HL Deb 10 November 1998 vol 594 cc668-93

(" . Within two years of the coming into force of this Part, the Secretary of State shall report to each House of Parliament his conclusions following a review of the efficiency and fairness of the following and any related matters—

  1. (a) the arrangements for the election of the Assembly;
  2. (b) the procedures of the Assembly; and
  3. (c) the effects of the existence of the Assembly on the House of Commons.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we move to a point of considerable substance. First, perhaps I may say that I did not mean to cast aspersions on the draftsmen employed on the Bill. I recognise, as I did in my remarks, that they were under great time pressure. That has obviously been the case in recent weeks and days.

I rise to move Amendment No. 47, which inserts a new clause. It suggests that the Secretary of State shall report to each House of Parliament his conclusion following the review of the efficiency and fairness of various matters which are set out.

Three matters are set out. The first is the arrangement for the elections to the Assembly. The second is the procedures of the Assembly. The agreement provides for a review of those two matters after what it describes as a specified period, although as far as I can see, the period is never specified. I seek to put into the Bill a provision for such a review as the agreement suggests and I specify a period of two years, which seems to me to be a reasonable period, after which the arrangements for the elections and procedures for the Assembly can be judged, when we see how it is all working. I was discussing earlier the difficulties of not having a Report stage in the Assembly. That is one of the procedures which may be required to be considered at that point.

I have added a third matter which will require review and that is: (c) the effects of the existence of the Assembly on the House of Commons". My opinion, which I gave in Committee at greater length and I do not propose to go over it all again, is that the so-called English dimension—the West Lothian question—will not go away. It was answered before when Stormont existed by a reduction of, roughly speaking, one-third in the Members of the Westminster Parliament from Northern Ireland and by a self-imposed limitation by the Northern Ireland Members of Parliament in relation to those matters on which they spoke and took part in the debates in another place. That is obviously one way of answering the West Lothian question.

But it has become more important now than it was at the time of the existence of Stormont because there are three assemblies now being set up for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That question will not go away. I speak as an Englishman and I believe that it will become more important as the years go on and as English voters see what is the position and how their Members of Parliament are disadvantaged and in some cases no doubt overruled by the Members of Parliament in other parts of the United Kingdom while their Members have no comparable power over the operations of the other assemblies.

It is important that we should provide for a review of that situation in two years. At this point, nobody has an answer to the West Lothian question but an answer will have to be found and two years seems to me to be a reasonable time within which the matter should be reviewed and considered, along with the other two matters which the agreement proposes should be considered and reviewed. I beg to move.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for this amendment which deals with the question of reviews of the Bill and the Belfast agreement's operation.

I think no one can be in any doubt that the procedures in this Bill are novel. Reviewing them to see how they work in practice is clearly sensible, and indeed is already provided for in the agreement, but it is for the Assembly to decide when a review is appropriate.

The noble Lord proposes a review within two years carried out by the Secretary of State and reported to the House. According to his amendment, the review is to focus on the Assembly's electoral system, the Assembly's procedures and the effects of the existence of the Assembly on the House of Commons.

I am certainly sympathetic to the idea of keeping under review progress being made under the agreement, but I wonder whether the Secretary of State is really the right person to carry out those reviews, particularly in some of the clearly devolved areas the noble Lord identifies.

On the noble Lord's third point, it is surely a matter for the other place to consider the impact of devolution, and indeed I note that a consultation exercise on just this subject is now under way. I shall return to that point in a moment.

As for the other two points in the draft new clause, these seem to be in the first instance matters for the Northern Ireland political parties and the Assembly to decide, not for the Secretary of State. Noble Lords will know that the Belfast agreement already includes provisions for review. Those are not mentioned in the Bill simply because we do not believe that provision is necessary.

The agreement largely calls for the new institutions to review their own progress and address any problems which may have arisen. On the strand 1 issues which the noble Lord identifies, for example paragraph 36 of strand 1 already includes some provisions. The paragraph states: After a specified period there will be a review of these arrangements, including the details of electoral arrangements and of the Assembly's procedures, with a view to agreeing any adjustments necessary in the interests of efficiency and fairness". Similarly, paragraph 8 of the validation, implementation and review section of the agreement also calls for a wide-ranging review, indeed one rather more wide-ranging than proposed in the noble Lord's amendment.

The agreement says that, the two Governments and the parties in the Assembly will convene a conference 4 years after the agreement comes into effect, to review and report on its operation". In this area, as in every other, the Government are committed to the agreement's provisions. We believe this is the most appropriate form of review, and I would accordingly urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Perhaps I may refer further to the issue of representation at Westminster by Members of Parliament from the devolved areas. Noble Lords will be aware that the Scotland Bill includes provision for reviewing the number of Scottish MPs in Westminster in the light of devolution. But we are clear that similar provisions are not necessary for Northern Ireland for the very good reason that Northern Ireland is not over-represented in Westminster at present. The average Northern Ireland constituency is about the average size of constituencies in most other parts of the United Kingdom.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, the Scottish example is not appropriate to paragraph (c) of Amendment No. 47 because that merely corrects the current over-representation of Scotland rather than to allow for consideration of the English dimension of the West Lothian question. Therefore, I do not believe that the Scotland Bill deals with the point at all. It merely corrects the change in the representation which will follow from it. No doubt we shall have to return to that matter many times in the coming years.

In regard to paragraphs (a) and (b), the Minister was correctly advised that paragraph 36 of the agreement was what I had in mind when drafting the amendment and the words follow it as closely as I could manage. I had not thought that that was the same review referred to elsewhere in the agreement.

As to who should carry out the review, the Minister suggested in the earlier part of his remarks that paragraphs (a) and (b) should be reviewed by the Assembly rather than the Secretary of State. But the responsibility for the law on the election of the Assembly and the outline of the procedures are laid down in Westminster legislation and, indeed, the procedures are laid down in this Bill itself. Therefore, even if the Assembly considers those matters, it will have to refer them to the Secretary of State, which is why I suggest that he should review them in the first place.

However, the Minister has made clear that the major four-year review with both Governments and the different parties involved in it will cover those matters at paragraphs (a) and (b) and I shall not seek to press the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 50 [North-South Ministerial Council and British-Irish Council]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 48:

Page 26, line 12, after ("Ministers") insert ("and junior Ministers (including where appropriate alternative nominations)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 48 makes explicit an obligation which was previously implied; namely, the responsibility of the First and Deputy First Minister where appropriate to make alternative nominations of Ministers to attend the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council. The circumstances in which such nominations would be appropriate are likely to be when one of the original nominations is, for whatever reason, unable to attend or participate fully in one of the meetings.

Thus, if a Minister is unable to attend, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister may make an alternative nomination from among the other Ministers. To enable the delegation to enter into any agreements or arrangements within the area of responsibility of the absent Minister, subsection (4) of this clause allows a Minister to authorise another Minister to act on his or her behalf.

However, it should be emphasised that the only way in which any Minister can participate in meetings of the North-South Ministerial Council or the British-Irish Council is by means of a nomination from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Amendment No. 48 gives effect to the requirement in paragraph 2 of strand 2 that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister should be able to make alternative arrangements if a Minister is unable to participate normally. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

5.30 p.m.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 49:

Page 26, line 14, after ("such") insert ("cross-community").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, together with Amendments Nos. 51 and 72, ensures that participation by representatives of the Northern Ireland Administration in the various bodies to be set up under strands 2 and 3 of the agreement shall be such as to ensure cross-community involvement.

Noble Lords will have often heard it said that the agreement is a package which must be accepted and implemented as a package. So, when dealing with strands 2 and 3, it remains important to take account of provisions elsewhere in the agreement.

A case in point is paragraph 30 of strand 1 of the agreement which requires that arrangements to represent the Assembly in its dealings with other institutions should be such as to ensure cross-community involvement. These amendments incorporate that requirement in an explicit reference on the face of the Bill. This cross-community involvement will be an important safeguard in ensuring that the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland are taken into account when conducting business in the various institutions.

The noble Lord, Lord Cope, has put down Amendment No. 53 which seeks to incorporate a specific reference to paragraph 30 of strand 1. However, in view of the amendments that I have just outlined, I believe that the objective has been achieved and that his amendment is unnecessary. I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, I tabled Amendment No. 53 with two purposes in mind. One of them is the purpose which has subsequently been taken up by the Minister's amendments, Amendments Nos. 49 and so on; namely, to ensure that the nominations made of people to represent the Assembly in other bodies, especially at summit level, should be on a cross-community basis. I believe that that part has already been covered by the Minister's amendments which make that clear on the face of the Bill.

However, there is another purpose to Amendment No. 53. It is intended to ensure that the cross-community status of the representation is, so to speak, backed up or—if it is not too strong a word—"guaranteed" by the fact that more than one Minister will actually represent the Assembly when attending these other institutions. That will obviously provide the opportunity for Ministers of different parties, in the cross-community basis that Northern Ireland has and will have, to go together. There are two things to recommend that approach. The first is that the suspicions which sometimes arise in Northern Ireland as to what someone of a different persuasion may have said during the course of a meeting can be dispelled as a result of someone in the opposite party being there at the same time. That is one way to help disperse such suspicions which frequently arise in the Northern Ireland context.

Moreover, when the two Ministers of different persuasions go to represent the Assembly and they are both saying the same thing and backing up each other, they will be in an even more powerful position as regards the others with whom they are dealing. Therefore, it would strengthen the Assembly's representation to have two Ministers of opposite parties—or sometimes a Minister and a junior Minister—taking part in negotiations. In the special circumstances which obtain in Northern Ireland, it seems to me that that would be one way to ensure the cross-community representation which both the Minister and I are seeking to nail down in different ways in this block of amendments.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, there is just one point made by the noble Lord to which I feel there is a particular need to reply. By having cross-community representation we will, by definition, have two Ministers attending bodies such as the North-South Ministerial Council or the British-Irish Council. Moreover, because it will be cross-community representation, it means that they will be Ministers of different political persuasions. Therefore, I believe that we are really achieving the precise aims that the noble Lord seeks to achieve with his amendment. There is nothing between us in terms of what we are seeking to do. I believe that the government amendments do precisely what the noble Lord wishes to see done.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 50:

Page 26, line 14, leave out ("appears to them to be") and insert ("is").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 50, 52 and 74 represent an important clarification of the nature of the attendance and participation by Northern Ireland Ministers in the North-South Ministerial Council, the British-Irish Council and the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. It is already clear that the only way in which Ministers may participate in meetings of the councils is by means of a nomination from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The amendments make it absolutely clear that the resulting ministerial representation at each institution is to be that which is required by the Belfast agreement. For example, strand 2 states that, Northern Ireland [is] to be represented by the First Minister, deputy First Minister and any relevant Ministers". Amendment No. 50 makes clear that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister shall make such nominations as to ensure that this representation is achieved.

Amendments Nos. 52 and 74 ensure a similar outcome in relation to the British-Irish Council and British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference respectively. I have no doubt that noble Lords will appreciate the importance of confidence in the context of the implementation of the Belfast agreement. Confidence is required in respect of these new institutions as much as every other aspect of the agreement. It is vital for everyone to have confidence that the operation of the institutions, including the representation of the Northern Ireland Administration at their meetings, is clearly in accordance with the agreement. These amendments will help to underpin such confidence.

Before leaving the amendment, I should like to clarify a further point in relation to the British-Irish Council and the ability of members to participate in it. This Bill relates only to the participation of representatives of the Northern Ireland Administration in the council. We are clear that, under the Government of Wales Act and the Scotland Bill, the Welsh and Scottish administrations will be able to participate fully in the British-Irish Council as set out in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the first part of strand 3 as regards discussion, consultation and co-operation on matters of mutual interest. They will also be able to enter into bilateral or multilateral arrangements, including with the Republic of Ireland, to enable consultation, co-operation and joint decision taking on matters of mutual interest as set out in paragraph 10 of that section. If further provisions are requested, perhaps to facilitate joint implementation mechanisms, the Government will look favourably at any request and ensure that the desired co-operation is achieved. I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, it seems to me that the wording in the Bill with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister acting jointly to make nominations to ensure such cross-community participation, as appears to them to be required", leaves the decisions entirely to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. If we take out the words, as appears to them to be", and insert "is", it is not just a question of an arrangement appearing to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to be a satisfactory cross-community arrangement. It has to be legal; that is to say, decisions made by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are open to judicial review or something of that kind. Therefore I prefer the wording, as appears to them to be". I trust the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to make the decisions and I do not want them to get involved in arguments as to whether, legally, they have properly represented the cross-community currents in making those decisions. I am not altogether happy about the wording being tightened up in the way that is suggested.

The Minister also referred to the British-Irish Council and the involvement of Scotland and Wales. He should make clear that, as under the agreement, that includes representatives of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, including, as I pointed out at an earlier stage, the hereditary Seigneur of Sark. That is a welcome recognition by the Government of the hereditary principle in adding an hereditary representative to the British-Irish Council.

Viscount Brookeborough

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Cope, in not wishing to delete the words, as appears to them". I agree with the reasons he stated. Further, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are cross-community people. Therefore if a matter appears to them to be cross-community, that must surely be the correct interpretation.

Lord Newby

My Lords, we, too, have some sympathy with the arguments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. The amendments beg the question of where responsibility will lie for ensuring that the agreement is being fairly interpreted. For example, is there any role for the Secretary of State if he or she believes that the agreement has not been correctly interpreted? Is there any role for the Assembly in expressing a view if it also believes that the agreement has not been correctly interpreted? It seems to us that rather than making life easier, this series of amendments could lead to confusion which would have the opposite effect to that which the Government appear to seek.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I shall discuss the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, about Sark. I understand that Sark would not be represented in its own right at the British-Irish Council but would be represented by the Government of Guernsey. I am afraid that the point that the noble Lord sought to make about the hereditary principle has not succeeded. I wish to clarify that point.

It is important that representation of Northern Ireland Ministers is exactly that specified in the agreement, as the noble Lord has said. That is the purpose of the amendment. It seeks to reflect the agreement as closely as possible. Whereas I appreciate that the noble Lord and other noble Lords who have spoken have some other concerns, the Government's position is clearly that we want to do exactly what is specified in the agreement. I believe that the amendments do just that.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 51:

Page 26, line 16, after ("such") insert ("cross-community").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 52:

Page 26, line 16, leave out ("appears to them to be") and insert ("is").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]

5.45 p.m.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 54:

Page 26, line 18, after ("Minister") insert ("or junior Minister").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments, together with Amendment No. 34 considered earlier, provide that junior Ministers may participate in the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council when nominated to do so by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. This would be an entirely appropriate function for junior Ministers to be able to discharge were they to be appointed under the provisions of this Bill.

Amendment No. 60 makes clear that junior Ministers who have been so nominated may be authorised to enter into agreements or arrangements on behalf of a Minister who is unable to take part. Consequential to this, Amendment No. 65 provides that the Assembly may legislate in respect of agreements or arrangements entered into by junior Ministers who have been so authorised.

Amendment No. 73 provides that junior Ministers are eligible to attend meetings of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, again if required to do so by the First and Deputy First Minister. As a consequence of this amendment, Amendment No. 75 deletes the now redundant definition of "attendance" in subsection (3). This responds to a point made by noble Lords during our previous consideration of the Bill.

Amendment No. 135 takes out a reference to "person" in Schedule 2 and again makes clear that only Ministers and junior Ministers may take part in the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council. I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on supporting Amendment No. 75 in this group which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and has now been supported by the Minister. To enable the House to understand what is happening, I should explain that it is proposed to delete the wonderful subsection that now states: In this section 'attendance' by Ministers and junior Ministers means attendance by one or more Ministers". That is a good piece of jargon to take out of the Bill.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

My Lords, in case anyone should imagine that there is some form of collusion between the Minister and myself, I think it is possibly a question of great minds thinking alike. Naturally I must support the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 55:

Page 26, line 21, at beginning insert ("Without prejudice to the operation of section 22,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 55 is a purely drafting amendment which moves existing provision from subsection (8) to subsection (3). I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 56:

Page 26, line 21, after ("Minister") insert ("or junior Minister").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 57:

Page 26, line 22, leave out ("or the Executive Committee").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, there would appear to be a degree of commonality between Amendments Nos. 57 and 59. I shall say a few words about the former. The amendment proposes the deletion of the words "Executive Committee" from Clause 50(3). That would mean the Minister could act only in the North-South Ministerial Council in accordance with the decisions of the Assembly. That would appear to be in line with British standards of democracy. The measure is also designed to tighten up the lines of accountability and to ensure that the North-South Ministerial Council is under democratic (ministerial) control. I beg to move.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the thinking behind Amendment No. 57. However, it would appear to me that the deletion of "Executive Committee" from Clause 50(3) is inconsistent with the agreement. The Ministerial Pledge of Office clearly requires all Ministers to, act in accordance with all decisions of the Executive Committee and Assembly". The first sentence of paragraph 6 of strand 2 requires Ministers to be in a position to take decisions in the North-South Ministerial Council through, the arrangements in place for co-ordination of executive functions within each jurisdiction". That, by definition, includes the Executive Committee.

It must therefore be a requirement of the agreement that Ministers operating in the Council shall act in accordance with decisions of both the Executive Committee and the Assembly and I must resist the amendment.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 58:

Page 26, line 24, leave out ("Northern Ireland").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the consideration of Clause 50 in Committee, a number of noble Lords suggested that subsection (4) should be amended to ensure that the First and Deputy First Minister were able to authorise other Ministers to enter into agreements or arrangements on their behalf. At that stage, I agreed to consider the point further.

Noble Lords will therefore be pleased that, after consideration, I am able to respond to their concern. The purpose of subsection (4) is to enable business in the councils to be conducted when a Minister is unable to attend. It is of course possible that, for whatever reason, the First and Deputy First Minister might be unable to attend a particular meeting and it is important that they too should be able to authorise a colleague to conduct business on their behalf. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]

Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 60 and 61:

Page 26, line 24, leave out ("another Minister") and insert ("a Minister or junior Minister").

Page 26, line 35, after ("Minister") insert (''or junior Minister").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 62:

Page 26, line 35, leave out ("by reason of a nomination under this section").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, unfortunately the grouping seems to guarantee that we come back to this topic on at least three occasions. The amendment is designed to authorise the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to substitute for another Minister who is unable or unwilling to attend a meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council. The clause, if amended as I intend, would result in a situation where a Northern Ireland Minister who has been nominated under subsection (1)(a) or (b) may in writing authorise another Minister, the First Minister or Deputy First Minister, to enter into agreement or arrangements in respect of matters for which he is responsible.

The curious thing is that it would allow another Minister, other than the First Minister or Deputy First Minister to act as a substitute for the Minister of a department who was either unable or unwilling to attend a meeting. Let me give an analogy to the Palace of Westminster. Let us suppose that the Foreign Secretary refuses to attend a European Summit meeting. He reports his refusal to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister delegates the Minister of Health to go to Brussels to represent Her Majesty's Government. When the Health Minister returns, what does he then do? Does he report to the Prime Minister? He cannot very well report to the Foreign Secretary if he has refused to attend. The alternative would be that the Minister who had been parachuted into Brussels—namely the Health Minister—would go to the Foreign Office, ask to see the Permanent Secretary, lay on his desk a document and say, "These are the matters to which I have agreed on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. I require you to implement them." That may be a facetious argument, but things are inclined to be a little facetious as far as the working of the Northern Ireland Assembly is concerned, at least to my rather jaundiced, long-range eye.

I apologise that the drafting of the amendments has put the Minister into the position of having to deal with roughly the same subject on three occasions. I beg to move.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. However, I believe that this amendment is an unnecessary complication of the procedure by which a Minister may authorise a colleague to enter into agreements on his or her behalf. It would mean that a Minister who, for whatever reason, was unable to attend the council would have to be nominated to attend, and presumably decline to do so, before being able to authorise someone else to conduct business. That is not necessary and I must in those circumstances resist the amendment.

The process envisaged in the Bill is straightforward. If a Minister is unable to attend, the First and Deputy First Minister may make an alternative nomination from among the other Ministers and junior Ministers. To enable the delegation to enter into any agreements or arrangements within the area of responsibility of the absent Minister, a Minister may authorise another Minister or junior Minister to act on his or her behalf.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

My Lords, for the third time running I did not expect any concessions from the Minister as he has committed himself on at least two other occasions this afternoon. In the light of that explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 63:

Page 26, line 42, leave out subsection (8) and insert— ("( ) The Northern Ireland contributions towards the expenses of the Councils shall be defrayed as expenses of the Department of Finance and Personnel.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of Amendment No. 63 is to ensure that there is a statutory authority for the Northern Ireland contributions towards the costs of the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council to be met. In relation to the North-South Ministerial Council, this gives explicit effect to paragraph 15 of strand 2, which states that funding of the Council is to be provided by the two administrations—that is, Belfast and Dublin—on the basis that it constitutes a necessary public function. Paragraph 8 of strand 3 similarly states that the members of the BIC will provide such financial support as it may require.

What are the expenses referred to in the amendment? In the case of the North-South Ministerial Council, there will be costs associated with the holding of meetings and with the operation of the standing joint secretariat, which is to be staffed by members of the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the Irish Civil Service. In the case of the British-Irish Council, there will also be costs associated with meetings, particularly when they are held in Northern Ireland.

These are important institutions. They will reflect a new set of relationships within the island of Ireland and between these islands. It is important that there is clear authority to provide the necessary funding to support them. I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, as far as the expenses of the councils are concerned, I obviously entirely agree that we should implement the agreement and that a proportion of the expenses should fall on Northern Ireland. I was interested that it was expressed as the "Department of Finance and Personnel". It seems quite likely that it will become two departments in due course. At the moment relatively few Ministers conduct the affairs of Northern Ireland and the Department of Finance and Personnel has been one department for quite a long time. Personnel is quite a different matter from finance in many respects. As far as the Whitehall government are concerned, we have quite frequently had a Minister for the Civil Service separate from the Ministers at the Treasury. Obviously, the Chief Secretary is the rough equivalent of the Minister in charge of the Department of Finance. Presumably, if the Department of Finance and Personnel were to be split into two at some time, this clause would not become invalid but some succession arrangements would be made.

Another quite separate point arises out of this amendment. The amendment not only inserts the words referred to on the Marshalled List about the defraying of expenses but deletes the fact that subsection (3) does not affect the operation of Clause 22 in relation to the powers of Ministers. Clause 22 is all about Community law and convention rights and matters of that kind, which we have discussed and perhaps become embroiled in at different times. But all of a sudden, in the middle of an amendment apparently providing simply for the defraying of expenses, the operation of Clause 22 seems to be affected by the words being deleted. We need to know from the Minister why those words are being deleted as well as why the new words, referring to a quite different subject—finance—are being inserted into the Bill by Amendment No. 63. I should like the Minister, if inspiration has struck him, to help the House in that respect as well.

6 p.m.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, perhaps I may deal with one or two of the specific questions that have been put to me. The effect of subsection (8) was moved to subsection (3) by Amendment No. 55, with which we have already dealt. As regards the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, to the Department of Finance and Personnel, if, under a rearrangement of departments, the Department of Finance and Personnel is split up or its functions moved elsewhere, this function will move. As the noble Lord anticipated in what he said, consequential changes can be made when functions are moved between departments.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 64:

Page 27, line 3, leave out ("paragraph 5") and insert ("paragraphs 5 and 6").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that, throughout the consideration of these clauses, one of the most significant areas has been the authority and accountability of Northern Ireland Ministers taking part in the North-South Ministerial Council. As a Minister myself, I understand the importance of being clear about one's authority to take decisions and one's accountability to the legislature.

Amendment No. 64 will put beyond all doubt that Ministers have authority to participate in the North-South Ministerial Council only to the extent that such participation is in accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6 of strand 2 of the agreement. Paragraph 5 sets out the various levels at which Ministers will participate in the council; paragraph 6 outlines the authority for such participation.

I think it would be helpful if I reminded noble Lords of the exact wording of paragraph 6. It states: Each side to be in a position to take decisions in the Council within the defined authority of those attending, through the arrangements in place for co-ordination of executive functions within each jurisdiction. Each side to remain accountable to the Assembly and Oireachtas respectively, whose approval, through the arrangements in place on either side, would be required for decisions beyond the defined authority of those attending".

Throughout the Bill we have sought to implement the provisions of the agreement; no more and no less. Noble Lords have heard me say that on countless occasions. That is true in this area as much as any other. Through this amendment, we are making clear that participation in the North-South Ministerial Council is to be exactly that which was agreed by the parties on Good Friday and that Ministers must act in accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6 of strand 2. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 51 [Agreements etc. by persons participating in Councils]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 65:

Page 27, line 7, after ("Minister") insert ("or junior Minister").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]

The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Turner of Camden)

My Lords, I call Amendment No. 67 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

My Lords, my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, appear jointly on this amendment. Perhaps the noble Lord will do the honours.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 67:

Page 27, line 13, leave out ("authority") and insert ("body").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to have the first go at this amendment. Amendment No. 67 changes the reference in Clause 51(2)(a) from "authority" to "body". Although this may seem a minor point, it was one on which a number of noble Lords commented during Committee and to which, on reflection, I am willing to respond. The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, tabled an equivalent amendment and will, I trust, be pleased that we have proposed such a change.

The paragraph, as revised, will allow provision to be made to transfer functions from a Minister or Northern Ireland department to any designated "body". This language is, I believe, more in line with the language of the agreement which speaks of implementation bodies operating under the North-South Ministerial Council.

The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, tabled a further amendment, Amendment No. 68, proposing an equivalent change to Clause 51(2)(b). I reflected carefully on this point and indeed consulted with parliamentary counsel. I concluded that "authority" is the correct term in this paragraph for persons exercising any functions which are to be transferred to a Minister or Northern Ireland department. I must therefore resist that amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

My Lords, the Minister has put the case for our amendment very well. Therefore, I shall not move the other amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]

Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 69:

Page 27, line 24, leave out subsection (4).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 69 and 70. Amendment No. 68 raises a well worn subject but I think there is probably no harm in our addressing our minds to it. It aims to achieve greater accountability not just in financial terms but, far more importantly, in constitutional terms. In the area covered by the amendment there appears to be a rather boxed-in atmosphere. If trust and confidence are to be established and generated in the Assembly, openness accounts for a great deal. Bearing in mind the degree of co-operation that has been established thus far today, I hope that the Minister will be able to give a favourable reply. I beg to move.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, Amendments Nos. 69 to 71 address an issue which goes to the heart of these clauses. In fact, it is an issue which was at the heart of the negotiations on strand 2—the authority and accountability of Ministers participating in the North-South Ministerial Council.

I have already moved an amendment to Clause 50 which puts beyond any doubt that participation in the council shall be construed in accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6 of strand 2. The effect of this amendment is that Ministers have authority to participate in the North-South Ministerial Council only to the extent that such participation is in accordance with these paragraphs.

Paragraph 6 in particular makes clear, first, that Ministers must be able to operate within their defined authority and, secondly, that Assembly approval must be given for any decisions which go beyond that authority. This amendment seeks to go further still by requiring Assembly approval for all agreements or arrangements. This clearly goes beyond the terms set out in paragraph 6.

I believe that these clauses, as amended, implement the agreement accurately. I believe also that they set out a number of safeguards which help to meet noble Lords' concerns. Perhaps I may quickly outline those safeguards. As a result of amendments already discussed, Northern Ireland participation in the North-South Ministerial Council must be on a cross-community basis; all decisions of the council must, by virtue of paragraph 2 of strand 2, be taken by agreement between the two sides; any agreement or arrangement which requires additional finance or fresh legislative provision must subsequently secure the support of the Assembly if it is to be given effect; any new implementation body must be approved by the Assembly; and, finally, Ministers must act in accordance with all decisions of the Executive Committee and Assembly.

Taken together, these provisions ensure that no decision in the council can be taken without cross-community involvement and that any significant, substantive decision will require Assembly approval.

As I have said, this is a very important issue. But I firmly believe that the Bill fully reflects the agreement and will ensure that the North-South Ministerial Council is properly accountable to the Assembly.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

My Lords, the explanation has been helpful. It goes as far as one can expect the Minister to go. As the noble Lord knows, the amendment is designed to ensure that all agreements and arrangements entered into will be approved ultimately by the Assembly because without that provision the Assembly members could become very disillusioned. But in the light of the Minister's reasonably sympathetic approach, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 not moved.]

Clause 52 [British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 72:

Page 27, line 34, after ("such") insert ("cross-community").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 73:

Page 27, line 34, after ("attendance") insert ("by Ministers and junior Ministers").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. There is not much point in moving this amendment if the Minister is going to agree to Amendment No. 75: the former will be immediately knocked out.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I believe that the amendment is appropriate because we cannot act on the assumption that the House will necessarily agree to a subsequent amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]

Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 75:

Page 27, line 36, leave out subsection (3).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have much pleasure in moving this amendment. It provides another demonstration of our co-operation in that when the Assembly is in operation, if there is need for an experienced tea-boy, I hope that the noble Lord will not overlook my claims. I do not believe that it is necessary to say much more about this amendment and the proposal to delete this particular subsection. In one way or another we have already covered all the ground. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 53 [Implementation bodies]:

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 76:

Page 27, line 38, leave out ("body") and insert ("international organisation created by treaty").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now move on to Clause 53, which deals with implementation bodies. These are the joint bodies to be created north and south of the Border to carry out various executive responsibilities. In Committee we had a discussion as to what was to be the legal nature of those bodies. There is a difficulty about it. If they were to have a legal persona in either the north or south under the Companies Act, for example, or some such provision, that would be unsatisfactory. They would not be truly joint bodies.

As I understood the Minister's reply at that time, the intention is that the implementation bodies shall be international organisations created by treaty, which will give them the necessary international legal persona carrying across the whole of Ireland. It will enable them to make contracts which any legally constituted body can do. They will then be able to carry out their business of implementing the responsibilities laid on them by the two jurisdictions, north and south.

The question of such bodies being international organisations had not been made clear before, and was creating some difficulty. It seemed to me, therefore, that it would be better to state on the face of the Bill that these are not just any old bodies, which is what the Bill says at the moment. The Secretary of State may make an order about an international organisation created by treaty. In that way we make it clear to people exactly what the status of the implementation bodies is going to be legally and, for that matter, internationally. They are a very significant part of the agreement. They will be difficult to set up and operate in the first instance. We all wish them well and I hope that they will be effective in operating across the whole of Ireland. They will have difficulties. It is necessary to be very clear that they have a strong legal basis from which to operate as well as the political support which they will obviously need from both parts of Ireland. I beg to move.

6.15 p.m.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, the legal framework of north-south implementation bodies was the subject of considerable discussion during our earlier consideration of these clauses. I think it would be helpful if I again set out the sequence of events by which these implementation bodies will come into being.

Under the terms of the agreement, representatives of the Northern Ireland transitional Administration and the Irish Government are to identify and agree at least six areas where co-operation will take place through agreed implementation bodies on a cross-border or all-island level. These initial implementation bodies will then be established by international treaties concluded between the British and Irish Governments.

In order to operate effectively, each implementation body will then need to be given any requisite capacities and functions in domestic legislation in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. That is the purpose of the Secretary of State's power to make orders under Clause 53. This clause deals only with the initial group of implementation bodies. As I have said, these bodies are to be established by treaties between Her Majesty's Government and the Irish Government. I hope that this has provided the noble Lord with the reassurance he seeks about the legal status of the initial implementation bodies.

Before leaving this amendment, I should like to take the opportunity to clarify the definition of an "implementation body", on which noble Lords had some earlier discussion. It is the Government's clear view that implementation bodies will operate on a cross-border or all-island level. It is also our understanding that paragraph 11 of strand 2, which is used to define the bodies, applies to all implementation bodies, both initial and further. I trust that that clarifies the understanding of noble Lords. Therefore, I am unable to accept the noble Lord's amendment.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, in a moment we shall come to some of the additional points which the Minister has just raised, including those in Amendment No. 80 as regards what happens to subsequent implementation bodies and the legal status that they will have. This clause is intended to refer solely to the initial implementation bodies. They are the first tranche of what will become a much greater number in due course. As far as they are concerned, it is clear that they will be international organisations created by treaty. They are not just implementation bodies but bodies of rather special character.

I am sorry that the Minister does not think it wise to insert the words of the amendment into the Bill. I believe that they would make the situation much clearer to everyone concerned and would strengthen the Bill rather than weaken it or make it vague. However, the Minister is not yet convinced so I shall not press the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 77:

Page 27, line 39, leave out from beginning to ("and") and insert ("agreed under paragraph 9(ii) of Strand Two of the Belfast Agreement;").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, two matters occur to me as regards this amendment. The curious phrase, The Secretary of State … considers", appears in the Bill. Does that imply that the Secretary of State alone will consider or will he seek the views of the members of the Assembly and, if possible and time permits, the Parliament of the United Kingdom as well, given that the other half of the agreement—the Irish Government or whatever name it wishes to call itself by when we have finished with this Bill—will take it for granted that consultation at all levels will take place?

My point concerns the words that my amendment proposes to insert into the clause, which are, agreed under paragraph 9(ii) of Strand Two of the Belfast Agreement". I am not complaining that the Minister, right from day one, has insisted that we must not "do violence" to the text of the Belfast agreement. As paragraph 9 is set out clearly in the agreement, I believe that that form of words would vastly improve the clause; as I think do my colleagues who are serving in the Assembly, but not yet in the Executive. I beg to move.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, as I stated when dealing with the previous amendment, the first stage in the establishment of the North-South implementation bodies is for the areas for co-operation to be identified and agreed by representatives of the Northern Ireland transitional Administration and the Irish Government. Once that has happened, the bodies will be established by international agreements between the British and Irish Governments.

Only then will domestic legislation be made to give any requisite capacities and powers to these bodies. I can give a categorical assurance to the House that the Secretary of State's power to make orders under Clause 53 will be exercised only in respect of the agreed implementation bodies. The implementation bodies will be those clearly identified and agreed by representatives of the Northern Ireland Administration and the Irish Government. It stands to reason that the Secretary of State will have those views before her when considering whether to make an order about a body.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

My Lords, that appears to be a reasonably satisfactory reply. The noble Lord has made it clear that views, other than those of a small circle, will be taken into account. Although there may be occasions when there will be wider consultations—certainly with Members of the Executive, if not the Assembly—perhaps we can return to that in the future. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 78:

Page 27, line 39, after ("body;") insert— ("( ) which has equivalent powers and duties throughout both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland;").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it seems to me that it is important to reassure people in both jurisdictions that the implementation bodies are genuine cross-Border bodies. They are seen by some in Northern Ireland as ways in which the south, the Republic, can interfere in matters in Northern Ireland. We know of the tremendous suspicion that there has been over a long period about the operation of the Maryfield secretariat. That demonstrates the way in which such fears can grow and be extremely important in the context of Northern Ireland. Therefore, to the extent that we can, it seems right to ensure on the face of the Bill that the bodies have exactly the same powers in both jurisdictions.

I moved a similar amendment in Committee, which I explained at greater length and in more detail. I was criticised then for the precision of that amendment because in the two jurisdictions the powers may be expressed differently due to the different legislative backgrounds. I have, therefore, modified the wording in the hope of making it more acceptable to your Lordships, and particularly to the Minister, to read "equivalent powers and duties" both sides of the Border rather than "identical" or "the same". It is an important point of principle that they should have the same powers. That would be entirely in accordance with the agreement. That is what is intended, so I do not think that any damage would be caused to the agreement by the amendment. On the contrary, I believe that it would strengthen the Bill and reinforce the potential bodies.

Amendment No. 79, which is grouped with Amendment No. 78, seeks to delete Clause 53(1)(b), which states that the orders that the Secretary of State may make in this context shall be limited to the initial implementation bodies. A very large point underlies this apparently small amendment. The amendment is similar to Amendment No. 80 in which the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, achieves a similar effect with neater wording. However, his amendment does not have quite the same meaning.

It is intended that under the agreement six implementation bodies will be set up initially. Work is proceeding on agreeing the areas and on what will happen in the Assembly and with the authorities in the south. Under Clause 53 as it stands, the Secretary of State can make an order about such a body only if it is one of the initial bodies. I look forward to the day when there may be more implementation bodies—seven, eight or even more. It may be thought right to establish such bodies to carry out different functions on both sides of the Border. It seems to me that they, too, should be on the same all-island basis. Therefore, they will need to be international organisations, created by treaty.

I take it that the Assembly and the Executive will not have treaty-making powers, so the Secretary of State or the Government of the United Kingdom will have to make the treaty to set up subsequent implementation bodies. They will need to make the necessary provisions to give them the powers under the equivalent of Clause 53. Why not do that by means of Amendment No. 79? That removes the time limit which would otherwise mean that the Secretary of State can make an order only if the implementation body is one of the initial six and cannot do so in relation to a subsequent body. I beg to move.

Lord Cooke of Islandreagh

My Lords, the amendment is particularly relevant and important. I understand that yesterday the Assembly started to discuss the cross-Border bodies. After only a few hours of discussion, it realised the difficulties involved because the organisations that it was considering are different on either side of the Border. It is important that they are brought together. I think that "equivalent" is exactly the appropriate word. It is important that the implementation powers on both sides of the Border are similar and equivalent to deal with the undoubtedly difficult question of how different organisations can be brought together to co-operate.

I now ask the Minister about the nature of the powers. Will the implementation bodies be empowered to instruct the various ministries and departments on each side of the Border, or will they have powers to give orders directly? If there is to be cross-Border training of nurses, for example, will such a body give orders directly to the nurses' organisation or through, say, the Department of Health? This is a question which is in some doubt at the moment and it would be very helpful if the Minister could provide an answer.

6.30 p.m.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, I should just like to express the view that it is absolutely essential that Northern Ireland and the Republic co-operate very intensively on such matters as tourism, transport, education and training, which has just been mentioned, and attracting inward investment. These matters have long been important, but they are even more important today with the European single market and the globalisation of trade. I am well aware that the planning and the start-up of these implementation bodies have given rise to apprehension in Northern Ireland. That is natural, but the sooner the bodies can start work and produce results, particularly economic results which will be to the benefit of all, the better it will be.

Lord Monson

My Lords, this is surely one of the most important amendments that we shall be discussing this afternoon. If I may say so, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, made out the case for it extremely well. It is vital that there be reciprocity and that the people of Northern Ireland will see that there is going to be reciprocity. We talked about the importance of perceptions earlier this afternoon when we were discussing Amendment No. 2. This is yet another sphere in which perceptions are all-important.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, Amendment No. 78 returns to an issue which was discussed during our earlier consideration of these clauses, namely, whether implementation bodies should have equivalent powers on both sides of the border. The Government's clear understanding is that the implementation bodies will be mutual and reciprocal and will have equivalent powers to implement policies agreed in the North-South Ministerial Council in both Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland.

However, the key point about the powers of the implementation bodies is that they will be agreed by representatives from Northern Ireland and the Irish Government. Legislation from each jurisdiction will be used to confer on the bodies those powers which have been agreed: nothing more and nothing less. Therefore, provided that the Northern Ireland Administration and the Irish Government agree to confer equivalent powers on the body both in Northern Ireland and in the Republic, that is what will happen.

The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked a number of questions. I would say this to him. Implementation bodies are not about one government interfering with another country. They are about co-operation to mutual benefit in both jurisdictions. The noble Lord also asked what would happen about further implementation bodies, given that the particular point at issue is what is going to happen immediately. If further implementation bodies are agreed by the Northern Ireland Administration and the Irish Government, it will be for the Assembly to give them the necessary powers in legislation. Under the Bill, the Assembly has the competence to make the necessary orders.

The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, asked how these matters would be dealt with in practice. The position is clear. Policy will lie with Ministers, but implementing decisions will be for the implementation bodies themselves. They will act within policies which have been defined politically by the Northern Ireland Minister and by the Minister from Dublin.

As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I would say that yes, reciprocity, to which I have already referred, is the key. Indeed, it is quite likely that some of the initiative for the work done by the implementation bodies will come from Belfast. Indeed it is right and proper that that should sometimes be the case. In other cases the initiative may come from Dublin.

Lord Cooke of Islandreagh

My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps I may enquire how the implementation bodies are going to work. Are they going to work directly with the organisations on the ground or through the departments concerned with these bodies? This is an important matter which I know has begun to concern members of the Assembly.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I think it depends very much on the detail of the issue that the implementation body will be dealing with. Let me take an example which has been much quoted and which is in the annexe to the Good Friday areement. One of the possibilities for implementation was tourism: that is, promotion, market research and product development. It seems to me that that tourism body would be responsible for implementing the promotion of tourism to all parts of Ireland. It would have been given that authority and that power by the Minister in Belfast as well as by his or her opposite number in Dublin. Implementation bodies will work directly on the ground. They will be responsible for the work involved in carrying out the implementation. That is what they are there for: they are there to do the work, the policies having been decided by the Ministers and by the Assembly.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, so far as concerns Amendment No. 79, I understand that the Assembly can give any future bodies that may be set up after the initial six bodies powers to carry out whatever responsibilities are allocated to them as far as Northern Ireland is concerned. The point I was making was that, as I understand it, the Assembly will not be in a position to participate in the creation of any further bodies, because in order to create a legal persona capable of making contracts and capable of carrying out its instructions as a tourist body or whatever it may be, they need a legal framework. The Assembly cannot confer a legal framework on an international body because it will not have treaty making powers. Therefore only the United Kingdom Government will be able to enter into the necessary treaty to set up a future implementation body, even though, after it has been created, the Assembly may be able, under a different clause, to transfer to that body the necessary powers and so on from the central Northern Ireland Government.

So far as Amendment No. 78 is concerned, I am encouraged by the support I have received from the Cross-Benches and from the Unionist Benches over the question of equivalent powers and duties. This is an extremely important point and one on which the Minister gave assurances. The only question is whether we should write it into the Bill or whether the assurances are sufficient. It is in the nature of the trust which we are trying to engender in this process that we should accept the assurances of the Secretary of State rather than writing this into the Bill, though personally I would have much preferred it to appear on the face of the Bill. In that event I do not think it would have done any damage to the agreement itself. However, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]

Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 80:

Page 27, line 40, leave out ("before") and insert ("after").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has said, this is rather a crisp little amendment, but it is difficult to understand why there should be such a rush to establish these bodies before the appointed day. It is true that the following subsection provides some very curious terminology. The Bill says: An order under this section may make any such provision… (after the appointed day)…". "May" does not seem to fit with the rather precise wording, "after the appointed day".

I return to the question: why is it necessary to rush the proceedings? My noble friend Lord Cooke illustrated the difficulties that are already being encountered by the reconnaissance operation by various elements in the Assembly. I understand that the going has been extremely heavy. Surely it would make sense to go easy on this matter. I do not suggest that we delay the Bill's passage, but surely it would be preferable to have a clear idea as to what exactly is wanted and, more importantly, what the legal base would be. Perhaps the Minister could write to us outlining his thoughts on the matter. I think that he, too, probably feels that some further study needs to be carried out before we know exactly where we are.

The noble Lord, Lord Cope, made the point that the Assembly will not have treaty-making powers; that must be done at Westminster. Will it be a difficult operation—Her Majesty's Government requesting that both Houses of Parliament, acting under treaty-making powers, form, for example, a Franco-British fisheries board; and how popular would that body be? That may be a rather outlandish suggestion, but there are issues in regard to co-operation in Northern Ireland that will be equally difficult and sensitive. I suggest that we need to take our time. We should not rush in before the appointed day and go down the road too far immediately after the appointed day without having a clear idea as to how matters will work out.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, Amendment No. 80 would enable the Secretary of State to make orders about any implementation body established on the appointed day or afterwards.

Clause 53(1)(b) has been included specifically to restrict the Secretary of State's power to make orders to the initial batch of agreed implementation bodies; that is, those bodies established on or before the appointed day. If and when further implementation bodies are agreed, they will be given the necessary capacities and functions by means of Assembly legislation, which is the appropriate vehicle for doing so.

Under strand 2 of the agreement, the two governments are committed to ensuring that the initial implementation bodies are ready to function at the same time as powers are devolved to the Assembly. It is our intention that these bodies will also be formally established on the appointed day. However, we have left open the possibility of establishing them a short time in advance of the appointed day in order that they will be ready to function from day one.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

My Lords, I hope that we, and particularly those with a special interest in Northern Ireland, can give further thought to this matter. In the light of our experience of international affairs, perhaps we can give thought and guidance to those who will be saddled with the responsibility of bringing these bodies into being. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 54 [Civic Forum]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 81:

Page 28, line 18, at end insert— ("( ) The expenses of the Forum shall be defrayed as expenses of the Department of Finance and Personnel.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 relate to Clause 54, which is about the civic forum.

Amendment No. 81 is a technical provision to ensure that the forum's expenses can be funded, in the first instance by the Department of Finance and Personnel, though this is a responsibility that might well be suitable for transfer to a department of the centre, which we have considered earlier.

Amendment No. 82 makes clear that it is the responsibility of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to establish the forum. This clarifies a point that many people, including some noble Lords, found obscure in the original drafting. I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, we received a little more information in Committee regarding the civic forum. But in this amendment the Minister is providing for the cost of the forum to be met by the Department of Finance and Personnel. That is entirely appropriate. However, will the Minister tell the House how much he thinks the cost will be?

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I am not in a position to do so at this stage. The structure of the forum and the way in which it will operate are responsibilities that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister are considering. Until they have reached their conclusions, it is impossible for me even to guess how much it might cost.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

6.45 p.m.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 82:

Page 28, line 21, at end insert ("by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 55 [Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 83 and 84:

Page 28, line 32, after ("to") insert ("section 57 and to").

Page 28, line 35, after ("by") insert ("an Act of the Assembly or other").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are technical and drafting amendments. They are needed to ensure the continued financing of public services if the Assembly cannot agree funding. They are straightforward and do not present any difficulty. It is very important that we get the provisions relating to the Consolidated Fund absolutely right and that we deal with them comprehensively.

Because there is a great deal of Northern Ireland legislation relating to finance, and because it goes back a long way, we have had some difficulty identifying all the relevant strands. It may be that we shall need to bring forward further amendments at Third Reading. The same applies to audit provisions, about which I shall speak further. I hope that noble Lords will understand the difficulties and be sympathetic to the amendments. I should not normally have wished to introduce new amendments at Third Reading. However, I hope that noble Lords will understand that this is an exceptional matter. I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, we are given yet more amendments to deal with. We have already left the Scotland Bill behind, with only 300 or so amendments. On this Bill we have arrived at over 450, and there are more to come. I wonder whether the figure will reach 500. We shall have to wait and see.

These amendments are required to deal with the position should the Assembly not agree to any financial plans. We had some discussion on the matter in Committee. As I recall, I was rather told off for what was described as my pessimism. I was told that it was not a good idea to think that the Assembly might not agree about everything all the time. However, I am glad that we now have another fail-safe mechanism, to use an earlier expression of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I do not believe that it does imply pessimism. We are properly providing for what should happen in that event.

It is sometimes extremely difficult for bodies to agree on financial provisions. Finance, as we know, is at the heart of politics. This may be one of the most difficult matters that a body such as the Assembly, with much cross-community involvement, has to try to settle. Northern Ireland politicians have not had responsibility for money for quite a long time. They have been let off that particular hook by the fact that other people have conducted the government of Northern Ireland through direct rule. It is one of the shocks to the Northern Ireland system that are to come when Northern Ireland politicians take up financial responsibility once again. It is therefore wise, not pessimistic, to include these provisions in the Bill. I support the amendments.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 85

After Clause 57, insert the following new clause—