Northern Ireland: Political Developments

Debate between Lord Kilclooney and Lord Dunlop
Tuesday 28th March 2017

(7 years, 8 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kilclooney Portrait Lord Kilclooney (CB)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, as one of those involved in the Belfast agreement, I am delighted at the Statement and the Government’s determination to try to help get devolution restored to Northern Ireland. However, the Statement says:

“But should the talks fail in their objectives, the Government will have to consider all options”.


Is direct rule an option, and is joint rule of Northern Ireland not an option?

Lord Dunlop Portrait Lord Dunlop
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Our focus is on this period ahead—the window of opportunity the Secretary of State talked about—and I do not want to speculate about alternatives. Clearly, if we do not get agreement within this limited period, we need to consider all the options. However, it is fair to say that nobody wants to see a return to direct rule, which is why we need to intensify the discussions over the coming days and weeks.

Northern Ireland: Political Developments

Debate between Lord Kilclooney and Lord Dunlop
Tuesday 10th January 2017

(7 years, 11 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kilclooney Portrait Lord Kilclooney (CB)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, first of all, in what way does the Minister think that an election, and indeed the suggestion of a second election, could in any way overcome the impasse caused by the RHI scheme? Secondly, I welcome very much his Statement that the Government will make every effort to support the Belfast agreement, because that is fundamental. I also welcome the Statement that they would like to see an impartial inquiry, and I am delighted that the First Minister in Northern Ireland also wants to see this. Finally, can the Minister confirm that, should these things fail, the Government will in no way repeat the errors of 1985 and go behind the backs of the people of Northern Ireland to reach an agreement with the Dublin Government? That would lead to the chaos which my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord King, well recalls and which the late Lady Thatcher subsequently said she very much regretted had occurred. The failure of the Anglo-Irish agreement must not be repeated.

Lord Dunlop Portrait Lord Dunlop
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Regarding the election, I think the Statement makes it clear that there is a risk that that does not provide the solution we are looking for and that it would deepen the divisions. That is why the Secretary of State’s immediate priority is to use the period that we have in the coming hours and days—the seven-day period—to see, in active discussion with all the political parties, whether we can find a way through this. However, the legislation is clear. If the posts are not filled within a seven-day period, the Secretary of State has to call an election. It would obviously be premature today to speculate on the precise timing, but he is clear that he has to do that within a reasonable timeframe. With regard to the Irish Government, clearly there has been close contact with the Irish Government Foreign Minister, while of course respecting the constitutional proprieties.

Northern Ireland: Political Developments

Debate between Lord Kilclooney and Lord Dunlop
Tuesday 15th September 2015

(9 years, 3 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dunlop Portrait Lord Dunlop
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Obviously the Irish Government have a strong role in supporting these talks, and we work very closely with them in that. As participants in the Belfast agreement and as a Government who have commitments under the Stormont House agreement, they will be very much involved in these talks.

Lord Kilclooney Portrait Lord Kilclooney (CB)
- Hansard - -

Will the Minister make perfectly clear the role of the southern Irish Government? In the Belfast agreement, there were three strands. The southern Irish Government were allowed to be involved only in strand 3. Does that continue to be the case?

Lord Dunlop Portrait Lord Dunlop
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Our priority is getting the parties round the table because unless they are round the table we cannot have talks that will make progress. The priority of both Governments—and any influence that the US Government can bring to bear—is focused on getting all the parties round the table.

Northern Ireland Assembly

Debate between Lord Kilclooney and Lord Dunlop
Thursday 10th September 2015

(9 years, 3 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dunlop Portrait Lord Dunlop
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I can certainly give the noble Lord the assurance that our focus is on the talks and on those talks reaching a successful outcome. That is the focus of all our activity at the moment.

Lord Kilclooney Portrait Lord Kilclooney (CB)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, first, can the Minister confirm that the present crisis is due to some members of the IRA being involved in terrorist activity and killing people? That has brought about the crisis. Secondly, can the Minister confirm that adjournment is far preferable to suspension? Adjournment means that devolution continues in Northern Ireland; suspension means that it is abolished and will later have to be restored. Will he therefore confirm that adjournment is the preferable option? Thirdly, does he agree that something similar to the Independent Monitoring Commission, which was abolished, would be helpful in the present security situation? Finally, does he agree that one of the weaknesses of the cross-party Executive at Stormont was the fact that there was no cross-party Opposition? Will he bear that in mind?

Lord Dunlop Portrait Lord Dunlop
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Paramilitary activity is clearly a very serious matter. The scope of the talks is one of two aspects, the other being the implementation of the Stormont House agreement, which is very much the focus of the talks. The IMC is one option for consideration. As we discussed yesterday when these matters were brought up, the current situation is very different from the one that existed in 2004, when the IMC was originally set up. Clearly, we would have to ask such a body very different questions today.