The Stormont House deal

Peter Cheney analyses the Stormont House Agreement. The main features include conditional loans from Westminster and a potential way to resolve the legacy of the Troubles.

The Stormont House Agreement is effectively a ‘heads of agreement’ paper as many of the details are not yet clear. However, it does outline a broad policy direction for public finance, governance and the legacy of the Troubles over the next five years.

The fiscal part of the agreement will start to be implemented, out of necessity, over the next six months. The agreement acknowledges that pay is the largest part of the Executive’s budget and pledges a smaller public sector – although without stating its desired size. At present, the public sector employs 211,000 people, including 32,000 civil servants.

Asset sales are suggested but there is a marked reluctance to embark on other revenue raising measures. These “may be considered if cost reductions cannot be achieved quickly enough”.

Sinn Féin has accepted that welfare reform will begin from April 2015. In return, the Government plans to devolve corporation tax powers by April 2017. Labour has been sceptical but decided not to oppose the transfer of the power.

The UK Government’s financial package will include £1,050 million of new loans (up to 2019) and £650 million of grant funding. The capital grants for shared and integration education projects will last longer (up to 2026) but each project must be signed off individually by the NIO. The Executive therefore loses autonomy in this area in return for short-term financial security.

Given the pressure to drive down public spending in Britain, Westminster will be more reluctant to lend to Stormont in future. Northern Ireland’s public spending is 24 per cent above the UK average and stands at £20 billion per annum.

Legacy

While nationalists compromised on welfare, unionists compromised by accepting the proposals on the past – mostly modelled on Richard Haass’ proposals. These cover the following main elements:

• an oral history archive;

• a mental trauma service for victims;

• an historical investigations unit (HIU); and

• an independent commission on information retrieval (ICIR).

The archive may face some of the same difficulties as Boston College’s similar project unless it has clear legal safeguards. People from all backgrounds will be free to give an oral record of their experiences. The project is to be established by January 2016 but the timescale for the public release of the recordings is not yet clear.

There is no specific timescale for setting up the mental trauma service (within the Health Service) but previous Victims Commissioner Kathryn Stone identified this as an urgent need, especially as many victims are in their later years.

Families bereaved in the Troubles will be able to choose between two types of investigation:

• a cold case review by the HIU with a view to prosecuting those responsible; or

• an information retrieval process by the ICIR which will not result in a prosecution.

The HIU will take on the caseloads of the Historical Enquiries Team and the Police Ombudsman’s legacy investigators. The decision to prosecute will rest with the Director of Public Prosecutions and information provided to families will be redacted to protect sources.

The ICIR will follow the precedent set by the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains, which investigates the cases of the ‘disappeared’. A family would be able to request information about a relative’s death and ICIR would then approach sources who were involved in paramilitary groups and the security forces. Details supplied to the ICIR will be inadmissible in court and protected from disclosure to law enforcement or intelligence agencies. That said, sources may face prosecution if evidence about the case is obtained through a HIU investigation.

To ensure confidentiality for its sources, ICIR files will have a significant degree of legal immunity. It will not be possible to challenge its work through a judicial review or to request its files through freedom of information legislation.

In some cases, it is possible that one relative will want to approach the ICIR for information but another relative will still want a prosecution. The agreement does not explain how this situation would be resolved but Haass suggested that the ICIR should pursue information on behalf of those relatives who wished to take up that option.

Both investigatory bodies are expected to work within a five-year timescale but their starting dates are not stated. It is likely that the relevant legislation will come forward after the UK general election with separate bills presented to Parliament, the Oireachtas and the Assembly.

Legacy inquests will also continue. The processes on the past will be overseen by an 11-member ‘implementation and reconciliation group’ with members nominated by the Executive parties and the two governments. The group would be similar to the ‘legacy commission’ and ‘reconciliation forum’ proposed in the 2009 Eames-Bradley report.

Unionists refused to negotiate on parading policy and have linked any successful outcome to a resolution to the Ardoyne dispute. A more detailed paper on the issue is to be brought forward by June; this will be the fourth attempt to resolve parading since the Ashdown review in 2007-2008.

The Executive is tasked with setting up a 15-member ‘commission on flags, identity, culture and tradition’ with seven political appointees and eight members selected through the public appointments process. The commission’s main priority will be to find “maximum consensus” on flags and emblems during a further 18-month process of discussion; this is due to start by June and therefore conclude by December 2016 at the latest.

The number of government departments is due to decrease from 12 to nine in 2016 – and the main parties will be required to draft a Programme for Government immediately after an election.

A reduction in the number of MLAs will only take effect in 2021 – down from 108 to 90 or a lower number if agreed – but the option of setting up a formal opposition should be available from March onwards.

Corporation Tax Bill

Westminster only has a short timescale in which to consider legislation on devolving corporation tax. The Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill was published on 8 January. Parliament will be on recess between 12-23 February and will then be dissolved on 30 March in time for the general election.

The move unites the Executive parties but the TUV and Greens are opposed, citing the impact on public finances and the constitutional precedent for devolving such a major tax power. Labour’s scepticism was also based on the same grounds. Under the Bill, the UK Government would retain responsibility for reliefs and allowances and taxes on profits from reinsurance and offshore oil and gas activities.