Northern Ireland Affairs Committee
Oral evidence: The effectiveness of the institutions of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, HC 781
Wednesday 6 September 2023
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 6 September 2023.
Members present: Simon Hoare (Chair); Sir Robert Buckland; Stephen Farry; Mary Kelly Foy; Sir Robert Goodwill; Claire Hanna; Carla Lockhart; Jim Shannon.
Questions 367-400
Witness
I: Colum Eastwood MP, Leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP).
Written evidence from witnesses:
– [GFA0053] - the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP)
Witnesses: Colum Eastwood MP.
Q367 Chair: Good morning, colleagues. For our second session this week we turn away from policing, which dominated yesterday’s session, to our inquiry, in this 25th anniversary year, into the effectiveness of the institutions of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
We are delighted to welcome this morning our parliamentary colleague and leader of the SDLP, Colum Eastwood. Thank you for finding the time to appear before us this morning. You will appreciate that there are Northern Ireland oral questions in the Chamber later, so we will aim to finish at about 11 am.
I shall kick off. John Hume, your former party leader, was obviously one of the foundation stones, if not the key foundation stone, long backing the process and driving it forward. He played a pivotal part, and the world recognises that. I have a difficult question, which is to ask you to put yourself into his shoes for a moment or two and give us your views on what he might be thinking now—where it has gone right, or something he might be kicking himself about and wished it had been done another way.
Allied to that, we are seeing in Northern Irish politics—although it is not unique to Northern Ireland—a squeeze on the centre as things move to the wings. What is the role now of your party in the development of the political institutions of Northern Ireland?
Colum Eastwood: Thank you for what you said about John Hume: you are absolutely right. Way back in the mid-’60s he was planning a path to what ended up becoming the Good Friday agreement. He recognised the principles of two competing identities, two competing nationalities that needed to be understood. We needed to work together and we had to internationalise the problem in order to fix it.
You asked me to try to put myself in John’s shoes. As someone who is the MP for Foyle and leader of the SDLP, that is something that I have been trying to do for a long time, and of course never measuring up, because it is impossible to measure up to what John was able to achieve. Thank God for him. What John and the SDLP, and of course the other parties who eventually agreed with that analysis, achieved was to give us the opportunity to do our politics in a democratic way. They gave my generation the opportunity to live in peace, which is no small feat. I think they ended the Anglo-Irish conflict that had raged for centuries, and that is something that we cannot forget.
What would John think today? I think he would be very frustrated, but I think he would still be very happy that he took those risks for peace, because if nothing else was achieved out of the Good Friday agreement, peace was achieved, and I do not think we will ever go back, despite some of the challenges that we face. We have seen not so long ago that there is still a very real threat from some people who just cannot get on board with the people of Ireland and still want to turn their faces against the democratic wishes of all the people of our country. Peace was achieved and, in my view, is secure. It always has to be minded, and we have to work at it.
John would be frustrated, I think, because the principles that underpin the Good Friday agreement were about us all working in partnership and on common ground every day, and not walking away when things get difficult. We had three and a half years when Sinn Féin walked away and it has been more than a year since the DUP walked away. The whole point was to compromise, work the common ground, and do that every day. When you did not get what you wanted, you were not supposed to just walk away and pull the whole edifice of government down. The idea that almost the first response is to pull the very structures of government down would appal him.
I also think that John would have been very frustrated that, even when the Assembly and Executive were up and running, we did not properly use those institutions to change people’s lives. John was a social democrat as much as he was anything else. He was driven—as we still are—by a real desire and zeal to lift people out of poverty and give them opportunity. That is where the civil rights movement came from, which the SDLP grew out of—the need to get rid of an old, corrupt government at Stormont that was keeping people down economically. He always said that our problems are economic as much as they are anything else.
What is the role of the SDLP 25 years on? Yes, we have been squeezed. The Ulster Unionist party has been squeezed. There is no point rehearsing all of this, but there was a period after the Good Friday agreement where the extremes were indulged too much. You would have Seamus Mallon and David Trimble sitting in the First Minister’s office, trying to run the place, and then turn on the TV and there were Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams walking up Downing Street—all the time. So the oxygen for the democratic centre was taken away and given to those people who continued to use issues such as decommissioning and other things to keep the attention on them, and that had an electoral outcome that we are still suffering from.
Regardless of all of that, 25 years on—we have spent an awful lot of time over the last year looking back and it was great to have all the presidents, senators and everybody here—my generation and those that are coming along now are very grateful that we have peace, but we are also asking, “What’s next?” For a 20-year-old, 25 years ago is the same as 100 years ago—it does not matter. We have to bank that and move forward. It was never supposed to be a static thing—
Chair: It was a process, not an event.
Colum Eastwood: Exactly—the peace process. We have to keep moving forward. From my perspective, we are in a period now where we will begin—if it has not already begun—a very live conversation about constitutional change. From the SDLP’s perspective, we are the only party that is interested in building a new Ireland but also anti-sectarian and social democratic. That is a unique role that we will play in the future conversation about constitutional change. We have always been the persuaders, and I think we will be the persuaders again in that conversation. We have already begun that work.
I actually see the conversation about a new Ireland as a process of reconciliation, as the next stage of the peace process and the development of the Good Friday agreement. More and more people are coming to that position today.
Q368 Chair: Thank you for that. You mentioned in your remarks “pragmatism and compromise”. In a didactic world dictated by social media, the simplistic certainties of populism do not sit well with talking, compromise, give and take and pragmatism. How concerned are you that that brave political leadership in the DNA of political parties and politicians in Northern Ireland appears, in some areas, to have entirely disappeared, and followship seems to be the answer to the dog-whistle social media echo chamber?
Colum Eastwood: If we had had Twitter during the troubles, we would have been in a much worse place. This thing where you have to react immediately, and then react to the reaction, and things just spiral out of control—in my view, that is dangerous in any body politic, and it is particularly dangerous in a divided society such as we have. Sometimes that is even exacerbated by particular broadcasting platforms—I am sure we will talk about that another time. I think that is all very dangerous.
I remember knocking on a door recently and someone said to me, “I am voting for Sinn Féin because I want a nationalist First Minister.” I said, “Are you? Sinn Féin have won more or less all of the elections in the last 15 years. How is that working out for you?” I think the question that does not often get asked of politicians in Northern Ireland is, “What have you delivered?” My constituency still has the highest levels of unemployment. We are still being held back by governmental inaction and actual deliberate action to keep people economically disengaged.
My view is that, no matter what, we have to get to a point where we do not just have a Government, which would be a nice start, but have one that delivers for people. Where we do not have a society in which a quarter of the population is on a hospital waiting list—and the lists are getting longer. It is scandalous: the health service has basically collapsed in Northern Ireland. It would embarrass a third world country. I have people in my constituency going to the credit union to borrow money so that they can get private healthcare, because there is no other way to get it. We talk about the NHS, and we all love the NHS. We love the people who work in the NHS and we talk about it in kind of mystical terms, because the whole point of it is that it is supposed to be free at the point of delivery. But if you cannot get access to it, there is no delivery, so you end up paying for it.
I suppose what I am saying is this: in the middle of all our identity politics and tribalism, we are forgetting the fact that we are actually elected. Sometimes in Northern Ireland, I think, we send messages rather than Ministers to Stormont, and that just does not serve us and has not served us very well.
Q369 Chair: You talk about event and process, and I take your point; it is a concern that I share. It can be a case of “Well, our transport policies haven’t delivered, but at least they’re our transport policies rather than their transport policies”—that sort of approach. We are all familiar with the film “Life of Brian”, where the question is asked rhetorically, “What have the Romans ever done for us?” A lot of people in 2016 asked themselves the question, “What has the single market ever done for us?”
Colum Eastwood: I can answer that if you want.
Chair: I think you and I would probably share exactly the same answer, so let’s not waste each other’s time on that one.
The point I am making is this: how concerned are you? I am talking not about the “content, professional, educated middle classes”—I use the phrase in inverted commas—who are as happy in each other’s company, work for larger firms, move around the place and share a world view, but about those hard-to-reach groups of people in both communities who would say to themselves, “I don’t go to events at Queen’s. I don’t work for a firm that allows me to go to London, Paris or wherever it may happen to be. I’m not doing this, that and the other. Twenty-five years on, my education, housing, health, economic achievement and social mobility—I can’t see any positive changes. What the hell is it all about? Why should I support it? What’s in it for me? I am opting out of this. I am opting out of the political process, because it has failed me.” Then you end up going back full circle and trying to convince those people that there is merit in compromise, pragmatism, talking and engagement.
Colum Eastwood: That is happening; that has happened. A lot of people—I know many of them—look at the peace process and see positives for other people. We can’t deny that it has been hugely positive. We are in a totally different place from where we were 25 years ago. I suppose what I am saying is that we shouldn’t have to be satisfied with that. We shouldn’t have to be satisfied that we’re just not killing each other any more.
Q370 Chair: Fairly basic table stakes.
Colum Eastwood: Exactly. This is where I come to the point that, in the conversations that we are having with people about the future, we are saying and we are hearing, “More Stormont is great”—I know you are talking about this a lot, and how we reform Stormont is very important—“but it’s not enough.” It’s just not. If I look across the border, next year the Republic of Ireland’s Government are going to have a €16 billion surplus. And we’re still a drag on the economy. Small parts of Northern Ireland are doing very well, but the rest of it isn’t, and it has been held back because we haven’t used the all-Ireland economic opportunity, in my view, in a way that would be very beneficial to us.
I suppose the way in which we are going to talk about that conversation, and I think this is going to be unique to us—I get frustrated when people say we can’t talk about the constitutional future because we have to deal with the health service problem or the economy, or we can’t talk about it because we have to talk about reconciliation. For me, the conversation about a new Ireland is a process of reconciliation; it is also a process of showing that we can do things better in an all-Ireland context, in terms of the economy, the health service and everything else.
Yes, people are disengaging. I can tell you from my own constituency they are disengaging. It is not totally removed from the conversations that you have been having around policing; it is all connected. I think we have to, 25 years later, give ourselves a shake and realise that not everything is fantastic. Probably that was missing from the anniversary discussions. It was great; it was wonderful; and it is always good that we are able to attract these very significant people from America and everything else. We should use the opportunity that we have there, but we have to have a bit more self-reflection and say, “I don’t think this is actually good enough.”
Q371 Chair: A final one from me. This week, we had interesting remarks that some have criticised along the lines of, “You can have these thoughts, but they shouldn’t be expressed in public.” A key and founding member of the DUP—or if not a founding member, someone influential—talked about having to face into some sort of conversation about constitutional futures. There is no point just saying, “No, no, no, no.” Even if you might not desire it, you have to sort of try to do some sort of scenario planning. Were you surprised by that? Heartened by it? Encouraged by it? How might you see that?
Colum Eastwood: I do not know Wallace Thompson, but I am not one bit surprised. I set up the New Ireland Commission about two years ago, and for about 18 months of that process we were having very quiet conversations with people from a Unionist background. Now, people tell me Unionists are not engaging in this conversation. It’s not true, because they are speaking to us. I mean, we have been everywhere. Unionist political parties are not engaging in it, and that is fair enough. I’ll tell you my view on it. We’re going to keep talking to people and we’re going to listen to people. I think we are probably going to have to do a lot of the arguing for Unionism, if you know what I mean, in terms of how the thing would look.
I do not want Unionist political parties to negotiate the future of what a united Ireland would look like. I want them to come up with a prospectus for the UK. We’ll come up with one for a new united Ireland. Unionism should come up with one in support of remaining in the UK and then we will have a democratic discussion about it. That is the whole point. That is the beauty of the Good Friday agreement—that we can have a democratic, free-of-violence discussion about the future. My appeal to Unionism is, “Go off and do that work.” I am not asking you to be a convert to my vision for the future; I am asking you to tell me what yours is.
Frankly, I think the way in which some parts of political Unionism have behaved since Brexit has actually driven more and more people to be sort of unity-curious, for want of a better term. I am hearing that, so I am not shocked by that. My view is that we are on a journey towards that, but I don’t believe in inevitability. And I also believe that in order to do it properly, it has to be managed and we have to have the concerns of the British tradition in Ireland at the heart of everything that we do.
Coming from where I come from—in Derry, where since 1973 when the new Derry council was formed after the civil rights movement, a year after Bloody Sunday, we were insisting when we had nearly all the seats on doing power sharing—we look around the Guildhall in Derry, and we have all the symbolism of Unionism and Britishness still there. We did not strip it away. We were determined that that would stay, because we understand. In the same vein, that is why we insisted that the Apprentice Boys could march around the city centre. That is not popular sometimes, but it is because we understand. When I stood as a 17-year-old at the top of Shipquay Street, with John Hume, watching the Apprentice Boys go past—and some of those bands aren’t very nice—
Chair: Musically, or—
Colum Eastwood: Some of the music is fantastic.
Jim Shannon: All the music is fantastic.
Colum Eastwood: I brought my two daughters up last year, Jim, and they were five and seven at that stage. We stood and we watched the bands and a guy gestures—a guy goes like that to me—and Maya, my youngest, said, “What’s that about, Daddy?” I said, “That’s just how they say hello.”
So I was standing with John Hume at 17 years old and I was doing the usual angry thing—you know: “Why are they able to just close down the whole town? Listen to some of those chants and songs, and the way they’re looking at us.” And John said, “Are you serious?” I said, “I am serious.” He said, “Well, if you believe in a united Ireland, and you look at the demographics of Derry, how can we have a united Ireland if we can’t even accommodate letting these people march around this town twice a year?” And that stuck with me forever.
That is what is going to drive us. I mean, we’re not pretending when we say that. We are deadly serious that the British tradition—the Unionist tradition—on the island of Ireland in a constitutionally changed Ireland will be, if I have anything to do with it, protected, enhanced and looked after.
Q372 Chair: In short, the place-shaping mission that Hume gave to the SDLP is still alive and well.
Colum Eastwood: It is the driving force of everything we do and think about. And do you know what? Sometimes we get it wrong. Sometimes we make the wrong call.
Chair: We all do that.
Colum Eastwood: We do, and sometimes somebody in a council chamber will say something and I will go, “That doesn’t fit,” but in the main and in the round that is the driving ambition of the SDLP. I have said this before: if a united Ireland does not accommodate the Unionist tradition, it is not worth having.
Chair: No finer voice of the Unionist tradition could be found than Mr James Shannon, to whom we now turn.
Colum Eastwood: I would actually agree with that, Chairman.
Q373 Jim Shannon: Thanks very much. I was glad you brought up the Apprentice Boys, because I was going to bring it up myself, as an Apprentice Boy member for 45 years. I walk the streets of Londonderry every year. I saw John Hume there, when he was about. I did not see you this year, Colum, by the way—you were conspicuous by your absence.
Colum Eastwood: I was out of the country.
Jim Shannon: I have said this lots of time to my own tradition. Londonderry is one of those places where they agreed to a parade—the history of it that we all love; I have been a member of that for 45 years. For me, that is an example of what can happen, and that is down to the Apprentice Boys themselves, who made sure they came to an accommodation with the nationalist parties. It is one that I point to as an example of where you can do better if you accept the traditions from both sides and understand that. It was a wonderful event this year—it is every year, I have to say. I love all the music, by the way, but that is probably no surprise to you.
Chair: But you are tone-deaf, aren’t you?
Jim Shannon: Not just yet.
Colum Eastwood: A lot of them are old traditional Irish tunes.
Jim Shannon: As you also know, Colum, I was a great supporter of Dr Paisley and felt that his stepping forward to set the Assembly up, with him as First Minister and Martin McGuinness as Deputy First Minister, was the right decision. I supported that from within the party at that time, because I thought that was a way we needed to go.
I suppose what I am really saying is that I quite clearly—you will not be surprised—see my position within the United Kingdom of Great Britain as that of a British citizen, and that is obviously constitutionally where I aim for. I understand and recognise that others have different points of view, and that is as it should be. People have individual thoughts and their own ideas, so constitutional differences are there.
I suppose the question I want to ask—Mr Chairman is always very clear that he wants me to ask the question and not do the preamble, which I am often prone to do—is, with the benefit of hindsight, did the inclusion of cross-community safeguards in the text of the 1998 agreement represent the necessary accommodation that was important to bring in all the parts of Northern Ireland society?
I am not being argumentative, by the way—you know my nature and that that is not how I am—but I just say this. One of your last comments in response to a question from Mr Chairman was that it is important to have the Unionist voice heard and to have that as part of the process. I know that you mean that when you say it, by the way. But if we are going to try to take the process forward to the next stage, which is where my party and I want to be, we do not see the Unionist voice within the British protocol system, which has fallen short for Unionists at this moment in time. If we agree to having a cross-community safeguard, and if we agree to having nationalist and Unionist opinion held equally in their voice and in their traditions, how can we take it forward at this moment in time? How can Unionists, who feel ostracised and out of the picture at this moment, be part of that process moving forward?
Colum Eastwood: I did miss the Apprentice Boys march this summer—I was out of the country—but I had not missed it in a long, long time. I spent many a late night remonstrating with some young people and making sure that it was as much of a peaceful day as possible. I have done that for 25 years.
The problem, Jim, in terms of trying to satisfy the DUP concerns around the protocol and the Windsor framework is that a lot of us are not really sure what you want. We are not at all sure what the negotiations between yourselves and the British Government entail. I obviously speak to the Secretary of State regularly. He tells me his glass is half full; I am not totally convinced by that, but I would love to be surprised. You probably should notice that other parties have given quite a lot of space for those discussions to happen, particularly over the summer, we are trying to do and say things that, whether they are helpful or not, are not unhelpful.
I will say this, though. Without rehashing all this, I did not want Brexit; I argued, voted and campaigned against it. I came here to talk about it before the referendum. I could see that it would be very destabilising for Northern Ireland, and for Unionism, and that it would end up in Unionism having a crisis of confidence. I think that is what has happened. In turn, it has damaged the stability of the institutions of the Good Friday agreement.
I also think, frankly, that the Windsor framework was a big victory for the DUP. They should have grabbed it—that would be my view. If the DUP ever want my political advice, I will be astonished, but I will offer it anyway. I would have grabbed it and shouted from the rooftops that you had delivered something that everyone told you that you could not deliver. I think that was the political thing to do. There was a council election not that long ago where the DUP support was solidified. The TUV has been dealt with politically. I do not know what we are waiting on. The longer we wait, the harder it is going to be.
We also have an American Administration in the White House who have literally appointed somebody—a very significant person in Joe Kennedy—to use the opportunities of the protocol and the Windsor framework, that we can trade into both markets unencumbered. Those are things that businesses in Britain can’t do, and some would love to be able to do. We can use that to get support and help in terms of inward investment from America and we can sell it. That is a huge opportunity.
I can tell you, from a part of Northern Ireland that has been held back economically, that is a huge opportunity, and I think we have to grab it. You referenced Ian Paisley and the compromises he made. We are at that moment again. There will be lots of these moments where you have to say, “What is more important? Is it holding out for perfection or is it getting in and dealing with the problems?”
So, there is the economic opportunity but there are also the problems. People are screaming at me that they cannot get anywhere near a doctor. Emigration is still a thing in large parts of Northern Ireland. That is not a thing on the rest of the island any more. We have major problems. Will they all be solved by an Executive? No, but is it not our responsibility as politicians and political leaders in a divided society to get in and try to deal with them? That is my strong view.
I really do wish Jeffrey Donaldson well in his conversations with the Secretary of State, but we are running out of road. I do worry that the longer we leave this, the harder it is going to be to do.
Q374 Jim Shannon: We obviously have a difference of opinion and this is not the place for those discussions, Mr Chairman—I understand that. I have one final question, supplementary to what you have just said.
Both Bertie Ahern and Tony Blair indicated that, if we are going to find a solution to where we are now, it is really important that Unionism feels part of that process. They accept the fact that Unionism does not feel that the present process within the protocol fully envisages our position as Unionists and where we want to be.
If they have recognised that from a very high position in the Republic of Ireland Government and as a Prime Minister at Westminster, it seems to me that those two viewpoints cannot be ignored. I am not being argumentative; I am just putting forward the point that those two people understand why it is important to have Unionism as part of the process.
They recognise that at this moment in time Unionism cannot be part of that, simply because they have not got the position that they wish to have. We are not looking for everything when we put forward our viewpoint but, at this moment, the process does not seem to be delivering for Unionism. Those elections have proved that to be the case.
Colum Eastwood: First of all, I am not sure that Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern have said that they do not support the Windsor framework. I think most people recognise that that was a huge advance in terms of the DUP’s position. On the characterisation that Unionism is outside the room somehow, I can tell you that I am outside the room. Everybody else is outside the room. The only people in the room are the DUP. Those are the only real conversations happening right now.
This has been the case, by the way, for the last number of years. Politics has constantly revolved around, “What does the DUP want?” We have to point this out. The DUP argued for Brexit. They voted for Brexit. Then they were in government, basically, with Theresa May, and ensured that we could not have a soft Brexit, which would have, I think, been a much better outcome for all of us. They clung on to a vision of Brexit that was never realisable and could not sit alongside the reality on the ground in terms of our geographical and trading position as part of an island where the other part is in the single market and customs union. And now we still don’t really know what the DUP want.
The whole of politics has been obsessed with what the DUP want and has been held back because of what the DUP have done and said over the last number of years. I am happy to talk to anybody in the DUP, but I still don’t know what they want. I don’t understand what the negotiations are about.
Q375 Chair: I don’t think we should be doing Windsor framework negotiations here. On the back of this, though—everybody is conscious of the situation with policing and health and so on and so forth—you have referenced the collapse triggered by Sinn Féin and the collapse triggered by the DUP. Do you think it was ever envisaged that that opportunity to collapse—that right to collapse mechanism—would be used on the basis that party X wants Y, party X doesn’t get Y, or it gets a bit of Y that it doesn’t quite approve of, and therefore it pulls everything down? It always seemed a very odd right to create. We have huge rows in this place and no one party can walk away—well, they can, but business continues, and votes go one way or the other with or without them. That needs to be looked at, does it not?
Colum Eastwood: Absolutely. I don’t think it was envisaged at all. What tends to happen is that, as a party walks out over one thing, we enter into negotiations that sometimes go on for years, and by the end of it you go, “What did they walk out about again?” because we have talked about everything but that.
Q376 Chair: But given the history—given the historical antagonisms, etc.—it has always struck me as a rather peculiar right to create. There really should be no surprise that, in that backdrop of competing traditions and world views, it was likely to be used.
Colum Eastwood: As I said earlier, I don’t see the agreement as a static document. I believe very strongly in reform. There is a review mechanism in the Good Friday agreement that allows you to review and reform, and we have done it before—sometimes, I would argue, to the detriment, and sometimes for the better. Creating the position of Opposition—we were very involved in working with John McCallister on that—was a very positive thing, and will prove to be again, in terms of trying to normalise politics. I am not wedded to the letter of the agreement if it is not working. A blind man on a galloping horse could tell you that it is not working right now, and we have to be honest about that.
We have put forward proposals to the MEPOC Bill. We have looked at things like allowing for two thirds support for the election of the First and Deputy First Minister, where the First and Deputy First Minister will once again have to be elected jointly by the whole Assembly rather than it being privatised to the two largest political parties. I think all those things would go a long way. But there is an old story in Ireland: you stop somebody on a country road and ask them how to get somewhere, and they say, “Well, I wouldn’t start from here.” So we are in a very particular and peculiar place. The Good Friday agreement institutions recognise the division and have given voice to that, but they were never supposed to be static, in my view. We have to recognise that more people do not identify solely in terms of their constitutional position. We have to recognise that. I want to move to a more normalised society and politics, but I do not think it is as simple as some people have suggested.
The one thing I will say is that I think first and foremost we need a Government. I can tell you from what I think people are feeling on the ground that Michelle O’Neill needs to be First Minister, because she was elected as First Minister. The anger in the run-up to that election, particularly from people within the nationalist community, because it looked like she was going to be denied being First Minister, has created a particular political dynamic in the system. That needs to be respected and endorsed, and there needs to be a Government on the basis of that election. I think then we can have a grown-up conversation about the future and how we look at the institutions.
I have a slight concern about saying, “Let’s have a look at reform now in advance of a Government being formed,” because I just know from my own experience that, while we think we would be going in to do one small thing, we would open up the whole thing. That might be the right thing to do, but that will take years, and we will still have nobody dealing with the health service, the economy and everything else. And some people will create all sorts of trouble in the middle of those negotiations and take away some of the things that cannot be taken away in terms of the Good Friday agreement.
Chair: Jim, do you have anything else?
Jim Shannon: No, I think that’s all, thank you.
Q377 Claire Hanna: I had intended to ask about some of those changes, but we have covered them, so I want to talk to you about the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of the Stormont Assembly and whether it is fair to compare that with the outputs of the other devolved Assemblies in Scotland and Wales.
Colum Eastwood: It is obviously different. You have either four or five or whatever number of parties and an Executive, and you have to agree a programme for government—all of that. So it is not going to be as efficient as the Scottish Government, which for a long time was one-party—now it is two-party—and they have a clear political mandate to implement their policies. But I also think it is not a good enough excuse to say, “It’s really hard, therefore we haven’t dealt with some of the underlying economic problems,” or, “We haven’t done anything to deal with waiting lists.” We have not really had a grown-up conversation about the health estate and how we are probably wasting an awful lot of money and not getting the outcomes that people deserve. So I think there is an obvious element of truth. It is more difficult, given our particular make-up, but I do not think it is a good enough excuse. As somebody who was one of the leaders in the Opposition—in the short period that we had before—we, as you know, were very vocal in raising some of those issues and trying to make government better.
I do think that if we get Stormont back up and running, the very fact that we will have an Opposition will begin to help hold political parties to account. I would love to see elections based on delivery rather than just how we send the biggest message. I think some of the changes that we have talked about can help that. Actually, I think the whole First Minister and Deputy First Minister thing is just not serving us; I think it is a lie. We do not have a First Minister and Deputy First Minister; we have two First Ministers. They have exactly the same powers and one cannot operate without the other. The constant fight that we have in every Assembly election as to who will be First Minister is very understandable, very emotional and very symbolic, but it does not get any jobs in Derry, it does not build a motorway or a university, and it does not solve the health crisis. So there are lots of things that we need to change, but I would love to see a politics develop that is about outcomes rather than symbolism.
Q378 Claire Hanna: Okey doke. You said that you are committed to reform of the Assembly, and I think that is important. Do you think that, for the here and now, a working Assembly—maybe a reformed Assembly—is adequate to deliver our economic and social potential? If you do not, do you see ways that the values of partnership and co-operation embedded in the Good Friday agreement can continue in a new Ireland?
Colum Eastwood: I think they have to. First of all, I do not think that we are ever going to achieve our full potential as part of the UK; I just do not believe that. I look across the border at what is going on in Dublin and the massive economic advance. Every major company in the world is based in Dublin. They do not have an economic problem. They have some other problems that they have to resolve, but I would not mind having a €16 billion surplus to try to resolve some of them.
For me, constitutional change is not just about changing a flag over a building; it is about embracing the ideas of a new Ireland, which is about all the traditions of the island coming together in a different constitutional set-up, where we can reach our full potential economically and in outcomes for public services. Again, if we do not make those arguments for the British tradition being respected and the Unionist population being treated properly in the constitutional set-up, I am not sure who is going to make them.
If I look around the political landscape in Northern Ireland right now, we are the only party that believes in a new Ireland, and that is credible when it comes to reconciliation and being anti-sectarian. I just think that is a fact.
Claire Hanna: Thank you. That is all from me.
Q379 Stephen Farry: Good morning, Colum. To pick up on one of your previous answers, you expressed some doubt or scepticism about the notion of reform ahead of restoration of the Assembly. On the back of that, if we are to be in a prolonged impasse—we are already, arguably—and, by October, it is clear that things are not going to be restored, what is your plan B? Could that be an enhanced consultative role for the Irish Government, or even go as far as joint authority of some description? Would those not be even more radical reforms ahead of restoration than altering some of the rules or mechanisms in the Assembly?
Colum Eastwood: I think two things at the same time, Stephen. Right now, the position has to be that we set up a Government, first and foremost, but we also need to understand the anger, in particular in the nationalist community, that led to that huge Sinn Féin vote. People were told that even if a nationalist were elected as First Minister, they would not be able to be First Minister. There is an historical reason why that makes people very angry. I think that needs to be dealt with and the mandate needs to be respected.
I suppose if we end up in a situation where this becomes very prolonged, the analysis will have to change about what we do and when we do it. I think about a greater, enhanced role for the Irish Government, but first and foremost I want the institutions as they are constituted to be up and running.
Right now, however, we can potentially have direct rule very quickly. Already, on Monday night, we had a budget passed by the British Government. Right now, there is no role at all for anyone other than the Unionist tradition in the governance of Northern Ireland. That is a dangerous position to be in. A greater role for the Irish Government would give more voice to what the Good Friday agreement was about than anything else. But again, that is a plan B—although even the threat of it might have an impact on the negotiations with the DUP. The carrot has been given, and it has been eaten, but where is the stick? This Government need to get serious about their dealings with the DUP if this continues to go on.
Q380 Stephen Farry: I appreciate that we are starting with the potential for all options to have problems and drawbacks. If there were an enhanced consultative role for the Irish Government, I am conscious that that would be London and Dublin talking, but not the voices of Northern Ireland. What sort of scope do you see for bringing those voices into the equation?
Colum Eastwood: First of all, that is not what I want. I want the Assembly up and running. I want local people working together in a substantive common interest to deliver some of the changes that we need. That has to be the No. 1 priority. Nothing ever gets done properly, however, if the two Governments are not speaking to each other or if they are not involving all the political parties—you know that as well as I do—so I think we need to find mechanisms for doing that.
I also think that we could have an Assembly up and running tomorrow if we made some changes to how we elect a Speaker. One of our proposals was that we would need two thirds to elect a Speaker. Both Mike Nesbitt and Patsy McGlone reached that threshold the last times we tried to elect a Speaker, but they did not have a majority of both communities. Maybe you agree with me on this, but that would be a change that would move us in the direction that I think you probably want us to move in a wee bit quicker than I do, but I think we are all on the same road. We want to go a lot further than you do on some of the other stuff. I think that would make a huge difference; we could have an Assembly tomorrow morning, and maybe it would be less of a leap for the DUP to go back into the Government.
Q381 Stephen Farry: Your answer leads very neatly into the next question. You referred to the rise of other identities in Northern Ireland, particularly over the past 25 years. Taking into account your proposal to elect the Speaker by weighted majority vote, what is the SDLP’s view on reform of the system of designations, and of the voting system more generally?
Colum Eastwood: I also believe that we could elect the First and Deputy First Minister with a two-thirds majority. We already have that in the Good Friday agreement, with regard to calling an election, so I do not know why we would not move to that. We are comfortable with a direction of travel that gets us as far away from designation as possible, but we also recognise where we are, and the history, so this has to be done properly and carefully. On the discussion around reform, I would just caution that we should do it properly. I have seen proposals in this House, from some members of the DUP, that would change the fundamental part of the Good Friday agreement, which is about consent—proposals that move the goalposts on that.
I think that will be a proposal that will go into the mix when we have a discussion about reforms. We recognise particularly the enhanced position of the Alliance party. We recognise that people do not have just one identity; I do not. I am a social democrat; I believe in Irish unity—a whole of things make up who I am. I am not comfortable writing down “nationalist” on a piece of paper. But we are there for a reason, and we all understand that reason. We want to move away from that, and some of our proposals move us along the road.
Outcomes are more important than structures, and if we do not have people who are prepared to work the common ground all the time, it really won’t matter what we do with reform; we will find another way of collapsing. I am with you: we need reform as soon as possible.
Q382 Sir Robert Buckland: Mr Eastwood, you touched on the issue of communal designation. I want to come back to that. It is interesting to note that for the last 25 years, most votes in the main business of the Assembly have been majoritarian anyway, but we hit this block when it comes to appointments and the preliminaries that we need to get through in order to get on with the business of government. You talked about two thirds; another idea that we have had evidence on is getting rid of communal designation for all legislation except those items for which at least 40% of MLAs request it. If that threshold is met, there could perhaps be a rationing system, so we do not end up with too many of those votes in one Session. What do you think of that idea as a way forward?
Colum Eastwood: I am not quite sure how that would work, but in the last Assembly, during covid, I do not think designation was used at all; the designation issue did not come up. The change in dynamics and numbers in the Assembly probably facilitated that.
We will look at any proposal. We think our two-thirds proposal is sensible, and probably captures the majority of the issues. There are three strands in the Good Friday agreement. If you had told me in 1998 that strand 2, north-south, would develop—or not develop—in the way that it has, I would have struggled to vote for the Good Friday agreement. This was not a settlement internal to Northern Ireland. There are big enhancements that we can make to ensure that the North South Ministerial Council works better. We love vetoes in Northern Ireland; there is the idea that Ministers can veto matters to do with that as well. Is the council working at all now? We have not developed at all, for the modern world, the north-south bodies that we could have, but issues such as climate and biodiversity do not understand borders.
I also think that we should have one inward investment body on the island of Ireland. That was a proposal at the time, and there are all sorts of interested parties who oppose that. I think it is perfectly sensible and would be very beneficial to those of us in the north. When you are looking at all these things, as I am sure you are, there is more to it than just strand 1 on the Assembly and the Executive.
I would also like to see more enhanced east-west institutions. Actually, in our vision of a new Ireland, we would be looking to enhance the east-west institutions, because I don’t believe that the vision we have for the future on this island is about cutting ourselves off from our neighbours and friends. Actually, I think we can find new ways to enhance that relationship, which would be beneficial for all of us.
Chair: Anything else, Sir Robert?
Sir Robert Buckland: No, thank you.
Chair: We turn to our other Sir Robert.
Q383 Sir Robert Goodwill: Thank you, Chair. I am very interested in what you have been saying. I suppose it is only natural that when we do not have Stormont functioning, we start looking at what we could do to make it function better, but in many ways that is when we are in a position of weakness, in terms of delivering things. You talked about small changes and big changes. You mentioned the election of the Speaker, which I think is one of the small change—although small things become big things in Northern Ireland sometimes, don’t they? Are there other areas of reform that would be small steps, but would make it easier to deliver the big reforms that I think could only be delivered when we have a strong, functioning Stormont delivering for the people of Northern Ireland?
Colum Eastwood: As I say, I actually think that would be a big one, because we could have an Assembly tomorrow morning. We could have Committees. We would not have Ministers, but if we could see the institutions of the Good Friday agreement almost all working apart from having executive power utilised by an Executive, it would be very difficult for the DUP to stay out at that point, and at least you would have some semblance of democracy operating.
I think having joint First Ministers would be a big thing. It would have a bigger impact than just letterheads. It would take a lot of the poison out of the politics that we see in the run down to the Assembly elections. I think that the two-thirds majority in electing a First and Deputy First Minister would begin to move us along the road to a more normalised politics. Also, using the opportunities of an Opposition would be good for trying to hold people to account. These would be significant reforms, actually. Coupled with a real review and refresh of north-south and east-west, that could breathe some new life into the place and the politics, and help us maybe get to a point where outcomes are better. Again, I believe that we need to have more focus on outcomes than structure. I think they are significant developments.
Frankly, I would also like to see the Justice Ministry not being handed out to parties that maybe have not got enough votes to get that particular ministry, just to ensure that a nationalist does not become the Justice Minister. I think that is a bizarre situation, given how far we have come over the last 25 years. On the slippage in progress on “A New Beginning” for policing over the last couple of years, my view is that not having a nationalist as Justice Minister just because they are a nationalist is very undermining to the buy-in that we need from all communities to policing and justice.
Q384 Sir Robert Goodwill: Where we have had deprived communities and areas of high deprivation and unemployment in England, the devolution of powers to local metro Mayors has been successful. In my part of the country, the Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen is doing some amazing things and has been given multi-annual budgets to do that. Do you think that, in places such as Londonderry, there might be scope for more things being delivered locally, rather than their relying on institutions at Stormont, which sadly often are not there to deliver what people want?
Colum Eastwood: I could do that, rightly; I was the Mayor of Derry, but I had no power to do anything. I don’t know; that is the answer. We have an awful lot of devolution in Northern Ireland. I just think we need to start using it—at all. Those are the kind of proposals that we would look at. The problem with local government right now in general is that councils have convening powers but very little else. Some of the powers that a local council in England would have, we just don’t have. Our local councils are not in charge of education, the roads, policing, or anything like that. In order to get anything done, you have to speak to five people or five different bodies. I mean, it is a proposal worth looking at, but I suppose we are all focused on getting the existing institutions up and running.
Q385 Carla Lockhart: Thank you, Colum, for your evidence this morning. It has been quite measured—
Colum Eastwood: I’m always measured Carla! Come on.
Carla Lockhart: But still a little bit DUP-obsessed. But that’s nothing new, I suppose, and that’s politics. I suppose there is quite often the perception that there is an intolerance for the Unionist viewpoint, particularly on a number of issues. I will just walk through them and ask you for your response on them.
Obviously, the big issue: you have talked about the protocol and the Windsor framework, and the DUP and what we are asking for. We are asking for solutions. We want solutions for our businesses that are impacted by the protocol. You only have to look at manufacturing, agriculture, and all of those different industries. They are absolutely key pillars within our country and for the prospering of our country, so we want solutions for them.
Surely you, as an individual and as a very active public rep, see that we need solutions for them. You say that Stormont can resolve those issues, but they sit very firmly within the UK Government’s gift. It is important that you recognise that, and that we get solutions, because we have seen very clearly that we have been sitting in Stormont for over a year trying to get solutions and have got nowhere. It was not until the DUP took action that we actually made some progress around the Windsor framework.
Colum Eastwood: What solutions do you want, though?
Carla Lockhart: The solution is that Northern Ireland’s place in the UK’s internal market be restored. You need only look at horticulture; I have had emails this week to say that we still cannot get trees from GB to Northern Ireland. It is impacting trade. Or look at the veterinary medicines issue. There are lots of issues that are really impacting businesses in Northern Ireland; I think it is important that you recognise those.
To be quite honest, regarding the protocol and the Windsor framework, it does seem to the Unionist community that you are quite happy for there to be a border down the Irish sea but not one on the island of Ireland, and none of us supports a border on the island of Ireland. I think it is important that you use the opportunity to reaffirm that you want to see a resolution on those issues.
Colum Eastwood: I suppose I am one of the people who argued most strongly to not have economic borders anywhere. I am a real believer in the customs union and the single market, unlike your party; you argued for us to be pulled out of those institutions and taken out of the biggest trading bloc on the planet, not recognising that there are two parts of the island of Ireland. Now one part is in the single market and customs union and the other part isn’t—or wouldn’t be, if the DUP had got their way. I just think it is very hard to square.
It is not about nationalists and where we want to draw a border. I don’t want a border anywhere, but this is about the practical reality of trade. We have a 300-mile border with nearly 300 border crossings, not just one. Sometimes you listen to people in the Chamber, not that far away from here, and you would think it was just one big motorway that you can control. There are back roads and country roads. I think that the DUP’s position has made absolutely no sense.
I recognise, of course, that there are issues. There are impositions that result from leaving a trading bloc. That was kind of what we were saying during the referendum campaign. We have worked very diligently with the British Government, the Irish Government and the European Union to try to resolve a lot of those issues. I would just say that I think most people in manufacturing think the Windsor framework is a very good thing, actually—the opportunity to trade across the world as a result of basically being back in the single market.
On agriculture, large parts of the agricultural industry were doing all-Ireland co-ops long before the Good Friday agreement was even created, because they understood the benefits, in terms of raw numbers, of working in that way. Leaving the European Union is not a very good thing for the agriculture industry, in my view.
As I said, we are open to listening and we are trying to give space, but there will come a moment—very soon, I think—that the British Government have to say to the DUP, “Either you’re in or you’re out, because this doesn’t work. What more do you want?” I think the Windsor framework was a victory for the DUP and you should take it and run with it.
I have heard there are discussions around the sidelines about the DUP wanting something strong on the Union and on the fact that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom. Well, as somebody who wants to change that, I can guarantee you that we won’t support anything that removes the consent principle. That is written in stone, as far as I’m concerned. As the Good Friday agreement says, we will not have constitutional change unless a majority of people, both north and south, change it. There is no greater guarantee, and there is no piece of paper that Rishi Sunak can write on that gives you a greater guarantee than that.
The consent principle, which of course was always a Unionist demand, is enshrined in the Good Friday agreement. I, a nationalist who wants to change the Union, am telling you that we will never support that principle being removed. There is no greater guarantee. There is nothing that Rishi Sunak can do that will better guarantee your place in the United Kingdom as long as people want it.
We will see. I hope there is a resolution soon, because I do not think this is sustainable, and the DUP’s position is becoming very hard to understand.
Q386 Carla Lockhart: Surely the consent principle is being undermined when you want to push out the views of the Unionist community—in fact, all Unionist MLAs and all Unionist parties do not agree with the imposition of the protocol—
Colum Eastwood: That is not what the consent principle is about. I have heard it said by DUP representatives and the DUP leader that the consent principle is somehow about everybody agreeing with everything. That is not what it is about.
I want to put this on the record: the consent principle is fairly basic and fairly simple. It was a Unionist demand for decades. The consent principle is solely about the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. It means that the people of Northern Ireland and the people of the Republic of Ireland, in concurrent referendums, will decide the future of Northern Ireland constitutionally. It does not mean that on every single issue in the Northern Ireland Assembly or anywhere else we all have to agree. I was there in the Assembly for nine years; I don’t remember ever having consensus. Consensus and consent are two different things.
I do not give my consent to be part of the UK, but I recognise that the majority do, so I have to live with that until I can convince people to change it. That is what consent means. I think there has been confusion—in my view, deliberate confusion—about what the consent principle is actually about.
That aside, I want the DUP to feel comfortable with the changes that have been made, but there are only so many more changes that can be made. The EU and the British Government have been absolutely clear, as recently as Saturday in Oxford when the Secretary of State said, “We will not be reopening the Windsor framework.”
I will also say this, based on my involvement in politics and in the SDLP’s involvement in politics over the past five decades: you don’t sit back and ask people for solutions; you come up with them yourself.
Q387 Carla Lockhart: In relation to your now wading in again with the suggestions of Dublin interfering in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland, surely—
Colum Eastwood: That is in the Anglo-Irish agreement.
Q388 Carla Lockhart: You are basically saying, “Threaten the DUP with this and it will hopefully move the negotiations on.” Again, I remind you that the DUP don’t really—
Colum Eastwood: That is exactly what happened when Ian Paisley went into Government with Martin McGuinness. That’s exactly what happened.
Q389 Carla Lockhart: In relation then to—oh gosh, you’ve thrown me. I was going to make a point around the institutions and the effectiveness of them. The DUP will continue to take their stand on that.
It’s not a new thing. It had probably slipped my mind, but I was doing some reading up and was reminded that, back in the day, Seamus Mallon resigned as First Minister because he was unhappy with the goings-on within the Assembly, so it’s not a new thing. It is a mechanism that is there and readily available, and it has been effective in actually getting the UK Government to act.
But I will bring you back—this is my final point, Chair—to John Hume. You have spoken very glowingly about him this morning, and I know that you and many others—indeed, all of us—hold him in high regard for his efforts over the years. In 1985, he said that “the bedrock of peace and order, the bedrock of justice in every society, is consensus among the population on how it is governed.” In 1998, he noted that “only the most extreme and self-deluded believe it is possible to govern without inclusiveness. Only by incorporating everybody into the decision-making process can we build stable, democratic and legitimate institutions.” It is therefore not fair to say, “D’you know what, DUP? Take it or leave it. In or out.”
Colum Eastwood: Sorry, I don’t understand that, because I think what John was talking about was inclusion. Who has excluded the DUP? I can tell you who has excluded the DUP. The DUP themselves—in the same way as Sinn Féin excluded themselves for three and a half years. You talk about it being an effective tactic, but it is not effective for those people coming into my constituency office every day of the week who are waiting five or six years to see a consultant. It is not effective for them. A quarter of our population are on a hospital waiting list. It is an absolute scandal. You can have your discussions with the British Government as much as you want, but the impact of that is real and somebody needs to tell you it’s real. It is real for the people who are being left behind as a result of the DUP’s position. If you have a position in politics, you have to own it and you have to own the impacts of that position, and I am telling you that the impacts of that position include the destruction of the NHS in Northern Ireland, and many other things as well.
You have got more or less everything you asked for in the Windsor framework. Do you know what people really think about why the DUP are not going into government. Let me tell you: they don’t think it is anything to do with the protocol. I don’t know what the real reason is, but I think a lot of people think it’s because there is going to be a First Minister from a nationalist perspective. That is what people think. I’m not saying that is my position, but I’m telling you that when people stop me in the streets in Derry and everywhere else, they tell me, “They just don’t want a nationalist as First Minister.”
Q390 Carla Lockhart: Our party leader sat in the same chair as you did and outlined that that was not the case—
Colum Eastwood: Well, let’s have her elected as First Minister, then.
Q391 Carla Lockhart: All I would say is that you need to be real with people that, actually, if Stormont was back up and running in the morning, waiting lists would still be the same. If you look at the infrastructure—
Colum Eastwood: I have been a very vocal critic of the DUP’s and Sinn Féin’s delivery in government. I still think it’s better that you be there than not be.
Q392 Carla Lockhart: You may be critical of the DUP and Sinn Féin in government, but if you look at your own Ministers who governed over the likes of infrastructure in the last number of years, certainly some of the decision making there is questionable.
Colum Eastwood: Which ones?
Chair: I don’t think we necessarily need to do an autopsy on the past.
Q393 Carla Lockhart: I do think it is important that you are realistic with constituents that if Stormont was back up and running in the morning, there is not the money for the transformation that is needed in our health service.
Colum Eastwood: Shall we just not bother, then? Seriously, is that the position—“It’s very hard, so we’re not going to bother”? I don’t understand that.
Q394 Carla Lockhart: I think I’m asking you the questions.
Colum Eastwood: Well, I’m going to answer them.
Carla Lockhart: In relation to devolution, we support devolution.
Chair: Could we bring the temperature down a bit? It’s a warm enough day as it is.
Q395 Carla Lockhart: Yes, Chair, but I think it is important that people realise that Stormont being back up and running is not a silver bullet and will not take down the healthcare waiting list—the five-year waiting list has existed for many years. We need transformation and we need our Government here in the UK, so I think it’s time for the parties to step up and back our calls for transformation of the budget in Northern Ireland, as well as getting political—
Colum Eastwood: Well, that is a new position from the DUP. It is a position that the SDLP held many years ago and the DUP opposed—but leave that aside for a second. These arguments are the same arguments that I heard from Sinn Féin reps for three and a half years when the DUP and all of us were screaming at them that they needed to go back into government, because the implications for the public were huge. Sinn Féin said at that time, “Oh, well, you know, it’s really hard anyway. We won’t be able to make all these changes.” That is not politics; that is not democracy. Of course it is hard—we all know it is hard. We are all prepared to help, and I have said that even if we are in opposition we will support radical, unpopular changes to the health service if it brings better outcomes for people in the longer term. We are prepared to do these things.
None of this will happen if we are still asking civil servants to make decisions that they have no power or democratic authority to make. I just do not think that members of the DUP can legitimately sit here and, after three and a half years of criticising Sinn Féin for not going back into Stormont, then make the same arguments that Sinn Féin made at the time. It does not add up. Carla, people aren’t believing this.
Claire Hanna: Can I make one little point of clarification? People have brought up Seamus Mallon and said, “Everybody collapses the Government—Seamus Mallon did.” Sinn Féin brought that up in June, and now the DUP has, but it is not a matter of fact at all.
The record will show that Seamus Mallon resigned in protest at the fact that there were no institutions. There was nothing to collapse, and that was the issue. The institutions had been put in shadow form, and he said, “I’ve been elected, therefore, to nothing,” and that we had to restart the process. I just think that that is an important clarification, because there is this nihilist position of “Sure, everybody collapses things—why not collapse it? You collapsed it; you collapsed it.” We did not collapse it.
Chair: I have never collapsed it.
Claire Hanna: Join the club!
Q396 Mary Kelly Foy: Good morning. Living on the island of England, I think I will probably be a bit more sweet-natured in my questioning.
Colum Eastwood: I will try to answer it in the same vein.
Chair: Let the milk and honey flow, Mary.
Q397 Mary Kelly Foy: I want to move on to strand 3 of the agreement. In your party’s evidence—in fact, you have mentioned this today—you are unequivocal that the north-south bodies have failed to live up to their potential. Do you think that this is an attitudinal or structural problem? How would you address that?
Colum Eastwood: I think it is both, actually. I think some political parties did not want to work the north-south institutions, and the structural problem in that is that we allow that to happen. The NSMC, for example, cannot meet if there is no Executive, obviously; but there cannot be a meeting of the NSMC even when there is an Executive if there is not a Unionist and a nationalist minister. I think that is just a veto too far, and it is unnecessary.
I just think we have to remember—this is often forgotten—that when people were making the argument for the Good Friday agreement, there was give and take on all sides. A lot of people in the nationalist community did not want any institutions at Stormont, but they absolutely did not want institutions only at Stormont; there had to be a north-south element. This was a core element, right back to Sunningdale. If those institutions are not working, or if they have not evolved in terms of the modern world, I think we have a problem.
I would like to see a proper review and refresh of strand 3. I have been warning about this for about 10 years. I think it is having an impact, and I do worry. If this had been the position with north/south that people in 1998 thought we would be in now, it would have been a very hard sell.
Q398 Mary Kelly Foy: You have given the impression that there is undelivered potential with the strand 3 bodies. Could you outline a little more why these bodies are so important in relation to the role that they play in all-island co-operation?
Colum Eastwood: It was probably the last thing that was negotiated at Good Friday. David Trimble was very determined to have as limited as possible north-south institutions. It was a matter of the dying hours of the negotiation and how they were determined. My view is that we can expand them.
We particularly need to recognise that Brexit has happened and that paragraph 17 of the strand 2 part of the Good Friday agreement allows for us to use these institutions. In terms of our dealings with the European Union and legislation that is coming down the line, of course there are also mechanisms now within the Windsor framework that allow for that as well.
In terms of an all-Ireland body, I think that inward investment would be a very good one. Frankly, I think we are hamstrung when Invest Northern Ireland goes to places like the United States and is up against the IDA in the south, which has all the opportunities that a proper instituted Government can give, with all the fiscal powers and everything else that they are allowed to have. That is one thing that I would do. Actually, some of the resistance to that has come from Dublin over the years—understandably, maybe—but I think that is one thing that I would do. The whole thing needs refreshing and enhancing. Most importantly, it should not be allowed to be held back or stop meeting if one particular political party does not want to work those institutions.
Q399 Chair: Politically, politicians are often behind the curve of the public.
Colum Eastwood: Been there myself.
Chair: They think, “Oh, the public will be a bit frightened by that. Oh, that is too big an issue for the public to get its head around. Oh, it is too scary a change,” and so on. This Committee has been doing quite a bit of engagement with ordinary folk across Northern Ireland on this issue. Their understanding of and support—indeed, clamour—for change to how Stormont operates, what it can do, how it can do it, better working together and so on, is clear and palpable.
Let me ask a final question, which I suppose is a slight reprise of my first one. The bravery of political leadership to make the weather, to lead a debate and to convince through advocacy appears to be on the wane, almost across the piece and not reserved to Northern Ireland but generally. The comfort of echo chambers and dog whistles allow tribal politics to triumph, and there is the greatest risk of that happening, as we know, in Northern Ireland, given the history of the past. When will the politicians show the leadership of the previous generation, who effectively said, “The banking of peace as a dividend, which should actually be a normal thing in a civilised society, is not that great a prize because it should be a normal thing. Let’s now lead and shape this debate. Let us say that pragmatism and compromise are not dirty words, signs of weakness or signs of bending the knee in defeat and the other side has won.”? Do we go to formal civic fora, citizens’ assemblies? Do we have a national conversation convened by Dublin and Westminster to lead and shape that, and effectively say to local politicians in Northern Ireland, “You may not want to listen to what your electorates are saying or what the people in Northern Ireland are saying, but this is what they are saying. Here is the script”?
Colum Eastwood: I agree with you about the lack of political bravery. I try to be brave when I think, and I try to say what I think and what I think is necessary, even if it is not always particularly popular in the moment. A great tradition of the SDLP is that we say things when they are not all that popular, and then others say them when they are popular. That is fine if that is our role sometimes.
I actually think the bravery issue has come about with the distance from violence. When that great generation in 1998 signed up to things that nobody thought they would sign up to, they did it because they understood the alternative. They understood that the alternative was violence in the streets and people dying. I think there is a comfort in the peace process that is a very good thing, but the impact of that has been that we forget that we have to keep moving forward, we have to keep coming together and we have to keep taking brave decisions. That has led to a kind of stagnation in our politics at times.
We have made these proposals in the past and I am all for civic engagement in all different types of ways. That, for me, will not just be about the internal operations of Stormont or anything else. We are literally engaged ourselves through our New Ireland Commission in civic engagement every week, and we intend to continue that. Since 2016, I have called on the Irish Government to reignite the New Ireland Forum, where all parties on the island should be invited to come and talk about their proposals for the future. I hope that Unionism would come, or if they didn’t want to, I hope that they would come up with their own plans. I am a very strong believer in civic engagement. During the New Decade, New Approach discussions we were strong on that, but didn’t get anywhere. A lot of parties say up front that they believe in civic engagement, but sometimes they don’t want to hear from the parts of our society that aren’t necessarily engaged in politics. I think it would be a very positive thing.
As you say, particularly in Northern Ireland we are often very far behind the population. On some of the social issues, we have been very far behind and too slow. Thankfully, we have caught up with the population on those issues and I am very happy to see it. I think it can only be for the good. Looking at the experience of the south of Ireland, we are in a similar situation, where politicians are never quite sure—in multi-seat constituencies, they are never quite sure—where people are on some of the big issues. Then the public vote on them and, all of a sudden, politicians are there. We need to learn our lesson that allowing citizens’ assemblies and other forums to look at hard issues can be very beneficial for politics.
Q400 Chair: On the other side of that point, bravery is one of those political words. One always thinks of Sir Humphrey in “Yes Minister” saying, “That was a very brave decision, Minister,” which usually meant it was terribly foolhardy to the point of recklessly suicidal.
Can I ask you for a thought or reflection or two on self-preservation versus public service? You could turn around and say to a Liberal Democrat in 2010, “You did the right thing by going into a formal coalition”, and then you see them absolutely smashed in 2015 for “doing the right thing”, but for compromising and being pragmatic.
You track the electoral support for your party and the UUP, which led that pragmatic drive, and it was sacrificed to the deeper orange of the DUP and the deeper green of Sinn Féin. You referenced the TUV snapping at the heels; some would argue that the Conservative party had UKIP snapping at the heels as well. That doesn’t create that atmosphere of, “Let’s be brave and bold, and focus on public service.” We go into self-preservation mode. We know how the story ends; we have seen the film. For those who do the right thing, the benefits are demonstrable, but they suffer at the ballot box because those who are the more devoted keepers of the sacred flames of either tradition say, “Well, you can only really trust us with the sacred truths of tradition A and tradition B. This lot are compromising sell-out merchants.”
Colum Eastwood: I suppose it is about what your criteria are for success. For me and for the SDLP, we have been more focused on actually delivering change on this island. Thank God for the generation who did. As much as I am frustrated about the pace of change and want to see more of it, the ending of the Anglo-Irish conflict was a pretty big deal. I am very proud that that generation did it, and they would do it again. Speaking to Gerry Adams and taking all the criticism that John Hume took at that time was worth it. How we judge these things is about what changes are made, not how it has affected our electoral fortunes. All I would say to the public is that probably a better way to choose your political leaders is by asking, “Who was right all along, and who took a long time to get there?”
Chair: That is a philosophical point on which to draw our proceedings to a conclusion. I am not seeing any colleagues indicating that they have further questions. Mr Eastwood, thank you for taking our questions. Thank you for sharing your thoughts—your assessment of the past and your hopes and vision for the future. We are grateful to you for doing so.