Not moved. Oh, sorry—I was not listening intently. I beg your pardon. I will move my amendment; noble Lords might regret this.
In moving Amendment 7, I will also speak to Amendment 22 in my name and that of my colleagues. One of the most egregious manifestations of careless discrimination in this Bill finds expression in the proposal to afford the Irish language commissioner a sensible title while affording the Ulster Scots/Ulster British traditions commissioner an absurdly wordy title that invites mockery rather than respect—
“the Commissioner for the enhancement and development of the language, arts and literature associated with the Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition”—
compared with “the Irish Language Commissioner”.
In the first instance, it is unwieldy. Rather than using it, people will call the commissioner something else. In the second instance, when set against the crisp title of “Irish Language Commissioner”, it will become just a joke. In the third instance, the length has the effect of narrowing and truncating the function of the commissioner in a way that makes no sense. The Government have recognised that Ulster Scots is a national minority in the framework convention for national minorities and is subject to its obligations and those associated with the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. In a context where we are supposed to be concerned about upholding parity of esteem, affording one community a commissioner with a serious, credible title and the other community one with a ridiculous, truncated title is as transparently discriminatory as it is absurd.
Unionists will not be disrespected in this way and will settle for nothing less than an equally credible title to that afforded the Irish language commissioner. We suggest the “Ulster Scots and Ulster British traditions commissioner”. Of course, the term “Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition” is already used in the Bill so linking it to the commissioner makes sense. There is, however, the need for a further, very modest amendment, which amounts simply to the adding of an S. The phrase “Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition” is problematic because it suggests that Ulster Scots and Ulster British are a single tradition. That is erroneous and needs to be changed.
Ulster Scots is one of the three traditional strands of cultural identity present in Ulster and, in turn, Northern Ireland since the early 1600s. The earliest written use of the term “Ulster Scot” in relation to the community dates to 1640. The historically minded will immediately notice that the Ulster Scots community as a distinct group actually pre-dates the United Kingdom, which did not come into existence until 1707. The Ulster Scots community has a rich heritage and culture and its own language, a local variant of the Scots language.
The two historic minority cultures in Northern Ireland are Irish and Ulster Scots. There are, however, people from the indigenous community in Northern Ireland who do not identify as either Irish or Ulster
Scots. They are from the broad unionist community and refer to themselves as “Ulster British”. This terminology is much more recent but it is nevertheless strongly held by those who identify with it, including the Orange Order, which is one of Northern Ireland’s largest community organisations. It is worth noting that there is no animosity between those who identify as Ulster British and those who identify as Ulster Scots. Much Ulster Scots cultural activity happens in Orange halls and many individual Orange Order members are Ulster Scots. It is simply that not everyone in the community has Scottish roots or identifies as an Ulster Scot.
It is important to ensure that there is a cultural space for those who identify as Ulster British and that they are not excluded from protection or support simply because they do not identify as Ulster Scots. In seeking to curate this space, however, we must not inadvertently muddy the waters in relation to Ulster Scots, and that is what the Bill is in danger of doing, in suggesting that it can be collapsed into Ulster British and vice versa.
Ulster Scots was well known in Northern Ireland up until the 1960s. But during the Troubles all the cultural emphasis moved to ideas of national identity—Irish and British—and Ulster Scots was squeezed into the background. Generations of Ulster Scots grew up without the opportunity to learn about their cultural identity. In 1998, Ulster Scots re-emerged, with the Belfast agreement, but has been under regular assault from politically motivated individuals, who have sought to deny its very existence, even though they are contradicted by a mountain of evidence. They have regularly attacked and ridiculed the community, its culture and its language. The very name of the Ulster Scots community cannot be found in Northern Ireland’s museums—even museums that were set up specifically to tell its story.
Given this backdrop, it is essential that nothing is done here which tends to detract from the status of Ulster Scots as a strong and distinct cultural identity. Ensuring that the name of the commissioner refers to the Ulster Scots and Ulster British traditions—plural—is a small change but would be significant in ensuring proper recognition and respect for diverse groups within our society.
5.45 pm
I turn to Amendments 23 and 26, in my name and those of my colleagues. The Government should be aware that the concerns that the unionist community is being short-changed in the definition of the Ulster Scots/Ulster British traditions are not just on the basis of concerns about lesser funding provisions, as we will see in a later group, or non-existent enforcement powers, but on the basis that the principal Ulster Scots/Ulster British definition has been truncated. NDNA was very clear that Ulster Scots should be recognised as a minority national identity within the UK and in the context of the relevant international instruments: the Council of Europe’s Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, all of which are mentioned in proposed new Section 78R(3).
This is hugely important because the scope of the FCNM and the UNCRC extends well beyond language, arts and literature and therefore the effect of including such a caveat is to limit, in a manner that is deeply concerning, the ability of the commissioner to support the effective realisation of human rights.
The proposal in my amendment is to broaden the scope of the commissioner from language, arts and literature to language, culture and heritage so that it better reflects not only the breadth of the international instruments but the view of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the established practice and precedent since the St Andrew’s agreement. The NIHRC has observed:
“The NIHRC advises that the recognition of Ulster Scots as a national minority cannot be reduced to language, but rather encompasses culture and heritage.”
Addressing the Bill specifically, it stated:
“The NIHRC recommends that other aspects of Ulster-Scots culture including heritage, religion, history, music, dance are also … within the Commissioner’s mandate”
under this section.
The St Andrews agreement mandated the amendment of the Northern Ireland Act to require the production of an Ulster Scots strategy. Moreover, the framing of that duty referred to the enhancement and development of the Ulster Scots language, heritage and culture, rather than art or literature. Section 28D(2) of the Northern Ireland Act states:
“The Executive Committee shall adopt a strategy setting out how it proposes to enhance and develop the Ulster Scots language, heritage and culture.”
As if this was not enough, we also see a departure from the language of the NDNA agreement in the sense that no reference is made in the Bill to the role of the Ulster Scots/Ulster British commissioner in relation to cultural activities and facilities in the round. Media and tourism initiatives were mentioned in the NDNA text at paragraph 5.15, which states:
“The Commissioner’s remit will include the areas of education, research, media, cultural activities and facilities and tourism initiatives.”
Amendment 26 ensures that the education, research, media, culture and tourism aspects of the commissioner’s role are placed at the heart of the statutory definition.
None of this is to deny that NDNA mentioned an arts and literature remit; the point is simply that in order to be faithful to the breath of what was agreed directly and implicitly within the national minority community commitment, the reduction of the remit to language, arts and literature does not work. I hope the Minister will feel able to support these four modest amendments. I beg to move.