Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland Bill

House of Commons, 27 April 2006.

Clause 1 — Preparations for Restoration of Devolved Government

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 9, at end insert

'(including proposals to give effect to the agreement reached at the multi-party talks on Northern Ireland set out in Command Paper 3883)'.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 16, page 1, line 9, at end insert—

'(1A) Each candidate for either office under subsection (1)(a) above must stand for election jointly with a candidate for the other office.'.

No. 17, page 1, line 9, at end insert—

'(1A) Two candidates standing jointly for the purposes of an election under subsection (1)(a) above shall not be elected to the two offices without the support of—

(a) a majority of the members voting in the election,

(b) a majority of the designated Nationalists voting, and

(c) a majority of the designated Unionists voting.'.

No. 21, in schedule 1, page 4, line 5, leave out first 'Assembly' and insert 'Forum'.

No. 22, in page 4, line 5, leave out second 'Assembly' and insert 'Forum'.

No. 8, in page 4, line 9, at end insert

'and to give effect to the agreement reached at the multi-party talks on Northern Ireland set out in Command Paper 3883.'.

No. 23, in page 4, line 15, leave out sub-sub-paragraph 1(a).

No. 4, in page 4, line 18, leave out from 'officers' to end of line 19.

No. 25, in page 4, line 19, at end insert—

'(1A) A person shall not be elected under sub-sub-paragraph 3(1)(b) above or sub-sub-paragraph 3(3)(b) below without cross-community support.

(1B) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1A) above "cross-community support" shall have the same meaning as in subsection 39(7) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.'.

No. 24, in page 4, line 26, leave out sub-sub-paragraph 3(a).

No. 26, in page 4, line 32, leave out paragraph 4.

No. 27, in page 5, line 18, leave out paragraph 6.

No. 6, in page 5, line 20, at end insert—

'Assembly control of Orders in Council

7 Paragraph 2 of the Schedule to the 2000 Act is replaced by—

"Parliamentary and Assembly control of Orders in Council

2(1) Except where sub-paragraph (2) applies, an Order in Council may not be made under paragraph 1(1) unless each of the following conditions is met—

(a) Condition 1 is that a draft of the Order has been referred under section 1(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 2006 to the Assembly;

(b) Condition 2 is that a meeting of the Assembly has taken place at which it has had the opportunity to consider the draft of the Order;

(c) Condition 3 is that the Assembly at that meeting has not expressed by resolution passed with cross-community support its opposition to the draft of the Order;

(d) Condition 4 is that the draft of the Order has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

(2) This sub-paragraph applies where the Order declares that the Secretary of State has advised Her Majesty that because of the urgency of the matter it is necessary to make the Order without meeting any of the conditions in sub-paragraph (1).

(3) Where an Order contains a declaration under sub-paragraph (2) it—

(a) must be laid before Parliament after being made; and

(b) ceases to have effect if it is not approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament before the end of the relevant period.

(4) Where an Order contains a declaration under sub-paragraph (2) it—

(a) must be referred to the Assembly under section 1(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 2006 after being made; and

(b) ceases to have effect if before the end of the relevant period—

(i) the Assembly has not had an opportunity to consider the Order; or

(ii) the Assembly has passed a resolution with cross community support expressing its opposition to the Order.

(5) But sub-paragraphs (3)(b) and (4)(b) do not prejudice—

(a) anything done under the Order before it ceased to have effect; or

(b) the making of a new Order.

(6) In this paragraph—

"the Assembly" means the Assembly referred to in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 2006;

"the relevant period" means the period of 40 days beginning with the date on which the Order is made.'.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

We covered many matters yesterday on Second Reading. We have tabled amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 6 to clause 1. The clause provides that the Secretary of State may refer certain matters to the Assembly that is to be set up under the Bill, namely, the election of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, the operation of d'Hondt and such other matters as the Secretary of State sees fit.

The clause makes it clear that suspension does not end with the creation of the Assembly. It provides that the Assembly is to be composed of people who were elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly, so there is a clear legal distinction between the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Assembly. So far, the Secretary of State has not coloured in exactly which other matters he might see fit to refer to the Assembly. There were various exchanges between Governments and parties in the run-up to the statement made by the two premiers in Armagh, which preceded the Secretary of State's announcement of the Bill last week. The purpose of amendment No. 7 is to try to probe further into which other matters the Assembly might consider.

Elsewhere in the measure, it is made clear what will happen if restoration does not occur by 25 November. The Assembly set up by the legislation will be wound up and the Secretary of State has made it clear that Assembly Members will lose their jobs. We accept that, as we have been told, the Assembly is not a shadow Assembly—so it is not even a shadow of its former self. It should not continue indefinitely. We do not want an endless talking shop of any kind, but the Government are making a mistake if they think that the deadline will worry those who may not be in a hurry to form an inclusive Executive by that date. Talk of closing the book on devolution and talk, such as we heard yesterday, of bringing the curtain down on the process that has been in operation since 1998 could appeal to a party such as the Democratic Unionist party, which still says that its aim is to remove and replace the Belfast agreement.

The proposals that may or may not exist on joint stewardship in the event of the Assembly being wound up if there is failure by 25 November do not extend to anything that might look like joint authority—the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been at pains to state that here last week and this week—so it would seem that perhaps we are talking about some sort of direct rule with knobs on at best. Again, I am not sure whether that will particularly appeal to anyone to whom the deadline is meant to appeal, and I am not sure whether it will scare or frighten anyone whom the deadline is supposed to worry in that sense.

It would suit those in the DUP in many ways for everything to be wound up at that stage and for attempts to be made in the direction of joint authority, to which they can then galvanise opposition and claim success in those attempts and, indeed, in burying the agreement, as they would see it. There is a danger that parties could have an incentive to play it out to failure on 25 November. Indeed, that incentive could also extend not just to the DUP, but to those in Sinn Fein who, for their own reasons, might be quite happy for us to reach a situation where the onus is on the two Governments to produce an alternative after 25 November. Of course, they can then galvanise and criticise when that is not good enough from their perspective either. Of course, they would be happy to blame the collapse by 25 November on the DUP.

The danger is that, after 25 November, the Northern Ireland Assembly might not be a given, the Assembly created by the Bill might be gone and a worthwhile alternative from the two Governments might not be a given and not be available. It might well be that the only given that we will have then is the outcome of the review of public administration—the seven super-councils, the repartition in waiting and the deep Balkanisation of our society—and in those circumstances, parties might well start to turn their attentions to how they build up their powers and bases in those new local government institutions, rather than concentrating on how we deliver the vision for devolution that the people of Northern Ireland endorsed when they voted overwhelmingly for the agreement.

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Why are those the only options available to the political parties in Northern Ireland? There is still the option of voluntary coalition, and my party has said many times to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that, in the absence of Sinn Fein-IRA completing the journey to democracy, peace and the rule of law, we are prepared to go into government tomorrow with them, so there are other options on the table, including the proposals that the hon. Gentleman and his party have made.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

If the hon. Gentleman looks at amendment No. 7, he will see that it would allow people to consider and argue about other such proposals, to test one another and to press one another on them. However, the fact is that we could face a dangerous situation after 25 November if we have failed by that stage and if the language used is that of closing the book on devolution and therefore closing the book on the agreement for the foreseeable future. We could end up in circumstances that no one has advocated, no one has argued for and certainly no one has voted for in voting for any party. That is why I believe that, in the period that we have, if it looks as though we are not making progress to form the inclusive Executive and getting the First Minister and Deputy First Minister elected in the due way, it might well be appropriate, if the parties agree, to look at some options that still allow us to make progress that is consistent with the Good Friday agreement and that allows suspension to end—not to continue and prolong this kind of half-baked, twilight zone Assembly, but to create one that allows us to end direct rule and to restore the Assembly with its powers, the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council.

The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) refers to our proposals in the past. Our proposals were made more than two years ago. They did not require IRA decommissioning or anything else—it would have been restoration there and then, or restoration here and now—and if the Assembly were to discuss options such as ours, other parties would be free to propose other options. I urge the Secretary of State to make it clear that the Assembly will have the potential to maximise the agreement's implementation. That is made clear in amendment No. 7, and we would like to hear that the Government will consider that, rather than pushing to a position that would simply allow others to declare the agreement dead.

We recognise in that context not only that we will be trying to test others with alternatives and better ways to find a more definite approach to implementing the agreement, but that other parties will be testing us with their proposals, some of which, of course, would involve departing from the agreement. However, if the purpose of the Assembly is, as we have been told over the past few weeks, to provide a forum where all the parties can discuss things and where side deals are not going on and if the Assembly is the locus for political discussions, it seems to me that, given such political discussions as the Government know they will have with the parties, the parties should be able to have discussions with one another in public view in the context of the Assembly created by the Bill.

I will not speak to the amendments tabled by other hon. Members. We have also tabled amendments Nos. 8 and 6 in this group. The purpose of amendment No. 8 is simple: to make it clear that the purpose of the Assembly created by the Bill is to give effect to the Good Friday agreement. The House should have no problem with that because, after all, section 1 of the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998, which set up the original shadow Assembly, contained similar wording, and the Secretary of State has told us that much of the Bill has been drawn from that original 1998 Act. If it was okay then, and the purpose of the Bill is to get us to implement the agreement, we see no reason why that cannot be made clear upfront in the legislation now.

I will now address amendment No. 6—and as I said yesterday, the key to our approach is whether the Bill offers a path to restoration or whether it offers the sort of talking shop that the DUP have advocated. We recognise from what we have seen to date that the Bill may offer both. It could be a path to restoration in that, if we elect a First Minister and Deputy First Minister and run the d'Hondt system and everyone takes the pledge of office, the Secretary of State will restore the institutions. Certainly, we would welcome that—we want to see those things happen—and we will be there, taking our place in the Assembly, to try to make them happen.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Again, the hon. Gentleman alludes to two distinct things: either a talking shop, which he appears to believe, wrongly, is an option that the DUP wants, or a restitution of the institutions, which is obviously what he wants. Can he open his mind to the fact that this may in fact evolve into something that is neither of those?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I look forward to hearing more from the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues about some of what they have in mind, but so long as we are in the Assembly created by the Bill and not a restored one, I certainly want to ensure that the elected representatives in that Assembly can use their time as productively as possible. I do not want the considerations that its Members then have to be meaningless and weightless.

The fact is that the Secretary of State is given the power in clause 1(1) to refer to "such other matters as" he "thinks fit" to the Assembly created by the Bill. Obviously, that refers back to the statement by the two Governments on 6 April. We are told that the Secretary of State and Ministers would take account of motions passed with cross-community support on matters such as water rates and the review of public administration. It is hard for people to put much weight on such verbal indications from the Government in circumstances where the Government have consistently failed to respect the will of parties, as clearly expressed on a cross-community basis outside the Assembly during suspension.

How are we to believe that the Government will respect the views of Assembly Members in that Assembly? Will "take account of" extend to "abide by the will of"? That is what amendment No. 6 tests. It would give the temporary Assembly created by the Bill a temporary power for the life of that Assembly, by cross-community vote, to veto Orders in Council. That would not be a veto in the hands of one party or another party, or one community interest or another community interest, but a veto, for the life of the temporary Assembly, in the hands of a cross-community majority in that Assembly.

If the Secretary of State cannot accept amendment No. 6, I will have to ask what reason he can offer to Members of the Legislative Assembly for attending work in the Assembly to deal with such other matters as he might refer to it. If the clear and overwhelming views of the Assembly on matters such as industrial de-rating, water charges and the review of public administration will have no binding impact on what the Government do, it is hard to see how people will be well motivated in that work. It is also hard to see how the variety of policy communities and sectoral interests will take the Assembly seriously in that context. If the Secretary of State, who is creating and will control the Assembly, does not take it seriously, it is hard to expect or rely on all its Members, and certainly the wider public, to take it seriously.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Having read amendment No. 6, it seems that the hon. Gentleman seeks a negative power for the Assembly to veto Orders in Council. How does he consider that the Assembly will work in terms of positive powers? What positive powers does he think the Assembly should have and how much budgetary control does he think it should have?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

To give the Assembly positive powers on a cross-community basis would, in effect, give one community or another, or one party or another, a veto on positive proposals and that would not be constructive in this situation. We do not want to give life to any sort of diversionary, half-baked Assembly. In so far as we are faced with this Assembly, which would not have been our choice—we wanted to go for full restoration—we will make the most of what is put in front of us, but we are not going to give life to something that diverges significantly from the agreement.

This is a temporary Assembly. If the idea of the 25 November deadline is to concentrate minds and to say to parties, "You will face serious consequences if you let all this fizzle out and the prospect of devolution turn to dust," giving that temporary Assembly the temporary power of political estoppel on matters that are clearly unpopular in the Northern Ireland community, would at least let people know that, if there is failure by 25 November, the effect of that power of estoppel will go. People will know that the community will pay a price and hopefully then parties will pay a price in front of the community for having allowed their success in stopping and preventing some of these measures to evaporate, because obviously the Government are then free to return to implement those measures under direct rule.

Concentrating and galvanising the power of that incentive makes the deadline count for far more. It will give people in the wider community—the various policy communities and sectoral interests—some mission and purpose in looking to the temporary Assembly to send a signal of a real prospect of better policy outcomes for them. They will be pressing parties to make the most of the situation and to make sure that we have success before 25 November, not failure. That is the purpose of amendment No. 6. I will not address the other amendments in detail.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the explanation of that amendment. Does he accept that there is a disincentive to proceed with any Assembly if such matters are pushed through in the meantime, anyhow, and therefore it would be important for the amendment to be accepted?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I take fully the hon. Gentleman's point. It is the corollary of the point that I have just made—it is the other side of the coin. Given the point that the Government are at in pushing through some of these disagreeable measures, people might well have cause to allow the failure of the exercise so that they do not have to take responsibility for managing and steering those affairs from then on. So long as they can blame somebody else for that failure, they are home in a boat, as they would see it. I take his point and I hope that the Secretary of State is persuaded by the fact that there is a clear, strong argument, in terms of realpolitik, for this particular amendment.

I will not speak to the amendments that we do not support. In this group, we are supportive of the amendments from the Ulster Unionist party on ensuring that the election of the First and Deputy First Ministers is carried out absolutely on the basis that was specified in the Good Friday agreement.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

May I put on the record my deep appreciation of the House authorities and, in particular, the Public Bill Office for accepting amendments at very short notice? The Bill was introduced and published only last Thursday. By virtue of the fact that it was introduced so late, amendments had to be late, but I appreciate, most sincerely, the great leniency that has been shown by the Public Bill Office.

May I also say what a delight it is to see the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), and also the Secretary of State in their places—for the entire debate, we hope? May I just say to the Secretary of State that I do know that there has been a death in his family? I extend my deepest condolences to him and I am sure that they will be shared by everyone in the House.

We have a lively debate ahead of us and a number of the amendments that stand in my name are in this first group, under clause 1, "Preparations for restoration of devolved government". I will briefly indicate what the amendments relate to and then speak to them in more detail. Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 deal with the election of the First and Deputy First Ministers, which I wish to see carried out by means of a joint election, with both names on the same ticket.

Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 deal with the name of the new creature that we discussing. As I indicated yesterday, I find it disturbing that the Bill, the Secretary of State and the Minister constantly refer to this new creature as the Assembly. In the minds of the people of Northern Ireland, that conjures up the idea that it is the same as the Northern Ireland Assembly. Of course, it is a very pale shadow of the former Northern Ireland Assembly; it is a talking shop. Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 seek to christen it a "Forum" rather than an assembly.

Amendments Nos. 23 and 25, which stand in my name, deal with the election of the Presiding Officer. I take exception to the Secretary of State taking to himself even more power. I know that those concerns are shared by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). We have not had discussions in the Tea Room about elections, but I hope that he and the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) will support the taking away of additional Executive powers from the Secretary of State, which is what is embodied in my amendments.

Amendment No. 24 deals with the replacement of any Presiding Officer. Again, the Secretary of State is taking the power to replace any Presiding Officer or deputy, or to fill a vacancy. I hope that I will have the support of the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) for amendment No. 26, which would remove the power of the Secretary of State to control proceedings in the Assembly by directions. Amendment No. 27 deals with the privilege of Members of the Legislative Assembly. I admit that it is a probing amendment, but its purpose is to find out why when MLAs take up their posts in the new body and sit again in Stormont, their statements will have limited privilege.

Perhaps I can deal with the amendments in reverse order. If anything emphasises to the entire House that the new creature will not be the old Assembly, it is paragraph 6 of schedule 1, which amendment No. 27 would remove. The provision sets out the limited privilege that will be attached to statements made by the 108 MLAs. I think that I am right in saying that all Democratic Unionist party Members who sit in the House are also Assembly Members. Indeed, apart from the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), all Social Democratic and Labour party Members are Assembly Members. They will be curious to find that the law is being redrafted to reduce what can be said with privilege in the new Assembly.

The Northern Ireland Act 1998 could be described as the constitution of Northern Ireland because, according to its long title, it is the main piece of legislation for the "government of Northern Ireland". The Secretary of State and Assembly Members will know that according to section 50 of that Act:

"For the purposes of the law of defamation, absolute privilege shall attach to . . . the making of a statement in proceedings of the Assembly; and . . . the publication of a statement under the Assembly's authority."

The 108 MLAs thus have absolute privilege, but paragraph 6 of schedule 1 will take that away. This does not affect me, as the Member for North Down, because I do not sit in the Assembly, but I am genuinely worried about why the 108 Assembly Members who return will find that their privilege has suddenly been reduced.

According to paragraph 6 of schedule 1:

"A written or oral statement made by a member in or for the purposes of the Assembly is to be privileged from action for defamation unless it is proved to have been made with malice."

Will the Secretary of State or the Minister kindly comment on the impact that the provision might have on any publication of the new Assembly, or, indeed, any media coverage of its proceedings? Why will the absolute privilege attached to Members of the old Northern Ireland Assembly—the proper Assembly—not carry through to the new creature?

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I have sympathy with the hon. Lady and hope to support amendment No. 26, which she tabled, in due course. Does she know how the question of privilege for the Assembly relates to what goes on in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly?

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I, as the Member for North Down, could not possibly comment on the business and proceedings of the Welsh Assembly, but we are greatly honoured and benefited by having in the Chamber a Secretary of State who is not only Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but Secretary of State for Wales. I am sure that his knowledge also extends to the Scottish Parliament, so we look forward to clarification of the situation for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly from the person who is best qualified to comment.

Alan Reid (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I cannot speak for the Welsh Assembly, but I assure the hon. Lady that the Scottish Parliament has absolute privilege.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

That is most helpful.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

I think that the hon. Lady will find that the same applies to the Welsh Assembly.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am grateful for those two interventions.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

rose—

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I might as well take a third intervention, especially as I am sure that it will be helpful.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I hope that the hon. Lady does not cancel our engagement for tea.

Does the hon. Lady realise that the Northern Ireland Assembly still holds full privilege? We are discussing not that Assembly, but a new creation with a specific purpose. The Government judge that the purpose for which the new Assembly will be sitting may not require full privilege. What distinction does she draw between that full privilege and the privilege that will be extended to the new Assembly, which will require people to prove that malice was intended? How on earth will that be short of full privilege? I suspect that no one will be able to prove that someone has made a statement with malice in mind.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am most grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, which I am sure was intended to be helpful. He helped to clarify and reinforce a point that I made at the start of my comments on the amendment: if any measure in the Bill jumps off the page to reinforce the fact that the body will be not the Northern Ireland Assembly in shadow or devolved mode, but a new creature, it is the change to the law on absolute privilege.

I simply wish to know from the Secretary of State or the Minister the impact that the measure will have on those in the media who genuinely report what is said. According to the Bill, the privilege attaches to the Members. Unlike under section 50 of the 1998 Act, it will not extend to publications from the Assembly. The media perhaps have the most to lose financially as a result of the measure, so they may also want clarification.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

While the hon. Lady has been talking, I have had the opportunity to read section 50 of the 1998 Act, which is, indeed, widely drawn. What worries me about paragraph 6 of schedule 1 of the Bill is how intent and malice would be proved. Would it be possible that the measure would put the leader of the Assembly in an invidious position? The leader might become involved in court proceedings to rule on whether something was said with malice.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

The Secretary of State has already chosen an individual to be the Presiding Officer, although I do not think that he had the authority—certainly not under the 1998 Act—to appoint any individual as a Presiding Officer. I assume that he has discussed the new law on defamation and privilege with the nominated Presiding Officer.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I understand why the hon. Lady is worried about the measure. Although I could have waited until my reply to make this point, it is important that I do so now. The arrangements are exactly the same—I think that the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) was alluding to this point—as those that applied in 1998 before we had a fully-fledged Assembly and restoration. All that I am doing is reproducing those arrangements, and I think that it is entirely appropriate to do so.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I thank the Secretary of State for his helpful intervention. I just hope that those in the media who intend to reflect and comment on the body's proceedings will do better than they have in recent days by describing the new creature as "the Assembly".

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

Does not the Secretary of State's intervention underline the fact that the hon. Lady is wise to use the word "creature", because the new Assembly is in every sense the creature of the Secretary of the State? It is not legally elected. It is appointed by him. The Presiding Officer is appointed him. Although its Members will be the Members who were elected to the Assembly, the body that we are discussing is not the Assembly.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

I humbly apologise, Sir Alan.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I think that all contributions, in particular the comment by the Secretary of State, have been helpful.

I will move on, because I think we ought to—[Interruption.] If I am encouraged to move on quickly by a DUP Member, I will of course invite that Member to contribute to the debate.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

May I remind the hon. Lady that I was the first person to bring the "creature" to the attention of the House? I called the Minister to attention and told him straight that it was not the old Assembly, but a new creature. The hon. Lady is not the only person to make that great finding. We all know that the body is not the old Assembly—it is not the old Assembly resurrected, even. It is a new body, designed by certain people who feel that this is the way they should go. We are going to take on board what they say and go away, but we will see how far we get.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I was not claiming to myself anything new. I was particularly pleased that yesterday, at the beginning of the Secretary of State's contribution on Second Reading, the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) was quick off his feet to correct the Secretary of State, who had referred to the Assembly coming back. Lest there by any doubt whatever, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for North Antrim for pointing out, quite rightly, that we are discussing a new body. I regret it if I suggested otherwise. That was not my intention.

However, the right hon. Gentleman does reinforce the need for amendments Nos. 21 and 22, which would christen the body a "Forum" rather than the "Assembly". I have referred to media reports giving the impression that the new institution—the new Assembly—is not a different institution. The two are being confused in the minds of the media, at least, but they are certainly not confused in the minds of the right hon. Gentleman, his colleagues, the Social Democratic and Labour party and the one Ulster Unionist.

The Financial Times for Thursday 27 April states:

"Mr Hain is recalling the province's assembly on 15 May."

The Belfast Telegraph for Wednesday 26 April states:

"The report"—

the Independent Monitoring Commission report—

"which says paramilitary activity is at a three-year low—seems likely to guarantee a smooth start to Assembly sittings in 18 days".

Again, that gives the impression that the new body is the old Assembly, which it clearly is not. That is why my amendments would call the new creature—with, I am sure, the endorsement of the right hon. Gentleman—a forum, or a talking shop, because that would be a more appropriate description than the confusing double title of the Assembly.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I know that the hon. Lady has gone to considerable lengths to prove the nature of the body. Has she looked at the provisions in paragraph 2 of schedule 2, which deals with making the restoration order and, if we so decide in this Assembly, the things that will be carried over to the Northern Ireland Assembly on restoration? In particular, sub-paragraph (8) provides that by virtue of the restoration order, things that have been done here, will be treated as having been done in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising a good point. I have done some homework on schedule 2. He is right. As he will see when we reach a later group of amendments, I am particularly concerned about the pledges of office and, for example, the idea that

"the presiding officer of the Assembly immediately before the effective date shall be deemed to have been elected"

as the Presiding Officer of the new Northern Ireland Assembly. I am most taken aback by things that have been deemed to have been done in one place being carried over to the reconstituted Assembly, which I genuinely hope to see.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Is it not right to remember that the Presiding Officer of the Assembly was never elected by the Assembly? He was chosen by the powers that be, and that was never rectified or done away with. He just took his place and stayed there—and for far too long as far as I was concerned.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I hope I do not misrepresent the views expressed, but I take it that the DUP, and certainly its leader, would prefer to select the Presiding Officer as it is they who sit in the Assembly, rather than have a Presiding Officer nominated, appointed and swept into power. That is no criticism of the individual herself, but it is an appointment that has been made, and it will be deemed to take effect under the Bill by the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] I take it that that is an endorsement of my point.

If I could just move to amendment No. 26—

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Hear, hear.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is so enthusiastic for me to move to the removal of the directions that can be given by the Secretary of State to conduct the proceedings of the Assembly.

Amendment No. 26 would remove paragraph 4 from schedule 1. It states:

"Proceedings are to be conducted in accordance with directions determined by the Secretary of State from time to time and notified to the presiding officer or any deputy presiding officer."

I hardly think any hon. Member would take exception to removing such wide Executive powers from the Secretary of State. I was reminded of words, wisely spoken, by the right hon. Member for North Antrim, and I am sure that I will find myself on his Christmas card list by the end of my comments. With reference to, I regret to say, the late Mo Mowlam, the right hon. Member for Redcar and then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, he made a helpful statement as far back as 22 April 1998.

It was the leader of the DUP who said, with reference to standing orders:

"Who makes those standing orders? It is the Secretary of State, and if she does not like what is going on, she can change them at any time. Is that democracy?"

He continued:

"The Secretary of State could sit in her office and say, 'I don't like the way the assembly carried out its business yesterday. Here is a new order. Send that off to the Clerk and call them to order.' Is that democracy? If hon. Members think that it is, let them vote for it, but the people of Northern Ireland are aghast."—[Official Report, 22 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 874.]

I could not have put it better myself, if I may say so to the right hon. Member for North Antrim.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

The hon. Lady should read more of Hansard.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I shall endeavour to do so. I do, of course, read the right hon. Gentleman's words in Hansard. I may not agree with half of what he says, but I thoroughly enjoy reading what he says. I therefore expect the DUP and certainly the right hon. Gentleman to support the removal of schedule 1, paragraph 4, which allows the Secretary of State to direct the proceedings of the Assembly. That is not acceptable in any democracy.

Moving on to the election of the Presiding Officer, under the Bill the Secretary of State has the opportunity, and he has taken the opportunity, to appoint a Presiding Officer. Schedule 1, paragraph 3 states:

"The Secretary of State may—

(a) appoint a presiding officer and no more than three deputy presiding officers, or

(b) authorise the Assembly"

to do so. I wish to remove the power of the Secretary of State to appoint a Presiding Officer and Deputies, and to ensure that that is the task of the 108 Assembly Members. That is what they are there for. According to section 39 of the 1998 Act, which, I repeat, is the constitution of Northern Ireland and sets out the governance of Northern Ireland,

"Each Assembly shall as its first business elect from among its members a Presiding Officer and deputies."

Let us see the 108 Assembly Members doing what they were elected to do when the proper Assembly is restored. Any Presiding Officer should have the cross-community support of the House.

Finally, I shall speak to amendments Nos. 16 and 17 relating to the election of the First and Deputy First Ministers. Amendment No. 16 would ensure that

"Each candidate for either office"—

that is, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister—

"must stand for election jointly with a candidate for the other office."

Amendment No. 17 reads:

"Two candidates standing jointly for the purposes of an election under subsection (1)(a) above shall not be elected to the two offices without the support of—

(a) a majority of the members voting in the election,

(b) a majority of the designated Nationalists voting, and

(c) a majority of the designated Unionists voting."

I wish to see that written into the Bill.

I was delighted to receive a draft copy of the standing orders, which arrived in my office this morning. Before the Bill has seen much daylight and before it has been seen or discussed in the other place, it is rather unusual procedure that the Secretary of State has already sent out draft standing orders for consultation. I wonder where the authority came from for him to do so.

I was pleased that on page 8 of those draft standing orders, it is proposed by the Secretary of State that

"Each candidate for either office must stand for election jointly with a candidate for the other office",

and that

"Two candidates standing jointly shall not be elected to the offices without the support of a majority of the members voting in the election, a majority of designated Nationalists voting and a majority of the designated Unionists voting."

That is from paragraph 17 of the draft standing orders. Either the Secretary of State had the benefit of seeing my amendments, or great minds might, on occasion, think alike.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

On a point of order, Sir Michael. I understood that it was a convention of the House that if the Government sent out papers that were to be discussed in a debate, those papers should be available to the whole Committee. As far as I am aware, the papers are not available in the Vote Office or on the Table of the House. Could you ask the Minister to make them available as soon as possible so that we can benefit from them in the debate?

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

I am not clear which papers the hon. Gentleman means.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

Those from which the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) quoted.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The draft standing orders of the Assembly.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I am grateful, Mr. Lord. [Hon. Members: "Sir Michael."] I am grateful, Sir Michael, and apologise for that discourtesy. I circulated the draft standing orders in good faith to all Members of the Legislative Assembly and made it clear in my statement last week that I intended to do that on publication, which the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) may not have heard. I am happy to make them available to him or to anybody else. No disrespect was intended to anybody. A copy is available in the Library.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I begin by speaking to amendment No. 4, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) and is a probing amendment. It is linked to amendment No. 5, in that it deals with the extent to which the Assembly can decide matters for itself. We are curious about the phrase

"in such manner as the Secretary of State may specify."

Does that mean that the Assembly will be able to choose a Presiding Officer or deputies not of the Secretary of State's choosing if it so wishes, or will the Assembly be able only to confirm the Secretary of State's choices? That is important.

I think I can say without fear of contradiction that the previous Speaker was universally admired and respected—I see a smile leaking from those on the DUP Benches—and he did not stay long enough, but he has gone now. I pay tribute in advance to Eileen Bell, who I think will be a superb Presiding Officer, but if the Assembly wanted to change that appointment—I hope it would not—would it have the capacity to do so? I hope that the Minister will be able to answer that question.

Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 were tabled by the SDLP. "Command Paper 3883", as we know, is the Good Friday agreement. I am slightly concerned that the aim behind the amendments might be to ensure that no changes are made to the operation of the Assembly and the Good Friday agreement.

It is recognised that there have been difficulties in the operation of certain aspects of the agreement. Perhaps the most obvious of those was the use of designations. Who can forget the fiasco of autumn 2001, when members of the Alliance party had to pretend to be Unionists for five minutes in order to facilitate the election of a First and Deputy First Minister? That occurred despite the fact that over 70 per cent. of Assembly Members voted for David Trimble and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) to take up those positions. That is fundamentally wrong. If the amendments would prevent a change, they would enshrine some rather bad practice.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

rose—

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene to clarify that point, I shall be happy to give way.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I wish the amendments, if they are made, would have the effect of preventing any changes. They would not. The Secretary of State told us earlier that much of the Bill reproduces much of what was in the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998, and the amendment does the same: it reproduces a provision that was in the original Act.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

It reproduces some of the flaws, too.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that when the Deputy First Minister resigned, his resignation was mentioned at the Dispatch Box, and eulogies were offered. The then Secretary of State discovered that he had not resigned at all, and his motor car, free phone and all his servants had to be reinstated. That was approved by the House, and anyone who voted against it was regarded as a leper.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The right hon. Gentleman makes a self-contained point, and we hear him loud and clear. His youthful exuberance is a delight in these debates and his impish cheekiness lifts everyone's spirits. I hope he will retain those characteristics as he matures.

To return to past mistakes, the Bill provided an opportunity to solve the problem of designation, which, I accept, was proposed as a way of ensuring cross-community consent. However, it contributes to the reinforcement of sectarian divisions. A system of designation presumes that everyone fits neatly into a category, but it ignores pluralism and means that the votes of people representing cross-community parties do not have the same value as those of Unionists and nationalists. That basic lack of equality is contrary to the spirit of the original agreement, and to the spirit of European anti-discrimination standards. It is quite wrong that the votes of Assembly Members who refuse to subscribe to the sectarian labels of "Unionist" or "nationalist" count for less than those of Members who accept those titles. I am therefore concerned lest we enshrine previous bad practice in the Bill by accepting amendments Nos. 7 and 8.

Amendment No. 16 appears to have been tabled to avoid the problem of voting separately for a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister—an arrangement that means, for example, that some parties would actively have to vote for a Sinn Fein candidate. I do not know whether that was the explicit intention of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), but I do not have any difficulty with her proposal. To be honest, I would prefer Ministers to be endorsed collectively, rather than individually, because that reinforces the belief that they should work together.

Amendment No. 17 deals with the age-old problem of deciding how individuals should be elected to office. We have still not got to grips with that problem, which is not just about redesignation. The Secretary of State may wish to explain why 70 per cent. of all Assembly Members can vote for a candidate, yet for that candidate not to be elected.

The hon. Member for North Down sensibly pointed out the difference between a forum and an assembly, thus highlighting the inevitable confusion caused by using the same word for both. The Government have some form on this issue. The Secretary of State is also the Secretary of State for Wales, so he will remember a recent debate on the Government of Wales Bill. I tabled an amendment proposing that we call the Welsh Assembly "the Welsh Senedd", but the Government rejected it, because they argued that the building in which the Assembly operates is a Senedd, so it would be confusing to call the Assembly the same thing. They appear to have taken exactly the opposite view in the Northern Ireland Bill, and have decided to use one word for two things that are clearly not the same.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

That was not the reason that we refused the hon. Gentleman's amendment. The translation of the Welsh word, "Senedd", is "Parliament", but Westminster is the Parliament. There is no Parliament in Wales—there is the Assembly.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The right hon. Gentleman was not present for the entire debate, but one of the arguments against calling the Assembly "the Senedd" was that people would be confused. That is on the record for everyone to see. There is no question but that the use of the word "Assembly" in the Bill will cause confusion, as that has already happened in the press. The Government should take a long, hard look at the problem. It may be their political intention to make the body look, feel and sound like an assembly to persuade individuals that the transition is not a great one. I am agnostic about that, but I feel very strongly that the Secretary of State should explain why the Government are willing to countenance confusion between the new creature and the original body that was set up and called "the Assembly".

I support amendment No. 26. This morning, the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform published its 18th report, which considered the Bill. It drew attention to paragraph 4 of schedule 1 and the power that it gives the Secretary of State to determine the conduct of the Assembly's proceedings:

"These directions may contain provisions of a substantive and not just a procedural nature. For example, they may include requirements as to the majority required for election. Although the bill does not prescribe what, if any, directions must be given in this respect, paragraph 4(3) and (4) of schedule 1 specifies that a particular use of the power may be to require provision corresponding to sections 16 and 18 of the Northern Ireland act 1998, which set out the majorities required in elections, and the formula for filling ministerial offices, under that Act."

It concludes:

"We draw to the attention of the House the significance of the power to give directions so that Ministers may, if the House thinks fit, be asked for a fuller explanation of the intended use."

We would like the Secretary of State to comment on what the power will be used for. We are concerned that he has taken the power upon himself, and will not allow the Assembly to decide these matters for itself—a point that we made, albeit less emphatically, in amendment No. 4. Why can the Assembly not decide those matters for itself? The matter has invited comment from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, so I hope that the Secretary of State can provide a cohesive reply.

I found amendment No. 7 entertaining, as it deals with parliamentary privilege and makes the preposterous assumption that one can prove an exemption for malice. I hope that the Secretary of State will explain why on earth the Bill includes such a fatuous provision.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I think that the hon. Gentleman means amendment No. 27, not amendment. No. 7.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The hon. Gentleman is right, and I am grateful for the correction.

I do not believe that the provision would have any efficacy in a court of law. It is a moot point, but the Bill does not stand or fall on it. I am not persuaded, however, that there is a coherent reason for the inclusion of a provision that rather offensively suggests that, although it is not the case for any other political body in the United Kingdom, there is a particular opportunity and likelihood of malice in Northern Ireland. In my experience, Northern Irish politicians are some of the most generous-hearted and loving people one could hope to meet, so planning for such a failure is an offence to right hon. and hon. Members from Northern Ireland.

Finally, I rather like amendment No. 6, which gives the Assembly the ability to discuss, and have an input into, Orders in Council that are made in Parliament between 15 May, when the Assembly is recalled, and any such time that a restoration order is made to restore devolved powers to the Assembly.

I think that that is the right thing to do. Assembly Members should be able to have proper input into matters affecting people in Northern Ireland, for which the Assembly will ultimately be responsible and with which—significantly—Assembly Members will be elected to deal.

The amendment would solve an ongoing problem that the Government accept is real. The problem is that the Orders in Council process is simply an unacceptable way to govern the Province. The amendment would also give the Assembly authority to have real decision-making input on matters that are part of its governing role, but we must be careful to stipulate that its provisions should not apply for ever. Despite Government assurances, if that happens there is a risk that deadlines will slip and that we will end up with a new and semi-operational Assembly that runs in the slightly ad hoc way that has been described.

I shall be somewhat concerned if the Minister chooses to reject the amendment, as the cross-party support for it is evident. The SDLP, the DUP and the Liberal Democrats support it, and I imagine that the Conservatives will be sympathetic to it—

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

Of course.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I am now certain that the Conservatives support the amendment. Unfortunately, Sinn Fein Members have not been able to make it here today, but I am sure that they would do so too. The Government are always looking for consensus, and they have it with this amendment. They should respond by accepting it, or at least by tabling an amendment in their own words on Report that would achieve the same thing.

Will the Secretary of State say what damage could possibly be done by explicitly including the Assembly—or the forum, if that is the preferred name for the body—in the decision-making process in respect of Orders in Council? That would relieve some of the pressure that all of us feel when it comes to the inability to amend legislation, and it would also give the Assembly the sort of real responsibilities that we all agree would be helpful.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I shall give a more detailed response when I reply to the debate, but I want to point out that there was no cross-party support for the proposal at all. If there had been, I do not think that all the parties would be ready to turn up on 15 May to take part in what I think will be a positive spirit.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I suspect that the Secretary of State will find that there has been a degree of movement on this matter. From the interventions made during the debate so far, I get the sense that there is cross-party support for the amendment, or for something like it. I look forward to hearing what other hon. Members have to say, but I hope that if the proposal does enjoy cross-party support—

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

There is no cross-party support for it.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

From a sedentary position, the right hon. Gentleman says that there is no cross-party support for the proposal, but I was going to make a different point. If it turns out that there is cross-party support for it, I hope that the Secretary of State will consider the amendment seriously.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Secretary of State intervened to say that the proposal did not have cross-party support. However, the DUP and the UUP seem to support it, and my party clearly supports it, as it is our amendment. The absence of cross-party support seems to be down to Sinn Fein, yet the right hon. Gentleman has said that the outcome of the review of public administration must be that we get seven super-councils. That outcome does not have cross-community support, but is supported only by Sinn Fein. That is a paradox that the Secretary of State cannot explain.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

What the hon. Gentleman says reminds me that cross-party support was not a big consideration in the introduction of water charges or of student loans and tuition fees: both were opposed unanimously, even by Sinn Fein.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The hon. Gentleman is trying to build consensus, which is what the whole process is about. As someone elected to an English constituency, perhaps I am able to raise this question: does he agree that the Bill should be about giving more trust to the elected Members of the Assembly? Might not it be possible for the Secretary of State to consider allowing some of the Bill's more pernicious provisions—such as those to do with Standing Orders and how the leader of the Assembly is elected—to be amended by them?

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

That is a fair point. I would go so far as to say that Members of the reconstituted Assembly might be justified in feeling slightly patronised. They are being expected to work towards achieving an operational Assembly, but they are not going to be able to get actively involved in the decision-making loop for legislation that will be going through when the Assembly is operating.

The Government would not lose anything by accepting the amendment. The hon. Member for Foyle has underlined the fact that there has been some movement. A common-sense position has been achieved, with which all the parties from Northern Ireland represented in this Chamber seem to agree.

I hope that the Secretary of State does not say that Sinn Fein has a veto on the proposal, as that would be very unhelpful. I am sure that he would accept that the fact that the SDLP, the UUP and the DUP all agree that the proposal is a good idea—subject to some consultation with the Alliance, Sinn Fein and others—is a good reason to consider accepting it. Anything else would suggest that the Assembly was being set up to do what he wants, and that it will not be allowed to do what it and the people of Northern Ireland want—that is, to make important decisions and have an input into the feedback loop.

The Minister of State has placed great store in having a constructive dialogue about how we can do things better than we do under the Order-in-Council process. I shall be interested to hear what the Secretary of State has to say, after he has reflected on the fact that we seem to have moved from a position where there was no support for the amendment to one where the key players in the debate and in Northern Ireland politics all agree that it would be sensible.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

It is hard for the people of Northern Ireland to understand exactly what the Government are about. The Government's statements should contain greater clarity about their real intentions.

I regret that this debate began with the leader of the SDLP trying to put blame on certain parties. He suggested that the DUP was going into the Assembly with the aim of ensuring that it is broken up and brought to an end on 26 November. That is not my brand of politics. Down the years, I have attended all the talks to which I have been invited. I was not invited to some of them and my party was treated as a leper, but we always attended—and made our case as strongly as we could—when we were invited.

I have no intention of taking my party to the Assembly in order to get the Assembly shut down on 26 November, but the leader of the SDLP missed the point completely. Yesterday, it was accepted on both sides of the House that all parties involved in the talks must agree on the question of democracy. We cannot have people at those talks who want to be members of the Government of Northern Ireland yet stick to their terrorism or to their criminal practices.

That was set out firmly yesterday and it was endorsed by the Secretary of State, who agreed that that must be the keystone to the Assembly. However, if that keystone is not put in place, we cannot enter into discussions with people who have made it known that they are not prepared to be there on the same conditions as everyone else. I resent the suggestion by the leader of the SDLP that the DUP will join the Assembly to get it closed down.

The people who will close down the Assembly will be the ones who do not accept the rules, which are straight and plain—everyone should accept that the Assembly will be a democracy and that Northern Ireland will be ruled like any other part of the UK. Terrorists, those who advocate terrorism and those who are engaged in criminality will not be able to take office. If they are elected by their people, that is all well and good, but they will not be able to hold office until they keep to the rules. If we do not make that clear, we might as well all pack up today. That point must be spelled out over and over again, although one would have thought that it would be taken as read in this United Kingdom.

I resent the suggestion by the SDLP leader that we would be happy to close down the Assembly. This is not about satisfying a particular party; this is about seeking to obtain satisfaction for everyone who is dedicated to democracy. As I have said, I want to see everyone in Northern Ireland enjoying the same privileges, rights, freedoms and enjoyment of democracy as me. That is what we must aim for.

Many aspects of the Assembly are strange. The Standing Orders of the Assembly when it was brought into being were very similar to these orders. In fact, I accuse the Secretary of State of copying those orders, which the UUP and others accepted, so he has reproduced what was foisted on us. A new creature may be being formed, but its orders are almost identical to the previous ones. I have not had time to examine the orders because I am awaiting a report from the fellow who is supposed to work for me, but it will be interesting to see the comparison. I note that the Secretary of State is not holding up his hand in the confessional box and confessing that the orders are new.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman allows confessions in his church, but I happily confess that he is right that the orders are similar to the previous ones.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I believe in confession but I do not believe in absolution, so I cannot absolve the right hon. Gentleman, which would probably take a very long time, but that is a matter for another debate on another day.

We must face up to the fact that the sooner the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives meet with the common purpose of building on a democratic foundation, the sooner we will make progress. If that were to happen, we could make rapid progress.

In the Tea Room today, someone said to me, "You seemed to be in good form yesterday." I replied, "I certainly was, because I believe that yesterday we were striking a note that needed to be struck." I am going into the Assembly with my party to seek with all my strength to get it built on a firm democratic foundation. If we do that, there will be success.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

I am sure that all hon. Members echo the words of the right hon. Gentleman. We all hope that there will be a secure democratic foundation and that the proper Assembly can come into being again and exercise its proper functions.

I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is going to reply to this debate, because he must face up to a number of important facts. He knows that I would not question his good intentions or his personal integrity because I have considerable admiration for the Secretary of State and we have enjoyed a cordial relationship in various capacities in this House. However, he must recognise that he is taking to himself the most enormous powers in this Bill. Whether he aspires to the feathered hat of the pro-consul, or whether he aspires to the uniform of the commissar, he is taking powers that any pro-consul or commissar would be extremely pleased to have.

For a start, the Secretary of State is appointing every member of the body. I support the suggestion from the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) that it would be clearer and therefore more honest to call the body something other than "the Assembly"—"the forum" would be fine. Although it will consist of the members who were elected to the Assembly, it is not the Assembly—it is the Secretary of State's creature, and he is giving himself powers to direct how it shall perform, who shall preside over it and what it shall do. He is also reserving powers to say that if he does not like what happens, he can tell the Assembly to do other things.

Three democratic parties from Northern Ireland are represented in this House and their credentials are beyond question. I accept that the DUP, the SDLP and the UUP genuinely want the Assembly to succeed, so it is important to take account of what they say. As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) has said, the amendments contain a remarkable degree of agreement between the three parties.

There is a perception that the Secretary of State and the Government as a whole pay more attention to the party that is not here than to the parties that are. I hope that the Secretary of State is listening because the point is very important—when the Whip has stopped talking to him, he can listen. There is a perception that the party that is not here is more highly regarded and taken greater account of than the parties that are. I am not saying that that is the case; I am saying that that is the perception.

The Secretary of State must make it abundantly clear in what he says today and in the extremely sensitive talks that will take place in the coming weeks that those who play by the rules—the DUP, the SDLP and the UUP—have a special position which the others can have, if they want it. All the others have to do is what we said yesterday during what was, as the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has said, an extremely constructive Second Reading debate.

There was very little disagreement yesterday. There was a unity of desire to see a proper Assembly functioning properly with all its elected Members and a recognition that, in order for that to happen, Sinn Fein has to play by the rules and show that it is so doing. We all welcomed the report by the Independent Monitoring Commission. Everyone, including the right hon. Member for North Antrim and his deputy, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), recognised that there has been real progress, but underlined the continuing, disturbing involvement in criminality among some of those in Sinn Fein that puts in question its aspirations towards democratic credentials.

I hope that the Secretary of State will address those points full on when he deals with the substance of the amendments. As he does so, will he explain why he cannot heed the unity of view between the three Northern Ireland parties represented here on the subject of Orders in Council? The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire made that point effectively, persuasively and, if I may say so, persistently, and he was right to do so.

The months between May and November will be vital if we are to reach agreement and move forward. I hope for a long period when there will be no disruption of the Assembly, Assembly will follow Assembly, and people in Northern Ireland with political aspirations, whether Unionist or nationalist, will stand for it, be elected to it and work within it. Having called this creature into being, I ask the Secretary of State to trust it and not to do things in this House that take away from it some of the difficult and crucial decisions with which it, and it alone, should grapple.

The Assembly must have red meat—real issues to deal with—and be able to show the people of Northern Ireland that they can trust it. We are all disturbed about the percentage of people who vote in elections. If they are to vote for the Assembly in large numbers, it must have real power to deal with big issues such as the structure of local government in Northern Ireland. That was mentioned by many Members yesterday and again today by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who made some extremely good points. The current structure of local government in Northern Ireland is not welcomed by anybody. Twenty-six local authorities are far too many at a time when there is a proliferation of other bodies. However, in lighting upon the figure of seven, which is supported only by the party that is not represented here, the Government are creating unpopularity and difficulty for themselves.

I beg the Secretary of State to go gently on this until November, so that the Assembly can determine whether the number should be seven, nine or whatever. We are fully agreed that it should be substantially fewer than 26, but let it be a figure that commands support across the board in Northern Ireland, so that the right hon. Member for North Antrim and the hon. Members for Foyle and for North Down and others can all say, "Yes, we recognise this, we want to work with it, and we want it to be the framework for our local government for coming generations."

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

My hon. Friend is making a thoughtful and powerful speech. He has put his finger on the key point—that it is a question of trust. The Secretary of State is asking the parties represented here to trust the peace process. Should not he in turn trust Assembly Members to shape their own future?

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

Of course. Trust must be reciprocal and indivisible. The Secretary of State is saying to the House, "Trust me"—and, on a personal level, I do. I therefore say to him, "Trust the people of Northern Ireland", as represented by active and vigorous Members of Parliament who have all proclaimed their dedication to a proper Assembly. I ask him not to make irreversible changes to the structure of Northern Ireland and the fabric of its society before the Assembly has come into being. If the Assembly does not come into being, that is a different story, but let us have at least until November before irrevocable decisions are set in stone in Northern Ireland.

A proud people in a beautiful part of the United Kingdom care passionately—even though they do not always agree—about the education system and the shape and framework of local government. Although many things about Northern Ireland are not normal and there are many things that some of us do not like, we cannot question the deep intensity of local patriotism, which is admirable and must be harnessed to a productive future. I know that the Secretary of State has a regard for the people of Northern Ireland. I ask him to show it by treading softly when he insists on what the House passes in the coming months.

I hope that the Secretary of State will touch on the small but important point that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire made about parliamentary privilege, which is again part and parcel of trust. We know how difficult it is to prove malice. How can I prove the innermost thoughts of the right hon. Member for North Antrim or of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who may think that I am going on inordinately at the moment?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

No, of course not.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

I am delighted. However, how do I know what anybody else thinks? How do I know what motivates people? I have to trust people. Just as I would trust the Secretary of State, I ask him not to shackle the privilege of those who meet in forum or conclave and what they can say to and about each other.

I said yesterday that the task in Northern Ireland—it is a joint task—is to make hatred history. We have spoken much about making poverty history recently, and that is good. To make hatred history, we have to work together. That requires a great deal of sacrifice, especially by those who have suffered. The communities represented by Northern Ireland Members on the other side of the House have suffered; those represented by Northern Ireland Members on my left have suffered enormously. Those who are not here but could be present to argue their cause have inflicted much of that suffering. They have not expressed remorse for doing so. We are going to have to draw a line without that expression of remorse, and that is quite a task.

I, too, have lost close friends and colleagues as a result of the troubles, as we all have on this side of the House. Those men were popular across the House. If we are to begin to create the climate for a new era of trust, it is incumbent on the Secretary of State to be cautious about what he pushes through Westminster in the next six months. He should devote his time almost exclusively to Northern Ireland. I am sure that the people of Wales will not mind. He knows that I do not like the dual mandate that he holds, although that is not his fault.

Let us use the Bill as a launching pad for the true democracy that the people of Northern Ireland richly deserve.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I want to comment on one or two amendments in the group. I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) about amendment No. 6. In the Democratic Unionist party document, "Facing Reality", which preceded the Government's initiative, we stated clearly that we wanted an Assembly that would exercise the maximum power and responsibility that was consistent with the circumstances. We never advocated a talking shop. Indeed, we put forward in the document a number of options to be considered by the political parties in Northern Ireland, one of which was legislative devolution. That option would still have allowed the executive functions to be performed by the direct-rule Ministers, while allowing legislative rule by the Assembly. The proposal by the SDLP is a small gesture in that direction, but it is none the less a helpful suggestion, and my party colleagues and I are quite happy to support it. Indeed, the Secretary of State and Her Majesty's Government will start to lose credibility if they turn down a reasonable proposal that is supported by all those who are prepared to speak in this House on behalf of the electorate in Northern Ireland.

What is the Government's purpose? I had assumed that it was to establish cross-community support in Northern Ireland and to encourage the political parties to reach agreements. Here we have an agreement, however small it might be, yet the Secretary of State has not, as yet, indicated his willingness to accept this small step forward. He must relinquish some of his control and power, because the tendency, as illustrated by the Bill, is that he is seeking to draw more and more power to himself. That is not a good example for the politicians of Northern Ireland to be set by a Government who say that they want to devolve and cast off their powers. Here we have an all-party agreement among all the members from Northern Ireland in this House, yet the Secretary of State still appears to want to resist it. I hope that he will reconsider his position on these matters. As the hon. Member for South Staffordshire has suggested, the Secretary of State could review the situation when we reach 24 November. It need not be set in stone for all time.

The purpose of this Assembly is that it will be a transitional Assembly that will move towards full executive devolution. This measure seems to be a very adequate way of performing that task.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Given the filters in amendment No. 6—including the requirement for cross-community support, and the provision that the Secretary of State would still have powers to make urgent orders without reference to the Assembly—does my hon. Friend agree that this is in fact a very modest proposal? Surely the Secretary of State should have no difficulty in accepting it.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

My hon. Friend makes a powerful argument. I hope that, as the Secretary of State has been considering these matters, he will have been swayed by the arguments that have been presented from both sides of the House on this matter.

A number of issues were raised during this short debate that bring two words to mind: "mountains" and "molehills". We are at times inclined to get into the minutiae to such an extent that we lose track of the key issues.

Let me deal with the issue of the Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. This is not a new issue; we faced it in 1998. We are talking about a transitional Assembly that will move from its present structures and powers towards a creation that we hope will eventually have full executive authority. The Ulster Unionist party did not oppose such a metamorphosis in 1998, and I am surprised that it is opposing it today. The words used to describe the body—be it "assembly" or "forum"—are pretty meaningless in reality. It is the Assembly. It is not the Northern Ireland Assembly as set up under the 1998 legislation. It has a specific role that would take it seamlessly from its existence under this Bill to an existence that we hope it will have under an amended version of the 1998 Act, given that that legislation will have to be amended.

Indeed, the seamless transition is detailed in the Bill, in that certain powers automatically given to this Assembly will be given, without any further action, to the new Assembly that follows it—for instance, in relation to the Presiding Officer's position, the enrolment process for Assembly Members and their designation, and decisions taken in relation to the First and Deputy First Minister and other Executive positions. By being taken by this body, those powers will automatically get taken by the new Northern Ireland Assembly under, I hope, an amended 1998 Act. We are talking about a transitional Assembly, and I suppose that putting the word "transitional" in the title might have made its intention and purpose clearer.

I do not think that the terms used in the Bill do great violence to the overall position and future of Northern Ireland. Certainly, I am not greatly exercised about what the body is called. We all know what it is intended to do, and what its purpose is to be. I simply hope that the public will be more concerned with what the Assembly does than with what it is called. If the Members of that Assembly do a job that gets the favour of the community in Northern Ireland, they will worry little whether it might be confused with some other body that has been in suspension for a long period.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Will the hon. Gentleman outline for the benefit of us all exactly what he anticipates this new Assembly doing that will charm and impress the people of Northern Ireland?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Members of the Democratic Unionist party are certainly committed to using every platform that that Assembly will provide to speak on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, and to test the Secretary of State in terms of agreements that we can reach with others on key matters relating to education, the review of public administration, rating and the economy in general. We will speak on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, and the people of Northern Ireland want us to have that voice. More than that, they want the Government to heed that voice. For that reason, the Secretary of State could go a long way to add to the importance and vitality of that Assembly were he willing to accept the amendment tabled by the SDLP.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if he is at all worried about getting permission from the decision makers, he could phone Sinn Fein and get its permission, because it would probably also like to have those powers? Whatever other differences there are, I have little doubt that Sinn Fein could see the benefits of having those powers bestowed on this interim Assembly.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I will leave it to the hon. Gentleman to speak on behalf of Sinn Fein. I will certainly not attempt to do so. I simply know that the people of Northern Ireland want to have real decisions taken within that Assembly. They want it to have as much power as is possible. If it is not possible immediately to have an Executive set up, the Members of that Assembly should press the Secretary of State to divest himself of some of the powers that this legislation gives him, and to devolve some of those powers in whatever way is possible, whether through a corporate Assembly, legislative devolution or administration devolution, to the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland.

On privilege, again, I have difficulty with the position of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). First, the terms are almost identical to those in 1998. Far from opposing the position in 1998, her party supported it. Therefore, what the Government are doing in relation to the privilege of the Assembly has consistency. Having discovered that, I think that she decided to see whether she could find some more secure ground, and became a defender of the media and the press—not always a popular position among politicians, but then she cannot be accused of always taking popular positions. I do not think, however, that the press have anything to fear. The Secretary of State may tell the hon. Lady and me whether this is indeed the case, but according to my reading of the legislation the statement, not the Member, is covered by privilege. If the statement is reported, it is covered by privilege, and the media are therefore entitled to publish it. The media will be covered in exactly the same way as the Member, because it is the statement that enjoys the privilege.

As the hon. Lady said, the privilege is not the full privilege enjoyed by the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly created under the 1998 Act, but I do not believe that the distinction will have any real implications for Assembly Members or for the press. I agree with those who have said that it will be very difficult for anyone to prove malice in the courts. Indeed, I am not entirely sure whether it is right, if a Member uses—or abuses—privilege and attempts, with malice, to damage and defame individuals, for even this House to confer such a degree of privilege.

I have used the privilege of this House on many occasions. I have named individuals, and made clear what information I have had about the activities of those individuals. However, I have never done that with malice. I have done it because I have believed it to be in the public interest, and have believed my facts to be accurate. If any Member stands up in the Northern Ireland Assembly and, with malice, determines to "out" or defame someone, I am not sure that that Member should enjoy the privilege of the Assembly—but I repeat yet again that it will not be the full-blown Assembly in which, normally, robust exchanges would take place that might require the exercise of that privilege.

As a party that is always very careful about what it says and would not seek to stretch the bounds of privilege, my party has nothing to fear. I hope that the hon. Lady's remarks are not a harbinger of something from which some of her Assembly colleagues may need protection.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I cannot possibly speak for my Assembly colleagues. I could not tie their hands or gag them, for that matter. I have never been able to do so in the past, and I shall not be able to do so in the future.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a distinction to be drawn? According to paragraph 6 of schedule 1, only a

"written or oral statement made by a member"

will be covered by limited privilege in this new creature, the Assembly. The key word that is missing is "publication": no privilege will attach to publication of a statement made by a Member of the Assembly.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The statement is covered by privilege, whether it is heard directly, heard through transmission or read in newspapers. If that is not the case, the Secretary of State ought to tell us, or at least tell the media, but according to my everyday understanding of the language, the statement is covered irrespective of whether it is repeated by a Member or by the press, and therefore no action can be taken against either.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman ought to give some credence to what has been said by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). Section 50(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is very clear about the position that obtained before that date. It states:

"For the purposes of the law of defamation, absolute privilege shall attach to—

(a) the making of a statement in proceedings of the Assembly; and

(b) the publication of a statement under the Assembly's authority."

I am not sure whether schedule 1 would cover publication, and I think that we need clarification from the Secretary of State. Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman will doubtless agree that lawyers who do not want statements to be covered by privilege will try to argue that they are made maliciously. As drafted, this provision could lead to considerable arguments and put the leader of the Assembly in a difficult position.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I suspect that the person who made the statement would be in a difficult position, rather than the Assembly's Presiding Officer. I assume that the section that the hon. Gentleman quoted from is from the 1998 Act.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

indicated assent.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Therefore, under it, both the publication and the person to whom the remarks are attributed are covered by full privilege; however, the Bill establishes that they will not be so covered. Privilege will be qualified, in that such a statement must have been made without malice; alternatively, it must be impossible to prove that it has been made with malice.

There are two further issues on which I want to comment, the first of which is the powers of the Secretary of State. I said to the hon. Member for North Down in the House yesterday that I concurred with many of her misgivings about the storing up of more and more power—indeed, unfettered power—in the Secretary of State. Effectively, in many instances he can do what he thinks fit, which is clearly a cause for concern. However, the difficulty is that although the hon. Lady has taken away such responsibilities from the Secretary of State through her amendment, she has given them to no one else.

That takes us back to the question of why the Secretary of State is setting up "the Assembly", rather than "the Northern Ireland Assembly". Had he detailed all such responsibilities and designated them to various individuals, or groups of individuals, in effect he would have been amending the entire 1998 Act. I would not have worried greatly about amending the 1998 Act, but I suspect that there are some people sitting behind the Minister who would not be too keen on doing so.

Of course, the reality is that the jobs that the Secretary of State has been given the power to perform under the Bill have to be performed. If we are to remove his responsibility for performing them, we must also amend the Bill to give that responsibility to the Assembly or someone else. That is the deficiency in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Down, but I concur with her view that the Secretary of State is taking far too much on to himself. It would show greater faith in the elected representatives of Northern Ireland if he vested some of that responsibility in the Assembly itself.

I turn finally to the election of the Presiding Officer. The wording in paragraph 2(6) of schedule 2 is clumsy and unusual, even if it is not such that I would oppose it outright. I do not like the idea of somebody appointed by a Secretary of State being

"deemed to have been elected".

The Secretary of State is not the Northern Ireland electorate—he does not have the power to elect anybody in Northern Ireland. He can appoint, and I would have been quite content for him to make the "appointment", and for it to stand until the Northern Ireland Assembly itself elected someone. Paragraph 2(6) of schedule 2 states:

"The person who is presiding officer of the Assembly immediately before the effective date"—

the Secretary of State's appointee—

"shall be deemed to have been elected as Presiding Officer of the Northern Ireland Assembly under section 39(1) of the 1998 Act".

I hope that that will not be an issue. I would far rather that the Assembly met and elected its own Presiding Officer or Speaker. That would be an indication of the maturity of the Assembly and its ability to reach agreement. Indeed, if it could not reach agreement on such issues, one must question whether it would reach agreement on some of the greater issues that it will face. I hope that it does not become an issue, but I do not like the idea that the Secretary of State can be deemed to have elected a Presiding Officer for the Assembly. In reality, the person concerned will be the Secretary of State's appointee and, with due respect to the Secretary of State, will have less authority as an appointee than if elected by the Assembly as its Speaker.

I hope that the Assembly will elect a Speaker, but I am concerned by the terminology in the legislation. It suggests that the Secretary of State can allow the Assembly to elect its Speaker, but it does not have the power to do so until such time as it reverts to Northern Ireland Assembly mode. Under the present mode, it will not have the power through this legislation or under the draft standing orders—some of us at least have seen them—to elect a Speaker.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

My hon. Friend's point is given added weight when one considers that not only was the Presiding Officer appointed by the Secretary of State alone, but no one in any of the political parties was even consulted on the appointment. That is a cause of great concern.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

My hon. Friend is right. He will remember that, when we met with the Secretary of State before the appointment was made, we asked whether he would consult the political parties before he decided. He made it clear that there would not be any consultation and that was borne out by the fact that the person who appears to have been most surprised by the appointment of Eileen Bell as the Presiding Officer was the leader of her party. It was not the first time that he had been surprised to discover that an appointment had been made. None of that should detract from the credibility of the individual involved. I wish Eileen Bell well, and my colleagues and I have no intention of making life difficult for her—I am sure that she will be pleased to hear that. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has already personally wished her well. I trust that she will have deputies who will give her the necessary support. The position would, however, have greater authority if it were elected by the Assembly.

I would like the Secretary of State to make it clear that although the legislation says that he may authorise the Assembly to elect a Presiding Officer, he will do so and allow the position greater authority. Otherwise we will be in the ludicrous position of the Assembly Members barely being able to breathe without the permission of the Secretary of State, which would make it something less than a talking shop. He must let go of the leash and allow the Assembly to take on more and more responsibility. That is the least that he can do.

William McCrea (DUP, South Antrim)

This has been an interesting debate and I have listened intently to those hon. Members who have spoken. Many questions have been posed and we await the answers from the Secretary of State, although some limited light has been shed on the subject by his interventions this afternoon. That is deeply appreciated.

The Government must reveal their true intention. In reality, no one is under any illusion about that true intention. We all know that it is the Government's design and intention to get the Democratic Unionist party, the Ulster Unionist party, the Social Democratic and Labour party and Sinn Fein-IRA into government, but only the last of those parties has a dual title, so we have to ensure that the democratic credentials of all those participating in government are clear.

My right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has made it abundantly clear that neither the Government nor anyone else will be able to cajole, pressurise or even humour our party into anything that is not in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland and that is not built on the solid foundation of true democracy. There is a great challenge to those who were inextricably linked to terrorism in the past. They must completely renounce violence; for them, the path of terror must be consigned to the history books. There must be recognition of the primacy and authority of the security forces. They must support the efforts of the police to ensure law and order and the safety of everyone in the community—everyone equal under the law and equally subject to the law.

Her Majesty's security forces must and will be supported in exercising their legitimate authority to move against and defeat terrorism. We must make that abundantly clear. People who want us to believe that they have moved away from their terrorist path must support the security forces, the police and the Army, in their efforts to defeat and bring to book those who are still active in terrorism, who may be in the Real IRA—although we are told it has moved away from terrorism—or the Continuity IRA. There is no hiding place. If people want to be part of the Government, they have to say that they will support the security forces in their efforts to track down and defeat Continuity IRA. They have to come up to the mark. Members should make no mistake: we will not be cajoled, pressurised or humoured into accepting a second-rate Administration.

The people of Northern Ireland have the right to a true democratic solution, based on firm democratic principles, and that is what we want for them. We must be assured that all the criminality and corruption of the past has been rejected, and that there is repentance and genuine remorse for the slaughter of the innocent, so that we can move forward on democratic grounds. That is what is expected in a democracy. Nothing less would be accepted for membership of Government in this place, the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly, so nothing less than those credentials will be acceptable to us.

As I said yesterday, we are a devolutionist party. We want a return to strong devolution in Northern Ireland with a devolved Government who can deal with the issues that affect the lives of the people of Northern Ireland.

I have listened carefully to SDLP Members and looked carefully at their amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) rightly acknowledged our general support for amendment No. 6, but in respect of amendments Nos. 7 and 8, I have to say, with the greatest respect to the leader of the SDLP, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), that he must leave the dark ages and move on from the Belfast agreement. We are in a new century from the agreement. He must leave the old century, enter the new one and come into the real world. It is amazing that despite his knowledge of the failures of the Belfast agreement, he does not want a jot or tittle removed from it; we must abide by it, warts and all. That is a totally untenable position. No one with any common sense could accept it.

Let me give an example of what the hon. Member for Foyle is asking us to ensure that we continue with and that the Secretary of State would activate under the Belfast agreement. Ministers can act like little dictators, irrespective of the will of the Assembly. That is totally unacceptable. The hon. Gentleman said earlier that if we did not come up to the mark by 25 November, if we had not settled and if we had had no impact on the issues that affect the people of Northern Ireland, those parties would stand condemned by the electorate.

Let me just remind the hon. Gentleman that, for the majority of people in Northern Ireland—not the majority of the Unionist community, but the majority of Unionist and nationalist people—the majority argument on education started in the Assembly. Ministers are activating that which was decided by an unaccountable Minister in the Assembly who acted like a dictator, rather than like someone in a democracy. That is not acceptable.

The will of the Assembly must be paramount; it must be that which is accepted. Members are telling the Secretary of State that taking account must mean more than taking account and that he must act accordingly. If we are to re-establish everything in the Belfast agreement, will the hon. Member for Foyle set his mind back to what happened? Ministers did not act according to the will of the Assembly. They heard what the Assembly said, for example, on education, but they did what they wanted to do.

Let us talk about health and the closure of hospitals. It is very good for Sinn Fein-IRA Members to come out on the streets and say, "We must keep Omagh hospital" and "We must keep the Mid-Ulster hospital", but who took the decision to close those hospitals? Where did that start? The decision came from the Assembly. With the greatest respect, Ministers—I have many arguments with them—are simply carrying forward decisions that Barbara Brown took and they are putting them into action. How did she decide that? Did she decide it by the will of the Assembly? No. She acted contrary to the will of the Assembly. Why did she do that? She did it according to her political affiliation and therefore she felt at the time that she wanted to do it because she wanted to ensure that the Fermanagh and South Tyrone seat would be secured in the Westminster elections. She and her party played with the lives of the people. They played with the health of the people. They knew that West Tyrone was safe for Sinn Fein and therefore they wanted to secure Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Therefore, they established the hospital in Fermanagh and they closed Omagh hospital.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

May I remind the House of what happened with the Jubilee hospital and with the chairman of the maternity hospital, too? The chairman of the committee was an SDLP man and he said, "No!", but the Sinn Fein member of the Executive took the decision and laughed at the SDLP and everyone else.

William McCrea (DUP, South Antrim)

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. In fact, in the example of the Jubilee hospital, which is in south Belfast, it was politically expedient for the then Minister, Barbara Brown—Sinn Fein-IRA—to make a proposal for west Belfast, for Gerry's seat. Therefore, they did not care about the health of the people or about the will of the people. In fact, on that occasion, a previous Member for Belfast, West—Dr. Joe Hendron—was the chairman of the health committee. He and other Members of the SDLP disagreed with that decision simply on health grounds, and it was referred twice to the court. The Minister was ordered by the court to revisit her decision, but she still went on with it, irrespective of that. We have got to be very careful.

The Belfast agreement, as it stands, was rejected by the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. We have got to accept that that is the will of the people and that should be taken into account. If the hon. Member for Foyle is asking the Secretary of State to take account of the will of the people in activating decisions, he ought to take account of it, as well.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of the decision in relation to maternity services in Belfast. He has misrepresented the facts of that situation. Everybody agreed that a decision had to be taken on one side or the other—the position could not be sustained on two sides. There was going to be no cross-community support available for a decision on one side or the other. The SDLP supported the Minister in taking the decision that she took. Joe Hendron, as the SDLP person who was the chair of the health committee, did not disagree with the Minister on health grounds. His interest was as the chair of the committee, respecting the committee's interest and locus. The other SDLP member of that committee was the representative of South Belfast who disagreed on constituency grounds. So, the hon. Gentleman misrepresents the situation.

William McCrea (DUP, South Antrim)

The SDLP is saying that its member disagreed on constituency grounds—so, it is willing to play with the issue, as well. We should be dealing with the issue on health grounds, and health grounds alone, instead of trying to play around with people's lives and futures.

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

May I just bring some semblance of reality to the debate? The then Minister, Barbara Brown, had announced in An Phoblacht, a republican rag sheet, that she was going to locate the maternity services at the Royal Victoria hospital site, even before the committee took its decision to support the Belfast City hospital site. A majority of people voted for the Belfast City hospital site, but the Minister overruled that.

William McCrea (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank my hon. Friend—

William McCrea (DUP, South Antrim)

Thank you, Sir Michael.

I have to make clear what the hon. Member for Foyle has suggested to the Secretary of State: amendment No. 7 really says, "Listen, irrespective of the will of the people, let us go back to the Belfast agreement." The hon. Member for Foyle had better realise that the Belfast agreement is dead. We have moved on. The people of Northern Ireland, through their electorate, have moved on. That is why his party has three Members in this House, the Democratic Unionist party has nine and the Ulster Unionists have one. It is because the electorate have moved on. We cannot accept a situation in which no cognisance is given to the realities of what is going on and in which there is an attempt to pretend that we must have what has failed in the past. We have to look at the realities, rather than our wish list for the future.

There was a lot of stir about the word "Assembly". Should what we are discussing be called an assembly? Is it a forum, rather than an assembly? In many ways, that is a storm in a teacup. Those who are going to the Assembly are Assembly Members. With the greatest respect, it is not a forum. In 1996, I was elected to a forum—the Northern Ireland Forum. It was a forum and so I was called a Forum Member, not an Assembly Member. No one can call what we are discussing a forum, because I am not a Forum Member. I will be called there because I am an Assembly Member. That is why the invitation will be issued to me. Why is the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) not invited? Because she is not an Assembly Member. Others will be invited because they are Assembly Members.

The body will not be the Northern Ireland Assembly, or the new Northern Ireland Assembly, but will be the Assembly of the Assembly Members of Northern Ireland. We should not take up time in the House by arguing that the body should be called not the Assembly, but the "Forum", or something else, because no one can call it anything else. Assembly Members will be assembling together because they are Assembly Members.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman and disagree with most of what he is saying. He cannot have it both ways. He has said repeatedly that the Belfast agreement is dead, but now claims that time is being wasted discussing whether the new creature is an Assembly or not. Will he kindly accept that as the Northern Ireland Assembly is the creation of the Belfast agreement, the agreement cannot be dead? He is looking forward to getting back into the Assembly created by the Belfast agreement, which is definitely not dead.

William McCrea (DUP, South Antrim)

We will not carry out a funeral procession today because the funeral for the Belfast agreement was held at the time of the last election. No one is suggesting that the body will be the new Northern Ireland Assembly, but it will be an Assembly of Members who were elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is a waste of the House's time to try to put another name on the Assembly because only Assembly Members will be invited to it, so I will not spend any more time on that point.

The hon. Member for North Down mentioned the 1998 Act when she talked about bringing the First Minister and Deputy First Ministers together. I know the motives behind the Ulster Unionists' position on that, but, once again, we have to move on. If there is one thing that the hon. Lady should know, it is that the people of Northern Ireland made a decision about the Belfast agreement at the last election. With the greatest respect, no one can resuscitate or revive the agreement because the people, through the ballot box, have moved on.

Just because a decision was taken years ago, are we going to live with the failures of the past? Do we not want a brighter and saner future for our people by moving away from putting criminals and terrorists into government and towards a situation in which the only credential for a person to hold ministerial office is democracy and democracy alone? That is why I ask the House to allow those who were elected as Assembly Members to meet and discuss. I hope that the Secretary of State and his Ministers will take account of not only Assembly Members' decisions, but the wise counsel given by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) when he asked the Secretary of State to hold back on the likes of the offensive decisions on the review of public administration, at least until the November deadline has arrived. The House and the Secretary of State would do well to heed such wise counsel.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I will be brief because we have had a long debate on the amendments, probably because they are wide ranging. I do not especially want to join in the debate on what the name for the new Assembly should be. There is a little confusion about what the Bill does and it has sometimes been difficult to explain that to people, who have responded by saying, "Oh, so you're setting up a shadow Assembly," and I have replied that it is not quite like that. Although the situation is difficult, I do not want to take up the Committee's time on that issue.

As other hon. Members said, it is important that the Assembly deals with real issues. That will be an incentive to make it work, so that the real Assembly—or the Northern Ireland Assembly, as I should call it—can be set up and full devolution can be realised. If it ends up as a talking shop, which I very much hope it will not, we will not have served the cause of devolution well.

I endorse everything that my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) said. In particular, it is important that we put on hold as many statutory instruments as possible until the Assembly is up and running and fully able to consider those matters. We recently considered water rates and local government, and we are about to consider education. Those are big issues. I do not want to get to the point in November, or, I hope, before then, when devolution is fully triggered, to find that the Assembly is landed with a load of legislation of which it does not approve. That would not be a helpful start.

I appeal to the Secretary of State to allow the Assembly to have something left to do. That is important. However, it is wrong for this House to decide such important matters for the 1.7 million people who live in Northern Ireland. I do my best from the Dispatch Box and in Committee, but I do not have, and do not pretend to have, the knowledge that hon. Members from Northern Ireland have. We all do our best, but we cannot have the same expertise as they have.

On privilege in the Assembly, again, I am not a lawyer, but I would find it odd if the word "malice" remains as a qualification in paragraph 6 of schedule 1. I realise that malice is an important factor in the law on murder, for example, but we are talking about a very different matter when it comes to defamation. To prove that someone said something with malice would be very difficult. I do not think that it should remain in the paragraph.

We would have preferred the Assembly to elect the Presiding Officer, for the reason given by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). He or she would command greater authority, and it would also be fairer for the Assembly and the people who serve in that office.

On the Secretary of State's powers to set the proceedings of the Assembly, it would have been useful for the Bill to include "after consultation with the Presiding Officer." That might have been better, but probably only if the Presiding Officer had been elected by the Assembly, rather than appointed by the Secretary of State, to avoid an incestuous relationship.

We have some concern about the fact that the Secretary of State is taking on extra powers. We seem to be considering so much legislation. Some of it is definitive, but then we come to a clause that says, "The Secretary of State can do this, that and the other", and think, "Why bother sitting through all the deliberations if he can do that?" I am fearful of that, because it is wrong to vest so much power in any one person. I have no objection to this particular Secretary of State, but it would lead to more statutory instruments, which we all want to avoid. He should think about the powers that he is taking and whether they are going to lead to more statutory instruments. I think we would agree that that would not be a good thing. However, it is a temporary measure, and we do not intend to divide the Committee on it.

We wish the Bill well and look forward to hearing what the Secretary of State has to say in reply to a number of good points raised.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) for a helpful contribution, in which he legitimately probed a number of points.

For the record, I inform the House that the draft standing orders were in the Vote Office from this morning, they were placed in the Library yesterday and they were circulated to all the parties, so I think I have discharged my obligations in that respect.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) for her reference to the death of my father-in-law, Lieutenant Commander Douglas Haywood. The House will want to know that he served the Navy as a naval commander with great distinction in the second world war and afterwards.

Clause 1 makes it clear that under the Bill the primary task before the Assembly will be to elect a First and Deputy First Minister, and to ensure that the remaining ministerial portfolios are filled upon restoration. It also permits the Secretary of State to refer other matters to the Assembly. Schedule 1 sets out the arrangements under which the Assembly will function in this phase.

Let me make general points about the matters raised by the amendments, before I turn in detail to points raised with me by right hon. and hon. Members. There was a lengthy discussion yesterday about the Assembly's role in relation to current issues that may be referred to it, apart from its central task of selecting an Executive. There was a suggestion that we intended the Assembly merely to be a talking shop. A number of hon. Members suggested, as has been suggested this afternoon, that in order to confirm that that was not the case, we should amend the Bill so as somehow to give the Assembly formal powers over legislation in the period before restoration.

The Assembly is most definitely not intended to be a talking shop. I disagree flatly with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) on the matter. I do not want to debate with him or to make a remark that he may see as provocative, but some of the contributions this afternoon have not taken account of the background to the present position. I made it clear that I would have preferred a shadow Assembly—a period in which we could have built up trust and working together, and then moved to restoration. That was expressly rejected by the SDLP and by Sinn Fein, who wished instead to move straight to restoration, or to try to do so.

I remind the Committee that we have sought to bring the two positions together and get the Assembly going, seeking to achieve the successful election of a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister in its early days, and the selection of the Executive as well. We have sought to do that, but not with any great expectation that it would succeed, and then to move forward with a deadline at the end of November.

We hope that the Assembly is a body on the brink of assuming powers over a wide range of economic and social issues in Northern Ireland. That is the objective. The issues that have most often been suggested for referring to it are the ones that are not merely currently important—education and so on—but will raise important questions on the agenda of any devolved Administration and Assembly that assumes power in the near future. Any views that the Assembly expresses from 15 May onwards would need to be listened to very carefully by all concerned, and particular account would have to be taken—I give this assurance—of any that were expressed with cross-community support.

In the nicest way, I remind the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea), who advanced his arguments with passion, that I was the one who helped to draft the statement made by both Prime Ministers in Armagh and inserted the specific references to education, water charges, local government and economic policy, and I am the Secretary of State who has arranged for the business community to come and make an early presentation to the Assembly on its case for economic reform. That is an opportunity—to use a phrase mentioned earlier—for real meat to be discussed in the Assembly. In response to representations made by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and a cross-party delegation that he brought, to which he referred yesterday on the subject of industrial de-rating, that is also a matter that I would refer to the Assembly.

I cannot make the Assembly discuss anything. I can refer a matter to a business committee, which I hope will be established and operate by consensus, and that will refer the matter to the floor of the Assembly or to working groups, committees or whatever it decides. May I remind the House that as Secretary of State I pressed hardest for the restoration of devolution, as I want those decisions to be made by a fully restored Assembly?

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I am encouraged by the Secretary of State's comments. Given his form on devolution in Wales, I do not doubt his intentions. However, he is asking us to trust his commitment to devolution. Surely, the principle of amendment No. 6 should sit comfortably with his own desire to involve the Assembly in decision making. Is he willing to make a commitment to introduce, perhaps on Report or in another place, a formal system that would ensure that the Assembly, which starts on 15 May, plays a role in the decision-making process in Orders in Council? I do not see why he should have a problem with enshrining that in legislation.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I cannot agree to that, because we must not confuse lines of accountability. I am responsible for affairs in Northern Ireland, and I am accountable to the House. When the House considers those issues, it is obviously anxious to reflect on the Assembly's views but, ultimately, I am answerable, in the absence of a fully restored Assembly, to the House. We should not shackle ourselves.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

May I finish this point before accepting interventions, including one from the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)?

We all agree that devolution is a good thing, and those decisions are much better made in Belfast, but that cannot happen until there is necessary agreement between the parties on the structures on which devolution is to take place. Halfway houses are not possible. There is ministerial responsibility, either here or in Belfast; it is not possible to have both, or for them both to be statutorily defined, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) wishes. It is possible, however, to ensure that politics is at work in the Assembly and in the heed that my ministerial team and I take of its views; we must ensure that the politics works to move things forward.

I shall give a concrete example of the dilemma that we face before giving way, as I promised. All the parties oppose water charges, and they would like Northern Ireland to be a unique position, in contrast to the rest of the United Kingdom, so that such charges are not levied. That is a legitimate political case. If the Assembly were not fully restored, and I said that it could vote without responsibilities for its decisions, it would vote on water charges in an oppositionalist mode—I hope that that is not an unfair characterisation—if it decided that it did not want water charges. That decision would knock a great big hole in the budget from April next year, when it is proposed that the first tranche of water charges should be phased in. If the Assembly, acting irresponsibly, in the sense that it does not have responsibility for the consequences of its decisions, did not want water charges—I accept that no one likes to pay more money—that would knock a great big hole in the budget for health, education, children's services and agriculture. Decisions that are made therefore have consequences. The Assembly is not yet fully restored, but when we reach a point where it has responsibility, because it has an Executive who can make recommendations, and the parties in the Executive vote accordingly because they know that their decisions have consequences, I am happy for decisions on water charges, the RPA—the review of public administration—education reform and so on to be made by the Assembly.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

May I try to pin down the Secretary of State on the RPA? Is he absolutely fixed on the seven new local authorities, or can that number be revised by the Assembly?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

The House of Commons voted yesterday to provide instructions to the boundary commission to work on boundaries for seven councils. Parliament has therefore made its decision. However, putting that into effect will still require a series of consequential legislative and regulatory measures, which I hope will go through the Assembly.

The situation in respect of education reform is similar. Opposition to the reform proposals has been expressed, quite properly from their point of view, by DUP and UPP members, yet they have received strong support from the SDLP, Sinn Fein, the teaching profession, educationists and the business community. That shows that these matters are not as black and white as may sometimes be assumed.

Does the hon. Member for South Staffordshire want to come back on that?

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

As always, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his impeccable courtesy. Two issues seem to have become slightly mixed up. I agree that there is division over the education reforms, but my observations and conversations lead me to believe that a majority is in favour of amending the 11-plus while maintaining the status quo in respect of selective schools. The Assembly should be able to perpetuate that system, if that is its wish. However, given that the three Northern Ireland parties represented and participating in this House are of one mind about the proposal for seven local authorities, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will assure me that we are not absolutely fixed on that number, whatever Parliament has decided. After all, Parliament can always re-examine a matter and reach a different decision about it, and he can always table further Orders. If the Assembly perpetuates the apparent alliance that exists, he should respond to the questions about the seven authorities.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

Parliament has decided on the boundary commissioner's remit, and I have explained how the Assembly will be able to influence the subsequent pattern and delivery of local government. Further legislation is needed: I hope that the Assembly will undertake it and that we do not have to introduce it by Order in Council here.

The RPA reform proposal has not been picked out of a paper bag, as it were, to satisfy one party. I might add that the party involved—Sinn Fein, in this case—came to support the proposal very belatedly, and I assure the hon. Member for South Staffordshire that its support was not material to the decision, which was reached after wide consultation and independent assessment.

I do not want to go too far into the matter, but it has been raised and deserves a proper response. The pattern of seven councils was chosen because the local government structure in Northern Ireland needs a strong revenue base that is more or less equal between authorities. There will be no need for cross-subsidy between them, but there will be coterminosity in respect of policing and health. Various other factors apply, and I repeat that the proposal for seven authorities was not made to satisfy one particular party.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

The Secretary of State has been very generous about giving way. He made a passing reference a few minutes ago to the creation of a business committee. Would he care to elaborate on the construction of that committee? Will it be a revamped and resurrected version of the one that sat in the real Northern Ireland Assembly, or will it be a creation under his direction?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

Over the past week or so, I have discussed the idea of the business committee with all the parties involved, and it has received unanimous support. The committee will be made up of representatives of the major parties, in the proportions that the hon. Lady would expect, and I expect it to operate by consensus. Its first meeting is due to be held early next week and, as part of the preparatory process, the Presiding Officer is to meet the party Whips tomorrow. I want to allow the parties in the Assembly to take charge of running it, but I do not want it to implode right away, because there is the possibility that factionalisation will occur immediately if the matter is not handled carefully. I am encouraged by the response from the parties, all of which want to establish the Assembly with dignity and certainty in its early days.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I have a broad smile on my face because the Secretary of State has confirmed that the Presiding Officer will be able to bring together in the same room the Whips from the DUP, Sinn Fein, the UUP and other parties in the Assembly.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

rose—

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

What is new about that?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

Indeed. The parties have always worked together in the Assembly, and the DUP has made it clear that it will do so.

On the themes raised by the hon. Member for North Down, the Assembly that will sit on 15 May will have different powers from those of the Assembly under devolution. As she has said, I will have wide discretion about how the Assembly will operate, which is entirely defensible—it would not be defensible in any permanent arrangement, but this is not a permanent arrangement. The Assembly will not operate in the manner set out in the Bill after 24 November, but we hope that it will have moved on well before that.

The hon. Member for South Staffordshire was kind enough to pay tribute to our working relationship in this House, and I value his counsel greatly. He suggested that the arrangements give priority to Sinn Fein, but that is expressly not the case. We are trying to square a circle between nationalists and republicans—who did not want a shadow Assembly and who made it emphatically clear that they would not turn up in those circumstances—and Unionists—who wanted one—and this particular mongrel is a product of those circumstances.

As a default position, I have powers as Secretary of State over the choice of Speaker and what matters are referred to the Assembly. However, nothing would delight me more than acting not as a commissar, as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire has jocularly suggested—by the way, I was mortally wounded by that suggestion—but as a facilitator with a default power to make sure that things move forward.

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has asked whether the Assembly could replace my appointee as Presiding Officer, and the Bill makes express provision for that eventuality in paragraph 3(1)(b) and paragraph 3(2) of schedule 1. I have suggested to the parties that we should not turn to that question for the present, because the last thing that the Assembly needs is some kind of squabble, although I have not seen any evidence that there would be any disagreement with Eileen Bell's appointment. I think that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it would not be sensible to argue about that matter at the outset, and the same procedure was followed last time. If there is a widespread wish after the summer either to confirm Eileen Bell's appointment or make a different decision, it will be possible to provide for that. After devolution, which I hope will come before the summer, the Assembly will be master of the question and will be free to elect another Presiding Officer. I mean no disrespect to Eileen Bell in raising that matter, and I am sure that the same is true of the hon. Gentleman.

It is widely accepted that there are few alternatives. We need the Assembly to select an Executive in order to pave the way for stable devolved Government. If we had reintroduced the Assembly by ending direct rule under the Northern Ireland Act 2000, and so ending the authority of Ministers and the special legislative powers, we might have created chaos. Ministers would have been selected by the d'Hondt procedure, but it is far from guaranteed that all parties would have put forward Ministers in the present circumstances—in fact, we all know that they would not have done. Consequently, we would have risked having a serious community imbalance. At the very first opportunity for more than three and a half years, we would have marched ourselves straight into a crisis. That would not be a sensible way in which to begin the difficult task of restoring trust as the basis for the restoration of the institutions.

Although we hope that an election to the offices of First Minister and Deputy First Minister will be possible within six weeks, there must be doubt about that, and if it did not happen, under the scheme of simple restoration, there would necessarily have been an Assembly election, which few people would think a good idea in itself and which would be most unlikely to advance matters. I make no apology for our having brought the Assembly back without its formal powers so that it can discuss in a calmer and more focused atmosphere the way forward to selecting an Executive, and people who will not have worked together for nearly four years can begin to experience it again and to build the necessary trust.

As to the breadth of the discretion that I am given under the Bill, it is wide—I make no secret of that—in the same way as it was in 1998 when the Assembly first met. In an ideal world, no doubt all the issues covered—the election of the Presiding Officer, times and places of meetings, the preparation of a set of Standing Orders to meet the needs of the Assembly in its current phase, where the parties sat, and so on—would have been resolved by the parties themselves. However, everybody knows that in present circumstances that could have been extraordinarily protracted, and we do not have the time. It would not be the proper way in which to start off this very important phase of getting devolved Government going again in Northern Ireland.

The Assembly must come back and concentrate on its core task of moving us towards devolution. At that stage, of course, all these arrangements fall back into the hands of the Assembly. Under the scheme of the Bill, the Standing Orders that applied in 2002 at the moment of suspension will come back into effect, displacing those that I have made. It will control its own business and it can elect its own presiding officer, as I have made clear. At that stage, there will necessarily be a greater degree of common purpose among the parties, because they will have succeeded in agreeing the means of returning to devolution, and that is the point at which they can most profitably look at these questions.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Can the Secretary of State point to one section of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 that gives the Secretary of State the power, at a transitional period when the Assembly is in shadow mode, to amend or repeal any Act of Parliament and, if he so wishes, to decide that it is expedient to do so without even bringing an order before this House?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

The hon. Lady will know better than I do, because she was there at the time, that I am proceeding much as we did in 1998 in terms of the appointment of a Presiding Officer, the drawing up of Standing Orders, and so on. We will discuss the other points that she raised later.

I believe that my powers in this regard are justifiable and necessary. However, we will stay faithful to the procedures of the 1998 Act in the devolved Assembly where we can. That, I hope, comes out in the draft standing orders that we have made available. In particular, the selection of the Executive will follow closely the pattern of the 1998 Act. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the House of Lords has looked at the powers in the Bill, including those that the hon. Member for North Down has questioned. It concluded that they are appropriate in the context of the Bill, but suggested that it would be helpful to have further explanations of the way in which they are to be used. I hope that the details that I am providing, particularly the draft standing orders that we have produced, will provide the necessary reassurance.

The thrust of the Bill is in line with the sense of amendments Nos. 7 and 8, which the hon. Member for Foyle tabled. The measure is precisely about restoring the institutions that the Good Friday agreement established. The principle of fidelity to what was agreed in 1998 is important to SDLP Members—I agree with them—but I hope that they agree that the amendment does not add anything of substance. I hope that, having made their points and got those reassurances from me, they will not press the amendments.

I appreciate that the hon. Member for Foyle has strong concerns for good reasons and I therefore also stress that the talks will be all party and inclusive. I have made that point previously and I repeat it now. Whatever has or has not happened in the past, for whatever reason, it is not possible to proceed through side deals. Talks must be on an all-party basis.

Amendment No. 6, which my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle, for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell), and for South Down (Mr. McGrady) tabled, proposes that before restoration, the Assembly should be given a power of veto over legislation that is the preserve of the House. I do not believe that that is appropriate. As was said yesterday, during direct rule, which I do not want to continue for one day longer than necessary, we are accountable here for the good government of Northern Ireland and we should not tie ourselves to following the will of another body.

Nothing would give me greater pleasure than the restoration of the Assembly, with its Members again taking responsibility for transferred matters. However, I repeat that when the Assembly, on a cross-community basis, expresses views about a specific order or policy, they will be taken into account. That is different from giving a suspended Assembly a power of veto over Parliament.

The hon. Member for Foyle asked about the Secretary of State being able to refer matters to a business committee. If there is a consensus on the business committee, it can proceed without my getting involved. The last thing I want to do is get involved in the Assembly's internal affairs. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for North Down about seating arrangements and so on. I am happy to leave such matters to the parties and the business committee. I do not want to get involved in where people will sit in the Assembly. It was a matter of contention in the past and, from what I can tell from discussions with all the parties so far, what needs to happen is pretty clear, and that will happen.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

The Secretary of State used the words "taken into account". What precisely do they mean? I revert to the review of public administration, on which the three elected participating parties are of one mind. They believe that the numbers will lead to what they call Balkanisation, polarisation and so on and that Northern Ireland should be differently configured for local government. The right hon. Gentleman says that if the Assembly takes that view, it will be "taken into account". Does that mean that it will be reflected in a change?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I answered that point in respect of water charges. With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, whose contribution I greatly value, we are going around in circles, arguing the same point. If we had a fully restored body, which took responsibility for decisions, that is one matter. Taking account of views means exactly that. In the case of a unanimous or cross-party vote, I would pay careful attention to it. I have no interest as Secretary of State, with an Assembly on its way to restoring the institutions—as I believe is the case—in doing anything that will run counter to the Assembly's decisions. That is not my purpose. However, in the meantime we have to govern. That is our responsibility and we are accountable to the House for doing that.

On the Assembly's procedures, especially those for selecting Ministers, the Bill proposes that the procedure for carrying out the primary tasks will be in line with that for which the 1998 Act provides. I hope that the hon. Member for North Down, who tabled amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 24 to 26, and the hon. Members for Montgomeryshire and for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid), who tabled amendment No. 4, have been reassured by the initial draft standing orders, which were made available to hon. Members before Second Reading, that, as the right hon. Member for North Antrim said, we are closely following the procedures. I hope that they will therefore not press the amendments.

The hon. Member for North Down asked why I had put the standing orders in so early. I did it so that the parties could discuss them and the Business Committee could form a view of them. I will happily look at any suggestions for changing any of them.

David Simpson (DUP, Upper Bann)

I have a general question on the point that the Secretary of State made to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). He said that there would be inclusive all-party talks. If, for example, Sinn Fein pulled out of the talks at some stage, would the talks continue with the main parties that were left?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

The term "all-party talks" means exactly that. No party can exercise a veto, either by not appearing at the talks or by seeking to exercise a veto in some other way. If a party chooses to exclude itself, that is that party's decision.

On amendment No. 27, I understand the points that the hon. Member for North Down made about defamation and privilege, and I want to address them. I believe that it is right that the Bill should confer qualified privilege on proceedings in the Assembly in its present mode. As the hon. Member for Belfast, East quite properly pointed out to the hon. Lady, that arrangement mirrors the situation that applied in 1998. I hope that it will encourage debate that is free and frank, while discouraging accusations of a malicious nature.

I should like to go into this matter in some detail, in order to meet the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for North Down. She asked why the proceedings in the Assembly in the form envisaged to 24 November—or to restoration, if that takes place before then—were to be given a lesser degree of privilege in regard to defamation than those of the devolved Assembly. The proceedings of the old, fully fledged—as it were—Assembly enjoyed absolute privilege. In this Assembly, privilege is qualified, in a similar way to that in which it was qualified at the preliminary stage last time. That privilege will not protect the maker of defamatory statements if there is proof of malice on his or her part. The Bill gives the same degree of privilege as that accorded to the transitional Assembly in 1998—it follows exactly the same formula. That was our precedent. Indeed, it was the precedent for much of what we have put into the Bill.

Absolute privilege tends to be conferred only on fully functioning legislatures. Conferring qualified privilege under the Bill is therefore appropriate and reflects the fact that the Assembly has not been fully restored. At a time when there are serious party differences—although we are seeking to narrow them—it does not seem right to give freedom from malicious defamatory statements.

The Bill does not alter the position of the media in relation to privilege. It might assist the House if I point out that the Bill allows for statements in the Assembly to be privileged, excluding those made with malice, whether made by Assembly Members or by those who fairly and accurately report them in the media.

On the name of the Assembly, I cannot accept that it should be known as anything other than the Assembly. As the hon. Members for North Down and for Montgomeryshire have pointed out, the Assembly is composed of all those who have been elected to the full Assembly and who will constitute it on restoration. I agree with the points made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East in that respect. One of the key functions of the Assembly is the selection of an Executive. Once that function has been discharged, the way will be open for the restoration of all the devolved institutions and the resumption of the full legislative and other powers of the fully restored Assembly. The proposals by the hon. Member for North Down in amendments Nos. 21 to 23 that it should be known as "the Forum" would be misleading, although I know that that is not her intention. I hope that she will not press her amendments to a vote.

To conclude, Mrs. Heal—I am proud, as a Welsh MP, that a proud Welsh woman is in the Chair, whose husband is a proud member of my local rugby club—[Laughter.] I think that we had better call it a day at that

I want to reassure right hon. and hon. Members who have raised important points that the new Assembly, which is a difficult task and a fragile flower, is on its way, I believe, to restoration of the institutions. We need to do that by consensus. We have put in the structures with a lot of care and thought, modelled in many respects on what happened in 1998, giving the Assembly the opportunity to take full charge of its affairs, to decide what it wants, to vote on what it wants and to discuss what it wants. In that transition, a default position remains in my hands as Secretary of State to make sure that it is able to proceed in that consensual way, which I hope that it does. I hope that the whole House will back the Bill, and that those who tabled the amendments will, on hearing my reassurances, withdraw them.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

In respect of amendments Nos. 7 and 8, the Secretary of State has indicated that the Government's purpose in the Bill, and the whole point of the exercise, is to give effect to re-establishing the institutions of the Good Friday agreement. On that basis, he feels that the amendments add nothing. In introducing them, I said that they were probing amendments to register that point, which was certainly made to us in meetings with the British and Irish Governments and registered strongly by the Taoiseach, not only in his joint statement with the Prime Minister on 2 March but on several other occasions. I am glad that our amendments have brought such an explicit statement from the Secretary of State. The Minister with responsibility for political development, the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), who is now sitting next to the Secretary of State, will be glad to hear that I can take yes for an answer. On that basis, we will not press the amendments to a vote.

Among the various comments on amendments Nos. 7 and 8, there was some misunderstanding of their purpose. The right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) is not in his place, but I point out to him that I did not at any stage say that I believed that the DUP's only intent was to go into the Assembly to wreck it. How could I say that, in circumstances in which it is clear to all of us that this new creature is very much along the lines that the DUP specifically advocated? If anything, on the basis of his contribution yesterday, the DUP's intention would not be to bring down this new creature but to prolong its existence. Clearly, subsequent amendments that they have tabled would do away with the 25 November deadline. He has therefore misapprehended my concern.

In relation to the position of the DUP, I believe that, contrary to 25 November and the notion of a proposed alternative representing a threat to the DUP, in the overall political scheme, the DUP might well be comfortable in those circumstances. It can then make a different case that closing the book on devolution is effectively closing the book on devolution as per the agreement. Drawing down the curtain, as the Secretary of State said yesterday, on the process since 1998—those were the Secretary of State's words—can quickly be converted by the DUP to drawing down the curtain on the Good Friday agreement. As Governments search for an alternative that they do not yet have, the DUP will say, "We always advocated an alternative. The Governments are proposing an alternative that is not agreed; we want an alternative that is agreed." A lot of people in Northern Ireland, including some nationalists, naively believe that the DUP is somehow under the cosh in respect of 25 November and some other alternative, but I do not believe that the DUP appears particularly frightened by that prospect. I also put it on record that Sinn Fein might have an interest in seeing a crash at that stage, as long as it can blame it on the DUP.

We wanted the Assembly to be able to consider possible solutions. If it seems that we are facing total crash and burn, and if there are proposals that could give life to implementation of the Good Friday agreement, the Assembly should be able to consider those proposals. It would do so on an agreed and an inclusive basis, with no side deals or anything else of that kind.I was pleased when the Secretary of State said that there would be no side deals in the negotiations, although he will probably become tired of being continually asked to give assurances in that regard. I accept his assurance and hope that it will extend to all levels of government.

As long ago as 1998, we were negotiating the Good Friday agreement in Castle buildings a few weeks away from Good Friday, grappling with the minutiae of the proposals for strands 1, 2 and 3. Two parties were supposedly negotiating with the others, and supposedly negotiating with the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). The right hon. Gentleman, then the Minister responsible for political development, was chairing the strand 1 talks while negotiating with Senator George Mitchell, who was chairing the talks overall. Those two parties, the Ulster Unionist party and the SDLP, received a fax from Downing street giving an outline of what the strand 1 outcome should be.

The SDLP made it clear, in fairly stark terms, that we were not negotiating with a fax machine, whether it was in Downing street or anywhere else. If the Prime Minister wanted to contribute to the negotiations, he should come to Castle buildings and join in the talks with all the parties and with the Irish Government. Those who were chairing the talks, including the political development Minister, did not know about the faxes from Downing street until we told them.

I hope that that answers the insinuation from some people that the SDLP has not always stood for inclusion, and has been prepared to do deals on its own or in its own way. We have never done that. We are absolutely clear about the integrity of the principle of inclusion, which is why we wrote it into the agreement, ensuring the inclusion of people who opposed the agreement. We always maintained at the time that the Good Friday agreement and its institutions, as they worked and grew, would be capable of involving in partnership and co-operation not just Unionists and nationalists, not just republicans and loyalists, but those who voted yes and those who voted no. We did not want a new permanent divide in Northern Ireland's political life.

I believe that the institutions of the Good Friday agreement are capable of sustaining such partnership and co-operation. That is why—this answers the point made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik)—I do not accept that changes to the agreement are a necessary precondition for restoration. After all, if the suspension had never happened in the first place and if the DUP, with the mandate that it secured, had entered unsuspended institutions, the DUP would have taken office in those institutions. It would then have used its strength in those institutions, and in the context of a formal review of the agreement, to oversee some of the changes that it seeks. It would find that—as, in fact, its members know—many of us have proposed changes in the workings of the agreement to improve it, at a number of levels and a number of ways. We have even proposed changes in the 1998 Act, because many changes could be made to the Act without denting the agreement.

We do not wish to divide the Committee on amendment No. 7. I shall deal with amendment No. 6 shortly. As for the other amendments, I understand the point that has been made about the Presiding Officer. We feel that it might seem petty, and might be misrepresented and misunderstood, if we created a scramble over the appointment of the Presiding Officer in the current circumstances. People might think that we had something against Eileen Bell, which we do not.

It is interesting that Eileen Bell has been appointed Speaker and Eileen Paisley has been appointed to the House of Lords. Given the common assumption that things happen in threes, Eileens up and down the country are probably waiting with bated breath for some wonderful appointments to come their way.

We will certainly work with Eileen Bell as Speaker. In the circumstances, it is probably better to avoid any unseemly stand-off in regard to the Presiding Officer in the early days of this new creature. As someone who comes from Derry, and who is looking across the Floor at someone who clearly comes from Londonderry, I am not going to get into the issue of what we should call the Assembly; the most important thing is what we do in it.

As many Members have said, amendment No. 6 is in many ways a modest proposal. It is a modest test of the truth of the Secretary of State's assurance that he wants Assembly Members to have responsibility; indeed, he has sometimes said that he wants them to have "a powerful influence". What is wrong, therefore, with giving the Assembly the power merely of negative resolution over Orders in Council on a cross-community basis? It is not a veto in the pocket of any one party or community, so it could not be abused. The Secretary of State doubted whether there would be cross-party support for providing such a power. I agree that there would not have been cross-party support for a power of affirmative resolution, which would have given a veto to one party or community, but I cannot see what objection even Sinn Fein would have to proving the power of negative resolution on a cross-community basis. If we are meant to participate in this Assembly in anticipation of taking on powers and doing good things, surely we want the ability stop some of the bad proposals coming through via Orders in Council. As we look toward achieving restoration, what is wrong with our being given the power, on a cross-community basis, to put a stop to the gallop of direct rule via Orders in Council?

The Secretary of State said that that cannot be done because such matters are for Parliament to decide and cannot be decided by anybody else. Yet we are told constantly that Parliament does not want to legislate on these matters via Orders in Council—that it wants them to be properly the business of people in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State tells us that he will not allow us to oppose Orders in Council by way of cross-community support, yet he cites that issue as the very reason why he will advise Parliament against giving us that power.

The Secretary of State says, "We cannot allow anybody else to decide on issues that are a matter for Parliament." I do not like to remind him and his Ministers of the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, but it comes to mind. We were told that the Government and, through them, this Parliament, were honour-bound—hidebound—to introduce legislation that in fact, nobody liked, agreed with or could justify to victims. We were told that there would be dire consequences if it was not passed, but we were not told what they would be, what the threat was or where it came from. The Bill was withdrawn—and the sky still has not fallen in. We were told that an ulterior entity had a hold and a prior say that bound this Parliament and the Government. In the light of that, I do not regard the Secretary of State's argument as very strong.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

As the hon. Gentleman said, the Secretary of State's original argument was that there was no cross-party support for giving the Assembly these additional powers. Given that it is perfectly obvious that every party represented here—apart from Government Front Benchers—agrees with such a proposal, the Secretary of State's argument falls. Is the hon. Gentleman, like me, a bit suspicious of the fact that the Secretary of State then moved on to a different set of justifications for not providing such powers? The best thing that the Secretary of State could do is to recognise the consensus that exists here and give the Assembly something serious to do.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I agree fully with the hon. Gentleman. The implication of the Secretary of State's earlier remark was that Sinn Fein might not agree with such a proposal. I can certainly see that Sinn Fein would not agree with giving the power of affirmative resolution; nor would we, and we would not expect the Government to agree to doing so. Such a power would give the various parties and communities a veto in their pocket on all manner of issues.

Whenever Orders in Council are dealt with in this very unsatisfactory way, we are told that the problem is that different parties support different proposals. However, all that we are trying to do is to give formal expression and record to the weight of party opinion and consideration. This is a relatively modest proposal and if the Secretary of State cannot accept it, I will be disappointed.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I am provoked into intervening briefly because the hon. Gentleman's party—together with Sinn Fein—did not want the shadow Assembly for which he is now arguing. We could have been in a different position if he had taken a different view.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Perhaps the Secretary of State could explain to us at some point the difference between a shadow Assembly and what we have, because it seems to be a shady, shadowy sort of affair anyway. Given that most of the legislation is recycled from the original Northern Ireland Act 1998, which did give us a shadow Assembly, it is hard to see the difference. Our concern was having an Assembly that had powers that people would become comfortable with, such as powers of affirmative resolution and a greater degree of legislative initiative than at present.

We propose these modest powers to test what the Secretary of State is saying and to add to people's justification for participating in this particular Assembly. We want to be able to say that it is not just a talking shop. We certainly want to be able to say that it will not be a talked-at shop or a talked-down-to shop, with business people and others coming in and talking to us as though we had no experience of devolution. We need some ongoing justification of purpose and, in particular, people in the community who want to see their elected representatives doing things for them in their mandated institutions. There would be some point in looking to the Assembly if it at least had the power of political estoppel or temporary injunction on Orders in Council for its lifetime. At least then people from business could come not to give us bland talks, but to advise us on decisions that we could take to affect the fate of an Order in Council. I do not see how the Secretary of State can argue against putting business, trade unions and community interests in such positive and purposeful engagement with the Assembly, as opposed to the talking-shop style exchange that he seems to envisage.

For that reason, we will not seek to divide the House on amendment No. 7, but we wish to vote on amendment No. 6. I understand that that cannot happen now, but only if we reach schedule 1 by 6 pm. On that basis, I ask the Secretary of State to think again and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 — Selection of persons to be Ministers on restoration of devolved government

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 1, line 19, leave out 'before 25th November 2006'.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 1 in page 2, line 10, at end insert—

'(4A) Condition 4 is that parliament has legislated to give effect to any changes necessary to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 in order to allow conditions 1 to 3 to have effect.'.

No. 14, in page 2, line 10, at end insert—

'(4A) Condition 4 is that the IMC shall have reported that they believe that no paramilitary, criminal or other illegal activity is being carried out by or on behalf of the Provisional IRA.'.

No. 11, in schedule 3, page 9, line 4, leave out paragraph 4.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

We had a wide debate on the previous group of amendments and we now come to a group of amendments tabled mostly by my party. The purpose of the amendments is to allow the selection of a First Minister, Deputy First Minister and other Ministers, under the arrangements set out in schedule 2, if necessary after the deadline of 24 November 2006. As the legislation is currently drafted, the procedure can no longer be used after the deadline. That is because of the provisions of clause 2(1)(b) and schedule 3(4). Under the Bill as it stands, the only way to elect a First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and to select other Ministers, will be under the arrangements in the 1998 Act, or as it may be amended in the autumn.

Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 do not take away the capacity of the Secretary of State to take any action on 24 November, but merely leave options open that may be more appropriate if progress cannot be made by that date but could be made by May 2007. The amendments simply give the Secretary of State options, rather than closing them down or forcing him to come to the House at another stage with new legislation. We have had enough experience recently of new legislation dealing with Northern Ireland and Members would not be terribly pleased if we had to go through the whole process again.

If it is not possible to restore the Northern Ireland Assembly before 24 November but proves possible thereafter—a circumstance that is catered for in the measure—the many logistical arrangements may mean that it will be easier to make progress on the basis of the Secretary of State's standing orders than on the basis of the Northern Ireland Act. In that event, no Speaker would be elected—the role would have to be re-signed and those in power in 2003 would return to office on restoration. If the Assembly was restored and a First Minister and Deputy First Minister could not be elected, the countdown to an election would begin, despite the Secretary of State's saying that there would be no new elections to the institutions.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

As there are parties who want to construe the DUP as having ulterior motives, it would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman took this opportunity to put on the record that changing the date is not because the DUP wants to maintain a talking shop on the hill at Stormont.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I am happy to say once again, as most of my hon. Friends said yesterday on Second Reading, that of course we are not in the business of trying to create or maintain a talking shop. Indeed, if amendment No. 6 is pushed to a Division, we shall go into the Lobby to support it. We have always wanted the Assembly that is to be created to have the maximum authority and power and there have been some useful suggestions for making direct rule more accountable in the interim period. That would be sensible and I think that view is shared by parties in Northern Ireland.

We want to take account of the reality spelled out yesterday. When we reach the last week of November, the IRA and Sinn Fein may not have done everything necessary to make them acceptable as members of a Northern Ireland Executive. Let us be frank. Given the findings of the Independent Monitoring Commission report and the current circumstances, it will require a major step change in the provisionals' current attitude to criminality and other things that disqualify them from office to enable them to meet that deadline—although who knows what might happen? My party leader has already told us that he believes in miracles. Given his theological position, no one should be surprised at that statement. I believe in miracles, too—I share many of my right hon. Friend's theological positions as well as his political one.

The provisional movement has let us down many times in the past, however, and it has a fair way to go to convince people that it now has a purely democratic and peaceful methodology. It also has a considerable way to go on policing, as we all know. In the Secretary of State's comments in this place and outside over the past few days, he has referred to policing only in the context of the devolution of policing and justice powers. However, as I said in my contribution to the British-Irish interparliamentary body in Killarney, it is essential to recognise that for members of any party to exercise power as Ministers in any part of the United Kingdom it is extremely important not only that they support the police but that they urge their supporters and the community at large to give information to the police. They should not be half-hearted or equivocal about that matter. That extremely important issue cannot be ducked, set aside or ignored. So those in the provisional movement must deal with lots of issues. They are the ones who are holding up progress and who apparently stand in the way of the restoration of the Executive—not the DUP or the Unionist population.

Amendment No. 14 would add a requirement to clause 2 that must be met before the Assembly can be restored. A number of conditions are set down in the Bill that must be met before a restoration order can be made, but amendment No. 14 would have the effect of adding the condition that the IMC must have reported that

"no paramilitary, criminal or other illegal activity is being carried out by or on behalf of the Provisional IRA."

Of course, we all know, given the political reality of the situation, what the circumstances must be, but as well as understanding that, it is important that the Bill refers to the outstanding issue of the day, which must be dealt with before the Executive can be restored. It is not just simply a matter of the parties getting together to elect a First Minister and appointing other Ministers; it is the central issue: whether or not Sinn Fein and the IRA have committed themselves to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. I believe that the Bill should refer to that condition, as well as it just being understood as a political necessity. That is the purpose of putting that condition in the Bill.

I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate on this group of amendments, he will seriously consider the matters that we have proposed—I emphasise what has been said by my hon. Friends—in the sense that we want to see this process work. We want to see it deliver. We want to see the restoration of devolution, but we want to see it restored in the right circumstances and in the right conditions.

We do not believe in the use of an arbitrary deadline set down by the Government that may not be met, not as a result of any unwillingness on the part of Unionists or any other democratic party to play their role in devolution, but because of the failure of the republican movement to measure up to what needs to be done. It would be entirely wrong then to see the whole edifice of devolution crash down and for the people of Northern Ireland to suffer in those circumstances. I believe that it is absolutely essential that we should try to maintain the momentum and to try to restore to Northern Ireland the maximum degree of devolution that can be possibly attained in those circumstances.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I rise to speak to amendment No. 1, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid), which is essentially a probing amendment. We are concerned whether there will be enough time for Parliament to legislate to bring into effect any change to the workings of the Assembly that might be needed before a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister can be elected. We would like the Government to assure us that there will be proper time for Parliament to consider the implications of any change to the workings of the Assembly. That is particularly important, as it is the duty of the two Governments—the one here and the one in Dublin—in conjunction with the Assembly, to review and report on the operation of the Assembly. Colleagues will remember that section 11 of the Good Friday agreement spelt that out very specifically under the heading of "Validation, Implementation and Review". I quote paragraph 8, which states:

"Notwithstanding the above, each institution will publish an annual report on its operations. In addition, the two Governments and the parties in the Assembly will convene a conference 4 years after the agreement comes into effect, to review and report on its operation."

As Ministers know, I was very dissatisfied with the Government's tardiness in conducting that kind of review. The Alliance party was assured that a review would take place. There was enormous obfuscation and delay, prior to the appointment of the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson). In the end, the work that has taken place has not really addressed some of the core issues—for example, the question of political designation. I covered that in an earlier speech and do not need to repeat my criticisms now. Amendment No. 1 asks the Government to make clear how they see the progress towards making sure that sensible changes can be introduced before the First and Deputy First Ministers are elected, without the sham and farce of redesignation being forced on Alliance party members or anybody else.

I will comment briefly on the other amendments. It seems that amendments Nos. 10 and 11 both seek to remove the deadline from the Bill. If I understand things correctly, that would mean that the proposal for an interim Assembly in the Bill could carry on indefinitely, which is not a good idea. My judgment is that the 24 November deadline is necessary to resolve which way we are going to go with Northern Ireland politics.

I am more sympathetic to amendment No. 14. It is clear that we all want to see the end of criminality, in all its forms—not just the so-called politically motivated paramilitary activity. I am encouraged by what the Independent Monitoring Commission has said in its most recent assessment of the matter—the 10th report. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about amendment No. 14, because surely it contains a reasonable expectation.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I would like to contribute briefly to the debate on amendments Nos. 10 and 14, in particular. I can see the benefit of having an end-date in place. It does tend to concentrate the mind. However, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) said yesterday, quite correctly, we have seen so many deadlines come and go in Northern Ireland. I suppose I have to question whether there can be any confidence in the idea that this is a real deadline. I understand fully, and take completely at face value, the assurances that the Secretary of State gave yesterday that it is a deadline, but there are ways of setting further deadlines and still retaining this one. Things can be fudged in one way or another.

I also take the point made yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), who has been present for virtually all the debate—he has just left his place for a moment. If we get to, say, 20 November and we are almost there, but not quite, is it right to let the whole thing fall? That is a powerful point. Although I can see the point of a deadline, I think that, on balance, the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) carries a lot of weight and we will therefore support the Democratic Unionist party if the matter is pressed to a vote.

Amendment No. 14 is difficult to disagree with. The Government have set so much store by what the IMC is saying.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I am a little surprised by what I think that the hon. Gentleman just said. He said that he would support the removal of the deadlines, if that was pushed to a vote. I am not quite sure why he would do that because, although I am pretty sceptical about the Government's willingness to hold to a deadline, I am absolutely certain that the absence of a deadline would guarantee that we will live with this halfway house of an Assembly for the rest of our natural lives.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

The hon. Gentleman was rather scathing about deadlines himself yesterday. I have every respect for this Parliament—I am sure that hon. Members share that view. I have come into the Chamber—in the case not only of this Bill, but the previous Bill relating to Northern Ireland—undecided on how to vote on a number of issues and I have listened to the arguments. Parliament is at its best when hon. Members do that and are not necessarily whipped into one line or another. [Interruption.] The Minister is laughing, but I make no apology for listening to the debate, which I am sure that he does regularly. I am not entirely convinced that we are right to support the DUP on amendment No. 10, but having listened to the arguments made by the hon. Members for Montgomeryshire and for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds), we will, on balance, do so.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that his vote is negotiable, so perhaps I can persuade him to swing back towards the case for deadlines. The inference from what he says is that a Conservative Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would not impose a deadline on the interim Assembly. That worries me, so I ask him to think about it. Is he really saying that the antidote to flexible deadlines is no deadline at all? It is my judgment that any Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would have to impose a deadline to get a resolution of the situation.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

The hon. Gentleman asks me to speculate about what we would do in government. It is not that far off, so we will have to face up to those questions, but we are not quite there yet. I want to move on from this point because there are other things to discuss, but I will not dodge the hon. Gentleman's question. If he is asking whether no deadline is better than a deadline that is all over the place, I would suggest that it probably is.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the amendment would not take away the deadline because the Secretary of State would still be able to remove salaries and stop the Assembly from meeting? However, it would mean that the fall-back position would be much softer than the hard landing with a crash and the complete end of everything that would be effect of the Bill.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I am persuaded by the hon. Gentleman's eloquence. He made the important point earlier that if we were almost to reach the deadline, surely it would be better to let the Assembly to continue to run for a while—at least we would have something—than to get rid of everything. That could lead to full devolution more quickly than would otherwise be the case, so, on balance, we will support the DUP if the amendment is pressed to a Division.

The Government set a good deal of store by what the IMC says and I understand why the Secretary of State quoted from the report extensively yesterday. I would be surprised if the Government opposed amendment No. 14. I accept that the IMC cannot dictate what we do in the House because that is up to hon. Members. However, I also accept that there are worries among the Unionist parties and, probably, the SDLP about going into government with people who have not fully given up violence. It does no one on the Unionist side, including me, any good to pretend that there was no good news in yesterday's report—no one has suggested that—but it does the Government no good to pretend that the whole report represented a clean bill of health. I quoted at length yesterday the parts of the report that said that senior members of the IRA were still involved in criminality and cited specific expulsions that were still being carried out by the IRA. That was all in the report as well as the good news, so if we are to accept the IMC report, we must accept the whole report. I thus have a lot of sympathy with amendment No. 14, too.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I intend to be brief. I am not quite as vociferous, or windy, as some of my colleagues and hon. Members on the other side of the Chamber.

Clause 2 provides that if three conditions are met the Secretary of State will make an order of restoration. The conditions are that a First Minister and Deputy First Minister are elected, that persons are nominated as Ministers, and that each of them takes a pledge of office. I am deeply worried about amendment No. 10, because it would make the Assembly open-ended. The Assembly should not be open-ended because that would undermine the concentrated effort that is required to get devolution back in place.

I note that DUP colleagues have claimed that the Bill means that the 1998 agreement is dead. That is an exaggerated notion of their mandate. We all have mandates and we can all count numbers, but the place to exercise the mandate and count the numbers is on the Floor of the Assembly when it is reconvened.

We oppose any aspect or concept of a shadow, powerless Assembly, because that could last for ever. The deadline is an essential backstop position, which concentrates minds and gets things done.

I fear that amendment No. 1 would set the precondition for restoration whereby Westminster has to legislate for changes to get the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister elected and an Executive formed. There is nothing wrong with the terms and the details that we worked out in 1998; nor was there anything wrong with the agreement reached in 1998. What was wrong was that a number of the parties failed to honour and implement their responsibilities in 1998 and subsequently. I shall not point fingers. Everyone knows who the wrecking parties were, and it was not the SDLP or the Ulster Unionists. Frankly, the problem had nothing to do with the institutions, the regulations, the Standing Orders and the concepts. Rather, it was the outright refusal by the provos to destroy their weapons. To some extent, that was supplemented, aided and abetted by the refusal by some Unionist politicians to share power.

It would be a profound mistake to make changes to the agreement, or the 1998 Act that flowed from the agreement, a precondition for restoration. Of course, improvements can be made to the working institutions. Improvements can always be made and development can always take place. We gave a long list of improvements that we wanted to see at the conference at Leeds castle two years ago. All of them were consistent with the Good Friday agreement. However, such matters need to be worked out on the Floor of the Assembly or on the margins of Assembly meetings, and between the parties involved. I am worried that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), who has always been a good friend and a good supporter of peace and progress in Northern Ireland, has taken up the position set out in amendment No. 1. However, we will have a chance to discuss that later.

I am also deeply concerned about amendment No. 14. Frankly, for the reasons that I outlined, it is unnecessary and irrelevant. The terms will not have been met if we are depending on the IMC. We do not need to hang ourselves on the amendment. I outlined the terms for electing a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister, and for each of them taking the pledge. It appears that the DUP cannot trust itself and will not participate, but we cannot meet the primary conditions of clause 2 without its support. So why do we need an amendment, as a belt-and-braces operation, to ensure that if one of them strays a wee bit, he is pulled back? It is a sort of choke lead.

The DUP is trying to pass the buck for taking up its position. If it has issues with which it wants to deal, let us do that face on, eyeball to eyeball, and, in a gentlemanly fashion, sort them out. We do not need the amendment. Again, the substance of it should be dealt with on the Floor of the Assembly. The amendment makes unreasonable demands and tries to remove the independence of the IMC, an independent body, and suck it in as a partisan political player. We are the political players. Let us sort out the issues.

The amendment also places a loaded gun, so to speak, in the hands of a handful of rogue provos in various places around the country, with the result that half a dozen people can prevent any progress from being made by carrying out systematic disruption that causes the IMC to report negatively on one small case. I do not wish to delay the Committee further. My colleagues and I are opposed to the amendments for the reasons that I have outlined.

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I support the amendments tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson).

I can assure the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) that the DUP is confident of its position and will remain so. As for being afraid to sit down and talk to the SDLP, we are more than happy to do that at any time. I remind the hon. Gentleman that for years SDLP members ran to the Irish Government with every problem that they had and every issue that they wanted resolved. Off they went to Dublin to get it fixed by the Irish Government, so we will take no lectures from the SDLP about sitting down with our compatriots in Northern Ireland to try to resolve issues.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Will the hon. Gentleman please explain what he found wrong with our talking to the Irish Government? We have been a consensus-building party for 30 years. I am witnessing the transition from a wrecking party to a party that is trying to be semi-constructive. The Democratic Unionists were in Killarney last weekend. They have been running up and down to Dublin.

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

We will certainly do that, Mrs. Heal.

On amendment No. 10 and the deadline, I welcome what the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) said. I congratulate him on his excellent contribution to our debates and on the job that he is doing on the Front Bench for the loyal Opposition. I can tell him that he is held in high esteem in Northern Ireland. He is right about the deadline. The history of the process is littered with the wreckage of deadlines that were passed. Even the Belfast agreement set deadlines for decommissioning and other things, and we saw the IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries drive a coach and horses through those deadlines.

My difficulty is that the current position does not give the Secretary of State sufficient flexibility in circumstances where real progress has been made, but we have not quite got there in terms of what is required from the IRA to end criminality and paramilitarism. Are the Government seriously suggesting that in circumstances where we had another IMC report that indicated progress but concluded that some level of activity was continuing, they would pull the plug on the entire process?

The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) is right. They would be pulling the plug on the Belfast agreement and all that goes with it. He argued that that would be welcomed by Democratic Unionists. We have proposed changes to the institutions. We tabled the amendment to bring about changes to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to ensure the effective and efficient operation of the institutions, and especially to ensure proper lines of accountability.

Let us be clear. Our motivation is to ensure that we get it absolutely right. We do not want, as has been suggested by some Members, to delay the establishment of devolution in Northern Ireland indefinitely. Our party is a devolutionist party, and it believes in a local Government in Northern Ireland. As I said earlier, we would gladly form an Executive today with the democratic parties in the Assembly, including the Social Democratic and Labour party. We have clearly stated that, but we have a difficulty with Sinn Fein—a potential member of a future Executive—given its links with the IRA and ongoing IRA criminality. That is a major problem for us, together with the fact that Sinn Fein does not support the police and the rule of law. Those issues must be resolved.

Let me make it clear that indefinite direct rule is not in our interests or the interests of the people whom we represent. Nor are we interested in being part of an assembly that merely discusses issues and does not ever reach the point of forming an Executive. In amendment No. 10, we do not seek an open-ended scenario in which we simply delay, procrastinate and spin things out for years to come. We are realistic: we know that that will not be allowed to happen. However, the amendment gives us a little more flexibility in the process if progress is made by 24 November, enabling the Secretary of State to keep things going for a further period. The basic concept of the Assembly in the format proposed by the Government is to engage people in issues to help to build trust. That is important, but the exchanges across the Chamber this afternoon demonstrate that it is not just a matter of building trust between our party and the republican elements in our society.

Without doubt, there are many issues at the moment, and Unionists have very little trust in Sinn Fein's position. It is clear from the comments of SDLP Members that they do not trust the DUP's bona fides or our position. We are equally disappointed by their approach to the political process in recent years. At times, they try to out-Sinn Fein Sinn Fein; at times, they take a position that is so hard-line and tough that it makes Gerry Adams look like a poodle. That is unhelpful, and they have refused to contemplate sharing power with Unionists unless their big brothers in Sinn Fein are at their side. I wish that the SDLP would learn to stand on its own two feet. Instead of hiding behind the Irish Government and Sinn Fein, it should rely on its own strength and consider serving in government with Unionists. However, I have said enough about the issue.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The hon. Gentleman has forgotten that we adopted a clear position on policing. Our position on the Policing Board was not defined or confined by Sinn Fein or anyone else.

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I accept that, and I applaud the position that the SDLP took after many years of refusing to support the police and refusing to take up seats on the Police Authority. Finally, after 30 years, it pressed its agenda and was able to wring out substantial changes to policing in Northern Ireland. It decided that it was going to support the police, which we welcome. However, I am not talking about policing but about the formation of an Executive or a Government for the people of Northern Ireland. I regret very much the fact that the SDLP has not had the courage to step out and do with an Executive what it was prepared to do with the Policing Board.

I do not accept the distinction between the operation of the Policing Board and the operation of an Executive in Northern Ireland. If the SDLP is prepared to serve with Unionists on a Policing Board and take responsibility for one of the most important issues in Northern Ireland, why on earth can it not do that with us on education, health, roads, housing, planning and all the matters that affect the people whom we represent? I would like that to happen, and I await the day when there is genuine power sharing in Down council, so that the DUP can finally get a look-in and secure a senior appointment. It would be nice to see the SDLP exercising real power sharing in places such as Down district, but we are patient and will wait for that day. Perhaps Down district will be able to match what happens in neighbouring Lisburn, the city that I represent, in terms of the parity that we give to the SDLP. Of the 30 councillors on Lisburn council, only three—or 10 per cent.—belong to the SDLP.

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I suppose that I was expanding the point a little, Mrs. Heal, but we live and travel in hope that we will get the House's support for the amendment. We are trying to be constructive: we want to ensure that we make progress but with a helpful degree of flexibility.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) for stepping in to move the amendment on behalf of the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson).

We have been debating three issues in connection with the amendment. The first has to do with the deadline at the end of the period proposed in the Bill, and the second relates to the approach adopted by the provisional IRA and others to arms decommissioning and criminality. Thirdly, we debated the issues raised in amendment No. 1, in the name of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik). I shall deal with each matter in turn.

My first remarks are directed to the hon. Members for Belfast, North and for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson), and to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), who speaks for the official Opposition on these matters. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that he and the Government as a whole are committed, for clear and appropriate reasons, to setting a deadline for the Bill.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

The Minister says that the Government are committed to the deadline, but reports in the media and elsewhere suggest that it is really the Dublin Government who are pushing it, at the behest of some parties. Will he comment on that? Are not the Government here more open minded about the matter than he is trying to suggest?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State were present in Armagh on 6 April, as were the Taoiseach and I, when these proposals—for this Bill and to restore the Assembly—were brought forward. The Government of the Irish Republic and the British Government are unanimous about the need to include a deadline in this Bill.

From my perspective, I do not think it appropriate for the people of Northern Ireland to expect that the process will remain open-ended for ever. We have to set a deadline, for a variety of reasons. First, it puts on the parties involved the pressure that must be applied if we are to resolve the question of the Assembly. Secondly, the Assembly elections in May next year are rushing towards us. These things tend to go quickly, and even the hon. Members for Belfast, North, for Lagan Valley and for Tewkesbury must recognise that it is impractical and impossible to ask the people of Northern Ireland to vote again for an Assembly that does not sit, and for Members who do not participate in their legislative functions, even though they maintain their strong constituency roles.

For those reasons, we need to set a deadline, and we have picked 25 November. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury said that he will support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Belfast, North, but that would remove the deadline from the Bill completely. As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) have explained, the absence of a deadline would leave us with an open-ended commitment, with the result that there would be no pressure on the parties to resolve the key issues.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Does the Minister agree that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) still pertains? If the Government want to exert pressure, they retain the power—notwithstanding the amendment—to cease at a stroke all allowances and salaries paid to all Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. If the Minister wants pressure, that pressure can be applied at any time between now and 24 November, and beyond.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The Government will look at exercising that pressure and that power. However, I cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Belfast, North because we believe that we must implement a deadline for the resolution of the Executive election for the offices of First Minister and Deputy First Minister. The deadline has been implemented so that we can secure that election in a reasonable time before 25 November and do what everyone who has spoken on both days of this debate wants to do, which is to take power from the British Government and give it back to the hon. Member for Belfast, North and his colleagues in Northern Ireland. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South that no deadline would mean an open-ended commitment. The deadline is not a threat, and it reflects the political reality of the situation.

I recognise that DUP Members and the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) need to have trust in the republican movement that paramilitary activity and criminality have ceased, which is key to their entering the Assembly. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell), who clearly expressed that point on Second Reading. I understand that an end to paramilitary activity, criminality and the possession of arms by the IRA is central to entry into the Assembly for the DUP.

As the hon. Member for Tewkesbury recognised, progress has been made, and I shall pick a few quotes from yesterday's IMC report to illustrate that point. Paragraph 2.13 states:

"It remains our absolutely clear view that the PIRA leadership has committed itself to following a peaceful path . . . We have noted the remarks by Gerry Adams, President of Sinn Féin"

that

"the war is over and that the movement is committed to the alternative political path."

Paragraph 2.14 states that

"the leadership is engaged in a challenging task in ensuring full compliance with this strategy".

Paragraph 2.15 makes a key point:

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

Finally, paragraph 2.16 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."

I recognise that until those matters are fully resolved, DUP Members will have difficulty in entering the Assembly, and I also recognise that the key to their entering the Assembly is the IMC report that will be introduced in October and November this year. However, I cannot support putting that point as a precondition in Bill in the manner suggested by the hon. Member for Belfast, North.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

It would do Conservative Members no good to deny the significant progress in the IMC report, but it does the Government no good to quote selectively, which the Minister has done again. I shall give him the sentence immediately before his final quote:

"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."

That is the second of two quotes in paragraph 2.15 about continued expulsions by the IRA. As the Minister knows, other parts of the IMC report mention senior members of the IRA who are involved in criminality. It does not do either side any good to quote selectively.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The hon. Gentleman and I have had a good relationship in the time that we have shadowed each other, and he knows that I do not share his view that I am trying to quote selectively. I recognise that there is still work to be done by the Provisional IRA, but I say to him genuinely and honestly that I believe in the IMC report, and my understanding is that the Provisional IRA leadership are now committed to a political, peaceful role for their ends.

The task for the next few months is to secure that response by all members of the organisation in all parts of Northern Ireland. The IMC report in October or November this year will be critical to the judgments made by hon. Members. I hope that they can have sufficient confidence to go into the Assembly during May on that basis, but I recognise that they probably will not for the reason that the right hon. Member for North Antrim gave yesterday—namely, that the conditions are not right. However, I do not believe that including such provisions in the Bill will assist in making those conditions right. The IMC report is vital in this respect.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Does the Minister accept that it is not sufficient merely for the IMC to say that criminality and so on has ceased, but that there is also a need for those who wish to be involved in the Assembly to give full and unequivocal support to the police? It is a case not only of stopping carrying out criminal activities, but of supporting those who are trying to deal with criminality.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Absolutely; I agree 110 per cent. with the hon. Gentleman. I look forward to the day when Sinn Fein Members—and SDLP Members—take their places on the Policing Board. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that adherence to the rule of law is fundamental to the operation of a democratic society and that support for the police in operating in that legislative framework is important. When we debated the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, we discussed the way in which we can, I hope, devolve policing and criminal justice in due course. I understand where hon. Members want to get to, how they want to get there, and the barriers that prevent them from participating in the Assembly, but putting in a legislative framework will not meet that objective. They need certain conditions to be met in order for their confidence to be restored and for their trust in the process to go forward. That is self-evident from their speeches yesterday and today.

I do not believe that amendment No. 1, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, would add anything to the Bill. I hope that I say that in a helpful mode. Leaving aside the slight oddity of one Bill binding this House to the passing of a further Bill, I cannot see how the amendment would have any practical effect, because the Bill already sets three conditions that must be met before devolution can be restored.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned redesignation and the election of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. We have acknowledged that several parties have major concerns about institutional matters that they want to be addressed before the restoration of the Assembly. I am happy to have discussions with the parties in Northern Ireland, including the hon. Gentleman's sister party, the Alliance party. We will talk to David Ford and other colleagues to see whether we can get accommodation and agreement between his sister party and the other parties that are represented in the Assembly. That is essential. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already dealt with this point. By definition, the conditions will not be met until legislation is in place.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving the answer for which I was looking. The amendment was merely a probing amendment. Can he confirm that he will be willing to have such meetings with parties that are willing to make that contribution within, say, the next eight weeks? I ask for that because it has taken us a very long time to get from the original correspondence to a situation where the Government are expressly accepting that some things may need to change.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am happy to have discussions with the parties. I would not wish, for my benefit, to put a time scale on them at this stage—contradictory as that may seem. The hon. Gentleman knows that as well as dealing with legislation and other matters, we are running Departments in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Office therefore has a heavy work load. I will consider the issues and we will hold discussions. However, on the basis of those reassurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment No. 1 to a Division.

I am grateful for the debate, which was helpful, but I hope that the hon. Member for Belfast, North will withdraw his amendment.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I have listened carefully to the Minister's response. I am grateful for his recognition that the IMC report shows work in progress by the IRA. When we listened to some press reports and comments before it was released, it appeared to some of us that there was an attempt to spin it to suggest that no Unionist could now use the IRA as an excuse in the context of restoring devolved Government. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) was right to say that it is essential to examine the IMC report carefully in the round.

It is clear that progress has been made. As we said yesterday, we believe that the Democratic Unionist party can claim much credit for that. Before our position became the dominant one in Unionism, there was a view that the way to get the IRA away from violence was to bring it in and let the violence, drug dealing, intimidation and racketeering continue because being in government and having access to power would gradually wean it from all that. In fact, it had power and continued with its violence, racketeering and so on. We have made it clear that there must be an end to all that before the IRA can access power or authority. That strategy is working. Let us continue to keep up the pressure.

The Minister signally failed to answer the question of what was so magical about the deadline of 24 November. He did not provide one reason or argument to persuade people that the process would be complete by 24 November. No one can say when it will be completed. We all hope and pray, for the good of the people of Northern Ireland, that it will be completed sooner rather than later, but how have the Government arrived at the date of 24 November? No one can say that the IRA will have completed the transformation by that date. We therefore believe that it is wrong to pull down the curtain on the prospects of restoring devolution simply because the IRA may not have fulfilled the necessary conditions to allow Sinn Fein to be part of an Executive in Northern Ireland.

The debate has been useful and we shall not press amendment No. 14 to a Division. Although we believe that it would be useful to include such a provision in the Bill, and we will take account of it along with several other issues when those matters are decided, we will not press it today. However, we shall press amendment No. 10, which covers the deadline, to a Division, for the reasons that I have enunciated. I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury and his colleagues. We hope that as many hon. Members as possible can join us in the Lobby.

Clause 3 — Power to make consequential provision etc

Alan Reid (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I have serious worries about the sweeping dictatorial powers that the clause seems to give the Secretary of State. I want to know why he believes the powers are necessary, and I should like him to give examples of occasions on which he would need to use them.

The clause provides for the Secretary of State to make, by order,

"any supplementary, incidental or consequential provision"

and

"any transitional or saving provision"

that he considers expedient. Clause 4 states that the powers in clause 3 are exercisable by affirmative resolution unless the Secretary of State considers it expedient to pass the orders by negative resolution.

In other words, if the Secretary of State considers it expedient, he can do anything that he likes. He can amend Acts of Parliament without Parliament having to vote. Before we give the Secretary of State those broad powers, we expect an explanation and some examples of the occasions on which he intends to use them.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

I hope that the Minister can give us a few assurances. I listened carefully to what was said by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) and, when I first read the clause, I shared some of his concerns. I hope the Minister will be able to say that the enabling powers given to the Secretary of State are circumscribed by reference to the purposes of the Bill, and also that they would lapse in any case in line with the time limit in the Bill.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

As the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) said, clause 3 allows the Secretary of State to make orders in relation to matters arising as a result of things done under the Bill. It is intended to be used to sweep up any consequential or unforeseen matters relating to, particularly, the recall of the Assembly, the repeal of the 2000 Act, the postponement of elections or the dissolution of the Assembly.

For reasons that I hope are understood by both the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, the Bill was put together in some haste following the decision of the Prime Minister and the Government to adopt this route. Changes may well be needed that would require primary legislation unless we gave the Secretary of State this power. The power is focused and not meant to have a widespread application. The Bill is short and concise and, in any event, the level of detail required in an order made under clause 3 is not suitable for inclusion in primary legislation. In case there is any misunderstanding, I can assure Members that clause 3 cannot be used to effect changes to, for example, the operation of the institutions as envisaged under the comprehensive agreement of December 2004.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Are any of the changes that the Minister might introduce under clause 3 subject to a resolution of either House, or can they be made simply by Executive order?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

In this instance, these are delegated orders for the Secretary of State. As I said, the power applies to particular matters relating to the Bill; it does not have a wider application.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

To save time, can the Minister assure me now that our understanding that the Assembly will be entitled to amend and repeal legislation passed during the period of the Assembly's suspension is correct? It would be useful if he could put that on the record.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

To return first to the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds), such changes will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure of the House; I hope that that is helpful. On the point raised by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), the Assembly can deal with any relevant related matters once it is up and running and has Executive functions, because such functions will relate to matters pertaining to the Assembly's areas of responsibility.

I point out to all four Members who raised issues relating to clause 3 that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of another place has examined it. As the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute knows, the Committee takes a keen interest in these matters, so if we tried to pull a fast one—as the colloquial phrase has it—it would notice. The Committee's report, available today, points out that the powers in the clause are acceptable, and that another place accepts the principle behind it and the degree of parliamentary scrutiny provided for in clause 4, in accordance with the Committee's views on such powers.

I hope that, in the light of those points, I have reassured the hon. Members for Aylesbury, for Argyll and Bute and for Belfast, North. I look forward to their support for the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 — Parliamentary procedure for Orders under Section 3

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

As I have already put on the record my deep distaste and dislike for, and my disapproval of, giving unfettered powers to the Secretary of State through this Bill, it is not my wish to move amendment No. 19.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 — The Assembly

Schedule 2 — Selection of Ministers

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am sure that the Committee will be delighted to know that it is not my intention to move amendment No. 28.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the schedule be the Second schedule to the Bill:—

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I have one question: to clarify what the Minister said before about the Assembly's ability to modify legislation—

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

That is in schedule 3.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I think that it is to do with schedule 3. I am sorry, Mrs. Heal, to detain the Committee, and I thank the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) for putting me right.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3 — No selection of Ministers

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I have been thrown into confusion, because I believe that my question relates to schedule 2 after all—[Interruption.]

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The point still stands, despite the sneaky Tory trick to get me confused. I want the Minister to clarify one important point. In fairness, thanks to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who did some considerable research into the matter, our understanding is that that the reconstituted Assembly would be entitled to modify or repeal any legislation that has been passed, including during suspension. I raise that matter because of a previous suggestion that the Assembly could not alter, modify or repeal legislation that has been passed by Order in Council during suspension. Our understanding—I believe that it is that of the hon. Member for Aylesbury—is that the Assembly is not fettered in that way. It is free to modify any of that legislation. That is important because it is extremely clear to me that we need clarity in the debate and on the record in Hansard, so that there can be no dispute about this matter when the Assembly seeks to modify legislation.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) for speaking to both schedule 2 and, indeed, schedule 3. I assure him that, when the Assembly is fully restored—I emphasise the words "fully restored"—with an Executive, a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister and its full legislative powers, it can obviously have locus in any matter to do with its responsibilities and it can pass any matter that it wishes. I cannot fetter that potential legislative Assembly in the future by orders that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or I pass now. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman and that, with that, he will accept schedule 3.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Order for Third Reading read.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third Time.

I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. All the contributions have been very positive. The way in which the Bill has gone through the House has been an indication and a signal of where Northern Ireland can go in the future. I commend the Bill to the House and hope that all the politicians in the political parties in Northern Ireland will work together to deliver the opportunity that the Bill provides for self-governance in Northern Ireland again.

David Lidington (Conservative, Aylesbury)

What has been striking about the debate has been the clear readiness on the part of all three of the Northern Ireland parties that take their seats in this House to put the dreadful events of the past behind them, however difficult that step may be, and to look to the future. I hope that, with the passage of this Bill, the remaining major party that has, as yet, refused to take its seats in this House will now accept that it must come and take part and accept the same democratic, peaceful nature of politics that is accepted by all other parties here from Northern Ireland constituencies.

Alan Reid (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

The Liberal Democrats, too, support the Bill and we are pleased that we have reached Third Reading. The only disappointment is that the Government rejected amendment No. 6. Given that all the Northern Ireland parties that are represented in the House supported it, I hope that the Government will think again and, in another place, will table that amendment or something similar. That was the shared will of the Northern Ireland parties and we hope that the Government will give effect to that. The Government have set a deadline of 24 November, which we support. There must be no moving away from that deadline. I hope that the Government will emphasise that that definitely is a deadline.

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

I welcome the introduction of the Bill and the fact that we are completing its Third Reading. I hope that the tenor of the Bill and of the debate in the Chamber today and yesterday, which showed what happens when there is a willingness to work forward together, sometimes with a sense of humour—perhaps that was absent in the past—will continue. If we bring that to the round-table conferences that we will be having over the next few months, I sincerely hope, on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, that we can have a new future and a new beginning based on that total trust that we can have in one another. If we fail, it will be because some parties have put party interests before people. I hope that, in this case, the people win and that we carve out the new beginning in Northern Ireland for which we have striven for nearly 40 years. It would be a wonderful achievement if we could do that, not by 24 November, but before the summer recess, because I think that that is possible.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I am glad to follow the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). Yesterday we entered into what I think was a time-sharing arrangement. I would certainly be happy to go even further and enter into a power-sharing arrangement with the hon. Gentleman and his party as soon as possible, even before the summer recess. Certainly we have had a very good debate over the past few days.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) said, we are a devolutionist party. We want devolution. We have challenges ahead of us, but we are determined to try to meet those challenges. We go into this new Assembly in a positive mode. We are glad of the opportunity to debate issues of relevance to the people of Northern Ireland and we hope that we can get full restoration, but there are conditions. The IRA and Sinn Fein must become a fully democratic party. I think that Ministers have recognised that in the debate. We look forward to completing the road that we are now on.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third Time, and passed.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. Will all hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber please do so as quickly and quietly as possible?