For some time now, there has been speculation about ‘alternative arrangements’ to the Irish border backstop agreement. Both Ministers and MPs in the Economic Research Group have alluded to the possibility of a ‘technological fix’ to the problem. Faced with another likely Commons defeat, this was arguably why Theresa May accepted an amendment from the Chair of the 1922 Committee, Graham Brady.
Nobody however, has been clear quite what the techno-fix would look like. Boris Johnson argued it was simple enough but the early promise of a Borisonian solution soon evaporated. Sajid Javid suggested that the Home Office had been looking at the issue for a while then failed to shed any light.
Intrigued, I started tabling written questions to Lords ministers, asking if the government had made ‘an assessment’ of ‘potential technological solutions’ to preventing a hard border. One reply simply said the government was committed to preventing a hard border including ‘physical infrastructure’ or ‘checks and controls’. It suggested technology could play a part in this and that alternative arrangements were being looked at, without saying what these might be. I also asked about security scenario planning and again was told the best way of avoiding a hard border was to have a ‘deal with the EU’.
Another reply said that avoiding tariffs would need ‘discussions with the Irish Government and the Commission’. Something I thought should be being done already. I also enquired if cost had been incurred in planning for a ‘No Deal’ hard border but again received a non-reply that in such a scenario, the government ‘would need to engage constructively with Ireland’. Forward planning, this ain’t.
I decided to ask if the government had assessed how long they might need to trial a ‘technological solution’ to prevent a hard border - including evaluating its effectiveness. Maybe this would flush out a response, indicating that they were on the verge of cracking the problem? Sadly not. Just bland words that the Political Declaration between the UK and EU clarified that we ‘should work together and exchange information on facilitative arrangements and technologies’.
Exasperated by the level of evasion on the issue, I asked if the Home Office had any plans for a techno-fix to retain a soft border. Only to be told that the government ‘has undertaken planning to avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, but will not be giving further details at this stage.’ A reply that I don’t believe conforms with the part of the ministerial code that says Parliament is entitled to straight answers to straight questions – even when it might reveal some embarrassment to the government of the day.
Latterly, I have asked if the government would publish details of any contracts they have signed relating to technological solutions and whether those contracts include matters beyond ‘proofs of concept’. The reply was revealing, with Ministers admitting they had been in discussions ‘with technology companies for many months’ but that ‘no contracts have yet been signed’
There we have it. For all the hot air about ‘alternative arrangements’, they amount to nothing. Why? Because there is nothing there and there never has been, and the government from Theresa May down have known it all along.
All the obfuscation amounts to nothing other than an excuse for delay so that Parliament is left with nothing more than a take it or leave it decision on the one Mrs May deal – her way or the highway. Nobody should be fooled by the fact that the government hasn’t a clue about where else to go.
Lord Steve Bassam is a Labour peer in the House of Lords and a former Home Office minister