DURATION OF THE NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) ACT 1996 (Hansard, 11 December 1997)

§ Mr. Trimble
I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, leave out lines 7 and 8.
I shall try to be as rapid as possible. I have already pointed out that legislation of this nature ought to have parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment No. 1 would restore the debate that would otherwise have taken place in 1998 on the continuation of the 1996 Act. The Bill will knock out the annual review of the legislation in 1998, which is a mistake. As long as this legislation remains on the statute book, it ought to be debated in the House at least once a year, as has been the practice. As I said, the legislation has not had much by way of parliamentary scrutiny. I am surprised that new Labor—or indeed, old Labor—is attempting to remove the House's annual debate on the emergency provisions. It is surprising that virtually the first thing that the Labour party did on coming to power was to diminish the parliamentary scrutiny of emergency legislation. That is an astonishing move and I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.

§ Mr. Ingram
Hopefully, we can debate this quickly. As I understand it from listening to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the amendment would ensure that, to remain in force, the temporary provisions of the 1996 Act will be required to be continued by order approved by resolution of each House of Parliament before 15 June next year. I was not clear whether that was the hon. Gentleman's intention.

§ Mr. Trimble
indicated assent.

§ Mr. Ingram
The fact that the hon. Gentleman is assenting indicates an understanding of the effect of the amendment. The Government included the subsection that the hon. Gentleman seeks to remove so that if the Bill is enacted before June 1998, we can dispense with the need for the annual renewal debates, so he is right in his assessment of what we are seeking to do. However, renewal debates will take place in 1999 and 2000, if necessary, to continue the temporary provisions in force until their expiry on 24 August 2000.
As the hon. Member said, the renewal debates are an important safeguard, but since Parliament will have fully debated all the provisions of the Act during the passage of this Bill, parliamentary time could and should be saved by dispensing with the 1998 annual renewal debates if the Bill is enacted in good time. Because we are debating this Bill within the time scale in which the 1998 provisions would have been debated, there is no need for a subsequent debate. The legislation will also be considered in another place and may be referred back to us.
Under those circumstances, I cannot accept the amendment. We have had a full debate—12 hours in Committee and considerable time on the Floor of the House on Second Reading and this evening—and there may be further debate on the matter. Simply going through the whole exercise again would not be the best 1232 use of parliamentary time. While the debate is important, we have had that debate during the passage of this Bill, so I cannot accept the amendment.

§ Mr. Trimble
Having listened to the Minister, my astonishment at the Government's position is, if anything, greater than it was before. This is 1997. After tonight, this House will not debate the issue again until June 1999. We are to be deprived of the debate that would have taken place in June 1998, which is nearly six months away.

§ Mr. Ingram
The debates do not necessarily take place in June. Usually it is earlier, in May, and they can take place earlier than that. Under the procedures of the House, the provisions have to be renewed by that date. We are giving the issue full consideration. What more would be gained by having another debate in a month or so? Anyway, we do not know when the Bill will be referred back to us from another place.

§ Mr. Trimble
That answer is wholly inadequate. The renewal debates take place against the background of a report by someone who looks into the operation of the legislation during the year. During the passage of this Bill, we have not considered the detailed operation of the legislation against the background of such an expert report. It is a different sort of debate.
Whether the debate is in May or June does not detract from the fact that the Government are ensuring that there will be no debate in 1998 and that it will be another 18 months before the operation of the legislation is given any parliamentary scrutiny. In these debates on the Bill, hon. Members can by inference make points about the operation of the legislation, but the debates are not focused on its operation as renewal debates are. Even in recent years, parliamentary scrutiny of the emergency legislation has been woefully inadequate. In the next 18 months, it will be non-existent.
I am amazed that that is the position that the Labour party has adopted, but it has done so and time is getting on. I have made my point and I will not press it to delay the House unnecessarily. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.