---

Lord Kilclooney: 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
 
7 Jun 2006 : Column 1371
 
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.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that contribution and withdraw what I said.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, I appreciate that generous contribution by the noble Lord.
 
7 Jun 2006 : Column 1372
 

On the issue of electricity, of course I agree with north-south co-operation, and I do so on many aspects; for example, the environment and animal health. There must be north-south co-operation on all those issues. But when it comes to energy and electricity we do not want a Sinn Fein/ourselves alone isolated Irish—Northern Irish, southern Irish—arrangement. The energy arrangements must be wider; they must be integrated into the British Isles and in fact they must be integrated into a wider Europe. So let us not just talk about north-south energy arrangements but about wider energy arrangements.

The noble Lord, Lord Laird, has once again, unfortunately, raised some limited Belfast opposition to the proposed stadium at the Maze. Once again, I place on record that the proposed stadium at the Maze is supported by the Ulster branch of the Irish Rugby Football Union, by the Irish Football Association, and by the GAA. To get all three to agree to it is a great achievement. I fear that the rearguard opposition organised by some people on Belfast City Council may result in Northern Ireland losing the funding for a new stadium. We need a good stadium in Northern Ireland.

Lord Laird: My Lords, if the Irish Rugby Football Union, the Irish Football Association and the GAA support the proposed new stadium at the Maze, is it possible to see the documentation in which they say that they support it? I have never seen that documentation. In fact, the word from the Irish Football Association is that it does not support the stadium, but it is going along with the project at this time because it owes money to Windsor Park. It is hard to see how the GAA is going to have any games in Northern Ireland when it can make more money having games either in Croke Park or Clones. The rugby people simply say that they want nothing to do with it. I also put on record that the proposal is not supported by the leadership of the four parties. The councillors of all parties on Belfast City Council are unanimous that they want Northern Ireland's national stadium to be in the city.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Laird, that the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, has only a total of four minutes to speak. Therefore, interventions on speakers in the gap are really quite unreasonable.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, I realise that it was a mistake to give way.

Finally, I caution people in Northern Ireland not at this late stage to start opposing the stadium, because it is a wonderful proposal. Of course the GAA raises a lot of money in Dublin, but would it not be nice to see it raising money in Northern Ireland instead? The Irish Football Association has welcomed it, and the Irish Rugby Football Union has welcomed it. The proposed site has great access on the motorway for all the people of Northern Ireland, not just Belfast, but from the west, the north and the south. I hope that the
 
7 Jun 2006 : Column 1373
 
opposition will be reduced so that we can get the money and get the stadium built before the Olympic Games.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I will just comment that four minutes in Northern Ireland is always slightly longer than it is anywhere else.

8.58 pm

Baroness Harris of Richmond : Unfortunately, my Lords.

I, too, welcome the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, to our Northern Ireland debates; I am sure that he will find them refreshing. I congratulate him on an excellent and measured maiden speech, and we on these Benches look forward very much to hearing from him on future occasions.

Although the Bill covers a lot of ground, as we have heard from noble Lords, I reiterate that we welcome it and we broadly support its principles. The introduction of anonymous registration, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton, gives us some concern. Again, I hope that it will not be necessary to introduce it for too many people. This measure, and others, will be brought into force by the laying of an order. As the Minister said at the outset, we look forward so much to the day when the Assembly will deal with all these matters. It might have been better to include Northern Ireland in the Electoral Administration Bill, which has just passed through your Lordships' House, instead of having to do all this by order, once again bringing Northern Ireland in as a sort of afterthought. Can the Minister tell us the reasoning behind that?

Northern Ireland has benefited from individual registration with personal identifiers, which has proved much more robust than the previous system of household registration. However, how to encourage more people into voting will be a problem for us all to address. The 10 years proposed between canvasses is far too long, especially as the annual canvass has proved so successful, a point made by my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton.

We are very disappointed on Part 3, which is on donation controls. It is understandable that concerns exist, and will probably do so for some time, around the publication of donors in Northern Ireland, but the Bill still does not achieve full transparency, which is regrettable. The various parties in Northern Ireland will be exempt, as we have heard, from full donation controls until October 2007, and then there is the interim period between 2007 and 2010 when measures will allow the parties to submit their donation returns in confidence. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House that full disclosure will be achieved by 2010, as asked for by my noble friend.

On Clause 12, the new insertion of special provision in connection with Northern Ireland, I simply say that if we cannot encourage the same legislation in the Republic of Ireland, how do the Government believe that putting a ban on receiving foreign donations in Northern Ireland will work? Unless and until we can
 
7 Jun 2006 : Column 1374
 
agree comparable legislation across borders, that provision is likely to be meaningless. Openness and transparency is so important a principle to embed into this sort of legislation, and I hope that the Minister will address concerns of noble Lords on this matter, if not this evening then perhaps during further stages on the Bill.

Part 4, which is on devolution of policing and justice matters to the Assembly, is certainly something that these Benches support. During the passage of the Bill in the other place, the Government gave reassurances about how and when such functions would be devolved. It would be very helpful if the Minister were able to repeat them here in such a manner, for completeness. Such transfer of these matters can clearly take place only when the Assembly is running properly and confidence is being restored on a genuine basis. Perhaps the Minister can give us some idea about how the person nominated to be head of the department will be chosen. The Explanatory Notes from paragraph 75 onwards relating to the issue are not terribly clear to me. There appear to be three possible options for choosing the person to head the department, and it is rather confusing and complex, notwithstanding the Minister's explanation. As my noble friend intimated, perhaps amendments need to be tabled at a later stage to tease out the detail. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, made strong representation on the devolution of policing, and I am sure that further examination of that part of the Bill will be a major part of our deliberations in Committee.

Part 5 contains further miscellaneous provisions, in a miscellaneous provisions Bill—an extension of the amnesty period for arms decommissioning to 2010, an enormous increase in the limit of loans applicable to the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland, and suddenly the emergence of a single wholesale electricity market provision for the whole island of Ireland. It is quite a collection of disparate policy objectives. We support the energy proposal, which is extremely important. Energy is becoming a very hot political potato, and we wish that part of the Bill every success. We welcome the clause on sustainable development, but it seems an odd place to put the provision in the Bill. It is an afterthought, when it ought to be embedded in the whole culture of legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Laird, made the commendable suggestion of the inclusion of fair trade in this part of the Bill.

Then we are back to dealing with crime and the extension of SOCAP, the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act. Those provisions are welcome and will, I hope, begin to eradicate those levels of crime in Northern Ireland that give us all cause for concern. We support those measures.

Clause 28 brings Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the country as regards the part of SOCAP that deals with health and safety matters. It is right that it is the office and not the person of the Chief Constable which holds the responsibility for health and safety matters within the PSNI. I well remember the hours of deep discussion of how police officers should deal with health and safety matters when a Bill first included
 
7 Jun 2006 : Column 1375
 
them a number of years ago. Some very silly arguments were put forward at that time about who would be responsible for dealing with breaches of the Act. I am glad that sense prevailed. I am sure that it will continue to do so in Northern Ireland should any of these matters be brought forward.

9.05 pm

---