---

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, on his excellent maiden speech and his contribution to this Northern Ireland debate. I am only sorry that, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, said, because of the timing of the debate, we have only 10 noble Lords present to hear that speech and to discuss the affairs of Northern Ireland. I hope that those who are responsible for the business of the House will address that issue as we discuss the Bill in the months ahead. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for introducing the Bill. Like the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, I am sorry that he is leaving Northern Ireland. He called a spade a spade. Whether you dug with the left foot or the right foot, he certainly knew what a spade was. That is what we like in Northern Ireland—people who are frank and to the point. I wish to comment on one or two issues that were mentioned, and one or two that were not. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, referred to what the Belfast agreement had achieved and to the Bill’s objectives. He mentioned the principle of consent, but he did not really spell it out. However, the Belfast agreement spelt it out—that Northern Ireland’s constitutional position is as part of the United Kingdom, which means that it is British, and that that cannot be changed without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. It is always important for the Government to give that reassurance to the people of Northern Ireland and not to slip over it quickly by simply saying that the principle of consent existed. The noble Lord stressed the importance of north-south co-operation and, of course, he is right, but he totally avoided—as did the Secretary of State at Second Reading in the other place—mentioning that there was a third strand in the Belfast agreement; namely, east-west arrangements. That was what we unionists wanted. The nationalists wanted north-south arrangements, but why does the noble Lord ignore what the unionists wanted, even though it was written into the Belfast agreement? I hope that he will underline the importance of further east-west co-operation in the months ahead. As regards strand one, the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, mentioned that the two governments wanted to see devolution. We should be very careful about the way we express that. There were three strands to the Belfast agreement. Strand one was about devolution; strand two was about north-south arrangements; and strand three was about east-west arrangements. In strand one the Dublin Government were excluded from all talks. They should not at this stage become involved in anything to do with the creation of devolution for Northern Ireland at Stormont. That must be underlined by all parties if we are going to succeed. Reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to the full decommissioning of IRA arms. We all accept—and it is good news—that there was substantial decommissioning, but no one has yet been able to confirm that there was full decommissioning. Indeed, the latest report of the Independent Monitoring Commission suggested that there may still be some arms in the hands of members of the Provisional IRA. I agreed with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said about policing but I must remind him that the Minister of Home Affairs at Stormont did not run the police. That was an unfortunate contribution on behalf of the Conservative Party. I assure the noble Lord, as a former Minister of Home Affairs, that I had no say in the day to day running of the Royal Ulster Constabulary; that was a matter for the Inspector General, who was subsequently retitled the Chief Constable. I hope that the Conservatives will not repeat such an error.