Northern Ireland Bill (Hansard, 21 October 1998)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

§ Lord Dubs
Rather unusually, I must recommend that noble Lords oppose the Question that this clause stand part of the Bill. Nor do we intend to introduce any amendments to replace it.
Clause 43 concerns the Secretary of State's power to prorogue the Northern Ireland Assembly. The power in the Bill as it stands is unfettered and does not need to be justified, although a draft Order in Council must be approved under the affirmative resolution procedure. Clause 43 reflects provisions in earlier Northern Ireland legislation which were briefly used on occasions—for example, in the summer of 1973.
In discussions with the Northern Ireland parties, there was considerable opposition to the kind of emergency powers represented by this clause. We have already debated the powers to call emergency dissolutions and fresh elections. As a result, the Secretary of State's powers in this field have instead been given to the Assembly.
We see the weight in the criticism of such emergency powers: that they are planning for failure and as a result might paradoxically make failure more likely. The Government are not in the business of planning for failure in Northern Ireland. We believe that the progress we have seen over the past year fully justifies this confidence. The Northern Ireland Bill reflects the Belfast agreement: the greatest success in building bridges across the community in the entire history of Northern Ireland. The agreement already provides for a review of its provisions after four years. If circumstances change dramatically, the power of Westminster to make provisions for Northern Ireland remains unaffected by the Bill. But we believe that the Bill provides the firmest foundation for political development over the years ahead and that the kind of powers included in this clause are therefore unnecessary. I beg to move.

§ Lord Cope of Berkeley
This is one of a number of clauses in the Bill which the Minister proposes to oppose, having put them before the Committee. However, I realise that that results from the consultations which took place over the summer, in particular with the Northern Ireland parties. Therefore my criticism of the noble Lord opposing his own clauses is muted a great deal.
The Minister describes this power as planning for failure. I do not envisage it in that way. I understand the clause to provide for contingencies, which I believe is a different issue. I should not wish to plan on the basis that the Assembly and all that goes 1443 with it will fail. Far from it; I am optimistic and hope very much that it will succeed. At the same time it seems to me that we should make provision for contingencies if all is not going entirely smoothly. A cooling-off period might be required and could be provided by the prorogation provision in the clause.
However, at this stage I do not wish to go against the results of the consultation which the Minister and his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office have had with the Northern Ireland parties. I am prepared to concur with the proposal made by the Minister.

§ Lord Holme of Cheltenham
We, too, have no essential problem with what the Government seek to do. Perhaps I may be clear. The Assembly will be able to prorogue itself, the power having been removed from Her Majesty to do so. Will the Assembly be able to prorogue itself in the event to which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred—that all did not go well? If so, for how long? How would that relate to the provision—from these Benches we very much welcome it—that the Assembly will have a fixed term? It is an example that we might well follow in the Westminster Parliament. I should be grateful for an answer on those points.

§ Lord Molyneaux of Killead
I am reluctant to prolong this part of the debate. However, I had the impression that the clause as it stood did even more damage to what I call the sacred scrolls of the Good Friday agreement. Perhaps it was for that reason that wiser counsels prevailed. I was the recipient on many occasions of such exhortations, even when I was making tremendously significant suggestions that an amendment providing that the "Secretary of State shall" instead of "the Secretary of State may" sent the wrong signals and demoralised all who had subscribed in the referendum to the agreement.
However, I shall not anticipate what I and my colleagues may wish to say with the leave of the Committee on the new clause.

§ Lord Dubs
The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, is, yes. The Assembly has the power to prorogue. It can control its own sittings and set its own periods of adjournment.

§ Lord Cope of Berkeley
Perhaps I may respond briefly to a remark by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, about fixed term parliaments. It is not appropriate to debate the matter on this clause. However, I believe that one of the advantages of the British constitution is that we do not have fixed-term parliaments. It means that our elections are short, which is highly desirable when one considers some comparable countries overseas. It also enables Parliament to resolve a situation where a government have lost the ability to govern; and there are plenty of historic precedents to which one could point.