HL Deb 06 November 2000 vol 618 cc1335-50 (".—(1) No person may be appointed to ministerial office in the Government of the United Kingdom if he is a member of the Government of Ireland. (2) A minister in the government of the United Kingdom ceases to hold office on becoming a minister in the Government of Ireland.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 13.

9.35 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 75.

Division No. 2
CONTENTS
Blatch, B. Lyell, L.
Bridgeman, V. Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Burnham, L. [Teller] Molyneaux of Killead, L.
Byford, B. Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L. Noakes, B.
Cranborne, V. Palmer, L.
Elton, L. Park of Monmouth, B.
Laird, L. Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Lamont of Lerwick, L. Rogan, L.
Lindsay, E. Seccombe, B. [Teller]
Luke, L. Skidelsky, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Ahmed, L. Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B
Amos, B. Desai, L.
Andrews, B. Dholakia, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L. Dixon, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B. Dubs, L.
Bach, L. Eatwell, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L. Elder, L.
Berkeley, L. Evans of Parkside, L.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Brennan, L. Falconer of Thoroton, L.
Brett, L. Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Burlison, L. Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Carter, L. [Teller] Filkin, L.
Chandos, V. Gilbert, L.
Cohen of Pimlico, B. Goldsmith, L.
Crawley, B. Goudie, B.
Currie of Marylebone, L. Gould of Potternewton, B.
Davies of Coity, L. Grabiner, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. Grenfell, L.
Hamwee, B. MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Hardy of Wath, L. Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L
Harris of Haringey, L. Maddock, B.
Harrison, L. Morgan, L.
Haskel, L. Prashar, B.
Hayman, B. Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B. Rendell of Babergh, B.
Hoyle, L. Renwick of Clifton, L.
Hunt of Chesterton, L. Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Sawyer, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor) Simon, V.
Smith of Clifton, L.
Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal) Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Judd, L. Warner, L.
Lockwood, B. Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L. Whitty, L.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L. Winston, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller] Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Young of Old Same, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

9.43 p.m.

[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]

Clause 2 [Disqualification for Ministerial office in Northern Ireland]:

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 15: Clause 2, page 1, line 13, after ("Minister") insert ("as Presiding Officer or as Deputy Presiding Officer").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to discuss the other amendments in the grouping. All the amendments refer to qualifications required or disqualifications provided for the officers of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The previous group of amendments concerned disqualifications for UK Ministers. I was interested to note that, in the Division, the Liberal Democrats voted against their own amendment. I suppose that is life, but. I hope that the Minister did not confuse them into going through the wrong Lobby.

This group of amendments concerns the disqualifications for the officers of the Northern Ireland Assembly; namely, the presiding officer, the deputy presiding officer, the chairman and deputy chairman of Assembly committees and so forth. Amendment No. 33A, tabled in the name of certain noble Lords opposite, concerns the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission.

Many of these bodies are appointed by a complex d'Hondt procedure, invented by Professor d'Hondt. That means that the choice of those who come to hold the various offices is not always in the gift of any one individual. In the previous amendment we discussed Ministers of the UK Government, the choice of which is clearly in the gift of the Prime Minister of the day. In that case, he or she can be expected to look after the national interest, which makes it slightly less likely that the eventualities foreseen in those amendments would occur. However, so far as concerns this group of amendments, it is quite likely that eventualities could turn out in the way we are seeking to protect against.

Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, made the point in the earlier amendment by referring ahead to government amendments which cover Northern Ireland Ministers. The basic proposition behind the amendments in my name in this grouping is that the presiding officer or his deputy, and, for that matter, the chairmen of the various Assembly committees—they will be important people working in the Assembly—should be in a similar position to the Northern Ireland Ministers themselves. I beg to move.

9.45 p.m.

Lord Rogan

I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 17, 24, 33A and 45. Amendment No. 17 has a clear purpose; namely, that of placing the presiding officer, the deputy presiding officer, committee chairmen and deputy chairmen within the same restrictions as those which apply to the First and Deputy First Minister and those which apply to Ministers and junior Ministers.

Just as Ministers, whether they be First, Deputy or junior, should not be Ministers in the Government of Ireland, neither should the presiding officer be capable of being a Minister in the Government of the Republic of Ireland. The presiding officer or any Speaker of any House has an implicit duty to act even-handedly towards all members of that assembly, irrespective of their political outlook.

That duty will be difficult enough with the Speaker being an elected Member of the Assembly, never mind being a member of the government of another country. How, then, could a Minister of the Government of Ireland conceivably be effective as a presiding officer? This aspect of Amendment No. 17 is perfectly logical, and even more so in the case of committee chairmen.

The committee chairmen aspect of Amendment No. 17 is more important than that of the presiding officer. As the Bill stands, it will always remain a possibility that the presiding officer is a member of the Government of Ireland. However, according to the Bill, it is more a probability that, by virtue of d'Hondt, a committee chairman will, at some point in time, be a Member of the Government of Ireland.

With d'Hondt being used as the procedure for appointing committee chairs, parties with a minor level of support are, via d'Hondt, able to appoint a chairman or deputy chairman. Indeed, d'Hondt empowers minority parties to select a chairman. It is not, therefore, beyond the realms of possibility that Sinn Fein could appoint someone who was a member of the Assembly and a member of the Government of Ireland to a committee chair. Even if the vast majority of the Assembly members opposed the appointment, even if it was cross-community, it would have no effect on the appointment.

It must be remembered that, via d'Hondt, the Progressive Unionist Party, with two seats in the Assembly—which is not even 2 per cent of the seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly—was able to nominate the chairman of the Audit Committee. The Alliance Party, with just six seats—just under 6 per cent of the seats in the Assembly—was able to nominate a committee chairman for the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee.

I have not addressed the issue of conflict of interests. However, I believe that what I have said already is sufficient for one to conclude that the presiding officer and committee chairmen should be in the same category as Ministers and junior Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Turning briefly to Amendment No. 24, it will be clear that the amendment has the same raison d'être as Amendment No. 17 but concerns a slightly different scenario. Amendment No. 17 would apply to a situation where a person is a member of the Government of Ireland and then attempts to hold office in the Executive. Amendment No. 24 applies to the situation where a person is an office holder in Northern Ireland and then becomes a Minister in the Government of the Republic of Ireland. These two amendments are sides of the same coin.

Similarly, Amendments Nos. 33A and 45, although not sides of the same coin, concern the same point. These two amendments seek to exclude Ministers in the Republic of Ireland who are sitting in the Northern Ireland Assembly from becoming a commissioner in the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission. The function of the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, inter alia, is to provide the property, staff and services required for the Assembly to function.

However, I shall make two other points on roles that commissioners have undertaken. With respect to the issue of the flying of the flag, a member of the commission, acting as a commissioner, recently announced in the Assembly that the flag will be flown from parliament buildings on the stipulated 17 days until the Assembly can agree otherwise. How could we have a Minister of the Government of Ireland taking such a decision as a commissioner and yet retaining the confidence of the population of Northern Ireland?

A second point on the commission concerns the role of appointing staff. The commission makes appointments to positions such as the examiner of statutory rules for the Assembly. How can a Minister from the Government of Ireland judge such a key appointment within a legal system and legislative process which is alien to them, they having experience of a system based on a written constitution?

It is clear that the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission should not be ignored. It is an important body and the role of a commissioner is important. It is extremely unlikely that the commission could retain the confidence of the population of Northern Ireland if a Minister of the Government of Ireland were to be seen taking decisions such as those of a commissioner.

I hope that the Minister will consider these amendments and reflect on what has been said. We should try to improve draft legislation—even a piece of draft legislation as unnecessary and poorly justified as this.

Viscount Cranborne

I support the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. It is clear that this group of amendments concern not only preserving the neutrality of the presiding officer of the Assembly and other office holders, but making sure that it is seen to be preserved. We are yet again in the vexed area of conflict of interest that has dogged this Bill from the beginning.

It is surely in the nature of a Minister to be partisan. It is his or her business to support the actions of the government of whom he or she is a member. Is it not, therefore, self-evident, merely taking Amendment No. 15, that it would be wholly incompatible for an Irish Minister, or indeed a British Minister, to become presiding officer of the Assembly and for the Minister concerned to be able to pretend that he or she could swap hats depending on which chair he or she was sitting in at the time?

We know, if only from the identity of the present presiding officer of the Assembly and his party, that perceived neutrality is particularly important. I suspect that he was selected as the nearest thing to the middle of the spectrum in Northern Ireland that could be found. It seems to me that, however unlikely this eventuality might be, it would be deeply reassuring, at least, if even the unlikely eventuality of an Irish Minister occupying any of the offices listed in these amendments were legislated against and enshrined as an impossibility.

Lord Laird

I join other noble Lords in supporting the amendments, particularly Amendment No. 33A, which refers to the Assembly Commission. It is not fully understood that the commission is a most important body within the Assembly, having overall control under Section 40 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 for, the property, staff and services required for the Assembly's purposes". It is not widely appreciated, but the commission looks after the personnel and recruitment of staff for the Assembly, the Clerk of Bills, the Clerk of Committees, the Editor of Debates, the Keeper of the House and the research and library services, as well as having responsibility for the key issue of flags and whether or not they are flown over parliament buildings at Stormont. It is simply not possible that a Minister in the Irish Republic could be a member of the commission of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It would bring discredit to the whole system and would make a laughing-stock of the Belfast agreement.

Recruitment of staff is possibly one of the key points. The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, pointed to the Assembly Examiner of Statutory Rules. Candidates for the post are required to have experience of, and specialisation in, the preparation and interpretation of legislation. The Irish Republic has a written constitution; the preparation and interpretation of legislation in the Republic is completely different from that in the United Kingdom, where there is no such written constitution. It is, therefore, wholly inappropriate that an Irish Minister should be a member of the Assembly Commission, which is responsible for appointments to such sensitive posts as Examiner of Statutory Bills. I support the amendment.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

These amendments seek to include the post of presiding officer, deputy presiding officer and members of the Assembly Commission among posts that may not be held by an Irish Minister, or, as proposed in other amendments, even a Member of the Irish legislature. Amendment No. 16 and the second part of Amendment No. 17 propose that someone cannot be a Member of the Irish Government and also a chairman or deputy chairman of a statutory or an ad hoc committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

As to the second group of amendments dealing with chairmen and deputy chairmen of statutory committees, the Government are broadly of the same mind as those proposing the amendments. There are later amendments on the Marshalled List that would have that effect.

The area where there is a difference of view between us relates to ad hoc committees in the Northern Ireland Assembly, as opposed to statutory committees. The Government's view is that there should not be a prohibition in relation to ad hoc committees because, unlike statutory committees, they have no role to play in the development of policy and no power to initiate legislation. Therefore, the appropriate level to include in the provision is chairman and deputy chairman of statutory committees.

As far as concerns the position of presiding officer and deputy presiding officer, they have no role either in policy development or in relation to the initiation of policy. So, again, we do not believe that any conflict of interest would arise in that respect. As to the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, I can tell the Committee that the commission is a body corporate and no commissioner has individual powers. Assembly commissioners are appointed in accordance with Assembly standing orders and the Assembly has power to determine this and to direct the commission. However, a powerful case was made in relation to Assembly commissioners. Therefore, although we stand by our position in relation to presiding officer and deputy presiding officer, perhaps I may take away the points made about the Assembly commissioners and consider them. In the light of my response, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

10 p.m.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

One must, of course, be grateful for small mercies. Since we tabled these amendments, I am grateful for the fact that the Government have tabled their own amendments, which, as the noble and learned Lord said, partially take the point. However, as he also made clear, they do not wholly take the point, especially as regards the presiding officer, the deputy presiding officer and the commission. I am sorry about that. But, nevertheless, we should be grateful for small mercies. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 18: Clause 2, page 1, line 16, leave out ("a Minister of the Government of Ireland") and insert ("the holder of a disqualifying office").

The noble Lord said: Noble Lords have been waiting for these amendments all evening; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, referred to them a long while ago. These amendments come with another group of amendments that have been tabled in order to debate the whole issue. Government Amendments Nos. 18, 25, 30, 40 and 43 recognise that parliamentary and statutory committees of the Assembly all have the power to initiate legislation and, hence, have a role in policy development—a critical distinction. As currently drafted, the Bill prevents Irish Ministers from holding ministerial office in Northern Ireland because of the potential conflict of interest that that would involve.

The same potential for a conflict of interest would exist if an Irish Minister were to be appointed as the chairman or deputy chairman of a statutory committee of the Assembly, or the chairman or deputy chairman of the Irish Parliament were to be appointed as a Northern Ireland Minister or as the chairman or deputy chairman of a statutory committee of the Assembly. It is, therefore, appropriate to extend the Bill, as provided in these amendments. I commend them to the Committee.

Amendments Nos. 23 and 29 are, I believe, covered by the government amendments already tabled, with the exception that we do not believe it necessary to include ad hoc committees, which, as I believe my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer observed earlier, have no statutory role in the development of policy. Hence they have no power to initiate legislation. Again, therefore, the conflict of interest that we are seeking to prevent will not arise when a person holds office as an Irish Minister, or as chairman or deputy chairman of an Irish parliamentary committee; and, indeed, as chairman of an ad hoc committee.

Amendments Nos. 19 and 25A ask the Committee to extend the scope of Clause 2 to include a reference to a "Junior Minister" of the Government of Ireland, in addition to the existing reference to a, Minister of the Government of Ireland". Again, we believe this to be unnecessary, as the term "Junior Minister" is not used by the Irish Government. We consider that it is superfluous for that reason. As such, the reference to, Minister of the Government of Ireland", adequately covers Irish junior Ministers. Clause 2 refers explicitly to junior Ministers in Northern Ireland because the Northern Ireland Act 1998 provides for different methods of appointment for Northern Ireland Ministers and we consequently believe it necessary and right to refer to Northern Ireland junior Ministers explicitly to ensure that they are covered by the Bill.

Amendments Nos. 20, 22, 26, 28 and, I believe, 44 seek to extend the scope of Clause 2 to disqualify any Member of the Irish legislature from holding Northern Ireland ministerial office or serving as chairman or deputy chairman of a statutory committee of the Assembly. Amendment No. 44 is a consequential amendment to the Title.

These amendments go much further than we believe is necessary or required to prevent the conflict of interest that is of concern and, as such, are contrary to the purpose of the Bill which is, as we have explained on many occasions, to place Irish citizens in the same position as Commonwealth citizens in recognition of the close relationship between the United Kingdom and Ireland which has been strengthened—as all in this Chamber have observed—since the coming into effect of the Belfast agreement and the resultant changes to Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. I beg to move.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: Amendment No. 19 which stands in my name and that of others states: Page 1, line 16, after ('Minister') insert ('or Junior Minister').

I listened carefully to what the Minister has just said. However, new Section 19A(c) refers, at line 15 of page 1, in a slightly different context to the words, be appointed as a junior Minister". It seems logical to read line 15 in conjunction with line 16—the latter line as amended by our amendment— (c) be appointed as a junior Minister. if he is a Minister or Junior Minister of the Government of Ireland". I think that that format would be tidier and less likely to be misunderstood. I do not believe that it would breach any great policy decision. I do not see how it could be resented by anyone as it constitutes a minor tidying up in so far as it makes one line consistent with the following.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I am more than happy to take away that amendment and consider it.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

As I said in connection with the previous amendment, I accept Amendment No. 18 and those that are associated with it as a small but important concession on the Government's part. However, I wonder how it fits in with the choreography of Northern Ireland that we heard about earlier from the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms. Nevertheless, it is welcome.

However, as the Minister pointed out, Amendment No. 20 and those that are associated with it attempt to go further. I see no reason why Members of the Dail should be acceptable as Northern Ireland Ministers. I think that that would constitute a terrible conflict of interest. Given the d'Hondt procedure, it is not in anyone's gift to stop it unless we stop it in the legislation. That is the purpose of the amendments I mentioned which go further than the Government's.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell)

I hope that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I apologise. When the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, moved his amendment, I should have advised the Committee that, if Amendment No. 18 were agreed to, I should not be able to call Amendments Nos. 19 to 21. I apologise for that slip.

Lord Rogan

I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 19, 20, 25A and 26. All four of these amendments are concerned with which positions within the government of Ireland should be excluded from the listed places in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

If it is deemed improper for a junior Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly to become a Minister in the Republic of Ireland's Government, why is that not reciprocated? Why will it be possible for a junior Minister in the Irish Government to be a Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly? Do members of Sinn Fein only, initially at least, wish to be junior Ministers in the Republic of Ireland's Government?

These two amendments provide for the situation where one person is a junior Minister in the Government of Ireland and then becomes a Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly; the order of appointment is reversed. I note that government Amendments Nos. 18, 25 and 30 attempt to rectify the problem a little.

The problem does not appear to have been given sufficient attention in another place by the Government, even though they had adequate opportunity during what I believe were some 27 hours of debate. However, the issue of junior Ministers has still riot been favourably resolved, as with some other office holders in both assemblies. Therefore, I believe that the most sensible solution is to accept Amendments Nos. 20 and 26. That must be preferable to attempting to draw impossible boundaries, grouping together permissible office holders and excluding others. We do not need to concern ourselves with particular posts in the Irish Government or Parliament if we simply exclude all members of that legislature from holding the listed positions in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The reasons why we should exclude all members of the Irish legislature is founded not only on necessary clarity but also on the inevitable conflict of interest which has been much debated already today. The means of determining Northern Ireland's constitutional position is clearly found in the Belfast Agreement—unlike this Bill which is clearly not in the agreement.

Enabling a person to hold office in Northern Ireland and yet sit in the legislature of the Republic of Ireland is a means of clouding the clarity with which Northern Ireland's constitutional status was stated in the Belfast Agreement. That agreement cannot and should not be cherry picked. This piece of legislation should not be used as a means of renegotiating that agreement on behalf of the republicans.

I support Amendments Nos. 20 and 26. I urge the Committee to support Amendments Nos. 19 and 25A only as a second preference to the complete exclusion of all members of the Irish legislature from holding the listed offices in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

We have debated the issue at great length and time moves on. If what I shall say is out of order perhaps noble Lords will tell me. However, in a few clays' time we shall debate the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill. As the Disqualification Bill is drafted, a Minister in the Government of Ireland can be in the Northern Ireland Assembly. By virtue of Schedule 3 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, a member of the Assembly can then sit on the police board. Schedule 3 to that Bill excludes Ministers of the Northern Ireland Assembly from being on the police board. However, by removing disqualification, the Disqualifications Bill permits Ministers of the Irish Government who are also members of the Assembly to be on that police board.

How will that encourage the population of Northern Ireland to have confidence in the new police board? Can the Minister remind me how well thought out the Disqualifications Bill is?

Lord Lamont of Lerwick

I welcome government Amendments Nos. 18 and 25, which ensure that Irish Ministers and committee chairmen of the Irish Parliament cannot be Northern Ireland Ministers. Amendment No. 30 provides that Irish Ministers and committee chairmen of the Irish Parliament cannot be Northern Ireland committee chairmen. The Minister has recognised the fact—I welcome it—that committee chairmen are part of the process of policy development. The point was raised in another place but I welcome the fact that this modest concession has been made.

My Amendments Nos. 22 and 28 would provide that Irish Members of Parliament could not be Northern Ireland Ministers. The Minister said that he did not think that that was a sufficient conflict of interest, although he has given no reasons for his judgment and has made a different judgment for committee chairmen. As my noble friend Lord Cope said from the Front Bench, there could be a serious conflict of interest.

I have one question for the Minister on which he may need to take advice. This may be inaccurate, but I have read that Members of the European Parliament cannot be Northern Ireland Ministers and that that is why Ian Paisley and John Hume are not part of the Executive, but have left it to their deputy leaders. Perhaps the Minister can tell me whether that is right.

10.15 p.m.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I do not think that that sounds right, but I shall take advice and tell the noble Lord.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick

It would he helpful if we could have advice now. I am grateful to the Minister for intervening, but if what I have said is right, it casts his rejection of the amendment in an odd light. I do not understand why he should reject the suggestion that Irish MPs should not be Northern Ireland Ministers if Members of the European Parliament cannot be members of the Executive. I beg the Minister's forgiveness for asking the question, but I have read of that provision. I know that the Liberals will accuse me of filibustering. I certainly cannot accuse them of filibustering as they sit there without saying a word in this very important debate. No accusation so inglorious as filibustering can be levelled against them. They do not seem to worry in slightest about this constitutional outrage. I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten me on my question.

Viscount Cranborne

The amendments are of considerable interest. We are grateful to the Government for the concessions that they have made, but I hope that the Committee will reflect on the extraordinary situation that we are contemplating as though it were an everyday matter. Not only are we debating the possibility of Members of another sovereign Parliament becoming Ministers in a devolved administration of the United Kingdom, but we have to make it explicit that Ministers in another sovereign state should not have executive power in a devolved assembly that forms part of the United Kingdom. If we replaced the word "Irish" with the word "French", the absurdity of the debate would become immediately apparent. As the Minister has often said that the Bill tidies up an anomaly relating to provisions for Commonwealth countries, I might add that the same would apply to substituting the words "Indian", "Australian" or "South African".

Either we are a sovereign nation or we are not. If the Government do not believe in the future of the nation state, they should say so. If they do, they have no business introducing the Bill. I am grateful for small mercies, but it remains entirely logical that an elected Member of a foreign Parliament should not have even a remote possibility of becoming a member of the executive of a devolved government in the United Kingdom. That makes no sense, even when contemplating matters Irish. One finds one's suspicions entirely confirmed about what the effects of the legislation will be when the Government temporise on matters of this kind.

Baroness Park of Monmouth

I am concerned about the perception of this proposal in Northern Ireland. In the context of new Articles 2 and 3: It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage". Article 3 states: It is the firm will of the Irish nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities". It then properly goes on: recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/1/00; col. 349]. That sounds fine. However, I am concerned that we are enabling the introduction of Trojan horses. That is how it will be perceived by people in Northern Ireland. The North/South arrangements are already in place and there are plenty of opportunities—for example, through the Council of the Isles and a hundred other organisations—for a coming together of the two parts of the country, if one views Ireland as one island and not one nation. There are plenty of opportunities perhaps for an eventual change by a majority of the people. However, what is being proposed now goes way ahead of that. It introduces Trojan horses. I believe that that is something that we should identify and resist.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I am grateful for the kind words of support for the government amendment. I have not been overly convinced by the points that have been made to advance the other amendments. I shall run through some of the issues to which they advert.

The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, referred to Amendments Nos. 19 and 25A. We hold to the point that the argument that he advanced puts forward a cause that does not need to be supported. As I believe I said at the outset, the existing reference to a "Minister" of the Government of Ireland is sufficient to cover any junior Minister in that government. Furthermore, as is widely understood, the term "Junior Minister" is not used in the Irish Government. Therefore, the two amendments would not have any impact or relevance. They do not work in the context of this Bill and they achieve no effect.

The noble Lord, Lord Cope, posed a question in relation to preventing Dail Members becoming Ministers in Northern Ireland. He said that he believed that to go too far. We do not believe that being a Member of the Irish legislature or a Northern Ireland Minister creates the conflict of interest that the noble Lord envisages. We believe that that occurs only in respect of ministerial office or in relation to the chairman and deputy chairman posts set out in the government amendment. Therefore, we do not view that matter in the same way as does the noble Lord.

The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, asked a specific question about membership of the police board. Although he anticipates that—

Lord Lamont of Lerwick

Will the noble Lord explain why he believes that? As we know, a Minister must make decisions. The noble Lord considers that a Minister might be subject to undue influence or undue pressure because he is a southern Ireland Minister. However, if it is only a question of voting, why are the considerations different? A person may vote subject to influences similar to those which influence a Minister. What is the distinction?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I understand the point which the noble Lord is making.

Noble Lords

Then answer it.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

It is a difficult question to answer. The noble Lord makes a point. I personally believe that there is no conflict. The noble Lord takes a different view. We must agree to differ on that point.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick

That really is not an answer. If a Minister is influenced because he is a member of parliament in southern Ireland, why would a member of both parliaments not be equally influenced? They are both likely to be influenced by the same pressures. There is no reason for saying one is influenced and one is not.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

Ministers are in a different position because they are much more involved in the day-to-day formulating, and giving executive action to policy. Members are different because they are not involved in that. The similarity is, of course, that they are all involved in making decisions.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

Before the noble Lord leaves that point, it is my recollection, from having been a Member of another place, that there are a number of Members at any given time who would like to be Ministers but have not yet been appointed. Some never are, quite properly. Nevertheless, they are more prepared to agree with the government than their independent judgment might suggest was wise from time to time. There are other considerations too which bear on the behaviour of individual Members of Parliament. I speak as a former Whip.

In those circumstances, one cannot so easily dismiss this matter by saying that ordinary Members of Parliament are not subject to pressure from their fellows, including Ministers and Whips in their own government. They are. If the Minister is suggesting that only Ministers make important decisions, that is extremely demeaning for Parliament. I realise that Parliament has suffered a lot of difficulties in the past few years and this is another one.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

Ministers are in a different position and for that reason we have moved to prevent that possibility. A Minister in two different parliaments clearly could give rise to conflicts of interest caused by collective responsibility but there is not quite the same degree of conflict if one is a member in one and a Minister in the other. I believe that Members of the Committee will accept that that is a fair and reasonable point to make.

Baroness Blatch

No, we do not.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

The noble Baroness makes an observation in a sedentary position but she has not joined in the debate.

Perhaps I may complete my explanation to the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, in relation to membership of the police board. The police Bill envisages that the political members of the police board will be appointed in proportion, depending on the strength of seats held by the Northern Ireland parties in the Assembly. The strength of that will be unaffected by dual membership and will depend very much on the Assembly elections.

The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, asked whether Members of the European Parliament can be Ministers in Northern Ireland. European rules prevent that. It is not UK law. It is something which exists within the rules of the European Parliament. That applies to all EU countries.

Lord Laird

Perhaps I may clarify the noble Lord's answer to my noble friend Lord Rogan. Is the Minister confirming that it is possible to be a Minister in the southern Irish Government and to be a member of the police board?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

Yes, that is right. I am confirming that possibility. I believe that that answers the various points which Members of the Committee raised during the course of the debate. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.]

10.30 p.m.

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 21: Clause 2, page 1, line 16, at end insert ("or of a Commonwealth country").

The noble Lord said: I shall be brief. This amendment relates to another anomaly which, as the Bill stands, is not being corrected. The amendment provides that Commonwealth Ministers should not be Northern Ireland Ministers. We have already discussed the prospect of southern Irish Ministers not being Northern Ireland Ministers and have agreed about that.

We have been presented with the theoretical possibility, all day, that members of Commonwealth legislatures might start coming into the House of Commons. That particular charade of the Government's has already been exposed as being extremely threadbare. So far as one can detect, there have been no examples in history of anybody from a Commonwealth legislature being a Member of the House of Commons. Nobody has been able to find an example of that. All the amendment does is to expose that charade a little more. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I suppose that we all have to repeat ourselves during the course of debate. However, the noble Lord is being entirely consistent with his earlier amendments. He will appreciate that the Government's argument for rejecting the amendment is the same as for any of our amendments. They go much further than we believe is necessary to prevent a conflict of interest arising. As such they are contrary to the purpose of the Bill, which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and I have said before, is to place Irish citizens in the same position as Commonwealth citizens in recognition of the very close relationship between the United Kingdom and Irish Governments and which, as has been recognised since the Belfast agreement, has brought about many welcome changes. On that basis, we cannot be entirely consistent and accept the noble Lord's amendment.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

The whole point of the amendment is that, as the Bill stands, the position in respect of the Commonwealth and Ireland is not the same. This is a small point where it is simply not the same. It is no good saying that it is consistent. The Government have been saying all day that we should make the position in respect of Ireland the same as for the Commonwealth, despite the fact that that is not a sensible comparison. Now, when I seek to place Ireland in the same position as the Commonwealth in this respect, they say, "We do not want to be consistent in this respect because we think it is useless and pointless and will never apply". That drives home my point that the analogy with the Commonwealth, which was the foundation of the noble and learned Lord's speech at Second Reading, is rubbish. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 25: Clause 2, page 1, line 17, leave out ("office on becoming a Minister of the Government of Ireland") and insert ("that office on becoming the holder of a disqualifying office. ( ) In this section "disqualifying office" means—

  1. (a) Minister of the Government of Ireland; or
  2. (b) chairman or deputy chairman of—
    1. (i) a committee of the Dáil ireann (House of Representatives of Ireland);
    2. (ii) a committee of the Seanad ireann (Senate of Ireland); or
    3. (iii) a joint committee of the Oireachtas (National Parliament of Ireland).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 25A to 29 not moved.]

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 30: After Clause 2, insert the following new clause— (". In section 29(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (which requires standing orders of the Assembly to make certain provision with respect to statutory committees), after "committee;" in paragraph (a) insert— (aa) a member of the Assembly who is a Minister of the Government of Ireland or the chairman or deputy chairman of—

  1. (i) a committee of the Dáil ireann (House of Representatives of Ireland),
  2. (ii) a committee of the Seanad ireann (Senate of Ireland), or
    3. 1350
  3. (iii) a joint committee of the Oireachtas (National Parliament of Ireland),
may not be the chairman or deputy chairman of a statutory committee;".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 31: After Clause 2, insert the following new clause— (". No person may be a Minister of the Crown, or Leader or other paid officer of the Oposition, if he is a Minister or Junior Minister of the Government of Ireland.").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 31 is exactly the same in substance as Amendment No. 13, tabled by the Liberal Democrats and discussed earlier. As we saw, they evidently changed their mind since consideration in another place and so there is no point in pursuing it at this hour. Amendment No. 32 is virtually the same as Amendment No. 12, which we have also already discussed. I beg to move.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

As the noble Lord is not pursuing the amendment at this stage, I shall not respond.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.]

Lord Laird had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 33A: After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—