---

Northern Ireland Bill

I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 and try to explain their purpose. As I made clear at Second Reading, I totally support the Government’s Bill. I want to see a restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly and to see things working democratically there. On that point alone, I must support the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, in so far as he cautions against absolute power being vested in the Secretary of State. With direct rule, we have seen the results of that absolute power. I sometimes think that the Secretary of State might use the expression, ““It seemed a good idea at the time””, because much of what is attempted, although a good idea at the time, is totally lacking in planning and structure. Hence, we finish up with something that is quite inadequate to the needs of the people of Northern Ireland. I drew attention to that a week ago when we debated the boundaries order and I shall return to the subject, although I hope not when we debate the education order. I want to see proper democracy in Northern Ireland. To that end, I have tabled Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. When there is an election to the Northern Ireland Assembly, the normal procedure is for the Assembly to come together and for parties to identify themselves in groups for the purpose of implementing the d’Hondt procedure. Under that procedure, ministerial posts are allocated pro rata according to the strengths of the parties. The Secretary of State, in his draft regulations—they are not part of the Bill but they must be taken into consideration—suggests that the strengths of the respective parties should be determined not according to the results of the previous Assembly elections, which were quite some time ago, but according to the strengths of the parties next Monday morning. We believe that that is unhelpful. It was not intended to be—it seemed like a good idea at the time—but it will be unhelpful. Either we go back to what the people of Northern Ireland voted for at the previous elections and say that that is the strength of the groups and that the d’Hondt procedure will take place on that basis; or we recognise that we are entering a six-month process in which people with huge differences must reach agreement and make arrangements for co-operation and coalitions. It would be wrong to say next Monday morning, ““Sorry, guys, you can talk about what you like for the next six months but where you are now is set in stone””. For that reason I have tabled Amendment No. 4. It is my preferred amendment of the two amendments that I have tabled. Amendment No. 3 says, ““Let us get back to where we were at the time of the election because that is custom and practice””. However, I recognise that there will be a huge time gap before the Assembly comes together. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will reassure me that he will not require groupings to identify themselves until the day when the d’Hondt system is to be implemented, or at about that time.