Northern Ireland

– in the House of Lords at 5:36 pm on 18 April 2006.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Lord Rooker Lord Rooker Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, Deputy Leader of the House of Lords 5:36, 18 April 2006

My Lords, with permission, I will repeat a Statement made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the other place. The Statement is as follows:

"Mr Speaker, with permission I wish to make a Statement about the future of Northern Ireland. These last 10 years have seen many crucial decision points in the peace process. One was eight years ago when the people chose peace over conflict, consent over coercion, a positive future over a poisonous past. Now there is another choice.

"Before the end of this year, Northern Ireland's political leaders and elected Assembly Members must decide whether to take responsibility for their people's future, as they have been mandated to do, or to opt for political cryonics. They must decide to bring an end to Northern Ireland's democratic deficit or to see locally unaccountable direct rule stretch into the foreseeable future.

"I firmly believe that Northern Ireland is governed best when governed locally. I firmly believe that that view is shared by the people of Northern Ireland. Now is the time to prove them right.

"Direct rule was a 1970s solution to a 1970s problem. Since then, Northern Ireland has moved on and changed beyond all recognition. It is light years away from the Troubles. Where once there was economic stagnation, now there is vibrancy. Where once there was the futility of cyclical violence, there is now the stability and prosperity of peace. And where once the political landscape was riven by sectarianism, there is now a shared desire from all the parties to move forwards and take their proper places in the devolved institutions into which they were elected. The only real argument is when and how.

"The experiences of devolution in Scotland and Wales have demonstrated the huge benefits which local politicians exercising locally accountable power can reap. Both nations have seen increased self-confidence, increased economic growth, increased social cohesion and an increased international profile. Northern Ireland has also undergone a positive transitional experience, but the potential of full devolution remains tantalisingly out of reach.

"The blunt truth is that Northern Ireland is in great danger of being left behind as not only the rest of the United Kingdom strides on successfully, but as the Republic of Ireland continues to be one of the biggest global success stories of our generation. It is now for Northern Ireland's politicians to catch up—and catch up fast. Northern Ireland's people demand nothing less.

"From sport to science, from culture to business, Northern Ireland has some of the brightest talent anywhere in the world. It is time that its politicians lived up to that promise and showed vision and courage.

"The arrangements which the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach outlined on 6 April give Northern Ireland's politicians the chance to close the chapter on the mistrust that has blighted the process since suspension of the institutions in October 2002. But if the parties do not choose to close that chapter of mistrust soon, the Government will be forced to close the book on devolution for the foreseeable future.

"The IMC has stated unequivocally that the IRA no longer represents a terrorist threat. That is momentous and should be acknowledged as such. Where there are issues around criminality those must be—and indeed are being—addressed by the police, and with the support of the whole community. And where there are issues around trust, they can be resolved only by political dialogue.

"Over the past few months we have held discussions with all parties in Northern Ireland with a view to restoring the political institutions. However, as the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach made clear in their joint statement of 6 April, we cannot, and will not, try to force Northern Ireland's politicians to take that final step forwards. We can only point them towards what we believe to be the best road ahead.

"We have come to the point at which those outside of the Northern Ireland political parties themselves can do little more to facilitate the process. I know that the decisions which will have to be taken are not easy ones. But I honestly believe that history will not look kindly on those who miss the opportunity that stands before us.

"Copies of the joint statement made by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach on 6 April have been placed in the Libraries of the House, as have the speeches they delivered. I am further placing the Prime Minister's speech on the record in a written Ministerial Statement tomorrow. The joint statement indicated that the Northern Ireland Assembly would be recalled on 15 May, with a view to reaching agreement to restore the institutions by 24 November. Last week I nominated a new Presiding Officer, Eileen Bell. I have every hope that she will soon be overseeing the transition of the Assembly to full devolution. A woman of real courage, strength and ability, she is highly regarded by all and could be the symbol of a new political era of co-operation and progress, leaving behind sectarianism and division.

"We will aim to discuss with the parties next week how the Assembly will function after 15 May, including its standing orders. I will be introducing an emergency Bill on 20 April, for taking through the House of Commons next week. The Bill will receive a Commons Second Reading on 26 April, with the Committee and all subsequent stages following on 27 April. I know that this is an extremely tight timetable, but the Bill will have only about half a dozen clauses in total and Members will appreciate the urgency. We need to get the parties back in the Assembly and talking now to provide them with the maximum opportunity for securing agreement by 24 November at the very latest.

"The Bill arranges for the Assembly to be recalled with the express purpose that it sets about electing a First and Deputy First Minister on a cross-community basis and then forms an executive, under the d'Hondt formula. As soon as this is done, power will automatically be devolved, as happened in December 1999, and all the Assembly's other functions will be resumed.

"Our hope and intention is that the Assembly will elect an executive within six weeks, as envisaged by Paragraph 35 of Strand One of the Good Friday agreement. However, if this time frame proves too short, the Assembly will have a further 12-week period after the summer in which to complete the task. During this period, it will be open to the parties to engage in further discussion, both among themselves and with the Government, on improving the running of the institutions.

"The Assembly will also have opportunities to prepare for government by considering issues crucial to the future of Northern Ireland, such as the economy and reforms to education, water charges and public administration.

"This Bill will have obvious implications for Orders in Council. Some of the forthcoming Northern Ireland legislation on transferred matters will obviously be appropriate for consideration by the restored Assembly, and Ministers will naturally be willing to take account of views on such matters, if they are provided on a cross-community basis. It would be preferable to all democrats that the parties were quickly to take up the mantle of government so that the decisions which affect the everyday lives of people in Northern Ireland were taken by locally accountable politicians. However, in the mean time, I will not delay in implementing vital reforms which this Government consider essential to the better running of Northern Ireland. While these decisions may not always be popular, they are necessary in the public interest, to put Northern Ireland on the road to becoming world class.

"If, however, the Assembly has been unable to achieve a power-sharing executive by 24 November, then there will be no choice but to cancel Assembly Members' salaries and allowances forthwith, and to cancel the election due in May 2007. It would be absurd to elect Members unwilling to discharge their duties to an Assembly that will not have sat for over four and a half years. Restoration of the Assembly and executive would then be deferred until there was a renewed political willingness to exercise devolved power.

"The two Governments would then continue their commitment to developing north/south co-operation and structures as set out in the Good Friday agreement. In this scenario, the agreement would remain very much alive. It is crucial that the parties keep talking, not just to the two Governments but to each other. We are committed to facilitating dialogue to achieve this over the months ahead in whatever forum is required—full plenary sessions of the Assembly, smaller forums of designated members, or all-party discussions, including with the Prime Ministers.

"I want to emphasise that the strategy which the two Governments have agreed is designed for success, not failure. Our overwhelming desire is that local politicians take power back into their own hands, just as Scotland and Wales have done to great effect. It is time for Northern Ireland's politicians to show leadership and good faith—in themselves, in each other and in the people who elected them".

My Lords, that concludes the Secretary of State's Statement.

Photo of Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran Shadow Minister (Sport), Culture, Media & Sport, Shadow Minister, Northern Ireland 5:46, 18 April 2006

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State in the other place. We shall want to look carefully at the details of the emergency legislation that the Government intend to bring forward very soon. Broadly, however, we are supportive of the initiative announced by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach in County Armagh on 6 April. We share the desire of Her Majesty's Government to see devolution restored to Northern Ireland on a fully inclusive basis. We want to see locally accountable politicians taking most of the decisions that affect people's everyday lives.

As the Secretary of State reminded the other place, it is now four and a half years since the Assembly was suspended. It would clearly be wrong for us to have another set of elections in May 2007 to an Assembly that not only is not sitting but which shows no sign of sitting in the foreseeable future. So we back the recall of the Assembly next month and hope sincerely that it will be possible for an executive to be formed by the end of November. However, we should be clear that the chief responsibility for that becoming a reality actually rests with the republican movement, Sinn Fein/IRA.

Does the Minister agree that it is for the republicans now to take the final steps required to help to build the necessary confidence within the unionist community to allow power-sharing? We agree that the republican movement has come a long way in the past year, and the IRA's statement of 28 July and the act of decommissioning in September were highly significant developments. But does the Minister accept that until such time as the IRA has ended all forms of criminal activity and Sinn Fein has given its unequivocal backing to the judicial processes and the police, it would be wrong to have Sinn Fein Ministers in the government of Northern Ireland? Does he further accept that these moves must come before an executive can be formed and not at some unspecified point in future, when actual policing and justice powers have been devolved?

The Secretary of State will be aware of the words of the Irish Justice Minister last Tuesday, following the interception by the Irish police of €300,000-worth of hijacked vodka, in which three Provisional IRA members were arrested. He said:

"As long as the IRA continues to exist and the IRA constitution continues to be treasonable and subversive, then problems will continue to remain".

Does the noble Lord share this assessment?

The joint statement issued by the British and Irish Prime Ministers a week last Thursday made reference to the Assembly preparing for government by dealing with issues with which a future executive will have to deal, including economic strategy, water rates, public administration and education. Will the Minister now agree to put off his proposed education reforms at least until such time as the Assembly has considered them and its views are known and understood? He will be aware that the last Education Minister under devolution announced his plans in this area immediately prior to suspension, so the Assembly has never properly debated them.

Regarding the internal government of Northern Ireland, will the Minister confirm that this remains entirely a matter for the United Kingdom Government, accountable to this Parliament? We greatly value our relationship with the Government of the Republic of Ireland, and commend the efforts and commitment of the Taoiseach to a lasting settlement. The joint statement refers to implications for the British and Irish Governments should this initiative fail, and talks about a step change in north/south co-operation. We welcome the fact that in recent days the Secretary of State has rejected some of the greener interpretations of this paragraph, and clarified that it does not amount to joint authority between the British and Irish governments.

Finally, I invite the noble Lord to go a little further today and confirm that any form of joint authority would be in breach of the consent principle at the heart of the Belfast agreement, and is not something Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to consider.

Photo of Lord Smith of Clifton Lord Smith of Clifton Spokesperson in the Lords, Northern Ireland Affairs 5:52, 18 April 2006

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. We on these Benches have also welcomed the IMC statement that the IRA no longer represents a terrorist threat. We recognise the significance of this, but share the Minister's concern regarding the ongoing involvement of paramilitaries in criminal activity on both the loyalist and republican sides. We also pay tribute to Eileen Bell, who has been appointed to be Presiding Officer. We have worked with her for many years, and look forward to her being a success in that role.

We also welcome the fact that the Government have now set a clear target for the reconstitution of the Assembly. My one criticism is that this has come a little too late. I suggested to this House over two years ago that we should reconvene the Assembly, and that we should give a fixed date for the termination of people's salaries if they did not participate fully in its workings. I cannot disagree with what is being done because I urged it a long time ago. I was told that it would need primary legislation and all sorts of other things. I thought that was not very satisfactory, because one of the jobs of this House, along with the other place, is to initiate primary legislation. I welcome the proposed Bill, and we will support it.

As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, it would be enormously encouraging if there were a cessation, or at least a considerable abatement, of paramilitary activity, and of criminal activity in particular. On the other side there will be a need for the Democratic Unionist Party to be more flexible in making this work, because if it retains its intransigent position, the situation is doomed to failure.

I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, says about any sharing with Dublin of the sovereignty of Northern Ireland. I agree with the legalities of that, but, as I also said two years ago, invoking the ire of the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, there will nevertheless be a de facto condominium. That is what the DUP should think about very carefully, because it is clearly going to happen. I do not want it to happen—I would much prefer devolution—but, as night follows day, it will be the logical outcome if Stormont is not up and running again.

Broadly speaking, I welcome the Statement, while realising that it will be very tricky to bring the situation to a satisfactory conclusion. The job of this Government is far from over. They must continue to work with the parties in Northern Ireland to ensure that the Assembly is recalled on a permanent basis. Far too often in recent years, Northern Ireland has been subjected to quick-fix solutions which have ultimately failed.

If this latest effort to restore the Assembly is to work, the Government must establish round-table negotiations which involve all the political parties. Will the Minister give a commitment today to establish such discussions? Will he assure the House that there will be no secret side deals with one or two of the parties, and does he recognise that, to achieve a permanent solution, all the parties in Northern Ireland must be in agreement on the way to go forward?

Photo of Lord Rooker Lord Rooker Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, Deputy Leader of the House of Lords 5:55, 18 April 2006

My Lords, I am most grateful for the positive response from both noble Lords. I am not in a position to answer some of the more detailed questions of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran; I will have to deal first with the Bill. I would rather take the opportunity to read what took place in the other place while I was in Grand Committee. It goes without saying that criminality has to stop. There is no excuse for it. As I have said previously, if you are not on the side of the police, you are on the side of the muggers, the rapists and everybody else. It is as simple as that. There is no grey area: you are either with the police in fighting crime, or you are not.

Legislation to modernise and devolve the police service is in the other place, so there will be plenty of opportunities for discussing these issues as well. There will be no excuse for anybody to say that they did not know who was running the police and other such things. However, if I go about answering the detailed questions which were asked, we could be in trouble.

We have to make it absolutely clear that, whatever might have been said, hinted at or spun, the UK Government have no legal authority whatever to pull out of governing Northern Ireland. In other words, the internal governance of Northern Ireland remains the exclusive responsibility of the British Government. There is no question about that. You cannot divorce some issues on the island of Ireland and it makes sense to co-operate on them, but there is no question of joint authority. There will not be any joint authority. Along with other Ministers, I am responsible to this House in Westminster. Just as I will not be responsible to the Northern Ireland Assembly when it is recalled, I am not responsible to the Government in the south. I am responsible to this place, and other Ministers are responsible to the Commons. The sovereignty and the buck stop here at Westminster—there is no argument about that. That does not mean that there cannot, and will not, be greater and deeper co-operation on relevant north/south issues.

As the noble Lord, Lord Smith, said, the parties have got to work together. Northern Ireland is almost unique in the sense that it is the one area of the world where political parties get elected and do not want to start pulling the levers of power. That is not easy to understand, although I understand the history. If the parties were to come to the table and, wherever they come from, to think that they had got a piece of success or could get a share of it, rather than victory, defeat, failure or dominance, we might be able to go forward. As the Statement made clear, this is predicated on success and not on failure.

Some of the issues raised by the questions are currently before Parliament and, as the Secretary of State said, they will be taken seriously, particularly where there are cross-party views in the Assembly. Some of the issues are before this House and the other place as I speak. Education was mentioned; the Secretary of State has made it clear that teachers, parents and children need to plan for the year ahead and it is intended now to abolish the transfer test. But there is a wide range of other issues that need to be addressed, including the way in which pupil profiles are to be used, the content of the curriculum and the entitlement framework. Those will be open for a recalled Assembly to consider on a cross-community basis and to come forward with ideas.

The fact is that the Assembly will not have the power to take such decisions and be responsible for them until there is agreement to set up a power-sharing executive. That is what we want. We are not holding back. Our success will be measured by whether our direct-rule Ministers are out of Northern Ireland. But the Assembly will not be able to have it both ways. We want a cross-party Assembly. We will genuinely take account of what is said, but we are not accountable to it. That is the point. We are accountable to this Parliament. We want the Assembly to have its own executive to which it can give orders and over which it can exercise power. That is up to Assembly Members and they have been given a date by which it is intended to happen—namely, 24 November.

Other orders and processes of legislation, which we have made clear are still some way off, are contentious and involve hundreds of millions of pounds of public expenditure—for example, the water reform process and reform of the rating system. All those issues are matters for the Assembly. We just want it to get to work; this is an attempt to get it to work.

It is no good mentioning particular incidents of criminality, because I will not defend any of them. They are all unacceptable. It does not matter where they come from; they must all be condemned by all democratic parties. There are no hints here that some crime is okay. All crime is off as far as democratic political partners are concerned, particularly those that want to share the exercising of power.

The Secretary of State has made it clear that we will listen. We are doing our best, but, as direct-rule Ministers, we are second best—that is self-evident. However, a reform process is under way in Northern Ireland across a range of issues, whether it be the economy or public administration, and we are determined that the people of Northern Ireland should not lose out because of the delays.

There is no guarantee of success by 24 November, but we want this to be a success and we want to be out of there as direct-rule Ministers. Members of the Assembly are well able to do it themselves. That is what they want and, frankly, that is what we think the people of Northern Ireland want as well.

Photo of Lord Laird Lord Laird Crossbench 6:03, 18 April 2006

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in another place. Obviously, there are a lot of good sentiments and good words in the Statement. I would be keen to see a world-class Northern Ireland and much of the Statement referred positively to the Province that is my native land.

However, deadlines may not be a good idea in Northern Ireland—not that the unionist community could not keep to deadlines. The problem is that the criminality of Sinn Fein/IRA may not positively be over. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred to £200,000-worth of drink being stolen in the south of Ireland. Is the Minister aware that Thomas Maxwell, who is currently in gaol in the Irish Republic on charges of stealing that £200,000-worth of vodka, was the Sinn Fein official who took the two clergymen and General de Chastelain around the arms dumps in the autumn of last year—only six months ago? He is now charged with stealing £200,000-worth of drink, so it is hard to see how Sinn Fein/IRA is divorcing itself heavily from criminality.

In answer to a Question on 10 May last year, at col. WA 62, the Minister indicated that £1.43 billion had been lost to HMG by fuel laundering in Northern Ireland over the past four years. If we take the period from 2000 to the end of 2005, the figure is £2.1 billion. That does not take into consideration the drugs, the VAT swindles that relate to drink and the cigarettes. It is all there to see. A friend of mine recently spent a number of hours in South Armagh. He counted exactly 50 unmarked fuel-laundering tankers in the South Armagh area.

Photo of Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Government Whip

My Lords, may I gently remind the noble Lord that one must make a brief comment or ask direct questions? Neither he nor I know how many other noble Lords want to speak.

Photo of Lord Laird Lord Laird Crossbench

My Lords, I appreciate those words, but I am asking this in the form of a question: does the Minister know this? It is extremely important for the people of Northern Ireland. The noble Lord raised the issue of the 19 per cent increase in the rates bill. That is not acceptable; it would be acceptable only if all the money that the IRA is taking out of the system, such as the £1.4 billion, was collected by the Government. Why are we being asked to pay extra money? Is that pressure put on the people of Northern Ireland with a view to making the communities more susceptible to devolution? There will be no devolution until all criminality has been stopped and clearly stopped. We do not want a situation where the normal people in Northern Ireland are being asked to pay through their rates for the activities of the IRA. Can I also ask the Minister—

Photo of Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Government Whip

My Lords, with the greatest respect, I must ask the noble Lord to cease with that number of questions. This debate is time limited to 20 minutes and other noble Lords will not be able to speak.

Photo of Lord Laird Lord Laird Crossbench

My Lords, may I ask one final question? Will the noble Lord include in the debates and discussions to do with the recall of the Assembly and the discussions with the various parties the provision of British passports for anyone who lives in the island of Ireland?

Photo of Lord Rooker Lord Rooker Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, Deputy Leader of the House of Lords

My Lords, there was one question of substance in the first two seconds: it was on deadlines. The deadline is 24 November. It will be in the Bill and it will not be shifted. If devolution is not back by then, it will not be back in the foreseeable future. Do not assume that the status quo of existing direct rule will continue, because the present ministries need looking at. That is the reality; it is a deadline that will be stuck to.

Photo of Lord Tebbit Lord Tebbit Conservative

My Lords, is the Minister entirely sure that the best democratic way forward in Northern Ireland is to threaten the people of Northern Ireland that unless the Assembly does what the Government want, it will be abolished? Will he at least consider allowing another election to see whether the people of Northern Ireland will elect a new Assembly that either agrees with the Government or is as obdurate as the present one? I have a further question. The Minister said that one was either on the side of the police or the murderers. Does he believe that Sinn Fein/IRA is on the side of the police today? Does he believe that Adams and McGuinness and their tribe of familiars are going to ditch their former henchmen and gunmen to the police in the interests of justice?

Photo of Lord Rooker Lord Rooker Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, Deputy Leader of the House of Lords

My Lords, on the first part of the question, we are not threatening anyone with anything. The Assembly that is there now was elected during the time that the Assembly has been suspended. We are simply asking it to do what it was elected to do: to govern Northern Ireland. That is what the Assembly was there for: to deliberate and, indeed, to legislate; and to keep accountable an executive branch of government over there. That is what we are asking it to do, and a new election clearly would not satisfy that. We are faced with a new election next year, but for what? For four and a half years without an Assembly operating? I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that this is not a threat; we are just asking the Assembly to do what it was elected and paid to do—to deliberate and to hold a power-sharing executive to account. We want to give it an opportunity to do that.

There is no need for me to expand on what I have said. What I have said today about being for or against the police in Northern Ireland, I have said on at least four other occasions over the past 12 months, so there is no need for me to spell it out. Everyone knows exactly what I mean.

Photo of Lord Dubs Lord Dubs Labour

My Lords, I welcome the Statement and, in particular, I welcome the setting of a deadline. After so many years of nothing happening, it is right to make people face the realities. However, will my noble friend comment on one point? In the event—I hope that it is a most unlikely event—that the executive and the institutions are not restored, would it be helpful if the Government were to spell out in some detail their suggestions for dealing with north/south co-operation as a way of letting the politicians in Northern Ireland know the alternative to their inability to come to a decision?

Photo of Lord Rooker Lord Rooker Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, Deputy Leader of the House of Lords

My Lords, I do not want to go beyond what was in the Statement. We know that practical north/south co-operation is in everyone's interests. That is currently the case, for example, with regard to bird flu. Disease control in food production animals does not recognise the border. Public health is an issue on which we have to work together. A whole area of north/south co-operation is in everyone's interests. The question related—it was inferred from previous Statements—to joint control over the internal governance of Northern Ireland. But there will not be any joint control over the internal governance of Northern Ireland because that remains a matter for the British Government.

Photo of Lord Kilclooney Lord Kilclooney Crossbench

My Lords, I welcome the general thrust of the Minister's repetition of the Statement made in another place. Northern Ireland is going through a wonderful period at the moment. Generally there is peace and the economy is growing at a far more rapid rate than it is in many other parts of the United Kingdom or, indeed, in western Europe.

The statement made in Armagh by the two Prime Ministers has, none the less, set alarm bells ringing across Northern Ireland because it did not simply imply what would happen if the Assembly created by the Belfast agreement failed. At the moment it appears to me that it will fail because the situation is not like that of Scotland and Wales, as has been simplistically stated, with elected representatives forming a devolved government. The Stormont Assembly and executive are different: it is a case of forcing those who are elected to work together—law-abiding elected Members and those who are involved in criminality. That is the big difference between Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh.

The IRA still exists. As the southern Irish Prime Minister said, the IRA and Sinn Fein are inextricably linked, and, as the Independent Monitoring Commission report stated, the IRA is still involved in criminality. So, as of today, the Government are asking law-abiding Members elected to Stormont to form a government with those with that kind of background. It cannot succeed. But does the Minister understand that it can succeed if the criminality ceases and if the IRA ceases to operate? If these people are so intent on being democrats, why do they not say that the IRA no longer exists? It is as simple as that. But it is still there and it is still involved in criminality. That is the problem.

Does the Minister understand the second major problem—that is, that alarm bells are beginning to ring again across Northern Ireland, which could eventually lead to violence returning? Those alarm bells are within the loyalist community—in the streets of Belfast and in the valleys and hills of western Ulster. I trust that everyone recalls the reaction to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Certainly, the noble Lord, Lord King, who is beside me, will recall the events of that time. I warn that the alarm bells are beginning to ring as a result of what the two Prime Ministers said was the alternative option to the success of the Belfast agreement. They did not just give the impression that there was co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, which I fully support—I am involved in business in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland with no problem whatever—but implied that there would be an extension of the involvement of the Republic of Ireland in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland, which is an entirely different matter. That is why the alarm bells are now ringing and I fear that that means that the loyalist paramilitaries will delay their decommissioning.

Photo of Lord Rooker Lord Rooker Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, Deputy Leader of the House of Lords

My Lords, with what has been said in the other place and what I have said in this House, I hope that the alarm bells on the second aspect can be switched off. There is no question whatever about any joint control or joint sovereignty, or anything like that. I cannot make it any clearer than that. From what was said and what was printed, I understand why the alarm bells rang, but they can be switched off. It may not be very productive for me to second-guess what the parties will do on 15 May. The Assembly will be recalled and a presiding officer will be chosen. The structures are there. A short Bill will set out the rules for the Assembly. Obviously, the Assembly will not mirror exactly what happened before, because we want to give it time to get a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister, if possible. If that is not possible, there will be the summer recess—a 12-week gap—before 24 November, the final date.

I would not want to second-guess the situation. As I understand it—I have not been personally involved—enough discussions and talks have taken place in recent months, which culminated in the two Prime Ministers making their statements on 6 April. I do not want to second-guess the parties' views. We have set the ball rolling to reinstate the Assembly and we have to take a positive view of that. I hope that the second aspect raised by the noble Lord can be hit on the head very severely.

Photo of Lord Hylton Lord Hylton Crossbench

My Lords, I welcome the Government's efforts to concentrate the minds of the elected representatives in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, it is clear that we are still faced with a deeply divided society. Therefore, I regret that we in this Parliament are to be faced with a very hurried legislative timetable. I also somewhat regret the way in which the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Laird, sought to place the whole burden for making progress on the IRA. Have Ministers received evidence that a large, so-called loyalist paramilitary group is beginning to consider demilitarisation and decriminalisation? If, in practice, that should happen, would that not completely transform the political climate?

Photo of Lord Rooker Lord Rooker Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, Deputy Leader of the House of Lords

My Lords, I do not have any information on the final question raised by the noble Lord that I can usefully give the House. On the legislative timetable, I am told that the Bill is short. As the Statement said, it has only six or seven clauses. However, I believe that the Bill that took us into the Common Market was also a short Bill, so one cannot measure the length of time needed for the passage of a Bill by the number of clauses in it—in my years in both Houses, I have learnt that fact. However, the Bill is a very precisely targeted piece of legislation just to get the Assembly up and running and to give it extra time to see if it can choose a First Minister and a power-sharing executive. If not, there will be a recess—a 12-week period—in which to have another crack at it. In the mean time, there will be a chance to facilitate discussion on a range of issues affecting the people of Northern Ireland, of which Ministers can take account.

Photo of Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Conservative

My Lords, in his Statement, the Secretary of State said:

"I will not delay in implementing vital reforms which this Government consider essential to the better running of Northern Ireland [and] . . . to put Northern Ireland on the road to becoming world class".

What are those particular reforms, and are they conducive to resolving the present crux?

Photo of Lord Rooker Lord Rooker Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, Deputy Leader of the House of Lords

My Lords, some of them were the subject of discussion in Grand Committee this afternoon, regarding the reform of public administration and local government. I also answered in some detail on the issue of education, another issue which people touched on. I have mentioned the issue of water reform, and there are some quite serious issues regarding domestic rating reform and the structure of local government finance. Some of the processes are well under way. This House deals with dozens of orders, which can take a longer period of time. We can therefore listen to the deliberations in the Assembly over this period in the summer.

Photo of Baroness Park of Monmouth Baroness Park of Monmouth Conservative

My Lords, perhaps the Minister can tell us whether in the many discussions that there are clearly going to be between the Government and the Assembly we will at any stage make it a requirement that the McCartney case comes to court and that the IRA recognises the existence of British justice. It seems to me that that is a test case that will make a lot of difference to anyone's belief in the possible future of an honourable, sensible Northern Ireland. The other point is that I would suggest that it might be worth while to do two things: first, to ensure that everybody understands that in the south, in Dublin, Sinn Fein is almost as much considered a threat by the ruling government as it is anywhere else. That may well allay people's anxieties about a joint condominium of Northern Ireland, because I think that both ends of the country have reason to worry about that. Secondly, I hope very much that it will be made very clear that there will be no private deals such as that on the on-the-runs. We need reassurance on that point too.

Photo of Lord Rooker Lord Rooker Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, Deputy Leader of the House of Lords

My Lords, I personally know of no private deals that have taken place or are planned. I do not think it would be helpful for me to comment in detail on the noble Baroness's first question, although it is a legitimate question that people will want to ask. The point is that the political parties need to build trust in this period of time. Each of them probably knows that to build that degree of trust it needs to get around the table. I gave an example earlier this afternoon where all four parties recently had discussions on domestic, local matters. They need to build that bit of trust if each of them wants any share of the success. The test in a way is: do they want a piece of the success? If they do, they have to build the trust of other parties. Most of the parties over there know what they need to do in order to do that.