HL Deb 19 October 1998 vol 593 cc1223-48

(".—(1) Standing orders shall include provision for securing that a regulatory appraisal as to the likely costs and benefits of complying with a Bill is carried out.

(2) If the regulatory appraisal indicates that the costs of complying with the Bill are likely to be significant, then standing orders shall provide that—

  1. (a) appropriate consultation (including consultation with representatives of business) is carried out, and
  2. (b) the regulatory appraisal is published, before the Bill is introduced in the Assembly.").

The noble Lord said: I apologise for the late introduction of this amendment, which proposes a new clause after Clause 11. It suggests that a cost-benefit analysis of a proposed Bill to come before the Assembly shall be made in order that the costs of implementing it can be assessed against its likely benefits.

I hope that the amendment will find favour with the Committee because it will help the Assembly to judge the cost of a Bill. It might propose a Bill which would incur substantial costs on businesses without there being any benefit. I believe that the amendment will help the Assembly to judge the value of the Bills it is studying. I beg to move.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

I sympathise with my noble friend, who I know worked diligently in consultation with the various interest groups concerned, up to and during the weekend. Despite the reputed advance in technology, I am afraid that the screens did not work as they ought to have done. Consequently, he is sincere in his apologies for springing the amendment on the Committee. I warmly support it.

The Members of the Assembly, unlike their counterparts in Wales and Scotland, are already elected and are showing commendable enthusiasm in various ways in tackling outstanding problems, particularly as regards industry, commerce, finance and allied subjects. It would be of enormous assistance to them to be able to provide convincing arguments, if only in the face of exorbitant demands, and to give an analysis of the cost of any measure to the taxpayers, the funds attributed to the Assembly, the block grant and so forth. More important is the cost to industry, in particular the new industries which one hopes will come on stream as a result of the widespread representations made by the all-party team which spent the past week in the United States of America. Its utterances have so far been optimistic. Given the sparse details available to me, I believe that there is a fair and even chance that the team will be rewarded for its endeavours. The amendment is another way of assisting it.

6.15 p.m.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

The noble Lord has suggested a good new clause which is designed to encourage employment. Regulations make it difficult for small businesses to create employment. In a previous government I was Minister responsible for small firms, but I have long taken an interest in the problems of small firms and continue to do so.

The difficulty with regulations as regards small firms is that there are so many. Each may be acceptable individually, but the combination makes it difficult for small firms to continue satisfactorily in business. A large business may have specialists ensuring that it complies with fire and planning regulations and so forth. It may also have people looking after its tax affairs and the complications of PAYE. Other people will look after the employment situation, ensuring that it does not fall foul of regulations relating to dismissing and hiring people, minimum wages, hours of work and so forth. The poor small businessman must deal with all those regulations in addition to trying to run his business. That is why the amendment is so important.

In one sense, we are taking it a week or two early because a week today the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, is to be introduced into the House. He heads the Deregulation Task Force which so far as I can tell is doing an extremely good job. But I know how difficult the job is; his predecessors found it difficult, too.

It is all very well to make regulations which are essential in modern life, for which people press and which experts can examine in detail, but it is the poor old businessman who must try to put them into practice. Therefore, it is extremely important that the new Assembly should not rush off with all its new powers and start regulating all over the place in order to solve the small problems which arise, particularly those of the individuals it represents. If the Assembly does that it will be bad for unemployment in Northern Ireland: there is no doubt in my mind about that. That, in itself, would be extremely damaging to the prospects of peace because it is economic success, employment and so on which is important. It is going to be difficult enough in the future in all conscience without having additional regulations.

It seems to me, therefore, that this proposal that a regulatory appraisal should be carried out on the costs and the benefits of complying with this legislation is an extremely good one and I support the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Cooke.

Lord Holme of Cheltenham

Members of the Committee know that the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, keeps an eye on the interests of business and commerce in Northern Ireland in a very painstaking way. Therefore I, for one, take the intention of this amendment very seriously. However, it is very widely drafted because it applies to all Bills, and the compliance of the citizen with a Bill which might have nothing at all to do with business will be difficult. His concern is, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, that businesses, and particularly small businesses, are not faced with costs of compliance out of all proportion to the benefits achieved. I think it is admirable, but my concern with this amendment is that it is widely drafted so as to apply to all legislation and not simply that which may have an effect directly on business.

I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says, but when he replies I hope he will make it clear that, in the new Assembly, it ought to be imperative that there are feet on the ground in terms of regular consultations with business in a way that is particularly important at this stage when we are in such need of investment so as to be able to generate a less dependent economy in Northern Ireland. I am not confident as to whether this is the right way to do it, but I applaud the sentiment and I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Lord Dubs

I appreciate the intent of this amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cooke. The CBI have written to us about this and I replied only this morning. I would warmly endorse the desirability of the Assembly paying close regard to the implications for business and employment of any proposed legislation, but that is very different from binding the hands of the Assembly as to how it should, in assuming its responsibilities, take account of these matters. I do not believe we ought to bind the Assembly.

Indeed, if we were to do so, we could all imagine other groups which would also argue for their interests to be protected in a similar way on the face of the Bill. I do not think that is the right way forward. If we have confidence in the Assembly we ought to allow it to legislate on behalf of Northern Ireland, whether it is on behalf of business or employment or, indeed, on behalf of any other matter within its responsibilities. I would add that even if we were to go down the path suggested by the noble Lord—which I have clearly indicated that we do not want to do—we would still have to look at his amendment because, for example, it would not allow for urgent cases which might come along. It might slow the pace of things.

Clearly, we have said all along that we are giving effect to the agreement in legislation and there is no reference in the agreement to such a mechanism as has been suggested. Noble Lords have heard from us on numerous occasions that we are seeking to give effect to the agreement, supplementing it only as necessary to permit it to work efficiently. Where we have done so, it has been by general agreement of all the parties in Northern Ireland. In the absence of any reference in the agreement to a matter such as this, I believe that it is much better left to the Assembly. It can well adopt the arrangements suggested by the noble Lord if it wishes. I think that that is the best way forward. In the circumstances, I would ask the noble Lord whether he is willing to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Cooke of Islandreagh

I find it hard to believe that every clause in this Bill was part of the agreement as such. I was glad of the support of the noble Lords, Lord Molyneaux and Lord Cope, because there is no doubt that Bills have been passed in this Chamber and in another place which have involved vast costs on industry and agriculture without any substantial benefit. Provisions such as this, I think, would be helpful to the Assembly. With consultation I would suggest that this might perhaps be amended so that it would be narrower in its scope and would not interfere with everything that the Assembly might do. Perhaps that could be looked into by the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 [Submission by Secretary of State]:

[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.]

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 29:

Page 6, line 14, leave out ("be outside") and insert ("not be within").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 [Parliamentary control where consent given]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 30:

Page 6, line 28, leave out ("subsection (2)") and insert ("subsections (2) and (3)").

The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move this amendment formally.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14 [First Minister and deputy First Minister]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 31:

Page 7, line 18, leave out from ("within") to ("elect") in line 19 and insert ("a period of six weeks beginning with its first meeting,").

The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 address concerns raised during Commons stages of the Bill about the impact of a vacancy in the First Minister and Deputy First Minister posts. As the Bill stands, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister need to make decisions jointly. If one of them ceases to hold office the other automatically does so. This is followed by a new election for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. In the meantime, however, there is obviously a vacuum at the centre of the devolved government. These new provisions will prevent such a vacuum by enabling the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to appoint alternates from among the Northern Ireland Ministers to exercise functions during their absence through illness, incapacity, and so on, or during a vacancy.

Under these amendments, if either the First Minister or Deputy First Minister post fell vacant the other would too, but the alternate and the remaining post-holder would continue to exercise the functions of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, acting jointly in a caretaker capacity until a fresh election had been held.

Amendments Nos. 31, 34 and 35 clarify the Bill's provisions, making it clear that the Assembly is to elect a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister within six weeks of its first meeting or, in the case of a mid-term election, within six weeks of the vacancy. I beg to move.

The Earl of Balfour

Perhaps I may raise a question here. Thinking in terms of this Parliament and a period of about six weeks—for example, we rise at the end of July and return on the 5th October—I think that this period will be more than six weeks. I wonder whether the Minister might reconsider his time-scale a little.

Lord Dubs

I should tell the noble Earl that the intention is that the Assembly is to elect a new First Minister and Deputy First Minister within six weeks of its first meeting or, in the case of a mid-term election, within six weeks of a vacancy. I do not think that six weeks is too short a period. After all, when there is an election here we deal with things very quickly indeed; so I think that this is a fairly reasonable proposition.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

I understand the reasons for all this. In particular, I think that Amendments Nos. 32 and 33, provide essentially for what is to happen during a vacancy when there is a vacuum. As the Minister has set out, an alternate is to be designated by the person who exercises one of these two great offices. I am not quite clear whether the intention is that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister should give notice in writing of an alternate at the start, when they first take office, which they could subsequently alter, so that the alternate is, as it were, standing by all the time in case the First Minister or Deputy First Minister falls ill or something else happens to him.

I can see that that might be desirable in some ways, but it is a novelty as far as concerns the British constitution that we should have an alternate named and standing by waiting for someone to fall ill. It is a common enough occurrence on the stage. An understudy is appointed and hangs around in the wings. But it is more of a novelty in the constitution.

I am more concerned about the question of six weeks. Like the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, I think that there may be times in the year when it is more difficult for the Assembly to fulfil this injunction either when it first meets or, for that matter, when one or other of these Ministers falls ill, or whatever it may be. Let us suppose that the assembly fails to carry out the election successfully in the course of those six weeks. Who will be in breach of the Act? Is it an offence not to have an election within six weeks; and if so, who will go to prison or who will find himself in court on the ground that it has not been done in the six weeks? One cannot arrest the Assembly for the breach, and, in any case, I do not think there is any provision for it being an offence. Therefore, I am not sure that it is an effective provision just to say that it must happen by Act of Parliament within six weeks if there is no sanction. In practice, of course, it would have to keep going until it had settled the matter and found a new First Minister and Deputy First Minister. I am not sure that it is effective to write the law in this way.

I have another point which relates to subsection (7) of Clause 14. It states: Where the offices of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister are vacant"— that is to be altered to "become vacant". Why does it not say: Where the offices of the First Minister or the deputy First Minister". After all, only one of them needs to become incapacitated, or to resign, or whatever, to trigger the need for an election—the need, first of all, for the alternate to do his stuff for a time but then, subsequently, to have an election. It seems to me that, in the way in which these amendments alter Clause 14, the word "and" in line 37 ought to be "or". I make that suggestion not as a manuscript amendment but as a point for the Minister to consider between now and Report stage. It would make the drafting of other parts of this rather complicated clause easier.

6.30 p.m.

Lord Renton

Although about 40 years ago I spent three-and-a-half years merely as Under-Secretary at the Home Office as a link between the Stormont Government and the United Kingdom Government, I have not previously spoken in the debate. But now we have before us the suggestion that there should be an interregnum—a vacuum—of six weeks without a head of government or deputy head of government. I think that is much too long. To have a period as long as six weeks without someone bearing the responsibility—it has to be borne—must be carefully considered. I ask the Government to think again about it. I agree with everything that was said by my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley.

Lord Fitt

On reading this clause, my mind goes back to the Sunningdale executive. It had a cabinet which was called the executive. The First Minister—the chief executive—was Brian Faulkner. I was the deputy executive. We did not hold any offices. All the other departments were run by the various Ministers whom we had appointed, which meant that we had a kind of roving commission to try to hold the thing together. In this case there is to be a maximum number of 10 departments. The Deputy First Minister and the First Minister will have departments. Therefore, if one of them were to be incapacitated he could, under the provision, appoint someone to act in his absence. That Minister would then have the responsibility of his own department and also the responsibilities of First Minister or Deputy First Minister. Those could be onerous responsibilities, depending on how long the situation lasted.

Furthermore, party politics being what they seem to be, it would appear that there are to be three Official Unionists and three members of the SDLP, constituting as they do the main parties in the executive. It is likely that if the Deputy First Minister were to be incapacitated, he would want to appoint as the person who would act as his deputy someone from among the other two Ministers of his own party. The same would apply to the Official Unionist, David Trimble. The responsibility of trying to run two departments for six weeks may prove very onerous.

I wonder whether the Minister has taken into consideration the point that in making these appointments difficulties could arise. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have been in America doing what they can to attract investment into Northern Ireland. The two of them could not be away at the one time. Therefore, it will frequently be the case that they will want to appoint someone to hold their office in their absence. It may be that the only time that they will travel abroad will be when the Assembly is not sitting, but there may be occasions when they will have to go abroad when the Assembly is sitting. Has the point been taken into account that holding two ministerial offices may prove rather onerous for one individual?

Lord Skelmersdale

I suspect that when I come to read the Official Report I shall find the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in introducing the amendments totally self-explanatory. However, as I heard them, I am afraid that I did not quite follow what he meant. My interest is in Amendment No. 33. If the amendment is agreed to, subsection (6) will read: If either the First Minister or the deputy First Minister ceases to hold office, at any time, whether by resignation or otherwise, the other—

  1. (a) shall also cease to hold office at that time".
However, despite the fact that he has ceased to hold office, he, may continue to exercise the functions of his office until the election required by subsection (7)". In other words, what is the alternate Minister to be doing if he does not exercise the functions of whatever office he ends up being put in to as a result of these arrangements?

Lord Renton

I think one should bear in mind that he may not be able to exercise his functions. That is why he may have felt obliged to resign.

Lord Skelmersdale

I am grateful to my noble friend. That, too, most certainly.

Lord Dubs

I did not think that what was a very simple proposition would cause quite so much debate. Perhaps I may deal with the various points that have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked what would happen if no election took place for the First Minister or Deputy First Minister within the six-week period. If the Assembly fails to make such an election within six weeks, it will be dissolved and the Secretary of State then sets the date for an extraordinary election. That is not unreasonable. Six weeks is a sufficiently long period to deal with a matter of importance to the government of Northern Ireland.

The noble Lord asked also why there was the word "and" in line 37 and not the word "or". Clause 14(6) makes clear that if one office falls vacant, the other office holder automatically ceases to hold office. Therefore, by definition, there cannot be a single vacancy. Either both offices are filled or both are vacant. That is because, under the agreement, an election can be held only for both posts jointly. Therefore, the drafting of Clause 14(7), in the light of Clause 14(6), seems to be correct and accurate.

The noble Lord, Lord Renton, suggested that a six week interregnum period was too long. The amendments prevent an interregnum in the case of a mid-term vacancy. There will be people in place exercising the offices of First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting in a caretaker capacity until a successful election is held to replace them. After an Assembly election, it will clearly want to move to an election of a First Minister and Deputy First Minister as soon as possible. But Ministers from the previous administration will remain in office until such an election is held.

We do not wish to demand an election of the First Minister or Deputy First Minister within a shorter period if failure to do so in the appointed time would trigger a new election for the Assembly. Therefore, we are trying to achieve a balance between maintaining good government but ensuring that there is a time period and if that is exceeded, a new election for the Assembly would be triggered. I believe that those arrangements are reasonable, bearing in mind that in the case of our own government there have been occasions in the past when there has been something of an interregnum and uncertainty has continued for some time. We have achieved the right balance between the two arguments.

Lord Renton

I have listened extremely carefully to the Minister, but I am still perplexed as to what would happen if the First Minister falls seriously ill and for that reason has to resign. His deputy is then out of office also and there would be a period of six weeks in which there was no leadership. What is to happen in that time?

Lord Dubs

First, it will be a period up to six weeks and may well be a much shorter period. Secondly, that is where the role of the alternate would come into play. Clearly, if the First Minister, prior to his illness, had indicated who the alternate was to be, then if he fell ill and was no longer able to carry out his functions, the alternate would be in place. There would also have to be one for the Deputy First Minister. That is for a short period only until a new election is held.

Lord Fitt

Perhaps I may repeat my question to the Minister. If the Deputy First Minister is ill and is incapacitated, he would then be able to appoint another Minister to carry out his functions. Would that Minister then have two offices, two ministries? Would he have the functions of the office of the Deputy First Minister and the functions of his own office? How long would it be possible for that situation to continue, because it would be an extremely onerous responsibility to carry two departments for any period of time?

6.45 p.m.

Lord Dubs

The maximum period for which that situation could pertain could be six weeks and may well be shorter than that. After all, in the real world, people would not wish that situation to continue for six weeks. I believe that even in the summer, the Assembly members would be recalled and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister would be elected extremely quickly. It is not a difficult situation. There may be something of a problem but not a serious one.

Lord Holme of Cheltenham

Perhaps the Minister would clarify one point for me. If, for example, the Deputy First Minister were to fall ill and appoint an alternate, as these clauses suggest, the First Minister would also have to resign at that point. They would both resign together, as has been explained. The First Minister would not necessarily have to appoint an alternate. He could continue for up to six weeks to exercise his functions, or would he also have to appoint an alternate?

Lord Dubs

I hope that I have got this right because these questions are becoming rather technical. For the six week period, the First Minister, in the situation described, would stay in office but within that period, and not later than six weeks, there would have to be an election for both the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Therefore, if the First Minister wished to continue, he would have to stand for re-election, along with the Deputy First Minister.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

Is there any difference and, if so, what, between holding an office and exercising the functions of an office? If there is no difference at all, why cannot the one who remains fit and active just continue until the election takes place? Why does he have to cease to be the Deputy First Minister but then carry on exercising his functions of acting Deputy First Minister, or whatever he is to be called, for the necessary period until the election takes place? It seems very odd to make him resign if he is to continue doing the job.

Lord Dubs

We are talking about a period of up to six weeks. It is not a long period. It is simply to ensure that functions can continue. Clearly, we must allow for a number of different situations. One is when the First Minister or Deputy First Minister wishes to resign. Another is when they may be temporarily incapacitated or permanently ill and no longer able to do the job. There are many situations in which they may no longer to continue. We must try to allow for all of them. But it is only a maximum of six weeks. It may well be only one week. It is a temporary device to cover the situation.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

The Minister used the phrase "in the interests of progress and continuity". Given that the opinion of most of us would be that there should be seamless continuity, it does not seem to make sense that because one person is ill or, God forbid, one happens to get killed, continuity then goes out of the window. There is confusion and turmoil and the whole process must be rehashed. It is almost as though the two of them are compelled by law to enter into a sort of suicide pact.

Lord Dubs

My understanding is that the idea of having both the First Minister and Deputy First Minister elected together is to ensure that there is a broad basis of support across the Assembly for those two posts. We do not want to have a person who has the support of only one part of the Assembly because the other Minister is in post and there is a division between the communities in the Assembly. We do not want that. We want the Assembly to act as effectively as possible with cross-community support. The method of electing a First Minister and Deputy First Minister seems the best way in which to ensure that.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

Yes, but the Minister would be the first to admit that many people have been taken by surprise by the degree of co-operation and understanding between the two main blocks in the Assembly as it stands at present. Surely to goodness, the members would act with common sense and a sense of good will. If a Minister from either group were to be incapacitated, surely that same group would be accorded the choice of providing a successor to their own man. It is not a question of any one block grabbing both seats. There would be a generous concession that if the deceased, injured or sick person belonged to that group, that group should nominate the successor of that post.

Lord Dubs

This method worked well after the Assembly elections, bearing in mind the speed with which the First Minister and Deputy First Minister were elected in shadow or designate mode. We have a method here which will stand the test of time. With all due respect to the noble Lord, some of his objections are rather theoretical. It has already been shown that the method works in practice and it will work in the future. We are dealing with a very short period of time during which there may be a need for an alternate. That is all.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

I have one last concern in relation to the appointment of an alternate. The amendment says that, The holder of the office of First Minister or deputy First Minister may by notice in writing to the Presiding Officer designate a Northern Ireland Minister to exercise the functions of that office": in other words, to be the alternate. Is it expected that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will name an alternate on day one in office? Are they able then to give another notice saying that they withdraw the first notice because they do not want A to be the alternate, they want B to be the alternate? Apart from anything else, the alternate may cease to be a Minister and even in the best regulated parties there are shifts of opinion which lead to reshuffles and differences of opinion about people. The First Minister may wish to issue a second notice. I cannot see any provision for that, but it may be implied by the words of the amendment.

Lord Dubs

Let us apply a bit of logic and common sense to this. Clearly there may be situations when the alternate might die and a new name has to be put forward. Common sense suggests exactly what the noble Lord said; that is, that it is implied that if the First Minister or Deputy First Minister wishes to change the name of the alternate in each case they would be able to do so. That is my understanding. If I am mistaken, I shall quickly inform the noble Lord.

Lord Skelmersdale

Apart from the fact that I asked about Amendment No. 33 and paragraph (b), the Minister may like to think a little further about his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Holme.

Amendment No. 33 deals happily with resignation, and as far as I can judge the opinion of the Members of the Committee, we all understand that situation. But the amendment goes on to say, "or otherwise". By definition "otherwise" must refer back to Amendment No. 32: during any absence or incapacity … or during any vacancy in that office arising otherwise than under subsection (6)(a)". I should have thought it was clear in the Bill that there would be an alternate under those circumstances. If for one reason or another the one is unable to perform the job, then the other is also ruled out of court and alternates have to appear in both positions. That makes my confusion even greater. Notwithstanding the fact that there is an alternate on the scene—indeed, two alternates—the original First Minister or Deputy First Minister who has not disappeared may continue to exercise the functions of his office. I repeat, what is the alternate to do?

Lord Dubs

I am not totally clear what the noble Lord's confusion is. The amendments seem to spell out the position. Amendment No. 33 says, "By resignation or otherwise". "Otherwise" could be by death or exclusion through the processes contained in other parts of the Bill, and by that one of the Ministers would be out of office. However, the other would cease to hold office but continue to exercise the functions of that office. In the case of the Minister who had resigned, died or whatever, the alternate would exercise the functions of that office for a period up to six weeks. It is straightforward. If I have not understood the noble Lord's point, I regret that, and perhaps he would care to make it clearer.

Lord Skelmersdale

I shall try. We are talking of two people, A and B, and their alternates, C and D. If for any reason A is unable temporarily to fulfil his office, he may nominate C. But at the same time, through that action according to the Bill as about to be amended and as I read it, B also has to go and he has D as his replacement alternate. However, I am not sure why D is there because B can continue to exercise the functions of his office notwithstanding that he is no longer either Deputy First Minister or First Minister.

Lord Dubs

I still believe that Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 are clear. For example, if the First Minister were to resign, the Deputy First Minister would go on exercising the functions of the office until the election was held for both posts, and that would be within a six-week period. The Minister who resigned would be replaced by an alternate for the period up to six weeks when the election was held. That ensures continuity of government and I should have thought it was plain.

If a Minister is temporarily unable to carry out the functions of his office, he can nominate an alternate. But the other Minister loses office only if there is a vacancy in office A. Is that not clear?

Lord Skelmersdale

The Minister asked me a question. What he said is certainly clear but I shall have to study it carefully in Hansard to see whether it meets with what is in the Bill as amended. I do not believe that is so, but I shall check up. Perhaps there could be some consultation with the Minister or his advisers to satisfy me that the Bill, as about to be amended, is correct.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No, 32:

Page 7, line 28, at end insert—

("(4A) The holder of the office of First Minister or deputy First Minister may by notice in writing to the Presiding Officer designate a Northern Ireland Minister to exercise the functions of that office—

  1. (a) during any absence or incapacity of the holder; or
  2. (b) during any vacancy in that office arising otherwise than under subsection (6)(a):
but a person shall not have power to act by virtue of paragraph (a) for a continuous period exceeding 6 weeks.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 33 and 34:

Page 7, line 35, leave out from ("office") to end of line 36 and insert ("at any time, whether by resignation or otherwise, the other—

  1. (a) shall also cease to hold office at that time; but
  2. (b) may continue to exercise the functions of his office until the election required by subsection (7).").

Page 7, line 38, leave out ("are vacant") and insert ("become vacant at any time").

The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall move Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 en bloc. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 35:

Page 7, line 38, at end insert ("within a period of six weeks beginning with that time").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move.

Lord Renton

Perhaps we could come back to Amendment No. 35 at Report stage and ask the Minister to think carefully in the meantime about what has been said in relation to this amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 36:

After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—

MINISTERIAL OFFICES

(".—(1) The First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly may at any time, and shall where subsection (2) applies, determine—

  1. (a) the number of Ministerial offices to be held by Northern Ireland Ministers; and
  2. (b) the functions to be exercisable by the holder of each such office.

(2) This subsection applies where provision is made by an Act of the Assembly for establishing a new Northern Ireland department or dissolving an existing one.

(3) In making a determination under subsection (1), the First Minister and the deputy First Minister shall ensure that the functions exercisable by those in charge of the different Northern Ireland departments existing at the date of the determination are exercisable by the holders of different Ministerial offices.

(4) The number of Ministerial offices shall not exceed 10 or such greater number as the Secretary of State may by order provide.

(5) A determination under subsection (1) shall not have effect unless it is approved by a resolution of the Assembly passed with cross-community support.").

The noble Lord said: These amendments deal with a technical but highly important part of the Bill—the workings of the d'Hondt formula for appointing Ministers. Some Members of the Committee will have had the benefit of a brief guide to this system, including a worked example in a letter I sent out recently. A copy is in the Library.

The new clause in Amendment No. 36 sets out the circumstances in which the First Minister and Deputy First Minister may make a "determination" setting out the number of ministerial posts and the functions exercisable by their holders. These determinations need to be approved by the Assembly on a cross-community basis.

The First Minister and Deputy First Minister will be able to introduce determinations when they choose but will have to do so if legislation has been passed creating or dissolving a Northern Ireland department, since it would clearly be wrong to create a new department without ensuring it has a Minister in charge. In addition to new determinations which set out what we might call the "machinery of government", the Bill also needs provision for the d'Hondt formula to be re-run within the existing framework of departmental responsibility.

The amendments to Clause 15 itself set out the circumstances in which the d'Hondt formula is re-run. As Members of the Committee who have been attending these debates will know all too well, the d'Hondt formula is a means of allocating posts proportionally, based on party strengths in the Assembly. The formula will obviously need to be re-run after every Assembly election to take account of changed party strengths. In addition, the amendment provides for re-runs in other circumstances; for example, when a party is excluded from office leaving its seats vacant or when a party's period of exclusion comes to an end and its entitlement to hold office has to be accommodated. The Assembly will also be able to set out other circumstances in its standing orders when d'Hondt could be re-run.

The other amendments deal with technical issues, such as what happens when a party declines to provide a nominee for a post to which it is entitled.

Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 deal with how to define "S", which is the figure in the d'Hondt formula reflecting the number of seats the party has in the Assembly. The revised definition defines "S" as the number of seats a party held at the first meeting of the Assembly. It therefore does not take account of subsequent changes in party strengths in the Assembly.

I must, however, urge the Committee to reject the two amendments put down by my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester. These would have the effect of requiring the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in a determination under the new clause to provide for a "Department of Equal Opportunities".

There is much in the agreement about the importance of strong equality provisions underpinning the new political settlement in Northern Ireland. But my noble friend's amendment goes flatly against the wording of the agreement, which clearly leaves the political and administrative question of whether there should be a specific department dealing with equality to the Assembly.

I quote from paragraph 7 of the "Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity" section of the agreement, which states: It would be open to a new Northern Ireland Assembly to consider bringing together its responsibilities for these matters into a dedicated Department of Equality". It is certainly the Government's intention that the new equality provisions will give proper emphasis to the needs of the disabled. My noble friend has spent many years of his political life extremely effectively advancing the cause of disabled persons. I know that he would want to see no diminution in commitment in Northern Ireland to the needs of disabled people there. I assure him that it is the Government's intention that that will be the case in the future, but it will be up to the Assembly to take these matters further.

The Assembly will have the power to establish a department of equality, if it so wishes, but I suggest to my noble friend that it is not appropriate that this legislation contains such a provision because we are dealing, in effect, with an agreement which does not contain such a provision. I beg to move.

7 p.m.

Lord Morris of Manchester

I rise to speak to my Amendments Nos. 38, 39, 130, 133, 134, 150 and 153, to which my very good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, is a co-signatory. There is no one in this House or anywhere else who has done more to improve the well-being and status of the severely disabled people whom he works so tirelessly to help. I am delighted to see him in his place, just as I am to see and hopefully later also to hear two other dear friends, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, as the debate proceeds.

This is my maiden speech—on the Northern Ireland Bill. Thus I shall be brief—I hope not neglectfully so—in addressing my amendments. I do so with an interest to declare as a compulsive legislator on disability issues over the past 34 years, both as a private Member and a former Minister, not least for the disabled people of Northern Ireland, and I drafted the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill that prompted the present Leader of the Opposition in another place, as the then Minister for Disabled People, to enact the Disability Discrimination Act in 1995.

My amendments seek to reflect the concerns put to me by Monica Wilson, the chief executive of Disability Action in Northern Ireland, which has over 180 member groups. They cover every aspect of disability: physical and mental, sensory and hidden.

They believe strongly that unification of the existing commissions should not take place at this time. They point out that the vast majority of respondents to the White Paper disagreed with this proposal and that the Government said this issue was "subject" to the outcome of public consultation. Disability Action does not oppose the ultimate amalgamation of the equality bodies in Northern Ireland but argues cogently that this is not the appropriate time to do so.

They also explain why. A single unified commission, they believe, will create a hierarchy of discrimination in Northern Ireland, with religion dominating both resources and status, followed by gender and race, with disability last in the pecking order. I quote from Monica Wilson's statement to me: Any equality legislation depends on case law to embed it into our society. The absence of a Northern Ireland Disability Rights Commission will severely restrict the development of such case law and will mean that the quality of advice on this complex area of discrimination will be significantly diminished". She goes on to ask: If government is set on the harmonisation of the Commissions, where is the logic in refusing to consider harmonising the legislation?". The Bill does not impose a clear duty on public authorities to prepare statutory equality schemes, although this was envisaged by the agreement. Public authorities will have to prepare such schemes only if requested to do so by the equality commission.

Disability Action think requirements for statutory equality schemes and impact assessments should appear on the face of the Bill, instead of being left to be dealt with in guidance; and that the Bill should prohibit all discrimination, whatever its source or sector, whereas currently it prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion and politics.

Turning from equality to human rights issues, Disability Action want the Human Rights Commission (HRC) to be empowered to take cases in its own name without having to find an individual around whom to frame its actions. They believe this was envisaged in the agreement but is not currently provided for. Again, they believe that the HRC should be given the power to investigate human rights abuses or patterns of abuse. To do this, it must, of course, have powers of discovery of documents and to call witnesses; but if the Bill is passed as it stands it will not meet minimum international standards for HRCs.

In many respects, the content of the White Paper has been overtaken by the Good Friday agreement. An already complex picture is further complicated by the existence of the Disability Rights Taskforce, the United Kingdom body established to define and plan the actions, structures and legislation needed to deliver the Government's manifesto pledge of comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for people with disabilities. Your Lordships will have noted, too, that shortly before the issuing of the White Paper the Disability Rights Taskforce had agreed that disability rights commissions be established in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

With many others here and in another place, I hope to see the Government's manifesto commitment put into statutory effect in the new Session of Parliament that begins next month. I hope very much as well that this Northern Ireland Bill is not enacted in a form that will require it to be amended when the new legislation comes before Parliament, which would be wasteful both of parliamentary time and public resources.

In the interests of brevity, there is but one further point I wish to make. Like Disability Action in Northern Ireland, I deeply regret that the White Paper, as an official consultation document addressing issues of such importance in the overall social inclusion agenda, was not published in a range of formats making its contents available to people with visual and hearing impairments or with learning disabilities. Clearly if consultation is not to exclude them, the contents of consultation documents must be made available in the formats that meet their particular communication needs. If this is not done, then disability agencies should be funded to act as consultation intermediaries to communicate all relevant information to people to whom "ordinary print" is not accessible. Disability Action would welcome an opportunity to discuss this, among other important matters, with the Secretary of State and in due course with representatives of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which I hope can be arranged.

I am sure my noble friend the Minister will want to make the most helpful possible response to my amendments and trust it will be one disabled people in Northern Ireland, whose concerns are shared by others on both sides of both Houses of Parliament, can accept as fair to their rightful claims.

Lord Rix

In rising to support the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, I wish to thank him for his kind introduction. I wish to speak specifically to Amendment No. 153 to which my name is attached. I must declare an interest as I speak as chairman of Mencap, the Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults, of which Mencap in Northern Ireland is a most important part and is splendidly represented by our headquarters and resource centre in Belfast, Segal House, which is named after a past treasurer of Mencap and Member of your Lordships' House, the late Lord Segal.

Mencap, of course, welcomes the Government's commitment to equality and tackling exclusion, but Mencap in Northern Ireland feels that the Bill fails to take account of the different and specific needs, circumstances and experiences of people with a disability, but particularly those with a learning disability, and their families, and will help to underwrite their exclusion. A single commission would create a hierarchy of discrimination with a risk that new initiatives in the field of race and disability rights would be seriously undermined, given the fundamental difference between disability legislation and other pieces of equality legislation.

Mencap believes that the establishment of a separate Northern Ireland disability rights commission is essential. The absence of a dedicated body would mean, regrettably, that disability would once more be low on the equality agenda. I hope that the Government will give an assurance that disability is to be accorded an equal place among the Government's broad based equality agenda by giving further consideration before the Report stage to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester.

Lord Fitt

The pages of Hansard over the past 20 years will bear testament to the noble efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, since 1969 when he first piloted the chronically sick and disabled Bill through the House of Commons. He did so with great compassion. That Bill, limited as it was, brought great benefit to many people in the United Kingdom but not particularly to Northern Ireland at that time. I find myself engaged in the same kind of campaign as he has waged for many years. Disabled people in Northern Ireland were neglected from 1969 until 1978 when, with the help of my noble friend Lord Morris, I succeeded in piloting through to the statute book the chronically sick and disabled Bill (Northern Ireland) in 1978 which brought to Northern Ireland the same conditions as had existed for 10 years prior to that date in the United Kingdom. I believe there is room for a Minister for equal opportunities.

At the moment there are four commissions in Northern Ireland. I have just received word from my noble friend the Minister that in view of the representations that have been made he is prepared to establish an inquiry which is to start its work in November. It will be asked to report in January. It will consider the feasibility of making the four commissions one commission. We have already had many representations from the personnel of the four commissions. I am not too sure whether two months is an adequate period of time for an inquiry into the activities of the four commissions. My noble friend Lord Morris is quite right, disability is in a category of its own in Northern Ireland in that people's health and way of life are safeguarded by the legislation which exists to protect them.

There are other commissions for racial equality and equal opportunities. However, they do not affect the physical and mental well-being of disabled people in Northern Ireland. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree to appoint a Minister with special responsibilities to consider the problems of the disabled in Northern Ireland. My noble friend Lord Morris has waged his campaign on behalf of those who are least able to look after themselves. I hope that just as the House of Commons listened with great interest and fervour to the arguments which he advanced in 1969, we in this House will listen to those arguments with the same interest and include them in the legislation.

7.15 p.m.

Lord Renton

I would like to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has just said about the wonderful part played by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, on behalf of the disabled over many years. Before I deal with his Amendments Nos. 38 and 39, I also wish to endorse what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I was chairman of Mencap some years before him. I was chairman for four years and I went to Northern Ireland in that capacity a number of times. Mencap was extremely well organised there. We had reason to believe that both Loyalists and Republicans had mentally handicapped people. That is why they never terrorised or in any way made life difficult for the mentally handicapped or their associations.

I am a little surprised that Amendment No. 153 has not been grouped with these amendments because they overlap. However, we shall be entitled to discuss Amendment No. 153 later in some detail and therefore I shall not deal with it any further at the moment. However, I wish to deal with Amendment No. 39. I hope to be corrected if I am wrong but I rather think that the expression "Minister for Equal Opportunities" has not yet acquired any technical description. Looking at it just as it is, one would not know from Amendment No. 39 that it was to be applied particularly with regard to disabled people. They would be included, but does it also mean equal opportunities between the sexes? Does it mean equal opportunities between citizens of the Republic of Ireland and people living in Northern Ireland? Does it deal also with racial equality? With deep respect to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, although I understand and support the motives behind it, that expression needs to be qualified.

Lord Addington

The idea of having a Minister for equal rights who will be able to address disability problems, or indeed a commissioner, is an approach that I wholeheartedly endorse. But is this the right way of doing it? Are the Government convinced that there are ways other than those proposed here which can provide guarantees of achieving the same provision? If the Minister can tell us that there are and, better still, give examples, then we need not worry. If, however, he cannot do so, I am afraid that we must go down the path proposed in the amendments. If the Minister can deal with these problems now, he will save us all a lot of time later. It is to be hoped that if his answers are good, they will be copied by other Ministers on other occasions. We have had these arguments for a long time. The Labour Party when in Opposition often supported this type of amendment. I hope that the Government can give the Committee some idea of their thinking and the progress they are making in this field, and also tell us what will happen in other areas in relation to this problem.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth

I support this group of amendments, so ably and comprehensively introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester. It gives me particular pleasure because this is the second of his maiden speeches that I have supported in this Chamber.

I also endorse the remarks of my noble friend Lord Rix. I hesitate to venture into debate on this Bill because I have never ventured into the affairs of Northern Ireland. However, I too have talked to Monica Wilson of Disability Action. My noble friend Lady Masham and I played table tennis with her 30 years ago. The other day on the telephone she sounded just as sensible and as frightening an opponent as she ever was. She is a very level-headed lady.

As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Morris, Disability Action comprises over 180 members of all different kinds of disability and different organisations. Therefore the organisation knows what it is talking about. As a disabled person I understand the point about disability coming low in the pecking order. That is particularly so in Northern Ireland because of religious and political beliefs being high on the list. However, the proportion of disabled people per population in Northern Ireland is high. It is one in six; whereas in this country it is approximately one in nine.

The noble Lord, Lord Morris, made a convincing case for a separate disability rights commission. Disability discrimination legislation is different from that relating to race and gender. There is a lack of case law. Time is needed to establish case law and to build a body of experienced staff who can advise on these matters within a unified commission.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is a caring, listening Minister. I was cheered by his words in winding up the Second Reading debate on 5th October. He said: The Bill also permits a new commission to establish consultative councils for gender, race, disability and other aspects of equality. We shall take account of the concerns expressed by noble Lords on the equality body. It is certainly not our intention that there should be any less emphasis, through having one body, on the different elements that go into that body. I for one should be very unhappy were that to be the case". That is excellent news. However, in the very next sentence the Minister continued: I am assured that the steps we are taking will not lessen the concern for race relations, gender and all the other matters".—[Official Report, 5/10/98; cols. 225–226.] I look forward to the Minister's reply. I hope that his remarks will be encouraging. I bear in mind the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Addington; the Minister may say something else that will encourage us and these provisions may not be necessary. I feel that these amendments would help to ensure that the needs and rights of people with a disability were not subsumed or lost in all the other matters.

Lord Hylton

I am as sympathetic as anyone to the needs of people with disabilities. Certainly Hansard will show that in the past I have supported a good number of amendments moved by my noble friends on the "mobile Bench" and probably also by my noble friend Lord Rix.

However, we are dealing with Northern Ireland and need to bear in mind that its population is only 1½ million. It is quite a small entity. Given that fact, I wonder whether we should not rely on the equality commission as proposed in the Bill and on the statutory duty that will be imposed on public authorities to promote equality of opportunity. One may have received and heard a rather excessive amount of lobbying on behalf of specialised bodies and specialised interests. I wonder whether the situation could not be dealt with as set out in the Bill.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

I have a link with Northern Ireland in that a few years ago I was awarded an honorary degree at the University of Ulster. It was a very nice experience. Given the great number of problems in Northern Ireland, we have not heard very much about problems facing the 215,000 people with disabilities who represent 17.4 per cent. of the population.

As the Minister will know, disability can be complex and varied. Are those who will be involved with the commission to be trained in all disability matters? There is a fear that Northern Ireland will restrict the quality and quantity of support to disabled people and will experience significantly lower standards of treatment than in the rest of the UK.

It is easy to push disability matters down the agenda unless they are placed in legislation in their own right. I hope the Minister will find a way of safeguarding all the people in Northern Ireland who have disabilities, many of whom have suffered over the years as a result of the troubles.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

First, I wish to ask two questions about the lead amendment, Amendment No. 36. Subsection (4) states that, The number of Ministerial offices shall not exceed 10 or such greater number as the Secretary of State may by order provide". That is contrary to the Belfast Agreement. The agreement is clear. Page 7 refers to: Executive authority to be discharged on behalf of the Assembly by a First Minister and Deputy First Minister and up to ten Ministers with Departmental responsibilities". There is no suggestion that there should be more than 10 at any point. At different times in the Northern Ireland Office there have been four or five Ministers exercising those responsibilities. It seems to me that 10 is an adequate number. At earlier stages in these debates we were frequently told off on for straying outside the terms of the agreement, and this provision would seem to go outside it. Secondly, what does subsection (3) mean? I find it extremely difficult to know what it is getting at.

Turning to Amendment No. 38 and the other amendments in this grouping, I echo the tributes paid to the noble Lord, Lord Morris. He and I were in another place together for a long time. I can therefore say with authority that everyone who says how hard he has worked for the disabled is absolutely right.

In the Northern Ireland situation there is an additional reason for being concerned about the disabled because there are many people on all sides who are disabled as a result of the troubles. There are policemen and others on the opposite side who are victims of violence and find themselves disabled as the result of a deliberate act or, for instance, as a result of being involved in a bomb explosion. As we have said in these Northern Ireland debates, the victims deserve special consideration if peace is to be achieved in full. We are part of the way there but if peace is to be achieved in full, the victims, and in particular the disabled among them, deserve special consideration.

That brings us to the two questions posed by the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morris. In Amendment No. 39 he suggests a Northern Ireland Minister for equal opportunities and in Amendment No. 153, which we have partially discussed, at least, he suggests a disability rights commission for Northern Ireland.

With regard to the question of having a Minister—by which it would be almost axiomatic that there would be a department as well—my noble friend Lord Renton asked whether there was a definition of "equal opportunities" for this purpose and how wide the term went. I suppose there is not such a definition in the legal sense of the word, and the noble Lord is, after all, a lawyer, but in the Northern Ireland agreement paragraphs on page 17 speak of: a new statutory Equality Commission to replace the Fair Employment Commission, the Equal Opportunities Commission (NI). the Commission for Racial Equality (NI) and the Disability Council". In the next paragraph it says: It would be open to a new Northern Ireland Assembly to consider bringing together its responsibilities for these matters"— that is, the four covered by the existing bodies— into a dedicated Department of Equality". I think there is no doubt that that is what we are speaking about: all four matters would be dealt with by this department.

I believe that there is a lot to be said for a dedicated department of equality in Northern Ireland, but that is not necessarily a decision which we in Parliament should take, for two reasons. First, it would come better as part of the setting up of the new Northern Ireland government, if that is the way that the Assembly, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister wish to organise their affairs. I believe it is something that they should decide within Northern Ireland. Secondly, the paragraph in the agreement from which I have just read makes clear that that is what is intended in the agreement. I was slightly over-egging the importance of the agreement a moment ago, but nevertheless I think we should stay with it, and that is a second reason for believing that, if there is to be a department of equality, it would be better if it came about as a result of the decisions made in Northern Ireland by the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Assembly.

Another question concerns whether there should be a disability rights commission separate from the equality commission. That question is more complicated. The first difficulty is how many rights and how many forms of equality are to be encompassed within the single commission. I take the point that Northern Ireland is not a large place to have four commissions, each dealing with different types of equality, and that they can overrun themselves. We have spoken about the problem of over-regulating and the difficulties of obeying all the regulations. A single commission could make sure that the different regulations covering different forms of equality dovetail satisfactorily and are policed satisfactorily by a single entity covering all four types of inequality which can occur.

I realise that separating disability into a separate commission is intended to give it greater prominence, but it may not necessarily do so. If there is a large equality commission covering the three areas apart from disability, that will be the large, important body, and there will be a little body to one side covering disability only. I do not believe that the little body will necessarily exercise the clout that people who support it would wish it to.

I do not think that in this case the Government need feel inhibited by the agreement, which says: Subject to the outcome of public consultation currently underway, the British Government intends a new statutory Equality Commission to replace the four. That is much weaker wording than in every other paragraph of the agreement. The rest of the agreement says, "The British Government will", "So-and-so will". This paragraph says, "the British Government intends". They did so intend at the time the agreement was written, but the matter is subject to public consultation, and this is part of the public consultation. I do not believe that the Government need feel bound to pursue this matter in exactly the detail that is set out in the agreement. I have doubts as to how that public consultation should result as far as a separate disability commission is concerned. The matter deserves careful thought, which I am sure it will receive from the Government.

7.30 p.m.

Lord Skelmersdale

As so often in the past, my noble friend Lord Cope has said practically everything that I wanted to say on this matter. However, I was particularly struck by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, in which he intimated a conversation, to which I was not a party, with the Minister. What he said was news to me; namely, that to all intents and purposes the Minister intends that consultation on this matter will be reopened. At least, that is what I understood the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, to say. If that is indeed the case, those people from whom many Members of the Committee have received representations, especially disabled people in Northern Ireland, will be delighted. I hope that the Minister will put on record exactly what he intends.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

I can do no other than support the pleas made in general on behalf of the disabled and the handicapped. I served for a good many years as vice-chairman of the Eastern Special Care Management Committee, centred mainly on Muckamore Abbey but extending over the whole of the eastern part of the Province. We benefited greatly from the visits of the noble Lords, Lord Rix and Lord Renton, during my time in office. We were demobilised by the updating and modernising of local government in 1973, and elected representatives—in the best sense of the term—were then excluded from all the operations.

Muckamore Abbey contained 800 patients. That number has now been greatly reduced, mainly as a result of the lobby for farming people out to what was called the community. Thankfully, in Northern Ireland we do not have many equivalents of Blackfriars Bridge, and many of those discharged prematurely from Muckamore Abbey have been well cared for.

At that time we came under the Stormont Department of Health and were fortunate in having sympathetic Ministers while I was involved. There came a time when the Department of Health muscled in on our activities, particularly with regard to the closure of the specialist schools and our specially trained teachers. As a result, despite the enlightened efforts of education experts, and so on, one finds that where two handicapped or disabled pupils are placed in a relatively small school the tendency is that far too frequently they are placed in the back row and follow as best they can. Certainly they do not benefit as much as they did under the unified educational and special care arrangement.

I trust that the claims of the disabled and the handicapped will be kept very much at the forefront of the deliberations of the new Assembly. Knowing personally a good many members of that Assembly, I am confident that those claims will not be neglected. Is it likely that the number will be increased greatly beyond 10? I note that the Secretary of State is given power to appoint an unspecified number of Ministers by order. Without wishing to spring this matter on the Minister at the last minute, can he say whether such an order will be subject to the approval of Parliament?

Lord Dubs

This has been a full debate. I deal first with a number of specific points that are not to do with the main thrust of the debate: disability. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked about the number of possible ministerial posts and why Amendment No. 36 made provision for the Secretary of State to increase the number beyond 10. The answer is that throughout the summer we have been consulting widely with all the parties on this question. The wording of the amendment therefore reflects the view of the parties in Northern Ireland simply to leave open the possibility that there may be a wish to have more than 10 posts. But that is something for the future. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, also asked about subsection (3) in Amendment No. 36. What it means is that all departments must have a Minister but that no Minister should be in charge of more than one department. Put that way, the noble Lord may say that it is rather simple. I know that the noble Lord is keen on clear English, as I am. I concede that its wording is a little more complex than the way I have put it.

I turn to the main focus of the debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester. I pay tribute to his lifelong dedication to the cause of the disabled and the very effective way in which he has achieved enormous gains for disabled people over many years. That is not to say that other noble Lords who have contributed to the debate have not also shown a high level of commitment to the needs of the disabled, including the noble Lord, Lord Rix. My noble friend Lord Morris referred to Monica Wilson. I have met Monica Wilson on a number of occasions and know her fairly well. She is a doughty and effective campaigner for the needs of the disabled. She puts the case with enormous strength and sensitivity and such is the force and persuasiveness of her arguments that it is not easy to disagree with her.

This debate has covered a good deal of the ground which is probably more appropriate to Part VI of the Bill to which we shall come later. That part of the Bill deals with these matters in detail. I do not say that in any way to diminish the importance of the points that have been made but simply to point out that we are bound to return to this matter in Part VI which is subject to government and other amendments. However, they are so far down the list that, apart from one or two, they are not necessarily before the Committee this evening in any way that we can discern. I do not belittle the arguments that have been put, but I shall reflect upon them between now and when we come to the appropriate part of the Bill when these matters will be before the Committee.

I say to my noble friend Lord Morris that the Government do not believe that their proposals which appear in the agreement will result in any diminution in the importance of addressing the needs of disabled people. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, we do not wish to anticipate a more detailed debate on Clauses 58 and 59. I shall be happy then to address a number of the points in detail. The Government have tabled a significant number of amendments to those clauses and associated schedules to meet some of the concerns that have been expressed. I say most emphatically that disability will be treated on an equal basis as other equality concerns. There is absolutely no question of establishing a hierarchy of equality.

My noble friend Lord Fitt made reference to a consultation period which ended in July. The Government have reflected upon it and provided a number of reassurances and amendments. But we continue to believe in the merits of a single equality commission. No doubt other noble Lords will wish to discuss that further when the Committee turns its attention to Part VI. However, as to the amendments before us this evening, whatever the strength of the argument that has been put, I suggest to the Committee that these are considerations for the Assembly rather than this particular Bill. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister are charged with devising a structure of departments appropriate to the needs of Northern Ireland. It is better to leave it to them than to suggest that they can do that except in one respect when we want a particular department. I do not want to belittle the concerns that have been expressed about disabled people because I share many if not all those concerns, but I believe that the method that has been devised is the most appropriate way forward and we should leave the structure of Northern Ireland departments to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and let the Assembly pronounce upon it. Further, I believe that they will be sensitive to the concerns that have been expressed today and—who knows—may even adopt some of the suggestions that have been made, but essentially that is a matter for them and not us.

Lord Morris of Manchester

There will be an opportunity later, as my noble friend the Minister said, to return to this still sadly neglected policy area. For that reason, and so that representatives of Northern Ireland's disabled people can reflect on the Minister's response to me, I shall not be pressing Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 tonight. Meanwhile, I must point out that my amendments as a whole were drafted to facilitate a debate on Disability Action's concerns about the Bill as now drafted and, as your Lordships heard, my main purpose was both to draw attention to those concerns and the undoubted cogency with which they are argued by the disabled people of Northern Ireland.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

7.45 p.m.

Clause 15 [Northern Ireland Ministers]:

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi)

Before I call Amendment No. 37, I should point out that I cannot call Amendment No. 38, although I appreciate that the noble Lord has already spoken to it.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 37:

Page 8, line 1, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert— ("(1) Where

  1. (a) an Assembly is elected under section 24 or (Extraordinary elections);
  2. (b) a determination under section (Ministerial offices)(1) takes effect;
  3. (c) a resolution which causes one or more Ministerial offices to become vacant is passed under section 23(2);
  4. (d) the period of exclusion imposed by such a resolution comes to an end; or
  5. (e) such other circumstances obtain as may be specified in standing orders,
all Northern Ireland Ministers shall cease to hold office and the Ministerial offices shall be filled by applying subsections (4) to (9) within a period so specified.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments No. 38 and 39 not moved.]

Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 40 to 44:

Page 8, line 17, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 23 and insert— ("(6) If—

  1. (a) the nominating officer does not exercise the power conferred by subsection (4) within a period specified in standing orders; or
  2. (b) the nominated person does not take up the selected Ministerial office within that period, that power").

Page 8, line 26, leave out ("to") and insert ("and").

Page 8, line 31, leave out ("are") and insert ("were").

Page 8, line 32, at end insert ("on the day on which the Assembly first met following its election").

Page 9, line 5, after ("vacant") insert ("otherwise than by virtue of subsection (1), the nominating officer of the party on whose behalf the previous incumbent was nominated may nominate a person to hold the office who is a member of the party and of the Assembly.

(13A) If—

  1. (a) the nominating officer does not exercise the power conferred by subsection (13) within a period specified in standing orders; or
  2. (b) the nominated person does not take up the office within that period,").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 40 to 44 en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume. I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.50 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.