---

Northern Ireland Bill

We would never dream of usurping our powers, which are incredibly circumscribed and much more limited than they might appear at first sight. I am grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken and I believe that I can answer to satisfaction all the points that have been raised. The Assembly’s key task—the Assembly that is starting on Monday 15 May—will be to elect a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister and then ensure that the remaining ministerial portfolios are filled on restoration. Clause 1 empowers the Secretary of State to refer other matters to the Assembly that he considers appropriate, and he has said that he is willing in principle, in the light of consultation with the parties, to refer matters that will feature prominently on the agenda of a devolved Assembly and Administration in Northern Ireland. We are quite flexible about that. Through Amendment No. 1, the noble Lord, Lord Laird, is seeking to ensure that the Secretary of State may refer to the Assembly matters relating to the north/south implementation bodies, as defined in Section 55(3) of the 1998 Act. The noble Lord’s views on the north/south bodies are well known, and I have been made well aware of them in the 12 months that I have been responsible for answering for the Northern Ireland Office in your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord has had an opportunity to ventilate those views again today. As I have said, the subjects that will be referred to the Assembly will be a matter for consultation with the parties. That is important. I am not therefore in a position to give guarantees that the issues raised by the noble Lord will be referred to the Assembly, but I will ensure that the Secretary of State is aware of his comments in the debate. I think that we would both agree that the best way of ensuring the full accountability of the north/south bodies—I agree with him that they need to be fully accountable—is to restore a fully-functioning devolved Assembly. That is by far the best way—moreover, that can come pretty quickly. We will not stand in its way. We know we have the November deadline, but if Members of the Assembly want to get back before the end of this month, there will be no problem. Indeed, we will do everything we can to facilitate a fully functioning devolved Assembly. However, the noble Lord’s amendment seeks to confer on the Secretary of State a power which Clause 1 already gives him. That is the point—the Secretary of State can do that because he can refer to the Assembly ““such other matters”” as he thinks fit. That drafting would, as it stands, allow him to refer to the Assembly the sorts of matters that the noble Lord raised. Therefore, we see no need for the amendment. We are quite flexible about this. We want the Assembly to discuss matters over the summer; but the best way to achieve the accountability of those bodies is to have a fully functioning devolved Assembly. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, through Amendment No. 2, would appear to seek to remove the Secretary of State’s power to make directions in relation to the operation of the Assembly under the Bill. Paragraph 4 is designed to permit the Secretary of State, among other things, to set the standing orders for the Assembly. As I acknowledged at Second Reading last Tuesday, the Secretary of State’s powers in this area do at first appear to be broad. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has understandably and rightly drawn your Lordships’ attention to them, though not with any suggestion that they were unjustified in the context. That is what we must be mindful of—the context of this Bill is time-limited. Those powers might well be questionable if they related to the Assembly under devolution, but they are necessary, in the present, very special, context. Next Monday, the Assembly has the essential function of selecting the Executive and otherwise preparing for restored devolution. It does not make sense to require the Assembly first to deal with distractions beyond that, such as determining complex sets of standing orders. That would muddy the waters. There are wide divergences of opinion among the parties at present and it is almost an invitation for them to become bogged down in this issue by taking their mind of the main purpose of what the Assembly is returning for—especially since voting on standing orders, under the 1998 Act, requires cross-community support. We not believe that there is a great groundswell of opinion among the parties suggesting that this issue be left to them. But, crucially, as soon as the devolved Assembly comes back—and that could be by the end of this month if the parties were so minded; they do not have to wait until the autumn—it will have back its old standing orders and it will be master of them. That will not require anything from the Secretary of State. That is the key issue. Given that they are meeting for a specific purpose, it would not suit anyone for Members of the Assembly to get bogged down in standing orders now. That is not the main thrust of the Bill. As I said last week, we have published drafts of the standing orders that we propose to make and they have been placed in the Library and the Printed Paper Office. They reflect as far as possible the standing orders of the Assembly before its suspension in October 2002. We have received representations from the parties about them and I understand that work on them was carried out quite late over the weekend as things came into the office in the darker hours of the day. We have taken note of the points made in both Houses of Parliament and we will produce a revised version of the standing orders later this week. I hope that it will be available by the middle of the week but I cannot specify whether it will be ready on Wednesday or Thursday. However, there is no reason for us to delay. The point is that we stand ready to make further amendments if that becomes necessary in the days and weeks ahead, again taking account of party views. So, when we publish the standing orders later this week, it is not the case that that will be it for this Assembly all the way through to November. We can amend the orders and we will discuss that with the parties as and when necessary. I hope that Members of the Committee are reassured that, although the powers that we seek are substantial, they are what the situation demands. They are only for this specific situation and not for the future running of a fully functioning devolved Assembly. As I said, they are temporary, like the rest of the Bill. After 24 November, or earlier if we are lucky and the move to devolution is quicker, they will be a matter of history because the Assembly will be master of its own standing orders. I always hate having to use these arguments but, when you are in opposition and drafting amendments, you cannot always take account of everything that you need to do. However, the amendment would leave the Bill silent on where the Assembly’s rules and procedures should come from, and the Assembly would not have any authority under the Bill to determine its own standing orders because it is not the fully functioning devolved Assembly. So there could be a difficulty as it could lead to a chaotic situation in which the Assembly could achieve nothing at all. I appreciate that no one in the Committee wants that. One area where we intend to make a minor change to the standing orders is in relation to party strengths regarding nominations under the d’Hondt process, by which Ministers are chosen, apart from the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Through Amendments Nos. 3 and 4, the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, has sought to ensure that party strength is assessed either in relation to how things stood at the time of the last election in 2003 or on the date that the d’Hondt procedure is run. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this issue at Second Reading—I do not think that it was referred to during the passage of the Bill in the other place. As noble Lords will understand better than I do, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 provides for party strengths to be assessed, for d’Hondt purposes, on the first day that the devolved Assembly meets. That is necessarily very close to the date that d’Hondt is run because standing orders for the devolved Assembly require it to happen within seven days. Our draft standing orders stayed in line with the 1998 Act by setting party strengths at day-one levels, but, under the arrangement that we plan, d’Hondt would not run until after a successful election had taken place for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. We hope that that will come early in the life of the Assembly but it could come later. So, on reflection, we think it would be more faithful to the devolved arrangements to amend the draft standing orders—that is, the draft standing orders published last week, which will be revised this week—to ensure that party strength will be assessed on the date that d’Hondt is run. You cannot get more up to date than that and it allows for some of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, mentioned at Second Reading last week to take place. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord as it meets the central point of his argument. Things have changed in some ways since the elections to the Assembly, which were held some time ago. Although I do not know all the details, I understand that party strengths have varied. I hope that I have satisfied noble Lords about the fact that powers given to the Secretary of State are very circumscribed by the legislation because they can be used only in the context of this legislation, which is time-limited anyway. We are working for success; we are not working for 50:50 or ifs and buts. Success means getting a fully devolved Assembly back before the deadline date of 24 November. The sooner Members of the Assembly are back the sooner they can be in charge of implementing that reform and the principles of it. We will not stand in their way. We will not drag things out to September or October to suit our circumstances. If they want to be back by the end of this month or during June to sit before the Summer Recess, Ministers will facilitate that. That is what the Bill is about. That is the measure of success from our point of view—not failure. That is meant in the most goodwill spirit that I can summon for the elected representatives of Northern Ireland to get to do the job. Most people who are elected want to pull the levers of power, and we want everybody in the Assembly to share that view. I hope that I have been able to satisfy noble Lords on this group of amendments.