---

Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Bill

So I understand, and I hope that it is some consolation to the DUP that that result has perturbed the rest of us in another way. The Minister implied that our amendments were an attempt to remove a ministerial code. The fact is, however, that the ministerial code is already in place, and we want to reinforce and affirm it. We want to give it full status within the pledge of office. As it stands, the pledge of office refers to a ministerial code of conduct in terms of some of the key Nolan principles and so on, but it does not refer to the ministerial code itself. Let us remember that previous legislation addresses the issue of the ministerial code. The Minister forgets that the legislation that set up the IMC, for instance, specifically provided for breaches of the ministerial code to be referred to the IMC. That would be a matter for the IMC, however, not the courts, and we would not run the danger of all sorts of decisions being turned over: not just recently made decisions, but all sorts of consequential decisions that might be turned over after a number of years because somebody decided to appeal the basis on which the decision was first made. People take cases to Brussels to hold things up. We see vested interests doing that. If someone like Michael O’Leary is threatening to take the British Government to court over something as fundamental as their action on airport security, might not it just be possible that some vested interests, including some business interests, might see fit to tie up a regional government in court, create all sorts of political implications, seek affidavits from different Ministers and have Ministers give evidence against each other, never mind the definite risk under the Bill of Ministers suing each other? We are withdrawing our amendment not because we find any merit in the Bill in this regard—we think that there are dangers in it, and they were amplified by the Minister in his earlier reply to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), which confirmed that all sorts of matters could come to court. It is not lost on us that the DUP’s clear attitude is that any north-south issue is a cross-cutting matter, and therefore that even a bit of everyday cross-border co-operation in a border area could be subject to challenge and review, as it would have to be referred to the Executive. We will withdraw our amendment, because we want to ensure that we expedite the passage of the Bill, to try to hold to the deadline later in the week. However, just because we want to meet that deadline does not mean that we will accept any responsibility for the deadlock that will inevitably result from the clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. It being Ten o’clock, The Chairman of Ways and Means put the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day]. Clauses 5 to 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedules 1 to 9 agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.