---

Northern Ireland Bill

My Lords, I am grateful for the tone of the speeches that have been made. I do not think your Lordships would expect me on Second Reading to answer all the detailed points that have been raised—amendments will be brought forward and some have already been tabled—but I repeat my offer that if noble Lords have views that they wish to express by way of an amendment but are not clear about how to do so, they should contact the Northern Ireland Office and we will do our best to advise them. We shall try to be positive because I realise that time is short. I am grateful for the unanimous support for the Bill and for this attempt at devolution. A number of noble Lords made the same points and I shall try not to be repetitive. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, made a point that I could be accused of glossing over in my speech because it was contained in one sentence—that is, that there is still a lack of trust. I accept that. Trust has got to be built. It will be better built by people sitting around the table talking to each other, rather than by bellowing megaphone diplomacy through the media. But we have to be realistic—there is a lack of trust—and it is for Sinn Fein to do what it can to build trust with the unionists, and vice versa. As to the point about police support, which permeated many of the speeches—this is not a cop out on my part; I said this the last time the point was raised—the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which deals, among other things, with the devolution of the police and aspects of the criminal justice system at an appropriate time, is wending its way through Westminster. This Bill will afford us an opportunity to debate the issue in some detail. It has not yet completed all its stages in the other place but, even if we do not complete it, it will arrive in this place before the Summer Recess. Support for the police is crucial. I have made it clear that if you do not support the police it means that you are on the side of the criminals, the muggers and the rapists. That applies to everyone. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked me to reaffirm that there is to be no joint authority in plan B. I reaffirm exactly what I said when I answered the statement raised by many noble Lords. We will co-operate with the south where there are good grounds to do so—I have given examples such as the land border and the crucial issue of animal disease control—but, nevertheless, there will be no joint authority. This is UK territory and is under our sovereignty. It is the responsibility of the Government and we are not going to walk away from it. It is important that, where we can, we should have good co-operation with the south, but plan B does not mean joint authority. I cannot put it any clearer than that. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, also asked me, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, about putting this on hold. I, too, saw Mr Lidington’s comments over the weekend, but we are not going to do that. I reaffirm what I have already said: the longer we are there, the faster we will carry out the reform programme. As I have said, if Northern Ireland politicians really want to pull a fast one on direct rule Ministers—although we are not in competition—we will be happy for devolution to take place at the end of this month. We do not envisage that happening—but it can do and we hope that it will do. Certainly it would interfere with our process of reform, but it would be their choice. If the politicians want to do it that quickly, that is their choice. We are not stopping them. We will walk away. Our success is measured by how fast we are out of direct rule—I make no bones about that. But we will not put it on hold because we are not going to live on a wing and a prayer. There is a reform programme that we think the people of Northern Ireland deserve to have a share of, and we are not going to hold it back for all sorts of procrastinations. I have no knowledge, seen no paperwork and been party to no conversations about secret deals with anybody. Everything is upfront—what you see is what you get. I understand what has happened in the past; I understand the suspicion. I invite the House—indeed, I invite all democrats—to be sceptical about everything, to be alert and to question the role of government and the political parties. But I say that only in the knowledge that I know of no plans for any secret deals. I would do the same myself if I were a Back-Bencher—indeed, as a Minister. I will not be put in a position of defending issues agreed by secret deals. There aren’t any; I can reassure the House that I know of none whatever. On criminality and the overall issue of members of the IRA being involved in criminality, we have heard what the leadership and the IMC have said. That does not alter the actions of individuals. Whether they would do it with a nod and a wink, I do not know, but the forces of law and order, both sides of the border, are beginning to squeeze. I am not arguing about who is responsible for this and gets the credit. As a former Home Office Minister, I was responsible for taking through this House the Bill establishing the Assets Recovery Agency. I remember saying that it would be one of the most powerful public bodies in the country when it got going. The squeeze is beginning, and it is all part of that process. The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, also mentioned the fear of secret deals. I respect his point but think that I have answered it. He made a wholly valid point, which I have no doubt we will discuss in more detail next Monday, about the Standing Orders. They are drafts and are being discussed at the moment. By the time we reach the Bill’s further stages on Monday, things may be somewhat clearer. Under the 1998 legislation, for the purposes of the d’Hondt mechanism, the parties’ strength was measured on the first day of meeting after an election. This is an Assembly—somebody wanted to call it a forum—although it is not the power-sharing Assembly. But 15 May will be the first meeting of those 108 Members after an election. Even I was surprised to find out, because I was not involved at the time, that the election took place while the Assembly was suspended. As these are draft Standing Orders, discussions are taking place on them, which I think is important. I cannot comment on the individual matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Laird; I am not briefed on them and it would probably not be right to do it anyway. However, even with the Assets Recovery Agency, the police and criminal justice process is proceeding. The ““on the runs”” legislation is not a runner; the police are best placed to make the best decisions in the light of the circumstances and the evidence and information they have. The noble Lord, Lord Laird, is quite right about the cross-border bodies. There will probably be a greater spotlight on their role, but they are set up for a reason. They will not become part of a joint authority but we will pursue the issue where we can in co-operation with the south. I am very grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Dubs. He was not the only person to mention the recent British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body meeting, at which I was not present, and the positive approach taken by some DUP delegates in their questions and statements. I have read press reports of this and have seen people comment quite positively, which is a very good sign. I take his point about openness and transparency being needed with regard to the north/south bodies and the British-Irish Council. It is not always possible, but there should be as much openness as possible. We are moving into a new era with devolution. I am assuming that this time it will be successful. We will work for success. Our plan is that devolution will be for ever. We should not consider being negative about this. Therefore, as time passes, the nature of government in Northern Ireland—the Assembly and the co-operation between north and south—can be taken to far better heights democratically than now. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, need never apologise to me—unless she apologises to the House—for turning up late and missing all my speech. That is not a criticism. She made a fair point although I will no go down the route of discussing what happened with the communists of Eastern Europe and Islamic terrorists in the context of where we are today. I admit that we need replacements for the Diplock courts. I said when we passed the legislation on the extension to the Terrorism Bill, that we would have to come forward with replacements of the Diplock courts. That is crucial. She also raised the question of deals between other parties, even with the two Governments. I know of none. There are none planned and—I repeat—I have not been party to any conversation, overheard anything or seen any paperwork whatever in that respect. The noble Baroness was rather pushy about education. In a way, I take her point. She will soon have plenty of opportunity to discuss it. An order will come before the House in due course—not too far away; perhaps at the end of the month and certainly before the summer—on education, so we can have a one-off debate on that. It has to go through both Houses before it is approved. I have a note here about what we plan to lay before Parliament. In respect of education, we intend to implement the proposals for a revised curriculum arising from the Costello report and some minor amendments to education orders. The impact of any delay until November—effectively what the noble Baroness was asking for—would mean that planned changes to the curriculum giving pupils access to a more relevant curriculum due to come into force from September 2006 would be delayed a year. The statutory basis for ending selection and the introduction of curriculum entitlement framework delay is creating further uncertainty about new post-primary arrangements. However, as I said, an order will soon be going through Parliament and we can have a full and targeted debate because I will invite the House to approve the order. The longer we are there, the faster we will take the reform and the parties there know what they need to do to take control of the agenda. We are not standing in their way. If they want to come before the end of May, we will willingly step aside. I am grateful that the noble Viscount welcomed the Bill. The points that he made are legitimate. We are not talking up some aspects of the IMC report. There will always be allegations of spin. Nobody is saying that the position is perfect, but if we wait for that we will wait for ever. As I said in my introductory speech, people do not have to agree with each other. They do not have to agree with anything anyone says, but that does not have to stop them talking to each other. The best place for that is in the Assembly around the power-sharing executive table. As the noble Viscount said, there probably will be a slower reduction in crime. Nothing will stop overnight—nobody ever expected that. Some aspects are continuing. The IMC will talk about signs. However, the language used is carefully chosen and has to be sensitive. I would be reluctant to comment in detail about this. As a government, our task is to get all parties to the table. Our prime task as the Government is to get the Assembly and the power-sharing executive up and running, and to get them to the table in the spirit that each of them has gained something, that each of them feels they have had some success. The language of victory and defeat is in the past. They should all feel that they have gone to the table and achieved some success for those whom they represent. If they can all feel that, we have a really good foundation on which to build a far more peaceful, successful and prosperous Northern Ireland. That is where we start with the Bill.