RECONSIDERATION BY ASSEMBLY

HL Deb 10 November 1998 vol 594 cc646-68

(".—(1) This section applies where—

1. (a) a reference has been made under section 10 in relation to a provision of a Bill;
2. (b) a reference for a preliminary ruling has been made by the Judicial Committee in connection with that reference; and
3. (c) neither of the references has been decided or otherwise disposed of.

(2) If the Assembly resolves that it wishes to reconsider the Bill—

1. (a) the Presiding Officer shall notify the Attorney General for Northern Ireland and the Attorney General of that fact; and
2. (b) the Attorney General for Northern Ireland shall request the withdrawal of the reference under section 10.

(3) In this section "reference for a preliminary ruling" means a reference of a question to the European Court of Justice under—

1. (a) Article 177 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;
2. (b) Article 41 of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community; or
3. (c) Article 150 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group also includes Amendments Nos. 14 and 15. These amendments relate to the new clause which it is proposed should be inserted after Clause 10. We are building on the Scotland Bill to an extent and, obviously, we have borrowed fairly freely from it. Your Lordships recently approved very similar amendments to these at the Report stage of the Scotland Bill.

Perhaps I may summarise them briefly. The new clause in Amendment No. 12 deals with the possibility that, when a Bill of the Assembly has been referred by the Attorney-General to the Judicial Committee for a decision as to whether it is within the legislative competence of the Assembly, the Judicial Committee may decide that it must refer a matter to the European Court of Justice. Since incompatibility with Community law is a ground on which an Act of the Assembly may be outside legislative competence, this is a live possibility. Such a reference may cause quite considerable delay and in such a case the Assembly may wish to reconsider the Bill, and seek to avoid the difficulty that has brought about the reference by the Judicial Committee to the European Court. I ought to stress that the new clause gives the Assembly the option of flexibility. There is no obligation to reconsider. If the Assembly decides that it wishes to do so, the Attorney-General is obliged to request the withdrawal of the reference to the Judicial Committee.

Amendment No. 14 requires the assembly to make provision in its standing orders for reconsideration of a Bill where a reference has been withdrawn at the Assembly's request under the new clause after Clause 10.

Amendment No. 15 amends Clause 12(3), so that where a reference to the Judicial Committee has been withdrawn at the Assembly's request under the new clause, which I have explained, the Secretary of State is not to submit the Assembly's Bill in its unamended form for Royal Assent. If an amended Bill comes forward, of course, the Attorney-General may, if appropriate in his judgment, still refer it again to the Judicial Committee under Clause 10, if he believes questions of legislative competence still arise. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 11 [Stages of Bills]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 13:

Page 5, line 22, at end insert ("(a) or (b)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 13 makes a technical change to Clause 11. Clause 11(1) requires the Assembly to make standing orders for various stages of a Bill, including the final stage of a Bill—Third Reading as we know it in your Lordships' House—at which a Bill can be passed or rejected but not amended. Clause 11(2) permits standing orders, however, to modify provisions under Clause 11(1) in relation to different types of Bills. But under the scheme of Part II, the Secretary of State may, before "Third Reading", have given her consent under Clause 9 to a Bill, or the Attorney-General may have indicated under Clause 10 that he does not intend to make a reference to the Judicial Committee. That scheme would be subverted if modifications to standing orders under Clause 11(2) were able to provide for amendment of Bills at Third Reading, when such consent or notice may already have been given. The amendment is designed to ensure that that cannot occur, and that is its purpose. I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, I have never been very happy with the idea that a Bill proceeding through the Assembly—that is, a single chamber legislature in Northern Ireland—should merely have what we would call in our jargon a "Second Reading" debate on the principle; a Committee stage on the detail; no Report stage and then a "Third Reading"—I adopt the inverted commas used by the Minister—at which no amendments can be made. It seems to me that the experience of this Bill, with its huge number of amendments, at the second stage in the second House, demonstrates the need sometimes to modify enactments and Bills between First Reading and when they pass into law. Where there is a single chamber, as there will be in Northern Ireland, an awful lot will be expected of the draftsmen if there is no Report stage and there are no amendments at Third Reading.

There will also be the difficulty that the Executive will not be able to reply, as Ministers frequently reply both in your Lordships' House and in another place, that a good point has been made but that the drafting is not as the Government would wish and that they will table an amendment on Report or at Third Reading to take account of the point in a properly drafted way. That is a legitimate tactic—or rather, a legitimate course of action—which Ministers frequently take. It is to the benefit of all that they should do so. The point is taken but the proper legal form is used in the Bill. That would be ruled out if this amendment applied.

Preventing Standing Orders from permitting any form of amendment to an assembly Bill except in the one Committee stage would cause difficulties for the Assembly. Ultimately, the Assembly will have to work out its own Standing Orders. But, here, in these clauses, we are preventing it having a second stage at which amendments can be moved. I may have misread the amendment, but that is as I understand it. I think the Minister is about to tell me that I have misread it.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, I am simply responding, as helpfully, I hope, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has asked his questions.

The real reason for the prohibition is to avoid the subversion of the scheme whereby the Secretary of State before "Third Reading" or the Attorney-General have given their consent or indication of non-reference.

In answer to the noble Lord's question, I am happy to confirm that the three required stages in the Assembly, which are set out in Clause 11, are the minimum. The Assembly can add other procedures, such as a Report stage, if it wants to deal with the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, identified. I would make two points on that problem. First, we tend to have rather more massive and substantial legislation in your Lordships' House and in another place than is likely to be contemplated for the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, I take the noble Lord's point that legislative review and reconsideration may sometimes be necessary. Therefore, I stress that it is entirely open to the Assembly to add, for instance, a Report stage. We are simply disentitling a changed view after the Secretary of State's consent or after the Attorney's indication that he does not intend to refer. I hope that that reply is helpful both to the noble Lord and to your Lordships generally.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, as I read it, if amended, subsection (2) will include the presumption that there will be only a limited number of stages. However, I shall not argue with the Minister. If the Assembly has the power to add a Report stage, I think it would be well advised to do so for the reasons I have given.

I certainly do not agree with the Minister when he states that the Northern Ireland Assembly may not face such substantial legislation as we do. Some of the secondary legislation and statutory instruments which come before us from time to time in respect of Northern Ireland—that is exactly the sort of thing the Assembly will have to consider—comprise many pages and complicated clauses. They replicate all sorts of Bills which deal with the domestic life of the Province in the same way as our Bills deal with life this side of the water.

I believe that the Assembly would be wise to have an equivalent of Report stage. If the Minister says that it will be able to do so legally under this Bill and that it will not be restricted from doing so, I am happy to allow the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 14:

Page 5, line 40, at end insert— ("( ) a reference made in relation to a provision of the Bill under section 10 has been withdrawn following a request for withdrawal under section (Reconsideration by Assembly);").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 12 [Submission by Secretary of State]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 15:

Page 6, line 14, after ("Assembly,") insert ("or (b) a reference made in relation to a provision of the Bill under section 10 has been withdrawn following a request for withdrawal under section (Reconsideration by Assembly),").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

4.15 p.m.

Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 16:

Page 6, line 27, leave out from ("contains") to end of line 28 and insert ("a provision which he considers—

1. (a) would be incompatible with any international obligations, with the interests of defence or national security or with the protection of public safety or public order; or
2. (b) would have an adverse effect on the operation of the single market in goods and services within the United Kingdom.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group comprises Amendments Nos. 16, 36, 37 and 38. At an earlier stage of this Bill, we indicated that we would table further amendments to safeguard national security. Amendment No. 16, together with Amendments Nos. 36, 37 and 38, give effect to that commitment.

The purpose of these amendments is twofold. First they would ensure that the interests of defence, national security and public safety are properly safeguarded under the new arrangements. They remain, of course, the responsibility of the Secretary of State. They are vital interests which have to be protected. Secondly, the amendments will protect the operation of the single market in goods and services across the United Kingdom.

Amendment No. 16 provides that the Secretary of State may decline to submit an assembly Bill for Royal Assent if she considers it to be incompatible with any international obligation, the interests of defence or national security, the protection of public safety or public order, or with the operation of the UK single market.

Amendment No. 38 is closely related. It gives the Secretary of State power to revoke subordinate legislation for the same reasons. I remind your Lordships that the Scotland Bill contains similar provisions for ensuring that legislation meets international obligations and safeguards national security, although the provisions are not directly equivalent.

The principle of the single market in goods and services across the United Kingdom is important. Under EC law, the Northern Ireland Assembly and Northern Ireland Ministers will be required to meet obligations under EC single market legislation in transferred areas, including not discriminating against goods and services from any other member state of the Union. Community legislation enforces a single market between EU member states, but not necessarily within each member state. These amendments are intended to fill that gap. It is only right that goods and services from England, Wales and Scotland should be treated no less favourably than those from other EU member states.

Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 deal with the Secretary of State's power to direct certain action to be taken by Ministers or departments or to direct that proposed action is not taken. As it stands, Clause 24 entitles the Secretary of State to do so only in order to comply with international obligations. As I have indicated, Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 protect the interests of defence, national security, public order and public safety.

These are important and necessary provisions. One hardly needs to underline that. The responsibility to safeguard defence, national security, public order and public safety extends throughout the United Kingdom. It will continue to do so after devolution. Those matters will remain the responsibility of the Secretary of State. These amendments, if accepted by your Lordships, will ensure that the Secretary of State has a means of continuing to discharge her responsibilities. We hope that no such situation would arise. However, we cannot leave open the possibility; the consequences are potentially too grave. That is the purpose of the amendments.

I stress that these provisions, by their nature, would be used by Her Majesty's Government only as a last resort. If there were questions of concern, every effort would be made to resolve them by consultation with the Northern Ireland Administration. I stress once more that if, and only if, that failed would the Secretary of State use her power of direction. I hope that that explanation satisfies your Lordships. I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State can, if necessary, strike down a measure in the interests of defence, national security and so on, as suggested in the amendment, both in relation to primary and secondary legislation. I accept that that would happen only rarely. It is not as simple as the Minister suggested. This is actually quite a sweeping power against the rub of devolution. The intention under later parts of the Bill, and particularly under Schedule 3, is to transfer responsibility for public order in due course to the Assembly and the Executive in Northern Ireland. This provision, on the other hand, retains the ultimate power with the Secretary of State. Perhaps that is necessary, but the responsibility for public order is supposed to be transferred at some stage in the future.

The position is even more difficult when it comes to the question of the single market in goods and services within the United Kingdom. Later clauses of the Bill—if they are not amended though amendments are suggested—propose to transfer to Northern Ireland responsibility for the regulation of building societies, banking, intellectual property, patents, copyright and so forth. There will not be a single market if there is a different patent law, different banking regulations and regulations of that kind in Northern Ireland. Yet if these powers are used by the Secretary of State to strike it down there is no point in giving the powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly in the first place.

So the single market part of it does not sit at all easily with the proposal to transfer those responsibilities—very considerable responsibilities—in due course to the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive. Of course, it is not intended that they should be transferred immediately on the passage of the Bill; they are in the reserved category for the time being. But the point of the reserved category is that they should be readily transferred to Northern Ireland when conditions permit. However, they will not be if, on the grounds of it having an adverse effect on the single market, the Secretary of State then overrules them all. I believe that we are getting into a bit of difficulty here.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, I think not. The noble Lord is quite right: this is a considerable power but it is intended to be a fail-safe mechanism only. The noble Lord is quite right also in relation to what may be future developments. But it is necessary to put those possible future developments in their legal context. It still remains the fact that, as a matter of European Community law, the Northern Ireland Assembly and authorities in the future will have to meet their obligations under the single market legislation in transferred areas. That means not discriminating against goods and services from any other member state of the Union. It is only if they fail to discharge their legal responsibilities that one would anticipate the Secretary of State having to intervene.

I stress that one would anticipate negotiation and discussions. But if at the end of the day it is necessary, then this reserved power—and the adjective is as important as the noun—is still something that the Secretary of State needs.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 14 [First Minister and deputy First Minister]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 17:

Page 7, line 30, at end insert ("; and (b) subject to the provisions of this Part, shall hold office until the conclusion of the next election for First Minister and deputy First Minister.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 17, with your Lordships' permission it will be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendments Nos. 21 to 25 and 227. I notice that Amendment No. 229 appears both in this group of amendments and in a later group which commences with Amendment No. 30. I am grateful to the noble Lord who drew my attention to this before we began our debate this afternoon; I had not noticed it myself. It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I confirm that Amendment No. 229 will be taken in the group which we shall consider later this afternoon; that is to say, in the group commencing with Amendment No. 30. I regret the error and hope that it has not caused any confusion.

This series of minor and technical amendments amounts to the last episode in what we might call the saga of d'Hondt. As those of your Lordships who listened to the Committee stage debates during the earlier passage of the Bill will know, the d'Hondt formula is one of great elegance and intricacy and I trust that these amendments will help to ensure that the provisions of this clause work fully in the way the agreement's authors intended.

Amendment No. 17 is a minor point clarifying that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will hold office until the conclusion of the next election for their posts.

Amendment No. 21 addresses a fairly obscure point—the circumstances in which the d'Hondt formula needs to be rerun. At present, one of those circumstances is when a motion of exclusion against a political party under Clause 28(2) expires, but only if the original motion had led to a vacancy in one or more ministerial offices.

The whole point of the one-year period of exclusion is that political parties should be able to reclaim ministerial posts to which they are entitled when the exclusion is over. But there may be circumstances in which the current wording of the Bill is too narrow. The original motion might not have led to vacancies if the motion had been passed before d'Hondt had been run in the first place, for example. The revised drafting addresses that problem.

Amendment No. 22 is purely a drafting point. Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 make it clear that if a political party's registered nominating officer (or party leader in the case of a non-registered party) wish to delegate their functions under Clause 16, this may only be to a member of the Assembly. This addresses some points made to the Government during the consultation exercise on the Bill.

Amendment No. 227 makes it clear that for a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister determination on the number of ministerial posts to carry forward after devolution, it must both have been made and approved by the Assembly in the shadow phase. This brings the transitional provision more into line with the provision of Clause 15 itself. I commend all these amendments to the House. I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, Amendment No. 23, which we are discussing with this group, brings into the Bill a reference to the Registration of Political Parties Bill 1998, which is also passing through Parliament at this time. I am afraid that, with this large number of amendments being considered, I have not had time fully to follow the point and it may already have been dealt with elsewhere. However, the intention is apparently that the Northern Ireland parties, like those in the rest of the United Kingdom, should be registered by the Registrar of Companies for England and Wales in Cardiff. That seems to me to be an extremely odd thing to have in respect of the Northern Ireland parties. Is that really the intention of the Government or have I misunderstood it?

Lord Dubs

My Lords, the answer is yes, and the same applies in Scotland and indeed in England.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, is there any particular reason why the Registrar of Companies, who has very specific responsibilities with respect to limited companies in England and Wales but is not given the duty of making value judgments about names and things of that sort in relation to companies, is nevertheless going to have to decide on whether the name for a political party in Northern Ireland is acceptable?

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I am not sure that there is a problem on that. Companies House was moved to Cardiff. It happens to be the geography of where the move was made, and there is no further significance in that.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, I am in no way objecting to Companies House being in Cardiff; I would not dream of doing so with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, being present! But it seems to me that an official in England and Wales charged with the duty of dealing with companies is perhaps going to have to make some difficult decisions about whether or not the choice of a name for a Northern Ireland party is acceptable and can be registered. That is placing a heavy duty on an official, whether he is in Cardiff, in London or anywhere else in England and Wales. I am not sure whether, as in the Companies Act, the Secretary of State should be responsible for making decisions about a name.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I am not sure whether Report stage is the point at which to hold this discussion. Northern Ireland parties are subject to the same arrangements on legislation as all other United Kingdom parties. Representations are taken and the matter can be discussed with the Speaker's Committee. That is what is happening in relation to all political parties in the legislation referred to—which is, after all, not the legislation under discussion this afternoon.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 15 [Ministerial offices]:

4.30 p.m.

Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 18:

Page 8, line 18, after ("Ministers;") insert— ("( ) the number of junior Ministerial offices to be held by junior Northern Ireland Ministers;").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McNally. With it, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 29.

These amendments introduce exactly the same provisions for the appointment of junior Ministers as are already in place for Ministers. Our proposal is the same as in Clause 16, except that it refers to junior Ministers rather than Ministers; and whereas Ministers are to be allocated the top 10 places, junior Ministers would be allocated the 11th to 20th place.

These issues arose on the first day in Committee (col. 1277 of Hansard) when the Minister made clear that the invention of junior ministries was to be allocated by a determination agreed by the First and Deputy First Minister. We believe that that could fly in the face of the spirit of the Good Friday agreement. The agreement makes no reference to junior Ministries, only to ministries which it explicitly demands are to be allocated in proportion to party strengths, not at the whim or direction of the First and Deputy First Minister. We on these Benches have rigorously defended the agreement and it is regrettable that the Government should seek to diverge from it.

We suggest that the exact method of d'Hondt seems the most appropriate for the allocation of junior ministries. When party strengths are ordered according to the d'Hondt principle, the top 10 places are to be rewarded with ministries; the next 10 (the 11th to 20th) places are to be given to junior ministries. That seems the most obvious interpretation of the Good Friday agreement in this matter. It is of no particular benefit to larger or smaller parties, merely to parties in proportion to their strength, which is what people voted for in the referendum in May. Nevertheless, we should not object if the junior ministries were allocated in exactly the same way as ministries given to the top 10 places, so that each party that won a ministry also won a junior ministry.

The Government's plan for junior ministries to be allocated in accordance with a formula agreed by the First and Deputy First Minister is a recipe for a stitch-up and would undermine the new structures. Any matter put forward by the First and Deputy First Minister that is not proportional to party strengths will either be voted down by the Assembly, undermining the authority of the First and Deputy First Minister, or the Assembly will be voting against the letter and spirit of the agreement. Any party that is disadvantaged by such a deviation from the agreement is sure to highlight that fact.

In considering this amendment, will the Minister state whether be believes that not appointing junior Ministers in this way would fly in the face of this spirit of the agreement? I beg to move.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I am aware of and grateful for the fact that the Liberal Democrats have consistently supported the agreement. That support is much appreciated and I hasten to acknowledge it. However, in answer to the last question put to me by the noble Lord, I am afraid that there is no reference to junior Ministers in the agreement. His question related to the spirit of the agreement, and the agreement contains no reference to junior Ministers. However, there was a request from the political parties during the discussions that took place with them in the course of the summer that there should be a facility on the face of the Bill to enable junior Ministers to be appointed.

The noble Lord's Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 seek to put junior ministerial posts on a similar footing to Northern Ireland Ministers. Amendment No. 18 would require any determination or order under Clause 15 to set out the number of junior Minister posts as well as the number of Northern Ireland Ministers. Amendment No. 29 would then apply an amended version of the d'Hondt formula to the appointment of junior Ministers. The d'Hondt formula, as amended in the noble Lord's amendment, would take into account both the number of ministerial and junior ministerial posts that a party already had in calculating the d'Hondt formula. The effect would be to make it more likely that smaller parties could obtain junior ministerial posts at least, even if they had not been strong enough to obtain posts on the executive committee.

No doubt the noble Lord feels that the Government have not been overly sympathetic to the points that he and his colleagues in another place have made on this subject. We recognise the importance of inclusivity in the new Assembly, as well as the concept of strict proportionality. Perhaps more important than both, however, is the point that I made at the outset; namely, the need to stick to the letter of the agreement as much as possible and, where that is not possible, to be guided by the views expressed to us during the consultation process that has taken place over the past few months.

Noble Lords will know that there is no specific reference to junior Ministers in the Belfast Agreement. There has been general agreement that junior Ministers might have a useful role to play. However, there does not yet seem to be a consensus as to what functions they should exercise or how they should be appointed.

Given the lack of an explicit reference to the agreement and consensus among the parties, the Government thought it right to include Clause 17 in the Bill as an enabling clause. It will then be for the parties to agree among themselves as to what kind of role junior Ministers might play. What is clear, however, is that junior Ministers will not have a major independent role. Indeed, government Amendment No. 31 makes it clear that statutory functions may not be conferred on junior Ministers—statutory functions being matters that should rest simply with the senior Ministers referred to in the agreement.

As for the formula proposed, I wish to emphasise that the Government fully understand the noble Lord's desire for the new structures to be both proportional and inclusive in nature. But nothing in Clause 17 as it stands would prevent that. Indeed, the clause leaves it open for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in making a determination and the Assembly approving it to decide to use the d'Hondt formula or indeed any other appropriate formula in appointing junior Ministers if it wishes. But it is left to the First and Deputy First Minister to make such a determination and to choose the method by which they would be appointed.

I hope that the noble Lord will accept that the effect of the clause that we have included in the Bill will be to enable the d'Hondt formula to be used if that is the wish in Belfast. In the light of my remarks, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, it is shocking, is it not, that the Government should depart from the strict letter of the agreement when we have been told off for even hinting at doing so on other occasions. The noble Lord is not prepared to go so far away from the letter of the agreement as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale proposed. Nevertheless, the inclusion of junior Ministers is a departure from the letter of the agreement. I do not disagree with it; however, in view of the strictures that have been pressed upon us at different times for doing so, it is worthy of note. Coming so soon after the noble Lord, Lord Williams, explained that Amendment No. 16 was a failsafe—when I had been told off a few moments earlier for being pessimistic in requiring a different failsafe—perhaps it is only a question of which amendment is accepted and whether it has the approval of the Front Bench opposite.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way—

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, perhaps I may advise noble Lords. The Minister has replied. Because the noble Lord, Lord Cope, had not intervened previously I was seeking to be flexible. However, I think that it is not possible to extend flexibility any further. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Cope, will complete his contribution quickly and then the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, ought to speak.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, I apologise if I have in any way stepped outside the conventions of the House. I merely wished to draw attention to the nature of the Minister's reply in this case. Not having spoken before, I thought that my intervention was in order. If it was not, I apologise to the House.

Lord Redesdale

My Lords, in answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I suggest that the Minister is not departing from the letter of the agreement. I said specifically that there was a "spirit of the agreement" with which I was concerned. I take the points made by the Minister. I hoped that he would be more sympathetic towards the amendment because this could be an extremely divisive subject. I was not trying to give an advantage to smaller parties, although I must declare an interest in that I am a member of the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland. However, I take the points the noble Lord made and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 19:

Page 8, line 24, leave out from second ("the") to end of line 27 and insert ("number of Ministerial offices under subsection (1)(a) is the same as the number of functions under subsection (1)(b).").

The noble Lord said: The amendment is intended to simplify the extremely contorted wording of Clause 15(3). It means exactly the same but to my mind the amendment states it more clearly and is, I hope, as legally fireproof.

Amendment No. 20 is slightly different. I appreciate that to pass both amendments would not be possible, but should Amendment No. 19 not appeal, then Amendment No. 20 might be acceptable. The argument for that amendment is different. The subsection states that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister may make a determination about the number of ministerial offices to be held. It continues: at the date a the determination", there should be the same number of Ministers for the departments existing at the date of the determination. It seems to me that the determination may change the number of departments. They will not necessarily get it right first time and may need to make a change in the number of departments later. It has happened both within the Northern Ireland Office and within the Government of the United Kingdom many times that departments have been amalgamated and split again. No doubt it will happen in the course of time with the Northern Ireland departments.

The way in which I suggest it should be changed will enable a determination to take account of the change that is being made in the number of Northern Ireland departments at the time the determination is made rather than having to keep to the number that there happens to be when the determination comes about. These are small drafting points, but nevertheless I modestly put them forward for the Government's consideration. I beg to move.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the amendments, which I believe are intended to clarify some of the language of the clause. I do not think I am being disloyal to our draftsman if I admit that the language is difficult in places. The noble Lord himself made that point. But the concepts we are dealing with are not easy and I am afraid that I do not believe that the amendments will have the desired effect suggested by the noble Lord.

Amendment No. 19 seeks to make it clearer that the meaning of Clause 15(3) is that each department must be headed by a Minister, and that each Minister gets only one department.

As I said during Committee stage, this is what Clause 15(3) already achieves. Before devolution, there will be an agreed number of departments. Those in charge will exercise particular functions. This subsection provides that each of those departments is headed by a Minister, and each department is headed by the holder of a different ministerial office, that is, no Minister will be in charge of more than one department.

The drafting of the noble Lord's amendment, on the other hand, does not quite work. The noble Lord seeks to link the number of ministerial offices to the number of functions described in Clause 15(1)(b). But any given Minister might need to exercise a number of different functions, even within a single department. The important thing is that Ministers are not in charge of more than one department, not that they should be responsible for only one function.

Amendment No. 20 is presumably also intended to clarify a drafting point. I assume that the noble Lord feels the reference to departments existing at the date of the determination is redundant, and that this subsection merely needs to mention the number of departments set out in the determination.

The reference to departments existing at the date of the determination is there for a reason, however. The reference makes it clear that any legislative changes needed to create or suppress Northern Ireland departments must already be in place before d'Hondt is run. The reason for this is that it would be confusing if a determination under Clause 15 were made mentioning a Northern Ireland department and allocating it under d'Hondt, if the legislation necessary for creating this department was not in place and remained subject to the decision of the Assembly. It is not hard to imagine how a Minister would react if he had been appointed to a ministerial post under d'Hondt while the department he was supposed to head did not yet exist, and the functions he was supposed to exercise were still in the hands of another Minister.

The clause as it stands requires the Assembly first to complete the necessary groundwork, and then to approve the division of responsibilities between Ministers in the form of a determination. I believe that this is a common-sense provision and that it meets the aims the Minister sought to achieve with his amendment. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment he put forward.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, I ask for confirmation that at some stage in the future the number of departments and therefore the allocation of functions to them can be changed, even if only by an elaborate process and the re-running of the d'Hondt formula, should that happen. Can the Minister give me that assurance? He is doing so by nodding, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 19.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]

4.45 p.m.

Clause 16 [Northern Ireland Ministers]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 21 to 25:

Page 8, line 38, leave out ("such a resolution") and insert ("a resolution under section 28(2)").

Page 9, line 35, leave out ("his") and insert ("that officer's").

Page 10, line 11, leave out ("registered political party") and insert ("party registered under the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998").

Page 10, line 12, leave out ("an officer") and insert ("a member of the Assembly").

Page 10, line 15, leave out ("an officer") and insert ("a member of the Assembly").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 17 [Junior Ministers]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 26:

Page 10, line 17, leave out from beginning to ("determine") in line 18 and insert ("The First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly may at any time").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 26 I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 228. Amendment No. 26 is a technical and drafting point. It makes it clear that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister can make a determination under this clause at any time, and regardless of whether the First Minister and Deputy First Minister were elected under Clause 14(1), that is, at the start of the Assembly's term or under Clause 14(8), that is, in mid-term.

Amendment No. 27 provides that any junior Minister appointed under this clause should be a member of the Assembly. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for raising this point at Committee stage. Amendment No. 28 removes the need for a determination under this clause to attract cross-community support.

There has been some criticism that the Bill's provisions make gridlock too easy to achieve. We do not agree with such criticisms, but we are conscious of the need to ensure Assembly procedures are not made unnecessarily complicated.

Deleting this provision would go some way towards simplifying procedures in this area. We do not believe it would result in any reduction in the level of protection enjoyed by minorities. After all, a determination under this clause needs first to be agreed by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly. If members of the Assembly are not content, they will always have the option of triggering a cross-community vote through a petition of concern.

Amendment No. 228 is a transitional provision enabling determinations and appointments of junior Ministers made and approved by the Assembly before the appointed day to carry forward after devolution. I commend these amendments to the House.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

My Lords, noble Lords see me in an unexpected position. The lot seems to have fallen to me to continue on behalf of our Benches. I wish to raise a point which refers to what my noble friend said in proposing our amendments. I am concerned that the amendments proposed by the Government seem to enable the two major parties and one other to have a rather unfair distribution of junior ministry positions in the assembly. I wonder whether the noble Lord could respond to that concern.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, I am in some difficulty. I believe that the noble Baroness raises an issue that is not linked directly to the amendment now before the House. She is perhaps speaking to a different amendment.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I desired to reserve my right to speak at the end. Given that these are government amendments I was afraid that if other noble Lords wanted to speak I would not be behaving in accordance with the Report stage procedures. That was the reason for my hesitation. The Government intend to leave this matter to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. They believe that to be fairly straightforward. We want to make the process as smooth as possible and do not believe that we are doing anything that is untoward. The provision for junior Ministers was not in the agreement but came about as a result of discussion with the parties. We are simply enabling the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to make determinations as regards junior Ministers. We leave it to them and to the Assembly to take that matter further. I do not believe that I am able to help the noble Baroness further.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 27 and 28:

Page 10, line 19, leave out from ("of") to ("in") in line 20 and insert ("members of the Assembly specified in the determination shall be appointed as junior Ministers").

Page 10, line 34, leave out ("passed with cross-community support").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]

Clause 19 [Northern Ireland departments]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 30:

Page 11, line 9, at end insert—

("(3) If an Act of the Assembly which establishes a new Northern Ireland department provides for it to be in the charge of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly—

1. (a) the department shall not be regarded as a Northern Ireland department for the purposes of subsection (2) or (3) of section 15; and
2. (b) the office held by those Ministers as the head of the department shall not be regarded as a Ministerial office for the purposes of subsection (4) of that section or section 16.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 30 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 31, 33, 34, 229 and 230. This group of amendments deals with the location of prerogative and statutory power after devolution. Amendment No. 30 reflects the interest shown by some of the parties during the consultation process in creating a department of the centre under the joint control of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Such a department has obvious parallels in Whitehall. There was also a similar department in existence during previous periods of devolution in Northern Ireland. Its functions would be entirely for the Northern Ireland parties in the Assembly to determine but could include both policy co-ordination and possibly statutory functions as well. There is no explicit provision for such a department in the Belfast agreement. Therefore we have provided for such a department to be created by Act of the Assembly. Equally, however, if the parties agree on its creation during the shadow phase the transitional provision in Amendment No. 229 will enable it to continue in existence after devolution too. Amendment No. 30 also ensures that if such a department is created it will not count towards the Bill's maximum of 10 ministerial offices; nor will it count towards d'Hondt.

Amendment No. 31 deals with Clause 20 which sets out how statutory functions will be dealt with after devolution. These functions form the bulk of the power at any administration's disposal. Clause 17 enables junior Ministers to be appointed in a determination approved by the Assembly. This amendment makes it clear that statutory functions may not be conferred on junior Ministers. The agreement is clear that statutory functions belong as before with the Northern Ireland departments acting under the direction and control of their Ministers. Junior Ministers will be able to assist Northern Ireland Ministers in the exercise of their functions but will not be able to exercise them independently.

Amendment No. 33 is a minor drafting point to reflect the fact that the definition of "Minister" has now been moved by Amendment No. 6 into Clause 8.

Amendment No. 34 recasts Clause 21 which deals with prerogative and other executive powers. Despite the sometimes grand language of this clause it deals with far less significant functions than those covered by its predecessor, Clause 20. The vast majority of functions to be exercised by Northern Ireland Ministers will be those conferred on them or their departments by statute.

Amendment No. 230 ensures that existing prerogative orders remain in force after the appointed day. As this amendment makes clear, the most significant prerogative power exercisable under this clause is the management of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. As for the grandly named "other executive functions", these simply mean the powers which the Government can exercise in the same way as a normal citizen, for example the power to enter into contracts. Other than clarifying the position with respect to the Northern Ireland Civil Service, the main significance of this amendment is the ability of Northern Ireland Ministers to exercise prerogative powers directly without being authorised explicitly by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. This is important for administrative reasons. Even relatively mundane departmental tasks such as publishing leaflets depends to a degree on using prerogative powers, and clearly it would be absurdly cumbersome to require explicit approval for this.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, Amendment No. 30 provides for the establishment of a department under the direct charge of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. On the basis of the Minister's description it appeared to be the equivalent of a Prime Minister's department for Whitehall which has sometimes been discussed but has never been adopted in that form. But the First Minister and Deputy First Minister might regard it as appropriate, for example, to place themselves in charge of the Department of Finance and Personnel or some other department, particularly if law and order were subsequently transferred to the responsibilities of the Northern Ireland authorities. One wonders whether that would be possible under this amendment should that decision be made. I do not want to push it in that direction but I believe that such flexibility should remain.

As to Amendment No. 33, I express conditional gratitude to the Minister for adding his name to my Amendment No. 33. It is conditional because it is all about moving the definition of "Minister" out of Clause 20. We both agree that it should be moved out of that clause. However, the Minister wants to insert it earlier in the Bill, whereas I suggest in Amendment No. 125 that it would be better if it appeared in Clause 92 which contains other definitions. I believe that it is for the convenience of those who read Acts of Parliaments that as far as possible definitions should be included in a single interpretation clause so that they can be readily referred to instead of having to refer backwards and forwards in the Bill. Sometimes a definition refers to a single clause, in which case it is appropriate to leave it in that clause. However, the phrase that is here defined is used throughout the Bill on many occasions. I believe that the definition would be better placed in Clause 92. As to Amendment No. 34 dealing with the prerogative, I agree with the arguments that the Minister put forward.

5 p.m.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

My Lords, we have some concerns on this matter. Can the Minister reassure us that the effect of the clauses is not to boost the relative importance of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and therefore to depart from the principles set out in the agreement that ministries be allocated in proportion to the party's strength?

Lord Dubs

My Lords, on the last point the answer is yes. It is not intended to achieve any such untoward result and to give a party particular advantage.

In answer to the specific question of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, the amendments would not give the power for the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister to take on, for example, the Department of Finance. However, under Clause 15(7) the First Minister and Deputy First Minister may be put in charge of another department such as the Department of Finance and Personnel. The power is in another part of the Bill. The noble Lord shakes his head.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, Clause 15 has only five subsections.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. Clause 16(7) gives the power for the First Minister or Deputy First Minister to be put in charge of another department if that were the wish. It does not make it mandatory.

On the point made by the noble Lord regarding where the definition of a Minister should go in the Bill, it would be helpful if I can speak to that on a later amendment rather than at this point.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 20 [Statutory functions]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 31:

Page 11, line 12, leave out ("or Northern Ireland department") and insert ("(but not a junior Minister) or a Northern Ireland department").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 32:

Page 11, line 12, leave out ("by name").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 20(1) states that: An Act of the Assembly or other enactment may confer functions on a Minister or Northern Ireland department by name". I wonder why the words "by name" are there. What on earth do they mean?

Lord Monson

My Lords, I confess that I only spotted the amendment 20 minutes ago, but I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Cope, is right to move it. First, as the noble Lord indicated, the wording of Clause 20(1) is ambiguous. It is not immediately clear whether the name refers to the Minister or the function. Assuming it is the latter, would it not be clearer simply to insert the word "specific" before the word "function"?

Secondly, one wonders how necessary subsection (1) is even if the drafting were to be tidied up. Does a similar provision appear in the Scotland Bill; and, if not, why not?

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I am grateful for this amendment, which I believe is also designed to clear up some points about the drafting of this clause. I suspect the noble Lord's concerns centre on the idea of legislation conferring functions on a department or even more oddly a Minister "by name". This is not something which is generally done with UK legislation.

I should make it clear here that when the clause talks about conferring functions on Ministers by name, it does not mean conferring them on Ministers personally. That would clearly be absurd.

The reason Northern Ireland legislation differs from that in the United Kingdom is that Northern Ireland does not have the concept of the Secretary of State at large. Most Westminster legislation confers functions on the Secretary of State. Theoretically, any Secretary of State could exercise the functions of another and ministerial responsibilities are allocated administratively.

In Northern Ireland, however, functions will need to be conferred on specific departments in most cases, and much more rarely on Ministers. While I appreciate the wording might look odd at first sight, I believe that it is appropriate, and I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, there is no difference between us in what we seek to achieve. The provision could be more happily worded by stating "on a specific Minister". I had thought of inserting "on a Minister by title", but in your Lordships' House one's title is one's name. Although that might get round the problem in one sense, it might be misunderstood at least within these four walls.

I leave the Minister to consider the amendment further between now and Third Reading, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 33:

Page 11, line 17, leave out subsection (3).

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 21 [Prerogative and executive functions]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 34:

Page 11, line 21, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—

("(2) As respects transferred matters, the prerogative and other executive powers of Her Majesty in relation to Northern Ireland shall, subject to subsection (3), be exercisable on Her Majesty's behalf by any Minister or Northern Ireland department.

(3) As respects the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland, the prerogative and other executive powers of Her Majesty in relation to Northern Ireland shall be exercisable on Her Majesty's behalf by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly.

(4) The First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly may by prerogative order under subsection (3) direct that such of the powers mentioned in that subsection as are specified in the order shall be exercisable on Her Majesty's behalf by a Northern Ireland Minister or Northern Ireland department so specified.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 22 [Community law, Convention rights etc.]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 35:

Page 11, leave out line 38 and insert ("section (Entrenched enactments).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 24 [Internal obligations]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 36:

Page 12, line 9, after ("obligations,") insert ("with the interests of defence or national security or with the protection of public safety or public order,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 37:

Page 12, line 13, after ("obligations,") insert ("of safeguarding the interests of defence or national security or of protecting public safety or public order,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 38:

Page 12, line 20, leave out ("would be incompatible with any international obligations,") and insert—

1. ("(a) would be incompatible with any international obligations, with the interests of defence or national security or with the protection of public safety or public order; or
2. (b) would have an adverse effect on the operation of the single market in goods and services within the United Kingdom,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 26 [Agency arrangements between UK and NI departments]:

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 39:

Page 13, line 3, leave out ("Arrangements") and insert ("Concordats").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have moved briskly to the question of agreements between the Northern Ireland departments and departments of the United Kingdom Government. Clause 26 provides that they shall be called arrangements. In other legislation before us they are called concordats. Indeed, at Committee stage the Minister referred to them as concordats. It seems a better name in that it is a little more specific. It will have an agreed meaning of a specific arrangement of this kind. That is desirable.

It is desirable that these arrangements should be, relatively speaking, formal so that everyone understands where the responsibilities lie when arrangements are made. Those of us who have served in another place, and many noble Lords who have served in local government, for example, know of the confusion that exists in many people's minds about which part of the great machine within central or local government is responsible for specific responsibilities. People are frequently confused as to which it is. The greater the clarity, the better. It is not only a question of where the buck stops but also of people being able to refer their queries to the right place, to take up their grievances in the right place, and so on. The arrangements, as they are described in the Bill, should be on a formal basis when the function of one department is to be carried out by someone else.

For the same reason—it is the point of Amendment No. 40—such agreements, such concordats, should be legally binding. Although the ultimate responsibility will still rest with the higher authority making the concordat, nevertheless the higher authority has a right to expect that if the lower authority (the one receiving the concordat) does not do its job some legal sanction will apply to that lower authority. Otherwise the higher authority will have to breathe down the lower authority's neck all the time to ensure that the right actions are carried out in full.

I therefore believe that it would be desirable that the concordats should be known as such. However, the more important point is that they should be legally binding while still leaving the ultimate responsibility where it is placed by the appropriate statute. I beg to move.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, the amendments relate to Clause 26 which deals with agency arrangements. Those arrangements would allow for Northern Ireland departments to carry out functions on behalf of other United Kingdom departments or public bodies and vice versa. They are concerned purely with operational matters. These are not the same as the concordats which will be drawn up and agreed between the Northern Ireland Executive and United Kingdom government departments. Concordats are not intended to be legally binding contracts or treaties. They will be non-statutory agreements to promote effective communications and joint working between the two Administrations. As your Lordships will appreciate, there is a significant difference between agency arrangements under Clause 26 and the concordats, which will be agreed in due course. I therefore cannot agree to these amendments and would ask the noble Lord not to press them.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, the Minister's answer affects my opinion on whether the arrangements should be called concordats, but not my opinion as to whether they should be legally binding. I hope that the agency arrangements under Clause 26 will be legally binding on the departments which enter into them, otherwise there will be difficulty about who is responsible when things do not go entirely according to plan. We all know that in government departments things do not always go according to plan and it is sometimes difficult to pin down the blame. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]

Clause 27 [Statutory committees]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 41:

Page 14, line 19, at end insert—

("( ) Standing orders shall provide that a chairman or deputy chairman shall cease to hold office if—

1. (a) he resigns by notice in writing to the Presiding Officer;
2. (b) he ceases to be a member of the Assembly; or
3. (c) he is dismissed by the nominating officer who nominated him (or that officer's successor) and the Presiding Officer is notified of his dismissal.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 41 is a technical amendment which brings the treatment of committee chairmen into line with other officeholders in the Bill. The clauses dealing with the appointment of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, Northern Ireland Ministers and the Presiding Officer set out the circumstances in which they will cease to hold office. This amendment does the same and mirrors the provisions for Northern Ireland Ministers in Clause 16(9).

Amendment No. 231 enables committees of the Assembly established and committee chairs appointed during the shadow phase to carry forward after devolution. I commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 31 [Constituencies and numbers of members]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 42:

Page 16, line 43, after ("29") insert ("or 30").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. Clause 31 provides for any Order in Council changing a parliamentary constituency in Northern Ireland to have effect from the next election of the Assembly. This could be either a normal election under Clause 29 or an extraordinary election under Clause 30, which was inserted as a new clause in Committee. This amendment adds a reference to elections under Clause 30.I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 38 [Commission]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 43:

Page 20, line 5, leave out ("statutory functions conferred on the Commission;") and insert ("functions conferred on the Commission by virtue of any enactment;").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this, too, is a technical amendment. It ensures that the functions of the Assembly Commission includes those conferred on it by the Northern Ireland Act when enacted, as well as any conferred on it by Act or resolution of the Assembly. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 44:

Page 20, line 20, after ("Assembly") insert ("(other than proceedings on the Crown side of the Queen's Bench Division)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the principal function of the Assembly commission is to provide or ensure that the Assembly is provided with the property, staff and services required for its purposes. Thus, proceedings by or against the commission would relate to matters such as employment law. The amendments make it clear that they would exclude matters of public law. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

5.15 p.m.

Clause 40 [Petitions of concern]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 45:

Page 21, line 3, at end insert— ("( ) Standing orders shall provide that the matter to which a petition under this section relates may be referred, in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 13 of Strand One of the Belfast Agreement, to the committee established under section 11(3)(a).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords this relatively minor change to the Bill's provisions of petitions of concern reflects points made by the parties during the consultation exercise and is designed to bring the clause more clearly into line with the provisions of the agreement.

As the Bill stands, a petition of concern leads automatically to a vote on the issue which then requires cross-community support to succeed. During consultation with the parties, it was made clear to us that the petition ought to be linked to the special committee procedure set out in paragraph 11 of strand 1. Paragraph 13 of strand 1 sets out the procedure linking a petition of concern to the special procedure in paragraph 11. This agreement provides for the special committee to be able to examine and report on whether a measure or proposal for legislation is in conformity with the equality requirements, including the ECHR Bill of Rights. The amendment requires the Assembly, through its standing orders, to set out procedures by which petitions of concern may be referred to such a committee for scrutiny. It therefore brings the Bill more fully into line with the agreement and I commend it to the House. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 42 [Powers to call for witnesses and documents]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 46:

Page 23, line 2, leave out (", including this Act").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. It changes the definition of "statutory functions" to, functions conferred by virtue of any enactment", removing the reference to "this Act".

Removing the reference to "this Act" was felt to be necessary since having references to it in some places and not in others could cast doubt on whether references to enactments elsewhere in the Bill included references to this Act, which they should. I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, I rise only to draw attention to the fact that this is a wonderful example of the draftsman's second thoughts. The whole Bill gives the impression that it was drafted by a relatively junior draftsman in a hurry. The senior draftsman having looked at it, all these amendments are being included to the great confusion of everyone else.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, it is necessary to comment on that remark. The Government have listened carefully to comments made during the various stages of the Bill. We have sought to improve the drafting of the Bill wherever possible. We had at our disposal the time of several senior draftsmen and it is not right for the noble Lord to cast aspersions on them. The fact is that they were asked to work very quickly. The timetable was difficult; normally, the drafting of such a Bill would have required many more months in order to resolve the details before introducing it into another place. The noble Lord knows exactly why we had to move quickly. I will defend the draftsman against his accusations, which I know were meant in good part.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 47:

After Clause 4,9 insert the following new clause—