Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Troubles

Lord Empey Excerpts

Wednesday 5th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

On 19 December 2013, two senior DUP representatives, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson and Emma Little-Pengelly, came to persuade my party to support their idea for investigating the legacy of the Troubles. The Historical Investigations Unit was the centrepiece of their plan. They expected that it would give victims a better experience. These proposals became part of the Stormont House agreement and, subsequently, on 28 September 2015, Sir Jeffrey said:

“The Stormont House Agreement provides a good deal for victims and survivors”.


As my colleague Mike Nesbitt pointed out recently:

“The fatal flaw with the HIU is that it excludes many more victims than it is designed to include. Specifically, it is proposed it will investigate only 1,700 of the 3,500-plus Troubles-related killings and none of the 47,000 injured”.


Sir Jeffrey was wrong to include survivors as no survivor will have access to the HIU. Imagine if the chief constable said that the PSNI will investigate only crashes in which someone was killed and ignore cases where six people suffered life-changing injuries—there would rightly be uproar.

The former Justice Minister, David Ford, made clear his assessment of the likely effectiveness of the HIU. On 7 October 2015, in answer to a question on the likely prosecution rate of the HIU, he said that,

“the HIU might at best produce one or two prosecutions”.

The Government seem to be driven by a false interpretation of how to be compliant with Article 2 of the European convention and have done nothing to challenge this.

Most victims see these proposals as another pay-off to Sinn Féin, to help it rewrite history and hound retired police and soldiers, using records from Kew, assisted by 300 investigators recruited to the HIU, which will become a parallel police force. Terrorists have no records and they will not tell the truth. The Government’s commitment to release records is not matched by the Irish Government, who reserve the right to redact documents.

I call upon the Democratic Unionist Party to withdraw its support for these proposals and not subject those who loyally served the state to a decade of anxiety and anguish as they wait for a knock on the door.

Northern Ireland Budget (No. 2) Bill

Lord Empey 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 Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, one of the primary duties of any elected body, whether it is a local authority, a regional authority or a national parliament, is to deal with budgetary matters, to scrutinise them, to assess them and to determine how budgets are spent. This is the second occasion in a few months when a budget has come before this House which has not been scrutinised or subject to the views of elected representatives, but has been produced here as a fait accompli without any proper scrutiny. I accept the logistics of there being no alternative to having this measure before us today, but it is a sad reflection of the absolute, complete and total failure that has been the hallmark of events in Northern Ireland over the last couple of years—not the last few months. This is not a new phenomenon; it has been happening for some considerable time.

The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, has just reflected on some of the events that have occurred on the ground over the last few weeks. One of the outstanding issues is police pay. We depend on these people, who are out there being shot at, stoned and abused. I quote the Police Federation of Northern Ireland, which has now,

“formally submitted its pay claim for 2018 with no sign of Officers getting what they are entitled under the 2017 recommendations”.

What provision has been made in this budget for a possible pay rise? How is such a pay rise to be implemented, or will the issue just sit here while the morale and position of the police continue to be left in this vacuum? I do not believe that is satisfactory in any set of circumstances, and the House is entitled to hear a positive response from the Minister as to how this is to be dealt with. Other pay rises for other public sector workers have been resolved, but this one has not. There are few groups of people in public service, in Northern Ireland or anywhere else, who are entitled to have their pay rises resolved over the police.

The noble Baroness also mentioned the Hart inquiry, which dealt with historical abuse. We raised this in the debate we had in March. I entirely accept that there is more than state involvement here. There is the responsibility of various Churches and other organisations, which may have insurers, which have to play a role. However, the people who were abused are being abused all over again. Some of them are reaching advanced years. Some of the people who have suffered most have recently died. This is moving away from them, despite the absolute unanimity from all parties and MLAs. There is not a single one that disagrees with the distribution of resources as a result of Judge Hart’s inquiry, yet we are still sitting here paralysed and these people are suffering once again.

I also ask the noble Lord whether any provision has been made in this budget for an appeal that is to be heard on behalf of the RHI boiler owner-operators. They are appealing against the cap that was put on them by the Assembly last year. That appeal is coming up in October. Has any provision been made in these estimates for that appeal being lost because, if it is, we will go back to the regime that was originally installed by the then Minister, Mrs Foster? That could have significant budgetary implications. We know that that whole escapade is one of the most disgraceful and disreputable examples of grossly inefficient government. In fact, as the Minister and her £85,000-a-year adviser admitted that they had never even read these few pages of legislation, the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to some explanation and also to know whether any provision has been made for that.

We also have the biggest challenge of all, which has barely been mentioned. That of course is Brexit, which is coming up. I know the Prime Minister is visiting tomorrow and Friday, and I welcome that. I hope other people will not describe her arrival as a “distraction”, which happened on the last occasion she went. We keep being told by the Minister that the Government are consulting people in Northern Ireland. Are they consulting Members of this House? I do not know which people are being consulted. I hope the Government are consulting, but can they tell me who they are consulting? I do not know, apart obviously from Members of Parliament in the other place, which is right and proper. They are entitled to be consulted, and should be, but they are not the only people who represent or have a view. Who else is being consulted? We are at a critical point and, whatever the shenanigans at the other end of the building earlier this week, this matter is not resolved. There is no guarantee that the present proposals will resolve it. I believe that a functioning Assembly could unlock a series of opportunities to resolve the matters. Sadly, we seem to have abandoned any significant attempt to bring that about.

When we last debated these matters—this is going back into last year—the Minister said in a number of interventions that the Government were going to think outside the box. The sad thing is that the Northern Ireland Office does not have a box outside which one can think. It has a sarcophagus, which was sealed hermetically in ancient times, and no one dares let any light or fresh air into that box to bring in new ideas. There are no new ideas. Has anybody heard of a new idea coming forward in the last number of months? I have heard nothing. We are at a complete standstill and this is being allowed to go on and on. Great damage is being done. When it could be so helpful to the Government’s efforts on Brexit, you would surely think that a serious effort would be made to resolve it and find alternative ways forward. There is no new thinking; that is the problem.

I want to move to another serious matter, which is the question of health. In the last statistics, produced on 31 March, 269,834 people were waiting for a first consultant-led out-patient appointment. That is out of a population of 1.8 million and it is the worst figure by far in any area of the United Kingdom. Of those 269,000 people, 83,392 had been waiting for more than 52 weeks. Imagine that it is your husband, son, daughter or sister who has significant problems. Waiting for a year for an appointment—over a year in many of these cases—is a life-and-death decision. Because Northern Ireland has the worst health figures, not a single health target has been met there in years. Whether it is on waiting for A&E or no matter what, not a single target has been met and these figures are getting progressively worse.

There is one step that the Government could take on health, which would not take a lot of new thinking or set a precedent. The Minister will recall that when Stormont got into trouble over welfare reform, the power over welfare was brought back here and, when the matter had been resolved, it was then sent back to Stormont. We are talking about a Northern Ireland budget, which is the job of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and we have had to take that back here because it is the only way to keep the lights on. I appeal to the Minister, on humanitarian grounds, to do something for these people whose lives are endangered. I have heard anecdotally of cases where I am absolutely convinced that the delays have caused deaths. On humanitarian grounds, I ask him and the Government to take the power over health back here in the short term, pending the final re-establishment of devolution. What more important issue could there possibly be? What political sacrifice are we making? Who is going to be annoyed? Who do we not want to upset by taking the health power, so as to have a Minister who can take decisions—after the decision of the court in the Buick case, which means that civil servants cannot take decisions?

I believe that it would be appropriate to bring that health power back here now. It could be done in September. We could then at least resolve some of the worst aspects of the health issue back home, by having somebody who could take decisions. When devolution is restored—we hope—the power can go back. We have already done that with welfare, and we are now in the middle of doing it for finance. There is no reason why it cannot be done for health. This should not be a political thing; it is a humanitarian thing, and I think there are lots of people back in Northern Ireland who would warmly welcome it.

I appeal to the Minister: if there is any new thinking, please tell us what it is. Even if there is none, this is not something that would arouse great hostility in this House or in the other place, and I believe that it would be warmly welcomed by the people of Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

My Lords, I echo the tributes paid to the noble Baroness, Lady Blood. She grabbed hold of me in my first week in the Northern Ireland Office—I do not mean that figuratively; I mean quite literally—took me aside and explained some issues about education, which she was most passionate about. She will be missed here but I do not doubt that her voice will continue to be heard. I also pay tribute to David Ford. He fulfilled an extraordinary role in the Assembly and did good work. His voice also must continue to be heard in the councils where his experience can be drawn on. I suspect both have long careers ahead of them where they may yet give great service to Northern Ireland.

It is not often that I get my own words repeated back to me but, again, it is a sign that I have been doing this for quite some time that my words are now being interpreted. It is in itself quite a pleasure. I am never quite sure if I did indeed say certain things but I will take them on board.

This was an extraordinarily wide-ranging debate. I think the best way I can address it is like building a jigsaw. I will start with the outside square edges and then try to build into the centre. I will begin with a very categorical statement. It is a rhetorical question. How many more times can I do this? The reality is not many. The budget that rests in Northern Ireland, and which we are moving forward today, is based on the priorities set by the outgoing Administration. However, we are moving further and further away from that particular piece of certainty. It is like pulling apart a piece of toffee. It is still holding together but it is getting more and more tenuous and it will break. We cannot extend it too far.

Some have said that nothing has changed, but actually a lot has. The people of Northern Ireland are growing weary of the situation there. Their priorities are not being acted on. We are having to interpret them—often within legally challenged constraints, with more constraints yet to come—and we are trying our best to deliver against objectives that are becoming more and more difficult to maintain and to deliver at the very time when there are greater challenges ahead.

I will come on to speak about the money within the budget, but I want to stress one other thing. It might seem an odd thing to say in the middle of a debate about the budget, but money is not everything. Money is not the whole answer to this dilemma. The reality remains that we need full scrutiny and a situation where the Civil Service is not exposed to legal challenge, where it is given the support of democratically elected politicians. We also need the nuances that are brought in when we have to interpret how money should be spent, rather than historically gazing over our shoulder at how it was once spent and how we might be able to continue to spend it.

I echo the words of many noble Lords today who said that they speak with some regret. There should be no doubt that I too speak with some regret: I have no desire to be taking forward a budget for Northern Ireland. That responsibility rests more naturally and sensibly elsewhere. I shall try to address some of the more fundamental points raised by a number of noble Lords. It is appropriate, in this week of all weeks, as we recall the violence of the past few days, to consider exactly what a struggle we are witnessing inside Northern Ireland. Many noble Lords have said today that if there is a vacuum, violence will fill it: we are seeing evidence of that again already.

I emphasise that the Government have spent a considerable sum of money. Since 2010, almost £250 million has been invested in additional security services in Northern Ireland. Since 2015, £25 million has been invested through the fresh start agreement. Would it not be great if the money did not have to be spent on those things? Think of what we could do with a quarter of a billion pounds. Yet, sensibly and necessarily, that money has been made available and will continue to be made available. On the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, about the wider legacy issue and pensions, which I know is a matter dear to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who is of course not in his place today, we have referred this to the Victims Commissioner. We are looking for further guidance on this point, but we cannot lose time: we need to be able to move forward, so once we are in receipt of information from the Victims Commissioner we shall take that on board and move forward with it.

When we talk about the importance of re-establishing an Executive, these are matters that rest more comfortably in the devolved sphere, but in the absence of that, we cannot allow this simply to drift. I know that the word “drift” has been used by a number of noble Lords today: we cannot allow that drift to continue. In the past I have used the phrase “thinking outside the box”. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, condemned me by saying that it is not a box but a sarcophagus. From the papers over the last few days, I recall that a great, black sarcophagus has been found in the depths of Alexandria and there is a great fear of what will happen when it is opened. Will it be like some kind of Pandora’s box, when all the horrors of humanity pour forth? As I said a moment ago, I cannot keep doing this; we are at stage where change is coming. The question is what form that change will take.

The noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, put forward a number of issues, not least of which is whether there can be an independent chairman. I note that his noble friend Lord Hain has already referred a name to me in that regard. I emphasise, as I did in the past, that we cannot set aside any of these issues. A number of noble Lords asked about the evolution in Northern Ireland: what can happen next? Noble Lords will know that there are broadly three options: we are at that tripartite road. We can continue to try, as best we can, to string out that piece of toffee, hoping it does not snap in the middle: that is one option. I am the living embodiment of that today. The other options are, of course, to move towards an election, and that is certainly on the table—my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has not in any way ruled that out. The final option, of course, is direct rule. Some today have said that this budget itself represents a form of direct rule. In truth, it represents a necessary and essential step to preserve good government in Northern Ireland.

Noble Lords will be aware that we have reached a critical stage: the previous budget Bill allowed us to allocate funds—45%. We will reach the point over the summer where we will have spent those funds, and we therefore need to move forward to ensure full allocation of the total amount of money. That will be a critical reality check for the civil servants in Northern Ireland. Of those three routes, one will have to be taken: the question is when and how it will unfold. The greatest hope of all is the magic option: that each of the parties will come back together again and be able to broker a deal that will address all these issues. I note, as a slightly ironic comment, that the last time all the parties were gathered together in Belfast was at the PinkNews awards only a few weeks ago: that, in itself, is a reminder of how far many of those parties have come over the last short period.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, and many others, spoke of the importance of the court cases that are coming up, and the question of an appeal. That is being strongly and actively considered by the Northern Ireland Civil Service, which will have to move that forward. It is being actively considered by ourselves. As many noble Lords noted today, if we are found in any way not to be able to act in this regard, we will be in a very difficult position indeed. That is also true in regard to the RHI case: that would place even greater constraint upon us. We cannot be in a situation where good governance can be delivered neither by an absent Executive, nor by the UK Government in our current formation, so we will need to make progress to deliver, and to be cognisant of the realities of what those court cases will mean.

The noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Murphy of Torfaen, asked about the role of the Prime Minister. I can state today that the Prime Minister will be spending the next few days in Northern Ireland. I can also confirm that she has spent much time speaking with the parties. The point I make to noble Lords is that it is not just a question of what happens inside that room, and drawing the people into the room; it is how the individuals in the room communicate with their supporters outside the room. There is a bigger test here that we need to be able to wrestle and bring to the ground.

On the question of the supply and confidence money, the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, was quite right to stress that it does not rest in one single community; it is for all communities. Of the £1 billion total which has been set aside, £430 million will have been spent as we progress this budget Bill. Some £20 million was spent in the last period; that leaves £410 million. The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, was quite right to stress that much of that money will rest inside the health spend and the education spend: that is additional spending that would not be in Northern Ireland but for the supply and confidence fund. Importantly, £10 million of that is for mental health issues. It is also important to stress that, as a consequence of the Prime Minister’s commitment to funding for the NHS, there will be a significant Barnett consequential uplift in Northern Ireland—a figure, I imagine, of around £760 million, if my maths is correct, during the period 2023-24. That is jam tomorrow, not jam today, but it represents a significant investment of money which I hope will be available for health in Northern Ireland.

On the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, the Government have made funds available for the accommodation and housing of refugees and refugee children in Northern Ireland. If the noble Lord will allow, I will write to him in greater detail, to make sure he has all the information he is looking for. I am also very cognisant of the importance of integrated education. It is important for me to stress that that is, of course, a devolved matter and one which I hope will be able to be progressed. I suspect that if the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, is taking some time off from here, she may well wrestle some of these issues to the ground in Northern Ireland—she will be welcome there, I hope. We are supportive of the idea of an integrated educational approach in Northern Ireland, cognisant of the devolution settlement itself.

The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, continues to ask me challenging questions, to which I do not always have appropriate answers. To take up some of his points, we cannot right now place upon the shoulders of civil servants the pressures they have had to withstand—the two impending court cases and appeals stand testimony to that—and we must therefore move forward with a new way of thinking. I am conscious, as he rightly points out, that civil servants are conservative—with a small C—and that is why we end up with very cautious spending, rather than the spending that elected representatives might be willing to embrace. I am conscious that we need to make sure that we are in a position where the realities of the challenges in Northern Ireland are dealt with.

I was struck by the note raised in the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Bew: the demographic time-bomb which many of the home nations are wrestling with is not actually the same challenge in Northern Ireland. I would be fascinated to understand more about that. I am going to do my own investigations to understand more about exactly how that will work in practice. In so recognising, it therefore means that the solutions to the challenges of Northern Ireland cannot be taken from a textbook. They need to be tailored to the situation that we witness.

The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, took us again into the back story that brings us to the point we have reached. It is a reminder that many of the challenges that we face today have a lengthier pedigree. Importantly, the noble Lord stresses the value to the communities of Northern Ireland of this additional supply and confidence money. We need to make sure, however, that that money can be spent. There will come points when we cannot, by our current methodology, create funding proprieties to spend all of the money. It simply will not be deliverable under our current arrangements so, although the £1 billion will remain an important sum of money, unless we can make some serious progress, it will remain at least partially underspent.

As to where the money that has not yet been spent is, I do not think it rests in a big bank account somewhere, but it might do. The reality is that it is money that is fully available to the communities of Northern Ireland, which will be spent delivering the very good work that the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, stressed throughout his speech. It is important to remember that that money can indeed do good things. Making sure that we can spend it will be the ultimate test.

The noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, raised a number of technical points about how we could move things forward. I admire the points that were being raised and I recognise that, if we could do them, we would make some progress. I fear that the first step in that process is a challenging one—how we get from where we are to delivering against them. We need to be in a situation soon, however, where a lot of these issues are addressed, I would hope, by an incoming, re-established, sustainable Executive. We need to be conscious that this is a necessary step.

The spending of monies will continue to be scrutinised, as it has been before, by the various bodies that are responsible for auditing in Northern Ireland. Those figures and reports are made public and I will ensure that, when they are published, a note of that publication is registered with your Lordships to make sure that they are fully aware of them.

I note with some curiosity the question of libel law reform from the noble Lord, Lord Bew. I would like to learn more of that, so I am going to invert tradition and ask him to write to me, so that I can learn more about what he had in mind. He was also correct in stressing the importance of how information can be used and misused. He was absolutely correct when he was talking about the checks around the Irish border. We need to be clear that we are not talking about a borderless border; there are still realities that interface between Northern Ireland and Ireland itself—or, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, would say, the Republic of Ireland—depending on how they touch together. The purpose of the British-Irish Council is to deal with east-west issues. That is its principal purpose and what it should continue to do, within the context of the Good Friday agreement.

The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, carefully raised the issue of abortion and wider abortion services. He also gave me an opportunity to write to him, and I will take him up on that kind offer. That is more appropriate, so that I can be absolutely clear what the answers are and make sure that I am not short-changing him in any way. I note again that the figures quoted are serious contributions to Northern Ireland financially, and that they stem from the passing of this particular budget Bill.

I conclude with the remarks of “Direct Ruler Murphy”, or the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. I like it as a term although I recognise exactly what it means. I hope there is a recognition that we are not going to shirk responsibilities. We have not been successful in delivering what needs to be delivered. There is enough blame to rest upon a number of shoulders, and we do not claim ownership rights over all of it. We will, however, need to make progress. I am not invoking the sarcophagus of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, but rather the needful elements that we must embrace; in the next few months each of the issues raised by the noble Lord will have to be seriously considered. We cannot continue to move forward on the basis that we have established so far. It is now without the underpinnings to give it the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland or, indeed, wider democratic confidence itself.

[Lord Empey]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but he goes back to his analogy in his three-way split: the current position, direct rule or a restoration of devolution. That worries me, because it does not introduce any new thinking. The answer in the short term will have to be somewhere between those different options. I was hoping to hear that there would be a look at options, whatever they might be, before we close all those doors. I raised a question about police pay and the Hart inquiry. Perhaps the noble Lord would write to me on those matters.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I thank the noble Lord for this intervention. We have not reached a fork in the road; technically, we have reached a trident in the road as there are three options. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, we must find new ways to travel along those roads. There need to be new ways of thinking about this so I cannot, in good conscience, rule out any of the issues that I believe the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, has brought to the debate today. Each of those may yet play its part and will have to do so sooner than might have been the case had we not been where we stand right now, cognisant of the challenges of delivering this budget within the timescale that we have. I am very aware of that.

I am aware that policing is a devolved matter, but it deserves a greater response than trying to swipe it away with that statement. I will again take the opportunity to write to the noble Lord and give a fuller answer.

A number of noble Lords raised the question of MLA pay. In short order, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be addressing that matter. It is time to do that.

In finally responding to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, I am aware and pleased that he is able to support the necessary steps, recognising that it is what it is, which is necessary. The measure is short and technical, but it also recognises that we do not wish to be where we are. That is something I am very conscious of. I have no desire to stand here and do this again, fun though it is.

I am going to slightly change the tone of the debate, because that might be useful. Many noble Lords will know one of the poets of Northern Ireland whose name is Carol Rumens. She wrote “Prayer for Belfast” and I am going to read it, because it is perhaps apropos today:

“Night, be starry-sensed for her,

Your bitter frost be fleece to her.

Comb the vale, slow mist, for her.

Lough, be a muscle, tensed for her.

And coals, the only fire in her,

And rain, the only news of her.

Small hills, keep sisters’ eyes on her.

Be reticent, desire for her.

Go, stories, leave the breath in her,

The last word to be said by her,

And leave no heart for dead in her.

Steer this ship of dread from her.

No husband lift a hand to her,

No daughter shut the blind on her.

May sails be sewn, seeds grown, for her.

May every kiss be kind to her”.

Northern Ireland: Devolved Institutions

Lord Empey Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

It is our single most important priority to re-establish the Executive and Her Majesty’s Government are doing all they can to achieve that end. We pay tribute to those civil servants who have carried a much heavier burden than they would have anticipated, but our single most important priority remains to secure a functioning and sustainable Executive.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

Is my noble friend aware that, in the High Court last Monday, Mrs Justice Keegan decided that a senior civil servant did not have the authority to sign off on the construction of a waste plant? As a consequence, all significant decisions hitherto taken by senior civil servants have now stopped. How can the Minister and the Government honour their commitments to ensure the effective and efficient delivery of public services to the people of Northern Ireland with the state of paralysis that has now ensued?

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

The Government are studying that judgment very carefully. Its implications are significant; indeed, an appeal against it may be lodged. It is a reminder that we need a restored Executive because we cannot keep placing on the shoulders of civil servants such a heavy and onerous burden.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Empey Excerpts

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

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Patten, introduced the debate with his customary excellence and good humour. However, while I took the points he made very well, I felt concerned about the direction of travel and the linkage between some of the points we were trying to debate. The amendment has a number of issues that concern me, the most obvious one, picked up by the noble Lord, Lord King, being the last line. With so much reference to the Belfast agreement, the four Members currently in the Chamber involved in that negotiation—I am one of them—will know that it is so sensitive because it challenges the fundamental principles of consent, which is one of the reasons why the referendum in 1998 was successful. We actually achieved that point. If we take a power that is currently exercisable only by the Government of the United Kingdom and share it with the Republic of Ireland, that will change the dynamics of the whole situation. Effectively, it would create a form of joint authority.

I have other issues with the amendment. It refers to:

“Continuation of North-South co-operation and the prevention of new border arrangements”.


Perhaps we will need new border arrangements to avoid the pitfalls we have all drawn attention to during the debate. I also feel we are in a unique situation. Everybody agrees with the ultimate objective. Therefore, it should be not a source of division in this House but something on which we can come together to send a clear message not only to the Government, but to our colleagues in the European Union and in the Republic.

During his visit to Northern Ireland and the Republic this week—which, incidentally, was announced to us through the press release of a Sinn Féin MP, not even a Sinn Féin MEP—Michel Barnier, according to Sam Coates in the Times, did the following:

“During a visit to Ireland, Michel Barnier urged Theresa May to reconsider introducing a border in the Irish Sea”.


We assume that that matter is resolved; I fear that it is not. Within the document agreed on 8 December and the subsequent agreement referred to by my noble friend Lord Bridges of Headley there is a fundamental conflict. We are saying on the one hand that we want regulatory alignment for Northern Ireland as this backstop and on the other that we do not want any difficulties between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Unless Brexit does not take place and we reverse our decision to leave the European Union, those two things will be mutually exclusive. We have to get our heads around that.

We have talked about the principles and the bigger picture. I worry about linking the Belfast agreement so closely with the discussions we have now because, quite frankly, there are risks attached to that. I will try to put into context the scale of the problem we face.

I believe that the solution lies with the United Kingdom Government, the Irish Government and Michel Barnier and his team sitting down at a table to deal with the details. The Benches opposite are filled with many people with trade union backgrounds. They will know, as everybody else knows from their own experience, that the only way to settle these things is to sit down and talk about them, however embarrassing and difficult it may be. Even if we are dealing with people with whom we would normally have no truck, the fact is that we have learnt that lesson and learnt it very hard; we have to sit down, to talk and to negotiate. We must also remember that we cannot successfully negotiate if the person with whom we are negotiating is flat on the canvas at the end of the negotiations, so it cannot be a 10-0 win; there has to be compromise and movement.

We use the term “the all-Ireland economy”. There is no all-Ireland economy. If we take the figures for the period 2005 to 2015 given to us by the Irish Government in their document on Brexit, which sets out clearly the relationship and the scale of it, we see that of the total exports of the Irish Republic to the rest of the world 1.6% currently goes to Northern Ireland. That has dropped in the period from 2005. It means that 98.4% of the Irish Republic’s goods go elsewhere. Most of them travel via the United Kingdom, because the border is not simply on the island; it is between Dublin and Holyhead and Rosslare and Fishguard—that is where most of the goods are going. Mainland Britain is the land bridge so the Republic can get its goods to the continent and the rest of the world.

Let us take imports to the Irish Republic from the whole of the world. From Northern Ireland, they have dropped in the period from 2005 to 2015 from 2.2% again to 1.6%. So the actual trade on the island is relatively modest. We are talking primarily about goods in transit, going to and from ports in Northern Ireland to and from Scotland and the north-west of England. So the trading relationship on the island is 1.6% of the Republic’s exports and 1.6% of its imports. That is the scale of the trade. It includes live animals and agricultural produce.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said in an earlier debate that he believed that one part of the solution could be a new treaty between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland which would be recognised by the European Union. Part of the solution could lie in the north-south bodies that we set up under a treaty which have certain specific functions. There is no reason why those bodies cannot change and vary over time. One of them, the SEUPB, which looks after special European programmes, will have to be dissolved. We may need to look at the functions that some of those bodies perform and whether the United Kingdom Government and Parliament might devolve to them specific matters where they could negotiate on details, particularly around agriculture, animal health and other issues, and where regulations—because we are one land mass—are better, on the same scale or equivalent. If we are looking at the way ahead, we have to look at solutions. That is one possibility, but the idea of a new treaty is something that we should look at.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

Come on. You are better than this.

[Lord Empey]

If the noble Lord is such an expert on the Belfast agreement, why is he not prepared to listen to somebody who lives there and was negotiating it? I can assure him that I have been used to dealing with fairly tough customers and I will have a say.

We are looking here at a problem which has been grossly exaggerated and at some risk, because we should concentrate on solutions. The best way to achieve that is for the parties to sit down together and negotiate.

I conclude where I started: with the comments made by Michel Barnier on Tuesday this week, where he said that he wanted the Prime Minister to reconsider a border up the Irish Sea for Northern Ireland. If that is his position when our Government go in to negotiate, the difficulty created by this amendment is that it would move the emphasis away from negotiating a settlement, removing one lever from the hands of the Government and placing it in the hands of those with whom we are negotiating. We should be united as a House in trying to get the right solution. It is a shame that we would be divided on something where the objective we all seek is the same. It is so unusual to get that—where two Governments and the European Union are all committed to the same thing. We are confusing the two arguments. This is a matter for detailed negotiation, as has happened before. There is no reason why it cannot be done. We can look for help. If we need unique solutions—we are good at those—let us have one; that is what a treaty could facilitate.

When the Minister replies, I hope that he will address some of those points and indicate that the United Kingdom Government are prepared to sit down to negotiate, to re-emphasise that and to reissue the invitation, which sadly has been refused so far. Let us remember also that we are dealing with politics. Ireland is on the verge of a general election at any point. Sinn Féin, which was always an anti-European party, has got on to the bandwagon and now pretends to be a great pro-European party. It could have huge influence on the Irish Government if an election takes place. We have all these moving plates, but we must keep our eye on the detail and on the long-term objective, which is the preservation of as free a border as it is possible to achieve and the preservation of the institutions that were passed by referendum on both sides of the border. They should be used as part of the solution and not become part of the problem.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, well over two hours ago, this amendment was eloquently moved by the noble Lord, Lord Patten, so I want to make two brief points in response. The first point is about the Government’s own proposals to solve the issue of the border on the island of Ireland. They have produced no new detailed proposals since last August. Clearly, there is an ongoing, and perhaps heated, discussion taking place this afternoon at the Cabinet sub-committee which, for reasons of internal division, is unlikely to reach a conclusion. But at a certain point, the Government will have to take a position. Time is running out and they cannot keep kicking the can down the road.

The so-called technical solutions which many noble Lords have referred to are, at best, wishful thinking and almost certainly not viable for the time being. On the House of Lords EU Select Committee, we have heard numerous experts inform us that the required technology is, at best, five to seven years away. How can that work with the current timetable of December 2020? Does the Minister accept that the only alternative is to remain in some form of customs union?

Secondly, it is important to remember that the border issue is not just about economics, tariffs and trade. It is also about emotions and feelings. Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Alderdice and so many others who have spoken this afternoon, played a vital role in installing the principles of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement, principles that have done so much to remove borders, both physical and psychological. Many people would see any checks, even if efficient and unobtrusive, as a step backwards. It is the principle and symbolism of the checks themselves that is the issue.

My noble friend Lord Alderdice raised some objections and concerns about the amendment. I believe that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem explained that this is, perhaps, a misunderstanding of the amendment before us. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, made a very firm and forceful point and I hope my noble friend Lord Alderdice may reconsider his position. The aim of the amendment is to put into the Bill the commitment that the Government themselves agreed in the joint declaration last December, so that the hard-won gains of the peace process are not reversed for future generations. That is why I urge all noble Lords to support this amendment.

Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Bill

Lord Empey 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 Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I wish to speak primarily on the budget Bill and the regional rates and energy Bill. The third Bill on Assembly Members’ pay requires little debate and its provisions are inevitable in the current circumstances. The sad thing is that we are, as usual, punishing the innocent along with the guilty, but the Bill will pass.

Dealing with the budget Bill first, apart from the totally avoidable circumstances which have brought us to the present impasse, I want to focus on one issue which is causing many people in Northern Ireland great concern and anxiety. It has already been touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie.

In January 2017, Sir Anthony Hart submitted his report on his findings following the historical institutional abuse inquiry over which he presided. Among his recommendations was that compensation should be paid to survivors of abuse, including in homes and institutions not covered by his inquiry, and that relatives of the deceased should also be taken into account. In the Bill, for both 2017-18 and 2018-19 under the allocations for the Executive Office, provision is made for,

“actions associated with the preparation and implementation of the Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry Report and Findings”.

This gives the Executive Office authority to make expenditure to implement the findings of the HIA inquiry.

To put this in context for your Lordships, the inquiry covered the period beginning in 1922, and I think it went up to 1996. Some of the evidence of the abuse was shocking. It ranged from vulnerable children being scrubbed with Jeyes Fluid by nuns to the notorious sexual abuse committed in the Kincora Boys’ Home: years and years of all sorts of physical, psychological and sexual abuse conducted by those who were supposed to help children and vulnerable young people at difficult times in their lives.

In excess of 500 people came forward to Sir Anthony’s inquiry—and more have since indicated that they wish they had. However, as the noble Baroness rightly said, many have also died during the period and more continue to do so. Having fought for years to get this inquiry, the victims are now being subjected to a second—if different—form of abuse. As my party colleague at Stormont Mike Nesbitt MLA said:

“They have no Executive in place in Belfast to ratify the inquiry report and nobody is planning to implement its findings. This is totally unacceptable”.


Does the Minister agree with me that the Bill gives the Executive Office power to spend money to implement the findings of the report? Secondly, do he or his ministerial colleagues have any plans to persuade the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service to get on and implement the findings of Sir Anthony Hart’s report? Thirdly, does he believe that this matter should be above politics and other political and constitutional concerns and be treated as a humanitarian measure which has unanimous political support in Belfast?

I turn now to the regional rates and energy Bill. The proposal for rates, as it affects ordinary householders, imposes a 4.5% increase on ratepayers, well above inflation. For the benefit of your Lordships, I say that local government finance in Northern Ireland is vastly different from that in Great Britain. A domestic householder still pays rates levied on capital values. Part of the rates is levied by local councils— approximately half—and the balance by Stormont. All major services are delivered by central government—that includes social services, welfare, housing, roads and education. No local council in Northern Ireland has delivered such a high increase this year, confining their increases to from nil to just over 3%. While councillors have tried to ease the burden on people, central government has not. This is another example of Stormont letting people down.

However, the main item in this Bill that I want to address is the RHI scandal that has left a trail of destruction in its wake. We know that the inquiry into the RHI is ongoing with Judge Patrick Coghlin presiding. The Bill proposes to continue the tariff regime that was introduced last year by the Assembly as its dying gasp, in an attempt to staunch the flow of money out of the system due to a botched scheme. The Assembly decided to impose a cap for one year, and this expires on 1 April next, unless it is renewed.

Members need to know, however, that this was a blunt and badly prepared instrument. That it was time limited for a scheme that will be ongoing for years illustrates the fact that the intervening period was to be used to consult stakeholders and reflect on the best way ahead. This has not happened. No business case was presented to the Assembly to justify the new tariffs, and the relevant Assembly committee twice refused to endorse the new cap, due to lack of information. The Minister, Mr Hamilton, confirmed to the Assembly on 23 January 2017:

“I have not yet received approval for the business case that underpins the regulations before us, and that is deeply troubling”.


The former First Minister who introduced the scheme described it as a “debacle”, and so it has proved to be.

Some Members will have received heartfelt emails from a range of participants in the scheme. These are people who, quite legitimately, took up the offer to convert from fossil fuels to renewable fuel, as the scheme intended. But they have been betrayed. I wish to quote from a letter to the banks in Northern Ireland from the then Minister, Arlene Foster. On 7 January 2013, Mrs Foster wrote:

“The tariffs have been calculated to cover the cost difference between traditional fossil fuel heating systems and a renewable heat alternative. The tariffs account for the variances in both capital and operating costs, as well as seeking to address non-financial ‘hassle’ costs. In addition, a rate of return is also included on the net capital expenditure to ensure the renewable energy technology is attractive to investors. The rate of return has been set at 12% for all technologies incentivised under the NI RHI”.


This is an interesting bit. She continues:

“Tariffs are ‘grandfathered’ providing certainty for investors by setting a guaranteed support level for projects for their lifetime in a scheme, regardless of future reviews”.


It goes on:

“I am therefore writing to encourage you”—


the banks—

“to look favourably on approaches from businesses that are seeking finance to install renewable technologies. The government support, on offer through the incentive schemes, is reliable, long term and offers a good return on investment”.

It goes on to offer the opportunity for officials to arrange seminars to promote the scheme to the banks’ customers.

The language and undertakings in that letter could not be clearer. People have been badly let down, and many are facing financial ruin. They have been conned. Be under no doubt about the consequences of the measures in this Bill. They will confine some businesses to ruin and their owners to a further year of worry and torment. While a focus has naturally been on the potential for some people to profit from RHI by abusing it, and it is right that such cases are investigated, we must remember that the vast majority of applicants are bona fide businesspeople who responded to a government initiative that has left them in financial peril.

I hope that the RHI inquiry looks into the suspicious cases. I suggest it looks at those who subsequently made alterations to what legitimate installers did. In the few cases that look questionable, were workmen asked to run pipes from commercial buildings containing these boilers to other private property? Does that appear on invoices or have workmen perhaps been asked to modify invoices to conceal such actions? I suspect at the end of the day such cases will be few and far between.

I propose that the Minister asks the NI Civil Service to begin work on a strategy for alleviating the hardship being suffered by many, as was the original intention. Such a hardship scheme was suggested by an academic last year in a submission to MLAs. I urge the Government to respond positively to this request.

The real problem with the RHI scheme was that the former Executive set a target to achieve electricity generation from renewables but no adequate budget was provided. Today, legitimate businesses are paying the price for that blunder and it is unfair and unjust. I hope the Government have considered the implications of introducing retrospective tariffs for other schemes in the UK’s energy generation market. This is dangerous territory.

To those who seek a return to direct rule in Northern Ireland, I point out that we are being asked to pass all stages of three Bills in one afternoon, with no ability to delve into the detail. I ask those people: is this the way ahead? I think not.

Will the Minister, together with his NIO colleagues in the other place, also investigate with urgency the statement from the head of the Civil Service on 14 March 2018 to the effect that minutes of meetings in Stormont departments were not taken, to frustrate freedom of information requests? Mr Sterling said:

“Ministers liked to have a safe space where they could think the unthinkable and not necessarily have it all recorded”.


He went on to say that the DUP and Sinn Fein were sensitive to criticism and, in that context, senior civil servants had “got into the habit” of not recording all meetings. He said this was done on the basis that it was sometimes “safer” not to have a record which might be released under FOI.

Does the Minister agree that Mr Sterling’s comments must leave the former Administration at Stormont teetering on the brink of illegality? Was he admitting to a conspiracy to thwart the law? These are serious matters and I look forward to the Government’s reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, who makes his point clear, as always. I understand exactly what he is saying.

On that basis, I hope your Lordships will accept that this is not what we want to do, it is not how we want to do it and it is not when we want to do it, but it is what we must do.

[Lord Empey]

Before the noble Lord sits down, I ask him to reflect on the Judge Hart inquiry. If I picked up him correctly, he indicated that this would await the return of an Executive. I point out to him that every solitary MLA I am aware of supports the implementation of that inquiry. Other parties represented here can say no if they disagree. Every party supports it. Some of the material in the report is very harrowing. One lady started off in the system at four years old. She is now 87. How much more do we have to put these people through? I therefore ask the Minister to discuss with his colleagues and reflect on that.

Secondly, on the RHI scheme, although I appreciate that this is a renewal, it was originally based on no substantive information. I suggest that the Minister again consult his colleagues and ensure that a proper working party is established to alleviate this, because people are losing their livelihoods as a result of this botched scheme.

[Lord Hay of Ballyore]

Just before the Minister gets to his feet, I should like to say that I broadly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said. There is no doubt that all the political parties in Northern Ireland want this issue resolved. The issue I raised earlier was that the institutions that carried out the abuse should be made to pay for some of that abuse and repent for all of it. I do not think there is an issue in resolving this, but it would be totally wrong if only taxpayers’ money was used to resolve it.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Empey Excerpts

Committee: 8th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 19th March 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Empey]

227B: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Mutual Recognition Agreements relating to the safeguarding of public health
In respect of mutual recognition agreements relating to the safeguarding of public health, within one month of the passing of this Act, a Minister of the Crown must publish a strategy for ensuring that existing United Kingdom notified bodies, in accordance with provisions laid out in the EU Medical Devices Regulation, may continue to conduct conformity assessment certification for both United Kingdom and EU medical devices to ensure continuity within and beyond the EU.”

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, before I speak to the amendment in my name, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, tempts me down memory lane. I served on only the first two terms of the Committee of the Regions; he is a veteran with many stripes on his arm and much more experience. I recall that when it began we had a president, Jacques Blanc, who was the president of Languedoc-Roussillon. We invited him to Belfast and he came in a pillar of fire, having hired a private jet. By the time he came to Belfast, he was Jimmy White and not Jacques Blanc. He then proceeded to tour the European capitals in that jet, much to the chagrin of our paymasters in the European Parliament. I do not know whether the jet has yet landed—but, whatever it did, President Blanc ran up against the buffers of the accountants in the Parliament. Nevertheless, it was an interesting body, but it was a mixture of those of us who were from local authorities and the very powerful—the Bavarians were on it and others with enormous resources. So it was not a balanced body, but it was interesting and at least everybody could have their say.

This probing amendment would require the UK Government to seek agreement with the European Union during the withdrawal discussions—which would of course include the transition period—that the current legal framework underpinning the regulation of medical devices in the EU will be maintained after 29 March 2019. This would enable notified bodies hosted in the United Kingdom, such as the British Standards Institute, to continue to perform conformity assessments on medical devices both from within the UK and across the EU, and issue CE safety label marking after the UK’s withdrawal. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, earlier introduced a number of amendments concerning the welfare of women and young girls and said that she was hoping to put this clearly on the agenda that was moving forward—and this is what I am trying to do this evening.

On 14 September 2017 the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, our Health Minister, gave a speech at the Association of British Healthcare Industries on the future of medical technologies post Brexit. He set out the Government’s commitment to the medical tech sector and discussed the opportunities and challenges it faces as the UK leaves the EU and what support the Government were going to offer. There were some core principles in the speech about regulation and conformity assessments post Brexit, including that patients should not be put at a disadvantage and that the industry must get its products into the UK market as quickly and simply as it does now. He said:

“I want to give this promise; no matter what the outcome of the negotiations—on basic patient safety and public health issues—the UK will be, as it always has been, a willing and reliable partner for Europe”.


Furthermore, the European Commission recently warned manufacturers within the EU that CE safety labels provided by notified bodies based in the UK may no longer be valid after Brexit. The Commission document states:

“Subject to any transitional arrangements that may be contained in a possible withdrawal agreement, as of the withdrawal date, the EU rules in the field of non-food and non-agricultural products, whether for use by consumers or professionals no longer apply to the United Kingdom”.


That means that the UK will no longer operate as a host country for EU notified bodies as it currently stands.

Significantly, the European Commission has advised manufacturers to consider the legal repercussions of their current conformity assessment procedure, advising that in future they will need to gain their CE certification through an existing EU member state after the UK’s withdrawal, or to transfer existing files to an EU notified body. It should be noted that, while manufacturers can obtain a CE label from any notified body in the EU, the UK has built an expertise in this area, with approximately 40% of medical devices and 60% of high-risk medical devices on sale in the EU having been certified in the UK by a notified body. The British Standards Institute has led the way in such testing and has recently set up an office in the Netherlands so that it will continue to have an EU-country representation post Brexit.

The development with the European Commission regarding the publication of the notice to stakeholders mentioned earlier would impact on the five existing UK-based notified bodies working in the area of medical devices, including the BSI. BSI chief executive Howard Kerr has previously suggested in media interviews that he believes that a mutual recognition agreement on medical devices between the UK and EU will most likely be achieved during the course of the negotiations, allowing for retained aligned standards after Brexit. As for the possibility of the UK hosting notified bodies after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, some so-called third countries are able to operate as host nations for a notified body, including Turkey, Switzerland and Norway—so it is possible that an agreement can be made between the UK and the EU.

I believe that mutual recognition agreements and related conformity assessments post Brexit will be vital for sustained patient access to medical devices post Brexit. Although not always at the forefront of the current debate on the EU withdrawal Bill, they are still important so that treatment is consistent for patients. I believe that this approach is also in the spirit of the broad principles and objectives of the Bill: to make sound provision for the transfer of EU law into UK law. Mutual recognition agreements will be the mechanism within the necessary new trade arrangements to transfer into UK law the rights with regard to conformity assessments that the UK currently has in the area of the regulation of medical devices.

The second dimension to this is that there are a number of manufacturers of such devices in the United Kingdom, not only in my own region but elsewhere. They tend to have concentrated in the higher-value and higher-quality areas of the sector. So I believe that this item, although it may not attract the full House that we had earlier on other aspects of the debate, is nevertheless a significant matter. I believe that it should be drawn to the attention of the Government so that it is included in the agreement. It can be done—we know that—and I believe that it is something we should pursue vigorously. I beg to move.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Empey. It seems to me, though, that one should put them into a wider picture, because this is yet another example of how the best outcome of the negotiations is worse than where we are. I do not think that this Committee has to remind the country as a whole that this is what we are negotiating. We are negotiating a situation that we already have but in which we will of course have no say. Even if we get the very best deal we can, and protect our industry and the excellence of our regulatory structures—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, rightly pointed out, has meant that in one case 40% and in another case 60% of these devices are brought here, whether or not they are manufactured here, because of the excellence of our regulatory control—we will no longer have a say in the central issue of how the regulatory structure is changed in future. This is crucial in this case because, as we all know, medical devices are constantly changing and improving. If we accept that, then we recognise that the way they are regulated—the way in which we set the standards—will also change, and that we will play no part in such decisions.

I am a patriotic person. I object strongly to the intention of sidelining my country from these things and us being the beggar, because that is what we are going to have to be. To compare us with Turkey, to put it delicately, does not fill me with enthusiasm. I suggest that this is another example of the intended consequences of Brexit because the people who are enthused by Brexit—and I see few of them around just at the moment—want to believe in a world in which we can operate on our own without any drawbacks. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, has rightly pointed out that that is not possible, and that the world we live in is a world of co-operation and joint concern in getting the right answers.

I wanted to intervene because I was unhappy with one part of what the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said. He talked of the need to protect ourselves and the importance of this to his own Province as part of the United Kingdom. I want to turn it round and refer to the importance of our contribution to these decisions, the important place that Britain should have in these discussions, not only with regard to medical devices—and the curious expression in the amendment that I particularly like, which refers to the “safeguarding of public health”—but of course to any medical aspect. We have had several debates in the Moses Room on precisely these issues. What this means, of course, is that Britain is saying, “We no longer want the opportunity to play a proper part in seeing that we do this right”.

--- Later in debate ---

These are some of the challenges that both sides will face. Moving forward on the basis of the Mansion House speech given by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in the area of mutual recognition will bear much fruit. Again, I must stress that the outcome will rest with the negotiations, and those negotiations have not yet begun. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Empey]

My Lords, little did I believe when I moved this amendment that I was going to open up the spectre of your bionic Lordships. Nevertheless, it did personalise the issue to a point. My noble friend Lady Finlay pointed out that science and very often SMEs emerge out of spin-offs from universities. That is true, but there are larger international companies involved in this as well, and that might have been overlooked. It is not all a matter for small business.

I thank all noble Lords who participated in this debate. I did not know when I tabled the amendment what would happen today. I am glad the Minister has confirmed that this matter is on the agenda for those discussions. I shall certainly follow that extremely closely and obviously reserve the right to come back to this matter later in the Bill’s proceedings. With the assurance that the Minister has given, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 227B withdrawn.

Northern Ireland Finances

Lord Empey Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. Money allocated and unspent does not do any good. It is as simple as that. We must be in a position to ensure that the money allocated is spent. We believe this is best achieved through the departmental structure that exists in Northern Ireland. The determination of the overall scale of spend has already been achieved through direct consultation with civil servants in Northern Ireland. They will be responsible also for the delivery of that money into the various, clearly set out projects. It will be necessary not only for the money to be spent but for it to be transparent and clear. The people of Northern Ireland must be able to see that and recognise what good the money is doing to meet challenges that are now well established and well recognised. The noble Baroness will be aware of several of these challenges in the areas of health and education. But I stress again that the money and responsibility will rest with the departments. We will ensure that it is spent in a transparent manner that will give confidence to those who see the money and, hopefully, see the good it will achieve.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, surely the Minister accepts that there is a need to do things differently. We have come to a series of Statements of this nature over the last 14 months and there is little or no prospect of any immediate resumption of devolution. In fact, people are now talking in terms of “post Brexit”. Members will know the effect of a vacuum in Northern Ireland and who is likely to fill that vacuum—and it is not going to be the good guys. The reality is that the principal parties of government—whatever the ebb and flow of the agreement that never was—have run the institutions into the ground. That is the fact. Mention has been made of confidence and supply money. Will the Minister tell us when this will be approved by Parliament? At the moment it is effectively an undated cheque, and the departments need to know when they will be able to take it into account.

A second point raised concerned the RHI cap. While that catastrophe has yet to completely unfold, a lot of people out there legitimately took the Government of Northern Ireland at their word and got these boilers installed, and some are now facing financial ruin. Their bankers were encouraged by ministerial letters from Mrs Foster to lend them money to get these boilers, and now the premiums they were getting on the original business plan have been slashed. So those people are in severe difficulty and I ask the Minister to bear that in mind.

I turn to the alternative arrangements, which I think we were all interested in. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, who I think is the first senior politician even to hint that some tweaks and changes made over the years have not necessarily worked out as planned. Can the Minister tell us exactly to what extent the Government have an open mind on these matters? There are a lot of ideas around the House that could be fashioned and used, and I believe we are willing and able to help in working towards a constructive solution—but I repeat that a vacuum is the worst possible situation. It leaves the pitch open for players to come back on when we thought we had them suppressed. This is a golden opportunity for these people and we should all stand up against them.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, has made three useful points. I note again that the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, spoke about the fact that there are a number of architects of the Belfast agreement in your Lordships’ House—although in some respects they are not architects but mechanics. We have not built an edifice that just has to stand; it is an engine that has to work.

In response to the third point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, we have an open mind and we need to think afresh about anything that can help us to move this matter forward. Of course, we recognise that we are facilitators of the dialogue. We cannot insist on or thrust forward what we wish to see happen—but we hope that, by providing a safe space in which to negotiate, we can bring it about.

In response to the noble Lord’s first question, the confidence and supply component of the budget will be dealt with as part of the overall allocation. As I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, that is imminent—so I hope we will be in a position to discuss that seriously very soon.

With regard to the wider question of boilers and the RHI scheme, I stress again that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is very aware of the challenges that it represents and will be very careful in taking the matter forward.

Northern Ireland Update

Lord Empey Excerpts

Tuesday 20th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hay, for his intervention. It is in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland that we achieve good government. Now more than ever, good government will be delivered by devolution—by a functioning Executive—but at heart it will have to be delivered for Northern Ireland no matter what happens, because we cannot keep kicking the can down the road. The three-stranded approach will be at the heart of our ongoing discussions with all parties, but I am happy to confirm to the noble Lord that no joint approach to the administration of government between the United Kingdom and Ireland is on the cards.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, talked about transparency. We have a “she said/she said” argument at home over what was and was not on the table, which I believe will be settled only when those documents are in the public domain. I seem to recall the late Lord Bannside talking many times about secret documents; well, now there is a chance to make secret documents public. Let us see what was on the table.

The Minister said in his Statement:

“First, as our manifesto at the last election set out, this Government believe in devolution under the terms of the 1998 Belfast Agreement”.


No, they do not, because the terms of the 1998 Belfast agreement are not what we have today. It was butchered in 2006 when the guts were taken out of it, after years of negotiation. The partnership at the centre of that Government, with each community having its hand on the steering wheel and the First and Deputy First Minister being identified jointly in the Assembly by a vote of the elected Members, was torn out to suit two parties, neither of which negotiated their part of the agreement in the first place. If the Minister is thinking outside the box and nothing is off the table, may I put back on to the table the 1998 Belfast agreement, as it was voted on by 71.2% in the north and over 90% in the Republic? If we are leaving the European Union on the basis of 52%, in all fairness we are entitled to have the vote that we made honoured and implemented as it was voted on in 1998.

[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.

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2017

Lord Empey Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale (Lab)]

My Lords, I come in just after the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, because I agree with a great deal of what he said. Unlike him, however, I was a great advocate for a national police force in Scotland. I have spent a lot of my professional life in the Nordic countries and they all, without exception, have a national police service. I saw no reason why Scotland could not exactly fit the same mould of an excellent national police force.

However, like a lot of other people, I have been underwhelmed by the way that the concept—I still believe in the principle—has been implemented in Scotland, but I do not believe that this is the right place or time to talk about the ills and misfortunes of Police Scotland. What I would say—and I will try to be very brief and not repeat what has been said already—is that it seems absolute folly to think of going for an amalgamation of a very professional, exceptionally efficient force like the British Transport Police, with its special expertise in anti-terrorism, which is of very great relevance right now. To try to amalgamate that with Police Scotland—even if Police Scotland was not in such a dire situation in many directions—would, at the best of times, lead to a situation of uncertainty and change. We really should not inflict this on the country. Apart from efficiencies and principles, there is also the question of the effect on the security of the country, and I really think it should be avoided at all costs.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, in his customary understated and quiet way, has introduced this proposal and, I have to say, it brings back memories of when we discussed the Scotland Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has pointed out, every concern that Members expressed at that stage has been borne out. I believe there is an overwhelming national interest in this, not simply a Scottish interest. The British Transport Police is a national police force in Great Britain. Its expertise is unique in this country. The policing requirements, training and experience of a normal, geographical, territorial constabulary are entirely different from a transport-based police force, which does a very specialist job. Policing trains, rail lines, stations and all that goes with the transport network is an entirely different discipline, requiring different training, different equipment and a completely separate constabulary—which is exactly what we have. All the reports that have been written about it have indicated that it is performing well and according to target. I understand the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, makes about the legal position and I accept that there is devolution, but there is a national interest here which, in my opinion, should overrule a simple matter of devolved matters. I ask the Minister, in his summing up, to address this.

There is an example, which the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, mentioned and which I think came up in the 2016 debate. We understand that the Scottish Parliament will want a say and an interest in what is happening in Scotland—a perfectly reasonable position—and there is a way of doing this, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, pointed out, with the chief constable going not only to the Scottish Minister of Justice but perhaps the Scottish Parliament or the relevant Scottish police authority. There is a precedent for this. We had an argument in Northern Ireland over the jurisdiction of the National Crime Agency. A lot of people objected strongly to that, but the Government took the view that, because they had UK-wide responsibilities, because gangsters operated across and between islands, and because of the necessary expertise that was required, the National Crime Agency had to have a role in Northern Ireland. The argument was whether an officer of the National Crime Agency could have the powers of a constable. That was blocked for quite some time until a settlement was reached. The settlement was that the head of the National Crime Agency would go to the Policing Board and would contact the chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. They would do that as and when required, but at least annually, so that there was a clear link between what was happening in the two forces.

We raised the question in the debate in 2016 about the contracts, and we have already heard some disturbing statistics mentioned by other Members about the numbers of police officers who may not wish to transfer. The fact is, the expertise and experience is going to be lost. We had that problem when the Police Service of Northern Ireland came in and we lost enormous numbers of detectives, for example. It has taken years to get that experience back. What happens if it is the same for the British Transport Police? We have to remember—the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, made the point—that, in mainland Europe, there have been a number of attacks on trains, where a terrorist gets on in one country, travels to another and the explosions and deaths occurred on the way. This is one way in which they move around their equipment and terrorist activities. I am not an expert on Police Scotland, but any territorial constabulary does not have this expertise, experience or capability. Who is going to train them? The only people who have that experience currently are the British Transport Police.

I am very much of the view that this is an ideologically driven proposal by the Scottish Government because it is the “British” Transport Police. I sincerely hope that this is not the reason but, were it to be the reason, is it any justification for putting the safety of the people of the United Kingdom at risk simply to abide by an ideological demand? The United Kingdom Government have a responsibility for national security which overrides any devolved institution. I sincerely hope that, in his reply, the Minister will agree at least to look at this and to engage with the Scottish Government to see if he can persuade them to see common sense. The UK Government and the Secretary of State for Scotland have a responsibility to ensure the security of Scotland as part of the United Kingdom—we should exercise that.

These proposals are devoid of merit in my view. There is a way out—which has been set out very clearly—that will ensure that devolution is respected; that the Scottish Government are given their place; that the Minister of Justice will have regular reports, both written and verbal, when he or she would require them; and that the policing board in Scotland and/or a committee of the Scottish Parliament should be able to call upon the chief constable of the British Transport Police if they felt it necessary. All those things could be done. We can have a win-win situation for everybody, where national security is guaranteed and the Scottish Government are given their place. That would be the way ahead and I sincerely hope that the Minister will take it upon himself to go back and ask the Scottish Government to revisit this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

We want to make sure that a no-detriment principle is adopted throughout, so there should be no impact on parts of the United Kingdom as a consequence of this which would have to be met by those who are affected by it.

It is important to note the other issues that we need to be very clear about. The British Transport Police is a specialist constabulary, not a traditional one. It focuses on particular aspects of enforcement which are important and cannot simply be substituted by officers from other traditional constabularies. We must not lose sight of that. Any risk that there may be flight from the particular integrated elements would in itself be a problem for the overall functioning of transport policing in Scotland. There can be no diminution in the quality of the service. We also have to recognise that throughout this area there is an issue of being respectful to the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament itself, through the Smith commission and onwards, is the principal interlocutor in addressing this matter. We cannot lose sight of that fact because it is also important.

Perhaps I may be a little more bold and say that in some respects this is one of those issues where one can see the difference between a unicameral and a bicameral Parliament. Perhaps if the Scottish Parliament had a second Chamber, some of these matters might have been addressed in a slightly different way. However, that might be a little bit provocative.

Let me conclude with a quotation which I am sure will be familiar to noble Lords, but perhaps they do not necessarily know its source. When I say the name Thomas Bertram Lance, I suspect that there will be blank stares. He was the director of the Office of Management and Budget in Jimmy Carter’s presidential Administration. In 1977 he coined the maxim,

“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.


In some respects, we should always recognise the importance of that particular dictum. However, I should stress that that conclusion must be determined by the Scottish Parliament as a matter of course. It is that Parliament’s responsibility to hold to account the Scottish Government, who have moved this matter forward.

I appreciate that I have not had time to touch on all the issues raised in the debate but I hope that I have been able to give the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, some comfort in my remarks so that he will not be regretful and therefore not press his amendment to the Motion. I hope that this has been a satisfactory response to our debate.

[Lord Empey]

Perhaps I may raise one point with the noble Lord. Where is the national interest in all of this? The Scottish Parliament cannot reflect it. A programme board is made up of two halves, one half of which is the Scottish Parliament and the other the UK Government. That board cannot have a national responsibility because it is made up of one part which does not have such a responsibility. My concern in all this is that the national security interest is going to fall between two stools. I would like an assurance from the Minister that that is not the case.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank]

I believe that I can give that assurance. The very fact that the comments made in this debate shall be summarised and transmitted very clearly to the programme board means that the views of noble Lords will not be lost. I also believe that those views represent the entire breadth of concern expressed, certainly in this instance throughout Scotland but also beyond. That must be reflected on by all those who take as their responsibility the forward movement of the British Transport Police and its future policing policy.

Social Security (Restrictions on Amounts for Children and Qualifying Young Persons) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2017

Lord Empey Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I start by apologising to the House and to the noble Lord for my late arrival.

The noble Lord, Lord Patten, is correct that Northern Ireland has followed a policy of parity for decades. That ceased a couple of years ago, when spare room subsidy legislation came in—colloquially known as the “bedroom tax”. Many of us in Northern Ireland were opposed to that because, for instance, by ensuring that landlords received money rather than money going to the individual, those individuals were less likely to be exploited by gangsters and money lenders and all sorts of people who would pounce on them as soon as the money came in. Moreover, because of the structure of the population, that would cause huge disruption.

Breaking the parity principle is a serious matter because of the sums of money involved. Social security has been a devolved matter in Northern Ireland all along; it was devolved there even though it was not devolved in Scotland or the other regions. Over the decades, as the noble Lord, Lord Patten, said, we followed slavishly whatever regulations were delivered here, because the sums of money involved were so enormous that it was not feasible to do anything else. However, when these measures came out, the Assembly and the Executive decided that they would make things different, but they accepted the Treasury rules—that they would effectively have to take that money out of the block grant. Therefore, they decided to use money for social security, which had always been devolved, instead of implementing the national policy that was introduced here; they recognised that they would have to pay that out of the block grant. That was the proposal on the spare room subsidy and other related matters.

We are having this debate tonight because of the impasse, because there is no Assembly in place to deal with the issue. All of these matters—abortion and so on—are exceptionally personal matters. I know that the process surrounding abortion was significantly reviewed about five years ago, and a lot of work went into that. Guidelines that were initially issued to professionals were withdrawn and had to be redone. Nevertheless, a lot of professionals still feel that the law is unclear and that they are vulnerable, as professionals. One understands that social security is not open-ended, with an infinite amount of money. I also know that we have seen Daily Mail examples of a relatively small number of individuals who have grossly abused the system. We must accept that.

However, there are a number of issues that I want to raise. It has not been mentioned that, as far as I am aware, neither the Northern Ireland Office nor the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland—responsible for the Social Security Agency—has conducted a Section 75 equality screening process. All legislation in Northern Ireland must be screened and measured against its Section 75 obligations; that process has not occurred. Although I accept that and would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say, concerning paragraph 7(20) of the Explanatory Memorandum, the Department for Communities nevertheless states that,

“if the third party knows or believes that a relevant offence (such as rape) has been committed, the third party will normally have a duty to inform the police of any information that is likely to secure, or to be of material assistance in securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of someone for that offence”.

As it stands, the law clearly places the burden on assessors to report rape disclosures to the police, with or without the consent of the applicant. If anybody thinks that if they report a rape, it will be a totally private and confidential matter, that will not be the position because a number of professionals will feel that they are under an obligation. I accept that, so far, there is no case law and we have no examples, but we are looking at the potential, and that is significant.

I suggest to the Minister that, sadly, we are in this position because of the impasse at Stormont and that these responsibilities should be taken by local representatives in Belfast. It is a shame and a disgrace that they are not there to do this job. Noble Lords may have seen the figures that were released last week on health. I think the noble Lord, Lord Patten, was responsible for a number of Northern Ireland issues over the years. There are 272,000 people on waiting lists and 78,000 of them have been waiting for more than a year to see a consultant. That figure has risen from 64,000 last year, and anybody who knows anything about health knows that if you are in that position, it is a life-threatening situation, yet the whole political apparatus is paralysed and is not paying any attention to these matters.

The question that arises here is on abortion. The law allows abortion in limited cases, but the professionals do not consider the guidance they have to be adequate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said, they have had no current training because there is nobody there to initiate it. They feel that the current law is unclear about where the lines are to be drawn. We can have an argument about the two-child cap, and I accept that it is a perfectly valid argument, but we are into the nitty-gritty of very specific cases here. Northern Ireland is a small place and I do not believe for one minute that women will have confidentiality guaranteed. I do not believe it, first, because of the relatively close-knit nature of the community and, secondly, because there is an unknown hanging over them: whether somebody somewhere will feel obliged to operate the law as they see it. In those circumstances, it would be opening a Pandora’s box.

These are decisions that should be taken in Stormont by the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. That is what they are there for, and that is what they are paid to do. I accept that the Minister is in a difficult position because he is obliged to govern, but since this proposal has come forward I have looked into it more closely and, although I am no expert in these matters, I have become progressively concerned. A revitalised Stormont could revise any of these matters because they are devolved, so far as I know, but there is very great concern. It spans all the parties, and they accept that if they do not like some of these social security measures, they are going to have to pay for them, but that is a choice to be made by the local community after consultation with local bodies and organisations, both professional and from the third sector. I hope the time arrives when they will be in a position to do their duty.