civil society. I think it probably makes sense for us to continue to do that.

My Lords, the UK played a noble and honourable role in promoting the peace agreement. I want to return to the question posed by my noble friend Lady Blower. Will the Government agree to a cross-party meeting with interested Peers and others about what can be done now to make sure that the writ of the agreement runs in parts of Colombia where it currently does not?

I thank the noble Lord for that reminder; I apologise for not answering the noble Baroness’s question earlier. I am happy to take that back and try to facilitate such a meeting.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recent discussions they have had with the Welsh Government about the remediation and repair of coal tips in Wales; and what plans they have, if any, to provide funding to support such remediation and repair work.

My Lords, the UK and Welsh Governments discuss this matter regularly. The UK Government are committed to fulfilling their responsibilities, so the Coal Authority is providing technical support. We also provided the Welsh Government with £31 million in 2020-21 to help with the unforeseen impacts of Storm Dennis, including damage to coal tips. Ultimately, however, environmental matters are fully devolved, and the Welsh Government are more than adequately funded to manage all devolved responsibilities.

Diolch am yr ateb; thank you for the answer. There are 600 in Neath Port Talbot, 300 in Rhondda Cynon Taf, 216 in Wrexham, 205 in Caerphilly, 203 in Swansea and 922 in other local authority areas, totalling 2,446 disused coal tips in Wales. Mark Drakeford, our First Minister, has said:

“These sites pre-date devolution. Our funding settlement does not recognise the substantial, long-term costs of remediating and repairing these sites.”

Will the UK Government cease prevaricating and pay up before something serious happens again?

In answering this question, I truly remember the Aberfan disaster; we should never forget it. Last year represented its 55th anniversary. I was aged 11 at the time of the disaster; it is indelibly on my mind.

The central pillar of the support we have given is to ensure that the Welsh Government are properly funded to manage their devolved responsibilities, including the remediation of vulnerable coal tips. At the 2021 spending review, the UK Government provided the Welsh Government with the largest annual block grant in real terms of any spending review settlement since devolution in 1998.

My Lords, should the pre-devolution scarring of the countryside by the defunct National Coal Board be the responsibility of a devolved Government? Is the Treasury currently considering a reform of the Barnett formula based on history rather than needs, or are the devolved countries excluded from levelling up?

To answer the noble and learned Lord’s first question, the Barnett formula remains the key part of the arrangement for pooling and sharing risks and resources across the UK. This ensures that all parts of the UK, including Wales, receive a secure and stable level of funding for public services. Indeed, there are 2,500 disused coal tips, and it is vital that the money that we give to Wales is used effectively to ensure that these pits are safe.

My Lords, as we saw with the Tylorstown landslide in February 2020, the impact of climate change, with warmer annual temperatures and greater rainfall, has increased the risk of coal-tip landslides. Can my noble friend the Minister tell the House whether the Welsh Government’s programme of work includes the inspection and maintenance of coal tips and the deployment of technology to monitor tip movement?

Just to reiterate, this is a devolved matter, and we expect the Welsh Government to manage any long-term costs associated with ensuring the safety of Welsh coal tips, as I said before. They are more than adequately funded to do so. In October 2021, quite recently, the Secretary of State for Wales and the First Minister of Wales co-chaired the coal tip safety summit to receive an update from the joint task force. This task force has identified and categorised all tips in Wales and undertaken inspections of all those in the highest-risk groups.

My Lords, Aberfan and the deep-mine disasters of Cynheidre and Gresford were all long before there was any devolved government in Wales. The Tylorstown slip in 2020 was a flowslide caused by Storm Dennis, and repairs have cost £18 million, to which the UK Government have contributed only £2.5 million. Do the Government recognise that climate change is making these tips more dangerous? Do they also recognise that Wales’s contribution to the wealth of the United Kingdom in the past must be matched by United Kingdom funding to deal with the dangers of the present?

The noble Lord mentioned the Tylorstown slip in 2020. The Coal Authority worked through BEIS, the Cabinet Office, the old MHCLG—now called the Department for Levelling Up—and, indeed, the Scotland Office to remind local authorities of their responsibilities in the management and oversight of coal tips, offering support where it can. I reiterate that there is more than enough money for the Welsh Government to ensure full safety cover.

Do the Government recognise that 327 tips are classified as high-risk, and that, if there is to be a true unionist approach between this Government and the Welsh Government, it is completely right that there is funding to flatten those tips, which were created long before the devolution settlement? Do the Government recognise that the memory of Aberfan lives on in those who are alive today—people such as Mansel Aylward, who, as a medical student, crawled into the school and pulled out a child alive?

Indeed—we are reminded by the noble Baroness once again about Aberfan. She is right that there are 327 pits in the higher-risk categories, C and D; however, they are deemed to be safe. On her question about dealing with the coal tips, it is very challenging and rather dangerous to do anything with them because remediation—for example, smoothing them out—is much more challenging in Wales than it is for the other 4,000 around the UK.

My Lords, this is a central government responsibility. The Minister is right to point out that it was the horrific tragedy of Aberfan that triggered the re-greening of the countryside, the coal tips and the valleys in Wales. Much has been done, very successfully, but much remains to be done; the figures have been given by my noble friend Lady Wilcox. Surely the Minister recognises that this problem pre-dates devolution, and central government must now accept its share of responsibility.

I am going to push back at the noble Lord and say once again that the Welsh Government are more than adequately funded to manage their devolved responsibilities. They can pay for coal-tip maintenance. Informed by the independent Holtham commission’s recommendation, the inclusion of a needs-based factor in the Barnett formula provides the Welsh Government with at least £115 per person for every £100 of equivalent funding per person in England.

My Lords, might it be worth my noble friend reading the report into the Barnett formula, which was produced by a special Select Committee of this House, on the recommendation of the much-missed Lord Barnett? It concluded that Wales got a very bad deal indeed and recommended that the Barnett formula be replaced by funding based on need, which would advantage Wales and perhaps deal with the systemic problem that the Barnett formula pre-dates devolution but, as the committee report made clear, Wales loses out because of that formula.

I reiterate that there are no plans to reform the Barnett formula, and that spending per head in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is higher than the UK average, broadly reflecting that the costs of providing public services are also higher. The whole point of the Barnett formula is that an area experiencing a downturn can be supported by other areas, rather than being dependent on local economic conditions.

My Lords, the Minister has referred a couple of times to the funding to the Welsh authorities as “adequate”. Can he enlighten us as to how adequacy is defined?

I will define what I see as being adequate. The Welsh Government have more than enough to deal with the very important subject of coal-tip safety.

My Lords, south Wales coalfields in particular made a massive contribution to the wealth of the UK over the years, with 40% of the UK’s coalfields being in Wales. We have already heard how climate impacts are increasing the risks that disused coal tips pose to our Welsh communities. Residents believe that the UK Government have a legal and moral responsibility to work with the Welsh Government to address this issue. Why can both Governments not put their differences aside, put the interests of the residents who live in the shadow of the coal tips first, and meet in the middle?

I am not sure what differences the noble Baroness is seeing. As I said at the outset, there are regular discussions between the UK Government and the Welsh Government. Regarding legislation, the principal legislation relating to the stability and safety of mineral waste in the UK is the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act 1969 and the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Regulations 1971, which were amended by the Mines Regulations 2014. I have made it quite clear that there is more than enough money to deal with the inspection, and the regulations ensure that those responsible for the mines ensure their safety.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, to seek to limit the bonuses of the executives of water companies responsible for persistently polluting rivers and waterways with raw sewage; and in what circumstances they would consider implementing such plans.

My Lords, the pollution of rivers and waterways is unacceptable. The Government have set new environmental commitments for water companies. Since producing its report, Putting the Sector Back in Balance, and the board leadership principles, Ofwat has required companies to link executive performance-related pay to customer outcomes. The Government expect regulators to take strong action against polluters. Ofwat will respond to the recent EAC recommendations on executive pay in due course.

My Lords, we have debated the scandal of illegal sewage dumping and misreporting of incidents by the water companies many times in this Chamber. The Minister will know the depth of anger that exists among the wider public. The Commons Environmental Audit Committee and many environmental groups now want action on the remuneration and bonuses of senior executives as the fining of the water companies as a whole clearly has proven ineffective. However, the chairs of Ofwat and the Environment Agency have said that they cannot act until they are given extra powers to do so. What further evidence, if any, can the Minister possibly need that we need to take this action now, given the scale of the problem, and why do we not give the regulators those additional powers that they need now to take the sort of action that everybody is crying out for?

My Lords, the regulator, Ofwat, produced the report Putting the Sector Back in Balance and the board leadership and principles reports. These require the water companies to improve their corporate and financial behaviours, including by being transparent about how executive performance pay and dividends relate to the services for customers. They put that in place through the board leadership, transparency and governance principles, which will be effective in tackling the problem.

My Lords, I declare an interest as a former director of a water company—but a water supply company, not a company taking waste. I ask my noble friend to confirm that, within the water industry, given the number of companies that need to extract water from rivers to supply their consumers, there is considerable pressure on the companies that take waste to clean up their act. Within the industry itself, there is considerable pressure to act.

There are enormous challenges for the water industry, not least in the south and east of England, where there is a real challenge in terms of a shortage of water at certain times. The Government, working with the regulators, with the extra powers that we now have through the Environment Act, are driving water companies, both suppliers and providers of sewerage and wastewater services, with the means they need to address those challenges.

My Lords, although Southern Water has been fined for the unlicensed discharge of sewage into waterways, no other water company has so far been penalised. Unless the management of water companies are personally financially penalised, nothing will improve. The chief executive of Severn Trent was paid £2.8 million in 2020. When are the Government going to get tough on this revolting practice and ensure that the polluter pays?

My Lords, the “polluter pays” principle was clearly defined in the Environment Act. It is applicable where there is evidence or potential of environmental harm or negative environmental impact. The “polluter pays” principle is vital in cleaning up our rivers. Measures in the Environment Act and the strategic policy statement by Ofwat are driving a better solution for this very serious problem which, as has been rightly pointed out, is an affront not just to us in this House but to the wider public in well.

My Lords, what sanctions are available to counter the massive failures by the water companies in terms both of the illegal spillage of sewage and the failures to invest adequately?

There are a number of sanctions and Ofwat is very clear about them, but one thing we did not have was data. In 2013, we discovered that there was information about only 10% of sewage outflows. That has now risen to 80%, and by next year we will have 100% of all outflows fully available. That transparency means that ordinary members of the public as well as regulators can understand from the water company what is going on and take action.

My Lords, the Environment Agency recently announced that it did not have sufficient resource to investigate many of the discharges of sewage. Following the passing of the Environment Act, would Ministers be prepared to consider giving guidance, or more of a direction if they can, to the Environment Agency to divert resources from other departments to the investigation of sewage discharges, which are of such concern to the public?

I pay tribute to the noble Duke for his work during the passage of the Environment Act. The Environment Agency has risen to the challenge of innovating to use maximum monitoring and inspection coverage with the use of drones and geospatial mapping tools. Like any organisation, it can always do more with more, but it is prioritising. It is also developing its river surveillance network, which will make better use of data through a catchment-based approach, meaning that it will be able to target its resources better. Fines are being put in place on water companies, the largest of which was a £90 million fine against Southern Water. So action has been taken, and more will be taken as this problem is dealt with.

My Lords, will my noble friend agree to make water companies statutory consultees so that, when an application for a major housing development is made, the wastewater does not enter antiquated sewer pipes thus causing sewage spills in nearby rivers, which causes the problems that the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, has rightly identified? If we do not do more at the front end when a housing application is made, this problem will continue to grow.

I have sympathy with my noble friend’s points. This was a recommendation of the Pitt review, following the floods in 2007. I absolutely concur that we have to link planning with the provision. Many new houses are tapping into Edwardian sewerage systems, which are inadequate. We have to make sure that water companies have the resources that they need and that the planning system is fit for purpose in tackling this.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to investigate reports that Christine Lee obtained amendments to the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 on the behalf of the government of China.

My Lords, in a Statement in the other place on 17 January, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary explained:

“the parliamentary authorities, following careful … discussion with MI5, issued an alert to Members of Parliament—MPs and peers—alerting them about specific individuals involved in … political interference.”—[Official Report, Commons, 17/1/22; col. 23.]

It is concerning that someone who has knowingly engaged in political interference activities on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party has targeted British parliamentarians. However, I know that noble Lords will understand that I cannot comment in detail on the work of our Security Service.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply, but, given the seriousness of the claim that someone now publicly identified by MI5 as a Chinese Communist Party agent, operating across the two Houses of Parliament, successfully subverted our legislative programme by persuading Members of your Lordships’ House to table amendments to an Act of Parliament, can the Government at least please say what action they would take to establish whether this actually occurred, who it involved and what range of disciplinary action they will consider? Does she agree with me that, through its sanctions on individual parliamentarians and now the alleged manipulation of our statute book, the Chinese Communist Party has shown itself willingly and brazenly to attack our Parliament? Does she agree that we should leave nothing off the table in instituting a broad-based inquiry, including the intrusion into Select Committees of witnesses with links to hostile foreign powers? Does she also agree that we should strenuously defend the integrity of this institution and indeed our democracy?

I agree with much of the sentiment of what the noble Lord is saying. He will understand that what I can say today is limited, but I will address what HMG are doing to tackle these types of threats. The Cabinet Office is leading on this, and it co-ordinates the Government’s overall response to countering state threats. We are making the UK and its overseas interests safer by strengthening our ability to deter, withstand, respond to and recover from state threats. We are looking to deliver a step change in our approach to them. Our current review of the countering state threats strategy aims not only to strengthen our defences and manage the risk to the UK but to take a much more assertive and creative approach to the international arena to defend our strategic advantages over our adversaries. I have to stop there because I have to stop short of intelligence matters.

My Lords, one understands that, but, when inquiries are complete, will the Government make a Statement, not necessarily going into details but saying whether there is substance in these allegations?

I do not know about that because that is pre-empting any investigation that may go on—but, as my noble friend knows, I am always very willing to say what I can say at the Dispatch Box to your Lordships’ House.

My Lords, the Minister has just said to this Chamber that what we have witnessed and seen is a state threat to our country and its institutions. I would respectfully say to her that it is a little bit more than concerning—it is a really worrying development. In a Statement in the other place, the Minister said that the person had acted covertly and is involved in “political interference activities” in the UK, and investigations, including with MI5, are ongoing. Allegations have also been made that Ministers did not respond to warnings they were given. Can the Minister reassure this House that the results of the ongoing investigation will be reported to Parliament and Parliament will be an opportunity to debate it, and that that will be done quickly—as soon as possible?

I hope that the noble Lord will be assured that I will report what I can report to this House, and in a timely manner.

My Lords, the Minister referred to these “types of threat”. The question from my noble friend Lord Alton was about a specific individual. These “types of threat” seems to suggest that something more systematic within Parliament may be seeking to undermine our institutions. What work are Her Majesty’s Government doing to ensure that parliamentarians can be supported in our work so that we are not vulnerable to those who seek to undermine our democracy?

I can confirm to the noble Baroness that the Home Office, together with the police and Crown Prosecution Service, have for some time been working on potential measures to help manage the risks posed by this type of activity.

My Lords, this is an egregious incident but a far from isolated one. China has a strategy and campaign plan for remaking the international order to suit itself. All the UK seems to have is a list of often mutually exclusive aspirations set out in the integrated review. When will the Government develop a coherent strategy for their approach to China, as recommended by your Lordships’ International Relations and Defence Committee in its recent report?

I can say to the noble and gallant Lord that we are making the UK and its overseas interests safer by strengthening our ability to deter, withstand, respond to and recover from state threats. Clearly, we have legislation coming forward to that end. In March 2020, we publicly confirmed the existence of the joint state threats assessment team, which was established to monitor and improve our understanding of state threats.

My Lords, the resilience of Parliament is of fundamental importance to our democracy, but this is now the third named individual about whose subversion activities parliamentarians have been informed. However, the Government seem to be operating on a reactive basis. Would not it be better for the resilience of Parliament if the Government facilitated regular proactive briefings to senior parliamentarians and committee chairs in particular, so that we are aware of subversive activities—whether the activities of Chinese individuals or, as Chatham House indicated before China, the very proactive work of Russians and those from former Soviet Union countries?

My Lords, I think that the fact it was the Speaker who was alerted to this means that various agencies are working together to identify threats and bring them not only to my department’s attention but, obviously, to that of the Lord Speaker and Parliament. That work is ongoing, some of which I can discuss and some I cannot, but it is ongoing work.

My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that Miss Lee, as a naturalised British citizen, will not be allowed to leave the UK, so that she can appear before a parliamentary inquiry and give evidence, as was suggested by my noble friend Lord Alton of Liverpool?

I am sorry to say to my noble friend that unfortunately, I cannot comment on individual cases.

Can the Minister assure the House that any Member of your Lordships’ House found guilty of using their position to aid and abet a hostile nation committing what the Foreign Secretary has called “genocide” against the Uighurs in Xinjiang will be expelled from this House?

My Lords, that would be a very serious matter indeed, were that to transpire. As she will know, we have a number of mechanisms in place, should that be the case, to carry out some of the heaviest sanctions, including expulsion.

My Lords, should the Liberal Democrats not be particularly expert on the question of Russian agents and spies, because it was a Liberal Democrat MP who had a research assistant who was accused of being a Russian agent? When questioned about it, he said, “Oh, I knew she was a Russian spy; she wouldn’t have slept with me otherwise”.

I must confess that I have never heard that tale, but what this confirms is that we all need to be very vigilant and careful about who attempts to influence us in this place, particularly when we are bringing legislation forward. I cannot really comment on my noble friend’s tale.

My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the Minister’s answers, and I am really puzzled as to why she cannot give an affirmative answer to my noble friend Lord Alton’s question on whether the Government and government agencies are investigating whether there is any substance to Miss Lee’s assertions that she has used her influence in relation to Members of this House.

My Lords, it is because I cannot do so at this point.

My Lords, I am really surprised that there is not much more outrage about this. It was reported years ago that this woman was giving huge amounts of money to a Front-Bencher of one of the parties. She has been hanging around No. 10 and was given an award by the Government. She has given money to the Lib Dems as well—she has been showering money all over the place, it seems—and she claims that she was influencing legislation in your Lordships’ House. Surely, we need a really wide-ranging inquiry to find out exactly what has been going on and to make sure that this can never happen again.

My Lords, the noble Lord has cited lots of allegations. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I cannot comment at this point. I have to leave it there.

My Lords, a number of questions have focused on preventing further similar cases. Does the Minister agree that the only way we can prevent similar instances is if we stop individuals and companies being able to donate large amounts of money to political parties and individuals? That way, people will know that politics cannot be bought.

There are very specific rules on foreign donations. I am sure that the noble Baroness knows that.

My Lords, what representations have Her Majesty’s Government made to the Chinese Government about this affair?

I say to the noble and gallant Lord that where serious matters are brought to our attention, we do not hesitate to bring them up with foreign states.

My Lords, the ISC’s Russia report referred explicitly to infiltration of political parties. When are the Government going to take further action in response to that report? They have been remarkably slow in publishing it and then in following it up.

My Lords, I am sure that that will be done in due course.

This may not be a question that the Minister can possibly answer, but I am going to raise it so that the House can consider it. Are the relevant rules about Parliament sufficient to prevent improper involvement and influence?

I am most grateful that the noble and learned Lord has asked that question because I think we should all ask ourselves that when bringing forward matters from lobby groups and elsewhere, to ensure that there is propriety in what we do. I am talking particularly about financial propriety and the sources of that lobbying. There is possibly more to be done in this area.

My Lords, I have some sympathy for the Minister in the circumstances she has been dealing with, but given, as has already been mentioned, that the Intelligence and Security Committee made recommendations in relation to Russian activity—and given the present context, particularly Russia’s attitude towards Ukraine—is it not time that these recommendations were implemented?

My Lords, I am sure that those responses, and implementation of the recommendations that the Government agree with, will be forthcoming.

My Lords, the Intelligence and Security Committee is presently conducting an inquiry into national security issues relating to China. Will the Minister or other Ministers be able to answer these questions in the context of the Intelligence and Security Committee?

My Lords, the noble Lord has strayed way beyond my purview for today, but I will certainly speak to colleagues who might be able to give better answers to noble Lords, certainly on the ISC.

My Lords, following on from my noble and learned friend Lord Judge’s question, I understand the outrage in your Lordships’ House in this case, but can the Minister tell the House who adjudicates the line between political interference and the legitimate lobbying that all embassies do in London?

I am sure the noble Lord is well placed to answer that question, but he wants me to do so. Sometimes it is a matter of judgment on what we do, how we do it and the transparency with which we do it. In different contexts, those can be different.

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Lord Hall of Birkenhead, Baroness Harding of Winscombe and Lord Young of Norwood Green be appointed members of the Select Committee, in place of Viscount Colville of Culross, Lord Gilbert of Panteg, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara; and that Baroness Stowell of Beeston be appointed chair of the Select Committee.

My Lords, this Motion and the other Motion standing in my name before your Lordships give effect to the rotation rule which is applied each January following a meeting of the Committee of Selection. The rotation rule operates to secure a regular turnover of Select Committee memberships. Members rotating off Select Committees, who include several Select Committee chairs, have served their full term under the rotation rule. I take this opportunity to thank them for their contribution and service to these committees. I beg to move.

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Lord Blair of Boughton, Lord Garnier and Baroness Manningham-Buller be appointed members of the Select Committee, in place of Baroness Anelay of St Johns, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and Lord Mance; and that Baroness Manningham-Buller be appointed chair of the Select Committee.

My Lords, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, raises a crucial issue but it is unrelated to the appointment Motion. I am moving the Motions in my capacity as chair of the Committee of Selection. I therefore hope noble Lords will accept that I do not and am not in a position to speak for the Conduct Committee, which is represented in your Lordships’ House by its chair. I will of course listen to what the noble Lord has to say and draw his remarks to the attention of the chair of the Conduct Committee, assuming that the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, is indeed appointed. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

At the end insert “and as its first task it seeks to ensure the protection of freedom of speech so that nothing can prevent the full and frank exchange of honestly held opinions in the course of Parliamentary proceedings.”

My Lords, I am most grateful for what my noble friend Lord Gardiner of Kimble has said. I could ask no more in the circumstances. We do not have points of order in your Lordships’ House, and I am taking the earliest possible opportunity to raise an issue which potentially affects every single Member of your Lordships’ House. I believe it is incumbent on those of us involved in what I will describe that we should seek to do this.

Last week, my noble friend Lord Blencathra moved an amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, the aim of which was to protect women prisoners from men who self-identify as women and are housed in women’s prisons. The noble Baronesses, Lady Meyer and Lady Fox of Buckley, and I supported it. As a result, all four of us received letters from the Commissioner for Standards saying that our speeches had been complained about. He had dismissed the complaints on a technicality—the grounds that they were third-party complaints and therefore not permissible. The four of us have written to the commissioner because we are deeply concerned by the implications of this decision, as it could give the impression that, because he dismissed the complaints on a technicality, there may have been some substance in the allegations.

Parliamentary privilege is one of the bulwarks of democracy. In the sixth edition of that splendid guide which many of us know, How Parliament Works, written by our colleague the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and a former clerk in this House, Rhodri Walters, they explain the importance of parliamentary privilege. It is a guarantee of freedom of speech within both Houses of Parliament and our committees. Anything said on the Floor of this House or in Committee is protected as a result of Article 9 of the 1688-89 Bill of Rights, which is one of our foundation documents. It states:

“That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.”

There can be very few subjects which are more relevant or important to your Lordships’ House. There is no doubt in the minds of those of us who received these letters that the complaints against us were designed to silence us, and that has very sinister implications.

Members of Parliament and Peers must be able to speak up and express any opinion on a public issue without fear of legal action. This does not excuse the frivolous. Your Lordships’ House and the other place can deal with Members whom they believe have abused parliamentary privilege. That has occurred in the past, but we must be free. Our civil liberties in this country depend to a large degree on that power. That is why I am suggesting—I am doing no more than that, and I am grateful to my noble friend for what he said—that the new Conduct Committee, under its new chairman, should address this issue as a priority. Without freedom of speech there can be no free Parliament and no genuine parliamentary democracy.

In our speeches last week—I urge noble Lords who are concerned about this matter to read the four brief speeches—we were not in any way seeking to bully. I am glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who has been prominent in these matters, nodding her head. In this counterculture era, it is vital that no-one seeks to bully those who speak in either House. I beg to move.

My Lords, I think I am the only member of the Conduct Committee in the Chamber, so may I say that this is the first I have heard of this and express my disappointment. I support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said. I always listen very carefully to him and I have enormous respect for his contributions. I assure him that this subject—the freedom of expression and of opinion—has been debated by the Conduct Committee, and it is understood and agreed that it is in no way a breach of the Code of Conduct. I am pleased to hear that the commissioner has rejected the complaints, and that is the way it should be.

I want to give a reassurance, because this Motion refers to our committee’s members and its new members; we are looking forward enormously to working with them. They are clear on this matter, as was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance. I can still hear him saying very clearly that freedom of opinion in a view is in no way a breach—it cannot be. When it transcends into bullying, harassment, sexual harassment or misconduct —trying in any way to bully or belittle members of staff or the public—then it would be investigated. Expressing a view in this Chamber would never constitute that. The four lay members are clear on that as well. We are all agreed on it; there is no question of it, so I give that reassurance to the noble Lord and to the House.

My Lords, I hope your Lordships will indulge me just for a couple of minutes. The Senior Deputy Speaker has my sympathy because, as he acknowledged a moment ago, these are Motions of nomination. They do not go to the orders of reference of the committees concerned.

Freedom of speech in Parliament, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has said, underpinned by Article 9 of the Bill of Rights, is of truly inestimable value. He is right to voice any unease he may feel at the possible chilling effect which may be observed. Perhaps I may call him my honorary noble friend, not just because of the kind reference to my book a moment ago but because, over half a century, I have seen him at first hand demonstrate his zeal for empowering and protecting Parliament, which I fancy underlies the remarks that he made a moment or two ago.

On this occasion, I hope that his unease will be assuaged by the wording of paragraph 29 of the Code of Conduct, which the noble Baroness referred to a second ago. It says that

“the Commissioner and the Conduct Committee shall … recognise as a primary consideration the constitutional principle of freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings, including but not limited to the need for members to be able to express their views fully and frankly in parliamentary proceedings”.

I am sure, as the Senior Deputy Speaker said in his initial remarks, that the exchanges today will be brought to the attention of the Conduct Committee.

My Lords, I pass no comment on the original speeches that were apparently the basis of the complaints of which the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and others were notified. I have not discussed this matter with the noble Lord but support him absolutely 100% on this; it is very easy to find ourselves in a position where the fundamental principle of parliamentary freedom of speech is incrementally eroded.

To my memory, I voted against the Labour Government only once on a whip. I remember it well: it was an amendment put forward by my good friend Jack Straw to a Government Bill, which would have allowed anything MPs said in Parliament on a particular subject—MPs’ expenses—to be used in a court of law. I could see the motivation behind it, the objections that would be raised and the pressure that was put on him, but I thought it was a fundamental mistake to allow that. Once you go the inch, you have in fact gone the whole mile as regards this.

It is not sufficient to stop at saying that this should not be part of any proceedings. It should not be notified to Members of Parliament, because the effect of notification is to carry out the inhibition, bullying and so on that a formal move would result in. Will the Senior Deputy Speaker pass on the comments and discussion on this? It is necessary for the new committee not only to reaffirm the freedom of speech of Members of Parliament but to change the operation, so that they are not notified if something is complained exclusively about what a Member has said in this House.

My Lords, I am not at all reassured by what we have been told about the Conduct Committee. I am uniquely advantaged in this House in that I am not a lawyer, but I did understand that what was said in this Chamber or the other place was privileged, and I understood that this is fundamental and goes to the root of what we are about. But I discover that we have agreed that the conduct commissioner, because they are an officer of the House, is able to investigate remarks made in this Chamber in respect of other Members of this House. We have agreed that. That came as astonishing news to me, and I doubt there were very many Members of this House who were aware that that was what we had agreed to.

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, mentioned me in his speech as nodding along, I thought I better clarify. I support him completely. I nearly did not come in to listen to this, because I thought it was a piddling point of order of some sort, even though it was labelled “free speech.” But having heard it, I am delighted I came in. I fully support the noble Lord; I hope he does not feel he needs to put this to a vote, because I think the spirit of the House is entirely behind him, and I thank him. I heard those speeches; they were not inappropriate in any sense.

It would be a brave person who sought to bully the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth; that is certainly true. I support the noble Lords, Lord Reid and Lord Forsyth. I also sat through the debate in question because I was taking part in the immediate succeeding business. There was nothing in any of the speeches that, in my judgment, entitled anyone to express a complaint. You might not have agreed with what was being said, but that is not the same.

Respectfully, it seems to me that the commissioner erred. His response should have been not to entertain in any circumstances the public complaints which were made to him. If it is to be done on the basis of a technicality, that is almost certain to enthuse certain other people to write and say, “Well, what was the technicality, so we can do better next time?” This is a matter of such fundamental principle, as many of those who have contributed to this debate have made clear, and it is for this Chamber—and indeed the other Chamber, if so advised—to ensure that it does not depart from a principle which is right at the very heart of the democracy of this country.

My Lords, may I say just four words? This will not do.

My Lords, very simply, this is a question of jurisdiction. If the current practice of the House is that we have—certainly before I was a Member—given jurisdiction, whether knowingly or not, to the commissioner to investigate, that is absolutely contrary to Article 9 of the Bill of Rights. He now has power under this to investigate. If we have done this by some sort of side wind, that power must be taken away. He must not have the jurisdiction to do it. Unless it is following a complaint, it is done on the Motion of the House, specifically on a case-by-case basis. As I understand it, it is open to this House to direct that there be an investigation into the conduct of a Member, but that must not happen simply because someone, somewhere, makes a complaint. It is an important jurisdiction question. This power should be taken away from the commissioner, unless in a specific case he or she is asked to investigate as a servant of the House. But it must be case by case. It should never happen and should not relate to things which are said in the House unless they are clearly out of order, offensive, criminal or something else.

My Lords, I support completely what the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Forsyth, have said. I am here to speak because, unfortunately, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—who was one of the recipients of this letter—has had to leave for Grand Committee. She is a new Member, and she is a very strong woman, as we all know, yet getting a letter from the standards commissioner affected her. It affects anyone who gets a letter from the standards commissioner, even if, as has been said, it goes on to say that they are not going to investigate. It should have been put in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, cannot accept this amendment, but it seems to me a very common-sense amendment which should be accepted widely. It would allow the new committee to be able to take this as a first matter of priority.

My Lords, it has been a privilege to listen to the very powerful points made first by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and then by all noble Lords who have spoken. I have to reiterate—and the generosity of the House is such that I know noble Lords understand this—that I am moving appointment Motions in my capacity as chair of the Committee of Selection. I cannot speak for the Conduct Committee, although we heard from one of its members. Of course, these are ultimately all matters for the House.

I assure noble Lords, because this is within my capability, that I will refer today to the incoming chair of the Conduct Committee—assuming that the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, is appointed—the remarks that have been made during this important but short debate so that matters can be considered further. With that promise, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack—formerly my noble friend—will feel able to withdraw his amendment and that we can appoint Members to this committee who I think will be very important and helpful to these further considerations.

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to every noble Lord who has taken part in this brief but important debate. I am grateful too to my former noble friend for what he has just, as I was for what he said at the beginning. There is no subject that is more important to Members of either House than freedom of speech: the ability to say what they honestly think and feel about important subjects. As was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, that does not mean they agree with each other. Vigorous debate is essential to a healthy democracy.

May I also say how much I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Reid, and others who made the point that the commissioner should not write to Members? The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, was correct in what she said about our vigorous and outspoken new colleague who was taken aback by this—and I am sure would not mind me saying so. People should not be troubled with letters from the commissioner if somebody is writing about what is said on the Floor of the House.

I will take the advice of my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, because I think the House has spoken. There has not been any dissentient voice. In seeking to withdraw my amendment, I am confident that my noble friend Lord Gardiner will do precisely what he has promised and that colleagues on the Conduct Committee will take the sense of the House as it has been voiced vigorously this afternoon. I beg to withdraw.

Amendment withdrawn.

Motion agreed.

That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Nationality and Borders Bill has been committed that they consider the bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 8, Schedule 1, Clauses 9 to 22, Schedule 2, Clauses 23 to 28, Schedule 3, Clauses 29 to 41, Schedule 4, Clause 42, Schedule 5, Clauses 43 and 44, Schedule 6, Clauses 45 and 46, Schedule 7, Clauses 47 to 84, Title.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion in the name of my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford.

My Lords, Amendment 1 is in my name. I also support Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Empey. Amendment 1 would provide that the

“First Minister and deputy First Minister be referred to as Joint First Ministers reflecting their identical status, powers and responsibilities.”

At Second Reading, I indicated that the Good Friday agreement provided a level of hope and expectancy back in May 1998, and that we in Northern Ireland want

“to use the architecture of the Good Friday agreement to work together in partnership, reconciliation, parity of esteem and respect for difference. Those are the kernels we urgently need to build the political stability and resilience of government.”—[Official Report, 29/11/21; col. 1234.]

We need to revert to that position through the title of Joint First Minister for the good delivery of policies, for proper identification, for equality, for reconciliation and, in terms of that good delivery of policies and operational matters, for the people of Northern Ireland. Why do I say that? To recreate that hope and sense of fairness and equality that we all felt back in 1998.

Central to the Good Friday agreement were consensus and the principle of consent. As I said, the agreement contained the infrastructure and architecture that provided the framework for people to work together with respect, mutual understanding, trust and confidence in each other. Those basic principles were also discussed at St Andrews but there was a change of emphasis in terms of the appointment of the First and deputy First Ministers, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, will refer to when he introduces his amendment.

Now, we need to build on this Bill and return to that vision of 1998, which created the infrastructure and architecture to manage differences and realise a better shared future based on partnership and working together in Northern Ireland. It is important that we revert to the spirit of the 1998 agreement. I believe that this amendment in my name, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, has added her name, would ensure that the Joint First Ministers are classified as such to demonstrate that they have identical status, powers and responsibilities. I firmly believe that this would confer on the people of Northern Ireland the sense of responsibility that the Northern Ireland Executive have, and it would help them to see people physically and ethically working together because, to all intents and purposes, both posts are equal. This also needs to be reflected in the way they are elected, hence my support for the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Empey.

Both amendments would provide a solution to the Government in that they would de-sectarianise the Assembly election coming up on 5 May; diminish the focus of the election on, “Make me First Minister and do not let that other party and them ones get in”; and ensure that the election concentrates on health, post-pandemic recovery, jobs, education, the economy and improving the lives of people, which is what politics should be about and which we discuss in this House and the other place on a day-to-day basis.

I note that the Minister indicated in Committee that he was sympathetic to the intent and import of this amendment but felt that, at this stage, the Bill was not the “right vehicle” as it is about the legislative commitments in New Decade, New Approach. In the past week, we have seen other commitments that were definitely outwith that agreement that were going to be made but, as I understand it, will now not be made. What is the position of the Government now? Are they and the Minister acting on their behalf prepared to accept this amendment, which would help to stabilise the institutions, diminish the volatile situation and further prevent the instability that currently exists or could exist in a post-election sphere?

If the Government cannot accept this amendment today, can the Minister give other types of assurances to your Lordships’ House about how it can be, shall we say, discussed or legislated for in terms of negotiations in the future?

I have a word of warning. My belief and understanding is that things may not be all that settled in the post-election sphere and that, therefore, it may be better to do things at this juncture to bring about that necessary political stability. In that vein, I beg to move.

My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, just moved, and I say that as somebody who was not a fan of the Belfast agreement when it was signed. I opposed it, I hasten to add, not on orange or green grounds but on democratic grounds—being Ulster Catholic on one side and Scots Presbyterian on the other, I always felt I had a bit of a personal stake in power-sharing. However, I did not like the way that there was no proper opposition, the way it enshrined all the parties being in office, and the implication that things would become a scramble to reward supporters of those parties with public sector positions. I lost that argument—Northern Ireland went in a different direction and there is now a consensus behind it.

However, having gone down that road, it seems, as the noble Baroness says, that this is closing a loophole. We have decided to create these two positions as effectively coequal. The only difference between them is one of nomenclature, and if that is causing a sense of inequality or, if you like, forced competition in elections, as the noble Baroness said, it seems a quite small alteration that this amendment would address. Of course, I understand that the Bill is primarily about something else but I reiterate her call and hope that my noble friend the Minister will keep it under consideration.

My Lords, I too speak in support of Amendment 1 in the name of my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. In doing so, I will say a word or two about the fairly dangerous context that Northern Ireland politics is now in.

There is no greater or more enthusiastic supporter of devolution than I but where processes put in place for the best of motives are abused, there is an obligation on us all to rectify that. Regrettably, there have been examples in the recent past where the implementation of legislation passed at Westminster—because, for whatever reason, it could not be passed at Stormont—has been thwarted by either the DUP or Sinn Féin.

That was the case for payments for those severely injured through no fault of their own during the Troubles, which were disgracefully blocked by Sinn Féin despite being in statute as a legal obligation—as a result of an initiative taken in your Lordships’ House—until it was humiliatingly ordered to obey the law by High Court judges. It is perfectly legitimate for the DUP to oppose the protocol but it is not legitimate unilaterally to seek to block it. How can one party alone in a devolved Administration seek to block an international treaty agreed between the Government of the United Kingdom whom they support and the European Commission?

Amendment 1 seeks to improve the Bill and thus strengthen the institutions supporting devolution in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Bill will have the support of noble Lords across the House, and I particularly welcome the recent commitment in the letter from the Minister to early commencement, as well as his Amendments 8, 9 and 10, which I support but which I will not speak to now.

However, I am concerned that, while we are discussing how best the institutions underpinning devolution can be made to function more effectively, there is a threat from the DUP to bring down those very institutions. Threats, veiled or otherwise, to collapse the Good Friday agreement institutions, whether over the outworking of the hard Brexit policy the Government disastrously pursued—supported by the DUP—despite repeated warnings about the inevitable outcome for Northern Ireland, or because the democratic process may produce a result that some parties may dislike, do not serve the people of Northern Ireland and their democratic self-government at all well.

The Government have a responsibility to do all they can to ensure that the long-term stability of Northern Ireland is not jeopardised in the way I fear is currently the case. The whole House acknowledges the Northern Ireland expertise and long experience of the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Caine, who is not to blame for successive Secretaries of State since 2010—Julian Smith honourably excepted—failing to play the genuinely honest broker role essential for sustaining and deepening the Good Friday peace and democratic process which this amendment is designed to support.

At Second Reading, I intervened on the Government’s proposals to deal with the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past and I do so briefly again today, because I fear that this too is heading in the wrong direction and could pull down the institutions if we are not careful. We have yet to see anything of substance on the legacy legislation since the publication of the Command Paper back in July 2021, but what we do know is deeply disturbing.

Surely, the Government know that a proposal that creates an equivalence between military personnel and the people who murdered them is unacceptable? Surely, they also know that a partial amnesty covering only veterans is incompatible with both our international legal obligations and the imperatives of the Good Friday process? Surely, the Government also know that telling victims that those on all sides of the conflict who murdered their loved ones and carried out unspeakable atrocities will be able to sleep easy in their beds, while they have to live with the pain, grief and trauma of what those people did to them, is also completely unacceptable. I hope that the Minister will listen because I know he is sensitive to these matters.

This is a circle the Government should not be even trying to square. They must abandon their current amnesty plan and listen to those who are offering a truth-seeking alternative based on Operation Kenova, headed by former Chief Constable Jon Boutcher, which has been praised by victims and which, by the way, rightly includes the possibility of prosecutions if evidence unearthed leads that way, as has been the case under Kenova.

It is a notable political feat to manage to produce a legacy policy that every political party in Northern Ireland, along with every victims’ and survivors’ group, is opposed to. In the foreword to the Command Paper the Secretary of State promised a time-limited period of intensive engagement on the proposals contained in it. He has been promising “intensive engagement” on legacy since March 2020, when he unilaterally dumped the cross-party Stormont House agreement. His understanding of intensive engagement is not even close to that which those of us on both sides of the House who have worked to see progress in Northern Ireland over many years would expect—including, I suspect, the noble Lord, Lord Caine, although I would not expect him to publicly acknowledge it.

I realise that this speech has strayed a little from the amendment in question, but I think it essential to put this on record to try to encourage rethinking by the Government, in order to enable the Minister’s objectives to progress with this Bill and ensure stability where there is danger of instability.

Where there has been engagement it has been between special advisers and “sources” in government-supporting newspapers, which received far more detailed briefings than those who will be directly affected by these ill-conceived legacy proposals. The most recent engagement of that kind, in the Daily Telegraph before Christmas, revealed that even the Secretary of State for Defence found what was being proposed unacceptable. The reality is that there has been no meaningful engagement.

When the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Caine, winds up this debate perhaps he will be able to tell the House precisely how many engagements with the WAVE Trauma Centre and/or other victims’ and survivors’ support groups in Northern Ireland were initiated by the Secretary of State from the publication of the Command Paper in July last year to today’s date. Is the answer none, as I suspect may be the case? I understand that he may not have the detail to hand, in which case I would be grateful if he would write to me with the information as soon as he has it.

Meanwhile, in concluding, I place on record my profound disquiet, along with other former Labour Secretaries of State—including my much-respected noble friend Lord Murphy, to whom I spoke only the other day and who cannot attend these proceedings, as he would have liked to do—about the dangerous drift of government policy on Northern Ireland, which has managed the singular feat of alienating each and every one of the local political parties, the Irish Government, the United States President and the European Union: all partners, some statutory, to the hard-won Good Friday agreement. I urge the Secretary of State to change course before it is too late. Meanwhile, I strongly support this amendment.

My Lords, although I complete share and agree with every word of the point of view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, I will none the less return to Amendment 1, which we are discussing this afternoon. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, clearly spelled out the purpose of Amendment 1, to which I have added my name, and I will not repeat the many powerful points she made.

On these Benches, we believe that making the change set out in Amendment 1 and referring to the roles as “Joint First Ministers” would reflect the reality of the situation and remove an artificial and unhelpful distinction. Such a change would also do much to take some of the heat out of the debate and allow for a more constructive and issues-based debate in the run-up to the elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly in May this year.

I understand from previous conversations with the Minister that he is open to giving proper consideration to making these changes. Does he not agree that it would be better if these changes were made sooner rather than later, and can he say when and how he intends to consult with the parties in Northern Ireland on this issue?

My Lords, I will make a few brief remarks in relation to Amendments 1 and 2. At the outset, I say that most people who live in the real world acknowledge that the Belfast agreement is a flawed piece of work. It is not perfect, and those of us who try from time to time to point out the imperfections are frowned upon as anti-democratic in some way.

I and my colleagues cannot support Amendments 1 or 2, not least because they are very much outside the scope of the Bill and the New Decade, New Approach agreement, which focused on ensuring the stability of the institutions. The appropriate vehicle for scrutinising the existing rules and appointments is the Assembly and Executive Review Committee at Stormont. This should certainly not be tagged on to the coat-tails of the Bill.

Your Lordships’ House should keep very much before it that, to put it mildly, the Northern Ireland Assembly is in a very difficult and precarious position. The protocol, which has already been referred to, has virtually put the Executive and the very existence of the Northern Ireland Assembly on life support. We were always told that nothing could move forward in Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority, and the consent of the minority. Of course, no unionist supports the protocol. But, somehow, we have been told, “Just suck it up and get on with it”.

Some time ago, when Sinn Féin sought to bring changes to welfare reform, it pulled the whole edifice down. Not only did it not get its demands at that time around welfare reform, but it then added three other demands and said that it would not go back until those were met—and nor did it go back until they were met in totality. They were steamed through the other place, and the Northern Ireland Assembly was given no say whatever. So the abuse of the cross-party and the majority of the majority and the majority of the minority has well and truly been kicked into touch.

Some of us are conversant with how decisions were agreed to assist in getting devolution done. That would not have happened if there had not been a St Andrews agreement. Again, everyone who lives in the real world recognises that. I know that some, even in this House, refuse to recognise that, but it is a fact.

The DUP is also opposed to Amendment 2. The purpose of the Bill is to legislate for measures agreed under the New Decade, New Approach deal, not to undo and tear up previous commitments at St Andrews in the absence of political consensus. It should be said that NDNA is a package, not a single item on its own, but that has been ignored to all intents and purposes. I know that at a later stage we will hear about a very useful amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I add that that is helpful.

Some seem to be asking for a full reset of the institutions, but we certainly are not. That is not in keeping with the spirit of what has been agreed. I said that the Executive and the Assembly are now in a very difficult place. This House should be ever mindful of that and keep it before us in all our deliberations. I reiterate that had it not been for the St Andrews agreement element of the devolution settlement then there would never have been an Executive and an Assembly at Stormont. Those who do not acknowledge that are just living in denial.

I listened intently to what the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, said. She said that the St Andrews agreement had changed the emphasis on the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in the Belfast agreement, or the Good Friday agreement, as some call it. I say this: the identical status never existed, even in the Belfast agreement. There was always a difference between the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, which helped to make things happen, so it did.

Furthermore, in the last election in Belfast North we had a very hard-working, industrious full-time Member of Parliament, Nigel Dodds, now the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. What did the SDLP and Sinn Féin do? They locked horns and a cabal was formed to oust that hard-working Member of Parliament. Who did they put in? Someone who declared, “I will never attend Parliament”, but has a fully paid-for political office while continuing to run his legal business elsewhere. Is that double-jobbing? It seems that it is not, yet if someone were to sit in Parliament, the Assembly or a local council and do that, it would be. We really need to catch a grip of things and try to realise what exactly is going on. This behaviour should be called out. Not only did the SDLP and Sinn Féin come together in Belfast North; as a quid pro quo, Sinn Féin stands aside in Belfast South to help to elect the SDLP.

Let us be very careful about rushing ahead and doing things in Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority in Northern Ireland. That is exactly what is happening at the moment. We have a protocol that is strangling our economy, but that does not seem to matter. We will continue to work for the changes in the protocol—indeed, it has to go; it is a massive hindrance. It will be one of the uppermost things that will help to destroy the Belfast agreement, and indeed the Executive and the Stormont Assembly.

My Lords, after that contribution it is difficult to know where to start. I begin by saying to the Minister that this is the first piece of legislation of substance that he has had to deal with. He will obviously have detected that this Bill is supposed to implement elements of New Decade, New Approach, and I suspect that he will notice the absence of references to that and its substance, as people have moved on to other things. My party is not a party to the New Decade, New Approach agreement and did not support it. There are elements within it that are okay, but we did not agree with the totality of it. Of course, the Bill is before us only because various abuses of the system have taken place over the years, and this particular piece of legislation is trying to patch up holes in the bucket.

There are differences between the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and the amendment from my noble friend Lord Rogan and me. One deals with how to describe the offices of First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and the other deals with how we identify and arrive at them. The reason why we have suggested going back to the original in Amendment 2 is relatively obvious. First, it is what was agreed at the talks. Secondly, it is what was there when the people of Northern Ireland voted in the referendum to pass the agreement. Therefore, it has the legitimacy of being agreed by the parties at the time—those that participated —in strand 1 at Stormont. Neither Sinn Féin nor the DUP participated, but those parties that did put that proposal to the electorate before anything was operated at Stormont the first time.

I have disagreed with the noble Lord, the former Secretary of State, over his decision in 2006-07 to make changes following the St Andrews agreement, because the changes to the methodology for electing the First Minister and Deputy First Minister were not in the communiqué for St Andrews, but they appeared in the draft legislation immediately after it. The differences appeared at the time to be relatively modest—unless you looked at the minutiae—but they are actually very profound. The reason why we negotiated the arrangements as set out in Amendment 2 is that it was designed to give political, public and constitutional expression to the partnership of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.

The regret that I have is that we were perhaps influenced to some extent by what was happening in Scotland at the time, where its devolution was coming together, and the names of the titles of the two officeholders perhaps are misleading. Some people saw them as hierarchical; I do not. I think I am the only person in this Chamber who has held the office. I can tell your Lordships that they are equal, and I will tell you why. In the first week I held the office, with the late Seamus Mallon, we were unable to agree on the notepaper heading for the department. The department was incapable of sending out any correspondence for a week, until such time as we agreed on what the notepaper looked like.

My Lords, I sympathise with what the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has said, and with the important words of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. However, the fate of Amendment 4 shows what happens when we try, late in the day, to inject new elements into this piece of rather specific technical legislation. The fate of Amendment 4 rather implies that, however desirable in principle this is—and I accept the point about the effective equality of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister—this is probably not the moment to try to move that ahead.

With respect for what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, it is forgotten in this House that, but for the DUP and the St Andrews agreement, we would not have had 10 or more years of stability in Northern Ireland. Those of us who do not like aspects of the St Andrews agreement, particularly around this point, must accept that as an important political reality. It is important to bear that in mind. However, as a footnote to what the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, said, the provision dealing with the election of First Minister and Deputy First Minister in the St Andrews agreement is not quite the agreement which the then Labour Government suggested at the time; it is not what was implemented in law.

The reason that I mention this is because I think it is possible—I almost said, looking at the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, “Your day will come”, but because of the implications of that phrase in Northern Ireland, I will not—that the day will come, perhaps not too far in the future, when we return to this point. I wanted to check with the Minister that the realities are that, if the Government do decide to return to this point at a later date, there is no forbidding aspect and nothing saying, “You can’t do that because it is in the Good Friday agreement or St Andrews agreement.” The Government would be free to act if this looked to be the only way out of a major crisis of the institutions.

My Lords, I will confine my remarks to the amendments under discussion. As I did in Committee, I support the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Empey.

As your Lordships will be fully aware, this amendment would reinstate the original procedure by which First Ministers and Deputy First Ministers are elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Requiring MLAs to endorse the post holders was intended to give elected representatives buy-in to the process. It also empowered the First and Deputy First Ministers with the added authority that comes with their endorsement by a cross-community vote. The changes to these arrangements, carved up at St Andrews, were not good for democracy in 2006. As we head towards an Assembly election in three and a half months’ time, they are even less appealing to the people of Northern Ireland in 2022.

As my noble friend Lord Empey has said, in every Stormont election since the St Andrews deal was done, the DUP has sought to scare the Unionist people by claiming that a vote for anyone but them was a vote for Sinn Féin/IRA. My noble friend and I feel that it is time for that to end. Speaking in Committee, the Minister, with his characteristic frankness, said that he had sympathy for the amendment and the arguments of my noble friend. However, he added that there was not sufficient consensus to return to the old model of election. I would advance the precise same argument against the Government’s foolish attempt to use this Bill as a vehicle to reintroduce double-jobbing when only the DUP regards that as a good idea.

Should our amendment not be accepted today, I would hope that the Minister will commit in his response to keeping what it seeks to achieve high on his “to do” list, so that we can return to the issue after the new Northern Ireland Assembly is elected.

My Lords, I oppose Amendments 1 and 2. The Bill before us is simply designed to legislate for measures agreed under the New Decade, New Approach deal, not to undo previous commitments entered into at St Andrews. To try to go back in time would help only to undermine the fragile peace that presently exists in Northern Ireland.

As a unionist, I believe that the constitutional framework of our union should be strengthened, especially now, when the smooth functioning of the three devolved settlements is increasingly under attack. In specific circumstances, and during uncertain times, with the backdrop of an Irish sea border and threats to political stability in Northern Ireland, it would be foolish to return to what was clearly a failed system, used to appoint the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Indeed, there was a lot of instability there. I find it difficult to understand the explanations from those noble Lords supporting the amendment. Therefore, I am afraid that I am forced to conclude that their support is based on petty political manoeuvring, which is clearly inappropriate at a time of increasing societal division and instability in Northern Ireland.

My Lords, I was not intending to speak on this group of amendments, but I have been provoked into it by some of the things that have been said, not least by some of the revising of history that we have heard. I can fully understand why noble Lords, on listening to this debate, would have some sympathy with some of the views that have been expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, on her amendment. However, it is important to remember that, in the context of the Northern Ireland political scene, it has been a general principle—up to now, anyway—that those matters that are devolved remain devolved for the parties in Northern Ireland to agree, and Westminster should be very slow not to respect that devolved settlement. That should apply, of course, across all the devolved nations and regions, but particularly in Northern Ireland, given the long and tortuous negotiations that took place in St Andrews and in the run-up to the Belfast agreement. Whatever we may think of a particular idea or amendment—whether we think that it is a good idea that sounds plausible—it is really for the host politicians in Northern Ireland to decide whether or not it should fly.

The principle of sufficient consensus was at the heart of the negotiations that took place in the run-up to the Belfast agreement and the St Andrews agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, who has spoken, was a central player in the St Andrews negotiations as Secretary of State. Indeed, I remember well that he was even kind enough to offer a lift on a rather small plane to the late Dr Paisley and Martin McGuinness and a number of us on the way back from it, or we could not have got back in time to Belfast to see the thing through. It is important, therefore, to respect the views of the parties in Northern Ireland.

I want to sound a note of caution: people talk of this being a great idea and say that we should return to it. These are matters that were in the remit of the New Decade, New Approach negotiations; they took place over a considerably long period of time—far too long, in the view of many of us. But there was no agreement on either of these two amendments. Therefore, to suggest that either now or in the near future this Parliament should suddenly impose its own ideas without having that agreement and sufficient consensus, by which we mean a majority of unionist and nationalist representatives and an overall majority of everybody. Parliament has the right to do that, but I think it would be very unwise. It would be a grave mistake for Ministers to go away with the impression that this is just a minor matter, because it breaches a fundamental principle that has been at the heart of the political process in Northern Ireland.

My Lords, I thought it was interesting that in the previous debate Members from all sides stood up to demand that freedom of speech in this House be paramount. With freedom of speech, even though you may disagree profoundly with a person, you respect their right to be able to say things. I have no doubt that I may say some things with which some in this House do not agree; nevertheless, I trust that no one would deny me the right to say them.

Thinking about the present debate, I believed that the legislation before the House was based on implementing a matter under the New Decade, New Approach agreement. Members rightly said that there are those who did not agree with that agreement. I certainly did not agree with the Belfast agreement; I did not agree with the destruction of the gallant RUC or the destruction of the UDR, which followed on, or with letting terrorists out to roam across the countryside, in which I reside, where so many people were murdered that it was known as the “killing fields” of the Province. But they were let out under the Belfast agreement. Nothing could be more repugnant to a democracy than to see terrorists roaming around the countryside, snooting their noses and mocking and laughing at families, like my own and many others, whose loved ones were murdered brutally.

I stood on Sunday at the roadside where eight men were brutally murdered and six others—not soldiers, but ordinary workers returning home from their work at an Army base—were injured. We stood there on the roadside, as we have done for the past 30 years, through rain, hail, snow and blizzard—whatever was thrown at us—to honour the memory of those persons who were done to death.

I do not take richly lectures from people about the election—“If you don’t vote for us, you will get someone else.” I was reared in the west of the Province. No one did that more—they were actually masters of it—than the Ulster Unionists. At every election, the candidate standing for that party did so on the 12 July platform to say, “Vote for me.” Of course, they were quite often not seen after that, but nevertheless they did it. It was clearly an orange and green election. To try to lecture this House and some Members of it about that is rather rich. Other Members who know nothing about Northern Ireland—who perhaps have never been there—would think, listening to this, that what the noble Lord, Lord Empey, was saying is right, not knowing the history of what has gone on down the years.

Of course, the noble Lord is right to talk about messing around with legislation, but let us remember that legislation on abortion was brought before this House. It was tagged on to legislation that had nothing to do with it yet it was forced on the people of Northern Ireland even though the issue was supposed to be a devolved matter. I therefore say to this House that we need to be careful in what we say or when we try to suggest what others are suggesting.

I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. She gave the impression that, under the Belfast agreement and the former arrangement, everything was sweetness and light. Yet the truth of the matter is this: in reality, it was a stop-start situation. You did not know when it was up; you did not know when it was down. You found out in the end that it was usually down whenever Sinn Féin said that it had to come down.

I also listened to the noble Lord, Lord Hain. Of course, he has gone back to his customary “Beat the DUP” as regards the threats of the DUP, but let me just remind him that, in actual fact, it was not the DUP that brought the Assembly down for three years. It was Sinn Féin and people he knows very well. I did not necessarily hear on those occasions the same ferocity as is now being mentioned with regard to the Democratic Unionist Party. We want devolution. We want to see our Province properly—

I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing this brief intervention. I did not beat the DUP. I pointed out something that I thought was wrong about Sinn Féin and the DUP unilaterally breaching the consensus agreement. I have never beaten the DUP; I agreed with it that Ian Paisley Senior became First Minister and negotiated with you all. It is not about beating anybody.

I have to say, this is not the noble Lord’s first occasion but, on previous occasions when he intervened in other debates that I have sat in, once again it was anti- DUP propaganda that was being put out. It was not against Sinn Féin.

As far as the three years are concerned, it seemed that Sinn Féin had to be placated and whatever it asked for had to be done. It gave us three lines in the sand, remember: same-sex marriage, abortion, and the proposed culture and Irish language Bill. I ask Members of this House to tell us this: which of those three things have the Government not done or indicated they are about to do? Yet everything that unionism has asked for has been refused and rejected. I am sad to say that, recently, under the Brexit agreement, we found the border down the Irish Sea and the protocol. We are—indeed, every unionist in the country is— demanding that that protocol be removed, yet we find that, in actual fact, it is not to be removed.

The principle of consent is at the heart of this. I suggest to the House that the proposals that are mentioned in the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Rogan, do not have the support of, nor command support across, the community.

My Lords, we have had perhaps a lengthier and more wide-reaching debate than originally anticipated on these amendments, which we also discussed in Committee. That serves to indicate just how much these issues hang together in people’s minds and concerns, as well as how deep some of these issues go. As the Minister will know from his discussions with me outside this Chamber, it goes back to the point about how, when Westminster deals with issues relating to Northern Ireland, there must be a lot of engagement and discussion to reach agreement. That can be difficult, as we have heard today.

My Lords, I am grateful to everybody who has spoken in this debate. If the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, said one thing that is incontestable, it is that this has been a very wide-ranging debate indeed. Following the comments of my noble friend Lord Empey, I might try to do something which seems increasingly unfashionable in the House these days, which is to stick to the Standing Orders and confine my comments to the amendments before the House, and not repeat at length arguments and debates that have taken place in Committee and on Second Reading.

The issues covered in the amendments before us were debated at length in Committee on 13 December. As I made clear at the time, I am not without a great deal of sympathy for the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and my noble friend Lord Empey. Indeed, I am on record over a number of years as saying that I prefer the 1998 model of appointing the First and Deputy First Ministers, which was subsequently changed at St Andrews. I do not for one second doubt the sincere motives of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, in seeking the agreement which he achieved in 2006 and implemented in 2006-07, but my personal preference is always for the parallel consent model of 1998.

As a number of noble Lords have said, a cardinal principle of the political process and the implementation of agreements in Northern Ireland since the mid-1990s has been the sufficient consensus rule. My noble friend Lord Dodds of Duncairn made that point very powerfully, as did my noble friend Lord Bew. The sufficient consensus rule means that any significant changes to or departures from those agreements require the support of parties representing majorities of unionism and majorities of nationalism. Indeed, that is how we got the Belfast agreement in the first place.

As some noble Lords have mentioned, this Bill is about implementing New Decade, New Approach. I was involved in a lot of the discussions between 2017, following the collapse of the institutions after the resignation of Martin McGuinness, and July 2019. In fact, to digress for just a second, I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for his kind words absolving me of any responsibility for the actions of a number of Conservative Secretaries of State. He then made the exception of Julian Smith—who, of course, was the only one I did not work for, but I take his comments in the spirit in which I hope they were intended.

As I said, this is about New Decade, New Approach. During the discussions that formed the basis of that document, a number of these issues were raised. There was not sufficient consensus, and they did not appear in the final document.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, that none of this is to say that the Government have a closed mind to change in future. The Belfast agreement has not stayed set in stone over the years: there were changes at St Andrews and at Stormont House. Indeed, I was interested to hear my noble friend Lord Hannan say that one of the reasons he was opposed to the Belfast agreement was the lack of opposition. Actually, in the Stormont House agreement—the fresh start agreement—and subsequently in New Decade, New Approach, there are provisions to facilitate the functioning of a proper opposition within the Assembly. So, things do not always remain static. We are open to change so long as those changes are consistent with the underlying and enduring principles of the Belfast agreement, which have to be based around inclusive power-sharing government.

In asking the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment and my noble friend Lord Empey not to move his, I will give a clear commitment from the Dispatch Box: these issues are not going to go away, and after the election, whatever the outcome might be, I and the Government are very happy to have discussions with the political parties to test the appetite for any further reforms along the lines suggested in this afternoon’s debate. In that spirit, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, to withdraw her amendment.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this rather omnibus, wide-ranging debate. It has referred to the contents of the amendments, and to matters of a very raw political nature that are outwith the responsibilities of this technical Bill, which nevertheless has great political implications for all of Northern Ireland.

In this wide-ranging debate we have had those who support the amendments and those who do not, but I would like to think that all of us in this House want to see peace, stability and reconciliation, and proper partnership government in Northern Ireland that delivers for all the people on education, health and the economy.

Various contentious issues were mentioned in this debate, such as the protocol, which we will come to later. Noble Lords also mentioned the past and legacy issues, which very much need to be resolved. We also mentioned cultural and Irish language issues. I am a Gaeilgeoir; I did Irish at school and attended the Irish college in Donegal in two separate summers, because my mother wanted me to. But I believe in that element of diversity, and I believe in respect for political difference, ethnic difference and racial difference. I would like to see that right across the community.

Therefore, I am pleased that the Minister has indicated he is not without sympathy for these amendments and that the Government intend to come back, post election, and have discussions with the parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly to further explore the appetite for these issues. But I offer a note of warning. Because the political situation is particularly fragile—as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and others—my fear is that we may not have those political institutions in a way that is enduring, or capable of delivering for people in Northern Ireland in a post-election sense. That is because of all the turmoil, not necessarily but mostly around the protocol, and other political issues that have sought to threaten those very institutions.

It is very important that we do not walk away from these issues. In view of the Minister’s commitments at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment but point out that I will return to these issues. I hope that in those negotiations, although they relate to strand 1, the Irish Government—as the other co-guarantor of the agreement—are involved as well.

My Lords, I hope that this group of amendments can be dealt with very briefly. Two of them are in my name and deal with the commencement clauses in the Bill.

At Second Reading and in Committee, I committed to going away and considering the strength of argument put forward by a number of noble Lords in regard to bringing forward the commencement date for the provisions in this legislation. As drafted, the provisions would come in two months after Royal Assent. Both here and in the other place, the Government have been clear that we would consider early commencement if the political situation in Northern Ireland were to warrant it. In debate on the previous group of amendments, a number of noble Lords referred to the delicate situation in which we currently find ourselves. In our judgment, the situation therefore warrants early commencement, which is why I have tabled an amendment to that effect.

As such, if the government amendment is accepted, the provisions in the Bill will come into effect on the day of Royal Assent. To ensure that there is no ambiguity over when the provisions of this legislation come into effect, should there be a First Minister or deputy First Minister resignation, thus triggering the seven-day executive formation period, and the legislation receives Royal Assent during that seven-day period, the provisions in this legislation will also apply. I hope noble Lords will agree that these amendments demonstrate that the Government have listened to the strength of argument put forward, in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and others, and will accept them.

At Second Reading and in Committee we also committed, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who I am pleased to see here today, to considering what more the Government could do to promote and explain the commitments in, and implementation of, the New Decade, New Approach agreement. We had a lengthy exchange in Committee when the noble Lord did exactly what I would have done in his place, which was to trawl through the annexes of the document and pick out some of the more obscure commitments to try to catch me out. I think I had a fairly long list of commitments that had been implemented. I do not intend to read them out at this stage, on Report. If anybody who was not in Committee is interested, they are all in Hansard.

We strongly welcome Amendments 3 and 9 in this group, which are about the early commencement of the Bill, as the Minister explained. We fully support them and are pleased that the Government have come forward with them.

I thank the Minister as well for the commitment he has given in the Chamber to coming forward with a report every six months about the implementation of the New Decade, New Approach agreement. If the House will forgive me—some noble Lords were not present in Committee and may not have had the opportunity to read the debate—the purpose of Amendment 6 was to get a report from the Government. The Minister has conceded on and agreed to do that, which is welcome, particularly regarding the first report in a few weeks’ time, which I think all noble Lords will find very helpful. In New Decade, New Approach there are serious constitutional issues that have been discussed today and will be discussed in the future. But alongside that, in the document there was a huge list of commitments made by both the British and Irish Governments to improving the situation in Northern Ireland, whether that be on infrastructure or, as it was at the time, the nurses’ pay dispute. It was all of those things.

I was simply trying to say that these are some of the things that people in Northern Ireland, as those who seek to and do represent them would point out, are very serious matters. The list was tucked away in the annexes to the document and, without being raised by me and other noble Lords, would simply have passed by. But as a result of raising it in Committee, and the Government responding, we now have a report where people will be able to see—I will use the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds—whether the York Street interchange is progressing. That is a serious matter, as all of us who have been to Northern Ireland know, but there are all sorts of concrete examples of various commitments made by the Government, so it is important.

The only thing I would add, because I spoke at length about the commitments that the British Government made, is that it might be worth putting on the record again that the Minister said that there was £2 billion-worth of government money committed to this, of which £600 million has so far been spent. So the people of Northern Ireland can look forward to a further £1.4 billion as being appropriate to the implementation of this deal, and that is really important.

I add that of course it was not just the British Government who made commitments. I will not read them all out because I was not trying to catch the Minister out. I was simply pointing out the commitments that have been made and negotiated to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland, which I thought was a really important point to make. Also within it, of course, are the commitments made by the Irish Government. There is a list of things that the Irish Government have said they are going to do to promote and deal with issues in Northern Ireland. Again, the report that the Minister has now agreed to publish will no doubt depend upon not only the various negotiations and discussions that the British Government have but those which the Northern Ireland Assembly has. A huge list of issues—again, I will not read them out—have been laid out there.

As I say, we support the legislative change that the Government have made with respect to the commencement of the Bill in Amendments 3 and 9. I say to noble Lords, however, that Amendment 6 on the laying of the report sounds very simple. It seems an amendment of no great consequence. It actually deals with the spending of billions of pounds of money in Northern Ireland on projects that will make a huge difference to the lives of ordinary people. It would show that the British and Irish Governments are delivering for the people of Northern Ireland but also that the Northern Ireland Assembly is doing so, as indeed the people who represent it do in this place or the other place, or indeed in Stormont. At a time when there is constitutional challenge and difficulty, it is also worth pointing out some of the positive things that legislators and Governments do to try to benefit the people of Northern Ireland.

My Lords, I am also extremely grateful to the Minister for making this concession on Amendment 9, following the amendment I tabled in Committee. I am also grateful that he has committed to giving a regular report on the implementation of the New Decade, New Approach agreement.

As the Minister knows, my honourable friend Stephen Farry MP tabled the same amendment in the House of Commons, and I am extremely grateful that the Minister has been prepared to listen to the arguments and employ common sense. This is perhaps something that could be usefully repeated by many of his ministerial colleagues in this House. I believe it demonstrates this Chamber’s usefulness in asking questions, and in revising and improving legislation. In the current political climate, waiting two months for the Bill to come into force would have risked leaving a political vacuum at this critical time. Allowing the Bill to be enacted at Royal Assent provides a greater level of stability and a political safety net. I am very grateful to the Minister.

Having warmly supported the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, at Committee stage, I welcome the fact that we are to have regular six-monthly reports on the commitments which the British Government gave in the New Decade, New Approach document. It is very important that this House is made fully aware of what our Government here at Westminster is doing, working closely with the devolved Executive and Assembly, to secure progress in Northern Ireland. These six-monthly statements will bring home to us the extent to which the British Government are, we hope, working successfully.

As for the Irish Republic, I would welcome—and I am sure the House would welcome—news of developments which assist both sides of the border in social and economic co-operation. That is what we all welcome. But I hope that nothing will be forthcoming that intrudes on British sovereignty over Northern Ireland; that matters above all. So I welcome very much the six-monthly reports—and I hope they will the subject of debate in this House from time to time—to show how progress is being made in Northern Ireland with the assistance of our Government in co-operation with the Executive and the Assembly.

My Lords, I support what the Minister said, particularly in relation to the commencement date being fixed in legislation. I also support my noble friend Lord Coaker in relation to the reports on the New Decade, New Approach implementation period.

I am conscious of the devolution settlement, but I am also conscious of the fact that the Northern Ireland Executive had commitments to deliver with respect to the New Decade, New Approach. As part of that statement, would it be possible to provide a few columns about the progress of these commitments? The Minister and I are only too aware of the delays in responses to the areas of the common frameworks that were devolved from the European Union to the UK and the devolved regions in the post-Brexit scenario. Nothing happened in terms of Northern Ireland during the three-year interregnum, so we need to know, in an expeditious way, how the Northern Ireland Executive are implementing their commitments, notwithstanding the need to protect the devolution settlement. If there could be a section in the Minister’s statement to that effect, I would greatly appreciate it.

My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for tabling this amendment in Committee, and I think we had a very useful debate there about the Government’s commitments under NDNA—because there were many. I also thank the Minister for his commitment to a regular written statement and I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, that hopefully we can have a debate on those issues from time to time. I also have no issue with the earlier commencement date, as tabled by the Minister in Amendment 9.

On Amendment 3, I want to ask the Minister, since this is a new amendment, to clarify its intention. It is very technical and complicated; it is to do with the transitional arrangements if things were to happen before Royal Assent of the Bill. I would like to be clear, so that the Minister has it on the record, what exactly this clause will do. It talks about events happening

“within the period of seven days ending when this Act comes into force”.

But, if we do not know exactly when the Act is coming into force, things could happen that are caught, but there is no idea at the time that they would be caught, because suddenly Royal Assent happens. It is a very vague formulation. I wonder why it is there and what it is intended to capture—as opposed to saying, for instance, that the Act will apply after a certain date. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify, in winding up, the import of the clause.

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for the responses they have made to these amendments. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and my noble friend Lord Lexden, that it is my intention to make these reports as comprehensive as possible while, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, mentioned, respecting the boundaries of devolution. I will take away her comments, and those of my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to try to ensure that the reports are as far reaching and detailed possible. I also reassure my noble friend Lord Lexden, with whom I go back many years, that I am totally committed to recognising and upholding the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Government, and of this House, with respect to Northern Ireland. It is part of the United Kingdom, and he knows well that this is a situation that I wish will endure for ever.

I welcome the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. In his capacity of spokesperson on the union, can the Minister give us an assurance that he will be able to give us similar six-monthly reports and debates on what is happening in Scotland and Wales?

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. I think that is a matter that I will have to raise with my noble friends in the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office.

The noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, mentioned the transitional arrangements. If I can put it as plainly as possible, under the current rules, if either the First Minister or Deputy First Minister were to resign, there would be a seven-day period by which there would have to be a renomination before an election was triggered. If that were to happen up to seven days before Royal Assent was given, it would apply retrospectively once Royal Assent had been given, and the provisions of this Bill would kick in.

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 5 and will speak to Amendment 7, both of which are in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. In Committee, the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, was also on this. Unfortunately, through a communications error, his name did not appear. He could not be here today, but he wanted me to say clearly at the beginning that he wishes that his name was on it and he supports it fully.

I believe that this amendment goes to the heart of everything that we have been talking about today and, indeed, everything that we talk about in Northern Ireland and in relation to it at the moment: the word “consent”. I have been making a note of every time that consent has been mentioned in this debate, and it is well into double figures, even in this short time.

I will talk about how the Government changed the consent principle in Northern Ireland last year, by inserting a provision, in paragraph 18(5) of Schedule 6A, into the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to expressly disallow the requirements for cross-community consent when it comes to the key vote in the future on the Northern Ireland protocol, if it is still there. Quite simply, this demolishes a core plank of the Belfast agreement and so causes many people to wonder what purpose is actually served by a cross-community protection for key decisions, as set out in paragraph 5(d) of strand one of the Belfast agreement. The consent principle was one of the reasons that men and women in Northern Ireland supported the Belfast agreement in the end, despite their concerns about many aspects of it, like prisoner release, which has been mentioned already. They went in and voted, many of them with a heavy heart, because they thought that it was best for Northern Ireland at the time. As a pro-union community, they had a safeguard to stop something that was harmful in the future to their community.

So the Belfast agreement has been unbalanced with this government move. Even the Government’s own barristers, in the High Court proceedings that I am part of in Belfast, accepted that this subjugated the Acts of Union. As I said in Committee, how can any noble Lord in this House stand over that approach? In their Command Paper, the Government themselves have conceded that the protocol has no consent from the unionist community and identified this as a core problem.

So, in these amendments, we seek to undo that injustice. Amendment 7 seeks to repeal Schedule 6A to, and Section 56A of, the 1998 Act and would undo the Government’s unilateral move to disapply community consent. Amendment 5 ensures that the 2018 Act provisions cannot, by implication or otherwise, subjugate the cross-community consent protections, which are so vital to peace and stability in Northern Ireland.

Of course, the move to disapply cross-community consent conflicts even with the protocol itself, which contains an express requirement to protect the Belfast agreement “in all its parts”. This is further replicated in domestic law in Section 10(1)(a) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, whereby there is a requirement to

“act in a way that is compatible with the terms of the Northern Ireland Act 1998”.

The Government’s approach to apparently acting compatibly with the 1998 Act and protecting the Belfast agreement “in all its parts” was to unilaterally, without the consent of a single unionist elected representative at any political level, disapply one of the key provisions of the agreement and of the 1998 Act. I am sure that many Members of your Lordships’ House did not realise that this was happening. There was never a vote on any of this in our Parliament.

When faced with this issue, the Government’s response was that the protocol consent vote is not devolved. I will make three observations on this. Paragraph 5(d) of strand one of the Belfast agreement and Section 42(1) are directed, respectively, to “key decisions” of the Assembly and

“a matter which is to be voted on by the Assembly”.

There is no constraint on the provision only being applicable to devolved matters. Secondly, if the provision had, in any event, no force or effect, why was it disapplied? Thirdly, in any event, the protocol consent matter is devolved. The 1998 Act lists matters that are excepted or reserved, and any that are not listed are therefore devolved. In paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the 1998 Act, “International relations” is listed as an excepted matter. However, paragraph 3(c) of Schedule 2 makes clear that this does not include

“observing and implementing international obligations”.

In undertaking the vote derived from Article 18 of the protocol, the Assembly is implementing and observing an international obligation. Therefore, it is devolved.

The Belfast agreement is essential for protecting peace and stability in Northern Ireland. Protecting that agreement must mean protecting its provisions for the betterment of all citizens in Northern Ireland, rather than simply viewing the agreement through what effectively amounts to a principle of nationalist interpretation. It cannot be the case that cross-community protections are for one community, when it suits, but not the other. Either the Belfast agreement serves the entire community equally or it has no point, from a pro-union perspective. So these amendments are fundamentally about restoring the careful balance negotiated by the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, and others in 1998.

I am for ever genuinely astounded by those who shout loudest, as guardians of the Belfast agreement, if they do not really mean it. They seem to demand that the Belfast agreement be construed in a manner conducive to certain objectives by certain communities. So we hear nothing from the SDLP, Sinn Féin or even the Alliance Party on the heinous move to trash cross-community consent protections at the very time that it seems to be working to the benefit of those who have overwhelmingly rejected the protocol.

Over many months, the record will show that many of us have warned the Government and raised the alarm on this issue. If the Belfast agreement is to continue, the fundamental balance must be restored. Otherwise, even those within unionism who supported the agreement could not conceivably recommend continuing in a process that is fundamentally imbalanced and to the detriment of the pro-union community and, indeed, the union as a whole of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—the United Kingdom.

We met with the shadow Ministers and, obviously, the government Ministers on this, and the former showed some genuine understanding of this and an acceptance of how it was causing real problems in Northern Ireland. I also know that the noble Lord, Lord Caine, was given very little time in Committee when this was proposed, because it came in quite late, and I am hopeful that he will be able to give us a little more of his real views on it today, having, I hope, gone back and talked to people in government.

I do not need to say much on the second amendment because its objective is clear: it seeks again to undo the damage done to the Belfast agreement by the unilateral move to disapply cross-community consent. It is restoring cross-community protections on the protocol vote to ensure that, if there is to be a protocol applying in Northern Ireland, it will require cross-community consent. Without that, it cannot survive. It fixes these amendments and the Government’s error—I will put it no stronger than that—in inserting these provisions into the Northern Ireland Act without the consent of a single unionist elected representative at any level in Northern Ireland.

As I and many of us have said many times before, ultimately, the Government will have to choose between the protocol and the Belfast agreement. That is something I do not want our Government to have to do. But the reality of the situation in Northern Ireland, as has been said by many Members in this House, is very serious indeed, and there is very little time to get this sorted. It is not going to go away.

I am pleased there is a statement on the BBC because it probably means there are a few more people here than are normally here when we have debates on Northern Ireland. I appeal to noble Lords who may not have looked into this in great detail to think about this carefully, because this is crucial if we are serious about moving forward in Northern Ireland. If we cannot get this right and we break the Belfast agreement in this deliberate way, I am afraid that its long-term future is at risk.

I hope noble Lords will understand what may seem very technical but is actually very simple: do we mean what we said in the Belfast agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998? I beg to move.

I have great respect for the gritty texture of the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey—initially, what is important to understand is why we have got to this point. She is absolutely right; there is a major problem with the one-sided, nationalist appropriation of the Belfast agreement and the willingness, on the whole—if you read Michel Barnier’s memoir on the EU, for example—to accept that version. Getting it back to a balance—and in this respect I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness—is the clue to stability in Northern Ireland. That balance has departed.

The reality is that in 2017 the May Government lost an election they were not expecting to lose, and the UK negotiating position on these points collapsed in the autumn. Anybody who looks at it closely can see that Irish officials in recent times have published how amazed they were; one Irish official at the centre of these negotiations writes about how easily they were accepted as the only guardian of the Belfast agreement. That being the case, noble Lords will not be surprised that the version of the agreement that starts to play into the 2018 protocol in particular is one-sided. On 6 November, the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, said in this House that he considered that the negotiators of the 2018 withdrawal agreement for the May Government had failed to take into proper account the complexity and commitments of the Good Friday agreement across the board. To that extent, the underlying emotion impelling the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, today is entirely correct.

However, we are in the process of trying to correct this now, and it is inevitably an imperfect process. What should have happened—it must have been obvious to any child looking at the current negotiation trying to work out how the protocol is to work out—is that we should have said to the Irish Government and the EU: “We will protect the single market, now tell us what you will do to make sure the trading arrangements for Northern Ireland are flexible.” We did not do that. It is so elementary it makes one cry looking at it. We are now desperately trying to reclaim ground that we lost in that negotiation. The trouble is that that ground is lost. When this Government came in, the first letter from the Prime Minister to the EU said we were trying to restore the delicate balance of the Good Friday agreement, which indicated that he recognised the problem—as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, recognised the problem—and that there was work to be done.

At this point, the agreement with the EU came. The one key difference between the 2018 and 2019 agreements of the Johnson Government is the reference to assent for the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is absolutely clear that the terms of that agreement are not accepted by many unionists. In the earlier version, there were a lot of people in Northern Ireland without democratic rights. It is far better for the people of Northern Ireland across the board that their say at key points, and on how this protocol is implemented, is democratically inscribed.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bew, and I am only sorry that when I took politics at Queen’s he was not a lecturer then; he came in several years later. His speech was very interesting and I think we are all much better informed because of it.

It will be no surprise to Members of your Lordships’ House that I support the protocol. I say that rather advisedly because it is a matter of contention in Northern Ireland. We must remember that the protocol arose out of Brexit and that is the fundamental issue. The people of Northern Ireland, including me, voted to reject Brexit and they wanted to remain in the European Union, but history is history, and we have to respect particular outcomes.

Therefore, in this context, it is vital that we see a successful outcome to the current negotiations between the UK and the EU. We want to see a successful outcome covering such important issues for the people in Northern Ireland as the SPS veterinary agreements, medicines, customs issues and the democratic deficit. The UK Government published a Command Paper back in July. I did not agree with the content. The European Union then produced a series of non-papers—as they are characterised—in October. Both sets of papers naturally form the basis for the ongoing negotiations.

Quite honestly, I think that it is preferable at this stage to allow the negotiations to take their course. Can the Minister advise us on what stage they are at? The Minister and I, along with the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Dodds, were at a meeting yesterday with the Minister for Europe, Chris Heaton-Harris, who sits in the other place. He could not necessarily give a timetable for the completion of the negotiations, but it is vital that they are dealt with in an expeditious manner and provide solutions for all the people in Northern Ireland, including the business community and wider society.

I am a supporter of the protocol, but I want to see those—let us call them—mitigations whereby the people of Northern Ireland are able to trade within the UK internal market and the EU single market and we are all able to realise the opportunities. We have already seen those benefits so it is important that they are documented and emphasised in terms of new businesses and new opportunities for investment. They are there.

Those in the business community do not want to be saddled with the politics of this issue. They want to see business opportunities opening up in this post-Covid situation and the whole community in Northern Ireland prospering. It is much better that we await the outcome of these negotiations, which I feel should be dealt with in a very expeditious manner. Many people have been talking about instability. It is those who were perhaps involved in actions of instability who are creating the instability.

It is important that we refrain from such language and try to go back to encouraging both participants in the negotiations to complete them as quickly as possible, covering all those areas, so that outcomes are achieved that bring an improvement for all the people of Northern Ireland.

My Lords, Northern Ireland has been a matter that I have thought of as very difficult in this situation for quite a long time. I believe that the explanations that have just been given by the two speakers who went before me are vital in trying to get a settlement that will be sufficiently good for all the interests in Northern Ireland. If we are going to do that, it will be by a pretty full solution to a difficult problem.

In my view, there are no reasons just now to create more difficulty than we have to deal with. Therefore, I am very much in favour of what has been said in regard to the law about this and particularly the negotiations situation, which we need to solve. Negotiation is the only way in which we will get this right, and I hope and pray that the negotiations will be entirely successful and that the people of Northern Ireland will get a bargain that will work for them from now on.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord. I share his wish for a successful outcome to the negotiations that addresses the fundamental problems that are part of the Northern Ireland protocol. However, I fear that time is very short now and there is little willingness, from what I can see, on the part of the EU to address the fundamental points. It has put forward various mitigations but none of them addresses the governance issue which we are talking about today, none of them addresses the democratic deficit, and none of them addresses the fact that part of this United Kingdom in the 21st century will have laws made for it by a foreign institution, in its interests, over which no elected representation of that part of the United Kingdom has any vote or say. That is an outrageous position.

We have to address this point. The points that have been set out in the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, have gone to the heart of trying to address this matter by saying that we have a problem. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Bew, said, that the most recent agreement had in it something that Theresa May’s agreement did not, which really was a role for the Assembly. He is right and reminds us that when people now tell us that Theresa May’s deal was a great deal for unionism and we should have accepted it, that was not the case. It did not have any democratic legitimacy, it created a regulatory border down the Irish Sea and it would have put Northern Ireland completely inside the customs union. A lot of revisionism goes on over these matters.

The problem is that although the agreement gives a role to the Assembly, it does not give it any democratic say. The issue of the democratic deficit cannot go away. You cannot have citizens of this part of the fifth-biggest economy of the world having laws made for them that separate us from the rest of the UK—and will separate us more and more over the years to come—and create differences, not just small regulatory ones but massive differences, to our economy when we have to align with the European Union while England, Scotland and Wales go down a different path.

My Lords, in response to the very measured intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Bew, I have two points. The first is that the Bill is about implementing some of the remaining elements of New Decade, New Approach, so we do not believe that it is the right place to make the changes set out in the amendments by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. Secondly, as the noble Lord said so powerfully, given that discussions are ongoing between the Government and the European Commission, the amendments would be deeply unhelpful to making progress at this time. For those two reasons, we strongly oppose the amendments.

My Lords, I have not heard anyone really deny the central point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. I have heard some brilliant and enlightening speeches but even that gorgeous threnody of the noble Lord, Lord Bew, for past agreements, his great melody against it, did not defy the central point that cross-community consent was supposed to be the basis for every major decision. The pact that we made with the communities of Northern Ireland was that important constitutional issues of this kind would not be decided by simple majoritarianism but would require the consent of both communities. As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, says, that was the basis on which the whole previous dispensation was overturned, so we cannot in conscience arbitrarily withhold that principle on this one issue. I will therefore support the noble Baroness’s amendment.

My Lords, once again my noble friend the Minister is suffering from mission creep as far as the Bill is concerned, but I think he will have to concede that we are past the post on that and we are where we are.

The genesis of this issue is obviously our decision to leave the EU. I do not want to reopen that debate; we spent years in this House arguing the toss. However, before the vote I and my colleagues—many of whom are actually not Europhiles at all; many are very hostile to the EU’s federalist tendencies and all the rest of it—visited Prime Minister Cameron before the vote specifically to find out what his plans were in the event that the UK decided to leave the EU. It was a fairly elementary thing to do. We came away from that meeting clear in our own minds that our own Government had not worked out how our situation was going to be dealt with in future negotiations with the EU. That made us feel very uneasy.

What we are talking about tonight, and have been talking about for the past few years, is closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. As the noble Lord, Lord Bew, eloquently pointed out, we are fighting from a much-weakened position. The negotiations pertaining to the European Union started off disastrously. First, we agreed how much money we were going to pay it before we knew what the deal was. Then we put Northern Ireland matters on the table and separated them from trade. They should never have been separated from trade. It was a disaster and, unfortunately, you could see it coming. It is not any surprise. All of these problems—virtually without exception—were anticipated. That is the tragedy of it: it was avoidable and Brexit, as far as Northern Ireland was concerned, was not thought through in sufficient detail. We knew it was going to be difficult, and that was compounded by poor negotiating strategy and implementation.

Our little Province is now left with this mess that we now have. What we have here, and what the protocol currently is, is the product of a proposal from our own Prime Minister. He wrote his explanatory note to the European Union on 2 October 2019, and he proposed the border in the Irish Sea. He proposed border inspection posts; he proposed that the European Union rules would be followed; he proposed that all goods coming from Great Britain would have to be notified to the authorities before they could enter Northern Ireland so that they could be subject to inspection on EU rules. He also included a section on consent whereby the Assembly and the Executive would have to give their ongoing consent. However, he made the point that there must an ability to exit them: that is what he said in the note to the European Union. Of course, you cannot exit them if you are not in them, so the implication is that you are in them before you can get out of them.

This was our own Government’s proposal. As to the point made by the noble Baroness, that would have implied that even though the document accepted a border in the Irish Sea and all the other downstream consequences, it at least accepted that there was a road for the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive. The one tricky point about that was that, at the time this note was written, there was no Northern Ireland Assembly or Executive to give their consent to anything, because they were out of business. It was a flawed process right the way through.

I point out to my noble friend Lord Hannan on cross-community consent: if you take that through to all decisions, Northern Ireland, as a unit, would not have left the European Union because there would not have been cross-community consent. We have to be very careful where we draw the lines here.

I do not understand—and probably to my dying day I will never understand—why some Democratic Unionist colleagues here, on the day that this was announced, endorsed it. Arlene Foster backed it as

“a serious and sensible way forward”.

They were perfectly entitled to argue that consent paragraphs were in it, but why would you even contemplate, as a unionist, a border in the Irish Sea, border inspection posts, people having to notify from Great Britain before they send a box of goods to Northern Ireland? Consent or no consent, I just do not understand it.

My Lords, I want to be very brief, but I am slightly confused after listening to the noble Lord, Lord Empey. He is not being absolutely clear here in some of his comments. He quotes the former leader of the DUP saying, in relation to the protocol, that they would have to work with it now. I want to be very clear with this House, and it would be appreciated if others who are speaking will also do the same. Arlene Foster at that time made the statement on the clear understanding that the Northern Ireland Assembly, on its cross-community voting system, would have the say at the end of the day.

Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and others, I see that it is undoubtedly a very technical issue. I commend my noble friend Lord Dodds, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, on their excellent speeches. I also commend the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bew. I do not entirely agree with him, but I can see where he is coming from and what he is driving at. Let it be said that there are some of us in this House—my colleague to my left hand and my colleague to my right hand—who were not here at the particular time that the Brexit debate was going on.

I distinctly remember the long nights, into the early hours of the morning, and I remember it continually being said, not least from the Conservative Benches, that we do not want to be just law-takers and have no say whatever in how the law is being made. That is the situation in which Northern Ireland finds itself. Is the noble Lord, Lord Empey, telling us today that he agrees—or disagrees; I am not sure what he is saying and I do not want to misquote him—on the difficulties and consequences of the protocol, that it has to go, and that any vote in the Northern Ireland Assembly must be by cross-community voting and consent? It was Arlene Foster’s understanding at that time that that is the way it would be. So let us be fair to everybody here and not misquote them. I am not interested too much in what the banner headlines of certain papers said or did not say at that time. I would rather stick with the facts, which are very clear.

Northern Ireland now has no say whatever and no vote whatever, and Europe just imposes everything. I am amazed at some in this House who seem to think that that is quite all right. Northern Ireland was not asked to vote on Europe on its own; we are a part of the United Kingdom, and the United Kingdom left the EU in a democratic vote. Someone explain to me what is wrong with that, please.

My Lords, may I simply say that the cross-community safeguards at the heart of the devolved settlement have been trashed by the protocol? The wilful and reckless decision by the Secretary of State unilaterally to remove the cross-community voting protections contained in Section 42 of the 1998 Act has damaged public confidence. Whether noble Lords want to believe it or not, they had better realise that, if the protocol continues, the Northern Ireland Assembly is on life support. Do not rub the nose of Unionists in the ground.

My Lords, when this amendment was first tabled at short notice in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, as I know it had to be, I have to say that I struggled to understand how it was in scope, and I still feel that it is slightly outwith the Bill. Having said that, I am really pleased that we have had this debate, which has been extremely powerful. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, for taking the time to speak to me and my noble friend Lord Coaker about their concerns on this issue.

As I say, it has been a very powerful debate and I hope the Minister understands the strength of feeling around the House. I always felt that the situation was tough on Northern Ireland. During the debate on Brexit, when the Prime Minister had his “£350 million a week for the NHS”, I do not recall many people paying attention to what the situation would be in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland can rightly feel aggrieved that its interests did not seem to be very high on anyone’s agenda, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey.

I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bew, for the points he made and for the extremely thoughtful way in which he addressed some of the issues. I do not support the amendment being in the Bill—that is quite a difficult stretch to make—but the Government have to listen to what has been said here. I made a similar comment earlier on the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. The scope of this Bill is around the New Decade, New Approach issues. The Bill’s approach is very narrow; it is looking for agreement in areas where there is cross-party agreement, which we have been discussing. The amendment goes outside that.

However, I find it absolutely extraordinary that, when the Government were debating and discussing Brexit with the EU, nobody from Northern Ireland was in the room as part of those discussions. I saw the noble Lord, Lord Frost, wander in earlier, but he left before this debate, which is a great shame, given that he is the architect of the protocol; it would have been useful had he remained and perhaps given us some explanation of how we reached this point. I have to say that the Government have let Northern Ireland down in the handling of the protocol, which was debated, discussed and agreed by this Government. Unless those with a stake in the economy and business of Northern Ireland are directly engaged in those discussions and negotiations, it will be very difficult to reach an agreement and conclusion that can satisfy and benefit Northern Ireland. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, made a very important point in his brief contribution when he talked about the way forward for negotiations and to find an agreement. If the people of Northern Ireland are not included in those negotiations, that will be extremely hard to do.

Many of us recall—I am sure noble Lords from Northern Ireland recall—the film of the Prime Minister speaking to a business group in Northern Ireland and saying, “There’ll be no checks, no borders, no tariffs and no forms to fill in. If you get a form, send it to me—give them my home number and I’ll deal with it.” They were the Prime Minister’s rules, as my noble friend Lord Hain said, and we know that the Prime Minister does not always know what is in his own rules—that has been established already today. But on something of this importance, it is extraordinary that the Government were so careless with Northern Ireland. So I understand the depth of feeling on this issue, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for allowing this debate today, even though it seems to be outwith the Bill.

There are further negotiations to come and they must focus on the talks, but the Government have to be on notice on this if they do not include Northern Ireland in those negotiations. Why not have one of the meetings in Northern Ireland? Go to Northern Ireland and talk to businesses and to people who live with this, day in, day out, and there might be a better conclusion. That process has to run its course, which is why we cannot support the amendment. But let no one be under any illusion that we do not understand the problems that this Government have caused.

There is an ongoing court case, as has been mentioned, and a number of issues have to be addressed. I look forward to the Minister’s response, but I have to say to him: get a grip, because this cannot continue in this way. It has direct implications for political stability in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, made the point—my noble friend Lord Hain made a slightly different one—that it was the UK’s decision to leave the EU. When the constituent parts of the UK were looked at, Northern Ireland was one of the areas that voted against leaving the EU, yet it is facing some of the harshest consequences of that decision, which is unfair. I hope the Minister can say today that this issue will be looked at seriously and Northern Ireland will be involved in the decision-making process. It may not be a matter for the Bill today, but it is certainly not going to go away.

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Empey referred to “mission creep”, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, referred to the scope of the Bill. I confess that when I started the Bill in your Lordships’ House, little did I suspect that I would probably spend more time discussing the Northern Ireland protocol, which does not form part of the Bill, than any of the provisions that do form part of it. So I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and my noble friend Lord Dodds of Duncairn on their ingenuity in bringing this matter before the House through this amendment. Of course, following the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, I completely understand the strength of feeling in Northern Ireland on aspects of the protocol. Indeed, before I assumed my role on the Front Bench, I think I gave expression to some of them myself. I completely understand the sincerity with which the noble Baroness and my noble friend have brought their case today.

In one area, I will slightly disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. When she brought this to the Committee, I referred to the fact that a number of the issues she raised on the compatibility of the protocol with the Belfast agreement and the Act of Union, on which the noble Lord, Lord Bew, made some interesting and pertinent comments, are currently the subject of a court case. These arguments are being considered by the Court of Appeal in Belfast so I am to some extent limited in what I can say. We expect the judgment shortly; I cannot put a date on it, obviously, but we await the outcome of that case with huge interest.

I accept that point. It was a huge detriment to Northern Ireland that the Assembly was not meeting at that time. However, there were still businesses and elected representatives. It would have been so helpful if the Government had just been a bit more thoughtful about Northern Ireland during those negotiations.

I appreciate the noble Baroness’s sentiments. To give one example, I recall that, in the aftermath of the referendum, the then First Minister, Arlene Foster, and the then Deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness, wrote a letter to the then Prime Minister setting out the Northern Ireland Executive’s priorities for the negotiations. Of course, shortly thereafter, for reasons that we are all too familiar with, the Assembly and the Executive went into abeyance for three years, but I take the point. I was there for a good deal of that period, and there was a lot of engagement going on, but we lacked the formal mechanism of the Executive.

On engagement, my understanding is that the Minister for Europe is due to be in Northern Ireland tomorrow to meet a number of business organisations and individual businesses. He has held meetings with Members of your Lordships’ House in the past few days. This morning, along with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Europe Minister, I attended