Northern Ireland Bill (Allocation of Time)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. To pick up the remarks that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland made at the beginning of his Second Reading speech and at other points this afternoon, he has been a very candid friend in this entire process. The amendments are entirely noble in seeking to probe the matter, and I will try to reassure him. I know that his interest is, in the end, only in securing stability in Northern Ireland and nothing other than that. The hon. Gentleman has in mind—I do not know whether this is true of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, the Assembly or anybody else in Northern Ireland—which candidate he prefers. He has mentioned David Ford, who has been referred to several times this afternoon. Let me say a few more things about the amendment in the hope that the hon. Gentleman will be persuaded, on balance, not to press it. We all have enormous respect for David Ford and recognise the role that he has played. However, we must put on record the opportunity that he had to play a role when he and his Alliance party colleagues spoke in the debate in January. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has raised the principled point that it is important for this House to pay significant attention to what has happened and perhaps to run in the opposite direction from the decision democratically taken in January. If that issue were really the cause of the unfairness and instability that the hon. Gentleman worries about, one would expect the Alliance party and David Ford to make quite a lot of it, and one would certainly expect it to have featured centrally in David Ford’s remarks in the January debate. With that in mind, I re-read last night the Hansard report of that debate. I looked to see what was said and particularly at what David Ford said. In fact, he did not say a word about this particular issue. He said:""Certainly, my party broadly welcomes the report because there is little in it as it stands with which to disagree."" As the hon. Gentleman knows, the recommendation for this particular power to be used in this particular way for appointment and removal is explicitly made in the report. David Ford also said:""The Alliance Party has always considered the timing of devolution of policing and justice to be condition-led, rather than calendar-led."" He recognised the importance of the conditions, and he is a man of fine principle. What, then, did he proceed to say? He said:""By any stretch, however, the point has been reached when progress must be led by the calendar and conditions. In that context, it is pleasant to be able broadly to welcome such a constructive and positive report."" He also said:""The Alliance party wants the devolution of policing and justice to happen as soon as possible and practicable."" In other words, he provided a great deal of support for the report. I am simply saying to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that if his concern was such a problem, why did it not appear in the Assembly debate? I accept that the issue is important, but it was not raised in the debate and did not concern those who were present. Given that we are not asking for devolution this afternoon but are merely seeking to create an additional model, we should be very careful before railroading such a consideration through.