DURATION OF SECTIONS 3 AND 4 (Hansard, 22 April 1996)

§ Mr. William Ross
I beg to move amendment No. 118, in page 3, line 9, leave out 'Section 3' and insert 'this Act'.

The First Deputy Chairman
With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendment: No. 135, in page 3, line 10, leave out 'Section 3' and insert 'this Act'.
162 No. 124, in page 3, line 11, leave out 'or'.
No. 39, in page 3, leave out line 12.
No. 38, in page 3, line 13, leave out '1998' and insert '1999'.
No. 35, in page 3, line 13, after 'order', insert 'but only if such provisions have the support of a clear majority of members of parties representing respectively the nationalist and unionist communities as defined in accordance with paragraph 24 of Command Paper 3232'.
No. 133, in page 3, line 14, leave out subsection (3).
No. 131, in page 3, line 19, leave out 'section 3' and insert 'this Act'.
No. 130, in page 3, line 20, leave out subsection (5).

§ Mr. Ross
This is a fairly interesting group of amendments in that it tries to tidy up the legislation to some extent. Instead of dealing just with "section 3", we should be dealing with "this Act" because, as soon as a job that has been set up under the Act is completed—or fails, as the case may be, although we certainly hope that it will be completed successfully—the Act will cease to have any force and should not be left cluttering up the statute book. At that stage, it should disappear.
The amendment is simple and straightforward and I should be grateful if the Secretary of State will give a clear and detailed explanation as to why we should not go down that route. My hon. Friends will deal with the other amendments. The aim of my amendments is plain and I hope that the Secretary of State will accept them, or at least give me a clear explanation as to why he cannot.

§ Mr. Trimble
I want to comment on the amendments that I tabled. They deal with two particular issues, but unfortunately amendment No. 36 has been separated from amendments Nos. 39 and 38. Amendment No. 36 has been selected for debate in the next group whereas, in terms of drafting, amendments Nos. 39, 38 and 36 all hang together. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.
1.30 am
Amendments Nos. 39, 38 and 36 endeavour to deal with two inconsistencies. The first clear inconsistency relates to dates. Clause 7(5) states: Section 4 shall cease to have effect at the end of May 1999", whereas the last possible operation of clause 3 is May 1998. Like my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry, I think that the whole Act should hang together and operate on the same lifespan. We should not be dropping some parts of it before others. There needs to be consistency in the dates.
Amendment No. 38 seeks to replace "1998" with "1999", but I would be content if the Secretary of State preferred it the other way around and limited the date in clause 7(5) to 1998. I see no particular reason why we should envisage a three-year process—two years is quite sufficient—but there must be consistency, which I hope the Secretary of State will provide in his answer. That consistency should apply to the entire Act, and one part should not be separated from another.
Other amendments were directed to the coming into force again of the legislation. My concern is that the way in which clause 7(2) is drafted may mean that if, for some reason, clause 3 ceases to have effect before May 1997, 163 it would not be possible to revive it until after May 1997. Clause 7(2) is drafted in a way that limits it. In the rather unlikely event of clause 3 ceasing to have effect before May 1997 under the discretion provided in clause 7(3), amendment No. 36 would provide an unfettered discretion to bring clause 3 back into force.
My two aims are, first, to get the dates rationalised and, secondly, to ensure that the power to revive clause 3 is always available to the Secretary of State and that he does not find himself unable to revive it before 1997.

§ Mr. McGrady
I shall speak to amendment No. 35, which relates to section 7(2). Subsection (2) gives power to the Secretary of State to continue the forum beyond May 1997 or, it having lapsed, to bring it back into force. Amendment No. 35 provides that such action can be taken by the Secretary of State only if it has the support of a clear majority of members of parties representing respectively the nationalist and unionist communities as defined in accordance with paragraph 24 of Command Paper 3232.
Obviously, we are anxious that the principle of consensus be applied to the continuation or the reinvigoration, as it were, of the forum. That consensus is essential for the good order of business. The matter should not be left solely to the personal judgment of the Secretary of State. Those two important and potentially far-reaching powers should at least have the consent of the majorities of the two groups of parties that will be participating in the forum. I therefore urge the Secretary of State to accept the amendment as a reasonable expression of the democratic right of that body to exercise, as it were, its own existence.

§ Mr. Ancram
This group of amendments is complicated. The hon. Members for East Londonderry and for Upper Bann have done a valuable service in explaining their intentions so clearly and highlighting the main features of the amendments, which are fairly difficult to understand. I shall take the points one by one.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry argued that in his view it was inappropriate for clause 7 to focus exclusively on clause 3 and that, effectively, if I understood his argument, the whole exercise—the forum and the negotiations—should stand or fall together. In fact, the amendments would fail to achieve the effect that the hon. Gentleman seeks. Clauses 1 and 2 deal only with the elections and the entry to negotiations, so they will, in effect, become spent provisions—if I may use that expression—at a very early stage.
Thus, the only effects of amendments Nos. 118, 135 and 131 would be to provide that, if the Secretary of State needed to terminate the forum, he would also terminate the power to hold referendums under clause 4—a power which, earlier, the hon. Gentleman wanted to be made a permanent feature of the statute book, but which would be removed by these amendments—and to bring to an end the Secretary of State's power to pay allowances to delegates in respect of participation in the negotiations.
The negotiations might not last much longer if allowances were not paid, but that might not be the strict intention of the hon. Member for East Londonderry in moving the amendment. In practice, however, it is clear that his objectives have already been met. The life of the 164 forum and the negotiations will be closely bound together. The forum will continue in existence while the negotiations continue.
I can assure the hon. Members for East Londonderry and for Upper Bann that there is no intention that the Secretary of State should use the power in subsection (3) to bring the forum to a close while allowing negotiations to continue. Regardless of the Government's views on the matter, I imagine that certain parties which are represented in the House and which are likely to be represented in the forum and the negotiations would be bound to protest vigorously and effectively if such an attempt were ever made. In practice, therefore, it is not a danger. Given those points and reassurances, I hope that the hon. Members will not press amendments Nos. 118, 135, 124, 39, 133 and 131.
I also listened with interest to the arguments for extending the maximum life of the forum by a further year to May 1999. The Government are not persuaded that that would be sensible or appropriate. May 1999 refers to the referendum clause, which in practice we all appreciate may have an effect and may require to have an effect after the negotiating process has ceased. It is for that reason that the extra time is allowed.
We believe it right at this stage to set a realistic deadline for the completion of the process. If agreement is not reached within a maximum of two years, it would be necessary to question the utility and value of keeping the process in being. If the participants were on the brink of a settlement at the cut-off date, I am sure that the House would, if necessary, look favourably on extending the life of the process. I do not think that we would be justified in creating an expectation at this stage that the process could not be completed by May 1998 at the latest. Again, I ask the Committee not to support the amendments, but I hope that they will not be pressed.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann raised a concern that I think is covered by the proposed legislation. Clause 7(2) gives the Secretary of State power to revive the forum at any time before May 1998. That should satisfy his concern. He has raised it with me before, and I have said to him on a previous occasion that that was certainly my understanding of the construction of the clause.
The hon. Member for South Down referred to amendment No. 35. In his statement to the House of Commons on 21 March, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear that the life of the forum would be time limited to 12 months, renewable up to a maximum of a further 12 months. He also stated that the forum would not continue in existence if the negotiations were no longer in process. The clause expresses that policy position.
Subsection (2)(a) empowers my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to extend the life of the forum from its initial expiry date at the end of May 1997 up to a maximum period to the end of May 1998. Subsection (2)(b) enables him to revive the forum up to the maximum period if it has already ceased to exist at the end of May 1997 or if an earlier extension order has expired. The purpose of the provision is to ensure that while negotiations continue, the forum also continues.
If the negotiations end, the forum also ends. For example, clause 7(3) requires the Secretary of State to terminate the forum earlier than the date in an extension order made under clause 7(2) if it appears to him that the 165 negotiations are concluded or suspended. I hope that that in terms satisfies the concerns of the hon. Member for East Londonderry. I hope, again, that on that basis he will not press his amendment.

§ Mr. William Ross
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Trimble
I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 3, line 18, leave out 'or suspended'.

§ The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris)
With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 36, in page 3, line 19, at end insert— '4(A) If Section 3 ceases to have effect at any time before May 1999, the Secretary of State may by order provide that it shall come into force again.'.

§ Mr. Trimble
I do not propose to associate amendment No. 37 with amendment No. 36, because it is quite different. I am speaking solely to amendment No. 37 which would remove from clause 7(4) the words "or suspended". It is merely a tidying-up provision which achieves the object that the Government have in mind in a much more effective way.
Under clause 7(4), there is an obligation on the Secretary of State to provide that section 3 shall cease to have effect; in other words, there is an obligation on the Secretary of State to wind up the forum. Under the clause, he "shall" make such an order. Subsection (3), however, gives him discretion to wind up the forum. Looking at the two possibilities mentioned in subsection (4)—that the negotiations are concluded or that they are suspended—I believe that one should draw a distinction between the two.
The negotiations may be suspended. That suspension could be for a short period, with an expectation that the negotiations were about to be resumed, or it could be more serious. It would be appropriate, as the term "suspension" can cover a range of possibilities, for the Secretary of State to exercise discretion in respect of a suspension rather then being under a duty to wind up the forum. There is a distinction to be drawn between the negotiations being concluded, in which case it might be reasonable for the Secretary of State to be under a duty, and a suspension covering a range of situations, in which case the exercise of discretion would be more appropriate.
My proposal achieves the object the Government have in mind by giving them discretion in the matter. They can then decide matters in the light of the circumstances that obtain rather than being under a duty.

§ Mr. Ancram
I have listened with care to the comments the hon. Member for Upper Bann. Although he is right in saying that the provision could apply in a separate and different scenario, I am not certain that the point of principle to which he refers has not already been covered. It is the Government's view that if the negotiations are not taking place, for whatever reason, including a suspension, the forum should not continue during that period. My understanding was that the hon. Gentleman's original concern was that, following the end of such a suspension, for whatever reason that suspension 166 had taken place, the forum would not be capable of being revived. I had hoped that I had satisfied him on that point in my remarks on amendment No. 118.

§ Mr. Trimble
What happens if there is an adjournment for a week or two, for some reason?

§ Mr. Ancram
My right hon. and learned Friend would have to be satisfied that there had been a suspension, and obviously an adjournment is not a suspension in those terms. Subsection (4) makes it clear that it would have to appear to the Secretary of State that the negotiations were suspended. He would have to take such factors into account in reaching a view. Having come to a view, if he regarded the interruption as an adjournment rather than a suspension, or vice versa, he would base his decision on that judgment.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that what is important is the fact that there is the ability to ensure that the forum and the negotiations are run at the same time, but that neither runs without the other. On that basis, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

§ Mr. Trimble
In view of the lateness of the hour, I do not wish to push the matter further. In the light of the clear undertaking that the two will run together, and that no attempt will be made to use the provision to separate the forum from the negotiations, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.