| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, at this time of night, perhaps one may be forgiven for allowing one's mind to turn towards the words of the Magnificat which are relevant to the amendments referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan:
- "Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace according to thy word".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may interrupt my noble friend, I believe that he was quoting the Nunc Dimittis and not the Magnificat.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, that is absolutely right. The Magnificat would not have met the point. It is because of the lateness of the hour to which I have already alluded.
I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Glentoran and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, for this reason. A good deal of symbolism is involved with the oath of allegiance. We have all noted previously that Northern Ireland has a good deal of symbolism. Some can be abused but some are very important. I believe it to be important that the oath of allegiance should continue to be taken in Northern Ireland for the point recently made by my
noble friend Lord Glentoran. It is important that there should be no unnecessary departure from what is common to the remainder of the United Kingdom.As we all recognise, there are circumstances in Northern Ireland that are separate from those that obtain in the rest of the United Kingdom. Therefore, to change the oath in the way provided by the Bill may not perhaps matter if it was not going to cause affront. However, I am afraid that it will cause affront to people who actually represent about two-thirds of the population of Northern Ireland, and who uphold the Union with the United Kingdom.
One looks, therefore, to see whether there is any principle behind the proposal. I cannot see what principle there can be; indeed, principle points in the opposite direction because, forseeably, you will have a court sitting with a judge who has taken one oath while the other judge may have taken another. That is not just untidy; it is undesirable for rather obvious reasons. So what about expedience? Where does the expedience lie? One should perhaps consider the report of the review body. As I said in Grand Committee, the review body argued this case extraordinarily faintly. Indeed, if any noble Lord has the document to hand, the relevant paragraphs are 6.125 and 6.142. It is very much a case of, "Well, it's possible . . . but on the one hand . . . and, on the other . . . it could be an obstacle to people taking the oath".
I have never heard of anyone who has been inhibited from accepting judicial office because of the oath, but perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten us in this respect. It seems to me to be a wholly disproportionate affront to those who represent the Unionist persuasion in Northern Ireland, which, as I said, is the great majority. It is not an irrational affront. By acceding to this rather tentatively argued case in the review report, the Government would, by implication, be accepting that there was something rather shaming—something that could be criticised—in the oath as it is at present administered. That would be a very grave wrong; it is a wholly rational objection that I believe Unionists take to this proposal. I hope that noble Lords will agree that the downside is wholly disproportionate to whatever advantage there may be to this proposal.
I have one further point to raise. I believe that the Minister may be able to deal with it because the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General is sitting next to her on the Front Benches. It is not suggested that there should be some alleviation of the requirement to take the oath for Northern Ireland judges who are appointed at the Court of Appeal. As we have been reminded today, those who sit in the Court of Appeal become Privy Counsellors. When you become a Privy Counsellor, perhaps the noble Baroness will confirm that you take an oath of allegiance and then go on to take another rather blood-curdling oath about secrecy and what will happen if you do not observe it. It is not suggested that the Northern Ireland judges should be relieved of that obligation. I wonder why.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I understand that the form of oath required of police constables and, I believe, of Queen's Counsel in Northern Ireland has already been
modified. Therefore, there seem to be good precedents for also modifying the oath that applies to judges and other judicial officials.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, while I sat here in the Chamber listening to this short debate the following thought came to my mind. I wonder what our American friends would make of it if a proposition were brought forward that judges in, say, Hawaii took a different oath from that taken by judges in California, or in New York State. Perhaps I may bring the idea a little closer to home. What would be thought if judges in, for example, the Basque Country took a different oath from that taken by judges in Madrid? What conclusions might come into the minds of Basque people, whether they were in favour of the activities of ETA, or peaceable citizens?
Let us take the matter a little further. If the oath put forward by Her Majesty's Government is so good, and if it is an oath that is suitable for the people of Northern Ireland, why do the Government not seek to introduce it in the remainder of the kingdom? By such a method they could ensure that all judges took the same oath. I can only assume that they see profound reasons why such an oath should not be introduced here and why the present oath taken by judges in England should not be changed in the way that they propose to change the oath in Northern Ireland.
I am sure that the noble Baroness believes that my own experiences have led me to a particularly jaundiced view of Northern Ireland legislation. I assure her that what leads me to a jaundiced view of the legislation is that it continues and exacerbates the situation in which there are two standards of law, two standards of justice, two standards by which we judge criminals within one kingdom. To my mind that is not acceptable. Nor is it acceptable to me that judges in one part of the kingdom should take one oath and in another part of the kingdom a different oath.
The Minister will probably quote Scotland to me, but she will recollect that a different history applies there—a history of how the two kingdoms were united. There is also the manner in which Scotland has been allowed, within the kingdom, to maintain its own systems of law ever since the union of the two kingdoms. This provision does not merely allow something that exists to continue, but it introduces a new difference, a new division, a new schism, to which I object most profoundly.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I agree with the Government and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, about Amendments Nos. 53 and 54. I do not see how one can easily uphold a usage. I believe that the phrase "according to" is adequately firm and unequivocal. However, the important amendment in this group is Amendment No. 52. I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and those who support him from various parts of the House. I do not want to prolong the debate at this time—although it is not particularly late—or to repeat points that have been made in Grand Committee.
However, I remind noble Lords that no concessions at all have been made to the sensitivities and sentiments of Unionists south of the border. So be it. There is nothing that we can do about that, but sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Why should we lean over backwards to pander to the sentiments of hard-line republicans who, as public opinion poll after public opinion poll have demonstrated, comprise no more than 12 or 12.5 per cent of the population of Northern Ireland?
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, there is a simple answer to that. The republicans in this kingdom have guns and bombs and they are willing to use them. The Unionists in the Republic of Ireland do not have guns and bombs and they do not wish to use them.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lord has made an excellent point.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, the point has been made that because the oath for members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and QCs has been changed that is a good precedent to follow. I have never heard such a foolish argument in my life. There is no definition of how it was a good precedent. It has been a most unfortunate precedent. It has helped to bring about the demise of the Belfast agreement. I am afraid that the Government do not realise the damage that this Bill continues to do to the Belfast agreement. I warn them yet again that the Belfast agreement is in great danger of collapse. This Bill and this particular provision form a further nail in its coffin.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, at the risk of repeating what I said in Committee, perhaps I can say briefly that I feel very strongly that, since in any case there are a number of references in this Bill, rightly, to the Crown, it is extremely difficult to understand why, in the major issue of the oath, we wish to behave as though the sovereign did not exist. In the Belfast agreement, as has been said, we are committed to allowing the majority to decide their fate; so long as they choose to stay in the United Kingdom they are entitled to have the same relationship with the sovereign as the rest of us.
On the police oath, I believe I am right in saying—though I shall have to check—that the police oath for Wales still swears allegiance to Her Majesty. Therefore that is not necessarily a precedent. But the important point is that, in relation to the Belfast agreement, the people have a right to stay within the United Kingdom, with all that that implies, including allegiance to the Crown, for as long as they wish.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page