I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the compulsory teaching of British history in schools; and for connected purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand before you today to advance a cause that I and many Members of this House feel passionately about, but which in recent decades has been shamefully neglected: the teaching of the history of our nation and its peoples to pupils in schools across the land. The peoples of these magnificent British Isles—England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man—along with the numerous and unique British territories around the world, have a rich and proud history like no other. From Stonehenge to St. Paul’s cathedral; from the battles of Agincourt, Trafalgar and Waterloo to the defeat of the Spanish armada and the liberation of the Falkland Islands; and from the invention of the steam engine to the discovery of penicillin, the great explorations of the seven seas and the British empire, the depth and breath of our history is unsurpassed.

Yet, today, where does the comprehensive teaching of British history figure in our nation’s education? I believe that it is time that British history was made a core subject in all schools and at all stages of learning, so that every young person can grow up with an appreciation and understanding of all that has made our nation great throughout the centuries, and with an ability to demonstrate that to future generations, so that they in turn will wish to play their part in building on what has gone before, as the next chapter of British history unfolds.

In their seminal work of 1930, “1066 and All That”, Sellar and Yeatman famously wrote that every schoolchild could be relied on to recall two key dates in our history—the Norman conquest in 1066 and Julius Caesar’s invasion of England. Today, we cannot rely on even that level of knowledge. Despite the best efforts of history teachers to advance the subject and provide children with a solid grounding in the fundamentals, they are constrained by a history curriculum that does not enable pupils to develop a comprehensive understanding of British history. A recent Ofsted report worryingly noted that pupils’ knowledge and understanding of “key historical events” is not good enough, and that their knowledge is fragmented,

“patchy and specific; they are unable to sufficiently link…historical events…form overviews and demonstrate strong conceptual understanding.”

It also noted that their

“sense of chronology is…weak and they are generally unable to…relate to a longer narrative or story of the history of Britain”.

Unlike in most European countries, the teaching of history is no longer compulsory in British schools after the age of 14, and evidence suggests that the history curriculum in our country is deeply flawed. The following findings from surveys conducted over the last few years offer some alarming insights into this matter. It was found that 70 per cent. of 11 to 18-year-olds did not know that Nelson’s flagship at the battle of Trafalgar was called HMS Victory. More than 20 per cent. of 16 to 24-year-olds thought that Britain had, at one stage, been conquered by the Germans, the Americans or the Spanish. Several children mistook Sir Winston Churchill for the first man to walk on the moon. He also joins King Richard the Lionheart and Florence Nightingale as being mistaken regularly by our youth as a creation of fiction.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) has previously highlighted, full participation in our nation is greatly aided by a thorough understanding of our heritage and tradition. The study of history helps children better to grasp their own identity, and reading history enables our younger generation to analyse and question the present by engaging and examining what has gone before. Knowledge of the history of our country is so important because it allows people to make informed decisions about the future of our nation. If our children do not know where they come from, how can they possibly move forward? By learning about the rich tapestry of British history, they can identify with the culture and society of modern Britain.

Over the past decade, the number of students reading history has fallen, from 35 per cent. of teenagers taking history at GCSE level in 1997 to 30 per cent. in 2007. This led Ofsted to claim last year that history was increasingly becoming an “endangered subject”. Indeed, Britain in particular is envied for its rich history, the knowledge of which we must cherish and hand down to future generations. Something is going wrong, however. Many pupils harbour a negative view of history by the age of 16. According to some universities, many of those who study the subject in higher education have very little knowledge of history prior to the 20th century.

It is Henry and Hitler who now dominate the history syllabus. Most pupils today would be able to recite the fate of Germany in the second world war and the tribulations of Henry VIII and his wives, but little else. World war two and the Tudor dynasty were, of course, significant events in our nation’s history, but to study them in isolation is not truly to understand the events that led to and followed them.

Change is needed to ensure that young people’s knowledge does not remain patchy and over-specific, and tied only to one or two moments in our nation’s history and ignorant of others. They need to be able to comprehend a longer narrative of our history. Knowledge of events such as the establishment of Parliament, the triumphs of the British empire, the monarchy and our Royal heritage has to an extent been cast by the wayside.

If we are to advance the cause of British history, we must not focus solely on England. Currently, the history curriculum sheds very little light on Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. British history should encompass all countries and all peoples of these isles, as well as those parts of the world in which Britain has had a significant input—including those whose people still identify themselves as British, such as in Her Majesty’s overseas territories and Crown dependencies.

A proper appreciation of our nation’s history is an important factor in forging national cohesion. It would combat the current failure of some pockets of our youth to engage with society and enlighten them as to the impact of the key factors that have shaped our nation over the centuries. History has always been a great contributor to British democracy and has allowed us to conduct a pluralistic analysis of the status quo.

The importance of learning and appreciating history cannot be underestimated. To quote the revered historian, Anthony Seldon:

“Only if young people learn about their own country, and its place in the world, will they be able to play their full part as citizens and voters.”

I commend the Bill to the House.

I take the view that politicians should be very careful about laying down what should be taught in history, and particularly what should be taught in schools. Only today I read in a newspaper that Russian teachers have been told that they should be very careful over what is being taught to school pupils about the communist period. One person associated with the Russian Prime Minister said:

“Don’t throw mud at the Motherland”.

Clearly, Russian history teachers are being sharply told what should and should not be taught.

If we are to have lessons in British history, a number of points that the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) raised should be emphasised. I would not necessarily disagree with his view that this country has a proud history and I see no reason why school pupils should not be told about it. I imagine most of them are. However, other aspects of our history should also, in my view, be told. School children should be told, for example, about what happened in 1381, but the hon. Gentleman did not mention that. This was the first revolt by ordinary people in this country and it took place over a poll tax—[Interruption.] It was the peasants’ uprising, led by John Ball and Wat Tyler—[Interruption.]

Order. The Bill’s promoter was heard in silence, so we should also allow the hon. Member opposing it to be properly heard.

That was an important aspect of British history, when ordinary people decided that they were going to revolt against a poll tax rather earlier than our more recent disagreements over a similar tax. What about the Levellers and the Diggers, following the civil war? Then, again, ordinary people took the view that the abolition of the monarchy should be followed by a system in which they could vote and take decisions, which would otherwise have been impossible—and was impossible for a long time to come after the civil war. However, there was not a single mention from the hon. Gentleman of the Levellers and the Diggers—a very important aspect of British history. For that matter, I would also like to see some recognition in the House of Commons of those who fought in those days for elementary rights.

What about the Great Reform Act? Not a single mention was made by the hon. Gentleman of the agitation of the people of this country that they should have the right to vote. Before the Great Reform Act of 1831—[Interruption.] I do not know why Conservative Members are getting so excited. Before the Reform Act of 1831, only a very small number were able to vote. The overwhelming majority of people had no vote at all and the agitation—the reform—that led to the House of Commons becoming more representative is surely an aspect of history that should be taught and that we should be pleased about. There was no mention either of Peterloo in 1819, when a number of people were killed demonstrating in Manchester, some four years after the end of the war against Napoleon, so the hon. Gentleman is being very selective.

Another topic in British history was not mentioned—the Tolpuddle martyrs. In 1834, six people in a small village in Dorset were convicted of a criminal offence and deported to Australia. Why no mention of the Tolpuddle martyrs? Is the hon. Gentleman aware of what happened or ashamed of it?

It is history. What about 1832?

The Tolpuddle martyrs were in 1834.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, my view is that we, as politicians in a democracy, should be careful about not laying down what should or should not be taught in schools. The hon. Member for Romford has a strong view; so do I. The more we leave history to the professionals and do not intervene, the better. That is the proper way to go about matters.

I oppose the Bill, but I do not consider it, or at least what the hon. Gentleman himself has said, of such major concern that he should divide the House. The House has a busy day ahead, and if he wants permission to proceed with his Bill, which will not get anywhere, so be it.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Andrew Rosindell, Angela Watkinson, David Simpson, Mr. Mark Lancaster, Andrew Selous, Mr. Gerald Howarth, Mr. David Evennett, Mr. Frank Field, Joan Ryan, David Cairns, Mr. David Jones and Mr. Henry Bellingham present the Bill.

Andrew Rosindell accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October and to be printed (Bill 71).

I inform the House that I have selected amendment (a), which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone).

I beg to move,

That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Northern Ireland Bill—

Timetable

1.—(1) Proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at today’s sitting in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.

(2) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

(3) Proceedings in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion 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; and

(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

3.—(1) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

(2) 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 Chairman or Speaker 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 (so far as not 40 previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion 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.

(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—

(a) agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment, or

(b) 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 (so far as 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 been proposed from the Chair.

(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 and the appointment of its Chairman.

(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion 90 of the sitting at which it is appointed.

(3) Proceedings in the Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) 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, 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.—(1) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.

(2) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

12.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) 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.—(1) 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 recommit the Bill.

(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

15.—(1) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.

(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

16. The Speaker may not arrange for a debate to be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates)—

(a) at today’s sitting, or

(b) at any sitting at which Lords Amendments to the Bill are, or any further Message from the Lords is, to be considered, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.

17.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.

(2) 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.

It might help if I briefly spell out why we have tabled the motion and the parliamentary timetable for the Bill. Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern about the timetable. I would like to explain why we are taking weeks rather than months to take the Bill through Parliament to Royal Assent.

The Government committed at St. Andrews that when the Assembly was ready to ask for the transfer of policing and justice powers, the necessary enabling legislation would be in place. We had envisaged that it would take up to a year to see sufficient confidence built to realise stage 2. However, 18 months have passed before the political environment has felt confident enough even to begin the process.

On 18 November 2008, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister wrote to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee to say that they had reached agreement on a way forward to the completion of devolution. In January this year, the committee reported on its deliberations on the devolution of policing and justice powers, and the Assembly agreed the report on a cross-community vote. The elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, having gone through their Assembly and Executive Review Committee, have asked that we give legislative form to their agreements of November and January. In that sense, the Bill not only enjoys confidence, but has “Made in Northern Ireland” stamped firmly on it.

This is not the legislation that will affect the transfer of power. It is, however, important in that it makes a series of changes to departmental models, and deals with arrangements for the appointment of a Justice Minister and arrangements for the judiciary. It is for the people of Northern Ireland, through their Assembly, to decide when to ask for the transfer of powers. The triple lock set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1988 remains firmly in place. We made a commitment to be ready to play our part, and that is why it is necessary to have this legislation in place now and to expedite its path. That is not for the convenience of the Government; it is in order to ensure that when the Assembly asks, we are ready. That is why I am asking the House to expedite the arrangements without undue delay.

I am very aware that this is not the first occasion on which we have asked for the passage of Northern Ireland legislation to be made a matter of urgency, and, along with my predecessors as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I continue to be grateful to the House for its indulgence. It has helped to spur Northern Ireland to its transformation from violence to peace and from inequality to partnership in power, truly building the environment for a shared future. I ask again for the co-operation and support of the House in expediting this legislation, thereby enabling those who are elected in Northern Ireland to take control of their destiny and, at a time of their choosing, accept responsibility for the policing and justice powers that currently reside in the hands of the Secretary of State.

I was first alerted to the imminence of the Bill when during the week before the recess, through the usual channels, I learnt that the Government intended to publish it on Monday 23 February, the day on which Parliament resumed. The House would be given one full day to read it, understand it and table amendments before proceeding to consider all stages on Wednesday 25 February.

It has always been our policy not to let party politics intrude on our deliberations on Northern Ireland. We have always striven to be a responsible Opposition, maintaining the broad bipartisan consensus that has brought the peace process so far. However, this proposal really did ask too much, as it gave us so little time in which to analyse a Bill that, although short, amends a number of earlier Acts. More negotiations followed, and I was pleased when the Government agreed to a further week, resulting in today’s business.

It is highly unsatisfactory that any Bill should be put through all its stages in the elected House in one day, when even the non-elected House is given two days. There have been times when emergency legislation on Northern Ireland has been put through in a day, and those circumstances have been understandable. However, although there is no such emergency on this occasion, I was given to understand that the Government had set a timetable so tight that it would allow the Assembly time to consider the Bill, with the result that criminal justice and policing would be devolved before the summer recess. I was therefore very surprised when, during our brief debate on the business of the House last Wednesday, the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who is present—the First Minister, no less—declared that no date for devolution had been agreed, and that time should be allowed for a full debate in the House.

That makes the position even more unsatisfactory. However, given the Government’s majority and ability to control the programme, I fear that further debate and voting on this motion would eat into the limited time available for Second Reading and the Bill’s remaining stages. I am strongly tempted to vote against the motion, but I should prefer my hon. Friends—I know that they have strong feelings on the issue, which are quite justified—not to press the motion to a Division if they can possibly restrain themselves from doing so, thus allowing us to proceed to the main business.

Let me say at the outset that, on behalf of my party, I oppose the programme motion.

The House has seen plenty of legislation that needed to be passed urgently, but here we have legislation being rushed through as if it were urgent when in reality there is no urgency whatsoever in terms of politics in Northern Ireland. Whether we like it or not, we still have no date for the devolution of justice—the Secretary of State has made that perfectly clear on many occasions—so why rush this legislation through now? Why should we not take a bit of time, not to delay it but to consider it properly? What harm could there be in that? In fact, it could only create better legislation. The other place is taking two days to consider the Bill, so why is this House being rushed and restricted to a single afternoon on a day that features a busy schedule?

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Bill is being rushed through not because of its urgency, but because of its defects. Perhaps that is why copies of the consolidated legislation on which the Bill is largely based were not supplied to political parties until 9.16 pm on Monday, when amendments had to be tabled by 10.30 pm. That constitutes indecent haste, and prevents parties and Members from doing their job properly in the House. Members were left to trawl through the spaghetti of seven different Acts in that short time: the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission Etc.) Act 2003, the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006, the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006, the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, and the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2004.

Not only does the Bill amend those Acts; it confounds some of the explanations and assurances that were given in the House during their passage. It contradicts previous understandings of, in particular, the way in which the devolution of justice would work, and it is defective in a number of respects. It means that the 2011 Assembly elections can be followed by an indefinite period during which there will be a Department of Justice without a Minister. Worse, it means that unless by May 2012 the Assembly has agreed to a permanent model for the devolution of justice, or the Secretary of State intervenes, the position will be the other way around: we shall have a Minister for Justice without a Department.

That, of course, would be a very dangerous position. The absence of a Department of Justice would mean chaos in the sphere of justice and law in Northern Ireland. Perhaps that is why paragraph 5(2)(b) of schedule 1 allows the Secretary of State to introduce a fallback, although the First Minister and Deputy First Minister agreed that there would be no fallback. The fallback is the model of the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act, which allows the DUP the very thing that Sinn Fein foolishly conceded in July 2008: a DUP veto over the appointment of a Minister for Justice “at all times”. That, of course, could lead to further rows about who the Minister for Justice will be after 2012, potentially leaving the Department without a Minister again.

All that might not matter if the future was in safe hands, but it is not. Both the DUP and Sinn Fein have played the devolution of justice card time and again for their own advantage, not for the common good. Indeed, just last year, while the world economy was falling apart around us, they could not agree to let the Executive meet to discuss the issue.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Not at the moment.

They could not agree to that as they were indulging in a partisan stand-off over the devolution of justice. If they are willing to allow that, we can safely assume that they will be willing to let a crisis build in 2011 or 2012—and perhaps the elections coming up this year and next year will be fought on that artificially created agenda. That is why it is all the more important that this legislation looks for positive ways out of crises, rather than pushing parties towards them, and that is what our amendments try to do. They avoid such opportunities for stunts, stand-offs and showdowns, and they promote positive politics in Northern Ireland. They help bring this Bill back into line with the Good Friday agreement, which the people supported. We deserve the time to consider these amendments properly.

Members of this House may, rightly, feel tired of all the legislation on the devolution of justice, but this Bill is more important than any other measure, as it stands a chance of being used in reality—and it is highly likely that it will be abused. Therefore, this House should use its powers. It should scrutinise Bills properly, rather than rubber-stamp them for the sake of some unknown expedient. For as long as this House legislates for Northern Ireland, it has a duty to ensure that it legislates well for Northern Ireland, and that it promotes solutions, not confusion. That is why this Bill deserves to be debated more fully.

I shall now give way to the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds).

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I am sure he will want to correct what he said when he put the blame for non-meetings of the Executive equally on the Democratic Unionist party and Sinn Fein. Does he not accept that the First Minister and the DUP were at all times willing for the Executive to meet, and, indeed, suggested an open agenda so that the Executive could meet on any issue, but that Sinn Fein blocked the meetings, as was said in the Assembly by the hon. Gentleman’s Social Democratic and Labour party colleagues?

The hon. Gentleman has intervened on the point of the political manoeuvring of last year. In my opinion, both parties were using the stand-off to create party political advantages for themselves. The general tenor of my remarks is that my party opposes the programme motion and has a mind to support the amendment of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone).

I will not speak for long, but I want to make a couple of what I hope will be reasonably cogent and important points.

This is not tremendously controversial legislation; it is necessary legislation, and I support it, and if I am fortunate enough to be called to speak in the substantive debate, I will explain why I support it briefly and, I hope, fairly persuasively. There is a difference between haste and indecent haste, however. There is a case, which the Secretary of State has made, for passing this Bill reasonably quickly, but I stress the word “reasonably” as there is no need for it to be rushed through this House this afternoon.

This is a further example of the Government’s disdain for the House of Commons. The Secretary of State has a good record on that issue, but his Government have a bad one. Time and again, timetables have not given adequate time to discuss measures, and today we have another example. We are constrained even as we speak in this debate, because we have four hours for the whole of the proceedings up to the conclusion of the Second Reading debate, including the time we are taking now, which is why my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) appealed to us not to vote. I understand the logic of that appeal, but it is very wrong that the business motion debate is eating into the time for Second Reading. We ought to have a period of, perhaps, an hour for this debate—it does not need to be a long time—and then we should have time for Second Reading on top of that. We then have two hours for the remaining stages. There is absolutely no indication in the amendments on today’s Order Paper of any desire by anyone of any party in Northern Ireland or anywhere else to filibuster. There are some amendments that deserve consideration, but there will not be enough time to debate them properly, and that is wrong.

I have a high regard for the Secretary of State, and I know he does not mean to insult either the House or the people of Northern Ireland, but the way in which this is being railroaded through does, in fact, insult them. It does not give us in this House time for adequate debate, and it does not say to the people of Northern Ireland, who will be following our deliberations with considerable interest, that we have scrutinised this very important measure adequately and properly.

The hon. Gentleman is making excellent points. Would he like to reinforce them by acknowledging that the business of this House in the coming weeks and months does not seem over-onerous? We are not over-burdened with legislation, and there seems to me to be plenty of opportunity for this measure to be properly debated.

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, to which I was going to allude. There has never been a thinner Queen’s Speech than the one we had in December. The legislative burden has never been lighter. I do not grumble at that, because I am one of those who have consistently argued for less legislation, not more, but the fact is that we do have adequate time. It would have been perfectly possible for us to have had two days—the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) does not ask for longer, as it makes a modest request—which would have given time for proper consideration of this short but important measure.

My hon. Friend is cogently outlining the need for more time. Is not the nub of the point that there is little likelihood of the devolution of policing and justice occurring in the next year or several years, so why the need to proceed with such indecent haste?

I do not want to comment on the timetable for devolution; that is very much in the hands of the Assembly and the parties represented in it. I was very glad to see the declaration of 18 November, but it outlined a process and did not give a timetable. In my opinion, that was appropriate, but it is for my friends from Northern Ireland—I am referring to “my friends” in a wide generic sense, including the gentlemen on the Benches opposite—to decide exactly when this will happen. What is important is that, when it does happen, it should be permanent and not come unstuck. I agree with the substance of the intervention, because what the hon. Gentleman—who until recently was a very valuable member of my Select Committee—is saying is that there is not this urgency: we do have the opportunity to have a couple of days, and the general parliamentary timetable should permit it.

I must thank the Minister of State for helping to prevent the originally proposed absurdity of publication on 23 February and debate on the 25th. That would have been quite appalling, and when the Minister of State came before the Select Committee the week before the recess, we made it quite plain to him in no uncertain terms that that was something, in the immortal words of Churchill, up with which we would not put. The Minister of State was extremely helpful in trying to ensure that there was time for the Bill to be published and for people to study it before Second Reading. I just ask, far more in sorrow than in anger, that having done that, which was proper and much appreciated, why does he still stick to the one day’s consideration, especially in view of the fact that the other place has two days? I do not complain about its having two days, because that is entirely proper, but we should also have had two days. It is for those from Northern Ireland to determine whether time should be taken in the Division Lobby. I, personally, will not call a Division by shouting at the appropriate time, but I wish to make it plain that if there is one, I shall most certainly support the amendment and vote against this programme motion.

I always follow, with great respect, the contributions made by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), because he is dedicated to making sure that this House’s proprieties and traditions are upheld, especially in its scrutiny of the Executive, and I salute him for that. However, I think it is important that this programme motion goes through—ideally, as the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary mentioned, there will not be a vote. I say that because, notwithstanding the understandable concern that there should be proper scrutiny—my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) always makes that point with great persuasiveness—we must look at the big picture. I think it is important that Parliament passes this motion and clears this Bill today.

This whole story goes back to what happened at St. Andrews in October 2006, when I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The commitment from the Government to try to achieve the devolution of policing and justice by May last year was in that agreement. I concede absolutely the fact that my friends in the Democratic Unionist party did not sign up to that. The St. Andrews agreement was, as it were, the Government’s best call of where the consensus lay. Subsequently, we got the historic breakthrough when, early in 2007, Sinn Fein signed up to supporting fully the rule of law, and policing and justice in Northern Ireland—it had never done that before. Part of that agreement, which is crucial to the peace process and was crucial to the eventual settlement that we achieved, was on the understanding that policing and justice would be fully devolved to Northern Ireland. It is very important that Parliament upholds the spirit of the St. Andrews agreement; after all, the St. Andrews legislation, which was introduced shortly afterwards, was passed by Parliament and the objective then was set for May 2008—that date has passed, but it is essential that the momentum is kept in this process. I say to the House that having been right in the thick of the negotiations with Sinn Fein and the then leader of the DUP, the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), to try to get the agreement that produced the settlement and, ultimately, the devolution in May 2007, I know that the policing and justice issue was crucial, and the DUP was rightly insisting that Sinn Fein sign up to it.

The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that I admire the part that he played in achieving what was achieved in Northern Ireland—he played a very significant role—but he must appreciate that this is not a question of whether we have devolution. That is not at issue today, and there is broad agreement among the parties in Northern Ireland that they wish to move towards that. The Bill is not going to hold that process up or advance it; it is merely a necessary step. All that those of us who are arguing against the programme motion are saying is that the reputation that he and his successor have should not be spoiled by this indecent haste and undue pressure—there is no need for it.

I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I must respectfully disagree with him. Having been in the position of taking emergency Bills through this House as Secretary of State in order to keep momentum in the process, which produced the very settlement that occurred in 2007, I think that this is part of it. What we are doing here today is opening the door to the devolution of policing and justice—it is for the Assembly to decide when it walks into the room. As he says, every party agrees on the principle of the devolution of policing and justice—that is not controversial. Every party agrees that it has to happen according to the Assembly’s time of choosing—

rose—

I just want to make these points and then I shall give way, because I do not wish to speak for too long. Everybody agrees on the principles. This Bill opens the way to that devolution, and that is why it is important to get it through in a timely fashion, today.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that he has taken emergency Bills on Northern Ireland through the House. Is he suggesting that this is an emergency Bill?

I am not taking this Bill through, and I was talking about what I had had to do—I had had to test the patience of the House. Obviously, all of us like plenty—[Interruption.] This is not an emergency Bill in the same sense, but it is a Bill that is vital to keep momentum in the process. I wonder why there is opposition to this programme motion; if everybody agrees on the principle, as everybody tells me that they do, if everybody says that they want to see this devolution happen, as everybody says that they do, and if everybody wants to make sure that the dissidents in the republican movement do not gain any extra purchase and the mainstream republican movement, led by Sinn Fein, is able to keep on the path to the devolution of policing and justice, why would people stand in the way of this Bill going through the House today?

How can the right hon. Gentleman justify one day of debate in this House and two days of debate in another House? Surely this is the proper place where the elected representatives of Northern Ireland, who are voted in by the people of Northern Ireland, scrutinise legislation.

The House will have plenty of time to scrutinise this legislation—[Interruption.] This is a largely technical Bill. It comes from a process in which the First Minister and Deputy First Minister agreed in November last year on a way forward. The Assembly and Executive Review Committee reported in January on its conclusions, and this Bill largely implements what the Assembly wants. It is for the Assembly to decide when it delivers on the principle, so I cannot see why there is any reason to oppose a Bill that everybody says they support and that reflects the Assembly’s wishes. This Parliament, in this House today, is merely giving effect to the Assembly’s wishes.

One of the reasons we need more time to consider this Bill is that Members such as my right hon. Friend clearly do not understand some of the details of it. It is not good enough to say that it is merely technical, because it provides for the collapse and dissolution of a Department in a few years’ time, so it needs to be properly considered. He referred to legislation that he had pushed through this House. Does he recall the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, which was rushed through in exactly this way? He promised us that it would be the last measure like this and that it would be the last model for the devolution of justice and policing, and he dismissed those of us who contradicted him by saying otherwise—we have been proved correct today.

I do not agree with my hon. Friend on this matter. I am not going to repeat the points that I made, but I remind the House that it is for the Assembly to decide exactly the format of the new justice Department. We are facilitating a process, and unless we keep momentum in it, it could fall over. The need to keep momentum has been the lesson over the years in Northern Ireland. We were able to get momentum in the critical period in 2006 to 2007, which has brought us up to the point where the last bit of devolution now needs to be accomplished.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I have to give way to a fellow Chelsea supporter.

I am curious to understand what the right hon. Gentleman means by the process falling over. Is he aware of some threat that a particular party will pull the plug on the process if we do not get this through quickly? Is he seriously suggesting that if we take an extra few days to scrutinise the Bill properly, the process will fall over?

No, I did not say that. Fellow Chelsea supporters should be more charitable to each other on these occasions. [Hon. Members: “They need to be.”] I know that the First Minister is also a fellow Chelsea supporter, so I know that he will support me on this occasion.

I understand the need for parliamentary scrutiny, which was well expressed by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire and, I am sure, will also be well expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, but I urge the House not to divide on this motion.

I beg to move amendment (a), in paragraph 1(1), leave out ‘at today’s sitting’ and insert

‘in two allotted days, which shall not be consecutive,’.

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who is known for his support of democracy, although I was slightly unhappy with what he said. I hope that when he hears about my amendment, he will realise that it will not significantly delay progress. I intend to press my amendment to a vote, if I have the opportunity to do so.

The effect of amendment (a) would be that the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Bill would take place today until the moment of interruption and a further day would be allocated for Committee and Third Reading. This would allow proper scrutiny of the Northern Ireland Bill. This is not a wrecking amendment. It would allow the Bill to proceed with proper scrutiny on the Floor of this House. Amendments (b) to (f) in my name on the Order Paper are consequential to amendment (a).

My interest is in the allocation of time motion, which I believe dilutes parliamentary debate and scrutiny and, therefore, our democracy. I will not be talking about the Northern Ireland Bill itself, as that should be left for Second Reading, which, if my amendment were carried, would continue until the interruption of business this evening.

The Executive have put Parliament in a real Catch-22 situation, because the longer that we take to debate the allocation of time motion, the less time we will have to debate the Northern Ireland Bill. Parliament has been given three hours to debate the allocation of time motion and, if the debate runs the course, that will give MPs only one hour for the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Bill. If there are Divisions, Second Reading could be reduced to the farcical time of just 30 minutes, giving time only for the Minister to speak and no proper debate. This is a gross abuse of Parliament by the Executive. It is electoral dictatorship by a control-freak Executive. There is, of course, a strong argument for debating this allocation of time motion for the full three hours, which would involve Parliament actually standing up to the Executive. Not even this Government would dare to proceed on the basis of a Second Reading debate of only 30 minutes.

It is important to set out the reasons why all stages of the Northern Ireland Bill should not be read on one day. Let us consider the circumstances in which the Government can legitimately push through all the stages of legislation in one day. I understand that in national emergencies, such as those relating to terrorism, or when introducing economic measures that are extremely market sensitive, a swift progression through Parliament is needed. However, the Northern Ireland Bill is not one of those, as the right hon. Member for Neath has conceded. The Bill is a complex piece of legislation that changes the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Northern Ireland Act 1978 and the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. Those Acts were not uncontroversial, and amendments to them need proper scrutiny by Members of Parliament.

Since 1997, only 15 Bills have been pushed through the Commons in all their stages on one day. Let us look at the type of Bill that has gone through and the precedent that that creates for this allocation of time motion. On 4 April 2001, the Elections Bill went through all its stages on one day. That was due to the national crisis caused by the foot and mouth epidemic. On 2 September 1998, parliament was recalled from its summer recess to pass the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Bill in all its stages as an urgent response to the terrible Omagh bombing. On 19 February 2008, the Banking (Special Provisions) Bill was passed in relation to Northern Rock and therefore needed to be rushed through the Commons. The House sat until midnight on that day.

None of the exceptional circumstances to which I have just referred applies to the Northern Ireland Bill. If this guillotine motion goes through, the Government will have set a dangerous precedent for curtailing debate and excluding proper parliamentary scrutiny on controversial issues. This is an abuse of Parliament and democracy, and normal rules are being abandoned so that the Government can get things through on the nod.

I have a lot of respect for the Secretary of State, but the arguments that he made today were rather weak. The Government have stated that the Northern Ireland Bill needs to pass through this place in one day to fit in with the schedule of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Deputy Leader of the House stated last Wednesday in the Business of the House debate that

“The House requires speed only because there will be further stages after the Bill completes its passage here—namely, a Bill in the Assembly to establish the department of justice and a resolution by the Assembly, followed by Orders in Council, which must then come before the House.”

However, that is simply not true.

In the same debate last Wednesday, representatives from both sides of the Northern Ireland divide stated quite clearly that there was no rush for this Bill to go through and that time should be given for proper scrutiny. Moreover, several Northern Ireland Members who also sit on the Northern Ireland Assembly were not aware of any time limit given by the Assembly to the Government. The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) said that

“the urgency on this matter seems to be coming entirely from one direction—the Government.”

The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) stated that:

“Legislation for the optics, especially to suit a party that is not here, is not the best way for this House to conduct its business.”—[Official Report, 25 February 2009; Vol. 488, c. 328, 334-335, 336.]

It seems to me that the only party that is keen for this Bill to be rushed through is Sinn Fein, which does not even bother to take its seats in this Parliament. I sincerely hope that the Government have not been pushed into rushing something through by one absent party. There are parties in Northern Ireland that take Parliament seriously and that want more time to debate such an important Bill, which will have major consequences for their constituents.

I wish to praise all the hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies who take their seats in Parliament, whatever their political persuasion. Their dedication to the cause of peace and stability in Northern Ireland is highly commendable. I also wish to congratulate my Front Bench team, who work tirelessly and effectively. My hon. Friends the Members for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) and for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) work extremely hard on the complex task of bringing devolution to Northern Ireland while at the same time ensuring the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Another argument why this Bill must be pushed through could be that we lack the space in the parliamentary business calendar to be able to spare any more time to debate it. But we all know that this is one of the lightest Sessions we have ever had. We will sit for only 128 days this year, of which 13 are reserved for private Members’ Bills. There have been several occasions in this parliamentary year where debates have collapsed and sittings have ended way before their time limit due to the lack of business. Yesterday the House adjourned at 8.44 pm rather than 10 pm. Only last Wednesday, the business finished at 3.58 pm rather than at 7 pm. Lack of parliamentary time cannot be an excuse for this motion.

So how does this motion fit with the principle of Parliamentary sittings? The current timetabling for parliamentary sitting is broadly based on the Jopling reforms, which encompass three principles. First, the Government must be able to get their business through and, within that principle, ultimately control the time of the House. Secondly, the Opposition must have the opportunity to scrutinise the actions of Government and to improve or oppose legislation, as they think fit. Thirdly, Back Bench Members on both sides of the Chamber should have reasonable opportunities to raise matters of concern to their constituents.

If the Executive were to come to their senses at this stage and agree to my amendment that there should be at least one day’s gap between Second Reading and Committee and Third Reading, all three principles would be met. That is exactly what amendment (a) would do. Clearly, the second and third principles are not being met. It is apparent to all that Parliament has more than enough time in this, the lightest of parliamentary years, to allow for separate days so that MPs have time to debate and scrutinise the Bill. Committee and Third Reading should not be on the same day as Second Reading, as required by the motion. My suggestion is that Second Reading should be held on one Wednesday—today—and that Committee and Third Reading should be held on a subsequent Wednesday.

Will my hon. Friend hold hard a minute? Wednesday is the day when the Northern Ireland Committee always meets. We have lost one day today and we do not want to lose another. We can hold those debates on Tuesday, Thursday or Monday, but not on Wednesday.

I apologise for my error. Of course, I agree with my hon. Friend.

Standing Orders have been ignored today to rush through all stages of the Bill. Standing Orders have been developed over a long period of time so that the Executive cannot abuse their power. The Government seem to have no regard for Parliament or its procedures, which have been in place for so long. They want to microwave legislation. The motion, unbelievably, takes up four pages of the Order Paper to undo all the protections for debate provided to Members of this House. It is 17 paragraphs long with many sub-paragraphs. If it contains so much detail, should we not be suspicious of the intent?

It always makes me very nervous when it is said that the procedure is agreed through the usual channels. That is not acceptable, in my view, and it does nothing to promote transparency in parliamentary procedure. That is why I have argued for a long time for a business Committee made up of senior Members from both sides of the House to manage parliamentary procedure and the legislative progress. If that Committee had been in existence today, I would not have had to move amendment (a).

The Northern Ireland Bill is not a straightforward and simple piece of legislation that can be pushed through on the nod. It is a complex piece of legislation that will have historic significance for the people of Northern Ireland. Even if it were not complex and controversial, it should still not be hurried through in a day. Normal procedure should apply. It is unacceptable that the Government, who state their pride in working for so long to facilitate peace in Northern Ireland, should now want to rush this through.

A major role of Members of Parliament is to scrutinise and review legislation. It is a well-known fact that the better the scrutiny, the better the Bill. One major role of MPs is to hold the Executive to account. The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, when he was Leader of the House, summed it up perfectly when he stated in a Business of the House debate:

“Indeed, the role of Parliament—both sides of the House as well as the other place—is to scrutinise Government proposals and to make its own decisions about the way in which matters are handled. My hon. Friend will recall from the time when he was Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee and I was Home Secretary that, although it was sometimes uncomfortable, there was not a Bill that was not improved as a result of scrutiny.”—[Official Report, 16 November 2006; Vol. 453, c. 138.]

It is a shame that the Government do not agree with him.

There is no doubt that one of an MP’s most important roles—I would argue that it is the most important—is to hold the Executive to account. The motion removes that role, and it is appalling that the Government should try to stifle that essential function. I have long campaigned for more transparency and debate in Parliament, and I strongly believe in strengthening the role of the Back Bencher. The erosion of Parliament’s power to scrutinise and debate has been a long-adopted approach by this Executive, and the motion is a step too far.

The situation that we, as parliamentarians, find ourselves in is well explained in the conclusion of the Modernisation Committee’s report, “Revitalising the Chamber: the role of the Back Bench Member”, which is extremely relevant to the motion and amendment (a):

“It is probably true that Parliament is more effective at sustaining an executive than holding it to account. There is clearly an inherent tension between these roles and it is inevitably difficult to sustain a perfect balance…In the final analysis, the strength and vitality of the House of Commons and Parliament as a whole depends upon the efforts and behaviour of its Members and the emphasis they place on their scrutiny and accountability role.”

In this motion we see the complete imbalance of parliamentary power.

I have heard enough of what the hon. Gentleman has said to agree with him on this point. Northern Ireland should be back in the UK fold of normality, and we should do things the same way as we do everything else, but we are rushing the Bill through in one day. It seems reasonable to say that there is plenty of time to do this—we have been waiting a long time for the Bill, and these things might not happen for some time. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are sending out absolutely the wrong signal and suggesting that Northern Ireland is still something different, special and almost terrible and that we need to treat its legislation in a different way?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. I agree entirely and I do not see why the Government are doing this, as it sends out the wrong signals. There is something behind what the Secretary of State said. Perhaps it is the pressure from Sinn Fein—I do not know—but something outside this House is driving the Government to take this extraordinary measure. They have not come clean on what that is, so I think that they should not be allowed to steamroller through the Bill.

Individual Members of Parliament place a great deal of importance on scrutiny and accountability, and a problem arises when the Executive try to deny us that right. The Government have declared that amendments must be tabled before Second Reading, which is ludicrous. The Government are asking MPs to table amendments before we have had the chance to hear what the Minister has to say. How can an MP properly table amendments, when they have not heard the detail and the arguments? Despite that difficulty, 26 amendments have already been tabled. The Government were forced to produce a 53-page document and a 20-page document—I have them with me—on additional information relating to the Bill. Those documents were produced only yesterday. How can those documents and amendments realistically be scrutinised, if the Bill goes through all its stages today? It is just not possible.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is an indication of the complexity of the matter that the Northern Ireland Office and the Bill team, who are a very capable bunch of lawyers, had to have two goes at getting the documents right?

I am very grateful for that intervention. It was extraordinary that those two documents, which have the same title, were produced. I understand that the House authorities demanded that they should be produced. It is impossible to study the documents and the amendments and to deal with them all today. It is a farce.

The whole point of parliamentary procedure and the reason why legislation is not, as a matter of course, passed through in all its stages on one day is that we need to ensure the fullest accountability and debate. Why do the Government feel the need to abuse their power by limiting scrutiny? It is disgraceful that MPs are not allowed the time to scrutinise and debate such an important Bill. It is high time that the Executive stopped their abuse of power and their attempts to dilute parliamentary procedure.

I believe that I have now shown that every possible reason the Government might have for pushing through the Bill in one day is not valid—[Interruption.] I am going to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb), as I shall not be able to continue for another two hours, but I hope that I have articulated the reasons why Parliament should be given adequate time for debate and scrutiny. There is no reason as far as I can see why there cannot be gap of at least one day between this Bill’s Second Reading and its Committee stage and Third Reading.

In conclusion, I refer the House to the view of Professor Dawn Oliver of University college London expressed in a memorandum to the Modernisation Committee:

“Does scrutiny of legislation matter? Yes, it is absolutely vital that legislation be carefully and clearly drafted, that it fits with the existing law, that it does not override important constitutional principles and human rights without Parliament realising that it is doing so and doing so deliberately. These are not party political issues, they are to do with respect for and workability of the legal system, respect for constitutional values, international obligations, human rights and so on, which ought to be above party.

I urge the Government to remember that.

If I have the opportunity, Madam Deputy Speaker, I look forward to pressing amendment (a) to a vote.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone). I agree with everything that he said, with two exceptions. First, he said that we would be creating a precedent if we let the Secretary of State get away with this, but unfortunately he is wrong. The precedent was created before, and the current Secretary of State is only the latest in a long line of serial offenders. One of his predecessors, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), whom I love very much, is in the Chamber, but he was also guilty of the same thing when he was a Secretary of State. It is time that we in this place stood up and said, “Thus far, and no further!”

I disagree with the hon. Member for Wellingborough on a second point, in this case his congratulatory remarks to the spokesperson for the UCUNF. I think that the name Ulster Conservatives and Unionists—New Force is the latest title for the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman outlined how he protested last Wednesday about how the Bill was going to be dealt with, but I can give him only five marks out of 10, because he failed to fulfil what I consider to be the duty of an Opposition Member. He should have objected and joined me in my protest, as the problem goes beyond our being asked to deal with the Bill in one day.

Some hon. Members may be bored stiff by these matters but—short of running naked across Parliament square—I am not sure what more I can do to draw attention to them. However, the hon. Member for Wellingborough did not join me in protesting about the fact that we were going to deal with the Bill all in one day. Front Benchers from the main parties are both the same, and they are both to blame.

Given my hon. Friend’s threat to run naked, I am rather worried about his expression of love for me. However, I plead guilty to being a serial offender on Bills such as this, because that approach is what has brought the immense progress that has been achieved in Northern Ireland.

It is incredible that successive Secretaries of State should suggest that the whole process would collapse if the House of Commons were not to deal with Bills like this in a single day. That is breathtaking in the extreme.

I support the Bill, but I also support allowing more time to discuss it. The critical feature for me, my colleagues and the whole Unionist community is the issue of confidence before policing and justice powers are devolved. Does it grow confidence to deal with this Bill in the constitutionally tacky way proposed today? The Government’s approach will reduce confidence among the unionist community, because it will probably cause many of the good proposals in the Bill to go unreported.

The right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) speaks for his people, and he is correct about Parliament’s duties and expectations. One reason for having a Committee stage is to fine-tune legislation, not to oppose it. A Committee stage allows us to probe and understand the problems and to consider whether all eventualities have been taken into account. It also enables us to indicate and flag up any omissions in the Bill.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many Bills passed by this House in relatively recent years—such as those relating to dangerous dogs or Dunblane—were based on consensus and yet were dreadful pieces of legislation?

That is absolutely so. If we make legislation in haste, we make it badly. Moreover, the approach adopted by the Government can be the thin end of the wedge, as other Ministers on other occasions can say that it is imperative to pass a Bill.

I return to my central point, which is that, if the many hours spent in Committee or on Report are to have any purpose or meaning, they must ensure that we avoid any unforeseen elephant traps in a piece of legislation by crafting it in the best possible way. That is precisely what we are not doing by seeing this Bill through all its stages in one day. Restricting all stages of this Bill to one day is also an abdication of our responsibility. The House of Lords will devote two days to the Bill, and its Members will be aware that the House of Commons did not really look at some of the issues that will be touched on by speakers later this afternoon.

In his brief remarks earlier, the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) touched on something that I had not totally understood. I endeavoured to grapple with the detail and complexity of the Bill in order to table some amendments that I hoped would either improve the proposals or give us greater understanding of what the draftsmen intended. However, it looks as though I did not take full cognisance of one of the points that the hon. Gentleman referred to—that is, what will happen if there is a failure to agree.

I also notice that our friends in the Social Democrat and Labour party have tabled amendments that relate to the judiciary rather than to policing. I want to examine the inferences and implications of those amendments, but there is no opportunity to do so. This Bill, which is being passed in one day, would, if it related to England and Wales, be pored over by this House and by another place. As a result, errors might occur that could have serious consequences in a particular case, and they might also cause additional and unforeseen political confrontation some way into the future.

Reference has been made to the two documents that the House authorities, to their eternal credit, squeezed out of the Northern Ireland Office. However, those documents arrived too late. I understand that the correct technical term is to say that the documents are covered by the “Keeling schedules”. In 1937, the then Speaker, Sir Edward Keeling, sent a memo to the Prime Minister of the day, saying that they had to ensure that the House of Commons was fully acquainted with the consequences of legislation that amends other primary legislation in detail. That memo set an extremely important precedent for the documents before us today. However, a glance through the Keeling schedules relating to this afternoon’s business reveals the complexity of the task before us and makes it clear that we need to make cross-references. Unfortunately, the two documents to which I have referred arrived too late for all that.

The Alliance Party of Northern Ireland party has not been mentioned yet this afternoon. I think that the Liberal Democrat party may act as its agent in this place, and I look forward to hearing the Alliance party’s opinion about these matters. However, it would have been good to have time to discuss the Keeling schedules and some of the amendments with the Alliance party itself, as one might say that it is the unspoken elephant in the room. I may be wrong, but I think that the intention is that someone from the Alliance party—perhaps they have been anointed—will occupy the Ministry of Justice post. It would certainly be sensible if hon. Members in the Commons at least had the opportunity to discuss the proposed amendments in detail with members of that party. That, of course, has been denied to us.

Will the hon. Gentleman be very careful in what he says? The elephant could jump down from the Gallery.

It is interesting that they made an effort to be here. I do not want to labour my point, but this really is a bad day for Parliament, and we should be ashamed of ourselves, collectively, if we approve the railroading through of the Bill. No doubt the Secretary of State will say, “This is a one-off,” but it is not. Unless we give the Government aggravation, the same thing will happen time and again. It is not a Northern Ireland issue, but a United Kingdom issue. It is about the veracity and diligence of this Parliament. I am not prepared to acquiesce in such railroading by my silence.

As ever, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). I unexpectedly find myself designated the spokesperson—

The agent.

—the agent for elephants, whether in the room or elsewhere. I look forward to a day when the elephants might gain membership of this House and speak for themselves. If I live to be 100, I shall never understand the logic that the Government employ in drafting timetable motions. We see on today’s Order Paper that consideration of the allocation of time motion can last for up to three hours. The entire time available for consideration of that motion and Second Reading is four hours so, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) pointed out, it is quite possible that if we used the three hours, and there was then a Division, we would have significantly less than an hour for the Second Reading of a constitutional Bill. It is because it is a constitutional Bill that all stages are, quite properly, to be taken on the Floor of the House.

Thereafter, we are allowed two hours for debate in Committee and on Third Reading. I consider that wholly inadequate. Given the number and range of amendments tabled and selected for debate in Committee, it is pretty clear to me that we will not have anything like a Third Reading debate; we will not even have a proper Committee stage. If ever there was a Bill that needed a proper Third Reading, this is it. Third Reading debates are pretty much a poor shadow of what they used to be. If there is a Division on Second Reading, we Liberal Democrats will support the Bill. Thereafter, in Committee, we will consider a number of significant amendments, which we will seek to press to a Division. If those amendments are not accepted, my party may well wish to reconsider our support for Third Reading, but we will be denied that opportunity, and we will not be alone in that.

It is pretty clear that we are being asked to railroad through legislation, and although there may be a degree of urgency, it is not, by any definition, an emergency. As a consequence, we will create a procedure that is fundamentally flawed and defective. I have previously been involved with Northern Ireland Bills that were dealt with in one day in the House. We always co-operated in those cases. I think back to my involvement with the Bill that had to be brought forward to cancel Assembly elections—I think that was in 2004. That was clearly an emergency; this is not. Even if we insisted on sticking to the Secretary of State’s timetable—he says that the timetable must allow consultation in Northern Ireland to start in the middle of March—it would still be possible for us to have two days’ full consideration of the Bill.

Tomorrow, the House has an Adjournment debate. On Monday, we have a second day on estimates. There is absolutely no reason why we could not put that business off to some other day, and instead deal with the Bill then. In fact, we should do so. This is not just about the progress of the Bill, but about this House taking responsibility for, and control of, its own business. Bills will be railroaded through in this way for as long as we continue to allow it to happen. The situation will never get any better.

The hon. Gentleman makes a most excellent point about Monday. Would it not serve the interests of the Bill, of Northern Ireland and of the House of Commons above all, if the Secretary of State dispatched his Parliamentary Private Secretary to speak to the Leader of the House, to try to arrange a second day for the Bill on Monday? Then we could finish our debate on the allocation of time motion, get on to the substance of the Bill, continue until 7 o’clock, and do the thing properly.

Yes, that is an eminently sensible approach. I am sure that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), the Secretary of State’s PPS, is keen to have the exercise, and is more than fit for the task. It appears that the logic—I use the term in the loosest possible sense—that the Government bring to the timetable is that the amount of time available should be inversely proportionate to the political substance of the debate. That is wrong, and if the House accepts that logic, we do ourselves, and the people of Northern Ireland, no favours.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), who said that he did not understand the logic of Government timetabling. I am not sure that I understand the logic of the official Opposition, who seem to support the motion. I may be wrong, but it is amazing if it is true that they will not support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone). I am shocked by that.

I agree with the hon. Lady about the Conservative Opposition’s view on the subject, but I am afraid I can easily see the logic of the Government’s position: it is crudely to bully the House into acquiescence, to ensure that they can steamroll through legislation in this abbreviated fashion.

I would have made more or less the same comment, but the hon. Gentleman puts it slightly better than I would have done—although I would perhaps have put it more tactfully.

The hon. Lady may have missed my earlier comments. The original plan, which was appalling, was to publish the Bill last Monday and to have Second Reading on Wednesday. Through the usual channels, we got an extra week, but I have said that the situation is highly unsatisfactory. I am in total agreement with virtually every Member who has spoken, but because the Government have a majority—I am being completely brutal and practical—every minute that we speak eats into the time for Second Reading and, more importantly, consideration of the amendments. I have not made any statement on how we will be voting.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that, but that is a little play with words. We are talking about serious issues—not just to do with democracy and the House, but the issues in the Bill. I really do not see that an extra 12, 13 or 14 minutes spent on a Division will make that much difference. One or two of my colleagues have been muttering about time wasting, and have said that the longer we go on for, the less time there is for debate. I am fed up with that attitude; it is almost blackmailing, if I can use that word, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is blackmailing, almost implying it is our fault that we will not have a great debate, because we are all talking about the guillotine motion. The Secretary of State and the Government should have understood that it would cause problems if they sought to get a guillotine motion passed so that they could get the whole Bill through the House in one day. They should have understood that a lot of people would want to make their views known. Unless we all speak for just 10 seconds, that will inevitably take time. Moreover, as the debate proceeds, those who may not have intended to speak are more likely to wish to do so, and we will end up with a very short time indeed.

The hon. Lady makes a powerful point. Does she accept that if my amendment were accepted, Second Reading would continue today, so it would not be lost, and all that is necessary is for the Secretary of State to agree with the amendment?

In my own way I was getting round to saying precisely that. The Prime Minister may not be in the country, but I hope that at some stage someone will make it clear to him that the way this matter has been handled will lead to all sorts of problems for the legislation in Northern Ireland. Many of the parties have held different views on devolution on these difficult issues, but gradually a consensus is developing on what should happen and how it should happen. The last thing that people in Northern Ireland need is to feel that they and their politicians are being patronised as a result of the way this Bill is being pushed through in such a short time. What matters is the confidence of people in Northern Ireland. The idea that the only way to move the process forward—the great phrase that has become the mantra of so many Front-Bench spokesmen—is by driving a coach and horses through the usual way we deal with business in the House is shameful.

The Secretary of State must understand the anger that this is causing. There is no need for this to be happening. We have time next week to get this Bill through without having to go to these lengths. If we are serious about Northern Ireland coming into the political arena with a normalisation of politics there, we must treat Northern Ireland legislation in the normal way. There were times when that was not possible, and at various times we all had to vote for measures that we did not want to see dealt with so quickly but which were important and necessary. But this measure is not so urgent that it cannot be dealt with in the normal way. As well as appealing to the Secretary of State to listen to what has been said, to change his mind and to allow Second Reading to be dealt with today, and to come back with a different timetable, I plead with the official Opposition not to take the line that they have chosen, and to come out and vote solidly to show that they believe that this approach is wrong. If something is wrong, we must vote against it.

I have listened to the arguments from both Front-Bench spokesmen, but I am unconvinced by the Secretary of State’s argument that there is an urgency here, or by the urgings of the shadow spokesman that we should have less debate on the programme motion and more on the amendments. I remind him that as we are not members of his new force, we do not feel under any obligation to take orders or commands from him.

As the Secretary of State has made clear, much of the Bill has been discussed with Assembly Members and parties, and we are largely in agreement with its main thrust. But just because the Assembly has agreed it, and just because Members in another Administration in part of the United Kingdom have agreed it, that does not mean that this House should not have the opportunity to scrutinise it. Eventually it is this House that will take ownership of it and have its imprint on it. Therefore, Members of this House, who have not had the opportunity to debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly but who will be held accountable for the Bill, should have the opportunity properly to debate the issues now.

The Secretary of State said that all he wished to do was to give form to the Assembly’s wishes. but there was no sense from Northern Ireland politicians that the measure had to be dealt with post-haste or today, or that it had to be in place by a certain date at the end of March. Assembly Members are quite relaxed about it. As a number of hon. Members have already pointed out, the passing of this legislation will not bring about the devolution of policing and justice tomorrow anyway. We wish to see the devolution of policing and justice, and we wish to put that on the record, but we have always insisted that it must be done against the background of community support and confidence—

And trust.

Indeed. That is the only way that the devolution of policing and justice will work in Northern Ireland. If there is an attempt to force it, all the problems that hon. Members have described, such as the danger of collapse, are likely to occur. We wish to work towards a situation where there is trust. Of course we want these powers devolved, but only in that context. As the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said, there is great danger in pushing legislation through the House, particularly since the Unionist parties are not asking for it, the SDLP is not asking for it, and even the elephant party is not asking for it, although the description of the Alliance party as an elephant party is stretching the imagination a little. It may be the party of mice, but it is certainly not the party of elephants. Elephants would certainly not reflect their electoral support.

The only conclusion that one can come to is that if the Secretary of State sees this as urgent, that urgency must have been pressed on him by one party alone, and that is Sinn Fein. If we are to have legislation pushed through the House in an abnormal way, and it is seen to be in response to demands from Sinn Fein, the very confidence and trust that are required to move forward the devolution of policing and justice will be eroded.

Like the on-the-runs legislation.

Like the on-the-runs legislation. The Secretary of State’s argument about the demands from the Assembly cannot be used to back up the urgency with which this measure is being pushed through.

The Secretary of State said that we want to have this measure in place so that we can have the devolution of policing and justice when the Assembly is ready. The Assembly is clearly not ready. Leaving aside the whole issue of trust, the Assembly and Executive Review Committee is still considering aspects of policing, not least the police budget and whether we want the devolution of policing and justice when there is a £170 million hole in that budget.

Members of that Committee have acknowledged that the further they go into this issue, the deeper and blacker the hole becomes. That matter must be dealt with forthrightly.

That is the point. If the Secretary of State’s argument is that we want the legislation in place for when the Assembly is ready to accept the devolution of policing and justice, there is no indication of that being a cause for urgency from Northern Ireland.

My next point was raised by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), the former Secretary of State, who is not in his place now. He went even further in making the case for why what I have mentioned was essential. He talked about the commitments given at St. Andrews, the fact that Sinn Fein had come on board on policing and supported the police only because of certain commitments on the devolution of policing and justice, and the fact that in the past that kind of method had been used because it was an absolute necessity for progress. If we take the right hon. Gentleman’s argument to its logical conclusion, we reach the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey): it all becomes tantamount to blackmail—“If you do not do this, somehow or other the commitment that Sinn Fein has given to policing will evaporate. It will no longer be prepared to sign up to policing. This is necessary for progress.” I am not accusing this Secretary of State of employing that argument; nevertheless, it was employed by those who support the pushing through of this legislation as the Secretary of State is seeking to push it through.

By and large, we are content with the thrust of this legislation. We are also content that other legislation put in place in this House addresses the fears of people in Northern Ireland and ensures that a Member previously associated with a terrorist organisation, even with acts of terror, could not be the Minister for policing and justice. We are content with all that, but I accept that some Members have difficulty with this legislation, wish to move amendments or, in the case of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), want to use the mechanism available to probe the legislation and ensure that there are no mistakes or weaknesses in it and that any changes to improve it can be made. All that requires that there be proper debate and a proper system to deal with the issues.

I make one last point, which was also made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall. As a Unionist, I wish Northern Ireland to be treated in the same as any other part of the United Kingdom. That means that Northern Ireland legislation—technical or not, politically important or not, ordinary and mundane or not—should be treated in the same way as legislation for the rest of the United Kingdom. We deserve that. In the past, there were excuses. There was what was described as “temporary direct rule” and we used Orders in Council. Those days are past; the Northern Ireland Assembly is dealing with most of the legislation that we were told had to go through in that form.

The House has no massive time commitments on Northern Ireland legislation. Indeed, what makes it more galling is that there is plenty of time. It is not as if we are being squeezed out because the House has to deal with other issues of such national importance that Northern Ireland has to be dealt with differently. Yesterday the House finished early, and I do not know how many times this Session we have not used up the full allocation of time. It is even more insulting for people in Northern Ireland to find that, when there is time, it cannot be allocated for important legislation that will put in place structures for the administration of policing and justice when it is time for those to be devolved to Northern Ireland. I hope that the Secretary of State will rethink the position for that reason, because the arguments have been weak and spurious, and because he owes the people of Northern Ireland the same treatment as that received by those in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Everyone who has spoken and everyone present in the Chamber wishes Northern Ireland well and hopes that the processes will continue and bring about an ultimate solution that is satisfactory to all the people who live in Northern Ireland.

I commend the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone). They are essential, de minimis amendments—the very least that could be done. The Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) saw the position as merely a technical reissuing of previous guillotine motions.

May I clarify the issue again? I am just being brutally practical. Sadly, the Government have control of Parliament; the Executive have the power to decide time. We have some important amendments that we want to introduce and we bitterly regret the position, but the fact is that we will not be able to explain the amendments in this democratically elected House if we do not have the time. I entirely endorse my hon. Friend’s beliefs, and he knows perfectly well how I feel about this. However, I am just being practical this afternoon—as we speak, the Executive have control of the time. I have not said how we will vote on the issue; I have been clear about that. I am just being absolutely practical about the time that could be spent speaking to the amendments.

I do not know whether that is a clarification, but I will accept it for what it was.

I was not going to come to this point immediately, but the former Secretary of State referred to it and it was explicit in what my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire said, although not in what the Secretary of State said. Normally, these three-and-a-half-page constructed guillotines are taken automatically by the Executive, who have become so accustomed to them. The guillotine motion has been included in the time for the Second Reading debate. This has been a long-argued case—in respect of almost every Northern Ireland Bill, too. It behoved the Secretary of State’s predecessors to say, “If you discuss the process of Parliament and scrutiny, you are taking away from the consideration of the substantive issue before the House.” That is an entirely artificial construct. What does it suit? The Secretary of State made no case that this was an absolute emergency that demanded delivery on this day. When asked, the former Secretary of State got perilously close to stating the need for “hit you on the head” guillotine motions in emergency legislation.

In fact, when my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough was speaking, a piece of paper fluttered on to the Bench, and he kindly allowed me to read it. It said, “Peter—would be helpful if you start to wind up. You’ve had 20 minutes, eating into debate time.” I cannot imagine which Government Whip could have gone as far as to suggest that an hon. Member may not make his case. But that case was not used by the Secretary of State. All the arguments have been presented—in my speech, in those of Labour Members and in those of Members who represent Ireland—[Hon. Members: “Northern Ireland!”] Northern Ireland, I should say. Those arguments have been about why this motion should not constrain the debate on Second Reading.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least for exposing the collusion between Conservative and Government Front Benchers on this issue. May I take him back to something that he said earlier, which is very important? The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) is de minimis: the minimum. If it were passed, our proceedings would not represent normal consideration of a Bill in this place. The amendment proposes streamlined emergency consideration put into just two days of parliamentary debate. We should not see it as a normalisation of the treatment of Northern Ireland legislation, but merely as something that is not as bad as what the Government are proposing.

The hon. Gentleman has provided the emphasis on which I was going to build up to a conclusion. He is absolutely right.

There is no opposition to the substance of the measure before us. As the former Secretary of State said, it is a largely technical matter involving some very important issues that need consideration. It is fairly safe to say that most English and Scottish Members will wish it good will and let the debate take its form, for this is the Parliament of us all. I was hoping not to abuse anyone in this, but simply to ask the Secretary of State to have an urgent word with the business managers. We did not need this motion; it is not necessary. He did not make a case for it, in all fairness, and he knows it. The only person who tried to argue for it was the former Secretary of State, who elided the concepts of technicality, process and emergency in such a way as to try to give a certain sense of urgency. As has been said in this Chamber before, anyone who studied law, as quite a few of us did, will remember from Maine’s “Ancient Law” that justice lies in the interstices of procedure. Nothing is a merely procedural matter. It is very important to justify this to those whom we represent, and especially to those who represent the Province that will have to bear this legislation.

I implore the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to withdraw this motion or, if he cannot do that, to take the de minimis approach proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough.

This has been an interesting debate on the amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) said, we are in a Catch-22 situation: the more time we take, the less time there is for the Second Reading debate. However, if my amendment were successful, we would be able to continue a Second Reading debate for the rest of the day. I hope that when I press it to the vote Government Members will agree to it so that we can move forward.

rose—

If the Secretary of State wants to agree to it, it may not have to go to a vote; otherwise, I will press it.

I fear that I will have to disappoint the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone). I hate also to disappoint the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd).

Of course, this is more than a procedural matter, albeit that it contains a number of technical issues. I say in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) that of course we are serious. There is no question but that this is a very serious issue; that is why we are setting about it in this way. I would say to the Conservative shadow spokesman that nothing in the Bill is a surprise. If he had read the report of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, which was published six weeks ago, and followed its work, he would have seen that the legislation reflects that work. He would also have noted that the Assembly itself managed not only to pass the debate motion, but to do so with a full debate in a little less than two hours.

I made my argument today in sorrow, not in anger. Why cannot the Secretary of State accept the validity of the points that have been made time and again from all parts of this House—all the Northern Ireland parties represented in this House appear to agree on this—and give us a little more time? We will have two hours to debate the Second Reading of an important Bill. He could make himself a real reputation if he allowed us to continue that debate until 7 o’clock tonight.

Again, I am afraid that I am going to disappoint the hon. Gentleman and resist acquiring that particular reputation.

I ask hon. Members not to divide the House on this issue. I fear that they will do so, but it is obviously a matter for Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) suggested that it would be a bad day for Parliament if we proceeded in the way proposed. I would qualify that by saying that this will be another day when Parliament will have played its part in helping to build a very different Northern Ireland—a Northern Ireland based on peace and prosperity. Even if there are disagreements in the House on procedure, this will be a very good day for Parliament. I thank my hon. Friends.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

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

The Bill will provide an essential stepping stone to the completion of devolution, and it is a tribute to those in Northern Ireland whose political leadership and commitment has turned the peace process into an enduring political process. That political progress has been and continues to be significant, and it is essential that the momentum is maintained. The Bill will ensure that the necessary framework is in place to enable progress towards the transfer of policing and justice powers when that is requested by the Northern Ireland Assembly and Parliament approves the transfer.

When devolution is complete, we will have arrived at a significant new chapter in our history, with politicians elected in Northern Ireland being fully accountable to the people of Northern Ireland on law and order, and power truly shared. The Bill will play an important part in enabling elected politicians in Northern Ireland to assume their political destiny.

I recognise that for some the pace of change remains daunting, and of course there is still confidence to be built. However, I believe that we are unanimous in recognising that the peace and prosperity that Northern Ireland enjoys today is a fundamental consequence of the political process. When the St. Andrews agreement was concluded in October 2006, and when the devolved institutions became operational in 2007, it was hoped that there would be sufficient community confidence to allow for the transfer of policing and justice powers by May 2008. The Government committed to do all that we could to ensure that when the Assembly was ready to ask for the transfer of powers, the necessary enabling legislation would be in place.

The Government had hoped to see stage 2 of devolution completed last May, but community confidence was not ready. On 18 November 2008, significant confidence having been built by their shared leadership, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister wrote to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee to say that agreement had been reached on a way forward to enable devolution to be completed. In January 2009, the Committee reported on its deliberations on the devolution of policing and justice powers, and its report was agreed by the Assembly in a cross-community vote. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the First Minister, the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), and the Deputy First Minister, for their outstanding leadership and their determination to work through the problems that stood in the way of further progress towards the peaceful end that everybody seeks.

The elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland have asked us for legislation on a critical set of issues, which they set out last November. That request was made also in the AERC report this January. It is for the people of Northern Ireland, through their Assembly, to decide when to ask for the transfer of powers, and in turn that request is for this House to decide. That is why it is necessary to have the Bill in place now and to expedite its path without undue delay. That pace is not for the convenience of the Government but to ensure that the Assembly has the tools that it needs to take the process that it has created to the next stage. There will be those who say, “But the Assembly is not going to ask for the powers just yet”. That may indeed be the case, and it has much work still to do before it can do so, including creating a justice Department and deciding which of the several available models to adopt for the choice and appointment of a Justice Minister.

Political agreement has often eluded us in Northern Ireland, and its failure has had tragic consequences. However, we have now taken that agreement to a new level of confidence, and we should have the courage to be bold and go forward. Frequently in politics, it is not possible to give everyone everything that they want, when they want it. Such moments demand political courage, and the inspiration of the story of Northern Ireland is that political courage is a quality that has reaped enormous dividends. There was a time, not long ago, when few would have believed that we could have had stage 1 devolution, with a power-sharing Administration in place. There was a time, not so long ago, when few would have believed that we could even entertain the thought of stage 2 devolution of policing and justice. The Bill marks one more step in the transformation of Northern Ireland, and I ask again for the House’s co-operation and support in expediting it.

I turn to the details of the Bill. Clause 1 and schedule 1 provide for the new departmental model proposed by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister last November, and set out how that model would operate in the period up to 1 May 2012 if it were the one that the Assembly chose. The new model would consist of a single Minister, nominated by any member of the Assembly, elected by cross-community vote in the Assembly and removed in the same way. As such, the Minister would not count towards the parties’ allocation of seats on the Executive using the d’Hondt formula.

That new model is added to the menu of options already provided for in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. If the Bill is enacted, the Assembly will be able to choose from any one of eight models in setting up a justice Department. Under the terms of the agreement announced by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, the Assembly will need to reach agreement on the future arrangements for ministerial oversight of the justice Department before 1 May 2012; otherwise, the Department will automatically be dissolved on that date.

Clause 2 and schedules 2 to 6 deal with the arrangements for judicial appointments and removals. Broadly speaking, they transfer the post-devolution role that had been envisaged for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission and, in particular cases, to the Lord Chief Justice and the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Ombudsman. The roles already set out in legislation for Her Majesty, for the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor as her principal Ministers and for Parliament will remain largely unchanged.

Reflecting the policy that the Assembly should agree on long-term arrangements for judicial appointments by 1 May 2012, schedule 6 will place on the Assembly a requirement to task one of its Committees with reviewing the arrangements put in place by the Bill and with making recommendations before that date. It will also put in place a freeze on new appointments to the Judicial Appointments Commission from 1 May 2012, unless and until the Assembly has reached agreement on the future arrangements for judicial appointments and removals. That freeze will not prevent judicial appointments from being made, but it will create a practical incentive to those involved to reach agreement on the way forward.

Clauses 3 and 4 will make technical amendments to the statute book to prepare the way for the future transfer of policing and justice responsibilities. Clause 3(1) provides that, post-devolution, the function of the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland in relation to providing guidance on the disclosure of juror information will be split between the Advocate-General for Northern Ireland, for national security and terrorism cases, and the devolved Attorney-General for Northern Ireland for all other cases. That reflects the split of functions previously provided for by Parliament in the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 in respect of many of the Attorney-General’s other functions.

Clause 3(2) provides that the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland will be a corporation sole, a legal status meaning that the Public Prosecution Service can hold property in its own right. That will not alter the relationship between the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Public Prosecution Service and the Assembly, as provided for in the 2002 Act.

The House will have the opportunity later to debate the relationship between the DPP and the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, which was debated and agreed on during the passage of the 2002 Act. That Act gave effect to the criminal justice review, which stated, at paragraph 4.162, that

“in the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, we believe that this independence should be further strengthened, by ensuring that the relationship between the Attorney General and the head of the prosecution service, while containing elements of oversight, is consultative and not supervisory. In other words, there should be no power for the Attorney General to direct the prosecutor, whether in individual cases or on policy matters.”

Critically, the review of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland went on:

“Our impression is that in some other common law jurisdictions the relationship between Attorney and prosecutor works well in practice and that the independence of the prosecutor in decision making is respected; but ultimately, if there were disagreement between the Attorney and the prosecutor on an individual case, then in law the Attorney’s will would probably prevail.”

Crucially, the review said:

“We do not believe that such an arrangement would be suitable in the Northern Ireland context.”

It might help the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), if I remind him what was said by his noble and learned Friend Lord Mayhew, one of my predecessors as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and a former Attorney-General. During the passage of the 2002 Act, he said:

“Given the highly charged atmosphere of Northern Ireland—to use a well-chosen word that appears in the review—it is important that this enormously invasive prosecution arm of the state should be exercised in Northern Ireland by an official who is entirely independent. That is a departure from the current system in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 June 2002; Vol. 636, c.CWH93.]

I can only hope that the hon. Gentleman will find his noble Friend’s words persuasive when he considers his—very well-intentioned, I am sure—amendment. Equally, in the light of the information that we are beginning to discuss together, I hope that he will perhaps see why, on balance, the criminal justice review reached its decision after careful consideration and why his hon. Friend said what he said.

Clause 4 extends the scope of the order-making power in section 86 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to provide for the possibility that Executive functions may be devolved even where the legislative competence is to remain reserved. That would provide Parliament, in due course, with greater flexibility to ensure that practical responsibility for functions sits at the most appropriate level, while still keeping legislative competence for that matter reserved to Westminster.

Let us be clear about what the Bill is not. It is not a Bill that will devolve policing and justice. Parliament has already set out the arrangements for that, in section 4 of the 1998 Act, which depends on the triple lock, whereby a motion requesting devolution needs to be tabled in the Assembly by the First and Deputy First Ministers acting jointly. After that, the motion would need to be approved on a cross-community vote in the Assembly, and then the Secretary of State would bring forward transfer orders to Parliament in Westminster for approval and debate. The Bill will not impose devolution on a majority if they later choose not to exercise that power.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the costs of setting up a new system run into hundreds of millions of pounds and that there is a further £70 million funding shortfall across the agencies involved in the process? Does he accept those figures, and what implications does he think they will have for the Assembly, which will inevitably be required to plug the gap?

The hon. Gentleman may not be surprised to hear that I do not accept those figures. Northern Ireland had—[Hon. Members: “Higher!”] It is always pleasing to take part in the Dutch auction of Opposition Members. I do not accept those figures. I begin with the premise that in the comprehensive spending review, policing and justice in Northern Ireland had a very good settlement. There are considerable historic reasons why Northern Ireland demands such a settlement. This is in no way to question the work of the Police Service of Northern Ireland or any of the other agencies there, but many chief constables look at the settlement achieved by the Chief Constable in Northern Ireland with a great deal of jealousy. I say that with huge respect for the work that is done, but the fact is that there is one police officer in Northern Ireland for every 215 to 220 people, whereas in my constituency in Merseyside, the numbers are dramatically different and, I regret to say, we have extremely high crime rates.

rose—

I will give way in a moment.

Despite the considerable work that is done, the fact of the matter is that the settlement in Northern Ireland was a good settlement.

The hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Christopher Fraser) asked about additional requests that have been made for money. As a matter of course, new pressures might arise following the making of the CSR. We are asking other police forces across the United Kingdom to deal with new demands by reordering their priorities, not giving them more money. Part of what Northern Ireland must do, in being normal, is to do the same as any other police force in any other part of the United Kingdom. There may be issues—I say “may”, because it is not a matter of fact or record that they can at this stage be described as justifiable pressures for new money—that need to be resolved. That is why the Prime Minister has asked Jeremy Heywood to chair a committee that will involve officials from Northern Ireland, my office and the offices of the First and Deputy First Ministers, as well as civil servants from Departments here, coming together to look at the so-called needs for extra money.

In this economic climate, people need to be sensible and realistic. I understand why people will make demands. However, at the same time, they need to recognise that those issues may not be unique to Northern Ireland, that some of the pressures being felt there now are being felt by other police forces around the country and that Northern Ireland, whether it is under the Secretary of State or its own Minister for Justice in a devolved Department, will be expected to adhere to the same responsibilities as anybody else would. I expect people to make the case, but it does not follow that because people make a case, that case will automatically be met. There is some hard work to be done. I am grateful to the First and Deputy First Ministers and to others who are taking part in the important process that is now under way and which has its first meeting later today.

Some issues remain to be resolved before devolution can take place, one of which is the need to recognise the valiant contribution of the part-time Royal Ulster Constabulary reserve in Northern Ireland over the period of the troubles. I know that the Minister of State is currently reviewing that, but will the Secretary of State give a commitment that before devolution takes place his Department will properly recognise the contribution that those men and women made to safeguarding the entire community in Northern Ireland? Many of them paid with their lives and many still carry the injuries that they suffered during that campaign.

I will of course use this opportunity to endorse what the right hon. Gentleman says about the work and the extraordinary bravery of those people. However, as he also rightly said, my hon. Friend the Minister of State is looking at those matters. Tempted though I might be to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question directly, it is precisely right that my hon. Friend does the work with his review. Just as the right hon. Gentleman and the First Minister have pressed their case previously, I am sure that they will continue to press it. Indeed, it concerns one of a number of issues that I am sure we will need to work through together in the coming months.

I said that it was important to be clear about what the Bill is not. Crucially, it will not decide the model for the new Department of Justice; rather, it adds one more model to the menu. It remains for the Assembly to choose which model it wants to pursue. What the Bill does is give legal expression to the work of elected politicians in Northern Ireland. In considering the Bill, we should have due regard to the work and wishes of the majority in Northern Ireland and those who produced the Assembly and Executive Review Committee report.

In addition to enabling the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland to be realised, we should also send a clear political message today to the small numbers of criminals in Northern Ireland who do not want to see peace and stability on the streets. There are criminal groups styling themselves as republicans for whom the idea of political progress, shared power and fully devolved institutions is abhorrent; they do not want to see that. Regrettably, we always feared that this would be the case. We also feared that, at the moment at which great political progress was being made in Northern Ireland, they would try to seize such an opportunity.

Regrettably, we have seen increased activity by this very small number of dissidents in the past few months, and it has been targeted particularly, but not only, at police officers. The PSNI will need to work incredibly closely with the community to ensure that the response to this activity, while increased, is also proportionate. This is not like the old days. This involves a group of people who have absolutely no support and who are condemned by everyone across the board. They thrive in an atmosphere of fear and in the vacuum that they hope to create if the political process can be stalled. Today in this House, the Bill provides an opportunity yet again to send a clear message to those who do not want political progress, who wish to stall the work of the people and the political parties of Northern Ireland, and who wish to frustrate and challenge the courage of those who are leading their political parties and Northern Ireland to a different place.

The message that this House sends, in supporting the Bill, is that the political process is winning, that it has transformed Northern Ireland, and that if we allow this transformation to continue to its logical conclusion, so that those elected in Northern Ireland become responsible for policing and justice in the months ahead, there will be no clearer signal to these people that, while they might try hard and while they might pose a threat to some, we hope that they will never have the chance to succeed, and we will never let them succeed. They are criminals, and criminal threats will never be allowed to halt legitimate processes. This House, in supporting the Bill, will send an unequivocal message that politics in Northern Ireland is winning.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for outlining the main provisions in the Bill and the Government’s rationale for bringing it before the House today. I also thank him for giving the Opposition early sight of the legislation, and for the helpful manner in which his officials have answered our questions.

The last Conservative Government began the peace process, and their work was built on by the current Labour Government. As I said in the debate on the programme motion, it has always been our policy in opposition to set party politics aside on issues concerning Northern Ireland, and broadly to support the Government in their approach to the peace process and devolution. In doing so, we have not given the Government a blank cheque, however. While trying to be as supportive as possible, we have made constructive and detailed criticisms.

At the outset, I reconfirm that we emphatically support the Belfast agreement and the current devolved institutions that followed on from it. We would like to see the institutions that were established by ensuing agreements working effectively for the good of all the people of Northern Ireland. We have therefore always supported the eventual devolution of criminal justice and policing, when the conditions were right and once the proposed model for devolution had the support of all communities. Devolution of criminal justice and policing was, after all, envisaged in the Belfast agreement and re-affirmed in the joint declaration of 2003, and subsequently at St. Andrews in 2006.

Thanks to the efforts of the last two Governments, Northern Ireland has been transformed. However, when considering the Bill today, we should remember that the current circumstances are not normal. Although the horrific levels of violence experienced during the troubles are now largely behind us, there is still a real threat of brutality from dissident republican groups and so-called loyalist paramilitaries, as the Secretary of State has just mentioned. The dissidents have openly stated that they intend to kill a police officer.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in the main, the fact that the dissident republicans have not been able to kill a policeman is down to excellent police work, and that it is thanks to Sir Hugh Orde and his team that those people have been contained so effectively? Does he also agree that the co-operation between the PSNI and the Garda Siochana is now helping to contain the dissident republicans?

I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman’s comments; I am about to make similar comments myself. I particularly agree with him about the collaboration with the Garda, which I have noticed in the border areas.

The year before last, two officers had lucky escapes in Londonderry and Dungannon. In more recent months, the attacks in Craigavon, the rocket attack in Lisnaskea and the bomb in Rosslea thankfully did not succeed. As recently as February, a 300 lb bomb was found in Castlewellan. So-called loyalist groups also pose a real danger to police officers. It is disgraceful that they have not decommissioned weapons as we approach the 11th anniversary of the Belfast agreement. A police officer was shot in the back in Carrickfergus, and of the 20 officers forced from their homes in the past 12 months, five were driven out by loyalists. The above list is far from comprehensive, and I pay tribute to the bravery of all those involved at every level of the police and security services for minimising the damage that these violent criminals wish to inflict on the law-abiding majority. As we debate the Bill, we should all remember the dedication of these public servants.

Some dissident groups have moved into drug crime, and this continues the violence. Masked men who shot a man dead in Londonderry in February were thought to be dissident republicans involved in drugs. Fuel smuggling is estimated to cost the Exchequer £100 million a year. In some areas, both dissidents and republicans are, amazingly, working together to smuggle fuel.

The Assembly should remember, when deciding whether to use the option provided by the Bill, that normal policing is extremely difficult in these circumstances and that—despite Patten recommendation 55, which states that police cars should be substituted in place of armoured Land Rovers—more and more patrols are forced to travel in armoured vehicles due to the rise in dissident violence. The dissident threat has also led to a huge increase in police overtime, with the result that £24.5million has had to be taken from this year’s budget to pay for last year. There are suggestions that the Policing Board is starting the new financial year £50 million in the red. The PSNI needs to save £263 million by 2011. Proposed police station closures are unpopular, the information technology budget has had to be reduced, and police overtime will be cut by 51 per cent. over three years.

We are therefore discussing the Bill in the context of further looming pressures on the budget. There are more than 2,000 claimants for hearing loss, which could cost a further £100 million. I have even heard reports that that could rise to £400 million. The historical enquiries team has had to cut staff. The current established figure of 7,500 full-time officers has not been achieved, and plans for police community support officers have been put on hold for three years. On the positive side, great progress has been made in increasing Catholic recruitment, which is up to 25 per cent., and on target for 30 per cent. by March 2011.

In his winding-up speech, will the Minister please confirm that police pay, pensions and conditions will continue to be set nationally after devolution? Will he confirm how inquiries into the past will be paid for in future? Who will pay for any litigation that flows from those inquiries? Could he give us an overall appraisal of the current and future financial position of the PSNI?

When the Assembly comes to debate the timing of devolution, it should be aware of the extremely difficult conditions in which the police continue to operate, and the serious financial consequences of that. I am also conscious that a number of politicians in Northern Ireland take the view that Stormont should be allowed to settle down and resolve issues such as education before taking on the additional burden of policing and criminal justice. In my opinion, however, that is strictly a matter for the Assembly.

The background to the Bill is that the PSNI is already the most accountable police force in the world. The Chief Constable is widely respected across all parts of the community and is self-evidently non-political. He reports to a Policing Board that has representatives from all political parties, and there is further scrutiny by the police ombudsman, the district policing partnerships and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Despite the ultimate responsibility resting with the Secretary of State, there is already significant involvement by representatives across all the community in Northern Ireland.

It is important to stress—as the Secretary of State did—that the Bill does not deliver the devolution of criminal justice and policing. That could have been triggered at any time since the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which gave effect to the Good Friday agreement, had there been cross-community support for it. Since then, a number of models for the devolution of criminal justice and policing have been proposed. There are currently seven such models. This Bill creates an eighth model, following exhaustive negotiations in the Northern Ireland Assembly, primarily between the Democratic Unionist party and Sinn Fein. That resulted in a report to the Assembly, which was published in January. We believe that locally elected politicians should ultimately be responsible for such matters, but which model is chosen should be a matter for the parties in the Assembly to agree.

At the same time, we have always insisted that powers should be transferred from this Parliament only when three criteria have been satisfied: first, that all parties represented in the Executive are committed to pursuing their objectives by exclusively peaceful and democratic means; secondly, that all parties fully support, in word and deed, the criminal justice system, including the police and the courts; and, thirdly, that such a transfer of powers commands support across the community, as expressed through Northern Ireland’s political representatives. In our view, that is not something that should be imposed according to an arbitrary deadline or timetable, so I welcome the fact that nothing in the Bill alters the existing triple lock on the transfer of powers.

The mechanism for transferring policing and justice in the 1998 Act remains unchanged. Before devolution takes place, it must have the consent of the First Minister, a majority of designated Unionists and nationalists in the Assembly and of both Houses of Parliament. I give a guarantee that any future Conservative Government will fully uphold that triple lock while respecting the decision of the Assembly.

In addition, we have always made it clear that any devolution of policing and justice powers must preserve the operational independence of the Chief Constable and his officers; the independence of the judiciary must also be guaranteed. Those are cardinal principles that cannot be compromised. There must be no question of allowing political interference in such matters in Northern Ireland or in any other part of the United Kingdom.

We support many features of the Bill, particularly the changes to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 in respect of appointments to judicial offices. In our view, it is right and sensible to give to the Lord Chief Justice the powers originally envisaged as being exercised by the First and Deputy First Ministers. One of our concerns when the 2002 Act was passing through Parliament was about the potential for politicisation of certain judicial appointments, but these changes go some way to allaying our fears.

We are not happy, however, that the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland is, in the words of the explanatory note,

“independent of a ‘parent’ department within the Northern Ireland departmental system”.

I listened carefully to the Secretary of State’s comments, and we will study the text that he referred to in detail, but we believe that devolution of criminal justice and policing would actually be strengthened if the DPP were superintended by the Attorney-General, who, according to the 2002 Act, may participate in the proceedings of the Assembly. We believe that the Attorney-General should be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice on the recommendation of the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission.

I am confident that our amendments, if approved, would strengthen the devolution of justice, making the DPP answerable to a key figure who is accountable in turn to the Assembly. It would also give the DPP a shield to protect him on occasions when he has to deal with very contentious prosecutions. We have tabled a number of other amendments, including one that would set a time limit of six months on appointing a Justice Minister. That is in no way intended to undermine devolution, but we think that, given the security situation in Northern Ireland, it is not acceptable for criminal justice and policing to continue for an indefinite period without a Minister responsible to a democratic body.

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman noticed, but in the Secretary of State’s speech, he relied on—without naming them—other common law jurisdictions, which I recall him saying would not be a good formula for Northern Ireland. He did not elaborate. As an aside, I think that that shows that if we had a proper Committee stage, we could probe much further. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will join me in asking the Secretary of State to tell us when he concludes the debate what jurisdictions the Government consulted and what those jurisdictions were asked. It would be interesting to know. I follow much of what the hon. Gentleman says; he is making a powerful point.

I am sure that the Secretary of State will have noted those comments and will reply later. We think that there should be a limit to the process, so that we have a final full-stop. It would not be sensible to have a Department without a Minister for an indefinite period.

I am aware that time is short and many other Members wish to speak, so let me summarise our position. We support the devolution of criminal justice and policing, but it is for the Assembly to decide when all parts of the community consider the time to be right. Given the dangerous security situation that is also exacerbating the financial pressures of devolving criminal justice and policing, the Assembly should think long and hard before taking this step. We believe that, should it decide to do so, this model has many merits. It would, however, be much improved if our amendment on the accountability of the DPP were agreed. On that basis, we will support Second Reading this evening.