HL Deb 21 October 1998 vol 593 cc1444-56

.—(1) The First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly shall make such nominations of Ministers as they consider necessary to ensure—

  1. (a) such participation in the North-South Ministerial Council as appears to them to be required by the Belfast Agreement; and
  2. (b) such participation in the British-Irish Council as appears to them to be so required.

(2) It shall be a Ministerial responsibility of a Minister nominated under subsection (1)(a) or (b) to participate in the Council concerned in such meetings or activities as are specified in the nomination.

(3) Such a Minister shall act in accordance with any decisions of the Assembly or the Executive Committee which are relevant to his participation in the Council concerned.

(4) A Northern Ireland Minister may in writing authorise another Minister who has been nominated under subsection (1)(a) or (b) to enter into agreements or arrangements in respect of matters for which he is responsible.

(5) The First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly shall, as far in advance of each meeting of either Council as is reasonably practicable, give to the Executive Committee and to the Assembly the following information in relation to the meeting—

  1. (a) the date;
  2. (b) the agenda; and
  3. (c) nominations made under subsection (1) for the purposes of the meeting.

(6) A Minister who participates in a meeting of either Council by reason of a nomination under this section shall, as soon as reasonably practicable after the meeting, make a report—

  1. (a) to the Executive Committee; and
  2. (b) to the Assembly.

(7) A report under subsection (6)(b) shall be made orally unless standing orders authorise it to be made in writing.

(8) Subsection (3) does not affect the operation of section 19 in relation to the powers of Ministers.

(9) In this section "participate" shall be construed—

  1. (a) in relation to the North-South Ministerial Council, in accordance with paragraph 5 of Strand Two of the Belfast Agreement;
  2. (b) in relation to the British-Irish Council, in accordance with the first paragraph 5 of Strand Three of that Agreement.").

The noble Lord said: The next three groups of amendments deal collectively with the various bodies to be set up under strands 2 and 3 of the Belfast agreement. The Government's amendments introduced four new clauses to replace the existing Clauses 65 to 67 on which I have given notice of my intention to oppose the Question that they stand part of the Bill.

Before considering each group in turn, I remind noble Lords of the important institutions which are to be set up under strands 2 and 3 of the agreement. Those are: the North-South Ministerial Council which will develop co-operation between the Northern Ireland Administration and the Irish Government; the British-Irish Council, sometimes called the Council of the Isles, which will promote dialogue and consultation throughout these islands; and the British-Irish Inter-Governmental Conference in which the British and Irish Governments will co-operate on all matters of mutual interest including non-devolved Northern Ireland matters.

In addition, under the auspices of the North-South Ministerial Council, at least six implementation bodies are to be identified and established for the specific purpose of implementing on an all-island or cross-border level policies agreed in the council.

Strands 2 and 3 are an integral part of the Belfast agreement. That is reflected in the fact that they will now constitute a distinct part of the Bill rather than being included under "Miscellaneous and General" as at present. The various institutions I have outlined will enable the Northern Ireland administration to develop positive relationships and practical co-operation within the island of Ireland and within these islands in a way which will deliver real benefits to all the people living in these islands.

During consultation with the parties, two key issues have emerged in respect of the clauses: first, the need to ensure that Ministers in the North-South Ministerial Council are properly accountable to the Assembly, without introducing additional checks and balances not envisaged in the agreement which would hamper its effectiveness; secondly, the need to make clear that participation in the council when required is an essential responsibility of ministerial office.

The new clauses address these issues and reflect a number of points made by the parties. Ultimately, the key to successful development of North-South and East-West arrangements is not to be found in legislation. What is needed is for the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland to demonstrate the spirit of trust and co-operation that was the foundation of the agreement and to work together for the benefit of all the people. I am confident that, as with so many other challenges that have been faced, the politicians of Northern Ireland will prove able to rise to this challenge.

Turning to the detail of the new clauses, Amendment No. 111 requires the First and Deputy First Ministers to make such nominations as to ensure appropriate representation by Northern Ireland Ministers in the North-South Ministerial Council and in the British-Irish Council. This representation is clearly that which is required by the Belfast agreement.

The noble Lord, Lord Cope, has tabled Amendment No. 111A which seeks to ensure that the nominations shall be in accordance with paragraph 30 of strand one and that no one Minister shall represent the Assembly on his or her own. Paragraph 30 of strand one states that arrangements to represent the Assembly shall be such as to ensure cross-community involvement. While the clause's current reference to the agreement takes in this paragraph, I have some sympathy for the point raised by the noble Lord. If he will withdraw the amendment, I will consider further whether there needs to be more explicit reference to the need for representation to be on a cross-community basis.

Returning to Amendment No. 111, it is clear that Northern Ireland Ministers operating in the councils are fully accountable to the Assembly and must act in accordance with any relevant decision of the Assembly or executive committee. As my colleague the Minister of State said when this was being considered in another place, the council will be accountable both to the Dail in Dublin and to the Belfast Assembly. It must be so.

Accountability requires openness and transparency and these amendments also ensure that the Assembly is fully informed about business at the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council. This includes being given details of the agenda and ministerial nominations in advance of meetings and a report on their outcome. Of course, Ministers will continue to be accountable to the Assembly in the relevant Assembly committee for their operation in either council, as they are for all their responsibilities.

Another important aspect of participation in the North-South Ministerial Council is that it is an essential responsibility of ministerial office. That is clearly set out in strand two of the agreement and is given effect in Amendment No. 111. It is my belief that Ministers will live up to their pledge of office by discharging all their duties. The people of Northern Ireland will expect them to do so. Of course, should a Minister fail to carry out this responsibility, as with any other breach of the pledge, it will be for the Assembly to decide whether any action is appropriate. If for any reason a Minister is unable to participate normally in the council the agreement allows for the First and Deputy First Ministers to be able to make alternative arrangements. This amendment enables the Minister to authorise another Minister who is nominated by the First and Deputy First Ministers to attend the council to enter into agreements or arrangements in respect of matters for which he is responsible, thus enabling work in the North-South Ministerial Council to proceed.

This is a complex area of the Bill through which we are seeking to give full effect to the provisions in strand two of the agreement for alternative arrangements. We will continue to give close scrutiny to this clause to ensure that this objective is met.

Amendment No. 111B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, would enable all Ministers, including the First and Deputy First Ministers, to authorise another Minister to enter into agreements on their behalf. This provision is intended to enable only those Northern Ireland Ministers with departmental responsibilities to make such authorisation, and hence I must resist the amendment.

Amendment No. 112 provides that the Assembly may pass legislation for the purpose of giving effect to arrangements or agreements entered into by Ministers in the North-South Ministerial Council and in the British-Irish Council. There had earlier been some doubt as to whether the Assembly had legislative competence in this respect. This amendment ensures that the Assembly has the necessary authority. Amendment No. 112 also contains an important further provision in relation to the accountability of the North-South Ministerial Council to the Assembly.

On the specific matter of establishing new implementation bodies, which I know is of concern to some Members of the Committee, we have made clear that no agreement to establish a North-South implementation body shall come into operation without the specific approval of the Assembly. This is in line with paragraph 12 of strand two of the agreement. While Amendment No. 180, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Holme and Lord Lester, and Amendment No. 112C, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, would also have this effect, they go further by requiring Assembly approval for every agreement entered into in the councils. This clearly goes further than the agreement, which envisages Ministers being able to operate within their defined authority and therefore not requiring specific Assembly approval for every decision.

I turn to the remainder of the amendments in the group tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. I propose to accept Amendment No. 112A, which helpfully makes clear that it is only Ministers who may enter into agreements in the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council. Amendment No. 112B proposes that, as a result of agreements in the North-South Ministerial Council, Acts of the Assembly should enable functions to be transferred to a body rather than to an authority, as currently drafted. The language currently used is taken from the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and, in view of the establishment of implementation bodies, it may be that the suggested language would be more appropriate. If the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment we will look at the language further.

Amendment No. 112D suggests that the definition of an implementation body should be made with reference to paragraph 12 of strand two rather than to paragraph 11. I confess that I am unclear as to the reasoning behind the suggestion. The existing definition is entirely appropriate since it simply defines implementation bodies as set out in the agreement as bodies to implement on an all-island and cross-border basis policies agreed in the North-South Ministerial Council.

Before leaving the group, perhaps I may also mention government Amendment No. 226, which is a related technical amendment and includes provision to ensure that agreements made in the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council, or in relation to implementation bodies, come within the Assembly's legislative competence. I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 111, Amendment No. 111A:

Line 10, at end insert— ("(1A) Such nominations shall be in accordance with paragraph 30 of Strand One of the Belfast Agreement and shall ensure that no one Minister represents the Assembly.").

The noble Lord said: I wish to make several points on this group of amendments; a portmanteau, as it were. The first concerns the suggested title for what is described as Part IVA, which covers all the different bodies; that is, NSMC, BIC, BIIC etc. It seems to me rather infelicitous. I attempted through the Public Bill Office to propose an amendment suggesting that instead the title "External Relationships", a phrase from the Belfast agreement, might cover these matters in a more felicitous manner. Unfortunately, we are not allowed to propose amendments to the cross headings of Bills and therefore my amendment does not appear on the Marshalled List. I must downgrade it to a suggestion because it seems that such matters are entirely within the hands of the Minister and his colleagues rather than the Committee as a whole.

As regards the principle lying behind the drafting of the new clause, which appears as Amendment No. 111, I am content with the general approach and the way it has been developed, as described by the Minister. However, I wish to raise a number of points. First, he was kind enough to suggest that were I not to press Amendment No. 111A he would look into it. It attempts to ensure that, in accordance with paragraph 30 of strand one of the agreement, the involvement of Northern Ireland Ministers in the council should be on a cross-party basis. It seems to me that that requires that normally two Ministers should be there. Admittedly, my amendment suggests that there should always be two Ministers there, but perhaps that lays down a little too much detail. The spirit of trying to make sure that those going to the Assembly represent all the Executive—and, for that matter, all the Assembly—as far as possible, on a cross-community basis, is the right one. In due course I shall not press that amendment in the hope that the Minister will come back on it.

Amendment No. 111B leaves out "Northern Ireland" in line 17 of the new clause. As the Minister said, the subsection enables a Minister to authorise another Minister to enter into agreements. I was slightly surprised by the Minister's response. He said that the wording had been chosen in order to stop the First Minister and Deputy First Minister being able to authorise another Minister to enter into an agreement. The departmental Ministers may do so, but if both they, the First Minister and his deputy are to do so, the wording, as refined by my amendment, would cover it because the Minister is defined elsewhere in the Bill as meaning the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the departmental Ministers. I imagine that that is what we wish to happen. I am pleased that my relatively modest suggestion in Amendment No. 112A has been accepted by the Minister and I need say no more about that.

Amendment No. 112B suggests including the word "body" instead of the word "authority". As the Minister rightly said, it seems that most of the institutions referred to here are cross-border bodies. In that context, "body" might be the more appropriate word. Again, I shall not press it in the light of what the Minister said. The other small matter concerns what paragraph of strand 2 of the Belfast Agreement should be referred to in subsection (5) dealing with the implementation bodies. I thought that it was just a slip in the drafting of the Bill. But the Minister seemed to suggest that paragraph 12 had been carefully chosen and preferred to paragraph 11, which states that, the implementation bodies will have a clear operational remit. They will implement on an all-island and cross-border basis". That is the basis of them. Paragraph 12 suggests how the bodies might develop. My amendment should have included both paragraphs 11 and 12 because of the bodies that may develop as a result of further progress over the years. I shall not press my amendment as it stands; nevertheless paragraph 12 has some validity in that context.

A more important question, addressed in my Amendment No. 112C and also the amendment of the Liberal Democrat Party, is the authority that Northern Ireland Ministers will have when attending these meetings. My amendment suggests that no agreement or arrangement shall come into operation without the approval of the Assembly whereas the Minister is suggesting that the approval of the Assembly will only be required to set up a cross-border body. I believe that the best solution probably lies somewhere between us. I wish to reflect more on that before we finalise it. But it should be clear that when Ministers attend meetings of this character they are doing so as representatives not only of the Northern Ireland Executive, but also as representatives of the Northern Ireland Assembly. What they say in the councils cannot of itself bind the Assembly, which should be able to make its own decisions as to whether to support a particular measure or not.

It is not an entirely analogous situation. As a Minister I used to go to European meetings of various councils when I was with different departments. It was noticeable that British Ministers at such European councils frequently entered parliamentary reserves on the decisions that we were making in order to permit debates to take place in this House and also in the other place to get approval for what we were agreeing to. Obviously, we did not agree to anything about which we did not believe we could persuade Parliament. Nevertheless, we entered a parliamentary reserve and, very frequently, so did the Danes. Virtually no country apart from those two ever entered a parliamentary reserve, but simply took their parliaments for granted. It seemed to me that it was the strength of the Danish and British systems that to some degree the parliaments remained in control of what Ministers did when they attended the various councils and reached conclusions, sometimes as a result of very hard bargaining in the middle of the night.

Although that situation is not entirely comparable, it is related to the situation we are discussing here. It should be clear that, in attending these councils, Ministers are answerable to the Assembly for what they do and have to obtain approval for any significant departures from the policy which the Assembly has already agreed. Quite how we express that in the Bill is more tricky. It may be that my drafting or that of the noble Lord representing the Liberal Democrats is not entirely satisfactory, but something like it needs to be stated, if only by the Minister. After all, in these days of Pepper v. Hart we hope that that can have some influence on the matter even if it is not written into the Bill. I beg to move.

3.30 p.m.

Lord Holme of Cheltenham

I very much welcome the fact that the Government have made a new start in Amendments Nos. 111 to 114. We had got ourselves into a tangle with the drafting and it is right to go for a fresh and clarificatory start here on such matters as the Executive Committee being given dates, times, venues and agendas of north-south meetings, and the fact that Ministers who attend such meetings are to make reports to the Executive and Assembly, which is extremely important, and also that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister have a duty to ensure reasonable attendance at the north-south council meetings. I also welcome that, in terms of new implementation bodies, the Government have tried to deal with the point raised by my Amendment No. 180 and Amendment No. 112C of the noble Lord, Lord Cope.

I wish to speak briefly about my amendment. But first I ask the Minister how frequently the Government envisage these strand 2 and 3 meetings taking place. He may reply to the effect that it is simply up to the Assembly and the Irish Government. But it is legitimate for this Committee to hear the Government's view. As regards the question of reasonable attendance, perhaps I may clarify this point. If the two DUP Ministers do not attend, would that still constitute reasonable attendance for the members of the Executive?

As regards the other amendments in this grouping, which is a somewhat motley one, I was delighted to hear that the Government will accept Amendment No. 111A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, with which the Liberal Democrat Benches agree.

On Monday the Government told us that as regards Amendment No. 111B they were intending to clarify titles generally. We are in a mess of nomenclature. We have Northern Ireland Ministers; First and Deputy First Ministers; departmental Ministers and junior Ministers. The promise that the Government have made to sort out titles throughout the Bill is welcome. I shall be grateful if the noble Lord believes it will help this amendment as well.

As to Amendment No. 112B, the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, is entirely right to try to use the word "body" rather than "authority", for a reason that neither he nor the Minister have so far mentioned. It is crucial, in building this new relationship between the new assembly and the Republic of Ireland, that we do not revert to the language of earlier discussions in Anglo-Irish relations 10 years ago and try to impute an authority that does not exist for this cross-border body. For that reason the term "body", which implies an evolving co-operative relationship, rather than "authority" is highly desirable.

I speak now, briefly, to my own Amendment No. 180, which is similar in intent to Amendment No. 112C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope. I concede that mine is a probing amendment. It seeks clarification on how new north-south agreements will be endorsed, or otherwise, by the Assembly. At one extreme we have the kind of amendment which has been proposed by the UKUP in the Assembly, which I would interpret as a wrecking amendment, which provides that every single issue that arises has to be approved by the Assembly. Presumably that is designed by the UKUP to be a brake on the whole process. It is desirable that some positive momentum is built up in the north-south body. To that extent it is desirable that the executive Ministers have some latitude, particularly since they are now committed to reporting back to the Assembly. I hope that it will be common ground with the Conservative Benches that some latitude for the executive Ministers on that body is desirable. It is equally desirable that they should report.

I am not clear, beyond the new implementation bodies, whether the Government envisage any matters upon which the approval of the Assembly would have to be sought for agreements entered into by executive Ministers in that cross-border body. In order to determine my own attitude and my amendment, I would be grateful if the Minister could deal with that point when he responds.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

When we finished our deliberations on Monday evening at around 11.30, I went home feeling somewhat depressed. It seemed to me that we were setting the standard for the remainder of the Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading, with the Minister, through no wish of his own, finding himself in the position of having to block every amendment tabled by the Official Opposition or other parties represented in your Lordships' House. That is not intended as a slight on the Minister. We have to remember that he is dealing with these matters at long range and he is burdened with the responsibility of speaking for four of his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office in addition to his own onerous duty. I am greatly encouraged by the willingness of the Minister not only to say that he will look at the amendments put forward by, in this instance, the Official Opposition, but to do his best to take them on board and implement them.

When I had the responsibility of leading a minority party at the other end of the building I always took the view that it was necessary for minority parties to align themselves as far as possible with the government of the day and Her Majesty's Official Opposition of the day, otherwise we would have a collection of isolated voices crying in the wilderness, and we would get nowhere.

I pay tribute to the Minister and to his opposite number, the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, who leads for Her Majesty's Official Opposition. While I would not want to raise expectations too high, I think we can rely upon the Minister to ensure that reasonable amendments put forward in a reasonable way will be given a fair hearing by Her Majesty's Government. In that way we may secure something like all-party agreement on the broad principles of the Bill on which your Lordships are now deliberating for a third day.

3.45 p.m.

Lord Skelmersdale

I too welcome the opening statement by the Minister, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, has just said, is evidence of an open-mindedness, certainly towards this part of the Bill. I, too, was going to make the same points as the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, on the subject of Ministers and on clearing up definitions, but we have had that discussion and there is no need for me to labour the point. We will watch, eagle-eyed, on Report to see what amendments emanate from the Government.

Any of us who have had any connection with Northern Ireland, whether as outsiders or those who live and work there, know that words matter tremendously in the context of Northern Ireland. One of the reasons for the failure of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the hate that it generated was the words used. I lend my very positive support to my noble friend Lord Cope in his Amendment No. 112B. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that we will be doing everybody a great disservice if we leave the word "authority" in the Bill. "Body" is a far, far better term. There may be others, but I am not a wordsmith.

As to Amendment No. 180 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, I also lend my support to that amendment. It is absolutely vital. The cross-border relationship has become a touchy subject over recent years, notwithstanding the signing of the Belfast Agreement by virtually everyone in the Province. It will continue to be a touchy subject. One way of avoiding such touchiness must be to get as much cross-party agreement about external relations as can possibly be achieved. I am sure that the Government will take that on board.

Lord Hylton

I shall refer briefly to this amendment by referring to what is said in strand 2 of the Belfast Agreement. The first line of paragraph 2 reads: All Council decisions to be by agreement between the two sides". That seems to be as clear a unanimity rule as one could possibly hope to have.

Paragraph 5 goes on to speak of using best endeavours to reach agreement and then, in the next subsection, to taking decisions by agreement. In paragraph 6 it refers to: co-ordination of executive functions within each jurisdiction. Each side to remain accountable to the Assembly and to the Oireachtas respectively". That is the parliamentary approval, of which mention has already been made. I hope that the mention of those points in the agreement document will help to dispel certain fears that have already arisen and are likely to arise in future among certain people.

Lord Dubs

I am grateful for the supportive comments which have been made by various Members of the Committee. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, went home depressed on Monday night. I cannot guarantee that he will be utterly cheerful this evening, but certainly the Government are open-minded about many of the issues which your Lordships may wish to put forward. We shall reflect on all amendments, and where we can meet a point we shall do so, as I indicated a few moments ago.

Let me deal with some of the specific questions that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, made a point about the way in which parliamentary counsel attach sub-headings or headings to part of the Bill. This is not within the direct responsibility of the Government, but certainly I would like to reflect on the points made by the noble Lord to see what can be done by using our influence.

I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Holme, and other noble Lords for their helpful comments about whether Ministers, including the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, would have the power to authorise other Ministers to participate on their behalf. I should like to consider that point further in the light of the comments made this afternoon.

The noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked about the frequency of meetings of the North-South Ministerial Council. Strand 2 of the agreement makes it clear that the North-South Ministerial Council should meet in plenary form twice a year, but it should also meet in sectoral formats on a regular and frequent basis as is appropriate. So, the exact frequency of such meetings, as the noble Lord anticipated, will be for the Northern Ireland administration and the Irish Government to agree, rather than having anything set down in the legislation.

The noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Holme, and other noble Lords asked about the basis for approval by the assembly of agreements made in the North-South Ministerial Council. I agree that Ministers must be accountable. Indeed, subsection (5) of Amendment No. 111 provides for a report to the assembly on each council meeting. I also agree that Ministers must act in accordance with decisions of the executive committee and assembly. That is set out in subsection (3) of Amendment No. 111. I also agree that where any agreement in the council requires legislative or financial approval from the assembly, such an agreement cannot come into effect without such specific approval. The Minister would have to go back to the assembly and secure the necessary legislative and financial authority. But beyond that there are all kinds of points on which agreement might be entered into by a Minister. One would not want unduly to trammel the freedom of action of the Minister, particularly if he is acting in accordance with stated policies. So where legislative or financial approval is not required, the agreement intends that the Minister should be able to act within his or her own defined authority. Of course, even in such instances the Minister will still be obliged to report to the assembly, and doubtless when members of the assembly make their views clear the Minister will take account of them.

What I am saying in brief is that there may be occasions when the Minister will be obliged to go to the assembly for authority but there will be other occasions when, by acting within existing policy and acting entirely within his authority and where legislative or financial approval is not necessary, it would be unduly restrictive to demand that the Minister goes back to the assembly for approval on each of those matters.

Lord Holme of Cheltenham

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I find that explanation very helpful. However, the crux of the matter seems to be the phrase "Ministers acting within their defined authority". Can the Minister explain what that means in this specific context? What does he mean by "Ministers acting within their defined authority", beyond the report back, not needing to seek the approval of the assembly?

Lord Dubs

I would give the analogy of the way in which Ministers in this House and another place act in relation to being accountable. After all, Ministers have to make a large number of decisions. If Ministers reported to the House on each one of those and sought the House's approval, our proceedings might well come to a standstill. I shall give an example from the annex to the agreement, which indicates 12 headings for North-South co-operation and implementation. The first refers to agriculture and animal and plant health. As I am the agriculture Minister for Northern Ireland, I am aware of the authority I have to deal with a number of matters under animal and plant health. I do not need financial or legislative authority for those. Therefore, my successor—the agriculture Minister in the assembly—would have similar scope. He would be able to take action, as he would for matters that are exclusively matters for Northern Ireland which do not come into the North-South arrangements. We are simply indicating what would be normal ministerial practice in this House and in another place. There is nothing untoward about that. In the end, I suppose that one has to be specific in relation to particular examples, but I think the position is clear. Ministers are accountable but, subject to the way I have described it, they do not have to go back with every single decision that they make.

Lord Skelmersdale

Before the noble Lord leaves that point, does he accept that he and other noble Lords who have served as United Kingdom Ministers in Northern Ireland have acted under a form of delegated authority? If he accepts that, surely to goodness the Ministers who are the representatives of the assembly on these bodies ought to act with the same kind of delegated authority. At the moment, as I understand it, there is no system for the assembly to delegate a Minister to do a job. It might well be that a way out of this would be to have in the assembly's standing orders the power of delegation from the whole assembly to the Ministers who are going to participate in these bodies.

Lord Dubs

If the noble Lord is talking about standing orders, those will be up to the Assembly. It is not a matter which we would want to put on the face of the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked about Ministers' attendance. Ministers are obliged to attend. It is part of the condition of their taking office that they have to fulfil their responsibilities. Those include attending North-South Ministerial Council meetings where they are appropriate for them. The failure of any Minister to do so would be a matter with which the assembly would then have to deal.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

Unless I missed it, I am not sure that the noble Lord responded to Amendment No. 111B; that is, which Ministers are to be allowed to authorise other Ministers to enter into an agreement. The question is whether or not the First Minister and Deputy First Minister are able to nominate someone to enter into an agreement.

Lord Dubs

The noble Lord may have missed it. I said at the beginning that I was grateful for his helpful comments and that I would consider the matter further.

Lord Holme of Cheltenham

On the point about ministerial attendance, the words used are "reasonable attendance", which implies a less than 100 per cent. attendance. So, with respect, the noble Lord's reply that Ministers are expected to attend does not solve the problem of "reasonable attendance". If the representatives of two parties did not attend, would that still be "reasonable attendance"?

Lord Dubs

I am anxious not be drawn into too much detail on this point. However, if it so happens that on a particular occasion and for good reason a Minister is unable to attend, that would come within the scope of "reasonable". If there is a deliberate intention not to take part, that would be unreasonable.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

This debate is founded on Amendment No. 111A. I was interested in the Minister's phrase that he was "influential with" parliamentary counsel over the matter of cross-headings as opposed to being "in charge of" parliamentary counsel. I know exactly what he means and I am glad that he will use his influence correctly. In the light of what he said about Amendment No. 111A, I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment No. 111A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 111, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 111B, as an amendment to Amendment No. 111, not moved.]

On Question, Amendment No. 111 agreed to.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 112:

After Clause 43, insert the following new clause—

(".—(1) This section applies to any agreement or arrangement entered into by a person participating, by reason of a nomination under section (North-South Ministerial Council and British-Irish Council), in a meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council or the British-Irish Council.

(2) Provision may be made by Act of the Assembly for giving effect to any agreement or arrangement to which this section applies, including provision—

  1. (a) for transferring to any authority designated by or constituted under the agreement or arrangement any functions which would otherwise be exercisable by any Minister or Northern Ireland department;
  2. (b) for transferring to a Minister or Northern Ireland department any functions which would otherwise be exercisable by any authority outside Northern Ireland.

(3) Subsection (2) has effect notwithstanding anything in subsection (2)(a) of section 6; but it does not affect—

  1. (a) the operation of subsection (2)(b) to (f) of that section; or
  2. (b) the operation of section 7 or 13 in relation to the enactment of any Act of the Assembly.

(4) No agreement or arrangement to which this section applies entered into for the establishment after the appointed day of an implementation body shall come into operation without the approval of the Assembly.

(5) In subsection (4) "implementation body" means a body for implementing, on the basis mentioned in paragraph 11 of Strand Two of the Belfast Agreement, policies agreed in the North-South Ministerial Council.").

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 112, Amendment No. 112A:

Line 3, leave out ("person") and insert ("Minister").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment No. 112A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 112, agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 112B to 112D, as amendments to Amendment No. 112, not moved.]

On Question, Amendment No. 112, as amended, agreed to.

4 p.m.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 113:

After Clause 43, insert the following new clause—