| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should point out that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 232A, 232B and 233.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: In supporting Amendment No. 232, I give notice that I shall raise the amendments to which the Principal Deputy Chairman alluded.
In so far as this clause is entitled,
- "Display of Royal Arms of Courts",
We agreed that Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom and, in so doing, agreed that the judicial, legal and political processes within Northern Ireland would in fact agree. However, a High Court decision was delivered by Mr Justice Kerr on 4th October 2001. Addressing the issue of the Union flag, he said:
- "The Union flag is the flag of the United Kingdom, of which Northern Ireland is a part. It is the judgment of the Secretary of State that it should be flown on Government buildings only on those days on which it is flown in Great Britain. By thus confining the days on which the flag is to appear, the Secretary of State sought to strike the correct balance between, on the one hand, acknowledging Northern Ireland's constitutional position and, on the other, not giving offence to those who oppose it".
[The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 3.47 to 3.57 p.m.]
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: Before the Division, I was quoting from the judgment of Mr Justice Kerr, on 4th October 2001, in respect of flags. I think I had reached the point at which he said that the Secretary of State had been trying to create a balance. Mr Justice Kerr went on to say,
- "That approach seems to me to exemplify a proper regard for partnership, equality and mutual respect and to fulfil the Government's undertaking that its jurisdiction in Northern Ireland shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of the identities and traditions".
In my short time in your Lordships' House, I have come to have some confidence that the Lord Privy Seal would jealously guard the interests of the judiciary and the judicial process in Northern Ireland. I therefore suspect that he is as horrified as I am to see the mish-mash in Clause 65. The clause suggests that the royal arms should not be displayed in any courtroom. The coat of arms, however, is already displayed in courtrooms in Belfast, Armagh, Banbridge, Downpatrick, Magherafelt and Omagh. I might add, of course, that it was displayed in the courthouse in my home town of Dungannon until the IRA blew up that courthouse. Under the Bill, our new courthouse, for which we have worked long and hard for a considerable number of years, will not be able to have parity and equality with Belfast, Armagh, Banbridge and the other towns I have mentioned.
Perhaps I am arguing against myself here, but either it is right or it is wrong to have the coat of arms displayed in the courtroom. Perhaps it symbolises the impartiality of the legal process in Northern Ireland. Perhaps it indicates that every citizen stepping in to the courtroom to seek justice is assured that he will benefit from the impartiality of the Crown, from whom the process derives.
Moving from inside the courtroom to outside, it appears, although the Bill does not say so, that we might get the royal coat of arms on the outside of the new courthouse in Dungannon. The Bill says
- "The Royal Arms must not be displayed—
- (a) on the exterior of an existing court-house"
If I remember correctly, in our second sitting the Lord Privy Seal argued that I was wrong; he said that what I was talking about did not apply in the rest of the United Kingdom and had not traditionally happened in Northern Ireland. I wonder if he would be good enough to argue similarly on this occasion and to ensure that I do have parity of esteem with the rest of the United Kingdom and that some of the harmless but important traditions that we have had in the past should be sustained with equity.
I am delighted to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, is back again, because she joined in that form of argument two sittings ago. Whichever Minister responds, I hope that they will demonstrate some consistency.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I support the general thrust of all these grouped amendments. I recognise, as anybody with any common sense must, the sensitivity that surrounds the issue of emblems, symbols, flags and so forth.
I very much support what was said by my noble friend Lord Glentoran in opening. I share something of his personal experiences. He spoke of carrying the tricolour when he goes to watch Ireland playing rugby football. I did the same when I was very kindly invited to a match at Lansdowne Road by Mr Dick Spring, the Irish Foreign Minister, and, of course, I rooted for Ireland. Unfortunately, that gave rise to a photograph in the next day's Irish News, which showed Mr Spring on one side, me—the Secretary of State—on the other and, in between, the tricolour. With rare opportunism, Dr Paisley made considerable use of that as the frontispiece piece of his next election address. The caption was, "The flag they both uphold!" or words to that effect. I do not have the slightest regret that I behaved as I did.
I also claim acquittal of any charge of insensitivity on this issue. I was responsible in 1996 for the order that changed the oath that jurors in Northern Ireland took—it changed that oath to omit any reference to our sovereign lady the Queen. I was able to do that because one could point to the fact that that change merely reflected the modern practice in England and Wales. That was a balancing factor that reduced, if it did not completely remove—I think that it probably did—any sense of affront.
We are dealing with a much more important matter, which is a different case altogether. In a matter as sensitive as this, one is inevitably put in mind of the aphorism:
- "Where it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change".
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It was Viscount Falkland.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am grateful. I knew the noble and learned Lord would not let us down.
What is the practice in Northern Ireland at present? The review establishes that the practice varies. Apparently, inside every courtroom there is to be found the royal arms—generally it is behind the judge or the magistrate's chair. All courts appear to have that, but only 50 per cent of courts have the arms displayed on the outside of the building. It is reasonable to deduce from that that local practice reflects what is generally thought to be locally expedient—my comment is, "Quite right, too!". If that is so, it is desirable to make no change.
The Bill adopts that approach for the exterior of court buildings. As my noble friend Lord Maginnis has just pointed out, those buildings that have the arms on at the moment are to retain them. He pointed to a matter that I had missed, I am afraid; that is, that there is uncertainty as to what the position would be in a new courthouse. One would hope that the arms would be permitted to be there.
The Bill requires the removal of arms from inside every court. It may be helpful to refer the Committee to paragraph 8.30 on page 175 of the review report. It states:
- "In one group it was felt that flags and proclamations were alienating but that the presence of a Royal Coat of Arms often went unnoticed and was not an issue. Views at seminars were not entirely polarised and there was often agreement that while flags and emblems could be provocative, removing symbols could be just as provocative".
The presence of arms may be overlooked but the removal of arms most certainly will not be overlooked. The report rightly pointed out the opinion of those who expressed the view that removing something could be just as provocative as displaying it or flaunting it. The case for taking it away seems to be remarkably faintly argued in the review report. In paragraph 8.61, an opinion is expressed—it is not stated to be founded on any specific evidence—that the display of arms,
- "could be regarded by some as off-putting".
- "On the other hand, we are conscious that the presence of the Royal Coat of Arms in a prominent position in the courtroom could be regarded by some as off-putting and inconsistent with the need for court proceedings to take place in a neutral environment".
As for a neutral environment, I very much endorse what was said by my noble friend Lord Maginnis. It is the very authority of the head of state, who happens to be the Queen, that guarantees neutrality—"impartiality", as he put it—and the neutral environment that is the very essence of adjudication in any state that upholds the rule of law. The head of state is the fount of justice and that establishes the neutrality of the court.
The problem about taking away those arms seems to be that if one accedes to the rather tentative opinion—I hardly call it an argument—that arms detract from a neutral environment, one is seen by implication as concurring with the charge that royal adjudication is somehow biased adjudication. We all know perfectly well that that is not the case and it has never been alleged to be the case in my time. We went over that in our first sitting.
I ask the noble and learned Lord whether the removal of the royal coat of arms has ever seriously been demanded, as part of the peace process or
whatever one chooses to call it? If it has been, by whom and when? From the passage with which I have troubled the Committee, I do not have the impression that it has been. If that has become the Government's policy in the light of such a demand, what has that concession yielded in terms of a quid pro quo? My submission to the Committee is that principle and expedience demand that matters should be left as they stand. The review body has shown itself to be earnestly a good deal more sensitive than the sensitive.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |