Good Friday Agreement: Impact of Brexit

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Thursday 11th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for giving us an opportunity to discuss this question, and I hope that this debate is part of a rather belated but important exploration of how we can find a constructive outcome to the situation we find ourselves in.

When the question of the Brexit referendum arose, colleagues here in the rest of the UK, knowing that I was pro-remain, asked if I would be prepared to run a pro-remain campaign in Northern Ireland. I said I certainly would not, and they asked, “Why? Have you changed? Are you pro-Brexit?” I said, “No, but I have spent most of my life trying to help people from different perspectives come and work together on practical political issues, and I know perfectly well what would happen if I were to do such a thing. As a former Alliance leader I would find lots of support in Alliance, Sinn Féin, the SDLP and people in the Ulster Unionist Party, but the DUP would immediately go in the opposite direction and we would have reinstituted a split that some of us have spent most of our lives trying to resolve”. They asked, “Are you going to do nothing?” I said, “Of course I’m going to do something. We’re going to conduct a public conversation about these questions and give a platform and an opportunity to people right across the political spectrum to express their views and engage with each other, and to try to find a way forward”. They said, “What about Nigel Farage?” I said, “We’ll give him a platform too”. Indeed, the more times we gave him a platform, the more things moved towards remain in Northern Ireland. In the end, the Ulster Unionist Party changed its position and said it was pro-remain—Mike Nesbitt told me that it was almost unanimous—and the DUP moved to a position where they said that “on balance” it was pro-Brexit. That means that there had been a lot of thinking about it and engaging in debate, which was constructive and good.

We are dealing here—we know this from our process—with a complex set of relationships, and relationships do not conform to regulation. You have to be careful how you handle them so that you do not make the situation much worse. In fact, the key development we discovered in the process in Ireland was that the problems we are dealing with are not primarily economic or social, or about legalities and policing and the administration of justice, although those are all important things. They are primarily about dealing with disturbed historic relationships. When you have addressed those issues, all those other things can come together in a sensible way. Of course, at that time we were enormously helped by the fact that the historic disturbed relationships within Europe as a whole and between Britain and Ireland were being much more fruitfully dealt with in the context of the European project—at that stage the European Union. Our relationships with the United States were also much improved at that time, because we had people in presidential office who understood the nuance and complexity, in their own country, in their relationship with Europe, and with the British and Irish Governments together.

There were therefore five key sets of relationships: those two I just mentioned, the relationships between Protestants and Catholics and unionists and nationalists in the north, between north and south, and between Britain and Ireland. All five sets of relationships are in trouble. They are not all in trouble because of Brexit; Brexit is an outcome of the fact that these relationships are all in trouble. We need to think an awful lot more about why the politics of the world has changed so that now political leaders do not regard themselves as great statesmen because they are resolving conflict but because they are conducting it. We have to face the reality of where we are, which is that these relationships are not good. Will the Minister take back to his colleagues the importance of addressing all these sets of relationships much more than the question of regulatory detail? I have certainly been passing the message to our friends in Dublin that the Taoiseach’s stance would be much more helpful if it were also addressing those sets of relationships and not just those within the 26 southern counties. That is a temptation for any Taoiseach, of course, but one that previous Taoisigh ignored for much of the last two or three generations.

But relationships change. In that marvellous book by Sellar and Yeatman published in 1930—a profound historical tome called 1066 and All That—they remarked that in his declining years, Gladstone had tried to find an answer to the Irish question, but just when he thought that he was getting warm, the Irish secretly changed the question. In those days, that was regarded as a negative thing, but people in Ireland are now changing the question in a positive way. No one in Northern Ireland looks at the south of Ireland as a priest-ridden state. On the contrary, social and religious questions in the rest of the island have changed much more dramatically than even in the north. Who is the Garda Commissioner now? It is Drew Harris. His father was in the RUC; he was one of the most senior members of the PSNI; he conducted the counterterrorism operations. My goodness, it was hard for me as Alliance leader to get a meeting with the Garda Commissioner. Now the Garda Commissioner is a member of PSNI, as was.

Things have changed and they have changed politically. A lot of talk has been going on about unionists and nationalists, but the major change in politics in the last 20 years is that there are now three components—three cohorts—in the politics of Northern Ireland. There are the unionists, the nationalists and republicans and a third cohort of largely younger people who have a wholly different set of understandings, socially, economically and politically. A number of colleagues from Northern Ireland have expressed this by saying how much things have changed, and they have. It means, for example, that the leader of the Alliance Party now does not feel that it is her job to bridge between the unionist and nationalist parties, but to present an alternative view in politics which she would describe as a progressive political view. That is different because it is a different place. Relationships have changed.

There is no prospect of going back to political violence because people on the republican side have come to realise that IRA violence was the thing that stopped leading to any sense of unity. It is more likely that over the next 20 years—or even the next three or four years—we could well be in a situation where Sinn Fein was in a coalition Government in Dublin and back in Belfast, and de facto, from its point of view, politically uniting the island of Ireland. Will republicans risk all that by returning to a violence that never worked for them or anyone else? I do not believe so. So I plead with noble Lords to recognise that history is important, but it is the past. In Ireland, we are trying to leave that painful and difficult past behind. Please do not push us back towards it.

Please resist the temptation to fight the battles that you want to fight here about Brexit by using us as some kind of vicarious battlefield. You will only make the situation worse, not better. Things there have changed and are changing for the better. Relationships do that. Relationships change, positively and negatively, but they never change in a linear way. They are complex. Sometimes, the things that you do to bring about one kind of outcome have the opposite outcome from the one that you expected, which we all know in politics. The more that Sinn Féin and politicians in the Republic of Ireland push in an angry way against Brexit, the more they will make unionists stubborn. The more they work to try to build a practical relationship by co-operating together, the more people will become more open. Indeed, if Brexit turns out not to be as successful as those people who voted for it hoped, it is highly possible that a majority of people in Northern Ireland in the next 10 or 15 years will say, “Maybe we would be better off in the European Union”, and will be prepared to vote in that way. If that is the case, the Good Friday agreement, as noble Lords have said, permits and facilitates that. It does not obstruct it. Please allow the relationships to grow and develop in whatever way they do and do not use us in an internal struggle here.

When it comes to relationships, they are mostly not about high principle and high-flown language, and they are certainly not about the low. They are about practicalities and emotionalities. When we were trying to get somewhere in our negotiations towards the Good Friday agreement, every time people started to speak in terms of high principle, the gap opened up. But when we started to talk about practicalities, it became apparent that we could work a lot together. The Foyle Fisheries Commission became a model because the practicality of fishing is that the fish do not recognise a border. If you are going to have fishing on both sides of the border you have to work together, and since the early days of Northern Ireland, that had worked.

To talk about practicalities, if the British and Irish Governments, for example, could reach an understanding on agriculture, the agri-food business and energy, and present that to the European Union and say, “You can do whatever you like with the rest”, that would deal with 95% of the cross-border trade. It would not deal with the England/Ireland trade but cross-border trade.

I appeal to noble Lords to allow the relationships that have been developing at home to continue to develop in a constructive and nourishing way. Who knows? We might, believe it or not, be able to set an example to other places about how we move through a transition, and our current political difficulty is largely one of making that transition to a new dispensation rather than sliding back to the bad old times.

Northern Ireland Budget (No. 2) Bill

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

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

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, I echo the remarks of my noble friend Lady Suttie and the noble Lord, Lord Bew, in respect of the contribution made by David Ford during his time as a Member of the Legislative Assembly and, indeed, as Minister of Justice. I also echo the concerns that have been raised in respect of the recent violence in my own part of Belfast and in other parts of Northern Ireland. These two things are not unconnected. One thing that we all recognised, throughout past years, was that when politics was not working, other people stepped into the vacuum. Power was exercised by some people outside of democratic politics.

When David Ford was the Minister of Justice, there was remarkably little debate about justice. He addressed policing and—not always to people’s pleasure—he addressed the legal system and how much lawyers were paid. He also did a lot of work on prisons. In many ways, public debate became much more thoughtful, reflective and quiet because he was there. It is easy to forget that he was there because he was prepared to take a considerable hit and a lot of criticism, as those in the two major components of politics—unionism and nationalism—were unable to reach an agreement about who the Justice Minister should be. He was prepared to make sacrifices to ensure that the Executive and the Assembly continued.

Now that we do not have that contribution, we have drifted into a totally unsatisfactory situation. Let us just reflect. Clause 5 says that the provisions in the Bill are to take effect as though this was the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is not the Northern Ireland Assembly and it is not even remotely like it. Let us remember that there are no nationalists at all in this Chamber. When people talk about alternatives to devolution and think about some or all powers being brought back to this Parliament, we need to remind ourselves that the solution that would be proposed by nationalists and republicans in Northern Ireland would indeed be that powers should be taken back but taken back to joint authority with the Irish Government. If we had a reasonable representation of the people of Northern Ireland in this House or the other place, that would be the debate that would be had, and we must not forget it. I do not say that because I support that position— I do not—but we have to be realistic about it.

We have drifted into this situation. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, rightly pointed out, it is now 17 or 18 months since we had a devolved Administration in Northern Ireland. In January 2017 the Assembly was stood down. We had a debate about Northern Ireland in February, in which I spoke. We then had a debate in March, in which I again spoke, and we had another debate in April. We did not have one in May because we had an election. We debated it again in June, and on 18 July last year we had a debate on Northern Ireland that centred particularly on justice and security. We talked about the problems of the paramilitaries and said that, if things were not resolved, those problems would get worse. A year later that is absolutely the case. None of this should be a surprise.

However, there is worse news than that. In the Northern Ireland Act 1998, to which the Minister referred, there is a very clear injunction on the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that if the Executive falls, within seven days—not seven weeks, seven months or indeed 17 months—he or she will propose a date for an election. There might be a delay in that election of a reasonable period, but no judge anywhere would in any way regard the period that there has been as reasonable. Does that mean that one cannot move to direct rule? It would be very difficult to carry support across the community in Northern Ireland for a move to direct rule without at least implementing what was in previous agreements and in the Northern Ireland Act 1998—that is, an election. If an election did not produce or result in the formation of an Executive, I could then understand how there would be a need to move to direct rule or whatever arrangement was proposed, but I think that it would be very difficult politically, and possibly even legally.

My personal view is that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has effectively been operating ultra vires for months. On any reasonable reading of the 1998 Act, it is quite clear that there should have been a decision to have an election long before now. Would an election bring about any change? I have no idea. In the last few years I have given up predicting the outcome of elections in any part of the world, and not just elections but referendums as well. We have no idea whether it would bring about a change. The last election did change the overall political balance in Northern Ireland, but whether that was or was not a good thing is open to question. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked whether there is any way in which the people of Northern Ireland can have a say about some of these issues. There is a very obvious way in which they can have a say and that is by having an election, whatever the result—good, bad or indifferent.

This legislation carries us through in terms of the budget until 31 March 2019. A couple of days before that there will be quite an important development: Brexit will happen on 29 March. What we are saying is that this would carry us through to the other side of Brexit. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is getting excited about the possibility that Parliament might not be here over the next few weeks to debate the issues of Brexit, because Brexit is so important. The people of Northern Ireland have had no representatives debating Brexit over this whole period. Now we are speculating over the possibility that Brexit may have already occurred before their representatives are back. This is a wholly unsatisfactory, unreal and possibly illegitimate position to take according to the legislation, never mind any political agreements.

I ask the Minister what undertakings have been given. Enda Kenny, the former Taoiseach, said that the Prime Minister, Theresa May, gave an undertaking that there would not be a move to direct rule. We have legislation that makes it clear that a date should be set for elections. How can Her Majesty’s Government justify not making any moves and allowing drift? And there is a further problem. If there were a move to hold elections, that would not immediately give civil servants political accountability unless a Government were formed.

A lot of nice things have been said about those in the Northern Ireland Civil Service, and I am not going to say nasty things about them. However, all my experience of them has been that they are very conservative in their decisions. They do not take risks. The last time they took a serious risk was probably over DeLorean, and that did not work out terribly well. It is not a question of whether or not something is legal, but this case referred to by other noble Lords puts a blight on any creativity by civil servants. They are not going to take a risk that they might be out of order. Whatever the legalities, and even if there were an appeal against them and the appeal was won, it would not take that sense of caution away from civil servants.

The Government, if they do not move, are simply creating more and more problems for themselves and for the people of Northern Ireland. The Government have to take a decision. Although I am sure that he is not in a position to take such decisions when he gets to his feet today, I plead with the Minister to tell his colleagues, including those at the most senior levels, that whatever their preoccupations about Brexit for the United Kingdom as whole, there are things going on in Northern Ireland that cannot be allowed to drift if there is going to be any responsible government and any reasonable outcome.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

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

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, in Committee, I and others spoke about the importance of paying attention to the voices and rights of the children and young people of Northern Ireland in our considerations, not least because they had no say in the referendum but will live with the consequences long after the rest of us. Indeed, just on Monday, my noble friend Lady Massey reminded us how important it is to consider children in all aspects of our discussions on Brexit. From a meeting that I and others had with some children and young people from Northern Ireland in March, and reading reports of conferences that they themselves had organised, it is clear that they are really anxious about their future rights as citizens of the island of Ireland and about how their lives will be affected on a daily basis if the border issue is not resolved. As one briefing put it:

“Children in NI, and not just those living close to the border, live their lives ‘across’ what has become an increasingly seamless border”.


We owe it to these children of Northern Ireland to provide the certainty of writing the rights and protections into the legislation.

More generally, I and others have also emphasised on a number of occasions the centrality of human rights protection to the Good Friday agreement and, therefore, the importance of ensuring non-diminution of human rights in Northern Ireland as a result of Brexit and the maintenance of the equivalence of rights between Northern Ireland and the Republic. On a couple of occasions, I have also raised the fact that civil society organisations in Northern Ireland have asked for movement on a Bill of rights, promised in the Good Friday agreement and subsequent agreements, as they believe that Brexit makes it even more important now than before. The Minister, who has always been extremely charming and helpful in his responses, has not responded on this point. If he is not able to respond today, I would be grateful for the promise of a letter from him on that. The Minister has otherwise been consistently positive and reassuring on the questions of the Good Friday agreement and the border, which is of course very welcome.

As the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, said in his marvellous opening speech, I do not think there is anything in this amendment that the Government could not agree with. But warm words in this context are not enough. The children, young people and civil society organisations of Northern Ireland are looking for something stronger. That must mean writing such commitments into the Bill itself. That has both practical and symbolic significance. That is why I believe it is crucial that we pass this amendment on behalf of our fellow citizens—children and adults—in Northern Ireland, who are looking to us for firm, legally binding assurances about their future rights.

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, I put my name to a similar amendment in Committee and, as those who were there will recall, spoke very strongly in favour of it. However, when I saw the draft of this amendment, before it was tabled, I was unhappy about two things. One was that the commitment to entrench the principles of the Good Friday or Belfast agreement had been excised from it; I really do not understand why that is. It is referred to only in oblique ways, by referring not to the agreement but to the Act, which is not the same thing. I think that is a missed opportunity and I do not really see any good reason for it.

However, my main reservation about the amendment concerns proposed new subsection 2(b)(iii). It effectively suggests that one could not accept a requirement for security checks. The noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, has spoken about security and how it can be counter- productive if done in particular ways. I remember very well all the watchtowers and so on that he called to mind; I spent quite a lot of time flying round in helicopters watching soldiers taking them down. But this does not talk about watchtowers; it talks about security checks.

As legislators, we are not expected to be able to predict the future beyond what can reasonably be understood. Donald Rumsfeld advised us about “unknown unknowns”. But there are potential things that are not so unknown at all. Around the time we were coming up to mark the anniversary of the Good Friday agreement, Mr Gerry Adams was interviewed by the German magazine Der Spiegel. He was asked whether he felt that terrorism and politically motivated violence was ever justified now. He said that yes, he believed that it was, and Sinn Féin went on to defend him in that stance, some 20 years after the Belfast agreement. In the last month we have also seen a new organisation, the Irish Republican Movement, announcing that it wants to get operational again because it is not happy about how things are going.

I therefore do not ask myself what the situation is with security now, well before exit day, when thankfully we have peace and a considerable deal of tranquillity and agreement within Northern Ireland and between the north and south, which is marvellous. I ask myself how things might develop over the next year or two, when there are those who are unhappy about Brexit and those who want to promote it. That is not the Brexit we are talking about, of Britain exiting the European Union, but the Brexit that is Britain exiting the island of Ireland and leaving Northern Ireland. There are those who are still prepared to use physical force to bring that about. Do they have any significance?

We are likely to see an election in the Republic of Ireland in the next 12 months, between now and Brexit day, and it is wholly within the bounds of possibility that Sinn Féin will be a member of a new coalition. Possibly it would not be with Fine Gael—although who knows? Anybody who would predict politics in any part of the world at the moment must be a courageous individual. But with Fianna Fáil, that is entirely possible. So the backstop protective position is that if there are no security checks near the border, it will be okay because we will be able to negotiate that with the Irish Government; and if it were the current Irish Government, I rather suspect we would be able to do that quickly. But I would not feel the same sense of confidence if there were the possibility of a Sinn Féin coalition Government.

Of course, if there was a major outbreak of violence, it might be possible to sit down and have that negotiation. However, what would happen if our security services had good information that a real danger was coming from across the border, not just to Northern Ireland but to this part of the United Kingdom, and they needed to get into negotiations with the Irish Government to introduce certain kinds of security checks which had not existed for some years and do not exist now? Are we confident that that could be addressed promptly, and that Sinn Féin would say, “The British security services have said this—that is absolutely dependable; we know we should act with responsibility in that regard, and we will act promptly and immediately against other Republicans”? Maybe it would, but “maybe” is not sufficient.

In February 1996 a huge bomb broke the IRA ceasefire, here in this city, in Docklands. Two people were killed, 100 people were injured and £150 million of damage was done. Where did that bomb come from—the Home Counties, Wales, Scotland or west Belfast? No; it came from the South Armagh Brigade of the IRA, from the border area we are talking about. I simply want to have the confidence—and I do not see it in this component of this otherwise excellent amendment—that if our security services were clear that the Irish Republican Movement or some other organisation had decided to create a bomb to do damage in my part of the United Kingdom or in this part, they would be able to act freely and with the alacrity necessary to ensure that a disaster does not happen.

That is why—I say this with deep regret, because I support the spirit of the amendment—this wording is not entirely wise. I have talked to a number of colleagues, who say, “Don’t worry, John: it’ll be fine, because other legislation will let us get through that”. But that is not what it appears to say, and if there are other ways round it, it will simply justify in Irish minds that phrase “perfidious Albion”: we say one thing but we mean something different because we have a legal way round. That is why, with regret, I fear that I cannot support this otherwise excellent amendment.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I am very privileged to have had the insights of those who really are part of the Irish community and to hear how they see things. That is invaluable. It has also been powerful to hear the words of the noble Lord, Lord Patten, with all his experience and integrity.

I emphasise one point: those of us associated with the amendment brought forward by my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett are very struck by how deeply perturbed those who are standing for, working in and developing the concept of human rights in Northern Ireland are about the absence of equivalence in the legislation, as things stand. The people of the Republic will have the reassurance of the charter. We are told that the charter is impossible in our future. What will be the equivalence of protection for the people in Northern Ireland—those who belong to the minority and are currently confident, having the concept of the charter behind them? We really must have an answer to this question. My noble friend has pursued it on at least three occasions in Committee without getting any convincing response whatsoever.

I do not mind saying that I was very moved by the words today of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames. I will never forget him standing at the Cross Benches last Wednesday, when he implored all of us involved in legislation, and the Government, to remember that we were dealing with the most sensitive issues—ones that went right to the hearts of ordinary people as they went about their lives. It is not just a fix—a management arrangement—that we are about, it is about being able to relate to people, their fears and anxieties, their hopes and aspirations.

In that context—I do not want to overplay it, but it is true—since Wednesday last week I have been thinking of the two words that the noble and right reverend Lord emphasised in his peroration. He spoke of the indispensability of consent and trust. We cannot build a future worth having in Northern Ireland—and in the Irish Republic—if something has been foisted on the people as part of a solution to a very complex political issue. It has to give them the feeling that they can develop their lives together in confidence. It has been very exciting for those of us outside Ireland to witness the amount of good work between the different communities in the context of the Good Friday agreement. I ask the Government to take these points seriously and I hope we will get an answer to my noble friend’s question.

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, not only for the passionate and articulate way in which he introduced the debate on this group of amendments—particularly Amendment 261—but also for the lifetime of commitment that he has given to the issues of Northern Ireland. That length of commitment speaks a great deal to me, as someone from that part of the United Kingdom.

As the fourth musketeer, as it were, I want to say something slightly different about why I think this amendment is not just important but critical. On 6 December last year, on the fifth day in Committee, Lady Hermon, the honourable Member for North Down, spoke about the key principles of the Belfast agreement in an amendment almost identical to this one. When the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, Mr Robin Walker, responded, he kept talking about the agreement, the commitment to the agreement, and the way the agreement was backed up. Lady Hermon came back to him saying that the issue was not the agreement but the principles, and he really did not seem to get it, because he kept coming back to saying that they were committed to the agreement and would ensure that the agreement was there.

I want to say why I would go even further than the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, in saying that it is not just a question of whether this would be a problem or harmful but why this is absolutely essential not that the precise wording of all the amendment is included, but that the principles of the Belfast agreement are included. I shall explain why.

We have had many decades of trying to get agreements in Northern Ireland. We have had them before, and they did not work as a peace process because they did not address the key disturbed historic relationships in these islands. In many ways, this was the understanding that the European project stepped out with, with Monnet, Schuman, Adenauer and so on. They understood that it was the relationships between the different countries and communities that were essential—and, as we know, the whole complicated edifice was created in which there could be co-operation.

One frustration for me is that colleagues who, like myself, are committed to remain, have failed to address the question of why, after 40 years, one of the parties is seeking divorce and many others are very uncertain about whether they want to stick with it. My own view is that, as time went on and we moved from the first generation of those who were committed to those who were there later, we moved from the things that were put in place as the instruments to ensure the fundamental purpose of the project, which was to stop war and build relationships. The instruments were things such as the market, the common currency, and the opportunity for European political leaders to be at the top table of global affairs. Those instruments became the purpose of the exercise for many of those who were involved. When in any set of relationships the instruments of the relationship become a substitute for the purpose of the relationship, the relationship is already beginning to fail.

My concern is about the commitment to the Belfast agreement, a legislative agreement with a commitment to certain kinds of constitutional and institutional matters and a commitment, as the noble Lord, Lord Patten, knows well, to changes in the administration of justice and changing policing—all the important things, including the things that are mentioned in the other amendment about human rights. Those things will not keep the relationships alive if we forget that the relationships are the key issue. That is why I want to see the principles written into the Bill.

When I was involved in the process, we came to a point of understanding this in a very long and painful way. Most of those with whom I was involved are no longer involved politically, or even around at all. As I look around, I see those political leaders who represent the three key relationships not understanding what it was about—the relationship between political leaders in Northern Ireland. We are a long way from the relationships between David Trimble and Seamus Mallon, never mind those between Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness. Let us not forget that Dr Paisley was not too keen about the Belfast agreement when it came out in the first instance. But the relationship between the political leaders in Northern Ireland does not have the same constructive engagement now. In the relationship between north and south, we are being pulled apart—sometimes by those who say that they want to unite the island. What about the relationship between London and Dublin, between the British and Irish Prime Ministers? Think back to the kind of relationship there was between John Major and Albert Reynolds, or between Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern. We do not have that kind of relationship in either direction.

The European Union itself was the model and the inspiration; it was the container for the relationships that kept the British and Irish Governments together and working, so that when John Major and Albert Reynolds became Prime Ministers, they had already been Finance Ministers and worked together, and they said, “We know it’s impossible but we’re going to have a go”.

Northern Ireland Budget Bill

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 14th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in the gap. I want to address three specific issues. When we had our debate on 18 July, one of the points that I raised with the Minister at the time was that a report had been produced by me and two colleagues on the development of a strategy to get rid of the paramilitary organisations. That strategy was accepted by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and the Government here and the Executive in Northern Ireland committed to £25 million each over a period of five years. We have had no reporting of this. An international independent reporting commission has been put in place. It is yet to report, although our report was produced in May 2016. Will the Minister say whether we can expect a report from that commission soon? It was expected to report at least once a year, and it has now been in operation for almost a year. Is that £5 million, or whatever the appropriate amount is, in these Budget figures? Is it identified for the Department of Justice or is part of it for justice and part for other things? Everything seems to have gone very quiet on the strategy to deal with paramilitaries, except for the activity of the paramilitaries, which is not quiet at all.

My second question is about the budget for the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission. If it is the case that it includes funding for Assembly Members until the end of this financial year, for many people it raises the question of whether full salaries should continue to be paid if the Assembly continues in its suspended state. I am keen to hear from the Minister what the Government’s intention is on that, if we come to the new year with no Assembly functioning properly. In this and previous debates, the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, has suggested various models that could be brought into place, and I support him on that.

That brings me to my third point. I no longer believe that it is the difficulty of reaching agreement that is the obstruction; it is the will to reach agreement. That being the case, the Secretary of State needs to brush aside or blow aside the phantom of hope referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, and take action. It is true that Northern Ireland politicians from some, if not all, parties tend to take action only when it is absolutely necessary.

The only legal action the Secretary of State can take without bringing legislation to this House and the other place is to call an election. It is sometimes asked what difference an election would make. I might have subscribed to that view until a couple of years ago, but elections are now a much less predictable business all over the world than they have been in the past. It is important, given what has happened, including the failure to reach agreement, that the people of Northern Ireland should be given an opportunity to say what they think about all this. If that were to happen, it would need to come into place very quickly, because the government narrative that this is not a direct rule Bill, as it is based on decisions taken by the previous Executive or on pointers in that direction, does not carry beyond the early part of 2018.

Therefore, there needs to be an election; and if there is to be one at the end of January or early February—not very welcome weather-wise, as the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, said, but nevertheless necessary—that brings into place not just the election but the need for the Secretary of State to appoint an Executive within a certain period. People will then have the opportunity to negotiate on the basis of a new mandate. If at that point there is no agreement, then some of the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, need to be taken up, but then decisions have to be made about the authority of this Parliament as a direct rule Parliament. It will no longer be acceptable to pretend that we can put Budgets through this place that are based on anything expressed by Executive Ministers on the other side of the water. I urge the Minister to accept that it is now essential to move. It cannot be delayed further.

Northern Ireland (Ministerial Appointments and Regional Rates) Bill

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 26th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, I too identify myself with the comments made by my noble friend Lady Suttie about the horrible events in north Belfast and, indeed, about the Bill itself. At this late stage of the Parliament, and at this late stage of a debate on this emergency legislation, it would be quite inappropriate for me to make a lengthy speech or one that simply repeated things that had already been said in the debate. However, there are one or two things that are worth saying.

No one ever thought that the peace process would be a sprint. Some realised it would be a marathon; others realised it would be a steeplechase with plenty of hurdles. The truth is that in many ways it is a relay race, with Governments passing the baton from one to the next. This generation of Northern Ireland politicians has dropped the baton. A previous generation learned, through painful experience of violence, trouble and many political talks, that there had to be some better way of organising things for ourselves in Northern Ireland. Of the many lessons we learned, the crucial one was that addressing our problem was about addressing disturbed relationships between our communities. The noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, mentioned the three-stranded process. It was three-stranded because we were dealing with three sets of relationships.

What has been forgotten by the current generation of politicians is that it is all about relationships. As I listen to what has been going on prior to and during the early days of this election campaign, I do not hear people speaking of others as though they recognise that they must have a working relationship with them. To some extent, the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, if not others, demonstrated to the House something of the kind of problem that one might find. If we were to have members of the nationalist community or republicans in this Chamber—which we do not—the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, and others would not have to wonder what they were talking about over such long periods. They would find that the disagreements have no difficulty finding momentum and continuing for many days, weeks and, indeed, years. Without establishing some kind of better working relationship with each other, there is little point in saying that we must have devolution, we must have an Executive and we must get on with working together when there is no sign of that being done.

That brings me to the proposition laid out by the noble Lord, Lord Trimble. On the last occasion on which we debated the issues, he and I both indicated that some creativity of thinking was important, and he has taken that forward. I support what he said about creative thinking and the specific measure that he suggested: between now and the end of June, we hope that there will be agreement, but we will not be hanging on by our fingernails waiting for it. On the part of the officials of the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, serious work needs to be done on the option of the Northern Ireland Assembly operating much as the Welsh Assembly did during its first years: taking responsibility, not only because it is difficult to form an Executive but because in local councils in Northern Ireland, for many years, Sinn Fein, unionists, Alliance and others have been working effectively as corporate bodies and making decisions. Sometimes it takes a long time to get the decision, and the decisions are not necessarily always the best, but they are better than no decision and they are better than people in Northern Ireland not being directly represented by the Assembly. I give way to the noble Lord.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord and, like everyone here, I appreciate that he is casting around, as is the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, for any solution to this most difficult situation, but the Welsh Assembly is a very limited parallel in this case. Why? Because what were transferred were not legislative rights but executive functions. Those functions were transferred from Ministers of the Crown here in Westminster to an elected Assembly in Cardiff. The legislative transfers were very limited. Therefore, it is not a precedent for Northern Ireland, unless one takes the view that it is possible to have a legislature dealing without an Executive. That may be possible.

[Lord Alderdice]

I thank the noble Lord. I have to say that I am pretty familiar with the fact that it was different because, when the Presiding Officers of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament were appointed, all three Presiding Officers were, as is well known in your Lordships’ House, Members of your Lordships’ House. We were also all sons of the Presbyterian manse, as it happened. We spent a lot of time talking to each other about these issues, and there were many things that we did not agree to do.

For example, I suspect that my noble friends on the Benches opposite would appreciate the fact that when we were discussing the question of language in the Northern Ireland Assembly, the people in Dublin suggested that we should not go as far on the Irish language as the Welsh went on the Welsh language. The noble Lord is absolutely right to point out that the Assemblies are not identical, but it would be a mistake to think that one is merely casting around for any possibility.

We have to make changes to the way the Assembly is run, but we also have to ensure that we do not wipe out a generation of Northern Ireland politicians who will have to find some way to build relationships. They will not do that if there is no elected Chamber in which to meet and no elected responsibilities for them to take. They will go back to their own communities, snipe at each other and not try to build a relationship. It is crucial that there are ways for that to be done at the level of the Northern Ireland Assembly, not just at the level of local government.

It is also crucial that we find ways in which elected representatives at a senior level can be involved in the negotiations on Brexit, as has already been said. That requires a Northern Ireland Assembly, but it requires one that is taking responsibility because, quite rightly, the people of Northern Ireland will not support the idea that politicians are paid to be Assembly Members without any serious responsibilities to undertake. What the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, has said is thoughtful; it needs to be worked on by officials at the Northern Ireland Office. We cannot simply wait until 5.30 pm on 28 June, when people suddenly begin to think, “My goodness, what can we do at this point?”. I do not imagine that they are doing that—nor do I imagine or even expect that the Minister will comment on this issue in his speech. I do not table this to ask him a question to which he should respond, because he should not; he should be working as he is doing, and as his right honourable friend in the other place is doing, to try to get an outcome. However, it is very important for us to think about what might happen in the other circumstances.

I appreciate that the implication of this legislation is that we will not have an Assembly election on the same day as the Westminster election. There are those who would have liked that to happen. I do not think that the majority of people in Northern Ireland wanted it, but for other reasons—I think it will be a very polarised Westminster election in Northern Ireland—the last thing we want to do is create out of that an Assembly even more polarised than the one before it. So it is the right decision by the Secretary of State and his colleagues, and I support it, but I raise the concern that we must not feel that, by passing this, we have put the problem to bed. As other noble Lords have said, we are simply putting on a piece of sticking plaster that takes us through the next couple of months. Then we will have some seriously difficult problems that will undoubtedly come back to your Lordships’ House one way or another.

Northern Ireland: Political Developments

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dunlop]

First, I agree with the noble Lord about the importance of maintaining the forward momentum of the peace process. As the Statement says, and as the Secretary of State said in the House of Commons, we do not detect any appetite for a second election—the issues would remain to be resolved and it would merely prolong a period of uncertainty and disruption. On the involvement of the Prime Minister, as I have already said, she is actively involved and engaged, dealing directly with the Taoiseach. She and the Taoiseach have mandated my right honourable friend the Northern Ireland Secretary and the Irish Foreign Minister to take forward supporting and facilitating the discussions with the parties. That will happen over the coming hours and days as we seek a resolution to these issues.

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, I want to emphasise the importance of both the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach being seen to be working together with the parties. The symbolism of that, as well as the practicality, is extremely important. I put to the Minister again the question that my noble friend Lady Suttie put. In the preparations for whatever outcome there is post-Easter, will the noble Lord and his colleagues at the Northern Ireland Office consider the possibility of the Assembly continuing even if the Executive Ministers are not in place? In that way there would be an elected body with which Northern Ireland Office Ministers and other Ministers could consult, with Members duly elected and their leaders, particularly about the question of Brexit as well as that of general devolution.

[Lord Dunlop]

As the Statement sets out, the focus and priority are seeking to get the Executive up and running. Of course, should that not succeed, we will look carefully at all the options as we go forward.

Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Bill

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Thursday 21st April 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Alderdice]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“( ) The Commission must report two times per year.”

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, the Bill emerges from the fresh start agreement of late 2015, in which the main parties in Northern Ireland, most particularly the two senior and largest governing parties, the DUP and Sinn Fein, reached an agreement on a series of matters that had been in contention. Some of them are matters of governance involving the budget and welfare payments, but others involve questions of security and the legacy of the past.

I bring forward this amendment because the Bill before us, which we debated at Second Reading recently, is firmly based on the fresh start agreement; that is perfectly appropriate in general principle terms. However, there was one element of the establishment of the Independent Reporting Commission which, from my own experience of it, I felt was unsatisfactory. The Bill does not spell this out, merely referring to Article 5.1 of the fresh start agreement, but that article says that the commission will produce annual reports. That is the issue of difficulty for me.

When the Independent Monitoring Commission was established by legislation and treaty between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland in 2003, it was required by law to report at least twice a year. It could also be asked to produce ad hoc reports but it was required to report twice a year on the situation with paramilitaries and security normalisation. The experience of the subsequent seven years was one of some reasonable success. However, one thing that was clear to the four commissioners and to other thoughtful observers was that the relentless force of reports coming every six months—everybody knew when they were coming: paramilitaries, the security services, civil society, politicians—meant that in the run-up to them, the IMC would receive many representations and questions. People would want to come to talk to us to say, “This is how we perceive things are”, and would look to the reports. The IMC did not make any statements in between times—we did not have any press conferences, and so on—and that gave greater strength to the reports, but only because they were coming out every six months. In the period of the IMC we produced 26 reports in all. Most were six-monthly. Most were on paramilitary issues, some were on security normalisation, and a few were specific ad hoc reports that were asked for on problems such as UVF violence, murders and so on.

When the question of bringing back the IMC arose in the later part of last year because of a couple of murders, we had a debate on it in your Lordships’ House. I said at that time that I did not think it appropriate to bring back the IMC because it would have been working in a particular context. I was also concerned that if people were asked to produce a single snapshot report in a very short time, without the possibility of building a whole network of people, official and otherwise, through which a commission could establish what was going on, it would be possible only for the PSNI and MI5 to produce the kind of report they produce regularly for the Secretary of State and then have two or three distinguished people read it and say, “Yes, I think this is an accurate report”, without being able to do any of the investigatory work that would help to triangulate or give other evidence for the views being expressed by the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the security service.

As it was, the Secretary of State decided to go ahead and establish a body, and the report that came from that body did not provide particular reassurance; in fact, in many ways it was much less reassuring than the last reports of the Independent Monitoring Commission. That is why, when it came to fresh start, another agreement had to be reached, which this time had to set up by the end of December 2015 a panel of three people who would produce by the end of May a strategy for the disbanding of paramilitary groups. I declare an interest, because I was appointed by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister as one of those three panel members. We have been doing our work and we still expect to report by the end of May, as we have been requested to do. I expect it to be published perhaps some time during June, although that is a matter for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.

The Bill is putting in place an Independent Reporting Commission to take that strategy, if agreed by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and monitor or report on how it is implemented. That is not the same thing as the IMC; it is quite different, as it is to report on a specific strategy, and there may be various aspects of that, but it also reports only once a year. I ask noble Lords to think about that. It is going to take four or five years before a handful of reports is produced so that you can see what is actually happening.

Nearly 20 years after the Belfast agreement, I do not get a sense that there is sufficient urgency in relation to this matter, and I doubt very much that it will be perceived as sufficiently urgent in the minds of many people in Northern Ireland. They want, on a regular but relatively frequent basis, to hear what is happening so that the Executive can be held to account if they suggest legislative changes, which they may or may not do. However, if they do, is it enough to report back only once a year? An annual report is the sort of thing a company produces to fulfil the regulatory requirements and to provide information for shareholders. It is not the sort of thing you produce when you feel that major changes urgently need to take place. It may well be said that matters can be raised within the Northern Ireland Assembly. That is absolutely true, but that is the case at the moment and, if it were satisfactory, there would not be an Independent Reporting Commission.

I tabled this modest amendment not to put the Bill in conflict with fresh start but to appeal to Her Majesty’s Government to understand the need for a greater sense of pressure and urgency in the fulfilment of whatever comes out of the strategy and other matters. I do this not to create difficulties and not to change the Bill, which would mean that it had to go back to the other place. I absolutely appreciate that this legislation needs to be in place before the House prorogues and before the Northern Ireland Assembly has a new Executive, who will have to reach agreement on a programme for government as quickly as possible. I absolutely appreciate that, partly because of other elements of the Bill, but I seek from the Minister, who has been extremely open, helpful and constructive during the relatively rapid progress of the Bill in parliamentary terms, some kind of reassurance that Her Majesty’s Government understand the question I am raising and that they will do what is necessary to find ways of making more frequent reporting possible. There are processes by which that can be done. I absolutely understand that it does not have to be done in the way I have described, but this is the only way we can do something that is reflected in the Bill.

If the Minister could find a way of reassuring us that there will be maintained momentum in this reporting, that would be extremely helpful not just to those of us in your Lordships’ House who want to see movement but to people in Northern Ireland, who at times are despairing and at other times frustrated and impatient at the lack of progress on this important issue. I beg to move.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment. We hear so little in this House about Northern Ireland. It is really only when we have short debates, reported in Hansard, that we bring what happens in Northern Ireland to the attention of this House and the wider public. Having the IRC report twice a year is the very least we can hope for. I echo my noble friend’s thanks to the Minister and to the Bill team for all the help they have given us on the Bill, and I hope that the noble Lord will consider this matter with great speed and alacrity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dunlop]

I am glad that my noble friend raised that point because I am indeed about to address it. I recognise that the intent behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, is to highlight that more frequent reporting may be necessary. To respond directly to the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, this does not preclude more frequent reports. The fresh start agreement does provide flexibility for more frequent reports, as my noble friend Lord Trimble said, should circumstances mean that this is appropriate, but it does not envisage that this will be the norm. This will, I suggest, allow more flexibility to respond to circumstances that may arise than by prescribing twice-yearly reports. We will discuss the circumstances in which more frequent reporting may be appropriate with the new Irish Government, as soon as it is formed. To address the point on which the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, sought reassurance, the final agreement establishing the committee is still under discussion with the Government of Ireland. It is our expectation, however, that the sponsoring Governments will be able to request more frequent or ad hoc reports as circumstances dictate.

I turn to the make-up of the commission and Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Empey. As set out in the fresh start agreement, the commission will consist of four members: one nominated by the UK Government, one by the Irish Government, and two by the Executive. For the purposes of the Bill, in the case of the Executive’s nominees, it has been necessary to confer the power to nominate members on a specific statutory office holder or body within the Executive, as the Executive is not a body under the Northern Ireland Act. Clause 1(4) therefore confers on the First and Deputy First Ministers the power to jointly nominate their members.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, has proposed that the Northern Ireland Policing Board should be given this power instead. The same amendment was proposed in the other place. The fresh start agreement specified that the Executive should nominate two members to the IRC. I note what the noble Lord has said about the extent of all-party agreement; notwithstanding that, the Northern Ireland Assembly did give legislative consent to aspects of this Bill that we are bringing forward. It is the Government’s view that the First and Deputy First Ministers, acting jointly, are the most appropriate officeholders to nominate members on behalf of the Executive as a whole, in view of the objective and functions of the commission, which go beyond criminal justice. In particular, they have responsibility for delivering a number of the Executive’s measures to tackle paramilitarism on which the IRC will report. Moreover, requiring the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to act jointly—which is how they currently exercise almost all of their powers and, as my noble friend Lord Trimble said, the panel on which the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, serves has emerged from this process—is intended to ensure a collaborative process and nominees that have cross-community credibility.

The NI Policing Board is not part of the Executive and the amendment proposed would therefore be inconsistent with the terms of the fresh start agreement. However, neither the Bill nor the fresh start agreement specifies how the First and Deputy First Ministers will decide on their joint nominees. They may, therefore, seek suggestions from external stakeholders, such as the Policing Board, and consult with their Executive colleagues in reaching their decision. We would, of course, encourage them to do so. The key point, as I said at Second Reading, is that the four-person commission should collectively carry credibility across the Northern Ireland community. In this vein, as I also said at Second Reading, I welcome the commitment given by Minister Emma Pengelly during the debate on 15 March —in which the Northern Assembly passed a legislative consent Motion for several provisions in this Bill—to consult with the Justice Minister.

This Government are clear that paramilitarism has no place in Northern Ireland society. The new commission will therefore play an important role in tackling paramilitary activity and associated criminality. For the reasons I have outlined, I urge noble Lords to withdraw their amendments and beg to move that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Alderdice]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in this debate and expressed their strong support for the amendment in my name. I am also grateful for the kind words many of them have said about my own efforts. I hope that the existence of such robust support for Amendment 1 will affect the continuing thinking of Her Majesty’s Government and of the Minister here. I was at least a little encouraged by his saying that there were still negotiations to be had with the Irish Government. That is important, and I have little doubt that I will be making my views apparent to them. I am also a little encouraged by the Minister’s telling the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, that there was more to be said on what the Secretary of State might say and do on regulations, for example. I think we will continue to show interest in that area even after this legislation is passed.

It is very important that the Government understand that it is the relentless pressure that often reaches the successful outcome. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, said that we can provide by this process encouragement to those who want to give up, as well as pressure on those who do not necessarily want to. That point has been apparent in my own conversations over the last two or three months. I hope that it will be part of the calculus of Her Majesty’s Government. With that hope, and being a little encouraged by the Minister’s comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Bill

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Tuesday 12th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, like other noble Lords I am grateful to the Minister not just for presenting the Bill with his usual clarity this evening but also for all the work and engagement in the weeks preceding the Bill. I welcome, as others have done, the fact that that work will continue with the briefing on legacy issues tomorrow, which I hope to attend, like many other noble Lords here this evening.

This piece of legislation is of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, has said, hardly one that has come to us too quickly, despite the fact that it is in technical terms fast-tracked. But of course it needed to be fast-tracked if it was to be through Parliament here in time for those important elements that refer to the Assembly to be implemented in advance of the Assembly election and the new Executive—and there is the fact that some more time will be given for the construction of the programme for government and the appointment of Ministers, and the pledges of office of Ministers and MLAs.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Empey, I have some scepticism about the value and strength of these pledges of office. As he said, we have had some experience of these kinds of things over a long period. However, in respect of the pledge of office and of other elements of this Bill which refer to the disbandment of paramilitary organisation, the fact that these things are included in the context of an agreement by the Northern Ireland parties at the most senior level is very positive. I was interested to learn that the term “disbandment” was brought forward not by the British and Irish Governments but by the Northern Ireland parties as part of their commitment. That degree of determination in terms of the expression of the language was an encouragement to me.

Indeed, in terms of the achievement of an agreement itself—to some extent brokered and encouraged by the Secretary of State, to whom we rightly pay tribute—there is perhaps a sense in which this agreement was more truly the product of the engagement of the political parties, particularly the two largest parties in Northern Ireland, than most other agreements. That is a very positive thing. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, also referred to the fact that budgets—not just welfare, but beyond that—had not really been properly attended to. He suggested that it was to do with inefficiency. Perhaps so, but I am not entirely sure that that was the driver. I think that in truth the Northern Ireland parties, perhaps particularly Sinn Fein and maybe the SDLP, had come to the position over many years where they expected that in the end the British Government would pay and that if the political pressure was sufficient, a small amount of money—in Treasury terms—was likely to be forthcoming. Given that that has been the history, I do not think that we should be surprised that things were taken right to the limit and a little bit beyond because we have been on that track so often before. If you are going to change that, you need to accept that it will come to the limit and people will stare into the abyss. That is the key point. At that point, the political parties in Northern Ireland and their leaders stared into the abyss and decided that they would draw back and sign up for provisions that, were they held to, would obviate that kind of circumstance in the future. It does not matter what we put in the legislation, if people come to the point where they are prepared to have the whole thing fall to pieces, they will just ride roughshod over it, but if they are prepared to put it into legislation, it is at least some indication of willingness to work together to a good outcome, and I welcome that and the other various provisions.

Then we come to the disbanding of paramilitary organisations, which is not quite so incredibly urgent in terms of the election but is at the heart of the Bill. I declare an interest, which noble Lords know, as one of the three people commissioned by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to produce a strategy for the disbanding of paramilitary groups. That is the title of the mandate. We have to be careful when we sign up for things. Some things have been said about victims. There are complaints that their interests were not satisfactorily dealt with. We have to accept that the references to victims in the Belfast agreement were very modest. I am not long back from doing some work in Colombia on the peace process there. The first thing they did in Colombia, before even reaching an agreement—in fact they have not yet reached an agreement with FARC—was to put in place legislation specifically to address the needs of victims. They started with the victims. They did not wait until after everything else to address victims. Should we ever have to do things again, we would have to advise that that is a better way of addressing things. We have to bear some responsibility for the fact that that was not the route that we took. One can always learn from the experience of others in other places.

I was also there partly to look at the so-called DDR provisions, the disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration arrangements that they are looking at for FARC and in fact, in the last week or so, for the ELN. Again, we see something that may not have been a mistake on our part but was not the best way that one could have done things. If you are looking for disbandment or demobilisation, what does it mean? It means you are encouraging all the individuals who were involved in terrorist and paramilitary organisations to disperse—not to continue to be engaged with each other, other than in normal networks of friendships. That is not what was done. Instead, the paramilitary organisations themselves were engaged with, as organisations. In that sense, the leaders of those organisations were enabled to have continuing patronage when it came to dealing with, for example, ex-prisoners’ groups. There are not just loyalist ex-prisoners’ groups and republican ex-prisoners’ groups; there are UVF and UDA ex-prisoners’ groups. Even the loyalists do not come together. Why? It is not just because of their history and background; it is because those leaders—of the past or whatever—have a degree of power and patronage within their organisation. We need to think quite a lot about the meaning of that, and about the responsibility we all have to take for the fact that we went down that road. It may be understandable that we did, but maybe in retrospect there were other ways to do it.

What does disbandment mean? There are some paramilitary organisations or—who knows?—former paramilitary organisations that say, “We’ve already gone away”. Whether people believe them or not is another matter. There are other paramilitary organisations that manifestly have not gone away but say that they would like to. In fact, every year they say they would like to, and even sometimes give a date when they will, although it does not actually happen. There are yet others that clearly have not the slightest intention of going away and in fact want to continue, grow and cause us all trouble and difficulty.

We have had reference, quite properly and soberly, to the recent death of the prison officer Adrian Ismay—a horrible reminder of the risks that prison officers and other members of the security services run in the course of their work. However, we also need to get it into perspective. We have probably fewer than 50 prisoners in Northern Ireland prisons in the separated regimes, out of 800 or so prisoners. That is a very small minority—vocal and troublesome, yes, but in comparison with the numbers we were dealing with in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, it is a totally different situation. We need to think about it, deal with it and treat it in a different way, perhaps without some of the anxieties about what could be done, internally in the prisons and externally in society, by addressing these kinds of issues.

As noble Lords will understand, those are some of the issues that are very much to the fore in my own mind when it comes to dealing with these matters. Noble Lords have referred to the fact that south of the border, too, there have recently been some horrifying events, but we have to ask ourselves seriously: at what point do we stop thinking about these things as paramilitary and start to identify them as organised crime—or, in some cases, disorganised crime? That is what it is: criminal activity. It has no serious political motivation at all. Other noble Lords have rightly referred to the fact that, just as this Assembly election will to some extent see a generational change in many leaders, there is also a generational change in some of these organisations too, with young people coming in who do not even remember the situation. There was an extremely interesting comment a couple of days ago by the Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness in response to claims by some people in the dissident republican movement that it was about remembering and implementing the wishes of the men of 1916. Martin McGuinness said—I paraphrase, but I think this gives an accurate impression—“I didn’t get involved in the things I got involved in during the 1960s because of the men of 1916. I got involved because of what I saw happening in the 1960s to my community, and that is not what is happening now. The excuse of 1916, or even of the 1960s, does not stand in the here and now”. I thought that was an extremely interesting, powerful and in some ways rather courageous thing to say on the centenary of 1916. It says to us that those who are involved and engaged do not have a mandate from some of the most senior people in the republican movement for any political dimension to the use of criminal activity and threat of violence. It was an extremely powerful statement that we should build upon.

I welcome a number of the provisions in respect of the Independent Reporting Commission: for example, that it has a degree of diplomatic immunity and that it cannot be taken to court. Representatives of Her Majesty’s Government will recall that they were taken to court—in London, interestingly—by Sinn Fein in respect of the Independent Monitoring Commission, on which I served. It is clear that the IRC will not be susceptible to that—in truth, it was largely clear back then—and there is now a degree of protection. Indeed, subsequent to the whole Boston College issue, the records will be sacrosanct, and that is extremely important if people are to be open and honest.

However, we need to be a little bit careful: this is not a rerun of the IMC. The reporting commission will be looking at the report that my colleagues and I hope to have finished by the end of May and to publish and present the following month, and it will oversee the implementation of that strategy. That is very different from looking at all the activities of organisations. The reporting will take place once a year, not twice, as was the case with the IMC and was supposed to continue to be the case for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. That is a different dynamic and a different situation, and there need to be different expectations of what is possible.

The commission also needs to look at how we can change things for those who have been involved so that neither they nor their families feel bound to these organisations. Maybe there are things that we do in officialdom that make it difficult for people to give that up, leave it behind and get on with an ordinary civilian life. I have seen situations where not only the people involved but their children and grandchildren continue to suffer for things that happened some years ago. That is not helpful when we hope that these organisations will go away. We accept that organised crime will not go away, but it is hoped that paramilitary activity can begin to become a thing of the past.

There is much more that one could say, but which at this time of the evening it would not be sensible to say, and in any case there will be other opportunities to say it. However, it is important to point out, and to recognise, that the Bill represents something positive coming out of Northern Ireland and out of the engagement of political leaders. The Government are to be commended on bringing forward this legislation and on not waiting for an omnibus piece of legislation to deal with all the other issues of legacy and so on, thereby delaying getting into place those things we can now put in place relatively easily and non-contentiously, and get on with.

We have to do all we can to ensure that the reporting commission is part of a wider effort to lift the blight of paramilitarism from the people of Northern Ireland. It is not realistic to believe that all criminal activity, or even the criminal activity of all those who have in the past been involved in paramilitary organisations, will be lifted from our community. But the notion of political motivation for organised crime must go, and this Bill is a helpful step in that direction.

Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Bill

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, first I say a word of thanks to the Minister for his explication of things at the start of this Second Reading. I also offer him an element of sympathy: there are many people looking in from outside who, regarding his carriage of the Second Reading of the Scotland Bill for some seven hours and his then being condemned to the Irish legislation, would properly define that as cruel and unusual punishment. We should be informed by the Chief Whip what on earth the poor Minister has done to deserve this. We will, however, proceed with what is of course a matter of great seriousness and concern.

The Minister said some things about the speed with which all the stages of the Bill are—we hope—being carried through the House this evening and the context in which it is being brought here. I am sure all parliamentarians would like more time and consideration to deal with this matter, but we have to reflect that this time last year we were coming up to the Stormont House agreement. At that stage, we were not at all sure that there would be an agreement. It was, apparently, signed off before Christmas but it all began to unravel in the early part of the new year, after a Sinn Fein ard fheis. All of us can wholly understand the Government’s concern to make sure that this legislation gets through and is put in place before any similar mishap can occur.

Unfortunately, we might say that it is unusual for legislation in regard to Northern Ireland—and particularly in regard to the peace process—to be carried through in such an urgent fashion, but I am afraid that is not the history of things. It has regularly been the case that unusual arrangements have had to be made for the timing or speed of Northern Ireland legislation. Your Lordships’ House, and the other place too, has often felt that the legislation came somewhat pre-cooked, in terms of agreements reached with the Northern Ireland parties. That is not an entirely satisfactory situation, because they themselves do not always consider the consequences of their actions, and inaction, terribly well. It is therefore important that others can help them on it.

If we take, for example, the so-called A Fresh Start agreement of which this piece of legislation is a part, in truth it is much less satisfactory, appropriate and complete than the Stormont House agreement a year ago. In almost all aspects it is less satisfactory. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister, in their introduction to A Fresh Start, talk about it being,

“a far-reaching and comprehensive framework”.

The framework bit is right, but it is hard to be persuaded that it is “far-reaching and comprehensive”, since it almost completely excludes any substantial dealing with the past, and things such as flags, parades and strategies to deal with paramilitarism are very much a framework rather than evidenced delivery.

In fact, one has the sense, not just in this agreement but in the way in which the Assembly and Executive have operated, that while there may be a commitment to the institutional architecture of power-sharing there does not seem to be much commitment to the relational sharing of power, which is actually what the whole thing was about. In many ways we find this legislation coming before us as an admission of failure.

It is also a little puzzling why it has taken so long to get here. The noble Lord will know that, when the issue arose at the start, I advised him and his right honourable friend in the other place that the best solution was to take the matter back to Westminster. Why did I say that? First, I did not believe that Sinn Fein would bring down the whole edifice of devolution on the basis of this being taken back to Westminster. It would know that, if it was taken back to Westminster because devolution had collapsed, the Government would simply implement the matter in full, so it would have saved nothing but lost all the benefits of the devolved Administration and Assembly. I did not believe it was going to do that.

Secondly, all through the period of the Assembly, right from early times, unionists were coming to me with a great deal of frustration about legislation in this area. They would say, and the noble Lord has indicated this, “We are expected to deal with this so-called devolved matter, but we know perfectly well we have no real freedom in what we do because maintaining parity with the rest of the United Kingdom is critical”. Indeed, those who have a long memory—and in Northern Ireland quite a few people do—recall that the first Stormont Parliament was unable to sustain itself financially, unable to use the devolved powers it had to sustain itself, and came to the UK Government and said, “Please take these matters back from us because we cannot survive financially”. Unionists frequently said to me, “It would be far better for the matter to be taken back, because we debate things and have to agree to things we do not like and do not agree with, because we have no power to make any difference”. I never thought there would be an enormous problem in taking this back, and it would have been better if it could have been taken back at an earlier stage when there could have been proper debate and discussion and fewer financial problems created for the Northern Ireland Assembly.

While this comes to us, albeit belatedly and with not very much time, many other issues are not coming to us at all. Perhaps the most notable and distressing is the whole question of the legacy of the past and the impact that failure to reach agreement on this has had on victims. On Monday in Belfast, I spoke at a conference, which continued for a couple of days, looking at post-traumatic stress disorder and the impact on individuals and groups of people in the community because of the Troubles in the past. There was a great sense of anger, from victims and from those working with them and dealing with them, that any agreements that they thought had been reached a year ago seemed to have fallen to pieces. Although both Her Majesty’s Government and the Irish Government, in their comments in the foreword to A Fresh Start, point out that they are going to continue to discuss and try to reach understandings and agreements, there is a sense of betrayal on the part of victims and people who have worked with them that we are now back further than ever.

Can the Minister indicate whether he seriously believes that progress is going to be made on this, or is it the case that those outside the political process—outside the Government, the Assembly and the Executive—are going to have to find a way of taking responsibility for addressing these issues? Repeatedly, there has been disappointment, and there does not really seem to be much evidence on the hard issues that created the failure that much progress is going to be made over the next number of months.

As the Minister will probably realise, I also look with some scepticism at the monitoring device that is being proposed. I expressed some scepticism about the one that was proposed on the last occasion when we addressed this matter in the House, and I have every reason to believe that I was right, because it produced more problems than it resolved. It is not clear to me how what is proposed in the terms of reference for the upcoming monitoring commission will resolve any problems. It has much less power than the Independent Monitoring Commission, on which I sat. It has power only to produce a few proposals for the Executive, which will then fall into disagreement about how they should be implemented. That does not seem a satisfactory arrangement at all.

There is financial support, which one is glad to see. However, problems remain for the Police Service of Northern Ireland in dealing with the many issues of the past. Without sufficient resources, dealing with the legacy of the past will take away from the normal policing of the here and now.

Isolating this Bill from the rest of the issues, at best we will get it through quickly so that these matters can be addressed for the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that, frankly, the matter will continue to be dealt with in this Parliament. I know that there is a sunset clause that will end this legislation in 2016, but I see very little likelihood that there will be agreement by the parties to accept the real responsibility, which ought to be theirs, of dealing with social security matters. We may well have to deal with these things in the future but, if that is the only cost of reaching agreement and continuing with devolution, frankly, it will be a small price to pay.

Although the noble Lord talked about the legislative load that would come to us if devolution were to collapse, that is the least important thing. If devolution were to collapse, it would mean that the whole peace process collapsed, and the implications of that would be absolutely enormous. If the cost of keeping the show on the road is that we continue to address welfare questions through a follow-up to this legislation, I say to the noble Lord that it will be a small price to pay for the continuation of the other, more important parts. However, if the cost is a refusal to address the needs of the victims and the legacy of the past, that will gnaw away at devolution and at the credibility of the devolved institutions.