---

Northern Ireland

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. We welcome both parts of the Statement: the first, slightly less important but nevertheless significant part concerns the continuing payment of the Members of the Assembly. Since the Assembly was suspended in 2002, your Lordships will know that I have regularly raised the question of continuing to pay salaries to MLAs. The Government were very reluctant to contemplate that, even arguing that they were still carrying out constituency duties and, even more questionable, that there was a need to sustain a political elite. Later, there was a token deduction and Mr Paul Murphy, the then Secretary of State, muttered about the problem of payment, which was echoed by the Prime Minister. I very much hope that the Statement today means that there will be no more prevarication or procrastination, no more huffing and puffing. If the devolved institutions are not up and running soon, MLA salaries should be stopped. That is explicit in the Statement, although it is too vague in saying that payment should continue for ““not many more months””. That is far too imprecise. Does the Minister agree that it would be better to set a specific date, say 31 May, after which remuneration will cease? Later than that, the marching season will be looming and that is always used as an excuse for a delay. Will the Government consider a specific date? As I remarked the last time that MLA payment was raised in your Lordships’ House, the prospect of its withdrawal may well be a spur to interparty agreement to collaborate. The fear of such loss is one of the many things that unites Northern Ireland political parties across the community divide. We all wish for a quick restoration of the devolutionary settlement. We on these Benches—and I would guess, the whole House—are mightily relieved that the Secretary of State has decided to withdraw the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill. It was welcomed by none. It solved nothing and antagonised most public opinion for one reason or another across the political spectrum in Northern Ireland. The idea that a superannuated judge should preside over some sort of process, in which alleged suspects, or those actually charged but on the run, or those convicted but who had escaped, who did not even have to appear before him or her, was a parody. It was an attempt to put some kind of figleaf legitimacy on what for all intents and purposes was a pardon by executive action. Such a notion was doomed to failure from the very start, but it could form the basis of a modern-day Gilbert and Sullivan operetta. We are pleased that the Government have withdrawn the Bill and congratulate them on bowing to the inevitable. In conclusion, I have two other questions for the Minister. Will he undertake that, in any future discussions on solving the problem of ““on the runs””, both Governments will have all-inclusive talks with all the Northern Ireland political parties and not just do a side deal with Sinn Fein? This matter will only be resolved by an open ““treaty”” openly arrived that. Secondly, will the Secretary of State consider that a fundamental part of moving Northern Ireland forwards is the shared future agenda? Last February, the then Secretary of State made a commitment to the other place to publish the first of the triennial action plans for a shared future in the autumn of 2005. When can we expect the plan to be published? Why are the Government failing to make improved community relations a priority?