Northern Ireland Bill

House of Commons, 26 April 2006.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The measure prepares the way for the restoration of devolved Government in Northern Ireland. On 15 May, the Assembly will meet for the first time for nearly four years. The Bill sets in statute 24 November as the date by which we must be able to restore devolution. That is the date by which the political parties in Northern Ireland must take responsibility for the Government of Northern Ireland, as they have been mandated to do.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Secretary of State make it clear that the Assembly to which he refers is not "the" Assembly?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

Indeed. The Assembly that the Bill defines is not the Assembly as defined under the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The right hon. Gentleman is right to clarify that.

The twenty-fourth of November represents not a threat but great promise—a promise that the Belfast agreement holds out. The patience of all those who want locally accountable Government in Northern Ireland should be tested no longer. Successive British and Irish Governments, with the warm support of US Administrations, have been working with the parties to bring peace and stability to Northern Ireland. The truth is that there is little more we can do. The parties in Northern Ireland must now take ownership of the process and see it through.

The twenty-fourth of November can, therefore, be a beginning or an end. The leadership of the parties have to decide which it is to be. As ever, the biggest obstacle to progress is the mutual lack of trust in the process. Unionists need to know that the republicans, with whom they are being asked to share power, have turned away from paramilitary activity and that they will not accept, tacitly or otherwise, criminal activity, whatever its source. They also need to know, before criminal justice and policing powers are devolved, that support for the criminal justice system and the Police Service of Northern Ireland is absolutely unequivocal. That is not too much to ask.

For their part, republicans and nationalists need to know that Unionists are serious about sharing power on a fair and equitable basis and not simply paying lip service to the theory while always finding reasons to avoid the practice. That is not too much to ask.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

The Secretary of State has, for understandable reasons, played around with dates a lot recently. However, he is not telling the House that, were the parties in sight of an agreement on 24 November, he would bring down the guillotine, is he? Presumably we are considering not a final and ultimate but a flexible date.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I am afraid that I cannot reassure the hon. Gentleman about that. The Bill sets the date in statute. As I said earlier, the Government will not blink. If eleventh-hour attempts are made on 24 November to force us to blink, people will be disappointed.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Further to the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) made when he sought clarification of the nature of the Assembly that will be set up under the Bill, will the Secretary of State confirm that, on 25 November, the Northern Ireland Assembly that was established under the 1998 Act will continue to exist?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

The Northern Ireland Assembly as set up under the 1998 Act remains in suspension. Once the date has passed, if there were the prospect of restoration again—I know that the hon. Gentleman is actively involved in trying to promote a process that could be successfully concluded—there will be no attempt to prolong the life of the Assembly for which the Bill provides beyond 24 November. He knows that any attempt to seek restoration later—for example, in a year or two after 24 November—would be done under the 1998 Act arrangements. We would move straight to selecting a First Minister and Deputy First Minister and run d'Hondt to select an Executive. If that failed after six weeks, an election would be called.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I was grateful to the Secretary of State for his response in Northern Ireland questions about deadlines. Will he assure us that they are genuinely not flexible? I ask that because, as he knows, my great anxiety is that the Government's credibility has been somewhat tarnished by allowing deadlines to be flexible and, indeed, by occasionally ignoring them. If he wants the Bill to work, he must impress on everybody that the deadlines are not negotiable.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I have already done that but I am happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation to emphasise and underline as much as necessary—in flashing neon lights, if he wishes and if that is not a mixed metaphor—that the deadline is for real. The salaries and allowances will stop at midnight on 24 November. The Assembly will no longer sit, which it will be entitled to do after 15 May, and that will be that. I do not want that and, as I shall explain, there will be serious consequences if the parties do not act maturely and take their responsibilities to reflect the mandate and the job that they were elected to do. If they do not take that seriously, the consequences will be serious, but that will be their decision, not mine.

The 10th report of the Independent Monitoring Commission was published today. I want to remind the House that the IMC has previously stated unequivocally that the IRA no longer represents a terrorist threat. That is clear, unambiguous and, in the context of all that has gone before, historic. That followed the IRA statement of July 2005 and the act of decommissioning later that year in September. Two of the demands, not only of Unionists, were that Sinn Fein should say that the war was over and that the IRA should decommission its arsenal of weapons. Both have now been done.

The report states:

"It remains our absolutely clear view that the PIRA leadership has committed itself to following a peaceful path. It is working to bring the whole organisation fully along with it and has expended considerable effort to refocus the movement in support of its objective. In the last three months this process has involved the further dismantling of PIRA as a military structure."

The IMC also states:

"We are not aware of current terrorist, paramilitary or violent activity sanctioned by the leadership. We have no indications in the last three months of training, engineering activity, recent recruitment or targeting for the purposes of attack".

William McCrea (DUP, South Antrim)

The IMC report states that

"some members, including some senior ones . . . are still involved in crime, including offences such as fuel laundering, money laundering, extortion, tax evasion and smuggling."

How can it be suggested that that is distinct from the IRA organisation when one of those persons happens to be the IRA chief of staff?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

Because I rely on what the IMC says. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to study what it said about the matter. Any illegal activity, including smuggling across the border to a specific farm and in other areas, is being clamped down upon, as he knows. I know that he will enthusiastically support the Assets Recovery Agency and the police service on both sides of the border.

Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of what the IMC said. The report states:

"We have found signs that PIRA continues to seek to stop criminal activity by its members and to prevent them from engaging in it. We believe that some senior PIRA members may be playing a key role in this".

Gordon Banks (Labour, Ochil and South Perthshire)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

Let me finish the point and then I shall gladly give way.

Paragraph 2.14 is important to answering the fair question that the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) asked. It states:

"We recognise, as we did when we reported three months ago, that the leadership is engaged in a challenging task in ensuring full compliance with this strategy. The response of members will naturally enough be influenced by the surrounding political circumstances as well as by long-held personal views. It is to be expected that there may be instances where members or associates do not always follow the leadership's line".

The report says that, of course, there may be individual republicans, who still call themselves republicans and perhaps attach themselves to the name "Provisional IRA", who are engaged in illegal activity. However, that is outwith the organisation and without the sanction and approval of the leadership and certainly without its prior knowledge. That is completely different from the position in the past, when the IRA was organised from the centre and from the top. It was not only a violent terrorist organisation but it undertook, conducted and organised criminal activity to raise funds to finance that violence and terrorism. The difference now is that it is not a question whether individual republicans have come into full compliance or not. Given the culture that has existed for too long in Northern Ireland, it would be difficult to imagine that everybody would behave absolutely perfectly, as a very interesting passage in the IMC report acknowledges. The crucial point is that the organisation's leadership is delivering on what it promised and the hon. Gentleman should welcome that, because it is indeed historic.

William McCrea (DUP, South Antrim)

The IMC report refers to "some senior members" of the IRA. We are not talking about the ordinary members. If even the chief of staff is involved in the criminality, how can we be expected to believe that the organisation is not involved?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I can only take the IMC's word for this. The independent report makes it absolutely clear that the leadership of the IRA is determined to stop any illegal activity by any of its members, however low or high level they may have been in the past—

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I am answering the question put by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea), but after that, of course, I will give way. However, I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) first.

At some point, all Members of this House, including members of the Democratic Unionist party, will have to recognise that something momentous has happened, in the past year in particular. An organisation that was committed to bombing and shooting, and to the criminal activity that financed that, has now stopped doing those things. Its leadership has decided that the organisation will not get involved in anything like that again. But do not take my word for it; take the IMC's word for it.

Gordon Banks (Labour, Ochil and South Perthshire)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the IMC report published today throws down a significant challenge to the loyalist paramilitaries, who appear to have been unsuccessful in reducing their illegal activities, including shootings? Does he accept the IMC's comments that the loyalist organisations were responsible for 95 per cent. of the casualties of shootings and 76 per cent. of the casualties of assaults during the period examined in the report, and that this matter must be addressed before the process can significantly move forward?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I very much agree with my hon. Friend's point. It is important to note from the IMC report that the main problem is that the illegal activity no longer comes from the IRA, as it did for decades—often of a kind organised from the centre of the organisation—but that it comes from loyalist paramilitaries and from dissident republicans in the Continuity IRA and the Real IRA. That is a sea change and I think that people on all sides of the House ought to be prepared to acknowledge that and move on.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

I accept the point that the Secretary of State has just made. Of course there has been an enormous change, but very real problems remain. If an organisation truly repudiates people for what they are doing, would not its logical course of action be to expel them? Would not Sinn Fein and the IRA gain enormous credit and credibility if they expelled those who were disobeying their orders?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point and I am not going to argue with him about that. However, I am sure that he will understand the point that I am making, and the spirit in which I am making it. I would like from him and from others an acknowledgement that there has been a sea change.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

I have acknowledged that point. There has been a remarkable change, but there is still comprehensive evidence—including in today's report—of the involvement of senior figures in criminality. My point is that those senior figures should be repudiated by expulsion, which would give real credibility to those who are claiming to be democrats.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

As I have said, I am not going to argue that point with the hon. Gentleman. At Question Time, I referred to the statement by the IRA, which is historic in itself. In the past, the IRA never acknowledged that illegal activities such as bank robberies amounted to criminality, because it never recognised the ability of the rule of law of the British state to restrict it from doing what it liked in Northern Ireland. I think that the hon. Gentleman will understand that; I know that Northern Ireland politicians will. Now, it has made a statement that is, in its own way, historic, and I think that the House should note it. The Easter statement by the IRA states:

"The IRA has no responsibility for the tiny number of former republicans"—

who may or may not have been expelled; I do not know—

"who have embraced criminal activity. They do so for self-gain. We repudiate this activity and denounce those involved."

That kind of statement has never been made by the IRA before, and I think that it ought to be acknowledged.

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Secretary of State will understand the concern on this side of the House. Of course we recognise that there has been significant progress, but the chief of staff of the Provisional IRA, whose assets were recently seized by the Assets Recovery Agency, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Garda and the Criminal Assets Bureau, is still in position at the head of the organisation. It is difficult to separate the organisation from the individual in such circumstances. That undermines the credibility of the Secretary of State's statement that the leadership is trying to bring this problem to an end.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I say in all humility to the hon. Gentleman that he is taking issue with the IMC, not with me. The IMC is the body that is distinguishing between what the leadership is doing, with a great deal of success, to close down criminal operations and end violent activity, and what individuals associated with the organisation—or who even hold positions within it—are still doing. The IMC says that the leadership has now clearly set out on a path for which it ought to be given credit, and that it is delivering on that commitment.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Mr. Adams did not condemn the man who has been mentioned here. He said that he was a decent farmer, that he was a most hard-working man, and that all the money that he had gained had come from the proper labour of his own hands. That is the testimony of Mr. Adams. How can we say that a man such as that is now to be held up to the general public as proof positive that the IRA has made all the necessary changes? There have been changes, and it was admitted today that many were made because of the pressure brought to bear by the Unionist population. I welcome that statement, but we must be honest with our people. I know a family who live on the border, and they have suffered terribly at the hands of this man. They have been taken out, had bags put over their heads and kept in the back of a van for six hours. That sort of thing ought not to happen.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

Of course I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that sort of thing ought not to happen. It is difficult for me to comment in detail on this case because it is the subject of legal action, and of action by the police, the security forces and the Assets Recovery Agency. The agency has shown a determination to recover assets that have been illegally acquired by paramilitary organisations and individuals, and those efforts will continue, whether on farms across the border or anywhere else. However, I note that the president of Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams, has condemned all illegal and criminal activity by all republicans, as has his deputy, Martin McGuinness. That ought to go on to the record as well.

David Simpson (DUP, Upper Bann)

Is it not a well-known fact in Northern Ireland that the Provisional IRA controls all the republicans' activity? In many cases at the moment, the Provisional IRA is contracting a lot of the work out. We have seen what has happened with the Continuity IRA. I have raised the question of this activity with the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward) in the House on several occasions. According to recent press releases, the Continuity IRA now intends to increase its bombing campaign against the Government and the politicians.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

Yes, but the hon. Gentleman knows that the Continuity IRA is a split-off from the Provisional IRA—

David Simpson (DUP, Upper Bann)

indicated dissent.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman disputes that, because I believe that the facts speak for themselves. Indeed, the IMC has repeatedly distinguished the Continuity IRA and the Real IRA as separate factions operating on their own, against the wishes of the leadership of the Provisional IRA and the leadership of Sinn Fein. Yes, CIRA and RIRA are dangerous outfits, and we will crack down on them. Indeed, we have been very successful in doing so, but there are no guarantees in this regard. Again, I say to him and his colleagues—I am sure that he will take this in good spirit—that there will come a time when DUP Members, having stood firm and having seen results flow from that, will have to acknowledge the massive changes that have occurred—[Interruption.] Well, I think that they will have to acknowledge that.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

There is no DUP Member who does not recognise the progress that has been made. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) said during Northern Ireland questions, far from denying that progress has been made, we are saying that DUP strategy—the zero tolerance policy—has produced that change. If progress is being made as a result of that strategy, does not it automatically follow that we should maintain that strategy, so that all the grey areas and loose ends are dealt with?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

The hon. Gentleman has acknowledged that, as the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) made clear earlier today, there has been a substantial change. We are light years away from where we were at the time of the troubles, and I see that he nods in agreement. There will have to be an assessment, which he and his party are entitled to make, as to whether adopting the current stance will end that by encouraging all republicans to commit themselves to democratic and peaceful politics—that involves dialogue, building trust and, ultimately, sharing power—or whether Unionists will continue to say that they are not willing to co-operate. That is the choice facing all Northern Ireland's politicians.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

I served in Northern Ireland and was aware of the progress made in bringing the IRA to the table and making it realise that putting down its arms and talking about issues was the way forward. My concern then as now, as expressed by other parties, is that the nasty work is being outsourced to other splinter organisations, which is undermining everything that we are trying to achieve. What is the IRA doing to stop those splinter groups carrying out their activities? As long as they carry out such activities, everything that this House and everyone in Northern Ireland is trying to achieve is undermined.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

The IMC report published today shows—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read all of it if he has not had a chance to do so—that if the Provisional IRA has dismantled its military structure and capability to act violently, one of the consequences is that its capability to sort out CIRA and RIRA, as he seems to be inviting it to do, disappears, if it is not completely or partially diminished. The people who should sort out CIRA and RIRA—we are doing this—are the security forces, the police, the Security Service and, where appropriate, the Army, as happened recently in Lurgan. That is the course on which we are embarked.

Gordon Banks (Labour, Ochil and South Perthshire)

How damaging does the Secretary of State feel that the statement by the Ulster Volunteer Force that it does not intend to do anything constructive up to 24 November is to the plans to restore devolved power? Will he ask all members of Northern Ireland political parties who are able to influence the decision to take a constructive role in doing so?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

My hon. Friend makes a good point; that the UVF, Ulster Defence Association and loyalist paramilitaries generally are still engaged in activity that is completely wrong and is effectively gangsterism. No real political objective can be easily attached to them any more, whatever honourable motivations they might have had a long time ago. There is no longer any political case or ideological argument behind their paramilitary and criminal activity, and it must stop.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Part of the UVF's reasoning for its delaying statement was the threat implied, if not explicitly, in paragraph 10 of the joint statement by the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland and Her Majesty's Government. The Secretary of State has clearly failed thus far to convince the Unionist community that what that paragraph meant was not joint management and joint authority. Would he like to make another try today?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I am happy to repeat what I think that I said last week in my statement. There is no question of joint authority or joint management of Northern Ireland's affairs involving Dublin. There was some overexcited spin around that statement, which did not come from Belfast, this Government or No. 10 Downing street. I will leave the matter of where it came from to the hon. Gentleman's imagination.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Perhaps in a slip of the tongue, the Secretary of State referred to "whatever honourable motivations" loyalist paramilitaries might have had in the past. May I make it clear to him that there were no honourable motivations for the UVF or UDA in the past? We never bought the line that was being retailed that their actions were purely reactive to republican violence. His comments were reminiscent of the Northern Ireland Office's failure for a long time to outlaw the UDA. Given that the IMC report today highlighted that loyalist paramilitary groups are active, violent and up to their necks in crime, and that we know that they have not decommissioned anything and now feel free to say that decommissioning is off their agenda, what clear message are the Government sending to loyalist paramilitaries?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

The message is crystal clear; that they should close down their paramilitary activity and gangsterism and stop their criminality now, and not before time. The point I was trying to make—I will not be drawn further down this route—was that the people who join paramilitary groups claim to be doing so for honourable objectives, whether one agreed with them or not. Their methods were completely unacceptable, but at least they claimed a political motivation; that was my point. There is no longer any political motivation for any of that activity from loyalists or dissident republicans.

I need to make some progress, or there will be even less time for other Members to make contributions. Following the publication of the eighth report of the IMC, much was made of the suggestion that not all weapons and ammunition had been handed over for decommissioning in September 2005. In that report, the IMC did not say that the PIRA leadership had in any way given instructions to retain arms. Today, the IMC says:

"Indeed our present assessment is that such arms as were reported to us as having been retained, were withheld under local control despite the instructions of the leadership".

The IMC continued:

"The relevant points are that the amount of un-surrendered material was not significant in comparison to what was decommissioned and that these reports do not cast doubt on the declared intention of the PIRA leadership to eschew terrorism and to follow the political path".

Much was also made of references to intelligence gathering in the eighth report, about which the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) was especially concerned. The 10th report says:

"While PIRA continues to receive information from members and sympathisers, we do not know of information being proactively sought. We are currently not aware of intelligence-related activity which is outside the aims of the July statement".

On criminality, the IMC report says that it has found signs that PIRA continues to seek to stop criminal activity by its members and to prevent them from engaging it. It continues:

"We believe that some senior PIRA members may be playing a key role in this".

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The Secretary of State is right that I am interested in the finding regarding intelligence. For clarification, does he interpret that as meaning that the Provisional IRA has closed down its strategic intelligence-gathering procedures, in the sense that it used to gather intelligence to perpetrate politically motivated terrorist crimes?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

That is exactly my interpretation of what the IMC says. In relation to the statement that any information that the organisation receives is not outside the terms of the July statement, I can only conclude that it is the kind of political information that all political parties like to receive on our opponents, and that it is not for any other purpose. Again, we have seen a major change. About a year ago, it was reported that the IRA was still gathering intelligence, even though it had stopped targeting and had no apparent intent to commit any paramilitary actions. Now we know that the intelligence activity that may or may not be going on in terms of the receipt of information is, presumably, entirely political, and is certainly not directed towards supporting any violent, paramilitary or illegal action.

The IMC report welcomes Gerry Adams's comments in which he supported the pursuit of criminal assets—this is important, given the questions that I was asked earlier—and said that anybody involved in criminality should face the full rigours of the law. That was very welcome indeed. Since the report was compiled, the IRA has reiterated that position in its Easter message. The IMC draws the distinction between what members or former members of an organisation may do as individuals and what has been authorised, sanctioned or approved by the organisation itself, a distinction acknowledged by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) in his very interesting speech to the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body in Killarney on Tuesday.

In the context of believing what people do as well as what they say, that distinction is crucial. We should all take encouragement from what is now clearly the case according to the IMC; namely that the IRA has delivered, and is continuing to deliver, on its promise to end all violence and criminality, so that republicans are committed to democratic and peaceful methods. Of course there are individual criminals out there, some claiming republican or loyalist affiliation; but as the recent activity of the Garda, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Criminal Assets Bureau and the Assets Recovery Agency has shown, they will be ruthlessly pursued, whoever they are. In short, there has been and continues to be momentous progress to report.

Trust is a two-way process. Where there has been deep division and where fears and suspicion were well-founded, trust is not going to emerge freshly minted. It must be developed and built on and the only way in which to do that is through dialogue.If parties are serious about testing the bona fides of others, they should do it as we do in this House, face to face. If parties are serious about devolution, they should engage with one another. If parties make a point of their mandate as leaders of their community, they should respect the mandate of others and show real leadership.

Frankly, it is hard for an outsider to understand why members of the DUP will talk to Sinn Fein in television studios and sit with Sinn Fein members as local councillors, but will not talk to Sinn Fein privately or as Members of the Legislative Assembly. It is equally hard to see why Sinn Fein is able to meet the Chief Constable in Downing street, while the Sinn Fein chairman of a council will not talk to a district commander at a civic function. What Northern Ireland needs is mature politics. Between May 15 and 24 November, we will see whether the people of Northern Ireland will get the leadership that they deserve.

Let me now deal with the Bill. The framework is simple; it brings back the Members of the Assembly to meet in order to prepare for the restoration of devolved government, which means selecting an Executive. If they achieve that by 24 November we shall proceed immediately to devolution, with Assembly elections in May 2008. If they do not, we shall have to proceed by other means, and the Assembly election scheduled for May 2007 will be postponed indefinitely.

The Assembly would meet on 15 May in a new mode. It would have no legislative powers, there would be no Executive and hence the direct rule arrangements would continue. The Bill provides for me to refer to the Assembly first the selection of a First Minister and Deputy First Minister, then the running of the d'Hondt process to fill the other ministerial posts in the Executive. I can also refer other matters to the Assembly as I think fit.

The arrangements are similar to those that applied when the Assembly was first elected in 1998. I have power to make directions about procedure, including the appointment of a Presiding Officer and the provision of Standing Orders. That is important, because the Assembly in its early days must not be distracted from its main tasks by long-drawn-out discussions on preliminary issues.

As I have said, I intend to appoint Mrs Eileen Bell as Presiding Officer. She is highly respected among the parties, and I am sure that she will fill her post with distinction. In the operation of the Assembly, I hope that there can be the greatest possible consensus between us and the parties, and in that event I shall be only too happy to leave the Assembly to sort out internal issues for itself.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Will the Secretary of State confess that it is regrettable that the new creature created by the Bill has been christened "the Assembly"? It gives the inaccurate impression that this is the Northern Ireland Assembly back in "shadow" mode, and of course it is nothing of the kind. Does the Secretary of State regret that?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I am sorry; I am always reluctant to disagree with the hon. Lady, but I do not regret it at all. A body consisting of 108 elected Members of the Legislative Assembly will meet, and I do not know what we could call it other than an Assembly.

I am encouraged by early discussions with the parties to believe that there is a serious intention to make the Assembly work. Today we are making available an illustrative set of initial Standing Orders, on which we shall work further before 15 May. They can readily be supplemented at a later stage if need be, and if parties or individual Members have any comments, we shall be glad to take them on board. I am ready to refer to the Assembly a range of matters that will feature among the key concerns of a new devolved Administration. As I have said, we would take account of the Assembly's views on such matters, especially if they had cross-community support. They might include education reform, local government reform, water charges or rates rises. They might also include modifications to the institutions.

Northern Ireland's business community has presented the Prime Minister and me with an interesting policy agenda for economic reform. We have suggested that it would be a suitable matter for business leaders to present to the Assembly soon after 15 May. Obviously, if the Assembly were then to work on and agree a serious and costed economic policy reform programme, the Government would be obliged to consider it seriously.

We have been pressed to say that we would automatically give effect to views expressed by the Assembly. We as a Government are accountable in this place for the good government of Northern Ireland pending the restoration of devolution, and it would be wrong for us to have our hands tied completely. We cannot be accountable both to this Parliament and to an Assembly that is not even fully restored, and where there is little incentive to make the tough decisions that are needed. It is obvious, however, that a cross-community view from the Assembly would be very influential with us. The sooner devolution is restored, the sooner the Assembly will have complete authority over such issues.

I have been pressed to say why we are proceeding on matters such as education and local council reform when the Assembly could and should determine those matters. My answer is that our measures are absolutely necessary in the public interest and as I am far from certain that some of their most vociferous opponents are actually willing to restore the Assembly, why should I let them have their cake and eat it by delaying the reforms? Either they want to determine these policies, or they do not. If they do, let them get on with it and restore the institutions as soon after 15 May as possible. The longer they delay, the more irreversible these reforms will be, and the more I will have to decide the detail rather than leaving it to Assembly Members. It is their choice, not mine.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The Secretary of State has made an interesting point. Will he confirm, for the sake of absolute clarity, that he would be willing to countenance self-determination in the education system in regard to whatever reforms may take place if the Assembly sits again? I ask because if that is the case, it surely gives those involved in education a strong incentive to restore the Assembly so that they can determine for themselves what happens to, for example, selection.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

The hon. Gentleman is right, and I am grateful for the opportunity that he has given me to spell out the position even more clearly than I have already. If restoration is achieved very quickly after 15 May, as I hope it will be, the order abolishing the 11-plus will not have gone through Parliament. A restored Assembly will then have the opportunity to decide what it wants to do about education policy. I know that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with me, but I happen to think that the policy is right, and is in the interests not just of those who do well at the top of the education ladder but of those who do terribly at the bottom. In any event, I think that that is an appropriate decision for a restored Assembly to make. However, because I believe that abolition is in the public interest in Northern Ireland, I will not delay in the hope that the Assembly may be restored at some point; next year, the following year or whenever people get around to it.

My message is absolutely clear. Some may think it blunt, but it is clear. If people want to make decisions for themselves, let them get on with making those decisions for themselves.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I give way to a Member of the Assembly whom I invite to be precisely that.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Does the Secretary of State not also accept that the converse is true? The more that he pushes through unpopular measures that the Assembly cannot change, the less incentive there is to have an Assembly. It will be incapable of doing the very things that people want it to do, anyway, because he has pushed through these unpopular changes.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

That may or may not be true of a couple of important issues, but let us consider education policy, in which the hon. Gentleman takes a close and expert interest; indeed, I pay tribute to him in that regard. As I understand it, he disagrees fundamentally with the abolition of the 11-plus. However, even if the relevant order goes through because restoration of the Assembly does not occur before the order completes its parliamentary process, there are still a whole series of other matters to be decided, such as exactly what the new admissions arrangements will be and exactly what role the pupil profile will play. Some of those matters will be determined by further legislation, and others simply by policy implementation. So it is not true that there is less of an incentive to restore the Assembly; there is more of an incentive, because the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues can then tailor the policy exactly as they wish. The same point applies, by the way, to local government reform, water charges and a range of other issues.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

I am very grateful to the Secretary of State, who, as always, is very courteous in giving way. Would it not be a logical extension of his carrot-and-stick policy to say that no orders will be introduced in this House until the November deadline, given that, as he made plain to me earlier, that is a real deadline?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I am afraid that, for a variety of reasons, that is not possible. For example, there is a yawning gap in the financing of Northern Ireland's water and sewerage system, and a gap in the provision of public financing, both of which can be filled through water charges. If we do not proceed in this way, we will leave a massive hole in the budget from April 2007. Here, the disagreement is not so much one of policy; whatever Opposition politicians may say, privately, they recognise the need for the action that we are taking. However, if there is an alternative view on how low-income families should be treated—an alternative to the special subsidies that we are providing them with—we will happily listen to it. I repeat; none of this is set in stone. Issuing one Order in Council may set a framework, but it does not establish the whole picture. Consequential legislation will have to be implemented by this House if we cannot achieve restoration, or by a restored Assembly if we can.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. He is talking about an issue of fundamental importance. He must acknowledge, in the light of our recent history, that some of the measures that have been implemented through Orders in Council and other non-democratic methods have been opposed on a cross-community, cross-party basis. This has to be a black and white issue. Is he saying that if there is cross-community, cross-party opposition to a measure referred to the Assembly, such opposition will stop it in its tracks?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I assume that the hon. Gentleman is thinking of the review of public administration and local government reorganisation, which is the only such example that I can think of, although he perhaps puts water charges into the same category. That policy, which has enormous merit, is supported by the business community, the voluntary sector and independent assessors. It provides for coterminosity in policing and health, thereby putting Northern Ireland in a unique position, compared with the rest of the UK, in delivering joined-up services locally. Of course, neither the hon. Gentleman nor his party is to blame for the current situation, but I should point out that, if people do not like the policies, they should get into power and take such decisions for themselves.

Rosie Cooper (Labour, West Lancashire)

I genuinely understand the situation in which Northern Ireland Members find themselves, but this is now a question of priorities. In carrying out their role as elected Northern Ireland Members, they need to consider the impact of following to its conclusion the zero-tolerance policy that we have heard about today. They really—[Interruption.]

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. The hon. Lady must sit down. We should not have interventions from a sedentary position, and it is certainly not advisable to respond to them.

Rosie Cooper (Labour, West Lancashire)

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The big issue is Northern Ireland Members' priorities. Do they want to do the job for which they were elected, such as dealing with education and local government reorganisation? These are really big questions for Northern Ireland and now, in modern parlance, it really is a question of deal or no deal.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend; she has expressed herself eloquently and forcefully. It has been suggested that there is overwhelming or near total opposition to the education reforms, but in fact, there is strong support for them, including from those elected to this House who take their seats. So people should not assume that we are riding roughshod over Northern Ireland opinion by implementing this policy. One section of opinion opposes such education reforms, but another—it includes professionals, educationists, teachers and others—is strongly in favour.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. Will he clarify one small point? This new creature—the completely new Assembly that the Bill sets up—could well be christened a talking shop. No matter what resolution or motion is agreed by it, all that it can do before restoration—if such an order is ever made—is to discuss and talk until it is blue in the face. It has no decision-making powers whatsoever. Would the Secretary of State care to confirm that?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

No, I am afraid that I cannot. Its task is to restore the Executive, which it can do on day one, two, three or four, if it chooses. On the contrary, it has a solemn task of the highest importance: to achieve restoration.

William McCrea (DUP, South Antrim)

rose—

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have been speaking for a long time. That is because I have taken a lot of interventions. I am being pressed to take another; then, I really must make some progress.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. I reinforce the point that the Secretary of State has made. A number of hon. and right hon. Members intend to seek to catch my eye; however, the time that they will have to speak is being reduced with every single intervention.

William McCrea (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Surely the financial black hole to which he referred earlier should not be filled through water charges. The fact is that the lack of infrastructure in the past 30 years was caused by the need to spend money on dealing with 30 years of IRA terrorism. The people should not be penalised.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I put it to the hon. Gentleman absolutely straightforwardly—I hope that he will not take this in the wrong spirit—that where I and my constituents pay, on average, £1,300 a year in water charges and household council tax, he and his constituents pay some £600 a year in water contributions and household rates. So they are paying less than half what Scottish, Welsh and English Members and their constituents are paying. That is not sustainable if we want a proper, modern water and sewerage system in Northern Ireland that meets future needs and provides clean water and beaches. Moreover, if we want to release up £200 million-worth of spending to put into health and education, we need to raise more finance locally. The same point applies to the rates. That gap—Northern Ireland's households contributing less than half what Great Britain's households contribute—is simply not defensible or sustainable.

The key purpose of the Assembly is to pave the way for a devolved Executive, by electing a First Minister and Deputy First Minister; and then running the d'Hondt process. When all concerned have affirmed the pledge of office, including the commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful means, the Bill requires me immediately to make an order restoring devolved government. The newly selected Executive would take up office, and the Assembly would have all its powers and responsibilities restored. The direct rule powers would come to an end; indeed, they would be repealed from the statute book.

If restoration is achieved, we have provided that the Assembly's life should be prolonged for a year beyond May 2007, when an election was due. That is not the sort of step to be taken lightly, but it makes no sense, having laboured for years to restore an Executive, for its members then immediately to have to focus on pre-election positioning and campaigning, instead of focusing on the difficult process of self-government. It is going to be hard enough to build the trust and experience necessary to make the new arrangements work without electoral politics intervening.

Of course, some parties are seeking changes to the arrangements under which devolution would operate. Much the best way forward would be for the parties in the Assembly to resolve those issues among themselves. Under devolution, the Assembly achieved remarkable things with all the parties working together, and in that spirit I am sure that we could overcome the remaining obstacles. We as a Government of course stand ready to contribute to discussions on those issues, and to give effect to the outcome. But accommodation among all the parties is what matters.

If we do not get an Executive by 24 November, the Bill is absolutely unequivocal. The Assembly Members will go home, the May 2007 elections will not take place and, from 24 November, the Assembly Members will receive no pay, though the powers governing that already exist and do not depend on the Bill. We do not believe that it would be justified to pay Members of the Legislative Assembly any resettlement allowance. After three and a half years on generous pay without having been able to carry out their role, the public would not accept MLAs receiving golden handshakes.

It has been put to me that MLAs could face some unavoidable costs, arising after the November deadline, associated with the closure of their offices and the release of their staff. There are existing arrangements for those to be reimbursed strictly on the basis of receipted claims. Suggestions that that means a £16,000 retirement package in the back pocket of every MLA are completely misguided. Frankly, however, I am not particularly sympathetic to even those winding up arrangements for office rent, staff and so on. The public are heartily sick of taxpayers' money being doled out to MLAs who will not do their jobs by working together like all other elected politicians across the world.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Does the Secretary of State agree that the people of Northern Ireland are also heartily sick of the Government doling out money to Sinn Fein MPs who do not do their work in this House? We are told that they do their constituency work, as do MLAs, but this Government saw fit to introduce payments of hundreds of millions of pounds to Sinn Fein MPs on the same basis as payments to Assembly Members. Is not he being utterly hypocritical?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I am not sure that hundreds of millions of pounds is anything like correct. The hon. Gentleman may want to check the accuracy of that assertion. He surely is not suggesting that the fact that Sinn Fein Members have not taken their seats, which I regret—although they continue to do their constituency work—in this House, which has sat for centuries, is the same as Members of the Legislative Assembly refusing to sit together and do the job for which they were elected.

If we failed by 24 November, we would then carry forward the government of Northern Ireland. Of course an Assembly and Executive could at some future year be restored under the original Good Friday arrangements; that is to say, without the fresh basis for which this Bill provides. In that event, the Bill enables an Assembly election to be called later, subject to an affirmative vote in Parliament. But I do not want, and I am not anticipating, failure. I believe that matters need not and will not come to that.

Devolution was a success before. Not only does it tap local resource and initiative in a way that direct rule never can, but it embodies the spirit of working together that is necessary for Northern Ireland to find a truly successful place in a changing world. It says to people at home and beyond that Northern Ireland has moved on, is meeting the challenges of the past on the basis set out in the agreement, and is determined to confront the challenges of the future, for the good of all its people.

I want to stress again that 24 November is for real. The past practice whereby deadlines come and deadlines go is over. This is a time for decision. Either the curtain comes down on the process since 1998 or it rises on a new future. We hope that the parties will have the courage and vision to make sure it rises. They will make their fateful decision, bearing in mind—I hope—what has been achieved in Northern Ireland's politics these past years. That is not democratic perfection; of course not. It is not even normal, modern, democratic politics of the kind operating elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

But it is, nevertheless, the foundations of a new democratic culture embracing everyone from Unionists to nationalists, from loyalists to republicans. It is a democratic culture to replace violence, never before achieved in Northern Ireland's tangled and tortured history. That democratic culture is a precious asset. Its foundations have been carefully assembled over the years of painful negotiation, political sacrifices, ups and downs and periodic crises. It is for Northern Ireland's parties now to decide whether they wish themselves to close down that political culture and write off a political generation. I hope that they will not do so, but instead build on it by having the courage to work together and share power together.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

We shall support the Bill. If there is a Division this evening, it is my intention to vote with the Government on Second Reading. We can explore tomorrow, I hope, the detailed questions that we may have. The Secretary of State will know from speeches that I have made on other occasions in the House that we have had criticisms of the way the Government have handled aspects of the political process in Northern Ireland over recent years. However, I believe that this is one of those occasions when the Opposition should give the Government the benefit of the doubt, although I think—I hope that I am wrong—that they are being optimistic in setting such a tight deadline for the forthcoming negotiations between the parties and the two Governments. We very much hope that the Government's initiative succeeds.

It is the belief of my party that it is in the interests of everybody in Northern Ireland that devolution should be restored and we accept, too, that that has to be done on the basis of power sharing. We cannot go back to a time in which 45 per cent. of the population was permanently and irrevocably shut out from any say in the government of Northern Ireland.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

How is it that Her Majesty's loyal Opposition can support a Bill that gives the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland such an enormous amount of increased executive power, including the power to amend any Act of Parliament whatever?

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

The hon. Lady has put her finger on one of the aspects that I hope the House will probe in detail in the debates that we will have tomorrow. One of the points on which I will then seek clarification from the Minister of State is whether the enabling powers to which the hon. Lady has just referred will be carefully circumscribed by reference to the purposes of this particular Bill or whether they could, as she suggests, have a wider application than the House would wish to provide.

I can understand why the Government have chosen the type of language that they have, but I am a little critical of their approach to the debate on the Bill. It is presented too much as if there were a neat symmetry between republicans and Unionists. The Secretary of State was right when he said at the beginning of his speech that what is stopping devolution happening is the brute fact that the majority of the Unionist community—and, for that matter, many nationalists—in Northern Ireland do not yet feel able to trust Sinn Fein and the IRA when they say that they have put terrorism permanently behind them.

I would have greater sympathy with the Secretary of State's later argument—that the different political parties in Northern Ireland should, in effect, shape up, come together and reach an agreement—if that involved only the sort of sincere yet profound differences that exist between his party and mine, for example, or between the Unionist parties and the SDLP. Such differences come down to questions about how policy should be decided in an agreed constitutional, democratic and peaceful context. However, the reality is different: the Unionist community is being asked to engage with, trust and go into government alongside members of a political movement that for decades has been dedicated to the destruction of the political entity that is Northern Ireland. Moreover, that movement has tried to change the constitutional status through violence and, at times, acts of indiscriminate slaughter rather than through the ballot box. We are being asked to make that leap of faith at a time when the republican movement is still led by men who in the past have authorised or taken part in acts of violence that have caused grievous loss of life and injury among people from all communities and on both sides of the water.

The process of coming to terms with engaging with members of Sinn Fein has been difficult enough for my party, as we have lost friends and colleagues to terrorism. Some of my colleagues in the House of Lords and elsewhere in the Conservative party will bear the physical and mental scars for the rest of their lives. Others of my friends, including a fair number of current Members of this House, have had to live for months or years with the knowledge that they and perhaps their families were on an IRA list, and with the expectation that they could be threatened or attacked at any time.

I can recall conversations with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and with Lord Mawhinney in which they described how peculiar it was for them, as Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office, to sit down to negotiate with men who they knew for certain had been plotting their murder only a few months previously. I am not making a special plea on behalf of my party but, if members of the Conservative party have reason to be wary and cautious, that must be doubly and trebly the case for members of the Unionist parties. All hon. Members, irrespective of party allegiance, must understand how much we ask of our Unionist colleagues when we argue that a political agreement has to include Sinn Fein.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

My hon. Friend has described, movingly and poignantly, the difficulties faced by his party and the rest of us. Although it is exceptionally difficult for many of us to reconcile ourselves with what has been done in the past, our concern is that there may be plans for similar things to happen again, in both the present and the future. That is what we require certainty about.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

I welcome that intervention, because the hon. Gentleman demonstrates that the DUP is prepared to look again at Sinn Fein's credentials. Without ever forgetting the grievous wrongs carried out by terrorists in the past, Unionism's political leaders are looking to the future and hoping for the profound change in republicans' intentions and motivations for which we all yearn.

The Secretary of State and the IMC today have given us some evidence that we have real cause for hope, but I am not surprised that Unionists sometimes look askance at such things. We must remember that we are asking our colleagues in Northern Ireland to share power with Sinn Fein at a time when every political party in the Irish Republic still says that they are unfit to take part in a coalition in Dublin.

The Provisional IRA has denied that it has taken part in or authorised recent acts of criminality. We hope that we can trust those words, but we cannot forget that we heard comparable denials after the Enniskillen bombing, the murder of Garda officer Jerry McCabe and numerous other terrorist incidents. It is difficult to drive those memories out of our minds.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

My hon. Friend is making a typically thoughtful and excellent speech, and he has touched on the refusal by parties in the Republic to work with Sinn Fein. However, is it not worth putting it on the record that that party, as well as having a questionable past and present, also has political principles that are inimical to anyone who sits in this House of Commons?

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

My hon. Friend is right. We are looking for more than words: we need evidence that will allow us to believe that Sinn Fein is genuinely and permanently committed to achieving Irish unity exclusively through democratic politics rather than violence or intimidation. I disagree with that objective profoundly, but it is one that is perfectly legitimate for any politician in these islands.

In our debates on these matters, and in exchanges in recent months at Northern Ireland questions, we have talked about the steps that the republican movement has taken in the past few years. However, we should not neglect to acknowledge the important moves that Unionism has also made, and I especially welcome what the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) has said in two recent speeches. In New York on 6 April and in Killarney the other day, the hon. Gentleman made clear his party's commitment to work for a just and enduring settlement. In Killarney, he said that, although Unionists would oppose those who wished to press for a united Ireland with every democratic and peaceful means at their disposal, he respected the right of democrats who sought that objective to pursue their political ideals as long as they did so through the ballot box and not through violence.

I hope that all hon. Members share that vision—that, in the end, we will find a way to a political settlement that would allow, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East said,

"the sons and daughters of the Planter and the Gael . . . to share the land of their birth and live together in peace".

However, if we are to approach that objective, we need clear and firm evidence that republicans' commitment to democracy is neither tactical nor another lull in the armed struggle such as occurred in the 1950s. We need evidence that it is a permanent and irreversible break from the history of terrorism and criminality.

As the Secretary of State said in his speech, today's report from the IMC undoubtedly gives real cause for hope. It does, in my view, indicate important further steps by the republican movement away from violence and crime and towards exclusively democratic politics. To my mind, one of the most important conclusions reached by the IMC was that which it published in paragraph 2.15 of its report, when it concluded:

"There has now been a substantial erosion in PIRA's capacity to return to a military campaign without a significant period of build-up, which in any event we do not believe they have any intentions of doing."

Evidence of that type, that suggests that we are moving away from the situation where, in the words of the Taoiseach, the IRA was able to turn violence on and off like a tap, should be warmly welcomed.

I have sometimes been criticised for focusing to a huge extent on republicans. I do not apologise for doing that because the republicans, unlike the parties linked to the loyalist paramilitary groups, will have Ministers—indeed, a significant number of Ministers—in any reconstituted Executive, but it is fair to say that we do need to acknowledge that the continued existence and activity of loyalist gangs not only gives the IRA a fig leaf for remaining organised but is the cause of genuine fear amongst the Roman Catholic and nationalist people of Northern Ireland.

William McCrea (DUP, South Antrim)

Before the hon. Gentleman moves away from republican terrorism, may I ask him a question? The Continuity IRA is very much evident and its threat is certainly not below the surface but very evident at this time. The Real IRA is also very active, and the IMC report acknowledges that there are senior members of the IRA who are also active, whether they have been hiding guns or whether they have been involved in criminality. May I ask the hon. Gentleman, is this stating really that PIRA has lost control of the republican movement?

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

That is exactly one of those questions that we shall have to continue to observe very carefully in forthcoming weeks and months. I have been told in my conversations with senior police officers and others that they believe that the leadership of Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA still retains control over, leadership of, the great bulk of those who have been followers of the Provisional IRA in the past, and there has been some splintering, but we are not yet facing the kind of split in republicanism that we saw in the conflict between the provisionals and the officials in the late 1960s. I will be guided very much by the information that I get from police officers, Army officers and other such sources about what is happening within republicanism.

I was speaking a moment ago about loyalist paramilitaries. I wanted to say to the Secretary of State that he has our support in his efforts to end loyalist violence, and I support without reservation his call to the loyalist paramilitaries to stop the crime and the violence in which they are engaged and to decommission their weapons. I would only add—I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees with me—that the police and the Assets Recovery Agency should continue to pursue remorselessly those paramilitaries who defy the law rather than abandon lawlessness in favour of democracy.

But the focus has to be primarily on republicanism because of the strength of the electoral support that Sinn Fein now enjoys, and it seems to me that there are three questions that have to be asked about republicanism. The first is whether the provisionals as an organised movement have ceased all involvement in crime. While the IMC has certainly reported progress, the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) and others, in interventions, have also pointed to those paragraphs in the report that indicate that other members of the provisional movement, including some senior members, are still engaged in criminality.

The Secretary of State made quite a lot of the difference between the approach of the leadership and the actions of a minority of members of the Provisional IRA. I accept the distinction as a matter of principle, but I think it is fair for all of us to challenge republicans by saying, "If you are sincere in your commitment to break finally and irrevocably with crime, we want to know that you are taking action to stop those rogue elements." And that does not mean the sort of alternative disciplinary methods that we have seen far too much of from paramilitary groups on both sides; it means a willingness to engage with the legitimate criminal justice system and police force so that those renegades can be brought to justice and further crimes prevented.

So the second challenge to the provisionals is to support the police and the courts and the rule of law. I did note that the IMC, in paragraph 2.19, states that it believes that the leadership of the provisionals

"has accepted the need to engage in policing if it is to achieve its aim of devolution of policing and justice",

but the IMC continues:

"The issue is still very controversial on the ground and has not been resolved to date within PIRA despite robust discussion."

I think we need to move beyond robust discussion and we need to be clear that Sinn Fein, if it is to be treated equally as a democratic party, is accepting the norms of democratic discourse, and that support for the police and the rule of law is not some optional extra—it is integral to accepting the rules of the democratic game.

I took a measure of encouragement from the IMC's comment in paragraph 2.20, when it quoted Mr. Martin McGuinness as saying, in the context of a lorry hijack in March in the Irish Republic, that

"anyone involved in activity of this nature, no matter what political party they support, needs to be arrested, charged and brought to court before a jury of their peers."

Those are good words. Let us now see those words being translated into action by Sinn Fein leaders to say to their followers that it is time for them to give evidence of crime to the police and the other parts of the criminal justice system.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the crime referred to in paragraph 2.20 was a crime executed in the Irish Republic, and that it would be very good to see Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams making the same comments for crimes that are committed in Northern Ireland and encouraging the police there and encouraging people to appear before the courts there?

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

I agree entirely.

The third challenge, which is a challenge not only for the republican movement but for us in the House, is to answer the question, what is the status of the Provisional IRA? The IMC report today talks still about the barbarous practice of exiling continuing to be enforced by both republican and loyalist paramilitary groups. It talks about paramilitary groups—the IRA as well as loyalists—acting as "community disciplinarians", imposing their rule on nationalist or loyalist people, rather than allowing the rule of law to prevail. We hear the comments of the Irish Justice Minister, who wrote in the Sunday Independent on 26 March that the resources of the IRA

"are very substantial. They are available for the subversion of democracy."

On 11 April, he told the Irish Independent that

"the IRA constitution continues to be treasonable and subversive".

One cannot lightly ignore such statements.

I would welcome it if the Provisional IRA really were turning itself into what the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has referred to as an old boys association. I would not welcome the commemorative events of such a body, but it would be much better and easier to live with than the violent paramilitary conspiracy that the Provisional IRA has been for so many years. At some stage, we in the House will have to work out how we think of the IRA. On several occasions, the Secretary of State has said that the Provisional IRA is no longer a terrorist threat. To be fair, the IMC bears him out and I am prepared to accept its word, but we are left with an odd situation in which an organisation is apparently no longer deemed to be a terrorist threat but membership of it is still a criminal offence both in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

If at some stage the Government said that they were considering de-proscribing the IRA because there was clear evidence that it had utterly changed in character, I could understand it, although I should want to be persuaded. But to say on the one hand that the organisation can be trusted and that it is not a terrorist threat, yet on the other that it is still a criminal offence to belong to it strikes me as a bit inconsistent and ambiguous. We must get straight in our minds how we are to treat the organisation in the future.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

Is not there a simple answer? For Sinn Fein to disband the IRA.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

Alongside support for the police, disbandment of the IRA is probably the single gesture that would make it easier for Unionists to accept the fact that the organisation had changed.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Is not it true that Unionists would be bereft of an argument if it was ever believed that they were relying on that? They could hardly accuse the organisation of being complicit in criminality and paramilitary activity if it no longer existed.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

Indeed. If the war is over, what purpose does the army serve? That is a challenge to which I have yet to hear a clear or persuasive answer from representatives of Sinn Fein.

I am conscious that Northern Ireland Members want to speak—

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

And others.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

Indeed.

I conclude by wishing the Government and the Northern Ireland parties well in the negotiations that they are about to undertake. I very much hope that we reach agreement about devolution and the restoration of the institutions with full powers, but I am clear in my own mind that that can and should come about only if we have a commitment by all parties, especially Sinn Fein, to a culture of lawfulness and justice. If everybody is to be accepted as an equal partner in the democratic future of Northern Ireland, all have to play by the same democratic rules.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 15-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches, which applies from now.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

The debate has been interesting so far and I am sure it will continue to be so.

I certainly welcome the Independent Monitoring Commission publication today; there is still a long way to go, but with reference to the IRA, it indicates that progress has been made. I also welcome the statement made in Killarney this week by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) when he and his colleagues addressed a meeting of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, which I co-chair. His statement was excellent, especially in terms of his party's willingness to share power with nationalists in Northern Ireland.

I welcome the Bill in so far as it restores the Assembly. It is important that all Members understand, as Members who have been involved in Northern Ireland affairs over the years do, that a crucial part of the Good Friday agreement—indeed of any agreement to bring stability and harmony to politics in Northern Ireland—must have at its heart the principle that people in Northern Ireland should be governed by people from Northern Ireland in a special way, with shared responsibility among the different communities.

We are not just talking about the business of devolution. After all, there is devolution in Wales and Scotland. Indeed, it is ironic that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is more of a devolutionist than I, has rightly expanded devolution in Wales, yet if, unhappily, the latter part of the Bill has to be enacted, it would bring the end of devolution in Northern Ireland. The business of devolution is working together—sharing government and making decisions together. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) pointed out how difficult that is, inevitably, among parties with fundamentally different political views. It goes beyond that: I would find great difficulty in forming a coalition with the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats and other parties in the House, but it is a thousand times more difficult for parties in Northern Ireland.

The continuance of direct rule would be disastrous for Northern Ireland and for the political process. I was a direct Minister for five years—two years as a Finance Minister and three as Secretary of State dealing with devolved issues. I was deeply uncomfortable in the role of direct rule Minister, although not in dealing with the politics and security of Northern Ireland. My party does not get a single vote in Northern Ireland although the Conservative party wins a number of votes, but apart from the Northern Ireland parties no party has a mandate there, so it is hard for direct rule Ministers to square their conscience when taking difficult decisions on behalf of people from whom they have received no mandate. That is coupled with the ludicrously inadequate method for parliamentary scrutiny of hugely important issues that affect the 1.7 million people in Northern Ireland.

The Assembly will not be the one set up by the agreement, but I am happy that it will be restored if the Bill is passed, because it will be able to discuss individual issues in Northern Ireland. I believe that it is right for my right hon. Friend to listen exceedingly carefully to those 108 Members elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly on the issues that they want to debate.

Some issues, such as water rates, rates more widely and other financial matters, remain very controversial in Northern Ireland and every Administration, whether by direct rule or through a restored Assembly, would have to confront them. Some in Northern Ireland, of course, would rather like direct rule Ministers to take the difficult decisions, so that they would not then have to take them themselves.

Other issues, such as education, are not in that category. Martin McGuiness started the ball rolling when he announced the end of the transfer test, or 11-plus. I had to continue the debate over that issue when I was Secretary of State, and my right hon. Friend is doing it now. It is, of course, an issue that divides people in Northern Ireland. Local government reform is a rather different issue again, in that all parties save one are opposed to it. I repeat to my right hon. Friend that on the highly sensitive issues that will impact on the politics and political geography of Northern Ireland for decades to come, he should listen very carefully to what is said in the intervening weeks—between now and, I hope, the summer, but possibly 24 November.

We must remember that Northern Ireland Assembly Members were democratically elected. I was present during the election and attended the count. Those Members have a representative role even if they have not yet gathered as an Assembly. The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) mentioned earlier that Sinn Fein Members do not—they do not want to—take up their seats in this place, but they still have a representative role, as do Assembly Members. I hope that my right hon. Friend and his Ministers will listen very carefully.

Another problem facing Northern Ireland is that people can become comfortable with direct rule, which is a grave danger. Every person in Northern Ireland who can exercise the franchise should think carefully about the loss of devolution and what it will mean to them—and to their grandchildren. It is a hugely significant issue. I would also say to my Front-Bench colleagues that Ministers must not become too comfortable with direct rule either. It is easy to slip into that, as I have often seen. It is easy to start thinking that we are governing parts of the United Kingdom over which we have some sort of mandate—but we do not. We— whether as Ministers, as parliamentarians or as members of the public in Northern Ireland—must not become comfortable with direct rule. It is not the answer, but the antithesis of the answer.

Salaries and the endgame are further issues. I would love to hear my right hon. Friend say that the aim over the weeks and months ahead is to succeed. The message from the Government and from this place should be that in the weeks ahead, between now and the summer or November, the key purpose is to ensure that sufficient confidence and trust is built up between the parties in Northern Ireland. The Governments in Dublin and London should help to ensure an end to direct rule and the restoration of the Irish Executive. That has to be the central message. If it does not work, if direct rule continues and devolution is not restored, it will be a great disaster for the people of Northern Ireland. Ultimately, everyone would see a diminution in their lives—not just the democratic deficit, but a diminution in people's proper entitlement to be governed by people who live in Northern Ireland for whom they have voted.

I understand the frustration of Governments and the political parties in Northern Ireland and I understand the impatience of people living in Northern Ireland. However, when we talk about the great progress made there in recent times, everyone must understand that that is not just a cliché. Enormous progress has been made there politically, socially and economically. It has not come by accident, but through hard work and commitment. It has also taken some time: the time between the signing of the Good Friday agreement and reaching agreement on it was years, not months, but we must not lose patience. We must always have the ultimate aim or the big picture in view. This is about not just the absence of violence on the streets of Northern Ireland, and prosperity in that place—although those are highly significant—but the hugely important issue of people governing themselves.

Yes, it is probably right that the salaries—the reduced salaries, as people did not receive full ones—should come to an end. They cannot continue to be paid for ever. However, hon. Members should reflect on the fact that, in the intervening years between the referendum and the establishment of the Northern Ireland Assembly, a political class has developed. It includes a generation of politicians—108 Members, but also others who work for them or who serve in local government—and it is right to say that the political class has to be maintained. If all this does not work—I hope and pray that it will—my hope is that on the eve of my 58th birthday, which will be on 25 November this year, we will not see the collapse of those institutions.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

A nice birthday present.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

It certainly would be one of the best birthday presents that I could have if we saw the restoration of the Assembly and the Executive, whereby the people of Northern Ireland could rightly be governed by themselves. The absence of that success, however, is too dire to contemplate. It is too difficult to get our political heads around that. It would mean the destruction of devolution, the continuance of direct rule and the complete collapse of the Good Friday agreement or any other agreement that sought to bring about power sharing in Northern Ireland.

I wish my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, his fellow Ministers and all the parties in Northern Ireland the very best in the months ahead. We are all hoping, praying and working hard to move in the right direction for the future.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I would like to thank the Secretary of State for introducing the Bill and for his inclusive approach to consultation about it. As we said in our response to his statement last week, we can give a general welcome to the Bill. We are pleased to see that there is now a very clear target, set down in legislation, for the restoration of the Assembly.

I think that we would all agree with the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) that Northern Ireland is best served by local politicians taking local decisions on local issues. It is right and proper that those who take responsibility for health care, education, the provision of public transport and the stimulation of the economy in Northern Ireland—to name just a few—should be directly accountable to the people who will be affected by their decisions. There could not be a bigger contrast between how decisions are taken now—in a fairly undemocratic fashion, I believe, through Orders in Council—and how they will be taken when the Assembly is fully functioning. Liberal Democrats very much hope that this Government initiative will succeed in restoring devolved government to Northern Ireland and that the Assembly will become a secure and permanent institution, not dogged by the instabilities of the past few years.

There are still huge difficulties to overcome before we reach the point of restoring devolved government. Hon. Members have already alluded to them so I do not intend to repeat them, but to make some new points. First, the Government must not shy away from their responsibilities in ensuring that those difficulties are faced up to and dealt with in the coming weeks and months. There remains a fundamental and deep mistrust between the political parties, which cannot be dealt with on a quick-fix basis. Will the Secretary of State therefore reaffirm his commitment to instituting inclusive, round-table talks? We have stated many times our belief that that is the only way in which a lasting settlement can be achieved—when all the political parties in Northern Ireland are involved in the negotiations.

Far too often, Northern Ireland parties have been separated, so Ministers do side deals with one or two parties. Each of those initiatives has ultimately failed. The Government cannot afford to make that mistake again and squander the good will—to an extent, they have already done so—of some pro-devolution parties that Ministers and successive Secretaries of State have taken for granted. If the Government want to achieve a lasting settlement, they must ensure that all the parties work together to achieve it; otherwise we will find ourselves with another temporary deal that will ultimately come unstuck.

I also very much welcome the statement by the IRA in July last year and its subsequent act of decommissioning. While many were sceptical about those words, I think that the IMC has pretty much confirmed that significant action has taken place in that regard. The reports that have followed have served to reassure Liberal Democrat Members at least that the terrorist threat from the IRA is now massively diminished. However, we still feel quite troubled about the IRA's continued involvement with organised crime. That has been noted once again by all hon. Members who have spoken so far—the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State have made that point—and it is something that we simply cannot ignore.

The Organised Crime Task Force has done some very good work, but it seems to have scarcely scratched the surface. Does the Minister agree that if Sinn Fein were to join the Policing Board and unequivocally support the police and the criminal justice system, the people of Northern Ireland would be greatly assisted in believing the IRA and Sinn Fein statements that they oppose any form of criminal behaviour? That has been an ongoing inconsistency, and Sinn Fein must live up to its responsibilities. Although I disagreed with some of the changes made to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, many of them were expressly introduced to make it easier for republicans to support mainstream policing and the rule of law.

I think that Sinn Fein is in deficit in its responsibilities towards the police. One of the very important actions that Sinn Fein can now take is positively to encourage republicans and Catholics to join the police, and it has been rather slow in that regard. However, on a very positive note, the IMC report seems to show that intelligence gathering has diminished, and there seems to be no coherent paramilitary intelligence-gathering activity of the type that the paramilitaries used to undertake to inform their terrorist atrocities. That is one of the most important findings in the IMC report, and it is one of the reasons why I am a little bit more optimistic that the process that the Bill puts in train can be successful.

I hope that some of the sceptics on the loyalist Benches will regard the abandonment of a significant part of the intelligence-gathering exercise as a very significant, albeit circumstantial, straw in the wind to show that there has been a permanent shift in Sinn Fein's ability to tool up and return to paramilitary violence as before. Indeed, the 10th report underlines the belief that the IRA is now much further from the ability to conduct organised, politically motivated paramilitary events than in the past.

Do the Government accept that the changes to the structures and working of the Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to ensure that design flaws and general problems are properly addressed should form part of the current negotiation process? The Government will recall the difficulties posed by the system of designations, for example. The Secretary of State has said nothing about that today. So will the Minister reassure the House that if such changes are deemed necessary before the Assembly can elect a First Minister and Deputy First Minister, adequate time will be available for the House to debate them?

I turn now to the specifics of the Bill. I have a few questions for the Minister, and the Secretary of State knows—the Minister probably does, too—that the Liberal Democrats have already tabled some amendments by which we hope to have a full and considered discussion in Committee tomorrow on those various points.

Our primary concern is about the Assembly's ability to act in relation to issues on which the Government legislated during suspension. Can the Minister confirm whether the Assembly will be able to amend or repeal any Order in Council passed in Westminster since October 2002? Surely, once the Assembly resumes responsibility for transferred matters, it is up to the Assembly to determine policy on all those matters. Therefore, I should like the Minister to reassure us that the Assembly can reverse, by means of an Act of the Assembly, any policy decision that the Government have made and brought into operation during suspension. That point has been made already by Members on the SDLP Bench.

I am cognisant of the fact that the hugely unpopular changes to student funding that the Government forced through using the Order-in-Council process, despite the unanimous opposition of every political party in Northern Ireland, is a classic example of the kind of thing that a fully operating reconstituted Assembly should be able to repeal. It is not good enough for the Minister simply to say, "Well, I'd like to see where the money will come from." That is not the answer that we are looking for; we want to know whether, in principle, the Assembly has the right to make those changes. After all the bonhomie and positive consensus seeking by the Government, it would be extraordinarily undemocratic if they sought to scotch the Assembly's opportunity to repeal something that was unanimously opposed when it was introduced in the first place.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Just to assist the hon. Gentleman, who, unfortunately, has pledged his support for the Bill, let me point out that it is written in black and white in schedule 2 that

"No instrument made during any period of suspension shall be liable to annulment or capable of being revoked in pursuance of a resolution, motion or address of the Northern Ireland Assembly."

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

That is why I asked the question. Surely that should not be the case. If it is the case—this is why I want to press the Minister to give a reasoned response on Second Reading—the Government are, in essence, excluding a reconstituted Assembly from making some very important decisions on a whole raft of issues. One of my increasing irritations with the Government is their obsession with forcing through many decisions in a very short time, when it simply is not necessary to force the pace of Northern Ireland legislation at that rate. The Minister and his colleagues have been wholly unable to justify why decisions of such importance must be taken here and now. If they are so confident that the process will work, they can wait eight months—or perhaps not so long—to let the Assembly do its business.

To press the point that the hon. Lady makes, how does the Minister expect to get the good will of Northern Ireland parties if he really means that the Assembly should be explicitly excluded by the legislation from altering decisions that, in the judgment of its 108 democratically elected Members, are the wrong answers for Northern Ireland? Indeed, if the Minister cannot give a good response to that question—I am not holding my breath—it will be one of the important topics of discussion tomorrow.

I ask the Minister to reconsider whether the Government are willing to put on hold some of the more controversial policy decisions that they are proposing to put before Parliament between now and the deadline of 24 November 2006. I heard what the Secretary of State had to say about that, but what greater incentive could there be to focus the minds of the people whom they are trying to persuade than to ensure that everything is to play for until 24 November? Obviously, there is a stick-and-carrot approach, but it is diminished by the fact that the Government seem willing to make decisions that are not too time-sensitive now, when they should be giving everyone the clear space to focus on reconstituting the Assembly.

We agree with the Government that if a restoration order is made before the deadline set out in the Bill, it makes sense to postpone the date of the next Assembly election until May 2008. We agree with the analysis that that would give the Assembly time to bed down and tackle some of the very real issues that face Northern Ireland before the Assembly is devolved and the parties must face the electorate again. In that context, the breathing space seems sensible.

I am pleased to see that a firm date has been proposed in the Bill. The Secretary of State will know that the Liberal Democrats are suspicious of the setting of election dates by order. In fact, we feel that we were somewhat duped by the Government on a previous occasion, when they assured us that they were going to make one change, and then made another change. We are pleased that the merits of such a proposal can be discussed and debated before the whole House.

We are also willing to accept the provision that would allow the Secretary of State to set an election date in the future if the Assembly is not restored in the autumn. Initially, I was not so sure about that. I hope that there is no need for that provision. I accept that the Government's reasoning is sound, in the sense that there should be the ability to recall the Assembly and hold an election at some time in the future, even if in the short term things do not work out.

My next point is about deadlines. I have watched deadlines come and go, and I have often seen the Government promising that there will be no plan B and then capitulating at the last minute all the same. That is one of the reasons why, in the months ahead, the Government may have some trouble making people really believe that the Secretary of State will be true to his word and pull the plug on the proposals at midnight on 24 November. To that extent, it is really important that everybody be given a practical assurance—reflected not just in the Government's words, but in their actions—so that we can see that the deadline is for real.

The conditions in clause 2 are very clear. There is no question but that they are as close to objective as can be achieved, but I still harbour a concern that, if things are progressing slowly on 22 or 23 November, we will see some kind of order, or a quick piece of legislation, going through the House to provide more breathing space. I would be interested to know what the Minister can give by way of reassurance. The Government have created a rod for their own back by being so expedient in the past with deadlines that we were told were final, but turned out to be nothing of the sort.

We also hope that in Committee, the Government will be able to give us a clear and detailed explanation of the purpose of each of the clauses in this short Bill, and how they envisage them being used, so that there can be no ambiguity or attempted reinterpretation either by the parties in Northern Ireland or, more likely, by Ministers, when they feel that they have to start wriggling around the legislation. We have seen that before.

I know that this does not please the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), but, all in all, we will support the Bill if—

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Not only did the hon. Gentleman not please me in his response to my first intervention, but I am sure that he will not please me in his response to my second. Am I correct in understanding that he has told the House that the Liberal Democrats now support, in a democracy, the shifting of the date of a scheduled election at the whim of the Secretary of State? Is that now the policy—a changed policy, a U-turn—of the Liberal Democrats?

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

No, it is not. It is a judgment. The hon. Lady asked a serious question and I will give her a serious answer. That is exactly why I was dubious about this at the start. However, there is a specific reason why I can live with the change on this occasion. In practical terms, there simply would not be enough time for the Assembly to bed down. If the Assembly elections were to take place in May 2007, there would necessarily be an additional friction in the bedding-down process, because political parties would vie for advantage instead of working together to consolidate what will almost certainly be a fragile democratic environment as the Assembly seeks to work. I note that the hon. Lady feels very strongly about that, and she is perfectly entitled to hold that view, but I counsel her to consider the practicalities of forcing an election agenda on top of a fresh, re-established and perhaps slightly volatile Assembly so soon, with the previously scheduled election date.

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The hon. Gentleman should be aware that when I was a member of the Ulster Unionist party, the then leader of that party, the former Member for Upper Bann, begged the Secretary of State to postpone the election in May 2003 and then begged him again to postpone the election in November 2003. Thankfully, the Secretary of State did not give way on that occasion. It seems that the Ulster Unionist party has changed its policy on shifting election dates.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I remember making common cause with the Democratic Unionist party on that occasion, and saying that that was going to be a massive own goal for the Government. I think that the word most used at the time was "gerrymandering". It looked like gerrymandering to try to support the perceived allies of the Government's agenda at the time. I do not hold the hon. Member for North Down responsible for her former leader's decision, but it is important that we learn the lessons from that. If there is one absolutely certain reason not to change election dates, it is if the change is being made to try to manage or engineer a particular outcome.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

rose—

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I will give way, but I hope that we do not go too far from the content of the Bill.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Just in case there is any confusion or doubt, I am a very poor lookalike for the former right hon. Member for Upper Bann. Reflecting on the point that the hon. Gentleman has made about the inconvenience, difficulty and pressure that an election might put on political parties, I must say, with the greatest respect to him, that elections are for the people to express their will—[Hon. Members: "Absolutely."] They are not for the convenience of political parties.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The hon. Lady makes her point, and other hon. Members make their points. On this occasion, we think that there is a point in changing the election date. The Government have paid the price for what they have tried to do in the past. I remember congratulating the Democratic Unionist party on running a very good election campaign and smiling to myself because I suspect that at the time, the outcome was exactly the opposite of what the Prime Minister had intended.

The Bill is fairly short, but it has significant potential consequences. I want to highlight one very serious danger. If the Government do not succeed in re-establishing the Assembly, they must do something about how Northern Ireland is managed through direct rule. In the failure scenario, it would be utterly unacceptable for Orders in Council to be used to decide the future of 1.5 million people in Northern Ireland.

The Minister knows how resentful many of us have become—and not just about the overloaded business agenda, which the Government seem willing to impose gratuitously on those of us who do not have the benefit of the Northern Ireland Office preparing our briefings. The Minister will also know that this all-or-nothing approach towards profoundly important and constitutionally significant legislation in Northern Ireland is not democratic at all. To an extent, Ministers have already squandered much of the good will that we have tried to show in helping them to do their business, but if it looks as if we have not got an Assembly, we cannot carry on like this.

I hope that the Minister will provide some kind of an indication, either by intervening or in his winding-up speech, that the Government will take a more inclusive and democratic approach than they have done so far.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to him and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) to say that we are happy to look at the matter. The Government find the process of Orders in Council unsatisfactory on occasions, too.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I am delighted that we violently agree. Actions speak louder than words, and I hope that we can have those conversations in parallel with any negotiations that take place after the Bill is passed. If the Minister has good ideas on how we can make the process better, there is no reason why we should wait until 24 November to implement them, because we could start doing that now.

I look forward to tomorrow's short Committee and Report stages—

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

At this rate we will still be here.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I look forward to hearing other speakers, too.

More than anything, the Minister can be assured that we want a restored Assembly. I hope—perhaps I may even suggest this to the DUP—that there will be sufficient common cause in the interest of preventing the Government from running Northern Ireland like an old-fashioned Commonwealth outpost. Until we restore the Assembly, there is a significant risk that the Government will impose their will on many occasions, against the unanimous opposition of all politicians in Northern Ireland.

Menzies Campbell (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I owe the House an unqualified apology. At Prime Minister's questions today, I put questions to the Prime Minister that were based on an alleged incident at a prison in Stockton-on-Tees. The information had been relayed to me by an apparently reliable source and I accepted it in good faith. I now understand that my information was inaccurate, and I apologise for any embarrassment or inconvenience that I might have caused. I have written to the Home Secretary himself to make an apology in such terms as I have indicated to the House. I understand that the convention of the House requires a Member to come to the Chamber as soon as possible when he or she realises that something of this kind might have taken place, and I have sought to do that. I repeat my apology to the House for inadvertently relying on information that has now been demonstrated to me to have been inaccurate.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for coming to the Chamber as soon as he has to put the record straight and feels that that is characteristic of the way in which he conducts himself in the House.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Government Ministers know that we believe that the proposals for which the Bill provides do not go far enough. It is a matter of record that we wanted the British and Irish Governments to be firmer and to go further. We wanted a real restoration date so that parties knew that they were on a countdown to restoration, which would be the biggest possible reality conditioner. Of course, the Bill provides not for that, but for an Assembly that is not restored, but convened on a different basis. It provides for an Assembly that is almost legally distinct from that provided for in the agreement. We are told that the Assembly will not be a shadow Assembly, so it will not even be a shadow of its former self.

We know that the rules of the game—I am not a golfer—are that the ball must be played where it lies. When we believe that the Governments have not gone far enough, we will take what is in front of us as far as possible in the direction of securing the full and proper implementation of the Good Friday agreement. We will test the Bill. We will also test the Assembly and its arrangements. We will test other parties in the Assembly and will no doubt be tested by other parties, too. When taking things forward as far as we can, we will not go down any cul-de-sacs or go off on excursions and diversions that only distract us from the real primary task—the key job—of delivering what the people voted for when they voted for both the institutions of the Good Friday agreement and all the parties since then, because they voted for all the parties to take the powers available to them according to their mandate in the context of the institutions.

Of course, the key question is whether the Bill offers a definite path to restoration, or simply a temporary, dead-end talking shop. Given what we have seen and heard to date, it might offer either. There could be a path to restoration because if the Assembly elects a First Minister and Deputy First Minister and runs d'Hondt, and if everyone takes the pledge of office, the Secretary of State, under the Bill, must restore the institutions. We would welcome that. We want those things to happen, so we will be there for the Assembly proceedings to try to make that happen.

On the other hand, the Secretary of State has power to refer "such other matters" to the Assembly as he "thinks fit". That was dealt with by the two Governments in a statement earlier this month and last week in Parliament by the Secretary of State, who said that the Government would "take account" of motions passed with cross-community support on matters such as water rates and the review of public administration. What confidence can parties or the public have in such variable indications from the Secretary of State, when the Government have consistently failed to respect the combined will of parties on a cross-community basis on water rates, industrial de-rating and the review of public administration? They ignore clear and manifest views outside the Assembly, and it appears that the Secretary of State has given himself and Ministers the right to continue to ignore such views, even within the Assembly as constituted by the Bill. It has not been clarified whether "take account" means abiding by the express cross-community will of the Assembly.

We have tabled a probing amendment to give the temporary Assembly a power by cross-community vote to veto orders, effectively giving it the power of negative resolution on a cross-community basis. If the Secretary of State wants to encourage us to believe that we will have a meaningful and effective role in the Assembly, I look forward to his accepting our amendment. Earlier, he said that if the Assembly were not restored in November, proceedings would begin to wind it up. He said that allowances would be stopped, and referred to people being paid for not doing their job. He should remember that many Assembly Members did not cause suspension or choose it. Some of them even gave up better-paid jobs to take elected office, and they have lost out ever since. The Secretary of State does not impress anyone by talking in dismissive terms that many people find insulting.

Some of us submitted proposals more than two years ago that would enable us to do a full job as a legislative assembly. We would oversee the work of Departments, control the budget and deal with legislation. We would not have direct rule. Even if parties would not form an Executive, local people would act as accountable Ministers. Our proposals would therefore enable us to do what we were elected to do and what we are paid to do. However, the Government and others made sure that that did not happen, so the wagging and pointing of fingers are not particularly helpful.

I concur with the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) in taking issue with the postponement of elections. Bizarrely, only last month, the Secretary of State said that power was needed to bring the date of elections forward to cement progress. Now, however, he says that power is needed definitively to postpone the date of elections to cement progress. I have a funny feeling that, whatever happens, the Government will revisit the issue, because if the institutions are restored someone will engineer an election before May 2008, as the way in which the institutions work means that they will be in a position to do so.

We do not believe that the timing of elections should be rejigged at will. Like others, we opposed the postponement of elections. We opposed the original four-week postponement in May 2003, and certainly the second, longer postponement. Others were loud in their opposition to postponement, but they are silent now. I wonder how far the new date reflects any other agreement or understanding that the Government now have.

Restoration is the big challenge that we all face. As the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) reflected earlier, the important principle for all of us must be that we as elected representatives and as democrats share responsibility for governing our affairs now and into the future.

In the previous experience of devolution, institutions worked. People had their doubts about whether the inclusive arrangements could work. People had their doubts about whether the need for cross-community support on matters as basic as budgets and programmes for government would work. It would be a tower of Babel, there would be gridlock and it would all fall apart. The fact is that it worked, even when not all Ministers were in the Executive, and so on.

The Government and all parties in the House, including the Liberal Democrats, need to remember that there were no issues to do with the working of the institutions that caused suspension. Suspension did not come because of how strand 1 works, how strand 2 works or how strand 3 works. Suspension came because of issues outside the institutions.

Parties and Governments are on a dangerous course if they are inviting people to go through a menu of preconditions relating to changes to the workings of the agreement as further preconditions for restoration. If the issues that caused suspension have been dealt with and are out of the way, we should be on course for restoration, but the idea that we are undertaking a pub crawl of preconditions to change this bit of the agreement and that bit of the agreement to satisfy the Democratic Unionist party mandate is a dangerous misadventure.

I fully respect the DUP's mandate. I want the DUP to have everything to which it is entitled for its mandate under the Good Friday agreement, and that is a lot. I have never tried to deny the DUP what it is entitled to under the agreement. However, I will not accept the rest of us being denied what we are entitled to under the agreement. The DUP has rights under the Good Friday agreement. It does not have rights over the Good Friday agreement.

With regard to changes in the workings of institutions, that can all happen in the context of restoration and the DUP will be in a very strong position, whether in reviewing the agreement or in a working Assembly, to help to oversee changes and adjustments in the workings of the institutions. Indeed, we, the Social Democratic and Labour party, have proposed many changes and adjustments in the working of the Assembly, the Executive and so on. There is a difference between making those adjustments in the context of working institutions when everyone has confidence in each other's position, and granting gratuitous changes to the agreement as a precondition for restoration.

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Changing the resignation of the Deputy First Minister.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I never did it.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. I ask hon. Members not to engage in obtrusive sedentary comments. It does not help the debate.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

In his remarks the Secretary of State spoke of the prospect that would ensue if the current course did not work out. As he put it, the curtain comes down on the process since 1998. In a statement last week, he spoke of closing the book on devolution. The Government need to remember that in present circumstances and in what unfolds in the next few months, it could be in some people's interest to see the book closed on devolution or the curtain coming down on the process since 1998, if that allows them to say that the curtain has come down and the book has been closed on the Good Friday agreement.

I am not sure that parties are as afraid of the suggestions from the Secretary of State as he might think they are. That outcome might suit the purposes of some parties. It is also clear that parties are not frightened by the prospect of a so-called alternative coming from the two Governments in that context. I am not sure that parties believe that the Governments will be able to muster much of an alternative at the end of the year, depending where the Prime Minister might be, as the Irish Government are on a count-down to elections. The search for a so-called alternative would lead only to confirmation in the eyes of some that the agreement had been abandoned or set aside. Such a situation might suit them. We might not have an agreement as a given. We might not have the restoration of the Assembly as a given—the Government have made it clear that they do not think that it is a given. It might be that the only thing that we have in Northern Ireland as a given is seven super-councils. That will involve the balkanisation of Northern Ireland, which is repartition in waiting. There will be three green councils, three orange councils and Belfast, where there will be all to play for.

When the Secretary of State talks about the possibility of writing off a political generation later this year, he must be careful, because we could end up with a choice that no one has advocated, no one has asked for and nobody has voted for. Over the coming months, we face a choice between two futures. People voted for one of those futures, which will respect and accommodate the mandate of everyone, including people who did not vote for that dispensation. If one listens to the Government, we face the reality of seven super-councils, in which case parties will adapt to the situation and seek to build up their power bases in a divided and politically sterile Northern Ireland.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

This Bill provides for an Assembly in Northern Ireland, and my party and I welcome that. This proposal is in line with our suggestion, which we put to the Government earlier this year, that there should be a phased approach to the return to devolution, and I believe that the Bill presents a chance for that to take place. We have made it clear that the conditions are not yet right to see the restoration of the Executive, but we believe that there is important work that the Assembly can do. I welcome today's contribution by the Leader of the Opposition on IRA-Sinn Fein.

The Northern Ireland people will not have full time in this debate because of the regulations of this House. I am allowed to speak for only 15 minutes, although I am the leader of a party that has nine Members. That is the fairness of this great democratic body that I am addressing.

We have made it clear that the conditions are not right to see the restoration of the Executive, but there is important work for the Assembly to do, and this Bill can help us to do that work. Such work can contribute to the conditions which could see the Assembly-proper returning, and it could also give the Members of the Legislative Assembly an enhanced role in helping to shape decisions in Northern Ireland. I do not think that MLAs should be despised, because they made a case to the electorate and some of them put their lives on the line to get elected. I salute them for their work, particularly in local areas in Northern Ireland.

Many areas of Government policy in Northern Ireland urgently require attention. The direct rule Administration is on the wrong track on some important issues. In some areas, I believe that it is possible to achieve a measure of consensus between all the local parties, which will make it difficult for the Government to ignore our views. However, the big question is whether the Government ignore or accept our views. They have been lecturing us on our ethical standing, but what is their ethical standing? If a majority of MLAs say no to some of the proposals that they have put their shirt on, what will they do? They must face up to their ethical responsibility.

The Assembly must not be allowed to be a mere talking shop—it must produce goods that the people can examine and say yes or no to. The constitutional nationalists say that they want to see the return of proper devolution. They told us that they love us and want to put their arms around us—that they want us to be with them—yet they called us a bunch of rogue Ministers. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to determine standing orders and to allow the Assembly to deal with matters as he sees fit. However, woe betide him if he tries to gag the Assembly. Its Members must have the freedom to speak their minds.

There are regional rate rises of 19 per cent. in Northern Ireland, and the future of our education system is being decided. The Minister says that a majority of people in Northern Ireland are in favour of his education system. He clearly does not know what is happening in Northern Ireland, because there is no such majority. I am speaking for Roman Catholic and Protestant constituents, and for Roman Catholic and Protestant schools. Let not this House be bluffed that the education system presented by Ministers is acceptable to Northern Ireland—it is not acceptable at all, and well the Minister knows it. No wonder he smiles and his glasses are about to fall from his face.

I should like all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland to put their shoulders to the wheel in the Assembly and make it a real motivating factor among the people of Northern Ireland. I should like it to determine and bring in changes. The Government have said that the Bill is structured so that 24 November will be the deadline. Let the House understand this: that does not destroy the original Assembly; it is still there and it will go on. Let me also say that I do not believe that people who have no say in Northern Ireland, do not live in Northern Ireland, and cannot even pronounce the names of the towns of Northern Ireland properly should decide our future—the people of Northern Ireland should decide that.

The people of Northern Ireland are told that there is a deadline, but it is the Government's deadline, not the Ulster people's deadline. I am enraged by the fact that as a Unionist I had to wait for years while both Governments talked to Sinn Fein, pleaded with it, handed it money, and tried to bribe it, while the Unionists were ignored. Now I am told that the deadline is 24 November. I do not know of any Member of the Assembly who went pleading for money and asking for £11,000 for their hip pocket. I wish the Minister would tell us who these people are, because there has been no outcry. I have told the Secretary of State that he does not need to threaten us by talking about money: nobody is asking for his money. We are not going to crawl. The people of Ulster can look after themselves, and they do not need these Ministers to say, "You're depending on me but you'll not get your money." That is a funny sort of direct rule.

It is the IRA that needs to change. If the IRA changes from its criminality, terrorism and threats, it will be received in the Assembly on the very same basis as anybody else. I will not say anything about its roguery. We have been called rogues but we shall not say anything about it. Let the IRA repent and

"Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance."

Then we can all move forward in Northern Ireland to the sort of Government that we want and that Northern Ireland deserves.

The Government should ask themselves whether, despite all the progress they say that they have made, even one large paramilitary organisation has closed down. The answer is not one. They should not therefore come to us and tell us another story. The story is that not one has closed down. I want them all to close down and all the parties to stand on the one, same basis—that of democracy.

The Prime Minister said to me in the House that all violence must be done away with

"in a way that satisfies everyone and gives them confidence that the IRA has ceased its campaign, and enables us to move the democratic process forward, with every party that wants to be in government abiding by the same democratic rules."—[Official Report, 27 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 309.]

I want that and it is what the people of Northern Ireland want. That is building on a sure foundation, not a sham rock. Let us lay a foundation that will last and run the course, not only to the twenty-fourth of some month. Let us create a solid rock of democracy on which we can build for the future. Let us encourage the people of Northern Ireland to enter into proper negotiations on a proper democratic basis so that our problem can be properly resolved.

No one is losing faith in Northern Ireland. The spirit of the Ulster people is stronger than ever. I believe that we can see something out of this that will bless our children and our children's children.

David Anderson (Labour, Blaydon)

Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), I had the great privilege of having a mandate from some of the people of Northern Ireland. In September 1993, I stood against a good colleague from Omagh to be elected as the first national chairman of Unison's national policy committee. That mandate was renewed biannually as I stood as a representative of local government workers in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Part of my remit at the beginning of that term was to bring together the three partner unions that had merged two months previously and to reconcile their different views on organising in Northern Ireland.

One partner union basically believed that there was no role for our union to organise in a non-united Ireland. It had refused, as a matter of principle, for more than 60 years to organise there. Another believed that members in Northern Ireland should be left alone and not influenced in any way by decisions that we made in Great Britain. The third partner was somewhere in between. To confuse matters further, the two partner unions that had organised in Northern Ireland were affiliated to the British Labour party, even though it did not organise there. The one partner that did not organise in Northern Ireland was not affiliated to the Labour party.

To say that emotions were strained is an understatement. Feelings ran high and people with long-held, passionate beliefs were not prepared to change easily just because some canny lad from Geordieland wanted them to change. However, through hard work and positive engagement, we developed a process that led to my union being one of the first organisations in Northern Ireland to sign up to the Good Friday agreement, despite some serious reservations.

We achieved that by refusing to accept the concept of partisanship. We coined the phrase, "non-partisan agents of change", which we would be. We developed an agenda that did not take a position on the constitutional arguments. We refused to be drawn into the argument between those who wanted a united Ireland and those who were committed to ensuring that that never happened. We chose instead to focus on issues that reflected the day-to-day lives of our members—the working people of Northern Ireland.

We supported civil rights issues from all sides and worked with the often-ignored ethnic minority community in Northern Ireland. We argued for security at work and for better terms and conditions, and against the privatisation of jobs. We acted as a catalyst for people to come together. We shared experiences with other parts of these islands that were seeking to develop their own devolution and self-determination. We put peace and stability on the agenda of the Labour party and we supported politically, practically and financially the work of the shadow state of Northern Ireland while Labour was in opposition. We promoted the equality agenda and condemned attacks on innocent people at home and at work.

We did what many in this Chamber did: we did our best. In particular, we tried to bring people together. We engaged with various political parties and one of my proudest moments was in early 1996, just five days after the Canary Wharf bombing, when we hosted a weekend seminar in Newcastle, County Down. Representatives of almost every political party in Northern Ireland came and talked about trying to develop a shared future. I am very proud of the work that we did in those years and of the attempts that we made since 1998 to push for a place in which the members of my union could live in peace and security.

We welcomed the Good Friday agreement as the best deal on offer in 1998 and as a step in the direction away from the path of self-destruction that had been trodden for the previous 30 years. The lack of success since that time has been frustrating for people in Northern Ireland and for the members of my union, and we in the House must do all that we can to start the process to allow those people to move forward again. I am not so naive as to believe that that will be easy, but I am realistic enough to ask, "What other option do we have, if we do not pursue this one?" People are likely to ask, "Why should we not see power back where it belongs? Why should not our elected representatives do the job that we gave them to do? Why should we go on paying out public money if we are not getting the representation that we need and deserve?"

Sadly, this process has been neither happy nor straightforward, but things are getting better, as everyone here today has conceded. I can remember when Belfast was almost a no-go area for people from Great Britain. Now, at weekends, there is an immense transfer of people from my part of the country to Belfast, and vice versa. It is almost impossible to get a plane from Newcastle to Belfast or vice versa on a Friday night, and thank God for that. In economic and security terms, we have seen a massive change, and we should all be proud of that. We should acknowledge, however, that we have much more to do.

People are engaging in the process, and it is great news that some hon. Members attended the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body this week. They went and made their case and played their part, and I hope that they will continue to do so. It is also good news that the IMC report has given us some hope that things have improved, and that the leadership of the Provisional IRA is committed to a peaceful path and is trying to stop its followers engaging in criminal activity. Let me make it clear: the leadership must realise that those involved in crime and terrorism are not welcome in our democratic institutions, and it must do everything in its power to ensure that they do not become involved in that way.

Let us also move away from the debate about saying that the organisations should sort out their criminal malcontents. Let us give our security forces the message that they should be doing that. They should act decisively against those who are identified as being engaged in criminal activity. The organisations that want to become involved in our democratic institutions should help the police and the security forces to carry out that work. That is part and parcel of the job of being a democratic politician.

In every dispute, every war and every battle, the time comes to move on. That time is now. Unlike most disputes, wars or battles, no one has clearly won this one, although many people have lost so much that it is untrue. But we must make progress. The choice is ours. The debate is about all of us, not just about Northern Ireland.

Gordon Banks (Labour, Ochil and South Perthshire)

I come from a Scottish constituency where we have enjoyed devolution since 1999 and seen the real benefits of it. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a real opportunity to deliver to Northern Ireland the benefits that the rest of these islands have enjoyed since 1999, and that such an opportunity should not be missed?

David Anderson (Labour, Blaydon)

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend and I wish that the people of the north-east had been given a chance similar to that which Scotland has enjoyed and that has been on offer to our friends from Northern Ireland today. Had we be given such a deal, we might have voted for it.

We must accept our responsibilities. In doing so, we must accept that we do not always get what we want. I say to Members of the House that we should take up the challenge, make it happen and make it work. The alternative is the continuation of direct rule, with which everybody, I believe, is unhappy. We can give my former colleagues and some close friends much greater control and say over the way in which their lives are directed. Since I entered the House, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has discussed constantly how direct rule stops the things that ordinary people believe in happening. I am not happy that, at times, we do things that are not the wishes of the Northern Ireland people. If we move forward in this way, it will give them a much greater chance and say to influence their lives and those of generations to come.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson), who serves on the Select Committee and has a real and deep affection for Northern Ireland, which is obvious whenever one travels there with him.

I am also glad to be the first Opposition Member to speak after the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), who made a highly significant speech, as people will realise when they read it in Hansard tomorrow. He and his deputy, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), have both contributed significantly during this month. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who spoke eloquently from the Front Bench, referred to the two speeches made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East, one in the United States on 6 April and the other at the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body on Monday. The substance of the speeches of both the leader and the deputy leader of the DUP was that, for all the difficulties that they face in doing so, they are prepared to sit down with and serve with those of very different political persuasions so long as those people play by the democratic rules and make it abundantly clear that that is what they are doing.

I, like the right hon. Member for North Antrim and my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, support the Bill. I wish the Government well over the next few months. I hope that the negotiations will succeed. I am worried about deadlines—I realise that they must be there, but I would rather have the end of the year than 24 November. People in the rest of the United Kingdom do not fully face up to the difficulties that there will be and the daily burden of those who practise democratic politics in Northern Ireland if there is to be a restored Assembly. Those daily burdens have been referred to obliquely in this debate in many ways.

First, as I said in Question Time today—and the Secretary of State agreed—it is inconceivable that anybody who is engaged directly or indirectly in criminality should be involved in the government of any part of the United Kingdom, whether this House, a district or parish council or a devolved Parliament or Assembly. It is absolutely crucial that those who say that they have renounced the bullet for the ballot box prove that in every possible way.

Like the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury and the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who spoke splendidly earlier, I greatly welcome today's IMC report and what it says. However, we must not make the mistake, because we are encouraged by the good bits, of neglecting the others. There is a clear indication in that report that leading figures on the undemocratic republican side, while they might have renounced terrorism and engaged in a massive act of decommissioning—the latter I accept, and the former I hope that I can accept—are still benefiting from the ill-gotten gains of some pretty horrendous crimes and are still involved in those crimes. It would be wrong for me, as Chairman of the Select Committee, to pre-empt a report that has not yet been drafted, let alone published, but there are several members of the Committee in the Chamber who have listened with me to evidence that we have received from a variety of people and organisations. Some has been heard in public and some in camera because of its sensitivity. We have been told clearly that there are those who have been involved with IRA-Sinn Fein who are deeply implicated in acts of criminality, who have been so implicated in the recent past and almost certainly are at present.

There must be an absolute renunciation. When I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury to say that the best thing that Sinn Fein could do would be to disband the IRA, I meant what I said. That would send those who want Northern Ireland to have a proper democratic future a real signal that Sinn Fein was indeed seeking to turn its back on the past.

We cannot make hatred history—which is what we must do in Northern Ireland—we cannot engender trust, and we cannot properly embrace the doctrine of forgiveness in which the right hon. Member for North Antrim made clear that he truly believes unless there is a proper understanding that those who wish to sit down with the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Democratic Unionist party and the Ulster Unionist party are putting themselves in a context of what I would call democratic equality.

Even when that happens, there will still be real difficulties in making the Assembly work. The right hon. Member for Torfaen touched on them, amusingly, when he said that he would find it difficult to enter into a coalition with Tories or Liberal Democrats. I would find it difficult to enter into a political coalition with friends—of whom I have many—on the other side of the House, not because I do not trust them and not because I would for a moment impugn their democratic credentials, but because we have very different political beliefs. Yet we in the rest of the United Kingdom are asking the democratic parties in Northern Ireland to sit down with Sinn Fein, whose political beliefs—as I said earlier—are inimical to those of most of us in the Chamber, wherever we come from. Sinn Fein's economic and education policies are closer to those of Cuba than to those of the United Kingdom.

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

They are Marxist.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

They are indeed.

Because of the demography of Northern Ireland and the sad history of recent decades, we recognise that we must try to find an accommodation and work with those people. The least that we can expect is for them to behave in the same way as Marxist parties in some democracies—although not many—in other parts of the world.

We are asking a great deal. I make a plea to the Government on two fronts. I understand why the Secretary of State cannot be present, and I hope that the Minister, who is diligent, will relay my points to him. First, while I accept the firmness of the Government's intention and wish for a deadline, I think that it would be sensible to make it the end of the year. Secondly and more important, I think that it would be sensible, if we are to plead with the parties in Northern Ireland to work together, to refrain from any unnecessary Orders in Council in the House, at least until the November deadline specified by the Government.

Several speakers, including the right hon. Member for Torfaen, referred to the reform of local government. At the moment, this House is imposing on the people of Northern Ireland a democratic local government structure that none of the democratic parties wants. It is clear to me from my many conversations with people in Northern Ireland that there is an acceptance that there are too many local authorities. But there is an equal acceptance among most to whom I speak that seven authorities is too few—an acceptance of the logic of the argument of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) that such a structure runs the risk of polarising Northern Ireland for generations into, "Three green, three orange and Belfast." Such a structure cannot be good if we truly want a Northern Ireland that works together.

Frankly, it was very undemocratic of the Secretary of State to dismiss such worries when he was intervened on by saying that business people and various groups want such a structure. Northern Ireland's elected politicians, who are playing a part in the democratic structures of this House, do not want it, so I beg the Minister to put that proposal on ice and to say, as a real encouragement to those who would participate in a proper and fully functioning Assembly, "We will not impose on you a new local government structure if you can get your act together by the deadline."

I also hope that the same will prove true of education. I accept that unanimity among the parties on this issue does not exist; indeed, it is clear from the evidence that my Committee took, and from talking to people, that there is division. There is probably a majority in Northern Ireland who do not want the change that the Government are seeking to impose, although there seems to be a general recognition that the form of the 11-plus could be altered. However, we should let the Assembly get its teeth into this issue and deal with it. As I said in a jocular aside to the right hon. Member for North Antrim, I am not sure that this House should even be passing water until 24 November; there again, there are deep divisions in Northern Ireland and real concerns. [Interruption.] Perhaps that is what the right hon. Gentleman, who is no longer in his place, has gone to do. [Interruption.] That was indeed a very indelicate remark.

I urge the Minister to recognise that we are dealing with a number of issues that will affect the daily lives of the people of Northern Ireland for generations to come, and that we are anxious to have an Assembly that represents, is elected by and is answerable to them. Should not that Assembly have the same freedom to decide on such issues as the Parliament established in Scotland and the Assembly established in Wales? If we all mean business, there will have to be give and take on all sides. The absent ones in this House—the Sinn Fein Members who do not take their seats—have got to prove their democratic credentials. I would like them to be here, but if they will not come here, they should at least make the absolute and total renunciation that I have talked about. I say to the Unionist parties—and to the Social Democratic and Labour party; I well remember the bravery of Gerry Fitt—that those who have suffered at the hands of gangsters and terrorists will have to sit down with those who have been gangsters or terrorists, or who supported them. A lot of give and take is involved.

We in this House must be prepared to say, "We are going to draw back from interference and domination while you have this period to sort yourselves out." That is not too much to ask of the Government—it is not too heavy a price for them to pay—in order to preserve a truly bipartisan policy. I am very pleased that we in the Select Committee do not divide on party lines. I hope that we will not, and that this House will not do so today or tomorrow. I very much hope that the Secretary of State's wishes will be fulfilled, but I ask that he show the degree of caution and tolerance that is necessary if we are to have a real chance of achieving success on 24 November.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I am pleased to speak, if only briefly, in this debate. I wish to take the opportunity to make a few comments, but I shall begin by welcoming many of the speeches that have preceded me, not least the speech by the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). All the speeches so far have been characterised by courage and leadership. I represent a constituency with no historical affinity or great links with Northern Ireland—although I have spoken regularly on Northern Ireland matters—but the contributions have filled me with great optimism. While a long journey remains to be made, I and other colleagues are greatly encouraged.

There are enormous reasons in Northern Ireland politics for the long history of distrust on all sides and they are measured in the incidents of violence and the atrocities that have been perpetrated, which we all condemn. Even recently, there are reasons to extend that distrust further, such as the recent history of bank raids and the failure to sign up properly to the changes to policing and the criminal justice system. Even in the welcome report by the IMC today, we see paragraphs on the dissident republican groups and loyalist paramilitarism. Despite that, as the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) mentioned, we are today considering a leap of faith. However, that leap will not be taken completely in the dark: it is based on evidence.

We can begin with the IRA statement on 28 July, in which it clearly signalled the end of an armed campaign. The history of Northern Ireland suggests that we should view that with distrust, but it is a significant issue on its own. The IMC report noted, despite reservations in certain areas, a sea change in Northern Ireland politics and the willingness of groups to lay down the gun and subscribe to the democratic process.

Indeed, the greater peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland is illustrated by the story of Belfast itself. My wife now regularly travels to Belfast for her "away day" with fellow wives, but only 10 or 15 years ago that would have been almost inconceivable. Belfast is now one of the destinations to which people aspire to travel to spend time in, not least because of the welcome received and the friendliness of the people there.

The Bill is a question of faith, and that also applies to the Government. Ministers have the strong belief, which I share, that if they pass the ball firmly across to the politicians of Northern Ireland, they will run with it and deliver. I am encouraged by this debate and I believe that the ball will not be fumbled or dropped. There is every hope that in the ensuing months we will see not simply an Executive, but—despite the worries about a talking shop—a fully functioning democratic institution with a mandate, so that Assembly Members can deliver their promises and make their judgments, instead of that being done by the MP for Ogmore and others like me. That is what I hope for today.

There will always be thousands of reasons to hesitate about making progress in Northern Ireland. The only reason for making progress is that that is what will benefit the wider population there. Politicians—whether they belong to the Assembly or the Opposition—know that what happens to them is less important than delivering peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland. The Bill is an essential step in that endeavour.

I hope that members of the DUP, the UUP, the SDLP and other parties will use the proceedings of today and tomorrow to take matters forward. History will not say that they sold out or that they were backsliders; they will be remembered as statesmen and stateswomen with courage and vision in difficult times. These difficult questions are not for political journeymen, and the right hon. Member for North Antrim was correct to say that we must look beyond the horizon. I have every hope that we can move forward today.

It would be unfair of me to finish my brief remarks if I did not pay tribute to those who have brought us to this point. Former Secretaries of State, both Labour and Conservative, have made important contributions, and members of the UUP, the DUP, the SDLP and other parties have taken incrementally courageous and painful decisions to get us to where we are today. I look forward to the day when my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) can celebrate a very good birthday, when his present will be that the political institutions in Northern Ireland are in place and running effectively, led by Northern Ireland politicians.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

It might be useful if I begin by saying that my colleagues and I have entered into a pact; we will speak for no more than 10 minutes each, so that all hon. Members who want to contribute to the debate can do so. That shows that concessions are being made already. [Laughter.]

We do not intend to vote against the Bill getting a Second Reading this evening, even thought it is not everything that my party would want. Many elements could be improved, although we recognise that there are time constraints. I share the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) that this measure should be renamed and that, instead of being called the Northern Ireland Bill, it should be called The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Bill, as it seems to give him enormous powers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker has just announced the results of last week's deferred Division on Northern Ireland delegated legislation. That vote came after two days of Committee debate on the Floor of the House on the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, when there was widespread criticism of how legislation is handled here. There were calls for a much greater degree of democracy in the process, yet this Bill gives so many powers to the Secretary of State that the person who holds that office will be a virtual dictator.

I am not talking about a particular individual when I say that, as I would say the same regardless of who was Secretary of State. However, when the Government are unsure of what the future holds, they give powers to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in a way that would not be acceptable in any other part of the UK. We must move away from that practice.

This Bill arises from a joint statement by the Prime Ministers of the UK and the Republic of Ireland, paragraph 10 of which implied that certain threats would be made real if the parties in Northern Ireland did not meet the deadline set. The threat was that some form of partnership would be established between the two Governments—indeed, the statement actually contained the word "partnership"—and that it would go beyond their present relationship.

I think that that would be damaging. I advised the Government and their officials before the statement came out that that was not the route to take. Ulster men and women do not respond well to threats; I think the Secretary of State is beginning to learn that lesson, although sadly a little too late.

I welcome what the Secretary of State had to say in the House today. I suspect that he will have to say it an awful lot more to convince people, but I believe that it is imperative that the Secretary of State makes it very clear that he will not move away from the principle of consent. The Government cannot argue that they are abiding by the statement in the Belfast agreement, which is, we are told, confirming the principle of consent, and in the next breath indicate that they have intentions to allow some form of joint management or joint sovereignty or joint authority to come after 24 November.

The role of the Assembly is one of the areas where the Government have not gone as far as this party would have asked them to. Like the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), we wanted an Assembly that was going to be able to take decisions. We do not want a talking shop; we want to come to agreements and to have those agreements implemented. That arises out of our document "Facing reality", which recognised that for the immediate future it would not be possible to set up an Executive in Northern Ireland and that therefore in the meantime, however short or long that might be, the Assembly should be doing some productive work and the highest level of devolution should take place consistent with the circumstances.

I certainly agree with the very eloquent and thoughtful remarks made by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) that the Government do need to go a little further than simply saying, "we shall take into account what the parties in Northern Ireland have said". It would be a travesty if the parties in Northern Ireland were to reach an agreement in that Assembly, for instance on water charging, and the Government failed to give it life. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's humour was lost on those who were not there for the earlier part of the debate, and they may have wondered why he was restricting Members from passing water, but I think that the Minister who is replying to the debate would do well to take up our challenge to him and his colleagues.

I hope that the hon. Member for Foyle and his colleagues will join us in testing the Government on these issues, because I would like us very early in the life of that Assembly to knuckle down to some of the issues that have been referred to, whether it is water charging, or education, or the review of public administration, or the rating system or even how we might handle the economy, and reach agreements on those, and put them to the Government to see what they will do in those circumstances. I say to the Government, if they fail to give life to agreements that are reached in that Assembly, they will dent, if not destroy, the credibility of the Assembly, and indeed the purpose of any of us being there. So I hope that the hon. Member for Foyle will join us in testing the Government and seeing just how far the definition of taking account of what we have to say in the Assembly will go.

Likewise, following on from that, I want to make it very clear that there cannot be a move towards executive devolution—leaving aside the issue of paramilitary and criminal activity—until such time as changes are made to the Belfast agreement. My colleagues and I have a fundamental issue about the structures that arose out of the Belfast agreement. That is not simply because we produced policy documents and manifesto commitments and they are binding on us, but because of what we believe—that there are issues in relation to the stability of the Assembly, accountability within the Assembly, and the efficiency and effectiveness of that Assembly, that have to be addressed. We addressed those issues back in 2004 in negotiations that we had with Her Majesty's Government and we asked for changes to be made.

Some of the changes in the comprehensive agreement were not exactly as we would have had them be. Improvements could be made; indeed, some improvements could be made that might bring it more into line with some of the thoughts of the SDLP, but those changes will have to be made or there will never be any prospect of us moving into an executive form of devolution if it relies on the support of the Democratic Unionist party.

We are a party with a mandate that is opposed to the Belfast agreement. These are essential changes that need to be made in order that progress can be made. I think the Government understand that; I just hope that other parties in Northern Ireland understand that. In many ways they were catered for to some extent in the comprehensive agreement proposals.

The hon. Member for South Staffordshire referred to the picking and choosing of the IMC report. Everybody who believes in democracy and peace in Northern Ireland will welcome progress on ending paramilitary activity. When we reflect on the early 1970s, we recall that more than 470 people were murdered in a 12-month period, in a small community of about 1.5 million. Only a fool comparing that picture with the current situation would say anything other than that there has been significant progress, but the Secretary of State and the Minister should not expect to hear applause from the Democratic Unionist Benches. We do not believe that 470 people should have been killed in the first place, so we find it difficult to give credit to people because now they are not killing our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland. That is why there will be no cheers from our Benches.

At the same time, we can acknowledge that there has been progress, although as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire said, there is still progress to be made. We cannot simply take the parts of the IMC report that say this or that is better without also considering the untied things that need to be tied down—the grey areas that must be dealt with—so it is essential that the Government do not send out a signal to terrorist organisations saying, "You've really done enough". The message must be clear: there is more to do.

If the process is working, let us continue with the strategy that it is up to the IRA to finish the course. My colleagues and I deserve considerable credit for the strategy that we proposed, because the previous one was to bring in the IRA and to allow its members to have their cake and eat it. That is exactly what they did; they had their cake and they are still eating it. When the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that he will express greater urgency about the IRA finishing the course, rather than marking time as it is doing at present.

Meg Hillier (Labour, Hackney South and Shoreditch)

Like other Members, I welcome the tantalising glimpse of restored power in Northern Ireland, possibly by 24 November.

As Democratic Unionist Members are limiting their speeches to 10 minutes, I shall try to do the same, in a spirit of collaboration and co-operation. I want to focus on some of the benefits of devolution and what it could mean for Northern Ireland.

The Government have introduced devolution in Scotland, Wales and London. I was one of the 25 members of the original London assembly elected in 2000 and am one of only 34 assembly members to date. We are the smallest city government in Europe, a contrast with the Northern Ireland Assembly of 108 Members.

Local government was restored to London in 2000. I am on record as having many differences, at different times, with the incumbent Mayor of London; no doubt I and others will have differences with future Mayors, but I defend the institution, as I defend the principle of devolving power to the most appropriate level.

I want to highlight some of the benefits that we have seen in London, because the people of Northern Ireland could see similar benefits if the Assembly sets up an Executive and power is truly devolved. The main change has been in transport where there has been a real transformation. There has been a huge increase in bus services and a reduction in car travel, which could not have happened when such issues were run solely from Westminster. It was the power and will of a London Mayor who could make decisions for the whole city that made the difference. There is a whole-London approach and a strong political voice, with political power devolved to a wider city region.

One of the crucial decisions in which was London involved could not have been made without the devolution of power: the delivery of the London Olympics. There is an important parallel for Northern Ireland. Theoretically, such decisions could have been made through local government, but we could not have had the Olympics because no London borough would voluntarily have voted for a council tax increase of £20 a year for their residents. Whether or not we agree with the Mayor's decision, he was in a position to take it.

The parallel with Northern Ireland is perhaps the review of local administration and the current debate about the future of local government there. As it stands today, many small district councils and numerous public bodies run health, education and other public services. If regional government, the Assembly and the Executive are restored, the people of Northern Ireland will be able to take decisions that will deliver for the whole of Northern Ireland rather than for the individual districts or individual service areas. London has a population of 7.5 million, Northern Ireland about 1.5 million; but I firmly believe that both have the right to be released from the grip of Westminster control.

It is rather peculiar for me, a London Member of Parliament, to be in my place today taking decisions on Northern Ireland issues in a Chamber that is lamentably empty of the Members who will pass through the Lobbies if we divide tonight or on other occasions when we debate Northern Ireland legislation. It feels wrong that the people of Northern Ireland who elect their own representatives here, albeit only a handful in the House as a whole, do not have links to a directly elected Assembly in Northern Ireland.

Members have already debated the issue of whether it is right for the Secretary of State to suspend decisions on Northern Ireland between 15 May and 24 November. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) made his point eloquently. As he rightly said, we often find ourselves in agreement in the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. I am not making a party political point, but I disagree with him on this matter. The Government cannot stand still in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. For example, if we suspended decisions on the review of public administration as he suggests, and if, in the worst case scenario, the attempt to set up the Executive failed, we would then be left with the variety of small district councils, which might be unable to take on some of the requisite responsibilities.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

If it were delayed until November and if failure resulted at that time, all I am suggesting is that the Government would be entitled to proceed. I believe that it is right to leave it until then; I would rather it were a little longer, but at least until then.

Meg Hillier (Labour, Hackney South and Shoreditch)

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but even during the six-month period, we need to make progress. It is in the power of 108 Assembly Members to come together and take the decision. It is an opportunity for the Assembly to step up to the plate, set up the Executive and take the important decisions on education, water charges, the future of local government and public administration that need to be taken.

Select Committee members will recall that we visited Northern Ireland in connection with our brief foray into the reform of secondary education and the particular issue of the transfer test. I was struck by the number of parents who felt strongly about that issue. They and I felt disempowered. I was in a position, in a sense, to take decisions on their behalf, but they had no direct link to me. Their only electoral link was to a handful of Northern Ireland MPs, not to their own Assembly. I believe that the people of Northern Ireland now have the opportunity to gain a more direct electoral influence. As other hon. Members have said, that is extremely important.

Another contentious issue is the payment of the 108 Assembly Members. I heard the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) explain his interpretation of the Secretary of State's comments as insulting to some of those Members. Many of them are carrying out good work and genuinely representing the interests of their constituents as they stand. However, the people of Northern Ireland voted for their Assembly Members to do a job for them on the Assembly itself and to represent their interests on the Assembly. While hon. Members in the House and in other regional assemblies have a responsibility to provide support and casework, it is usually because we have a link with the body to which we have been elected. How this matter plays with the public in Northern Ireland is important, as 108 Members are being paid without any Assembly sitting. Wherever the fault may lie, that is the reality. The public's patience will wear thin if the problem is not resolved. They voted for an Assembly, not a phantom.

I tremble at the thought of this attempt to restore Executive power not working. We would then perhaps face the possibly of local government taking on more power, and I have had some interesting discussions with Members on a cross-party basis about what that could mean. Many of the quangos that are run effectively from Westminster and the Northern Ireland Office would continue and, of course, the hand of the Northern Ireland Office would still continue to run the services. I have no particular issue with my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office. I see the Minister looking around nervously at me, but I hope that he would agree that it is not right that he should be making such decisions and that they should be made by the people of Northern Ireland.

Like the hon. Member for South Staffordshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), I was heartened by the comments made by the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). I felt that that was a momentous speech, and hon. Members will look back on this day and be privileged that we were here to hear it in person. He talked about having no deadline and the people of Northern Ireland deciding. I ask him and others who have this power in their hands to go into the Assembly and set up the Executive, and then the power will be in the control of the people of Northern Ireland and the parties that have those interests.

In many respects, I hope that this will be one of the last times in the House that hon. Members debate Northern Ireland issues and Executive decision making over the people of Northern Ireland and that, very shortly, those decisions will be made in Parliament Buildings, by the directly elected representatives of the Northern Ireland people.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

In debating the possible future of the Northern Ireland Assembly, it is absolutely imperative that the Government and the Minister who will answer the debate understand what our community requires. It is not a requirement built on prejudice. It is not an excessive or extreme requirement, but it is a requirement that will not move. It is a reasonable requirement, which we demanded a considerable number of years ago. It remains steadfast today, and it will remain exactly the same at midnight on 24 November.

Our requirement is twofold. First, it relates to the Provisional IRA. The IMC report has been released today, and progress has been made. I make what I hope will be the very obvious and helpful statement that if we are making progress with democratising the IRA, we keep making that progress. If we are pushing those in the IRA in the right direction, we keep pushing them in the same direction. We do not ease up; we do not change tack; we do not legitimise them, but we keep pushing them in the same direction.

Therefore, if the tactics of a more recent vintage are working—unlike the tactics leading up to 1998 and subsequently, which patently did not work—the message is clear: we keep adopting the same tactics. If that takes until November or December, or November 2007 or 2008, we keep adopting the same tactics. We require the IRA to be gone, to be history, to be out of guns and out of business and to be finished and not coming back. That is the first aspect of what we require, and every reasonable person in Northern Ireland—both those who support the DUP and those who may come to support our party in future—will agree to that prerequisite.

The other thing that we require is an acceptable system of government. We need an acceptable system for the Assembly. That system was not provided in 1998. Some of the changes that we have seen—I hope that more are to come—are potentially the ones that we would require. The system would then be more accountable, more democratic and more responsive to the people of Northern Ireland. If those two eminently reasonable requirements were met—we hope that they will be—we would embrace devolved government, with all the democratic political parties playing their role.

The question is, by 24 November will Sinn Fein be the same as every other political party in Northern Ireland that is upholding democracy? My view is that it will not. In the midst of much lauding of what has happened to date, people may well think that there will be some sort of fast-forward process between today and 24 November. Methinks not, but I remain to be convinced. If the IRA goes into history in the next six months—as it has not over the past 37 years—that will be some fast forward, which I will welcome, and which will be widely welcomed by the community that we represent.

I hope that those two prerequisites will be viewed and welcomed by democrats everywhere. However, I want to urge another word of caution. In this House and elsewhere, some hon. Members have made statements regarding Sinn Fein's need to support the police. It would be foolish for people to say that a statement in support of the police by Gerry Adams, or anyone else in the leadership of Sinn Fein, would automatically mean that an organisation that has spent 37 years engaging in mayhem, murder and slaughter was suddenly democratic, by virtue of issuing that statement.

Sinn Fein needs to be in a credible position that allows it to support the police. Anyone can issue a statement. We have watched Sinn Fein as it has tried to reconcile what are supposed to be pragmatic elements in the republican movement with those who are less pragmatic. Allegedly, it has been saying different things to different elements in the republican movement. Why do people not believe that Sinn Fein would do the same with regard to the police? It could issue a statement of support for the police, but at the same time say to the backwoodsmen, who are allegedly supposed to be holding the process back, "This is simply a device to allow us to corrupt the Policing Board from within and to ensure that the policing system falls apart." Sinn Fein must be credible in supporting the police. In other words, it must have divested itself of all aspects of criminality. Then, we would expect and demand a statement of support for the police, because Sinn Fein would be credible in offering it. I caution Members not to say simply, "Sinn Fein must issue a statement of support for the police." It needs to do much more than that.

Unfortunately, in recent weeks and months there have been approaches to members of my party that have seemed to indicate that the reasonable position that we are putting forward—and which we have put forward for years—is somehow perceived as a radical departure. There seems to be an idea that people who previously had horns—that is to say, members of the Democratic Unionist party—have gone through some form of metamorphosis, re-formed ourselves into democrats and are now suddenly reasonable people. It appears that there is some confusion. Members cannot seem to distinguish between having a reasonable position, which we have, and being utterly resolute and determined that we will give no inch or quarter to terrorists, murderers and those who would pollute democracy.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

I intervene because the impression may be given that the DUP has some sort of monopoly on combating terrorism. We know how people in Northern Ireland suffered—no doubt DUP members, as well—but does the hon. Gentleman accept that the fight against terrorism was sustained in the House of Commons by those then on the Opposition Benches, as well, obviously, as by the then Government? Does he accept that those of us who had various views—very different from his—about Northern Ireland and its future, made clear from day one our absolute opposition to terrorism and our belief that neither the IRA, nor the loyalist paramilitaries, had any justification for the mass murder, the killings and the serious injuries that were sustained?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's repeated opposition to the use of violence. However, I have to contrast that view with the propositions of various Governments who have accommodated terror. Unfortunately, there have been votes in the House through which people have tried to buy off terrorists, so I must contrast those two positions.

I must conclude, to allow other hon. Members to enter the debate. We all hope that progress can be made. We will knuckle down to getting to grips with important issues such as the reform of public administration, education and the water tax. People expect their public representatives to be dealing with all those matters, so we must, and will, deal with them. However, a crunch point will come, whether at midnight on 24 November or sooner.

That crunch point will be whether the elected representatives of the majority of Unionism are prepared to proceed into government with people who are still engaging in criminality and illegal activity, such as fuel smuggling and money laundering. When that crunch time occurs, there will be absolutely no doubt whatever about the response from this party. We will not enter the Executive if that is the position of those people at the time, or subsequently. What was wrong five, 10, or 15 years ago will be wrong next year, never mind on 24 November. When we get a democratised Sinn Fein and democracy rules in the Northern Ireland Assembly, we will embrace that and enter wholeheartedly.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

The Bill is one of the many initiatives introduced by the two Governments to try to end the suspension and get restoration. As a gesture of good will, I immediately offer a voluntary coalition and partnership with the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) by limiting my remarks to 10 minutes. With that modest start, I hope that from an acorn, an oak tree will grow—but that remains to be seen.

I assure the Government and hon. Members that the Social Democratic and Labour party wants to live up to all aspects of the Good Friday agreement, which, we must recall, was not selective, but all-embracing, for the good of all the people of Northern Ireland and the greater good of all the people of the entire island of Ireland. Much as our Members of the Legislative Assembly are criticised, sometimes very unfairly, they, like MLAs of other parties, work assiduously in their constituencies. However, they want to work assiduously as elected representatives in an elected forum to deal with the matters before us today. The SDLP will do everything in its power to grasp this opportunity and ensure that there is a push, a drive and a dialogue—perhaps compromise will be needed all round—to achieve a devolved Administration, we hope long before the deadline of 24 November.

My objection to deadlines is not that they set a specific target, but that they give people the excuse to wait until the eleventh hour of the last day. It would be regrettable if that happened. When everything is analysed, there is a fair possibility that elected Members of all the parties in Northern Ireland could come to a meaningful agreement before the summer recess. I have heard what DUP Members have said about making benchmarks against progress regarding paramilitaries.

Perhaps because it is not emphasised sufficiently, it is often forgotten that the nationalist community suffered as much from the Provisional IRA and the loyalists as any other group in Northern Ireland—in many cases, much more. None the less, we have a responsibility, given the tremendous change in circumstances in the past 10 years, to take some things on faith. We have more faith than we had in the past, and we must ensure that the distrust that has grown up between the parties and that has been nurtured by them is diminished as much as possible. Sometimes the parties themselves do not engender trust, and the Irish and British Governments have made a major contribution to that distrust. If round-table openness in negotiations is not forthcoming and private deals are done at Downing street or Leinster house in Dublin, that will create more distrust and suspicion than the parties themselves can create.

I make a special plea to the British Government, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to refrain from engaging in the cloak-and-dagger arrangements that have been the privilege of the two parties—the DUP and Sinn Fein. It is not a question of sour grapes, as the evolution of trust is a practical requirement. I remind the House that the comprehensive agreement was neither comprehensive nor an agreement. The flyleaf at the beginning contained one sentence which, as I recall, said, "The British and Irish Governments have prepared this comprehensive agreement and submitted it to Sinn Fein and the DUP." All other parties were excluded from that endeavour, and the agreement was not even addressed to them.

I therefore make an earnest plea to the Government not to engage in the kind of dialogue in which they have previously engaged because, as Members have already said, there is an extremely serious situation in Northern Ireland. On many occasions back home, I have said that by 2008 or 2009 our way of life in Northern Ireland will change dramatically, given the reform of local government, education, housing, rating, water charges and so on. However, not a single vote for any of those changes has been cast by a Northern Ireland party.

The suggestion that such a huge social transformation could take place in that way in any other country or part of the United Kingdom would be regarded as ludicrous, but those massive changes have indeed taken place in Northern Ireland. Time and time again, the parties in Northern Ireland have demonstrated unanimity in their opposition, but the heat was not taken off. That is why I asked the Secretary of State what he meant by saying that he will "take account" of the Assembly's opinion on certain matters referred to it. Using the yardstick of education, the reform of public administration and matters such as student fees, water rates and rate revisions, it is clear that the parties of Northern Ireland oppose what the Government have done. We wanted to do things differently, but we were ignored. If that happens in the Assembly, it will become a talking shop that pretends to be able to influence matters while the reality is that all the decisions are still made by the Northern Ireland Office.

That is why I say that if the parties cannot get together by agreement, extending the process into November is a danger in itself. The failure to deliver agreement under the Good Friday agreement can have certain benefits for the DUP, which might see it as the final nail in the coffin of the Good Friday agreement and might want nothing further, being content to sit on the Opposition Benches—or it may have benefits for Sinn Fein, which has other political objectives in mind, particularly concentrating its political efforts on the campaign for the new Dail, which takes place early next year.

The people who will suffer are the people of Northern Ireland who, God knows and we all agree, have suffered enough. Unless we have the honest intention of getting together and participating in devolution together, we will be damned for all eternity. For example—I must be brief, in order to keep to my partnership with the hon. Member for Belfast, East—the greatest single danger to the future of Northern Ireland is what the Government are doing about the reform of public administration.

That has been called the cantonisation, or balkanisation, of Northern Ireland, which will be split by a line running north to south. The area to the west will be green. The area to the east will be blue or orange, depending on which lodge people are in. That will be a huge drawback for the people of Northern Ireland. It is the blueprint for division, separation and sectarianism. I beg the Government to stand back from that and take cognisance of the opinions of the local people, who do not oppose the reform of public administration if that is done in a meaningful, effective and democratic way. That is the last thing that I shall say in my speech, but to me it is the most important. It is the driving force which should get us all together to prevent it from happening.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am grateful to be called to speak on the Second Reading of such an important Bill. As the Minister and hon. Members will have gleaned from the number of interventions that I have made, I shall speak against the Bill. For obvious logistical reasons, I will not divide the House this evening. Not only would I lose, but more importantly, I would not able to supply the Tellers. I pay tribute to the Democratic Unionist Members who supplied the Tellers last week in Committee, when we were debating amendments that I had tabled. However, this is a different week and a different subject.

The right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) welcomed the Bill. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) for calling into question the amount of Executive power being taken by the Government in the Bill. As I said, I shall speak against the Bill but will not divide the House, so any hon. Member who needs to fulfil an engagement later can do so.

I am disturbed by a pattern adopted by the Government—a pattern whereby they use the ends to justify the means. In doing so, they take to themselves an enormous amount of Executive power. In opening the debate, the Secretary of State mentioned the peace process, the restoration of devolved government and direct rule. Those are all laudable aims. Although I loathe and detest direct rule, I take no exception to any of those laudable aims. I do, however, take grave exception to the Bill, for three reasons. We are being asked to approve not the lifting of the suspension, but the creation of a completely new creature, which has, unfortunately, been christened, "the Assembly". It is not a shadow Assembly or a devolved Assembly, and it includes the same 108 Assembly Members—I am not one of them, but I have enormous regard for them, regardless of their party.

The Secretary of State has indicated that he does not regret christening the new creature "the Assembly". What will the new creature do? It can talk and think about electing a First Minister, a Deputy Minister and Executive Ministers, and if it is very lucky, it can also discuss such other matters as the Secretary of State thinks fit. In other words, 108 noble Assembly Members must sit and wait for the crumbs to fall from the Secretary of State in order to discuss anything. What will be the effect of any of their debates or resolutions?

The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) has discussed the review of public administration, on which the resolutions of the Assembly will have no effect whatsoever. Very soon, people in Northern Ireland will discover that the new Assembly cannot introduce legislation to, for example, monitor sex offenders, save grammar schools or roll back the review of public administration. The public could become disenchanted with the Assembly and the devolved Administration generally, which would cause me great concern. I hope that other hon. Members are also concerned about the public feeling disillusioned with attempts to restore devolved government in Northern Ireland.

I was particularly perturbed that the hon. Member for Belfast, East made no reference to the Assembly election being postponed. On 14 May 2003, he stated:

"There can be no more crucial issue in any democratic society than maintaining the purity of the electoral process, and there is no more serious constitutional matter than a Government stepping in to abort a democratic election."—[Official Report, 14 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 422.]

I was disappointed that he did not make that point earlier.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I wanted to make six further points in my speech, one of which concerned elections. If the hon. Lady wants to examine my notes, I have them here. I wanted to discuss elections, but in deference to my hon. Friends, I did not have time to do so.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record. I look forward with bated breath to DUP Members expressing concern and objections about a democratic election to the Assembly being postponed for no particularly good reason. I would be delighted to share his notes over a cup of tea in the Tea Room, but only his notes—the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) is welcome to attend, too. It is a serious issue in a democracy that the date of a scheduled election can be changed at the whim and whimsy of the Secretary of State.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) is in the Chamber. I was most concerned that the spokesperson for Her Majesty's loyal Opposition did not question the shifting of the scheduled Assembly election, but there will be an opportunity for him to do so tomorrow when we discuss the amendments that have been tabled for the Committee.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I apologise to the hon. Lady for missing the beginning of her speech. I have tabled an amendment for tomorrow that questions the clause that gives the Secretary of State the power to delay that election.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That will give us all an opportunity to object to it. I look forward to that debate.

An enormous amount of Executive power is being taken to the Secretary of State under cover of this Bill. If we allow it to go through unchallenged this evening—as we have indicated—and if the Government do not accept amendments tomorrow, this House will have agreed to a Secretary of State in our Government having the power, by Order in Council, to amend and to repeal any Act of this Parliament and any Northern Ireland legislation. I do not in any way challenge the personal integrity of the current Secretary of State, but I would caution that the Bill not only hands any future Secretary of State the power to amend or repeal any legislation by Order in Council, but, if they deem it expedient, not even to have to bring it before this House, so there will be no scrutiny or transparency whatsoever. I do not think that any right hon. and hon. Members in this Chamber would countenance such a degree of Executive power being taken to a single Minister in any circumstances—yet we are not discussing emergency or counter-terrorist legislation, but an attempt to restore devolved Government in Northern Ireland.

The aims of the Bill are laudable, but the means that the Government are adopting are deplorable. That brings me back to my argument about the christening of this new creature, the Assembly, which would have been better termed a forum or a talking shop. It strikes me that the Government have done something very clever. It is as if they were parents with two sons—perhaps I should say daughters—one of whom is very bright and the other not so bright. The parents choose to call both children by the same name, so that after a while the public do not know the difference between one and the other. I suspect that the Government have chosen deliberately to give the impression that this is the restored Assembly, but it is no such thing—it is a toothless talking shop. It worries me considerably that the people of Northern Ireland are being led to believe that the Bill will lead to the restoration of something more powerful at Stormont, when that is clearly not going to happen. I urge the Government to listen very carefully to tomorrow's debate and to amend the Bill before it leaves this place.

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

I shall say only a few words and leave my colleagues to deal with the nitty-gritty of the measure and what the Assembly should be called and how it will be perceived, which the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) mentioned.

I want to make a few comments about what I had the pleasure of saying in Killarney at the British-Irish Parliamentary Body meeting on Monday 24 April. My party is up for a fully functioning Assembly with Executive powers. It is in the interests of our people in Northern Ireland for locally elected representatives to make decisions on local issues that affect the everyday lives of Ulster people. We in the Democratic Unionist party are not the problem. The responsibility to step up to the plate lies with Sinn Fein-IRA.

Too many families are still reeling from the freedom from serving their jail sentences given to murderers when the Belfast agreement was signed, coupled with broken promises, which the Prime Minister made in 1998. He promised that terrorists would not be in government or released from jail. The rest is history.

The debate has covered most of the pertinent points about the Bill. I would simply like to say that Northern Ireland Members look forward to a time when they no longer have to live behind bullet-proof windows, which are installed in their homes along with panic buttons and cameras, or be driven by police escorts. Like my colleagues, I have grown-up children—whose ages range from 33 to 24—and grandchildren, who are aged between 14 and six. They have never known normality and have always had to endure living in an abnormal setting.

I therefore have a vested interest in seeing our long-suffering people, as well as my children and grandchildren, experience proper democratic institutions, which will tackle the genuine problems of the serious position of our health service, our educational future and the water charges, which are being foisted upon us.

However, the caveat is that, when we make our decision in the DUP to go forward, we must ensure that the Assembly is made up of democrats, who are all equal under and subject to the law. No party should have at its disposal an army ready for action if Sinn Fein does not get its way.

We must ensure that the victims of 35 years of terror are considered. Our party is mandated not to repeat the mistakes of the past in-and-out pantomime of an Assembly. We must get it right. That means Sinn Fein being democratised, with no more criminality and paramilitary activities connected directly or indirectly to it.

We will play our full part in a devolved Administration if we are satisfied that all the players use only the weapon of argument.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson), who clearly set out the conditions under which the Democratic Unionist party would enter into Executive Government in Northern Ireland, as did my other right hon. and hon. Friends who have already spoken.

I listened carefully to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). I am not sure whether her speech had been passed or endorsed by Cunningham house. How much of it will gain assent from the leadership of her party remains to be seen. Given her comments and her attitude today—suggesting that she would divide the House on Second Reading if she were in a position to do so—I wonder whether members of her party will turn up at Stormont to participate in the Assembly when it is called on 15 May.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

No, because we have limited time and we have agreed sensibly to allow as many hon. Members as possible to speak by accepting a self-imposed time limit.

The hon. Lady took some time to explain her difficulties with the proposals in the Bill. She railed against the Assembly that the measure sets up, but I wish that she and the wing of her party that so vehemently supported the Assembly that was set up in 1998, with all its fundamental flaws, including IRA-Sinn Fein in government without decommissioning, had expressed even one word of concern about it and its make-up. Had she done so, her complaints today would have had a bit more credibility. Likewise, had she and her colleagues on the wing of the party that she supports opposed the deferral of the election in May 2003, first for four weeks and then until the November—they did not want it even then—her concern about the moving of the election date would have had more credibility.

My party is happy to face the electorate at any time. We will face them quite happily in May 2007, because every time we have gone to the polls, they have endorsed our position and given us a clear mandate. We have no doubt that, when we face them again—we are happy to face them sooner rather than later—they will once again give us a resounding mandate.

I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Member for North Down said about executive power in the hands of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but I would remind her and those in the wing of the Ulster Unionist party that supports her that she supported the handing of full, untrammelled executive power to Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assembly—and to all-Ireland bodies—so that they could carry out enormous acts of damage to the people of Northern Ireland, to its economy and to its health and education systems, as evidenced by the decisions of Bairbre de Brun in a number of cases, and by Martin McGuinness over the 11-plus. So I am glad that a different approach is now being taken, but I shall wait and see whether it will be carried out in practice.

On the matter before us today, the Secretary of State said that there would be serious consequences if the parties involved did not carry out their mandate and act maturely. This party has certainly been elected on a mandate to try to bring about devolution. We were devolutionists when other parties in the Unionist community were fully fledged integrationists that did not want Stormont or any kind of local accountability whatever. There is no doubting our devolutionist credentials. However, our mandate also states that devolution must be based on sound democratic principles, and must involve a complete end to paramilitarism, terrorism, violence and criminality, along with certain changes to the Belfast agreement. I shall not rehearse all those points, because my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) and others have already outlined that mandate.

We have come a long way, in regard to not only the change in the circumstances on the ground in Northern Ireland, but the attitude of the parties and of right hon. and hon. Members. We are now talking about the need for absolute clarity and certainty, and for the completion of the transformation of the paramilitary groups into exclusively peaceful democratic entities, and I am glad that the policies that we put forward for many years, from 1998 and before, are now widely accepted. Everyone in the House now says that the IRA must completely end all criminality, terrorism and paramilitary activity.

Indeed, the Prime Minister talked in his famous Custom House speech about acts of completion. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has talked about adopting a Blairite approach to these matters, but I think that it is the other way round. The Prime Minister has adopted a Democratic Unionist party approach, and that approach is working. It is delivering, and our party deserves credit for that. Previously, the Ulster Unionist party was prepared to go along with the policy that stated, "Bring Sinn Fein and the IRA in and give them positions in government, and they will learn to be democrats". Well, we said that that would not work, and it did not. We said that they would want to have their cake and eat it, and that people would suffer as a result.

The approach that we are now taking demands that, before Sinn Fein-IRA can come anywhere near the Government of Northern Ireland, there has to be a complete end to criminality, terrorism and paramilitary activity and a complete transformation to democracy, with certainty and clarity. That is the right approach, and we must keep working at it. It is delivering, and it is the sound and sensible way to proceed.

As far as the work of the Assembly is concerned, I welcome the opportunity for elected representatives in Northern Ireland to debate and discuss matters of deep concern, but we will want the Government to respond to their views. It is essential that the Secretary of State does not proceed with contentious legislation and change. If he does, that will ultimately act as a major disincentive to the restoration of devolution. Many people will say, "Even if we have devolution back, we will not be able to change some of these matters of vital concern to our people." I urge him, in the interests of his project to restore devolution, not to proceed with some of the more contentious matters mentioned in the House.

There are issues of concern. The IMC report published today had the inevitable spin and hype prior to publication. We have had some selective quotes from the report even today in the House. Of course, we welcome the progress made, but we want more progress so that there is completion. There are major issues, such as the retention of guns. It is now clear that guns have been retained, the report says, without the authorisation of the leadership. Surely we cannot just leave it at that. Something has to be done about it. If members of an organisation are acting outside their authority, we should at least expect the leadership to do something about them. Is it okay simply to say, "That was without the authority of the leadership"? Is it all right if the IRA has now moved from a centralised structure to a federal structure? For the people living in Markethill and elsewhere in South Armagh, Fermanagh and Tyrone along the border, or in my constituency, it will be of little comfort to say that the guns held by the local IRA are not authorised by the brigade headquarters in Belfast, but just by the local IRA commanders. We must grasp that. Movement on that issue will be needed if we are to see progress.

On criminality, I listened to what the IRA said over Easter, and I have listened to it being praised today about that matter. Let us remember that as far as the IRA is concerned, any act that it carries out in pursuance of its objectives cannot be criminal. It is easy for it to condemn criminality, because it does not regard anything that it does as criminal, even to the extent that, as Mitchell McLaughlin famously said, the terrible atrocity of the kidnap and savage murder of Jean McConville, who was then buried for decades, and about which the IRA lied, was not a crime in its eyes, and is still not regarded as a crime by Sinn Fein-IRA. We need to be careful about those matters.

The people of Northern Ireland know how the IRA operates; they know its theology and thinking and how it will interpret everything according to the letter of its constitution and values. Those of us on the ground must judge what it is up to and what it is about. It is important that we do not make the mistakes that were made in the past but that we bring the IRA to the point of completion and bring about a permanent and irreversible transformation to democratic politics. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has made it clear that if we reach that point, we can make real progress, and we will not shy away from the commitments that we have made. Until we reach that point, however, we will stand firm in the interests of democracy.

William McCrea (DUP, South Antrim)

Some time ago, our party released a document called "Facing Reality". This House is beginning to face some realities, because when I was previously a Member, prior to 1997, many Members did not want to know the realities of the situation in Northern Ireland or of the suffering of the Unionist people and did not want to deal with the IRA. They were closing their eyes to acts of republican terrorism, often because they wanted to keep the trouble in Northern Ireland—as long as it stayed off the streets of London and the mainland, and did not affect them, that was acceptable. There was a famous statement about the "acceptable level of violence".

My party is desirous of the restoration of devolution in Northern Ireland, with Ministers who are democrats dealing with and taking decisions on day-to-day issues in Northern Ireland. There is great distrust, however, and no one can close their eyes to that.

I agree with the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). We have no intention of misleading the Ulster people. We are going to tell it exactly as it is to them and to the Secretary of State and the Ministers concerned, before and on 24 November. We are not going to shadow-box with anyone: we will tell people the realities of the situation. Even when we have suffered in electoral terms, we have never misled the general public, and we are not going to mislead them now.

I certainly know the realities of how obnoxious it is to sit in a council with those who have been totally wedded to terrorism—for example, one of the three most wanted men in Northern Ireland. The only poster naming three wanted men appeared in what was then my constituency—in Magherafelt, which was in the constituency of Mid-Ulster. Those three persons were Dominic McGlinchey, who was murdered by the IRA when he fell out with it; Francis Hughes, who went on hunger strike, fell out with himself and decided to take his own life; and Ian Milne.

The reality of the situation—what the House does not realise—is that the third most wanted man sits in Magherafelt district council at this moment. He has never been brought to court. It seems to me that there has been a cover-up. I know that a family who believe that he was responsible for the murder of the Speers family are horrified that he is sitting in that council untouched. Another councillor is a famous gunman; another is a famous IRA bomber. These people are sitting in the council in which I have to sit. They destroy, demean and soil democracy, and we cannot close our eyes to the realities of the situation.

I say this clearly: democratic institutions must be built on a solid foundation. It is no use building them on sand; there must be a rock foundation of democracy, integrity and honesty. There can be no equivocation on terrorism and those who are inextricably linked to terrorist organisations. If we want the democratic institution to succeed, those who are engaged in it must be unreservedly opposed to all terrorism and the retention of all terrorist structures. We need to see the dismantling of those structures—not just the disbanding of the IRA, but the dismantling of the structures of terror, and the removal of all the teeth of war—if we are to move forward in a democratic fashion.

Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked. They are one and the same. That has not changed. It is no use the House closing its eyes to that: at this moment, it is still the reality. Over the past 30 years, Sinn Fein and the IRA have turned on and turned off violence whenever it has suited them. Yes, there has been a change. Let us be honest. As my colleagues have rightly said, the demands of our party, standing resolutely against Sinn Fein-IRA in the past, have certainly brought them to the realisation that they will not wipe the eye of the Ulster electorate or the Ulster people. But we are resolved to do what we promised to do. We will honour the principles that we set out at the time of the election: we will not go back on the principles that we put before the electorate. Yes, 9/11 produced changes, because Sinn Fein-IRA knew that, internationally, they could not go back to what they did best. But we must face the reality: up to this moment, Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked.

The impression has been given that the IMC report somehow gives a clean bill of health, and that somehow democrats can walk arm in arm with those who have been responsible for some of the most heinous crimes, not only in the past but in the present. We cannot close our eyes to the murder in Dublin of Joseph Rafferty by the IRA. We cannot close our eyes to Robert McCartney's murder. We cannot close our eyes to the murder of Denis Donaldson. We need to know exactly who was responsible and, if the IRA is found guilty, the IRA and its colleagues must pay the price of their compliance and their activity in terrorism. The report clearly rings alarm bells. Even after all the attempts at a whitewash, some members of that organisation—including senior ones—are still involved in crimes such as fuel laundering, money laundering, extortion, tax evasion and smuggling. Imagine anyone suggesting that we should have such people in this House or in government!

Jim Devine (Labour, Livingston)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

William McCrea (DUP, South Antrim)

No. I have only a short time in which to make my speech.

Can anyone imagine the howls from the community if it were suggested that such people should be put on the Front Bench of Her Majesty's Government or Opposition? If they were, they would be run out of this House and society would disgrace them completely, and rightly so. A few statements from those who are still linked to activities such as money laundering, fuel laundering, extortion, tax evasion and smuggling are not going to whitewash their compliance in what has been going on. Where is the £20 million linked to the IRA? Where are the disappeared—those who may have been murdered, whose families are still waiting for them to come home? Are we closing our eyes to all this? Are we closing our ears to the cry from such families that these issues must be faced up to?

We must have consistency, integrity and honesty. Neither I nor any of my colleagues is going to mislead the people. The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) stated today—it is on the record of this House—that, although the IMC report acknowledges that progress has been made, there is still a long way to go. I agree wholeheartedly with that statement, which is factual: there is still a long way to go. We must ensure that our democracy has integrity. When we set up a Government of Northern Ireland, they have to be based solely and completely on democratic lines. There can be no equivocation or trying to move the goalposts. We cannot have those who are democrats by day and terrorists by night—that day has long passed. There were those in the past who accepted such people into government, but this party will not.

Sinn Fein-IRA stand at a crossroads: they must make the choice and come up to the mark. If they do not take that decision, true democrats—such as Members representing the Social, Democratic and Labour party, my own party and others—who want to move forward should do so together. Northern Ireland should not be crucified because of terrorists or those who want to play along with terrorism. We want a democratic process and democratic government, and by the grace of God, that we will have.

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I welcome this Bill, which is a means to an end, not an end in itself. I understand the concerns raised by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), but the Ulster Unionist party has in the past supported the establishment of talking shops. Indeed, it was its former leader who proposed the establishment of the Northern Ireland Forum for Political Dialogue, and I do not recall it raising major objections to such a body. We hope that the Assembly will move quickly to address issues that are doubtless of as much concern to the constituents of the hon. Member for North Down as they are to mine. Even if, initially, we are only talking about those issues, that is better than sitting on our hands while direct rule Ministers take decisions that we disagree with strongly. I hope that we can reach a consensus on some of these issues quickly, and that the Government will act on that basis. We want a devolved Government to be restored in Northern Ireland as quickly as possible.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I will not, because some of my hon. Friends want to get in before the debate concludes.

This has been a long journey, the beginning of which it would probably be difficult to find. In 1994, there was the first IRA ceasefire, moving through to the agreement in 1998. It has been a difficult and challenging time to be involved in politics in Northern Ireland. We have seen many false dawns, but the promise of peace remains and we want to reach out and grasp it. It is the hope of every sane, reasonable and law-abiding person in Northern Ireland that our generation realises the hope of peace and political stability. I echo the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) that we want to move out beyond the cocoon of security and looking over our shoulders in which we have had to live for years. We want to look forward to a future that is free from violence and the organised criminality that we have seen all too often in the past.

We have had the Assembly since 1998, and it has been suspended on at least four occasions. We have got to get it right this time, because if we re-establish the Assembly and get a fully functioning devolved Administration and it collapses again, it will be years before it is restored and the hopes of the people of Northern Ireland will be dashed. That is why my party is committed to getting it absolutely right.

The Government talk of deadlines: we prefer to speak of acts of completion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) mentioned. He repeated what the Prime Minister said. We want completion and closure on what has become known as the troubles. I know that, for many people, closure is difficult. Their lives have been ruined and destroyed by acts of terrorism, on both sides of the community. However, from speaking to them, I know that it would give them some comfort to know that other families will not suffer what they have endured. Indeed, that is my objective. If I were asked what is the one thing that I want to achieve in my political career, it would be that no other family has to suffer what has been visited upon so many families in Northern Ireland over the past 35 years. If I can help to achieve that, I will feel that my political career has been fulfilled. That is my objective and I can say with honesty that it is the objective of all of my hon. Friends, and especially of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), the leader of our party. I know that he wants to see that happen, but we want to be sure that it is for real and for good.

That objective is why the decisions that we have to take as a party will not be taken in isolation. We will take them in consultation with the community that we represent and the people who have mandated us to achieve a better future for them and for their children. Earlier this week, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) made it clear in his contribution to the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body that, when the time comes that we feel that there is the potential to move forward to full devolution, we will consult and we will talk to the people whom we represent. We are not arrogant. We will not move so far ahead of our people that we do not bring them with us.

It is crucial to achieving political stability in Northern Ireland that leaders bring their people with them. We have evidence in the past few years of the inability of some Unionist leaders to bring their people with them, and we know what happened to them. The results of that are very apparent on these Benches today. This party will not allow that to happen. Yes, we will provide leadership—it will be provided ably by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim and my colleagues here—but we are determined to bring our people with us. If we do that, we have a better chance of making things work for the future. At the end of the day, it is the people who count.

I say to the hon. Member for North Down that we have no fear of elections. We are prepared and ready for the elections in May 2007. Bring them on. This party will gain and benefit from those elections and we are prepared to go to the people and test our mandate again. I have no doubt that we will get a strong endorsement for that mandate.

Earlier, the Secretary of State asked whether the Democratic Unionist party was committed to making this measure work. Many people have asked the same question. Are we committed to achieving the establishment of a devolved Administration in Northern Ireland that is based on inclusivity but underpinned by the fundamentals of democracy and the rule of law? Our answer is a resounding yes: we are absolutely committed to making this work, because we have fought so hard to get to where we are today and we want to complete the journey.

We want to achieve the end that I have described, but we also want to make sure that it is absolutely right, because the future of the people whom we represent hangs on the decisions that we make. We will be careful and cautious, but courageous too, because that is what leadership is about. When we come to make those decisions, we will want to ensure that they are right, and that the people with whom we will be in government are committed to peace, democracy and the rule of law. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) said, that must mean that a complete end is put to criminality and paramilitarism.

We say that not because we want to put obstacles in people's way, but because we want to encourage them to complete the journey. The strategy is working and has brought the results that are evident in today's IMC report. We acknowledge the progress that has been made, but we also know that the journey is not yet complete.

If I am not yet absolutely confident that the IRA has completed the journey, that it now supports the rule of law and that it will abide by the democratic rules, I believe that it is on its way to doing so. It is difficult to assess how far down the road it has come, but I believe that it has recognised that there is no going back to the bad old days. Yes, some IRA members may hark back to those times but most know that going back to the violence of the past, and to bombing, shooting and murder on the scale evident in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, would amount to political suicide. They are right.

We want the Assembly established by the Bill to make progress towards the restoration of a full, devolved Administration in Northern Ireland. We are committed to achieving that objective, in the right time scale and based on an assessment that the violence, criminality and paramilitarism are over for good.I hope that people will take us at our word when we say that.

Yesterday, I had the privilege of leading a delegation to meet the Secretary of State at Stormont to discuss the impact of industrial rates on our manufacturing sector. The delegation was made up of people from both sides of the community, both traditions, in Northern Ireland. They are all fine people, and they are making a massive contribution to rebuilding our economy after decades of destruction.

The delegation was accompanied by an all-party group representing the main political parties in Northern Ireland. The group spoke with one voice when it asked the Government to freeze the industrial rates, because otherwise they would damage our manufacturing base and our ability to make a full economic recovery.

I hope that the Secretary of State will listen to our message, because the Government have said consistently that that is what they will do if we can achieve a political consensus. Consensus is what the Assembly ought to be about, and we will seek to achieve it in respect of the other issues that will be referred to us. However, the Secretary of State must listen to what people are saying.

I know that a big stick can be applied on a range of issues, although I accept that some carrots exist as well. However, when people reach agreement, it is incumbent on the Government to respond positively. That is the best and most encouraging way to help us along the road to the end of our journey. I hope that the result will be peace and stability for all the people of Northern Ireland.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I, too, will seek to abide by the time-sharing arrangements that have all-party support here today.

I suppose that there has not been a great deal of rancour, or difference, in the debate, although I suspect that in some speeches there was an underlying tendency to point the finger at Unionists as if they were still the obstacle to devolution. We have had the Secretary of State talking about people needing to act maturely. We have had the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) talking, I think specifically to our party, about taking leaps of faith. We have seen other parties take leaps time and again with Sinn Fein. They jumped into the darkness and they paid for it. We have no intention of taking such a leap of faith with people who we believe to be untrustworthy.

However, although some may argue that we of all parties least need devolution, having 40 per cent. of the representation at council level in Northern Ireland and 50 per cent. of representation here at Westminster, we have been to the forefront of promoting devolution. The fact that the Bill is before us is probably a result of the pressure that this party has put on the Government to recognise that in a situation where, as has been described very adequately in today's debate, one party does not have respect for law and order—indeed, breaks the rules of society on a frequent basis—and yet wishes to be included in Government, it is impossible to move directly into a situation where people like that are included in Executive positions.

Facing that reality—our document was called "Facing Reality"—we put to the Government ideas by which we could move towards devolution, in circumstances where there would be a useful job of work for people who are elected in Northern Ireland to take decisions and make representations on the things that affect their constituents daily, and ease our way towards the position where, eventually, full-blown devolution would be possible.

"Facing Reality" also made it clear that there had to be changes to the Belfast agreement. We have a mandate for those changes. I know that the SDLP does not like the fact that the political landscape has changed in Northern Ireland, that the mandate that may have been given to pro-agreement parties in 1998 no longer exists, certainly on the Unionist side, and that there has to be a recognition that changes are needed; not just to satisfy the Unionist population but to ensure that there is a system of devolution that does not stumble from crisis to crisis and that does Unionists, nationalists or anyone some good. Some of our suggestions were included in the comprehensive agreement. I know that the members of the SDLP did not like that because they were not involved in the comprehensive agreement, but I believe that many of those changes will be essential to the good working of any Assembly if and when it is up and running.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I would have been more than happy to, but because of the time constraint I will not. If we could have extended the debate beyond 7 o'clock, I would have been able to give way.

Several arguments have been made today as to why we should move towards devolution. The first is that the IRA have moved. The IMC report today indicates that they have moved. We have had substantial decommissioning last summer, and we accept that that has happened. But as has been pointed out, the IRA are moving because the tactics used against them have changed. Instead of giving them rewards, sanctions are being imposed. In the past, we were told that if we put them into government, they would behave. The DUP tactic is to deny them a place in government and make them behave. In the past, we were told that if we turned a blind eye to their activities perhaps they would move away from them; now, through the combined efforts of our party and others, the security forces are going after their criminal empires and putting on the pressure. While that is going on, why should we lift the pressure? Why should we go back to the old, failed methods and give them rewards?

We want the task completed. In six months' time, I want to be able to say that the behaviour of Sinn Fein and the IRA has changed dramatically. That would be good for my constituents and good for Northern Ireland and its economy. If and when those changes arrive, the leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), our deputy leader, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), and other speakers have made it clear that the political landscape will have changed.

Like the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), we believe that there are benefits from devolution. The second argument in favour of devolution is that we could take our own decisions. Some people have painted a realistic picture; there would be hard decisions to make but at least we would be making them on behalf of our constituents, with at least a degree of accountability. However, there are some political quacks around. They can be found in some of the pro-agreement parties and lobby groups pushing for devolution. They present devolution as a panacea, through which all the hard decisions will disappear; all the pain will suddenly be relieved and there will be no tough political decisions to make. That is not the case. Anybody who sells devolution on those grounds is a charlatan. They are political quacks and they will come unstuck. There are hard political decisions to make. Some of the things we are discussing did not start only after the Assembly fell; for example, the big increase in rates was known as the Durkan tax after the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Durkan).

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I remind the hon. Gentleman that before devolution, the comprehensive spending review under direct rule had projected increases over a three-year period of 7 per cent. a year on domestic rates and 6 per cent. a year on business rates. Under devolution, when I was Minister of Finance and Personnel, succeeded by Sean Farren, domestic rates were 7 per cent., 7 per cent., and 6 per cent. while business rates were 3.3 per cent., 3.3 per cent. and 3.3 per cent.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

So it was a Farren tax. Of course, it covered the infrastructure for water and sewerage, which are now paid for on top.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

rose—

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

No, I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman's earlier intervention was quite short. I remember having to listen to him explaining such things in the Northern Ireland Assembly and it used to take him about an hour and a half.

Another argument is that devolution will be a magic wand to help us get through all the pain. Some of the hard things we are experiencing originated under the old devolution settlement. The structure of the previous Assembly meant that decisions were made by Ministers who were wholly unaccountable. They imposed changes, such as those in education, with which we are still struggling.

If the interim step that we hope will lead to full devolution is to be effective, I believe that it is essential that Members realise that there is a job to be done. That means that the Secretary of State—I am pleased to see him back in his place—must listen to the representations that Members make. Otherwise, they will feel that the Assembly that has been established is a useless body.

It has been suggested that any legislation or Orders in Council currently in preparation should not apply until at least 24 November. I recognise that that is also a rod to beat the back of people such as myself. As we come up to 24 November, I well recognise the threat that Orders in Council can be introduced if devolution does not come about. Nevertheless, I am prepared to live with that because I believe that it is important, if any value is to be attached to devolved institutions in Northern Ireland in the longer term, that the people of Northern Ireland know that all the decisions that they hate and loathe have not been taken before devolution is set up. There should be a disincentive to push such measures forward and ram them through the House.

I implore the Secretary of State to understand that we wish to move towards devolution. We want the necessary decisions to be taken, however difficult the context, but they can be taken only when parties behave democratically, associate themselves with the police and law and order and pursue criminality. When those conditions are met, we are happy to have devolution. Until then, I hope that the Secretary of State will allow the Assembly to do a real job of work.

David Simpson (DUP, Upper Bann)

I have listened with great interest to the debate and know that all my colleagues have made valid points. I have never had the privilege or the opportunity—whatever word one wishes to use—of sitting in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

I listened to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who used the word "tantalising". Well, when it comes to a three-course meal or a large steak—[Interruption.] Yes, I have many of them and I would probably refer to them as tantalising, but I have to say that the prospect of going into the Assembly on 15 May is not tantalising for me. It is not tantalising because I will probably be sitting across the room from an individual who gave the authority for four of my family to be assassinated. It may well be hard for hon. Members who have not experienced such circumstances to understand, but it will be very difficult for me. My party has taken the decision to go in on 15 May and I will join it because I believe that it has a lot to offer the people of Northern Ireland.

We all know about the other Unionist party and its leadership, which led the Unionist population in the wrong direction. I am living proof that the Unionist population does not suffer fools gladly, which is why I took the seat in Upper Bann. We often hear the old cliché from Sinn Fein-IRA that they have a mandate, and we also hear them saying that the Democratic Unionist party is not serious about anything. They say that we are not serious about trying to get an Assembly up and running and, to use the words of Gerry Adams or Martin McGuinness, that the DUP does not want a Fenian about the place. Those are their words, not mine.

I have sat in meetings—in fact, at Leeds Castle—when my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) told the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, "I am not asking for anything for myself that I am not asking for my Roman Catholic neighbour." That is a fact; my party is about representing all the people in our constituencies. So the nonsense that Sinn Fein come out with is just a myth.

I refer to family tragedy and many of my colleagues could relate to family tragedies and those involving others connected to their families, but let us remember that we must consult the victims and convince them that it is time to move on. That will be very difficult. My hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and I are the chair and vice-chair of our party's victims organisation. We talk to victims on a weekly and monthly basis and we hear the stories that come from those people—the tragedies and the heartbreak—and it will be very hard for them to move on. But as a constructive party that will show leadership, it is our job to talk to those people and to convince them that it is time to move on. That will be difficult, but I believe that those people must be helped through that painful time.

Another of my concerns is that we talk about Sinn Fein-IRA coming on to different bodies and structures in government. For example, if Sinn Fein-IRA decided that they would go on to the Policing Board today, in reality, what information could the Chief Constable release in a Policing Board meeting that would not be passed on, possibly to some of their colleagues?

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

The dissidents.

David Simpson (DUP, Upper Bann)

We have talked about the dissidents, which is a lose word. Such information must not be passed on to benefit terrorism—Slab Murphy and the rest of them up in south Armagh—so we have a difficulty. I used the word "tantalising" earlier; the word that we need to emphasise is trust. That is a big factor in setting up the Northern Ireland Assembly.

I sat in my own council meeting on Monday night, and when I referred to the bomb in Lurgan, a Sinn Fein-IRA representative stood up and said, "The bomb should not have happened, and I would ask those in the Lurgan area to stop it." However, when I put the question through the mayor to ask the Sinn Fein-IRA representative to tell his people to go to the PSNI station in Lurgan and give all the information that the police need to collect a lot more of those people, there was silence; and we are talking about moving to a full-blown Executive or whatever come 24 November. There is a long, long way to go. If it was wrong—my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) used words to this effect—to put murderers, drug dealers, paramilitaries or child killers or whatever into government last year, it is wrong this year. There is no difference, because they have not yet changed.

I want to move on in the time that is left to my portfolio as my party's trade and industry spokesman. I have been involved in the business community for some 25 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley referred to leading a delegation yesterday to meet the Secretary of State. I had the privilege yesterday, along with other hon. Members, to attend that conference and I had been asked to speak there. I am sure that the Secretary of State has been briefed on what I have said about him in the newsletter. I am sure that he is not very happy about it. Basically, I said that, if the Secretary of State were the boss or the chief executive of a firm, he would be sacked. That is because of the de-rating issue and the difficulties that the business community is going through.

I count it a privilege to be elected to this House. Having been involved in the business community for 20 or 25 years, I knew a lot of the business people who gathered together yesterday. I would like to think that, in my capacity in this House, I could use my influence to try to help those business people who have come through 35 years of the most hellish conditions, through the troubles and through financial difficulties.

The Secretary of State may throw the responsibility back, as he is prone to do, and say, "Get the Executive up and running and deal with the whole de-rating issue and all the other issues." However, with the greatest respect, it is within his power to do something about the situation now. The manufacturing and textile communities are decimated. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley, I ask the Secretary of State to look seriously at doing something about that.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I received a delegation, as the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) mentioned, and it was impressive. The arguments that were mounted were cogent and well presented and I have said that I will seriously consider them. The argument was for a freeze at the present level. I have also said that I would be happy to refer the matter to the Assembly—in the form that that is about to happen—for its own consideration, as well, and would take note of what was said there.

David Simpson (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Secretary of State. May I finish by saying—[Interruption.] We will negotiate after this debate.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

The Secretary of State is on probation.

David Simpson (DUP, Upper Bann)

We will arrange an interview.

In conclusion, I personally want to see things move on in Northern Ireland. As I have mentioned in the House before on many occasions, I adopted three children to bring them into this country and to try to give them a better life. I want to see that happen; I want it to happen for all the young people in Northern Ireland, irrespective of the community they come from. They are the next generation and how the next generation operates is going to dictate the future of Northern Ireland. I wish that for all the people of Northern Ireland. I know that the leadership of my party wishes it and I will certainly do everything in my power to assist that.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

We have had an extremely interesting debate on yet another Northern Ireland Bill, which was, yet again, introduced in reasonable tones by the Secretary of State, who, if I may be permitted to say so, made a number of telling and important points. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) set out clearly and movingly our views and difficulties, but also our hopes for this Bill's capacity to achieve devolution and a peaceful future for Northern Ireland. Those are my views as well. I have never made any secret of the fact that eight years ago I voted against a number of aspects of the Belfast agreement, but one of the things that I was enthusiastic about was devolution. I remain hopeful that we can set up the Assembly again.

We have heard a number of contributions from right hon. and hon. Members, which I shall run through fairly quickly. The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) feels that it would be disastrous if the process did not succeed. He said that he felt very uncomfortable as a direct rule Minister. When I work on the many statutory instruments—as I do seemingly almost every day at the moment—I too feel uncomfortable, so I well understand what he feels, and means. I share his hopes for the Assembly.

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), who serves on most, if not all, of those Committees with me, wondered whether this year's Assembly would be able to change some of the decisions made by order of the Secretary of State, so perhaps the Minister will respond to that point. He also made the good point that the shifting of deadlines in the past is perhaps not helpful now, and I am sure that the Government will take that on board. He also made an important point about what will happen if the Assembly does not get up and running and full devolution is not restored—I hope very much that it will be restored. Although I know that the Government have taken steps to address the situation, we cannot go on governing Northern Ireland as we are doing. I hope that we can move forward through devolution and the Assembly, but if that is not possible, we need to redouble our efforts to find a better way of governing the Province.

The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) regrets that the Bill does not go further, and opposes giving the Secretary of State the power to delay the elections from 2007 to 2008. As I indicated in an intervention on the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), I am concerned about that measure and have tabled an amendment that will give us the opportunity to discuss it tomorrow. I understand that the Government are saying that if the Assembly is not up and running until November, we may not want to disrupt things so quickly. That is a rather pessimistic view, because the Assembly may be up and running again by May—we all hope that it will be—in which case elections in 2007 would not come too quickly. However, we can explore that matter in a bit more detail tomorrow.

I welcome the enthusiasm for the Bill of the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) in his typically robust speech. It is important to note that he paid tribute to the Members of the Legislative Assembly and the work that they have done. He correctly pointed out that it was not the democratic constitutional parties that needed to change, but the IRA.

The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) said that he was probably the only person in the House, other than those from Northern Ireland, who had had a mandate from Northern Ireland. He has recently served on many Northern Ireland Committees.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, sensibly called for there to be no more unnecessary statutory instruments before the Assembly is up and running. He also expressed worry about setting deadlines, and said that this particular deadline should perhaps be the end of the year. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) talked about trust and having a vision for the future.

The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) made the important point that there should be no joint sovereignty if things fail by 24 November. I know that the Secretary of State has tried to play down several reports on the comments that he is supposed to have made, but I was in America at the time and heard reports about those comments. The Secretary of State suggested in his statement to the House last week that even if the Assembly is not up and running by 24 November, there should be a strengthening of cross-border bodies. I would be worried if we had the one without the other.

The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) said how important it was for Northern Ireland to have an Assembly, and made a comparison with London and the London Mayor. I am not sure that I approve of the analogy, but think that I know what was she was getting at. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) made the good and important point that Sinn Fein needs to change its mode of behaviour to enable any support for the police to be credible.

I apologise that unfortunately, I missed the speech by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) because I had to slip out of the Chamber for a few moments. I understand that he gave strong support to the Good Friday agreement and said that there was a need to preserve it.

I have already touched on the speech made by the hon. Member for North Down. She objected to the postponement of the scheduled elections and to the fact that the Bill gives the Secretary of State more power. A consistent theme of several recent Bills has been the inclusion of a clause that allows the Secretary of State to change many things. I share the hon. Lady's concern, but perhaps we can discuss that in more detail in Committee tomorrow.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) made a good point, which I endorse, that it is not the DUP that needs to change, but the people who are in the way of democratic government in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) wants the Government to respond to the views expressed by the elected representatives of Northern Ireland. That is extremely important, given the significance of legislation that has recently been passed by order. Last week, for example, the number of councils was reduced from 26 to seven, with the support of Sinn Fein alone among the political parties. If the Assembly, once it is up and running, does not find that acceptable, I hope that the Secretary of State will take note of its opinion.

The hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) rightly said that the institutions must be based on democracy and that the Assembly must be built on rock, not sand. That is a very important statement to make. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) said that in future he does not want any family to suffer what families have previously suffered. Everyone in the House should share that objective. He expressed a determination to make the process work. I have known him for many years, not only as a political colleague but as a close friend, and I know that that is the case. The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) called for a sustainable Assembly, not one that is likely to falter. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) spoke about the difficulty of having to work with someone who authorised the assassination of four members of his family. It is hard for me to appreciate how difficult that is, but I admire his courage and determination to do so, to make the process work.

As I said at the outset, I have served on many Delegated Legislation and Northern Ireland Bill Committees. Almost every day this week, and last week, I attended such Committees. Goodness knows what will happen when we return next week, but there is a Delegated Legislation Committee the Tuesday after bank holiday Monday. That is a most unsatisfactory way of deciding policies and legislation for Northern Ireland. When the Assembly is up and running, it must be allowed to discuss those important issues. It must be worth while, or it will falter, which is not what I want, and I do not think it is what anyone in the House wants.

When we ask Unionist parties to serve in the Assembly and, more particularly, on the Executive it is important to ensure that they are dealing with people who have given up violence entirely. The Independent Monitoring Commission report has been discussed today, and without seeking to be negative, I want to deal with a couple of points that it makes. Paragraph 2.12 states:

"We noted however that PIRA continued to engage in intelligence gathering, predominantly to support the political strategy".

That intelligence gathering was "predominantly"—not entirely—to support the political strategy, and the IMC believed that it

"was authorised by the leadership and involved senior members."

That is a worrying phrase. The report goes on to say:

"Some senior members were also involved in money laundering and other crime."

That, too, is worrying. Paragraph 2.15 discusses a crime that was committed and says:

"We think nevertheless that PIRA did seek to secure the departure from the area of one of the families involved in the dispute".

In other words, the Provisional IRA sought to move families out of the area. The report continues:

"We also believe that in a separate incident PIRA itself may have been associated with the forced departure of somebody from the area where he lived."

Such activity should have ended—we were told that it had—but according to the IMC, that is not the case.

Gordon Banks (Labour, Ochil and South Perthshire)

The IMC report published today makes the point that the majority of forced exiles are made by loyalists, not republicans.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I do not disagree, but those people are not represented by a political party that will assume Government office in Northern Ireland. I am not trying to be negative, as I have a point to make. The report goes on to say that

"there are indications that some members, including some senior ones . . . are still involved in crime".

The report lists those crimes. It is unfair to expect law-abiding constitutional politicians from the Unionist community and from the SDLP to sit alongside people who are supposedly politicians by day, but are terrorists by night.

A further point concerns me. About two years ago I had a discussion with Seamus Mallon, a respected former Member of this House and also a former Deputy First Minister. He said that in his area Sinn Fein had 200 paid activists. Where did that money come from? The Minister who is to respond to the debate has a respectable majority of just over 6,000, but how would he like it if there were 200 paid activists in his constituency trying to get rid of him? That is not fair politics, and it must be addressed, alongside the fact that Unionist and SDLP politicians are being asked to work with people who might be engaging in violence and terrorist activities at night. It is not fair. If that is not tackled, the Assembly will fail, and I do not want to see that happen.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

Not only is the situation that my hon. Friend outlines manifestly unfair; it would be illegal.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

Totally illegal, as my hon. Friend observes.

I shall close now, to give the Minister a chance to respond to the many points that have been made by right hon. and hon. Members. I finish where I started. I wish the Assembly well. I hope it gets up and running. In order to succeed, it needs to discuss meaningful matters. It must be built on rock, rather than on sand. It has to be sustainable and, over and above anything else, it must be filled with Members who are wholly and exclusively committed to democratic means.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The debate has been largely good-tempered, which I cannot often say about Northern Ireland debates in the House. From all parts of the House we have had a positive and constructive debate. We even had a voluntary agreement on time sharing, which is a positive step. I hope it will lead to power sharing in due course. We even had something that we do not often have on Northern Ireland business: the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) engaged in normal politics, talking about matters such as taxation and expenditure. I hope that ultimately the Assembly will also get back to discussing such topics.

The message from today's excellent debate has been clear. Now is the time for parties in Northern Ireland to demonstrate leadership by going back into the Assembly to form an Executive and a Government in due course. I am heartened by the way that the parties approached the debate, by the positive response to the Bill that we heard from all parts of the House, and by the constructive attitude of hon. Members towards the potential establishment of the Assembly.

I thank the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) for the support of the official Opposition for the Government's proposals. I thank the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) for the support of the Liberal Democrats. I thank the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), who approached the debate with a positive, constructive attitude. I pay tribute to him. It is the first time, I think, that he has spoken in a debate since his 80th birthday. He seems to be reinvigorated on every occasion that he speaks in the House. I wish him well in his continued deliberations on these matters.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), the Chair of the Select Committee, who also approached the debate in a positive way, as have Members from all parts of the House who spoke today. It is heartening that everyone who took part in the debate spoke in favour of devolution for the people of Northern Ireland. The only argument has been about the conditions and about how and when that will occur. All sides accept the principle of devolution. The Bill is about how we achieve it.

That is important for the reason given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). As a previous Secretary of State, he knows better than anybody else, apart from my right hon. Friend the current Secretary of State, the difficulties of managing devolution as a direct-rule Minister. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), the right hon. Member for North Antrim and the hon. Members for Foyle, for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and for South Down (Mr. McGrady) have said, when I deal with Northern Ireland business, I do so as a Member of Parliament who is elected in Wales with a 6,500 majority—my majority has reduced over the past few years due to factors outside my control. I speak on behalf of the Government, but there are no crosses against my party's name, and, unlike Assembly Members, I do not have the mandate of being removable by the people of Northern Ireland.

Today's debate and the discussions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has conducted outside this Chamber about the potential for devolution show that there are real grounds for optimism and that real efforts have been made to make the Assembly operate positively and constructively. Although I recognise the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) about the different nature of the Assembly, I hope that we will move quickly to the permanent restoration mentioned by the hon. Member for Foyle. There is an overwhelming wish in Northern Ireland for devolution to occur and for the parties to co-operate, but I do not underestimate the challenges that the parties face.

I have listened to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), and I know about the contributions that the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) has made in the past, so I know that those Members' constituents have faced challenges, tragedies and terrorist acts every day for the past 30 years and more. As hon. Members have said, I know that it is difficult for them to enter a coalition with people who have undertaken the type of acts to which the hon. Member for Upper Bann has referred. In my view, however, it is the best possible option for the future of Northern Ireland for those people to work together with the civil service to manage the billions of pounds of expenditure in Northern Ireland. That money is being provided by the British Government and distributed by British Ministers, but there are local priorities, and I think it is important that we consider that point.

In setting out the challenge of devolution in simple, straightforward terms, I am not seeking to minimise in any way, shape or form the concerns and hesitations. As hon. Members have said, trust is a key element. As the right hon. Member for North Antrim and the hon. Members for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) and for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) have said, the conditions are not right at the moment, and I understand that concern, to which the hon. Members for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) and for South Staffordshire have also referred. I know that there are real issues of trust and confidence, and I listened carefully when the hon. Member for East Londonderry elucidated them.

We are moving in the right direction. The hon. Member for Aylesbury has already quoted this section of today's IMC report:

"It remains our absolutely clear view that the PIRA leadership has committed itself to following a peaceful path. It is working to bring the whole organisation fully along with it and has expended considerable effort to refocus the movement in support of its objective. In the last three months this process has involved the further dismantling of PIRA as a military structure."

My hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) and for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) recognised those points in their contributions.

The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) has said that progress has been made, but that more progress needs to be made. I agree with him and hope to see that happen, but there is evidence that progress is already being made.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

Will my hon. Friend reinforce a point that I made in an earlier intervention? Those of us who want to see progress in Northern Ireland, who are in favour of the Belfast agreement and who want to see devolution applied as quickly as possible were no less opposed to terrorism from day one than the DUP and the other parties in Northern Ireland which are represented in the House of Commons.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

My hon. Friend has highlighted that very clearly, and I support him in his objective. In the meantime, despite the fact that the IRA is moving in the right direction, we as a Government will not tolerate criminality or paramilitary activity in any way, shape or form, whether from the loyalist or the republican side.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

I entirely accept what the Minister says. As a logical consequence of that, should not he convey clearly and unambiguously to Sinn Fein-IRA that the Government have a limit to their patience, and that if conditions have not been met by November, the obvious alternative is to work for a coalition between the three democratic parties whose credentials are not in doubt?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Let us see what happens. I believe that progress is being made and will continue to be made, and that the IMC will back that up.

The Government will not tolerate criminality and paramilitary activity. On the republican side, in March we undertook operations resulting in 100,000 litres of fuel being seized, with the Criminal Assets Bureau freezing £1 million in cash and cheques found during that search. This week alone, the Assets Recovery Agency secured £140,000 from alleged fuel smuggling, as was mentioned by the hon. Members for East Londonderry, for South Antrim and for Lagan Valley. On the loyalist side, in December the Assets Recovery Agency froze £400,000 from alleged loyalist paramilitaries, and assets of £200,000 were frozen after the murder of the alleged loyalist brigadier, Jim Gray. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is currently examining how we deal with such issues. Criminality and paramilitary activity will not be tolerated, and the Government will work towards that end, but I believe that the conditions that Members are seeking will be achieved in due course through movements by the Provisional IRA.

We have to face reality and look to the significant challenges that will ensue. The Bill provides the framework whereby we can facilitate the dialogue for the future. As the hon. Member for Foyle said, individuals have worked together to do things that would have been unthinkable a few years ago. They did not abandon their beliefs in a united Ireland or in an Ireland that has relationships, through Northern Ireland, with the British Government as part of the United Kingdom, but they worked together on issues to do with the economics and day-to-day life of their communities. More than anything else, I want that to happen now.

Through the Bill, we have set up the Assembly. I know that the hon. Member for North Down has concerns about that, but I say to her and to others that we want it to be able to discuss real issues as well as to elect a First Minister and Deputy First Minister and an Executive, and as soon as possible, I hope, optimistic as I am, to form a Government and return to the full Assembly that the hon. Lady so desires. In the meantime, we have given it the opportunity to discuss and express views on education, the review of public administration, and water charges.

There has been a serious debate about how the Government will take account of those views in this Chamber. We will listen to what is said and consider the issues that are put to us, but we still have a duty as a Government to govern Northern Ireland in the best interests of its population. Whatever the Assembly that is set up in a fortnight's time may be, it will not be an Executive Assembly until it elects an Executive. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my fellow Ministers have a duty to this House to govern Northern Ireland responsibly, and it would be constitutionally wrong for us to say that we will automatically defer to another body while doing so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch observed, we have a job to do in Northern Ireland until such time as the Assembly forms an Executive to do that job.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State clearly set out the cost of maintaining the Assembly that has been unable to function. I pay tribute to the Members of the Assembly for the work that they do at the moment.

I receive delegations on housing, culture, sport and the range of issues for which I am responsible from Members of the Legislative Assembly who are now doing a constituency job. They write letters to me, visit, press us on a range of subjects and publicly comment on issues. They are doing a job but not the job that we are doing today—holding the Executive to account in a Chamber and legislating. I hope and pray that they will do that in due course in the Assembly. However, in the event of that not happening, we have to consider the costs of the Assembly and the way in which we hold elections to a future Assembly. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set the deadline of 24 November for progress.

The deadline is not a threat—it is simply an embodiment of a political reality. We cannot go on as we have done. We cannot finance a non-functioning Assembly indefinitely or go through the motions of an election next May to an Assembly that does not meet, legislate or hold the Executive to account.

The process creates the potential for an Assembly to meet on 15 May and elect an Executive, but, if it cannot do that, to discuss some of the issues and reflect the opinions of the 108 elected Members of the Legislative Assembly to my right hon. Friend and me. That is important.

Some hon. Members rightly asked about Orders in Council. I have said to the hon. Members for Aylesbury, for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), for Montgomeryshire and others that we do not find that procedure especially satisfactory. There are difficulties with it and my right hon. Friend has written to hon. Members to ask for their views on how we can improve the process. However, we have to govern. We have to make decisions and determine how we make progress in future. We have to run Departments. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach and I met business people in Armagh about some of issues on which we govern, they welcomed aspects of what we did. They welcomed some of the changes that we are making in, for example, the review of public administration.

We will have to listen and we will take representations. There will be an opportunity for the Assembly to present its opinions. However, we are accountable to the House for billions of pounds of public money that my right hon. Friend and I are spending on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland in the absence of the Assembly.

I hope that the Bill is about success, not failure. We believe that it is the best vehicle for success that can be constructed at the moment. We need the Assembly to be back in place and we must examine how we can make it work for the future. The challenge to all hon. Members is how we do that.

The hon. Member for North Down mentioned the delay in holding the election. We will discuss that when we consider the amendments tomorrow. We believe that the delay is necessary for the simple reason that, if we get the Assembly operational by October or November, it will work for only a few months before the rigours of an election.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Will the Minister give way?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I cannot because of lack of time. We have delayed the election for one year, not to meddle with democracy, as has been alleged, but to give the Assembly the opportunity to bed in, if it is formed, and to be stable and satisfactory for going into an election in future.

The Government are trying to get the Assembly back up and running. We are setting the framework for it to work. However, the prime movers must be the political parties that represent the people of Northern Ireland. We must move forward on the basis of an accommodation between people in Northern Ireland represented by their political leaders in the Assembly. If the House approves the Bill, the message to the people of Northern Ireland is that we have confidence in them and believe that they can run the affairs of their Province. We will support them in doing that, hand them billions of pounds of Government money to expend on their priorities and give an opportunity locally for them to determine their priorities, so that people who represent constituencies in Neath and north Wales do not choose them on their behalf.

There is an opportunity for the Assembly to be reformed and to make progress. I hope that, on 15 May, the Assembly will elect an Executive and commence that process. We look forward to considering amendments tomorrow. In the meantime, for the reason that democracy is exercised best when exercised locally by locally accountable people, I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

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

Committee tomorrow.