Lords Sitting of 19 October 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick
The Right Honourable Norman Stewart Hughson Lamont, having been created Baron Lamont of Lerwick, of Lerwick in the Shetland Islands, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord St. John of Fawsley and the Lord Lawson of Blaby.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
Mrs. Margaret Lucy Sharp, having been created Baroness Sharp of Guildford, of Guildford in the County of Surrey, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Thomas of Walliswood and the Lord Goodhart.

BBC World Service
2.47 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions they have had in the past two months with the BBC on the future of its Overseas Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the BBC World Service makes an invaluable contribution to promoting respect and goodwill for Britain. We want it to continue to flourish and to build on its outstanding reputation for objective news and comment. We have been in regular discussion with the World Service over recent months, in particular on implementation of the results of the comprehensive spending review announced in July under which the World Service will receive an extra £44 million over the course of the next three years.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Would she not agree that there has inevitably been some anxiety about the circumstances surrounding the departure of a former managing director, Sam Younger? Can my noble friend assure the House that in her discussions with the BBC she is emphasising that, in so far as Foreign Office money is supporting the Overseas Service, the overriding priority is to maintain the objectivity to which she referred so that it can truly be a reliable source of reference for the world and that gravitas and dependability are other essential qualities in all that the BBC does?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government are committed to the success of the World Service. We are committed to the maintenance of the high quality of its output and to its continuing pre-eminence among international broadcasters. My noble friend referred to the departure of Mr. Younger. The BBC's Board of Governors recently appointed Mr. Mark Byford as the new World Service chief executive. He appointed Mr. Younger. We look forward to working with him. I have already had a brief meeting with Mr. Byford. I look forward to further fruitful meetings with him in the next few weeks and months.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the impact and value of the BBC World Service in areas of conflict, given the way in which the World Service adapts its language services according to international developments? I refer, for instance, to its increase in Serbian and Albanian broadcasting hours and to the deal whereby the World Service will be broadcast on FM in Jakarta. Does the Minister agree that the value and flexibility of those language services are extremely important?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. She focuses particularly on the Balkans. I understand her reasons for doing so. It is a strategically important area for both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the World Service. The Macedonian service opened in 1996, joining the existing Albanian, Croat and Serbian services—the noble Baroness referred to the latter—and now operates for an extra 15 minutes a day. We understand that the World Service is also contemplating opening a Bosnian service. We welcome that.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, given that the World Service's internet service in Mandarin and Cantonese is now being blocked by the Chinese authorities, how do the Government plan to help the World Service to use the on-line effectively?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are aware that students and young professionals in China are particularly keen to use internet services. The World Service's Mandarin and Cantonese internet language services are very important and we shall continue to do what we can to ensure that they reach those for whom they are destined. It is important to realise that the BBC's internet pages are extensively used, with over 20 million hits a month. We shall be doing all we can, both bilaterally in discussions and with the World Service, to ensure that that figure continues to rise as fast as at present.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how the BBC's Bosnian service will differ from any other service broadcast to Yugoslavia?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the point I was endeavouring to make is that the BBC World Service looks to its resources and tries to match those to the needs that it must meet in terms of its language services. The BBC is currently considering providing a

1169
service in Bosnian, which does not exist at the moment. We hope to help the situation in the Balkans by being able to broadcast in the languages needed.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, "Bosnian" is not a distinct or separate language.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will the Minister remind the BBC that in English language broadcasts on the Overseas Service it is even more important than on our domestic broadcasts that the announcers speak in accents as clear as those of the noble Baroness and that the BBC should guard against either incomprehensible dialects from the outer edges of the United Kingdom or the sloppy estuary English used by some of us nearer to home?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in all broadcasting, as in your Lordships' House, it is the clarity of communication that matters. However, that is not to say that accents different from mine are not clearly understood in many different parts of the world whether they are regional accents from this country or the accents of people from other parts of the world who speak English.
Lord Newby: My Lords, if I may address this House in a Yorkshire accent, may I ask whether the Minister agrees, that one of the great strengths of the World Service is that by embracing the new technologies, and particularly the internet, it is able to reach a number of countries, including, I believe, Malaysia, where it was impossible for the BBC to have wide radio broadcast facilities, and that by using those new technologies to good effect, the range of people with access to the World Service can be extended?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord about the use of the new technologies. However, we should not overlook the fact that the "older technologies", if I may put it that way, also widen the range of the BBC World Service. We can all take satisfaction from the figures and from the fact that the World Service audience is almost twice the size of that of its nearest competitor, "Voice of America", and is well ahead of "Deutsche Welt" and "Radio France International". In that respect, the World Service is a market leader. Another important factor is that not only does it broadcast in 44 languages at the moment but also its English output is re-broadcast by 1,000 local radio stations around the world. That is a significant contribution.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, following the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and in relation to the people of Scotland, does my noble friend accept that one of the English expressions that the Scots clearly understood came from the noble Lord when he was Secretary of State for Employment and said, "Get on yer bike", and that that is why there are no Tory MPs left in Scotland?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is braver than I to take on my noble friend in that regard.

NATO: "Open-Door" Policy
2.56 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle The Earl of Carlisle asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will define the phrase "Open Door" policy in relation to the nations of Central Europe which have applied to join NATO.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the phrase "Open Door" policy is shorthand for NATO's enlargement policy. As the Prime Minister said in another place on 9th July 1997 following the NATO summit in Madrid,
"NATO leaders agreed that they expected in the years ahead to extend further invitations to nations willing to take on the responsibilities of membership, whose inclusion would serve the interests of the Alliance and enhance overall European security".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/7/97; col. 938.]
That remains our policy and applies to applicants from central Europe.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that positive Answer which will give great encouragement to the nations of central Europe, not least, the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Will the noble Baroness assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will give urgent consideration to the views of Mr. Brzezinski, who in a recent article suggested that at the Washington summit in April 1999 one nation from the north of central Europe and one from the south of central Europe—Lithuania and Slovenia, respectively, which are the nations that have most readily matched the criteria for entry—should be admitted as soon as possible?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the alliance has not made any decision about whether to issue further invitations at the Washington summit to which the noble Earl referred. We believe that NATO's priority should be the successful integration into NATO of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, both politically and militarily. There are no special cases. However, the noble Earl will recall that the Prime Minister also said to the House of Commons on 9th July 1997 at col. 937 after the Madrid summit that applications from Romania and Slovenia were being,
"especially closely considered even though there was no consensus to invite them on this occasion".
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does my noble friend consider that the WEU Partnership for Peace arrangements can serve as a satisfactory staging post for those member states in Europe which feel disappointment but which cannot sensibly be assimilated with the urgency that they want?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Partnership for Peace arrangements provide what my noble friend described as a sensible "staging post". As well as the WEU, a number of bilateral activities particularly engage the United Kingdom. I refer, for example, to our bilateral defence relationships with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania which are excellent, as the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, has reminded us on a number of occasions. The WEU is acting as an essential part of the development of those nations which have made applications and which are waiting to see what happens in relation to the open door policy not only next year but on a longer-term basis.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the recent steps to recognise the position of the Russian speaking minority in Latvia and in other Baltic states are extremely helpful in bringing about a peaceful integration of the Baltics into the Western structures with the support and agreement of Russia? Does the Minister accept that it is vitally important to maintain close relations with the Russians through Partnership for Peace in order to make that possible?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with what the noble Baroness has said. We are particularly pleased to see the recent changes in Latvia in relation to Russian minorities. As I described a moment or two ago, the United Kingdom has undertaken a number of bilateral activities in relation to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. We are enormously encouraged by the activities of all three of those Baltic states in trying to ensure the integration of their Russian minorities. That obviously helps not only in relation to NATO applications but also in relation to their EU membership which is going forward.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the Government keep the phrase "open door" under continuous review because it suggests that anyone at any time would be welcome? For instance, we could start with the Congo and go on with Myanmar if the door were really open.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there is a difference between having an open door and inviting someone to step through it. We have made it perfectly clear who is invited to step through it at the moment. The criteria upon which such invitations are put forward is that enlargement for NATO's political and military cohesion should continue and should enhance European security and stability. Those are the basic criteria which will be considered in relation to the open door policy.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, as regards NATO and European Union future membership, does the Minister support the policy that the nations supposedly in the second wave such as Bulgaria may still come in as soon as they meet the desired criteria, democratic and economic conditions, regardless of their position on the list?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope I have made it clear that in relation to NATO we
1172
also wish to ensure that there should be proper integration of the first wave of applicants. That is what is important. It is not just a question of the numbers; it is the cohesion of NATO itself which will be of great importance. The first objective must be the integration of the three applicants who have already been invited. Thereafter, decisions will be taken in the light not only of what the noble Baroness says but also in the light of the effect of inviting further applicants in terms of European security and stability over all.

Prison: Sentencing Alternatives
3.3 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they accept the conclusions of the 3rd Report (Session 1997–98) of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, Alternatives to Prison Sentences (HC 486–I).
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the Government welcome the report of the Home Affairs Committee's inquiry into alternatives to prison sentences. We believe that the courts should have available to them an effective range of sentencing options. The committee's report is a valuable contribution towards realising that. The Home Secretary and I are considering all the recommendations carefully. When we have done so we shall publish our response before the end of this year. Many of the recommendations endorse action which the Government are already taking.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, as I shall raise these issues in a wider context tomorrow night I shall not bother the Minister for much longer today. However, on the face of it, his reply could be encouraging or it could mean nothing at all. I look forward to the debate tomorrow.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is definitely not nothing at all. It is encouraging.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the prison population, which was 40,000 in 1993, has now increased to over 65,000? In the same period the offending rate, or the rate at which offenders have been sentenced to imprisonment, has risen from about 44 per cent. to 60 per cent. in the Crown Court and from about 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. in magistrates' courts. Does the Minister consider that a non-custodial alternative should play an important part and that the courts should re-examine their sentencing guidelines?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is quite right. There has been an unprecedented rise in the prison population over the past five years. However, I am happy to tell your Lordships that for the first time since I have been answering these Questions the rate of increase has recently slowed down. It peaked at 66,517 at the end of July. However, last

1173
Friday it was 65,980. I endorse entirely what the noble Lord says. We have to be extremely scrupulous in looking at alternatives to imprisonment. I believe that that is an important theme which underlies the Crime and Disorder Act.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that in many cases prison is a perfectly proper sentence, certainly for serious crimes, and that it plays an important part as a deterrent in any crime prevention strategy? Does he also agree that this House should not give the impression that we care more for the welfare of the criminal than for that of the victim?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I absolutely agree. I believe that the protection of the public is at the heart of any government's duty. The important question is to ensure that we have effective public protection. The noble Lord's point about victims is another important theme in the Crime and Disorder Act where reparation orders are available. We should bear in mind also that the ultimate protection for the public is a reduction in crime. That depends on public confidence in the range of sentencing alternatives available and those which are used.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the rate of crime has gone down or up during the period that the prison population has gone up?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the rate of crime as such varies. Some crimes have increased and some have decreased. It is difficult to find a causal connection between imprisonment and the rate at which a particular crime is committed. Different factors affect different crimes. I can see the semaphore from my noble friend Lord Tebbit—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I refer to my noble friend Lord Tebbit. I repeat that some crimes have increased and some have decreased.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, will the Government pay particular attention to the committee's recommendation that Ministers should give more publicity to the work of the Probation Service and the other activities touched on in this admirable report?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is indeed an admirable report, as I sought to say earlier. I believe the noble Lord refers to Recommendation 29 which states that we ought to inform the public fully what alternative remedies are available. I have started to do that by attending probation officers' conferences and by talking to probation officers. I have endeavoured to persuade the media to tell the full story of what is available for public protection and the reduction of crime.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, the Minister referred to public confidence. Given the fact
1174
that the report refers to evidence which shows that even under the more effective community programmes re-offending rates are still unacceptably high, what steps are the Government taking to reassure the public that it is safe to increase the use of such programmes for a wider group of offenders?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, again, one comes back to the philosophy behind the Crime and Disorder Act. One has to recognise that we must stop young offenders much earlier than they have been stopped in the past. We wish to have programmes which intervene at a very early age. I believe that everyone who has ever answered questions on this subject from this Dispatch Box—and I see the noble Baroness there—will recognise that early intervention is the key to many of these problems. There is a job of public confidence to be undertaken and it is a duty of the Government to discharge that.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, have the Government taken any steps towards implementing the recommendation of the Chief Inspector of Prisons that Immigration Act detainees should be held in special detention centres and not in Prison Service establishments? Has the Minister noted that, according to figures he recently gave in answer to a Written Question, there are almost 500 Immigration Act detainees in our prisons? As one possible way of reducing those numbers, will the Minister consider the use of electronic tagging for Immigration Act detainees rather than detention?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord makes two interesting points. The second is certainly a matter to be considered. We must bear in mind that applicants who are detained are extremely difficult to control and do not have roots in this country. The matter is not as simple as dealing with questions of bail for those who are resident in this country.
With regard to the first part of the question, I believe the noble Lord will remember that as soon as Sir David Ramsbotham's report was published it was accepted by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that while punishment is obviously essential in many circumstances, what matters most in the end is the rehabilitation of the criminal and that therefore what happens in prison is central to our considerations? Does he not agree that there is too much indication that very often prison simply produces hardened criminals?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, of course, but one cannot necessarily simply have blunt propositions put as alternatives. Some people will have to be detained in prison for long periods of time because it is necessary to protect the public. However, it must be borne in mind that 99.9 per cent. of criminals will one day be released and it is expensive folly and a waste of both human and financial resources not to give them the opportunity of a better and more constructive life when they come out of prison. That is an important aspect of public protection.

Manchester United: BSkyB Bid
3.12 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to receive the Office of Fair Trading report on BSkyB's bid for the ownership of Manchester United Football Club plc.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, the statutory deadline for the decision by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on whether to refer BSkyB's proposed acquisition of Manchester United to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is 2nd November. We expect to receive the advice of the Director-General of Fair Trading on the merger in time for the Secretary of State to make a decision by that date.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. I quote:
"Football, the people's game, is being too driven by money and not enough by the sporting spirit".
Does not that statement by the Prime Minister, since when football has become even more money-driven, alone justify at least a reference to the MMC? Manchester United was built by supporters whose loyalty is second to none, not least that of its 40,000 season ticket stakeholders and 100,000-plus members. Are their views being adequately consulted? And what is being done to inform ordinary shareholders that they have the right to reject the offer and can do so simply by ignoring it?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for highlighting the important point that, when an offer is made, shareholders have the right to accept or refuse it. As to the question of the fairness and spirit of the game and the results, I have to try to remain objective, despite my title. It would be invidious of me to comment on the performance of Manchester United and its fans.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I take it that the noble Lord would agree that control or influence over a large portion of the modern communications network is the key to immense power and influence and that Mr. Murdoch's share of this network has been growing steadily over recent years. Are the Government not becoming a bit nervous about that, and do they not feel that the point has been reached when, in the words of a famous, long-ago Motion, it ought to be diminished?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, the Government are always fully aware of developments in commercial areas which are highly germane to the economy. As the noble Lord is probably aware, there have been two examinations of Mr. Murdoch's capacity
1176
in the wholesale supply of information through the networks. The Director-General of Fair Trading has commented on those, the last time as recently as 1996.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I declare an interest, not as a shareholder but as a supporter of Manchester United and, therefore, of the plc. Can my noble friend tell us what kind of considerations the Secretary of State will take into account, on either side of the argument, as to whether the matter should be remitted?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, the main elements that the Secretary of State will take into account are those which are generally influential to fair competition and the interests of the consumer. In this case the consumer—the stakeholder, the fan will be very much in people's minds, even if it is Manchester United that is involved.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, will the Minister think it satisfactory, when the contract between BSkyB and the Premier League comes to an end in 2001, if at that time BSkyB is competing with other television companies to televise football games and is also well represented, through ownership of Manchester United, on the other side of the negotiating table?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, the question as to the position in 2001 is extremely hypothetical. First, we want to see what the court says about the agreement between the Premier League and its television contacts, which is currently under investigation. When we have the result of that investigation we may see whether it leads to interest in the second stage, which my noble friend has outlined.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the real interest that the Government would have in this case would be the television interest, in particular if the arrangements under which the Premier League clubs negotiate en bloc with the television companies, in particular BSkyB, are held unlawful by the Restrictive Practices Court? Will he confirm that, notwithstanding the date of the OFT recommendation on this occasion, once we have the Restrictive Practices Court decision, the Government will look at the issue again?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I am sure that, as always, the Government will take into account any decision of the court in looking at the structure of the industry as a whole. I repeat my answer to the previous question: let us await the decision of the court on that inquiry.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that, if the Government give the go-ahead to this takeover, takeovers of other major clubs will follow quickly, and football and control over it as we know it will cease to exist, and a monopoly will be created at the top of the game?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I am sure that, if similar cases arise, it will be possible for them to be

1177
investigated in much the same way. I believe it will always be regarded as a legal question over which we have a certain amount of control.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Kosovo.

Scotland Bill
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Sewel, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clause 1,
Schedule 1,
Clauses 2 to 20,
Schedule 2,
Clause 21,
Schedule 3,
Clauses 22 to 92,
Schedule 6,
Clauses 93 to 107,
Schedule 7,
Clauses 108 to 116,
Schedules 4 and 5,
Clause 117,
Schedules 8 and 9,
Clauses 118 to 124.—(Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Bill
3.19 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Dubs.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Status of Northern Ireland]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 13, after ("shall") insert (", subject to subsection (3),").
The noble Lord said: I should first point out that there is a mistake in the grouping. Amendment No. 2 should not be grouped with Amendments Nos. 1 and 3; it stands
1178
separately. I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 3 to which Amendment No. 1 is a paving amendment. Ever since 1972 successive British governments, be they Labour or Conservative, have decreed that straightforward majority rule will no longer do.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. It is impossible for Ministers to hear what is being said when noble Lords are speaking when leaving the Chamber.
Lord Monson: Perhaps I should start again. With the leave of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 3 to which Amendment No. 1 is a paving amendment. Ever since 1972 successive British governments, whether Conservative or Labour, have decreed that straightforward majority rule in Northern Ireland will no longer do; nor will majority votes on most issues henceforth be regarded as conclusive. Every abortive assembly and proposed constitutional arrangement since then has had elaborate checks and balances incorporated to ensure that minorities have substantial blocking powers at their disposal.
The Good Friday agreement takes matters much further. For better or worse, it positively institutionalises the notion that Northern Ireland is composed of two utterly distinct and separate communities and lays down that virtually no new legislative steps, however trivial, may be taken without the support of the majority of each of the two communities through the medium of their elected representatives. This principle runs like a golden thread through the 83 clauses of the Bill but with one vital exception. It fails to embrace Clause 1, which covers the most important issue of all: nationality and national identity. On this issue, as matters stand, all that will be needed to detach the Province from the United Kingdom and annex it to the Republic of Ireland is a 50.001 per cent. vote in favour, possibly on a low turn-out, with no real guarantee against personation and intimidation and no evidence whatsoever of cross-community support. Therefore, demographic changes could lead to the Province being incorporated into the Republic against the fervent wish of every single member of one of the two communities.
When similar objections regarding border polls have been raised before there have been two responses. The first is, "Well, we will keep our options open and cross that bridge when we come to it. After all, a border poll is indicative or advisory rather than binding". However, Clause 1 is drawn specifically so as to exclude any procrastination or fudge. The second response goes something like, "When it comes to the crunch many Republicans and Nationalists will be reluctant to leave the United Kingdom after all, mainly for financial considerations". Really? Lavish EU subsidies mean that the south is now very much richer than it used to be. More importantly, if one had predicted a dozen years ago that within five years the "evil empire" (the Soviet empire) would collapse and all the countries of eastern and central Europe and most of Soviet Asia would be free, and that within a little over five years apartheid would collapse, with hardly a shot being fired, and a

1179
multi-racial government would be elected on the basis of universal suffrage, people would have regarded one as stark raving mad. Yet both of those events have occurred. The attitudes and patterns of five or 10 years ago are no guide to what may happen five or 10 years hence.
In a nutshell, the provisions of Clause 1 as drafted are both unfair and very unwise. I deal first with unwisdom. As the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, pointed out in an article that I quoted at Second Reading, to try to push 1 million people into another state against their will is dangerous folly. Even the possibility of it would make them much more edgy and volatile in the next few tricky years than would otherwise he the case. Considerations of this kind lead wise governments to stipulate that where strong resistance is anticipated a majority of well over 50 per cent. of those voting must be obtained before major constitutional, or quasi-constitutional, change is set in train. Examples are the Scottish devolution proposals of 1979 and the Belgian referendum of 1950.
Our spiritual leaders take the same line. Although obviously there is no question whatever of bloodshed or even the mildest fisticuffs, so strong is resistance in some quarters to the Anglican-Methodist unity proposals that the established Church has decreed that unity must be delayed until 75 per cent. of the Synod votes in favour of it. So far this has not happened.
I remind the Committee that five-sixths of the island of Ireland is available to those who wish, as is their right, to spurn everything British. Is it not only fair for the remaining one-sixth of the island to continue to be a haven for those who wish to remain British and live in a British environment until such time, if it ever comes, as half of them change their mind? There is nothing remotely extreme or radical about these amendments. On the contrary, they remove an anomaly and bring the clause into line with the worthy and fair-minded principles of bi-communal consent which underpin the rest of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: As the Committee begins its deliberations on the very large number of amendments from all parts of the House perhaps I may be forgiven for taking a moment to express congratulations to Mr. Trimble and Mr. Hume on the award to them of the Nobel peace prize. The efforts of both well deserve the award of that prize and it is symbolic of the efforts of many other people as well. One can only hope, as Mr. Trimble has himself pointed out, that it does not turn out to be a premature award.
The Government have proposed over 200 amendments. They include a number of new delegated powers and alterations to the existing delegated powers in the Bill. Therefore, I took the liberty to suggest a day or two ago to the noble Lord the Minister that the amendments should be seen by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in addition to its report on the Bill as it stands. These are sweeping amendments which include new order-making powers and should be looked at so that noble Lords can have the benefit of the advice of that committee at least in the later stage of their debates.
1180
I turn to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and the other two amendments grouped with it. I very much sympathise with the efforts of the noble Lord to get a triple lock on the potentially momentous change in the status of Northern Ireland. The three parts of the lock are: the people of Northern Ireland and the referendum referred to in the Bill; the United Kingdom Parliament, which is also referred to in the Bill; and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Unfortunately, this is not what the agreement says. We have been told frequently and have come to accept that it is extremely difficult to vary the agreement, which is complicated and has involved long negotiations with many people over a number of years, even if we wished to do so in a small way. This is not a small change but a big change. Therefore, it is difficult to support the amendment at this stage much as one may wish to do so.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I said earlier—probably no one heard because of the mass exodus—that Amendment No. 2 had been wrongly grouped with Amendments Nos. 1 and 3. I intend to move that amendment separately. Amendment No. 2 should be grouped with Amendment No. 225.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: In that case I shall reserve my remarks on Amendment No. 2 to a subsequent point and conclude there.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I should like to support this amendment strongly. We have to remember that the IRA spokesman, speaking in Dublin in early September just before the recall of Parliament, said, after confirming that there would be no decommissioning and refusing to say that the war was over:
"If the objective conditions exist for violent conflict, then such conflict will occur".
That is IRA speak for "we haven't gone away". They said that though they were concerned at the slow pace of movement, they were confident they would achieve their objective—a united and independent Ireland.
Martin McGuinness told the BBC today that the decommissioning issue was entirely a matter for General John de Chastelain; that Sinn Fein-IRA made their position clear at the talks; that decommissioning was not part of the peace process and only the Unionists were trying retrospectively to make it a precondition. He said that he would, far from talking to the Prime Minister about decommissioning, be telling him that the agreement was in default by four months.
Against that background of arrogant intransigence—which he can afford since the IRA have their prisoners out now—it seems to me that it is more than ever necessary for the Governments to offer all the strong reassurance they can to the people of Northern Ireland that they are sticking to the agreement. Part of that would be for the Irish Government to act at once to

1181
enact the necessary legislation to abrogate Articles 1 and 2 of their constitution. The agreement expressly requires each government to notify the other of:
"the completion of the requirements for entry into force of this agreement. This agreement shall enter into force on the date of the receipt of the later of the two notifications".
It is up to the Government of the Republic of Ireland to ensure that there will be no delay. But, more than that, it is essential to reassure the Assembly, and particularly the Unionists, that they have so acted given Sinn Fein-IRA's somewhat triumphalist behaviour and their glaring lack of good faith over ending punishment beatings and their failure to give any hope, even now, to the families of the disappeared. Those are actions well within the power of Sinn Fein-IRA, whatever they may say about having no arms themselves to decommission.
I am, incidentally, concerned about the meaning of two sections of Article 3 in the agreement which appear on page 4. What extra-territorial jurisdiction is in question, and why will subsection 5, though to be omitted, still have the force of law?
Unless David Trimble can point to the fact that the Irish Government are not only fully and formally accepting Northern Ireland's decision to choose to stay in the UK but have relinquished the claim which would require a united Ireland, I do not see how he can hope to carry the majority of people in Northern Ireland with him in whatever action he deems necessary to create an assembly visibly committed to peace, giving the necessary proof of commitment and spelling out that we are at present talking of two separate entities: the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, as part of the UK by its own choice. Sinn Fein-IRA must not be allowed to fudge this, nor to put through a major constitutional decision without clear thinking about what we and they are doing.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: I wish to support Amendment No. 3 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. In the Bill, as it is written in Clause 1, it seems an extraordinary, simplistic and peremptory way to say goodbye to part of the United Kingdom. It does not say how large the majority must be. It could be one. It is more than likely, as in the recent past, that there will be substantial electoral fraud. The very least that could be done is that the position after the vote should be looked at. I believe that the proper authority to look at that will be the Assembly, who will know what is going on and know what has taken place. To merely state that,
"the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament",
does not give her any authority to make a judgment on the way that the vote has been taken or the way it has gone. Therefore, it is entirely proper to give the Assembly the job of considering the vote and approving of it.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: We have a great many amendments so, in the spirit of getting through the business in the time allotted to us, I shall be very brief. I do not support this amendment because it cuts across
1182
Section 1(1) of the Belfast agreement and therefore goes further than I think is proper for this House to attempt to do.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I warmly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. Amendment No. 3 simply restores the power which resided in the parliament of Northern Ireland as set out in the Government of Ireland Act 1920. When Stormont was abolished, with it went the constitutional guarantee. It was replaced after a fashion by the border poll which was a clear-cut question which asked, "Do you wish to remain within the United Kingdom or do you wish to join in an Irish republic?"
As I understand it, with devolution now about to be restored, the Bill does not restore in any tangible or convincing way that constitutional guarantee because anything resembling the recent referendum does not meet the need for voters to settle the question one way or the other. In that referendum they were asked to approve what started life, and ended in a slightly more condensed but not improved form, as a document of 65 pages. There simply has to be a clear-cut opportunity for all the citizens of Northern Ireland, whatever their viewpoint, to answer the question. There must be a cast-iron assurance that any future referendum—that is if the Government reject this amendment—will be a straight "Yes" or "No" question and answer.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for some clarification. Of course, I would not support this amendment, for the reasons that have been given. Those were the reasons put forward in relation to the previous Bill which I supported.
It is true that there is no express provision in the arrangement—I do not think that the arrangement has yet been signed by all parties to it—that there should be decommissioning. I am not surprised that it is suggested that it was not part of the agreement in the sense that there was no reference to it, but was it not part of the background to the whole arrangement? Was that not why these negotiations were so difficult to conclude, and is that not why concessions were made on all sides, with the concept of decommissioning being accepted?
Lord Skelmersdale: I am slightly suspicious of this amendment, for the simple reason that it gives the power in the new subsection (3) of Clause 1 for the Assembly to second-guess the electorate of Northern Ireland. Given the circumstances of Northern Ireland, which certainly exist now and are likely to exist then, I think that that would be a bad thing.
Lord Dubs: First, I concur wholeheartedly with what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said about his delight that David Trimble and John Hume have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I am sure that has caused a great deal of pleasure on all sides of the House.
We tabled a large number of amendments to this Bill last week, as we warned the House we would. I appreciate that your Lordships have been given a great deal of work to do in preparing for today's session of

1183
the Committee and, indeed, the subsequent ones. I hope that we may have lightened the burden slightly with the written explanation of the first half of the amendments which I sent to some of your Lordships towards the end of the week, along with the offer of a briefing meeting. Indeed, a copy of that letter was also placed in the Library. If the letter were thought useful, I should be happy to repeat the exercise for the later amendments.
On one other preliminary matter, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has written to me to express the wish that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee will have an opportunity to examine the amendments we are proposing and report on them to the House. The chairman of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, QC, has let me know that the committee intends to report on these amendments next Wednesday, 28th October, which will give the House good time to digest the committee's observations before Report stage.
The report of the committee on the Bill as it stands, published last week, proposes that the negative resolution procedure should attach to order-making powers in the Bill; namely, those in Clause 70 and paragraph 6 of Schedule 6. I am grateful to the committee for its report. We have already put down an amendment to make the relevant change to Clause 70. I can tell the Committee that we propose to do the same in respect of Schedule 6.
We start off this Committee stage with a discussion of perhaps the single most significant aspect of the agreement. The resolution in the agreement of the old dispute about the constitutional status of Northern Ireland opens the way to advancing beyond the conflicts that have so complicated the affairs of Northern Ireland, of the island of Ireland, and of relations between all the peoples of the United Kingdom and of the Republic of Ireland.
I say right away that the effect of the amendments would be wholly to subvert the provisions of the agreement on the consent question, and we simply cannot accept them. Clauses 1 and 2 of the present Bill, along with Schedule 1, were set out in the agreement, along with the amendments to the Irish constitution that represents the reflection in its law of the consent principle. Clause 1 provides that Northern Ireland should not cease to be part of the United Kingdom without the consent of a majority of the people voting in a poll; but that if the wish expressed by a majority in such a poll is that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of the United Ireland, the Secretary of State must put before Parliament proposals to give effect to that wish, agreed with the Irish Government.
The Secretary of State may by Schedule 1 order the holding of a poll at any time, subject to a minimum interval between polls of seven years; and she must make an order if it appears likely to her that a majority of those voting would express a wish to form part of the United Ireland. Any such order is by Clause 78 subject to affirmative resolution in this House and another place.
1184
Those are the provisions of the agreement. I confine myself to Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, expressed a wish to deal subsequently with Amendment No. 2. Those amendments insert another, wholly new, condition to a change in constitutional status; namely, a cross-community vote in the assembly. There is nothing to suggest such an extra condition in the agreement, and it cannot be imagined that the agreement would have been concluded between the parties with such a condition. I have to say, therefore, that those who propose this amendment are effectively rejecting the agreement, whether or not that is their intention.
What we must hope is that the two communities in Northern Ireland will increasingly find ways of working together co-operatively and for the greater good, whatever the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. The agreement offers the best hope there is of developing such co-operation. But if these amendments were accepted, there would be no agreement, and no such prospects.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He indicated that there might appear to the Secretary of State the possibility of change. How is that appearance to be judged? Would it be, for example, by an opinion poll?
Lord Dubs: The Secretary of State would have to make a decision in the round, based upon all the evidence available to her. I do not think it appropriate for me to indicate precisely the way she would make her decision. I believe that she would look at all the facts. Opinion polls might be helpful. Other forms of expressions of opinion by people in Northern Ireland would be helpful. She would take an overall view and we would then go through the process I have indicated.
We shall deal with Amendment No. 2 later. I believe that Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 are contrary to the spirit and the letter of the agreement; and we cannot support them.
Lord Hylton: Before we leave this part of the clause, can the Minister tell us what progress is being made by the Irish Parliament in modifying Articles 2 and 3 of its constitution in accordance with the agreement?
Lord Dubs: I am not aware of the exact timetable to which it is working. All I know is that the Government in Dublin are totally committed to playing their part in all aspects of the agreement over which they have control; and in due course such a change will take place.
Lord Monson: I am most grateful to my noble friends Lord Cooke of Islandreagh and Lord Molyneaux for their support. I am also grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and the noble Lord, Lord Cope.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, is right. I was trying to achieve a triple lock. We have heard from the Liberal Democrat Benches and the Minister that we cannot proceed anywhere on these amendments because of the agreement. It is the agreement itself which is at fault.

1185
We all know why that should be: why the agreement did not incorporate this fair-minded safeguard—I doubt whether anyone can describe it as unfair. It is because Sinn Fein/IRA would not wear it for one second. Shortly after the agreement, Mr. Martin McGuinness was quoted as saying exultantly words to the effect that the agreement brings us much closer to a united Ireland. Mr. McGuinness knows precisely what he is talking about. He has been working all his adult life towards a united Ireland in ways not all of which can be detailed here for the sensitive ears of Members of the Committee.
I suspect that the British Government and possibly the Irish Government too are not happy about the clause as it stands. They know the consequences if, as the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, wrote, a million people are pushed into a united Ireland against their will. The Government are crossing their fingers and hoping that somehow it will be all right on the night. I can go no further with the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 15, after ("of') insert ("the Republic of").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 225 to Schedule 2 which is consequential. The purpose of the amendment—I do not believe that it can possibly contravene the Good Friday agreement—is to substitute accuracy for inaccuracy.
Clause 1 and Schedule 2 set out important relationships between two legal entities, two sovereign nation states: the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. "Ireland" may be everyday constitutional shorthand for the Republic of Ireland but everyday conversational shorthand has no place in an Act of Parliament. To substitute "Ireland" for "the Republic of Ireland" is like substituting "the Iberian peninsula" for "Spain"—the only difference being that it is 350 years since Spain last claimed jurisdiction over the whole peninsular rather than the 85 per cent. to which it is entitled.
Undoubtedly unionists—I use the word broadly to include all shades of unionism—in Northern Ireland will see this usage as reintroducing Articles 2 and 3 of the Republic's constitution by the back door: in other words, effectively asserting the Republic's right of jurisdiction over the whole island—not of course that Articles 2 and 3 have yet been repealed or seriously modified.
It will doubtless be argued that in the Good Friday agreement Her Majesty's Government were persuaded to substitute "Ireland" for "the Republic" as a goodwill gesture to the Republic. That is fair enough. However, we are not discussing today an international agreement but a Bill destined to become an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament. Surely no other nation has the right to dictate the wording of an Act of Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The phrase "Government of Ireland" in the Bill may be thought to be the correct legal terminology in the Republic of Ireland. They are in the habit of referring to themselves as the
1186
Government of Ireland. So far as it concerns them, it is the official title of their organisation. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Monson, it does not seem to me that we have necessarily to use their legal terminology in our Act of Parliament. It seems to me offensive to describe in an Act of Parliament the government of which we speak as being the Government of Ireland with the implication that it is the only legitimate Government in the island of Ireland. None of us accepts that. Certainly the United Kingdom Government do not accept it and never have, and I do not think that this Parliament should bow easily to that suggestion. It seems to me that there is no need to use the Irish legal phrase in a British Act of Parliament.
The case is even clearer on Amendment No. 225. The amendment deals with the question of extradition between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. In that case it seems to me positively misleading to speak about people being extradited to or from Northern Ireland and to or from Ireland. Northern Ireland is part of the island of Ireland. For the Bill to be clear, therefore, the words "Republic of should be inserted when we come to that point.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment. Those of us who deal with Northern Irish affairs have schooled ourselves to refer to the Republic of Ireland. It will become an important issue when we move on to Strand Three of the Good Friday settlement which deals with the council of the islands and the relationships between the various parts of what used to be called the British Isles. It will be absolutely essential in that context to have clarity between the various parts that make up the council of the islands. I ask the Government to consider the amendment sympathetically, for that reason if for no other.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I too share those reservations because I can quite see how the term could create difficulties in, for example, an extradition application, particularly where a third foreign country was involved.
We are all aware of the fact that the Irish Republic—and I make no criticism of it—has over the years given itself various titles. In 1948 Clement Attlee, then Prime Minister, was asked to comment on a new title which was the word, in Irish, "Eire". His reply, typical of the man, was, "Call themselves what they like, they remain what they are." I am not being discourteous in repeating Clement' s brief summary of the situation, but I think we should be reasonable, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has been reasonable, and let the Irish Republic term itself as it wishes, as it did when signing the Anglo-Irish agreement in 1985. Noble Lords may not be aware of the fact that the British and Irish governments signed two different copies with two different titles on the cover page. They were in effect signing two different agreements, to meet with the sensitivities. Even then, it did not call itself the Government of Ireland.
Lord Fitt: I too have sympathy with the amendment. I do so with the experience of having been an elected member of Stormont. Since the partitioning of Ireland

1187
and the setting up of the two states, there has been great controversy about the names of the two states. Many a time I made a speech in the old Stormont and referred to Northern Ireland as the six counties. I did that deliberately to be provocative. Others on the Unionist side referred to the state as Ulster. It actually was not Ulster; it was only six counties of the nine counties of Ulster. In the Republic it was "Eire". When first I was a member of the Irish Labour Party, the unionist newspapers referred to me as being a member of the Eire Labour Party. That was to make it sound foreign.
There was never any great argument about Articles 2 and 3 until—it has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux—I had handed to me on 15th November 1985 the two copies: the Irish copy of the Anglo-Irish agreement and the British copy. On the face of the British copy it said, "This is an agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Irish Republic." Factually that is correct. It is the terminology used to describe the two states. The Irish version said, "This is an agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland". It was the first time I had seen terminology relating to the state which did not include the words "the Republic of''. It is a bit late in the day, therefore, to object to the terminology.
It is offensive to the majority of people in Northern Ireland to see reference to the Government of Ireland. Factually, it is the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the Government of Northern Ireland. It appears, however, that this was agreed in the Belfast Agreement. I wonder if in international circles, for example, at the United Nations, the Republic of Ireland is referred to as the Government of Ireland or is it specifically in relation to the Northern Ireland end of the agreement? That in itself would be a contradiction.
I believe there is justification for the Government including the words, "the Republic of Ireland". This may be against what was negotiated in the Belfast agreement; but the term "Government of Ireland" produces a highly emotive situation where the majority of the population of Northern Ireland see Articles 2 and 3 of the constitution as laying claim to the state of Northern Ireland. If that offensive connotation could be removed, it would be far better in relation to finding an agreement in Northern Ireland.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for providing us with Notes on Clauses. I read that paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 deals with,
"International relations, including treaties, the making of peace or war and neutrality, and connected matters".
but that among three exceptions is,
"(a) the surrender of fugitive offenders between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland".
If it is thought desirable to express the meaning by the use of the words "the Republic of Ireland" in Notes on Clauses, it is a little difficult to see why it is not similarly thought to be right in the Bill itself. It rather looks as though the Government have flinched from
1188
saying "between Northern Ireland and Ireland" in the Notes on Clauses, for reasons which lie behind this amendment and every speech that has been made in support of it.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: Surely it is very simple. This Bill is in error. Ireland, when referred to, means the island of Ireland. There is no such thing at present as the government of the island of Ireland. Ireland cannot therefore be referred to as having a government. I believe that the amendment corrects mistakes of drafting.
The Earl of Balfour: I did not think I would hear in your Lordships' House so many varied descriptions of the southern part of Ireland. If the amendment as drafted is not acceptable—and I think there should be a correct definition of the Government of the Republic of Ireland—can I suggest "the Republican Government of Ireland?" That at least would cover it another way.
Legislation must give the correct name. From what I have heard, I am not satisfied that the words as used in the Bill, "the Government of Ireland", correctly describe that independent country.
4 p.m.
Lord Dubs: Amendment No. 2 would substitute the words "Government of the Republic of Ireland" for "Government of Ireland" in Clause 1(2). This language was part of the agreement itself, and on that basis alone I would not favour changing it. But in any event, it actually represents the welcome disappearance of one small but significant difference in practice between the British and Irish Governments that the resolution of the consent question in the agreement has made possible. Hitherto, the Irish Government have referred to themselves, and generally been referred to in international circles, as the "Government of Ireland". We, however, have called them "Government of the Republic of Ireland". Similarly, while the proper name of this state is the "Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", the Irish have used solely the name "Government of the United Kingdom".
With the agreement we have aligned our practice. We will call them by the name they favour, and they will use the name for us that we favour. Since the constitutional status of Northern Ireland is no longer a matter of disagreement between us, we can put an end to the argument about names. The agreed terminology appears at the head of the international agreement that is annexed to the Good Friday agreement between the parties. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will not press the amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Perhaps before the Minister sits down he will address Amendment No. 225, which is different. He cannot rely on the argument that it is

1189
built into the agreement. A draft clause in the agreement supports his contention as regards Amendment No. 2, but not Amendment No. 225.
Lord Dubs: I believe that the point at issue in Amendment No. 225 is the same and I would use the same arguments against it. I did not respond to the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. I believe that it was simply a mistake in the Notes on Clauses—there can be no other explanation. I congratulate the noble and learned Lord on his diligence and on having unearthed the point, but it was a mistake.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I return to Amendment No. 225. It relates to the surrender of fugitive offenders between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. It does not refer to the Governments; it does not refer to the Government of the United Kingdom or the Government of Ireland. It refers to two places; one place called Northern Ireland and another place called, in the Bill, Ireland. A different case is being made out for Amendment No. 225 from Amendment No. 2.
As regards Amendment No. 2, I accept that the Minister and the rest of us, to a degree, are stuck with the words which appear in it and which were in a draft clause. However, as regards the amendment to Schedule 2, it does not refer to the Governments but to two places: Northern Ireland and, my contention and that of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, the Republic of Ireland.
Lord Dubs: I understand the point that the noble Lord makes, but I still believe that it would cause confusion rather than clarification if we pursued his argument. I do not believe that there is any ambiguity, but I will consider the points that have been made.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cope, Lord Holme of Cheltenham and Lord Fitt, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, and my noble friend Lord Molyneaux for their support. They all supported the amendment from different angles and all gave different but equally persuasive reasons why the matter ought to be looked at again.
I accept that the word "Ireland" was used in the Good Friday agreement. However, as I maintained in my opening remarks, I do not believe that what was agreed on Good Friday can have any bearing on the wording of an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament. It does not contradict or go against the agreement in any way.
If one looks up Ireland in any year book, one will see that it is subtitled "the Republic of Ireland", the equivalent being given in Irish. If one is talking about France in a philosophical context, for example, one refers to La France. On the other hand, if one is talking about France in a legal context one talks about La République Française. That is what appears on stamps and coins. The same principle should apply here.
In view of the large level of support that I have received, I may well return to the matter on Report. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Devolution order]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 18, at beginning insert ("Subject to section 83(4) to (6) of this Act,").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 4, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 215 and 219. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the changes to the United Kingdom constitution march stride by stride with the comparable changes to the constitution of the Republic of Ireland. That is the intention of the Belfast agreement. It was made clear in the agreement and has since been made clear time and again by Ministers and others. Most recently, the United Kingdom Parliament and the parliament of the Republic of Ireland sat on the same day during the Recess to pass the emergency legislation following the Omagh bomb. A great deal was made in this House and elsewhere of the two Parliaments moving ahead on the same day. It was held to be symbolic—and it was symbolic—that the two Parliaments moved together. Indeed, so far as we were concerned the whole event was symbolic because the powers granted in the Bill have not been used and the case then made out for the urgency in passing them has evaporated slightly. But that comes as no surprise to those who heard the debates in this House, which made clear that the powers were of that character.
Ministers have constantly talked about all parts of the process moving together. The Bill makes a fundamental change to the constitution of the United Kingdom and it should move with the fundamental changes to the constitution of the Republic of Ireland. I understand that the necessary legal moves have been made within the Republic, in particular the holding of the referendum, so that the change to the constitution of the Republic will be triggered automatically by the exchange of agreements which take place in accordance with the last part of the Belfast agreement. I refer to the agreements signed by both Governments under the names they respectively go by, which appear in the final pages of the Belfast agreement. It provides that the amendments are to be made in the two jurisdictions and that such legislation shall have been enacted as may be required to establish the institutions referred to in Article 2; they are the North/South Ministerial Council, the British-Irish Council and the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. Once those have moved forward, each Government will notify the other in writing of the completion of the requirements for entry into force of the agreement, and it then automatically enters into force.
On reflection, my amendment may have been drafted a little too widely because some parts of the Bill need to move forward before the constitutional changes can take place in either jurisdiction. The point I was addressing in these amendments is that I believe the changes to be made to our constitution should not come into force except at the same time as that of the Republic of Ireland. I am not seeking to make it a pre-condition.

1191
I think we should move together. My amendments do not say that this cannot come into place until the Irish changes are in place; they say that these changes cannot "come into force" they say before they come into force in the Irish legislation, and that specifically leaves open the prospect of them both coming into force together. That is what I would like to achieve. Perhaps Amendment No. 4 should be drawn a little more narrowly to make it clear that I am only going for the constitutional changes in the first clauses of the Bill. That is the purpose that lies behind this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I would support this amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, because on Good Friday, and since then, much has been made of the principle of reciprocity between the two governments as a principle binding on the two governments, on the political parties and on the terrorist organisations. Apart from the two governments, I think it is correct to say that none of the others signed the agreement. They may have assented, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, but we are entitled to call in aid our old friend of long standing, "Solomon Binding". I am in full support of the principle of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, perhaps with some very minor refinements made at Report stage.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I think it will be interesting, when the Minister replies—and it would reflect upon my own attitude towards this amendment—if he were to give us some sense of progress in the Irish Republic as regards their obligations. When we are trying to move as it probably is not quite enough we did on security matters, closely in step and reciprocally, to say: "That is up to them". I think it would be of great interest to Members of the Committee to hear what their projected timetable is.
Lord Skelmersdale: I observe in Article 4 at the end of the agreement that it says in paragraph 1(c):
"Such legislation shall have been enacted as may be required to establish the institutions referred to in Article 2 of this Agreement".
Of the legislation referred to under paragraphs (a) and (b), the first is British legislation and the second, which is germane to this particular amendment, says that,
"the amendments to the constitution of Ireland, set out in Annex B to the section entitled Constitutional Issues' of the Multi-Party Agreement shall have been approved by Referendum".
In my book, that is not quite the same as legislation. I think that my noble friend Lord Cope, and indeed all of us, would wish to know exactly what is the progress of the legislation in the Republic of Ireland to back up the referendum, and whether it is appropriate. It certainly seems to me to be within the context and understanding of the agreement to have such amendments as this in place.
Lord Dubs: The noble Lord's amendments make the commencement of the Bill conditional on a number of developments relating to the Republic of Ireland. Essentially they now concern amendments to Articles 2
1192
and 3 of the Irish constitution. The resolution of the constitutional issue embodied in the agreement and in the changes to British and Irish constitutional law set out in the Bill and in the amendments to the Irish constitution are obviously of the greatest significance. It has been the constitutional issue that has been at the heart of the political division in Northern Ireland.
The amendments to Articles 2 and 3 have already been approved by an enormous majority at a referendum in the Republic. The point at which this and other key aspects of the agreement come into force is settled. The provisions are somewhat involved, but it may be helpful if I summarise them.
The British-Irish agreement, which is attached to the Good Friday agreement, will come into force on an exchange of notes between the two Governments. That agreement provides that the amendments must come into force on that event. The amendments are themselves so cast as to permit this. This date will, as is made clear by the same international agreement, be the same as that of the creation of the north-south bodies; and, as the "Implementation" section of the Good Friday agreement sets out, that will also be the day that the assembly assumes its legislative and executive powers. It will be on that day also that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State makes a commencement order covering Clauses 1 and 2 of this Bill, and Schedule 1.
So all those steps will happen on the same day. I hope the noble Lord will be content that there will be absolutely parallel action here. I believe that the spirit of this amendment is met, but a statutory provision appears unnecessary. In any event, this Chamber will have an opportunity to reflect whether sufficient progress has been made with the agreement before it comes into force because the devolution order made by my right honourable friend under Clause 3 must be approved here and in another place. In the light of that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Monson: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, could possibly clarify something? Is he saying that Articles 2 and 3 can be modified overnight, as it were, without going through any legislation progress in the Republic? That is what I have inferred from what he has just read out.
Lord Dubs: I am not sure that I would feel competent to comment on the basis of legislation in Ireland, but I understand that that is the case. The position is that—
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I wonder whether I might ask the noble Lord this. As I understand Article 4, the Irish Government is only committed to the referendum before the statement which says:
"Each Government shall notify the other in writing of the completion … of the requirements for entry into force of this Agreement."
It goes on to state:
"Immediately on entry into force of this Agreement, the Irish Government shall ensure that the amendments to the Constitution … set out … take effect."

1193
I think we are concerned because that sounds as if only after the agreement has been agreed formally will they have to play their legislative formal constitutional part. I think that is what worries us.
Lord Dubs: The position as regards Dublin is that the Irish Government have already legislated to achieve the amendment of Articles 2 and 3. An Act was necessary to make provision for the referendum held on 22nd May. That Act made all the necessary provision, subject to the outcome of the referendum, to achieve the desired result. In other words, the legislation there took place first and it will come into force on the date agreed, subject to approval by the referendum. That approval did of course take place.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: There is a further complication. An application is now before the Supreme Court in Dublin asking it to rule that the Act dealing with the referendum is out of order because it conflicts with another part of the Irish constitution. Until that has been before the Supreme Court, we will not know what will happen.
Lord Dubs: I cannot possibly comment on that, but we need to act in good faith on the assumption that the Irish Government will fulfil its part of the agreement and we intend to fulfil ours. The Irish Government, as I said, have in fact taken the necessary action to give effect to the amendment of Articles 2 and 3.
Lord Fitt: The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will be aware—indeed, he just referred to it—that one of the most emotional aspects of the constitutional position in Northern Ireland was the Government of Ireland Act 1920. The Unionist majority, or the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland, whatever term is used, regarded that particular section of the Act as a guarantee. I think it was Section 75, which I will quote from memory:
"notwithstanding any other thing contained within this Act, all matters, persons, places, and things remain under the supreme jurisdiction of the United Kingdom Government."
Those emotive words, in the minds of Unionists, gave them a guarantee of their position and that was one of the really big issues that was debated during the referendum.
Many people in Northern Ireland who voted against the agreement—I cannot quantify them—voted "No" specifically because of the repeal of that section of the Government of Ireland Act. So one can see how emotive it was, because the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland felt concerned about all the guarantees that they had been given by the Union with Ireland Act 1800 and the Ireland Act, 1949 (under a Labour government); and particularly by the emotive words contained in Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act. They regarded this as their bulwark against any attempt to put them out of the United Kingdom. Given that it has such emotional significance to the Unionist majority, every effort should be made by the Irish Government to do away with Articles 2 and 3. If Section 20 of the 1920 Act is repealed while Articles 2 and 3 remain in the
1194
constitution of the republic, that will do nothing but engender fear within the larger community in Northern Ireland. The Irish Government should take that on board and realise how significant those two articles have been.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am far from being an expert on the constitution or law of the Republic of Ireland, or for that matter of anywhere else. I am not a lawyer. However, as I understand it, the legislative events in Northern Ireland have made the change in the republic's constitution—the abolition of Articles 2 and 3—conditional on the other factors in the agreement attached to the Belfast agreement coming into play. It is conditional. Should all this process collapse at some point, the changes in the Irish constitution will not therefore come into force. It would be most unfortunate if through this Bill we were to set up a situation in which the changes to our constitution set out in Clauses I and 2 of the Bill, and in particular the changes to the Government of Ireland Act, to which, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has rightly said, a great deal of importance is attached, were to come into force or to be put into law unconditionally. At the moment, that seems to be where we are heading. The republic's change is conditional; our change is unconditional, except on the passage of this Act.
The Minister relies on the fact that this provision will not come into force until an order is made by the Secretary of State. He actually said, if I heard him correctly, that such an order appointing the commencement day would need to be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. I am not sure that is correct. It is true that Clause 3 requires a resolution of each House of Parliament for the commencement of Parts II and III of the Bill, but this provision is in Part I of the Bill. It therefore falls under Clause 83:
"The remaining provisions of this Act (except Parts II and shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint".
I do not think it would require approval in either House of Parliament, let alone both.
Of course, it still requires an order by the Secretary of State to come into force. What the Minister is asking us to accept is that the Secretary of State will not make us such an order until these other things have happened. We are relying on the word of the Secretary of State. I do not wish to cast doubt on that but we will wish to give further consideration to this point. In any case, as I said in my opening remarks, I think that, on reflection, Amendment No. 219 is too widely drawn. In those circumstances, unless the Minister wishes to comment further, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Transferred, excepted and reserved matters]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): If Amendment No. 5 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 6, which follows it.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, leave out lines 4 to 7 and insert—
(""excepted matter" means any matter falling within a description specified in Schedule 2:
"reserved matter" means any matter falling within a description specified in Schedule 3;
"transferred matter" means any matter which is not an excepted or reserved matter.").
The noble Lord said: I had some difficulty in understanding Amendment No. 6, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, although he then explained it in writing to me, for which I am grateful. Excepted matters would be defined as those not reserved or excepted, and transferred matters defined as those not reserved or excepted: one would not know which matters were excepted and which transferred, and Schedule 2 would no longer appear to bear on the matter. As the amendment stands, it would undermine the Bill technically.
What the noble Lord suggests is that, rather than list all excepted matters in the Bill, we should list all transferred ones. That sounds quite simple but I do not believe it is right in principle, quite apart from which it is technically an extremely complex proposition.
The present model, in which excepted and reserved matters are listed, and transferred matters are all the remainder, is that which is followed in the previous Northern Ireland constitutional legislation. The agreement was prepared against the background of that legislation. It is also the model followed in the Scotland Bill. The Government of Wales Act proceeds on a different basis, it is true, but that is in the context of a different system of devolution entirely, where powers of primary legislation are not devolved. I believe, therefore, that, on the principle, the model we have followed is the right one.
Apart from that, however, it would be technically an extremely complex and time-consuming process to produce a list of all the transferred matters. The present schedules, even though they are based on the 1973 division, have required much work to bring them up to date, as will be evident by the number of amendments to the schedules which we have been obliged to bring before your Lordships. To define all transferred matters would delay the Bill very seriously. So, even if we had been persuaded, as I fear we are not, that it was right in principle, that would be a formidable objection to the noble Lord's amendment. I ask him to withdraw it.
The noble Lord's other two amendments, Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, seek to prevent any transferred matters becoming reserved matters. I think it is indeed unlikely that this would occur in any significant way. The agreement envisages in certain circumstances that matters such as policing and criminal justice may become transferred. It does not envisage any other transfer. Nevertheless, one can envisage circumstances in which, on a much lesser scale than these two weighty topics, it may be sensible for matters to change category. It is the nature of the model that we have chosen, in which excepted and reserved matters are enumerated, and transferred matters are defined as everything else, that new subjects of legislation arise in
1196
the transferred field. That happened on a number of occasions during the life of the 1973 constitutional legislation—which as your Lordships may know has continued on the statute book, albeit overlaid by the provisions for direct rule since 1973—and a number of new matters for legislation were by Act of Parliament subsequent to 1973 made reserved. I think the provision does no harm, since it can only be given effect if there is general agreement in Westminster and in the Assembly. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
We are ourselves proposing a technical amendment in this clause, slightly altering the definition of excepted, reserved and transferred matters. The present definitions of excepted and reserved matters are simply,
"the matters specified in Schedules 2 and 3".
This might be taken to suggest that transfers in the future from the reserved to the transferred category can only operate on whole paragraphs or sub-paragraphs of that schedule. That is not our intention. We intend that any matter that falls within the reserved field, whether it is expressly mentioned in Schedule 3 or merely falls within one of the descriptions there, should be capable of transfer, if there is the general agreement required by Clause 4.
In this context I ought to expand on some remarks I made last week which indeed bear on the question of future transfers of matters that, as the Bill is cast at present, are reserved. During the course of the Second Reading debate I referred to the abortion law in Northern Ireland being a matter of criminal law and hence currently reserved in Northern Ireland terms. Any reform of the law along the lines of the 1967 Act would fall into that category, though of course many of the issues around the topic relate to social and health policy.
I said also that as and when it was deemed appropriate to do so, some reserved matters, which may include criminal justice matters, could be passed to the Assembly. That will have to be considered in the light of the reviews envisaged in the agreement. I should make it clear that I cannot give any guarantee about when such transfers might be made or what might be part of any transfer of responsibility.
Any change in the status of reserved or transferred matters can be made under the Bill only with the agreement of the Assembly based on cross-community support and after the approval of an appropriate resolution of each House here at Westminster. Which matters are transferred must be matters for decision at the time. I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Both the Minister and I are seeking to alter the wording of the first part of Clause 4. As the Minister said, he is making relatively minor drafting alterations to express the matters in better "legalese". I certainly support what he wishes within the context of what he is trying to do.
However, I wish to make two other points relating to the same matter. First, as the Minister rightly said, Amendment No. 6 is concerned with the question of how this whole process should be set up. As the

1197
Minister rightly spotted, it is a paving amendment. I have not attempted to work out in full and to table all the consequential amendments which would be required. I accept entirely from the Minister that they would be extensive.
But the point which lies behind the amendment is quite simple. The Bill as drafted means that certain specified powers are to be retained permanently by Westminster: those are the excepted matters. Other powers are to be retained temporarily at Westminster but will be transferred in the future and they are described as reserved matters. The third group—everything else—is to be transferred automatically now. Those are described as the transferred matters but they are nowhere defined except as matters which are not excepted or reserved.
That seems to me to be the wrong way to proceed. The Welsh model is the better one to follow in this case. Responsibilities which are to be transferred, either now or at some future date, should be listed in the legislation, leaving everything else to be retained by Westminster. In that way, the Westminster Parliament clearly remains the sovereign Parliament dealing with any matter which is not given specifically, either now or at some later stage, to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The first reason for saying that is the range of government amendments to this Bill at this stage. There is a huge number. Those are matters which the Government, in their wisdom in the summer, did not think of transferring or where the definition has been refined. Amendment No. 5 refines the definition because the Government had not quite got it right. I am quite sure that there will be other matters which we have not yet thought of and further refinements which may be required. That is a reason for retaining any powers not stated specifically in Westminster rather than having them go to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Secondly, there will be new topics which have not yet emerged into public debate or, in some cases, not arisen at all which will emerge in the next few years. We expect this legislation to last for many years as the basis of government in Northern Ireland. I have no doubt that science will move on and new matters will come to concern us. There are listed in Schedules 2 and 3 some words which, perhaps, we would not have recognised 10 or 20 years ago.
Lastly, in the United States, one runs across arguments about states' rights: what are the rights retained by the states and what are the rights which go to Washington, to the federal government, the Senate and the Congress? The individual states make very clear that the United States is a federation and that powers not given specifically to Washington remain with the states. That is a federation. That is almost the definition of a federation. It is certainly one definition although, as we are discovering, there is more than one possible definition of a federation.
However, we are not seeking to set up a federation here. We have a situation where Westminster will remain the sovereign Parliament. Those are my points in relation to Amendment No. 6.
1198
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are different and address a different point. The Bill permits the Secretary of State to lay an order moving a matter between the reserved and transferred categories in either direction provided that the Assembly has passed, with cross-community support, a resolution praying that that should happen.
In relation to any matter which is to be transferred to the Northern Ireland Assembly—that is, which ceases to be a reserved matter and becomes a transferred matter—it is right that the Assembly should ask for those powers to be given to it. But it seems to me that there may be cases, particularly if the Assembly becomes deadlocked at some stage in the future, when it is desired to take back powers from Northern Ireland. An example of that may be law and order if that has been transferred in the meanwhile. It may be desired to take those powers back from Northern Ireland to Westminster. It may be impossible to achieve agreement on that on a cross-community basis with the very elaborate voting system which is being set up. It would then be impossible, under this Bill, for the powers to be taken back to Westminster and exercised here by the Westminster Government and by this Parliament.
It seems to me that that is a risk. It will be fine if the Assembly runs smoothly and there is cross-community support for everything for many years and generations to come. But if that is not so at some point—and we need to think about that contingency although none of us wants it—the Secretary of State should have the power to lay an order without the consent of the Assembly withdrawing powers back to Westminster so that those matters can be dealt with here.
Of course, such an order, if laid by the Secretary of State, would require under the Bill—and I think it is right that it should—the approval of both Houses but not the approval of the Assembly. I commend my amendments to the Committee.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: The former parliament of Northern Ireland was always fully aware of where exactly the dividing line was. Over all those years of its existence, there was never any doubt, friction or dispute with the sovereign Parliament. But we are embarking on a new and extremely complicated form of devolution which is different from that which has been granted to Scotland and Wales. Therefore, in alliance with the Minister, I emphasise the need for continuing examination of what we are setting about throughout the remaining stages of the Bill.
In this very difficult field, none of us should take a step-trench attitude. We should do our best to try to look to the future and avoid unnecessary complications, particularly as there can be confusion in the minds of the Northern Ireland Assembly as it looks across the channel to Scotland on the one hand and Wales on the other. It sees those assemblies being given different powers and some of those powers are subsequently modified. That three-way traffic in devolution is something which must be handled extremely carefully and sensitively.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, on Amendments Nos. 7 and 8

1199
are particularly interesting because the central dilemma with which he and the Government are wrestling is the question of what happens if people make the wrong decision, in the views of Westminster and Whitehall, when power has been devolved to them. In the case of Northern Ireland, where we are establishing a sensitively balanced new body, the considerations are not the same as they are in Scotland and Wales. We must acknowledge that. We are in a period of trial, making a tentative disposition and hoping to get it right. Can the Minister say in what circumstances he imagines the Secretary of State wanting to take powers back from the Assembly that have already been granted?
Lord Dubs: It is important to keep this whole arrangement as simple as possible. If we were to go down the path suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, we would have to produce an extremely long list of transferred matters. It may be so long that it would be unhelpful and indeed confusing. I need only to think of the list of responsibilities of my two departments—the Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland—to realise what a long list one would need to cover all those matters.
Surely it is much clearer and better to do it in the way envisaged by the Bill; that is, to have a short list of items and transfer everything else. That has the merit of clarity and simplicity. Indeed, I also draw the attention of the Committee to the powers of the Westminster Parliament, which will remain. Clause 5(6) says,
"This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Northern Ireland".
Therefore the supreme power of Parliament will not be affected by the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked a question which is so hypothetical that I would get into serious trouble if I tried to give him more than one example. The one example that comes to mind is if there were to be a change in the powers of the European Union in Brussels. If those powers dealt with issues which at the moment are transferred, that may well have an effect. Given that we would have only one negotiating stance in Brussels through the British Government, it would be difficult to allow a Northern Ireland Assembly to continue with the powers it now has in relation to matters which would then come closely under Brussels.
I should not have fallen into that trap. The noble Lord smiled so charmingly that I succumbed. I can assure him that there are other examples, but I shall not give him any more.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I do not believe that the noble Lord addressed Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 in relation to what happens if we want to take back powers and the Assembly is deadlocked due to the cross-community arrangement. It would be impossible for the Westminster Parliament to recover any powers. Is that sensible?
Lord Dubs: I drew attention to Clause 5(6) which says that the United Kingdom Parliament still has powers.
1200
At some point we must have confidence in the Assembly and its relationship with the Government in order to make it run smoothly. If we assume that everything will go wrong, we will not give the new Assembly the chance to go ahead. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, is heading into areas where he assumes that everything is doom and gloom and therefore we must have a contingency plan for every disaster. I do not believe that that will be the case. I am more optimistic.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am optimistic about the Assembly; I am optimistic about the whole thing. But that does not mean that one does not need to have regard to what might happen if our optimism proves to be misplaced.
One cannot design legislation totally on the basis of optimism with no regard for what happens if it goes wrong. If I was in the Treasury and we designed tax legislation in that way, we would have an awful lot of trouble. However, I must not draw myself down that road.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Cope, is correct because there did not seem to be any such powers in the 1920 Act; at least, if there were, they were well concealed. At that time two major crises developed in the security field and the only remedy then was for the Westminster Parliament, in the shape of the then Prime Minister, to lean on the Prime Ministers of Northern Ireland. At that time there were two, one following the other and both suffered the same fate. They had to carry out what in fact was the clawback power and pretend to be implementing those powers. The result was that both Prime Ministers were demolished within a matter of weeks.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: In some circumstances one may be able to lean on a Prime Minister or First Minister and Deputy First Minister. But this is a question of trying to lean on the Assembly as a whole. What is more, because cross-border voting would apply, it would be much more difficult. As the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, pointed out in his example, it did not work anyway and the two Prime Ministers lost their power.
It seems as though I shall have to rely on Clause 5 which says that the powers of the United Kingdom are not affected. Quite how that will play against a specific arrangement for the withdrawal of orders in the courts, I cannot anticipate.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 6 to 8 not moved.]
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Before I move that the House do now resume so that my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean can repeat a Statement being made in another place, I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to comments and questions for clarification.

1201
Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Kosovo
4.47 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on Kosovo which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, with permission I would like to make a Statement on recent developments concerning Kosovo. In mid-June, in response to demands from the international community, President Milosevic gave an undertaking not to carry out repressive action against the civilian population. That undertaking lasted for barely one month. By late July the Yugoslav army and the Ministry of Interior police had commenced a widespread campaign of repression throughout Kosovo. During that campaign they made no distinction between armed guerrillas and unarmed civilians. Whole villages were shelled, crops were burnt in the field and animals were incinerated in their barns. A quarter of a million people—a tenth of the entire population—have become refugees.
In September Britain and France presented to the Security Council Resolution 1199 which demanded that President Milosevic cease fire; withdraw his security forces; allow refugees to return to their villages; and make a rapid start to real negotiations on self-government for Kosovo. Two weeks ago Britain chaired a meeting of the contact group at Heathrow. That meeting sent Dick Holbrooke back to Belgrade with a mandate from all members of the contact group, including Russia, to secure an agreement which complied with the demands of the Security Council resolution.
"Last Monday, NATO unanimously took the decision to authorise air strikes on Serbian military targets. The next day President Milosevic gave his agreement to Dick Holbrooke on a settlement which commits Yugoslavia to full compliance with Resolution 1199. There can be no Member of the House who imagines that President Milosevic would have made such a commitment if the diplomatic efforts backed by the contact group had not also been backed by the credible threat of military action by NATO. The draconian step to close the independent press to prevent it reporting the agreements in full underlines his dislike of being forced into them.
"A key concern which drove forward our efforts over the last month was the serious risk to the homeless refugees hiding on the hillsides of Kosovo. Our most immediate concern was to enable those
1202
refugees to return to sheltered settlements before winter. I am pleased to tell the House that the UNHCR and the Red Cross have been able to return to their relief work in Kosovo and that the latest evidence suggests that refugees have started to return to their settlements. Britain has already pledged £3 million to the international aid effort.
"A central part of the Holbrooke package was the agreement by President Milosevic to a political framework to deliver self-government for Kosovo. This is the first time President Milosevic has accepted the principle of self-government for Kosovo.
"The political framework provides that the police in Kosovo will be under local control. There is a commitment to free and fair elections to a Kosovo assembly and to communal administrations. These elections will be supervised not by Belgrade but by the OSCE. Belgrade has been pressured to agree to a tight timetable which commits it to an agreement with the Kosovars on the central issues by 2nd November.
"The international community has no intention of leaving President Milosevic to choose whether or not he honours the commitments he has given. That is why Belgrade has been obliged to sign two separate agreements on verification. The first agreement, with the OSCE, provides for the presence throughout the whole of Kosovo of 2,000 representatives of the international community. This agreement authorises them to verify the maintenance of the ceasefire; to monitor and accompany movements of the security forces and the police; to facilitate the return of refugees; and to supervise elections, the establishment of Kosovan institutions and the development of a locally accountable police force.
"The second agreement is with NATO and obliges President Milosevic to accept daily over-flight of Kosovo by NATO reconnaissance planes to monitor movements of the security forces and to verify compliance with the ceasefire. The agreement compels the Yugoslav authorities to switch off all relevant radar systems when NATO flights are taking place and is a retreat from President Milosevic's position hitherto that NATO could have no role within Yugoslav sovereign territory.
"The verification mission will not be armed because it is not there to enforce the agreements. The agreements do though enable both verification missions to report to NATO. The importance which NATO attaches to compliance by Yugoslavia was spelt out to Belgrade by Javier Solana, the Secretary-General of NATO, who said after meeting Milosevic that NATO,
'will remain ready and willing to act',
if Milosevic does not meet his obligations. In the meantime NATO has maintained its air activation order while the two verification missions are put in place.
"We expect the Kosovo Liberation Army also to abide by its commitment to honour a ceasefire. Over the weekend there have been several breaches of the ceasefire by the Kosovo Liberation Army, including

1203
the murder of four policemen. Such continuing acts of hostility serve only the interests of those who wish to undermine the political process and return to war.
"It would be a grave mistake to imagine that the Holbrooke package marks the end of the international community's pressure on President Milosevic. It is only the beginning of a process which will require the full commitment of the international community to achieve stability, security and reconstruction in Kosovo.
"Britain is ready to play its part in making this agreement work. We have already committed ourselves to providing 150 members of the OSCE mission, with the expectation of a further commitment to a total of 200. On Friday I announced that a British Major-General with considerable experience in Bosnia would head the British contribution. He and the advance party are now already in Pristina. We will also provide Canberra aircraft to the NATO air operation over Kosovo and will supply British personnel to the NATO unit in Macedonia which will co-ordinate the two verification missions on the ground and in the air.
"As the President-in-Office of the Security Council, Britain is taking a leading role in drafting a Security Council resolution which enshrines the commitments which President Milosevic has given and underwrites the agreements with the full authority of the United Nations. I shall leave tonight on a tour of three of the neighbours of Yugoslavia to assure them of our continuing commitment to security and stability in the region. While in Macedonia I intend to meet with leaders of the Kosovo Albanians.
"As I said last week at the Paris meeting of the contact group, the agreements are not perfect. International agreements rarely are perfect. There is though nothing to be gained by wasting our time wishing we had a different agreement. The responsible approach must be for us to do everything we can to make this agreement work. That will take great effort by the international community to deliver on their contribution and heavy pressure on President Milosevic to stick to his side of the bargain.
"Britain played a leading part within the international community in putting the pressure on President Milosevic that made these agreements possible. Britain is now demonstrating that we are among the first nations to make a practical contribution towards making a success of the agreements. We will not let up on our efforts until President Milosevic carries out his commitment to withdraw forces, and until the people of Kosovo can return to their homes without fear, can rebuild their villages in peace and can start to construct a self-governing Kosovo without repression from Belgrade."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, on behalf of the Opposition I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. For the time being
1204
the very grave threat of NATO air strikes has been averted and the US envoy, Richard Holbrooke, is to be congratulated on his intense diplomacy in bringing about an agreement with President Milosevic which commits Yugoslavia to full compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 1199.
As advance members of the British contingent to the OSCE team of international observers arrive in Kosovo to begin the process of monitoring Serbian compliance with the UN demands to withdraw its forces, I should like to press the Minister for further details on the latest highly disturbing news from Kosovo. Overnight news reports state that a regular Yugoslav army unit has moved into Drenica in response to the murder of the four Serbian police officers referred to by the Minister. A Western official reportedly described the deployment as a "battalion-sized task force" and commented that the situation was "very serious".
On the BBC Radio 4 "Today" programme this morning, the Secretary of State for Defence said that those reports, which have described heavy shelling, were as yet unverified. What verification have the Government since sought and received concerning this Serbian Army deployment? Given that the unit involved is reported to be based in Kosovo, can the Minister tell the House whether this activity is a breach of the Holbrooke/Milosevic agreement to withdraw troops to pre-March levels? Moreover, what pressure is being put on the KLA to honour the ceasefire, which has already been breached?
These reports further damage the paper-thin veneer of optimism in the province, where Javier Solana, NATO's Secretary-General, said on Friday that from the information he had at the moment compliance was not a reality, and where Richard Holbrooke remains deeply cautious. What can the Minister tell the House about contingency plans should President Milosevic once again break his promises to the international community? Given that the Foreign Secretary welcomed the Holbrooke package as a,
"vindication for the strategy of diplomacy backed by the credible threat of force",
can the Minister confirm that the 27th October deadline really will be the last warning, first promised to the Kosovar Albanians by the Foreign Secretary in June? Does the Minister agree that if a pressure for diplomatic strategy is backed by a threat of force, that threat must be credible? How grave a threat to the peace accord do the Government consider the recent statement of the KLA to be, in which the KLA rejected the Holbrooke package? What consultations were held with Dr Rugova, the leader of the Democratic League of Kosovo, and other representatives of the majority Albanian population in Kosovo, prior to the announcement of the Holbrooke/Milosevic agreement?
Regarding the OSCE monitoring task, what evidence is there that the presence of the 2,000 unarmed OSCE monitors will give ethnic Albanian refugees the confidence to return to their homes and will ensure that Serbian forces no longer threaten the civilian population? The Minister referred to signs that some at least of those thousands of refugees in the hills who are currently exposed to the onset of a bitter Balkan winter

1205
feel secure enough to return home to the towns and villages that they fled in fear of their lives. I would be grateful to the Minister if she could tell the House on what scale that return has begun.
Finally, I turn to a subject which was close to the hearts of many of your Lordships when we last considered this issue: namely, the UN resolution and a new UN resolution. Can the Minister give further details of the agreement by contact group members last week in Paris to seek a further UN Security Council resolution to strengthen the peace agreement? Will this resolution use the strong language of "air strike diplomacy"? If so, can the Minister confirm that this is acceptable to Russia, which has consistently opposed the use of force and furthermore threatened to veto any UN Security Council resolution authorising such action, and to governments such as the Ukraine who are genuinely concerned that air strikes without a UN resolution would significantly strengthen the hand of communist parties in Russia, the Ukraine and former CIS countries? For the sake of over a quarter of a million refugees in the region, what assurance can the Minister give everyone that the Holbrooke package is not merely a question of crisis averted, problem postponed?
5.3 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Foreign Secretary in another place. We on these Benches congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the powerful initiative that he has taken with regard to Kosovo. Having said that, I echo some of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. We on these Benches fear that we may be looking at a fragile agreement. I hope the noble Baroness will comment on the following points.
We understand that by the end of this month some 2,000 unarmed civilian monitors will be deployed in the former Republic of Yugoslavia, Kosovo region. We also understand that that deployment is not likely to be completed before the 27th October deadline. What protection might those monitors demand should they be threatened either with violent action or with the possibility of being taken hostage, for we understand that significant parts of the region are returning to violence and to conflict between the KLA and the Serbian forces, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said?
Is the Minister aware of the statement made by John Sandrock, the head of the initial logistics team, who said,
"We are unarmed and can operate only in a benign environment. We will not penetrate an area where there is any hostile action"?
However, it is precisely areas where there is hostile action that most desperately need to be monitored in order to ensure that the agreement is being maintained. Is the Minister aware that already several of the bases of the agreement are not in the public domain? For example, it is not possible to get hold of Mr. Hill's statement about the basis for autonomy proposals. There are rumours that these do not even go as far as the autonomy that Kosovo enjoyed in 1989. Is the Minister aware that it is not possible at the moment to obtain the
1206
full text of the Holbrooke/Milosevic agreement, and that this puts great difficulties in the way of those of us who wish to ask questions about these statements?
I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the only military protection for the 2,000 civilian monitors to be deployed by the beginning of next month is air cover. As we understand it, that air cover is already to be announced and indeed the flight schedule is to be given in advance to the Serbian authorities with a week's notice. Therefore the only protection the civilian monitors have is the possibility of armed action being taken should there be interference with their activities. This is the area that most concerns us. We understand that only two out of seven battalions have been partially withdrawn and that in the past 24 hours two UN convoys have been blocked. There is no information about the way in which the monitors will interact with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and with the humanitarian agencies.
We believe there is a real danger that the Achilles' heel in this agreement will lie in the failure to protect civilian monitors and to enable them to do a job. What reassurance can the Minister give us that the undoubted good intentions of this Government will be carried out on the ground and that we shall not again see what President Clinton so eloquently described as the cemeteries of Mr. Milosevic's broken promises throughout the former Republic of Yugoslavia?
5.6 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for their welcome of the Statement, although I understand that that welcome is to some extent qualified by their concerns and doubts about the agreements before us. I add my congratulations to those of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to Mr. Holbrooke on the undoubted hard work and commitment that have gone into negotiating the agreement which has been reached with President Milosevic.
Both speakers asked a series of questions and pressed me for further details. I shall do my best to answer the many questions which were put to me. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned the activities on the ground in Kosovo in the past 24 hours or so. The noble Baroness mentioned her concerns about these. We are aware of the reports of movements out of barracks by armoured units of Serb security forces and of overnight reports of the shelling in the Drenica region. The Kosovo Diplomatic Observer Mission (KDOM) is investigating these reports, as the noble Lord indicated. We have also been in touch again with the UNHCR this morning. I can confirm that the UNHCR decided not to send two convoys today along the road to Komorane, which is near the Drenica region, because of the reports of shelling. Other aid convoys are, however, proceeding normally. We do not have any independent confirmation of the shelling. As regards military movements, one company size unit of the security forces has been observed moving along the road towards Komorane and to Lapusnik where the KLA attack of 17th October occurred in which the Serbian policemen were killed.

1207
A second Serb armed force has been seen moving northwards from Pristina away from the area of recent tension. I can assure your Lordships that we shall continue to work closely with the KDOM in monitoring the situation on the ground in advance of the full OSCE verification mission. We shall take extremely seriously any confirmed violations of the ceasefire no matter who is committing those alleged violations.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, expressed deep caution about what will happen next and asked about the 27th October deadline. NATO will consider on 27th October what to do in relation to the ACTORD. I stress to the House that the implementation of that has only been suspended. It is because of the serious doubts and worries that there are bound to be, given the history of President Milosevic, about his ability and willingness to stick to the agreement made. Meanwhile, we shall be pressing through the United Nations for the strongest possible wording in relation to the Holbrooke agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked specifically about that point. Noble Lords would expect a great deal of behind-the-scenes activity to press for that wording. Negotiations will go ahead with the full force and robustness of Her Majesty's Government behind them.
The noble Lord asked also about the position of the KLA. It is important to remember that the ceasefire applies to the KLA as well. The KLA is not an entirely united force. Different parts disagree with each other. However, President Rugova was consulted about the Holbrooke agreement and has welcomed the OSCE advance party presently arriving in Kosovo.
The noble Lord asked about Russian support. The Russians supported Resolution 1199. We hope that the Russians will be willing to consider robust wording in relation to the discussions that are presently under way.
The noble Lord asked what assurance I could give that this was not "crisis averted, problem postponed". I cannot give an absolute assurance. The position is that we have done our best in the negotiations. As my right honourable friend's Statement in another place has made clear, this is not a perfect agreement. It was the best that could be negotiated. I am bound to say that it was the best that President Milosevic has been willing to say about the position in Kosovo for a very long time: with his commitments to withdrawing his troops and to free and fair elections within the next nine months; with his commitments on the rights of self-government for Kosovo. Those are statements that we have not heard previously. No one can know. No one trusts President Milosevic. That is why the ACTORD is only suspended; that is why we are seeking the fullest possible robust wording through the UNSCR.
The noble Baroness asked a number of questions on the position in relation to monitors on the ground. I know from the debate that took place in this House last week that there has been considerable anxiety on that point. Perhaps I may remind the House that there have been monitors in Kosovo since April of this year and the number has reached 45. None has been taken hostage. However, that does not imply any complacency on our part. The point was specifically addressed in the
1208
agreement made with President Milosevic. A specific guarantee of their safety has been sought and attained. The leader of the Kosovo Albanians has also welcomed their arrival. Therefore it is to be hoped that there is no difficulty from that side. This issue will also be pursued in the UNSCR which is under discussion in New York today.
I would say in reassurance, not only to the noble Baroness but to other noble Lords who are concerned about this point, that planning in NATO and nationally in terms of measures to protect the force and to arrange for their extraction if necessary is going ahead. This is a very sensitive area. The noble Baroness will understand why I am hesitant on this point. I hope that the House will not press me for further details but will accept my assurance that the point she raised is naturally a matter of considerable concern and that planning has gone into that side and the possible difficulty that might arise.
The noble Baroness mentioned a statement by Mr. John Sandrock. I assure the noble Baroness that the OSCE monitors have the right to go anywhere at any time in Kosovo to pursue their mandate, not only in relation to the ceasefire, not only in relation to the withdrawal, but also on the strengthening of institutions such as the police force, which is an important part of the agreement that has been secured. I remind the noble Baroness that there will also be over-flights to monitor what is going on.
The noble Baroness asked about the basis of what was happening with Ambassador Hill on the political track. The Serbian government have undertaken to reach agreement on the political track by 2nd November. Ambassador Hill is presently on a mission, if I may so describe it, of shuttle diplomacy between Belgrade and Pristina. He reports that his most recent contacts with the Kosovo Albanians have been particularly positive. I hope that that gives the noble Baroness some reassurance. The Albanian negotiating team has been very constructive in looking at Ambassador Hill's proposals.
The noble Baroness said that the documents are not presently available. She is of course right; the documents are not in the public domain. I inquired about this matter because I believed that noble Lords would ask me about it and whether it was possible to have the documents placed in the Library of the House. I cannot presently give that reassurance because the documents are not in the ownership of Her Majesty's Government. However, I assure the House that I will press to ensure that they are in the public domain as soon as possible. I recognise how important it is for the whole House that documents of that importance are readily available. I hope that I have answered the majority of the questions put to me by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness.
5.16 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. However, she mentioned that the Foreign Secretary is to visit countries neighbouring Yugoslavia. Will she tell the House which countries those are? Is he to visit Greece,

1209
which has claims against Albania in regard to what is known as Northern Ipiros? Secondly, will the noble Baroness take this point on board? The Yugoslavs are not a light-hearted, easy to deal with group of people. They are capable of—if I may say so, being married to one of them—considerable obstinacy. The effect of threats will be to harden support for Milosevic rather than undermine him. Is it thought that air strikes could or would achieve anything other than to unite all the Serbs behind Milosevic?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the threat of air strikes has been enormously effective. It has brought President Milosevic to the point of making an agreement the basis of which seemed unattainable even some two or three months ago. I am as happy as anyone in this House that that threat has been averted, albeit temporarily until a further meeting of NATO on 27th October. We can all rejoice in the fact that the air strikes are not taking place and that there is the possibility of a peaceful settlement.
The noble Lord makes the point with considerably more authority than I can in regard to the Yugoslav national personality and the possibility of hardening support. It is clear that President Milosevic is only too aware of how far he has had to back off as a result of the threat of NATO air strikes in so far as he has dealt with his own local media in the way that he has. He is not willing to have the full extent of his backing off made evident to the people in Belgrade and elsewhere.
The noble Lord also asked which countries my right honourable friend will visit. I understand that he is leaving this evening and is to visit Romania, Bulgaria and Macedonia.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the British Government, with their determination and leadership, deserve a great deal of congratulation for what has been achieved so far? Does she also accept that many of us in this House will wish to express our profound good will to the verifiers as they undertake their dangerous and exacting task? Can my noble friend say a little more to the House about the further resolution to support the operation which is being sought from the United Nations? Surely it is imperative that the Russians are brought on board. Were the Russians to dissociate themselves from the resolution, let alone veto it, the authority of the operation would become questionable in the eyes of some around the world.
Secondly, I understand that for security reasons my noble friend cannot go into details, but does she agree that now the presence on the ground is so extensive it is essential that there is a readiness to put a military presence on the ground, if need be? The presence of unarmed civilians going about their work in such large numbers could become a complicating and inhibiting factor for the exercise of air intervention.
Finally, and perhaps most important, can my noble friend assure us that, with the extreme conditions of winter approaching, which she so well described, and the vulnerable position of these wretched people in their flimsy accommodation, we are satisfied that, should
1210
they not feel able to return to their homes, alternative arrangements are in hand to ensure that they receive all possible support and protection, not just against the enemy but against the winter?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his congratulations to the British Government. I shall ensure that they are conveyed to those of my colleagues who deserve them, not only Ministers but the many senior Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials who have striven night and day to ensure that we have agreements which have at least taken us forward. I shall not make any great claims or sound complacent. I believe that your Lordships have understood the significant worries that must remain in dealing with President Milosevic. This exercise has been remarkable for the amount of contact, co-operation and partnership that Her Majesty's Government have had with other groups, including the contact group, OSCE, NATO and the United Nations. We are dealing with a very complicated set of agreements and understandings brokered in a number of different fora.
The noble Lord raised the issue of the further resolution. I believe that I have said all I can about that. The wording is under discussion in New York today. It will, we hope, go as far as possible to reflect the Holbrooke agreement in as robust language as possible. It is extremely important that it commands the widest possible support from colleagues in the United Nations, and that includes our Russian colleagues.
The noble Lord talked about what he believed to be the essential element of ground forces. It is important to remember that the verifiers are there to verify and monitor; they are not there to enforce the agreement. That is why there is the suspension of the ACTORD until 27th October. At that point a further decision will be taken in NATO on the basis of whether enough progress has been made with the undertakings so far entered into by President Milosevic.
My noble friend asked about the extreme conditions of winter. We have been overwhelmingly conscious of the terrible humanitarian disaster which would have been visited on some 50,000 Kosovars who have been sheltering in the hills and countryside had there not been some kind of ceasefire and the possibility of returning to their homes. There is some limited evidence that a return has started. It is very early days; we are talking about only two or three days into the agreement. We shall monitor the position carefully over the next few days. The aid workers, those of the UN, the Red Cross and others, have been able to start their invaluable work in ensuring that they bring what relief they can to displaced persons in Kosovo. It will, of course, be very important that the monitors are able to continue to see that the aid gets through to those who need it. The importance of averting that humanitarian disaster was the basis on which NATO looked at the possibility of air strikes.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can help further those of us who seek to understand what will constitute compliance and what

1211
will constitute breach. I believe that there is general appreciation of the point she made about the sensitivity of NATO contingency plans for extraction; I certainly would not expect those to be made public. However, some of us agree with the point raised by my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby about the publication of the agreements. I have difficulty in knowing exactly what is the Holbrooke agreement and whether such a piece of paper actually exists. We are told that we cannot have the Hill proposals, which I would have thought were about political arrangements. I confess I have difficulty in understanding why they have to be secret.
I wonder whether the Minister can clarify the detail of what is contained in "the agreement", whatever that constitutes: first, with regard to the jurisdiction of the international criminal tribunal and whether an agreement by President Milosevic to accept the jurisdiction of the tribunal and to allow investigators, prosecutions and indictments is incorporated in that agreement and therefore would be incorporated in a new Security Council resolution; and, secondly, what the criterion will be for breach regarding the withdrawal of military forces and police.
The phrase used in Resolution 1199 was,
"the withdrawal of security units used for civilian repression".
I am reliant on a commentary by NGOs. The commentary says:
"The agreement allows some 19,000 Serbian military and police forces to remain in Kosovo".
I do not know whether that is a translation of what has been described as the March levels. I hope that the Minister can understand that some of us have difficulty with regard to knowing what is a breach. Can she clarify what will be in the Security Council resolution, or what the Government would like to be in the Security Council resolution? She made a point about the British Government not owning these documents. Journalists appear to have access to a great deal more information than Members of this House have. Perhaps I may press her further on that point.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thought I had made my position clear about access to these documents. I believe that such documents ought to be in the public domain. It is not in my gift to put them in the public domain, but I have undertaken to the House that I will do what I can to ensure that your Lordships have access to them as quickly as possible—if it is possible. My hands are not free on this issue, but I shall do what I can in relation to the points which the noble Baroness raised.
There are three points here: the Hill negotiations, the United Nations Security Council resolution and the contents of the Holbrooke agreement. It is difficult for me to discuss in greater detail than I already have either the Hill negotiations or the negotiations taking place in relation to the United Nations Security Council resolution, for the simple reason that we are negotiating. It is not sensible to broadcast negotiating positions when one is still trying to persuade colleagues to come to a certain point of view. I do not believe that the noble
1212
Baroness can sensibly expect those involved in such negotiations to expose their full negotiating position. Further, Ambassador Hill is negotiating on those issues with different parties as between Belgrade and Pristina. The position is not straightforward because of the number of parties that must be consulted, for example Mr. Rugova and the KLA. As I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the KLA is not entirely united in this respect. A number of matters must be taken into consideration in these very difficult negotiations. I do not believe that we strengthen the hand of negotiators if we demand to know everything that they are talking about before they are in a position to reveal such matters themselves.
As to the political track negotiations, we hope that those will be open to some kind of public scrutiny by 2nd November. The noble Baroness asks what is the Holbrooke agreement. To help the noble Baroness a little further, Mr. Milosevic has committed himself to full compliance with UNSCR 1199: a ceasefire; the withdrawal of heavy weapons and the return of the Serbian security forces to pre-March deployment; full co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, so that those who have committed atrocities can be brought to justice; and genuine political processes to sort out the very dispute that lies at the heart of this conflict. The Serbian statement commits Belgrade to seek agreement with those elsewhere in Kosovo by 2nd November. But, important as anything else, the deal means that aid will be available on a humanitarian basis to avoid the catastrophe that so many people feared. President Milosevic has agreed to full access for the humanitarian agencies.
We are not complacent about it. We recognise that real progress has been made in respect of these issues but that there is a need to sustain it. That is what we shall be monitoring over the next nine days or so until the 27th October. That is what NATO will look at when it meets again on that date.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, when repeating the Statement, my noble friend referred to the fact that Milosevic had accepted the principle of self-government for Kosovo. What has he accepted? Is it a different principle or a different interpretation on the part of the KLA?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, President Milosevic has accepted that there will be free and fair elections within nine months, a Kosovan assembly and a police force that is somehow not subservient to Belgrade. I believe that in three very important respects there has been a major breakthrough in relation to self-government. However, negotiations will continue on the political track, and that is what Ambassador Hill will be pursuing in his discussions up until 2nd November.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say a little more about Russia's position? Is it possible that this agreement would have been in place

1213
much earlier, and therefore probably many lives saved, if Russia had taken a more constructive and positive attitude? Is there any evidence available to Her Majesty's Government to show that Russia has supplied or sold arms and equipment to the forces at the disposal of President Milosevic?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, to deal with the last point raised by the noble Lord, I do not have any information. It is very difficult to deal with the hypothetical realms into which the noble Lord tempts me to enter. The "what if'' scenario is neither here nor there at the moment. We are where we are. Russia agreed with the rest of the contact group on 8th October that Mr. Milosevic had not complied sufficiently with UNSCR 1199. The Russians supported the return of Dick Holbrooke to Belgrade to secure full and lasting compliance and joined with the rest of the contact group in endorsing the negotiating track that is being pursued by Ambassador Hill. Therefore, we have enjoyed a degree of co-operation from the Russians on this issue, which perhaps surprised one or two people. We shall try to maintain the maximum possible agreement with the Russians in pursuing the United Nations Security Council resolution which is under discussion in New York today.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, some difficult and dictatorial regimes have made use of civilians as human shields, as Saddam Hussein did during the Gulf War. The Serbians also captured United Nations servicemen at an earlier stage in the conflict in Bosnia. Can the Minister explain to the House the views of the Government about the risks to the 2,000 civilians who may possibly be exposed to such use, which in turn may detract from the value of the air threat that so far has proved so useful?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not believe that I can add a great deal to what I said to the noble Baroness Lady Williams who raised a similar point. Perhaps I may recap. Her Majesty's Government and others have been acutely aware of the possibility of the use of civilian and military monitors as a human shield. It was for that reason that a specific guarantee was sought and gained by Richard Holbrooke from President Milosevic in the agreement that we have been discussing. The issue is being pursued in relation to the United Nations Security Council resolution which is being discussed today. It is in the agreement. Further reassurance is being sought through the United Nations Security Council.
Without trespassing on the patience of the House, I should like to refer again to one matter on which I touched earlier. There has been planning in NATO and nationally on measures to protect monitors and to arrange for their possible extraction from Kosovo if that proves necessary. I ask noble Lords to consider whether it is wise to draw me further into details on this point.
1214
I put it to noble Lords that it is not in the interests of the monitors to enter into further public discussion of the issue.

Northern Ireland Bill
5.37 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 5 [Acts of the Northern Ireland Assembly]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 42, after ("as") insert ("Northern Ireland").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 9 and at the same time speak also to Amendment No. 10 in the name of the Minister. Amendment No. 9 is a very minor matter in comparison with some of the great issues of principle with which we sought to deal earlier in Committee. The amendment proposes that legislation passed by the Assembly should be known as Acts. My amendment proposes that they should be referred to as Northern Ireland Acts. In other parts of the Bill they are referred to as Acts of the Assembly. That appears to be the accepted designation elsewhere, although not for some reason in this clause. That makes them distinct from Acts of Parliament passed by this Chamber and another place, although presumably it may give rise to confusion with Acts of the Welsh Assembly and other legislation. It is rather confusing. My modest suggestion is that this legislation should be known as Northern Ireland Acts to distinguish them from Acts of Parliament.
Lord Dubs: I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining his amendment. I think in fact that ambiguity will in practice be avoided. Legislation on the Northern Ireland statute book has generally been cited with the words "Northern Ireland" in brackets after the name of the enactment. So the 1974 Assembly passed an instrument called the Financial Provisions Measure (Northern Ireland) 1974. The same method of citation is still used for subordinate legislation on the Northern Ireland statute book. We envisage the convention applying to Acts of the new Assembly.
Nevertheless, it is true that the Bill refers here merely to "Acts", while otherwise it refers to "Acts of the Assembly". If the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment, I shall ask whether the drafting here could properly be expanded.
I turn to our own amendment, Amendment No. 10. It is intended to put beyond doubt that an Act of the Assembly, so long as it is otherwise within the bounds set by the Bill, can modify anything in an Act of Parliament, or in any legislation made under one. That is implicit in the Bill, and we at first thought such provision unnecessary. But, on reflection, we now believe it best to put the matter beyond doubt, particularly since there was such a provision in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, and it is

1215
possible that an inference could be drawn in the future from the omission now of such a provision that we intended something different.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am grateful to the Minister for giving further consideration to the point I made as a result of Amendment No. 9.
I am in sympathy with what the Minister seeks to achieve in Amendment No. 10, but I would like to suggest that this amendment is in the wrong place in the Bill. I am sure the noble Lord will be well aware, as will other noble Lords, that subsection (6) is taken from the Government of Ireland Act and is regarded as being of the greatest importance by many in Northern Ireland It does indeed implement a specific reference that the Westminster Parliament's power to make laws for Northern Ireland would remain unaffected. To qualify that by adding Amendment No. 10 at this point reduces the symbolic effect of the subsection.
I suggest that it would come better after Clause 5(1); that is, in line 42 on page 2 of the Bill, which says that the Assembly may make laws. Amendment No. 10 says:
"but an Act of the Assembly may modify any provision made by or under an Act of Parliament in so far as it is part of the law of Northern Ireland".
It is logical to put the provision there. By leaving the provision as it stands, it makes that symbolic point. After all, it was important enough to be quoted by the Minister only an hour ago or thereabouts, just before the Statement intervened, as being of significance. I think that it remains a significant subsection which should be left unmodified. Therefore, the Government's Amendment No. 10 would be better placed earlier in this clause. I should be grateful for the Minister's views on this matter.
Lord Dubs: I understand what "the Minister" is saying. It is a question of where in the Bill to place the particular view expressed in Amendment No. 10. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that Amendment No. 10 is good and important to have on the face of the Bill. We are not taking anything away from Clauses 5 and 6 by inserting Amendment No. 10 where we are doing so. It is not derived from the Government of Ireland Act. Therefore, despite his wish to have it in a different place, I hope that the noble Lord will feel that Amendment No. 10 is a useful amendment and should be on the face of the Bill.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am not objecting to it being on the face of the Bill, but I think that it modifies the effect of subsection (6). I do not see how that can be doubted. I am not objecting to this phrase being included, but I should be grateful if the Minister would give at least some consideration to whether it might be better placed in a different position, as I have suggested.
As regards Amendment No. 9, I am satisfied. A little flattery gets one a long way. It is some time since I have been called a Minister in a Chamber of this kind. I am most grateful for that and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 12, at end insert ("but an Act of the Assembly may modify any provision made by or under an Act of Parliament in so far as it is part of the law of Northern Ireland").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Legislative competence]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 22, leave out first ("matters").
The noble Lord said: In this group are to be found Amendments Nos. 11 to 14—and 15 and 16 which are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley—and Amendments Nos. 18 to 20, 22, 24, 26, 29 and 30.
Essentially, the government amendments are very largely technical, intended to clarify drafting, and bring about consistency, which is plainly desirable.
There are one or two which I should touch on in a little more detail. We propose to leave out subsection (2) of Clause 9, by which it would have been possible for the Assembly to overrule a decision of the presiding officer about whether or not a provision of a Bill would be within legislative competence. As the Committee knows, noble Lords disapproved of the comparable provision in the Scotland Bill and, accordingly, we think it appropriate to bow to the will of the House, as always, and therefore take out subsection (2) of Clause 9.
We also propose to omit Clause 6(3) about reading Acts of the Assembly so as to be within legislative competence. There is a technical deficiency there. We shall want to bring forward a better form of words later—I think it is likely to be longer.
Amendment No. 11 is purely drafting; Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are purely technical. Clause 6(2)(e) might at the moment suggest that to show that a provision of an Act of the Assembly was outside legislative competence, it would first be necessary to show that it was not incompatible with convention rights, which would be a perverse requirement.
Amendments Nos. 19 and 29 are purely of a drafting nature. Amendment No. 22 is to tighten the drafting of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 24 and 26 are intended to rule out the possibility of amendments being made to a Bill by the Assembly at what one might call third reading. The Bill provides that the Secretary of State may indicate her consent to a Bill before that stage. The Attorney may indicate that he does not intend to make a reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Quite plainly, those provisions could not stand if the Assembly was free then to alter the nature of the Bill. Amendment No. 30 is purely a matter of drafting, making it plain that subsection (3) as well as subsection (2) of Clause 13 qualifies subsection (1).
The distinct amendments are those that I indicated in the name of the noble Lord; namely, Amendments Nos. 15 and 16. We do not favour them because they would rob the Assembly of flexibility in its capacity to legislate. They would reduce the range of provision beyond the transferred field that the Assembly was able to make with the consent of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
The definition of ancillary provisions comes from the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. Therefore, the system in Northern Ireland is well familiar with it. Without such a definition, the Assembly might find that the reasonable provisions it wished to make as respects excepted matters, in the context of a legislative scheme about transferred ones, were beyond its competence; or as respects reserved matters, they would be subject to parliamentary control in accordance with Clause 13.
We think it is right that the Assembly should be able to fill out legislative schemes within the areas devolved to it with provisions that can reasonably be seen as useful for making it effective. The control of the Secretary of State is necessary, we believe, given the present pattern of devolution because ancillary provision might touch on sensitive areas to do with police and criminal justice, for instance, which remain within the control of the United Kingdom authorities for the present, as the noble Lord himself indicated on earlier amendments.
But we do not want to circumscribe the freedom of the Assembly unnecessarily. We would not want the uncertainty that would come from enabling the Assembly to make particular provisions if it were necessary for making others effective, but not if it were merely expedient for the purpose. We would not wish to deprive the Assembly of the power which seems, first, valuable, and, secondly, unobjectionable, of legislating incidentally to, or consequential on, provisions within its principal sphere.
I commend the government amendments to the Committee. I hope that it has been helpful for me to have indicated the Government's attitude to Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Broadly speaking, we support the amendments, most of which are fairly minor drafting improvements. I wish in particular to speak in favour of Amendments Nos. 18 to 20 which limit the ability of the Assembly to overrule the decision of the presiding officer as to whether or not an issue is within the remit of the Assembly.
It seems to me desirable at this early stage when the institution is establishing itself that its presiding officer is given all reasonable latitude. It is difficult enough to be Speaker of another place, but to be presiding officer of this new institution will be a great challenge. I do not say that because the present Presiding Officer is a some time Member of these Benches, but because it is a difficult job. Those amendments strengthen somewhat his authority and that is highly desirable.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I accept the amendments moved by the noble Lord on behalf of the Government. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, that, noble Lords having persuaded the Government on the question of the presiding officer, it is wise of the Government also to put the provision into the Bill. The Minister sought to say that the Government always did what this House requested. I think that goes a little far.
1218
However, in this instance the Government have stepped, as it were, from one Bill to another in a perfectly proper manner which I support.
As the Minister explained, Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 standing in my name relate to how far the Assembly's competence goes beyond the power strictly given to them. There is no difference between us that the Assembly should be able to enforce the provisions that it is making. The question is whether we should go further. For matters to be considered expedient, incidental to, or consequential on, goes rather wide. Many issues can be regarded as consequential on something else. The provision opens potentially a wide door.
The noble Lord the Minister said that the provision was subject to the Secretary of State. I had not spotted that the Secretary of State was to be able to rein in the Assembly in this way. I am not sure what the noble Lord meant. He may have been referring to Amendment No. 17 or some other provision which I had not appreciated bore on this part of the Bill. If the noble Lord can help me on the matter, I may be able to agree with him, or go a little further along his line of argument.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his customary courtesy in giving way. I sought to say that the proposed scheme which underpins the Bill is to have a control by the Secretary of State, for instance, touching on sensitive areas to do with police and criminal justice, which I specified earlier. Equally, when one devolves power to an assembly of this kind, the Welsh assembly or the Scottish parliament, one needs to trust the assembly with the right to fill out legislative schemes in the areas devolved to it.
The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, limit unnecessarily the ability of the Assembly. His amendments take out the word "expedient" but leave the power to legislate where necessary. They take out entirely matters which are incidental to, or consequential on provisions. We believe that if one is to trust an assembly to legislate, one should give it the tools reasonably so to legislate. That is why we think that it is better to leave the drafting in its present form. I hope that that is of assistance.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Am I right in thinking that it is Clause 7 which gives the Secretary of State the leverage?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It is.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: In view of that, I shall not move my amendments.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Perhaps I may say a word about Amendment No. 14 which leaves out subsection (3). It is clearly right because subsection (3) does no more than state what the law states without any statutory necessity. The doctrine is that there is a strong presumption in the present circumstances that an act is regular. I use the word "act" in the general sense, not as

1219
meaning a statute. Anything done is presumed to be regularly done; and therefore subsection (3) is unnecessary.
I intervene only because I may have misheard the Minister. I understood him to say that a different form of words to the same effect would be inserted later. I venture to submit that that is unnecessary because the law already takes care of the situation. It is true that the rule of law is generally expressed in Latin, but since the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is not in his place, perhaps we can get by on the English words. Otherwise the Minister will have it readily at the tip of his tongue. I hope that he can reassure us that this provision disappears and will not reappear differently phrased.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble and learned Lord is right. I stated—in English, not in Latin—that we were going to think about redrafting. But before any redrafting occurs, bearing in mind the helpful and instructive seminars we had on the Government of Wales Bill, I shall bear in mind the noble and learned Lord's cautionary words.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 25, leave out ("not incompatible with any of those rights but") and insert ("incompatible with Community law;
(ea)")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, leave out line 28.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 29, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 41, at end insert—
("(5) Her Majesty may by Order in Council specify functions which are to be treated, for such purposes of this Act as may be specified, as being, or as not being, functions which are exercisable in or as regards Northern Ireland.
(6) No recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty to make an Order in Council under subsection (5) unless a draft of the Order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: The package of amendments beginning with Amendment No. 17 is intended to clarify the Northern Ireland Assembly's powers to regulate sea fisheries. The scheme it sets out is, with the necessary amendments for our different context, the same as the one put to your Lordships in the Scotland Bill. The Assembly will be able to regulate sea fisheries inside a Northern Ireland zone defined in Amendments Nos. 210 and 214, but not beyond it, other than in respect of Northern Ireland fishing boats, because Amendment No. 244 makes regulation of sea fisheries outside the Northern Ireland zone, except in respect of these boats, an excepted matter. But within those limitations, there
1220
will still be cases where the Assembly's writ must run outside Northern Ireland. To avoid any doubt, Amendment No. 17 provides for an Order in Council, subject to affirmative resolution, to specify when functions are exercisable in or as regards Northern Ireland. We shall later have other consequential amendments to propose to Clause 72.
In putting forward these amendments, I emphasise to your Lordships that these powers allow the broad thrust of regulation and licensing of sea fisheries to continue, without imposing additional bureaucracy or disturbance on the fishing industry. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I understand the purpose of these amendments. As the noble Lord the Minister has said, it is to transfer fisheries matters in part to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The problem with them is that most of the important decisions in connection with fisheries are taken by the European Community by agreement. This brings us to the question of who will represent the Northern Ireland fishing interests when such matters are discussed and negotiated at the Council of Ministers. These matters, along with agriculture, are some of the most contentious and difficult negotiations that ever take place in the European Union, and that is saying an awful lot. There are some very difficult matters which have to be dealt with at the Council of Ministers, but fishing and agriculture are among the most difficult.
The present position is that UK Ministers will negotiate fish quotas, total allowable catches and matters of that kind. There is no question but that the United Kingdom will be involved in those negotiations. The United Kingdom is the body which is the member of the European Union, and will remain so. Northern Ireland will not become a separate member, nor is it desirable that it should. The UK Ministers will deal with the negotiations and will be answerable to Parliament for the decisions they have made and for the way in which the negotiations have turned out. I am sure they will consult with the Northern Ireland ministers, as they will with Scottish representatives, before they go and do their deals; but they will need to do their deals in the middle of the night and in the small hours of the morning, without benefit of immediate consultation at that time, unless they take a Scottish and a Northern Ireland representative with them. The UK Ministers will not be able to answer to the Northern Ireland Assembly, or indeed to the Scottish parliament or anywhere else but only to the Westminster Parliament.
This matter came up in some detail on a number of occasions in the Scotland Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, speaking for the Government, was quite clear about it. He was clear that Scottish ministers would report to the Scottish parliament and UK Ministers would report to the Westminster Parliament. He also said:
"Scottish ministers and UK Ministers will agree the UK line on negotiations in Brussels".—[Official Report, 28/7/98; col. 1434.]
I am sure he meant that, once this Bill has been enacted, Scottish ministers, Northern Ireland ministers and UK Ministers would agree on the line insofar as it affects

1221
Northern Ireland interests, if these are to be transferred. At the stage that he was speaking this amendment had not been put down and there was not a proposal to move fisheries questions to Northern Ireland. I am not criticising what the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said on that occasion; he was quite right at the time, but the situation has changed as a result of these amendments. The position will now be even more complicated for UK Ministers.
This makes one wonder whether it is sensible to move the responsibility for fisheries matters to Northern Ireland. I realise that it is a matter of great importance to Northern Ireland, as is agriculture. One could use the same arguments about agriculture, and I am not proposing that agriculture should not be devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. There is this difficulty, however: that all the important matters affecting fisheries inevitably happen in Brussels and Luxembourg, at the meetings of the Council of Ministers. It is important that the Government and the House understand that, at the time when we consider transferring fisheries matters to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Lord Dubs: I am happy to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, question. It is clear that our negotiating position in Brussels will be taken by the United Kingdom Minister, that is to say the Westminster Minister, whether it be at Agriculture Council meetings, Fisheries Council meetings or at other council meetings in Brussels. We shall certainly be following the Scottish example in Northern Ireland practice. UK Ministers will continue to negotiate on behalf of the Northern Ireland sea fishing industry. Northern Ireland ministers will have an opportunity to contribute to the United Kingdom negotiating position, however, and they may on occasions be invited to attend the Council of Ministers for appropriate discussions. Indeed, I have on occasion been to agriculture meetings in Brussels where the subject at issue has been of direct concern to Northern Ireland, but the responsibility for our negotiating position was, of course, with the senior MAFF Minister present.
As regards giving effect to Brussels measures, the present Northern Ireland Order in Council procedure has often been used and the Assembly would have that responsibility in future. The position is therefore clear. The negotiating position in Brussels is clear and then, to give effect to these measures, the Assembly would have to pass such measures as appropriate.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: May I ask the noble Lord the Minister how paragraph 17 of strand two of the agreement bears on all this? It is about the British-Irish Council and it reads:
"The Council to consider the European Union dimension of relevant matters, including the implementation of EU policies and programmes and proposals under consideration in the EU framework. Arrangements to be made to ensure that the views of the Council are taken into account and represented appropriately at relevant EU meetings".
1222
Can I take it that what he has just said would not lead to the issue of fisheries also being put to the British-Irish Council? It seems to me that that would cause immense complications.
Lord Dubs: These are fairly complicated matters and in some cases they might be a little hypothetical.
It is quite possible for there to be co-operation through the North/South body between Northern Ireland and Dublin. I think that is the point of paragraph 17 on page 13 of the Belfast agreement. The responsibility for this country's negotiating position, however, will still be that of the MAFF Minister, or whatever other Minister is appropriate. Clearly the Dublin Government would have its own Minister doing that, but that does not mean that there could not be co-operation and discussion. The views expressed through such a North/South body would clearly be listened to, both by the appropriate Minister in Dublin and by the appropriate Minister in London. That is different from who is responsible for negotiating for each country.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Scrutiny by Presiding Officer]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 18 to 20:
Page 4, line 8, leave out ("Subject to subsection (2),").
Page 4, line 10, leave out ("be outside") and insert ("not be within").
Page 4, line 11, leave out subsection (2).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Scrutiny by the Judicial Committee]:
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 21:
Page 4, line 43, leave out ("Judicial Committee") and insert ("Constitutional Court").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee to know that this group of amendments deals with the constitutional court. My noble friends and I have notified the Government that we shall not move them today, although we shall return to them on Report, by which time the Report stage of the Scotland Bill will have gone through your Lordships' House.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 5, line 7, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) If he notifies the Presiding Officer that he does not intend to make a reference in relation to a provision of a Bill, he shall not make such a reference unless, after the notification, the Bill is approved as mentioned in subsection (2)(b).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Stages of Bills]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 5, line 19, at end insert ("but not amended").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 5, line 45, at end insert ("but not amended").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh Lord Cooke of Islandreagh moved manuscript Amendment No. 26A:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:

REGULATORY APPRAISALS
(".—(1) Standing orders shall include provision for securing that a regulatory appraisal as to the likely costs and benefits of complying with a Bill is carried out.
(2) If the regulatory appraisal indicates that the costs of complying with the Bill are likely to be significant, then standing orders shall provide that—

(a) appropriate consultation (including consultation with representatives of business) is carried out, and

(b) the regulatory appraisal is published, before the Bill is introduced in the Assembly.").

The noble Lord said: I apologise for the late introduction of this amendment, which proposes a new clause after Clause 11. It suggests that a cost-benefit analysis of a proposed Bill to come before the Assembly shall be made in order that the costs of implementing it can be assessed against its likely benefits.
I hope that the amendment will find favour with the Committee because it will help the Assembly to judge the cost of a Bill. It might propose a Bill which would incur substantial costs on businesses without there being any benefit. I believe that the amendment will help the Assembly to judge the value of the Bills it is studying. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I sympathise with my noble friend, who I know worked diligently in consultation with the various interest groups concerned, up to and during the weekend. Despite the reputed advance in technology, I am afraid that the screens did not work as they ought to have done. Consequently, he is sincere in his apologies for springing the amendment on the Committee. I warmly support it.
The Members of the Assembly, unlike their counterparts in Wales and Scotland, are already elected and are showing commendable enthusiasm in various ways in tackling outstanding problems, particularly as regards industry, commerce, finance and allied subjects. It would be of enormous assistance to them to be able to provide convincing arguments, if only in the face of exorbitant demands, and to give an analysis of the cost of any measure to the taxpayers, the funds attributed to
1224
the Assembly, the block grant and so forth. More important is the cost to industry, in particular the new industries which one hopes will come on stream as a result of the widespread representations made by the all-party team which spent the past week in the United States of America. Its utterances have so far been optimistic. Given the sparse details available to me, I believe that there is a fair and even chance that the team will be rewarded for its endeavours. The amendment is another way of assisting it.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The noble Lord has suggested a good new clause which is designed to encourage employment. Regulations make it difficult for small businesses to create employment. In a previous government I was Minister responsible for small firms, but I have long taken an interest in the problems of small firms and continue to do so.
The difficulty with regulations as regards small firms is that there are so many. Each may be acceptable individually, but the combination makes it difficult for small firms to continue satisfactorily in business. A large business may have specialists ensuring that it complies with fire and planning regulations and so forth. It may also have people looking after its tax affairs and the complications of PAYE. Other people will look after the employment situation, ensuring that it does not fall foul of regulations relating to dismissing and hiring people, minimum wages, hours of work and so forth. The poor small businessman must deal with all those regulations in addition to trying to run his business. That is why the amendment is so important.
In one sense, we are taking it a week or two early because a week today the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, is to be introduced into the House. He heads the Deregulation Task Force which so far as I can tell is doing an extremely good job. But I know how difficult the job is; his predecessors found it difficult, too.
It is all very well to make regulations which are essential in modern life, for which people press and which experts can examine in detail, but it is the poor old businessman who must try to put them into practice. Therefore, it is extremely important that the new Assembly should not rush off with all its new powers and start regulating all over the place in order to solve the small problems which arise, particularly those of the individuals it represents. If the Assembly does that it will be bad for unemployment in Northern Ireland: there is no doubt in my mind about that. That, in itself, would be extremely damaging to the prospects of peace because it is economic success, employment and so on which is important. It is going to be difficult enough in the future in all conscience without having additional regulations.
It seems to me, therefore, that this proposal that a regulatory appraisal should be carried out on the costs and the benefits of complying with this legislation is an extremely good one and I support the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Cooke.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Members of the Committee know that the noble Lord, Lord Cooke,

1225
keeps an eye on the interests of business and commerce in Northern Ireland in a very painstaking way. Therefore I, for one, take the intention of this amendment very seriously. However, it is very widely drafted because it applies to all Bills, and the compliance of the citizen with a Bill which might have nothing at all to do with business will be difficult. His concern is, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, that businesses, and particularly small businesses, are not faced with costs of compliance out of all proportion to the benefits achieved. I think it is admirable, but my concern with this amendment is that it is widely drafted so as to apply to all legislation and not simply that which may have an effect directly on business.
I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says, but when he replies I hope he will make it clear that, in the new Assembly, it ought to be imperative that there are feet on the ground in terms of regular consultations with business in a way that is particularly important at this stage when we are in such need of investment so as to be able to generate a less dependent economy in Northern Ireland. I am not confident as to whether this is the right way to do it, but I applaud the sentiment and I look forward to the Minister's reply.
Lord Dubs: I appreciate the intent of this amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cooke. The CBI have written to us about this and I replied only this morning. I would warmly endorse the desirability of the Assembly paying close regard to the implications for business and employment of any proposed legislation, but that is very different from binding the hands of the Assembly as to how it should, in assuming its responsibilities, take account of these matters. I do not believe we ought to bind the Assembly.
Indeed, if we were to do so, we could all imagine other groups which would also argue for their interests to be protected in a similar way on the face of the Bill. I do not think that is the right way forward. If we have confidence in the Assembly we ought to allow it to legislate on behalf of Northern Ireland, whether it is on behalf of business or employment or, indeed, on behalf of any other matter within its responsibilities. I would add that even if we were to go down the path suggested by the noble Lord—which I have clearly indicated that we do not want to do—we would still have to look at his amendment because, for example, it would not allow for urgent cases which might come along. It might slow the pace of things.
Clearly, we have said all along that we are giving effect to the agreement in legislation and there is no reference in the agreement to such a mechanism as has been suggested. Noble Lords have heard from us on numerous occasions that we are seeking to give effect to the agreement, supplementing it only as necessary to permit it to work efficiently. Where we have done so, it has been by general agreement of all the parties in Northern Ireland. In the absence of any reference in the agreement to a matter such as this, I believe that it is much better left to the Assembly. It can well adopt the arrangements suggested by the noble Lord if it wishes.
1226
I think that that is the best way forward. In the circumstances, I would ask the noble Lord whether he is willing to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: I find it hard to believe that every clause in this Bill was part of the agreement as such. I was glad of the support of the noble Lords, Lord Molyneaux and Lord Cope, because there is no doubt that Bills have been passed in this Chamber and in another place which have involved vast costs on industry and agriculture without any substantial benefit. Provisions such as this, I think, would be helpful to the Assembly. With consultation I would suggest that this might perhaps be amended so that it would be narrower in its scope and would not interfere with everything that the Assembly might do. Perhaps that could be looked into by the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Submission by Secretary of State]:
[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 6, line 14, leave out ("be outside") and insert ("not be within").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 [Parliamentary control where consent given]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 6, line 28, leave out ("subsection (2)") and insert ("subsections (2) and (3)").
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move this amendment formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [First Minister and deputy First Minister]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 7, line 18, leave out from ("within") to ("elect") in line 19 and insert ("a period of six weeks beginning with its first meeting,").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 address concerns raised during Commons stages of the Bill about the impact of a vacancy in the First Minister and Deputy First Minister posts. As the Bill stands, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister need to make decisions jointly. If one of them ceases to hold office the other automatically does so. This is followed by a new election for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. In the meantime, however, there is obviously a vacuum at the centre of the devolved government. These new provisions will prevent such a vacuum by enabling the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to appoint alternates from among the Northern Ireland Ministers to exercise functions during their absence through illness, incapacity, and so on, or during a vacancy.
Under these amendments, if either the First Minister or Deputy First Minister post fell vacant the other would too, but the alternate and the remaining post-holder

1227
would continue to exercise the functions of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, acting jointly in a caretaker capacity until a fresh election had been held.
Amendments Nos. 31, 34 and 35 clarify the Bill's provisions, making it clear that the Assembly is to elect a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister within six weeks of its first meeting or, in the case of a mid-term election, within six weeks of the vacancy. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps I may raise a question here. Thinking in terms of this Parliament and a period of about six weeks—for example, we rise at the end of July and return on the 5th October—I think that this period will be more than six weeks. I wonder whether the Minister might reconsider his time-scale a little.
Lord Dubs: I should tell the noble Earl that the intention is that the Assembly is to elect a new First Minister and Deputy First Minister within six weeks of its first meeting or, in the case of a mid-term election, within six weeks of a vacancy. I do not think that six weeks is too short a period. After all, when there is an election here we deal with things very quickly indeed; so I think that this is a fairly reasonable proposition.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I understand the reasons for all this. In particular, I think that Amendments Nos. 32 and 33, provide essentially for what is to happen during a vacancy when there is a vacuum. As the Minister has set out, an alternate is to be designated by the person who exercises one of these two great offices. I am not quite clear whether the intention is that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister should give notice in writing of an alternate at the start, when they first take office, which they could subsequently alter, so that the alternate is, as it were, standing by all the time in case the First Minister or Deputy First Minister falls ill or something else happens to him.
I can see that that might be desirable in some ways, but it is a novelty as far as concerns the British constitution that we should have an alternate named and standing by waiting for someone to fall ill. It is a common enough occurrence on the stage. An understudy is appointed and hangs around in the wings. But it is more of a novelty in the constitution.
I am more concerned about the question of six weeks. Like the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, I think that there may be times in the year when it is more difficult for the Assembly to fulfil this injunction either when it first meets or, for that matter, when one or other of these Ministers falls ill, or whatever it may be. Let us suppose that the assembly fails to carry out the election successfully in the course of those six weeks. Who will be in breach of the Act? Is it an offence not to have an election within six weeks; and if so, who will go to prison or who will find himself in court on the ground that it has not been done in the six weeks? One cannot arrest the Assembly for the breach, and, in any case, I do not think there is any provision for it being an offence. Therefore, I am not sure that it is an effective provision just to say that it must happen by Act of Parliament within six weeks if there is no sanction. In practice, of course, it would have to keep going until it had settled
1228
the matter and found a new First Minister and Deputy First Minister. I am not sure that it is effective to write the law in this way.
I have another point which relates to subsection (7) of Clause 14. It states:
"Where the offices of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister are vacant"—
that is to be altered to "become vacant". Why does it not say:
"Where the offices of the First Minister or the deputy First Minister".
After all, only one of them needs to become incapacitated, or to resign, or whatever, to trigger the need for an election—the need, first of all, for the alternate to do his stuff for a time but then, subsequently, to have an election. It seems to me that, in the way in which these amendments alter Clause 14, the word "and" in line 37 ought to be "or". I make that suggestion not as a manuscript amendment but as a point for the Minister to consider between now and Report stage. It would make the drafting of other parts of this rather complicated clause easier.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: Although about 40 years ago I spent three-and-a-half years merely as Under-Secretary at the Home Office as a link between the Stormont Government and the United Kingdom Government, I have not previously spoken in the debate. But now we have before us the suggestion that there should be an interregnum—a vacuum—of six weeks without a head of government or deputy head of government. I think that is much too long. To have a period as long as six weeks without someone bearing the responsibility—it has to be borne—must be carefully considered. I ask the Government to think again about it. I agree with everything that was said by my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley.
Lord Fitt: On reading this clause, my mind goes back to the Sunningdale executive. It had a cabinet which was called the executive. The First Minister—the chief executive—was Brian Faulkner. I was the deputy executive. We did not hold any offices. All the other departments were run by the various Ministers whom we had appointed, which meant that we had a kind of roving commission to try to hold the thing together. In this case there is to be a maximum number of 10 departments. The Deputy First Minister and the First Minister will have departments. Therefore, if one of them were to be incapacitated he could, under the provision, appoint someone to act in his absence. That Minister would then have the responsibility of his own department and also the responsibilities of First Minister or Deputy First Minister. Those could be onerous responsibilities, depending on how long the situation lasted.
Furthermore, party politics being what they seem to be, it would appear that there are to be three Official Unionists and three members of the SDLP, constituting as they do the main parties in the executive. It is likely that if the Deputy First Minister were to be

1229
incapacitated, he would want to appoint as the person who would act as his deputy someone from among the other two Ministers of his own party. The same would apply to the Official Unionist, David Trimble. The responsibility of trying to run two departments for six weeks may prove very onerous.
I wonder whether the Minister has taken into consideration the point that in making these appointments difficulties could arise. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have been in America doing what they can to attract investment into Northern Ireland. The two of them could not be away at the one time. Therefore, it will frequently be the case that they will want to appoint someone to hold their office in their absence. It may be that the only time that they will travel abroad will be when the Assembly is not sitting, but there may be occasions when they will have to go abroad when the Assembly is sitting. Has the point been taken into account that holding two ministerial offices may prove rather onerous for one individual?
Lord Skelmersdale: I suspect that when I come to read the Official Report I shall find the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in introducing the amendments totally self-explanatory. However, as I heard them, I am afraid that I did not quite follow what he meant. My interest is in Amendment No. 33. If the amendment is agreed to, subsection (6) will read:
"If either the First Minister or the deputy First Minister ceases to hold office, at any time, whether by resignation or otherwise, the other—

(a) shall also cease to hold office at that time".

However, despite the fact that he has ceased to hold office, he,
"may continue to exercise the functions of his office until the election required by subsection (7)".
In other words, what is the alternate Minister to be doing if he does not exercise the functions of whatever office he ends up being put in to as a result of these arrangements?
Lord Renton: I think one should bear in mind that he may not be able to exercise his functions. That is why he may have felt obliged to resign.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful to my noble friend. That, too, most certainly.
Lord Dubs: I did not think that what was a very simple proposition would cause quite so much debate. Perhaps I may deal with the various points that have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked what would happen if no election took place for the First Minister or Deputy First Minister within the six-week period. If the Assembly fails to make such an election within six weeks, it will be dissolved and the Secretary of State then sets the date for an extraordinary election. That is not unreasonable. Six weeks is a sufficiently long period to deal with a matter of importance to the government of Northern Ireland.
1230
The noble Lord asked also why there was the word "and" in line 37 and not the word "or". Clause 14(6) makes clear that if one office falls vacant, the other office holder automatically ceases to hold office. Therefore, by definition, there cannot be a single vacancy. Either both offices are filled or both are vacant. That is because, under the agreement, an election can be held only for both posts jointly. Therefore, the drafting of Clause 14(7), in the light of Clause 14(6), seems to be correct and accurate.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, suggested that a six week interregnum period was too long. The amendments prevent an interregnum in the case of a mid-term vacancy. There will be people in place exercising the offices of First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting in a caretaker capacity until a successful election is held to replace them. After an Assembly election, it will clearly want to move to an election of a First Minister and Deputy First Minister as soon as possible. But Ministers from the previous administration will remain in office until such an election is held.
We do not wish to demand an election of the First Minister or Deputy First Minister within a shorter period if failure to do so in the appointed time would trigger a new election for the Assembly. Therefore, we are trying to achieve a balance between maintaining good government but ensuring that there is a time period and if that is exceeded, a new election for the Assembly would be triggered. I believe that those arrangements are reasonable, bearing in mind that in the case of our own government there have been occasions in the past when there has been something of an interregnum and uncertainty has continued for some time. We have achieved the right balance between the two arguments.
Lord Renton: I have listened extremely carefully to the Minister, but I am still perplexed as to what would happen if the First Minister falls seriously ill and for that reason has to resign. His deputy is then out of office also and there would be a period of six weeks in which there was no leadership. What is to happen in that time?
Lord Dubs: First, it will be a period up to six weeks and may well be a much shorter period. Secondly, that is where the role of the alternate would come into play. Clearly, if the First Minister, prior to his illness, had indicated who the alternate was to be, then if he fell ill and was no longer able to carry out his functions, the alternate would be in place. There would also have to be one for the Deputy First Minister. That is for a short period only until a new election is held.
Lord Fitt: Perhaps I may repeat my question to the Minister. If the Deputy First Minister is ill and is incapacitated, he would then be able to appoint another Minister to carry out his functions. Would that Minister then have two offices, two ministries? Would he have the functions of the office of the Deputy First Minister and the functions of his own office? How long would it be possible for that situation to continue, because it would be an extremely onerous responsibility to carry two departments for any period of time?
6.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs: The maximum period for which that situation could pertain could be six weeks and may well be shorter than that. After all, in the real world, people would not wish that situation to continue for six weeks. I believe that even in the summer, the Assembly members would be recalled and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister would be elected extremely quickly. It is not a difficult situation. There may be something of a problem but not a serious one.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Perhaps the Minister would clarify one point for me. If, for example, the Deputy First Minister were to fall ill and appoint an alternate, as these clauses suggest, the First Minister would also have to resign at that point. They would both resign together, as has been explained. The First Minister would not necessarily have to appoint an alternate. He could continue for up to six weeks to exercise his functions, or would he also have to appoint an alternate?
Lord Dubs: I hope that I have got this right because these questions are becoming rather technical. For the six week period, the First Minister, in the situation described, would stay in office but within that period, and not later than six weeks, there would have to be an election for both the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Therefore, if the First Minister wished to continue, he would have to stand for re-election, along with the Deputy First Minister.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Is there any difference and, if so, what, between holding an office and exercising the functions of an office? If there is no difference at all, why cannot the one who remains fit and active just continue until the election takes place? Why does he have to cease to be the Deputy First Minister but then carry on exercising his functions of acting Deputy First Minister, or whatever he is to be called, for the necessary period until the election takes place? It seems very odd to make him resign if he is to continue doing the job.
Lord Dubs: We are talking about a period of up to six weeks. It is not a long period. It is simply to ensure that functions can continue. Clearly, we must allow for a number of different situations. One is when the First Minister or Deputy First Minister wishes to resign. Another is when they may be temporarily incapacitated or permanently ill and no longer able to do the job. There are many situations in which they may no longer to continue. We must try to allow for all of them. But it is only a maximum of six weeks. It may well be only one week. It is a temporary device to cover the situation.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: The Minister used the phrase "in the interests of progress and continuity". Given that the opinion of most of us would be that there should be seamless continuity, it does not seem to make sense that because one person is ill or, God forbid, one happens to get killed, continuity then goes out of the window. There is confusion and turmoil and the whole
1232
process must be rehashed. It is almost as though the two of them are compelled by law to enter into a sort of suicide pact.
Lord Dubs: My understanding is that the idea of having both the First Minister and Deputy First Minister elected together is to ensure that there is a broad basis of support across the Assembly for those two posts. We do not want to have a person who has the support of only one part of the Assembly because the other Minister is in post and there is a division between the communities in the Assembly. We do not want that. We want the Assembly to act as effectively as possible with cross-community support. The method of electing a First Minister and Deputy First Minister seems the best way in which to ensure that.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: Yes, but the Minister would be the first to admit that many people have been taken by surprise by the degree of co-operation and understanding between the two main blocks in the Assembly as it stands at present. Surely to goodness, the members would act with common sense and a sense of good will. If a Minister from either group were to be incapacitated, surely that same group would be accorded the choice of providing a successor to their own man. It is not a question of any one block grabbing both seats. There would be a generous concession that if the deceased, injured or sick person belonged to that group, that group should nominate the successor of that post.
Lord Dubs: This method worked well after the Assembly elections, bearing in mind the speed with which the First Minister and Deputy First Minister were elected in shadow or designate mode. We have a method here which will stand the test of time. With all due respect to the noble Lord, some of his objections are rather theoretical. It has already been shown that the method works in practice and it will work in the future. We are dealing with a very short period of time during which there may be a need for an alternate. That is all.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I have one last concern in relation to the appointment of an alternate. The amendment says that,
"The holder of the office of First Minister or deputy First Minister may by notice in writing to the Presiding Officer designate a Northern Ireland Minister to exercise the functions of that office":
in other words, to be the alternate. Is it expected that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will name an alternate on day one in office? Are they able then to give another notice saying that they withdraw the first notice because they do not want A to be the alternate, they want B to be the alternate? Apart from anything else, the alternate may cease to be a Minister and even in the best regulated parties there are shifts of opinion which lead to reshuffles and differences of opinion about people. The First Minister may wish to issue a second notice. I cannot see any provision for that, but it may be implied by the words of the amendment.
Lord Dubs: Let us apply a bit of logic and common sense to this. Clearly there may be situations when the

1233
alternate might die and a new name has to be put forward. Common sense suggests exactly what the noble Lord said; that is, that it is implied that if the First Minister or Deputy First Minister wishes to change the name of the alternate in each case they would be able to do so. That is my understanding. If I am mistaken, I shall quickly inform the noble Lord.
Lord Skelmersdale: Apart from the fact that I asked about Amendment No. 33 and paragraph (b), the Minister may like to think a little further about his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Holme.
Amendment No. 33 deals happily with resignation, and as far as I can judge the opinion of the Members of the Committee, we all understand that situation. But the amendment goes on to say, "or otherwise". By definition "otherwise" must refer back to Amendment No. 32:
"during any absence or incapacity … or during any vacancy in that office arising otherwise than under subsection (6)(a)".
I should have thought it was clear in the Bill that there would be an alternate under those circumstances. If for one reason or another the one is unable to perform the job, then the other is also ruled out of court and alternates have to appear in both positions. That makes my confusion even greater. Notwithstanding the fact that there is an alternate on the scene—indeed, two alternates—the original First Minister or Deputy First Minister who has not disappeared may continue to exercise the functions of his office. I repeat, what is the alternate to do?
Lord Dubs: I am not totally clear what the noble Lord's confusion is. The amendments seem to spell out the position. Amendment No. 33 says, "By resignation or otherwise". "Otherwise" could be by death or exclusion through the processes contained in other parts of the Bill, and by that one of the Ministers would be out of office. However, the other would cease to hold office but continue to exercise the functions of that office. In the case of the Minister who had resigned, died or whatever, the alternate would exercise the functions of that office for a period up to six weeks. It is straightforward. If I have not understood the noble Lord's point, I regret that, and perhaps he would care to make it clearer.
Lord Skelmersdale: I shall try. We are talking of two people, A and B, and their alternates, C and D. If for any reason A is unable temporarily to fulfil his office, he may nominate C. But at the same time, through that action according to the Bill as about to be amended and as I read it, B also has to go and he has D as his replacement alternate. However, I am not sure why D is there because B can continue to exercise the functions of his office notwithstanding that he is no longer either Deputy First Minister or First Minister.
Lord Dubs: I still believe that Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 are clear. For example, if the First Minister were to resign, the Deputy First Minister would go on exercising the functions of the office until the election was held for both posts, and that would be within a
1234
six-week period. The Minister who resigned would be replaced by an alternate for the period up to six weeks when the election was held. That ensures continuity of government and I should have thought it was plain.
If a Minister is temporarily unable to carry out the functions of his office, he can nominate an alternate. But the other Minister loses office only if there is a vacancy in office A. Is that not clear?
Lord Skelmersdale: The Minister asked me a question. What he said is certainly clear but I shall have to study it carefully in Hansard to see whether it meets with what is in the Bill as amended. I do not believe that is so, but I shall check up. Perhaps there could be some consultation with the Minister or his advisers to satisfy me that the Bill, as about to be amended, is correct.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No, 32:
Page 7, line 28, at end insert—
("(4A) The holder of the office of First Minister or deputy First Minister may by notice in writing to the Presiding Officer designate a Northern Ireland Minister to exercise the functions of that office—

(a) during any absence or incapacity of the holder; or

(b) during any vacancy in that office arising otherwise than under subsection (6)(a):

but a person shall not have power to act by virtue of paragraph (a) for a continuous period exceeding 6 weeks.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 33 and 34:
Page 7, line 35, leave out from ("office") to end of line 36 and insert ("at any time, whether by resignation or otherwise, the other—

(a) shall also cease to hold office at that time; but

(b) may continue to exercise the functions of his office until the election required by subsection (7).").

Page 7, line 38, leave out ("are vacant") and insert ("become vacant at any time").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall move Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 7, line 38, at end insert ("within a period of six weeks beginning with that time").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Perhaps we could come back to Amendment No. 35 at Report stage and ask the Minister to think carefully in the meantime about what has been said in relation to this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 36:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
MINISTERIAL OFFICES
(".—(1) The First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly may at any time, and shall where subsection (2) applies, determine—

(a) the number of Ministerial offices to be held by Northern Ireland Ministers; and

(b) the functions to be exercisable by the holder of each such office.

(2) This subsection applies where provision is made by an Act of the Assembly for establishing a new Northern Ireland department or dissolving an existing one.
(3) In making a determination under subsection (1), the First Minister and the deputy First Minister shall ensure that the functions exercisable by those in charge of the different Northern Ireland departments existing at the date of the determination are exercisable by the holders of different Ministerial offices.
(4) The number of Ministerial offices shall not exceed 10 or such greater number as the Secretary of State may by order provide.
(5) A determination under subsection (1) shall not have effect unless it is approved by a resolution of the Assembly passed with cross-community support.").
The noble Lord said: These amendments deal with a technical but highly important part of the Bill—the workings of the d'Hondt formula for appointing Ministers. Some Members of the Committee will have had the benefit of a brief guide to this system, including a worked example in a letter I sent out recently. A copy is in the Library.
The new clause in Amendment No. 36 sets out the circumstances in which the First Minister and Deputy First Minister may make a "determination" setting out the number of ministerial posts and the functions exercisable by their holders. These determinations need to be approved by the Assembly on a cross-community basis.
The First Minister and Deputy First Minister will be able to introduce determinations when they choose but will have to do so if legislation has been passed creating or dissolving a Northern Ireland department, since it would clearly be wrong to create a new department without ensuring it has a Minister in charge. In addition to new determinations which set out what we might call the "machinery of government", the Bill also needs provision for the d'Hondt formula to be re-run within the existing framework of departmental responsibility.
The amendments to Clause 15 itself set out the circumstances in which the d'Hondt formula is re-run. As Members of the Committee who have been attending these debates will know all too well, the d'Hondt formula is a means of allocating posts proportionally, based on party strengths in the Assembly. The formula will obviously need to be re-run after every Assembly election to take account of changed party strengths. In addition, the amendment provides for re-runs in other circumstances; for example, when a party is excluded from office leaving its seats vacant or when a party's period of exclusion comes to an end and its entitlement to hold office has to be accommodated. The Assembly will also be able to set out other circumstances in its standing orders when d'Hondt could be re-run.
The other amendments deal with technical issues, such as what happens when a party declines to provide a nominee for a post to which it is entitled.
Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 deal with how to define "S", which is the figure in the d'Hondt formula reflecting the number of seats the party has in the Assembly. The revised definition defines "S" as the number of seats a party held at the first meeting of the Assembly. It therefore does not take account of subsequent changes in party strengths in the Assembly.
I must, however, urge the Committee to reject the two amendments put down by my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester. These would have the effect of requiring the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in a determination under the new clause to provide for a "Department of Equal Opportunities".
There is much in the agreement about the importance of strong equality provisions underpinning the new political settlement in Northern Ireland. But my noble friend's amendment goes flatly against the wording of the agreement, which clearly leaves the political and administrative question of whether there should be a specific department dealing with equality to the Assembly.
I quote from paragraph 7 of the "Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity" section of the agreement, which states:
"It would be open to a new Northern Ireland Assembly to consider bringing together its responsibilities for these matters into a dedicated Department of Equality".
It is certainly the Government's intention that the new equality provisions will give proper emphasis to the needs of the disabled. My noble friend has spent many years of his political life extremely effectively advancing the cause of disabled persons. I know that he would want to see no diminution in commitment in Northern Ireland to the needs of disabled people there. I assure him that it is the Government's intention that that will be the case in the future, but it will be up to the Assembly to take these matters further.
The Assembly will have the power to establish a department of equality, if it so wishes, but I suggest to my noble friend that it is not appropriate that this legislation contains such a provision because we are dealing, in effect, with an agreement which does not contain such a provision. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: I rise to speak to my Amendments Nos. 38, 39, 130, 133, 134, 150 and 153, to which my very good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, is a co-signatory. There is no one in this House or anywhere else who has done more to improve the well-being and status of the severely disabled people whom he works so tirelessly to help. I am delighted to see him in his place, just as I am to see and hopefully later also to hear two other dear friends, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, as the debate proceeds.
This is my maiden speech—on the Northern Ireland Bill. Thus I shall be brief—I hope not neglectfully so—in addressing my amendments.

1237
I do so with an interest to declare as a compulsive legislator on disability issues over the past 34 years, both as a private Member and a former Minister, not least for the disabled people of Northern Ireland, and I drafted the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill that prompted the present Leader of the Opposition in another place, as the then Minister for Disabled People, to enact the Disability Discrimination Act in 1995.
My amendments seek to reflect the concerns put to me by Monica Wilson, the chief executive of Disability Action in Northern Ireland, which has over 180 member groups. They cover every aspect of disability: physical and mental, sensory and hidden.
They believe strongly that unification of the existing commissions should not take place at this time. They point out that the vast majority of respondents to the White Paper disagreed with this proposal and that the Government said this issue was "subject" to the outcome of public consultation. Disability Action does not oppose the ultimate amalgamation of the equality bodies in Northern Ireland but argues cogently that this is not the appropriate time to do so.
They also explain why. A single unified commission, they believe, will create a hierarchy of discrimination in Northern Ireland, with religion dominating both resources and status, followed by gender and race, with disability last in the pecking order. I quote from Monica Wilson's statement to me:
"Any equality legislation depends on case law to embed it into our society. The absence of a Northern Ireland Disability Rights Commission will severely restrict the development of such case law and will mean that the quality of advice on this complex area of discrimination will be significantly diminished".
She goes on to ask:
"If government is set on the harmonisation of the Commissions, where is the logic in refusing to consider harmonising the legislation?".
The Bill does not impose a clear duty on public authorities to prepare statutory equality schemes, although this was envisaged by the agreement. Public authorities will have to prepare such schemes only if requested to do so by the equality commission.
Disability Action think requirements for statutory equality schemes and impact assessments should appear on the face of the Bill, instead of being left to be dealt with in guidance; and that the Bill should prohibit all discrimination, whatever its source or sector, whereas currently it prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion and politics.
Turning from equality to human rights issues, Disability Action want the Human Rights Commission (HRC) to be empowered to take cases in its own name without having to find an individual around whom to frame its actions. They believe this was envisaged in the agreement but is not currently provided for. Again, they believe that the HRC should be given the power to investigate human rights abuses or patterns of abuse. To do this, it must, of course, have powers of discovery of documents and to call witnesses; but if the Bill is passed as it stands it will not meet minimum international standards for HRCs.
1238
In many respects, the content of the White Paper has been overtaken by the Good Friday agreement. An already complex picture is further complicated by the existence of the Disability Rights Taskforce, the United Kingdom body established to define and plan the actions, structures and legislation needed to deliver the Government's manifesto pledge of comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for people with disabilities. Your Lordships will have noted, too, that shortly before the issuing of the White Paper the Disability Rights Taskforce had agreed that disability rights commissions be established in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
With many others here and in another place, I hope to see the Government's manifesto commitment put into statutory effect in the new Session of Parliament that begins next month. I hope very much as well that this Northern Ireland Bill is not enacted in a form that will require it to be amended when the new legislation comes before Parliament, which would be wasteful both of parliamentary time and public resources.
In the interests of brevity, there is but one further point I wish to make. Like Disability Action in Northern Ireland, I deeply regret that the White Paper, as an official consultation document addressing issues of such importance in the overall social inclusion agenda, was not published in a range of formats making its contents available to people with visual and hearing impairments or with learning disabilities. Clearly if consultation is not to exclude them, the contents of consultation documents must be made available in the formats that meet their particular communication needs. If this is not done, then disability agencies should be funded to act as consultation intermediaries to communicate all relevant information to people to whom "ordinary print" is not accessible. Disability Action would welcome an opportunity to discuss this, among other important matters, with the Secretary of State and in due course with representatives of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which I hope can be arranged.
I am sure my noble friend the Minister will want to make the most helpful possible response to my amendments and trust it will be one disabled people in Northern Ireland, whose concerns are shared by others on both sides of both Houses of Parliament, can accept as fair to their rightful claims.
Lord Rix: In rising to support the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, I wish to thank him for his kind introduction. I wish to speak specifically to Amendment No. 153 to which my name is attached. I must declare an interest as I speak as chairman of Mencap, the Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults, of which Mencap in Northern Ireland is a most important part and is splendidly represented by our headquarters and resource centre in Belfast, Segal House, which is named after a past treasurer of Mencap and Member of your Lordships' House, the late Lord Segal.
Mencap, of course, welcomes the Government's commitment to equality and tackling exclusion, but Mencap in Northern Ireland feels that the Bill fails to take account of the different and specific needs,

1239
circumstances and experiences of people with a disability, but particularly those with a learning disability, and their families, and will help to underwrite their exclusion. A single commission would create a hierarchy of discrimination with a risk that new initiatives in the field of race and disability rights would be seriously undermined, given the fundamental difference between disability legislation and other pieces of equality legislation.
Mencap believes that the establishment of a separate Northern Ireland disability rights commission is essential. The absence of a dedicated body would mean, regrettably, that disability would once more be low on the equality agenda. I hope that the Government will give an assurance that disability is to be accorded an equal place among the Government's broad based equality agenda by giving further consideration before the Report stage to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester.
Lord Fitt: The pages of Hansard over the past 20 years will bear testament to the noble efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, since 1969 when he first piloted the chronically sick and disabled Bill through the House of Commons. He did so with great compassion. That Bill, limited as it was, brought great benefit to many people in the United Kingdom but not particularly to Northern Ireland at that time. I find myself engaged in the same kind of campaign as he has waged for many years. Disabled people in Northern Ireland were neglected from 1969 until 1978 when, with the help of my noble friend Lord Morris, I succeeded in piloting through to the statute book the chronically sick and disabled Bill (Northern Ireland) in 1978 which brought to Northern Ireland the same conditions as had existed for 10 years prior to that date in the United Kingdom. I believe there is room for a Minister for equal opportunities.
At the moment there are four commissions in Northern Ireland. I have just received word from my noble friend the Minister that in view of the representations that have been made he is prepared to establish an inquiry which is to start its work in November. It will be asked to report in January. It will consider the feasibility of making the four commissions one commission. We have already had many representations from the personnel of the four commissions. I am not too sure whether two months is an adequate period of time for an inquiry into the activities of the four commissions. My noble friend Lord Morris is quite right, disability is in a category of its own in Northern Ireland in that people's health and way of life are safeguarded by the legislation which exists to protect them.
There are other commissions for racial equality and equal opportunities. However, they do not affect the physical and mental well-being of disabled people in Northern Ireland. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree to appoint a Minister with special responsibilities to consider the problems of the disabled in Northern Ireland. My noble friend Lord Morris has waged his campaign on behalf of those who are least able to look after themselves. I hope that just as the
1240
House of Commons listened with great interest and fervour to the arguments which he advanced in 1969, we in this House will listen to those arguments with the same interest and include them in the legislation.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: I would like to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has just said about the wonderful part played by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, on behalf of the disabled over many years. Before I deal with his Amendments Nos. 38 and 39, I also wish to endorse what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I was chairman of Mencap some years before him. I was chairman for four years and I went to Northern Ireland in that capacity a number of times. Mencap was extremely well organised there. We had reason to believe that both Loyalists and Republicans had mentally handicapped people. That is why they never terrorised or in any way made life difficult for the mentally handicapped or their associations.
I am a little surprised that Amendment No. 153 has not been grouped with these amendments because they overlap. However, we shall be entitled to discuss Amendment No. 153 later in some detail and therefore I shall not deal with it any further at the moment. However, I wish to deal with Amendment No. 39. I hope to be corrected if I am wrong but I rather think that the expression "Minister for Equal Opportunities" has not yet acquired any technical description. Looking at it just as it is, one would not know from Amendment No. 39 that it was to be applied particularly with regard to disabled people. They would be included, but does it also mean equal opportunities between the sexes? Does it mean equal opportunities between citizens of the Republic of Ireland and people living in Northern Ireland? Does it deal also with racial equality? With deep respect to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, although I understand and support the motives behind it, that expression needs to be qualified.
Lord Addington: The idea of having a Minister for equal rights who will be able to address disability problems, or indeed a commissioner, is an approach that I wholeheartedly endorse. But is this the right way of doing it? Are the Government convinced that there are ways other than those proposed here which can provide guarantees of achieving the same provision? If the Minister can tell us that there are and, better still, give examples, then we need not worry. If, however, he cannot do so, I am afraid that we must go down the path proposed in the amendments. If the Minister can deal with these problems now, he will save us all a lot of time later. It is to be hoped that if his answers are good, they will be copied by other Ministers on other occasions. We have had these arguments for a long time. The Labour Party when in Opposition often supported this type of amendment. I hope that the Government can give the Committee some idea of their thinking and the progress they are making in this field, and also tell us what will happen in other areas in relation to this problem.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I support this group of amendments, so ably and comprehensively introduced

1241
by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester. It gives me particular pleasure because this is the second of his maiden speeches that I have supported in this Chamber.
I also endorse the remarks of my noble friend Lord Rix. I hesitate to venture into debate on this Bill because I have never ventured into the affairs of Northern Ireland. However, I too have talked to Monica Wilson of Disability Action. My noble friend Lady Masham and I played table tennis with her 30 years ago. The other day on the telephone she sounded just as sensible and as frightening an opponent as she ever was. She is a very level-headed lady.
As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Morris, Disability Action comprises over 180 members of all different kinds of disability and different organisations. Therefore the organisation knows what it is talking about. As a disabled person I understand the point about disability coming low in the pecking order. That is particularly so in Northern Ireland because of religious and political beliefs being high on the list. However, the proportion of disabled people per population in Northern Ireland is high. It is one in six; whereas in this country it is approximately one in nine.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, made a convincing case for a separate disability rights commission. Disability discrimination legislation is different from that relating to race and gender. There is a lack of case law. Time is needed to establish case law and to build a body of experienced staff who can advise on these matters within a unified commission.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is a caring, listening Minister. I was cheered by his words in winding up the Second Reading debate on 5th October. He said:
"The Bill also permits a new commission to establish consultative councils for gender, race, disability and other aspects of equality. We shall take account of the concerns expressed by noble Lords on the equality body. It is certainly not our intention that there should be any less emphasis, through having one body, on the different elements that go into that body. I for one should be very unhappy were that to be the case".
That is excellent news. However, in the very next sentence the Minister continued:
"I am assured that the steps we are taking will not lessen the concern for race relations, gender and all the other matters".—[Official Report, 5/10/98; cols. 225–226.]
I look forward to the Minister's reply. I hope that his remarks will be encouraging. I bear in mind the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Addington; the Minister may say something else that will encourage us and these provisions may not be necessary. I feel that these amendments would help to ensure that the needs and rights of people with a disability were not subsumed or lost in all the other matters.
Lord Hylton: I am as sympathetic as anyone to the needs of people with disabilities. Certainly Hansard will show that in the past I have supported a good number of amendments moved by my noble friends on the "mobile Bench" and probably also by my noble friend Lord Rix.
However, we are dealing with Northern Ireland and need to bear in mind that its population is only 1½ million. It is quite a small entity. Given that fact,
1242
I wonder whether we should not rely on the equality commission as proposed in the Bill and on the statutory duty that will be imposed on public authorities to promote equality of opportunity. One may have received and heard a rather excessive amount of lobbying on behalf of specialised bodies and specialised interests. I wonder whether the situation could not be dealt with as set out in the Bill.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I have a link with Northern Ireland in that a few years ago I was awarded an honorary degree at the University of Ulster. It was a very nice experience. Given the great number of problems in Northern Ireland, we have not heard very much about problems facing the 215,000 people with disabilities who represent 17.4 per cent. of the population.
As the Minister will know, disability can be complex and varied. Are those who will be involved with the commission to be trained in all disability matters? There is a fear that Northern Ireland will restrict the quality and quantity of support to disabled people and will experience significantly lower standards of treatment than in the rest of the UK.
It is easy to push disability matters down the agenda unless they are placed in legislation in their own right. I hope the Minister will find a way of safeguarding all the people in Northern Ireland who have disabilities, many of whom have suffered over the years as a result of the troubles.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: First, I wish to ask two questions about the lead amendment, Amendment No. 36. Subsection (4) states that,
"The number of Ministerial offices shall not exceed 10 or such greater number as the Secretary of State may by order provide".
That is contrary to the Belfast Agreement. The agreement is clear. Page 7 refers to:
"Executive authority to be discharged on behalf of the Assembly by a First Minister and Deputy First Minister and up to ten Ministers with Departmental responsibilities".
There is no suggestion that there should be more than 10 at any point. At different times in the Northern Ireland Office there have been four or five Ministers exercising those responsibilities. It seems to me that 10 is an adequate number. At earlier stages in these debates we were frequently told off on for straying outside the terms of the agreement, and this provision would seem to go outside it. Secondly, what does subsection (3) mean? I find it extremely difficult to know what it is getting at.
Turning to Amendment No. 38 and the other amendments in this grouping, I echo the tributes paid to the noble Lord, Lord Morris. He and I were in another place together for a long time. I can therefore say with authority that everyone who says how hard he has worked for the disabled is absolutely right.
In the Northern Ireland situation there is an additional reason for being concerned about the disabled because there are many people on all sides who are disabled as a result of the troubles. There are policemen and others on the opposite side who are victims of violence and

1243
find themselves disabled as the result of a deliberate act or, for instance, as a result of being involved in a bomb explosion. As we have said in these Northern Ireland debates, the victims deserve special consideration if peace is to be achieved in full. We are part of the way there but if peace is to be achieved in full, the victims, and in particular the disabled among them, deserve special consideration.
That brings us to the two questions posed by the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morris. In Amendment No. 39 he suggests a Northern Ireland Minister for equal opportunities and in Amendment No. 153, which we have partially discussed, at least, he suggests a disability rights commission for Northern Ireland.
With regard to the question of having a Minister—by which it would be almost axiomatic that there would be a department as well—my noble friend Lord Renton asked whether there was a definition of "equal opportunities" for this purpose and how wide the term went. I suppose there is not such a definition in the legal sense of the word, and the noble Lord is, after all, a lawyer, but in the Northern Ireland agreement paragraphs on page 17 speak of:
"a new statutory Equality Commission to replace the Fair Employment Commission, the Equal Opportunities Commission (NI). the Commission for Racial Equality (NI) and the Disability Council".
In the next paragraph it says:
"It would be open to a new Northern Ireland Assembly to consider bringing together its responsibilities for these matters"—
that is, the four covered by the existing bodies—
"into a dedicated Department of Equality".
I think there is no doubt that that is what we are speaking about: all four matters would be dealt with by this department.
I believe that there is a lot to be said for a dedicated department of equality in Northern Ireland, but that is not necessarily a decision which we in Parliament should take, for two reasons. First, it would come better as part of the setting up of the new Northern Ireland government, if that is the way that the Assembly, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister wish to organise their affairs. I believe it is something that they should decide within Northern Ireland. Secondly, the paragraph in the agreement from which I have just read makes clear that that is what is intended in the agreement. I was slightly over-egging the importance of the agreement a moment ago, but nevertheless I think we should stay with it, and that is a second reason for believing that, if there is to be a department of equality, it would be better if it came about as a result of the decisions made in Northern Ireland by the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Assembly.
Another question concerns whether there should be a disability rights commission separate from the equality commission. That question is more complicated. The first difficulty is how many rights and how many forms of equality are to be encompassed within the single commission. I take the point that Northern Ireland is not a large place to have four commissions, each dealing with different types of equality, and that they can
1244
overrun themselves. We have spoken about the problem of over-regulating and the difficulties of obeying all the regulations. A single commission could make sure that the different regulations covering different forms of equality dovetail satisfactorily and are policed satisfactorily by a single entity covering all four types of inequality which can occur.
I realise that separating disability into a separate commission is intended to give it greater prominence, but it may not necessarily do so. If there is a large equality commission covering the three areas apart from disability, that will be the large, important body, and there will be a little body to one side covering disability only. I do not believe that the little body will necessarily exercise the clout that people who support it would wish it to.
I do not think that in this case the Government need feel inhibited by the agreement, which says:
"Subject to the outcome of public consultation currently underway, the British Government intends a new statutory Equality Commission to replace"
the four. That is much weaker wording than in every other paragraph of the agreement. The rest of the agreement says, "The British Government will", "So-and-so will". This paragraph says, "the British Government intends". They did so intend at the time the agreement was written, but the matter is subject to public consultation, and this is part of the public consultation. I do not believe that the Government need feel bound to pursue this matter in exactly the detail that is set out in the agreement. I have doubts as to how that public consultation should result as far as a separate disability commission is concerned. The matter deserves careful thought, which I am sure it will receive from the Government.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: As so often in the past, my noble friend Lord Cope has said practically everything that I wanted to say on this matter. However, I was particularly struck by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, in which he intimated a conversation, to which I was not a party, with the Minister. What he said was news to me; namely, that to all intents and purposes the Minister intends that consultation on this matter will be reopened. At least, that is what I understood the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, to say. If that is indeed the case, those people from whom many Members of the Committee have received representations, especially disabled people in Northern Ireland, will be delighted. I hope that the Minister will put on record exactly what he intends.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I can do no other than support the pleas made in general on behalf of the disabled and the handicapped. I served for a good many years as vice-chairman of the Eastern Special Care Management Committee, centred mainly on Muckamore Abbey but extending over the whole of the eastern part of the Province. We benefited greatly from the visits of the noble Lords, Lord Rix and Lord Renton, during my time in office. We were demobilised by the updating and

1245
modernising of local government in 1973, and elected representatives—in the best sense of the term—were then excluded from all the operations.
Muckamore Abbey contained 800 patients. That number has now been greatly reduced, mainly as a result of the lobby for farming people out to what was called the community. Thankfully, in Northern Ireland we do not have many equivalents of Blackfriars Bridge, and many of those discharged prematurely from Muckamore Abbey have been well cared for.
At that time we came under the Stormont Department of Health and were fortunate in having sympathetic Ministers while I was involved. There came a time when the Department of Health muscled in on our activities, particularly with regard to the closure of the specialist schools and our specially trained teachers. As a result, despite the enlightened efforts of education experts, and so on, one finds that where two handicapped or disabled pupils are placed in a relatively small school the tendency is that far too frequently they are placed in the back row and follow as best they can. Certainly they do not benefit as much as they did under the unified educational and special care arrangement.
I trust that the claims of the disabled and the handicapped will be kept very much at the forefront of the deliberations of the new Assembly. Knowing personally a good many members of that Assembly, I am confident that those claims will not be neglected. Is it likely that the number will be increased greatly beyond 10? I note that the Secretary of State is given power to appoint an unspecified number of Ministers by order. Without wishing to spring this matter on the Minister at the last minute, can he say whether such an order will be subject to the approval of Parliament?
Lord Dubs: This has been a full debate. I deal first with a number of specific points that are not to do with the main thrust of the debate: disability. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked about the number of possible ministerial posts and why Amendment No. 36 made provision for the Secretary of State to increase the number beyond 10. The answer is that throughout the summer we have been consulting widely with all the parties on this question. The wording of the amendment therefore reflects the view of the parties in Northern Ireland simply to leave open the possibility that there may be a wish to have more than 10 posts. But that is something for the future. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, also asked about subsection (3) in Amendment No. 36. What it means is that all departments must have a Minister but that no Minister should be in charge of more than one department. Put that way, the noble Lord may say that it is rather simple. I know that the noble Lord is keen on clear English, as I am. I concede that its wording is a little more complex than the way I have put it.
I turn to the main focus of the debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester. I pay tribute to his lifelong dedication to the cause of the disabled and the very effective way in which he has achieved enormous gains for disabled people over many years. That is not to say that other noble Lords who have
1246
contributed to the debate have not also shown a high level of commitment to the needs of the disabled, including the noble Lord, Lord Rix. My noble friend Lord Morris referred to Monica Wilson. I have met Monica Wilson on a number of occasions and know her fairly well. She is a doughty and effective campaigner for the needs of the disabled. She puts the case with enormous strength and sensitivity and such is the force and persuasiveness of her arguments that it is not easy to disagree with her.
This debate has covered a good deal of the ground which is probably more appropriate to Part VI of the Bill to which we shall come later. That part of the Bill deals with these matters in detail. I do not say that in any way to diminish the importance of the points that have been made but simply to point out that we are bound to return to this matter in Part VI which is subject to government and other amendments. However, they are so far down the list that, apart from one or two, they are not necessarily before the Committee this evening in any way that we can discern. I do not belittle the arguments that have been put, but I shall reflect upon them between now and when we come to the appropriate part of the Bill when these matters will be before the Committee.
I say to my noble friend Lord Morris that the Government do not believe that their proposals which appear in the agreement will result in any diminution in the importance of addressing the needs of disabled people. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, we do not wish to anticipate a more detailed debate on Clauses 58 and 59. I shall be happy then to address a number of the points in detail. The Government have tabled a significant number of amendments to those clauses and associated schedules to meet some of the concerns that have been expressed. I say most emphatically that disability will be treated on an equal basis as other equality concerns. There is absolutely no question of establishing a hierarchy of equality.
My noble friend Lord Fitt made reference to a consultation period which ended in July. The Government have reflected upon it and provided a number of reassurances and amendments. But we continue to believe in the merits of a single equality commission. No doubt other noble Lords will wish to discuss that further when the Committee turns its attention to Part VI. However, as to the amendments before us this evening, whatever the strength of the argument that has been put, I suggest to the Committee that these are considerations for the Assembly rather than this particular Bill. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister are charged with devising a structure of departments appropriate to the needs of Northern Ireland. It is better to leave it to them than to suggest that they can do that except in one respect when we want a particular department. I do not want to belittle the concerns that have been expressed about disabled people because I share many if not all those concerns, but I believe that the method that has been devised is the most appropriate way forward and we should leave the structure of Northern Ireland departments to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and let the Assembly pronounce upon it. Further, I believe that they will be

1247
sensitive to the concerns that have been expressed today and—who knows—may even adopt some of the suggestions that have been made, but essentially that is a matter for them and not us.
Lord Morris of Manchester: There will be an opportunity later, as my noble friend the Minister said, to return to this still sadly neglected policy area. For that reason, and so that representatives of Northern Ireland's disabled people can reflect on the Minister's response to me, I shall not be pressing Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 tonight. Meanwhile, I must point out that my amendments as a whole were drafted to facilitate a debate on Disability Action's concerns about the Bill as now drafted and, as your Lordships heard, my main purpose was both to draw attention to those concerns and the undoubted cogency with which they are argued by the disabled people of Northern Ireland.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.45 p.m.
Clause 15 [Northern Ireland Ministers]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): Before I call Amendment No. 37, I should point out that I cannot call Amendment No. 38, although I appreciate that the noble Lord has already spoken to it.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 8, line 1, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
("(1) Where

(a) an Assembly is elected under section 24 or (Extraordinary elections);

(b) a determination under section (Ministerial offices)(1) takes effect;

(c) a resolution which causes one or more Ministerial offices to become vacant is passed under section 23(2);

(d) the period of exclusion imposed by such a resolution comes to an end; or

(e) such other circumstances obtain as may be specified in standing orders,

all Northern Ireland Ministers shall cease to hold office and the Ministerial offices shall be filled by applying subsections (4) to (9) within a period so specified.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments No. 38 and 39 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 40 to 44:
Page 8, line 17, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 23 and insert—
("(6) If—

(a) the nominating officer does not exercise the power conferred by subsection (4) within a period specified in standing orders; or

(b) the nominated person does not take up the selected Ministerial office within that period, that power").

Page 8, line 26, leave out ("to") and insert ("and").
Page 8, line 31, leave out ("are") and insert ("were").
Page 8, line 32, at end insert ("on the day on which the Assembly first met following its election").
Page 9, line 5, after ("vacant") insert ("otherwise than by virtue of subsection (1), the nominating officer of the party on whose behalf the previous incumbent was nominated may nominate a person to hold the office who is a member of the party and of the Assembly.
(13A) If—

(a) the nominating officer does not exercise the power conferred by subsection (13) within a period specified in standing orders; or

(b) the nominated person does not take up the office within that period,").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 40 to 44 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume. I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.50 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Mental Health Legislation
7.49 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln The Lord Bishop of Lincoln rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to amend current mental health legislation in order to facilitate positive intervention to assist the mentally ill living in the community.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, my Question touches on one of the most excluded and neglected groups in our society. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, has chosen to make his maiden speech as part of this short debate.
The care of mentally ill people is a topic which allows for nothing but realism and compassion. Realism is necessary because I am aware of the shortage of resources in mental health provision. Compassion is essential because the condition of life of some with mental illness falls far short of what they would desire for themselves.
The particular reason why I speak tonight is the case of Christopher Edwards, a young man killed by a fellow inmate in Chelmsford Prison in November 1994. At the outset I pay warm and heartfelt tribute to Christopher's parents who have campaigned tirelessly for justice on behalf of mentally disordered offenders.
Christopher was mentally ill. He was killed by a schizophrenic called Richard Linford. I do not want to become involved in the question of the responsibility for the events which led up to his murder. That matter has been dealt with at length in the inquiry chaired by Keiran Coonan, QC, and which reported in June this year. There are still questions which arise from that inquiry but they are under discussion by Members from another place.
My own concern is twofold. First, how can the mentally ill, who have little or no insight into their condition, be helped by the medical and social services?

1249
Secondly, how can mentally disordered offenders be diverted from prison, and if they do end up in prison, how can they best be helped?
The inquiry into Christopher Edwards' death found that the mental condition of both young men deteriorated because they did not recognise the need to take the medication prescribed for them, and that both of them should have been sent not to prison but to hospital. I am aware that sufficient powers already exist under mental health legislation to intervene where an individual's health or safety, or the safety of others, is at risk. The safeguards exist if they are properly used.
I am also aware that the Health Secretary has indicated that he wishes to see a system of care for the mentally ill which provides both security and support for all who need it. He has set in train a review of the Mental Health Act in order to reflect the opportunities and limits of modern therapies and drugs. I want to support his initiative wholeheartedly. But what I want to do, equally, is to encourage a thorough examination of this very difficult question of intervention and to encourage schemes of diversion away from prison.
A recognised symptom of mental illness is failure to be aware of your own condition. It is indefensible, then, to expect the mentally ill to seek and accept treatment and to hold them responsible for their condition if they do not. We do not treat people unaware of their physical condition after a car accident in that way; we take them to hospital. Of course, there are civil liberties involved, but the present system of minimum intervention aimed at protecting civil liberty has here cost one man his life and condemned another to many years in Rampton. Equally, it has condemned many other mentally ill people to self-harm, imprisonment, misery and sometimes suicide.
I recognise that the use of new medications can play a big part in encouraging and maintaining compliance with medication. But where a patient lacks insight into his or her condition and is resistant to or non-compliant with treatment and medication, there may ultimately be no option but to consider compulsory treatment. I believe that that should be a last resort and that it should always be provided in a hospital or equivalent clinical setting.
There must always be full and proper safeguards for the rights and dignity of the patient, and any treatment must be accompanied by full and ongoing monitoring of the individual's physical and mental condition.
I believe that problems in community care often stem from a lack of understanding of the complex needs of patients with a mental illness and their families. What is needed is the engagement of both individual and family in the entire process of the illness from the first signs of its onset to the establishment of a comprehensive individual care plan to meet their needs.
I turn to my second concern. No one can believe that prisons are suitable places for the treatment of severe mental illness. The Home Office, in a 1991 study, spoke of custodial remand as a method of obtaining help for mentally disordered offenders being "inhumane, expensive and ineffective". As I have said, the
1250
1983 Mental Health Act allows court diversion by remanding in hospital rather than in prison, but court diversion schemes vary throughout the country and there was no scheme existing at Colchester Magistrates' Court when Christopher Edwards was apprehended. No one seems to know how many schemes exist. Some are run by social services, others by health authorities or the Probation Service.
There is an urgent need for a comprehensive review of those schemes and for guidelines to be drawn up for their use. Just as important is the need to deal with the severe pressure on secure hospital beds. I am told that the number of patients who have to be compulsorily detained in hospital has trebled since 1980. Many authorities cannot staff 24–hour crisis teams. Many police surgeons do not have Section 12 training. Only 21 per cent. of all health care officers and nursing grades employed in prisons are registered mental nurses. All that has to be set against a current prison population where some 20,000 sentenced prisoners and 8,300 remand prisoners have some kind of mental disorder—psychosis, neurosis, personality disorder, substance misuse or addiction.
I shall not say more, save that I believe that the inability to find a more understanding, humane and just approach for mentally-disordered offenders has been one of the most conspicuous failings of both government and society over many years. I see these people when I visit prisons as part of my work as bishop to prisons and we hear of cases in the Board for Social Responsibility where we try to think through issues of community care.
I hope and pray that this Government's decision to conduct a comprehensive review of the Mental Health Act will be self-critical, thorough and compassionate. No one should underestimate the difficulties of achieving the integration of services, but if a set of core values, central to a decent quality of life for both users and carers, can be recognised and accepted, a significant step will have been taken to reduce the misery of the mentally ill and to assist and support all those who care for them.
8 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sure we are all immensely grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln for having introduced the subject today. I am also sure that we all look forward with great warmth to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Laming.
As a complete layman, I wish to underline a few of the points made by the right reverend Prelate. First, it is a time when, rightly, we face the need in penal policy to be much clearer about the distinction between right and wrong and to protect society. In particular, the most disadvantaged members of society are often asked to carry a disproportionately large burden in coping with delinquency and social disorder. It is, as we heard again in the House today, a time when we are determined not to be sentimental about the need for honest punishment on occasions. What has always concerned me is the degree to which our prisons are overcrowded with

1251
people who should not be in prison. I believe that the remarks of the right reverend Prelate underline the point which must concern all of us who consider the issue: the complex and thin dividing lines between criminal behaviour and mental disturbance. We cannot overemphasise the point, or encourage governments too much to endeavour always to make that distinction, and to ensure that the appropriate support is being given to people who need it.
During my 13 years some time ago as a Member of another place, there were within my constituency areas of acute deprivation. What troubled me then was that when there was a case of clear mental disturbance, it frequently put unimaginable burdens on families with limited resources to cope with them. The consequence was often breakdown among other members of the family because of their inability to cope and the absence of resources for support.
I worried at that time as regards my constituency. In my present work as president of the YMCA in England, I have seen the issue presented again in the overwhelming challenge of homelessness, not least among the young. We are often encouraged to attempt to consider the issue simply in terms of finding homes; but, on many occasions, the homelessness is the symptom of a deeper problem. With regard to drug addiction and those who work with drug addicts, again mental illness is often the origin of the problem and not simply a consequence.
If we accept the complexity of the interrelationship between those different dimensions and the thin dividing lines which I suggest exist between criminality and mental inadequacy or mental disturbance, it becomes clear, as the right reverend Prelate emphasised, that above all we need an integrated approach. We need flexibility. We need imagination. We have to avoid over-specialisation and over-fragmentation. The tremendous challenge is to ensure that adequate information is available to families and those who are looking for the right place and seek the right support. There is tremendous need for dynamic exchange of information between the different agencies working in this area.
I emphasise that I speak very much as a layman in these matters. However, I have been thrown up against the issue in various areas of my life. When the Government are considering commendably so rigorously and afresh many of these issues, we should urge them in every possible way to take the need for flexibility, imagination, integration and co-operation as one of the most important priorities in the whole approach.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Laming: My Lords, when I turned my mind to the contribution that I might make to this debate I recalled the words of Sir Walter Scott when he said:
"Respect was mingled with surprise".
I am sure it will be understood when I say that my respect for your Lordships' House is surpassed by my surprise at being here! Because of that I planned a long
1252
apprenticeship but, in the event, could not resist a comment on the important Question so well posed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln.
However, before doing so, perhaps I may thank your Lordships for the warmth of welcome; and thank the officials for their unfailing help. I fear I may need that help for some time to come. I hope that it will not be thought presumptuous if I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on his appointment in the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, had a very distinguished career in the National Health Service before joining your Lordships' House and I wish him continued success.
I began my career in the Probation Service. I mention that only because in those years I was well used to visiting penal establishments of all kinds. However, when later I had to work in a large, geographically isolated, Victorian mental hospital it had a profound effect upon me. The patients lived in large wards. They had few, if any, possessions, little or no personal space, no privacy and were often disturbed by the disruptive behaviour of others. It would be an exaggeration to say that their lives were confined to the perimeter of the hospital. Rather, their horizons did not extend beyond the ward in which they lived, and they had few rights. And what was even worse, over and above the effect of their illness, was the disabling influence of what became known as "institutionalisation" which created enforced dependency on the institution.
I am pleased to report that that institution, and many like it, are now closed. Because of new medications, and improved medical and social care, many thousands of people now have entirely new life opportunities and are being successfully cared for in the community, to everyone's benefit. If treatment in hospital is needed it is, as with other health matters, for a relatively short duration. The tragedy is that the services that were designed to replace the old institutions were often seriously underfunded. Furthermore, success depended on good inter-agency co-operation, which was all too often missing, and the services which existed, displayed in many instances an unrealistic degree of optimism about the ability of rootless people, who had been greatly affected by their illness, to live ordered lives.
As has been indicated, the current legislation dates back to 1959. Therefore, it is timely to consider a review to ensure that the law reflects changes in practice and meets new needs. I have no doubt that the review team, which the Government have established, will have in mind the following. First, mental health problems are very common and varied. They can be experienced by anyone at any time. They are a major reason for absence from work and they result in heavy demands being made upon local medical services. However the good news, and this must be emphasised, is that with the correct treatment most patients recover well and usually without admission to hospital.
Secondly, there exist already many examples of good practice based upon successful teamwork between the key agencies. We know already what works and what are the ingredients of a comprehensive, reliable and effective mental health service. We can build on that strong foundation.

1253
However—it goes to the heart of the Question posed by the right reverend Prelate—it must be acknowledged that in general the services have not properly addressed the complex and special needs of a small minority of patients who have been seriously damaged by their illness and who are potentially a danger to themselves and others. Often those patients lead casual life styles and cannot be relied upon to know when their mental health is deteriorating.
The tragedies which have occurred—and all too many have occurred—have often been because the services have expected these patients to be capable of leading more structured lives and to be aware of their own needs. In future the legislation and practice must ensure that those people do not fall through the net. In my view this requires specialist outreach teams, operating where the patients live, maintaining regular and frequent contact and making absolutely sure that essential medication is being taken. This requires the proper use of authority. Without this, some patients may be a serious danger to themselves and others, and the public will rightly lose confidence in the Government's policy.
The Government are to be congratulated on giving a much higher priority to mental health services. The safety and well-being of the community depends upon people with mental health problems receiving appropriate and effective treatment. For some that must include a realistic assessment of risk. Over and beyond that, I feel sure that your Lordships will want to be satisfied that those who experience mental health problems are treated with dignity and enjoy good standards of care.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, it is my great privilege to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on behalf of this House as a whole and on behalf of your Lordships present in particular, on a splendid maiden speech, made within the time limit and one which was not too controversial. I hope we shall hear him many more times in the future.
It was my honour, when I was Lord Lieutenant of the Isle of Wight, to have had quite a lot to do with the Probation Service, in which the noble Lord started his career. I have the highest regard for them in their work. I entirely agree with much of what he had to say. I would also like to thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln for introducing this Question and for his remarks.
It is splendid to see the Minister concerned listening to our debate. In my experience, it is very rare for Ministers to come and listen to debates in this House and I hope he stays to the end. I say that particularly because I am advised in what I say by SANE, of which I have the great honour to be the chairman. SANE is an acronym for Schizophrenia, A National Emergency. It was not just plucked out of the air, but was the title of a series of articles by Marjorie Wallace, who is now our chief executive. She has been telling me how much the Minister Mr. Boateng is working towards some sort of a solution to the problems which we are airing today.
1254
I believe that the care in the community idea was splendid. Indeed much of what the noble Lord, Lord Laming, had to say about the old asylums is very true. I saw it in the one we had on the Isle of Wight. There was definitely a good reason for the last Government taking the initiative that they did. However, they never had enough money to do it properly. It is also true to say that they did not give enough attention to the fact that some mentally ill people, some of the time, would need more accommodation than could be provided for them by care in the community. That is the nub of the problem. We have lost 50,000 beds during the past 15 years. They may have been the wrong beds in the old asylums, but the beds were needed. I really do not know how we will get them back. It will be a very difficult problem.
Furthermore, I believe that there are not enough people to look after the mentally ill. The British Isles has a population of around 60 million. If out of that number one in 200 suffers from some sort of mental illness at some stage in his or her life, then we must have people to care for up to 300,000, though not all of them all of the time. Even if it is 100,000 mentally ill people I am not sure that there are enough people with the aptitude and the ability to look after them. We have a real problem, which I am sure the Minister, Mr. Boateng, will do his best to try to solve, and I wish him all the best.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, I can only endorse what previous speakers have already said on most of the points. When the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln told me he was going to focus on this very difficult problem of mentally ill offenders it rang a bell in my mind, because my own son came into this class. It was many years ago and luckily he was never convicted. When it came to court, he was sent to hospital. I regret to say that, although I did not make any criticism at the time, the police had no conception of how to handle this kind of case: that of a known schizophrenic who had committed a serious offence but who had already been in and out of hospital and had a well-documented record. It is, and has been for many years, clear that the police and those concerned in the courts—solicitors, magistrates, prison staff—all need far greater exposure to education and training.
The problem of offenders is only one small segment of the enormous problem that the present Government are showing every sign of tackling with great determination. I believe that by the due process and care they have adopted in assembling recommendations from every quarter, we are at last to get something much nearer the kind of framework we require for above all solving the problem of co-ordination between authorities. The Griffiths Report made clear at the time that there were grave dangers unless there was a single agency to bring together health, social services, housing and so on. This is the glaring need. We want not only a single national policy accepted by all in the field, but also single district agencies, perhaps coterminous with either health authorities or counties, which would have full authority. They would have staff drawn from the

1255
local authorities, the health services and all concerned, so that there could at last be a properly co-ordinated tackling of the problems.
This is the key to the future and I hope and believe that, out of the Government's review of mental health legislation, this will emerge.
8.29 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I apologise to the right reverend Prelate and to the House for being absent at the beginning of the debate, but I am not completely bereft of knowledge of his remarks. I hope he does not mind, but I telephoned his office this morning and the person who answered was kind enough to read to me the first and last paragraphs of his speech. I am grateful that he has opened up this important subject for discussion.
I entered this debate with some trepidation, but my locus for doing so is that I am one of three vice chairmen of the All-Party Mental Health Group. Thinking about the tragedy which lies behind today's debate, it occurs to me that there are certainly some procedures which should be put in place which might go a long way towards preventing similar situations from happening in the future.
What is needed to start with is a much greater clarity of thought in investigating these tragedies once they have occurred. At present, the immediate reaction of the public, media and politicians is to ignore the real background of the situation and simply to look at it from a crime and disorder viewpoint. Because of the fear that such occurrences trigger in our minds, we shut down our analytical faculties and fail to look at the whole time track of the individual who has committed the violent act. This fear is one of inexplicable, indeed of somewhat senseless, violence with no rhyme or reason to it, we feel. But is it?
There are two pictures we need to examine, not one. Yes, the individual does have a history of mental illness, but he, or she, also has a history of psychiatric treatment and this is where we should direct our attention. There are two questions which we and the police should always ask when one of these tragic incidents occurs. First, was he violent before he had psychiatric treatment; and, secondly, was he on one of the drugs known to cause violent and destructive behaviour?
As soon as an incident takes place, there should be an inquiry into the personal drug history before, during and after treatment. It is sometimes said that the problem occurred "because he was not taking his drugs". This begs another very important question: was the individual experiencing the withdrawal symptoms commonly associated with some anti-depressants and anti-psychotics? So far as I know, there are no long-term outcome studies of the drugs and certainly no understanding of the biochemical mechanisms and their effects involved in the withdrawal process.
I think that the kindest thing we can do for those suffering from behavioural and emotional problems is to make sure that we treat them in all respects as we ourselves would like to be treated under similar circumstances. In other words, we should provide a
1256
quiet environment where they are treated in a kindly manner which maintains their self-respect and does not do anything to make it more difficult for them to recover.
I do suggest that the solution is not to provide more and better of the same, but to re-examine the philosophical and medical basis of the treatments currently being provided. Would it not be better to step back and look at the problem as a whole; to admit that what we are doing at the moment is not working very well and to look for a different approach?
It has been said that the ethnic minorities are under served by the mental health service. But this is a somewhat two-edged sword. For many, such attention as they do receive sadly reflects their experience in other areas of society. Excessive doses of drugs and the exorbitant use of ECT have been all too frequent occurrences. Members of the ethnic minorities, particularly from the Afro-Caribbean community, may have mixed feelings about calls to provide them with increased levels of service unless this is seen to be culturally appropriate and sensitive.
My main hope is that we shall look carefully at alternatives to current treatment modalities. For example, it is now well known that an important, possibly the most important, factor in understanding eating disorders is a simple zinc deficiency. And this, multiplied across many other similar examples, does, of course, have a bearing on the question of the cost of mental health services. It also introduces comprehensibility to the whole question of mental disorder and gives sufferers and their families the chance to take responsibility for solving their problems.
It is interesting that this debate should have been initiated by one of your Lordships from the Bishops' Benches. Any sensible approach to the affliction of mental illness requires that we regard the human being holistically; that is, as spirit, mind and body.
8.25 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: My Lords, I, too, thank my right reverend friend for initiating this debate. I should like publicly to acknowledge his 15 year concern for the prison services. It is an outstanding record. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Laming, if I may do so without presumption, on his maiden speech. He brings a wealth of experience to the subject from his knowledge of the probation and social services. I hope that he will have many other occasions on which to address this House, preferably with more than four minutes at his disposal.
I share the concern of my right reverend friend for the tragic, senseless and needless death of Mr. Christopher Edwards. I warmly support all that he said on the subject and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
Is the Minister aware of the great satisfaction which exists in this country as a result of the Written Answer given by the Secretary of State for Health in another place on 31st July this year? The Answer will have given satisfaction to many people who courageously cope with suffering from mental illnesses, to those who care for them and to the professionals who work among

1257
them in conditions of considerable deprivation. It was very bold of the Secretary of State to speak of the inadequacy of the present provision, to demand and look for a dramatic change for the better and to announce a root and branch review of the Mental Health Act 1983. I reiterate that it is most welcome indeed. Making mental health a priority in our nation has been a stated aim in the health policy of this Government. It is most welcome and enormously appropriate.
The most alarming part of my right reverend friend's speech was the statistic showing a 300 per cent. increase in the number of people compulsorily detained in hospital since 1980. That figure was provided by SANE and illustrates a very serious issue. It is vastly out of proportion to the increase in the number of people with mental illnesses. What conceivable reasons can there be for a 300 per cent. increase during those years? Is it related to the increase in the number of drug-related mental illnesses in our population? Is it related to failures to prevent relapse; failures in the aftercare of those who move out into the community; or failure of the community to understand the needs of those who are coping with illnesses in the community?
I wish to emphasise the great need to attend to public education in mental health and their awareness of the nature of mental illness. I warmly support the five year campaign launched last week by the Royal College of Psychiatrists to de-stigmatise mental illness. So far as I am aware, mental illness is the only form of illness where the attitude of the general public makes a significant difference to the outcome. Therefore, it is vital that the general public are more fully appraised of the significance of what can now be done for those who suffer from mental illnesses and the importance of attitudes in the community to the outcome.
The Secretary of State for Health said that care in the community has failed. I understand what lies behind that statement. It is an understandable soundbite, even though it may have caused some distress and misunderstanding to the many who are courageously coping in the community. However, I am inclined to say, as of another subject when Christianity was claimed to have failed, the problem was not that it had failed but simply that it had not been tried.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I too would like to thank the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Lincoln for raising this very important issue. It is interesting that the case he raised was one that very much concerned me when I introduced the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill in this House earlier this year. As a result of that I was asked to be a director of SANE, and I declare that as an interest.
Care in the community is the subject and I think it might almost be called care in crisis. Ask anyone in the street today, flung out of an in-care hostel or the psychiatric wing of a hospital because of a shortage of beds, "Where is care in the community?" and he will answer, "Wherever I can find somewhere to sleep; a cardboard box; a park bench; a railway arch".
1258
That is a terrible indictment of our modern society. The choice for them, all too often, is sleeping rough, committing a crime and going to prison or committing suicide. Forty per cent. decide to sleep rough. One in three suffers from mental illness; others are in prison; and one in seven commits suicide—some choice, some care!
Even Frank Dobson, the Secretary of State for Health, said that care in the community had failed a substantial number of mentally-ill people and I am delighted that this Government have decided to give a root-and-branch review of mental health law because it is now accepted that the Mental Health Act 1983 no longer serves the best interests of sufferers, their families, carers or the general public. We must have 24-hour crisis teams. We really need sheltered accommodation for the mentally ill, in the same way as the old folks have it, so that they can get their drugs and so that there may be a doctor looking after them, or whatever, all under the one roof. We must have more acute hospital beds. Without the backstop of hospital beds community care will never regain public confidence.
The saga of tragedies is revealed in the independent inquiry into homicides by mentally ill people which the Government instigated in 1994 and which revealed fault lines in a system in chaos. SANE surveyed 23 recent inquiries and found a clear-cut pattern of fault. All but one blamed the breakdown of communications. Nearly all revealed the lack of effective risk assessment; poor recording and keeping of case notes. There was a failure to listen to the experiences of family and sufferer. In some cases life and death decisions were made by people without qualifications. Within the mental health service patients' welfare is often shuffled around like a crazy game of pass-the-parcel from one authority to another—more importantly, from health care to social services.
When lives are lost in such circumstances, we are told that no one is to blame. But is not the system to blame? Is that not what we have to sort out? I am so glad that this Government seem to recognise the need for revolution in mental health care. Those of us who have been warning about the desperate situation for so long have lived to see the acceptance that community care has not been the Holy Grail of mental health. There is a long way to go. To make good intentions work we need to attract back doctors and nurses who have been demoralised, to build up centres of excellence for assessment and diagnosis and to impose sanctions on authorities which fall short of national standards, especially in providing the right number of available beds.
However, the Government must tackle the two most controversial and thorny problems. The first is the issue of compulsory treatment in the community and the second is the involvement of families and carers, the country's most wasted resource.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Lincoln on

1259
initiating this debate. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on his extremely cogent and well-informed maiden speech.
Although the review of the Mental Health Act was only recently announced, I hope that tonight the Minister will be able to give us a clear indication of the principles which he believes the review team will follow and the issues that they will tackle. However, let me, first, say that we on these Benches welcome much in the Government's approach to mental health. We welcome the fact that one of the first two National Health Service frameworks to be drawn up will be for mental health. We also welcome a commitment to more 24-our nursing care. We welcome the concept of assertive outreach. We welcome the partnership-in-action approach, designed to break down barriers between health authorities, social services and other providers.
Finally, we welcome the commitment to a disability rights commission, which will cover people with mental health problems. I look forward to seeing that in the Queen's Speech. However, we do not welcome some of the punitive language that has been used by Ministers. The safety-plus approach adopted by the department must not mean treating mental patients as criminals. Furthermore, we do not welcome blanket statements by Ministers that care in the community has failed. The implementation of care in the community has undoubtedly failed in many cases, but the philosophy of care in the community has not failed and we must not return to the bad old days of thinking that every mental patient needs locking up in an institution.
With proper regular care and supervision, many patients can take their place in the community without danger to the public, but more resources are needed to provide for more effective care and supervision. We have been tantalised with reports of further substantial resources being made available for mental health services. I very much hope that the Minister tonight will confirm this and explain where it will be directed.
Turning to the Mental Health Act review itself, there is no doubt that it needs updating to reflect the care-in-the-community approach. Currently it is extremely orientated to institutional treatment. In addition, it needs to reflect the needs and concerns of carers. We believe that there may be a case for some form of compulsory treatment in the community, but this must only be as a last resort. Assertive outreach must not become aggressive outreach; otherwise it will fail.
As a number of organisations have pointed out, there should also be a right to care and treatment for those suffering from mental health problems. This should underpin the new legislation. We also hope that the review team will look at the issue of discharge, as highlighted by SANE. It was accepted by the previous government that the powers of lay managers to discharge without reference to the responsible medical officer should be abolished. We also believe that the legal regime for mentally disordered offenders should be re-examined, as was so graphically described by the right reverend Prelate.
1260
The review also needs to look at how those considered to have untreatable personality or psychopathic disorders are dealt with. Currently they appear to fall outside the Act. The issue of confidentiality also needs to be addressed. Information must be shareable in appropriate circumstances. At the end of the day, however, I hope that the review team and the Government will also recognise, both from the legal and the clinical perspectives, that public education is vital. I cannot say this better than did the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Ely in his remarks: for treatment to be truly effective we need the full confidence and understanding of the community—and only public education can do that.
8.39 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, in considering the nub of this Motion—that is to say, the question of what might be done to amend current mental health legislation—I confess to starting from a basic belief. That belief is that the broad direction, the broad aim of mental health policy over the past 35 years, which has been to humanise care of the mentally ill and as far as possible to normalise their lives, has been the right one, both ethically and clinically.
Most people with mental health needs can and do lead satisfying lives in the community, given the right kind of support. In fact, being part of a normal community is the best kind of therapy for the majority of those with a mental illness. In recent years we have seen the closure of the large long-stay psychiatric hospitals, and in their place has been the provision of community services and appropriate accommodation.
In any transition as fundamental as that we can point to a balance sheet of losses and gains, but it cannot be stated too emphatically that in the recent development of care in the community the gains far, far outweigh the losses. I recently had the pleasure of visiting a mental health trust in the right reverend Prelate's diocese; namely the South Lincolnshire Community and Mental Health Services Trust. Anyone who wants to gain an understanding of what care in the community means, particularly in an extended rural area, would do well to pay a visit to the Stamford Resource Centre. The centre was opened recently as the base of operations for home treatment service for mental health patients living in the locality.
The service is provided by a 24-our on-call team, who will assess and treat patients in their own homes, either routinely or in response to requests for crisis intervention. The primary aims at Stamford are to provide a speedy service, to tailor the type of care to the specific needs of the individual patient and as far as possible to minimise any stay in hospital. The local verdict on the service, from GPs as well as patients, has been overwhelmingly positive, but it is not just a matter of putting in place a workable system in a particular area. Much depends, too, on the professionalism of the individuals running it.
The key to the home treatment service is for the team to get in early while the patient retains some measure of judgment and persuade the individual that he or she

1261
needs treatment. The key to that is to gain the trust of the patient and to establish a relationship which ensures that if treatment is needed, whether medication or a trip to hospital, persuasion rather than coercion will bring about the desired result. Indeed, if there is one thing which separates success from failure in community mental healthcare, it is that engagement with the patient, the exercise in communication which leads a patient to accept his or her condition and the treatment needed to tackle it. With mental illness, it is not enough to ask ourselves what patients need. We also have to ask what they want, and attempt to provide it, if care in the community is to succeed.
That is why I am cautious about any proposal which would allow clinicians to exercise on patients a power of compulsion broader or more severe than the powers already afforded to them under the Mental Health Act. Once you introduce such a power, you run the risk that the relationship of trust between patients and medical staff will break down, you risk stigmatising mental illness more than it is stigmatised already and you will also run into major logistical difficulties. How in practice could we envisage community psychiatric nurses forcibly treating people in their own homes?
I very much welcome the Government's intention to review the provisions of current mental health legislation. Among other areas, I think we need to look carefully at creating a better interface between mental healthcare and the criminal justice system for conditions such as psycopathy. But I firmly believe that delivering better care to the vast majority of mental health patients is not a matter of amending an Act of Parliament; it is first and foremost a question of resources.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I too should like to thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln for raising this important issue and for his very important work in this area over many years. I should also like to say how much I welcome the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Laming. His intervention was as authoritative as one would expect from someone who has given such distinguished service as chief inspector in the Department of Health.
A number of noble Lords have raised concerns about aspects of our mental health services. These concerns have served to illustrate the failures of care in the community. Service provision has been too patchy and, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, pointed out, insufficient resources have been made available to provide the care and support services to which mentally ill people need to have access if they are to live as independently as is practicable. That is better for both them and for the wider public.
Let me say straight away that improving services for those who suffer from mental illness is one of this Government's key priorities. My honourable friend Paul Boateng, who is the Minister with responsibility for mental health policy, has made this very clear. The details of our new policies, which are aimed at providing safe, sound and supportive services for this most
1262
vulnerable group of people, will be announced soon, together with details of a substantial financial package to resource real improvements in both health and social services.
So far as concerns improving standards, we are determined to remove the appalling regional variations in services for those who suffer from mental illness. That is why we are developing, as a matter of urgency, a Mental Health National Service Framework.
This framework will set challenging evidence-based national standards that both health authorities and local authorities will have to meet. It will drive up standards so that people with mental health problems will receive the service they need, regardless of who they are or where they live.
An important element in our strategy for better mental health services will be a completely revised legislative framework. My right honourable friend Frank Dobson announced in July that there would be a root and branch review of mental health legislation. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ely suggested, review of the Mental Health Act 1983 is long overdue.
Our new policy must be underpinned by modern and robust legislation that not only reflects modern patterns of care and treatment but also supports the robust policies which we are putting in place to ensure high quality services and that a proper balance is struck between the rights of individuals and the interests of the wider public on the few occasions where these can sometimes seem to conflict.
There is no doubt that the current Mental Health Act, many of the provisions of which date from the 1950s, reflects a bygone age. It is almost entirely about hospital-based treatment for those who are deemed to be in need of detention. Modern patterns of treatment and care, particularly the growing realisation of the importance of social care interventions, mean that legislation that is largely about hospital-based treatment is now out of date. Modern legislation must recognise the growing importance of life outside institutional settings for those who are mentally ill.
However, we do not pretend that revising mental health legislation is something that is easy or something that lends itself to quick solutions. There are highly complex issues involved and it is most important that we get the various balances that have to be struck exactly right. As a first step, therefore, we have established a small group of experts to consider the scope of the changes that are necessary. The chair, Professor Genevra Richardson, is an acknowledged expert in this field. The group has been tasked with advising Ministers on legislation to cover the whole field of mental health service provision in the setting of the modern policy context which we have established to improve the quality of mental health services. It will report to Ministers in April next year with firm recommendations which can form the basis of wider consultation on a completely revised legal framework which will reflect modern patterns of care and treatment and which will support our new, safe, sound and supportive approach to the provision of mental health services.

1263
There have been great changes in medication and in our growing understanding of the importance of social care interventions that have enabled more and more people with mental health problems to live more fulfilling and independent lives within supportive neighbourhoods, a point forcefully put by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who discussed the examples of good practice to be found throughout the country. This approach to treatment is proven to result in a better outcome when based on proper support—in turn based on proper assessment. This points up the important role that local social services authorities have to play in delivering comprehensive mental health services. All too often in the past patients have been discharged from in-patient treatment with insufficient attention being paid to their social care needs.
There is a large range of effective social care interventions, ranging from highly specialist rehabilitative day care and specialist supported housing to just having someone to help with the smaller problems of everyday life, such as shopping or paying the bills. Most importantly, effective social care provision can go a long way to preventing future crises and therefore to minimising unnecessary passages through the revolving door of care between hospital and home.
The noble Lord, Lord Laming, spoke of the need to ensure that the seams between service providers, and particularly between those providing health and social care, must be strongly sewn if those who are rootless or who for other reasons such as homelessness are hard to engage are not to fall through the net of care. This point was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. I hope noble Lords will agree with me that the focus that we are now putting on partnership working will help to ensure that proper, robust and positive support, which must include better assertive outreach, will go a long way to ensuring that this most vulnerable group of people receive the help they need.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln specifically raised the tragic case of Christopher Edwards who was killed while sharing a cell with Richard Linford. The case was discussed also by the noble Lords, Lord McNair and Lord Rowallan. It was a very disturbing case. Many of the recommendations contained in the inquiry report have already been implemented by the agencies concerned and joint action plans have been made for follow-up action. As a result of their experiences, the parents of Christopher Edwards want to ensure that all the lessons are learnt from this and indeed other inquiries. They have launched a petition for improvements to Care in the Community and to the treatment of mentally disordered offenders. I am aware of that petition and of the significant issues which it raises. Many of those will be addressed in the forthcoming strategy on mental health.
Perhaps I may deal now with some of those issues. They were referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln, my noble friend Lord Judd and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. We accept fully that there should be a sufficient number of secure places and
1264
recognise in particular the need to ensure that services engage effectively and speedily with those who for one reason or another might ordinarily resist help altogether.
The Government recognise that there is an urgent need to improve the quality and effectiveness of healthcare services in prisons, both to reduce the level of morbidity among prisoners and the risk of mental health problems becoming chronic or acute when prisoners are released back into the wider community. Unrecognised or untreated mental disorder increases risk to family members and the wider public and is likely to exacerbate problems of social exclusion.
The majority of prisoners identified as having a mental disorder can be managed appropriately within the prison setting in the same way as the majority of people in the general population with mental disorder are treated by primary care and community mental health services. The Government are now considering the recommendations in the HM Inspector of Prisons report that the responsibility for prison service healthcare be transferred to the NHS. The prison service and the NHS Executive have set up a working group to advise the Secretary of State and Home Office Ministers on the options for improving prison healthcare.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, raised the issue of resources and beds and the noble Lord. Lord Rowallan, referred also to beds. My right honourable friend Frank Dobson has already given an indication of our proposals for mental health services. There will be a greater focus on crisis intervention, a growth in the number of acute beds and greater support within the community for hostels and other kinds of supported accommodation. He has indicated also that there will be a substantial financial package to underpin the new vision. But I am afraid that your Lordships will have to wait a little longer before we can reveal the details.
We are only too aware of the failure of services in the past to deliver to those who need them the right range of treatment and care. That is particularly important for people who are black or from an ethnic minority who we know have not been well served, as the noble Lord, Lord McNair, pointed out. Black and ethnic minority users are over-represented in the proportion of their numbers under sections of the Mental Health Act and in psychiatric in-patient beds. We know also that they are not always deemed suitable for the range of non-drug treatments which are in such high demand. That cannot be allowed to continue. I am aware that my honourable friend Paul Boateng has urged those leading the work on the National Health Service framework to take account of that.
But if there is a responsibility on the NHS and local government to deliver quality services to provide for individual care plans, so there is also an increasing responsibility on individual patients to comply with their care programmes. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln and my noble friend Lord Judd rightly pinpointed that important issue.
Just as compliance with treatment can be required for those who are detained in hospital, so we must now consider the need for similar measures for those living outside hospital. For some—and it is a very small

1265
minority of mentally ill people—that will mean that compliance with the treatment programme can no longer be optional.
Perhaps I may allay a fear put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe. We are not talking about forcibly administering treatment over the individual's kitchen table. Any new arrangements must involve compliance within an appropriate clinical setting. And of course, just as there are currently safeguards built into the current legislation governing detention in hospital, so too must there be safeguards when it comes to any requirements to comply with treatment programmes for those who are living in the community.
We do not underestimate the complexity of such arrangements and it is one of the key issues on which we shall look to the expert group for advice. But one thing is certain: as modern treatment and care arrangements quite rightly enable more people who are mentally ill to live in their own homes or in homely settings, we can no longer duck the issue of making certain that the care plans that enable this desirable improvement are adhered to. We must strive to achieve balance between the rights of individual patients and the understandable expectations of the wider public.
The expert group does not have an easy task before it. It will set the direction for completely new legislation that will underpin mental health services for the next millennium. But its work only begins the process. Once we have received its report there will follow a wide round of consultation.
Finally, I hope I have made it plain that not only do we recognise the need for modern robust services to deliver safe, sound and supportive services for mentally ill people, but we recognise too the need to support them within a legal framework that reflects the changes in patterns of care and treatment; and that through the inclusive approach that has characterised our whole approach to policy development in this absolutely crucial area we have taken steps to revise the law quickly and efficiently but, above all, thoroughly.

Northern Ireland Bill
8.55 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 15.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 9, line 6, at end insert—
("() Where a political party is linked to a terrorist organisation, which has not been certified to the Presiding Officer by the chairman of any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 as co-operating fully with that Commission, that political party shall be disregarded for the purposes of subsections (4) to (9) of this section.").
The noble Lord said: We now come on to a most important and topical matter; that is, decommissioning. It comes in the part of the Bill in which decisions are being made as to who can be members of the new Northern Ireland Executive. On these Benches, our
1266
belief is quite clear and can be very simply stated. It is that no one can be a terrorist and a democrat at the same time. Democracy cannot function properly under threat.
Of course, ex-terrorists can become democrats. Having been one does not exclude the other and there are good examples of that in Northern Ireland as well as in many other countries overseas. But how do you tell a terrorist from an ex-terrorist? Perhaps I should put that question the other way round. How can you tell an ex-terrorist from a continuing terrorist or, for that matter, how do you tell a democratic party from a group of terrorists? The answer is that when people give up violence, they have no more need for semtex or guns. It is that indication, that proof of the fact that a particular individual or group of individuals has moved from being terrorists to being democrats, that we seek in these amendments.
A great deal has been happening on this matter in public and on the airwaves as well as in private, of which we have no knowledge. I heard it said on Radio 4 this morning by a Sinn Fein representative that decommissioning is a matter only for General de Chastelain and the decommissioning commission which has been set up under the Belfast agreement to put all those matters into practice. I most strongly disagree with that. Whether or not there is decommissioning is a matter for everyone in Northern Ireland and it is most certainly a matter for this Parliament at this point.
I know that some of those in Sinn Fein-IRA talk as though what we require by this process is surrender. That is not so. I want to make that point extremely clear. If an army surrenders at the end of a conflict, it not only gives up its guns; it also holds up its hands. The soldiers are taken prisoner and are at the mercy of the victor to be placed in prisoner-of-war camps or whatever it may be. That is surrender. But that is not what we are looking for. Nor what is expected. On the contrary, prisoners are being released even now who would otherwise be held. There is no question but that people who come forward and hand in their guns will later be released. Indeed, the legislation we passed not too long ago specifically provides that the possession of a gun that has previously been used to commit murder or some other crime shall not be used as evidence in court to put people in gaol.
Therefore it is not a question of surrender. At the end of a conventional war—if one wants to use an analogy—we do not get surrender; we get demobilisation. That happened to the British Army and the allied armies that won the war in 1945 and has happened in every other major war. It is demobilisation with which we are concerned. That is what is happening with the British Army in Northern Ireland. As the situation allows, troops are being withdrawn. That will continue to happen provided that peace becomes a reality.
The reasons for having a decommissioning commission, the instructions it is given and the way it operates do not involve surrender; they involve verifying that people have given up their weapons and taken up democracy. That is what we are talking about. The commission is extremely important not only on its

1267
own account, but also because in people's minds it is symbolic of a movement away from terrorism to democracy.
It may be said that Amendments Nos. 45 and 81 set up in some way a new pre-condition. We have heard that many times. But they do not. They build on the Belfast agreement. Amendment No. 45 provides that nobody can become a member of the Executive or a Minister in the Northern Ireland Government unless their party has given up its weapons. The judge of that will be the chairman of the decommissioning commission. Amendment No. 81 strengthens the powers that the Assembly already has to reject a party for ministerial office because it does not support democracy.
Decommissioning has moved higher in perception over the time since the agreement was signed. The reason is simple. Decommissioning was agreed as part of the Belfast agreement and is supposed to be completed by May 2000—two years after the referendum took place. We are five months into that period and nothing whatever has happened in relation to Sinn Fein-IRA. Those on the other side of the divide are still waiting for action from the principals of that organisation.
That is the reason this issue has become so much more important. If a small amount of progress had already been made it would not loom so large in everybody's calculations; it would not be such a sticking point. Everybody agrees that the Belfast agreement must be taken as a whole. Decommissioning is part of that agreement and account must therefore be taken of it. It is not necessarily a matter, as David Trimble said on the radio this morning, of textual analysis; it is a matter of whether people trust former terrorists to be in government. Do they believe that they are no longer terrorists and are now democrats? That is what decommissioning is all about. It is because nothing has happened that we need to make progress at this time.
It was also said on the radio this morning that Sinn Fein must be on the Executive; that that is in the agreement. That is true—not in so many words, but it is implied; but so is decommissioning and we cannot pick out one piece and not follow the others. The agreement specifically says in several places and this Bill repeats that neither Sinn Fein nor anybody else can take their places on the Executive unless they are committed to democratic means. That has been spelt out by the Prime Minister, by the Taoiseach and everybody else since the agreement was concluded. The test of whether or not they are committed to democracy has become decommissioning.
It is also suggested that the pressure for decommissioning comes only from unionists. That is not true. The pressure for decommissioning comes from a wide spectrum of people throughout Northern Ireland; it certainly comes from this Chamber and many people here. It is time to be clear that in relation to terrorist supporters and the parties that have represented them over the years, if there is no decommissioning, they will not be allowed on the Executive. That may mean that the agreement begins to come apart and to founder. That would be dreadful.
However, it would not be right—it would not be democracy—to allow people to serve on the Executive who still support terrorism, who are still fully armed and who continue to use those arms in punishment shootings to almost the same extent as previously. It would not be right to allow that. In practical terms, that would not be acceptable to either unionists or the British people, as far as I can see. I do not think that now is the time to be mealy-mouthed about this issue. That is why I believe, given that nothing has happened, that this provision should be on the face of the Bill. That is the purpose of the two amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I refer to paragraphs 3 and 6 on page 20 of the Good Friday agreement. I am not deliberately omitting paragraph 4. For some reason, in my copy of the "sacred agreement", there is not, and never was, a paragraph 5. I do not know what the missing book, the Apocrypha, contained, but those paragraphs to which I have referred make it abundantly clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, that decommissioning must be part of the package; it cannot be detached or left behind. Decommissioning must move forward in accordance and in harmony with all the other provisions.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, those who drafted the agreement, and the democratic parties which subscribed to it and have observed it since Good Friday, are not in the business of demanding humiliation, surrender or anything else. It is simply a question of talking in terms of demobilisation, of disbanding the command structure of terrorist organisations. In the words of Mr. John Hume perhaps democratic parties cannot be expected to sit down with those bodies which have guns on the table, under the table or outside the door. I have always admired Mr. Hume for his courage in speaking out as he did.
Why is it that paramilitaries of whatever complexion are determined to retain their weapons? It is simply a matter of ensuring that they retain the known capacity to issue threats or, when democratic parties reach a point where their electoral supporters will not permit them to make further concessions, that the threat becomes real and is implemented. In other words, when terrorists in future see the conveyor belt conveying concessions under the guise of confidence-building measures, a threat will be issued and if the democratic parties do not look sharp, make concessions and speed up the conveyor belt, we may have two more major explosions.
I do not want to labour the point because I deliberately did not speak on this subject at Second Reading, but I listened with great interest to all noble Lords who contributed and they were not far out of line with what I have just said. However, one point worries me. There appears to be a fiction that we have peace at the moment. We all know that peace-breaking in the form of punishment shootings, beatings, threats, shadowing, and targeting is continuing—and we can prove that at first hand.
One point concerns me acutely. On 8th October I went to the city of Armagh to fulfil a fairly important engagement. I learnt on that very evening that an Army unit came under sustained fire. I cannot identify the

1269
body concerned. It is not my business. There are those who are qualified and equipped to do just that. However, I wondered why news of that was suppressed when I listened the next morning to the radio—those involved are never behind in issuing statements; blood-curdling statements—and why the newspapers seemed to conceal it as well. I wondered why, and in whose interests, the news was suppressed that the cease-fire had been broken on the evening of 8th October. Some day, in the nature of things, we shall discover the answer to the question, "Who dunnit?", if I may put it in that way, and to the question of which organisation decided calmly that it would suppress the news that the cease-fire was not entirely perfect.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: It is my belief that this amendment is probably the most important one that we shall have to deal with because, until this present difficulty is overcome, we shall not get much further. I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. I can certainly vouch that everything they said is correct. However, I do not think it is understood that it is not just Unionists who want decommissioning; people right across the board in Northern Ireland want this agreement to succeed. Everyone who is a democrat knows that democrats cannot sit down under any circumstances with people who are not democrats, who have not said that the war is over and have given no indication that they have any intention of giving up their weapons.
This makes it impossible for the ordinary man to see how the assembly can work. Yet it is worrying that people are saying, "David Trimble would give way but, of course, he cannot because of his hardliners". That is all rubbish. It is not just him who cannot give in. No ordinary sensible democrat could possibly sit down with parties he has no confidence in and whom he cannot trust. I think we have come a long way because great effort was made to ensure that the IRA need not feel it was surrendering or was beaten. The agreement is quite implicit that all the arrangements for the release of prisoners and the removal of Army road blocks, and so on, were to run in parallel with decommissioning. All these other things have happened and yet we have not witnessed decommissioning. I am afraid that the leaders of Sinn Fein are making out that it is all everyone else's fault. I believe this amendment will make it a little clearer that decommissioning must run in parallel with the other measures that are being taken—for example, the release of prisoners and other such measures.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, put the matter extremely fairly in his introductory remarks to his amendment. We are now at an extremely difficult juncture. It is not in the end a matter of legalistic quibbling; it is a matter of political reality as to whether the people of Northern Ireland, the party leaders of Northern Ireland and the people of Britain have confidence that this is a serious process that will advance. Of course, trust cuts both ways and there are no doubt those militant Republicans who are asking
1270
apprehensively whether they can trust what they think of as the British state to deliver on its promises in the agreement.
I think the key words that we have to look at are the words to which the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, drew our attention on page 20 of the Good Friday agreement. Paragraph 3 states:
"All participants … confirm their intention to continue to work constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission"—
that is General de Chastelain's commission—
"and to use any influence they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years''.
Of course it is true that if you are to do it completely within two years you have to start some time. The days, weeks and months are ticking away and there is no sign yet of a start. Indeed, inspired by the example of the Provisional IRA, contumacious noises are now being made by the opposite equivalents on the Loyalist side. That is part of unravelling confidence rather than building confidence. But the words,
"continue to work constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission"
suggest to me that what is needed at this stage above all is a timetable submitted to General de Chastelain by the Provisional IRA indicating the steps by which it will start decommissioning. I myself think—it is not a unique thought by any means—that the key issue is the high explosives, semtex and others, which cannot conceivably be represented to be used to defend a threatened community, which may have been the traditional Republican argument. These can only be used for mass murder of the kind that we have seen. It may well be that a sensible timetable would indicate that movement could be made on that component of the arms inventory earlier.
I repeat to the Committee what I said on a previous occasion. I hope eventually our combined words will get through to the leadership of Sinn Fein who have to use whatever influence they may have in this matter. Some of us would consider they have a great deal of influence, given who they are and their combined histories. They really need to make sure that General de Chastelain receives not merely the form of co-operation. If the noble Lord, Lord Cope, will forgive me, in this respect his amendment is slightly misplaced. He refers to working with the independent commission. I believe that they would say that they are working with the commission. Martin McGuinness has been appointed as representative to General de Chastelain's commission and its members have had meetings with him. They might say that that represented working with the independent commission. It is my belief that unless that takes a more tangible form than having meetings—and at this stage even the preparation of a timetable would build confidence—effectively they are making it politically impossible for the institution of the Assembly, in which we have all vested so much hope, to proceed.
We know that their history is one of paranoia and suspicion, and possibly fear of those who seek to isolate and defeat them. But they, too, have to have the

1271
imagination to realise that now a gesture is needed from them. I am sceptical that the erection of hurdles in the Bill is the way to go. Simply as a matter of political reality, if they do not come up with tangible measures in the next few weeks, they will make it, de facto, impossible for progress to be made in Northern Ireland. The onus of responsibility that rests on the shoulders of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness is overwhelming. They do not have to do a great deal but they have to do something.
Lord Desai: I wish to raise a small technical point. At Second Reading I said that I agreed with much of what the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Holme, had said. I have since spoken to a colleague of mine who is a specialist in these matters. He raised a problem to which I should like my noble friend to give an answer; namely, that the agreement requires that Sinn Fein be included in the executive without any decommissioning, and if that fails to happen a move can be made in the Supreme Court of the Republic of Ireland to annul the result of the referendum held in the Republic. I am not an expert, but I have heard that said. If the promise to implement the cabinet is not honoured, we could see the unravelling of Articles 2 and 3 of the referendum in the republic.
I await an answer from the Minister; however, if that is the case, and if in principle the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and other noble Lords are true, we might be taking a big risk by making this a precondition, whereas in the current situation it is not a precondition. I am entirely in sympathy with the spirit of their proposals; I merely wish to get the legalities clear.
Lord Fitt: It is with hesitation that I speak to this amendment. I am only too well aware that, given my political background as a former leader of the SDLP, as a Catholic and educated by the Christian Brothers, I am supposed to agree with every item in support of the nationalists, the SDLP and Sinn Fein. In Northern Ireland it is easy to be called a traitor who has betrayed his political, religious and nationalistic roots. I should not want to be in that position; however it is a strong possibility if I do not support every word and comma contained in the agreement.
I said at Second Reading that I wished to see the agreement work. I desperately want to see it work. But at present, from speaking to people who are deeply involved, I see a danger that the whole thing may collapse.
I know of people who speak to Gerry Adams. He says to them, "Look, all this talk doesn't mean anything. At the end of the day, in an eyeball to eyeball confrontation, Trimble will give way. He will take it to the very last second and then he will blink". The same people go to David Trimble and he says: "When it comes to the very last second, in an eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation, Adams will give way on decommissioning". That is dangerous. If they carry that through to the very last second, the whole thing could collapse.
I have said in this House that a gesture is needed, and my noble friend Lord Dubs will agree with me. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme. The IRA and loyalist
1272
paramilitaries have been using arms for decades. I ask again whether it would not be possible for those organisations to make a gesture and say, "We have been using arms; the democratically elected politicians have not". They do not need to hand in tonnes of semtex or hundreds or thousands of revolvers or other kinds of armaments, but a gesture is desperately needed.
I was frightened when I read a report last week from Mr. Hutchison of the Progressive Unionist Party. He said, "We are not going to give up arms". They are in the key position. The loyalist paramilitaries say, "Unless the IRA give up arms, we are not going to give up our arms". The IRA says, "We are not going to give up our arms, either".
Although it was not written into the Good Friday agreement, it was said that the last prisoners would be released two years after the agreement was signed and that decommissioning would have to be complete after a period of two years.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. He will recall that the agreement says that the first lot of two years, for the release of prisoners, dates from later than the two years for the decommissioning. Decommissioning dates from the referendum, and the date for prisoner releases is after that. Under the agreement, decommissioning is supposed to be complete before the last batch of prisoners is released.
Lord Fitt: I agree with David Trimble on this matter. The point I am trying to illustrate is that it is implicit that these matters should run in parallel. At the moment it looks as if concession after concession has been made to the republican/nationalist agenda. In fact, I was told by people throughout last week in Northern Ireland that the British Government were no longer going to insist on extraditions. Three convicted IRA terrorists had been through the extradition process in America, having gone from court to court, until it was eventually said that everything had happened so long ago that the extradition would not be proceeded with. Mrs. Rita O'Hare, who has for many years had an extradition warrant against her in the republic, which the British Government have not given up, is now working in the Sinn Fein offices in America. The British Government did not insist on the extradition of that terrorist. It appears to the unionist community in Northern Ireland that concession after concession has been made to the republican/nationalist section of the community.
I never thought I would say this, but I believe that Gerry Adams has come a long way in dragging the republican movement away from its campaign of violence into the democratic process, and I think he deserves credit for that. I think that Martin McGuinness deserves credit for sitting down with John de Chastelain to talk about decommissioning. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme: the fact that he is talking to John de Chastelain does not mean much. The agreement said that all parties to it should use whatever influence they had. At the end of two years they could say that they had used all their influence but these people had not listened to them and still had their arms.

1273
Northern Ireland has gone through a tortured period of 30 years. For someone like me who has lived in Northern Ireland and spent his political career there, to think that it has all come to an end after 30 years is absolute bliss. It would be a terrible tragedy for Northern Ireland if the agreement fell down on the question of decommissioning. Sinn Fein had an electoral mandate. I was in Belfast on the day the referendum took place and took part in many television programmes together with spokesmen for the Nationalists, Catholics, bishops, etc. I could detect in their responses the desperate belief that those 30 years of murder had come to an end. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, that not only Unionists, Protestants and Loyalists ask for some gesture on decommissioning to take place. I am quite certain that the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland, including the Nationalists and those who voted for Sinn Fein, which was given a mandate in the recent election that entitled it to take its seats, want decommissioning to take place.
My noble friend on this side of the Chamber said that if the Loyalists or Unionists do not give way on decommissioning and give up the crusade together, an action may take place in the Republic which means that the Belfast agreement is ultra vires. I do not believe that anyone in the Republic of Ireland, be he a lay citizen or the High Court that would have to decide the matter would lightly give such a decision that brought the agreement to an end. I also believe that the people in the Republic want to see the agreement succeed.
There will not be a vote on this matter this evening in this Committee. Even if we had the requisite numbers to vote for this amendment it would not mean anything because the Bill has been passed by the Commons and we shall pass it. But it is right to place on record our legitimate fears that all that has been achieved through this agreement and subsequent legislation may be brought crashing to the ground because of the intransigence of those who hold these arms in failing to make a gesture to bring peace and tranquillity to the whole of Northern Ireland.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Dubs: It may be helpful if, first, I restate briefly the Government's position on decommissioning. There must be progress on all elements of the agreement. The only way to break this impasse is for all sides to honour all the commitments that they made under the agreement and for all aspects of it to move forward in parallel. Decommissioning is an integral part of the agreement. It is not a precondition; it is an obligation and it must happen. The question is not whether it will happen but when.
However, decommissioning is not an end in itself. The reason that people rightly want decommissioning is because they want an end to violence in Northern Ireland and the confidence that this is a permanent end. That is the goal of the agreement and why decommissioning is an integral part of it. That is why decommissioning must happen. Furthermore, we condemn without reservation those engaged in so-called
1274
punishment attacks, to which the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, referred. These assaults must stop now. It is clear that the continuation of such behaviour would not be consistent with the assessments of good faith and a genuine commitment to move away from violence which lie behind the judgment of the Secretary of State. If such patterns of behaviour persist, the Secretary of State will not hesitate to review the situation.
The issue is whether any progress towards decommissioning would be furthered by adopting the amendments before the Committee today. I do not believe that that would be the case and it would not help at all at a time when the Prime Minister, this very week, is having negotiations with some of the party leaders from Northern Ireland in an attempt to make progress on this issue. I do not think that an amendment added to the Bill would further the cause of decommissioning at all.
Furthermore, Amendment No. 45 has no basis in the agreement. It would require the chairman of the Decommissioning Commission to certify that each party is co-operating with him. In the absence of such a certificate, the party would be disregarded for d'Hondt purposes.
Not only is this not in the agreement, it is surely wrong in principle for decisions on such important matters as holding executive office to rest anywhere else than in the hands of the Assembly, which is what the Bill provides.
The noble Lord's Amendment No. 81 would enable the Assembly to vote for exclusion if a party is linked to a terrorist organisation which is not co-operating with the Decommissioning Commission. But of course the Bill already provided that the Assembly can take account of whether a party is,
"committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful means".
Co-operation or otherwise with the Decommissioning Commission is certainly a factor which the Assembly will want to take into account here. But the judgment needs to be much broader than that. Indeed, the sort of factors the Assembly may want to take into account are set out in subsection (7) and go considerably further than just decommissioning, including directing violence, being involved in acts of violence and being committed to purely democratic and peaceful means to achieve its objectives.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, asked me about a potential legal case in the republic. I do not think I am qualified to comment upon that, but the agreement certainly does not rule out a start to decommissioning now before the executive is formed. The agreement clearly requires that before taking office, any Minister must take the pledge of office. That includes a commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means. If an individual or party is not so committed, the agreement provides for the Assembly, by cross-community vote, to exclude them from office.
My noble friend Lord Fitt asked about extraditions. It is not correct to say that the Government have given up the extradition of Artt, Brennan and Kirby from the United States. In those cases, the United States courts have made a number of recent rulings and granted bail,

1275
but the extradition cases remain live and still before the United States courts. There is no question of easing up the pursuit at home and abroad of those who have committed serious offences.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, also said that there had been a shooting, I believe in Armagh, which had had virtually no publicity. My officials have spoken tonight with the RUC and the Army at their headquarters in Northern Ireland. They have no record of any shooting taking place on 8th October, as the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, described. If he were to let me have more information, I would certainly see that that was looked into.
Incidentally, I cannot help him on the missing paragraph 5. Perhaps I can do better than not help him. I think it is missing because of a printer's error. We have had reference to that today. It is a simple printer's error and paragraph 6 follows paragraph 4.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: As a former printer myself, I can understand that. I accept the explanation.
Lord Dubs: I am most grateful. For the reasons I have given, I believe that it would not be helpful to accept Amendments Nos. 45 and 81. Accordingly I would urge the Committee to reject them.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I shall risk trying to help the Lord, Lord Desai, with his problem, but I do so with great hesitation and not great authority.
As I understand the matter, the referendum which was passed in the Republic of Ireland provides that the constitution shall change provided certain things happen. If those things happen, it becomes automatic. If they do not happen, the constitution does not change. Among those considerations is that the agreement is applied.
The question then is whether it is correct to say, as has been said, that the agreement provides that Sinn Fein must be on the Executive. Neither Sinn Fein nor any other party is specifically mentioned. Clearly the agreement provides that all parties concerned shall become members of the Executive provided that they fulfil the pledge of office, and are regarded by the Assembly as fulfilling the pledge of office.
I contend that no one can be considered to have become a democrat and to have fulfilled the criteria in the Bill if they are still fully armed, are using those arms in punishment beatings, and are prepared to use them for much worse. Therefore I believe it is possible that the terms of the agreement may be completely fulfilled without Sinn Fein being on the Executive if its members were regarded, as I regard Sinn Fein now, as not having become democrats because of the lack of proof that they are not still terrorists.
Having set that out, the noble Lord the Minister and everyone else will realise that there is endless scope for argument in the courts of the republic should the matter ever be tested; and we all hope that it will not be tested. However, returning to whether or not the amendments should be added to the Bill, I accept the criticisms made by the Minister of the precise wording and drafting of
1276
the amendments. I accept that whether or not we include them in the Bill may or may not help the Prime Minister and others engaged in negotiations which seek to achieve decommissioning. I do not wish to make the Prime Minister's life more difficult in this respect. No doubt I can think of one or two matters where I should like to make the Prime Minister's life more difficult, but in this matter he and his colleagues deserve every assistance in their difficult task.
While I do not entirely accept that adding such amendments to the Bill would not be helpful, I believe that it has been helpful to hear Members of the Committee from all sides of the Chamber express their views on decommissioning. They have made clear their sentiments. The sentiments expressed in this short debate are more important than the words of the amendment. That being so, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs moved Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 9, line 11, leave out ("subsections (4) to (9) as applied by subsection (13)") and insert ("any application of subsections (4) to (9)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 47:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause—
JUNIOR MINISTERS
(".—(1) At any time after a First Minister and a deputy First Minister are elected under section 14(1), those Ministers acting jointly may determine—

(a) that a number of junior Ministers specified in the determination shall be appointed in accordance with such procedures for their appointment as are so specified; and

(b) that the functions exercisable by virtue of each junior Ministerial office shall be those specified in relation to that office in the determination.

(2) Procedures specified in a determination under this section may apply such formulae or other rules as the First Minister and the deputy First Minister consider appropriate.
(3) A determination under this section shall—

(a) make provision as to the circumstances in which a junior Minister shall cease to hold office, and for the filling of vacancies; and

(b) provide that a junior Minister shall not take up office until he has affirmed the terms of the pledge of office.

(4) A determination under this section shall not take effect until it has been approved by a resolution of the Assembly passed with cross-community support.
(5) Where a determination under this section takes effect—

(a) any junior Ministers previously appointed shall cease to hold office; and

(b) the procedures specified in the determination shall be applied within a period specified in standing orders.").

The noble Lord said: This new clause and the series of amendments consequential on it would enable the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and the Assembly to decide to have junior Ministers as well as the Northern Ireland Ministers provided for in the Bill.
There is nothing specifically in the agreement about junior Ministers, although they are provided for in the Scotland Bill and were a feature of previous devolved governments in Northern Ireland as well, of course, as at Westminster. During subsequent meetings with the parties, however, there has been strong support for some provision in the Bill to enable junior Ministers to be appointed.
Accordingly, the new clause provides for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly to make a determination which may cover the number, functions and methods of appointment of junior Ministers.
Such a determination would not take effect until it has been approved by a resolution of the Assembly with cross-community support.
The other amendments in this group are consequential. They would subject junior Ministers to the provisions of Clause 23 on exclusion from office. They would provide that junior Ministers, like Northern Ireland Ministers, cannot serve as chairman or deputy chairman of a committee. Last but not least, the amendment to Clause 38 would enable junior Ministers to be paid extra.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Perhaps the Minister could reassure me on one point. If it is up to the First Minister and his deputy to decide what junior posts there will be, how many of them and what they will be, how are they then allocated between the parties? The danger on which I would like his reassurance is that the two main parties concerned who will hold the First and Deputy First Ministerships—the UUP and the SDLP—will have all the junior Ministers. Am I right in thinking—I hope I am—that, having decided how many of them there will be and what functions they should hold, the determination would still be by d'Hondt, so that some of the smaller parties (the Women's Coalition or the Alliance Party) would, to the extent they were proportionately entitled, benefit and would not simply all go to the two major parties represented by the first minister and his deputy?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Like the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, I was slightly surprised that Mr. d'Hondt seemed to be taking a rest when we got to this part, and that these junior ministerships were going to be dished out without reference to any formula. That is slightly surprising in itself, but also a very genuine question to put to the Minister.
I was also concerned, as I indicated on an earlier amendment, as to what these junior Ministers will do. When I was in the Northern Ireland Office there were five of us, and at other stages there have been four Ministers, carrying out not only all the functions of the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and thel0 Ministers proposed earlier in the Bill, but also the functions of the Northern Ireland Office, some of which
1278
will remain in being even after all this apparatus has been set up. So I do not think that they will be overworked, except of course that they will have a very large number of Assembly members to keep happy. As a former Whip, I know that there is more than one way to keep Assembly members happy and perhaps the junior ministerships will make a contribution, both in themselves and in the amount of time the junior Ministers can spend talking to the Back-Benchers who will remain. As I understand it, however, this clause originates with the parties in Northern Ireland, who thought it would be a good idea to have the possibility of junior Ministers being in the new administration. I certainly would not wish to stand in the way of that.
I referred to my time in the Northern Ireland Office; now, as a spokesman, I am bombarded literally daily with Orders and correspondence from the different departments regarding legal issues about which it is often extremely difficult to make any real judgment. They are often extremely small matters: the closing of a short length of footway and things like that, being done by order. All these things will pass to the Northern Ireland executive and will much better be looked after by them—by the Minister, assisted no doubt by these junior Ministers—than they can possibly be by the machinery of direct rule. Although, having been a part of it for a short while, I believe that direct rule has served the Province well, it has served the Province long enough and these detailed matters should be transferred to the Ministers and the junior Ministers under this clause.
Lord Hylton: I hope that there will not be too many junior Ministers and that they will not be paid too much. I hope that the size of the payroll vote will not increase to anything like the size of that in another place.
Lord Fitt: I can confidently predict that we will run into a Parkinson's law situation. I vividly remember the Sunningdale agreement. When the executive was set up, Members of my own party exerted tremendous pressure on myself and Brian Faulkner as Chief Executive to create positions for them. I have absolutely no doubt and can confidently predict that the First Minister and his deputy will, by the pressures from Members of their own party, be forced to create junior Ministers.
What type of junior Ministers will there be? In Westminster there are Ministers of State and Under-Secretaries. Will there be only one level of junior Ministers? I know Northern Ireland and I know the circumstances of most of the personnel there. There are 108 Members and only 10 will have ministerial positions. That leaves 98 back benchers who will feel very unhappy. They will all be looking for some form of promotion. I predict that the party leaders will be subjected to great pressure to create jobs. Therefore, will there be a limit on the number? Will there be one Minister and one junior Minister for each department or will they be able to create as many as they like? Given the pressures, no doubt they will be able to find excuses to create as many junior Ministers as possible. There should be some limit on the number.
Lord Skelmersdale: There is a curious anomaly between Clause 14, which we have just agreed, Clause 15 and this amendment. Clause 14 begins firmly:
"Each Assembly shall … elect from among its members the First Minister and the deputy First Minister".
One has to read a long way down Clause 15—to subsection (4)—before discovering that persons who hold office as junior Ministers must be Members of the party and of the Assembly. One wonders why the draftsman has chosen this convoluted formulation to achieve exactly the same object. It is clear to me that junior Ministers should be Members of the Assembly and that should be made patently obvious at the beginning of the clauses to which I have referred.
Lord Dubs: In essence, we have an enabling provision under which the First Minister and his deputy can make a determination providing for junior Ministers, their functions and the method of their appointment. Any such determination would have to be agreed by the Assembly voting on a cross-community basis. That is the answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Holme. The determination is that of the First Minister and his deputy and it would have to be endorsed by the Assembly on a cross-community basis. That effectively disposes of most of the arguments.
I understand what was said by my noble friend Lord Fitt, but clearly there are issues which we must leave to the Assembly to decide. There are powers which the Assembly will wish to take and it is only proper that we give it the chance to make decisions. It might be tempted to appoint too many junior Ministers and they would fall into the trap mentioned by my noble friend Lord Fitt. Equally, it might feel that that is not the proper way to go and will appoint very few, but it is a decision we felt appropriate to leave to the Assembly.
It was the wish of the parties that there should be provision for junior Ministers, but there was not agreement about the precise details of how many junior ministerial posts would be appropriate. Therefore, we are enabling the Assembly, on the basis of determinations by the First Minister and his deputy, to make progress in these appointments.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Before the noble Minister sits down, could he say whether there has been consultation with all the Northern Ireland parties on this particular matter of the discretion of proposal being solely in the hands of the First Minister and his Deputy?
Lord Dubs: I understand that there has been such consultation. I am not saying that every one of the parties agreed that that was the best way of doing it, in their eyes, but there has been such consultation.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [The Executive Committee]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 9, line 20, leave out ("the") and insert ("each").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 48.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I think it has been suggested that we should also discuss with this amendment
1280
Amendments Nos. 49, 68, 76 and 78. That being so, I should like to make just a few remarks on Amendment No. 49. This is the one which proposes that Ministers of the Crown should not serve on the Executive Committee. It is a read-across from the other devolution Bills, and I must confess at once that it is unlikely that this provision will be required. Ministers of the Crown are, in the nature of things, unlikely to find themselves in a position to serve on the Executive Committee, at least as things stand now. However, we are designing this Bill and making these provisions in an attempt to make them last for many years. I think it is sensible therefore for us to look at all the possibilities that might arise and to read this across, as it were, from the other devolution Bills.
The other amendment which occurs in this group standing in my name which I want to mention is Amendment No. 70. This suggests that it should be a rule that the chairman of the relevant committee should not be of the same party as the Minister responsible for that department. This seems to me to be a sensible way to try to achieve a cross-party outlook on behalf of the Assembly. Clearly, the various committees will play a big part, just as they do in all parliaments, in monitoring the activities of the individual Ministers and the departments they are in charge of.
This Assembly will be in one sense extremely rare, if not unique, among assemblies in that it will have no opposition. Everybody in a sense will be in government—that is part of the point of it. But it means that it is in a very odd situation: every party will be in government all the time, although perhaps in different proportions as elections go one way or the other; but every party will be part of the government for ever and ever all the time. That is very rare.
I think that parliaments function well if there is an opposition and if there is somebody to question what is being proposed—in a constructive way of course, as I and my colleagues always try to do. It is difficult to see ways in which, in an assembly which is set up as this one is, one can provide for this role of opposition. One way in which it might be done is suggested by Amendment No. 70 and so I commend that to the Committee. I should very much like to know the Minister's view of that proposition.
10 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I am very taken by Amendment No. 70 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope. It sounds sensible and practical. I shall be interested to see what reaction the Minister has to it.
I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 72 and 75 which stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lester. We have a potential discrepancy between the standing orders of the Assembly itself and what the Government are proposing in the Bill. That is what these amendments are intended to deal with. Paragraph 5 of the agreement asserts that allocations of committee chairs, Ministers and committee memberships shall be in proportion to party strengths. Are all the fruits of office, all those prizes in the sense that Lewis Carroll said, "All shall have prizes"—that the new Assembly

1281
will be one in which as many people as possible should have prizes is probably rather a good thing at this point—to be taken as a whole or is there to be proportionality within each of those three categories—within committee chairs, within ministries and within committee memberships? Using d'Hondt, you could come to quite different outcomes according to how you did it. If you used proportionality within ministries and within committeeships, you would tend to weight the final disposition to the larger parties. You could even quite easily have an outcome in which there would be no role, whether committee chairmanships or ministries, for the Alliance, for the Women's Coalition or for the PUP, which would tend to make the appointments exclusive.
As the Minister will know, the standing orders of the Assembly have taken the other interpretation—the one represented by this amendment—that the ministries are to be first allocated according to d'Hondt, because they are the most sought after, but that the other positions, when they are allocated subsequently, should be so operated that the d'Hondt rules should be applied, including the first tranche of ministerial appointments. Minor parties would get some appointments although the major parties would clearly get the lion's share. I think that the amendment is far more in tune with the standing orders adopted by the Assembly and is also more politically adept in that it gives a role for others than the major parties to play.
Lord Dubs: This grouping contains a series of government amendments which parallel amendments already made to the clause on appointing Ministers. These include adjustments to the d'Hondt formula, the definition of "S" in the d'Hondt formula, and other technical provisions.
Perhaps the most significant amendment is Amendment No. 69, which sets out on the face of the Bill the requirement for standing orders to ensure that committees have the powers set out in paragraph 9 of strand 1 of the Belfast agreement.
The Bill always gave committees of the Assembly a key role but this amendment addresses the concerns expressed by some parties during the consultation exercise that the Bill did not go as far as provided for in the Belfast agreement. I believe that the amendment puts the matter beyond doubt.
There is also one, entirely drafting, amendment to the provisions on the executive committee of the Assembly. The grouping also includes a number of other amendments tabled by noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, has put forward an amendment which would prevent Ministers of the Crown also serving on the executive committee of the Assembly. The issue may seem academic in the Northern Ireland context, although one can never entirely rule these things out. The noble Lord's amendment echoes similar ones laid during debate in another place and extensive discussions during the course of the Government of Wales Act and the Scotland Bill. I can only repeat the points made by my
1282
colleagues in those debates and say that the Government see no difficulty in principle with people holding offices in both Westminster and the devolved administrations, and urge the Committee not to support the amendment.
The noble Lord also seeks to prevent committee chairmen coming from the same party as the relevant Minister. We are clear that subsection (6)(b) already achieves this. Nominating officers are obliged to select any other committee post except one in which they have a party interest, if at all possible. But there may be circumstances in which they have no choice; for example, if all other posts are already taken. I believe it would be wrong to deprive them of their right to a post in those circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, has put down two amendments which seek to adjust the d'Hondt formula for the purpose of allocating committee chairmanships and deputy chairmanships. The effect of these amendments would be to skew committee chairmanships heavily towards smaller parties. Instead of a party's number of assembly seats being related to its number of committee chairmanships alone, the amendment would require the number to be divided by the sum of the number of chairmanships and ministerial posts that the party already has. The effect would be to make it much more difficult for a party with posts already to gain more.
The formula we have at present is broadly mutual and proportionate. The Bill already provides for a considerable degree of proportionality and inclusiveness in the devolved structures. I can see no case for seeking to create an uneven playing field purely to benefit smaller parties over larger ones.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The Minister did not expand on Amendment No. 74 which is in this group. It provides for the d'Hondt formula to run on the day on which the Assembly first meets following its election, with the party balance as it is at that time.
As the Minister said, earlier we agreed an equivalent provision with respect to the ministerial posts. But in the case of chairmanships we should just ponder for a few moments on whether that is the right way to go about it because the party allegiances of individual members of the Assembly can change. Indeed, there is some suggestion that some already have changed, even at this early stage.
If that happens, it seems to me that the chairmanships at least should be rethought at that point. Perhaps there should be a minimum below which it is not necessary. But merely to limit it, as Amendment No. 74 does, to the beginning of the Assembly immediately after an election and the particular split between the parties at that point seems to me to be rather inflexible if the political situation should change between one election and the next over a period of years. I appreciate that there may be difficulties in providing how it works but there is a genuine point underlying the matter. I am not happy about Amendment No. 74 in that context.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I hear what the Minister says on Amendments Nos. 72 and 75. I do not

1283
agree that there is a balance to be struck between the potential exclusion of minor parties and over-representation in the way that the Minister suggested might happen in relation to committee chairmanships. I am not convinced that that is the case. It may be something to which we shall wish to return, mathematically and not simply rhetorically, on Report.
Lord Dubs: Perhaps I may comment briefly on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cope. The difficulty is that if the procedure laid down in Amendment No. 74 is not followed, one is liable to have to re-run d'Hondt at frequent intervals, which would be extremely destabilising. It is better to look at the party positions following an election and not keep moving the bases on which d'Hondt is run simply because one or two members of the Assembly have changed their minds as to their direct allegiances. It would not be helpful to go down that path and Amendment No. 74 is a better option.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 50:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
STATUTORY FUNCTIONS
(".—(1) An Act of the Assembly or other enactment may confer functions on a Minister or Northern Ireland department by name.
(2) Functions conferred on a Northern Ireland department by an enactment passed or made before the appointed day shall, except as provided by an Act of the Assembly or other subsequent enactment, continue to be exercisable by that department.
(3) In this Act "Minister", unless the context otherwise requires, means the First Minister, the deputy First Minister or a Northern Ireland Minister.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment was tabled in response to concerns expressed during debate in another place, and in particular confusion about the location of executive authority under devolution. During debates there seemed to be genuine misunderstanding about the extent of the powers in current Clause 18 which are conferred on the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.
Clause 18 provides that prerogative and other executive functions in Northern Ireland are exercisable by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly. Some interpreted that as meaning that all executive powers in Northern Ireland are vested in the First Minister and Deputy First Minister rather than in the Assembly or the Northern Ireland Ministers.
We are continuing to look at Clause 18. It may well be that we will bring forward amendments at Report stage, but it is important to realise that the clause is much more narrowly drawn than some appear to believe.
The main area covered by the prerogative is the management of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. The clause's references to "other executive functions" refers to the powers the government can enjoy in the same way
1284
as an ordinary citizen does—for example, the power to enter into contracts. We do, however, recognise that this confusion needs to be cleared up. What this new clause does is clarify the real source of executive authority in the transferred field after devolution.
As is the case now, the vast bulk of executive authority after devolution will be grounded in statutory powers and functions. This clause makes that clear, and also makes clear the Assembly's power to confer these functions and take them away. It is the Assembly which will be the ultimate source of legislative authority in the transferred field. Indeed, far from the provisions of Clause 18 giving the First Minister and Deputy First Minister an executive role above and independent of the Assembly, there will be nothing to stop the Assembly legislating in these or any other fields within its competence, and transferring the functions to whomsoever it wants.
Bearing in mind particularly the number of questions and perhaps misunderstandings in another place, we thought it better to bring this clause in at this stage. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am greatly relieved by the introduction of this new clause before Clause 18. However, I have a tiny "but".
The Minister said that he was considering bringing forward further amendments in relation to Clause 18 on Report. In that consideration, I hope he will be good enough to consider a point that occurred to me. The Marshalled List is littered with references to "junior" Ministers. Indeed, in every case that I could find it in the Bill, the word "Minister" has been replaced by the term, "junior Minister". However, in the new clause subsection (3) says,
"In this Act 'Minister', unless the context otherwise requires, means the First Minister, the deputy First Minister or a Northern Ireland Minister".
Should not that be "junior Minister"?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I, too, understand the reasons behind this new clause and support its insertion in the Bill. However, like my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, I, too, have a "but".
I was struck by the wording of subsection (1) that,
"An Act of the Assembly or other enactment"—
I presume that means an Act of this Parliament or perhaps an Order in Council; I cannot see what else it can mean though I am surprised it is not more clear—
"may confer functions on a Minister or Northern Ireland department by name".
A Minister by name is Mr. Smith, Mr. Jones or perhaps Lord Williams of Mostyn. I am not sure it is the intention that the name of a Minister as opposed to his office should be the way in which the functions are designated. It should perhaps say "by reference to his office". I understand that a Northern Ireland department can be named—for example, the Department of Finance and other great departments of state; but I felt it odd to confer functions on a Minister by name.

1285
With that exception, I support the new clause and believe it is right that the responsibilities given to the Northern Ireland Civil Service in the various departments should continue over into the new administration; otherwise a hiatus will arise and perhaps all sorts of other problems too.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I thank Members of the Committee for the helpful tone of both those contributions. I shall certainly put the collective mind to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale.
A number of definitions need to be looked at. Despite the late hour and our weariness, it is gratifying that your Lordships are still able to pick up those points, which is most helpful. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, it may be that we need a comma.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed.
10.15 p.m.
Clause 19 [Community law, Convention rights etc.]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 10, line 1, at end insert (", confirm or approve").
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments (with one exception) makes drafting and technical improvements to Clause 19, which is the clause which prevents Ministers and Northern Ireland departments from doing things, including the making of legislation, which are incompatible with rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, or with European Community law, or which involve discrimination on grounds of religious belief or political opinion. They enable the clause to set out more clearly the mischief which it aims to prevent, and bring certain additional matters within the scope of the clause so as to bring it into line with other provisions of the Bill.
Amendment No. 51 clarifies that not only is the making of legislation covered by the clause, but so is the confirming or approving of legislation. Amendment No. 52 makes clear the distinction between the legislative functions of a Minister or Northern Ireland department and the acts of a Minister or Northern Ireland department, so that such acts are properly covered by the clause.
Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 make it clear that aiding and incitement apply only in relation to acts and, additionally, have the effect of preventing a Minister or Northern Ireland department from making, continuing or approving legislation which modifies an enactment in breach of Schedule 4 to the Bill.
Amendment No. 55 brings the clause more fully into line with its part-predecessor, Section 19(4) of the 1973 Act. The amendment provides that the limitation on acting incompatibly does not apply to acts which are already unlawful or which would be unlawful but for some exception under the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976.
Amendment No. 56 removes from the clause the definition of "Minister", which is to be amended and inserted by the new clause. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: A few small points arise on this group of amendments. First, there is a slight hangover from the previous debate in that Amendment No. 56 takes out subsection (2), which is the part which defines the word "Minister". I do not think we had an answer—I certainly did not catch it—to whether the phrase "Northern Ireland Minister" includes "junior Minister", which was raised in the previous debate. That question is relevant to Amendment No. 56 which deletes such a definition, just as it was when that provision was included by another place.
As we are deleting the definition from this provision, why do we not move the definition of "Minister" to Clause 80 where everything else is defined which applies to the Act? I seem to remember that the report on the drafting of Bills by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, a good many years ago recommended good practice for the drafting of legislation. One point was that the definitions should appear in a convenient form, all in one place. The definition of "Minister" might usefully be put into Clause 80 instead of being left in the middle of the Bill where it is hidden away and tucked in with rather complicated clauses.
Lord Skelmersdale: Surely to goodness it is already in the Bill before Clause 18 by means of Amendment No. 50, which reads,
"Insert the following new Clause …
(3) In this Act 'Minister' … means the First Minister, the deputy First Minister or a Northern Ireland Minister",
or, if I am right, "junior Northern Ireland Minister" or "Northern Ireland junior Minister", or whatever description the Government decide on.
The point is that "Minister" is defined, according to the whole Act, or in reference to the whole Act, before Clause 18. I agree with my noble friend to the extent that, if my memory serves me correctly, the Renton Report suggested that all such definitions should be grouped together, in which case the definition would not be found before Clause 18 or even in Clause 18 or Clause 19 but would be found in a "definitions clause". Perhaps the Minister would like to comment.
Lord Dubs: As regards the question asked about Amendment No. 56, I think we are clear that we may have to tidy up the definitions of "Northern Ireland Minister" and "junior Minister" throughout the Bill. We shall do so on Report. I believe that will make things simpler and deal with all the points that have been made.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I apologise to the Committee. I have just realised that Clause 80, the definitions clause, includes a definition of "Minister", or at least it will, assuming we pass Amendment No. 209. However, that definition just refers one to the definition in the amendment inserted just now. That does not seem

1287
to be a helpful way to do things. Why not incorporate the definition in Clause 80 in full rather than refer to an earlier clause?
Lord Dubs: I know it is getting late but I thought I had said we would consider this matter and tidy up the Bill on Report.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 52 to 56:
Page 10, line 2, leave out ("other").
Page 10, line 6, leave out (", or aids or incites any person to discriminate,").
Page 10, line 8, at end insert—
("() in the case of an act, aids or incites another person to discriminate against a person or class of person on that ground; or
() in the case of legislation, modifies an enactment in breach of Schedule 4.").
Page 10, line 8, at end insert—
("() Subsection (l)(c) and (d) does not apply in relation to any act which is unlawful by virtue of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976, or would be unlawful but for some exception made by virtue of Part V of that Act.").
Page 10, line 9, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 52 to 56 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 57:
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause—
EXCEPTED AND RESERVED MATTERS
(".—(1) If any subordinate legislation made, confirmed or approved by a Minister or Northern Ireland department contains a provision dealing with an excepted or reserved matter, the Secretary of State may by order revoke the legislation.
(2) An order made under subsection (1) shall recite the reasons for revoking the legislation and may make provision having retrospective effect.").
The noble Lord said: These amendments are ungrouped. I indicate that for those who have followed the earlier grouping. The new clause in Amendment No. 57 is simply a redrafting of Clause 20(4)(b). The current provision is defective technically and in substance in that it relates only to excepted matters. We always intended that it should cover also reserved matters. Amendment No. 203 amends Clause 78 to require any order made under this provision to be subject to negative resolution at Westminster. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [International obligations]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 10, line 13, after ("international") insert ("treaty").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 58 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 59 to 63 and Amendment No. 204. Amendment No. 58 seeks to limit the power of the Secretary of State to strike down an Act of the assembly on the grounds that it offends against
1288
an international obligation of the United Kingdom. An international obligation is defined in Clause 80 on page 40 of the Bill. However, that is being amended in a slightly complicated way that I shall not trouble with at the moment. In the case of Ireland north and south there is a special significance in this amendment over and above the arguments which have been advanced in the course of debates on the Welsh Act and on the Scotland Bill.
The United Kingdom can be regarded as having all kinds of obligations. Some of them are contained in treaties of one kind or another but others are less formal. They may comprise understandings which develop between countries but which are regarded as obligations by Ministers.
The United Kingdom Government and the Republic of Ireland have long had close relations. When I was a Minister we had a lot to do with the Government of the Republic of Ireland during the course of the Anglo-Irish agreement. A variety of agreements were entered into from time to time by Ministers of every level of formality. There was a great deal of suspicion at the time about the whole process going on at Maryfield between myself and other Ministers and the officials who worked there and the equivalent officials and Ministers of the Republic. Much of that suspicion was unjustified; nevertheless, it was there.
In these circumstances the idea that the United Kingdom Government could strike down an act of the Assembly in response to some unpublished, but nevertheless appreciated by the British Government, obligation to the Republic of Ireland entered into at some time is bound to raise a great deal of suspicion. That is why this amendment suggests that the Secretary of State should be able to use these powers only in the case of treaty obligations which are well known and well understood.
There is a peculiarity in the Bill as I read it; namely, orders that are contrary to European Union law seem to be stated to be wrong, but so far as I can see the Secretary of State does not have power to strike those down, to "put the black spot on them", in the way that the Secretary of State will have the power to block any act which appears to offend against some agreement with the Republic of Ireland, or for that matter any other national government. I am not sure why European law should be given that kind of negative preference, as it were. Given the suspicion that lies behind it, we should be very careful as regards the way in which we phrase the power that is to be given to the Secretary of State to strike down the acts of the Assembly. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the noble Lord. As he indicated, this group includes his Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 and government Amendments Nos. 60 to 63 and 204. Perhaps it is convenient if I deal with the government amendments first.
Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 are consequential on the new clause after Clause 19 which we have just considered, and Amendment No. 60 is purely a matter of drafting.

1289
The new clause after Clause 20 proposed in Amendment No. 63 permits the making of an order determining the Northern Ireland share of a quota imposed on the United Kingdom by virtue of an international or European Community obligation. The clause is identical in intention, though there are obviously differences in form, to amendments made to the Government of Wales Act and the Scotland Bill. The principle has been accepted in those cases and we think it appropriate that it should also be included in the Northern Ireland context.
There is an obligation of consultation with the relevant Northern Ireland authorities. We shall expect robust negotiation between different regions of the United Kingdom about the proportions of a quota obligation allocated to each. We would hope that amicable arrangements could always be arrived at. We will use our best endeavours to that effect. But there must ultimately always be a means by which we can ensure that the UK as a whole meets its international obligations. Orders under this clause will, by Amendment No. 204, be subject to negative resolution at Westminster.
I now turn to the linked but separate amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Cope. Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 would limit the Secretary of State's powers to prohibit or require action under the first two subsections of Clause 20, confining them to cases involving international treaty obligations, not simply international obligations. The noble Lord is right. "International obligations" is partly defined in Clause 80. As amended, it would be cast so as to exclude obligations to observe and implement Community law or convention rights.
The amendments would mean that that limitation no longer applied, so widening the power. The real defect is that it would leave Her Majesty's Government, who have to be the guarantors of the Government's international obligations, without the means to enforce obligations in international law that are not treaty obligations but are obligations in customary international law. They include some of the most fundamental international legal duties. An important element in the structure and coherence of the Bill would be lost if there were not that residual power to enable this country to fulfil its duties under international law. On the basis of that explanation, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Can the Minister give me an assurance that private understandings that may have been entered into between the United Kingdom Government and other Governments, such as the Government of the Republic of Ireland, would not be used as a reason for striking down legislation under this clause?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is a perfectly legitimate question. My understanding is that, if one has what one might call a moral obligation, which is not either a treaty obligation or an obligation under
1290
customary international law, that would not found the basis for the Secretary of State's powers, as the noble Lord indicated.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 60 to 62:
Page 10, line 22, leave out ("or which could be revoked") and insert (", confirmed or approved").
Page 10, line 25, leave out from ("obligations") to end of line 29.
Page 10, line 31, leave out ("subsection (4) shall recite the reasons for revoking the legislation") and insert ("this section shall recite the reasons for making the order").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 63:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause—
QUOTAS FOR PURPOSES OF INTERNATIONAL OR COMMUNITY OBLIGATIONS
(".—(1) A Minister of the Crown may make an order containing provision such as is specified in subsection (2) where—

(a) an international obligation or an obligation under Community law is an obligation to achieve a result defined by reference to a quantity (whether expressed as an amount, proportion or ratio or otherwise); and

(b) the quantity relates to the United Kingdom (or to an area including the United Kingdom or to an area consisting of a part of the United Kingdom which is or includes the whole or part of Northern Ireland).

(2) The provision referred to in subsection (1) is provision for the achievement by a Minister or Northern Ireland department (in the exercise of his or its functions) of so much of the result to be achieved under the international obligation or obligation under Community law as is specified in the order.
(3) The order may specify the time by which any part of the result to be achieved by the Minister or department is to be achieved.
(4) Where an order under subsection (1) is in force in relation to an international obligation or an obligation under Community law, the obligation shall have effect for the purposes of this Act as if it were an obligation to achieve so much of the result to be achieved under the obligation as is specified in the order by the time or times so specified.
(5) No order shall be made by a Minister of the Crown under subsection (1) unless he has consulted the Minister or Department concerned.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Agency arrangements between UK and NI departments]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 10, line 33, leave out from ("between") to ("any") in line 34 and insert—

("(a) any department of the Government of the United Kingdom or any public body, or holder of a public office, in the United Kingdom; and

(b)").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 64, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 65 and 66. The purpose of Clause 21 is to allow Northern Ireland departments to carry out functions on behalf of other UK administrations or vice versa. These agency

1291
arrangements were provided for in the 1973 Act and the amendments take devolved terminology into account. The inclusion of public bodies and holders of public office in the provision enables authorities outside central government departments to act on behalf of the executive, should the need arise. This will achieve parity between all three of the devolved systems and further leave scope for the making of agency arrangements with other UK public bodies and NDPBs.
Amendment No. 64 broadens scope to include any public body and/or holder of public office in agency arrangements. Amendment No. 65 ensures that any public body and/or holder of public office included in such arrangements retains responsibility for its functions regardless. Amendment No. 66 removes an obsolete clause, as the Post Office is a public body. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Amendment No. 67, tabled in my name, falls to be considered with this group. It attempts to give a little more definition to these agreements between the Northern Ireland executive and the United Kingdom Government and various other people, but particularly, as expressed in the amendment, between the two Governments. I have suggested that these arrangements should be called "concordats" and that they should be formal in the sense that a draft of such a concordat should be approved both in Parliament at Westminster and also in the Assembly. It seems to me important that these agreements should be above board and entirely public, that they should be seen to be so and that they should have the necessary democratic approval.
Some guidance on these kinds of agreements was given in connection with the Scotland and Wales legislation in some notes that were put in the Library on 27th February this year. It suggested that concordats would normally be signed by officials and would not be legally enforceable, which rather surprised me. I would have thought it important that each side should be able to insist on the other side carrying out the agreement. It also suggested that some of them should not be published. That is an odd provision to insert, given what everybody else has said at different times about freedom of information in government. There was no question that such matters would require approval of any kind either by Parliament or the Assembly. That is what leads me to table this particular amendment.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether public bodies include the executive agencies that nowadays conduct so much of the business of government. I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, about Parliament having to approve such agreements. At the moment if a government department's business is sub-contracted, which is what this amounts to—whether the Northern Irish Government sub-contract to a British Government department or agency, or vice versa—I am not sure that normally it requires parliamentary approval. I believe that the test of parliamentary approval is whether whatever arrangements normally require such approval should continue to attract it. But I believe that such
1292
arrangements for sub-contracting work should at least be placed in the Library and information on them should be made available. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond on that point.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I rise briefly to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. I believe it is important for the avoidance of doubt and even more important for the avoidance of friction to have the same form of endorsement and approval as the comparable legislation in the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly.
Lord Dubs: I first answer the specific question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Holme. The answer is that such agencies would be covered. Clearly, they carry out a great deal of the work in Northern Ireland. As regards Amendment No. 67 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I cannot agree to this amendment which would introduce a formal parliamentary procedure in relation to concordats which these non-statutory agreements simply do not justify and merit. Concordats are not intended to be legally binding contracts or treaties between the two administrations. They are agreements to promote effective communications and joint working between the Northern Ireland Executive and the United Kingdom Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked about the publication of guidance. We are making arrangements to publish the guidance given to Northern Ireland departments. The guidance for Scotland and Wales has already been published.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 65 and 66:
Page 10, line 37, leave out ("department") and insert ("person").
Page 11, line 1, leave out subsection (4).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 [Statutory committees]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 68 and 69:
Page 11, line 4, leave out subsection (1).
Page 11, line 12, at end insert ("; and
() conferring on the committees the powers described in paragraph 9 of Strand One of the Belfast Agreement.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 11, line 18, leave out from ("the") to ("power") in line 19 and insert ("nominating officer does not exercise the power conferred by paragraph (a) within a period specified in standing orders, or the nominated person does not take up the selected office within that period, that").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 73 and 74:
Page 11, line 28, leave out ("are") and insert ("were").
Page 11, line 29, at end insert ("on the day on which the Assembly first met following its election").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 76 to 78:
Page 11, line 30, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").
Page 11, line 37, after ("Minister") insert ("or junior Minister").
Page 12, line 2, after ("vacant,") insert ("the nominating officer of the party on whose behalf the previous incumbent was nominated may nominate a person to hold the office who is a member of the party and of the Assembly.
() Standing orders shall provide that if—

(a) the nominating officer does not exercise the power conferred by subsection (8) within a period specified in standing orders; or

(b) the nominated person does not take up the selected office within that period,").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 [Exclusion of Ministers from office]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 79 and 80:
Page 12, line 6, after ("Minister") insert ("or junior Minister").
Page 12, line 12, after ("Minister") insert ("or junior Minister").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 12, line 18, leave out from ("because") to ("other") in line 19 and insert ("it is not committed to such of its members as are or might become Ministers or junior Ministers observing the").
The noble Lord said: The government amendments in this group reflect comments made during earlier stages of the Bill and during consultation with the Northern Ireland parties. Amendment No. 82 addresses the feelings many had that the provisions in the Bill as they stood on excluding parties from office were too vague. In particular, it was felt the ability to exclude a party because of the "likely failure" of its members to uphold the pledge of office was too hard to judge and could lead to a party being vulnerable to exclusion because of the behaviour of an individual.
The amendment makes it clear that exclusion under this provision is based on the Assembly's judgment of the party's own policy, and exclusion is possible if the Assembly believes the party is not committed to its Ministers upholding the pledge of office. An example might be if a party came up with a firm policy of not complying with decisions of the executive committee or rejected out of hand the provisions of the ministerial code of conduct.
I see that Amendment No. 86 is now a joint one. The amendment ensures that if the Secretary of State believes the Assembly should consider a motion for exclusions, she must require the Presiding Officer to move a motion for the Assembly to debate and vote on.
Government Amendment No. 84 is a purely drafting point, making clear that all resolutions under this clause will require cross community support to be successful. I beg to move.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I shall not speak at length to Amendment No. 86, not least because of the sheer exhilaration of seeing the Minister's name appearing on our amendment. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, agreed with this amendment when we discussed it at an earlier stage and I am grateful to the Government for so gracefully acceding to it.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I think that perhaps I should have added my name and the noble Lord would have felt even better, at least on this occasion.
I have only one small point. How will anybody know whether a party is committed to its members observing the pledge of office if they are still armed and their followers still have semtex, and so on? It seems to me to be extremely difficult to know.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: The issue here is whether the Secretary of State knows, and whether he or she believes that she knows, at least as regards Amendment No. 86.
Lord Dubs: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for his help on that. It would be a broad judgment that the Secretary of State would have to make in the round, taking all facts and factors into account.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I was speaking to Amendment No. 82 in which the Assembly has to make the judgment, but I take it that the same reply from the Minister will do as a portmanteau reply for both questions.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 83 to 85:
Page 12, line 21, after ("Ministers") insert ("or junior Ministers").
Page 12, line 29, leave out ("subsection (1), (2) or (3)") and insert ("this section").
Page 12, line 38, after ("Minister") insert ("or junior Minister").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 12, line 40, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 12, line 43, leave out ("party concerned") and insert ("junior Minister or the political party").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 [Dates of elections and dissolutions]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 13, line 27, at end insert—
("(3A) At an Assembly elected under this section or section (Extraordinary elections) shall meet within the period of eight days beginning with the day of the poll at which it is elected.
(3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A), a Saturday, a Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday and any day which is a bank holiday in Northern Ireland shall be disregarded.").
The noble Lord said: Once again the government amendments in this group reflect the valuable debates we have had on the Bill both here and in another place. New Clause 90 radically restructures the Bill's provisions on extraordinary elections, bringing it more into line with the provisions of the Scotland Bill.
In the Bill as it stands, the Secretary of State may dissolve the Assembly and call fresh elections if she believes the Northern Ireland Ministers are unable to carry out their functions. This was seen as leaving too much power in the hands of the Secretary of State, and planning for failure.
Accordingly, the new clause in Amendment No. 90 leaves the power to call early elections to the Assembly on a majority of two thirds of all members—that is to say, not just those voting. In addition, a fresh election will be triggered if the Assembly fails within six weeks to elect a First Minister and Deputy First Minister.
Amendment No. 88 clarifies that the Assembly shall meet within eight working days of the election.
I urge noble Lords to reject Amendment No. 91 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope. This amendment seeks to prevent any order-making provisions about elections creating new criminal offences. The House has this year already approved two orders which included provisions on criminal offences: the Referendum Order and the New Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order. The sort of offences we are talking about cover a number of areas. Perhaps most significant are provisions on electoral fraud. This is a sensitive issue in Northern Ireland, and provisions are certainly necessary.
It is a moot point whether the provisions of such orders would fall foul of the noble Lord's amendment—whether we are creating new offences or applying existing ones. But on the grounds of clarity and consistency, I urge the Committee to reject the amendment. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The Minister correctly described the purpose of Amendment No. 91 standing in my name: that the Secretary of State should not be able, by order, to create criminal offences.
It is a difficult judgment. I believe that we legislate too much by subsidiary legislation, by secondary legislation, by order. At some stage we have to try to draw a halt to it by saying that we shall not make important law by means of orders. A few years ago, there were many fewer Acts of primary legislation on the statute books; and far fewer books full of statutory instruments. Unless at some point we in Parliament
1296
draw a line under it, and say that we shall have fewer statutory instruments, and draft improved primary legislation, the position as regards legislation on the statute book which people in this country are expected to obey will become worse.
That is a huge principle to apply to a small part of the amendment. However, if one does not stop somewhere, one will never stop. Serious offences require primary legislation rather than being invented at the whim of the Secretary of State and bowed through Parliament. Such measures are not always "bowed through", but in this House we have a convention that statutory instruments are not opposed. If we continue to put important legislation into statutory instruments that convention will not deserve to survive. At some point, the House will have to decide that we shall vote against statutory instruments of which we do not approve rather than automatically passing statutory instruments on to the statute book without opposition. That is not intended to be a threat but an observation on the number and importance of statutory instruments which are brought before us.
The relatively minor provision in Amendment No. 91 puts down a small peg in an attempt to illustrate the general point I make.
Lord Skelmersdale: Not for the first time this evening, I am amazed at the groupings on the Marshalled List. It is my fault that I have not complained earlier; and I do not complain now. However, the amendment of my noble friend Lord Cope, Amendment No. 91, has been discussed with Amendment No. 90. I cannot see the relevance between the two.
My interest is in Amendment No. 90, because it pre-supposes that the Assembly passes a resolution and then the Secretary of State acts. That is fine, but that resolution cannot be passed unless it has the support of two-thirds of the members of the Assembly. This is to be found in subsection (2) of the clause.
I do not want to be unduly cynical, but there could be an occasion when several members of the Assembly walk out. We have seen it before and it is just possible that we shall see it again. In those circumstances, it would be quite sensible for an extraordinary election to be held. That cannot be done. A resolution, by definition, cannot be passed because there are not enough members to pass it. What happens then?
Lord McConnell: I support Amendment No. 91. I have always held that it is objectionable to have legislation by Order in Council, which cannot be amended. It should really be done by a proper Act of Parliament. It is bad enough when it is done about certain procedures, but to create a criminal offence by a mere order is objectionable.
Lord Dubs: We have, as I instanced when I spoke a few moments ago, occasionally created criminal offences by order. Clearly there are concerns about the use of that procedure, but there are occasions when it is necessary to do so and, in those instances, it would be

1297
unduly restrictive if we were to pass Amendment No. 91. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Cope, would urge us to do that; at least, I hope not.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 13, line 28, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 90:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause—
EXTRAORDINARY ELECTIONS
(".—(1) If the Assembly passes a resolution that it should be dissolved the Secretary of State shall propose a date for the poll for the election of the next Assembly.
(2) A resolution under subsection (1) shall not be passed without the support of a number of members of the Assembly which equals or exceeds two thirds of the total number of seats in the Assembly.
(3) If the period mentioned in section 14(1) or (7) ends without a First Minster and a deputy First Minister having been elected, the Secretary of State shall propose a date for the poll for the election of the next Assembly.
(4) If the Secretary of State proposes a date under subsection (1) or (3), Her Majesty may by Order in Council—

(a) direct that the date of the poll for the election of the next Assembly shall, instead of being determined in accordance with section 24, be the date proposed; and

(b) provide for the Assembly to be dissolved on a date specified in the Order.").

Lord Skelmersdale: Obviously I bounced the Minister in my previous question, and I would be perfectly happy if he would commit himself to writing to me with the answer.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs: I appreciate that, and I shall do so.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Elections and franchise]:
[Amendment No. 91 not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Vacancies]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 14, line 39, at end insert—
("() The validity of any proceedings of the Assembly is not affected by any vacancy in its membership.").
The noble Lord said: This is a rather large group of amendments dealing with a series of related and technical issues. Amendments Nos. 98 to 103 deal with the Assembly's power to call witnesses and documents, including Amendment No. 101 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope. Amendments Nos. 109, 110, 93 and 342 deal with the privilege of the Assembly and shadow Assembly and the validity of its proceedings. Amendments Nos. 336, 337 and 342 deal with disqualification provisions, as does Amendment No. 94 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. Amendments Nos. 97 and 283 concern the Assembly's standing orders.
The amendments on the Assembly's power to call witnesses and papers are relatively minor. They remove references to the Assembly's powers in respect of shared functions, since these do not apply in the Northern Ireland context.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, has put down an amendment which would remove the requirement on a defendant to prove he had a reasonable excuse for his refusal to comply with an Assembly ruling, leaving only a requirement to have a good excuse. I am not sure how this would work. The defendant must explain his case to the court, rather than being able to get off scot-free merely by assuring the court he had a good excuse but not explaining what it was or giving the court an opportunity to consider it. I would urge the House to reject this amendment.
Amendment No. 92 makes it clear that the Assembly's proceedings will not be invalidated by any vacancies in its membership. A number of other amendments concern the Assembly's privileges. In line with the Scotland and Wales legislation, Amendments Nos. 109 and 110 provide that those reporting the Assembly's proceedings will not be liable to conviction for contempt of court under the strict liability rule if the reports are accurate and made in good faith.
Amendment No. 342 gives the shadow Assembly full privilege from the time of Royal Assent. This is in line with the view of the parties and the Presiding Officer, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and will enable the shadow Assembly to operate in very much the same way as the full Assembly.
There are a number of amendments dealing with the issue of disqualification. Amendment No. 96 provides for the case of bankruptcy and mental illness. In these cases, disqualification is not immediate but can follow after six months. The amendment ensures that the Member of the Assembly will not be able to participate in the Assembly's proceedings in the meantime.
Amendments Nos. 336 and 337 are minor and consequential amendments in the same area. They provide for the Presiding Officer to be informed if a Member is declared bankrupt or committed under mental health legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, seeks to reimpose disqualification of members of the Irish Senate. This subject was extensively discussed during the passage of both this Bill and the elections Bill earlier in the year. Members of the Irish Senate have traditionally included figures from Northern Ireland who have played a valuable role in public life in Northern Ireland. We do not see any pressing reason to exclude them from the Assembly on the ground of their Senate membership alone.
Amendments Nos. 97 and 283 concern the Assembly's standing orders. They make clear that standing orders require cross-community support to be amended or repealed as well as made in the first place. Amendment No. 283 removes the need for standing orders to include provision on obtaining the Royal consent in certain circumstances since we do not believe that these will apply in devolution. The consent applies

1299
to matters such as the estate of the Duchy of Lancaster, which does not own land in Northern Ireland. I beg to move Amendment No. 92.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I fear that the Minister has been misinformed by his advisors. I am not seeking to alter the disqualification regulations; I am simply trying to remove one of the two references to the Irish Senate. One is in Irish and the other is in English. I would wish to have removed the reference in English because it will cause widespread confusion, particularly as it relates solely to Northern Ireland.
The Irish title of the Senate in the preceding line of Clause 28(5) is not understood in English-speaking areas, therefore it does not cause confusion and offence. However, where there exists in the same subsection reference to the Assembly and then the Senate of Ireland, surely we have a recipe for confusion, particularly in the Senate Chamber at Stormont where my noble friend Lord Cooke sat as a Senator. I believe that that could easily be remedied by removing one of the two references. In this case, I would be very generous and allow the Irish to keep it in their own language.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: As regards Amendment No. 94, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, was going to ask for the provision to read "the Senate of the Republic of Ireland" in line with some of our earlier debates. I agree with him in being willing to leave it solely in the Irish language.
I rose in order to talk to Amendment No. 101, which is part of the group. As the Bill stands, it is a defence for a person charged with an offence of failing to attend proceedings as a witness or to produce documents and so forth set out in Clause 37 to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for his refusal or failure to live up to his obligations. I think that is a bit difficult. It is making somebody prove his innocence. Generally speaking, in our law it is up to the prosecution to prove that a person is guilty. I therefore suggested in Amendment No. 101 that it should be a defence to have a reasonable excuse. He would still have to justify it to the court but the prosecution, as it were, would have to show that he had failed to have a reasonable excuse.
All I am doing is shifting the onus of proof, because I dislike the onus of proof being on the accused party. It seems to me that he should be innocent until somebody else proves to the satisfaction of the court that he is guilty and did not have a reasonable excuse for refusing to attend. It is important that witnesses should be under a compulsion to attend and produce papers if the Assembly is to function properly, but it is not a reason for taking away the rights of the accused.
11 p.m.
Lord Monson: I am happy to support my noble friend Lord Molyneaux in his Amendment No. 94 because it removes the danger of confusion and
1300
misunderstanding, while being in no way insulting to the Irish Republic: if anything, rather the reverse, in that it gives enhanced status to the Irish language.
Lord Dubs: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, for having misunderstood the intention underlying his amendment. However, I do not believe there is any possibility of misunderstanding. The words in brackets are merely intended as a translation and I would have thought that, if anything, they would clarify matters rather than cause confusion.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I will not detain my noble friend, but can he imagine a situation where, as seems to be the case, the projected forum which appears to be provided for in the legislation is going to meet in the Senate Chamber in Stormont and the television producer says: "It's a dull day in the Assembly; at the other end we are now going over to the Senate to hear what is being said on cattle diseases" or whatever? I think the noble Lord would concede that that will cause confusion: that is, mention of the Senate of Ireland when there will be meetings held under the auspices of the Assembly, not under the auspices of this Bill, in the very same building in the Senate Chamber.
Lord Dubs: I am not sure that I am persuaded by the noble Lord's argument. It is not that often that television commentators actually quote from legislation, and I would have thought they would use whatever language was most appropriate. But in terms of the legislation itself, I think the existing way of having the English version in brackets seems to be perfectly clear and not likely to cause any undue difficulties.
I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, about the burden of proof. No, non-compliance is an objective fact. Only the person failing to comply can give the reasons and it is likely that he would have to do so, and that they should be reasonable; otherwise we will lose clarity. I would have thought that the present wording is preferable to what the noble Lord suggests.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 [Disqualification]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 15, line 14, leave out from ("Commons") to end of line 15.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 93 and to discuss with it Amendment No. 95. We are concerned here with whether an individual is disqualified for membership of the Assembly. The clause states that someone,
"is disqualified for membership of the Assembly if he is disqualified for membership of the House of Commons",
with which I agree. I would there put a full-stop. It seems to me that the same criteria should apply to both. However, the Bill goes on to say, unless my amendment is carried,
"otherwise than under the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975".

1301
I am sure the Minister will be able to tell us the effect of those words, but we need some justification for the fact that people will be able to sit in the one but not the other.
While mentioning this point, I think it is worth inquiring whether Members of this House, who, after all, are not qualified for membership of the House of Commons, would, nevertheless, under the Bill as it stands be qualified for membership of the Assembly should they wish to stand for it.
Subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 29 provide that the Assembly, if it wishes, in certain circumstances—they are limited circumstances—can overrule a disqualification of any kind. That does not seem desirable. The rules for qualification should be laid down firmly in legislation of this Parliament and not be a matter which the Assembly can waive, even in limited circumstances. They should be part of the law of the United Kingdom. That is why I have suggested the deletion of subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 29. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: Like some of the government amendments in the previous group, these amendments deal with the issue of disqualification. Amendment No. 93 would have the effect of applying the House of Commons disqualification provisions to the Assembly instead of the provisions of the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act, as provided for in the Bill. This matter was discussed in another place, where the Opposition's amendment was described as "probing". We believe that the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act is more appropriate as it is more tailored to the situation in Northern Ireland.
The 1975 Act was obviously designed specifically with the Northern Ireland Assembly in mind. It therefore includes in the list of disqualifying offices a number of posts which are specific to Northern Ireland and does not include a number of others which are not relevant to Northern Ireland. It also includes easier provisions enabling the Assembly to keep this list up to date rather than having to amend Westminster legislation, which would be the effect of the noble Lord's amendment.
The 1975 Act applied to the previous assembly in Northern Ireland under the provisions of the Northern Ireland Assembly Order 1982, which was made under the Northern Ireland Act 1982. I hope this clarifies the position for the noble Lord and that he will withdraw the amendment.
The noble Lord has also put down an amendment which would remove the Assembly's power to provide relief from disqualification. I find that curious. The power to provide relief is available in the House of Commons. It is also in the Scotland Bill and was enjoyed by previous assemblies in Northern Ireland. It provides a useful degree of flexibility is assessing where disqualification may have been short-lived and perhaps inadvertent. The power requires a vote of the Assembly which could be subject to a petition of concern if Assembly members object. It seems a sensible provision and I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
1302
The noble Lord asked whether Members of this House could stand for the Assembly. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, has done just that. It is permitted for Members of this House to stand there.
I should like to make one other point about disqualification.
"Otherwise than under the House of Commons Disqualification Act",
covers common law categories of disqualification; for example, mental health grounds and other statutes, such as the Representation of the People Act 1981. I hope that clarifies the position for the noble Lord and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I shall certainly look very carefully at what the Minister has just said. With regard to Amendment No. 93, he seemed to me to be speaking to subsections (1), (2) and (3) of this clause rather than to subsection (4), which my amendment addressed.
At the end of his remarks, he mentioned the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. He seemed to be saying that that legislation prevented those with mental problems becoming Members of the House of Commons. That is not a very sensible provision to suspend in the case of the Assembly. There used to be a Member of another place some years ago who had had a mental illness and he would occasionally produce his discharge certificate to demonstrate that he was the only Member of the House who could prove he was sane.
If I understood the Minister correctly on that point, I shall wish to return to it. I may not have caught exactly what he said. Unless he wishes to comment further, which he does not seem to, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Effect of disqualification and provision for relief]:
[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 15, line 41, at end insert—
("() Subsection (1)(b) has effect subject to section 141 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (mental illness) and section 427 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (bankruptcy etc); and where, in consequence of either of those sections, the seat of a disqualified member of the Assembly has not been vacated—

(a) he shall not participate in any proceedings of the Assembly; and

(b) any of his other rights and privileges as a member of the Assembly may be withdrawn by a resolution of the Assembly.

() The validity of any proceedings of the Assembly is not affected by the disqualification of any person from being a member of the Assembly or from being a member for the constituency for which he purports to sit.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 30 to 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Standing orders]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 17, line 34, after ("made") insert (", amended or repealed").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 34 and 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Power to call for witnesses and documents]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 98 to 100:
Page 19, leave out lines 12 to 15.
Page 20, line 1, leave out subsection (10).
Page 20, line 2, at end insert—
("() In this section "statutory functions" means functions conferred by virtue of any enactment, including this Act.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 [Witnesses and documents: offences]:
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 20, line 28, at end insert—
("() For the purposes of section 36 and this section, a person shall he taken to comply with a requirement to produce a document if he produces a copy of, or an extract of the relevant part of, the document.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 103:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
WITNESSES: OATHS
(".—(1) The Presiding Officer or such other person as may be authorised by standing orders may—

(a) administer an oath to any person giving evidence in proceedings of the Assembly; and

(b) require him to take the oath.

(2) Any person who refuses to take an oath when required to do so under subsection (1)(b) is guilty of an offence.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment enables the Presiding Officer to apply an oath to a witness, meaning that those giving untruthful answers will be guilty of perjury in the same way that it is already an offence under the Bill to refuse to answer questions at all.
This amendment is in line with similar provisions in the Scotland Bill and the Government of Wales Act. A witness may, under the terms of the 1978 Oaths Act, make an affirmation instead of an oath. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Remuneration of members]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 20, line 36, leave out ("a Ministerial office") and insert ("office as a Minister or junior Minister").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 20, line 37, after ("deputy;") insert—
("(iia) holding office as a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission;").
The noble Lord said: These amendments are of a practical nature. I am sure that the Committee will agree that it is just and sensible that those who continue to hold office and be responsible for the exercise of the functions of that office should continue to receive the same level of salary after dissolution as they received before.
Similarly, I am sure that the Committee will agree that if a member does not seek re-election after the dissolution, he should cease to receive a salary as a member of the Assembly.
I turn now to the individual amendments. Amendment No. 105 provides for members of the Assembly Commission to receive enhanced salaries. Amendment No. 106 provides for Ministers, the Presiding Officer and members of the Assembly Commission to continue to receive their enhanced salaries between the period after dissolution until such time as the new Assembly is formed. During that time, they will continue to carry out the functions of that office and should be rewarded accordingly. Additionally, it ensures that where a member does not seek re-election payment of the member's salary ceases on dissolution.
Amendment No. 107 is a technical amendment which deletes the definition of "Ministerial office" for the purpose of this section. Amendment No. 36 provides a definition of "Ministerial office" which will apply throughout the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 106 and 107:
Page 21, line 19, at end insert—
("() For the purposes of this section, a person who is a member of the Assembly immediately before the Assembly is dissolved shall be treated—

(a) if he continues to hold such an office as is mentioned in subsection (3)(a)(I) to (iia), as if he were a member of the Assembly until the end of the day on which he ceases to hold the office; and

(b) if he does not fall within paragraph (a) but is nominated as a candidate at the subsequent general election, as if he were a member of the Assembly until the end of the day of the poll for that election.").

Page 21, line 20, leave out subsection (10).
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall move Amendments Nos. 106 and 107 en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Letters Patent etc.]:
[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Privilege]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 109 and 110:
Page 22, line 26, after ("a") insert ("fair and accurate").
Page 22, line 26, at end insert ("which is made in good faith").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I shall move Amendments Nos. 109 and 110 en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past eleven o'clock.