---

Northern Ireland Bill

I accept the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, to express sympathy with the principle behind the amendment. The Government’s view is that the present situation is unsatisfactory for scrutinising Northern Ireland legislation. On two occasions in the past 12 months we have talked with the other parties to see what ideas we could develop on better quality scrutiny of the legislation in both Houses. Discussions have gone on in both Houses. We have not come up with lots of new solutions, and I accept that the present situation is not satisfactory, but the situation in Northern Ireland is not satisfactory either. That is the point we have got to. The Assembly’s position for the next few months is unique and time limited. I can see the seductiveness of the moves behind the amendment, but in reality it is not practical. We are operating with good faith, as the Secretary of State has said, in terms of referring matters to the Assembly—water charging, the review of public administration, the in education or other matters. What we cannot and will not do during this period—it may not be six months; it could be six weeks—is abdicate our responsibility for governing. If this amendment were accepted, we would be faced with a very difficult situation because it would provide in effect—and I think that the noble Baroness used the words—a power of veto over the legislation before it comes to Parliament. It may not just be over the legislation; there are other changes under way. As I said on a previous amendment, the motivation is there for the Assembly to get back to taking decisions on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. We will not delay that a day longer than necessary. It is very seductive. We have heard the voices asking us to take the Assembly seriously on contentious devolved issues; and we want to take account of them. For the past 12 months we have discussed different issues and had briefings; I have taken part in some. But we would be wrong if we did not listen, given that devolution may be only a matter of months away. So it would be quite wrong if we were not taking matters seriously. But there is a big difference between that and giving formal powers to an institution that does not have government responsibilities. Some of those decisions have financial consequences. The budget has been set for this year and next year. If there are any reductions in charges on certain sections of society, there will have to be increased charges on others. The Assembly could vote on the one but not have responsibility for the other. That would leave us in an incredibly difficult position. The answer to that is that the Assembly can have all the powers to take decisions to cut charges, raise taxes and make the consequential financial changes as soon as it is back. As I have said repeatedly, we will not stand in its way. We are accountable for the good governance of Northern Ireland and we are accountable to this House and the other place. We cannot be obliged to follow the will of another body. We as a government could not come to your Lordships’ House or the other place to ask those bodies, one elected, one appointed, to follow the will of another body that has no responsibility but some power that we have given it. That simply would not work. It is true that we need to take account of things. I do not want to goad people, but we are quite clear that there is a massive reform programme under way in Northern Ireland, much of it started by the Assembly when it was fully devolved. We did not initiate a lot of that; a lot of it was started by the Assembly. Processes are under way that have major financial consequences for the budget starting next year: the second year of this two-year budget. Water charging is one example. There is the new rating system—which I take the opportunity to say is not a test-bed experiment for England; it is suited to the 700,000 dwellings in Northern Ireland. That is what it has been carved out for. Taking any changes that the Assembly might want to make and any of the orders that may be required in the meantime could have massive financial complications for the budget—tens of millions of pounds—yet it would not have responsibility for taking the decisions to find the money. We must be serious about that. We are not standing in the way of the Assembly taking all the decisions. That is the point. We are not standing in its way. It can start this month or next month to take all the decisions. It is not fair or mature to put in its hands the power to take some decisions but not the consequential decisions. It would be quite impossible for me and other Ministers to come to this place to try to pick up the financial consequences of a situation that was not of our making and under no control. I am not saying that the Assembly would be irresponsible, but if we confer the power of veto on a body that does not have full responsibility for taking account of the consequences of its decisions, we are asking for trouble. We want to do what we can to listen to what the Assembly has to say. As I said at Second Reading on the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, on education, the order has been tabled. It will be debated: I think that it is programmed for later this month or very early next month. There will be a full debate on it. If we delay that order, that throws into considerable confusion part of the education system in Northern Ireland and puts it back for a year. It is not just a question of delaying it for a few months; we are talking about a year. We fully accept the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. As I said, another Bill, the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, will come our way, on which we can have a full debate on the issues that would be devolved in future where the conditions are right. So there will be opportunities for this House to debate those matters in some detail. We want the Assembly to be back as quickly as possible. It can then pass the legislation that it wants and sort out the consequences of its decisions. That is very important. We want the Assembly to have mature, responsible elected representatives. They are more likely to be that way and restore the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland if they are seen to be accountable for their decisions as politicians. Those decisions might, on the one hand, be popular; but, on the other hand, they must take the consequential decisions that result in cuts or delays in programmes and face the electorate for that. They are then more likely to make good decisions. I am not saying that they should not make those decisions or change what the direct rule Ministers have done. I am not saying that at all. When the Assembly has its devolved powers back, it will be in charge of those matters. It can, using its own procedures and voting system, make those bold decisions, take charge of the implementation of the reform programme and speed it up, if it likes, or slow some of it down, but it will be responsible for all the decisions that flow from that. That is why we cannot agree to the power of veto. That is power without responsibility. We want the Assembly to be responsible and, as a responsible Government, we want to take account of what it says on the matters that we want it to discuss in the short period for which it will have temporary status. We will genuinely see how we can accommodate the views that come to us on a cross-party basis. We will do that in a spirit of using our best endeavours, but we cannot give the temporary Assembly veto powers, because it does not have responsibility for those actions. That must rest with Ministers accountable to this House and the other place. I have tried to respond in the least negative way that I can, but the answer is, ““No, resist”” for those reasons. I understand and sympathise with what is behind the amendment. The scrutiny system is unsatisfactory. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, indicates, there is a failure—we are going for success—my view, and I think it is the view of other Ministers, is that if there is no return of the Assembly, there will have to be a different arrangement for direct rule for the foreseeable future from the one we have had hitherto. If it had been quite clear that the Assembly would not be back in a few months, we would have had to have that before November. There would have to be a completely different system. Departments were structured around Ministers—departments were designed for Ministers rather than Ministers designed for departments. We would have to change that system of having duplicate, sometimes overlapping responsibilities. For example, there were three departments dealing with education. There were 11 departments to suit the 11 Ministers. We would consider other changes in direct rule and then consider the consequences for the scrutiny in this place and the other place. So it would not be, ““Carry on as she goes””: the status quo of direct rule as in the past three years. I do not think that that would be a reasonable proposition. That is not said as a threat. It is not meant as bullying; that is just a practical consequence of ensuring that we have better government for Northern Ireland than we have been able to achieve with the scrutiny system that we have at present.