Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]
8:55 am
Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)
As members of the official Opposition, we were consulted about this matter yesterday. We have no objections to such a proposal. We accept that the discussions have continued longer than was first thought necessary. It would be proper for the Minister of State to be in Committee for further consideration of the Bill, but we accept that it is sensible for her to be in Northern Ireland for the talks. We have no complaints about that. The substance of what is being discussed there is not a matter for us.
However, the pertinent subject that I raised when we debated the original programming motion is a matter for us. I had an inkling that we might be in such a position this morning. If I understood the newspapers correctly, part of the talks that are taking place concern policing in Northern Ireland. It is not for the Committee to argue whether it is right or wrong to hold such discussions. However, it is essential for the Government to understand that in agreeing to their request, we are not agreeing that the Committee should in future be used as a vehicle for implementing what may be agreed over the next 24 or 48 hours. I made it clear at the beginning that our proceedings in Committee concern a Bill that started in the House of Lords. It was discussed fully there, and it was discussed on Second Reading, when the whole of the House of Commons could participate. It is now being considered in detail here.
I should be grateful if the Minister could assure us that when we resume consideration of the Bill, it is the Bill, and the Bill alone, that we will be dealing with. If the Government reach agreement with the parties in Northern Ireland to change policing, that should be the subject of separate legislation, so that both Houses of Parliament can have a full debate on the Second Reading of any such Bill.
I am grateful that we were consulted yesterday, but we were given some dates and times when the Committee should sit again. That was not a matter for consultation; it seemed a little like a ''take it or leave it'' statement. In order for a Programming Sub-Committee to meet when there is not universal agreement, proper notice has to be given. I should be
grateful for your ruling, Mr. Benton. While supporting the Minister's proposal that further consideration be adjourned, I am not suggesting in any way, shape or form that Her Majesty's Opposition agree with the other matters that have been proposed. They should be matters for consultation.