Tenth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation

---

 
Column Number: 1
 

Tenth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairman:

Mr. Alan Hurst

Baldry, Tony (Banbury) (Con)
Betts, Mr. Clive (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab)
†Coaker, Vernon (Gedling) (Lab)
†Dodds, Mr. Nigel (Belfast, North) (DUP)
†Francis, Dr. Hywel (Aberavon) (Lab)
†Harris, Mr. Tom (Glasgow, Cathcart) (Lab)
Hermon, Lady (North Down) (UUP)
†Heyes, Mr. David (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
†Jones, Lynne (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Lidington, Mr. David (Aylesbury) (Con)
†Luff, Mr. Peter (Mid-Worcestershire) (Con)
Mallon, Mr. Seamus (Newry and Armagh) (SDLP)
†Martlew, Mr. Eric (Carlisle) (Lab)
Mates, Mr. Michael (East Hampshire) (Con)
†Öpik, Lembit (Montgomeryshire) (LD)
†Perham, Linda (Ilford, North) (Lab)
†Reed, Mr. Andy (Loughborough) (Lab/Co-op)
†Spellar, Mr. John (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office)
†Wills, Mr. Michael (North Swindon) (Lab)
†Woodward, Mr. Shaun (St. Helens, South) (Lab)
Jenny McCullough, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee

The following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(2):

Trimble, Mr. David (Upper Bann) (UUP)

 
Column Number: 3
 

Wednesday 9 March 2005

[Mr. Alan Hurst in the Chair]

Draft Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) Order 2005

2.30 pm

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Spellar): I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) Order 2005.

A draft of the order was laid before this House on 3 February. On 15 October 2002, section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 2000 was brought into force, thereby suspending devolved government in Northern Ireland. Under the schedule to the Act, Her Majesty may legislate by Order in Council during suspension on any matter on which the Assembly has the competence to legislate. Under paragraph 1(3) of the schedule, that power lasts for only six months, but it can be renewed by the Secretary of State by order under paragraph 1(4). There have been four previous such orders, the fourth of which provided for the renewal of the power for the six months up to 14 April 2005. This fifth order provides for a further six-month renewal of these powers to 14 October 2005.

Despite recent setbacks, we remain focused on restoring devolved government in Northern Ireland on a stable and inclusive basis. We shall not abandon our commitment to that ultimate goal.

As the Committee will be aware, the significant headway made over the past year has now been seriously damaged by the Northern bank robbery on 20 December. Both the Chief Constable and the Independent Monitoring Commission have attributed the robbery to the Provisional IRA. I am sure that hon. Members will join me in condemning the continuing paramilitary and criminal activity, which has no place in a democratic and peaceful society. These are matters for the police and for proper judicial processes, but let us be clear that paramilitary and criminal activity remains the major obstacle to the achievement of an inclusive power-sharing Executive in Northern Ireland, which is the Government’s ultimate goal.

I return to the matter of our stewardship since the last modification order. The Government have remained committed to providing good governance to the people of Northern Ireland, and continue to take forward a wide range of important business. We are determined to bring about an increased focus on the needs of the citizen and ensure that all have access to high-quality, value-for-money services. The Government’s aim is to secure real improvements in the quality and effectiveness of public service delivery in Northern Ireland; not incremental change, but real change in attitudes, culture and the delivery of services.

 
Column Number: 4
 

The Government have placed a high priority on investing in the future of Northern Ireland. The 2005–08 priorities and budget sets out the Government’s priorities and spending plans for the years ahead, and represents an unprecedented expansion of investment. It is supported for the first time by the investment strategy for Northern Ireland—a 10-year framework for regeneration, produced by the Strategic Investment Board. The strategy anticipates the eventual delivery of around £16 billion of investment in key infrastructure.

The resources underlying the priorities and budget provide for continuing real growth in public expenditure by Northern Ireland Departments, reaching in excess of £9 billion by 2007–08. All available resources must be used to the best possible effect. That is why that investment is being matched with reform, and why steps are being taken to improve public sector performance and efficiency to ensure that increased resources have maximum impact on the delivery of key front-line services. The Review of Public Administration consultation document, which is to be published later this month, will contain firm proposals for health and education structures and options for local government and public bodies.

The Government’s vision for the future of Northern Ireland is for a peaceful, inclusive, prosperous, stable and fair society, which is firmly founded on the achievement of reconciliation, tolerance, mutual trust and the protection and vindication of human rights for all. It will be based on partnership, equality and mutual respect as the basis of good relations.

The Government are committed to tackling the scourge of sectarianism and racism, and to addressing the situation of migrant workers in Northern Ireland. We will work to ensure that there is an effective response to their needs. In December, the Government announced that additional funding would be made available to tackle hate crime and help local communities build strong relationships with minority ethnic people. In February, we approved the re-launch of the funding scheme to support minority ethnic communities. That will provide funding of £0.5 million in each of the next three years, which demonstrates a determined and sustained engagement by the Government to respond in a practical way to the needs of minority ethnic people and migrant workers, and to deal effectively with issues around the racist attacks across Northern Ireland, which we all agree are abhorrent.

Last week, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced the Government’s intention to put in place a victims and survivors commissioner, and published a consultation paper on the future of victims and survivors services, which includes the Government’s initial proposals for the Commissioner’s detailed remit.

We cannot forecast when it will be possible to restore the devolved institutions. Robbery and other continuing criminal activity have set back the time scale for achieving that. The Government continue to believe that the re-establishment of an inclusive power-sharing Executive is the best way forward for the
 
Column Number: 5
 
future of Northern Ireland, and we will strive to complete the achievement of that aim. In the meantime, we must ensure that the full machinery of administration is in place while direct rule lasts.

Until devolution is restored, I fear that legislating by Order in Council is a regrettable necessity. Let us be clear; devolution, not direct rule, is the ideal. This measure, however, will enable us to provide effective government.

Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): I was hoping to intervene.

Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman may make his speech, and I will respond.

Lembit Öpik: I am not entirely vexed. I seek your guidance, Mr. Hurst.

The Chairman: If the Minister has finished his speech and is not taking an intervention, we will move to the Question.

Several hon. Members rose—

The Chairman: I call Mr. Öpik.

Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Hurst. I thought that it was conventional for the official Opposition to make the opening reply speech.

The Chairman: I believe that it is whoever catches the Chairman’s eye.

2.35 pm

Lembit Öpik: Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr. Hurst. I hope that this will not sour my relationship with the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff).

It is regrettable that the order is being renewed again for the fifth time. The Assembly was originally suspended on 15 October 2002, and the order has already been reviewed and renewed four times. As parliamentarians, we are justified in getting frustrated that, two and a half years since the Assembly was originally suspended, there is still no immediate restoration of devolution in Northern Ireland.

Some would say that the peace process seems to be in an advanced state of stagnation. I prefer that to what went before, but the current situation of legislating by order has been forced on the Government in part by the inability of Northern Ireland politicians to find an accommodation that can restore the Northern Ireland settlement so that proceedings at Stormont can be re-started.

I wanted to intervene on the Minister to say that now that we are debating the order and will, I imagine, pass it for a fifth time, surely the Government can accept that this is not a satisfactory way of running the Province—an entire nation, one could argue.

The order methodology was never intended to govern Northern Ireland with such authoritarian control from Parliament, with so little opportunity for Members of Parliament to make formal amendments to legislation and with so little opportunity for formal
 
Column Number: 6
 
consultative sessions. In the past few weeks, we have been inundated by Standing Committees to discuss various orders and other statutory instruments that will have a profound impact on a variety of existing legislation in Northern Ireland.

Like many other people, I was very annoyed that the Government forced through legislation on tuition and top-up fees for Northern Ireland when a Grand Committee that was established specifically to discuss that issue rejected that proposal in every sense. The Government ignored that rejection and carried on. Will the Minister say why we should be willing simply to accept this methodology when it clearly ignores the majority will of Northern Ireland Members of Parliament, let alone that of elected politicians in Northern Ireland?

The Minister might respond by saying that that is part of the cost of doing business in this way, and that that cost has been brought on Northern Ireland as a direct result of politicians’ intransigence in the peace process. Although I accept that that is a reasonable point to an extent, it is nevertheless insulting to the people of Northern Ireland that this House decides important matters of public policy on bread-and-butter issues, which hold society together, with perhaps only an hour’s discussion. All Opposition politicians have often been frustrated by their inability to modify legislation that in many respects is acceptable but in some small respects is unacceptable. We had a classic example of that in yesterday’s debate.

I ask the Minister to respond to the following three questions. First, will the Government agree that legislating for Northern Ireland is not a part-time job, and will they therefore provide a dedicated Northern Ireland Minister in the House of Lords until such time as the Northern Ireland Assembly is once again running the Province? Secondly, will the Government discuss, on a cross-party basis, whether we need to create a new methodology to provide meaningful and formal debates and the opportunity to amend legislation for Northern Ireland, perhaps more in line with the method of debate in Standing Committees for Bills? Thirdly, what options have the Government considered for involving the pro-agreement and proactive politicians in Northern Ireland—those currently affected by the suspension at Stormont—as an informal second House to ensure that those who wish to participate can meaningfully do so?

I do not question the genuine willingness of Ministers to share information, albeit to a limited extent in some cases, but they have failed to provide sufficient opportunity to operate in a bipartisan fashion in respect of legislating for Northern Ireland. They create needless hostages to fortune by generating bad will and frustration and they often cause a worsening of the legislation simply because they are unwilling to provide us with more than an aye-or-no alternative in the many debates that we have on orders in Standing Committees.

It will continue to be the Liberal Democrats’ intention to do all that we can to support the peace process and the laudable efforts of Ministers in this Government and, in fairness, in the Conservative
 
Column Number: 7
 
Government to normalise the Province. However, that can be done much more effectively if we do not create additional stresses that can easily be avoided by a modicum of creativity about the process.

2.42 pm

Mr. Luff: I was interested to hear what the Minister had to say in his opening remarks. I think, though, that we are here to debate not the record of the Government in Northern Ireland but the means of governing Northern Ireland. Devolution has now been suspended for some two and a half years—longer than it was in operation. In fact, in the seven years since the Belfast agreement was signed, there have been just 25 months of devolved government. Whatever view we take of the 1998 agreement—I know that opinion has been divided across Unionism—it did offer republicans an opportunity to make the transition away from terror to exclusively democratic and peaceful politics. Even now, it would be in the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland if the republican movement did at last what it promised to do seven years ago.

Today, however, as the Minister said, the prospect of that happening appears bleak. The Provisional IRA continues to terrorise nationalist communities. Its members carry out bank robberies, beatings and shootings, intimidate people, engender public disorder and, when it suits them, commit murder too. As the Taoiseach said in the Dail the other week, they turn those activities on and off like turning a tap. Now they even offer their own privatised justice system of murder for murder—the murder of those in their own ranks of those responsible for the murder of Robert McCartney. What we see is just the tip of a criminal underworld that represents a real and present threat to the rule of law in both the United Kingdom and the Republic.

I am sure that the Minister will agree that we have no illusions about the relationship between Sinn Fein and the IRA. I agreed with the Irish Minister for Defence when he said two weeks ago:

“We are no longer prepared to accept the farce that Sinn Fein and the IRA are separate. They are indivisible.”

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Michael McDowell, takes a commendably robust view of these matters. He said on the record and without the benefit of parliamentary privilege that the Members returned for Belfast, West and Mid-Ulster were senior members of the so-called IRA army council. I wish that the Prime Minister of this country was equally robust.

We believe that it was right to give Sinn Fein-IRA the chance to demonstrate their democratic credentials, yet it is now clear that at the same time as Sinn Fein was negotiating its way into ministerial office, the IRA was planning the biggest bank robbery in British history. My party’s view is clear. Republicans must end all forms of criminal activity. All illegal weapons must be decommissioned.
 
Column Number: 8
 
Paramilitary structures must be dismantled, and all that must be done credibly and verifiably. Until that happens, there can be no place for Sinn Fein in any Government in Northern Ireland. Those demands must also be made of the so-called loyalist terror groups that prey on some of the poorer neighbourhoods in the Province. However, the difference between the loyalist paramilitaries and Sinn Fein-IRA is that only the latter claims the right to a place in the Government of Northern Ireland.

The Irish Prime Minister has made it clear that he will not envisage a coalition Government in Dublin with Sinn Fein while it remains inextricably linked with an armed and active IRA. My party is convinced that the same standards must apply on the other side of the border, too, in Northern Ireland. Last September, before the Leeds castle talks, the Prime Minister said that if there were no agreement we should have to look at other possible ways forward. Now he is effectively giving the guilty party, Sinn Fein, a veto over any political progress.

We see little realistic prospect of any early return to the kind of inclusive, devolved Government envisaged in the agreement. Instead, it looks as if we are in for yet another prolonged period of direct rule, certainly for months, and more likely—although I hope that I am wrong—for years. The Government should now deliver on the Prime Minister’s pledge of last September. We should not accept a Sinn Fein veto on political progress. We should seek a way forward with the parties that are committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic politics, so that elected politicians in Northern Ireland can have more of a say over the delivery of major public services on which the people of Northern Ireland rely.

Northern Ireland needs less government, and better government, than it gets under current arrangements. It is ludicrous that decisions on almost anything affecting Northern Ireland, from schools admissions policies to individual road closure orders, should be decided entirely at Westminster. As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) has said, often there is no real scrutiny and little effective debate. When there are debates, they last for two and a half hours with, as the hon. Gentleman said, no power to amend the order brought forward by the Government. All that Parliament can do is accept or reject what Ministers place before it.

Let us think about some recent orders, such as the draft Public Processions (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2005 which was considered only yesterday. Interesting questions were raised about possible amendments and a test of reasonableness on the power to suspend protest meetings. It was not possible to table such an amendment. If only it had been, the order might have been much improved.

A week or so ago the House considered the draft Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 2005. Those are complicated, important matters. We think that the order is all right. It went through—a matter of law reform—but it was unamendable. The draft Company Directors Disqualification (Amendment) (Northern Ireland)
 
Column Number: 9
 
Order 2005 was an immensely important matter for company directors in Northern Ireland and that, too, although detailed, could not be amended.

Lembit Öpik: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that after hearing the debate, several hon. Members realised that the measure was much more serious and problematic than we initially thought? Had we had a proper Second Reading, some of us might well have taken a different view of it.

Mr. Luff: The hon. Gentleman is right, and the Committee owed a debt to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) for taking us through the measure and its potential impact in detail. Many of us have realised that it is a more serious piece of legislation that we initially thought.

On the same day that that order was considered, the Draft Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 2005 was dealt with. How many pages did it run to? About 90, I think—95, in fact. Again, there was no possibility of amending it. That is simply unacceptable.

Yesterday, however, the chaos and the unacceptable nature of the government of Northern Ireland bit the biter, when 44 Government Members voted on the Floor of the House for top-up fees in Northern Ireland, having voted against them for England and Wales. I do not know what led to that extraordinary hypocrisy. I have the names of the Members in question and would happily share them with the Committee, but it would take a long time to read out 44 constituencies. Top-up fees are unacceptable in the Province, and it is unacceptable that that policy was imposed on it by the votes of hon. Members who opposed the measure for England and Wales. That is extraordinary.

In another recent statutory instrument Committee relating to Northern Ireland matters, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) talked about colonial rule in relation to the Government’s education policies in Northern Ireland. He pointed out that, for example, the abolition of grammar schools was being imposed on the people of Northern Ireland, whereas the people of England were at least given a vote on it.

Although the order before the Committee today is perhaps inevitable, it is not acceptable. Two basic routes to improvement can be identified. The first is better local government, and the second is making direct rule more accountable. There was little in the Minister’s speech on the latter, and nothing on the former.

Local government needs reform; it has not been taken seriously for far too long. Northern Ireland has too many councils with too few powers. I was glad to hear the Minister promise publication of the consultation document on the review of public administration, which was initiated by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), but I hope that, whatever emerges from that process at Stormont, people in Northern Ireland will be able to exercise greater control over their affairs locally.

 
Column Number: 10
 

I now turn to the matter of making direct rule more accountable. A return to a full-scale, inclusive, devolved Assembly remains our preferred approach, but it is obvious that that is not yet on the table. It is conceivable that a voluntary coalition—excluding Sinn Fein—may yet be agreed, and a Conservative Government at Westminster would certainly be willing to legislate to make that possible. However, the Social Democratic and Labour party is not willing to go along with such an arrangement, and we do not believe that a devolved Executive involving only Unionists is the right way forward.

The longer direct rule continues, the more difficult it will be to justify the current democratic deficit in the governance of Northern Ireland. There are specific things that we could do, and I am sorry that the Minister did not hint at them in his opening remarks. We could give an enhanced role to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, but as the Government have a habit of losing votes in that Committee, perhaps that idea does not commend itself to them. All MPs representing Northern Ireland have a place on that Committee, and it should consider draft legislation. Accountability would be improved if the Committee met routinely in Northern Ireland, and I hope that that change will be made no matter which party forms the next Government in London.

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) (UUP): I have been listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman’s suggestions for making direct rule more accountable and effective. He mentioned handling legislation in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, but rather than considering draft legislation, would it not be better to go the whole hog and, in view of his criticisms of them, drop Orders of Council entirely and introduce proper Bills with a Committee stage? The Grand Committee would be an excellent place for that. Indeed, it would be unusual, but all stages of legislation could be handled in that Committee. That would not take up time on the Floor of the House, it would allow for proper consideration of legislation, and it would give the Government, and an inordinate number of Back Benchers, something to do.

Mr. Luff: My right hon. Friend absolutely anticipated, and put far more eloquently, my next few remarks. I entirely agree with what he just said; it is an option that the Government should be considering in a very detailed and careful way.

We should also explore with the various parties options for arrangements at Stormont to allow Ministers to be questioned and policy to be debated. A consultative Assembly could be one such model. Another way would be for Joint Scrutiny Committees to examine the work of Northern Ireland Departments. Many mechanisms could be explored, if only the Government would show imagination and flair in addressing the current democratic deficit in the governance of Northern Ireland.

Some of the arrangements that I have suggested are far from perfect, but they would introduce an element of accountability, including in the dealings of Northern Ireland Ministers and officials with their
 
Column Number: 11
 
counterparts in the Republic. Many practical issues affect the people of both the north and south of the island, including tourism, public transport and bovine tuberculosis. Co-operation is absolutely essential and would make a real difference for the better to the lives of ordinary families. Equally, I understand and support the call for elected representatives to be accountable for any such arrangements.

We struggle on from order to order in an ad hoc and unsatisfactory way. I have with me the timetable for the next few weeks’ worth of Northern Ireland Statutory Instruments. Week in, week out, this flood of unamendable legislation comes before the House. That is not good enough. I wish that the Minister had shown real leadership and imagination today—qualities sadly lacking from the order. There is a better way forward, and it should be explored.

2.54 pm

Mr. Trimble: First, I convey to you, Mr. Hurst, and to members of the Committee apologies from my hon. Friend the Member for North Down. Due to timetabling, she found herself committed to two Committees meeting at the same time, and she preferred the attractions of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (Amendment) Order 2005. That was her decision, but the fact that she found herself serving on two Committees at the same time was no doubt due in part to the ridiculous sitting hours that the Government forced on us under the label of modernisation but for the purpose of increasing the Government’s power over the House as a whole.

---

Prepared 11 March 2005