---

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, as it is, apparently, in order to speak to Amendment No. 86, I shall make the contribution that I was waiting to make to that debate.

I hope that I do not need to be told that it is necessary to look for compromises. My mind goes back to the agreement of 1993, the framework documents and other instruments over which we laboured for months and—it sometimes seemed—for years, seeking the kind of compromise that would help matters forward. So, I trust that I do not need to be reminded of the need for give and take. But it does not follow from the need to give and take that this part of the legislature has to accept in total the compromise that has been put forward either by the review body or, as is the case here in a rather rare instance, where the Government have departed from the strict letter of that compromise.

The review body was infinitely earnest, hard-working and admirable, but it has come to a view and, in turn, we are entitled to come to a view. The difference between us and the membership of the review body is that we are vested with a legislative right and a legislative duty. It is for us to make up our own minds. While there is much in the review that is quite admirable, here I believe the membership has gone wrong.

I look forward to hearing from the noble and learned Lord who is to reply whether the Government are acting in pursuit of a principle here. I do not know what that principle could be, but if there is one then I should be glad to learn it. I think that the answer is more likely to be that the proposal is based on expedience. There is nothing wrong with expedience, so long as it turns out to be expedient.

What appears to have been balanced here by the review body is the virtual certainty that the provision in the Bill seeking to deny the royal coat of arms to be displayed in certain courts is going to cause deep affront to those who support the Union and its continuance. It will do so because, as has been made clear during our previous discussions, it will seem to confirm the notion that there is something incompatible with neutrality and impartiality in the court system if the royal arms are displayed.

We know what will cause affront, so let us look at what will be the benefit. It will be the avoidance of what the review body states at paragraph 8.61 as follows,

"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".

4 Jul 2002 : Column 386

The review body is perfectly entitled to take that view, although it is difficult to understand how anyone appearing in court could be put off by seeing the royal coat of arms, or that the body seriously thinks that the royal coat of arms might detract from the neutrality of the court environment. I say that because, as has already been pointed out, judges owe their duty not to the government of the day but to the Sovereign. In that regard, the presence of the royal coat of arms serves as a reminder of that impartiality rather than a kind of allusion to partiality or detraction from neutrality.

We have to ask the question: must we accept the package and every item in it simply because it is a package? I advance the view earnestly that we would be failing in our duty as legislators if we delegated to the review body, distinguished as it is, that duty. We have to think about each and every component of the package, as well as considering the influence of each item on the package as a whole.

Along with other noble Lords and, I am sure, the noble and learned Lord on the Government Front Bench, I have listened with great care to the debate. Certain aspects of the proposals in this Bill, if they were not so serious, could be described as ludicrous. The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, has alluded to them. Other aspects are not ludicrous; they are very grave indeed. I shall not go over them because that would detain the House unjustifiably. However, when he looks at the end of his brief and sees the word "Resist" printed there, I urge the Minster to add, in his mind's eye, a further amendment which does not appear on the Marshalled List. It would read as follows: "Delete 'Resist' and insert 'Think again'".

5.45 p.m.

Lord Desai: My Lords, I rise briefly to say that I tabled amendments in Grand Committee which proposed the exact opposite of what has been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. For various reasons I did not move them. However, I should like to echo the remark of my noble friend Lord Dubs: there is another view. That other view has to be presented. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, pointed out, we should not pretend—at least not in Northern Ireland and in the context of the Belfast agreement—that certain symbols are neutral. We all know that there are very few neutral symbols in Northern Ireland.

I should like to respond to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, about the Republic of Ireland. If the Republic can display symbols that go against its principles but not be bothered by them, that is because justice is conducted according to the law of the land. What do symbols matter when that is the case? Symbols are not important and the fewer of them we have on either side, the better it shall be.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, in many ways this has been a somewhat sad and troubled debate. I should like first to respond to some of the comments made in rather trenchant terms by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. I think it was he who said

4 Jul 2002 : Column 387

that this legislation is a "one-way street"; that it listens to gunfire and the clicking of the safety catch; and that it alienates those who walk the path of peace. I wish to say to noble Lords that the reverse is true. I have said this before, but I shall repeat it. It took the courage of the good people of Northern Ireland, from both communities, to lend their voice to peace. It is their courage that we celebrate and it is their courage that we now seek to reinforce.

The judicial system in Northern Ireland has operated well and Her Majesty's Government will jealously protect it, both now and in the future. I have also said this before, but I shall repeat it. Only when the institutions of Northern Ireland are ready will the system enable devolution of justice and its administration to be transferred. Symbols are just that: symbols. If we consider the reality of the Northern Irish courts, they have dispensed justice with integrity for a great many years. Nothing is about to change.

I am aware that this is a vitally important issue. It was closely debated in another place and then debated in detail by noble Lords in Grand Committee. Those debates were exhaustive, but some would say that they were not exhaustive enough because many of the arguments have been rehearsed again this afternoon.

The noble Lord, Lord Desai, mentioned that two sets of amendments were tabled in Grand Committee. Those two groups of amendments sought to achieve the opposite effect. If no other proof were needed, that alone demonstrates the difficulty of striking the right balance in this area. Again, as I have remarked before, balance is the key to this clause. We seek to strike a balance between the sensitivities of the various communities in Northern Ireland and the constitutional position of the courts. We seek to strike a balance between the exterior and the interior of courtrooms, as well as balance regarding a neutral environment and courthouses of historical and architectural merit.

Amendments Nos. 82 and 84 require the royal coat of arms to be displayed in all courtrooms. Amendment No. 85 requires the royal coat of arms to be displayed outside all courthouses and removes the prohibition on their display on the exterior of existing courthouses where they are not already displayed. These amendments fly in the face of the balance which has been struck and I urge the House to resist any challenges.

We have to recognise that the reality in Northern Ireland is that at present there is a variation from court to court as to the symbols displayed. Contrary to what was asserted by the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, it does not appear that this is dependent upon whether it is a Catholic area or a Protestant area. They vary. The noble Lord is shaking his head. If it was not he, I apologise to him. It may have been another noble Lord who made that point. In fact, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Fitt.

4 Jul 2002 : Column 388

So we already have to deal with a variation. Perhaps I may give an example. There are coats of arms in Newry, but not in Ballymena. So we already have a degree of inconsistency with which Northern Ireland has lived in a relatively contented way.

We should remind ourselves of what was said in the review. I know that the noble and learned Lord made reference to paragraph 8.61, but that paragraph should be read in its entirety because it first refers to the Belfast agreement. It also has to be read in conjunction with what the review said about the way it would deal with the past.

Noble Lords will know that the review met for the first time on 1st July 1998; it had 45 days of plenary meetings; it issued more than 5,000 copies of its consultation paper; it held more than 70 meetings with interested groups and organisations; it received 90 written submissions; and it spoke to many, many ordinary men and women on the ground to seek their views—not only legislators' views, not only interested parties' views, but the views of the ordinary men and women of Northern Ireland—of what they thought should happen. A series of nine seminars were held across Northern Ireland in May and June 1999, to which more than 3,000 individuals, groups and organisations were invited and more than 300 attended.

What did the review say after all this? It talked about the past and about the future. I draw your Lordships' attention to what is said at paragraph 1.19 on page 6 and 1.20 on page 7. At paragraph 1.19 the review states:

"we heard some suggestions that, if the system was working, change should not be introduced for the sake of it . . . There was, of course, a range of opinions between these positions and there was much discussion about the workings of particular parts of the criminal justice system".

At paragraph 1.20 it continues:

"But we did listen carefully to genuinely and strongly held views, from differing perspectives, about past events. It was important for us to understand these points of view if we were to develop recommendations for arrangements most likely to inspire the confidence of all parts of the community in the future. We do not express any opinion about the validity of the views about past events and wish to stress that where we suggest change, this should not in itself be taken as implying criticism of what has gone before".

So the changes in the review were recommended to create the prospect of a happier future for all the people of Northern Ireland, from both sides of the community.

I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, that we are not delegating the duty to this body, but we believe that its work deserves our attention and that we should listen. We are listening.

The review clearly states that it makes these recommendations because the presence of the royal coat of arms,

"could be regarded by some as off-putting and inconsistent with the need for court proceedings to take place in a neutral environment".

4 Jul 2002 : Column 389

The Government also acknowledge that there are those who may feel that way. We seek therefore to minimise those sensitivities, consistent as far as possible with the sensitivities of others. It is a fine balance.

Many noble Lords have in other debates rightly and eloquently supported the outstanding contribution of the Northern Ireland judiciary to the justice system. We cannot allow this one narrow issue to cloud that system, which has so much to commend it. That is why the review made that recommendation and that is why the Government have accepted it.

This is the history and the background to the clause. As I have said from the outset, I am aware of the sensitivities surrounding this matter, but the review is persuasive. This clause should be seen in the context of the Belfast agreement's adherence to the principle of mutual respect which forms the basis of the new Northern Ireland.

By way of conclusion, I say again that the review struck a balance, and this clause reflects that balance. As recommended by the review, it prohibits the display of royal arms within courtrooms, though with the exception of those courthouses which are architecturally or historically important. Royal arms will continue to be displayed on the exterior of existing courthouses where they are already displayed.

I hope that your Lordships will feel that the Government have striven, honestly and with integrity, to chart a path with which both parts of the community in Northern Ireland will be content, but also making clear that justice will never be subservient to mere symbols.

---