Good Friday Agreement: Impact of Brexit

Lord Bew Excerpts

Thursday 11th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for securing this debate. I am well aware of his great experience of Northern Ireland and the time that he has given to it.

As a remain voter, I do not find it difficult to accept that the decision to leave the European Union has had destabilising effects in Northern Ireland. There is really no question about that; none the less, I am not sure that they have been carefully defined in this debate, nor has there been any attempt to sketch a way forward, given that this has happened. However, it is not just Brexit; alongside it is a perfect storm of the Irish language, the renewable heating initiative scandal and other issues relating to laws on abortion and gay marriage. All those things have come together in a perfect negative storm. It is not just Brexit but Brexit is the biggest issue and possibly the one that makes it harder to ensure the return of Stormont.

I accept that there needs to be clear evidence that there will be no hard border. I think it is in almost any conjuncture extremely unlikely—almost inconceivable—that there will be a hard border, but we need to have that in place. It needs to be visible for people before we are likely to get Stormont back.

I acknowledge the scale of the difficulty, but we have a way of talking about this that is not totally precise, and there is an ethical balance which is awry. For example, twice in this House today the fact that the DUP did not support the Good Friday agreement has been referred to. Sinn Féin also did not support it on the day. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was there on that day, and he knows it. The noble Lords, Lord Murphy and Lord Trimble, know it. It did not support it. The agreement came into being in effect as the result of a vote, a decision and an alliance between the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP. Sinn Féin brilliantly claimed later that it owned it, but it did not support it on the day, and, without the vote of the SDLP, we would not have had it. We do not owe the Good Friday agreement to Sinn Féin’s vote.

But in this House it is only the DUP that was not there on the day. This indicates a certain sliding of the moral scales as we talk about this. It is a small indication, but an important one. As a matter of substance, just read Sir Jeffrey Donaldson this week. There is no doubt that the DUP has come to terms with the Good Friday agreement in substance—that it had effectively come to terms with it was part of the agreement on supply and consent with the Government. So there is a way of talking about this which skews the balance in a way that is not accurate.

If I may say so, there is no proper way of discussing the impact on the psychology of Northern nationalists, which I accept has been harmful, particularly on the Catholic middle class—perhaps more so than on any other section of Catholic society. The Good Friday agreement allowed people to consider themselves citizens of Europe—possibly evolving towards Irish unity, possibly not—and continuing to enjoy the National Health Service and their pension from London as before. It allowed a very happy set of slightly conflicting assumptions in people’s minds—but people like to live with slightly conflicting happy assumptions in their minds—and it has rather woken that up, because it is a certain type of assertion of the United Kingdom as a separate state, which is a problem. On balance, historically, I support the secret, very tricky—you could say dangerous—negotiations in March 1993 between the Major Government and the IRA. Let me point out to noble Lords the message from the British Government on 23 March, two days after the Warrington bomb which killed children, to the IRA leadership and Martin McGuinness:

“The final solution is union. It is going to happen anyway. The historical train—Europe—determines that. We are committed to Europe. Unionists will have to change … The island will be as one”.


Nobody disputes that this message was actually sent. One can talk about whether it was wise or not—I can understand why it was.

None the less, the truth of the matter is that we are now not committed to Europe. The message is extinct. It is dead. It is an ex-message. That is the reality of where we are now, and life has changed for a lot of nationalists in Northern Ireland who would like to believe that something like that message represents the truth of things. We have to accept that. That is why we have to be very careful to put in counterbalances. For example, I think the British Government should support completely the Irish Government’s recent suggestion that people in Northern Ireland should be able to vote in the Irish presidential election. We need to look at ways of bringing the scales back towards a compromise.

The fundamental choice referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is still there, however. If a majority of Northern Ireland votes to join the Irish Republic, it can so do. That part of the Good Friday agreement is still absolutely in place, and it is accepted now by the European Union that the so-called East German solution is available: if Northern Ireland votes to join the Irish Republic, it will automatically join the European Union. Fundamentally, the glide path that nationalists like to live with for constitutional change of that sort on a democratic basis is still in place and in no way changed by Brexit. It is very important to note that.

The noble Lord, Lord Trimble, rightly made the point that there is not enough discussion in London about the dangers to the Irish economy of a no-deal Brexit. But the clatter in Dublin now is massive. All the think tanks, all the serious economists, all the newspaper headlines, the central bank headlines and ex-ambassadors all say how dangerous a no-deal Brexit would be to the Irish economy. This therefore means that there really is an exceptional impetus on us all to compromise at this point. Regarding the outlines of that compromise, the poorly negotiated transitional agreement of December 8 none the less contains language in paragraphs 49 and 50, and even just in paragraph 49—the European press point out that Michel Barnier always looks slightly ill when paragraph 50 is mentioned, because he does not like it and is trying to wriggle out of it—laying its emphasis on the consent principles. When you are talking about future regulatory change in Northern Ireland, it must be done in a way that protects the Good Friday agreement. You cannot protect it by riding roughshod over the principle of consent as it affects the unionist community.

It seems to me perfectly possible to draw up—as is probably necessary as a fig leaf for the Irish Government—some kind of legal provision, which would, as long as it keeps to the real principles of paragraphs 49 and 50, embody those principles, and be something that we could all live with, as long as we stay on 49 and 50, and not on the later, more fanciful, proposals of March from the European Union. That is a critical thing to bear in mind. The Good Friday agreement was not an agreement—I even used to hear Irishmen talking about it being “signed”, showing that they do not understand what happened—between nationalists and a few human rights lawyers. It was an agreement between nationalists and unionists. It is as simple as that, and the agreement can still be made the basis for a reasonable historic compromise.

Finally on this point, the White Paper, which I know many people dislike, clearly moves substantially towards resolving this question, because of the degree of regulatory and customs alignment it proposes with the European Union. I understand if any noble Lords hate it—I have good friends who intensely dislike it—but it is not possible to say that the Government are not driven by a policy that the Prime Minister says day in and day out that she is pushing in large measure because she thinks it helps to solve the Irish question. It is clear that it effectively removes a number of the possible regulatory, customs-based and other issues that might arise in the short term. It is as simple as that. It may not happen, but there is no question that it is her intent, and there is no question that that is what it would do if we had a deal based on Chequers.

Northern Ireland Executive: Update

Lord Bew Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I always like being asked specific points. I will correct this if I stray from what I understand to be the case, so I ask for a certain tolerance in what I am about to say. Much will depend on the interpretation of the standing orders that the Assembly has constructed and drafted as to whether it can meet in a different formation or formulation. At present that has not happened, but we are having to think afresh. So if there is indeed a role as part of a functioning wider body, which may draw on trade unions, churches or others to bring those voices to bear—whether it meets in a different room or in a different place entirely—none of these things can be dismissed. There needs to be an opportunity for those voices to be heard, but—this is the important point—voices that continue to repeat the worn phrases of the past and bring nothing to refresh the future are no advantage to us in this regard. We need to have new voices with a new focus. If we cannot have that, bringing Assembly voices into it would be a retrograde step—but if they can think afresh, those voices will be welcomed to the wider debate. I will correct that if I am not fully accurate.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

I thank the Minister for reading out the Statement, and I reiterate the points made so forcefully by my noble and right reverend friend Lord Eames. There is great frustration in Northern Ireland about the failure to achieve devolution. The measures being talked about today are an attempt to gently push the line towards devolution. I accept that that is absolutely the purpose. It will not be done tomorrow, but over the next few months there is some chance. It probably awaits the resolution of key questions on Brexit. Everything in the legislation gently helps.

Let me also say something colder and more brutal, which has already been referenced in the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Hain. We are moving towards direct rule by proxy. I do not regret the clarity of this, because people who are holding up devolution need to remember that there is a fantasy life in Northern Ireland politics. I have discussed the Buick case and the judgment with the Minister. I am very unhappy with the legal judgment in that case, but the people of Northern Ireland can live with a situation where the United Kingdom supports the Northern Ireland economy to the sum of £10 billion a year but cannot make any reasonable decisions to prevent extravagant economic waste. That cannot go on for ever, and that is why the House is proposing legislation to deal with that.

Equally, there is legislation about the necessity to call an election in the event of a crisis in the Assembly. That legislation has sat on the statute book and been ignored. We live with the ludicrous anomaly that we have legislation on elections but nobody pays it the slightest attention. At least that has been cleared up, too. So we are doing something a little tough here as well. But, in my view, these moves of necessity towards better administration, which are inevitably taking at least half a step towards direct rule, are important for those who want devolution back, and to make people realise that this cannot go on for ever.

I congratulate the Government on sharpening up realities in the Northern Irish debate.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

The noble Lord is right to recognise what the Statement represents, which is to provide a safe space in which we can focus on the necessary elements of delivering a sustainable Executive. He is right, again, about the gentle push. But I have discovered that it is easier to give a gentle push to things on castors, so you can move them in a real direction rather than continuing to try to shove against resistance. We need therefore to be aware that if people are resisting and pushing back, we will make no progress at all.

It is correct that there is legislation on the statute book with regard to elections. The purpose of the Statement is to reflect on that and create space on which that election will not be called upon. The reality remains the same: if we are unable to deliver during this period, we will have to move very swiftly towards alternatives. Whether the parliamentary arithmetic will change after another election remains to be seen, but if it does not and we find ourselves ever further along that route towards the very thing we are stumbling towards by proxy, which we are trying desperately to avoid, we need to recognise that good governance is borne of those from the Province recognising what is needed.

Whether there is waste that needs to be addressed wholesale, these things must be done by the critical endeavour of those who are elected to do so, with those individuals held to account and, when they are found wanting, voted out. It must be the functioning aspect of any democracy to deliver what should be good governance—and, indeed, what the people of any democracy would wish to have.

Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Troubles

Lord Bew Excerpts

Wednesday 5th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, much has been said tonight that is critical of the Government. I think we have to accept one thing: they are in a difficult position. They are caught and linked in to the hard-won Stormont House agreement. At this difficult moment, the Government will not walk away from the only semblance of an agreement between the parties, the Irish Government, and so on. However, we will be where we are now for several months.

The Secretary of State, in talking about the legacy arrangements, has made the point that above all we must promote reconciliation. That is impossible in these particular arrangements. I note, by the way, that one of the key people in the Democratic Unionist Party has already moved away in public from the key paragraph 34 in the legacy section of the Stormont House agreement.

Some movement is now going on. I do not know where the chips will fall, but these arrangements will not bring about any form of reconciliation. I draw the attention of noble Lords to Dr Maguire, the police ombudsman, who is no stooge of the British state. He is causing a great deal of irritation to many people retired from the services. He said recently that we are stuck and are making no progress towards resolution. He makes the very important point that in two of his investigations, in which he decided that there was no collusion, the families would not accept that and could not come to terms with it. It made no difference, so he carried out an investigation. He is well known for being, to say the least, critical of the security forces at times. He says to the families, “Sorry, there is nothing there”, and they do not accept it. Why are we then considering a huge set of institutions to just reproduce this experiment into the future?

Northern Ireland Budget (No. 2) Bill

Lord Bew Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee negatived (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 18th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I first thank the Minister for giving us the statement today. I know how reluctant he was to do that, and he has done the best that can be done with what is essentially an impossible and depressing task. My remarks are designed to help ensure that a year from now he does not have to do it again, and I hope that he will accept them in that context, and that spirit.

The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, mentioned the retirement of David Ford. May I say how strongly I echo those remarks? I, and other Members of your Lordships’ House who sit on the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, will greatly miss him. I am glad that the noble Baroness paid him that tribute, because she was absolutely right. The devolution of policing and justice was a difficult, complex, dangerous task, and he played a major role in getting it right.

I support the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, about health, and I add one footnote, which is a comment on devolution as well as on the period of direct rule. Everybody in the United Kingdom knows that we are told that we have such major problems with our health service because of our ageing population. But that does not apply in Northern Ireland. Ours is a relatively youthful population, so there is a question mark over why the figures are as dire as the noble Lord said—and they are dire. This is as difficult and sensitive an issue as the noble Lord said, and the need for a policy is pressing. His analogy with how welfare reform was handled not long ago was interesting and powerful.

As is openly stated in paragraph 43 of the helpful Explanatory Notes to the Bill, we are meeting on the wilder shores of the Sewel principle. This has been made an even more difficult moment by the recent judgment of the judiciary in the Buick case, which basically means that, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has just said, civil servants can no longer make decisions. The judgment was provoked by a relatively small case involving an incinerator in County Antrim, but the implications are massive.

On 9 July in the other place the Secretary of State, when questioned by Lady Hermon, the Member for North Down, seemed to be saying that the Government were considering an appeal—or at least that they were not ruling one out—in the context of that ruling. It is now 18 July, and I have not heard that the Government have changed their mind on that; as I understand it, it is still under consideration. I tried to check with the Northern Ireland Office today. I strongly support the case for an appeal. I do not mean this as a criticism of the Northern Ireland judiciary. I have sometimes heard some dry and droll comments in this House about that judiciary, but I do not say this for that reason. I just think that the principle is so important. If we are stuck with a period of direct rule, although it is a bad thing in principle for civil servants to make decisions, it is simply not practical for a modern Government to be in a place in which some basic moves and decisions cannot be made. I know there are issues of expense, but I hope that the consideration that is apparently still going on in the NIO leads to another appeal because it is a ridiculous place for us all to be in.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, also mentioned Brexit. It is the big problem about the restoration of devolution, which we all wish to see. Everybody knows there are a number of other issues. In recent times, the Irish language Act has possibly been the most difficult, but there is also equal marriage, abortion law reform, legacy issues and, in my opinion, libel law reform. They could technically all be dealt with by this House at this time. It would be better if they were dealt with locally as a means of moving this forward, but difficult as all those issues are, the thing that is really causing the blockage is the mood of politics as it is affected by Brexit. It has been polarising in Northern Ireland, not so much, as some speculate, because the unionist middle classes have suddenly decided that they would rather be in the European Union and in Ireland, but the stunning rise in the DUP vote in some of the most prosperous areas of Northern Ireland in the general election makes one realise that there has not been a great mental shift among that class of people, but that Brexit has inflamed and aggravated large sections of even the moderate Catholic and nationalist community. That creates an opportunity for Sinn Féin and therefore it is quite likely that we will not see a return to devolution until this question is moved to a safer place.

I want to put it on record to see whether the Minister agrees that the Chequers White Paper has many problems. People hate it and love it from different angles, but I do not want to engage in that line of debate. I simply want to make the point that the section on Ireland has been taken by many serious commentators north and south, unionist and nationalist, as moving the question of the Irish border towards a saner and better place. Until that is done, we are unlikely to get progress in the talks. I really hope I am wrong, but it is a merit of that paper that many people of different views in Dublin and Belfast seem to be saying that it is going to make handling the Northern Ireland border easier. I say that as somebody who believes that it is a serious question but that it has been exaggerated.

I groaned when I had to listen to the Irish Foreign Minister saying on “The Andrew Marr Show” a few weeks ago that there could be no checks on the island of Ireland. Anybody who knows anything about travelling in Ireland knows that at this moment, before Brexit, there are significant checks on the Irish side of the border. I am quite certain that many millions of people listening to Marr simply did not realise how inflated that rhetoric was. I can see that the debate around the border has been inflated, but that does not mean it is not a real problem. A lot of people previously alarmed by it believe that the proposals in the White Paper help shift us towards a better, safer place in terms of the Irish debate on the border. This may be helpful. I will be interested in the Minister’s views.

Finally, the Government have decided, quite correctly, to hold a meeting of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference with the Irish Government later this month. It is in the Good Friday agreement, and for that reason, among others, this meeting should be held. It is perfectly clear—I will be interested in the Minister’s views—that fundamentally in the agreement that body is designed to focus on east-west issues rather than on the internal affairs of Northern Ireland. Let me remind the House, as this document does with its talk of £8 billion or £9 billion, that without the UK subvention, which is probably somewhat more than that, Northern Ireland just does not function. It is paid by the United Kingdom taxpayer, not by taxpayers of any other country. It is true that the Irish Republic could take up this slack but, as Irish papers have said in recent days, that would require paying no pensions to anybody in the island of Ireland, and no Irish Government are going to decide to take up the slack from the UK taxpayer and not pay any pensions to anybody in the island of Ireland. For economic reasons alone, it is appropriate that the focus of this meeting should primarily be on east-west grounds. That would be entirely right and within the context of the Good Friday agreement.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Bew Excerpts

Report: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 2nd May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to comment on proposed new subsection (2)(a) and (b) of the amendment and to speak in the spirit of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. As a number of noble Lords have said, it is quite true that you could construct a backdrop, to use the phrase of the moment, which says that these amendments do not mean quite what they appear to mean. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, is much more serious in saying that it is the nature of Irish political culture that, if we do not at some future point live up to the terms of what apparently is in these amendments, with their strong hint of joint authority between the Irish Republic and Great Britain, we can be certain that Irish public opinion will take the view that, once again, we have betrayed them and raised expectations. You can be absolutely certain about that. I absolutely accept the good faith of those Peers who have said that, no, it does not mean that, if you read it this way—but it does not matter, because you are dealing in this case with Irish politics.

I want to disagree in one small respect with the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, when he said that a Fianna Fáil/Sinn Féin coalition was more likely than one with Fine Gael. Actually, most commentary in Dublin says that they are equally likely propositions. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, made the point that, if you know anything about Irish history, you will know that it is ridiculous, a Fine Gael/Sinn Féin coalition. But we are living in new times; history does not matter—it is the current moment. In the last few weeks, in the Irish press, an email correspondence has been leaked between the Taoiseach’s office in Dublin and Sinn Féin, on a most sensitive matter, showing an intimacy of spirit, which nobody would have believed possible from a Fine Gael Government, and which certainly would not have happened a few years ago, when the noble Lord, Lord Patten, was a distinguished Minister in Northern Ireland.

So we are now living in new times. I remind this House that the recommendation of our own Select Committee on Europe is that this matter should be dealt with by negotiations ongoing between British and Irish officials—that was going on under the previous Prime Minister in Dublin and was stopped by the new Prime Minister. When noble Lords ask why we are making so little progress in solving this problem, not the least of the reasons is that the recommendation made by our own Select Committee of quiet negotiations between British and Irish officials has been vetoed by this current and new Irish Government. We are living in new times, and historical considerations—much as I hate to say it as a former professor of history—are not actually relevant. This is the sharpness of the current moment.

The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, is also quite right to say that, although there is a great deal of spirit behind this amendment which one can fully respect, the failure to mention the actual Good Friday agreement as opposed to the Act is a problem, because the Act does not signal in a way that the Good Friday agreement does that the Good Friday agreement was dependent on the agreement between the parties. One great achievement of that agreement between the parties was, for example, the new north-south arrangements for co-operation in agriculture, and one of the most remarkable things about the current moment is the tacit and explicit acceptance by the Democratic Unionist Party, which opposed these things at the time and now accepts them. When they say that they do not want a border in the Irish Sea, they have no opposition whatever to the ongoing north-south co-operation that has carried on. It is, therefore, hobnail boots to put it into this amendment; it is unnecessary and over the top and, once again, has the flavour of joint authority. As the noble Lord, Lord King, says, the whole success of policy since 1985 has been based, at least partly, on separating out the British Government’s intentions from the concept of joint authority.

My final point is on technology. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Patten, and indeed other supporters of this amendment are very sceptical about the possible role of technology. I heard his witty reference to the non-frictionless chickens. Last year, however, Bertie Ahern—the former Irish Taoiseach with intimate experience of the peace process—said that the solution was technology on the border plus turning a blind eye to certain forms of smaller trade. That is the former Taoiseach, not a Tory Brexiteer. The Swedish former deputy head of customs, Lars Karlsson, who has been referred to already, gave evidence to the relevant Select Committee in the other place and said that it was possible not to have any infrastructure on the border—key to the technology report. I know that noble Lords dismiss this as magical thinking, but I am certain that there are noble Lords in this House who will have their lives extended by some technological operation that today is magical thinking. We live in a world that is transformed daily by magical thinking and new technological developments. The reason I say this is the vagueness of the phrase “border arrangements” in this amendment. I do not think there is a legal backstop to this. What do we mean exactly by border arrangements?

One possible technological solution, which has been discussed on both sides of the border, is that you carry out any check that may be necessary—which, by the way, would be a really tiny quantity, if you know the amount of checks currently carried out on all our borders—maybe 20 miles in on both sides. This may or may not be a good idea, and it may be the case that there is no technological solution. That is not my point. Does this amendment mean that we cannot discuss any possible technological solutions that may or may not be available? I think that those who tabled the amendment have to explain what they mean by border arrangements. Does it just mean something that happens on that narrow tiny span of the border, or does it cover other possible developments, some of which might be quite benign but might at any rate be worthy of consideration? It is the ambiguity of that term that worries me.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)]

My Lords, I have my name to this amendment with considerable misgivings, but the misgivings will perhaps shed some lights on why I think it is nevertheless important. Very early on after the referendum, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said at a meeting at which I was present that there would be no return to a hard border. This has become a stock phrase, a mantra, but is deeply ambiguous. Some people imagine, “Oh well, at least we are not thinking of going back to the worst of the Troubles, with the particular sort of border there was then”. I am sure it did mean that, but when I asked the Secretary of State how, her answer was, “By passports”. We have been talking about goods and what may be installed at borders to deal with the movement of goods. I believe that, if we are thinking about the principles of the Good Friday agreement, it is the movement of people and respect for people that is really much more important. That answer of “passports”, illuminating as it was, does not tell us who has to have a passport or when they have to show it and to whom. We will need answers to these questions if that “no hard border” intention is to be redeemed. In short, I do not believe that the intention is adequately served by talking about technologies for observing the movement of goods. I am sure that they are interesting and revolutionary—and I am equally sure that we have many people in the island of Ireland who would know how to get round them and subcontract to people below the radar.

If we are to retain the confidence and esteem of people in the island of Ireland—in the north and in the Republic—the important thing is that people feel that the deeper things are honoured, which of course include what we still refer to as the common travel area, with the particular rights it gives to citizens of the Republic in this country. Those rights must be preserved. They are fundamental to the economy of the island of Ireland, and are woven into the fabric of our lives. These people are not foreigners. An old phrase from the former Soviet Union, “near abroad”, comes to mind. This is hardly “abroad”—it is very near abroad. We know these people. But here is the rub: “By passports”. Many of them live here, were born in the Republic and do not have passports, because when you go by boat you do not need one; or they have not been there in a while, or not by air. Passports, biometrically adequate ones, are quite expensive. We have to face the reality that many people will not be able to produce the documentation they need to exercise what amounts to almost dual citizenship. This is nothing to do with the fact that some noble Lords have taken out an Irish passport. I will myself, because I have a birthright to it, but I have never bothered—it has not been important. That is the situation, and we have to think about those people who cannot document that they are Irish. If Brexit happens, I presume that we will not wish to extend the same rights to work, to NHS treatment and to vote, which Irish people get here, to people from other countries who come perhaps via the Irish Republic.

Therefore, we need to have—I am sorry—passports or ID cards for everybody in this situation. This is the human rub that we need to think of before we start wondering about new technologies for the goods which, after all, do not move independently. So let us go back to thinking that the point of this amendment, ultimately, is respect for the principles of the Good Friday agreement, which has made such a difference to life in Northern Ireland, and which means respect for all the people who might be affected by change. We do not want another version of Windrush for Irish citizens living here.

Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Bill

Lord Bew Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 27th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I offer my support to the Government for the broad thrust of the legislation this afternoon. I want to address two aspects. On the Northern Ireland Assembly Members (Pay) Bill, the Government have been very careful and have calibrated not to take action that would precipitately destroy the Northern Irish political class. On one level it looks vaguely absurd to pay people not to do their jobs, but we have a genuinely difficult situation in Northern Ireland and it is not the individual responsibility of a very large number of the Assembly Members that no accommodation has been reached between Sinn Féin and the DUP to allow the Assembly to be reinstated. The Government have taken a careful and wise approach to this. In particular, the point already made about research staff is a good one.

Having said that, I listened carefully to the Minister’s words and I understand completely why the Government do not want to do anything that smells of fully fledged, all-singing, all-dancing direct rule. On the other hand, he said that the Government will not ignore or walk away from their responsibility to govern Northern Ireland. A number of legacy issues have been discussed in this House this afternoon on which there is cross-party support in Westminster and Northern Ireland. There is also a smaller issue, of interest to quite a few of us, which is simply a decision on whether the Commonwealth Youth Games can take place in Belfast in 2021. It again has cross-party support in the other place. I should like to hear from the Minister whether, for example, on an issue such as that, the Government acknowledge that they may well have to take the decision themselves, although we all hope that they will not have to.

My most important point this afternoon concerns the transparency of this legislation. The Government have little choice but to move ahead on the budget in this way, but the Minister may be aware that there has been comment in the local press about the terseness of information. John Simpson, the distinguished economist, formerly of Queen’s University Belfast, made the point that it is difficult to assess some of these meanings without five-year tables and to work out exactly what we are talking about in real-terms expenditure. Indeed, he poses the question: seven of the nine departments are suffering real-terms cuts, so what does that actually mean?

The Government are entirely right not to want to move towards anything that looks like all-singing, all-dancing direct rule. On the other hand, to provide information about the public finances of Northern Ireland to the people of Northern Ireland is a positive thing, and more could be done here. The blog “Research Matters”, produced by the Northern Ireland Assembly Research and Information Service, again makes the point that the latest government statement makes proper full comparisons very difficult. In this interim period, it may be helpful to debate some of those issues to spell out exactly what is going on in the public finances of Northern Ireland.

By the way, there are difficult questions for the people of Northern Ireland. Why is our health service expenditure rising? We all know that health service expenditure rises in the rest of the UK largely on the grounds of the ageing population. We have a younger population, but still our health service expenditure rises. Why, when our unemployment is now so relatively low, are we spending 20% more on social security than the rest of the United Kingdom? Those are real issues—and, in the interim, the transparency debate and the production of more figures showing what the budget really means are not stopping the return of Stormont. Those are all things that will mean, when the new Ministers come back, as I firmly believe and devoutly hope they will, that they are better informed than they currently are. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, is right: one of the essential points about the RHI scandal is an unusual degree of illiteracy about the public finances that seems to affect the administrative and political class of Northern Ireland. This period should be used at least to address and challenge it more than we are doing. Certainly, the figures that are now being released are just too terse and do not perform the service that the public need. I have already raised with the Minister the question of knowing the education figures but not the balance between higher education and the rest of the sector. I look for some help from the Minister on this matter.

Northern Ireland Finances

Lord Bew Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and thank him for the trenchant defence he has once again given this afternoon of the 1998 Belfast agreement. It is vital that he does so and that others recognise and listen to what he has to say.

I wish to press him on a point of detail in the Statement. I declare an interest as a former teacher in the two universities in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State’s Written Statement of 8 March says that there is an increase in real terms in the education budget. However, on the current figures, there is no way of working out what is happening in that regard in the higher education sector as against the rest of the education sector. I do not wish to be churlish about this because this budget is tremendously important. The £10.4 billion is crucial to Northern Ireland and is a clear benefit of the union to the people of Northern Ireland. Tomorrow we will hear a lot about the European Union. I think its contribution is 1% of that, and that quite a lot of that 1% is recycled United Kingdom money.

I am grateful for this budget but we need a little more clarity on it, if possible. The Secretary of State’s Statement says that later in the year there will be more detail on it. I urge against the idea that giving us that kind of detail is a move towards what is now called in the lexicon “full-fat” direct rule. I think this could be done without raising these theoretical or ideological problems. I wish to press the Minister on this as there is great concern about it. For example, as regards higher education, there are many rumours in Northern Ireland that the Government are setting their face against postgraduate funding in the universities in Northern Ireland and envisage introducing major changes there. We cannot tell anything about that from the Secretary of State’s Written Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, also referred to issues on which the Government could give us a little more information. I hope they will do so later in the year.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bew, very much for his intervention. I am trying to avoid full-fat anything at the moment and am looking for the semi-skimmed approach as far as I can. The noble Lord made a legitimate and appropriate request. I believe we will be able to furnish him with the appropriate information very soon. It is absolutely essential that the people of Northern Ireland are able to see how the money is crafted and allocated. I would much prefer to be wholly scrutinised by an Executive founded and operating sustainably in Belfast but, in the absence of that, I believe your Lordships’ House also needs to be able to scrutinise this issue adequately. I believe information will imminently be provided that will allow us to do that very thing.

Transparency of Donations and Loans etc. (Northern Ireland Political Parties) Order 2018

Lord Bew Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his statement today and express my support for this proposed legislation. I declare my interest as chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. In our fifth report, on The Funding of Political Parties in the United Kingdom in 1998, in our 13th report of 2011 and in a statement in April 2014, we called for the changes that the Government are finally bringing about.

From the point of view of transparency in our electoral law, this is a wise move: whether it has been delayed too long because of exaggerated fears about violence, I am not quite sure. It is useful to remember that, although at times we now hear people claiming that the peace process is on the verge of collapse, we all seem confident enough to do this, which would suggest that, whatever the tensions that arise out of Brexit, the peace process might not actually be on the verge of collapse.

I have one issue to raise that has already been alluded to by the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord Browne of Belmont, and that is the issue of foreign donations. The truth of the matter is that our electoral law does not only impose a demand for transparency—and on this, we are now bringing Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom—but is opposed to foreign donations in principle, and we are bending it radically here. The Minister used the laconic phrase, “certain Irish citizens”. The point about this is that, as one of his predecessors from the Labour Party said at this Dispatch Box in the summer of 2007 in exactly this context, Ireland has a very capacious definition of its citizenry. It is a fact that you can be an Irish citizen living in New York city, having never set foot in Northern Ireland, and be contributing money under the terms of what we have agreed.

I completely understand the unease that the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and others have expressed about a particular donation connected to the Brexit campaign. That unease is entirely legitimate, but the truth is that it is really as nothing compared to the fact that we now have a situation in which the Government might conceivably fall, if the seven Sinn Féin Members turn up in Parliament, because of the votes of MPs who were elected with money from foreign sources. This is obviously a rather larger problem looming on the horizon. That is worth alluding to, because the reason why we have not in recent years—in both Houses of Parliament—been too concerned over this breaching of the principle on foreign donations has been to do with the fact that the Members of Parliament concerned do not actually turn up. We cannot assume that this will carry on for ever, and I think it is very unlikely that it will carry on for ever.

There are two problems: it is not only the Brexit donation. There is a point on the other side of the ledger, which is likely to be considerably more important and sensitive in the future. Can the Minister respond on what he means by “certain Irish citizens”? I accept that he has explained the terms under which they would give, but are we still in the framework, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said 10 and a half years ago, of the capacious definition of Irish citizenship? If so, this is foreign donation in the normal sense that our law disapproves of strongly.

Although this is not a happy circumstance, the Government are right to, as it were, look the other way and tolerate it. We are in a very difficult moment with Brexit. There is great sensitivity among Irish nationalists that the balance of identity has been shifted against them in certain ways. I regard some of those fears as exaggerated, but it does not really matter; that is what is in their mind. The Government are quite right as part of their acknowledgement of the nationalist identity in Northern Ireland to leave the door open for certain Irish citizens to donate. However, they should say, “We are doing something quite remarkable here. We shouldn’t just stick it away in a corner. We are doing our best to be fair across the border in Northern Ireland and we are taking a bit of a risk which could be highly controversial. We are doing it because of our commitment to equality of esteem within Northern Ireland”. If one is going to make a concession at this point, there is no point in hiding it away; one might as well openly declare that the Government are doing something generous, risky and, in my opinion, absolutely right. However, they should say, “This is a broad-minded move on our part”.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)]

My Lords, as we have heard, the draft order provides for the full publication of donations and loans received after 1 July 2017, which is the bone of contention that we have with it. I absolutely agreed with my noble friends Lady Suttie and Lord Tyler, who outlined the problem so clearly.

All have to abide by the rules that govern information on political donations and loans in the rest of the UK, so Northern Ireland—which is still part of the UK, is it not?—must now abide by the same rules as everyone else. We are all obliged to publish such donations quarterly, so it is now time for Northern Ireland to do the same.

The real problem, of course, is when the measure should be imposed. The confidentiality clauses, arising out of fears of intimidation of donors, were always considered to be a temporary measure, and we can see that the people of Northern Ireland have always wanted transparency in this matter—but it appears that the two main political parties have felt otherwise.

In January 2017, all parties agreed to this measure. On these Benches, we have spoken many times—and certainly for as long as I have been a Member of this House and speaking on Northern Ireland matters; I am in my 19th year—about transparency being essential at the earliest possible time. It took a member of the Alliance Party in Northern Ireland, the former MLA for Belfast East, Naomi Long, to remove some of the severe restrictions about disclosure in 2014, in the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, where the Secretary of State had the power to give the Electoral Commission permission to publish the details of individual donors if he or she felt it expedient to do so.

So it is safe to say that the Alliance Party has urged transparency for many years. I well remember dealing with legislation coming out of the Belfast agreement where these Benches echoed those views—but to no avail until now. I hope that it is accepted that all political parties in Northern Ireland now see the importance of transparency rather than using the old arguments against it.

This order, however, should be backdated to 2014, especially as we see the incredible lack of progress on any matters dealing with Northern Ireland. I am afraid that the DUP, in particular, cannot have it both ways: being a part of the UK but not wishing to abide by any laws that do not suit its particular brand of politics. When it suits the DUP to receive a huge donation of money—which, we understand, was not used in Northern Ireland during the referendum campaign —but not to have the legislation applied to a time before it accepted that donation, it is time to ask why the Government went along with this shabby and entirely political manoeuvre in allowing a later date for the order to be implemented. So will the Minister answer the questions from my noble friends Lady Suttie and Lord Tyler about when the Government intend to bring in the further legislation which will backdate this order to 2014, as strongly recommended by the Electoral Commission? We should be told.

Northern Ireland Update

Lord Bew Excerpts

Tuesday 20th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, makes a very forceful intervention. The details of the discussions that took place between the two principal interlocutors will not be made public. At present the parties agree that, were they to be made public, they might continue to prolong the challenges that they face in trying to secure ongoing agreement. We will honour that approach.

On the broader question of the Belfast agreement and its successor agreements, at their heart is, I hope, a recognition of respect from all the participants—not just the two principal parties but the other parties in Northern Ireland as well. That is why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, in her ongoing dialogue with the two principal parties, recognises very clearly that there are others to be taken into account when we make these positions clear. I hope—I desperately hope—that we can make progress going forward and work on a basis of respect. With the good will that I know exists across Northern Ireland, the urgency brought about by Brexit and the reality of the challenges faced by the various communities in Northern Ireland—whether that be on the economy, education or health—this is the time to deliver an Executive, now more than ever.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement and the rather elegant balance he has achieved between a ringing defence of the Belfast agreement and some wise and sensible words about the immediate future. Does he agree that it is even more important to defend the Good Friday agreement of 1998 at this point, because of the deal that we reached with Europe on 8 December? If paragraphs 49 and 50 of it mean anything, they require a viable working of the institutions and the agreements reached in 1998. It has therefore become the fate of the institutions in Belfast to be caught up with the wider question of the transitional agreement that was reached with the European Union at the beginning of December, so that is an even further reason for the ringing defence that the Minister has offered for the institutions of 1998. I say this knowing that the policy department of the European Parliament has just published an excellent report by Lars Karlsson, the Swedish customs expert, saying that it is possible to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland as there are technical means which will allow that to happen, even without any political settlement. Even so, and despite that important intervention from Europe on this sometimes exaggerated issue, it is vital at this point, because of what our Government said on 8 and 9 December, that the agreement works.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

The noble Lord, Lord Bew, puts his finger upon it. The Good Friday agreement has to work. We are in challenging times right now; there is no question about that. It is right that during this time the voices of Northern Ireland are heard loud and clear and are allowed to speak for themselves. The last thing the people of Northern Ireland need is me speaking for them. They need to be able to articulate the concerns and issues that they live with on a daily basis. The transition agreement is going to be negotiated in coming months. It is right and proper that their voices are heard. Whether they are heard through an Executive, which we hope and pray will be reformed, or whether through individual councillors and MLAs, with all the communities represented, we cannot ignore the voices of those who will stand on the border between ourselves and the European Union. We would be short-sighted and foolish if we did. As I emphasised earlier, I hope that it will be through a reformed Executive, chastened by the 13 months in which they were absent but recognising right now that the clock is ticking and that the voices of Northern Ireland must be part of the ongoing Brexit negotiations.

Brexit: Devolved Administrations

Lord Bew Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, for securing this debate. I listened with great interest to noble Lords who spoke about the thesis of a power grab and the argument in the Scottish and Welsh Administrations.

The tone of the debate has been subtle, conciliatory and very helpful. However, I add for the sake of balance that I think that our Library briefing would have been improved by a reference to the article submitted to the These Islands forum by an Oxford don, D H Robinson, entitled, Continuity, Devolution, and the EU Withdrawal Bill. There is a slight tendency in the briefing for quotes on all aspects of this problem to head off towards the “Oh, woe is me” tone. Therefore, perhaps a moment of balance is required.

Regarding the problems of the missing leg of devolution—the fact that there is no devolution in Northern Ireland—I wish to take up something mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, when he referred to the LucidTalk poll. I understand exactly what drove him to comment on that at this time. Like him, I voted remain, largely because I thought that leaving would be destabilising for the union—and indeed, I think that it has been destabilising. But it has not been destabilising in quite the way that the noble Lord suggested on the basis of that poll. What it has done is enrage the most moderate Irish nationalists on both sides of the border. It is indisputably a problem. My fears on that, and my support for remaining in the European Union on that basis, have been entirely justified.

However, there is no weakening in support for the union among its supporters. In the last general election, the pro-EU Ulster Unionist Party took a terrible hit while the share of the vote for the Democratic Unionist Party—the Brexit party—went up markedly. The most reliable poll in Northern Ireland, the Life and Times Survey, taken after the referendum, shows that the numbers of those supporting the union and those opposing it remained more or less where they were previously. The LucidTalk poll asked participants, “What do you feel about a hard Brexit?”. The truth is that every citizen in Northern Ireland believes that a hard Brexit means that when they try to drive to Dublin Airport en route to their holiday in Marbella, they will be stopped by a soldier. If you ask people that question, you will get a response which reflects their nervousness. However, I do not think that that is a very likely proposition. So, if the noble Lord will forgive me, that is my comment on his remarks on the LucidTalk poll.

However, there is a point—already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, when he talked about paragraph 49 in the progress report—which is now making the return of devolution important. The agreement made between the Prime Minister and the European Union to allow the development of talks includes an ambiguous paragraph. Until now, Stormont has not contributed to the debate on Brexit. My view is that it would have had little to say and that, until now, we have not lost so much because of this problem, but that we will start to lose out very soon unless we get a return of Stormont. That is because in the preferred solution in paragraph 49—which is ambiguous and a fudge—the UK Government promise, in the absence of wider solutions which might otherwise be negotiated, to,

“maintain full alignment … which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement”.

There are big arguments about what that means. As far as I can see there is no common agreement between the UK Government and the European Union about what the word “alignment” means. Some, like Andrew Neil, believe that it is purely local in its significance, for example when it refers to Ireland, while those like the well-known economist David Blanchflower believe that it is a wider understanding between the European Union and the UK. However, there is no doubt or ambiguity about the central role in this formulation of the protection of the 1998 agreement—the Good Friday agreement, which set up Stormont. What is not in doubt is that the heart of the agreement is that the current north-south arrangements, which envisage certain points of harmonisation or alignment, or whatever word you want, by agreement between north and south, will continue and will be the core of a resolution of this question. However, if there is no Stormont, the commitment in paragraph 49 becomes ethereal indeed. There needs to be a working Stormont and there need to be the models of consent and agreement that have developed quite effectively over the last 19 years. The north-south arrangements have been remarkably uncontroversial. However, Stormont needs to be in place for this compromise to have any meaning at all.

I conclude by wishing the new Secretary of State good luck in her work in trying to bring about the return of devolution, because it is now very important. She has some cards. The promise of a reduction in corporation tax for Belfast could be significant, and the great advantage that the Irish Republic has had in this matter is now under threat from the increasing and intense militancy from France, Germany and the European Commission against the Republicans’ tax arrangements. You could also have a more level playing field in the island of Ireland. That must be an attraction for the return of the devolved Assembly.

Even in the event of a failure to negotiate, it is not just a question of saying that the British Government are against joint authority—which they are. The Government must make it clear that they do not have in their mind’s eye any form of future settlement that is a conversation between two Governments but from which unionists are excluded. Although I do not believe—for reasons that we in Westminster are all aware of—that it is in the British Government’s mind’s eye, I do not think that the Irish Government fully understand that. They have to do that for two reasons: first, so that the nationalists do not believe that they can sit on their hands and will then be rewarded by something that they can call joint authority; and secondly, because the unionist community will have to make concessions in areas such as Irish language, and they need to have the confidence to be able to do that.