JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS COMMISSION

HC Deb 16 July 2002 vol 389 cc177-87

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 1, at end insert:— (6A) A person may not be appointed to be a lay member unless he has declared in writing his commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means.

Lady Hermon (North Down)

I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, after "he", insert does not have recorded against him in Northern Ireland or elsewhere a criminal conviction for which he has received a sentence of imprisonment whether suspended or otherwise and".

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 23.

Lady Hermon

Amendment (a) relates to the new Judicial Appointments Commission for Northern Ireland which will have the hugely important task of appointing all future members of the judiciary in Northern Ireland, with the limited exceptions of the Lord Chief Justice and the three lords justices of appeal. As I am sure Members already know, the commission will consist of a chairman and 12 members, five of whom will be lay members.

According to Lords amendment No. 1: A person may not be appointed to be a lay member unless he has declared in writing his commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means. With the greatest respect to those who proposed the amendment, it does not go far enough. For example, it does not specify the consequences of a breach of the declaration of the commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful means.

I invite the Minister to clarify the position, especially in respect of schedule 2, paragraph 2(4)(d), which provides that if the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister can agree to act jointly—a matter to which we shall return in due course—they may dismiss a non-judicial member if satisfied, for example, that he is unfit to exercise his functions. Will the Minister clarify whether, if a lay member of the commission fails to honour their written declaration, it would render them unfit to remain a member?

The Minister does not need to intervene now—he can reply to my question later. We are delighted to see him back with us in good form. We hope that he will be as generous as ever and accept some of our amendments, so that our work will not prove redundant.

The second reason why Lords amendment No. 1 is insufficient is that paragraph 2(4) of schedule 2 states: The First and deputy First Minister, acting jointly, may dismiss a non-judicial member if satisfied that… (d) he has been convicted of criminal offence". Of course that is written in the past tense. Under amendment (a), we are endeavouring to render people ineligible for appointment to the Judicial Appointments Commission from the very beginning, without waiting until there has been a criminal conviction. We want to say quite clearly that those with criminal convictions are simply ineligible for appointment to that hugely important body.

As hon. Members will know, under the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, we have already excluded from membership of district policing partnerships those with recorded criminal convictions, irrespective of whether those convictions are suspended. Those with criminal convictions are excluded from being independent members of the DPPs, so it seems ludicrous that we may now allow those with criminal convictions to be eligible for the Judicial Appointments Commission. Amendment (a) is simply intended to tidy up those provisions and to take them a little further than they stand at present under Lords amendment No. 1.

Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down)

I shall briefly enter into this very difficult area—it is a legal minefield—and I do so with great trepidation, as I am probably the only lay person who will contribute to the debate today.

I find no fault with Lords amendment No. 1, which is acceptable to the Social Democratic and Labour party. However, I wish to address amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 1, moved by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) on behalf of the Ulster Unionist party. Under amendment (a), a criminal record would be an additional debarment from participating in the process.

I have one question to ask about human rights. If a person is justifiably convicted of a criminal offence, is the sentence of the court the totality of the punishment, or is an extension of that punishment a way to deprive a person of the totality of his or her human and civil rights, having served the sentence? That is not just a legal but a moral problem. I simply pose this question, to which perhaps the hon. Lady will reply: is a criminal conviction, even with a suspended sentence, for ever to be a debarment to a person's right to participate fully in society, having paid for his or her sins?

Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate)

In speaking to this group of amendments and before returning to amendment (a), moved by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), may I say that, in outline, we welcome the way that things have progressed in the other place and generally accept and welcome the direction which the amendments have taken?

Following the Grand Committee debate in the other place, the Government proposed Lords amendment No. 1. Indeed, that amendment was tabled in response to a suggestion from my noble Friend Lord Glentoran, so it would certainly be churlish of us to do anything other than thank the Government for proposing it. However, amendment (a) is almost identical to one proposed by my noble Friend and then withdrawn during those proceedings.

It is worth returning to one or two elements of the debate in the other place. I refer the House to the comments of my noble Friend Lord Mayhew, who made an extremely important point about the confidence that we seek to achieve. He said:

One cannot legislate for such confidence but one can legislate for certain criteria that will lead to confidence being enjoyed. Similarly, one can legislate for certain matters if one is misguided, which will ensure that confidence is withheld. If we included in Clause 1—perhaps along the lines of the amendment that we discussed at the start of our proceedings—a statement that persons who have criminal convictions, notwithstanding the fact that they may extend to sentences of more than six months' imprisonment, shall none the less be entitled to be members of this commission, that would be a fairly unattractive beginning to the Bill. He continued:

That is what one would hope the Government and anyone else with sense would have thought."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 June 2002: Vol. 636, c. CWH 27.] I agree with him.

Although we welcome the fact that, in bringing forward amendments in the other place, the Government have taken matters further with Lords amendment No. 1, it would be churlish were the Opposition not extremely sympathetic to the hon. Lady's amendment, as we had the idea in the first place. What I seek from the Government in relation to Lords amendment No. 1 and amendment (a) is further elucidation of exactly what the consequences will be if people are not prepared to sign up to Lords amendment No. 1.

My noble Friend Lord Tebbit drew attention in the other place to the fact that, in some instances, words might mean nothing. In the circumstances in Northern Ireland, however, I would venture to disagree slightly with him. Words are important here. We are looking for leadership, particularly from those in the republican movement, in sustaining the peace process. To a large extent, we are looking for them to use the right words, which is why the development that has occurred today will be referred to by my hon. Friend in the debate that will follow on the peace process.

Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in these circumstances, a little help from the Government would be of much more value than a lot of sympathy?

Mr. Blunt

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. In these circumstances, it would be infinitely better were the Government to come forward with proposals rather than the parties in Northern Ireland or the Opposition attempting to convince the Government of the merits of our case. What has happened in the other place, particularly in relation to Lords amendment No. 1, occurred through private discussion between the Government and the Opposition, which has enabled the Government to come forward with measures that are generally welcome to the Opposition. That is as it should be. That has characterised, to a large extent, the Minister's conduct in relation to this Bill, when that has been possible and when we have been able to discuss the matter in the House. Of course, a large chunk of the measures have not been discussed in the House, so we will touch on them only briefly today in the light of the Lords amendments. I shall come back to that later.

On Lords amendment No. 2, I am pleased that the debate that we had about the words "representative" and "reflective" has been reflected in the language that the Government have introduced. Again, Lords amendment No. 2 is a satisfactory solution. In the end, it emphasises that appointment to the judiciary must be on the basis of merit and merit alone, while making clear, in an improved way—compared with the Bill as it left this place the first time—that it is proper for the commission to have available to it candidates who are reflective, as far as is reasonably practicable, of the whole community in Northern Ireland. Her Majesty's Opposition therefore welcome Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2.

Lady Hermon

Is there not now an inconsistency? One clause will state that lay members of the commission must be representative of the community in Northern Ireland, but Lords amendment No. 2, which the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) has welcomed, states that the commission must, as far as is practicable, secure…a range of persons reflective of the community in Northern Ireland". How will it help to have the word "representative" in one clause and the word "reflective" in another?

5 pm

Mr. Blunt

As the hon. Lady knows, I think that "reflective" would have been better in the clause that she mentions. As she says, that would have been consistent. I seem to recall that the Liberal Democrats first proposed it in Committee, and I give them credit for that. I am sorry that the Government have not seen fit to accept the proposal.

There was an interesting debate in the other place about the meaning of the terms "representative" and "reflective", which need not be repeated here. I still think that it would be better for the Bill to be consistent. I take on board the argument advanced in the other place that in a sense there is no real distinction between the two words in terms of meaning, apart from the fact that "representative" suggests a duty for people to represent their part of the community. That, however, is why I felt that "reflective" was a better word. Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 have the support of the Opposition, as does amendment (a).

Mrs. Patsy Calton (Cheadle)

I apologise for not rising earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am still learning the procedures.

The Liberal Democrats support Lords amendment No. 1. We feel that to prevent someone from joining the commission because that person has been convicted of an offence is to fail to recognise that people can reform themselves and serve the community again. I was struck by what Lord Fitt said in the other place: I stand here as a convict. In 1969, I took part in a Civil Rights demonstration in Derry and, later on, in Newry. Those Civil Rights demonstrations were banned by the Northern Ireland Government. Anyone who took part in them was sentenced to a mandatory six months' imprisonment. I was part of it, so were John Hume"— the hon. Member for Foyle— and Seamus Mallon"— the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh— and all the political figures who took part in the Civil Rights demonstrations."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 June 2002; Vol. 636, c. 26.] Those people did not go to jail, but that is not the point. The point is that, despite their convictions, they have clearly managed to make a tremendous contribution to their community. Who would deny that they are eminently fit to take part in any activity for which they were qualified?

Like the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), I seized on the word "reflective" in Lords amendment No. 2, thinking that we had won a significant concession. I now realise that that is not entirely true. I still think that "reflective" is a better word to use throughout the Bill, but I am happy to accept it in this instance. I parted company with the hon. Gentleman, however, when he said that the amendment would ensure that the selection of a member of the commission would be, as the Bill says,

solely on the basis of merit". The point about the insertion of the words "reflective of the community" is to ensure that we achieve a better reflection of the community than we would if someone simply decided on the basis of merit. In my experience, the phrase solely on the basis of merit usually means the appointment of a white Anglo-Saxon male and leads to anything but appointments based on merit. We end up with gender and other imbalances. I have no comment to make about Lords amendment No. 23.

Mr. Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry)

I followed the Bill's progress in the other place and, as so often, I and my colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party were reminded of the curate's egg. Lords amendment No. 1 creates a difficulty that people in Northern Ireland have whenever they read about a commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means". It is very much a mum-and-apple-pie reference and it is continually used to differentiate between democrats or those who abide by the law and those who do not.

In that context, everyone would agree that the lay members appointed to the commission should have a commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means", but what does that mean in practice? What will happen if someone committed to such a mum-and-apple-pie concept is subsequently proved to be far from committed to non-violence? Although we ask for something more than such a commitment, we agree to the concept in the amendment.

The hon. Members for North Down (Lady Hermon) and for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) referred to Lords amendment No. 2 and to the commission's representativeness. The issue was discussed in Committee in the House, and any commission that is reflective of the community in Northern Ireland is desirable. In the Grand Committee a few weeks ago, I alluded to other appointments that the Government have made and that they maintained were reflective, when a cursory examination demonstrates that they are not. Again, I agree with the concept that the commission should be reflective of the community of Northern Ireland in so far as that is reasonably practical, but what will that mean when it is appointed?

What will we do if we find that the commission is not reflective? The claims of the Unionist community are often glossed over or ignored when such posts are filled, so what will we be able to do to rectify any imbalance that may be created? Again, we support the concept, but we want to see how the practical outworking of the Bill will manifest itself when it becomes law.

The Parliament Under-Secretary for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne)

I welcome the support that the hon. Members for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) have expressed for the amendments. Other hon. Members who spoke also inferred that they supported them.

As the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) rightly pointed out, Lords amendment No. 1 states: A person may not be appointed to be a lay member of the Judicial Appointments Commission unless he has declared in writing his commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means. In the interests of reflectiveness, the "he" in that sentence also encompasses "she". It appears that hon. Members welcome that provision. The hon. Member for North Down also raised a point specific to schedule 2, which I shall address in a moment.

Hon. Members will agree that it is right in principle that only those who are committed should have a role in the Judicial Appointments Commission. Making such a declaration also allows those with a past to give a positive affirmation that they are now working for the good of Northern Ireland. As the hon. Member for Reigate said, the amendment was tabled to meet the concerns expressed in the Lords Grand Committee. I welcome his recognition of the Government's efforts to have a constructive dialogue on the legislation, and I hope that that continues today.

By making the required declaration, lay members of the commission will give a positive affirmation that they are committed to exclusively peaceful means. It is right that the people of Northern Ireland should have that assurance. With respect to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell), it is inappropriate to describe such expressions, which are important in the Northern Ireland context, as mum's apple pie. They are far from that. The declarations are important and those who are called on to make them will give them careful consideration.

The amendment sets out a better approach than that suggested in amendment (a). The idea of excluding people who have been sentenced to a period of imprisonment from serving as a lay member on the commission has been discussed extensively in both Houses. The Government have resisted the idea of excluding such people per se. We are confident that those responsible for making appointments to the Judicial Appointments Commission—the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister acting jointly—will take considerable care to ensure that only those persons who are well suited to the office will be appointed to serve on the commission. It is inconceivable that they would want to appoint disreputable candidates.

[The Parliament Under-Secretary for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne)]

We also need to bear it in mind that those who have been guilty of a criminal offence may genuinely wish to make a constructive contribution to the future of Northern Ireland. In the debate in the other place, it was not only Lord Fitt who recognised that he had been in prison; Lord Maginnis also suggested that he had been in prison at a particular time in the history of Northern Ireland, although he had to persuade people to prosecute him for, I think, failing to pay his road tax or television licence.

We do not automatically wish to preclude such people from making a constructive contribution to the future of Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) made a germane point that the Lord Privy Seal dealt with on the first day of proceedings on Report in the other place, and I could not put it better myself. In addressing the suggestion that such an exclusion should be included in the Bill, Lord Williams of Mostyn said: The whole measure is, when one looks at it…quite nonsensical. It would disqualify people of the quality, for instance, of Nelson Mandela. It would nevertheless not necessarily disqualify those with convictions for which they had not received a custodial sentence, although we might rightly abominate them. It would cover every type of criminal offence…Therefore, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act would have no place here, nor the concept behind it."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 July 2002; Vol. 637, c. 60.] The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Down is correct. We have a structure in place that recognises that people who have committed offences can be rehabilitated. Were we to accept the amendment, we would deny that concept.

5.15 pm

Mr. Blunt

In the debate in the other place, Lord Williams did not address the issue of confidence to which I referred. I apologise for trading quotes from the other place, but my noble Friend Lord Mayhew said: We should not lose sight of what everyday people think. We should not lose sight of the distinction between persons, who, notwithstanding their record, are elected to a position in the legislature and those who are appointed on behalf of the Crown to choose the judges."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 June 2002; Vol. 636, c. CWH27.] There is an issue with confidence and what everyday people think.

Mr. Browne

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important point. The issue of perception is always important in Northern Ireland and it must be addressed in these circumstances. However, as I said before, I am considering getting a notice for my desk that reads "Facts are more important than perceptions." At the moment, hardly a day goes by in Northern Ireland when people do not remind me that perceptions are more important than facts. There will be a prize for the person who comes into my office some day and says that facts are more important than perceptions. I stress that it must happen in the office—I do not encourage anybody to say it in the House to win the prize.

The issue raised by the hon. Gentleman may have been addressed by the point made by the hon. Member for North Down that there should be consequences for those who breach the undertaking. As the hon. Lady pointed out, there is no automatic provision in schedule 2 for the removal of a lay member in such circumstances. However, it would clearly be open to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, in exercising the powers in paragraph 2(4)(d) of that schedule, to remove a member who acted in the way that she described after having given such an undertaking. I have no difficulty with putting that on public record because that is perfectly clear in the Bill, which goes a long way towards striking the right balance between allowing those who have a past to have a future and ensuring that those who give the undertakings now required for serving on the commission stick by them. The Bill ensures that there will be consequences if they do not.

Lady Hermon

I thank the Minister for giving way. He has been very generous this afternoon, which is consistent with his pattern of behaviour. Will he clarify a further point? Two years ago, the House passed the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. Schedule 3, paragraph (8)(2) states: A person is disqualified from being an independent member of a DPP if he has at any time been convicted in Northern Ireland or elsewhere of any offence and has had passed on him a sentence of imprisonment (whether suspended or not). What has changed so much in two years that people who have a past are not accepted for DPPs, but are accepted for the Judicial Appointments Commission?

Mr. Browne

I thank the hon. Lady for that point, which she is right to press. However, the functions of DPPs are different from those of the Judicial Appointments Commission. Their composition is different. It would be inappropriate for the Government not to treat these issues on their merits. We seek to build on the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland and change the way in which judges are appointed. To move towards a new Northern Ireland, with the establishment of the Judicial Appointments Commission, we had to look specifically at the make-up of the commission and the requirements on those serving on it. The Government's view, as expressed in the Lords amendment, is that the requirement that lay members make the necessary declaration is sufficient. Schedule 2 covers the circumstances in which such a declaration would be breached. The Government believe that the reasons set out in the Lords debate, which I have sought to paraphrase, are sufficient in relation to the Judicial Appointments Commission.

Moving on to amendment No. 2, while I accept the point about reflectiveness which is consistently made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry, the amendment relates to the pool of people from whom the candidates for judicial appointment will emerge, rather than to the reflectiveness or representativeness of the Judicial Appointments Commission itself, which is dealt with in the Bill. However, I understand the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Nigel Dodds (Belfast, North)

There is an absence of automatic sanctions if someone appointed to the commission is in breach of the written declaration, but the Minister said that there was a power for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to take action. However, what is the position if, for whatever reason, the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister do not agree? As we have seen with breaches of written declarations and other declarations by Sinn Fein-IRA in other contexts, a clear difference of opinion between the First Minister's party and the Deputy First Minister's parties means that they cannot agree, thus causing a problem in the application of any sanctions. How will that be resolved in this context?

Mr. Browne

The resolution of disagreement between the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is a matter for them acting together. It is not for me—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) finds that risible, but he may not have fully grasped the concept of devolution despite the fact that he has been a Minister in the Executive. I am sure that he would be the first to suggest that Ministers standing at the Dispatch Box should not tell Ministers in devolved Governments how to carry out their functions.

David Burnside (South Antrim)

rose—

Mr. Browne

If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, it is for Ministers in Westminster to set out the context in which Ministers in devolved Parliaments will work. We are not planning for the failure of devolution, whether in Northern Ireland or any other part of the United Kingdom—we are planning for its success. In Northern Ireland, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister now have significant success in acting on a joint basis, although there have been difficulties. They recently had outstandingly successful discussions and negotiations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about an economic package for Northern Ireland—that example may be less contentious than other things with which I have to deal at the Dispatch Box. While there may be division between the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister—I cannot think of any examples off the top of my head—there are as many, if not more, examples of them working together, which is what the devolution settlement in Northern Ireland is substantially about.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Belfast, North has looked at schedule 2, which gives the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister acting jointly the power to dismiss a non-judicial member if satisfied that he is otherwise unable or unfit to exercise his functions. Clearly, that covers circumstances in which someone makes a declaration but fails to live up to it. However, it is not for me to tell the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister how to resolve that together—they are both able politicians and very good Ministers and capable of working it out themselves.

David Burnside

Does the Minister agree that he is not seeing straight? Devolution is different in the three parts of the United Kingdom. The main difference in Northern Ireland, which contradicts the Minister's point, is that there is no collective Cabinet responsibility in the Northern Ireland Executive, so our institutions are not treated in the same way as Parliaments here and in Scotland, or the Welsh Assembly.

Mr. Browne

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, but if we stray too far down that road, the Deputy Speaker might pull me back, and rightly. I merely point out to the hon. Gentleman that the beauty of devolution is that there can be different models for different parts of the United Kingdom. I also remind him—he sometimes needs to be reminded, I think—that the people of Northern Ireland voted for this type of devolution in significant numbers, including some members of his party.

It may be that at some time in the future, a different form of devolved government may be appropriate for Northern Ireland, but that will be a matter again for the people of Northern Ireland. Just as the people of Wales and of Scotland voted for the devolution package that they have, in the majority the people of Northern Ireland voted for the devolution package that they have. If I remember the figures correctly, a majority of both communities in Northern Ireland voted for it.

Amendment No. 2 requires the Judicial Appointments Commission, so far as it is practicable, to ensure that a range of candidates reflective of the community are available for consideration for appointment to listed judicial offices. There is, however, strong competition for appointment to the judiciary, and any appointment must be made on merit. The Government have made it clear that it is desirable to have a reflective judiciary, but that is to be achieved without prejudice to each and every appointment being made on merit.

The new provision focuses on securing a pool of candidates which, so far as is reasonably practicable, is reflective of the community. Membership of the pool in itself gives rise to no expectation of appointment. I repeat: appointment is to be made solely on merit.

Together with the changes made by the Bill to the eligibility criteria and the commitment to a programme of outreach outlined in the review implementation plan, the amendment demonstrates the Government's commitment to a judiciary appointed solely on merit, while giving every encouragement to those eligible from across the whole of society to apply for judicial appointment.

Lady Hermon

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to me on a second occasion. May I ask him to reflect upon something that he brought to the attention of the Standing Committee? He said—it is a wonderful quotation: I get the sense from the Committee, and from my experience in Northern Ireland, that the growing practice of requiring such bodies to be representative is welcomed in all parts of the community. It generates hot debates about whether, when people are appointed, they are representative, but nobody attacks the principle."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 7 February 2002; c. 275.] Nobody attacks the principle that bodies should be representative. Why has the language been changed to read "reflective of the community"? There is an inconsistency in the Bill that will have to be interpreted by the courts, and that will lead to difficulties.

Mr. Browne

I was about to come to the difference between "representative" and "reflective", but the hon. Lady brings me to it just as quickly. I do not necessarily agree that there will be a growing body of judicial interpretation distinguishing between "representative" and "reflective". My reading of the debates in which it has been considered suggests to me that there is very little between them, and that it is a nuance, rather than a serious distinction.

Perhaps I can do no better at this stage than to revert to what I did earlier—that is, to go back to Report in the Lords, where Baroness Scotland said: The word 'reflective' best meets the needs of this part of the Bill. If one were to re-write other parts of the legislation"— I digress for a moment to recognise that the women who contributed to the debate contributed sense— one would perhaps use 'reflective', as opposed to 'representative', because it is a much more sensitive word and indicates precisely what we mean. We do not mean that those appointed to other bodies will represent specific contingencies on that body; we mean that they will be reflective of the community. We use that word because it has the nuance that is absolutely essential. In relation to the judiciary, that needs to be underlined because of independence and other factors. To be honest, I believe that we probably would have used the word 'reflective' in the past, but language changes and we choose what is best for today."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 July 2002; Vol. 637, c. 701 I think that the answer to the point raised by the hon. Members for North Down and for Cheadle is contained in that quotation. The dynamic of language moves on in Northern Ireland, partly because of the use of "representative" and, on other occasions, "reflective", and the attention that those words have received. That has allowed us to find a word that is better attuned to this part of the Bill.

5.30 pm

Amendment No. 23 is a minor technical amendment. The deleted words are unnecessary, as the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will only ever be able to acquire money appropriated through the Northern Ireland Act 1998. They crept into the Bill by error, although of course they do no harm. An amendment to clause 22—amendment No. 5, which we will debate later—was tabled in the Lords Grand Committee to make further provision regarding money being provided by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. That provision does not repeat the unnecessary words. The deletion of those words therefore seems right and sensible, so that the two provisions dealing with funding by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister are consistent.

Question negatived.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.