---

Lembit Öpik: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words about my observations. Does he recall how often Ministers in proceedings on statutory instruments and Orders in Council accept that they are not a satisfactory way to make progress but say that there are so many only because the Stormont Assembly is not operational? Does he see the political contradiction in agreeing that statutory instruments are not the best way to do things but introducing a Bill that will necessarily increase their number?

Mr. Robertson: Yes, I find it rather odd, which is all I need to say on that point. It does seem to be contradictory.

The hon. Member for South Down (Mr.   McGrady) spoke about the difficulty of fund-raising for political purposes in Northern Ireland, which was agreed by most Members who spoke.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) expressed concern about the Secretary of State having power to set the election date. He was also concerned about devolving police powers while not all parties support the police. That point was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury. It is not just a matter of joining police boards; it is about hearts and minds and providing evidence to the police when crimes have taken place. That has not been the case; we are far from that position and it is a concern.

The right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), in a typically passionate speech, talked about people connected to terrorism not being allowed to sit on police boards or in government. He said that it is odd to be debating things that will not come about. In other words, we will need the Assembly to be up and running before the devolution of policing. It seems an odd situation for us to be in.
 
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1240
 

If I am quoting him correctly, the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) was probably calling for the nationalisation of the energy industry. He is not objecting to my paraphrase of his words. I cannot say that I agree with him on that point. He also strongly made the point that nobody should be a terrorist and a democratic politician. He was very clear that people have to make up their minds. They have to become democratic politicians and give up terrorism for good. He sounded an optimistic note, but I am not sure that it was entirely shared by the House.

The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) made a reasonable and wide-ranging speech. He endorsed calls for all parties to support the police and called for people to give up private armies. He questioned the need for them. He also raised an interesting point regarding donations. He said that whether donations coming from the Republic are legal will depend on Irish law, not our own. That seems to be a strange situation, especially when, as I understand it, money could come from America if it comes through the right channels. I do not think that is in the spirit of the laws that have been passed by this Parliament. There is a legal issue there, and possibly a constitutional one, and it needs to be discussed.

The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) welcomed moves towards a bigger energy market and said that he would welcome a British Isles market. He called for an increase in the use of renewable energy. There is a point about the energy market. As I understand it, there will not be one regulator for north and south, but there will still be one regulator in the north and one in the south who will attempt to harmonise regulation. We are not moving towards the full position that we have in Great Britain, where we had new electricity trading arrangements that have since changed to BETTA—the British electricity trading and transition arrangements—and there is an internal competitive market that supplies electricity. We are not moving towards such an arrangement because of the need for transparency in Northern Ireland and because the market, even with the south, will not be big enough. It would be advantageous for people in Northern Ireland and southern Ireland if we had that bigger market and a better trading arrangement. We would then see prices fall, just as they fell in Great Britain when that system was introduced here by the Government. This is a complicated area, and I hope that I have expressed my view on it reasonably clearly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) stressed the need to remove violence as an option. He spoke about how some people are talking about it as no longer being a first option, but a final option. That cannot be right either. That is equally wrong.

My hon. Friend also discussed the need to extend the arms amnesty, which the Government say is necessary to take into account paramilitary weapons on the loyalist side. However, we can equally say that there is a need for the amnesty to include the remaining weapons on the republican side; many Members expressed the view that the republican movement has not yet got rid of all its arms.

The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), in a long but entertaining speech, covered many issues. One of the most interesting was whether it would be
 
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1241
 
possible to get the devolution of policing through when there was a 40 per cent. Unionist vote in the Assembly. I look forward to the Minister's response.

The hon. Gentleman bravely questioned the basis for the agreement in relation to cross-community support. Obviously, the whole agreement is about bringing people from the different communities together, yet that is one of the things that is holding up the process. When the issue of South Africa was raised, the hon. Member for Belfast, North said that it was not relevant, yet in a sense it is, because for South Africa to move on, people had to stop talking about their particular national identity. Rwanda moved on when people stopped saying that they were members of a particular tribe.

However, in Northern Ireland we have, I regret, institutionalised sectarianism, and 50:50 police recruitment offers an example. Several Members said that they disapproved of that recruitment policy. The hon. Member for North Down referred to the issue and spoke movingly about murders committed by loyalist gangs, which are completely unacceptable. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, I condemn violence from whichever side it comes. It must end; there is no reason or excuse for it.

The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) has been consistent for many years in his opposition to sharing government with people linked to terrorist organisations, but he told us passionately how much he wants the Assembly to be up and running, so that it can deal with many of the issues that are dealt with in the House. He, too, spoke against 50:50 recruitment.

I am concerned about the falling number of police reservists, and about the fact that it seems that they will be replaced by community support officers. The Bill does not include such provisions, but the policy causes great concern in Northern Ireland so the Government may want to address it.

The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) spoke of the need for safeguards in respect of information gathering when the role of MI5 in Northern Ireland changes. He made the important point that MI5 must be sure to pass on to the police information that the police would regard as helpful. There were reports in the Northern Ireland press recently about one serious occasion when that had not occurred. I do not want to explore that point at this stage, but the issue is real.

The hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) suffered, as I have suffered many times in the House, by speaking right at the end of a long debate. He was able to speak only for about two minutes, so although he is always worth listening to, on this occasion we were not allowed that luxury for very long.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said, we shall not divide the House tonight, but there are several issues that we want to examine in Committee, and I am glad that some of the Committee stage will be taken on the Floor. We want to consider whether the electoral office changes could be slightly better made. Police and justice devolution is a big issue and we also want to discuss the funding of political parties. I want to explore whether more could be done to help to reduce the cost of energy in Northern Ireland and whether
 
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1242
 
renewable energy can be brought in more quickly, because it is being adopted extremely slowly throughout Great Britain.

We give the Bill a cautious welcome and look forward to further discussion of it, and indeed to the Minister's response to the debate.

9.44 pm

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr.   David Hanson): I thank hon. Members from all parts of the House for what has been a fascinating and largely good-tempered debate. I have certainly enjoyed listening, and have noted certain issues to do with drinking green beer, with dogs' dinners and with laptops in haystacks, all of which has been fascinating and enjoyable. After seven hours in this Chamber, I find that dogs' dinners and green beer have their attractions.

It is important that we have the consensus that we have today, and I am grateful for the broad welcome given to the Bill by the hon. Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik). I also welcome the assurances from DUP Members that they will not seek to divide the House. Important issues have been raised that I hope to address during my winding-up remarks, but we need to focus on the Bill's core purposes.

Our aim in government has been to equip Northern Ireland to meet the challenges that it will face over the coming years, be they political, social, economic or environmental. The Bill seeks to do so by putting in place frameworks for the devolution of policing and criminal justice and for the regulation of political donations and elections, by securing for Northern Ireland a potential future on issues such as the electricity market and by tackling the question of decommissioning.

As hon. Members have said, and as is clear from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's introductory remarks, the clear starting point for that has to be the restoration of the Assembly. The hon. Members for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and others mentioned the fact that the Assembly needs to be restored as a matter of urgency. I fully agree with the comments by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) on that point. In the event of the Assembly being restored and government returning to its proper place in Northern Ireland, the Bill tackles some key issues.

I recognise the concern expressed by hon. Members from all parts of the House about the provisions enabling the future devolution of policing and criminal justice. A number of points have been made by hon. Members, and it is only fair that I try to answer them today. First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) for welcoming the Bill. We want devolution of policing and criminal justice to take place at a point in the future when it is appropriate. The proposed arrangements must be robust, must be workable and must continue to deliver an effective, impartial and independent justice system. The Bill does not set out what should be devolved or how it should be done, and I refer all hon. Members to the document on these questions issued by the Government.

Policing and devolution were mentioned by the hon. Members for Aylesbury, for Foyle (Mark Durkan), for Montgomeryshire, for South Down (Mr. McGrady)
 
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1243
 
and for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), and the hon. Members for Belfast, North, for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) and for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). Obviously, it is of concern to all the Members who spoke in the debate. We certainly want Sinn Fein to join the Policing Board, and we want to see the devolution of policing, but I hope that I have been able to reassure right hon. and hon. Members throughout the House that the triple lock is in place: first, the Assembly must, on a cross-party vote, wish it; secondly, the Government must propose it; and thirdly, the House of Commons must approve it.

---