House of Commons
Tuesday 21 November 2006
The House met at half-past Two o’clock
Prayers
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
WAYS AND MEANS
Sessional Returns
Ordered,
That returns be laid before the House for Session 2005-06 of information and statistics relating to—
(1) Business of the House;
(2) Closure of Debate, Proposal of Question and Allocation of Time (including Programme Motions;
(3) Sittings of the House;
(4) Private Bills and Private Business;
(5) Public Bills;
(6) Delegated Legislation and Regulatory Reform Orders:
(7) European Legislation, etc;
(8) Grand Committees;
(9) Chairmen’s Panel; and
(10) Select Committees.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Oral Answers to Questions
Transport
The Secretary of State was asked—
Roads
The initial work conducted by my Department indicates that a well designed road pricing scheme could offer real potential to cut congestion. The draft road transport Bill will seek to increase the opportunity for local authorities to introduce pricing pilots. Those pilots will help to inform decisions about national road pricing.
Will the Secretary of State please tell us whether provision for road pricing will be made in the draft road transport Bill—[Interruption.]
Forgive me, Mr. Speaker, but I did not fully hear the hon. Gentleman’s question. Will he repeat it?
Will the Secretary of State please tell us if provision for road pricing will be made in the draft road transport Bill?
I am grateful for the clarification. The intention in the draft Bill will be to make it easier to establish local pilots. Concern has been expressed in the House about the interoperability of technologies; we are discussing that and similar matters with local authorities. However, our intention would be to introduce separate legislation, were we to decide in due course to introduce a national system of road pricing. That is not the intention in the draft Bill.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend is familiar with the statistical bulletin, “Traffic Speeds in English Urban Areas: 2004”, which shows clearly that the speed of traffic in almost every urban centre in Greater Manchester is increasing. Why then is it sensible to start examination of congestion charging in Greater Manchester, rather than on inter-urban roads for which the Government are responsible and which are becoming more congested?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that characteristically helpful observation on transport publications. Our intention is to work effectively with local authorities as they develop local solutions to local problems. I have met representatives of the Manchester local authorities as they develop local solutions that work to meet the needs of the local economy. They are worried that, if congestion is not tackled in the months and years to come, it will have considerable potential to affect the economic dynamism and regeneration of that city.
Is not national road pricing just another excuse to tax the already over-taxed motorist, especially given that the alternative—public transport—is almost entirely absent in many parts of the country, including rural areas? Where there is provision in the form of commuter trains, for instance, they are full to the brim, uncomfortable to travel in, and almost unsafe. What will the Minister do about that?
We have seen considerable improvements in performance and reliability on Britain’s railways. I have to say that I struggle to understand the Conservative party’s position on road pricing, notwithstanding the terms of the question that I have just been asked. On 8 November, the Leader of the Opposition said that he was interested in
“new solutions for road charging based on usage and time of day”.
That seems to me to be wholly at odds with the hon. Lady’s question.
In metropolitan areas, if road pricing is not to end up being just another unpopular tax, it must be preceded by attractive, affordable and efficient public transport alternatives to the car. What plans does the Secretary of State have to provide such services?
I fully agree that, if local schemes are to be successful, it is essential that they be partnered by the sort of improvements in public transports for which my hon. Friend has campaigned for many years. I believe that the transport innovation fund offers real potential to achieve local solutions to local problems. A key element of tackling those problems will be improvement in the public transport offerings in those communities.
It might be easier to make a decision on road pricing strategy if we clearly understood the Government’s policy. May I press the Secretary of State on that? When the Prime Minister wrote to the right hon. Gentleman appointing him Secretary of State, he stated:
“We therefore need to advance the debate on the introduction of a national road-user charging scheme…. I would like you to identify the other key steps for the successful introduction of road-user charging within the next decade.”
However, at Transport questions last month, the Secretary of State said,
“At the previous Transport Question Time, I made it clear that the anticipated time scale, if a national road pricing scheme were to be developed, would be the middle of the next decade.”—[Official Report, 17 October 2006; Vol. 450, c. 715.]
Is it the Government’s strategy to introduce a national road pricing scheme, or not?
Our intention at this stage is to advance the debate on a national road pricing scheme, while we develop learning and expertise based on the local pilots that will be facilitated by the draft Bill announced in the Gracious Speech last week. It seems to us entirely consistent to say that we should have practical experience on the ground which will, in turn, inform the national debate and the decision on whether to have a national road pricing scheme in the next 10 years.
That is a maybe.
Indeed it is. Let us press the Secretary of State on the technology and the learning. When his predecessor first outlined the strategy, he said that such a scheme would be based on satellite technology. Does it remain the Secretary of State’s policy to use satellite-based technology to underpin a national scheme, and will it be a requirement that any pilot use that technology, to ensure that it can serve as a meaningful pilot for a national scheme?
The hon. Gentleman has on previous occasions, at the Dispatch Box and in speeches outside the House, raised concerns about the technology that would be appropriate for a national system of road pricing. For exactly that reason, we are engaged in discussions on technology solutions not only with the private sector but with local authorities to ensure that we gain experience that is scalable, so that it can inform a national system of road pricing, and appropriate given the technology challenges that we face. I would have thought that the Opposition would be keen for us to work with the private sector and with local authorities to ensure that we get the right technology in place.
In the spirit of the Secretary of State’s reply, will he support two Bills that I am about to introduce to Parliament, on the Ramsgate pilot scheme for road pricing and on entry to England from Scotland road pricing? They would enable him to test his technologies at £1.50 a car, which is the sentence that he is giving to my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) when he expects them to pay £1.50 each time they cross the River Thames. That is unacceptable; he can experiment as much as he likes, but he cannot do it with the people of Kent or Essex.
I fear I might disappoint my hon. Friend, but on the basis of his advocacy of the two Bills that he is proposing, it is unlikely that I will be able to support him in the Division Lobby.
Transport Innovation Fund
The transport innovation fund money will become available from 2008-09. However, in advance of that, in November 2005, my predecessor awarded pump-priming funding to seven areas to develop transport innovation fund proposals to tackle congestion. On 6 November, I announced to the House that three further areas were being awarded money.
I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. In Wigan, the poor transport infrastructure is a major factor in holding back economic regeneration. Will he ensure that economic regeneration is at the forefront of decisions on exactly where to allocate the transport innovation fund in the future?
As I have said, I have already been engaged in discussions with Greater Manchester authorities about the potential use of the transport innovation fund. I shall ensure that the points raised by my hon. Friend are passed on directly.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the fastest growing and most congested areas in the UK is north-east Wales and west Cheshire, where the Deeside hub project is taking forward cross-border arrangements? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the fact that the transport innovation fund is restricted to England will not prevent proposals from being taken forward to ease congestion affecting the cross-border region?
I am glad to say that we are seeing economic growth not only in one part of the United Kingdom but across it. I have had the opportunity in recent weeks to meet the Transport Minister of the Welsh Assembly Government, and I will be happy to take up the point raised by my hon. Friend.
Buses
I have taken account of the concerns that many hon. Members have raised with me on the standard of deregulated bus services and will shortly set out proposals on the direction of future bus policy. Legislative measures will be included in the draft road transport Bill.
It used to be a joke when people said, “You wait for hours and then three come at once”, but that is exactly the impact of deregulation on my constituents. Will the Secretary of State confirm that when he introduces legislation he will make provision for social enterprises, such as Durham Integrated Transport and the Dene valley community transport scheme?
I know of the important work that such organisations provide in supporting bus travel in rural and in urban areas, and I welcome their important contribution. As I understand it, Durham has successfully bid for funding for three rural bus challenge schemes. We support the efforts of the sector in a number of ways, and my officials are happy to discuss how we can further increase its effectiveness in years to come.
The Secretary of State will be aware that bus use is highest among the poorest 20 per cent. of our population and that the decline in bus use has hit hardest those who are least able to afford an alternative. Does he accept that the deregulation of the mid-1980s has failed? After eight and a half years of Labour Government, when will we see some action to give local communities back the power they need to provide the bus services that their communities want?
If I interpret the question rightly, it seems to be an endorsement of the proposals that I am contemplating. Certainly, I recognise that in the 20 years since deregulation, some communities have not enjoyed the bus service to which they are entitled. It is therefore important not simply to highlight areas where there are successful local bus services, such as Brighton, York and Oxford, but to focus on communities, not least those in many Labour constituencies, to which buses can be a vital life-line. That is why I intend to bring forward proposals and draft legislation to address the exact point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman). I fully recognise that, in many local communities, bus services are a vital link to economic and social regeneration.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the road transport Bill must redress the balance in favour of bus passengers, whose experience of bus travel all too often leads them to believe that business interests override passenger interests in areas such as south Yorkshire?
Certainly, in many areas a free-for-all has left the needs of passengers far behind, and that is why it is important that, in the proposals that we bring forward, we recognise that there is a genuine desire for improved bus services in many communities across the country.
The Secretary of State will know that No. 10’s website on the draft transport Bill states that it will enable
“local authorities to improve the standard of bus services”.
He will also know that, since deregulation, the average age of the fleet has fallen as investment has risen, and that fares have risen at less than half the rate of council tax. In 2006, overall satisfaction levels are increasing. His predecessor as Secretary of State said:
“I would be wary of saying that we should go back to the pre-1986 situation.”—[Official Report, 2 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 404.]
Will the Secretary of State confirm today that that remains the policy of the Government, and that his proposals will not take us back to the era of regulated buses?
It encourages me greatly, in respect of the debate that we are about to have, if the hon. Gentleman is suggesting on behalf of the Opposition that he is content with, and indeed complacent about, the bus services enjoyed in every community in the country. It is an entirely false choice to say that we should either go back to the state-owned and state-controlled system that existed before 1986, or accept that the present system is beyond improvement. I believe that improvements can and should be made, and it is on that basis that I shall, in due course, bring forward proposals.
While my right hon. Friend considers the evidence, before bringing forward the draft Bill, will he look at the experience of people in Merseyside? Passenger numbers have halved since deregulation 20 years ago, there has been an increase of 30 per cent. in fares, and there have been no extra bus miles. There is an unstable system under which bus routes can be, and indeed are, changed regularly; legally, they can be changed every 56 days.
I will certainly look into that. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), who has responsibility for buses, and I engaged in a series of discussions and made a number of visits over the summer and in recent months to try to ensure that we are informed; that will be the basis of the proposals that we will bring forward in due course. Tomorrow, I will meet the “big five” bus operators to discuss our emerging thinking on bus travel. I fear that the situation described by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) is not unique to her area, and that is why we need to take action. It is on that basis that we will bring forward our proposals.
Buses in Northern Ireland were not deregulated, of course, and they are still under public ownership. Will that successful model be offered as an option in the draft Bill for Wales?
The hon. Gentleman is factually correct: in 1986, the deregulation that took place everywhere else did not take place in Northern Ireland. That should act as a cautionary note to anybody who suggests that there is a single approach to the provision of effective bus services that will work in every community. That certainly has been one of the examples that we have considered while preparing our proposals, and it is on that basis that, in due course, we will bring them forward.
Speed Limits
The most recent assessment is the independent four-year evaluation of the national safety camera programme, which was published on 15 December 2005. It confirms that safety cameras continue to be a valuable and cost-effective method of enforcing speed limits. Cameras are, however, just one method that the police use to detect speeding.
Given that the Minister’s own Department’s statistics show that only 15 per cent. of all accidents are caused by excessive speed, is it not time that he reviewed the extraordinary explosion in the number of speed cameras? Is he aware that millions of perfectly safe drivers are being banned for missing a limit— almost understandably, given the kaleidoscope of road signs on the road today? Will he confirm that one camera earned £750,000 last year, and is that not the real reason why we have so many speed cameras?
I could not agree less. The hon. Gentleman quoted the Department’s statistics wrongly, as they show that about a quarter of road fatalities involve speeding in one form or another. The deployment of safety cameras has had a pervasive effect on attitudes to speed on the roads, not just at camera sites but throughout the road network. The fact of the matter is that cameras work. We took steps last year to make sure that there is no possible financial incentive for those who decide whether cameras are installed. The hon. Gentleman said that £0.75 million was raised by one camera, which suggests that a heck of a lot of people were speeding in that area. If they stopped doing so they would not pay a penny.
Will my hon. Friend reconsider the Department’s proposal to reduce penalty points for speeding at over 30 mph in light of its effective safety poster depicting a child who says, “If I’m knocked over at 30 mph there is an 80 per cent. chance that I will live. If I’m knocked over at 40 mph there’s an 80 per cent. chance that I will die.”?
I very much understand my hon. Friend’s position, which she has expressed forcefully many times. The Road Safety Act 2006 gives us the power to vary the number of points on standing penalties that people receive for speeding, but that does not mean that we have to do so. We have undertaken to conduct a thorough consultation on proposals for variable penalties. I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to comment, and we will take account of the consultation when we make our final decision on how to move ahead.
In many villages in my constituency, speed cameras cannot be justified under existing criteria. What are the Government’s plans to enforce speed limits in those villages for the safety of local residents?
We have told everyone responsible for speed enforcement and road safety partnerships around the country that they should only deploy cameras as a last resort, if other speed enforcement measures are not appropriate. Such measures include variable speed signs and changes to the speed limit in areas where a lower or higher limit is indicated as a result of the accident statistics on a certain piece of road. As a result of changes to the financing of road safety partnerships, local authorities will receive £110 million extra a year, some of which can be spent on appropriate safety measures in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
Will my hon. Friend continue robustly to resist the considerable hysteria of the motoring lobby, which appears to suggest that people’s lives are less important than the fines that some motorists have to pay? Moreover, will he look carefully at the Transport Committee report, which provides various solutions, including the use of more enforcement measures, with effective tools such as old-fashioned policemen?
I have already read the report from the Select Committee, which my hon. Friend chairs. I agree with a large proportion of it, and we will make a considered response in the near future. She is absolutely right that old-fashioned road policing is not an alternative to cameras—both are needed. Cameras play a role, and can be extremely effective, but we also need effective road policing to do things that cameras cannot do.
Roads
The Department for Transport recognises that overall value for money may be enhanced by co-ordinating the delivery of road schemes on neighbouring parts of the road network. Consequently, while having regard to budget constraints and regional prioritisations, every effort is made to deliver schemes to a cost-efficient timetable.
The Government are committed to building the A5/M1 link, which will require a new junction, 11A, on the M1. Building that new junction at the same time as widening the M1 would cost £14.6 million less than building it afterwards. Is it not a wholly unacceptable waste of taxpayers’ money to build junction 11A after the M1 has been widened, as the Government intend to do?
I share the hon. Gentleman’s disappointment that the region chose to de-prioritise that road scheme and to delay it until 2013, rather than going ahead with it in 2008 as the Government originally intended. Starting the work in 2008 would have allowed us to build the junction at the same time as widening the M1. While we accept the region’s advice, we have written to its representatives to say that we intend to continue with the design work and the other work necessary to allow us at least to construct the junction at the same time as widening the M1. If there is any slippage in the regional funding allocation of moneys to allow us to do this, we intend to construct the junction at the same time as carrying out the widening, for the very reasons that the hon. Gentleman has outlined.
Road Transport Emissions
The Government have a range of policies across four areas to tackle carbon dioxide emissions from road transport. These policies aim to reduce the carbon content of fuel, to improve the fuel efficiency of vehicles, to encourage more sustainable travel choices, and to work with the EU to consider seriously the inclusion of transport in emissions trading.
The Minister knows that carbon emissions from transport have increased from 27 per cent. to 33 per cent. He also knows that the Mayor of London is going to tax 4x4s by increasing the congestion charge for such vehicles to £25. In the Queen’s Speech last week, we also heard about road pricing. Will the Minister now reassure the House that any increase in the taxation on motors will not just be used as a money-making exercise, and that it will go towards research and development to find alternative sources of fuel?
We already invest substantially in research projects to look for alternative sources of fuel. We are also working hard on the renewable transport fuel obligation, which will ensure that 5 per cent. of road fuel is obtained from renewable sources by 2010. That will present a great opportunity to reduce carbon emissions from land transport by 1 million tonnes a year; it will also be a great opportunity for the agriculture sector to provide the biomass to create that fuel. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to work hard on these issues, but the Government are committed to doing so and are already doing so.
One way to reduce carbon emissions from road transport is to encourage greater use of rail freight. Tesco and Eddie Stobart have shown us that there is a place for rail freight in an integrated haulage strategy. Should not Ministers be talking to other supermarkets and road hauliers, and to organisations such as Royal Mail, to encourage them to transport more of their freight by rail over long distances?
I can assure my hon. Friend that we are having those conversations. In fact, I spent yesterday afternoon with two executives from Eddie Stobart, and they were telling me about the success of the scheme that they have set up with Tesco. The sustainable distribution fund also allows us to provide grant aid for schemes that take freight off the roads and on to either railways, waterways or coastal shipping as a way of reducing carbon emissions. These are matters for the private sector, but we are doing everything that we can to encourage it to do exactly as my hon. Friend suggests.
Has the Minister made any assessment of the 60-tonne, 25.25 m trucks that have recently been test-driven not only by members of the Select Committee but by officials in his Department? Such trucks are already operating on the roads of three European Union member states. Does he agree that deploying them on specific routes might well reduce the amount of carbon dioxide produced by road transport?
I looked at this matter last year and studied the issues carefully. I understand the economic and environmental arguments for 60-tonne trucks, but I came to the conclusion that I could not guarantee that they would be restricted to routes that were suitable for them. The reality would be that they would leave the main motorways and highways and end up in rural villages, many of which are represented by Conservative Members, who would soon be on their feet telling me that it was a bad idea to allow such vehicles on to the roads. On that basis, I decided not to move forward with any further tests on 60-tonne trucks at this time.
I know my hon. Friend is aware of the levels of carbon dioxide that are badly affecting residents in Tinsley, in my constituency. When he met a delegation from the area recently, he gave us certain assurances which I hope he will be prepared to put on record. He assured us that the widening of the M1 would not go ahead if carbon dioxide emissions increased as a result, that wherever possible measures would be introduced to try to reduce them, and that there would be a full environmental impact study whose findings would be available for public consultation. Will he now confirm those assurances?
My hon. Friend has been vigorous in campaigning for the people of Tinsley, and specifically in drawing my attention to the concerns of schools on the route. I can assure him publicly that there will be a full environmental impact assessment. If we cannot mitigate the environmental consequences of the widening, it will not go ahead, so it is our responsibility to find ways of mitigating it. I can also assure my hon. Friend that I have noted the particular concerns of schools, and regard it as our responsibility to find an solution that is acceptable to parents and children and which will prevent them from suffering as a result of any widening of the road.
Buses
The provision of local bus services in Bournemouth is a matter for the bus operators and Bournemouth borough council. They have powers to subsidise non-commercial services. We will shortly set out detailed proposals on the direction of future bus policy, and legislative measures will be included in the draft road transport Bill.
I look forward to those proposals, but the Minister will know that the Liberal Democrat council recently sold off the local bus service, which angered many residents. Routes have been removed and reduced. Will the Minister remind the council of its duties under the Transport Act 1985? When there is a requirement to provide a bus service and there is a social need, the council should reach into its pockets.
I understand that network changes have taken place recently since the sale of the council-owned bus company, and that they have resulted in cuts in some services, although others are running more frequently. I have also been told that later this month Bournemouth borough council will consider replacing services that have been lost or reduced.
I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman that Bournemouth has received considerable support from the Government for bus services, not least through free concessionary bus travel for the over-60s and disabled people. More than a quarter of Bournemouth’s population fall into those categories. Moreover, the Government have provided some £3.5 million a year in bus service operators’ grant for Bournemouth, Poole and Dorset and local transport plan funding of over £2.6 million. Bournemouth borough council also receives funding for concessionary fares through its ever-increasing revenue support grant.
Night Flights
New night flying restrictions at Heathrow will run until October 2012, retaining previous seasonal limits on aircraft movements between 11.30 pm and 6 am. There will also be a stepped reduction in the seasonal noise quota available, encouraging airlines to use the quietest aircraft. That will result in some gradual reduction in night noise by October 2012.
Many of my constituents are woken at 4.30 am by jumbos coming in to land at Heathrow. They will welcome the new regime, which will result in a reduction of about 9 per cent. in the summer, although obviously they would prefer a complete ban on night flights. Is it not nonsense, however, for Wandsworth council, the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise and others to suggest that the Civil Aviation Act 2006 will result in less noise from night flights, given that a Lords amendment knocked out the clause that would have enabled Ministers to set noise limits that would have given airlines a powerful incentive to use quieter aircraft?
I am happy to reaffirm the Government’s commitment to bear down on night noise. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his immense diligence in representing his constituents’ interests in this important matter, and I am very sympathetic to the points he has made.
The Civil Aviation Act has no impact on current night restrictions, although, as my hon. Friend says, we hoped that it would make it easier for restrictions to be as stringent as possible in future. That was serially misrepresented by the Opposition. We were not trying to remove a statutory cap. What we currently have in statute is a power to set restrictions, not a duty, with a requirement that any restrictions must be expressed as a limit on aircraft movements. We were seeking to ensure, as my hon. Friend rightly said, that if better ways to set restrictions appear in the future, the legislation would permit them to be used. I emphasise again that the Opposition failed to recognise that.
Railways
The Department announced on 22 September 2006 the award of the South Western rail franchise to Stagecoach South Western Trains Ltd for a period of 10 years from 4 February 2007, with the final three years dependent on service performance achieving pre-set targets.
How does the Minister reconcile the Department’s claim that the new franchise will reduce overcrowding on South West trains, especially for commuters, with the company’s explanation that it plans to increase the number of passengers by 20 per cent. by reducing the number of seats?
I have to question that comment by the hon. Gentleman. Some £70 million has already been invested in new trains in the South Western franchise, providing an extra 4,500 seats, some of which are already in service. The new franchise will commit Stagecoach to a 21 per cent. main line peak seats increase by the end of the franchise and a 20 per cent. increased capacity on peak-time suburban trains.
Will the Minister congratulate the Conservative-controlled Isle of Wight council on introducing free transport for pensioners on all Isle of Wight railway services and a 50p flat-rate fare for under-19s in full-time education? Will he find out from Stagecoach why, in its most recent glossy publication, it is unable to point to a single benefit to the Isle of Wight railway of uniting the South West Trains and Island Line franchises?
In October 2004, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that the new South Western trains franchise would incorporate the Island Line unless it was decided that the needs of the Island Line would be better served by a form of community management as set out in the White Paper. Since then, the Island Line has been designated as a community rail line. I said in my written statement to the House:
“The decision on the future of the Island Line has been deferred to allow time for more extensive discussion with key stakeholders as to the most appropriate way forward, and recognising the recent Community Rail designation of the railway.”—[Official Report, 10 October 2006; Vol. 450, c. 21WS.]
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take part in that consultation process.
Is the Minister aware that South West trains have to pass through Dawlish Warren on the coast of Devon? In spite of £9 million being spent by Network Rail and five full-time members of staff on site, trains are frequently stopped by high water and falling cliffs. Is he thinking of giving Network Rail additional money to bypass Dawlish Warren or of providing special armoured trains so that they can use the track in spite of the falling cliffs and the sea water flowing over it?
I can reveal to the House that there are no plans for armoured trains in the South West franchise at the moment. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to contact me, I will be happy to look into the matter for him. He will be interested to learn that the moving annual average passenger performance level for South West Trains is 90.1 per cent., and that will go up to 93.3 per cent. reliability by the end of the franchise. The current level compares with a national average of 87.6 per cent., so it is an extremely efficient service.
Concessionary Bus Travel
In April this year we introduced free off-peak local bus travel for older and disabled people. As announced in the Queen’s Speech, we will introduce a Bill that will extend that free off-peak travel to anywhere in England from April 2008.
The Government’s commitment to extending concessionary fares to all pensioners is very much appreciated by pensioners in my constituency, but is the Minister aware that Swindon council is one of several that have changed the definition so that the off-peak period now begins at 9.30 am rather than 9 o’clock? That has dismayed my pensioners, who like to get out and about early. Does my hon. Friend know of examples of councils—
Order. That is enough for the Minister to be getting on with.
My hon. Friend is a tireless campaigner for her constituents, more than 16,000 of whom benefit from the Government’s policy of providing free off-peak local bus travel for older and disabled people. The decision to reduce the discretionary element is a matter for Swindon council, although I expect local authorities to consider the needs of their older and disabled residents very carefully before reducing discretionary concessions. I certainly sympathise with my hon. Friend’s constituents.
The Minister said that the scheme will apply only to England, but cross-border travel causes huge problems in my constituency and other areas bordering Wales. What discussions is she having with colleagues in the Welsh Assembly Government to ensure that there is a seamless bus transport system from England into Wales and back again? That would be of great benefit to my constituents.
I can assure the House that discussions have taken place already with the devolved Administrations. I recommend that hon. Members look carefully at the details of the Bill to be introduced in the very near future.
Constitutional Affairs
The Minister of State was asked—
Community Justice Courts
The location of the 10 new community justice courts will be announced shortly by the Lord Chancellor.
My constituency has a remarkably sophisticated and well integrated community network, with close co-operation between residents groups and the police. On Friday, I shall chair a meeting involving residents’ groups from the Dyke House, Stranton and Grange areas and various agencies with a view to tackling problems with drugs. Given the strength of my community, will my right hon. and learned Friend press for Hartlepool to be a pilot area for a community justice court?
The Lord Chancellor will announce details of the new community justice courts shortly, but I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he has been doing in this area, about which he told the House in a debate in June. He is right to point out that the police and other agencies have done a great deal of work with community organisations. Generally speaking, people feel that the courts have yet to come to the party in that respect, and they still need to see how the courts are involved in the delivery of justice. I take my hon. Friend’s point, and there will be an announcement shortly.
Will the Minister explain the difference between a community magistrates court and a community justice court? Would it not have been better for the Government to fund the Crown Prosecution Service so that it could serve magistrates courts properly rather than creating havoc in Macclesfield with the new listing system, which is opposed by magistrates, solicitors, police and everyone involved in the delivery of local justice? I have written to the right hon. and learned Lady, but have not yet received the courtesy of a reply.
I am looking into the situation in Macclesfield and will write to the hon. Gentleman shortly, although the Government have greatly increased the resources going to the CPS. Community justice builds on the best work of magistrates, but there are some additional elements. In the Liverpool community justice centre, for example, local community organisations played a role in choosing the judge, who attends the sort of community reference groups that my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright) described. I believe that the community has a role in making proposals to the court about unpaid work sentences. In that way, the people who suffer from crime will be able to be paid back.
From her visit to Plymouth earlier this year, my right hon. and learned Friend will know that there is a good relationship between councillors and the local community safety partnership. Given our track record in successfully using antisocial behaviour orders, dispersal orders and so on, will she consider setting up community justice courts in Plymouth?
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work with her colleagues in Plymouth and with all the agencies. It involves not only the police, the prosecutors and the courts but the voluntary sector and local authorities. There is a strong mood in the House, and we strongly back it, that the courts, while maintaining their strong independence and judging each case individually, must demonstrate more clearly that they understand the preoccupations of the community, and deliver justice accordingly.
Commercial Court
There are no specific plans to review the rules governing the commercial court. The commercial court users committee is expected to launch a standing sub-committee shortly to make recommendations for changes to the commercial court guide and for improving compliance with the existing terms of that guide.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that the commercial court has been an outstanding success, contributing huge amounts to Britain’s balance of payments through invisible exports. However, there is concern that it is not working as well as it might, and that this will jeopardise our position. Will she reflect on the answer that she just gave me and consider reviewing the rules to ensure that the court runs more efficiently? Will she in particular give attention to the length of trials, which obviously adds to the cost and weakens our competitive position?
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; the commercial court has been doing some outstanding work and deals often with complex and difficult cases. I hope that I can reassure him by telling him that at the end of October a lively symposium was held, which brought together the judiciary, solicitors, barristers, academics and others, and a sub-committee is to be set up to perform a review. Some of the suggestions made at the symposium included listing cases so that proper reading time is available for the legal profession, limiting the length of witness statements and stricter but realistic timetables for cases. I hope that that goes some way to reassuring the hon. Gentleman that we keep the matter under review.
I declare my interest as a barrister, although not in the commercial court. The Minister will be aware of the litigation involving BCCI and the case brought by the liquidators against the Bank of England. She will have read the judgment of the learned judge, who was highly critical of the liquidators’ misuse of creditors’ money in order to proceed with that case. What lessons can be learned from that case, and can we act on those lessons as quickly as possible rather than wait for a users committee to review the situation?
My right hon. Friend makes some important points. The BCCI case affected many people in a very difficult and negative way. Mr. Justice David Steel, the judge in charge of the commercial court, said that the BCCI case was such an unusual and exceptional case that there were no direct lessons to be learned. However, key stakeholders from the legal commercial sector will be part of the review. I hope that we will be able to identify some of those problems. It is a complex case, and we want to ensure that the right solutions are found. We could not have anticipated just how complex some of the issues are, which is why I welcome the sub-committee.
Sex Trafficking
In my former role as Solicitor-General, and in my current role as Department for Constitutional Affairs member of the inter-ministerial group on sexual offending, I regularly discuss with my ministerial colleagues at the Home Office the treatment of people trafficked into the UK for the purposes of sexual exploitation.
Two hundred years ago, a Bill was about to be introduced to the House of Lords to abolish slavery. Today at Heathrow airport, a person can buy a young woman for between £4,000 and £5,000 to act as their sex slave. There are more than 4,000 such slaves in the country today held against their will, suffering the most appalling violence, intimidation and abuse. Is it not time for the Government to sign the Council of Europe convention on human trafficking to help put to an end this evil trade in human beings?
The question of the directive will be addressed when we produce our action plan on human trafficking. We have been consulting on it and will bring it out in the new year. We have been taking action on human trafficking over a number of years, and the hon. Gentleman describes the problem rightly and clearly. We have to focus on supporting and protecting the victims, but we must tackle the traffickers and prosecute them. We also have to concentrate on the demand side of the sex trade, because women are being brought in for sexual exploitation, often abducted against their will. It is called prostitution but it is actually rape, and we need to look not only at the supply side but also the demand side. We should look at what is being done in other countries to make sure that we do not have the demand that leads to the exploitation of vulnerable women who are trafficked in to be used for sexual purposes by British men.
What progress has my right hon. and learned Friend made on some of the issues that came out of the successful conference in my constituency that she attended to talk about trafficking? In particular, what progress has been made in making sure that agencies liaise so that when women and children in a country are found to have been trafficked they are properly supported and their cases and concerns are properly dealt with?
I thank my hon. Friend for inviting me to that conference in her Northampton constituency. She had involved the Women’s Institute, for which the matter has high priority. One of the WI’s key social objectives is to work with other voluntary organisations, local authorities and agencies on the ground to highlight the problem of the trafficking of young women and children and to stamp it out, so progress is very much under way. I can remember the first time I heard the words “human trafficking”; the phenomenon is relatively recent in terms of its extent as one of the evil undersides of globalisation, but we have recognised the problem and are taking strong action against it.
Is the Minister aware that if a trafficked woman seeks refuge she gets a raw deal in this country? As a nation, we are not responding to the Human Rights Act 1998 and giving those women the protection we should give them. Does she agree?
I agree that protection is patchy. It is not as good as we want in all areas, although I want to mention the Poppy project. In some areas, if a young woman is referred to the Poppy project she will be really well looked after and protected and, in turn, is likely to help the criminal justice and immigration agencies to tackle the source of the problem. We want to make absolutely sure that there is good support for victims across the board, but the other thing we need to do from this country—and are increasingly doing—is send a clear message to perpetrators from other countries who want to get into trafficking that there will be severe sentences for those who are caught.
When I was Solicitor-General I referred to the Court of Appeal a case in which the sentence was 11 years; the Court fully understood the message that needed to be sent and increased the sentence for that offender to 23 years and stripped them of their assets all through Europe. It is right that the House should focus on the issue. We have introduced new criminal offences to tackle trafficking, but we must be vigilant and we must also look at the demand side. Many of us find that difficult to contemplate, but we have to face up to it.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with the recent report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that we should see trafficked women not as criminals and immigration offenders but as the victims of a serious crime, and that we should introduce reflection periods to enable them to come to terms with being a victim of crime? In relation to the Poppy project, which we visited during our inquiry, does she agree that we must ensure that there is long-term, secure funding and an expansion of the scheme, as it provides only 25 beds at any one time?
I agree with my hon. Friend. The Poppy project has been very useful, not only in helping the individual women whom it looks after but in working out what more needs to be done, and guiding and helping the Government to develop public policy. The Home Office says that it deals with the immigration status of victims of trafficking on a case-by-case basis. But as my hon. Friend knows, we have been consulting on that, as part of the development of our UK action plan on human trafficking, in which the Joint Committee on Human Rights has played a key part, and further information will be coming forward shortly.
Is it true that immigration officials recently warned Ministers that every week more than 100 unaccompanied children are illegally brought into the UK? Is the right hon. and learned Lady also aware of the various cases documented by the Soroptimists, including one case of a girl who escaped sex slavery and went to her local GP, who referred her to the police, who brought in social services, who referred the girl to the housing authority, who then referred the girl back to social services? That shows a total lack of co-ordination. Surely that tragic case illustrates the need for a national strategy for dealing with trafficking victims.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position; I am sure that he will make a very good contribution in that role. He makes an important point about unaccompanied children. Sometimes when unaccompanied children arrive in this country they are here for perfectly normal and innocent reasons, such as visiting a family member, but sometimes they are not, and unaccompanied children are very vulnerable indeed. Sometimes they are referred to social services and put in foster care, only to fall into the hands of their traffickers again. The problem is incredibly difficult to deal with but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that what really matters is proper co-ordination. If a child is passed from one agency to another, not only is that difficult and traumatic but sometimes the child is picked up again by the traffickers.
The hon. Gentleman is right to bring this matter to the attention of the House. I shall be happy to meet him to further discuss our approach to child trafficking, and I look forward to his making a contribution as we develop policy on it.
FOI Complaints
The Information Commissioner received 4,599 Freedom of Information Act complaints between 1 January 2005 and 31 October 2006.
I am grateful to the Minister for her answer. She will have read the Select Committee report “Freedom of Information—one year on”. The Constitutional Affairs Committee received evidence that people had
“waited months for the Information Commissioner to start investigating their complaints.”
In the conclusion to that report, the Committee said that her Department should be taking
“a more proactive role in ensuring that Government Departments co-operate fully with the Commissioner”.
What steps has she taken since 28 June, when that report was issued, to ensure just that?
There was a backlog during 2005, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is well aware, and another £100,000 was given very quickly to the Information Commissioner to help him get that backlog under control. Since then he has had an extra 11 per cent.—£850,000—in 2006-07 for the same purpose, and we are in discussions with him about how to optimise those processes to speed them up.
I was last asked questions on this subject only a little over a month ago, when it was pointed out to me that there were in particular some difficulties with health authorities. One of the hon. Gentleman’s Back-Bench colleagues had sent a lot of requests that had not been responded to. Since then, I have caused a reminder to go out to those authorities in particular, that we do expect prompt results. If this is not moving too tangentially away from what the hon. Gentleman said, the Information Commissioner has announced that he is going to strengthen his enforcement strategy. I think he previously wanted cultural change and guidance to work, but now, where recalcitrant local authorities and “persistent offenders”, as he puts it, in the public sector are not responding, he will serve enforcement notices and use his powers.
A real issue, and a cause of concern to the Information Commissioner, is that the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not cover those functions formerly of local authorities that were transferred to trusts such as Stockport Sports Trust, which is now making decisions behind closed doors. Does the Minister agree that changes to freedom of information rules are required to bring such bodies into line with those provisions and similar ones, such as the access to information provisions in the Local Government Act 1972?
My hon. Friend makes a strong point. I think that he has made it before, and I agreed with him then, as I do now, that just because we have brought 110,000 public bodies within the ambit of this provision does not mean that we have gone as far as we need to go. There is an analogous problem with the application of the Human Rights Act 1998 to the private suppliers who deliver public functions, and I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are looking into those problems.
As the Minister knows, it is important that her Department set an example in the field of freedom of information, as it is the responsible Department. She has stressed—she did so last month—how committed Ministers are to that. So why does her Department have a worse record than any other in granting freedom of information requests, even when the information is readily available? The average rate for all Departments is 62 per cent. but the Department for Constitutional Affairs has never managed to answer even half of such requests, and in the most recent quarter it scored a miserable 38 per cent. If the Department for Transport can have a result of 78 per cent. of requests answered where the issue is resolvable, why is the DCA such a sink Department in this area? Is it not time that it got its act together?
I dare say that, because it is full of lawyers, the Department is careful and cautious in its responses and it takes its time. In fact, over the last quarter 92 per cent. of all Government requests were responded to in time—they met the statutory deadline or a permitted deadline extension—and I reckon that 92 per cent. is rather a good proportion.
BILL PRESENTED
Statistics and Registration Service
Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Jack Straw, Hilary Armstrong, Mr. Secretary Hain, Secretary Alan Johnson, Secretary Ruth Kelly, Mr. Secretary Alexander, Mr. Stephen Timms, Dawn Primarolo, John Healey and Ed Balls, presented a Bill to establish and make provision about the Statistics Board; to make provision about offices and office-holders under the Registration Service Act 1953; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 8].
Northern Ireland (St. Andrews Agreement) Bill [Allocation of Time]
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Bill–
Timetable
1. (1) Proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at this day’s sitting.
(2) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(3) Proceedings in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at the moment of interruption or six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order, whichever is the later.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
2. When the Bill has been read a second time–
(a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
3. On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker or Chairman shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)–
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
5. On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
Consideration of Lords Amendments
6. (1) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(2) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, one hour after their commencement.
7. (1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 6.
(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith–
(a) a single Question on any further Amendments to the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith–
(a) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.
(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.
(7) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown and relevant to the Lords Amendment.
Subsequent stages
8. (1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(2) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
9. (1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 8.
(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.
(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.
Reasons Committee
10. (1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons in relation to the Bill and the appointment of its Chairman.
(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
(3) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) the Chairman shall–
(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair but not yet decided, and
(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.
(5) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.
Miscellaneous
11. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply in so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.
12. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 shall apply to those proceedings.
13. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies
14. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to re-commit the Bill; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
15. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
16. (1) This paragraph applies if–
(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) has been stood over to Seven o’clock, Four o’clock or Three o’clock (as the case may be), but
(b) proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before then.
(2) Proceedings on that Motion shall stand postponed until the conclusion of those proceedings.
17. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.—[Mr. Hain.]
Orders of the Day
Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Bill
I beg to move, That the Bill be read a Second time.
The Bill is potentially the most significant for generations. It gives effect to the St. Andrews agreement with its twin pillars of power sharing on a fair and equitable basis and support for policing and the rule of law across the whole community. Those twin pillars stand or fall together. The Bill means that the vision set out in the Good Friday agreement can at last be fully realised: a Northern Ireland of equals where political difference can be accommodated, cultural diversity celebrated, division healed, and where young people can look forward to a safe, secure and peaceful future.
Since April 1998, Northern Ireland has been in transition: from conflict to peace, from instability to stability, from economic stagnation to increasing prosperity, from a divided past into a shared future. The time is now right to complete the transition, with the local parties delivering on a stable and lasting political settlement.
In Armagh last April, the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach made it clear that 2006 was the year of decision for the political parties in Northern Ireland. I have made it clear both in this House and outside that the political process could not be allowed to become an end in itself, and that politicians could not and would not continue to be paid—now, for over four years—without doing their jobs, as if there was no tomorrow. Northern Ireland’s public will not tolerate that.
The time has come for action on restoring devolution, ending the democratic deficit and closing down direct rule. The people of Northern Ireland have waited long enough for locally accountable, democratic government. The politicians of Northern Ireland have waited long enough to take their proper place, with responsibility for the government of Northern Ireland, and to be answerable to the electorate for their decisions. With this Bill, the Government are delivering on our commitment to bring that about. It is now up to the parties to deliver on their obligations, too.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that tomorrow, the Scottish Parliament will discuss the collapse of Farepak, which effectively robbed hundreds of thousands of decent, hard-working families— many of whom come from Northern Ireland—of Christmas. Surely the Northern Ireland Assembly should discuss this issue, and particularly the fact that letters were sent out on 12 September telling people that they had to pay their bills by 6 October—the week before the company went into liquidation.
I pay tribute to the fearless way in which my hon. Friend has exposed the Farepak scandal. He is absolutely right—if a Northern Ireland Assembly were up and running, that issue could be raised on the Floor of that Assembly, and Back Benchers could press Ministers for action to ensure that the families in Northern Ireland who have suffered so badly as a result of the Farepak scandal could get justice.
Given that we did not have a particularly lengthy debate—in fact, none at all—on the allocation of time motion, can the Secretary of State explain for the benefit of the House, and particularly of those in Northern Ireland, what justification there is for bulldozing through this House today in six and a half hours a Bill that changes the constitution of Northern Ireland?
I point out to the hon. Lady, whom I respect greatly, that the reason is to make progress, so that we can meet the deadline of the end of the week. The House has just nodded through the motion, thereby giving its assent to this timetable. I am sure that the hon. Lady will have a chance to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and I shall be happy to take any interventions from her.
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
I thought that he might. He moved the motion formally, without making a speech, which I was very appreciative of. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and I, and a few others, have a dilemma, however. We want to get to the guts of this legislation, which is extremely important, but that does not excuse the Government from not allowing two days for debate—one for Second Reading and the second for consideration in Committee. The matter is urgent, but it is not that urgent. This happens time and again with Northern Ireland legislation. What is the justification for going through all the stages in one day?
My hon. Friend is a very diligent parliamentarian—there are few more diligent—but I have already answered the point and the House has accepted the programme motion. We need to get on with devolution in Northern Ireland and to make progress, which is why we are bringing the Bill before the House in this form.
I want to take the Secretary of State back to his comment about Members of the Assembly no longer being paid after a certain date if progress is not made. Does he not think it time that we looked again at the fact that Sinn Fein Members of this House get huge sums of money? Although three quarters of their duties should be carried out in this House, they are never here to carry them out. Why are we justifying all that money, when we are blackmailing Assembly Members to get back to holding discussions in order to avoid not being paid?
There has been no blackmail at all. The people of Northern Ireland have demanded that this happen. They have demanded that, after four years of the politicians not fulfilling their obligations in an Assembly, they get the show on the road, or that Stormont shut down. The question of Sinn Fein’s allowances was decided by the House following a recommendation by the Independent Monitoring Commission. That was after the House had withdrawn those allowances—in fact, I think that I moved the motion myself—following another, earlier recommendation from the IMC.
Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to the House that it was because of something that Sinn Fein did that all the Assembly Members were put out of their offices and were unable to do the work, and that no Member of this House has any right to indict them? They did nothing, but they had to take the scourge that should have been put on the back of Sinn Fein only.
The right hon. Gentleman accurately describes the circumstances of suspension. What we are concerned with now—I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman on his own role in it—is getting devolution up and running, which his party has long supported.
The explanatory notes refer to the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, but as far as I can tell, the Bill is silent on that point. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when the regulations flowing from the Equality Act 2006 will take effect in Ulster?
It depends on which regulations the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but in respect of the Human Rights Commission, legislation will be introduced next week, which will cover the relevant reforms for Northern Ireland, so the hon. Gentleman will be able to inspect it then.
As has been the case throughout the process, little is ever easy or straightforward.
I can well understand why the parties are edging forward with considerable caution and I can quite see why feelings are fragile, why anxious party members worry about what their leaders may have accepted and why a marauding media picks away at the fragilities. The easy option—for politicians and, of course, for journalists, too—is to prise open the detail of understandings and to unnerve either or both sides with negatives. The harder option is to stick with it, to show courage and fortitude, and say that the positives outweigh the negatives by a million miles. In Northern Ireland’s politics, it has always been easier to say no, always harder to say yes.
I know that there are issues on which all sides want reassurance. Where the Government can give that reassurance, we will. Where the parties must give reassurance to each other, they should. But there is nothing—given the will to do it—that cannot be resolved within the time frame set out in the St. Andrews agreement. I believe that the will is there, but that the St. Andrews momentum must be maintained to achieve the end.
I am not convinced by arguments that say, “We cannot do a deal at 5 to midnight, but we might do at 5 past—or with another day here, or another week there, or six months more, but let’s get Christmas out of the way first”. No. The timetable to devolution is clear.
I would like to take up the Secretary of State’s offer of providing reassurance. Will he reassure me, on behalf of my constituents and many others across Northern Ireland, that what we are driving through here today at top speed will, in fact, bring about nominations by the Democratic Unionist party and Sinn Fein by Friday? Can I have that reassurance?
If I may say so, I fully intend to deal with that matter in just a second—in fact, precisely this second, so the hon. Lady intervened at a very timely point.
On 24 November—this Friday—the Assembly will convene and the DUP and Sinn Fein, as the two largest parties, will indicate who the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will be, come the restoration on 26 March. That indication will trigger the transitional Assembly, which can get down to the real work of preparing a programme for Government. In January 2007, we will have the 13th report of the Independent Monitoring Commission and the seventh report since the IRA declared that it would end its illegal activity. On 7 March, there will be an election in which the people will speak and on 14 March, members of the Executive will be nominated by party leaders. On 26 March, power will be devolved and the d’Hondt process of choosing an Executive will run, with Ministers assuming office taking the pledge of office. That Monday will be “democracy day” for Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Gentleman has told us the date of the election, which is in the Bill, but will he confirm that whatever is decided on Friday this week could well be changed by the electorate of Northern Ireland on 7 March?
The electorate will speak and give a mandate to their parties to support the St. Andrews agreement. That is the purpose of the election and it is why the largest two parties requested that if there were to be any consultation, it should happen through an election. There is now cross-party support for pursuing the St. Andrews agreement, which is why we intend to move forward on that basis.
The Secretary of State mentioned Friday 24 November and said that the DUP and Sinn Fein would have to indicate who their nominees would be. What form is that indication to take? What happens if either party does not make that indication?
I have given an outline of what will happen on 24 November. I am currently in discussion with the Speaker and the parties. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the chance to make it clear that it is important that Friday is successful. Friday 24 November was part of the St. Andrews architecture, to which all the parties, including his, signed up—I accept that they did so in broad terms. If Friday 24 November is not successful, the door to a transitional Assembly and everything that follows will not be unlocked. That is the clear position that everybody faces.
As I interpreted it, the Secretary of State stated categorically that, on Friday, the DUP and Sinn Fein will nominate First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Is that a categorical assurance, without qualification? If that is not fulfilled, what would constitute a failure of the rubric on Friday that, in his view, would inhibit further progress in the restoration process?
As I said, the two largest parties will indicate who the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will be, come restoration on 26 March. I do not anticipate failure at any point in the process. I anticipate success because the people of Northern Ireland want success and all the parties who came to St. Andrews and left endorsing the broad terms of the St. Andrews agreement want that success, too. We are working for success. However, let us be clear: if there is failure at any time, Stormont dissolves and everybody packs up and goes home. That has been clear for a long time and it is clear in the Bill.
Like the Secretary of State, I am planning and hoping for success, but I am not optimistic that the deadlines that he describes are genuine. Why, when 24 November was a cast-iron deadline set in statute, which we are changing, should any Northern Ireland party be confident that the other three deadlines that he outlined in March are any more solid and unchangeable than 24 November? I accept that he needs wriggle room to make it work but, at the moment, we are discussing not wriggle room but completely flexible deadline room.
I have been grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support and that of his party throughout the process, although he has asked legitimate questions, as he is doing now.
In May, when we passed the emergency Bill to set up the transitional Assembly—the Northern Ireland Act 2006—I said that agreement had to be reached by 24 November. That has happened. We had St. Andrews and the parties’ indication that we should introduce the Bill. If there had been no agreement, we would have closed Stormont down. The hon. Gentleman supported that strategy and it remains. There is no wriggle room in the Bill. If any of the dates are not met, and especially if the Assembly and the Executive are not fully restored on 26 March, it will all close down and dissolution takes place. There is no wriggle room in that, and there will not be any.
The Secretary of State made a similar statement about 24 November. He said that there would be no negotiation, no change and no movement beyond that. Now he has reached a stage whereby the two parties, in some vague way, must “indicate” who the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are likely to be. What confidence can any of us have that the Government will be any more robust about the March deadlines given that, in my judgment, the commonly received view is that all the deadlines up to now have been subject to change?
I am obviously happy to answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions, as I always do. However, I am not sure where his last question is leading him. I made it clear throughout to the House and in other public pronouncements, as did my ministerial team, that agreement had to be reached by 24 November. A deal had to be done by then. That has been achieved and it is why we are introducing the Bill. If there had been no agreement at St. Andrews and the parties had not subsequently given it a fair wind, we would not be introducing the Bill today.
Assuming that this legislation goes through the House and the other place and that it receives Royal Assent on Thursday morning, it will then set in statute the date for the election and the date for restoration, and the powers contained in clause 2 make it clear that, if it is apparent to me at any time that there will not be restoration at the end of the process, I can move to dissolution immediately.
I do not suppose that many people will want to vote against the St. Andrews agreement in March, but will the Secretary of State indicate which political parties opposed it?
Only one party has been absolutely clear: the UK Unionist party of Bob McCartney. He has made it absolutely crystal clear that he is opposed to this entire project—always was and always will be.
I am under no illusions about the process. There is still work to be done. No one can be forced into government, and no one will be forced into government. If at any stage between now and 26 March—this repeats the point that I was making earlier—we run out of track, devolution becomes dissolution: the clock is stopped, the election scrapped. That is the reality. In that event, direct rule and plan B, with even closer co-operation with the Irish Government, will stretch into the foreseeable future. The Governments will not be chasing after the parties. We will have done as much as we humanly can. It would be for the parties to come to the Governments to tell us when they would be ready to do the deal that would restore devolution. I leave it to Members to state how likely they believe a deal would be done by the parties on their own when they could not accept the deal facilitated by the Government.
The Secretary of State talks about the process running out of track. Could he give an indication to the House about when he will make a judgment if Sinn Fein fails to hold its special party meeting to endorse the police and the rule of law in Northern Ireland? At which point does he determine in this process that we run out of track on that issue?
Sinn Fein needs to call an ard fheis—and before it, I guess, an ard chomhairle—to make it crystal clear that it is signing up to the pledge of office and that it is endorsing the terms of this legislation and the pillar that I mentioned at the beginning about the support for the rule of law and policing. It is absolutely crucial that Sinn Fein has to call that conference, and I expect it to do so.
There is a choice to be made by the parties and the people—not next week, not next month, not next year, not the year after that, but now. Choices do not get easier if they are postponed; mostly they get harder.
Has the Secretary of State seen the recent statement by Sinn Fein saying that it will not call an ard fheis, or whatever it is called? Excuse me, I cannot pronounce these so-called Irish words; I am an Ulsterman. Has he seen the statement by Sinn Fein—not by the leader of Sinn Fein, but by Sinn Fein, as the newspapers have pointed out—saying that it will not call that meeting of the ard fheis?
I have not, but it is absolutely apparent and crystal clear to me that, to fulfil the terms of this legislation and to fulfil the implementation of the St. Andrews agreement, Sinn Fein has made it clear that it needs an ard fheis to support it in the way forward. That ard fheis will need to be called at the appropriate time.
It is a matter for Sinn Fein; but of course, it is important that Sinn Fein make its position clear.
This legislation provides the mechanism to go forward. The twin pillars of power sharing and the rule of law are enshrined in the pledge of office that all Ministers must take on 26 March, to take office. The pledge of office requires all Ministers to
“promote the interests of the whole community represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly towards the goal of a shared future”.
Politicians everywhere, particularly those who aspire to govern, are there not just to represent and work for those who voted for them and loaned them their mandate but for those who did not.
In a society that has been as bitterly divided as Northern Ireland, politicians who have been entrusted with a mandate that will give them access to power have an even greater obligation to govern for all and not just for their own. The pledge requires all Ministers to
“participate fully in the Executive Committee, the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council”.
If devolution is to deliver good government, all the institutions of government must function effectively. Anything less than a full commitment to that will sell everyone in Northern Ireland short. The pledge of office also requires Ministers to
“observe the joint nature of the offices of First Minister and deputy First Minister”.
Those are fundamental tenets of power sharing, which go well beyond the symbolism—important as that is—of two different political traditions working together in equality without sacrificing either principle or integrity.
On support for the rule of law, the pledge of office, as enshrined in the Bill, could not be clearer. All Ministers will
“uphold the rule of law based as it is on the fundamental principles of fairness, impartiality and democratic accountability, including support for policing and the courts as set out in paragraph 6 of the St. Andrews Agreement”.
Let me remind the House of what paragraph 6, and clause 7(2) of the Bill, says about support for law and order:
“We believe that the essential elements of support for law and order include endorsing fully the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the criminal justice system, actively encouraging everyone in the community to co-operate fully with the PSNI in tackling crime in all areas and actively supporting all the policing and criminal justice institutions, including the Policing Board”.
I recognise that the issue of policing has been contentious ever since Northern Ireland came into being, and still more so during the conflict, but we are in a very different and much better place now.
Does the Secretary of State recognise that, as far as the Unionist population is concerned, rhetoric—words—from Sinn Fein is not sufficient? There must be the proof of action—a credible period in which their action proves that they support the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Certainly, one of the tests would be handing over those in their membership who were responsible for the murder of Mr. McCartney.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that all parties, especially those aspiring to ministerial office, must support the police. Their councillors and representatives, whether MLAs or MPs, should co-operate with the police as everyone else does. That is an essential foundation for a democratic society.
Will the Secretary of State indicate whether he believes that pledging to uphold the rule of law would also include upholding and accepting the authority of, for instance, the Parades Commission? In terms of upholding the rule of law and supporting policing and the courts, will he also indicate whether the pledge of office would have any implications for a devolved Minister who might find himself the subject of grave judgment by a court after a judicial review?
In respect of the earlier point, it is absolutely essential that the Parades Commission—which is the statutorily based body responsible for the marching season, legislated for and part of the law of Northern Ireland—is respected as an institution. That does not mean that people cannot argue that it should be reformed, or that it should not change its methodology. A review of the Parades Commission is going to be undertaken. I should add—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would have made this point—that the Parades Commission has done an excellent job this year. The marching season was the most peaceful on record—[Interruption.] I accept that that was not just because of the way in which the Parades Commission behaved, but because of the hard work done at local level by Unionists and nationalists, loyalists and republicans.
There has been no greater example of transformation in Northern Ireland than in policing, led by Sir Hugh Orde, who is recognised and admired the world over for his integrity, toughness, plain speaking and professionalism, deserving the support of the whole community, of every party and of everyone. There is increasing evidence that that is happening, shown by the rising numbers of applicants to join the Police Service of Northern Ireland from the nationalist and republican communities.
The St. Andrews agreement also included a clear commitment, and a target of May 2008, for the devolution of policing and justice powers to the restored Executive. We expect all concerned to take that target seriously. Indeed, the Bill requires the Assembly to report to the Secretary of State before 27 March 2008 on progress towards the devolution of policing and justice powers. I want to make it clear that, once policing and justice is devolved, there is nothing in the pledge that would remove or unreasonably constrain any future Minister of policing and justice from making legitimate criticism of the police. After all, proper accountability was central to the Good Friday agreement’s vision for new policing arrangements in Northern Ireland and was a core element of the Patten report’s recommendations. Proper accountability, which can sometimes include constructive criticism, is essential in delivering the police service that Northern Ireland deserves. There is a world of difference between that and a failure to support Northern Ireland policing and justice institutions.
I remind the House that, this summer, Parliament legislated for devolution of policing and justice. We want to see that delivered so that the whole of Northern Ireland can better have ownership of the rule of law and policing. That is in the interest of everyone: the old lady who is reluctant to go out at night for fear of intimidation from drunken yobs; the woman, her life shattered, who demands that her rapist be apprehended; the victim of murder; the victim of mugging; and the victim of burglary. It is one thing for republicans to explain why, for historic and political reasons, policing has been so neuralgic for them. It is quite another to turn their back on constituents who, as Northern Ireland has normalised, demand safety and security in their lives and demand that it is provided by the police.
Of course, much of policing has already been devolved and I want to pay tribute to the work of the Policing Board, the police ombudsman and the district policing partnerships for the role that they play in making the Police Service of Northern Ireland more accountable than perhaps any other force anywhere else in the world.
The Secretary of State quite rightly points out the magnificent role that those who are on the Policing Board and involved in district policing partnerships have played. Will he give an assurance that, if Sinn Fein is to come on to the Policing Board or the district policing partnerships, the independents who took great risks to serve in those institutions will not be taken off them in order to facilitate places for Sinn Fein members?
First, it is important that Sinn Fein support all the institutions of policing, including the Policing Board and the DPPs. There is no question about that. The point that the hon. Gentleman raises is one that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and his party have raised with me, too. His party, especially, has supported independent candidates. Some of them have been from his party. Those candidates have taken a principled stand in moving forward in the new era of the PSNI and have often had a rough time in their communities. There has been a great deal of intimidation—sometimes threats and sometimes actual violence. The vice-chairman of the Policing Board, Denis Bradley, was attacked in a pub in Derry simply because he had been courageous and had done an excellent job on the Policing Board. I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) that those members who stood by the policing institutions deserve support and recognition.
The future of devolution for Northern Ireland rests on twin pillars: if either one collapses, the whole edifice collapses. We must know that the parties want to move forward to 26 March on that basis. That is why 24 November—this Friday—is important. When that deadline was set, well before St. Andrews, I said that we needed to know by then that a deal was on and that we were on track for a lasting political settlement—devolution. That is still the case. Without knowing that, there cannot be a transitional Assembly. Without knowing that, there cannot be an election. Without knowing that, there cannot be devolution. The sequence set out at St. Andrews will not be set aside. No one should see this as some kind of virility test to see who will blink first. If the Assembly has to be dissolved because we cannot move forward, it will be. I sincerely hope that it will not come to that.
As the Preparation for Government Committee showed over the summer, meeting with all parties present for 43 sessions between 5 June and 30 October, the parties can work constructively together when they choose to. Indeed they did so yesterday in the first meeting of the Programme for Government Committee. That was the first of what I am sure will be many meetings, because it is clear that there is considerable work to be done as we move to the point where the people can give their verdict in the election to be held 7 March 2007. There is work to be done on education reform, rates, water charges and rural homes planning; work to be done on the ministerial code; and work to be done on preparing for devolution of policing and justice—work to be done not, as now, by direct rule Ministers, but by locally accountable politicians.
I am conscious that there was a range of views on how the commitment at St. Andrews to consult the people should be met. There is a case for a referendum, which does have the attraction of being a single issue question, but if a referendum were to be held, an election would follow within a year of the new Executive getting down to work. What the newly devolved institutions will need is a prolonged period of stability in the four years before the next election is due, in May 2011. For the parties to go into election mode almost from day one would inevitably get in the way of MLAs getting on with the business of government on the wide range of challenges that will face them—education, rates, rural planning, water charges and so on. That is what the people want to see them taking charge of. Of course, the fact that the two main parties indicated that, if there was to be a reference to the people, it should be through an election, was another factor to be considered.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for being so generous in taking interventions from both sides of the House. Does he accept that, by the time the DUP and Sinn Fein have written their manifestos and promised the sun, the moon, the stars and goodness knows what else, the people of Northern Ireland will be being asked to vote in an election to a deadlocked Assembly, not the Assembly that he has just described to the House?
With all due respect, I do not see why that should be the case. The parties will be elected to a new Assembly. Their Members, as nominated, will take their place in the Executive in ministerial posts only after taking the pledge of office. Then, they will be able to move forward and govern together. When one looks at the challenges facing Northern Ireland and some of the thorny issues with which we as direct rule Ministers have had to grapple, one sees that it is imperative that responsibilities are exercised, decisions are made quickly and progress is made. That is why the work of the Programme for Government Committee, which met successfully yesterday and will, I am sure, have a programme of regular meetings in the coming days and weeks, is crucial to enabling the incoming Executive to get off to a flying start and, far from remaining deadlocked, to be very dynamic.
The Secretary of State has said several times in the course of his speech that both my party and Sinn Fein have requested an election rather than a referendum. It is, of course, true that we want an election, but Sinn Fein has specifically denied saying that it wants an election. Will the Secretary of State be crystal clear about when Sinn Fein has said that it is against a referendum and for an election?
All I can go by is what Sinn Fein told me. Its representatives told me that they would prefer no consultation prior to restoration—that was their preferred option by a long way, to be fair to them—but if there had to be consultation, as I believe there must be if we are to move forward, they preferred an election to a referendum. That was their clear choice. They would have preferred there to be no form of consultation, but I pointed out that there would be consultation, so they joined the DUP in preferring an election.
Following the election, when Ministers take the pledge of office and assume responsibility for government, Northern Ireland will have entered a new era. Between now and March—and well beyond, I have no doubt—there will be difficulties that some will call crises and some will try to make into crises, but those can be overcome if everyone delivers on their commitments. That is what this is all about—not saying it, but doing it, and finding a way to work together so that future generations are not shackled by the past.
Just last week the cutting edge travel guide, “Lonely Planet”, said that Northern Ireland is one of the must-see destinations for tourists. It stated that Northern Ireland was
“abuzz with life: the cities are pulsating, the economy is thriving and the people, the lifeblood that courses through the country, are in good spirits”.
There could be no greater incentive for the parties in Northern Ireland to be an active part of that. They can be, and this House trusts that they will be. I commend the Bill to the House.
It is never satisfactory when we are invited to bypass the normal procedures of the House for debate and detailed scrutiny, but this is one of those occasions when I believe that it is right for the House to give the Government the benefit of the doubt and to co-operate in seeing the Bill through all its stages today. It is somewhat ironic that we are being invited to repeal the Northern Ireland Act 2006, which we solemnly debated and passed as recently as July. However, as the Secretary of State hinted, the Government are in a tight spot as regards this Friday’s deadline, whereby the current statutory position is that on Friday he must either restore the devolved institutions or dissolve the Assembly and cease the payment of salaries and allowances altogether. I argued consistently that the November deadline was over-optimistic; the Secretary of State will probably riposte that had he not set the November deadline we might not have moved as far forward as was achieved at St. Andrews.
One thing that is clear is that over the past few months we have at least inched closer to an agreement. We are closer now than we were back in July. The Independent Monitoring Commission has reported that the provisionals have dismantled key departments of their paramilitary organisation and the IRA leadership is working to stop the involvement of its members in crime.
St. Andrews was a step forward. I welcome the clear statements from the Democratic Unionist party, particularly from the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), that it is willing to take part in a power-sharing Executive that includes Sinn Fein, provided that the basic democratic ground rules are accepted and observed by all parties. It is important that we all acknowledge that that commitment from the Unionists is a remarkable and generous step for them to take, given the bloody history of the Provisional IRA and the personal bereavements that so many people in the Unionist parties and the democratic nationalist tradition have had to bear.
However, one key element is missing. There is a gap in the framework of arrangements that would allow devolution to proceed. If Sinn Fein is to be accepted, as it claims, as a normal democratic political party, and if its leaders are to serve as Ministers in Northern Ireland, it must say and show by its actions that it supports the police and the courts of the place that it will be helping to govern. Doing so does not mean that Sinn Fein, or anyone else for that matter, needs to stop campaigning for votes on a manifesto that seeks further reforms to the police service or the criminal justice system—we frequently have such debates in this Chamber and campaign on those issues out in the country—but it does mean requiring that the republican movement accept that the authority exercised by the Police Service of Northern Ireland and by the courts is legitimate. It means people showing its practical support by reporting crimes to the police, by giving evidence to police inquiries, and by acting as witnesses in court cases—in other words, it means accepting the basic responsibilities held not only by Ministers, but by all citizens in any normal democracy. Those are responsibilities that all Members of the House of all parties, and every mainstream political party in the Republic of Ireland, take for granted.
The hon. Gentleman outlined the bloody history to which the IRA has subjected the people of Northern Ireland, and he is graphically illustrating the move that Sinn Fein must make towards giving support to the rule of law and the police. Does he understand that, given that background, we need to set a credible period of time in which Sinn Fein must go further than just saying that it supports the rule of law? We need to see practical examples of that support on the ground, once it has given that commitment, before we can move forward.
There must be both a clear statement of commitment and evidence on the ground, and I look to bodies such as the Independent Monitoring Commission and the Police Service of Northern Ireland itself to provide evidence of that change on the ground. If it is possible to achieve devolution by next March, that sort of regular co-operation with the police, constructive participation in district policing partnerships and co-operation with the Policing Board will be very important, especially if the Assembly is to be persuaded to ask the Secretary of State and the House to devolve policing and criminal justice to the institutions in Stormont.
I almost apologise for asking this question, because it is an awkward one to bowl towards the shadow Secretary of State. He has heard the Secretary of State avoiding answering, and cringing under, sedentary comments from colleagues asking him the “when” question. Clearly, if a date of 26 March is set, there must be a point along the road from the St. Andrews agreement to that date at which it becomes ludicrous to ask people to accept the bona fides of Sinn Fein. Does that point come at 7 March, in February, or in January? At what point along that line must Sinn Fein make that statement and that commitment?
I see no reason why Sinn Fein should not make it tomorrow, but I preface my answer by remarking that I genuinely do not want to say anything that will hem in the Secretary of State when he comes to make that difficult judgment. However, looking at the evolving political situation in Northern Ireland, it seems that if the transitional Assembly is to be dissolved on 30 January, and if parties are then to go to the electorate and ask people to vote for their candidates, there must, by then, be certainty about Sinn Fein endorsing policing. In practice, it will be very difficult to persuade voters to support at the ballot box a package based on St. Andrews in the absence of such a commitment. To ask people to seek election on the basis of a “perhaps” or a conditional promise is asking a lot. The electoral process will start to impose its own pressures on the timetable.
Does my hon. Friend, who is making an excellent speech, agree that unless an assurance is given by the turn of the year at the very latest, it will lack all credibility?
As I said, I do not want to impose arbitrary dates, particularly because, as an Opposition spokesman, I am not party to the details of conversations between Ministers and the various political parties, but the thrust of what my hon. Friend says is correct. We are looking for some sign of clear movement within a period of weeks, rather than of several months.
The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point, as he is dealing with the nub of the issue. For people in Northern Ireland it is vital that there be a credible period in which to test individuals who have engaged in the butchery that has been under way for 30 years. They need to move pretty soon—any time now, in fact—on policing, criminality and paramilitary structures in order to be credible. There is a 10-week period from today until an election is called, so most people think that that condition cannot be met.
The sooner that that happens, the better. In considering the points made by Northern Ireland Members, I am reminded of the draft comprehensive agreement of 2004. Both the British and Irish Governments expected that, within two months of that agreement becoming a firm one, Sinn Fein would take the necessary steps to endorse policing. In July this year, Members on both sides of the House took steps to make sure that the legislation to permit the devolution of criminal justice and policing completed its passage through Parliament and received Royal Assent before the summer recess, when we expected significant moves forward by the republican movement. I am dismayed that, so far, it has failed to take those steps.
From my perspective in Essex, there is an elephant trap for the constitutional parties—the Ulster Unionists, the Democratic Unionist party and colleagues in the Social Democratic and Labour party. If Sinn Fein does not deliver in a short time, surely it faces a dilemma. It may wish to maximise its strength, but it will go to the electorate without delivering or being prepared to play ball. There is a danger that ambiguous and confused signals will be sent to the various electorates. The parties want elections, and they want to maximise their seats to show their strength, but they will not enter a coalition with people who have not signed up to the police and court services.
I can only repeat that the electoral timetable will impose its own pressures on political developments, precisely because candidates at those elections must decide what to include in their election addresses, and what they will say on the doorstep to the people whose support they are trying to secure. They must answer the kind of questions from electors that the hon. Gentleman suggested. It is a shame, to put it mildly, that Sinn Fein failed to move over the summer.
The Secretary of State touched on the following point. When I talk to Sinn Fein politicians, I sometimes wonder whether they fully appreciate the nature of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I believe that much of the criticism of the Royal Ulster Constabulary was based on an unfair caricature, so it is disappointing that, even today, Sinn Fein spokesmen appear to resort to that ancient caricature to describe the PSNI of the early 21st century.
A few weeks ago, with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, I visited Garnerville, where we met a number of police recruits. All the senior police officers left the room, leaving my right hon. Friend and me alone with those new recruits. We both left the meeting inspired by a group of young men and women from both traditions in Northern Ireland who were committed to delivering modern, effective community policing to the men and women of Northern Ireland, whatever their political or religious or cultural traditions. We heard young men and women from the Ardoyne and other nationalist and republican heartlands saying that whereas their parents’ generation would certainly have shunned the police and would never have contemplated a career in the police, they believed that they were helping to build something that was new, exciting and in the interests of everyone in the whole of Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein leaders need to wake up to the reality of what is going on. I also hear from police officers on the ground that ordinary men and women in republican heartlands increasingly want to see effective neighbourhood policing, and they want their political leaders in Sinn Fein to lift the ban on co-operation with the PSNI that I am afraid it still seeks to impose through the threat of intimidation.
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. He is describing accurately—and eloquently, if I may say so—the pressures on the ground. The paramilitary grip on many of the communities—involving punishment beatings for drug dealing and all that kind of thing—has receded and has, in many respects, been completely withdrawn by the Provisional IRA, although dissident republicans are acting in a different way. The people are now bringing pressure to bear, and they are saying to their Sinn Fein representatives, “I want this burglary dealt with. I want this rape dealt with. I want you to do your job and to co-operate with the police so that my safety can be protected in the absence of alternative forms of protection.” The fact that those changes are happening under the rule of law puts enormous pressure on Sinn Fein, which knows that it is moving in that direction in any case.
I completely agree with the Secretary of State. I hear those views expressed on the streets, even in west Belfast and south Armagh, and I believe that the time for Sinn Fein to act on that shift of mood is now overdue.
In the light of the severe criticism that the hon. Gentleman has rightly levelled at Sinn Fein for dragging out the period in which it is prepared to give its acceptance to policing and the criminal justice system, and of the Secretary of State’s assurances that there will be nominations this Friday, 24 November, does the hon. Gentleman believe that the DUP is jumping too soon by nominating by Friday?
We shall have to see what happens on Friday regarding any nomination process that takes place. It seems to me that the Democratic Unionist party is accepting its responsibilities as the largest political party in Northern Ireland and is seeking a way for devolution to be restored. It deserves credit for the moves that it has made, and I now want to see Sinn Fein live up to its frequent claim to have put the past behind it and to be a normal democratic political organisation. I understand the differences and the old battles between the established democratic political parties in Northern Ireland, but I really believe that everyone’s attention now needs to be focused on the need for the republicans to deliver on policing and on support for the criminal justice system. That is the essential ingredient of the enduring settlement that is still missing.
We are hoping to go into the Bill in greater detail during its subsequent stages this evening, and to raise various questions with the Minister. I want to highlight four areas of concern that I hope the Minister of State will be able to deal with in his response to this debate. If he cannot do so, perhaps he will be able to respond to them during subsequent proceedings.
The first concern relates to the accountability of Ministers in part 2 of the Bill. It is important that the Government should set out clearly how that is to work. It would appear from what the different Northern Ireland parties have said and from some of the press comment on the matter that there are contradictory claims about the extent to which an individual Minister will have autonomy and to which he or she will be subject to the collective will of the Executive. When it comes to matters such as sorting out the details of education—for instance, criteria for admission to post-primary schools—an answer to that question will be very important.
Secondly, I want the Government to spell out more fully what will happen if devolution is restored—if the deadline of 25 March is met—but the Provisional IRA then returns to crime. We do not want that to happen, but after the Northern bank robbery we must accept that it is a matter of more than just academic speculation. I do not think that in those circumstances it would be right for every other party to be penalised.
Thirdly, clause 9 and schedule 6 provide for the establishment of a department for policing and justice. I have no quarrel with that, but I hope the Government will assure us that it would be accompanied by a reduction in the number of other departments at Stormont. I do not think that we need yet another hierarchy of officials and team of Ministers to add to the large number that Northern Ireland would already have under devolution.
I also hope that the Government will look afresh at the possibility of district policing partnerships sub-groups outside Belfast. It seems to me that in limiting the number of DPPs to the number of councils, we risk making DPPs remote from local communities. We are approaching a time when there will be just seven local authorities in Northern Ireland, and those outside Belfast will cover very large areas of land and very diverse populations. Might not having just one DPP to cover the whole of such a local authority area remove effective neighbourhood participation in policing?
Fourthly, I want to question the Government on their time scale for moving towards what I would term normal politics. I accept that in the circumstances of Northern Ireland the system of designating Assembly Members Unionist or nationalist, and the complex rules for cross-community voting, are necessary; but I hope that that will not always be the case.
When I have talked to politicians in Northern Ireland, I have met members of both the Democratic Unionist party and the Ulster Unionist party whose views on questions of economic policy and general political philosophy would be pretty close to mine, and others whose outlook would be much closer to that of the Secretary of State and the Labour party. I expect the Secretary of State has found the same. At the risk of horrifying the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), I will add that I have met members of the SDLP whom in England I would welcome to the Conservative party, and who I think would feel very much at home there. I hope, however, that in a stable, devolved settlement in Northern Ireland, politics will be about health, jobs, schools and the environment, and no longer about deadlines, the operation of committees and the internal rules of devolved institutions. Do we really have to wait until 2015 for any review of the current arrangements, as clause 11 envisages? Should it not be possible to bring the date forward if devolution is clearly settled, enduring and working well?
Will my hon. Friend give way?
I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not; I am coming to the end of my speech.
Whatever the time scale for moving beyond the terms of the settlement envisaged at St Andrews, it is time for us to make a start on getting devolution up and running. I agree with the Secretary of State that Northern Ireland needs devolved democracy that is accountable to the local electorate. I agree with him that the people of Northern Ireland, from both traditions, want decisions about their public services and environment to be made by politicians who are accountable to them, the people, and who are accessible in a way that even the best-intentioned politician representing an English or Welsh constituency cannot be. But such devolution, if it is to work, has to proceed on the basis that the same democratic rules apply to every political party and, in particular, to every Minister. Above all, it must rest on every Minister and their parties wholeheartedly accepting the rule of law and the legitimacy of the authority of the courts and of the police.
I very much welcome the Bill and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his ministerial team and, of course, the parties in Northern Ireland on the progress that they have made so far on the St. Andrews agreement. My right hon. Friend will recall that one of our predecessors as Secretary of State for Wales referred to devolution as a process, not an event. I did not share that view with regard to Welsh devolution, but I certainly share it with regard to Northern Ireland.
The Bill will alter the Northern Ireland Act 1998 in many instances. I had the privilege of steering that Act through the House because it was based on the Belfast—or Good Friday—agreement. There are occasions when it is necessary to change the way in which arrangements for governance in Northern Ireland are dealt with, and I welcome the changes in the Bill on consultation.
When we had the privilege of hearing my right hon. Friend’s statement on the St. Andrews agreement, one of the sketchwriters said that he was good cop and bad cop combined. I suppose that if I were in his place, I would have to do more or less the same thing. However, we have to be a little careful about deadlines and closing down things, or other draconian measures that might arise from the way in which we deal with matters over the weeks and months ahead. I know what the reasoning is—that we cannot go on as we are for ever—but the political and peace process in Northern Ireland has been going on for a long time and will continue for a long time—longer than any of us are in the House of Commons.
We have to be very careful not to be patronising to the local political parties in Northern Ireland and the way in which they deal with these matters. I do not suggest for one second that my right hon. Friend is patronising, but it is a danger for all Governments. After all, the Belfast agreement was not made by the British or Irish Governments, although technically in law it was. It was facilitated and driven by the Governments, but in reality it would have been a complete failure if it had not been based on the work of the local parties. Any agreement in Northern Ireland will fail unless it is based on that. It is the ownership of any agreement or negotiations that makes them successful. The two Governments could have sat down and written the Belfast agreement in a couple of weeks and it would not have been a million miles away from what eventually emerged, but it would not have worked. The two and a half years it took to create were necessary because they involved the parties talking about the issues and, above all, reaching agreement on them. In paying tribute to the local parties in Northern Ireland for doing what they have to do, we have to bear that in mind in the weeks and months ahead.
I thought that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) gave an exemplary description of where Northern Ireland is now in respect of policing, and I agree with every word he said. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made similar statements. Sinn Fein and the republican movement have come a long way and we have the Independent Monitoring Commission to monitor developments. However, it is complete nonsense for any agreement to go ahead without the realisation that every party in Northern Ireland has to sign up to the rule of law and the new policing arrangements. People sometimes forget that it was very difficult for the Unionist community to accept the changes that the Patten report brought about, as it also was for the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Catholic Church in Northern Ireland—but accept them everybody did. Of course, some people would like changes to be made, and we will consider some amendments to the Bill later this afternoon. Nevertheless, people made sacrifices for the new policing arrangement—the Police Service of Northern Ireland—to work as well as it does.
I also agree with the hon. Member for Aylesbury that elections are an issue—that the closer we get to the elections in Northern Ireland, the more difficult it will be to get away from electioneering. It is true that when the comprehensive agreement was almost agreed in the winter of 2004, Sinn Fein would have signed up to the policing arrangements in Northern Ireland very quickly. I see no reason why that cannot happen again, and every reason why it should happen in order to develop the process.
There has to be a special arrangement for the restoration of devolution in Northern Ireland, because devolution there is not quite like Welsh or Scottish devolution. Those devolved systems are important, but devolution in Northern Ireland is about more than governance—it is about our ability to govern together. All the months and years spent establishing how the Assembly and other institutions were to be set up were based on the premise that we would govern together. As soon as that is achieved, the problem of devolution will be resolved, and we can get on with the business of governing the people for whom we have a mandate.
Another consequence will be that there will be an end to direct rule, which was brought in as an historical necessity 30 years ago and should long since have gone. I have said more than once in this House that I very much regretted having to deal with education, health and social services as part of my Northern Ireland portfolio, because it was not my business to do that, any more than it is the business of another Labour Member. Labour Members have no mandate in Northern Ireland: not one person there votes for the Labour party. It is important that people there should be governed by people with the proper mandate. The longer direct rule goes on, the more difficult it will be for devolution to be accepted and to become embedded into the constitutional system of Northern Ireland.
It is important that when my right hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues deal with the issues that come before them between now and the end of March, they take serious account of the views of local politicians. I have said that before, but it is worth repeating. I do not express a view one way or the other, but the agreement states that it will be left to the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive to deal with education. I believe that other issues could be left to the Assembly. Of course, if no agreement is reached, the situation will be different, but we all agree that there should be an agreement. If there is, major decisions on how the people of Northern Ireland live their lives should be left until the new Assembly is up and running.
Some people believe that it would be better not to have devolution and to leave the governance of Northern Ireland to Members of Parliament here and the seven new super local authorities that will be formed by joining together existing local authorities. That is not the answer to the problems in Northern Ireland—there has to be proper devolution there in the same way as in Scotland and Wales. The Secretary of State knows my views about having seven local authorities, so I shall not rehearse them, but I do not believe that the way forward for the governance of Northern Ireland is through local government and Members of Parliament. The people of Northern Ireland should be governed by their political leaders and the parties that are represented in the Assembly. That is what we all hope and pray for.
I wish to say only one more thing, and it is in my capacity as co-chairman of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body.
As the right hon. Gentleman was a key player at the time of the Belfast agreement and knows its detail like no one else in the House, will he give us his reaction to the Bill before us today? It will separate the joint election of the First and Deputy First Ministers, which was of course a cornerstone of the Belfast agreement in which he took particular interest.
I could, but I do not think that it would do any good if I went into considerable detail about what happened. When we looked at the comprehensive agreement, I spent a lot of time on changes to the way the Assembly worked, including the issue to which the hon. Lady refers. I know that people held strong views on that, for obvious reasons. The agreement was a long time in the making; it was the result of many late nights and through-the-nights, ending up in Good Friday 1998.
Although I have said that devolution is a process and not an event in Northern Ireland, we have to take great care in how we make changes. I would not want to exacerbate the situation by making a personal reference to the issue that the hon. Lady raises, but parts of the agreement could still be useful. I shall give one example. The agreement said—the people of Northern Ireland voted on this—that if there was disagreement on the newly formed Executive about how to govern Northern Ireland and how to produce a First and a Deputy First Minister, the Assembly should be dissolved and further elections should be held, and that that process should continue until such time as the issue was resolved by the people of Northern Ireland through the ballot box. That has never been tested or tried. It is what the people of Northern Ireland voted for.
In this House we have had Bill after Bill and Act after Act, but we still have not arrived at a solution. We have not tried the first one—but that is an aside. Today, we are dealing with another issue—the St. Andrews agreement, which we have to consider as it occurs in the Bill. I sometimes wonder and reflect on whether, if we had stuck by the Belfast agreement, we would have had a different outcome. I do not know; none of us does.
I return to strand 3 of the agreement on the east-west relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland and, indeed, the devolved institutions within them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is aware that the parliamentary body to which I referred earlier brings together Members of this Parliament, the Irish Parliament and the Assemblies of Wales, Scotland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. It seems to me that the St. Andrews agreement, which refers to the parliamentary aspect of strand 3—although there is no direct reference to it in the Bill—should reconstitute it in such a way that Members of Parliament from all parties in Northern Ireland are in a position to become members of the parliamentary body. I understand the problems of the past, as a result of the Anglo-Irish agreement and so on, but if the body was reconstituted and formed out of the legislation on which we vote today or in the future, that would be a good development.
I shall conclude because I know that other hon. Members want to speak. I wish my right hon. Friend and his team and all the parties in Northern Ireland well in seeking a successful outcome to the negotiations.
It may seem unusual to those who have been listening to the Queen’s Speech debates that we have interrupted them for this important debate, but as others, including the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, have said, we agree that the importance of what we are trying to do justifies the change in programming from what would be regular at this stage in our parliamentary proceedings.
Some may regard Northern Ireland politics as dreary, but I prefer to regard our machinations today as a light and refreshing sorbet between the heavy courses of the Queen’s Speech debates.
I start with the debate about deadlines, which is rather important. It is clear that once again the Secretary of State wants to underline the fact that the deadlines in the legislation are cast in stone. He also made it clear that Northern Ireland’s political parties should not assume that they can do a deal “five minutes after midnight”. However, everything that we have seen before suggests otherwise; almost every deadline in the Northern Ireland peace process has been broken, moved or abandoned.
I take the Secretary of State back to 26 April 2006 and the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Act 2006—the measure that we are seeking to alter today. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) said
“he is not telling the House that, were the parties in sight of an agreement on 24 November, he would bring down the guillotine, is he? Presumably we are considering not a final and ultimate but a flexible date.”
The Secretary of State responded:
“I am afraid that I cannot reassure the hon. Gentleman about that. The Bill sets the date in statute. As I said earlier, the Government will not blink. If eleventh-hour attempts are made on 24 November to force us to blink, people will be disappointed.”
I asked the Secretary of State:
“Will he assure us that they are genuinely not flexible? I ask that because, as he knows, my great anxiety is that the Government’s credibility has been somewhat tarnished by allowing deadlines to be flexible and, indeed, by occasionally ignoring them. If he wants the Bill to work, he must impress on everybody that the deadlines are not negotiable.”
The Secretary of State replied:
“I have already done that but I am happy to accept the hon. Gentleman’s invitation to emphasise and underline as much as necessary—in flashing neon lights, if he wishes and if that is not a mixed metaphor—that the deadline is for real. The salaries and allowances will stop at midnight on 24 November. The Assembly will no longer sit, which it will be entitled to do after 15 May, and that will be that.”—[Official Report, 26 April 2006; Vol. 445, c. 597-98.]
The truth tells a different story. With the best intentions, the Secretary of State has blinked and altered the goal posts yet again. I do not condemn the Government for that change, but in response to the question that the Secretary of State implicitly asked me, it matters because he has to recognise an alternative outcome from today’s legislation: a new precedent for peace in Northern Ireland, whereby we persistently re-establish deadlines—perhaps on a six-monthly or annual basis, as we do with the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005—so that we ensure a peace of sorts, but not the re-establishment of devolution.
What would I do if I were in the Secretary of State’s position? It is possible that I would find myself in the same situation, but the reason this point is salient to the debate is that for the Bill to have credibility the deadlines, too, must have credibility. When the Secretary of State—or the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson)—sums up the debate, I hope that we will be given some new assurance that the March deadlines are not as flexible as all the others.
The Secretary of State’s claims that the Government have not shifted the goal posts, or shifted the deadlines again, may seem credible to him, but everybody knows that the Government have renegotiated the deadlines because they think that is right for the peace process. I stress again that I do not condemn the Secretary of State for that decision—the shadow Secretary of State made the point that he, too, might have found himself in the same position—but the Government must have a strategy to ensure that the provisions we pass today will not be subject to further modification next year.
I do not want to keep labouring the point. The point about the previous phase of this process was that 24 November was a real deadline—it was a real deadline. If we had not had an agreement to move it forward, we would have closed it down; there is absolutely no question about that. As the hon. Gentleman very well knows—I make this point to emphasise the point that he is making—these deadlines are set in statute. The last legislation did not specify an election date; it did not specify the restoration of an Executive. It said that there had to be progress, there had to be an agreement, in order to get a deal by 24 November. That was very clear. This legislation says that it is devolution or dissolution by 26 March. In resisting amendments on clause 2, I shall make that absolutely clear again.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for making that clarification. Perhaps he might wish to give an assurance before the House that there will be no intention whatsoever of the Government coming back again with emergency legislation, fitted in in a rush, to make the March deadlines, which he outlined in his opening speech, into April or May or October deadlines.
I do not want to see failure—I do not want to see the collapse of the peace process—but I do feel that what we are almost planning for by default is a situation where those parties in Northern Ireland that are keen to resist setting up some sort of power-sharing arrangement—
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I will in a moment.
I am thinking specifically of the DUP. We may end up giving those parties some reason to believe that they will be able to carry on playing this Government for new deadlines, for new extensions, in such a way that we end up living with the precedent of indefinite extensions to deadlines on a regular basis.
First, I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates, as I do, that the apparent slippage that he is talking about by the Government will actually be sourced in the slipperiness of some of the political parties involved in the process. Does he also recognise that there is slippage already on the St. Andrews agreement? The Programme for Government Committee was to meet on 17 October. It did not meet until yesterday, 20 November. The St. Andrews agreement said that legislation would be introduced here, in November,
“once parties have endorsed the agreement and agreed definitively to restore the power sharing institutions.”
We did not hear such an endorsement from parties. Instead, we got Vicky Pollard: “Yes but no, but—not our fault, see!” Also, we had an indication on Friday of who will be First Minister and Deputy First Minister, not nominations as set out in the St. Andrews agreement.
What we hear now is the frustration of other parties, who are not Sinn Fein or the DUP, but who feel that the change to deadlines is being made expediently and explicitly to accommodate the needs of those two parties. There is no need to be a psephologist to understand the play for political advantage that will necessarily be entailed by the announcement of another election. However, my worry is that while the Government are eager to accommodate the two large parties in Northern Ireland, they begin to cause resentment among the smaller ones, the overwhelming majority of whom have been both loyal and allied to the peace process. For that reason, I ask the Minister to consider the warning signs that we see already—for example, the credible period of testing that is being requested by the DUP in regard to Sinn Fein's genuine commitment to policing. It is very easy to envisage, in the run-up to March, a statement by the DUP, saying “Of course we want to see the restoration of the Assembly; we are even willing to work with Sinn Fein to achieve it, but you really must give us another six months to make sure that Sinn Fein is credible and serious about its commitment to policing.”
May I ask the hon. Gentleman why he was not so exercised at the time that Sinn Fein-IRA failed to make the deadline for decommissioning in 2001?
Well, I was not happy about that either. The fact of the matter is that, as I said before, in the real world of Northern Ireland politics, deadlines have shifted all the time. Let me stress again: I am not condemning either the DUP for maximising the opportunity for itself, or the Minister for trying to get the right answers. but I am suggesting that the Government need to have an alternative strategy that ensures either that these deadlines are genuinely binding—I doubt that they are—or, alternatively and more probably, that whatever they intend to do in March, if once again faced with an impasse, will lead to a genuine improvement in the chances of the restoration of the Assembly.
The Secretary of State said something today that concerned me, namely, that he wished to be given an indication of which individuals Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist Party would nominate, but he was not able to give us clarity about what form that indication might take. Will it be enough for a press release to be issued by the DUP and Sinn Fein? Will they just need to make a telephone call to the Northern Ireland Office? That is one of the reasons why I feel that slippage is being allowed to come into a process that cannot afford to have slippage. It is for such reasons that I believe that the Government must take much more seriously the danger in the precedent they have set by undermining the credibility of their own, apparently not so binding, deadlines.
The hon. Gentleman is right to be cynical about so-called unbreakable deadlines set by this Government. Last weekend, at least one DUP Member of Parliament was briefing the political correspondent of The Sunday Times. He was not named, so I will not risk attempting to guess who it was. [Hon. Members: “Go on. Go on.”] DUP Members can come out and canvass with me at any time. That DUP Member told The Sunday Times that the 26 March deadline “lacked credibility”, so the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) is spot-on about Government deadlines.
To sum up on the deadlines question, my concern is not so much that the deadlines lack credibility in the eyes of certain individuals and parties, but that moving the deadlines presents opportunity, and that that opportunity is in the interests of the parties rather than of the process. I would, of course, rather see the breaking of deadlines than the breaking of bodies in Northern Ireland, and to that extent there are expedient reasons for breaking deadlines, but I would like the Government to say in this debate why the deadlines now under discussion are more credible than previous ones.
The St. Andrews agreement has the potential to bind the DUP to a commitment to assume power alongside Sinn Fein, and also to bind all parties, including republican parties, to a commitment to policing and the rule of law. However, it is still far from clear to me that those parties are truly prepared to rise to that challenge.
There is significant popular demand for the restoration of the political institutions in Northern Ireland, especially because decisions made in Westminster on behalf of Northern Ireland have, on many occasions, been universally opposed on a cross-party basis in Northern Ireland. The agreement gives some hope that the demands for restoration will be met. A road map is now set out in respect of the institutions and how the Good Friday agreement can be restored. A series of small steps can now be taken, as opposed to one large leap—but for success to be achieved, the DUP and Sinn Fein must deliver.
Crucially, it has now been established that the institutions of the agreement can be modified provided that the modifications are consistent with the agreement’s underlying fundamental principles. Some of the institutional changes made to the Good Friday agreement are positive, as are some of the changes to public policy. Nevertheless, I have grave concern about some aspects of the St. Andrews agreement as they risk breaking some of the principles of the original agreement. In particular, I do not believe that we have yet had a process where mutual commitments are clear, ambiguities have been removed and shared understandings exist. There is a danger that a fragile process could easily be broken when difficulties arise as a result of intentional or unintentional misinterpretation of the contents of the agreement and its implementation.
The St. Andrews agreement addresses only issues and priorities placed on the table by the DUP and Sinn Fein. The wider range of changes to the institutions, public policy priorities and measures required to build a sound future have yet to be addressed. For example, why are some public policy issues listed in annexe B of the St. Andrews agreement, whereas others are not? Why does the Bill require any new Executive to address some policy issues but not others? What is the basis for requiring specific action on poverty and language issues but not on, for example, a shared future, equality or victims’ matters?
What was the rationale for these selections? Indeed, why are the Government imposing such statutory duties on the Executive at all? Should it not be up to the Executive to decide whether their priorities are promoting minority languages and equality, dealing with poverty or promoting the shared future agenda? It seems like a random list, or a list built out of expedience, following negotiations with a very limited number of parties and individuals.
Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that one of the duties imposed on the institutional review committee is to look at mandatory coalition, which was the chief issue raised by his party’s sister party—the Alliance party in Northern Ireland—but not the chief issue raised by either Sinn Fein or the DUP?
The majority of the contents of the list that I outlined earlier has in my judgment been determined by talks between Sinn Fein, the DUP and the Government. I fully accept that the DUP may claim to see things differently, but I can only say as I see. I have repeatedly made the point in this Chamber and elsewhere that the Government need to be inclusive on a cross-party basis. Other interest groups and parties have been frustrated at the Government’s tendency to fixate on the two parties that they are most desperate to bring together. That tendency is understandable, but the Government run the gauntlet of turning off allies who, in my judgment, are very important to the Assembly’s successful restoration.
Let us consider the example of languages. Although the Irish and Ulster-Scots languages are important, it is not at all obvious that they are the most important languages in Northern Ireland, given that a very significant proportion of people there speak Chinese. But obviously, because the Chinese lobby is not salient to the peace process, it has been excluded in the legislation. We are also concerned that the process is aimed primarily at producing a quick fix—at doing little more than what is perceived as necessary to achieve the restoration of the suspended institutions in a tactical way, without addressing the deeper and wider problems that have been identified in the agreement, or neglected in the past eight years.
One of my main concerns is power sharing, which was already weak under the Good Friday agreement, as evidenced by the poor relationship between the Ulster Unionist party and the Social Democratic and Labour party when they were in charge. Although some minor improvements have been made, they are insufficient to take into account the increased political polarisation and the ascendancy of the DUP and Sinn Fein into what is necessarily likely to be a fractious environment. The removal of the need for any vote for either the joint election of First Minister and Deputy First Minister, or for the Executive as a whole, is a major flaw. The need for governing parties formally to recognise each other’s mandates and the legitimacy of their share of power and responsibility has been undermined. That simply entrenches the divisions, rather than reducing them.
There is also a danger that the only way that the DUP and Sinn Fein will be able to operate or co-exist within the same Government is through creating more and more separation. That seems to be the subtext. At present, the DUP and Sinn Fein are not really talking to each other in any formal way, so it is a big leap to see them effectively running a regional Government in partnership. It might be possible for parties to co-exist within the same Government, but it appears that this legislation will achieve that by ensuring that they can co-exist without having to deal directly with each other. Rather than Ministers working together, Northern Ireland could end up with government by memorandum, with civil servants acting as messengers between various Ministers who are not prepared to talk to one another, and who are not required to do so by the system.
I am truly bewildered by what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The flaw of the old system—and we know this happened—was that it was possible for members of the Executive not to attend the meeting of the Executive. Under this system, they have to attend and participate. Although there is not collective Cabinet responsibility in the Westminster mould, collegiality is entrenched in this system. Under it, matters can be discussed exhaustively by the Executive, to the benefit of everybody. Surely that is a step forward.
The theory sounds great, but when we consider the amendments—at which point we can talk in more detail about my and other people’s concerns—we will we see that, in fact, this system entrenches the opportunity for Ministers to operate on a silo basis, without having to share collective decision-making responsibility. I suggest that we discuss the issue in more detail when we consider the amendments.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that as that system works pretty well for the Government in Westminster, it should work okay in Stormont as well?
When the Liberal Democrats take power in 2009, many things are going to change—and that will be one of them.
The Government have also missed an opportunity to bind all parties into a firm commitment to build a shared future in order to counter the tendencies to separation. While we welcome the commitment to a shared future within the proposed pledge of office, I am not convinced that it will be sufficient to counter the separatist tendencies within the new structures. A short-term fix to restore devolution may be superficially attractive but, particularly if it is based on tactical rather than strategic considerations, it will not really secure long-term peace. More general flaws within the Good Friday agreement as established and operated include institutionalised sectarianism, the politics of “them versus us” over control of territory and resources, the failure of moderation and accommodation to be incentivised, and entrenched inter-ethnic competition that rewards ethnic outbidders.
My response to the question posed by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) is that we need to address the four key issues, and our amendments will be designed to do so. If the Government go down their current path, the problems are, in my view, set to get worse. There are also inherent difficulties and dangers in the Government focusing almost exclusively on expediency and tactical considerations in order to secure some sort of a peace and a restored Assembly.
The lack of inclusivity will bring a number of negative consequences. It limits the number of ideas placed on the table, risks missing certain aspects of the process that need to be addressed, removes the ability of other parties to put more pressure on the recalcitrant parties and focuses on the most negative parties, to some extent enabling them to reinforce their position by holding the overall political process hostage to fortune. Crucially, it removes any sense of collective ownership of the outcomes and it is important to note that where the Government focus only on two parties, the other parties feel no ownership of the results, which risks them being rejected.
It is not realistic to restrict all meaningful discussion and evolving documentation to two parties alone, so I suggest that the Government reflect on how they arrived at this legislation and think seriously—even at this late stage before implementation, which will unquestionably go through—about a further consultation process with the parties not directly responsible for creating the wish list that I have described.
Finally, with those reservations, it is obvious that we will still have to pass the legislation as there is no sensible alternative before us. However, when we discuss somewhat esoterically whether the proposals can work, it is important to note that some of the prime architects who will decide whether it works or not are in their places in the Chamber right now. They have the power to decide whether a power-sharing Assembly will work. Sinn Fein, of course, is not here and, as has been made abundantly clear, it is going to have to play ball, especially over policing. There is no space to mess about. Sinn Fein needs to provide some confidence that it is serious about democracy; otherwise democracy will be compromised.
Let us remember the stakes. With respect to all the legislation passed through statutory instrument without amendment—covering everything from water charges and housing rates to tuition fees and changes to the education system—we need to remember that if it is not fixed in Northern Ireland, it will be enforced in Westminster. For the citizens whom Northern Ireland politicians represent, the stakes are indeed very high.
In supporting Second Reading, it is more an act of hope than expectation that the deadlines will be made binding. As it stands, there is every reason to think that it will buy us more time to make it work, but I also believe that we should regard the Bill more as a lifeline for peace than as a deadline for devolution.
rose—
Order. I advise the House that 14 hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. The time available is limited, so I would appreciate it if they thought about keeping their speeches brief in order to achieve maximum participation.