| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees: I must interrupt the noble Lord. We have another Division in the Chamber. We will return in 10 minutes.
[The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 4.27 to 4.38 p.m.]
Lord Fitt: I was about to conclude before we were called by a Division. On my way down to the Division I thought about the number of cases that come before the courts in Northern Ireland. There are drunks, wife beaters, robbers, people who break traffic regulations and a whole myriad others. I suggest that not many of those charged with such offences will object to the symbol in the court. Most people try to avoid going to any court, no matter what the symbol is above it. They want to try to keep out of court as much as they can. On the question of not recognising the court, I thought on my way here of an apocryphal story that was circulating in Northern Ireland some years ago. I have already alluded to the fact that there was a time when the IRA refused to recognise the courts. When a member of the IRA was charged and the charges were read out, the usual response was to say, "I don't recognise the court". That meant that he was sentenced.
The apocryphal story, which came out 30 or 40 years ago, was that a drunk was found lying in York Street in Belfast—an area that I know very well—at three o'clock in the morning, singing the "Soldier's Song" and shouting, "Up the Republic!". The policeman tried to quieten him but to no avail, and he was arrested and brought before the court. The court that he was brought to the next morning was different from the court that he had attended some months previously and it was in a state of disrepair. When he was brought into the new court, the policeman gave his evidence that he had been shouting, "Up the Republic!" and singing the "Soldier's Song". The magistrate asked the
defendant what he had to say for himself. He said, "I don't recognise the court". The magistrate said, "That's a very strange plea for a simple charge of being drunk. What do you mean, you don't recognise the court?". He said, "Well, it's all changed and the seats are all different from the last time I was here!".The serious point is that the Government will not be in a position to give us a definitive answer this evening. Who was it who first applied or made representations to the Government to have this clause in this Bill? Was it the SDLP? There are many people in Northern Ireland, and many Catholics, who voted for the SDLP, and they do not take offence at the royal coat of arms. They would be very annoyed if they found out that their political representative, the SDLP, had made forceful representations to have these provisions brought into effect.
We have to face the fact that that is a further concession to Sinn Fein's demands. I know the Government do not like that word, but it has to be used and used again; it cannot mean anything other than it does mean.
What does Sinn Fein have to offer in return for the Government making those demands? It will not engage in politics in Northern Ireland or play any significant part in bringing about the ideas in the Good Friday agreement. I know that what I am going to say inflames opinion on this side of the water but it has to be said and said again. Sinn Fein said, "If we don't get what we want, we may do another Canary Wharf". That is what is behind the Government's concessions.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said that he been provoked to speak by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and had not intended to do so. I rise to speak because of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. However, I hasten to say that he has encouraged rather than provoked me and I shall be briefer than the noble Lord.
In 1984, I attended the Commonwealth education Ministers' conference in Nicosia. The photograph of the conference was taken on the main steps of the president's residence in Nicosia, below the royal arms, which had persisted there for the 25 years since the settlement of the EOKA enosis crisis. It may have been that those royal arms had survived out of convenience; it is also possible that they had survived out of statesmanship.
In 1957, when Singapore became independent, in the post-independent mood of euphoria there was an effort to take down the statue of Stamford Raffles and to plough up or build over the cricket ground on the sea front. Lee Kwan Yew said, "We are a country of mixed race, a new state of mixed race, with 2.3 million people living in 219 square miles of marsh only a little above sea level. We are going to need every single piece of history we can find in order to keep this new society together. Stamford Raffles's statue will be taken down over my dead body and, provided that the cricket club is prepared to allow military parades on the outfield, it will be allowed to keep what must have become, apart
from possibly the HAC ground, the most wealthy cricket ground in the world". That was unquestionably statesmanship.Neither of those cases is the same as that which we are discussing today; I am the first to recognise that. However, the role of statesmanship is relevant. If the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is correct and the issue of the royal arms was introduced into the argument as a new counter at quite a late stage, statesmanship by the Government would be to allow the status quo, given the price that Northern Ireland may pay if the clause goes through without amendment.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: If the object of the legislation is to encourage trembling, reluctant nationalists to accept the presence of royal arms, we should remember that when Gerry Adams was asked, after the Omagh bombing, whether he would not say a word to indicate to his people that it was in order for witnesses to come forward—particularly as Sinn Fein/IRA claimed that the atrocity had been carried out by dissidents—he replied, "No. We do not recognise British justice".
That has not changed, and we need only look at what happened over the police service. Every concession was made, but, in the end, Sinn Fein did not join the Policing Board and were not prepared—as the SDLP, I am glad to say, was—to say to the Catholic population, "Come forward, join, this is what we all want". On the contrary, they refused to do that, and their latest gesture—probably through another so-called dissident group—was to blow up a young recruit in his first week and to threaten his family. In the light of that, it is not much use treating this as a possible wonder move to secure the support of Sinn Fein.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It is clear from our debate that it is a delicate and sensitive issue. To the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, I say that it is a question not of concessions but of how to mediate a way through to a long-term resolution with which both parts of the community will feel content.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said that it was a sad part of the Bill. I understand fully why he said that, but it will be a sad part of the Bill only if we make it so. The provision is only one of 300 that the review had to consider. It had to take a holistic approach because it knew, as we do, the prize that it wished to attain. If Members of the Committee examine the review report, they will find that the review took the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, and did not seek to mend that which was not broken. Where there was no need to make recommendations or do more than reiterate what the current state of affairs was, that is what the review did.
It is right, as all noble Lords have said, that emblems and symbols have always been a very sensitive issue in Northern Ireland. The review sought to help us craft a system for the future, once devolution has become a reality, an eventuality to which we all aspire. That was the goal. Because symbols and emblems are of huge significance, it was important that the issue was not
left, as it could have been, to custom and practice. Custom and practice in Northern Ireland, similar in many ways to custom and practice in England and Wales, varies. Fifty per cent of the courthouses in Northern Ireland do not have the royal coat of arms outside. Noble Lords will know the history: the introduction of emblems and of the use of the coat of arms in courts occurred in the last century. It was not always so. The practice has evolved over a period of time. It is right that the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, should quote the Belfast agreement, and that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, should say so too. However, this gives voice to what the Belfast agreement sought to do, because the review sought to implement the essence of that in relation to criminal justice.On this issue, as on many others, the review group sought balance because, as the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass outlined, they understood the use and necessity for parity, so that both and all could feel part of what we hope will be a new beginning. This gives parity for Northern Ireland with England and Wales. It is important to remind ourselves what the review recommended. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, pointed out, the review said that there should be no change in the arrangements for displaying the royal coat of arms on the exterior of existing courthouses. However, in order to create an environment in which all those attending court can feel comfortable, we recommend that the interior of courtrooms should be free of any symbols. The members of the review group were not on a frolic of their own. They did not say that because they felt like it. They said it because, having consulted and spoken to all parties, they felt this was an appropriate way forward.
I hope Members of the Committee will agree that, overall, the review is a splendid piece of work for which the review group should be commended by us all, no matter on which side of the divide we stand. It was a very difficult thing to craft, and it is a splendid thing when we see that the dissonance between the parties is so small. We are talking not about the fundamentals but, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, about the peripheral issues. I emphasise the word "peripheral". They are issues that do not go to the core or the essence of what we are seeking to achieve.
The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, mentioned the issue in relation to the judgment that was made by Mr Justice Kerr. That related to flags. Members of the Committee can see that it has been faithfully replicated in the proposed Bill. When it comes to these issues, the learned judge in that case sought to emphasise the importance of the Government seeking a sense of balance that accords due respect to both traditions. That is the aim of these clauses.
It is worth reminding ourselves that these principles underpin the provisions in Clause 65. The amendments would all move away from the balance that has been struck by the Government in implementing the review, albeit in two different ways. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, has not been here this
afternoon to move his amendments, which went in entirely the other direction, seeking an aspiration of a total removal. That is the other side of the coin and the other part of the desire that is pursued here.Members of the Committee will also remember that when this Bill originally came before the other place it provided for a prohibition on the display of royal arms in the interior of all courtrooms, on the exterior of existing courthouses where they are not already displayed and on the exterior of new courthouses first used after the section comes into force.
As a result of listening very carefully to the arguments that were made in the other place, we amended our view. The clause was amended on Report in the Commons to exempt a number of listed courthouses from the prohibition on the display of royal arms in courtrooms. The courts that are exempt are the Royal Courts of Justice, the Armagh, Banbridge, Magherafelt and Omagh courthouses and Courtroom No. 1 in Downpatrick.
That was an important concession because in the other place the Government were accused of architectural vandalism for seeking to remove these emblems. I should like to remind noble Lords of what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said about the Republic of Ireland. He is right to say that in the Republic of Ireland, royal emblems and symbols remain in place in many buildings. What we seek to do in Northern Ireland will not be dissimilar in that regard to what already happens in the Republic of Ireland.
Those changes were made in order to reflect the sensitivities of the situation, and we think that they reflect them well. The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, with his usual acuity in relation to these matters, rightly points out that the Bill is silent in the placing of royal arms on the exterior of new courthouses. It follows therefore that there is no prohibition on so doing in the future. Whether royal arms are placed on the exterior of a new courthouse will be a decision taken in relation to each such new courthouse as and when the occasion arises. This reflects what happens in this regard at present where, as the review points out, past practice has not been wholly consistent.
I know that a number of noble Lords will point out that there are parts of the Bill that are internally inconsistent. I am new to this issue, but I hope that I will be forgiven for saying that that is the reality of Northern Ireland. In order to satisfy the people of Northern Ireland, occasionally one has to give a little in one direction and a little in another. That may appear inconsistent, but when put into practice, it can work well.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, is shaking his head. I know that his experience is far greater than mine, but we are seeking to craft something that will stand the test of time. The Government believe that they have the balance about right. I should like to reiterate the fact that the review tried valiantly—we believe that it succeeded—to strike a balance. This clause reflects that. As recommended by the review, it prohibits the display of royal arms within courtrooms
with the exception of those courthouses that are architecturally or historically important. Royal arms will continue to be displayed on the exterior of existing courthouses where they are already displayed.The Government are only too well aware of the sensitivities surrounding this issue. However, we feel that, along with the other recommendations, the review has got it about right.
I notice that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. is anxious to speak.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page