House of Commons Hansard Debates for 21 Nov 2006 (pt 0014)

“Because we are replacing the disastrous Belfast Agreement so that at last the people of Northern Ireland are to have a real say in their own future.”

To clear up any ambiguity, will the Secretary of State confirm for the record that there is absolutely no question of ripping up the Belfast agreement, and that what is being proposed would not in any way overturn what was agreed and voted on by thousands and thousands of people in 1998? That would be shameful. It was a cornerstone of the agreement that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister were to be jointly elected. It was to say —[Interruption.] Actually, joint election meant that the Unionist community had a veto over who was the Deputy First Minister. Now, by courtesy of caving in to the DUP, the Unionists —[Interruption.] I am sorry—let us look at the Bill in detail later this evening. I would like the DUP to say why it did not table an amendment to clause 9 —[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is difficult for the Hansard reporters if Members keep making sedentary interventions.

Lady Hermon: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

It is shameful that the Government have stuffed through in a very short time today major constitutional changes —[Interruption.] I am sorry, but people voted—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) that it is extremely difficult for the Hansard reporters to record correctly what takes place in the Chamber if numerous sedentary interventions are made and then accepted.

Lady Hermon: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am most grateful to you. I am sorry that there have been so many sedentary interventions.

I am trying to make the point that when people voted for the agreement, they voted for the First and Deputy First Ministers to be elected jointly. Through this Bill, we have now made a major change to that election and that procedure. Of course, we have also included policing and education. It is shameful that, in six and a half hours in this House, we are shoving through such changes and foisting them on the people of Northern Ireland. I ask the Secretary of State to respond to the points that have been made when he winds up.

7.21 pm

Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): Before I begin, I have been asked to pass on the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), the Chairman of the Select
21 Nov 2006 : Column 477
Committee, who made a speech earlier. He had to leave for other parliamentary business. [Interruption.] He is indeed a great man.

I have very little time and I do not know which of my various points I wish to make, so I shall perhaps start with a very general one. I do not know how many Statutory Instrument Committees I have sat on this year. It is usually one a week—sometimes two—and we have dealt with very important issues such as rating, local government reorganisation and education. Indeed, I understand that a statutory instrument on water will be considered on Tuesday. With the best will in the world, although I travel often to Northern Ireland I do not represent a constituency there, so this strikes me as a very unsatisfactory way of governing the Province, as I think Ministers will agree. It is therefore very important that we move towards devolution as quickly as possible, but I agree with my friends in the Democratic Unionist party that it has to be the right devolution settlement. If we look across the United Kingdom, we certainly do not see a uniform, or an entirely satisfactory, settlement. In Northern Ireland, the least that we should hope for is achieving the right settlement.

There are concerns about the timetable. I understand why things have to be moved on, but like other Members present, I wonder when exactly Sinn Fein will act on its obligation. It will have to be soon, in order to give it time to prove to everyone else that it means it, but I can see no immediate prospect of that. That concerns me, because support for the police is absolutely crucial. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) was perhaps slightly misinterpreted earlier, but I think that he was saying that a British police force represents people, whether they are Scottish, Welsh, English or from Northern Ireland.

Andrew Mackinlay indicated assent.

Mr. Robertson: It is their police force—not ours, imposing a judgment on them. It is very important that those who seek to control that police force at least support it and recognise its legitimacy.

In the few seconds left to me, I want to echo the desire that was expressed for a return to normal politics in Northern Ireland. Having studied the past situation in South Africa and Rwanda, I know that it was important for those countries to move on—to move away from sectarianism. Unfortunately, in Northern Ireland we have institutionalised it, so while there might be good reasons for power sharing at the moment, I hope that we can move toward something more like the Westminster model—a Government and an Opposition—rather than everybody being in government or everybody being in opposition. The hon. Member for Thurrock said that the playground has to be big enough for everybody to fit into it, but in the long term that is not necessarily the best way of going about things.

It is not deadlines that will achieve lasting peace in Northern Ireland—it is hearts and minds. People have to want peace and to be genuine about it, and I really hope that we have got to that position. I fear that there
21 Nov 2006 : Column 478
is a little work left to do before we get there, but in general terms I wish the Bill well and I hope that we get the chance to explore it in a little more detail in a few minutes’ time. I apologise to the House for the brevity of my remarks.

7.25 pm

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. David Hanson): I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. Because of the programme motion, I have very little time in which to respond, but I hope to deal with the points that were made as best I can in that time.

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), for North Down (Lady Hermon) and for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell)—and, indeed, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson)—in that Northern Ireland is best governed when governed locally by an elected Assembly. I happen to think, rather modestly, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are doing a reasonable job, but I recognise that we are not elected or accountable in Northern Ireland, and we cannot be removed by the people there, so we have to get devolution back. That is the whole purpose of today’s proceedings.

I want to ensure that I get on the record my responses to the important points made by the hon. Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and for Belfast, East, who both touched the accountability of Ministers and how the ministerial code and such accountability will work. Both asked the Secretary of State to confirm that the intention of the clauses dealing with the ministerial code is to ensure that the decisions set out in what will be section 20 (3) and (4) will be ones for the Executive to make, not for individual or junior Ministers. I can confirm that subsection (5) of new section 28A of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 will make it clear that the new code

“must include provision for requiring Ministers or junior Ministers to bring to the attention of the Executive Committee any matter that ought, by virtue of section 20 (3) or (4), to be considered by the Committee”.

That makes it clear that such matters are for the Executive committee, and that all Ministers have a duty to refer them to it.

The hon. Member for Belfast, East also asked the Secretary of State to confirm that a decision that by virtue of section 20(3) or (4) ought to be brought to the attention of, and considered by, the Executive committee, is not validly taken without the approval of the Executive committee, and that without such approval, a Minister has no ministerial authority to take such a decision. I can confirm that subsection (6) of new section 28A requires the new code to establish a procedure to enable a Minister to check whether a decision that he proposes to take should properly fall to the Executive committee for consideration. If Ministers are in any doubt, they should avail themselves of the new procedure.

The hon. Member for Belfast, East also asked whether a Minister has ministerial authority to take a decision that is properly brought to the Executive committee under a provision of the ministerial code,
21 Nov 2006 : Column 479
but on which the Executive committee is unable to agree. The Bill makes clear what issues Ministers are required to bring to the Executive, and places a legal duty on them to do so. It also places a duty on the Executive to decide how to handle issues that fall within their remit, either by consensus or by cross-community vote. I am labouring these points because I know that they are important to the hon. Gentleman and his party.

The hon. Gentleman also asked the Secretary of State to indicate the status of a ministerial decision taken without ministerial authority. I can confirm that in such a case, the decision would have been taken in contravention of the code itself. As such, it would not be a legitimate decision and would be open to legal challenge. The Minister himself would also be liable to the existing procedures under the 1998 Act.

The hon. Gentleman also asked the Secretary of State to confirm that, by virtue of the arrangements put in place by the Bill, details relating to the North/South Ministerial Council or any matter involving relationships with the Republic of Ireland will require Executive approval. I can confirm that such matters will be referred to under the ministerial code that applied until suspension, and will require Executive agreement. Under the arrangements provided for in the Bill, decisions taken without Executive agreement would not be legitimate and would be open to legal challenge.

The hon. Gentleman also asked whether any significant strategic or controversial decisions will fall outside the category of decision that could require discussion by, and the agreement of, the Executive committee. Under new section 24, the Executive would have the function of discussing and agreeing on any significant or controversial matter—and indeed, the code requires that such matters be brought before the Executive committee for consideration.

The hon. Member for Belfast, East also asked about de minimis level engaging of human rights, equality or economic policy issues being regarded as matters that cut across the responsibility of two or more Ministers. It is difficult to answer that question, but I hope that the new code will include a procedure to enable Ministers to check whether a decision should properly fall to the Executive committee. His final point was whether any decision involving expenditure would require discussion and agreement by the Executive committee. The answer is yes.

Today’s proceedings lay the foundation for what I believe is a historic Bill and a historic decision, which looks toward restoring devolution and lays the framework for power sharing and for Sinn Fein recognition of and support for the police. That, in itself, would be a historic shift. The right hon. Member for North Antrim, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and indeed other hon. Members have strongly emphasised the need for that aspect to be placed on the record, in relation both to power sharing and to police recognition by Sinn Fein.

I look forward to the Assembly meeting on Friday this week, when I hope that steps will be taken to put us on the road to ensuring that devolution is back in place by 26 March next year. I welcome the commitment of the right hon. Member for North Antrim—and, indeed, the Member for Belfast, West—to this process
21 Nov 2006 : Column 480
and the work that has been done. I am sorry that I have not been able to respond to every point, because of the time available, but I am pleased to say that major steps are now being taken towards restoration of devolution. The Bill is the foundation for it and I am confident that, with the good will that I know exists between all parties, we will move towards devolution and restoration, in due course, by 26 March. Those who want devolved power exercised in Northern Ireland by local politicians, many of whom are in their places today, will welcome that.

It being Four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Northern Ireland (St. Andrews Agreement) Bill [allocation of time] motion, Madam Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Order [this day].

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, pursuant to Order [this day].

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sylvia Heal in the Chair]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Compliance or non-compliance with St Andrews Agreement timetable

7.32 pm

Mr. Dodds: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 2, line 10, after ‘2007,’, insert

‘or such later date as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State,’.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 44, in page 2, line 11, after ‘2007’, insert