rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) Order 2007.

The noble Lord said: A few weeks ago I warned that this order would be introduced either in Grand Committee or on the Floor of the House. It looks like a contradiction or plan B, but it is not. We do not have a plan B: it is devolution or dissolution on Monday. We are at a crucial point in the political process in Northern Ireland and minds are focused on the deadline for the restoration of devolved government on Monday of next week. There are no obstacles in the way of the formation of a power-sharing Executive on 26 March. It would be a tragedy beyond belief if the political classes in Northern Ireland failed to deliver what the electorate has just endorsed. The recent elections to the Assembly demonstrated a resounding desire for a return to stable and inclusive government. With the deadline so close, bringing this order forward now looks like an anomaly, so I will explain.

The main purpose of the order is to extend the power to legislate for Northern Ireland matters by Order in Council for a further six months. We do not want to do that. When the Northern Ireland Assembly was suspended in 2002, the provisions of the schedule in the Northern Ireland Act 2000 were invoked whereby the Government had the power to legislate for Northern Ireland by Order in Council. The power was initially limited to the first six months of suspension. Regretfully, it has been extended on eight previous occasions for a further period of six months.

This modification order would provide for a further extension of six months from 15 April this year to 14 October—in other words, the current arrangements expire during Parliament’s Easter Recess. The order is being brought forward purely on a contingency basis. We fully expect that devolution will be restored next Monday, 26 March, which would cause the power to legislate by order to fall away anyway. Devolution of powers will take place once the process has been undertaken at Stormont. If failure occurs, however, the Government will be left with no alternative but to proceed to direct rule, and the Secretary of State has made it clear that that would be for years rather than months.

Noble Lords previously raised concerns, and I want to put this on the record as well, that legislating in such a manner is democratically deficient. It is. We accept that, and we have done so for some time. We recognise those concerns, and we have made the commitment, which I am happy to repeat, that if for some reason devolution does not occur, we will move to introduce measures designed to increase accountability in this Parliament under direct rule. The measures would be discussed through the usual channels, and would constitute a distant, remote second best to Northern Ireland politicians doing what they have been elected and paid to do—that is, taking responsibility in Northern Ireland.

As I said, the tightness of the parliamentary calendar dictates that there would be insufficient time to lay and pass an order before the Easter Recess. We cannot take a risk on leaving that until after next Monday. Believe you me, the best brains in the Government—which do not include me—and the Northern Ireland Office have thought long and hard about this. It looks like a plan B, but it is not. There is no plan B. We expect devolution to be back next Monday. However, we have to prepare a contingency. We could not automatically assume that in the few days at the end of next week, with the Budget debate and everything else, we could get both Houses of Parliament to pass what would look like unthought-out emergency legislation. That is not what this is; we have thought about it. Purely as a contingency, we are bringing forward this order. We hope and trust, of course, that it will never be operated and that the devolved powers will return to Stormont and a devolved Assembly some time during the hours of 26 March. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) Order 2007.—(Lord Rooker.)

I thank the Minister for his lengthy reply to the last debate, and for the clear manner in which he has explained what we are doing now. I thank him too for ensuring that I got the very early warning that, and the explanation of why, we would be taking this statutory instrument today. I have little more to say, other than that I hope to God the Government do not actually need it. I thank the Minister for his undertaking, in the awful event that we need it after all, that the method of managing Northern Ireland affairs will be improved.

I too thank the Minister for bringing the order before us. After it had been laid in another place, the Minister responded to my colleague with an explanation that the order was laid on a contingency basis, and that is what we are talking about. We know that the current order runs out on 14 April. Given the Easter Recess, there was not a great deal of time to pass the order. We do not criticise the Government for laying the order and pressing ahead with the debate. It would probably be irresponsible to do otherwise.

However, I would like the Minister to explain a little more clearly why it would not have been possible to debate this order next Tuesday, 27 March, if it was necessary. By then, of course, we would have known on 26 March, the deadline, whether or not it would have been necessary: if an agreement was not reached by then, the debate could have gone ahead. But as things stand we are in an uncertain position because we do not know whether we actually need the order.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness—

I should have said that we support the order, albeit reluctantly.

I am not hiding behind anything here. So far as the business managers in this House and the other place are concerned, there simply is no parliamentary time next week. I suspect that in a sovereign Parliament, where there is a will, there is a way, but the fact is that we do not want what is in effect a contingency measure to look like emergency reactive legislation. Further, there is no time in the parliamentary calendar next week to deal with this business. That is the best advice I have; in fact it is the only advice I have because there is no other answer. It would not be possible to deal with this order next week.

The order has to go to the Privy Council, and that is where the problem arises. If I had known that in the first place, I could have said so. I am sorry; it is not the Privy Council. Again, the fact is that the business managers have said that there is no time available next week, and that is it.

I apologise to Members of the Committee. We had a communication that went astray across the Floor of the Committee.

On Question, Motion agreed to.