Northern Ireland

Lord Dunlop Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office (Lord Dunlop) (Con)]

My Lords, with permission, I will repeat an Answer to an Urgent Question asked by Sir Gerald Howarth MP in the House of Commons earlier today. The Statement is as follows:

“As part of an ongoing investigation by the Police Service of Northern Ireland into the events surrounding Bloody Sunday in Londonderry in 1972, a former soldier was arrested for questioning on 10 November 2015. He was subsequently released on bail.

Criminal investigations and prosecutions are a matter for the police and prosecuting authorities, who act independently of government. The Government cannot therefore comment on an individual case.

This Government are committed to the rule of law. Where there is evidence of wrongdoing, it is right that it should be investigated.

We remain unstinting in our admiration and support for the men and women of the police and Armed Forces whose sacrifice ensured that terrorism would never succeed in Northern Ireland and that its future would only ever be determined by democracy and consent.

Whether the current investigations will lead to criminal prosecution is a matter for the police and prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland. The overwhelming majority of armed services personnel carried out their duties with courage, professionalism and integrity. This Government will never forget the debt of gratitude that we owe to them”.

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer given in the other place. As my honourable friend Vernon Coaker said there, it is only right and proper at this time to pay tribute to our Armed Forces, who are at this very moment engaged in defending our freedoms and are in harm’s way. They operate to the very highest standards and we should always remember the difficult circumstances in which they serve. That is why it is always difficult to criticise our Armed Forces if they fall below these high standards, but we cannot and must not fail to do so if evidence of wrongdoing should exist. The Saville inquiry of 2010 was clear. As the Prime Minister said at that time in his Statement to the House,

“there is no doubt; there is nothing equivocal; there are no ambiguities. What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/6/10; col. 739.]

He also apologised on behalf of the British Government. The whole report makes very uncomfortable reading for all of us, and none of us should ever forget the victims and families of those who were killed both on Bloody Sunday and throughout Northern Ireland on so many other occasions.

Can the Minister confirm that evidence given at the Saville inquiry is precluded from being used in any court proceedings against a particular individual? Can he confirm that the arrest of Soldier J was based on evidence gathered since January 2014 by the PSNI, which has announced a new investigation? The PSNI has said that there will be no further arrests until the results of a judicial review brought by other affected soldiers has concluded. Can the Minister tell us when he expects this judicial review to be concluded? Can he also tell us what work the Northern Ireland Office is undertaking pending the outcome of that judicial review?

[Lord Dunlop]

I thank the noble Lord for his words and will take each of his points in turn. Yes, I can confirm that evidence given to Saville cannot be used to incriminate the person who gives it; the evidence is protected. On the specific case, it would not be appropriate for me to comment; it is a subject of an ongoing criminal investigation and the question of arrest is a matter for the PSNI. With regard to the ongoing legal proceedings, again, I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to comment, but I understand that the PSNI is committed to not making any further arrests in relation to Bloody Sunday until the outcome of those legal proceedings.

[Lord Glentoran (Con)]

I have two points to make, First, I had a private meeting with Martin McGuinness soon after the Prime Minister’s apology to find out how the apology had gone down in Londonderry. He assured me that it had been very welcome and had been accepted. Secondly, Bloody Sunday—I was living there at the time—was very early in what we loosely call the Troubled times. There had not been much time for training and briefing of soldiers. The Paras are briefed and trained as an aggressive attack force. It was just very unfortunate that they were committed to Bloody Sunday.

[Lord Dunlop]

I thank my noble friend. When the Prime Minister made his Statement, I think that it was widely welcomed for the tone that it struck. I very much note my noble friend’s other point.

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, while it is of course important in any case to follow the evidence wherever it takes the authorities, and even though the mills of justice often grind exceeding slow—in this case, we are talking about events of almost 50 years ago—does the Minister agree that it is extremely important in these circumstances for the police, the press and people generally to understand that an arrest is not a conviction? We have the experience in recent times of a whole series of arrests by the PSNI which led to a political crisis we are still trying to find our way through in Northern Ireland, and all of those arrested have been released without charge. Is it not important to point out that the same is the case in respect of this soldier—that an arrest is not a conviction and assumptions should not be built on it until the proper processes are proceeded with?

[Lord Dunlop]

I very much agree with the noble Lord. I absolutely agree that an investigation is not the same as a prosecution. Indeed, an investigation is also an opportunity for someone to clear their name.

[Lord Trimble (Con)]

My Lords, I draw the Minister’s attention to a potential anomaly. I am not talking about this individual’s case. If, out of all of the proceedings of the Saville inquiry, any charges are brought and a conviction obtained, the person convicted will not be able to apply for early release under the terms of the Belfast agreement. I do not know why the authorities, in drafting that scheme, put a starting date of after 30 January 1972. It was never a matter of discussion and I was not aware of it until long after the agreement. However, it is there and I am making this point because, if this anomaly arises, steps should be taken to ensure that the person is treated in the same way as other persons convicted of criminal offences during the Troubles. It would be wrong to treat people in similar cases to this person’s case in a worse way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dunlop]

I thank my noble friend and note what he says. I will ensure that his views are reflected to the appropriate people.

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)]

My Lords, I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said. One other aspect worries me. I understand that the witnesses to the Saville inquiry were promised anonymity. On this occasion, three police cars turned up at this man’s house in Antrim to arrest someone who had indicated that he was willing to go to the police station of his own accord and give evidence. I hope that this matter is taken up because it is obviously worrying and may be extremely dangerous for him and his family.

[Lord Dunlop]

I note what my noble friend has said. His point was also raised in the other place earlier today and the Minister said that if there were concerns about the way in which the arrest happened, the matter should be taken up with the chief constable.

[Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)]

My Lords, as a Member of this House from Londonderry who lived through some of the difficult years in that city, it is important to say that we have now moved on to a better place. Sometimes when an atrocity such as this once again raises its ugly head, we forget where we have come from. I believe that in the city of Londonderry we have moved on from issues that were difficult many years ago. I agree that we should never forget the sacrifices of the security forces in protecting the people of Northern Ireland through a bloody terrorist campaign.

There was a clear belief when the Prime Minister apologised to the families of the victims of Bloody Sunday that that would more or less draw a line under it and we could all move on. Obviously that has not happened. I agree that no one should be above the law and that the police should be allowed to do their job irrespective of who the person may be.

Does the Minister agree that the new Stormont agreement announced yesterday is an important turning point for Northern Ireland? There have been five attempts to resolve the legacy issues of the past but, for whatever reason, all political parties in Northern Ireland are finding it difficult to get a resolution to the past. While we cannot get that resolution at this minute in time, it creates problems in legacy cases such as this and in dealing with the past. Will the Government and the parties continue to try to resolve this issue because, if we can, we can move Northern Ireland forward to a better place?

[Lord Dunlop]

The agreement that was reached yesterday was a significant achievement. I am sure the whole House will wish to congratulate all the Northern Ireland parties on reaching that deal. It has broken an impasse and created the opportunity to develop devolved institutions that work for the people in Northern Ireland. As the Minister in the other place said, it is a matter of regret that legacy was not part of the deal. We must find ways to take these matters forward and give victims and their families closure and see justice served. The Government stand ready to play their part in that process.

Northern Ireland: Paramilitary Groups

Lord Dunlop Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office (Lord Dunlop) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House I will now repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows.

“With permission, I would like to make a Statement on the assessment of the structure, roles and purpose of paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland, which I am publishing today and placing copies of in the Library of the House.

Before I turn to the assessment, it is worth reminding the House of the phenomenal progress that has been made in Northern Ireland over the past 20 years. We have moved on from a time when terrorism was an almost daily fact of life to one where the overwhelming majority have completely rejected violence as a means of trying to secure political ends.

The political settlement which sees people who were once enemies working together for the good of the whole community has transformed life for the better. However, as the murders of Gerard Davison and Kevin McGuigan have highlighted, there are still serious legacy issues that need to be addressed, and that includes the structure, role and purpose of paramilitary groups.

I commissioned an assessment of those matters following the statement in August by the Police Service of Northern Ireland that a line of inquiry in relation to the murder of Kevin McGuigan was the involvement of members of the Provisional IRA. The assessment has been jointly drafted by the PSNI and MI5, drawing on current intelligence, and has been reviewed by three independent figures: Lord Carlile QC, Rosalie Flanagan, and Stephen Shaw QC.

The reviewers have confirmed today that the PSNI and MI5 engaged fully with them, consistent with their duties and constraints, and that the assessments were, in their words, ‘fair and balanced’, ‘evidence-based’ and ‘credible’. The reviewers state that they are,

‘satisfied that the assessments meet all the requirements placed upon us’.

I wish to thank PSNI, MI5 and the independent reviewers for carrying out this important work within the timeframe I gave them.

I would like to set out the Government’s position on paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. Paramilitary organisations have no place in a democratic society. They were never justified in the past, they are not justified today and they should disband. These organisations brought misery and suffering throughout the 30 years of the Troubles. Together, they were responsible for over 3,000 murders, with thousands more injured.

Only last week a service was held to mark the 25th anniversary of the IRA murder of that great champion of freedom and democracy, Ian Gow, and today I believe that the thoughts of the House should be with all those who suffered directly at the hands of paramilitary organisations. We should be mindful that, thanks in large part to the efforts of the police and our Armed Forces, along with the determination of the overwhelming majority of people across these islands, the future of Northern Ireland will only ever be determined by democracy and consent.

The assessment sets out the position in respect of those organisations which declared ceasefires in order to support and facilitate the political process. It does not cover in any detail the threat posed by dissident republican groupings, which is the subject of separate, regular reports that I make to the House. The assessment does, though, confirm that dissident republicans remain a severe threat and that at any given time a terrorist attack from them is highly likely. For our part, the Government will always give the police and security services the fullest possible backing in their efforts to keep people in Northern Ireland safe and secure.

The assessment confirms that all the main paramilitary groups operating during the Troubles are still in existence, including the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Red Hand Commando, the Ulster Defence Association, the Provisional IRA and the INLA. On structures, the assessment says that:

‘The majority of paramilitary organisations in this report still have leadership structures’,

and,

‘organise themselves along militaristic lines’.

It goes on to say:

‘These labels make the groups look more prepared for a campaign of violence than they are’,

and that,

‘in the highly unlikely event that the groups were minded to return to terrorism, we judge they would be unable to resurrect the capability demonstrated at their peak’.

On role of these groups, the assessment concludes that:

‘None of these groups is planning or conducting terrorist attacks’,

although some INLA members have provided help to DR terrorists. The report also states that:

‘Members of these paramilitary groups continue to engage in violent activity, both directed by local leadership and conducted without sanction’.

It says that,

‘members of all groups have carried out murders since the 1998 Belfast Agreement’.

In addition, the assessment makes it clear that:

‘Members of these paramilitary groups, to different degrees, are also involved in other serious criminal activity. This includes large scale smuggling operations, fuel laundering, drug dealing and extortion’.

Regarding weapons, the assessment says that:

‘Although the majority of paramilitary weapons were decommissioned, some were not’.

On the purpose of these groups, the report concludes that:

‘It is our firm assessment that the leaderships of the main paramilitary groups are committed to peaceful means to achieve their political objectives’,

but that,

‘we judge that individual members of paramilitary groups with a legacy of violent activity still represent a threat to national security’.

The report is in no doubt that these groups,

‘cause serious harm to the communities in which they are embedded and undermine support for policing’.

On the individual groups, the assessment confirms:

‘The structures of the UVF remain in existence and there are some indications of recruitment’.

It states:

‘The UVF’s leadership has attempted to steer its membership towards peaceful initiatives and to carve out a new constructive role in representing the loyalist community’.

However, the assessment goes on to confirm that,

‘a larger number of members, including some senior figures, are extensively involved in organised crime’.

UVF members are also involved in paramilitary assaults. In respect of the UDA, the assessment concludes that while its structures remain in existence they have ‘become increasingly fragmented’ and are split into ‘discrete geographic areas’ that ‘act almost completely autonomously’. The assessment states:

‘With the support of some leadership figures, there are UDA members who have continued attempts to steer the group into positive community-based activism’.

Others, however, remain engaged in criminality and violence, with individual members and some senior figures involved in organised crime, including,

‘drug dealing, robbery, extortion and the distribution of counterfeit and contraband goods’.

There is also involvement in paramilitary assaults, street disorder and violent protest.

In respect of the Provisional IRA, the assessment says:

‘The structures of PIRA remain in existence in a much reduced form’,

including,

‘a senior leadership, the ‘Provisional Army Council’ … and some ‘departments’’.

The authors of the report do not believe that the group is actively recruiting. They state that, while decommissioning took place between 2001 and 2005, the Provisional IRA continues to have access to some weapons. However the assessment judges that,

‘PIRA has not conducted organised procurement of new weaponry in the period since the last IMC report of 2011’.

While the assessment states that,

‘PIRA members believe that the’,

Provisional Army Council,

‘oversees both PIRA and Sinn Fein with an overarching strategy’,

it judges that this has a ‘wholly political focus’. The report points out:

‘Individual PIRA members remain involved in criminal activity, such as large scale smuggling, and there have been isolated incidents of violence, including murders’.

The report concludes that:

‘The PIRA of the Troubles era is well beyond recall. It is our firm assessment that PIRA’s leadership remains committed to the peace process and its aim of achieving a united Ireland by political means. The group is not involved in targeting or conducting terrorist attacks against the state’.

That is a direct quote from the assessment, and I will not seek to hide from the House that much of the assessment makes very uncomfortable reading. These organisations should never have existed in the first place, and 21 years after the first ceasefires, it is clearly unacceptable that they still exist today. For all that, the assessment judges the leaderships of the main paramilitary groups to be committed to peaceful means—such groupings have no place in a democratic society.

Members of these groups continue to exert a malign influence, which, as the assessment puts it,

‘harms communities and damages the financial prosperity and reputation of Northern Ireland’.

Inevitably, a document of this kind does not provide all the answers but I hope it will assist in identifying the nature and scale of the problem, and in framing the debate about the way forward. Working with the main political parties and society more broadly, we need a strategy to lead us to a point where these organisations no longer exist and their influence is removed from Northern Ireland once and for all.

That is one of the two main goals of the talks I am chairing at Stormont, and it is an outcome to which all parties say they are committed. The other goal is to secure the full implementation of the Stormont House agreement. I believe that those talks represent the best chance of making progress on both these crucial issues and the best chance of finding a way forward that builds a brighter, more secure future for everyone in Northern Ireland. We all now need to engage intensively in those talks in the days ahead, and I commend this Statement to the House”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shutt of Greetland (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, for repeating the Statement; indeed, I also thank the PSNI, MI5 and my noble friend Lord Carlile’s trio for the work they have done. We recognise and remember today that one of the reasons for this Statement is because there are victims and families who we must be thinking about.

Of course, I have not seen the underlying document, but only the Statement which has been repeated today. It states that the main paramilitary groups which operated during the Troubles are still in existence, but that there is a positive in that none of these groups is planning or conducting terrorist attacks and that the leadership of the main paramilitary groups is committed to achieving their political objectives. We should note the word “leadership”. On the negative side the members of these groups—it does not say the leadership—are to different degrees involved in serious criminal activity: large-scale smuggling, fuel laundering, drug dealing and extortion. It is now 17 years since the Belfast agreement and these organisations still exist. They have not been disbanded or wound up or ceased to function. One might ask when that will happen. It seems that those who have previously been involved in paramilitary activity 17 or more years ago still have a sense of fraternity. Can not the Stormont Government and the Irish Government assist the leadership of these organisations to convert these former terrorists into groups of law-abiding old boys’ or comrades’ associations, or turn them into new organisations that do positive work in Northern Ireland?

It would be helpful if the Minister could give us an update, if it is possible, now that the Statement has been aired and published, on what the future is for the Stormont Government and whether we are likely to see a proper resumption of activities there.

[Lord Dunlop]

I thank the noble Lords for their responses and for their continuing support for eradicating from Northern Ireland the scourge of paramilitary activity and providing justice for all of its victims. I am sure that noble Lords from all parts of the House will wish to send a strong message to all of Northern Ireland’s main parties about the need to unite together in a commitment to ending this activity once and for all, to making the democratic institutions in Northern Ireland work effectively again and to resolving the very real political and financial problems that Northern Ireland faces. I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, said about trust, the paramount importance of the rule of law and the principle of consent. We must all give the PSNI our full support in the very difficult and important job that it is doing.

I shall address some of the specific points made on the Kevin McGuigan murder. The assessment confirms that the chief constable’s August statement remains valid. I can confirm that the reviewers have been shown classified material. They also had access to individuals who put the assessment together and an opportunity to probe and challenge those authors. I agree with the noble Lord that the assessment does indeed provide a basis for agreement, even if it does not in itself provide all the answers to the many questions that have been raised.

There is now a pressing need for the parties to decide the best way of dealing with paramilitary activity. The assessment will help inform the urgent and intensive discussions that now need to take place. Of course, there have already been extensive discussions between the UK Government, the five parties and the Irish Government on implementing the Stormont House agreement. With regard to the introduction of the legislation, detailed work is still ongoing.

The noble Lord mentioned the loyalist initiative of the Loyalist Communities Council. I think that any initiative that helps to move people from criminality to a more positive way should be welcomed; but as the Secretary of State said in the other place, it must be judged on the results that it produces. In terms of what was said about helping the transition, I think the Secretary of State said in the other place that the assessment provides a mixed picture but some of the aspects in the assessment are not completely negative. I very much agree with what has been said about smuggling and extortion: they have no place in a civilised society.

The priority now is to have these urgent and intensive talks and to get the parties round the table. I hope this assessment will provide an important basis for moving that forward constructively.

[Lord Trimble (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the publication of this comprehensive assessment. I ask the Minister to refer to paragraphs 12 and 13. Paragraph 12, with regard to the Provisional IRA, states that,

“some ‘departments’ with specific responsibilities”,

are still in existence. Is it not the case that the team of leading republicans who conducted an inquiry into the killing of Davison—which inquiry led them to conclude that McGuigan was responsible for that, which led then to the killing of McGuigan—were members of one of those departments with specific responsibilities, and it would have been part of their responsibilities to report their actions to the leadership of the republican movement?

With regard to paragraph 13, which refers to large-scale smuggling and other money-raising activities, as has been mentioned, is it not the case that the primary purpose of those criminal activities is to generate income for the republican movement to finance its political focus and objectives? This enables Sinn Fein to have the highest income of any political party in the British Isles. Should we not think about cleaning up this aspect of our political process?

[Lord Dunlop]

I note very carefully what my noble friend says, but I do not wish to speculate on detail that goes beyond the assessment. I note the conclusions in paragraph 13, which is the important basis on which we need to move forward. We judge that this strategy has a wholly political focus, that the PIRA of the Troubles era is well beyond recall and that PIRA’s leadership remains committed to the peace process. I do not wish to minimise for a minute the challenges that we still have. The important thing is to use this assessment to inform the urgent and intensive discussions that now need to take place among the five parties to resolve and eradicate for ever paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)]

My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the PSNI has the tools it needs to do the job? One of the real problems we see in Northern Ireland is that the paramilitary movement is taking on smuggling, drug dealing and that sort of thing. These are areas that the police should be involved in. I am still not convinced that the chief constable and the Police Service of Northern Ireland have all the resources they need to stop what is happening there. If these things were happening over here on the mainland, we would not in all conscience accept that the police could not deal with them. I hope the Minister can give me some assurance that the Government support what the Police Service of Northern Ireland is doing.

[Lord Dunlop]

We are of course very supportive of what the PSNI is doing. I am sure noble Lords from all parts of the House will want to ensure that the PSNI has all the support it needs to do the very difficult and important job that it has got to do. The UK Government have provided additional funding in the order of £230 million over the last five years. It also highlights the importance of resolving the very pressing budget and welfare issues. That is absolutely crucial to finding the right way through all this.

[Baroness Blood (Lab)]

My Lords, there is no comfort in this report for the communities of Northern Ireland, as it only reinforces what has been common knowledge in Northern Ireland for many years. But now that we have all this intelligence and it is all known—I follow on from the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris—will the police take further action against these so-called paramilitary groups? When will we be honest and stop calling them paramilitaries? They are criminals: let us stop giving them an importance and a status that is not warranted or, indeed, ever justified.

[Lord Dunlop]

It is absolutely right that the police need to pursue all leads and follow the evidence wherever it goes, because we want to bring to justice the perpetrators of any criminal actions. The issue is that, in order to bring criminals to justice, we need evidence, and sometimes it is difficult to obtain information from local communities, for reasons that are well known to noble Lords. I agree absolutely with the noble Baroness’s sentiment that we need to bring criminals to justice and leave no stone unturned in that mission.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the Statement and on the tone with which it was delivered, because this matter is fundamental. There will continue to be debates on some of the key points, in particular whether—as the Secretary of State said in the other place—there is no evidence that money obtained by crime is being used for political purposes. If that is true—and I have no evidence to challenge that view—it is the first time in the modern history of the republican movement, provisional or official, that crime has been carried out purely for the individual advantage of members. It will be a real novelty if it is true.

However, the really important thing is what the Minister said at the end of the Statement, when he acknowledged that the assessment does not provide all the answers. The Secretary of State said in the other place that there are still important questions to be asked about paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland. That tone is important. We have difficulties in the peace process not because of the dark side of certain developments—which the people of Northern Ireland well understand—but because, at the time of the re-creation of the institutions, certain achievements of the IRA ceasefire were oversold. Claims were made—that there would be no further recruitment, that the IRA had ceased to exist entirely—that, in retrospect, no longer stand up to examination. The people of Northern Ireland are well aware of that.

This is a difficult situation, but it could be got through by the Government maintaining a constantly honest, open and questioning attitude to the realities. That would help the peace process. Does the noble Lord agree?

[Lord Dunlop]

I very much agree with what the noble Lord said. I do not wish to add to what the Secretary of State said in the other place, but I agree that tone is important—being open, transparent and not shying away from the difficult questions that have to be addressed. That is what the job will be over the coming days as the talks proceed.

[Lord Rogan (UUP)]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I especially thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and his two colleagues for the work they did in making this assessment.

The assessment clearly states that the Sinn Fein/IRA high command, the Provisional Army Council, remains in existence. It further states that members believe that the Army Council oversees IRA/Sinn Fein strategy. Past Army Council membership included senior Sinn Fein politicians. Do Her Majesty’s Government believe that the current Army Council includes Sinn Fein politicians? Further, following on from the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, what is the Government’s assessment of the role and purpose of the PIRA departments, as emphasised in the assessment?

[Lord Dunlop]

I echo what was said about the reviewers. They bring great experience and integrity to the job they were given. The links between PIRA and Sinn Fein are long-standing and well known. As I said, I do not wish to speculate on further detail beyond what is in the assessment.

[Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)]

My Lords, I also welcome the Statement. It certainly gives us further insight into paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland and its structures, more than anything else. Some of us in this House certainly did not need a report to tell us that paramilitary structures are still very much there in Northern Ireland. Also, it is important that we say it clears the chief constable when he said a number of weeks ago that paramilitary organisations still exist and the IRA were involved in the murder of Mr McGuigan. It is important that that is repeated.

On the issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, raised, I have to say that we do give them a platform if we describe them as “paramilitary organisations”. We need to get away from that. They are criminals and should be dealt with by the PSNI. I have some worries whether the PSNI has the proper resources to deal with the criminality, which is not just right across Northern Ireland but right across the island of Ireland, on both sides of the border. I have said for some time that there are issues in and around resources for the PSNI. It is something that the Government should look at seriously.

On the other issue that the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, raised, I would go much further. We have seen the report today and we have heard the Statement. I have believed for some time that the criminality and the money made from criminality goes to political parties. We should say that. We have a political party on the island of Ireland that is almost the richest anywhere in Europe. It is the second-richest party in Europe. That is something that the Government ought to look at and continue to look at: whether that criminality and those unearned gains are going to a particular party.

I ask the Minister: do the Government see a further role for this panel in Northern Ireland, as we try to move on the political process? I hope that the Statement helps the political process to move on. That is important.

[Lord Dunlop]

I thank the noble Lord. With regard to his question on whether I see a role for the review panel, I am not certain about that. However, it is certainly true to say that, as part of the talks process, there needs to be discussion and agreement over a verification mechanism and a broader strategy to see paramilitary groups disband once and for all.

[Lord McFall of Alcluith (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, said, it is no surprise that these paramilitary groups exist, so it is very important that talks continue to take place. However, the perpetual lesson from Northern Ireland is that when there is a vacuum, the Government must fill it. There is a case here for saying that perhaps the Government have not been robust enough in that area. I am mindful of the Protestant paramilitary groups. I remember talking to them just after the peace process many years ago. They said that they did not get support for building community structures and that they felt isolated from the mainstream unionist community as well as from the rest of Northern Ireland. So there is a case for having active community polices in recognition of the high unemployment, deprivation and poverty there. If we do not support the enlightened members of those communities, they will remain isolated and we will not be able to tackle the problem at root. That is a lesson for the Government.

[Lord Dunlop]

I agree with the noble Lord about the need to support community groups. That is very much part of the long-term solution here. The Government are leaving no stone unturned to keep the five parties around the table focused on the twin objectives of dealing with this paramilitary activity and implementing the Stormont House agreement. That is what we will be focused on in the coming days.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

We have heard a depressing report and been told that a strategy to address it is being discussed at Stormont—discussions which have been going on for some time. Can the Government say when those discussions are likely to conclude? I think that a month was indicated when we last discussed Northern Ireland in this House. Can the Government say what they will do if the talks should fail? Of course, we hope that they are crowned by success but, if they fail, what will the Government do?

[Lord Dunlop]

We hope that the talks can conclude swiftly but I will not put a specific timetable on that. I do not think that it would be helpful for me to speculate on what might happen in the event of failure. We are working very hard for success.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I refer the Minister to page 11 of the Statement and the paragraph in it that my noble friend Lord Rogan mentioned. I also associate myself with the thanks expressed to the panel for its work. However, this goes beyond what the chief constable said in August this year. The paragraph on which I wish to focus states that,

“the assessment states that: ‘PIRA members believe that the PAC’”—

that is, the Provisional Army Council—

“‘oversees both PIRA and Sinn Fein with an overarching strategy’”.

Will the Minister, on behalf of the Government, tell the House whether or not the Government accept this paragraph of the report?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dunlop]

The Secretary of State said in the other place that we did accept the assessment in this report, which has been reviewed by three very credible, experienced reviewers of high integrity.

Northern Ireland: Political Developments

Lord Dunlop Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office (Lord Dunlop) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the other place. The Statement is as follows.

“With permission, I would like to make a Statement about political developments in Northern Ireland. First, I welcome back the honourable Member for Gedling as shadow Secretary of State. I hope that we can continue the constructive working relationship we had when he last held this important post. With that in mind, the new Labour leader and the shadow Chancellor are on record many times as expressing their support for a united Ireland. That is an entirely legitimate view, as is the clearly held preference on these Conservative Benches that our country stays together and Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom. It would be helpful for the shadow Secretary of State to confirm when he responds today that, under his party’s new leadership, the consent principle at the heart of the Belfast agreement will remain paramount.

Last week we started a new round of cross-party talks focused on two issues: the continued presence of paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland and the pressing need to implement the Stormont House agreement. The talks began on Tuesday with a meeting of all the participants, at which everyone agreed that these two issues needed to be addressed as a matter of urgency, although views differed on the sequence in which they should be considered. On Wednesday morning, the Police Service of Northern Ireland arrested three well-known members of the republican movement, including the northern chairman of Sinn Fein, in connection with their ongoing investigation into the murder of Kevin McGuigan. It would not be appropriate to comment on a live police investigation, save to say that all three were subsequently released unconditionally. These developments had dramatic political consequences.

On Thursday evening, Peter Robinson announced that DUP Ministers, with the exception of Finance Minister Arlene Foster, were resigning from the Northern Ireland Executive. The First Minister himself has stepped aside, with Mrs Foster taking over the functions of that office for a period of six weeks. That does not trigger an early Assembly election—that would only happen if either the First Minister or Deputy First Minister were to resign. Nor does it mean suspension of the institutions or a return to direct rule—that would require primary legislation at Westminster, which is not something that the Government believe would be justified in the current circumstances. It does not mean that the Assembly and the Executive cease to function, but the situation is very grave.

A number of departments are left without ministerial leadership and relationships between the parties have almost completely broken down. That leaves the devolved institutions looking increasingly dysfunctional. Over recent days, I have been maintaining close contact with the five main Northern Ireland parties and with the Irish Government, and I have kept the Prime Minister constantly updated on the situation. Yesterday, I held a series of bilateral and trilateral meetings at Stormont, aimed at establishing a basis for further intensive talks. I plan to hold further such discussions at Stormont tomorrow and in the days ahead.

The events I have outlined do not alter the fundamental issues that need to be resolved. First, the brutal murders of Gerard Davison and Kevin McGuigan have brought into sharp focus the continuing problems around the existence of paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland, and the involvement of some of their members in criminality and organised crime. The Government are clear that paramilitary organisations have no place in a democratic society. They were never justified in the past, they are not justified now and we all need to work together to find a way to bring to an end this continuing blight on Northern Ireland society. The Government are working with the parties in the Northern Ireland Executive on how to achieve that goal.

For example, serious consideration needs to be given to whether the time is right to re-establish a body along the lines of the Independent Monitoring Commission. The remit the parties might wish to give such a body is likely to be very different from the matters addressed by the original IMC, reflecting changed circumstances. But there might well be scope for such a body to play a part in providing greater community confidence and repairing working relationships within the Executive. The Government will also actively consider whether there is more that we can do to support efforts to tackle organised crime and cross-border crime in Northern Ireland. In the days to come, we will continue to listen carefully to representations made to us on the best way to ensure that all parties can engage in this process.

The second issue on the agenda is just as important as the first. Resolving the differences which have been blocking the implementation of the Stormont House agreement is crucial if the finances of the Executive are to be placed on a sustainable footing. Without welfare reform and steps to tackle in-year budget pressures, there is a real danger that the executive departments could start running out of money, becoming steadily less able to pay their bills, with the serious negative impact that could have on front-line public services. As we have seen in those parts of Europe where Governments are unable to control their debts and live within their means—some of which are supported by the new leader of the Labour party—it is the vulnerable and most disadvantaged who suffer most in such situations. We have therefore made clear that if these matters are not dealt with by the parties, as a last resort the Government would have to legislate here at Westminster—a position on which I hope we would have the support of the honourable Member for Gedling.

As things stand, every day that passes is likely to see the devolved institutions become less and less able to function effectively. We have limited time, so once again I urge all parties to engage intensively and with focus, determination and good will in the talks under way. We on these Benches, and I hope the whole House, continue to give our full support to the Belfast agreement and the institutions it created. There can be no doubt that power-sharing, inclusive government comes with its frustrations and difficulties—indeed, I hear about them every day—but as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister often reminds this House, the Northern Ireland political settlement was a huge achievement. It has transformed life in Northern Ireland for the better and it is an awe-inspiring example of what can be achieved with political leadership and vision. On so many occasions in the past 20 years, Northern Ireland’s politicians have come together to achieve the seemingly impossible. It is time to do so again, so that we can continue on the road to a brighter, more secure future for Northern Ireland. I commend this Statement to the House”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating this Statement, which does not seem to take us much further down the road from the events of last week. That is a little disappointing. There have been relationship breakdowns between power-sharing parties on and off now for a number of years, and we lurch from semi-crisis to crisis all too often. The poor electors of Northern Ireland must be getting utterly disheartened by the bad behaviour of some of their leaders. Do the Government agree that there is a need to address paramilitaries of all kinds, whether unionist or nationalist, and that there must not be any relationship between democratically elected politicians and paramilitary organisations?

The Statement says that the talks are focused on two issues: paramilitarism and the implementation of the Stormont House agreement. Are the Government content that tackling these two issues will be enough to break the cycle of crises that has befallen the Northern Ireland Executive in recent years? Is there not merit in taking a wider view, including consideration of institutional structures and processes that prevent the kind of political progress that is required if public services are to be maintained?

Do the Government have a view on whether the actions of these Ministers in recent days amount to a breach of the pledge of office that all Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive are required to take? They pledge to,

“discharge in good faith all the duties of office”,

and to,

“participate fully in the Executive Committee, the North/South Ministerial Council, and the British-Irish Council”.

The structures of Northern Ireland are in grave danger of not working for much longer. That would be tragic for the people of Northern Ireland, who have rightly enjoyed the peace that was predicated on the Good Friday agreement 17 years ago. They want a stable society, and it is up to the Government, both here and there, to deliver that to them.

Last week, speaking on Northern Ireland in the previous Statement, I talked about the real problems the police in Northern Ireland face day in, day out. I was therefore very pleased to hear in the Statement that more work will be going on to support efforts to tackle organised crime and cross-border crime. That surely will mean more financial support for the police, who have lost so many officers in recent years. This past season has seen 45 police officers injured in civil disorders. If that happened here, we can imagine the sort of outcry that would ensue. Moreover, concessions should not be made to just one part of the power-sharing parties. They must be seen to be fair to all, and I urge the Government to ensure this.

The Statement says that the talks and negotiations are time-limited. On the one hand, the Statement says that time is limited, and with every day that passes, the devolved institutions are likely to be less able to function effectively. On the other hand, the Secretary of State appears to be telling the House that, rather than there being the intense, focused negotiations which she told us just last week were urgently needed, the furthest the discussions have reached thus far is a series of bilateral talks about talks. How do the Government believe that real urgency and momentum can be injected into the process to halt what appears to be a slide towards ever more gridlock?

On the relationship of the body along the lines of the Independent Monitoring Commission, have the Government given any consideration to the remit that such a body might have? The noble Lord mentioned that earlier. In addition to monitoring the activities of paramilitary organisations, might there be a role for that body, for example, to monitor the implementation by politicians of agreements reached between themselves, particularly those intended to address the legacy of the past? It is critical to reach the point where political agreements are not left to sit unimplemented, with all the damage that that does to public confidence in the political process.

If these vital talks are to be jointly shared by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Irish Government, can the Minister assure me that those relationships are strong and constructive? How often do meetings take place between them? If there is sufficient will to make these talks work, the problems confronting the Executive can and should be solved quickly.

[Lord Dunlop]

First, I thank the two noble Lords opposite for their contributions. I particularly welcome the confirmation from the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, that his party intends to continue a bipartisan approach to Northern Ireland and remains committed to the principle of consent. It is a great strength when we in this Parliament can demonstrate a bipartisan approach to Northern Ireland. Having said that, the current situation is undoubtedly grave. We remain totally committed to devolution in Northern Ireland. That is why my right honourable friend the Northern Ireland Secretary is holding intensive talks with the five parties, and why we urge all parties to engage with the talks process with focus, determination and, of course, good will.

Turning to specific issues raised by noble Lords, the first was that of full authority. I confirm that we will bring to bear the full authority of the UK Government in these talks, and will focus on implementation of the Stormont House agreement and the paramilitary activity. On the chief constable’s assessment, the Government agree with it but we would be cautious about expounding upon what is already in the public domain. On the ongoing PSNI investigation, again it would be unhelpful to speculate about that. It is not in the interests of justice. The police must be able to follow the evidence without fear or favour. On the issue of police resources, of course the PSNI needs the resources to discharge its very important responsibilities.

On the ambiguity issue that the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, raised, there is no room for it here. There is no place for paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. They are a blight on society, they are not wanted and they should disband. On cross-agency working, yes, we see the need for agencies to work together and to involve community groups so that we can find a solution to the problems Northern Ireland faces. On the IMC, I do not want to prejudice what parties might propose as part of the talks process, but the Government recognise that such a body could play a role and any remit that such a body had would need to reflect the changed circumstances.

I was asked about Stormont House agreement implementation and legislation. As has already been said, the Stormont House agreement was a great achievement. It is very important that the UK Government deliver on their commitments, so we continue to work on the Bill. Our aim is to present to Parliament next month the legislation as planned.

On welfare reform and the special circumstances of Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State made very clear that the Government will not fund a more generous Northern Ireland welfare system, but we have to recognise that funding already acknowledges Northern Ireland’s special circumstances. Northern Ireland’s spending per head is already 23% higher than the UK average and, of course, a key part of the Stormont House agreement was the inclusion of £2 billion additional spending power. These talks need to be urgent, focused and intensive—talks that take weeks, not months—and we will work very closely with the Irish Government to get people round the table and find solutions to the problems Northern Ireland is facing.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, of course we want the bipartisan approach to continue, and of course we want the Good Friday agreement and the institutions to be brought back as soon as possible, but I wonder if the Minister could clarify something. Surely there is a difference between criminality and paramilitary activity, even if the people who are alleged to have done it were former members of a paramilitary organisation. Are we not endangering Northern Ireland by suggesting that the tragic murder of Kevin McGuigan was definitely to do with paramilitary activity, when a lot of evidence suggests that it was ordinary—common or garden, very nasty—criminality?

[Lord Dunlop]

As I said earlier, we agree with the chief constable’s assessment that the Provisional IRA continues to exist organisationally although its purpose has radically changed. The noble Lord is absolutely right: the chief constable’s finding was individuals engaged in criminality for personal gain while the organisation itself is no longer involved in terrorism. We accept and agree with that assessment, and it is very much part of the priority for the talks process that we focus on the activity that is taking place. That will be a key priority for the talks.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I begin by saying how delighted I was to hear the words of the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, because there has been some concern in Northern Ireland about the forthcoming attitude of the Labour Party. We are most grateful for what he had to say.

Is the Minister aware that the Sinn Fein leadership gave a press conference at the weekend at which the northern chairman of that organisation described the evolution of the IRA as being from a caterpillar to a butterfly? Does the Minister agree that there could be no more appalling, outrageous and false analogy of the development of that organisation? Does he also agree that the members and victims who suffered at the hands of that organisation, and continue to suffer, were outraged, horrified and angered by such a statement? Can he assure the House that Her Majesty’s Government will not sweep issues like this under the carpet? The fundamental lie that was being propagated at that press conference is the reason why trust has been so undermined. Until that lie is confronted and dealt with and separated out from the rest of the day-to-day problems—such as the financial mismanagement on a massive scale that exists in Belfast—I believe we will have huge difficulty. Will he undertake to ensure that his right honourable friend in the other place is aware of this issue?

[Lord Dunlop]

I certainly undertake to make my right honourable friend in the other place aware of my noble friend’s comments. As I have said already, paramilitary activity of any kind is a blight on society and we need to deal with it and banish it from Northern Ireland. The other point I would make is that victims must absolutely be centre stage in everything we do.

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Con)]

My Lords, I share my noble friend Lord Empey’s appreciation of the position and comments of the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy. Have Her Majesty’s Government themselves reached the stage of having very different draft terms of reference for the possible substitute for the original Independent Monitoring Commission, and if so, are the Government encouraged by the reaction to them to date?

[Lord Dunlop]

Before replying to my noble friend’s question, I take this opportunity, on the eve of his retirement from this House, to pay tribute to the many years of public service he has given and his distinguished record as a former Northern Ireland Secretary.

Clearly, as I have said already, the IMC is very much an option for consideration. We do not want to prejudge what proposals the parties might put forward, but as I said earlier, the remit would be very different because the circumstances are very different.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I cannot prevent myself joining in the tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, who was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at such a difficult time and carried out the job with such distinction.

I very much welcome the tone of the Minister’s remarks today about the IMC and, indeed, the broad tone in the other place. As he rightly said, it cannot be a simple return of the IMC, and there is much discussion to be had about this. I shall put to the House the most profound reason why it is a good idea. Some months ago, Committee A of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly—on which the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and I serve, as do members of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil—presented a report in the Dáil Éireann on these issues of criminality and cross-border smuggling and their relationship to politics. There was a good debate and a couple of good newspaper follow-up stories but ultimately, after that, Committee A’s report was forgotten about. It goes right to the heart of these matters of criminality. The return of the IMC would, tragically, not have stopped the two deaths that we have just seen. However, as I hope the Minister will agree, an open and honest discussion of issues relating to criminality and politics in Northern Ireland, such as we have tried to have in Committee A, would provide greater clarity and carry greater clout with the media. It can only be healthy. It would not have saved these two men’s lives or solve all problems, but it would be a contribution to a clear atmosphere. Yesterday, Mr Gerry Adams very helpfully said that he wants to address the unionist community and say something reassuring, and I do not dismiss that. I am glad that he at least said that. But there is no possibility that anything that he says can have any weight. The crucial thing is to have a new independent body that will have control of the media agenda. That is the great case for the return, in a modified form, of the IMC.

[Lord Dunlop]

The noble Lord brings great experience of these matters to this debate and I very much take on board what he has said. I will make sure that his points are reflected to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

Will my noble friend clarify the role of the Government of the Republic of Ireland in the discussions that are taking place?

[Lord Dunlop]

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 (CB)]

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]

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.

[Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)]

My Lords, I, too, very much welcome the Minister’s Statement on the current political crisis in Northern Ireland. I also welcome the statement to the House of the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, to clarify the Labour Party’s position. In the last few days the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been meeting the five main political parties in Northern Ireland to find a way forward—in her own words, so that “intensive talks” can take place to address all the outstanding issues. Are we any closer to those talks taking place so that we can address all the issues, or are there still issues that need to be addressed by the individual parties to try to get them round the table?

Does the Minister also agree that if the institutions in Northern Ireland are to function effectively, paramilitary activity needs to be addressed once and for all? The island of Ireland is awash with criminality which has been going on for many years—both in the north and in the south. It is almost 20 years since the signing of the Good Friday agreement, yet we still have paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland that are still active, still killing and still involved in criminal activity.

In his Statement, the Minister talked about some sort of IMC body. I think we are in a different place and at a different time for which we need a different body. My only worry is that the ideas seem to have to come from the five main political parties—regarding the format, the powers and the terms of reference that such a body might have. Addressing that matter would be very useful because I can see it, too, turning into a political football in Northern Ireland. Would it not be better if the Minister and the Government would lead on and address those particular issues?

[Lord Dunlop]

I agree very much with what the noble Lord said about criminal paramilitary activity. As I have said previously, I do not think it would be helpful to provide a running commentary as talks proceed. The Secretary of State said in the other place that she will hold further talks tomorrow. We must see what transpires from those.

[Lord Hylton (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness speaking from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench raised the question of whether some Ministers might be in breach of their oath of office. The Minister may not be able to answer today, right now, but could he at least ensure that legal advice is taken on that point?

[Lord Dunlop]

It is for the Ministers who have taken those actions to answer for them. We remain absolutely focused on getting the parties round the table and seeking a resolution to these difficult issues.

Northern Ireland Assembly

Lord Dunlop Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office (Lord Dunlop) (Con)]

My Lords, the question of an adjournment of the Northern Ireland Assembly is a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly. I understand that the Assembly Business Committee is meeting this afternoon to consider this proposal.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

I thank the Minister for that Answer, which of course did not refer to suspension of the Assembly, which is not within the remit of the Northern Ireland Business Committee but within the powers of the British Government. Only two days ago, the Government said that they had no intention to suspend the Assembly. Yesterday, in what is effectively an ultimatum, the First Minister of Northern Ireland said that unless the Assembly was adjourned by the Northern Ireland Business Committee, which is meeting today, or suspended by the British Government, he and the DUP members of the Executive would resign, effectively bringing down power-sharing in Northern Ireland.

I understand the difficulties the Government have, since one of the options does not take place until 2 o’clock this afternoon, and they will not know the outcome of whether there is to be an adjournment within the power of the Northern Ireland Business Committee until that stage. I do not wish to add to the Minister’s difficulties, and I understand that the Government will not wish to say anything prematurely. However, this is a very grave issue indeed.

I will ask the Minister two simple questions. The first refers to the Government themselves. Will they assure us that, at the earliest possible moment after the Northern Ireland Business Committee has met this afternoon, they will bring this issue back to the British Parliament? Secondly, as regards the talks being convened by the Northern Ireland Secretary, which may be under way at present, will the Government give us an assurance that these will be time-limited? If they are not, I can assure him from experience that they will drift on indefinitely, and this crisis will just get worse.

[Lord Dunlop]

The noble Lord brings vast experience of Northern Ireland to these matters. Indeed, when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, he went through a period of suspension, and he will appreciate the seriousness of any step to suspend. As the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has already set out, the Government do not think that the time is right to suspend devolved institutions. If circumstances change, the Government will review their options. Clearly, this is a fast-moving situation, and I am sure that the Government would want to keep Parliament informed, and will certainly do so. We had exchanges on this yesterday, and I very much agree that any talks need to be focused, intensive and urgent and, therefore, time limited.

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, for bringing this PNQ forward and to the Government for responding to it. We are also grateful for the assurance from the Minister that Parliament will be kept informed of the situation as it develops because, as has been agreed, it is so important that that happens. As the Minister also rightly said, this is and will be a fast-moving situation, and we welcome his assurance that they will report back to Parliament as soon as possible. I am sure that all noble Lords are aware of the deep concern across Northern Ireland and the whole of the United Kingdom about this situation, which is a dangerous one. We place on record that we are fully behind the Government in their efforts to resolve this very serious situation.

[Lord Dunlop]

Just to reiterate, this is an ongoing situation, and the parties will consider the issue of adjournment this afternoon in the Business Committee. While we want to keep Parliament informed as appropriate, it is also worth saying that, in a fast-moving situation, it would not be helpful for the UK Government to give a running commentary on what are very sensitive and serious matters.

[Lord Mawhinney (Con)]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, when the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my noble friend Lord Brooke, and I conducted the very first set of round-table talks, the end-point of which many years later was the agreement, we made it clear that those talks were time-limited? Both of us believed that the fact that they were time-limited and that we kept to the limit was a significant factor in moving the talks forward. Bearing in mind the well-established allegations that Northern Ireland may run out of money at the end of October, would he not strengthen his original Answer and agree that time-limiting the talks is of itself an important factor?

[Lord Dunlop]

My noble friend is absolutely right—the budgetary situation in Northern Ireland is acute, which is why the Secretary of State has made it clear that these talks need to be focused, urgent and intensive. The expectation is that they would last between three to four weeks.

[Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)]

I welcome the PNQ from the noble Lord, Lord Reid, the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. There is no doubt that the situation in Northern Ireland is extremely serious and it is vital that important and constructive discussions on the future of devolved government and on the Stormont House agreement take place. Surely, this is the time for all Northern Ireland parties to consider the welfare of the whole community, rather than seeking short-term political advantage. Does the Minister agree that it would be useful to have a short adjournment of the Assembly, as that would facilitate positive discussions, free from the wrangling that inevitably accompanies everyday parliamentary business?

[Lord Dunlop]

I very much agree with the noble Lord that there is support for devolution across the community in Northern Ireland. Our priority remains keeping the devolved institutions functioning. As I said earlier, the adjournment of the Northern Ireland Assembly is a matter for the Assembly, and we await the outcome of the Business Committee’s considerations this afternoon.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland (LD)]

My Lords, on the one hand, we hear of suspension; on the other, there is the threat of abdication. I am absolutely certain that talks are the most important thing. First, will the Minister assure us that the Government will go to every length to ensure that talks take place and that they keep going? Secondly, will he assure us that, if there is failure, alternatives are in place for the good governance of Northern Ireland?

[Lord Dunlop]

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 (CB)]

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]

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.

Northern Ireland: Political Situation

Lord Dunlop Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office (Lord Dunlop) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the other place.

“Over recent days I have been involved in a series of discussions with the Prime Minister, the five largest Northern Ireland parties and the Irish Government. On Thursday, we announced a fresh round of intensive cross-party talks. Those talks will begin at Stormont this evening and will be conducted in accordance with the established three-stranded approach.

The Government’s objectives are clear. We are committed to working with Northern Ireland’s political leaders to ensure that we have a fully functioning Assembly able to deliver for the whole community, a Northern Ireland where a stronger economy brings greater prosperity for all and a Northern Ireland that is no longer defined by its divided past but by its shared future. But to achieve this, we need urgently to tackle the two main sources of current political instability. These are, first, the issues arising from continued paramilitary activity and, secondly, the implementation of the Stormont House agreement.

Turning to the first of these, on 12 August, a prominent republican, Kevin McGuigan, was brutally murdered in the Short Strand area of East Belfast. This followed the gunning down of another senior republican, Gerard Davison, in the Markets area of Belfast in May.

Although it is not yet possible to know with certainty who was responsible for these murders, on 22 August the chief constable set out the PSNI’s assessment of the McGuigan case. This was the chief constable’s estimate at that date, but we should recognise that we do not yet know where the investigation will ultimately lead.

The chief constable confirmed that the police were following a line of inquiry that indicated that members of the Provisional IRA were involved in the crime. He said that the PSNI did not at that stage have information to indicate that this involvement was sanctioned or directed at a senior or organisational level in the Provisional IRA.

On the status of the Provisional IRA, the chief constable’s assessment was that some PIRA organisational structures still exist, but for a radically different purpose than before. His view was that the organisation was committed to a political path and was no longer engaged in terrorism although some current and former PIRA members continued to engage in criminal activities for personal gain and for personal agendas.

I do not intend to comment further on what is a live police investigation. The PSNI must be allowed to pursue its lines of inquiry wherever the evidence leads. The police assessment that I have outlined may change over time, but I do want to make this clear: there was never a justification for politically motivated violence in Northern Ireland, from whichever side of the community it came. During the Troubles, paramilitary organisations inflicted huge suffering on thousands of ordinary people. These organisations should never have existed in the first place; they should not exist today; and they should disband.

For our part, the Government believe fundamentally in the rule of law. We will not compromise it. We stand fully behind the Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence. Only parties committed to exclusively democratic and peaceful means can or should be eligible to participate in Northern Ireland’s political institutions.

I believe that all the parties in the Northern Ireland Executive are committed to these principles, but I am fully aware that the fallout from the murder of Kevin McGuigan and the continued existence of PIRA structures is a cause of grave concern, as is the continued existence of other paramilitary groups, so we have moved swiftly to convene talks to address these matters and to consider how best we can make progress towards the day when paramilitary groupings are consigned to Northern Ireland’s history.

The second matter for the talks is the implementation of the Stormont House agreement. The Government believe that the agreement is the best hope of building a brighter, more secure future for Northern Ireland, but for that to happen it is essential that the agreement is implemented in full by all those who participated in the negotiations last autumn.

We are delivering on our side of the deal. In March, we passed legislation to open the way for the devolution of corporation tax powers. In line with the Queen’s Speech, we are on course to introduce a Bill in October to set up important new institutions to help deal with the painful legacy of the past. We are now releasing funding to enable the planned voluntary exit scheme to proceed in order to take forward much-needed public sector reform.

The manifesto on which we were elected commits us to working with each of the other participants to ensure that all aspects of the agreement are implemented. That has to include the financial provisions of the agreement, including welfare reform. Without welfare reform and measures to deal with in-year pressures, the Budget passed by the Executive in June simply does not add up. That raises the real prospect that the Executive will start running out of money, with resulting damage to front-line public services such as hospitals, schools and policing.

In those circumstances, the Government cannot stand by and let the situation drag on indefinitely, with Stormont less able to deliver key public services. As a last resort, we would be prepared to legislate here at Westminster for welfare reform in Northern Ireland, but I must emphasise that we would do so reluctantly and only after we had exhausted all the other realistic alternatives. By far the better outcome would be for the Northern Ireland parties to reach agreement to resolve this blockage themselves without the need for Westminster intervention. I still believe that is possible, and that is why we will press ahead with talks this evening, determined to see the implementation of all aspects of the agreement.

We are a one-nation Government, and we want to build a Northern Ireland where politics works, the economy grows, and society is stronger and more united. We strongly support the power-sharing devolved institutions established under the Belfast agreement. The future of those institutions is in jeopardy if the two very serious matters I have outlined today are not resolved. I do not underestimate the challenges that we face, but I believe that a way through can be found, and that is what we will be striving to achieve as we embark on this new talks process with urgency, focus and determination.

Northern Ireland’s political leaders have shown remarkable courage over the past 20 years and have achieved great things working together. We need to show the same spirit over the next few short weeks. I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, for a number of years when I was on the IMC I focused a great deal on the monitoring of paramilitary organisations. Is the Minister aware that the balance and order of things in this Statement could potentially be misleading? It focuses heavily on the question of whether there has been IRA activity, as though that was the real primary cause of the current crisis, when in truth this crisis has been developing for months and months over the failure of the political parties—particularly the two leading political parties—to work together in a proper governmental way. This recent event is important, but it should not be allowed to distract us from the fact that if it were magicked away tomorrow morning, the problems would remain.

Secondly, is the Minister aware that even if welfare reform were taken back to Westminster—and if it has to be so, I certainly would not oppose it—that would still leave a complete breakdown in the relationship between the Democratic Unionist Party leadership and the Sinn Fein leadership? Without a working relationship together, the devolved structures will not be able to continue, whether or not they have a problem of welfare and whether or not there is any indication of IRA activity. One must say that Sinn Fein has said the kind of things that many people wanted it to say for years on the IRA: that this was criminal activity; that people should go to the police with information; and that there was absolutely no justification. The Statement refers to “politically motivated violence”, but I have the sense that everything we know about this incident means that it was personally motivated violence rather than for the purpose of destabilising Northern Ireland.

Therefore, will the Minister take back to his colleagues who are engaged in this process that we do not need another monitoring commission or another short-term political fix but a change in the kind of relationships there are between the senior leaderships of the DUP and Sinn Fein? If not, we will be faced, as the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, has suggested, with legislation in this place to take back powers, which would be a disaster.

[Lord Dunlop]

First, I thank the noble Lords, Lord McAvoy and Lord Alderdice, for their remarks and support. I do not think that anybody can doubt the seriousness of the situation or the Government’s commitment to help resolve the current challenges. I am sure that noble Lords in all parts of this House want to see devolved institutions in Northern Ireland that work and deliver for people in Northern Ireland. We all want to see, as the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, said, a Northern Ireland that attracts jobs and investment and where people can be optimistic about their family’s future. There can be no doubt at all that the best route to achieving this is to see the full implementation of the Stormont House agreement. That is why my right honourable friend the Northern Ireland Secretary is convening urgent and intensive talks to find solutions to the critical issues that threaten the effectiveness and credibility of Northern Ireland’s democratic institutions.

I turn to some of the specific points that have been raised. First, on the Provisional IRA, the chief constable of Northern Ireland has set out his view that the Provisional IRA continues to exist organisationally but its purpose has radically changed. Individuals are engaged in criminality for personal gain, but the Provisional IRA as an organisation is no longer engaged in terrorism. We share that assessment, which is why some of the key issues that these intensive talks has to address are the implications of that situation.

Secondly, a question was asked about the IMC. Certainly, that is one option for consideration. However, the current situation—as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, will know all too well, given his previous involvement in the IMC as a commissioner—is clearly very different. Were we to ask a similar body this time, the questions that we would have to ask would be very different.

Suspension would be a very big step. The Government’s view is that that is not right in the current circumstances but, clearly, should the circumstances change, we would need to look at the full range of options that are open to us.

In terms of the budget and its sustainability, in some respects it is already unsustainable, and departments are struggling to deal with the consequences of that. We have made it clear that the voluntary exit scheme should go ahead as planned, because it is only through that route that we will start to get the public sector reform that is such an important part of putting Northern Ireland’s finances on a sustainable footing.

Welfare reform is part of the package of the Stormont House agreement. The Government are delivering their side of the bargain and we would like to see the other parties deliver theirs. In our view, it is primarily for the parties to resolve this issue and to come together and find a way through. Clearly, were there to be a failure to agree then, as my right honourable friend the Northern Ireland Secretary has made clear, the Government would, reluctantly and as a last resort, be prepared to step in if all other options had been exhausted.

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)]

My Lords, the hazards are made clear in the Minister’s Statement and the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. No one among those who care about Northern Ireland would underestimate the gravity of the Statement that the Minister has had to make and the vital importance of finding an improved relationship going forward. Is not the reality of the current situation that the challenges and pressures of austerity, which are inevitable for all of us in this country, have brought to a head the tensions between the two major parties in the power-sharing agreement? If there is one statement that gives any encouragement, it is the Secretary of State’s comment that she believes it is still possible to maintain the agreement. I hope the message will go out from this House that, in the interests of everybody in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom, it is vital that the discussions at Stormont come to a successful conclusion.

[Lord Dunlop]

I thank my noble friend for those comments. I entirely agree that the whole purpose of these talks is to get all the parties round the table and to find a way through this very difficult situation. My noble friend mentioned austerity. I think it is worth putting all this into context. The Northern Ireland block grant is still higher in cash terms than it was in 2010 and is only 1% lower in real terms. I repeat that we need to put that into context. It does not diminish the responsibility of, and importance for, the Northern Ireland Executive and all the parties involved in it to undertake the measures to put Northern Ireland’s finances on to a sustainable footing for the long term.

[Lord Rogan (UUP)]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for making this Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice—unfortunately, I thought—moved the probable link between elected Members and paramilitary groups into second place. No democracy can function if such a link exists. The chief constable of the PSNI stated that the military wing of Sinn Fein still exists. Elected Sinn Fein Members of the Assembly have constantly denied the existence of the Army Council, but the fact remains that 17 years after the signing of the Belfast agreement, the IRA still exists. It retains a command structure and its members continue to murder people on the streets of Northern Ireland.

I ask a simple question: do Her Majesty’s Government believe the chief constable or Adams and Gerry Kelly? If the Government believe their security forces, what purpose do they think the IRA Army Council serves? What is its current status?

[Lord Dunlop]

As I said in my earlier remarks, the Government share the assessment of the chief constable of the PSNI, and that is why one of the two key focuses of this intensive talks process is to consider the implications of the existence of paramilitary structures —on both sides of the community—as part of this talks process.

[Baroness Blood (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Of course we all agree that the way forward for Northern Ireland is a strong economy and an assured future. I should like to ask two questions that are bewildering ordinary people in Northern Ireland. We will hear today from some political people who will be able to describe that better, but I want to speak about ordinary people.

The first thing that confuses people in the community is: why did it take the Secretary of State so long to respond to the breakdown of the Stormont House agreement, which happened last March? Someone once said that in politics a week is a long time; well, I think six months sounds extraordinary, and yet Northern Ireland has been through the whole summer with this hanging over the people’s heads, and there has been no movement. All of a sudden, the Secretary of State has come to life. I just wonder: does it take a crisis on Northern Ireland to have some movement, or is there just a lack of leadership? I have to tell the noble Lord that people on the ground are, first, really worried—naturally. Secondly, they are really amused that people can make all this talk but nothing come out of it at the end of several months. Why did it take the Secretary of State six months before this breakthrough in the talks? I wish them well.

As to my second question, I know that the Minister will tell me that the PSNI is still investigating this matter, and I agree. However, I should like to know what makes this man’s murder so important. In the past 20 years, countless people have been murdered in Northern Ireland. I think back to young Paul Quinn a couple of years ago, who everyone knew that the IRA had murdered. Yet there was nothing. What makes this man’s murder more important than anyone else’s? As I say, I know that the PSNI is investigating, and that is right and true. Even the chief constable came out and said that while there was Provisional IRA involvement, he stated categorically that there was no hierarchy as we know it. What makes this different? People on the ground do not understand how this brought on the crisis.

I have to say that if anyone in this House, in this country or in Ireland believes that the paramilitaries on both sides have gone away, they must have been asleep for the past 20 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dunlop]

I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. First, this Government are very committed to devolution, which has widespread support in Northern Ireland. The crux of devolution is local elected representatives being responsible for local issues. As I have said, the Stormont House agreement is a package of measures and the UK Government are delivering their responsibilities under that agreement. We have already legislated on corporation tax and are bringing forward next month legislation to implement aspects of setting up institutions under the Stormont House agreement. However, we feel that it is important that the parties in Northern Ireland have responsibility for taking forward those aspects of the agreement for which they are responsible. The Secretary of State has now stepped in to facilitate these talks, and she will progress them with urgency over the next three to four weeks.

The noble Baroness is absolutely right with regard to the police investigation. We support it, and it is important that the lines of that investigation are pursued without fear or favour and that the perpetrators are brought to justice. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, already in this discussion there has been mention of the IMC, and we all listen with enormous respect to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, on this subject. He is quite right: the return of the IMC is not a silver bullet—there are wider issues at stake here. However, does the Minister agree with the Irish Foreign Minister that it is something worth discussing, for two particular reasons?

One reason is that, since the Good Friday agreement in 1998, which had only a slender majority within the unionist community, there is now much wider acceptance within that community of the institutions of power-sharing devolution across a very broad spectrum. That underlying stability is helpful at this moment. However, there is also a need to send a signal of clarity about criminal activities. There are not just two choices; there are three. Is there a terrorist organisation in play here? Not in the old sense—the IRA is not that. But is this personal crime? That, I think, is open to question. The report of Committee A of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, on which I sit and which has support across this House and across all the parties in Dáil Éireann, drew attention to the fact that it appears to be a criminal empire designed to support a political party. That is a slightly different question. So there is need for reassurance. Lord Alderdice is quite correct: the IMC is not a simple solution to many problems. However, does the Minister accept that it could have a role in giving that reassurance and reinforcing the underlying political stability that does exist in Northern Ireland, because there is widespread community consensus in favour of the power-sharing institutions?

[Lord Dunlop]

The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, has drawn attention to quite a number of practical considerations. I can confirm that the Government do regard this as an option that is worthy of consideration and it will certainly form part of the talks that are about to start.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)]

My Lords, the chief constable has said that he accepts the assurances Sinn Fein has given that it wants to support the police in bringing those responsible for these murders to justice. It would be a very good idea for Sinn Fein to demonstrate openly how it will do this. Producing internal door-to-door inquiries of its own is tantamount to providing an alternative police force and it cannot do this legitimately. Therefore, I hope that Sinn Fein will now actively help the police find those responsible for the murders.

Does the noble Lord agree with the comments made by Mark Lindsay, the chair of the Police Federation of Northern Ireland, when he said that:

“It is a very worrying development if a command structure can be activated at will. Our members view developments with great and justifiable concern. Officers are doing their best to police and safeguard this entire community and that means there is no place for murder gangs or paramilitary organisations which have nothing but misery to offer”?

The truth is that the leaders of some of the parties in Northern Ireland have not been doing their job to solve the problems that are still faced there. Some of the language they use is deeply unhelpful. It is vital now that they step up and help solve the problems that people living over here find incomprehensible after all the time and money that we have spent on Northern Ireland. It has been done in the past—it needs to be done now and urgently.

[Lord Dunlop]

I very much agree with the noble Baroness that the Police Service of Northern Ireland needs the support of the community in pursuing these investigations. If people have information that will help the police with their inquiry, we would certainly encourage them to come forward.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, there is very little in this Statement that anyone here would disagree with and I thank the Minister for it. However, I think the reason there would be very little disagreement is that there is actually very little that is new in it. As my noble friend Lady Blood pointed out, these events have been going on for some time now. There is, however, one significant new element, which is the expressed intent of the Government to, as they put it, as a last resort be prepared to legislate here at Westminster. For those of us with a sense of déjà vu—I declare an interest, as I was involved, I think, as Secretary of State in three suspensions—this is a profound statement wrapped up in rather quiet words. Can the Minister therefore confirm to us that what this actually means is a suspension of the legislative powers in that area at Stormont, or is there another way of legislating here on a subject which is, after all, devolved?

The second question relates to the predication of that intention not on the political differences per se and particularly not, as the Statement makes clear, on the murder of Mr McGuigan, but on the real prospect that the Executive will start running out of money, not least in the public services and no doubt starting with health. In view of that link between the Government’s intention, presumably, to suspend Stormont—or at least to take legislative powers here from Stormont—and the running-out of money, the Government must have carried out some estimate of how imminent that is. Given that Parliament will rise next week, this is an important question. I notice that the Minister said that the situation is already difficult, but is he in a position to be a little more specific and tell us whether we are talking about a period of a week, a fortnight, a month or two months? As I have said, these innocent-seeming words have a profound implication for those of us who have lived through such a situation before if it results in the suspension of power-sharing at Stormont.

[Lord Dunlop]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. The first thing that I need to make clear is what I said earlier: that the Government do not think that suspension of the devolved institutions is right in the current circumstances. The noble Lord is absolutely right to say that the budgetary situation is acute. That is why these talks will be intensive, urgent and focused, and will last between three and four weeks.

On welfare reform, as I said earlier, if all other options have been exhausted and given the acuteness of the budgetary situation, the Government would be prepared as a last resort and extremely reluctantly to legislate here in Westminster on welfare reform.

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Con)]

My Lords, in the penultimate sentence of the Statement there is a reference to “few short weeks”, and the Minister has amplified that by saying three or four weeks. Pursuant to that, the noble Lord, Lord Reid, came back to the subject of time. Given the scale of the agenda which has been set out before us today, will the talks be time-limited and, if so, for how long?

[Lord Dunlop]

I thank my noble friend. I do not think that I have anything to add to what I have already said on that matter.

[Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)]

My Lords, I welcome the Statement. Let me say clearly to the House that these are very serious issues. We are probably in the worst situation in Northern Ireland since 2006 or 2007. I have been saying for some time to the parties in Northern Ireland that I believe the Assembly has been on a life-support machine for a long time—the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, was right. As far back as 2 June, after the Secretary of State met the five parties along with Charlie Flanagan, the Foreign Affairs Minister from Dublin, she made clear how bleak was the outcome of those talks and warned us of the possibility of Westminster taking back powers relating to welfare reform. I believe that that would be a backward step, and the Secretary of State has said that it would be a last resort.

The other issue in Northern Ireland is the breakdown of trust within the parties. This, too, has been going on for several months. I ask the Government what action they can take to try to build trust in all the political parties in Northern Ireland.

I also firmly believe—and say to the House—that the only way that this can be resolved is by staying in, not by walking away. It cannot be resolved by people standing at the door and shouting in; they must be in there, round the table, trying to resolve these very serious issues.

On the issue of recreating in some form the IMC, I have to say that it would not work at this moment, unless it had a different remit with different powers.

I also ask the question: given the seriousness of the situation, will the Minister tell the House whether the Prime Minister has any plans to visit Northern Ireland and take part in the talks?

[Lord Dunlop]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. On the latter point, I have no information to share with the House at this point. I very much agree with what he said about building trust and confidence. The best way to achieve that is to get people round the table to discuss in a very focused way the challenges that face Northern Ireland. There is no doubt that the best route forward for Northern Ireland is the full implementation of the Stormont House agreement. Without progress on that, there is a real threat to the devolved institutions of Northern Ireland. I reiterate that these talks are not a renegotiation; they are about a full and fair implementation of what the parties have already agreed.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

Should not all of us throughout the United Kingdom remember the courage of my noble friend Lord Trimble and John Hume, and the courage and imagination of the late Lord Bannside and Mr McGuinness at that difficult stage, and should we not realise that if welfare reform is indeed taken back into the Westminster Parliament, that will be not the last resort but the first step towards direct rule being reimposed? That would be an ill vote of thanks to those who have struggled so much, and a very sad new chapter for that part of the United Kingdom.

[Lord Dunlop]

I echo what my noble friend said about the original architects of the Good Friday agreement. All of us in this House should recognise that the Stormont House agreement of December 2014 was a fantastic achievement by all the parties in Northern Ireland. I hope that the message will go out from this House that we want to build on that achievement. That is what the talks that will start this evening are all about.

Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) (Amendment) Order 2015

Lord Dunlop Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Dunlop]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 8 July be approved.

Relevant document: 1st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office (Lord Dunlop) (Con)]

My Lords, this statutory instrument makes provision to adopt for the purposes of Northern Ireland Assembly elections the same polling districts and polling stations already in place for parliamentary elections.

Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly are elected using parliamentary constituencies. However, at previous elections the polling districts, or wards, used were those drawn up for local government elections. Following the reorganisation of district councils in Northern Ireland in 2012, the local electoral boundaries were changed. This resulted in polling district boundaries that no longer sit discretely within the parliamentary constituencies.

The Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland has made it clear that it is not possible for him to hold an election where the wards straddle two constituencies. So, in advance of the general election, the last Government introduced legislation that removed the formal link which provided for local government polling districts to be used at parliamentary elections.

Under the new provisions introduced for the general election, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland now has a duty to designate the polling districts to be used for parliamentary elections, and the Chief Electoral Officer a duty to designate polling stations within those districts.

The polling districts that the Secretary of State has designated for the purposes of the parliamentary elections are the ones that were in place before the reorganisation of local government boundaries in Northern Ireland. The effect is to retain for Westminster elections the same polling districts as previously used for the 2010 general election and the last Assembly election.

The purpose of this order is to seek to close the legislative gap that has existed for Assembly elections since 2013 by applying the parliamentary polling districts and polling places used for parliamentary elections to Assembly elections. This measure will have the effect of maintaining the status quo, retaining the polling districts that voters are familiar with.

The order provides that the polling places used for the Assembly election will be those listed in the polling station scheme drawn up by the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland. He will have a duty to amend the scheme in relation to Assembly elections if he considers that the parliamentary scheme does not adequately provide for voters at an Assembly election. As a result of this order, electors and interested parties will have recourse to the Electoral Commission to appeal the scheme if they are not content.

I hope that noble Lords will agree that making provision to re-establish the link between parliamentary and Assembly polling districts and polling places is a necessary and logical step to take in advance of the Assembly elections, and are reassured that these changes are fully supported by both the Electoral Commission and the Chief Electoral Officer. I therefore commend the order to the House.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us about any contact taking place with the parties in Northern Ireland with regard to these measures, and perhaps a bit more about the appeal process, if they want to appeal them?

[Lord Dunlop]

The parties have been consulted and there is an appeal process. Indeed, an appeal is going on with regard to a polling station in Dungannon, and is currently being considered by the Electoral Commission.

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, there is no need to repeat everything outlined by the Minister. The measure is absolutely necessary because of the redrawing of local government boundaries and has our support.

[Lord Dunlop]

I thank the noble Lord for his support and brevity.

Motion agreed.

Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of duration of non-jury trial provisions) Order 2015

Lord Dunlop Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Dunlop]

That the draft order laid before the House on 4 June be approved.

Relevant document: 1st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office (Lord Dunlop) (Con)]

My Lords, under this order, trials without a jury can take place in Northern Ireland for a further two years from 1 August 2015. Without this order, the current provisions will lapse on 31 July. This is the fourth such extension of these provisions. Noble Lords will understandably want to assure themselves that a further extension is justified.

As Northern Ireland continues its progress towards peace and stability, the proposal to extend the system of non-jury trials is not made lightly. We continue to face a severe threat from dissident republican terrorism in Northern Ireland; there remains a minority of committed terrorists who seek to undermine our progress using lethal violence and intimidation. The explosion of a device in Lurgan last Saturday is the eighth national security attack in Northern Ireland this year. It was an attempt to murder police officers who serve the community with bravery and dedication, and it demonstrates once again the severity and persistence of the threat we face.

We all want to see progress towards normalisation in Northern Ireland. We must recognise, however, that Northern Ireland is still in a unique situation. The non-jury trial provisions in the 2007 Act continue to provide an appropriate response to a very small number of cases. Without such provisions, trials in Northern Ireland would not be safe from disruption, and justice would be put at risk in the most serious of cases.

I can assure the House that the Government would move to end the exceptional system of non-jury trials in Northern Ireland as soon as it was no longer necessary. However, this should happen only when the security situation allows. Regrettably, we are not there yet. Police, prison officers and military personnel remain the principal targets of attacks for violent dissident republican groupings. Attacks such as the one in Lurgan at the weekend demonstrate a blatant disregard for human life and put the wider public in danger.

Noble Lords will be aware that such attacks are not isolated events. In June an explosive device was placed under a police officer’s car in Londonderry in another attempt to maim or kill. Earlier in the year a postal improvised explosive device was sent to the Police Service of Northern Ireland headquarters, which could clearly have caused harm to postal workers. A further device exploded at the Probation Board offices in Londonderry in April and the remains of another exploded device were also found on the Belfast to Newry railway line.

Over the last year there has been a rise in paramilitary-style attacks by both republican and loyalist groupings as a means of exerting fear and control within their own communities. In-fighting also persists within loyalist paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland, remaining a cause for concern for the wider community. Threats and acts of violence towards police and public bodies demonstrate continued attempts at intimidation of individuals and communities, and under these circumstances we must not allow the criminal justice system to be put at risk.

I will now turn to the process for obtaining a non-jury trial. The Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland issues a certificate which allows for one. The DPP can issue a certificate for a non-jury trial only if, first, he suspects that one or more of four statutory conditions, which are laid out in Section 1 of the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, are met.

Condition 1 is that the defendant is, or is an associate of, a member of a proscribed organisation, or has at any time been a member of an organisation when it was a proscribed organisation, whose activities are connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. Condition 2 is that the offence was committed on behalf of such a proscribed organisation, or such a proscribed organisation was otherwise involved. Condition 3 is that an attempt has been made by or involving a proscribed organisation connected with Northern Ireland to prejudice the investigation or prosecution. Condition 4 is that the offence was committed as a result of, or in connection with, religious or political hostility. Furthermore, the DPP must be satisfied that, in view of one or more of these conditions being met, there is a risk that the administration of justice might be impaired if a jury trial were to be held.

There is a clear distinction here between this system and the pre-2007 Diplock court arrangements—a term which has previously been used erroneously to describe the current system. The Diplock system saw a presumption that all scheduled offences would be tried by a judge alone. Today, there is a clear presumption that jury trial will take place in all but the most exceptional cases.

Certificates are issued only in a very limited number of cases. So far in 2015, the DPP has issued just nine certificates for non-jury trials. During 2014, 18 certificates were issued. To put this into context, in 2014 only 1.7% of all Crown Court cases in Northern Ireland were conducted without a jury. The figure so far for 2015 is 0.7%.

In keeping with the approach followed in 2013, the Secretary of State conducted a targeted consultation to gather views from 35 interested groups and individuals, including representatives of the main political parties in Northern Ireland, independent reviewers, human rights and other NGOs, security forces, and practitioners in the criminal justice system. In total 19 responses were received: five were supportive of extension; three were opposed; and 11 expressed no clear preference but did not object.

The Secretary of State decided to seek an extension of the provisions, having considered all the responses received, in conjunction with her view of the security situation in Northern Ireland and the potential for disruption of criminal trials. It is important to note that there is no limit in the legislation on how many times the provisions can be extended. However, given the understandable concerns around the repeated extension of these provisions, and mindful of previous calls for wider consultation, the Secretary of State has asked officials to prepare a public consultation ahead of the next expiry in 2017. This will inform a wider review of non-jury trials in Northern Ireland and how certificates are issued and may be challenged. This should not be perceived as the Government questioning the necessity or validity of the provisions for Northern Ireland’s current situation; rather, it is a positive commitment towards openness and a desire to consider the views of the wider public on provisions that would, by 2017, have been in operation for 10 years.

Let me again emphasise that the Government remain fully committed to tackling the threat from violent paramilitaries and keeping the people of Northern Ireland safe and secure. This includes doing all that we can to ensure the effective administration of justice. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer of national security arrangements in Northern Ireland, noted in his response to the Secretary of State’s targeted consultation in 2015 that,

“there remains clear evidence of residual dissident activity with some technical ability, access to weapons and explosives, and the ambition to undermine the democratic process in NI”.

The noble Lord goes on to say:

“It is rational and logical to believe that dissidents would strive to undermine criminal trials of their friends and confederates. This would be likely to include the intimidation of jurors - a form of perverting of the course of justice that can be formidably difficult to detect”.

It is clear that the non-jury trial system is not being overused and that it remains necessary for the very small number of cases in which it is applied for the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. I commend the order to the House.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I rise briefly, with a heavy heart, to support this approval Motion. I am very grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has explained the context fully and fairly. I would add only one consideration, which is that another destabilising element in the recent situation was the large paramilitary display by the INLA at the weekend in Derry. It contributes to a picture where, unfortunately, it is necessary to maintain this particular provision. I am very grateful to the Minister for saying that there will be a wider consultation next time out.

I have been speaking on these Motions since my arrival in this House, and I would love to think that, 10 years in, next time out the Minister will have better news for us. I support the approval Motion today.

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his brief. Let me place on the record that we appreciate the efforts that have been made by him in consultation. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Bew, said—it is with a heavy heart but nevertheless a necessary attitude towards the legislation. The shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Ivan Lewis, was consulted on these measures. Again, that demonstrates the bipartisan approach to issues in Northern Ireland, which is absolutely necessary. That was before the election but we are still very grateful for that.

We all recognise that non-jury trials are not an ideal part of the justice system. They are currently necessary in a society emerging from conflict. The measures will be used in only a small number of cases—as stated, fewer than under the previous Diplock system, and under very specific circumstances, as outlined by the Minister. The Minister said that the measures were justified, and we agree. The situation is unique, and we agree wholeheartedly. We accept assurances about future monitoring of the figures.

The noble Lord mentioned examples of recent behaviour in Derry/Londonderry and clearly outlined the procedure. We support the Government on that. These measures are an improvement on Diplock. The figures need to be monitored. We also wholeheartedly welcome the public consultation, as mentioned also by the noble Lord, Lord Bew. That is a positive measure because the situation in Northern Ireland will have to be resolved within the political process.

We need to make political progress in Northern Ireland through implementing the Stormont House agreement in full to better deal with the underlying tensions that make such differences in the justice system necessary—they are necessary, unfortunately. Collectively, we need to make sure that there is no let-up in the process in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State has to be seen to be active in a bipartisan way, backed up by the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is not a place where one can take one’s eye off the ball. We must constantly reiterate the Stormont agreement and the need for peace and progress. Having said all that, clearly the measures are justified and have our support.

[Lord Dunlop]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Bew and Lord McAvoy, for their support. Non-jury trial is an exceptional system used only in very limited circumstances. There is rightly a presumption for jury trial in all cases. The security situation in Northern Ireland has not significantly improved since the 2013 extension. The situation is covered by the conditions in the 2007 Act, which remain relevant for the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. In view of the continuing potential for juror intimidation and disruption of criminal trials, I commend the order to the House.

Motion agreed.

Devolution

Lord Dunlop Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to establish a Constitutional Convention to consider the implications of devolution for each part of the United Kingdom; and whether they plan to publish a white paper setting out the consequences for the rest of the United Kingdom of fiscal autonomy for Scotland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office (Lord Dunlop) (Con)]

The Government have no plans to establish a constitutional convention. Our focus must be on delivering the commitments that we made to the people of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Government do not support full fiscal autonomy for Scotland and have no plans to publish a White Paper on the issue. The Government’s priority is the delivery of a balanced constitutional settlement that is fair and sustainable for all parts of the United Kingdom.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, that was not terribly helpful. Given that the Barnett formula allocates resources to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on the basis of a set proportion of the amounts voted on English programmes by the House of Commons, how can it be fair, sensible or even democratic to introduce English votes for English laws while retaining the Barnett formula as the means of funding? Is it not high time that Conservatives returned to Conservative principles: that constitutional reform should be careful, cautious and on the basis of consensus?

[Lord Dunlop]

My Lords, the Government will honour the commitment to retain Barnett made by all three party leaders in the run up to the referendum. The fact that Barnett has endured for 40 years and 16 Scottish Secretaries shows that there are no easy alternatives. However, the significance of Barnett will reduce as the Scottish Parliament becomes 50% self-funded. The UK Government and the Scottish Government will agree a new fiscal framework to work alongside Barnett, which must deliver a financial settlement that is fair to both Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. There will be more said in Statements in this House and the other place about English votes for English laws but Scottish MPs will continue to take part, as now, in the votes that determine the block grant allocations.

[Lord Kinnock (Lab)]

My Lords, before the Prime Minister plunges into further fragmentation of the United Kingdom, is it not clear that the Government should make a positive response to the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and others for a full, broad and thorough constitutional commission? Would that not be the best way to ensure some vital coherence in planning for the future? Would it not be democratically and strategically superior to the short-termist stumbling that is now putting the union in serious peril almost by accident?

[Lord Dunlop]

My Lords, the Government are addressing the imbalances in our constitutional arrangement which we inherited from the previous Labour Government. Let me give two examples. The Scottish Parliament was set up with significant powers to spend money but little responsibility for raising it; and the previous Labour Government established a strong Scottish Parliament without properly addressing the implications for England. Our programme addresses each part of our United Kingdom and we are committed to a balanced settlement for all parts of it.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, will the Minister now address the wider point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth? He will be aware that a large number of Members on his side of the House—his noble friends—have consistently argued against the piecemeal, ad hoc approach to the constitution. Surely, at the very least, the present proposals put before the House at the other end of the Corridor which will be put before our House later on, should form part of the agenda of a wider consideration of the implications of devolution for Parliament and our constitution. Surely a constitutional convention is the only way forward so that these issues can be considered in their proper context.

[Lord Dunlop]

My Lords, when discussing constitutional conventions, what always springs into my mind is a remark made by, or attributed to, Harold Wilson when talking about royal commissions—“They take minutes and last years”. I cannot see any evidence of public support for a convention. The public want us to get on and deliver the constitutional commitments we have made to each part of our United Kingdom.

[Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield]

My Lord, given the multiple uncertainties facing the constitutional arrangements of our islands, in the Minister’s judgment, of what magnitude does a constitutional question have to be before it justifies a convention?

[Lord Dunlop]

I acknowledge the noble Lord’s great expertise in this area. The Government are addressing the various strands of our constitution in Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and England. Our priority is to deliver those commitments rather than spending time on a constitutional convention. Of course, if others want to set up their own convention they are welcome to do so. I read with interest the debate last week on the constitution. It is clear that constitutional conventions mean all things to all people. As my noble friend Lord Bridges said in this House last week, getting agreement on a convention would itself need a convention.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, the Minister would have picked up concern on every side of the House on this particular issues and I, along with a number of Members on this Bench, share that concern. In principle we would like to explore the possibility of a constitutional convention. The pastoral letter that the bishops issued earlier this year stated:

“The impatience of politicians or the desire for party advantage must not be the driver for constitutional change”.

If we are not going to have a constitutional convention, how do Her Majesty’s Government intend to involve as many as possible of those people who are passionate to be involved in this so that together we can think carefully about the vital question of the future governance of the UK?

[Lord Dunlop]

I am sure that noble Lords in this House and others outside it will come forward with proposals. The Government will engage with those proposals and will be happy to discuss them.

[Lord Lang of Monkton (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lang of Monkton]

My Lords, reflecting on the fact that the unbalanced form in which the Scottish Parliament was created was in fact the product of the deliberations of a constitutional convention, I welcome my noble friend’s caution on these matters. They may sound simple and easy to set up, but they may create many more difficulties along the line. However, I urge him to reflect on the importance of consultation: this should be carried out during a reflective period of calm when the House is not subject to a constant flow of devolutionary measures that have not been properly considered and have to be rushed through this House. A period of calm reflection is surely the best way forward.

[Lord Dunlop]

I can only agree with my noble friend that consultation is a key element in any proposals that come forward. Since January, when we tabled the draft clauses for the Scotland Bill, we have been consulting and we will continue to do so.

Devolution: Wales and Scotland

Lord Dunlop Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office (Lord Dunlop) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for bringing this Question to the House. I know that he brings considerable knowledge and experience to this important subject. The debate on how powers promised to Wales and Scotland will operate within new, balanced United Kingdom governmental structures has covered a wide range of issues. Although the Question mentions Wales and Scotland, I cannot help but notice that the speakers list has a distinctly Welsh flavour. I hope that, as a Scotland Office Minister, I can do justice to the Welsh aspects of the Question. I congratulate all noble Lords who have spoken so well and demonstrated their considerable expertise in the issues before us. I am grateful for the opportunity to close the debate and will endeavour to respond to as many of the substantive points raised as possible. If there is a specific point to which I am unable to respond, I will happily write to noble Lords.

Since 1998, the devolution of powers and responsibilities to the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly has fundamentally changed the constitutional make-up of the UK. Today’s debate is timely as the Government have made a commitment to implement the St David’s Day agreement for Wales and have introduced the Scotland Bill to implement the Smith commission agreement for Scotland.

The Government have announced a programme founded on the idea of one nation—bringing fairness to all parts of our United Kingdom—where the people and institutions across this country are treated with respect. Governing with respect means recognising that the different nations of our United Kingdom have their own Governments, as well as the United Kingdom Government. Both are important and with our plans, the Parliaments and Governments of these nations will become more powerful, with wider responsibilities. No constitutional settlement could be complete if it did not also offer fairness for England.

The Government’s plans for constitutional reform set out in this Parliament build on the record of the last Government, who delivered one of the most extensive programmes of devolution of any government, including the largest devolution of fiscal powers to Scotland in over 300 years, a referendum to give the Welsh Assembly for the first time primary law-making powers, and legislation to give the Welsh Assembly for the first time tax and borrowing powers. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who played such a distinguished part in helping to deliver that programme.

The Government’s constitutional proposals for this Parliament also build on a substantial body of detailed work undertaken by constitutional experts in a range of forums. The Smith agreement was informed by the significant analysis undertaken by the Calman commission and the individual commissions established by Scotland’s political parties, such as the Strathclyde commission. The St David’s Day agreement takes forward the work of the Silk commission. Similarly, the English proposals are an evolution of the work of the McKay commission, among others.

The Government are taking forward these proposals because it is the right thing to do. There is consistency in our approach. We believe in devolving decision-making closer to the people who are affected by those decisions, and in increasing the responsibility of the devolved Administrations to the people who elect them. One of the weaknesses of the original devolution settlements was that, while the devolved Administrations had significant powers to spend money, they had little or no responsibility for raising it. The Government are rectifying that imbalance.

The Scotland Bill will increase the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament. To respond to one of the points raised earlier, it meets both the spirit and the letter of the Smith agreement. For similar reasons, we look forward to the Welsh Government holding a referendum on devolving income tax powers. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, spoke of the need for Wales to have the greatest degree of independence. However, the Government believe that it is important to strike a balance between giving the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly more control over domestic affairs, and preserving the strengths of being part of the larger UK family. The noble Lord also questioned whether the proposals for Scotland go far enough or are ambitious enough. I think that, as was rightly pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, after these powers are delivered the Scottish Parliament will be one of the most powerful devolved parliaments in the world.

In taking forward this programme, the Government recognise that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned federalism. I can think of no examples of a successful federal state in which one of the constituent parts represents 85% the whole. The individual devolution settlements reflect the distinct histories, circumstances and geographies of the different parts of the United Kingdom. The appetite for devolution in Wales is different from that in Scotland. What the First Minister of Wales said in a recent speech was echoed here today by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. He said:

“I have said in the past that whatever proposals for further devolution to Scotland should be offered also to Wales. But I do not subscribe to the notion that whatever Scotland has, Wales must have too, without properly considering the implications. The devolution of welfare programmes to Wales, for example, is not something that we consider to be in the best interests of Wales”.

The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, suggests that it should be for the legislatures of the UK nations to decide which areas of responsibility they wish to have transferred from Westminster. Let me emphasise that devolution across the UK has been taken forward to suit the particular needs of each nation, and on the basis of cross-party consensus. Both the Smith agreement and the St David’s Day agreement reflect those aspects on which there is cross-party consensus in both Scotland and Wales. This is the foundation on which our legislative proposals are and will be based.

Let me say a little more about Wales. I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that the scope of the new Wales Bill will be as envisaged in the St David’s Day agreement. The Wales Bill will provide a robust package that will make the Welsh devolution settlement clear, sustainable and stable for the future. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, asked about the reserved powers model. The Government intend to discuss an early draft of the reserved powers model we are preparing with the Welsh Government in the coming months, and we want to engage the Welsh Government and hear the views of Welsh Ministers before publishing a draft Wales Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny in the autumn. I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of those discussions.

The St David’s Day agreement also said that we will consider other non-fiscal elements of the Smith agreement to decide whether they should be implemented in Wales. That is being done right now, although, as I previously noted, what is right for Scotland is not necessarily right for Wales.

The issue of intergovernmental working was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who spoke of his desire to see the joint ministerial committee replaced by a UK council of Ministers. While I recognise that existing joint ministerial committee structures can be improved, it is a forum that has long supported the changing devolution settlements and it would not be appropriate to replace it altogether. A process is in place across the four Administrations to review the memorandum of understanding that establishes the joint ministerial committee. Any changes will need to be agreed between the four Administrations and will consider the interests of the whole of the UK.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson and Lady Morgan, raised the issue of a constitutional convention to deliberate on the broad shape and nature of the United Kingdom. I respectfully suggest that this should not be our priority. Our priority is to deliver on the constitutional commitments we have made. All our constitutional proposals draw on the values and traditions of our United Kingdom. The British constitution is characterised by pragmatism and an ability to evolve and adapt to changing circumstances. Our unique constitutional arrangements enable agility and responsiveness to the needs and wishes of our citizens. Those wishes are surely clear: a desire to be part of a strong and successful union, but one that recognises and values the unique nature of and arrangements in each of our nations.

On the issue of funding, which has already been mentioned, the Government have made it clear that Barnett formula will continue to be used as the basis for calculating the block grant. By moving to greater self-funding, and thus greater accountability, we are delivering mature and enduring settlements that provide strong incentives for economic growth, which will help to address the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. The Barnett formula will therefore become less important as the Scottish Government become responsible for raising more of their own funding following the devolution of further tax powers.

[Lord Wigley]

I grant that those changes may happen in Scotland. However, does the Minister accept that unless there is a radical change to the funding in Wales, putting in a floor does not make up for the 15 years of underfunding and the position we are in? What specific proposals will the Government bring forward to put this right, for the sake of whoever is governing in Cardiff?

[Lord Dunlop]

It is important that any settlement is fair to Wales. The Government are very conscious of the need to address the issue of fair funding for Wales. I note—I think it has already been mentioned—that according to the Holtham criteria Wales is not currently underfunded, and it is also important that the Welsh Government become responsible for raising more of the money they spend. That is why we will introduce a floor in the level of funding provided to the Welsh Government, and the details will be agreed at the next spending review, in the expectation that the Welsh Government will call a referendum on income tax powers in this Parliament.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, raised the issue of Holtham. It is worth saying that the Secretary of State for Wales has held discussions with Professor Holtham and others with regard to a floor, and the Government consider that the work of the Holtham commission still has resonance today. There are no plans to recommission Professor Holtham to undertake any further analysis.

Before we conclude our deliberations for the day, I thank your Lordships once again for the insight and knowledge demonstrated during today’s debate. We have ranged over a wide area of subject matter, and as I said at the outset, the Government will govern with respect and honour our promises to improve governance for all parts of our United Kingdom. We have begun to bring forward legislation to secure a strong, fair and enduring constitutional settlement. Bringing together the four nations of our United Kingdom is an important task and a chief priority of this Government, and I know that your Lordships will play a full part in that task.

Committee adjourned at 5.56 pm.

Scotland: Block Grant

Lord Dunlop Excerpts

Monday 15th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what changes they propose to the calculation of the block grant to Scotland, in the light of the recent and proposed increased tax-raising powers of the Scottish Parliament.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office (Lord Dunlop) (Con)]

My Lords, as set out in the cross-party Smith agreement, the Scottish Government’s block grant will be reduced to reflect their increased tax powers. The UK and Scottish Governments have agreed to work to finalise the new fiscal framework by the autumn, alongside the passage of the Scotland Bill. The Barnett formula will continue as part of these arrangements, but as the Scottish Government will become more than 50% self-funded, changes in their funding will increasingly reflect changes in Scottish tax.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, it is good to see a Scotland Office Minister answering on behalf of the Treasury. Will he agree with me that, as long as any part of the expenditure of the Scottish Government is covered by a block grant, they will find a way of blaming Westminster either for cuts in expenditure or increases in taxes? Therefore, is it not time that the Government thought seriously about setting up a constitutional convention—or commission or convocation, whatever they would like to call it—which would look at all aspects of the governance of the United Kingdom, including full fiscal responsibility for every Parliament within the United Kingdom?

[Lord Dunlop]

My Lords, the noble Lord may well be right that the SNP Government will seek to continue to blame the United Kingdom Government, but the people of Scotland would certainly blame the UK Government more if we landed them with a £10 billion funding gap, costing every family in Scotland £5,000 in higher taxes or spending cuts. That would be the price of full fiscal autonomy. The Government cannot support such a plan because we do not believe that it would be good for Scotland. We want a balanced settlement fair to all parts of the UK and our priority is to deliver the Scotland Bill, which will make Holyrood one of the most powerful and accountable devolved Parliaments in the world.

[Lord Lang of Monkton (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the way in which he managed to imply fairness to a block grant calculation system that bears no relation to, or has any connection with, any needs assessment relating to the other parts of the United Kingdom. Can he tell the House how he expects the no-detriment principle enshrined in the new Scotland Bill to apply in a way that does not inhibit the viability of individual parts of the United Kingdom from pursuing policies and expenditure that depart from the UK norm?

[Lord Dunlop]

I thank my noble friend for that question. The simple overarching principle is that neither Scotland nor the rest of the United Kingdom should gain or lose financially as a direct consequence of implementing the Smith agreement. There are two aspects to this. First, at the point of devolution, the tax and spending block grant adjustments made to reflect the transfer of powers should of themselves leave funding for Scotland and the rest of the UK unchanged. Secondly, post devolution, both the UK Government and the Scottish Government should bear the risks and reap the rewards of their own policy choices. That will strengthen fiscal responsibility and accountability. How these principles work in practice must be discussed and agreed by the UK Government and the Scottish Government, but the fact that the principles are agreed by all five of Scotland’s political parties is a helpful starting point.

[Lord Richard (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord said that he is anxious to get a settlement that is fair to all parts of the United Kingdom. Will he please remember Wales when he is talking about keeping block grants and being fair? The Barnett formula has proved detrimental to the economy of Wales ever since it started. Is he also aware—and if he is not, he should be by now—that a committee of this House recommended very strongly not too many years ago that the Barnett formula should be looked at again because, as the noble Lord, Lord Lang, just said, it is totally unrelated to need? It is perfectly possible to produce a fair formula that is based on need and it is high time that the Government did that.

[Lord Dunlop]

My Lords, we are very mindful of the funding needs of Wales. Obviously, Welsh funding was the subject of the Holtham review and, according to the criteria set out by Holtham, Wales is not currently underfunded. For the foreseeable future, per-head funding is unlikely to converge with that of England in the near term. The UK Government have committed to introduce a funding for Wales that will ensure fair funding for Wales.

[Lord Stephen (LD)]

My Lords, is there not now a clear opportunity to create a new cross-party consensus for a constitutional convention to look at the whole of the United Kingdom on these issues? We have seen concern from Wales, and today the SNP lodged amendments that back away from full fiscal responsibility and simply want to give power to the Scottish Parliament to implement it at some point in the future. Doubtless, that is due to the fact that it involves the scrapping of the Barnett formula and £7 billion per year of cuts to public services in Scotland or increased taxes in Scotland. Is it not now time, building on the Smith commission and reflecting the outcome of the election in Scotland, for there to be at least an attempt at a cross-party consensus that would involve the nationalist parties to try to work together for a fairer settlement for the whole of the United Kingdom?

[Lord Dunlop]

My Lords, the Smith agreement was, of course, an all-party consensus. We have an extensive package of constitutional reform for all parts of the United Kingdom and our priority is to deliver on the constitutional commitments that we have made. We want a balanced and fair settlement across the United Kingdom. I am sure that there will be a lively debate on what more can be done, which the Government welcome wholeheartedly.

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

My Lords, has the Minister not been convinced by the contributions in the House today that it is clear, to take into account the implications for all parts of the United Kingdom, in particular as far as Scotland is concerned, which would start off with a very significant deficit if it went for full fiscal responsibility—it also has to come to terms with the very significant drop indeed in oil revenues that are now predicated—that we need a United Kingdom-wide convention on these issues?

[Lord Dunlop]

I thank the noble Lord. As I have said, our priority is to deliver the commitments that we have made. Of course we will listen to other ideas. As I have said, there will be a lively debate, including in this House. We will listen very carefully to what noble Lords and others have to say on this matter.