---

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

I accept fully what the hon. Gentleman has said. It reminds me of a conversation that I tried to have with him a few weeks ago in the context of the debate on the Short money about the folly of accepting shallow sweeping assurances from Secretaries of State about what may or may not happen in the future. There are other aspects of the comprehensive agreement that would mean that, in restored institutions, we would find it hard to get decisions taken and that there could be gridlock. The content of the comprehensive agreement is wrong and flawed. Fundamentally, parties need to remember that all the issues relating to the workings of the institutions and the agreement did not bring about suspension. They did not bring the institutions down. The institutions were brought down because of other things happening or not happening completely outside them. Resolving those issues should not be a precondition for restoring the institutions. We can address the issues, as we were addressing them constructively, in the context of a review. The best circumstances for a review to take place would be in the context of working restored institutions, because then every party would have a lot more confidence about the real willingness of other parties to engage in those sort of institutions and processes. It is that lack of confidence that is at the root of the deadlock and stand-off at the moment. Of course, it is not just what is in the comprehensive agreement that has worried those of us who stand fully by the Good Friday agreement, but the fact that we were told in a statement by the hon. Member for Belfast, East that the comprehensive agreement had alongside it 100 side deals and secret understandings in the form of more than 100 clarifying answers, notes and letters. We were told that about the comprehensive agreement at a time when the Government were still telling us that there would be no more side deals and we had seen the last of them. In a while, we will probably be told that there has not been a side deal in two months. The fact is that we can trust neither what is in the comprehensive agreement, nor what we have not been shown outside of it. Again, I warn the Government against the misadventure of turning to the comprehensive agreement and things like it for new material for legislation because that will not give us a platform for progress, but just create a political tug of war in a dead end, which will not take anything forward. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) mentioned that provisions on the devolution of policing and justice are at the heart of the Bill. We need to remember that the power to devolve policing and justice already exists—it is not created by the Bill. The Bill does not do much one way or another in respect of that basic power, which is in section 4(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Bill contains provisions that are somewhere between a figment and a fig leaf. It contains provisions that may or may not operate or be called upon, such as the power to appoint a Minister of justice in a way other than by d’Hondt. There may or may not be a joint Ministry and rotating junior and senior Ministers. The Bill provides for all sorts of things that might not happen. We know, as my earlier remarks and the Secretary of State’s comments have shown, that much of the more serious stuff that will happen regarding future policing, such as that involving MI5, lies outside the Bill. We have been given a figment, or fig leaf, so that some people can pretend that the big, outstanding issue that kept them off the Policing Board and prevented them from supporting the policing arrangements has been resolved and that their demand for the devolution of justice and policing has been met. The scale to which some devolution has already taken place should not be underestimated. The Policing Board already has quite a number of the powers and functions that were formerly exercised by the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Office. That was shown graphically when the Secretary of State and the NIO tried to intervene on and influence the Policing Board on the position of the then Chief Constable, Ronnie Flanagan. A similar thing happened in response to the police ombudsman’s report on Omagh. It cannot be emphasised enough that the Policing Board proved that it had devolved powers and independence. Sinn Fein has refused to be part of the devolution that has already taken place. There is a paradox about Sinn Fein’s position on the outstanding issues of devolution. The DUP must be delighted—its members must be grinning like horses chewing thistles—whenever Sinn Fein effectively gives it a veto on the position on policing. Sinn Fein’s big, macho position is that it will not move on policing until the DUP agrees a date for the devolution of justice and policing. I do not detect any great hurry on the part of the DUP to see Sinn Fein on the Policing Board and entering into the arrangements. The DUP will pocket that veto and say, ““That will do nicely, thank you very much.”” It is quite happy that Sinn Fein’s position has given it a veto on the future of policing, the devolution of justice and policing and devolution. People need to understand that there is a ruse going on and that the Bill is somewhere between a figment and a fig leaf. We want the full devolution of justice and policing and the full outworking of the agreement and the Patten report. That is why we want progress to be made on the restoration of the institutions. We want the Governments to show real intent on the talk of determination and the talk of time lines in which they have engaged. They should set a date for restoring the political institutions, put it to the parties and flush out where the parties stand on all the institutions of the agreement. They should, not least, flush out where the parties stand on the democratic policing arrangements.