---

Northern Ireland Bill

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister, who with his usual prescience has already answered some of the questions I was going to put to him. I hope that my remarks will be a little more optimistic than those we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. When we responded to the Minister’s Statement last week we gave a general welcome to the Bill before us today. It is good to see that there is a now a clear target set down in legislation for the restoration of the Assembly. I know that all noble Lords will agree that the people of Northern Ireland are best served by their local politicians making decisions on local issues. That is vital. Those issues include, as we heard from the Minister, education, the provision of local transport, healthcare and encouraging the economy. All of those ought to be made accountable to the very people who will be affected by the decisions that are taken. It is fervently to be hoped that this government initiative will succeed in restoring devolved government to Northern Ireland and that the Assembly will become a permanent and secure institution. However, there are huge difficulties to overcome before we can reach that point. I sincerely hope that the Government will face up to and address those difficulties, as I believe they will, in the coming weeks and months. We have said before and must reiterate that there remains a fundamental and deep mistrust between the political parties. Indeed, at last week’s meeting of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, to which the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred, we heard in graphic detail just how polarised those parties now are—far worse than we had been led to believe. Therefore, this cannot be a quick-fix solution. We have always called for inclusive, round-table talks between all political parties in Northern Ireland. That is the only way in which a lasting settlement can be achieved. Will the Minister therefore now give us a categoric commitment that all the parties will be involved in the negotiations towards a settlement? It must be clear to the Government just how necessary this now is. Far too often in recent years, initiatives have failed when secret deals with two parties have failed; that is not a recipe for long-term working together in a devolved government. If the Government want to achieve a lasting settlement, as we all know they do, they must ensure that all the parties work together to achieve it. If they do not do so, I fear that they will find themselves with another temporary deal which will ultimately come unstuck. We on these Benches welcomed the IRA’s statement in July last year and its subsequent acts of decommissioning. The subsequent IMC reports have served to reassure us that the terrorist threat from the IRA has now diminished. We also welcomed the last IMC report—the 10th—which was published last week, and its assessment that the IRA is committed to a peaceful path. It was indeed good news to learn that in the period covered by that report there were no shootings or paramilitary attacks attributable to the IRA. We have always deplored such horrific acts in a democratic society and we are indeed hopeful that these barbaric practices are now at an end. We remain deeply troubled that some IRA members are still engaged in a substantial level of criminal activity. The IMC believes that some members, including some senior members, are still involved in crimes such as money laundering and smuggling. We hear that the leadership of the IRA is encouraging members to refrain from taking part in such acts of criminality. Nevertheless, it is still a very worrying state of affairs. It is essential that IRA members demonstrate their commitment to the rule of law and immediately stop all forms of criminal activity. If this does not become a reality, we are in danger of seeing the whole process of normalisation undermined by these individuals. We fully support the excellent work of the Organised Crime Task Force, but it seems to have scarcely scratched the surface. Does the Minister agree that if Sinn Fein were to join the Northern Ireland Policing Board and give its unequivocal support to the police and the criminal justice system, that would greatly assist the people of Northern Ireland in believing statements from the IRA or Sinn Fein that they are opposed to any form of criminal behaviour? Further, do the Government accept that changes are necessary to the structures and working of the Good Friday agreement and the 1998 Act? I know that the Government will be aware of the difficulties posed by the system of designations in the past. Can the Minister assure the House that if such changes are deemed to be necessary before the Assembly is able to elect a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister there will be adequate time for the House to debate them? I now turn to the specifics of the Bill. I have a number of questions about its operation but I know that the Minister will be pleased that they are few. He may also be aware that these Benches have already tabled some amendments, through which we hope to have a full and considered discussion in Committee on the various points that I will raise briefly today. Our primary concern is about the ability of the Assembly to act in relation to areas on which the Government legislated during suspension of the Assembly. I am happy to hear the Minister confirm that the Assembly can amend or repeal any Orders in Council which were passed in Westminster since October 2002. He is quite right: when this was debated in the other place, the Minister there gave an assurance that the Assembly could do what it liked when the powers were restored. At that time he did not explain the meaning of some of the sub-paragraphs of Schedule 2 so I am grateful to the Minister for having reassured us that the Assembly, when it is up and running, will be able to amend or repeal Orders in Council. Perhaps it would be better to discuss that matter in Committee if there are any other points to make concerning Schedule 2. Does the Minister accept that it would be wise to put on hold until after the 24 November deadline some of the more contentious and controversial policy decisions that the Government are proposing to put before Parliament? We agree with the Government that if a restoration order is made before the deadline set out in the Bill, it would make sense to postpone the date of the next Assembly elections until May 2008. We also agree with the Government’s analysis that this will give the Assembly time to bed down and tackle some of the very real issues that face Northern Ireland before the Assembly is dissolved and the parties have to face the electorate again. It is therefore with pleasure that these Benches note that a firm date has been proposed in the Bill. We have always been against the setting of election dates by order. We are pleased that the merits of such a proposal can be discussed and debated before the whole House. We are also happy about the provision which would allow the Minister to set an election date in the future if the Assembly is not restored in the autumn. Although it is to be hoped that there will not be any need for this provision, we accept the Government’s reasoning that there should be the ability to recall the Assembly and hold an election at some time in the future. Finally, we hope that in Committee the Government will be able to give us a detailed explanation of the purposes of Clauses 3 and 4 and how they envisage them being used. I reiterate that we welcome the Bill before us today and we hope that after three and a half years of suspension this initiative will lead to devolved and stable government in Northern Ireland.