Northern Ireland Affairs Committee
Oral evidence: Work of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, 2017-19, HC 498
Wednesday 27 March 2019
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 27 March 2019.
Members present: Dr Andrew Murrison; Mr Gregory Campbell; Maria Caulfield; John Grogan; Lady Hermon; Kate Hoey; Nigel Mills; Ian Paisley; Jim Shannon; Bob Stewart.
Questions 465 - 594
Witnesses
I: Rt Hon Karen Bradley MP, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland; Colin Perry, Director, EU Exit and Business Delivery; Chris Flatt, Director, Strategy and Legacy.
Examination of witnesses
Witnesses: Karen Bradley, Colin Perry and Chris Flatt
Q465 Chair: Secretary of State, gentlemen, good morning and welcome. It is always a pleasure to see you in this forum. I will start with Brexit. I appreciate that we are the most popular venue in the Palace of Westminster today and all the interest will be on our Committee’s proceedings. Elsewhere, they will be discussing Brexit, and I would like to start our discussion this morning with the B-word. The Prime Minister said on Monday that we could not leave on 29 March, in part because “the Northern Ireland Civil Service do not have the powers to make necessary decisions in the event of no deal”. That was new information to many, and one or two senior Members in the House were visibly surprised by that information. My first question to you is to probe more about what powers are lacking that the Prime Minister was concerned about on Monday.
Karen Bradley: Mr Chairman, it is worth starting by saying that the reason we could not leave on 29 March is that the House voted to instruct the Prime Minister to seek a short extension. She has done that and now, in international law, we are unable to leave until 12 April at the earliest, because that is what the EU law says. Today, we will correct the deficiency in our domestic legislation so that we are consistent, but the date we are leaving, at the earliest, is 12 April now.
Q466 Chair: That is all understood, but the Prime Minister referred to powers that she felt were lacking in the Northern Ireland Civil Service.
Karen Bradley: I am surprised it was a surprise to people because, the week before, the Secretary of State for the Environment opened the debate in place of the Prime Minister, who had lost her voice at that point, as we will all remember. He said that, in the event of no deal in Northern Ireland, the decision-making that we have at the moment under the guidance legislation, which we have laid the instrument to extend but will be debating shortly, does not enable civil servants and Permanent Secretaries to take major policy decisions. It does not enable them to direct spending in different ways. It does not enable them to set up any kind of relief or additional support that might be needed.
Therefore, in the view of the Government, if there were no deal, there would need to be a different form of decision-making in Northern Ireland. In that event, in line with our commitments under the Belfast agreement, we would consult the Irish Government as to what form of decision-making would be needed, but clearly a decision would be taken by the Government and an Act of Parliament passed in this House with regard to how decision-making could reasonably happen in Northern Ireland in the event of no deal.
Q467 Chair: No deal has been a prospect for some considerable time now. You are suggesting that, in the event of no deal, further work would be done to determine how those powers could be exercised. Is that the burden of what you are saying?
Karen Bradley: We as the Northern Ireland Office consistently review the best or least-worst option for decision-making in Northern Ireland, in each circumstance. We have reviewed the situation with regards to no deal and concluded that more powers for decision-making will be needed, but we clearly have an international obligation under the Belfast agreement to consult the Irish Government on what form that decision-making would take. That was the point that was being made last week.
Q468 Chair: Forgive me; this has been going on for more than two years now. All of this work should surely have been done. We have the real prospect of so-called “crashing out” without a deal or an accidental no-deal Brexit. Why have we not done the work to which you have referred and the Prime Minister indirectly referred on Monday up to this point?
Karen Bradley: I do not think it would be fair to categorise this as work that has not been done. The work has been done already in the event of no deal, but there are steps that would need to be taken in that event with regard to our obligations under the Belfast agreement as to how decision-making would take place. We would need Parliament’s approval. We would need to make sure that everybody understands the kind of decision-making that would be needed in that event. That is not to say that the Northern Ireland Office is not ready; the Northern Ireland Office is absolutely ready to go, but there are steps that will need to be taken and legislation that will be required. We would need to enter into consultation with the Irish Government.
Q469 Chair: Secretary of State, we have just had the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act. Why was this not anticipated as part of that piece of legislation?
Karen Bradley: That legislation was for business as usual in the event that we leave with a deal. Government policy is that we leave with a deal. That is what the Government policy is. We have a contingency-planning operation around no deal and, clearly, we have made provisions to mitigate the outcome of no deal, which we all know and we have clearly stated will be felt more acutely and be longer lasting in Northern Ireland. In the absence of an Executive, additional enhanced decision-making powers will be required, but we will need to go through a process, in the event that no deal becomes a reality, to make sure that those decision-making powers are in place.
Q470 Chair: Can you be more specific about what those powers will be?
Karen Bradley: It could be that Ministers are appointed in Westminster and decisions are taken in Westminster by Ministers with regard to decisions in Northern Ireland. It could be a form of direct rule. It could be a different form. We would need to enter into discussions with the Irish Government, because we have an international treaty and agreement that we have signed, the Belfast agreement and its successors, that states what the form of decision-making is.
Q471 Chair: Have you been discussing what to do in the event of no deal with the Irish Government?
Karen Bradley: We have been discussing a number of matters with the Irish Government with regards to no deal. The Irish Government are a sovereign Government. On the specific issue of decision-making in Northern Ireland, we have obligations that we will need to comply with under the Belfast agreement and we will ensure we comply with those. We will also need to bring legislation through to Parliament, but let me be clear: the Government’s policy is to leave with a deal. That is what we are working towards, but we are also putting in place all mitigations that we possibly can, unilaterally, to ensure that the result of no deal is managed as best as it can be. There will always be, in a no-deal situation, unknown unknowns, where things happen that nobody could plan for.
Q472 Chair: Are you saying that, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, there would be direct rule? Is that what you are saying?
Karen Bradley: I am not saying categorically that that would be the case.
Q473 Chair: You would have to consult with the Irish Government in order to appropriate powers to Westminster.
Karen Bradley: In the absence of an Executive, we will require changes to the Belfast agreement and the institutions agreed under that. This is an international treaty of which the UK is a signatory.
Q474 Chair: The first duty of Government is to ensure good governance, and I am a little worried about this. If what we are saying is that the Northern Ireland Civil Service does not have the powers to administer Northern Ireland, somebody will have to do it and it cannot simply await a long drawn-out consultation with various parties to the agreement.
Karen Bradley: As I say, we have made sure that we are ready and have done all the preparatory work we need to do, but the Government policy is to leave with a deal. In the event that no deal becomes a reality, because it either becomes Government policy or somehow it happens because nobody is able to stop it, there will then be processes we need to go through and we are ready to do those processes. We are ready to go, but we do not want to be in that situation. We want to be in a situation of leaving with a deal.
Q475 Chair: Forgive me for pressing you on this, but the job of Government is to prepare for all sorts of contingencies. Monday’s revelation suggested that we are not prepared for a real possibility. That is that we, one way or another, leave the European Union without a deal. Nothing that you have said so far gives me the confidence that, on day one of such an eventuality, somebody somewhere has the ability to exercise the powers that are necessary for the good governance of Northern Ireland.
Karen Bradley: I want to assure you that that is the case and that powers can and will be exercised, as appropriate. We are ready to go. I am surprised that it was a revelation to people, because it was said on the Floor of the House two weeks before. Lady Hermon, you and I discussed it in the Division Lobby afterwards. It was said by the Secretary of State for the Environment, very clearly, that in the event of no deal we would need to start consultation with the Irish Government, with a view to moving towards a form of direct rule. That was said on the Floor of the House two weeks before.
Q476 Chair: I think we will probably come back to that shortly, but I will just go on to something completely different, which is the Department for Communities’ consultation on proposals to change licensing laws for alcohol at special events. It anticipates that legislation may be necessary. You will be aware of the 148th Open at Portrush, which we all want to support and very much look forward to, which requires a change of this sort. One assumes that this consultation, through the Department for Communities, will ultimately result in a proposal to change the legislation. What is your proposal for how to bring that legislation forward without an Executive?
Karen Bradley: I am well aware of the consultation and Mr Campbell will also be aware of the consultation. The Culture Secretary visited Portrush last week to see for himself the preparations taking place for the Open. It is fantastic that the Open will be in Northern Ireland for the first time for many a good year, and there is a commitment for the Open to be in Northern Ireland for at least two more occasions, now that Royal Portrush is a course that the Royal and Ancient has designated as being able to host the Open. That is good news and we want to see that it is a great success.
The consultation has started. I am not going to prejudge what a consultation comes back with but, in the event that there is not an Executive in place at the point when measures need to be taken, we as the Government will consider what action will need to be taken. That goes back to the priority that is to get the Executive re-formed, because that would solve so many of these problems.
Q477 Chair: We all feel that that is the best course of action. However, the 148th Open is imminent, and it seems optimistic to suppose that the Executive would be re-formed in advance of that.
Karen Bradley: It is late July, Mr Chair. We are still a few months away.
Q478 Chair: Secretary of State, I think you are an optimist. Some of us take a slightly gloomier view of these things. Clearly you will have to be thinking of what to do in the event there is no Executive. From what you say, you would be prepared to take the necessary legislation through Westminster.
Karen Bradley: I am not committing to anything. I need to see what the consultation recommendations are and what is needed at that point. It would be wrong for me to commit to anything or prejudge anything until we have got to that point.
Q479 Chair: The consultation is on the basis of legislation being necessary. If there is no Executive, the only other body capable of passing legislation is Westminster.
Karen Bradley: There is an eight-week consultation. Let us let the consultation take its course, let us not prejudge it and let us see what the consultation comes back with. You will know that, in terms of our actions as a Government, we will ensure that there is good governance in Northern Ireland, and we have been prepared to take legislative measures, where appropriate and if required.
Q480 Chair: The Executive Office is about to report on its consultation on draft legislation in connection with the Hart report. You told the Committee last year that you would not legislate here in Westminster. Does that remain the case?
Karen Bradley: At that stage, we had not had a consultation. Measures needed to be taken by the Executive Office and David Sterling. I want to thank David Sterling for doing that and getting the consultation started and concluded, because that clearly needed to be done, whether Ministers were in place in Stormont or anywhere. Those steps have been taken. We await the outcome of that consultation. Again, I am not prejudging that; I will wait to see what happens. Again, it comes back to—forgive me—the absolute necessity of having an Executive in place. It is not good for the people of Northern Ireland for Westminster to legislate for things that come up piecemeal. It is much better for the people of Northern Ireland if there are Ministers in Stormont taking decisions on their behalf, and I know you understand that. We have discussed this on a number of occasions.
Q481 Chair: That is taken as read. We are all united in that hope and aspiration. Last year, I recall you were quite clear that you would not legislate on the Hart report and the consultation.
Karen Bradley: I would not legislate based on the Hart report as it stood at that time because, at that point, we had no ministerial comments on the recommendations. As you will recall and I have said to Committee before, the basis on which the Government takes action is if there is an urgent need for the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, to ensure their public services continue to be delivered, for example delivering a budget and the guidance legislation.
Q482 Chair: Would it be right to say that you are now prepared to countenance legislation in response to the Hart report?
Karen Bradley: Again, let us not prejudge what the consultation will find. I am very interested to see the consultation. I have met the victims of historical institutional abuse and nobody could fail to be moved by what people have experienced. As the Minister at the Home Office when the institutional abuse inquiry was set up for England and Wales, I feel very strongly about this matter personally. I want to see what the consultation responses are.
The point here is there is a distinction between the Government taking action based on a recommendation from an inquiry that had no ministerial direction, and the situation where a full consultation has taken place and there are proposals from that consultation that give some direction over what the people of Northern Ireland want. I am not prejudging; I am not making any commitment because I need to see what the consultation says.
Q483 Chair: It seems we have just discussed two pieces of legislation that may be considered by the Northern Ireland Office, namely the recommendations that come out of this new consultation in respect of the Hart report and those that relate to the licensing of special events, specifically the Open in the summer. Do you agree with me that the optics of allowing legislation for alcohol at a golf match but not advancing compensation for the victims of serious institutional abuse would not be good? That is not a good look.
Karen Bradley: The optics of Westminster picking and choosing what we legislate on is not good, full stop. The optics of Westminster deciding what we want to legislate on and what we do not is a bad look for everybody. The optics of any of this is bad. The least-worst option is the situation we have with the guidance legislation. Nobody wants to be in this situation though. I am extraordinarily reluctant that we should, on the basis of emotion, optics or anything else, make a decision about what we do as a Government. That is not the way Government should operate.
Q484 Chair: I sympathise with you greatly, because having to make those sorts of determinations puts you in an invidious position, for the reasons I have tried to lay out. Is that not, therefore, an argument for a more comprehensive form of direct rule at this juncture?
Karen Bradley: I have considered the options. When the Environment Secretary made his comments on no deal two weeks ago, I think on 13 March, many people who had been saying, “We need decision-making. We need decision-making” were faced with the reality of what that decision-making looks like in the event of no deal. It is a form of direct rule with Ministers appointed from existing Departments in Westminster. We will not have new Ministers; they would be Ministers who are taken from other Departments in Westminster, because there is a maximum number of Ministers that can be appointed under the law.
That would mean there would not be proper scrutiny of decisions taken, because they would be taken in Order in Council, as Ms Hoey will no doubt remember from the last time we were in a period of direct rule, from 2002 to 2007. Her colleague Mr Hanson has said on a number of occasions that he hopes he is the last direct-rule Minister that Northern Ireland ever sees. I wholeheartedly agree with him. Direct rule is not a good outcome for the people of Northern Ireland, so we have taken a view that the least-worst option, as things stand, is the guidance legislation, which allows some space for the parties to come together and re-form a Government. An Executive made up of Ministers from Northern Ireland is what we all want to see.
Chair: I will bring in Ian Paisley very briefly, because he wants to comment on that.
Q485 Ian Paisley: I am at a loss. Volume 656, column 391 is what you are referring to from 13 March. The Secretary of State for the Environment did not mention direct rule at all. He used these words: “We would have to start formal engagement with the Irish Government” about decision-making. The next day, his colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister, resiled from those comments at the Dispatch Box. He did not use the words “direct rule” at any point in that debate. That is a misinterpretation.
Karen Bradley: There were many people who heard what he said.
Q486 Ian Paisley: I challenged it the next day on a point of order at the debate with Mr Lidington, and he did not use those words, Secretary of State. I believe he confused a strand 3 issue about involving the Irish Government in the affairs of Northern Ireland. He did not talk about direct rule.
Karen Bradley: We are absolutely clear that the three-stranded approach will be followed rigorously, but we have an international agreement that we have signed as a country that says how decision-making happens in Northern Ireland. It happens through devolved institutions. That is what both Governments have signed up to. Changes to decision-making will require consultation and discussions with the Irish Government, but fully in line with the three-stranded approach, as the Minister for the Cabinet Office said the following day.
Q487 Ian Paisley: Mr Lidington used these words, the following day, that he and the Government have “no plans at all to transfer additional powers”.
Karen Bradley: No, there are no plans to transfer powers to Dublin.
Q488 Ian Paisley: There was no change. There is no change going on. It knocks on the head this view that we have no preparedness. This is all new; this has all just arisen out of the blue.
Karen Bradley: It is clear that decision-making will be needed in Northern Ireland in a different way from the decision-making we have today. That form of decision-making will be different from the decision-making that has been agreed under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and its successors. It therefore requires us to have discussions, in full accordance with the three-stranded approach, with the Irish Government. It will require legislation to be taken forward in this House and the House of Lords to ensure that the powers are properly there so that decisions can be taken. That is what both the Environment Secretary and the Minister for the Cabinet Office said.
As I say, it was clear from what the Environment Secretary said that that would mean direct rule. Conversations happened after that to say if it is the case that there will be direct rule. That was said by a number of people. As I said, I discussed it with Lady Hermon in the Division Lobby that evening, and the reaction to the idea of direct rule from many people in Northern Ireland was one of repulsion, and I agree with them. I want to see devolved decision-making by Ministers of politicians elected by the people of Northern Ireland but, in the event of no deal, we will clearly have to ensure appropriate powers.
Q489 Mr Campbell: Secretary of State, you are very welcome. To finish on the issue of no-deal preparations and the Environment Secretary’s reference a couple of weeks ago, even though for almost two years a no-deal outcome was a possibility, until then there was no reference whatsoever to the issue that seems to be engaging everybody now—the Prime Minister, the Defra Secretary and this Committee—only belatedly at the 11th hour. Why was the issue not raised in the public domain prior to two weeks ago?
Karen Bradley: For two years, we have been trying to get an Executive re-formed in Northern Ireland, because that is the right thing to do and what the people of Northern Ireland should have. That is what the focus has been on. As a Government, we have been taking decisions to mitigate the outcome of no deal, and trying to untangle 45 years of shared regulatory, trade and economic policy is not easy. I have said on many occasions that Brexit is a process, not an event, and the next stage in the process is that we leave the treaties, we leave the European Union and we do so with a deal that enables us to have an implementation period, which we cannot have without a withdrawal agreement. That implementation period will allow us time as a third country to sign trade and other arrangements for our long-term future relationship with the EU, our deep and special partnership.
Throughout the period, as well as working towards a deal and trying to get the Executive re-formed, we have also been looking at appropriate mitigation in the event that we are unable to do that and leave without untangling things in an orderly way, but instead do things in a very sudden and possibly chaotic way. We are trying to make sure it is as un-chaotic as possible. One of those issues that is clearly the case, because we have not been able to get the parties back into Stormont, is how decision-making takes place. We did not have the guidance legislation before October, because we did not feel we needed it at that point. We put the guidance legislation in at that stage, because it was quite clear that civil servants would not continue to run public services as required without that statutory underpinning. That is why we did that. We have been taking mitigating actions throughout and preparing for what no deal would look like.
When it became clear, on 12 March, that the House of Commons had rejected the deal for a second time, it was then appropriate for us to make sure that many of the things we have been preparing for, for many months became public, so that MPs could vote with full information, including our tariff schedules and including how decision-making would take place in Northern Ireland, on 13 March on whether they would want to leave without a deal. MPs decided on that occasion that they did not want to leave without a deal and then it became clear that we could not leave on 29 March without a deal, because Parliament had said that. We also could not leave with a deal, because Parliament had rejected the deal. That is why Parliament then voted to extend Article 50, but the reason we gave the information at that point was to ensure that MPs had full clarity and information about what the consequences of no deal would be.
Q490 Mr Campbell: Part of the reason for no public discussion about the potential consequences for Northern Ireland of no deal, before two weeks ago, was because of your focus on restoring the devolved Government.
Karen Bradley: It was about that. It was about leaving with a deal. It was about ensuring that things were done in proper order. That is absolutely right.
Q491 Mr Campbell: You used the term “a focus on getting devolved Government back”. Many people will look at that and want to examine that assurance.
Karen Bradley: I meet the parties on a very regular basis, as you all know. I brought the parties together to try to establish a way of developing a process that could allow us to form an Executive over the course of the last month. That was not possible. You know the outcome of that meeting, because your party representatives were there and experienced and lived it the way I did. It simply was not possible. We try and try and continue to try to find a way to get the parties to find that accommodation and do the right thing by the people who elected them, but I am not going to start a talks process that will fail knowing it will fail, because that would be wrong and deceitful to the people of Northern Ireland. They deserve better than that, so I am waiting to find the point at which I believe that the conditions are right, the will is there and parties are prepared to have that talks process.
We are spending time looking at all measures we can do and all preparatory work to best get the parties in that right position, and I want to see it happen as soon as possible. We all have to acknowledge that we are now into a local election campaign, which probably makes it more difficult than it was before then.
Q492 Mr Campbell: I will move on, although many people will be hoping you are not saying that you are waiting until Sinn Féin lifts its preconditions for re-establishing Stormont. I want to move on to RHI. You are aware that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee will be conducting a short investigation and will take evidence in the next few weeks. I hope you are aware that there are a number of people involved in the RHI issue who are genuine, legitimate producers, who are facing very difficult extenuating circumstances, as a result of the past few months. I do not want you to second-guess or jump ahead of our inquiry, but can you not rule out some form of intervention, without prejudice to any outcome that might pertain in the next month to six months?
Karen Bradley: I am grateful you are not asking me to prejudge any work that has not yet been done. Let me start by saying that the RHI scheme is not a UK Government scheme; it was a Northern Ireland Executive scheme. It is not my scheme. It was set up and all these schemes are set up to try to deliver a rate of return or tariff of 12%. That is the aim of all these schemes. It is the same in Great Britain, as the scheme in Northern Ireland was set up to do.
It became clear to the Northern Ireland Executive that the rate of return, the tariff, was coming in at a higher rate than 12%, which was why the Executive chose to cost-cap in 2017. In March 2018, we continued that cost-capping here in Westminster. We included it in the Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Bill to make sure that the decision taken by the Executive continued. Again, our approach to legislating in Northern Ireland is not to take policy decisions but, where a policy decision had been taken previously and legislation is needed to ensure good governance, we will take that step.
Following that step, the Department for the Economy decided to enter into a consultation on the tariff rate and whether it should be changed in light of state aid rules. That consultation happened between June and September last year. The consultation responses were considered and, in December, further work was done by the Department for the Economy. I was notified in February that changes would need to be made to keep the scheme lawful and that further cost-capping would be required or the scheme would have to close, because state aid rules were being breached by continuing at the same level. The decision I was faced with was either to close the scheme down or to introduce a lower tariff.
I am acutely aware that that will result in hardship. Those points have been made to me by many of you over the last few weeks. You have cited individual cases, and I am extremely keen to hear the Committee’s work on this matter and where there is hardship, because the problem with the 12% average rate of return in any scheme, be it GB, Northern Ireland or anywhere else, is there will be some at either extreme. We want to make sure that, where there are people at the extreme suffering hardship, we look at what measures can be taken. As I said on the Floor of the House, I will look very carefully at the recommendations that this Committee comes up with, and, if there are steps that can be taken to mitigate hardship, we will consider them.
Q493 Mr Campbell: This is the last one, Secretary of State. It is the issue the Chairman alluded to of the Hart report. Again, I appreciate that the consultation is out there and do not ask that you second-guess or prejudge any outcome. Again, would you not rule out any intervention beyond the consultation period? There are many people, some in the audience, who have given evidence at Hart. There are many others who continue to suffer. Many people, like in the Equitable Life saga, feared that the Government had looked at the age profile of people and, year after year, people are dying off and the number of people who are eligible is reducing. That is a concern that people have, so they are looking for reassurance that the Government are not shutting the door and saying that, whatever the outcome is, they will not get involved because it is not a Westminster responsibility.
Karen Bradley: There is absolutely no intent at all in that respect. It is quite the opposite. We all get older every day and, therefore, people expect action to be taken. Again, this inquiry was set up by the Executive. When we set up what is now the Alexis Jay inquiry, we considered whether the Northern Ireland inquiry should be lumped into the overall inquiry and made part of it, but the decision was taken at the time that, actually, because the Hart inquiry had made so much progress, to do that would delay things. We do not want to delay things. People need to see justice. They need to see that people have listened to what happened to them, that they are believed and that they see justice.
That is absolutely the case, but the difficulty lies in the fact that the report was issued after the Executive collapsed. Therefore, we have no basis on which we can make a decision. Again, I pay tribute to David Sterling for the consultation he has done. Even if there were Ministers in Stormont, they could not act on this until they had seen the outcome of the consultation. Let us get the outcome of the consultation and let us continue to try to get an Executive restored, because that would solve so many of these problems. It makes things a lot easier constitutionally, but I wait to see the outcome of that consultation.
Q494 Chair: This Committee will be taking advice on state aid rules, as far as they apply to the RHI scheme. You were advised by the Department for the Economy on this. Did you take the advice that you were given at face value, or did you take your own independent advice on how state aid rules apply to the application of tariffs for RHI in Northern Ireland?
Karen Bradley: Again, there is constitutional nuance. This scheme is run by the Department for the Economy, which needed legislative change to continue with the scheme. They did the work and the consultation and then asked me, in the absence of Ministers, if I would pass the appropriate legislation. It would not then be appropriate for me, as the Secretary of State, to add an additional layer of scrutiny to the work of the Department for the Economy. I do not have those powers. I have to take the consultation responses. I may ask Colin to come in to give you more information about the work that was done at official level, but of course officials fully engaged. As the Secretary of State, my role was to take the recommendations given to me by the Department for the Economy and decide whether we would take that legislation through in Westminster. Colin, can you give more information on the work that was done at official level?
Colin Perry: At official level, we engaged with the Department for the Economy before the advice went to the Secretary of State. It provided us with a summary of the information that it had provided from the Ricardo review and the results of the consultation. We discussed their engagement with the European Commission on state aid rules, affordability and the impact on participants from the revised tariffs. Beyond briefing parliamentarians and local parties, we have also met with representatives of other bodies, such as the Ulster Farmers’ Union and the Renewable Heat Association Northern Ireland. As the Secretary of State has said, it was a Department for the Economy scheme and its advice. We took summaries of what it had done and wanted to understand that it had engaged with the right people within the European Commission.
Chair: You cannot simply take the European Commission’s instructions and incorporate them.
Colin Perry: We took advice from the Department for the Economy, following its consultation with the European Commission.
Q495 Chair: To what extent did you satisfy yourself that the Department for the Economy had itself taken advice that was independent from the European Commission?
Colin Perry: The Department for the Economy would have taken its own advice. Part of that will have been engaging with the European Commission, but the Department for the Economy has its own legal advisers.
Q496 Chair: You are clear that it took legal advice that could be seen as being independent on this particular matter and the application of state aid laws.
Colin Perry: It would have taken its own advice from its own in-house legal advisers.
Karen Bradley: Everyone will have seen the consultation that the Department for the Economy held with political parties in Northern Ireland, bodies and organisations. It went through a process of consultation in Northern Ireland before the legislation was brought to Westminster.
Q497 Chair: Forgive me, Minister; this is to do with matters relating to the law. I would expect the Department for the Economy to take the best legal advice on this, because this is a completely toxic issue politically. Apart from everything else, I would want the Department for the Economy to be protecting you, as a Minister, in this particular maelstrom of hurt and pain and grief. More particularly, I am conscious of those who will be adversely affected by this and will be trying to work a way through this, which is something my Committee will take evidence on.
I can assure you we will take independent advice on the application of state aid law in this particular matter. I would have thought that the Northern Ireland Office would be keen to be clear on this point, so there is no legal wiggle-room, to ensure that we can do what is necessary but in a way that will disrupt businesses and lives in Northern Ireland minimally. I am clear that you need to have obtained the best legal advice on this particular point, because it all hinges on the state aid rules, it seems to me. The rest can probably be dealt with, but you made it clear in the statements you have made in the House that the crucial point is the issue and imperative around state aid that is driving this. Is that correct?
Karen Bradley: Yes, that is the reason the changes have been made. The scheme would have been deemed unlawful if these changes had not been made. Those were the options we were faced with.
Chair: We are going to come back to that in a moment, but not before we have heard from Jim Shannon.
Q498 Jim Shannon: It is always nice to see you here, Secretary of State, to answer some of our questions. I want to start with the political process. You will know of the forthcoming council elections. That might make it difficult to have any political talks before they happen and we have got them out of the way. Then you are going towards the July parade process, when again tensions could possibly be high. I understand the process and what is the right time. I also understand, Secretary of State, as you mentioned in reply to my colleague, that it is important to have a political process with at least the possibility of an endgame. I agree with you on that: it is important not to raise expectations and then perhaps dash them.
However, Secretary of State, I am becoming more and more convinced that the political process in Northern Ireland hinges on the participation of Sinn Féin. They seem to be the real obstacle and problematic political party when it comes to moving forward. Has any consideration been given to a different process, in that the other political parties have indicated a wish to be involved in the political process and move forward? Why should one party put it all on hold or, potentially, bring it all down? Have you given any consideration to a political process that involves the political parties that wish to be involved in the Northern Ireland Assembly, to make it work and to be part of a functioning Northern Ireland Assembly?
Karen Bradley: I will start by saying it would not be right for me to comment on individual parties and their attitudes to this matter. I can say, from my discussions with the individual parties, that last week, when I took the final decision to extend the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act, I only did so after having spoken to all of the five main parties. There were reports on social media that I had made a decision earlier in the day, but that simply was not the case. I came off my final phone call at about 5.50 on Wednesday evening and made sure that appropriate action was taken at that point, but I was clear that I would not extend the legislation unless there was a realistic possibility and prospect of the parties coming back into a talks process. They all gave me that assurance and, therefore, I laid the instrument to extend the legislation. Clearly, we now need to have a debate and vote on that. It may be the case that Parliament does not agree with me, but I took that decision based on the commitments given by the parties, in either the face-to-face or telephone conversations I had with all of them.
You are right that there are sensitive times of the year in Northern Ireland, which makes it more difficult to find the right conditions to bring the parties together, but there is time following the end of the local elections and before we get into anything during the summer. I hope to have a short, focused set of talks at that point but, to be clear, extending the Act does not preclude me from deciding, as Secretary of State, that I think there is no hope and will therefore call an election. It does not stop me taking other actions; it just means that we have that space and window until the end of August. At the end of that time, the Act cannot be extended again and we will need to look very carefully at what steps we take. I hope we will not be at that point.
My focus is on getting an Executive re-formed. That is what I want to see, so we are doing the work we can on options and what it might look like. The sustainability of the Executive is one of those matters that will need agreement between the parties. If changes are required to any of the agreements we, as the UK Government, will have to consider whether those changes have agreement and sufficient consensus of the people of Northern Ireland before any changes are required in Westminster, if changes are required. I hope that matters can be resolved between the parties and that they can agree on any legislation needed to enable them. For example, petition of concern is one of the issues that is raised with me regularly. Maybe there needs to be legislative change to petition of concern so that it operates appropriately. I am open to considering the right way to do this, because I want to see the Executive re-formed.
Q499 Jim Shannon: I am pleased, Secretary of State, you are open to looking at other options. One of those options has to be a Northern Ireland Assembly that involves parties that wish to move forward politically and those that do not. That has be an option in your repertoire.
Over the last few months, myself and others have brought to your attention problems within Departments. I made that point to you no longer than two weeks ago, when I spoke about health and education. I am conscious of education. I am going to be selective with my comments, Mr Chairman, because I recognise that time is very important, so I am only going to pick one of those issues to talk about.
Secretary of State, the Department of Education has indicated that, when it comes to the code of practice and the methodology to move forward special educational needs and disability, the date for them to legislatively make sure that the education system is delivered for those children and pupils is August of this year. We have mentioned to you very firmly, Secretary of State, our concerns about education. I have met numerous teachers, principals and parents over the last period of time, and education is at the crux of crisis, without a doubt. I suggest that what the Department of Education needs is continuity of finance and resources, and it needs that in place before August of this year. I have one more question, but that is the one on education.
Karen Bradley: In the budget, we were keen to ensure that education received an uplift in funding, so it has received a real-terms increase. I am acutely aware, as we all are as constituency MPs, of the pressures of rising costs within schools, and I know that budgets are being squeezed because of that. In terms of the legislation, particularly on special educational needs and disabilities, as with all these matters, the UK Government will look carefully at these issues. It goes back to the fundamental point that a functioning Executive, with Ministers in Northern Ireland able to take these decisions, is the best way to ensure that these matters are dealt with. It is another example that you make regularly, Mr Shannon, of why we need to have an Executive back in place. Again, we talked about optics and what it looks like for Westminster picking and choosing the things that we do. Let us have an Executive that makes all those decisions, makes them in the right place and is accountable to the people who elected it.
Q500 Jim Shannon: I understand that, Secretary of State. The point I am trying to make is that the Department of Education is saying that, if it does not have those regulations in place before August 2019, it will be unable to function for special educational needs and disability. The Department referred to some issues in “ministerial territory”. They cannot make those decisions. Those are critical decisions. I underline that point, Mr Chairman, gently but firmly, because if we do not have those things in place, we do not have functioning special educational needs or disability. I would feel intensely grieved if those decisions had not been made and been put in place legislatively to help that educational section to continue.
Karen Bradley: You have raised this issue with me on a number of occasions. You are a strong voice on this matter. I am aware of it. The UK Government will always look at what is required for good governance. That is why we have extended the guidance legislation, and I hope many of the points can be dealt with under that guidance legislation. I come back to the point that the House of Commons and the House of Lords have limited patience with individual piecemeal pieces of legislation being taken through in relation to Northern Ireland to deal with matters that should rightly be dealt with by Ministers in Stormont. We all should be acutely aware that patience will run thin. We need to see Ministers back in Stormont.
Q501 Jim Shannon: I will leave that point with you, Secretary of State. The last one is of great importance. I am not sure if I have brought it to your attention in the past, Secretary of State, but I bring it to your attention now. It is to do with historical abuse issues and compensation. I bring it to your attention, because some people who were educated in my constituency—I am going to pick my descriptions carefully—but who now live outside, were in institutions where historical abuse took place, both of a physical and a sexual nature. I have met these people on three or four occasions now, and they came to see me just over a month ago, so it is fresh in my mind. They explained to me that, over the years, many people have accepted small compensation, perhaps of around £3,000 or £4,000, which was given to them.
The reason that people who were historically abused accepted that compensation was probably due to the pressure of living with the trauma of what happened to them in the institutions where the abuse took place. There is no criticism of those who accepted the compensation. Let us be quite clear: they made that decision. What has happened is that many others did not accept the compensation and feel that it should be of a greater level, and I support them, Secretary of State. I think it is right that it should. I am pretty sure I have corresponded, if not directly with you then certainly with the Department, in raising this matter recently and in the past. I am keen to have some direction from you, Secretary of State, about compensation for historical abuse, not that money itself will satisfy, calm or take away the trauma that has happened to them. They are genuine people and I feel greatly for them, to be truthful with you. I just see people who have been abandoned in this system and I think it is time to highlight their issue.
Karen Bradley: Forgive me; are they people whose cases were looked at in the Hart inquiry, so they would be part of that?
Jim Shannon: Yes, they are.
Karen Bradley: We need to await the recommendations from the consultation. If you would like to write to me about specific cases, we can look at those but, for the generality, we need to wait for the consultation.
Q502 Jim Shannon: I understand that there is a process to go through, but these happened 20, 25 or perhaps 30 years ago, sometimes a wee bit more than that. They have lived with that trauma for all those years and are living with it now. Government always seem to say they are in a process and are almost there, but that is like a carrot in front of a donkey; it is always there, but you just cannot bite it, so we cannot get satisfaction and conclusion. That is all I want to say.
Karen Bradley: I know it is frustrating and I am frustrated too. Even if there were Ministers in Stormont, they would have to wait for the results of the consultation. They would not be able to act because, if they acted so that the people who they gave immediate compensation to found that they could have received more if they waited, they would be legally challenged. Unfortunately, we are in a situation where decisions taken by Ministers, wherever they are taken, can always be challenged. Pre-empting the conclusions and pre-empting anything would be unwise for any Minister, wherever they were sited. That would be true if there were Ministers in Stormont or not.
While I understand the frustrations, it is right that the proper process is gone through and that that proper process is acted upon and properly scrutinised, rather than decisions being taken ad hoc. It is easy to emotionally react to anybody’s case. Of course, I have met victims and heard what they have gone through, and I had the same experience when I was at the Home Office. Any human being would want to find a way to make it right and to help people, but Government require that proper processes are followed and adhered to, so that people are treated fairly and can see that they have been treated fairly, and that a proper process has been established and followed.
Jim Shannon: I am quite happy to write to you, Secretary of State, with more specifics. It is about righting a wrong. We have to do that and do it right.
Karen Bradley: It would be helpful for you to do that.
Q503 Kate Hoey: I want to come back to the talks process. I will just start by asking you something else. I presume you are aware that, in August 2018, the Security Industry Authority, which is the statutory body set up to regulate the door supervisor industry, carried out a search and seizure operation, effectively taking powers from the PSNI. As a result, they took possession of journalistic material, including confidential files relating to the Kingsmill massacre. They have now been forced to return them, but they kept some other journalistic notebooks relating to the controversial OTR scheme.
Could you tell me, or perhaps take this up with the PSNI chief constable, about those powers? Surely the Private Security Industry Act, the SIA’s enabling statute, does not give them the power to enter residential properties to seize journalistic materials. I appreciate you may not want to go into this too much now, but can you please formally write to me and to the Committee giving the background to this, because this is abuse of power by a body that should have had nothing to do with journalistic material, particularly related to areas that the coroners have been interested in?
Karen Bradley: I am happy to write.
Q504 Kate Hoey: Do you not have anything you want to say now?
Karen Bradley: It would not be appropriate for me to say anything, but I am happy to write with full details.
Q505 Kate Hoey: I would appreciate that. Thank you. Can we go back to the talks now? You said that you are waiting to find a point when you think that the parties will be willing to compromise and start to think seriously about going back into an Executive. There will be a lot of frustration about when that point is going to come and when you decide it will not come and, therefore, you have to start seriously looking at bringing back a form of direct rule or direct rule as we have known it in the past.
Karen Bradley: I share the frustration. I am as frustrated as anybody.
Q506 Kate Hoey: Yes, I know. I was going to say that you sound incredibly exasperated, but exasperation is not going to get the talks started. I do not want to hear about your exasperation, because we all feel that. Just tell us more clearly what you intend to do and at what point you will make a decision.
Karen Bradley: I had a conversation with all parties last week, either face to face or over the phone, if we could not physically be in the same room. I discussed the options available with them and, of the three options that were available at that point, the first was to lay the instrument to extend the guidance legislation, the second was to call an Assembly election and the third was to look at some other form of decision-making. You might call it direct rule, but it would be whatever was appropriate at that time.
I do not see an election as being in the public interest. It would cost a lot of money and probably would not change the political dynamics of the Assembly very dramatically. We have had an election and an Assembly that has met once to swear in but has never actually sat. I do not think an election would change the make-up of that Assembly significantly and would be an expensive exercise, so an election is not desirable. As I have said, direct rule does not offer the kind of scrutiny that people in Northern Ireland rightly deserve when it comes to decision-making. It does not offer locally elected politicians.
Q507 Kate Hoey: With respect, I appreciate all that and you have said a lot of it before. I am trying to get to when you will personally think to yourself, “This is just ridiculous”.
Karen Bradley: I have tested this with the parties. In my conversations with the parties, I put all parties in a room about a month before to try to find a way to start a process. They were only talks about when talks should start. They were not dealing with any of the issues that we need to find accommodation around, in any way. It was just whether there was a possibility of finding a way to start the talks. It was clear at that time that that was not possible.
I then did not extend the legislation until my officials and I had had further conversations with all the parties to find a way through the impasse. It was only when I had reassurance from all of the main parties that there is a will and a desire, and they want to see devolution restored, that I was prepared to extend the guidance legislation. I also said in my statement that I am preparing for a short, focused period of intensive talks. Sometime after the local elections would be an appropriate time to do that. We have talked about the work we can do beforehand to establish the options on those issues on which there is disagreement and how best to deal with them, so on the sustainability of the Executive, on the petition of concern and on those matters that have been well-rehearsed and this Committee has spent significant time looking at.
Q508 Kate Hoey: Secretary of State, why can you not simply say that we know there are certain issues that are stopping one party in particular from saying that it will go into Government? Why can you not say, “I want the Assembly to be back. All those issues can be sorted out once you are back and, if this does not happen by a certain date, the United Kingdom Government will not stand for it any longer”?
Karen Bradley: I am not going to get into what I have said to the parties privately as part of the discussions.
Q509 Kate Hoey: Perhaps it is the public you should be saying this to.
Karen Bradley: I can say to the public that I am doing everything I can to make the conditions right to get the parties back in the room. We are doing all the preparatory work we possibly can. We are having discussions with the main parties and we are finding a way to get that framework and those conditions right, so we have the best chance of re-establishing devolution.
Q510 Kate Hoey: Secretary of State, when you first came I remember asking you and you had never visited Northern Ireland. You have now been there for some time. Do you feel that you understand the people of Northern Ireland, whatever their background, religion or race? Do you feel you have an understanding of Northern Ireland people?
Karen Bradley: I have a much better understanding than I had previously. I have never experienced such warmth and welcome, and it is an absolute honour and privilege to be the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. In every job, we all continue to learn every day.
Q511 Kate Hoey: I wonder whether, given that there seems to be a general feeling from all sides that you have made some major mistakes and have not settled into the job in the way that was expected, if we are serious about getting new talks going and a new process, it might be better if there was a different Secretary of State to carry them out. It is nothing personal against you, other than that sometimes a different Secretary of State can move things on.
Karen Bradley: I am the second Secretary of State who has had to cope with not having devolution in place. I think you are referring to something I said in the House of Commons a few weeks ago, when I phrased something in a way that was not right and did not reflect my views. I have apologised for that. It was a mistake and I regret it enormously, but I do not think that one incident should be used as an example.
My determination to see devolution restored and to do the right thing for Northern Ireland is why I launched the legacy consultation, for example, which had not been done before, because I am determined to see progress on that matter, which has been outstanding for over 20 years. That is why I brought in the guidance legislation, which we did not have previously, because I am determined to make sure that we have decision-making and that public services continue in Northern Ireland. I am as determined as anybody can be to see devolution restored and to see matters in Northern Ireland dealt with. There is clearly a big issue taking up a lot of our energies at the moment. I hope that, once that is resolved, it will be easier to do some of the other things.
Q512 Kate Hoey: I have one final quick question. If the legislation runs out in August, will you be bringing back legislation before the House rises, whenever it rises, if we ever rise in these circumstances? Seriously, August is usually recess. When would you bring back the legislation to extend the guidance legislation?
Karen Bradley: The dates were determined by the House of Commons. When we brought in the legislation, we had discussions with all parties, across the House, to determine the appropriate dates and the House of Commons wanted two five-month periods.
Q513 Kate Hoey: I know that; it is August. What happens next?
Karen Bradley: I want to see devolution restored.
Q514 Kate Hoey: What if we have not got that by July?
Karen Bradley: We spend a lot of time on ifs, buts and maybes. What we need to do is focus on the important thing, which is getting devolution restored, instead of worrying about what will go wrong. Clearly we will mitigate, we will prepare and we will take contingencies into account, in the same way we do with no deal.
Q515 Kate Hoey: I am asking a very simple question. The legislation required would have to be put through before the House rises, which will probably be a lot earlier than August.
Karen Bradley: I am acutely aware of that and I will ensure that there is no gap and that decision-making can continue in Northern Ireland, whatever the outcome. I do not want to focus on the negative. I want to focus on what we can do in that period, which is to restore devolution.
Q516 Kate Hoey: There is general agreement on that, but sometimes you have to prepare for something that is not going to happen.
Karen Bradley: In the same way that the opening discussions were about what might happen with no deal, which is something that I hope everyone around this table will agree we do not want to see—leaving the European Union without a deal—as Government, we prepare for that eventuality. We are focused on getting a deal and getting out of the European Union with that deal.
Q517 Chair: Before I move to Lady Hermon, we recently saw Clare Bailey MLA and Claire Sugden MLA. They commented that they had either asked to see you but not been successful, or that they had not been invited to see you. They are both significant players in the political scene in Northern Ireland. Have you been able to speak to them since, or do you have plans to do so?
Karen Bradley: I have spoken to them and I will continue to engage with all of the main parties and independent MLAs in Northern Ireland. Nobody is excluded from conversations; it is just that there are often pressures on diaries.
Q518 Chair: I understand that, so you have recently interacted with those two.
Karen Bradley: Yes. I cannot remember the exact time, if I could perhaps let the Committee know. There should be something on the record in terms of the conversations I have had. There is a transparency declaration.
Chair: I was just seeking that reassurance.
Q519 Lady Hermon: It is good of you to come and give us evidence here this morning, Secretary of State. I have a number of issues, but a whole range of issues has already been raised with you. You have alluded to this and repeated the apology. You have accepted there was a huge amount of criticism after your comments at Northern Ireland Questions at the beginning of March. Do you still enjoy the job? You have described it as being a great honour and privilege to be Secretary of State, but can I ask you, in your heart of hearts, if you still enjoy the job?
Karen Bradley: I absolutely do. In that situation, I said the wrong thing. It does not reflect my views and it does not reflect the factual position. What was worst about it was that I hurt people. They had shared their stories and experiences with me, and I hurt them. For that, I will always be sorry and always regret what I did.
Q520 Lady Hermon: Do you think you have restored their confidence in you as Secretary of State?
Karen Bradley: You will have to ask them that question, but I will do everything in my power to restore that trust and confidence.
Q521 Lady Hermon: You still enjoy the job, so do you mind me asking how much time you spend in Northern Ireland, since we do not have an Executive and have not had one since January 2016? That will allow your colleagues to work out the MLAs’ salaries since the collapse of the Assembly, so I am just giving you a warning that that question is definitely going to come. You say that you enjoy the job. I know we have Brexit debates and tight votes but, on average, how many nights do you spend in Northern Ireland as Secretary of State, when we have no other First Minister or Deputy First Minister?
Karen Bradley: I spend as much time as I possibly can managing, as you know, a significantly more difficult time in Westminster, in terms of the fact that we have a large number of difficult votes. It is not like it has been in the past, when less controversial matters have been discussed and there was more flexibility around slipping arrangements. I also have a constituency, as we all do, and I of course spend time in my constituency. In the remaining time—that sounds like I am suggesting it is the bit left over; it is not—I am in Northern Ireland as much as I possibly can be.
Q522 Lady Hermon: Let me just repeat the question. On average, in a week, how much time do you spend in Northern Ireland?
Karen Bradley: I try to spend one working day a week in Northern Ireland and I stay overnight as appropriate. I am fortunate to have lovely accommodation there and I spend as much time as I can there, including weekends with my family and other matters. I try to spend as much time as I can. If I can get to Northern Ireland, I do. Clearly, we have different dynamics with regards to the House of Commons than previous Secretaries of State have experienced.
Q523 Lady Hermon: You are Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at a bit of a distance.
Karen Bradley: No, I do not think that is fair. Everyone needs to respect that, as a Member of Parliament, I need to be in Parliament voting. That is the primary job of any Member of Parliament. We are all here away from our constituencies now, as we are voting, and I am a constituency MP, as all Ministers are. Managing all of that is not easy.
Q524 Lady Hermon: But you are batting away within Cabinet for Northern Ireland.
Karen Bradley: Absolutely, and, as I say, I spend as much time as I possibly can in Northern Ireland.
Q525 Lady Hermon: Can I take you back to the Northern Ireland Questions at the beginning of this month and a reply that you gave? I am curious about the reply and was at the time, when I listened to you. This was a question from a colleague of yours, who had referred to speculation in The Times that the Defence Secretary plans to bring forward a limit on the prosecution of veterans in the Queen’s Speech. I am quoting from column 947 in Hansard for 6 March 2019. You said that your hon. Friend should not believe everything that is in the papers, but the key point, which is what I need you to explain to the Committee, was that you assured him that you were “working closely with the Defence Secretary, the Attorney General and Members on both sides of the House to ensure we can deliver a new system that works for the people of Northern Ireland, that works for the victims of terrorism and, very importantly, that works for our veterans and retired police officers”. What have you been discussing with the Attorney General and the Defence Secretary? What did that refer to?
Karen Bradley: There are two issues here. There is the issue about how we deal with the Stormont House agreement and how we turn that into real functioning bodies that are able to deal with matters in Northern Ireland.
Q526 Lady Hermon: The curious issue is you did not refer to the Stormont House agreement, the consultation on legacy and the 17,000 responses that have to be analysed.
Karen Bradley: I had in previous responses.
Q527 Lady Hermon: That is not what you said here in this reply. This is what intrigued me. We listened for the Attorney General’s legal interpretation of the Brexit negotiations. That was really interesting but took me aback. You made it clear that you were talking to the Secretary of State for Defence, the Attorney General and Members on both sides of the House. Who were they? They certainly did not include me.
Karen Bradley: Perhaps I could finish what I was saying. There is a piece of work that is consulting on how we will turn the Stormont House agreement into real legislation, which the House of Commons and the House of Lords can vote for, which will create institutions that are in line with what was agreed at Stormont House and which clearly reflect the views of the consultation. I have been doing a piece of work on that. There are clearly legal matters there, which we need to work with the Attorney General on. Rightly, the Ministry of Defence is concerned about veterans and, therefore, we liaise closely with the Ministry of Defence on what is coming out of the consultation and the proposals.
I would be delighted to sit down with you, Lady Hermon, and go through that consultation. I hope that my officials were trying to arrange that meeting in any event, because I am trying to meet politicians from all sides of the House who have expressed an interest in this matter.
To go on to the matter that I think has caused confusion, the Ministry of Defence is looking independently at the measures it can take with regard to protection for veterans in conflicts overseas, which clearly does not impact on the work we are doing on Stormont House to deal with the Northern Ireland legacy. They are two different pieces of work. You would have to ask the Defence Secretary about the work he is doing on conflicts overseas, because that is a matter for him. To reassure you on matters regarding the Stormont House proposals, we are taking those forward and I would be delighted to go through the emerging themes from the consultation with you.
Q528 Lady Hermon: You are working closely with the Defence Secretary, the Attorney General and Members from both sides, so which Members?
Karen Bradley: I have met Members who have expressed an interest and people who have asked to see me. I am looking at officials, but I do not think it is appropriate for me to say who, because these were private conversations, but I would be delighted to sit down with you.
Q529 Lady Hermon: You accept that that was an unfortunate response to the question, because it conflated several issues and gave rise to confusion.
Karen Bradley: It was a response to the specific question about the reports in the newspaper, which were nothing to do with what we are doing in the Northern Ireland Office with regards to the Stormont House agreement.
Q530 Lady Hermon: You chose not to mention Stormont House.
Karen Bradley: As I say, I was answering the specific question that had been put to me, which was about the reports in the newspaper about the work that the Ministry of Defence is doing. Previously, during the oral questions session, I had referred to the work that we are doing on the consultation and its over 17,000 responses.
Q531 Lady Hermon: On MLAs’ salaries, in response to a written question, because I did not get a reply when I asked on the Floor of the House—homework has been done since then—the reply on 5 March 2019 indicated that the total cost to the taxpayer of MLAs, including their salaries, social security and other pension costs was over £12 million. We are now sitting on 27 March, so it has risen. Do you think that is value for money?
Karen Bradley: First, these are not our figures, so we have to get them from NICS. We have provided the figures that were provided to us and clearly, as you say, the figure that you have is until February 2019 and we are now nearly at the end of March 2019, so there will have been an increase. We followed the recommendations of the Trevor Reaney report and have reduced MLA pay twice, but not staff pay. I think we all agree that our staff work hard and deserve to continue to receive their pay. It is not their fault that the Executive has not been restored. We followed exactly the recommendations that Trevor Reaney put forward.
Q532 Lady Hermon: Bearing in mind that he reported in December 2017 and we are now sitting towards the end of March 2019, what thought has been given to asking Trevor Reaney to come back, to ask him, after this lapse of time, if the taxpayer is getting value for money. Has any thought been given to that?
Karen Bradley: The focus has been on restoring the Executive, in which case people would not question the pay of MLAs, because they would be sitting in a fully functioning Assembly, with Ministers in the Executive delivering decisions. I take your point and will consider whether it would be appropriate to ask Mr Reaney to do further work.
Colin Perry: Perhaps I could offer something on this.
Q533 Lady Hermon: You need to offer it to the people of Northern Ireland. I am sure the Secretary of State still receives emails and complaints about the fact that MLAs continue to receive their salary as members of a legislative assembly—key words, “legislative assembly”—and they have not passed a single piece of legislation in over two years. In response to that criticism, quite rightly, of the Assembly and that the MLAs still receive a salary, though reduced, what reassurance are you going to give the people of Northern Ireland that it is going to be reviewed again, if not by Trevor Reaney then by somebody else?
Colin Perry: What I was going to say was to clarify what Trevor Reaney was asked to do. He was asked to look at the work that MLAs do across the piece and to make recommendations. His recommendations around reductions, which the Secretary of State has taken forward, took account of the Assembly not sitting, but recognised that MLAs continue to be active in constituency work. His recommendations were based on that. That was the point I was trying to make.
Q534 Lady Hermon: Secretary of State, you have confirmed that you are going to take away the point that I have made and give it active consideration.
Karen Bradley: I will very much consider the point you have made, Lady Hermon, and determine whether further action is required.
Q535 Lady Hermon: Let us just establish what was said. You rightly praised the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service several times, in response to questions from the Chairman and others. The head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service warned, at the beginning of March, 5 March I think, of the “grave consequences” for Northern Ireland in the event of a no-deal Brexit. However, today, I took down exactly what you said, because you said it in three different ways, but it was the same thing: “We are ready in the event of no deal”, “The Northern Ireland Office is absolutely ready to go”, and “We have contingency planning around no deal”. Which is it? There seems somehow to be a contradiction between what the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, a man for whom I have enormous regard, was saying about the grave consequences for Northern Ireland of no deal and what you have said to the Committee today about the Northern Ireland Office being absolutely ready to go in the event, heaven forbid, that there is a no-deal Brexit.
Karen Bradley: It is right to agree with you that no deal is not a desirable outcome for the United Kingdom.
Lady Hermon: It is unthinkable.
Karen Bradley: The Government have said that the consequence of no deal would be both more acute and longer-lasting in Northern Ireland. In the absence of a devolved Government in Northern Ireland, we have said that decision-making would need to change, exactly because of the point you make. There is a difference between the Northern Ireland Office being prepared to mitigate where we can, but the reality that all of our analysis and work suggest that there would be more acute consequences in Northern Ireland.
Let me give an example. Buses run across the border. Without the work that the Northern Ireland Office and NICS have done, that would not have been possible with the same driver, prior to work we have taken to mitigate that. We are now in a situation where buses can continue to run across the border and the bus driver will not need to change at the border, which would have been the case if we had not taken those steps. The reality is that buses run across the border in Northern Ireland; they do not run across the border in my constituency or the constituencies of Members representing Great Britain here. There is a more acute outcome in Northern Ireland, a more acute result of no deal because of things like that. We have taken steps to mitigate them, but there also needs to be enhanced decision-making, of some form or other, so those matters that nobody can predict can be dealt with as appropriate.
Lady Hermon: That is very interesting and I am glad about the buses, because that affects people’s everyday lives.
Karen Bradley: It affects their everyday lives. The hauliers, for example, who operate from my constituency may not go to the EU for several weeks. Hauliers in Northern Ireland will travel to the EU almost immediately after Brexit day. Therefore, we need to make sure that Northern Ireland driving licences are respected in Ireland. If we had not taken those mitigating steps, they would not have been and drivers would have to apply for an international driving licence and different arrangements. It is one thing to identify what the risk is and what the problem is, which is more acute in Northern Ireland, and to take the mitigating action required. All of that work has been done or is ongoing, but there will still be things that happen that we cannot predict at this stage.
Q536 Lady Hermon: What is the mitigating action that is being taken if the PSNI loses the European arrest warrant?
Karen Bradley: That is one of the reasons we want a deal and why I am so firm that no deal is a very bad outcome.
Q537 Lady Hermon: If the Northern Ireland Office is absolutely ready to go, the chief constable should be able to come to you, as Secretary of State, and say, “You are absolutely ready to go so, in the contingency that none of us wants to see”—I certainly do not want to see no deal—“what happens to the European arrest warrant”?
Karen Bradley: The point I want to make is that there are steps we can take to mitigate unilaterally, steps we can take to have bilateral arrangements and steps that Ireland can take with regards to those matters and being ready for all of those, but those do not take away from the fact that a deal means none of this is a problem and no deal will create issues.
On the specifics of the extradition arrangements that would apply in the event of no deal, the Irish Government have taken forward an omnibus Bill, which you will have seen, which includes extradition arrangements that are enhanced and are better than the arrangements we would revert to without additional measures, in the absence of the European arrest warrant, which are the Council of Europe extradition arrangements, some of which go back to the 1950s.
Q538 Lady Hermon: Have you discussed those with George Hamilton, the chief constable? Is he happy with them?
Karen Bradley: Of course I have discussed them with him.
Q539 Lady Hermon: Is he happy with them?
Karen Bradley: You would have to ask him how happy he is.
Q540 Lady Hermon: I am asking you; you have had the conversation with him. You are giving us evidence that the Northern Ireland Office is absolutely ready to go and you have contingency planning around no deal, so there must be an answer to this. Is he happy?
Karen Bradley: We are ready, in the event of no deal, to take the mitigating actions that need to be taken, but they only go so far to mitigate the risks. There are still additional things that need to be done. There are still additional risks.
On the issue of extradition, as the Home Office Minister who took through the 2014 opt-out arrangements, I am clear that the European arrest warrant is a good instrument and we would like to continue to have access to it. We would need to negotiate that as a third country, once we have left the European Union. The transitional period, as negotiated in the withdrawal agreement, allows us to access the European arrest warrant for the implementation period and gives us time to negotiate a new mechanism because, clearly, third countries cannot be full parts of the European arrest warrant. That gives us time to do that as a third country. We cannot negotiate that until we are a third country, which is why crashing out with no deal would be very bad for the United Kingdom.
Lady Hermon: It would be very bad—disastrous.
Karen Bradley: We will take the mitigating steps and actions we need, but what we want, and what the Government policy is, is to leave with a deal; the implementation period comes in; the European arrest warrant continues seamlessly; there is no disruption whatsoever; and we agree, as a third country, new arrangements. The political declaration is clear that we would look to have equivalent arrangements to those that we have today on extradition.
Q541 Lady Hermon: We have been talking about threat levels. Tell me what the threat level currently is from dissident republicans.
Karen Bradley: It is severe.
Q542 Lady Hermon: It has not changed. It has been severe for some time.
Karen Bradley: It has not changed, no. It is an independently considered position, and that independent committee considers it to be severe and it has not changed.
Q543 Lady Hermon: Are you aware of dissident republicans recruiting more people into the ranks?
Karen Bradley: It would not be appropriate in my role for me to be commenting on operational matters. I am sure you have seen various press reports, et cetera, on this, but it is not appropriate for me to comment.
Q544 Lady Hermon: Can I come to what was actually said by the Defra Secretary on 13 March in the House? This is from Hansard, and this was the Defra Secretary Michael Gove in response to an intervention from the honourable lady for North Down, when I had referred to and reminded him that we did not have a Northern Ireland Assembly sitting and, therefore, we should take very seriously the warning from the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service about grave consequences in the event of a no-deal Brexit. The Secretary of State said, “It is also clear that the current situation, with no Executive, would be difficult to sustain in the uniquely challenging context of a no-deal exit. If the House voted for no deal, we would have to start formal engagement with the Irish Government about further arrangements for providing strengthened decision-making in the event of that outcome. That would include”, and I am quoting directly from Hansard, “the real possibility of imposing a form of direct rule”. He went on to say, “That is a grave step, and experience shows us that it is hard to return from that step, and it would be especially difficult in the context of no deal”. That is on the record and was certainly mentioned by the Secretary of State.
Karen Bradley: I have just been sent exactly the same thing, because I recalled that he had said the words “direct rule” and we were just establishing that that was the case.
Q545 Lady Hermon: He indicated and the Prime Minister indicated in her statement on Monday that some consideration is being given to this very unattractive prospect. I say “unattractive” as a mild description. What would happen to the MLAs? You must have given thought to that. They are impaired at present. The general public is annoyed and irritated that they continue to be impaired. You are going to tell me that this is a hypothetical situation, but I do not want to hear the words “hypothetical situation”. I want to know what you are planning in the event, because discussions are now around a possibility that, accidentally, if we left with no deal, there might have to be some form of direct rule. What would happen to the MLAs?
Karen Bradley: What happened previously, in the period 2002 to 2007, is that MLAs continued to be paid because of the constituency work they were doing. We have to be clear that, if we had no deal and had to take some form of direct rule, it would be to keep business as usual going. It would not be about taking policy decisions to reform health, education, etc. It would be to deal with the short-term impacts of no deal and make sure that people were able to continue to get to school and to work, that hospitals continued to function and that medicines were available to people as needed. Those are the kinds of things we would be focusing on in that scenario.
Q546 Lady Hermon: Direct rule would be very unattractive.
Karen Bradley: That is why Government policy is to leave with a deal. I could sometimes weep when I think of what might happen to people that can be entirely avoided if we come together and vote for a deal and get out of the European Union, as the people of the United Kingdom asked us to deliver, but do so in a way that is not chaotic, is orderly and protects their livelihoods and security. We all have to think very carefully, as individual parliamentarians, of the role we can play in doing that.
Lady Hermon: As you know, I support the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal. It protects the Good Friday agreement, jobs and the economy.
Karen Bradley: It is not perfect, but it is a negotiated settlement that has taken two years to negotiate and, I believe, is a good deal for the whole United Kingdom, enabling the United Kingdom to leave as one UK.
Q547 Lady Hermon: Finally, I will just come back to the Hart recommendations, as a number of Members have raised already. This is a serious issue and you said that “any human being would want to make it right”. Those were your words. You have the power to make it right, Secretary of State. Time is running against the victims of historical institutional abuse. The head of the Civil Service indicated at the end of the consultation period that you would have a moral responsibility. In all the legal niceties and everything, we are talking about human beings who have suffered the most appalling abuse, mostly as children, for years and years. They have suffered grievously. There is a moral responsibility on you, Secretary of State. There is no one else. You said at the beginning that you love the job that you do and you have confirmed that you are batting away for Northern Ireland within the Cabinet Office. This is not a step too far for you; this is a step that you could definitely take. Do you not know, in your heart of hearts, that this is a step you could take?
Karen Bradley: As I said earlier, I will wait to see what the recommendations from David Sterling are. I very much welcome the work that he has done.
Q548 Lady Hermon: When do you expect them to complete? It must be very soon.
Karen Bradley: I believe it is soon, but I would not want to put a date on it. When we see those recommendations, I will then have to consider the appropriate steps.
Q549 Lady Hermon: Could you indicate a timeframe for your considerations? We cannot have this endlessly strung out.
Karen Bradley: Of course we cannot have this endlessly strung out, but it would not be right for me to prejudge anything, including timeframes, until I have seen the recommendations. We do this properly and in a way that respects the victims. It is the victims that we all, and I know you, Lady Hermon, think of more than anything.
Q550 Lady Hermon: I want you to attach, Secretary of State, a sense of urgency to what is an urgent matter that has to be resolved, even if there are interim payments to the victims. Can you commit to look at the recommendations as a matter of urgency? Can I get those words?
Karen Bradley: I can commit that I will look at the recommendations as a matter of urgency, when I receive them, but I will not prejudge what those recommendations might be.
Lady Hermon: That is a step in the right direction. Thank you.
Q551 Maria Caulfield: To go back to devolution issues, we are doing an education inquiry at the moment and we have heard from many witnesses, whether head teachers, unions or civil servants, about the difficulties in education. A significant factor is the lack of decision-making. When the Permanent Secretary was here just last week, one of the biggest issues was around teachers’ pay. The Civil Service cannot make any decisions about that. Is this an issue that you would consider making a decision on, as Secretary of State?
Karen Bradley: We have passed the guidance legislation, which enables Permanent Secretaries and civil servants to take some decisions. It enables that to happen. It is not a perfect outcome by any means. It is the least worse of the options available. In terms of my ability to direct where spending happens, I am unable to direct that spending. That is for the Permanent Secretaries to do, but I am aware of the concerns about pay. I hope and encourage civil servants to look carefully at the situation in Great Britain and the money that has been allocated to the Department and take careful consideration of that point.
Q552 Maria Caulfield: Teachers in Northern Ireland are a valued workforce and they have options. We hear that they are deciding to go and work in the Republic of Ireland or come over to Great Britain. Are you able to tell me the difference in pay between a teacher in Northern Ireland compared with the Republic of Ireland and the rest of the UK?
Karen Bradley: I do not have those figures available here. I would be happy to write. These are not figures the Northern Ireland Office owns. These figures would belong to others. I am sure we can get the figures from the House of Commons Library, but I am happy to see what we can do and write.
Q553 Maria Caulfield: We have heard in our inquiry that, in terms of pay for teachers in Northern Ireland, it is 47% less than the Republic of Ireland and nearly 7% less than the rest of the United Kingdom. What do you think that says to teachers in Northern Ireland?
Karen Bradley: It says they need an Executive that can deal with matters regarding pay. It would not be appropriate to make direct comparisons. There are other issues in place, including cost of living and other matters. You would have to look at the cases, length of experience, grade, et cetera, and I do not know whether it is possible to do a direct comparison between Ireland, which has an entirely different education system, and Northern Ireland, England, Wales and Scotland.
Q554 Maria Caulfield: I asked the Permanent Secretary what his three wishes would be to make the situation better without any political decision-making. He said he only had one, and he was worried about the fallout from teachers and mass strikes in Northern Ireland, because they are so unhappy. They have only had two 1% pay rises since 2010. Is there a way that the Permanent Secretary could be given powers to make a pay award to teachers?
Karen Bradley: We cannot give Permanent Secretaries any more powers than they have been given through the legislation. I hope the extension of the legislation will give reassurance to Permanent Secretaries and officials that they have political cover to make decisions that are not major policy decisions. They cannot change the law, because only elected politicians can change the law.
This is the very difficult situation we are in. In the absence of anybody who can make a political decision and direct, we are asking civil servants to do something they are desperately uncomfortable with. I appreciate that. We have tried to craft a piece of legislation that gives some cover to the civil servants but does not put them in the uncomfortable position of being scrutinised by politicians. It would be wrong for officials in any part of our Civil Service in the United Kingdom to find their decisions being scrutinised by politicians. That is not the way that our system works and it undermines our system. There will be a point when those officials are having to take decisions made by politicians. If, before that point, the decisions the civil servants had taken were scrutinised by those same politicians, it would create a constitutional difficulty for all of us. We have extended the legislation and I hope that appropriate decisions can be taken by civil servants, but I resist trying to increase the powers of civil servants. We have gone as far as we can without fundamentally upsetting the constitution.
Q555 Maria Caulfield: What is your message to teachers who are frustrated that they are not getting a pay award, like their colleagues and neighbours, either in the Republic of Ireland or the rest of the UK, and to parents who feel that their children are at risk of seeing industrial action by teachers, which will affect their education? It seems that one option is restoring an Assembly; we have heard from evidence from MLAs that they do not see that happening any time this year. You are not able to give civil servants any more powers or take the decisions here in Westminster. What is the solution, given that none of those three things is likely to happen?
Karen Bradley: The solution is the Executive is restored. That is the solution. I do not agree with the evidence some may have given about this. People have a lot of views and opinions about this. I believe there is a realistic prospect of restoring the Executive, before the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act expires at the end of August. If I did not believe that, I would not be extending the Act and I would be looking at the other options, one of which is decision-making here. Now that people have looked at what direct rule means, following the announcements made by the Government on no deal, people see this as a highly undesirable and unattractive option for Northern Ireland. They do not see this as a solution. They do not feel it is the right way to do things and, as I said earlier, an election will not fundamentally change anything. It will cost a lot of money and time and perhaps give false hope to people that it is not right they should have. We have an Assembly. It has been properly elected and we need to get it working.
Q556 Ian Paisley: Thank you, Secretary of State, for your time this morning. I know you take a lot of flak, but those of us who work with you regularly know that you do a lot of hard work in Northern Ireland, even though we disagree on a number of things. Are there any internal papers in your Department, the Northern Ireland Office, which say that Northern Ireland is not properly prepared for Brexit, on a security basis, a political basis or in legal statute?
Karen Bradley: I have been clear about the situation. You are referring to the event of no deal.
Q557 Ian Paisley: I am referring to the Prime Minister’s comments this week that, because one part of the United Kingdom is without devolved Government, we are unable to prepare properly for Brexit. I am wondering if there are any internal papers in your Department that say that we are not properly prepared, on a political, legal or security footing.
Karen Bradley: In the preparation we have made for Brexit, we have the joint ministerial committee, for example. On the joint ministerial committee, both at the plenary and ministerial level, are representatives from the Scottish and Welsh Administrations. There is no political representation from Northern Ireland.
Ian Paisley: Mr Sterling is there.
Karen Bradley: There is representation from the Civil Service but no representation from politicians in Northern Ireland. There are no Ministers able to take decisions in Northern Ireland. The point the Prime Minister was making, which I have repeated to this Committee today, is that we are doing all the work that can be done. Again, I pay great tribute to the Northern Ireland Civil Service for the work that it has been doing and the way it has operated in this, but that is no substitute for Ministers making direction and taking decisions.
Q558 Ian Paisley: For the Prime Minister to stand at the Dispatch Box and say, a few days before we were supposed to leave the EU, that we are not properly prepared is a pretty definitive statement. Therefore, there must be internal advisory papers in your office that say, on political, legal or security grounds, that we are not prepared. Otherwise, where did that come from? It must be based on something. It was not a whim, so where did it come from?
Karen Bradley: I will not be drawn on what internal papers there are. It is worth me referring to the document that has been published—I have a copy here—which is Implications for Business and Trade of a No Deal Exit on 29 March 2019, dated 26 February. I am sure you have a copy. There is a whole section there on Northern Ireland, with a case study on the single electricity market, for example. There are case studies on legal services. This is all in the public domain. These are documents that have been issued.
Ian Paisley: They show that we are properly prepared.
Karen Bradley: Let me give you another example. Under no deal, we have said that the Northern Ireland border would operate on the basis of no checks with limited exceptions. We would want to check nuclear substances, stolen diamonds and those kinds of things, but we expect trade to continue across the border, because we made a commitment not to put anything in place that constitutes any form of hard border on the island of Ireland and not to put a border in the Irish Sea. We have said that the way trade will operate is that traders in Northern Ireland, as they receive imports from Ireland, will have no tariffs and checks applied, but they will have to register for VAT, if they are not currently registered, and declare the goods that they have received. It will be different from the situation for traders in Great Britain, who will have to fulfil full customs declarations and checks. That will not be the case in Northern Ireland in order that we can meet those obligations.
Unilaterally, we can do that for trade from Ireland to Northern Ireland, but I cannot tell you what the trading situation will be the other way round. I cannot tell you that, because it is a matter for the European Union and the Irish Government, of which I am neither. We are as prepared as we can be.
Q559 Ian Paisley: I am not asking you to answer for the European Union or the Irish Government.
Karen Bradley: No, but I cannot tell you what the situation will be for your constituents who export to Ireland. I do not know that, because it is a matter for the Irish Government. Could I finish the point?
Ian Paisley: I do not want you to go off on a tangent, because that is what you are doing.
Karen Bradley: Could I finish the point, because you have asked me a question?
Ian Paisley: You have not answered it yet.
Karen Bradley: I am answering it. If you will allow me, I will answer it. We cannot know. We have seen the omnibus Bill that the Irish Government are bringing in. Clearly we have conversations with the European Commission and others on the actions they are going to take, but we cannot know what that will be. Therefore, I cannot tell you what your constituents will experience in terms of trading with Ireland.
Q560 Ian Paisley: I am not asking you that. I am not asking you what my constituents will experience. I am asking you the basis of the Prime Minister standing at the Dispatch Box and saying we are not prepared properly.
Karen Bradley: That is why we need to take measures with regard to decision-making, because there are things that the UK Government can prepare for unilaterally—
Ian Paisley: That is a different matter, Secretary of State. That is not what I have asked you. That is fabulous, but it is not what I asked you.
Karen Bradley: You have not allowed me to answer either. We will take all the steps that we can, unilaterally, to ensure that we do everything, as a UK Government, to mitigate the impacts of no deal. What I cannot tell you is what will happen at the other side of the border.
Ian Paisley: I am not asking that.
Karen Bradley: Because of that, we will need to change decision-making processes in Northern Ireland. That is the point the Prime Minister was making.
Q561 Ian Paisley: I am not asking that. I am asking about the basis of the Prime Minister saying that we are not properly prepared. There must be something in the Northern Ireland Office that made the Prime Minister so emphatic that she was able to say that, given that, on 8 January when she stood in the House, she clearly said that we are well prepared. On 26 February, the Prime Minister went on to say that arrangements are “ready to go”. When Mr Sterling wrote a letter earlier this month claiming that there were problems, your deputy, Mr Penrose, said that “raised eyebrows” in Government circles because we are ready to go. The European Commission, on 24 March, said all preparations for no deal have now been completed. The Minister, Chris Heaton-Harris, in response to an Urgent Question, confirmed that all progress had been made by the UK. I do not know where this came from by the Prime Minister. The trail of evidence shows that we are ready to go, and the Prime Minister says we are not prepared.
Karen Bradley: Mr Paisley, if I may say, I think you are deliberately avoiding the point that we can do everything that we can unilaterally—we have and we are—but there are things that we cannot deal with, because they are matters for different sovereign Governments, whether Ireland or other parts of the European Union. We are able to do everything we can unilaterally, we will do everything we can and we have taken all steps we can but, in the absence of Ministers in Northern Ireland, we will not be able to direct the spending of money to mitigate measures that are taken by other people. That is the point that the Prime Minister was making. It is not a question of not being prepared. We are prepared, but we do not have Ministers in place to take those steps.
Q562 Ian Paisley: Essentially what I take from that is that the Prime Minister maybe did not make her point very well.
Karen Bradley: The Prime Minister will answer for herself. I am not going to comment on that. All I am saying is that the point she was making is that we can do all the work unilaterally, but we cannot prepare for things that other countries and other people do.
Ian Paisley: I have not asked you to do that. Nobody expects you to do that.
Karen Bradley: That requires decision-making in Northern Ireland that is not currently there, which is the point the Prime Minister was making.
Q563 Ian Paisley: That is the point that you have made today. It does not appear to be the point that was spelt out clearly when the Prime Minister made her statement on 25 March, this week, but I am glad that you have clarified what the Prime Minister may have intended to say, because it looked on Monday as if the Government were making it up as they went along. All of the evidence that I have read out to you, from 8 January, from the Department of Justice and from the Prime Minister’s previous statements all said we are ready to go. This was a shock to the system.
Karen Bradley: I do not accept the point you have made. I do not accept that that is the Government’s position. Let us be clear once again that, in the event of no deal, which is not Government policy and no one wants to see happen, if we end up with no deal, there would be things that would happen. We can take all the steps and measures unilaterally that are possible, but there will be things that we cannot control. That will require enhanced decision-making in Northern Ireland and some political direction. That is quite clear. It will also mean that the impact will be more acute and longer-lasting in Northern Ireland. We will and have taken all the steps we can to mitigate that, but there are certain things outside our control.
Q564 Ian Paisley: Those are all strong messages or encouragements to move to direct rule. That suggests to me that, if these problems are in place, it is time for the Secretary of State to take the decision and say, “We are not getting the local Government in place”. I agree it is unfortunate and a lot of effort has been placed on that but, if Mr Gove is saying it, if you are saying it and everyone else is saying there are all these problems, then it may be time to move to direct rule.
Karen Bradley: We accept that in the event of no deal.
Q565 Ian Paisley: It does not look like you have a deal. You are no closer to a deal than you were on 25 January.
Karen Bradley: That is why people need to think carefully about the outcome. Parliament has been clear that it expects the Government to deliver a deal, because Parliament has said it does not accept no deal as an option. We have these votes today. Let us see where we get to with them, but we have a carefully crafted deal that has taken over two years to negotiate. It is a deal that mitigates this and, as Lady Hermon has said, is fully compliant with the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
Q566 Ian Paisley: It is a deal that would be endorsed by the House only if the Brady amendment was agreed to and, unfortunately, the Prime Minister did not get the Brady amendment through Europe. That was the problem.
Karen Bradley: Changes were made.
Q567 Ian Paisley: There were no changes made to the legal text. The Prime Minister confirmed that on Monday. She could not get a single jot or tittle changed in the withdrawal agreement.
Karen Bradley: We have discussed this on a number of occasions, privately and publicly. We have a difference of opinion.
Q568 Ian Paisley: You accept that not one single word has changed. Not one single sentence, comma or dot has changed between the withdrawal agreement that was first introduced and the withdrawal agreement we are looking at today. Do you accept that, Secretary of State? Do not play that one off; nothing has changed.
Karen Bradley: I presume you accept that a legal treaty that has equal weight and standing with the withdrawal agreement and an equal legal basis will be part of the interpretation of that treaty, if the treaty comes into force.
Q569 Ian Paisley: I am going on what I am asked to vote on, and I am asked to vote on a withdrawal agreement that has not changed in three months. You are not going to try to tell us that it has changed.
Karen Bradley: It is a withdrawal treatment and a joint legal treaty that we have agreed, a unilateral declaration, so there have been changes.
Q570 Ian Paisley: There have not been changes to the withdrawal agreement. Let us not go down that road.
Karen Bradley: It is semantics.
Q571 Ian Paisley: It is not semantics; it is the law. It is the law of the treaty. The words of the draft treaty have not changed.
Karen Bradley: The legal treaty that has been agreed in addition has equal standing and will be taken for any form of arbitration or decision about this. This is where we differ in our opinion. My political judgment is that we will never go into the backstop, because the backstop is desperately uncomfortable for the European Union and is not something that they want to be in. My political judgment is we will never go into it. If we go into it, it will be for a short period of time. Article 50 cannot bind us for the future relationship. The EU is a legal construct; it is not a person or a country and, therefore, it is governed by its legal texts. Its legal texts are clear that Article 50 cannot bind the future relationship, so it cannot bind us for the future. This is a stepping stone, part of a process not an event, to get us to a point when we have the new relationship with the European Union and we are an independent global trading state. This is our way to do it. It is a process, not an event.
Q572 Ian Paisley: Secretary of State, let me ask you if you contacted Leo Varadkar after he made the daftest comments I have ever heard from a Taoiseach about troops on the border, given he does not have an armed army.
Karen Bradley: He does not comment on the comments made by politicians in the United Kingdom, and United Kingdom politicians do not comment on him either.
Q573 Ian Paisley: Secretary of State, that is very generous. Given the flak you have had to take for some things that you have said, surely that was an opportunity to point out to Mr Varadkar how incredibly stupid a comment it was to make.
Karen Bradley: I am not getting into that kind of discussion.
Q574 Ian Paisley: Are you serious? You are quite happy to leave a Prime Minister from a foreign jurisdiction saying things that are threatening about our border. They should have been dismissed by you out of hand.
Karen Bradley: I am not getting into that. That is not the way that I operate.
Q575 Ian Paisley: He seized two of our boats. What are you doing about that? That is a hard border.
Karen Bradley: The Irish Government have taken forward measures to restore the previous situation with regard to the waters, and we need to see those measures taken forward, because we want to go back to where we were in terms of access to fishing waters.
Q576 Ian Paisley: We could close off our fishing waters to the Irish fishermen. That would be a more responsible thing to do.
Karen Bradley: The Irish have taken steps, and I welcome that.
Q577 Ian Paisley: Coming briefly to RHI, you said that the Department had advised you that the reason you needed to bring in that legislation two weeks ago was that it was illegal under state aid rules to continue to pay. Is that what the Department told you: that under state aid rules the existing tariffs would have been illegal and therefore they had to be changed?
Karen Bradley: Yes, that is the key point.
Q578 Ian Paisley: Did you check what the state aid rules said?
Karen Bradley: That is the key point that the consultation found and that was the advice that we received.
Q579 Ian Paisley: Did you ask your officials, “Look, they are telling me this is illegal. Let us check what the state aid rules actually say”?
Karen Bradley: Thorough work was done to ensure that what was taken through the House of Commons was in line with the legal position. I welcome the fact that this Committee will look very carefully at this, will scrutinise this decision and will determine whether it was in line with state aid rules, but I am confident that the work the Department for the Economy did was thorough and was a full consultation. People were able to make responses to that consultation. It was a scheme that was set up by the Northern Ireland Executive. It was not set up by this Government, but I am confident that the Department for the Economy has done the work it needed to do to reach a judgment. I very much welcome this Committee’s work on this area, because the public needs to see transparency on this matter. If this Committee can expose that, and can make sure that there is full transparency, so people understand why the decisions were taken, it will be helpful.
Q580 Ian Paisley: Will you come back to the Committee during our RHI inquiry?
Karen Bradley: If the Committee feels that would be useful to its inquiry, I am sure the Committee will invite me. I have never declined an invitation from this Committee.
Q581 Ian Paisley: I have the state aid rule directive from Brussels in front of me, on RHI in Northern Ireland, which was published on 16 February 2018. It makes it clear that, in March 2017, when the Commission found that the modifications implemented in 2015—which was when they originally reduced the tariffs—Her Majesty’s Government notified the Commission that those changes were, and I am quoting from the directive, “compatible with the internal market under Article 107”, which is the section to do with tariff controls. If those modifications were compatible then, why has a local Department suddenly decided that they were illegal less than a year later?
Karen Bradley: The right thing to do is for the Committee to do its inquiry and ask those questions. I am not going to speculate.
Q582 Ian Paisley: Was that not a question you asked? This was signed off by Boris Johnson; it was not signed off by a Northern Ireland Office Minister. Boris Johnson signed this off.
Karen Bradley: I am confident that the work that was done by the Department for the Economy was thorough and appropriate, and that the outcome is lawful. I know that the hon. Gentleman has great concern about it and he raised it in the House of Commons, and that is why I welcome this Committee doing further work on this matter, so that there is full transparency and so that it is clear to everybody why the decision was taken. Where and if hardship is established, and there are actions that can be taken, I will look carefully at those recommendations.
Q583 Ian Paisley: I do not want to jump to a conclusion but, if we were to recommend that the tariff should be at a different level, would you look carefully at that and seek to change it?
Karen Bradley: I am not prejudging what the Committee finds. I am confident that the work the Department for the Economy did was thorough and I acted on the basis of the request given to me by the Permanent Secretary to ensure that the scheme continued to be lawful.
Q584 Ian Paisley: I want to be clear, Secretary of State, that we will not just do an RHI inquiry and then walk away from it. If we make hard and fast recommendations that say that the current legislation that you put before Parliament a few weeks ago needs to be changed, you will bring in changes.
Karen Bradley: I am not prejudging what the inquiry finds, but I will look very carefully at its recommendations.
Q585 Nigel Mills: I have a couple of questions, Secretary of State. First, when the extension to your powers not to consider calling an election expire in August, is your understanding that, if you did not extend them, you would have a legal duty to set a date, not just to consider setting one, or do you think you could still just not set one after that date expires?
Karen Bradley: There is a clear obligation under the St Andrews agreement that the Secretary of State will call an election in the absence of an Assembly. I will look carefully at it at that stage. As I said previously, my priority is to restore the Executive and not to have to ask those questions at that time.
Q586 Nigel Mills: People need to be clear what the legal position is, if that deadline expires and there is no Executive and no further extension.
Karen Bradley: There cannot be a further extension. The legislation does not allow it.
Nigel Mills: You could have another Bill.
Karen Bradley: We could do another Bill. Of course we can. There is nothing to stop the sovereign Parliament doing what the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom wishes to do.
Q587 Nigel Mills: I will rephrase the question then. If there is no Executive and you do not put in another Bill to further extend the date, is the legal analysis that you would now have to name a date for the election, or would you be able to sit in your office and occasionally think about naming a date but never actually name one?
Karen Bradley: We would have to look at the legal position at the time, but there is a clear obligation on the Secretary of State to call an election should there not be an Executive and a sitting Assembly. I am acutely aware and conscious of that obligation.
Q588 Nigel Mills: Between when the Executive fell or was not formed after the previous election and last summer, when you passed that Bill, you had to consider it but never called one. Do you still think the legal position is that you would not be obliged to set a date, or do you now think that, if you did not create a new power, you would have to call it?
Karen Bradley: We brought the power in specifically because having an election is not desirable for Northern Ireland. I do not want to speculate on what the situation will be in August, if we have not been able to form an Assembly. To be clear, as I said earlier, I can call an election at any time. There is nothing stopping me from calling an election. I am just not under a duty, as set out under the agreements, to call that election.
Q589 Nigel Mills: On a slightly different topic, you will remember there were some “mitigations”, which was the language the Assembly used, for the welfare reform changes that were implemented from here in 2015. Those mitigations expire at the end of the financial year that is about to start and there was meant to be a review of those mitigations in the current financial year, which I guess has not happened. Do you have any early thoughts on how you might handle this situation given that, in a few months, you will need to give some direction as to whether those mitigations should just be rolled over or scrapped, so that people have some time to plan their own financial affairs? Do you have any thoughts on how you will handle this process?
Karen Bradley: You cite another example of why not having an Executive is bad for the people of Northern Ireland. Having an Executive that could have carried out the review you talk about would be a much more desirable situation than the one in which we find ourselves. With all matters such as this—and we discussed special educational needs earlier, the historical institutional abuse inquiry and a number of matters where the situation is not satisfactory—as Secretary of State, I will make sure that I take my obligations to ensure good governance in Northern Ireland, as part of the United Kingdom, very seriously. My priority is getting that Executive in place, because all these questions would be dealt with and there would be different people who would have executive responsibility who you could ask those questions of.
Q590 Nigel Mills: We accept all of that but, if these mitigations drop away, the financial circumstances of some vulnerable people will change, quite materially for some of them. What would be the least period of fair notice that they should be given? If those changes apply in a year’s time would that be reasonable? You would want to give them six months’ notice that those mitigations are not going to continue, would you not?
Karen Bradley: I am not going to be drawn on that, because it is a finger in the air about what feels right. Some people will probably say that they should have had notice two years ago. It would not be right to start putting numbers or dates on that. All I will say is that I am aware of the situation and we want to re-form the Executive. All of these conversations are about how to mitigate something that is less than ideal. Let us try to focus on re-forming the Executive and then we do not have to have these mitigating conversations.
Q591 Nigel Mills: Presumably they would take some time, even if they were formed, to make that decision, so forming the Executive next February will probably be a bit late to deal with that. I guess we can come back to that. This is my final question. You have been clear that you think the deal is the best way forward for Northern Ireland, and I voted for it last time so I guess I agree, but we will have lots of votes on lots of options tonight. Do you have any assessment of which of the options we can vote on tonight will be good or bad for Northern Ireland?
Karen Bradley: I do not think we have even selected the amendments yet. I will make sure that my votes this evening reflect the manifesto on which I was elected and what is right for Northern Ireland and the people of Northern Ireland in this difficult time.
Q592 Nigel Mills: You do not think any particular one would be bad for Northern Ireland, so you would be advising us not to vote for it, such as Labour’s alternative plan, the Malthouse compromise plan A or the contingent preferential arrangements, whatever that one means. You have not had a chance to go through them yet to give us any Northern Ireland-based advice.
Karen Bradley: The best thing for the people of Northern Ireland is that we leave with the deal. That is what I think is best for the people of Northern Ireland.
Q593 Lady Hermon: Will it be a free vote, or are you going to be whipped?
Karen Bradley: I honestly do not know. I have been here, so I have not received my instructions. I cannot tell you what the whip is, because I have been here.
Q594 Lady Hermon: It would make sense that indicative votes should be indicative of all of our MPs.
Karen Bradley: That would be a question you would have to put to the Chief Whip.
Kate Hoey: It does not seem to worry the Cabinet.
Chair: Order, order. We are getting way beyond our brief. Secretary of State, thank you very much for being with us. It was a mammoth session. You have a tough gig. Of all the portfolios in the Cabinet, yours is the most complex and difficult. Can I record my admiration for the good grace that you have applied to the office that you hold? On occasions, I have deeply sympathised with the situation in which you find yourself, but you have my admiration for the work that you do. I extend that also to the Northern Ireland Office, which is working extremely hard in unique circumstances. It has our thanks as well. Thank you for being here and I look forward to seeing you again before too long.