Lords Sitting of 26 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 Oxford.

Lord Haskins
Christopher Robin Haskins, Esquire, having been created Baron Haskins, of Skidby in the County of the East Riding of Yorkshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Amos and the Lord Hattersley, and made the solemn Affirmation.

Lord Harris of Haringey
Jonathan Toby Harris, Esquire, having been created Baron Harris of Haringey, of Hornsey in the London Borough of Haringey, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord McIntosh of Haringey and the Lord Judd, and made the solemn Affirmation.
Lord Swaythling—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Personal Statement
2.47 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on Thursday 22nd October the noble Lord, Lord Gillmore of Thamesfield, declared an interest as a non-executive director of Vickers and asked a supplementary question about job losses among the company's workforce. In my reply I expressed doubt as to whether a non-executive director of Vickers should ask a question about that company. I regret that my reply could be construed as imputing improper conduct by the noble Lord, which was not my intention. I have since taken advice on the matter and re-read the Companion, which states that restriction on speaking in the House on matters where financial interests are concerned,
"does not extend to matters relating to Lords' outside employment or directorships, where the interest does not arise from membership of the House. Lords should, however, be especially cautious in deciding whether to speak or vote in relation to interests that are direct, pecuniary and shared by few others".
It is clear that the noble Lord was acting in accordance with the rules of your Lordships' House in regard to the registration and declaration of interests and that his question was in order. I therefore offer him and the House my public apology for any offence caused, as I have already done in private to the noble Lord.

Burma
2.48 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response towards recent developments in Burma (Myanmar).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, EU Foreign Ministers are meeting today to consider Burma. We hope the EU common position will be renewed and strengthened. We are pressing partners to ban the issue of transit visas to members of the regime. We hope partners will agree that the EU should, like the UK, draw to the attention of tour operators the view of Burmese democracy leaders that it would be inappropriate at present for tourists to visit Burma. We shall be considering a range of further measures that the EU might take. The Government also continue to support the efforts of the United Nations Secretary General to bring progress in Burma and will work for a further tough resolution on Burma at the UN General Assembly.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her encouraging reply. Does she agree that many of the violent abuses of human rights have been well highlighted by the valiant Aung San Suu Kyi but that there are many other causes for concern, particularly in regard to the treatment of ethnic minorities such as the Karen and the Karenni, which have not received such widespread publicity? Is the noble Baroness aware that earlier this year I managed to visit the Karen and the Karenni and that while there I found evidence of appalling violations of human rights? Up to a quarter of a million Karenni have been forcibly relocated in what are in effect death camps. Many Karen and Karenni still suffer slave labour, torture and murder at the hands of the SPDC regime and military offensives even in refugee camps. Can the noble Baroness give an undertaking that the Government will press the SPDC regime to open up all of Burma to human rights monitors and aid organisations to alleviate the suffering and bring an end to these atrocities?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware of the visit by the noble Baroness to the region earlier in the year. I am sure that the whole House joins me in my admiration of the courage of the noble Baroness and the valuable work that she undertakes, particularly in relation to the Karen and the Karenni. The Government share the concerns of the noble Baroness about all types of human rights violations in Burma. The resolution of the UN Commission on Human Rights which was adopted in April and which we drafted contains a wide-ranging catalogue of abuses about which the international community is concerned. We take every appropriate opportunity to raise these concerns with the SPDC and to press it to allow the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights access and to improve the human rights situation for all of Burma's peoples.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government are proceeding to the imposition of full sanctions as requested by Aung San Suu Kyi? Can the Minister also say whether they view favourably and are proceeding with the financial sanctions advocated by such countries as Norway and Holland?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are considering a full range of measures at our disposal in order to put more pressure on the regime. However, any sanction must be compatible with our international obligations, notably to the World Trade Organisation membership. It would be difficult for us to implement sanctions without EU agreement or the cover of a United Nations Security Council resolution. However, I stress to my noble friend that in our discussions today with our colleagues in Europe we are pressing them to look more closely at taking some of the measures that we in the United Kingdom already take: notably to discourage tourism and to draw to the attention of those trading in Burma some of the dire consequences of the human rights situation in that country.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, is there anything to stop the Government, with our European partners, from pressing for the appropriate UN resolution or agreement under the World Trade Organisation's rules so that economic or financial sanctions can be imposed?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I said in my first Answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, we pressed for strong wording in the UN last year. We shall continue to press for the strongest possible language in this respect.
We have been pleased to note that the regime has now agreed to the visit of the UN Assistant Secretary General, Dr. De Soto. We hope that that will help to take forward some process of dialogue through the UN's auspices.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, if the regime persists in refusing access to the UN rapporteur on Burma, Mr. Raj Suma Lallah, or any of the thematic rapporteurs on extra judicial executions, arbitrary detentions, and so on, will the Government consider supporting a proposal that the rapporteurs should interview the victims of the regime, of whom 200,000 are now living in exile in the refugee camps of Thailand, so that a full report can be made on the basis of direct evidence from the victims themselves of the violations of human rights under the SPDC?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an interesting point. There have been difficulties, notably with the regime's unwillingness to allow the visit from the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights, Mr. Lallah. Successive United Nations resolutions have urged the regime to allow such a visit as soon as possible. The SPDC has also refused to allow a visit by the UN Secretary-General's special emissary, Mr. Razali. But, as the noble Lord is aware, there are
1686
occasions when the rapporteurs make reports without visiting the countries concerned. I shall raise this matter with my ministerial colleagues to see whether such a move would be possible in respect of Burma.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, can the Minister explain the disparity in the Government's ethical policy towards Burma on the one hand and China on the other? Why is it that, in the words of the Minister of State when responding to Burma's human rights records,
"outrage is necessary but not enough … we need to have measures which make clear to the regime that Burma will not be integrated into the world until its government changes its ways",
while the Prime Minister chose to pursue such a low key approach during his visit to China? The visit was much criticised by Amnesty International and Mr. Martin Lee, who may have hit the nail on the head when he said:
"I'm afraid as a result of this visit to China [the Government's ethical foreign policy] looks like an economic foreign policy to me".
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord's question is more about China than about Burma. However, he asks about the difference. I shall tell the noble Lord the difference. Elections were held in Burma in 1990 which were overwhelmingly won by the party of Aung San Suu Kyi. Currently Aung San Suu Kyi cannot go to talk to those who were elected with her: currently 200 members elect are held in prison. The human rights performance is among the very worst in the world, with forced labour, forced relocations, torture, rape and killings, as well as the continued repression of the opposition in the way that I have described. One thousand activists and 200 MPs elect have been detained in the past few weeks. So there is a difference. There was an election. There was an overwhelming result to that election; and the comparison that the noble Lord draws is not correct.

Public Sector Pay
2.58 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to develop a long-term strategy for pay in the public sector.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, yes, we have already done so. The comprehensive spending review published in July set spending limits for departments for three years and proposed new terms of reference for the pay review bodies to ask them specifically to consider recruitment, retention and motivation, the department's output targets for the delivery of services, the department's three-year expenditure limits, and the Government's inflation target. Those considerations will also be relevant to other pay settlements in the public sector.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does he agree that the key to any long-term strategy for public sector pay will consist of

1687
getting rid of the endless series of short-term fixes which have been applied to it ever since 1983? I refer, for example, to the differential availability of pay reviews, where some workers are completely excluded; the anomalies, the inconsistencies and the fragmented forms of performance-related pay; the lunacies in local bargaining; the vagaries of competitive tendering; and the wholesale importation of people from outside the organisation who know nothing about the fancy rates of pay. Until the Government grasp and deal with the previous government's short-term attempts to solve the problem they will not have a long-term strategy.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is a world-renowned expert on these subjects and I yield to his expertise. I had hoped that he would recognise that I described a substantial move away from the short-termism of which he complains. The whole basis of three-year planning, which will be updated from time to time, is to ensure that departments, which will have responsibility for budgets, and employees have a longer term horizon in which to look at pay awards.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister agree that at an inevitable consequence of staying within the previous government's spending plans for the first two years of government serious pressures build up in the public sector? Is the Minister prepared to make a statement to reassure in particular nurses and teachers that their voice will be heard before further damage is done to their morale?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government do not apologise for their prudence in sticking to existing expenditure plans for the first two years. I did not notice the noble Lord's party adequately recognising the way in which that abstinence made it possible this summer to have the sensible and widely welcomed comprehensive spending review. As regards the build-up of pressure in the public services, of course it is the case and of course it is an inevitable consequence. That is why we are looking at a three-year horizon for pay awards in the future.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, so does the Minister give an undertaking today that there will be no phasing of awards in the public sector; that there will be no shilly-shallying; that the money will be paid up; and that there will be plenty of it to do all those things which he used to press the previous government to do?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Labour Party indeed pressed the previous government to move away from staging. I did not notice the noble Lord giving any particular support. Of course, we want to move away from the staging of pay awards. If the pay review bodies propose affordable solutions we will move away from staging as rapidly as possible.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, in spite of what my noble friend the Minister said in his Answer, does he agree that a long-term strategy in the public sector would be greatly influenced by a long-term
1688
strategy in the private sector? Indeed, there appears to be no strategy in the private sector because from 1994 to 1997 top-salary directors had an increase of 53 per cent. I am aware that the Government are making an effort, but does my noble friend not agree that a strategy must be expedited if proper and just action is to be taken?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I admire my noble friend's restraint in avoiding use of the phrase "fat cats". As he well knows, under existing company legislation we have no power to intervene directly. However, he is right in saying that bad examples from the boardroom make the achievement of sensible pay settlements in the private and public sectors that much more difficult.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can the Minister tell us that in this general strategy the nurses will be treated as a special case? If something is not done the position could be very serious.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I said in answer to a previous question, one of the issues in the terms of reference of the pay review bodies will be the recruitment, retention and motivation of staff. That applies at least as much in the National Health Service as anywhere else. As regards whether departments will succeed in achieving their financial objectives over a three-year period for the improvement of services, which is their first responsibility, and yet have money in order to give greater awards to nurses, it is a matter for them. I hope as much as the noble Lord does that they will be successful.
Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that having a coherent strategy over three years solves no problems; it depends on the strategy? Secondly, will he accept that during the past 20 years the differential in pay between the public and private sectors has moved consistently against the public sector? Will he further accept that if the public sector—the welfare state—is to meet the level of services to which he referred it will not happen in a box separate to that amount of pay but can happen only if teachers and nurses are adequately paid, not least in order to enable the Government to deal with the severe shortages which are appearing in both those areas?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is right in saying that of itself a three-year settlement does not cure all the other problems. No one ever claimed that it did. As regards the disparity between public and private sector incomes, the noble Lord will be aware that the Office for National Statistics has been required to look again at the figures it produced. Our interim conclusions appear to be that the difference between the public and private sectors was not as great as originally appeared. We have set up an independent inquiry under Sir Andrew Turnbull and

1689
Professor Mervyn King to look into how it was that estimates had to be corrected. That will be conducted by an expert outsider, Mr. Martin Weale.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the questions he was asked focused once again on short-term problems? Does he agree that one thing the Government could do would be to announce the universal availability of pay review? Will they do so today?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not responsible for the questions I am asked. I can only answer them as best I can. My noble friend's suggestion about wider applicability of pay reviews is very interesting and we shall take it into consideration.

Education Act 1996: Political Balance
3.7 p.m.
Lord Beloff Lord Beloff asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps are being taken to enforce the implementation of Section 407 of the Education Act 1996 (Duty to secure balanced treatment of political issues).
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, we expect local education authorities, school governing bodies and head teachers to be aware of their duties under the Education Acts, including Section 407 of the 1996 Act, with the help of circulars and other guidance issued regularly by the Department for Education and Employment. Anyone who believes that a school or local education authority is not complying with that duty can make a formal complaint to the school's governing body, or to the authority, as the case may be, and, ultimately, if not satisfied with the outcome, to the Secretary of State.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the document, the European Pack, and the report on the British presidency of the European Union, which were circulated to all schools, give a wholly biased opinion in favour of the alleged merits of the European Union and leave it to the teachers, no doubt, to balance that by giving the other aspects which are less favourable? Would it not be fairer to the teachers to provide them also with documentation which would enable them to present the full case? If it is difficult for that to be done within the department, cannot the Minister ask her noble friends Lord Shore of Stepney and Lord Bruce of Donington to produce a pack which can be circulated to schools?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is open to any school to invite my noble friends Lord Shore or Lord Bruce to talk about their views on the European Union. I suspect that one or two may follow up the noble Lord's suggestion. The presidency pack, which was distributed to schools, was done entirely at the
1690
request of head teachers. It is a factual pack and was produced in order to bring up to date material which was circulated to schools in the early 1990s under the previous government. Of course, it is for teachers to provide a properly unbiased approach to any controversial subject. But Members of your Lordships' House will agree that it is right and proper that pupils in our schools should have proper information about the European Union so that they can discuss it and do that, if necessary, critically.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on taking this Question seriously. I ask her to think back to when she was at school or being educated subsequently. Does she agree that the very best teachers whom one had—namely, those who made one want to study a subject and go further—were those with very strong views? I was taught economics by people with very Right-wing views and it did me no harm whatever. But is not the point that all that harping on about so-called balance is enormously damaging to education?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have to cast my mind back rather a long way, but I agree with my noble friend that it is desirable that young people should learn to debate controversial matters and hear views from the Left, Right or centre. They should learn to look at the evidence and, having considered it, then make up their minds. The pack that was sent out to schools was put together with that in mind so that young people could have the facts and then debate and discuss them.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, do the Government recognise the value of the Crick Report on education for citizenship for securing a balanced treatment of political issues? What plans do they have to consider and, it is hoped, implement the recommendations of that report?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government set up the Crick Committee to look at the whole issue of teaching citizenship in schools. The committee reported towards the end of September and the Government are very grateful for the advice that they have received. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that it is desirable to teach our pupils to take part as active citizens in the society around them. That means they must have knowledge about our democracy, how government works nationally and locally and a whole range of other issues. The Government are asking the QCA to look at the way in which teaching about citizenship can be introduced into the national curriculum.
Lord Tope: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on these Benches we recognise that a healthy democracy needs active citizenship and that we have everything to gain and nothing to lose by an active debate on issues including the facts rather than myths about the European Union? Is she also aware that we too warmly welcome the report of Professor Crick's advisory group on education for citizenship and the teaching of

1691
democracy? Does she agree that the teaching of democracy must include teaching about more democratic electoral systems?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have no doubt that teaching about different forms of PR is something about which pupils in schools will wish to hear more from their teachers in the forthcoming months.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that there is an extremely thin line between information and what can be deemed to be propaganda? The European issue is so controversial that it needs some vigilance on the part of the department as regards what is going to schools.
Secondly, will the noble Baroness tell me how many circulars have been sent out by the department advising on the implementation of Section 407 since 1st May 1997?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I understand that the circular was sent out during 1997. I am not sure whether it went out before or after 1st May. But I can certainly write to the noble Baroness about that. However, in a sense, whether it went out before or after 1st May is not important. If the schools have received the circular fairly recently, that should be good enough. We should not worry about whether it came out under the noble Baroness's government or the present Government. We must leave it to the good sense of teachers to interpret material sensibly and to allow a debate to take place among their pupils about that material.

Baha'i Community, Iran
3.14 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the course of their discussions with the Iranian authorities on improving the relations between the United Kingdom and Iran, they have raised the persecution of the Baha'is.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have spoken to the Iranian authorities on many occasions about the plight of the Baha'i community in Iran, which continues to cause serious concern. We also maintain regular contact with the Baha'i community here in the United Kingdom about the situation of their counterparts in Iran. On 4th October, we protested to the Iranian authorities in Tehran, along with our Austrian and German partners in the EU troika, calling on them not to carry out the execution of two members of the Baha'i community whose death sentences had recently been confirmed. We were told that the sentences had nothing to do with the Baha'i faith but in any case were still subject to review and therefore not final. We and our EU partners will continue to monitor carefully both these cases and the situation of the Baha'i community in Iran.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Iranian authorities refuse to give any further details
1692
of the nature of the offences alleged to have been committed by the two Baha'is or the previous Baha'i who was convicted of unspecified national security offences and executed? Does she believe that such executions are part of a systematic programme of repression against the Baha'is initiated by Ayatollah Golpaygani in 1991 and recently involving a crackdown on the institution of higher education, the sole institution offering higher education to the Baha'is, and raids on no fewer than 500 private citizens of the Baha'i faith, including the confiscation of many of their goods? Will the noble Baroness protest vigorously against the repression? Will she tell the Iranians that no ministerial visit to Iran will be arranged until they lay off?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have protested to the Iranian authorities about the two individuals under sentence of death. But, as I said to the noble Lord, we are told that the cases are subject to further review and that therefore, at the moment, the sentences are not final. Through our contacts with the Baha'i community in the United Kingdom, we are aware of a further wave of arrests of Baha'is across Iran which took place around the end of September. These seem to have been directed against teachers in the way that the noble Lord described and those engaged in long-term learning by the Baha'i community. Most were released after arrest but had to surrender property ownership deeds as a form of bail.
I assure the noble Lord that we shall continue to monitor the situation very carefully with our EU partners. We shall take further action as necessary. In particular, we shall continue to press the Iranians for more transparency about their judicial process in those and other human rights cases. We attach particular importance to that.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Baha'i community has for many years now been exposed to intimidation and harassment on the part of the Iranian authorities and that protests, certainly in relation to the less high profile cases, seem to carry very little weight with those authorities? Does my noble friend agree, particularly as the economic relationship between Britain and Iran seems likely to improve in the short term at least, that it is very important that the Baha'i community does not feel that it is forgotten and that economic interests weigh more heavily than their human rights.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with a certain amount of what my noble friend says. It is important to remember that the Baha'i community has been the subject of some forms of persecution on and off since the mid-19th century. However, I hope that the improved diplomatic situation between ourselves and Iran and the forthcoming exchange of ambassadors will allow us to make our points on human rights in a forthright and direct way. I assure the noble Lord that that is what we intend to do.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, given the Foreign Secretary's ethical foreign policy and its emphasis on

1693
preventing torture, what steps have the Government taken to protest about widespread torture during the investigation phase of criminal prosecutions in Iran? Furthermore, what progress has been made in halting torture, amputations and stonings condemned by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in April and what specific discussions on this subject did the Foreign Secretary have with his Iranian counterpart, Dr. Kamal Kharrazi, when he met him at the United Nations last month?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the problems about torture continue to be a point of concern to the Foreign Secretary and, of course, to my honourable friend Mr. Fatchett. We and the European Union want these issues with Iran dealt with. We have had discussions on issues concerning terrorism.
We believe that human rights in Iran are ripe for improvement, given the improved relationship between our two countries since the position concerning Mr. Rushdie's fatwa was addressed. I hope that what we are seeing here is not an overnight change. Of course, it is not. It is an improved situation and one on which we need to capitalise bilaterally and through the EU in the discussions that we have with Iran on the issues that continue to concern us. We believe that there is a positive situation here and one we can work towards improving.

Northern Ireland Bill
3.23 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Dubs.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 58 [The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 151A:
Page 28, line 9, leave out ("members") and insert ("Commissioners").
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments concern our proposals for a new equality commission, a powerful independent organisation, appointed by the Secretary of State, which will exercise a broad range of executive responsibilities for equality issues in Northern Ireland. Some of these are responsibilities which already exist in law under Northern Ireland anti-discrimination legislation. Those responsibilities are performed at the moment by the Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland, the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland, the Commission for Racial Equality for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Disability Council. It will also have new responsibilities
1694
consequent upon Clause 60 which imposes on the Northern Ireland public sector the statutory duty to have due regard to the needs to promote equality of opportunity throughout their activities.
In the course of the summer we have consulted with the Northern Ireland political parties and specialist organisations about our proposals. There will be government amendments before the House today which will reflect the outcome of those discussions. The requirement to prepare equality schemes will be imposed directly on public authorities without the need for an initial request from the commissions.
Other amendments will change the title of those who serve on the equality commission. We expect on Report to bring forward further amendments on the application of the equality obligation to UK departments and UK-wide public bodies operating in Northern Ireland and to expand the detailed provision for impact assessments in equality schemes. The Government will soon set up a working group under an independent chairman, on which the chairs of the four existing equality bodies will be invited to serve. That working group will plan for the creation of the equality commission.
Separately from the Bill, the Government recently announced early legislation on changes to fair employment law, including its extension to the provision of goods, facilities and services and the disposal of premises. Therefore, there is much happening in terms of the equality agenda, not to mention current consideration at national level of changes to gender, race and disability anti-discrimination laws. At this historic time for Northern Ireland the Government re-commit themselves to equality of opportunity across a broad front and to the bodies of law which have been developed to tackle discrimination in the field of religion, gender, race and disability.
Now I turn to specific amendments on Clause 58 and Schedule 9. These amendments deal with the relationship between the equality commission, the Secretary of State and the Assembly. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, has tabled a series of amendments which should have the effect of altering those relationships so that routine control and financing will be the responsibility of the Secretary for State and Parliament.
I shall take this opportunity to set out the future status of the equality commission, as the current version of the Bill is not clear on this subject. However, amendments which have been tabled to Schedules 2 and 3 should clarify the position. Under the Good Friday agreement the Assembly is to exercise legislative and executive authority over matters within the responsibility of the Northern Ireland departments, with the possibility of taking on responsibility for other matters. Anti-discrimination laws on fair employment, gender, race and disability have been the responsibility of Northern Ireland departments—currently DED and DHSS—since they were enacted. That means that those areas of law and the current functions of the Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland, the

1695
Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland, the Commission for Racial Equality for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Disability Council are transferred matters under the agreement.
The amendments to Schedules 2 and 3 make clear that the references to the functions of the four bodies in the Bill do not affect their transferred status. Those amendments also clarify that the bulk of Clauses 58 to 60 and Schedules 9 and 10 are reserved matters. The equality of opportunity obligation and the equality commission did not exist at the time of the Good Friday agreement. The Secretary of State will have policy responsibility for the equality of opportunity obligation and a number of specific functions in relation to equality schemes at Schedule 10.
The existence of the equality commission as an institution is a reserved matter. The Secretary of State has power to appoint its members. The bulk of its day-to-day activities will continue to be concerned with the existing anti-discrimination legislation, so it will be funded by the Assembly and it will be under the departmental oversight of the Department of Economic Development. That makes the commission something of a hybrid. But the Bill achieves a balance which preserves an important role for the Secretary of State.
Local Northern Ireland politicians will have to co-operate in the Assembly. The Bill contains checks and balances and built-in protection which will encourage consensus rather than division in the Assembly. Local institutions must be allowed the opportunity to play their role in the field of equality.
In relation to Amendments Nos. 294, 295 and 296, we accept that there is a need for the commission's annual report to be laid before Parliament as well as before the Assembly. Government amendments to this effect will be prepared for Report stage. Therefore, I shall invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
I turn now to government Amendments Nos. 151A to 151D, 290A to 290D, 291A to 291C, 292A, 293A, 297A, 307A to 307K. Many of these are technical. However, several of them change the title of the members of the equality commission. Instead of a chairman there will be a chief commissioner, with at least one deputy chief commissioner. Ordinary members of the commission will be known as commissioners. That will bring the titles of those serving on the commission more closely in line with those of the Northern Ireland human rights commission, which should further enhance the status of the equality commission.
Other government amendments ensure that the commission cannot only employ staff but can also pay pensions and hire consultants. Amendment No. 297A provides for expenditure by the commission to be defrayed from Assembly appropriations. Amendments Nos. 307A to 307K reflect the normal way in which bodies are listed for the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975. Commissioners, deputy chief commissioners and its chief commissioner will not be able to sit in the House of Commons. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank my noble friend for his explanation of that series of amendments. Like many of your Lordships, I have been lobbied by a number of Northern Ireland organisations, including the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland. I understand that the Government may wish to have one equality commission, instead of a number of small quangos dealing with different aspects of discrimination. Certainly it would appear to be cheaper administratively to have one body. But it would appear that during the consultative process practically everyone was against the merger of existing commissions into a new, enlarged body. The EOC for Northern Ireland in particular opposes a merger of existing equality bodies. It is natural that people will want to protect their own patch and very often people are likely to oppose change. Nevertheless, the EOCNI has some valid points.
It points out that in Northern Ireland there is routinely discrimination against women, who make up over half the population. It believes that women are best served by an organisation which focuses precisely on their needs, as we have in the United Kingdom. There is a real fear that sex equality is likely to be marginalised, particularly since the new commission will come under the purview of the Northern Ireland Assembly—as already explained by my noble friend—rather than, as in Scotland, being directly answerable to the Government at Westminster. That is referred to in other amendments.
I have the impression that the Government's mind is made up on the issue of the equality commission and the merger of existing bodies. If that is so, it becomes even more important that the functions of the equality commission should be clearly set out and the areas of discrimination for which it has responsibility set out clearly on the face of the Bill. However, I should be grateful if my noble friend would be good enough to explain to the Committee why the Government felt it necessary to ignore the representations being made during the course of consultations by a large number of bodies in Northern Ireland and to go for an overall equality commission.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I too am grateful to the Minister for explaining this position to the extent that I am capable of understanding the explanation off the cuff. I shall want to read carefully the detail of what he said. Even though I am a lawyer, I find difficulty in trying to unpack the human rights equality provisions of the Bill, read with the Northern Ireland Constitution Act and the other underlying equality legislation.
When one asks the way to Skibbereen in West Cork, one is normally told, "If I were you, I would not start from here"! The problem is that we are starting from a pretty flawed situation. It may be helpful, in order to explain the position taken by these Benches, if I first explain what we welcome in the Minister's statement as we understand it and what still remains for consideration.
It is most welcome that there is to be a working group to look at the ways in which the equality agencies in Northern Ireland will be co-ordinated into a more

1697
effective equality commission, which we believe to be the Government's intention. It is welcome also that the equality agenda right across the United Kingdom will look at the incoherence, inconsistency and weak enforcement of the existing body of equality legislation, if that is what the Government intend, which we understand it is.
It is welcome also that the equality commission will now be reporting to Parliament as well as to the Assembly in Northern Ireland, as I understand the Minister. It is welcome too that the policy responsibilities for Clauses 60 and 61—the statutory duty on public authorities to promote equality of opportunity and the provisions forbidding religious and political discrimination by public authorities—are to remain within the remit of the Secretary of State. As I understand the Minister, therefore, there will be Secretary of State oversight of Clauses 60 and 61.
So far very good indeed. What then are the remaining problems? The first goes back to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973; that is, it only forbids religious and political discrimination by public authorities in Northern Ireland, and the definition of discrimination is confined to direct discrimination. We will be returning to that later. I should explain that I am speaking to all the amendments grouped with Amendment No. 151A on the Marshalled List.
The second problem, as the Minister said, is that there was no equality legislation in 1973 when the Northern Ireland Constitution Act was passed and therefore the entire subject of the devolution to the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive of equality issues has to be looked at with fresh eyes. The problem is that on one reading of the Bill as it stands, equality legislation is not to be devolved at all; it is to remain a Westminster responsibility. I realise now that that is not the Government's intention. As I understand it, the Government's intention is that the administration and responsibility for the equality law in relation to gender, race, disability or religion is to be devolved, but that the Secretary of State will retain his responsibilities under the policy in Clauses 60 and 61.
The point of concern about that for us is that, whatever the deliberations may have decided, politicians who represent majorities and minorities may not be sufficiently sensitive to the needs of minorities, including women seen as a minority, ethnic minorities and the disabled. When one simply devolves holus-bolus equality legislation to the Assembly, it may be excellent in dealing with ancient problems of religious and political discrimination, but it may not be excellent in dealing with other forms of discrimination.
We regard the right to equal treatment without discrimination as a basic constitutional right that should be the same, giving the same protection and the same enforcement, in whichever part of the United Kingdom or Ireland one happens to live. Those are part of our basic human rights derived from our inherent humanity and from the international codes on human rights by which we are bound.
1698
If there is not to be a continuing responsibility and veto of power by the Secretary of State, and if there is to be weakening of the equality code by the Northern Ireland Assembly—I speak entirely hypothetically—we want to be sure that there cannot be any weakening of the equality code dealing with any of those forbidden grounds of discrimination. That is why in a later amendment we are at least urging that the Secretary of State should have oversight by placing the matter in Schedule 3, if not Schedule 2, as a reserved matter if not an excepted matter.
That is one large problem. The subset of that problem is with regard to the equality commission itself. We welcome the changes in nomenclature in the Government's amendments. They use the same language as is being used by the Human Rights Commission. But we hope that by the end of these proceedings the equality commission will have a no less favourable constitutional status than does the Human Rights Commission.
Finally, it goes without saying that we also hope that the Government will make available the same assistance for people seeking to enforce their human rights and their equality rights in the courts of England, Wales and Scotland as they are making available in Northern Ireland. It is completely inappropriate that these provisions should come into force without any public interest fund, without a human rights commission and without anything else during the long hiatus before the Human Rights Bill comes into force in 2000.
I hope I have explained our position. We support the Government's amendments. I have spoken to our amendments and suggest that these are matters that require further consideration on all sides. I apologise for having taken so long.
Lord Rix: I was going to speak to Amendment No. 153 but I understand that the Minister is not minded to accept that amendment. It therefore seems appropriate to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, with one or two suggestions with regard to the equality commission. I hope that the Minister will be able to give further assurances to Northern Ireland disability organisations that disability issues will enjoy equal billing on the equality agenda.
As the Minister is all too well aware, disability issues are complex and varied. I hope he will be able to give the following assurances. Will additional staff with particular expertise in disability matters be recruited onto the equality commission? Will additional resources be set aside to enable the commission to do its work in relation to disability issues and to ensure representation and advocacy, particularly for people with learning disabilities?
There are other measures that will give assurances to organisations that are of and for people with disabilities. Will the Government confirm that all staff on the commission will undergo disability awareness training? Will they also ensure that the new body has a meeting with Northern Ireland disability organisations on an annual basis in order to monitor and review the workings of the new equality commission? Finally, will

1699
the commission be asked to publish details of the links it has made with disability organisations and the number of inquiries it has received from people with disabilities?
I am sure that if these reassurances are given they will ensure that the needs and rights of people with disabilities, including learning disabilities, will not be subsumed or lost in all other matters and therefore that Amendment No. 153 will in fact become redundant.
Baroness Lockwood: I think I welcome the Minister's statement, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I shall need to read in Hansard exactly what he said. I saw the amendments for the first time when I came into the Chamber today so I am not quite sure just how wide the implications are. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend a number of questions. He said that the equality commission will be a reserved matter, and that is certainly to be welcomed. He also said that the equality commission will be concerned largely with the present equality agencies—the Northern Ireland Equal Opportunities Commission, the Race Relations Commission and, I assume, the disability commission. However, as has already been pointed out, the powers of those three commissions vary to some extent. I wonder what my noble friend's amendment will mean. Will it weaken in any way the powers that already exist under the Equal Opportunities Commission? If so, I would be very saddened about that.
During my period as chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission in Great Britain from 1975 to 1983 we worked closely with the Northern Ireland commission. The powers were exactly the same. It is important that throughout the United Kingdom the same sex discrimination laws should apply. I hope that there is no weakening of the Northern Ireland order which took for Northern Ireland the powers of the Sex Discrimination Act. I should like further clarification on that point from my noble friend.
There is also the whole question of resources. My noble friend Lady Turner referred to the concerns that are felt by women's organisations in Northern Ireland. I understand those concerns and I, too, have had representations on this issue. As long as it is clearly laid out what the powers of the equal opportunities side of the equality commission will be, and as long as they are not weakened, I do not oppose the question of an equality agency. But I think it is important that we spell out the safeguarding of the resources and the functions. Like the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I think it is absolutely essential that the concept of indirect discrimination is embodied in this legislation. If that is not done we shall lose a great many of the benefits that have been brought about over the past 22 years. I should like some further reassurances from my noble friend on those points.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I agree that we must look much wider than the actual text of these various amendments. The grouping—one might call it a "supergrouping"—of the amendments as distinct from what appeared in the original Marshalled List will, to use an Irish saying, considerably shorten the winter. I do not question the list of possible complainants set
1700
out in various places, particularly in Clause 60 and in an earlier amendment, Amendment No. 154, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer. If those categories have a bearing on Clause 61—and on the government amendments, supergrouped as they are—it may be that there should be some kind of mechanism to enable the Government to add to the list of aggrieved persons and categories, which now run at roughly two added groupings a year. It might be something of a nonsense if we had to come back to Parliament every six months to seek approval to add on yet another aggrieved group. I hope that some thought can be given to that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, stressed the inevitability of our seeing this on a much wider canvas than just the various clauses of the Bill. That being the case, I wonder whether it might not be fairer to the taxpayer to introduce some form of financial assistance to what I would call the defendant bodies to enable them to break free from the pernicious practice of settling a claim right at the very beginning to avoid the expense not only of legal representation but of the diversion of key members of staff from essential duties leading to the engagement of additional staff and therefore placing an added burden on the taxpayer. For example, the board of a hospital group might be tempted to take the easy way out and settle even vexatious claims.
That disturbing habit is creating a thriving industry in Northern Ireland. One paramilitary organisation to my knowledge—I am sure there are plenty of other examples—has a desk staff to deal with the giving of advice to all-comers who feel that they have a complaint, bogus or otherwise. Callers are given certain directions. If they say, "We are not certain whether we have a good claim", the advice from the paramilitary body is, "Go ahead, you are bound to get something". Then the rider is added, "Do remember that when you succeed we will need our cut out of the proceeds". That is a very unhealthy situation.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Is the noble Lord aware that there is another side to the coin? It is that public bodies which do not settle cases but insist on fighting them to the bitter end often incur much greater public costs as a result, enriching my profession—the legal profession—unnecessarily. Does he know, for example, that the Ministry of Defence incurred costs of many millions of pounds of taxpayers' money by continuing to insist on the ludicrous practice of dismissing female members of the Armed Forces who became pregnant? Had they settled at a very early stage, they would have saved us a very great deal of money. Therefore it is sensible to settle, if you have not got a very strong case.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am grateful to the noble Lord, because he makes my point. In the case of a hospital board, it is not a question of sitting down and deciding whether they have a good case or whether they have a poor case. They will say, "Good gracious, we are going to a disruptive element injected into our proceedings"—and I do not mean the complainant, but the fact that it is superimposed on an already

1701
over-burdened hospital staff. So they say, "We will take the easy way out and we will settle because if we fight it through the courts we will incur a much greater burden".
I am simply saying that what I call the pernicious practice of settling right at the very beginning, whether they feel they are going to win or lose, is something that we really must try to stamp out because ultimately it puts an intolerable burden on the taxpayer.
I was going to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for the points he made earlier. He stressed the need for adequate funding for complainants, but I am suggesting that some way really must be found of making good the losses of public bodies. I am not talking here about private firms or private bodies, but about public bodies. Unfortunately, because of the way in which the system is being distorted and misused, the public bodies are finding it very difficult. I trust that perhaps consideration could be given to these aspects before we come to the rest of the proceedings on the Bill.
On Second Reading I perhaps prematurely congratulated the Government on their use of modest titles, mainly for the equality commission, on the grounds that the use of words like "members", "chairman", vice-chairman" and so on would create the perception that as a body and as individuals they would be readily acceptable and approachable. I now find it difficult to understand why the Government have elevated the body to the stratosphere. Considering the pressure from the bodies which are now to be disbanded and feel aggrieved because of that decision, and the views that have been put forward by other noble Lords, those bodies expressed fears that their interests would be submerged in some kind of super quango. These amendments surely justify those fears: that is, the government amendments.
Can the Minister indicate what lay behind these amendments and what persuasion was applied to the Government to induce them to move away from the sensible and clearly understood titles of "chairman", "vice-chairman" and "members" of the commission to these other grandiose titles which I am afraid give the wrong impression of the role of the commission itself? Originally the Government did not want them: otherwise they would not have been printed as they were in the Bill. Therefore I would ask: who did want the increase in prestige? Was it considered that commissioners, and not members, deputy chief commissioner and not simply deputy chairman and commissioners instead of members—all these high sounding titles—might command a much higher salary? Is it just possible that the Treasury might be more likely to consider it proper to award a commissioner a salary double that of a member? I really think that we are entitled to an explanation as to why all these wonderful titles should have been introduced into a Bill which otherwise made a lot of sense.
Lord Skelmersdale: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, on returning to the amendments before us. The Minister may have been mildly surprised, as I was, that this very large grouping of amendments has in fact given rise to a clause stand part debate which
1702
I was preparing to speak on fractionally later in our proceedings. However, as the debate appears to be on clause stand part, I find it very curious that not one speaker has referred to the Good Friday agreement. I do not have a copy in my hand but, if I recall the words correctly, that agreement says that, subject to consultation, there shall be essentially—I cannot remember the exact words—an equality commission for Northern Ireland.
We all know that there has been considerable consultation over this matter. We all know that in certain quarters, not least among some of the chairmen and chairwomen of the current constituent parts, there has been expressed a certain amount of disagreement and a certain amount of worry. Are those people for whom they are currently acting going to be looked after properly under these new arrangements?
Then we heard last week from the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that the Minister had sent a letter saying that this consultation was still continuing, which I must admit was news to me. We also heard last week that the Northern Ireland agreement, as far as the Assembly was concerned, was not set in stone and that various bits could be altered, albeit by cross-party agreement, as the noble Lord said. This would be done by the Assembly and, although we have not yet discovered which bits are to be altered, I have no doubt that during the course of this Committee stage we shall discover which they are. Nonetheless, he also wrote to my noble friend Lord Cope on 14th October:
"We expect that the Bill will make clear that Clauses 58 to 60 will be reserved matters for which the Secretary of State will have responsibility"—
which is exactly what he said today in his opening speech—
"on which the Assembly may legislate with the permission of the Secretary of State".
That is quite clear.
"However, the existing bodies of law on fair employment, general equality, race relations and disability discrimination in Northern Ireland will remain transferred matters"—
in which case the Assembly, with cross-party agreement, can presumably do what it likes. Presumably in those areas it can give instructions to the new equality commission and basically it can change the law as far as Northern Ireland is concerned on those matters.
That begs the question: what exactly is the Secretary of State hanging on to? Where do the Government see the position ending up? On one side you have reserved matters for the Secretary of State and the Government at Westminster and on the other hand you have what I suppose could be called almost interference by the Assembly, with cross-party agreement, in parts of those matters which I regard as being semi-reserved. That cannot be a satisfactory situation for anybody.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: This debate, as my noble friend said a moment or two ago, has rather widened from the individual amendments and I propose to go along with that widening, as it were, and say one or two general things. I am doing my best to support the Belfast agreement, as I understand it, throughout this whole process and I am prepared indeed to give the

1703
Government a certain latitude on the matter in view of the background to this Bill. Certainly we want the whole process, usually called the peace process, to continue and indeed develop. But that is a very different thing from giving the Government carte blanche to legislate, which obviously we should not do.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for admitting at the start of what he had to say that even he, with his legal expertise, and particularly his expertise in these matters, finds it extremely difficult to unravel exactly what is happening in the Bill and what the Minister said a few moments ago. He said that the policy on these matters will be a reserved matter.
We know that a reserved matter is something which is not devolved immediately but will be devolved at some time. It is a different use of the word "reserved" from the use in the Scotland Bill. The words "excepted matters" are used in that Bill. The Minister said that responsibility for the policy will be a reserved matter. That is exactly the same as he said to me in the letter of 14th October, which I think was sent to other noble Lords as well, namely that Clauses 58 to 60 will be reserved matters for which the Secretary of State will have responsibility. He did not say "responsibility for the time being", but that is what a reserved matter means.
So he is proposing that in due course—a year or two—these matters will be transferred completely to Northern Ireland and out of the responsibility of the Secretary of State, as I understand it. However, when we looked the other day at related or similar clauses relating to the human rights commission, it was pointed out that Schedule 2(17) specifically excepts matters for which provision is made by this Bill or the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. Provision is made in Clause 59 for the functions of this new commission—the equality commission. I am open to correction—from any lawyer, in particular—but it seems to me that Schedule 2(17) means that the setting up of this commission and its basic functions are to be an excepted matter, not a reserved matter, as the Minister said. That I can understand. I think that is desirable.
We shall still be in a position where the Assembly will say what the law is. That seems to be what the Government are aiming for. Perhaps I can put it in biblical rather than legal terms. The Assembly will say, "Thou shalt not discriminate in the following ways", with a whole lot of small print following on to define it. However, the Secretary of State will still be responsible for the equality commission, which will be there to ensure that people obey the law and do not discriminate in various ways. I think that that is a desirable end but I do not think that it is the end that the Minister set out, either in his letter to me of 14th October before we began our discussion in Committee, or this afternoon. However, it may be what is in the Bill. I say "may be", but I think I am about to receive some legal advice—
4 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. An accountant and a lawyer are both trying to unpick the Bill. I have just this moment
1704
been handed a letter from the Minister. I have not yet read it, but I think it will explain some of this. The noble Lord has also received his copy.
I share the noble Lord's puzzlement. It arises because of the ambiguity of that paragraph in the schedule to which he referred. It also arises from the fact that under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, everything is devolved except that which is specifically not devolved. Of course, all the equality legislation came after 1973. However, he said that there are safeguards in Clause 4 of the Bill. I think that is not quite right. First of all, as I understand it, equality legislation policy, which is to be reserved, could not be devolved without subordinate legislation approved by both Houses. If the Northern Ireland Assembly were to use its devolved powers unconscionably, which I very much doubt, the matter could always be transferred back by the Secretary of State under Clause 4 and would become a reserved matter again.
So, as I understand it, provided there is a claw-back provision—clawing the subject back again to preserve national minimum standards of equality of treatment, protected by law—there would be that safeguard. It may not be enough but, as I understand it, that is the position.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I entirely agree that there is the safeguard that a reserved matter cannot be transferred without the approval of Parliament in secondary legislation. I do not entirely follow the force of the second part of what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said. As the Bill stands, I believe I am right in saying that for powers to be taken back to Westminster, it is necessary not only to have secondary legislation but also the agreement of the Assembly with cross-community support.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful for the correction.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I thank the noble Lord for agreeing to that. I tabled an amendment to Clause 4 which seemed to me to be desirable, which would have meant that the Assembly did not need to agree to a power being taken back. Apart from anything else, the Assembly might be deadlocked at a certain point over what to do and the Secretary of State might want to take the power back to resolve the deadlock. I am not speaking only now about equality powers but any other powers that are involved.
As far as I am concerned, the question of taking powers back is not entirely resolved. However, it would be much clearer if the powers and the responsibility which this new body is to have were set out in the Bill instead of by reference. At the moment the Bill states that it will have the functions of the four bodies that it is replacing. If the Bill spelt out the different forms of discrimination with which the equality commission is supposed to deal, including any new forms that may be thought desirable, I think that Schedule 2(17) would certainly bring those into the "excepted" category, presumably from the point of view of making law as well as from the point of view of setting up the commission and the management of the commission.

1705
Turning to the amendments, I am prepared to go along with the inflation of titles that is involved, although I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, had a point about remuneration.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I wonder whether the noble Lord expects that they will be fitted out with a special uniform.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I would not mind, but uniforms have "gone out", for the most part, for what one might call persons of this class. I claim to be the last Minister to have worn Privy Council uniform on duty, but that is a different matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, also talked about assistance to the defending body. I have some sympathy with what he says but, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, rightly pointed out, it is a very difficult balance to strike. I once met a chap who told me that he had worked for me not long before. It turned out that at the relevant time he had been an official of the Department of Finance and Personnel. When I asked him what his function had been and what he had looked after, he said, "Trippers". I assumed that he had had something to do with encouraging tourism. However, it turned out that his duty was to pay people who tripped over paving stones. There were an enormous number of them. Until shortly before that time, it had been the Government's habit to pay such people automatically. Some people had tripped over paving stones no fewer than eight times and had been paid substantial sums over a period of years. It was almost becoming part of the social security system. The Government therefore took the decision to oppose every case involving compensation for tripping over a paving stone. That was good because, although it led to more court cases in the short term, the matter balanced out and, after a while, the number of claims became much more reasonable. Striking a balance is difficult.
It is sometimes extremely difficult for firms, particularly small firms which become enmeshed in a case involving a former employee who complains about some form of discrimination, to resist the temptation to settle a case and thus to avoid all the hassle. That is particularly so when, as we are providing elsewhere, the claimant is likely to have behind him the full weight of the money and skill of the commission. The commission will need to bear such factors in mind when deciding who to support. I do not believe that this is a matter on which we can legislate to provide the necessary balance. The commission must deal with it as part of its responsibilities. My main question relates to what the Government see as the commission's responsibilities and whether or not they can be met by the Bill as it stands.
Lord Dholakia: I wish to make two brief points. One relates to the practicality of the timetable governing the working group. My noble friend Lord Lester welcomed the establishment of the group to consider the equality commission. I understand from the Commission for Racial Equality for Northern Ireland that the timetable
1706
is that the group will be set up in November and will report in January. However, one must bear in mind that there were more than 80 representations opposing the proposal when the White Paper on the equality commission was published. I believe that the period for consultation is very short. There should be ample time to allow organisations to make adequate representations with regard to the equality commission, so perhaps a different timescale would be appropriate.
I make my second point on the basis of my considerable experience in race relations work in this country. I was involved in such work from 1965 until about 1994. Race equality would have had no meaning if the concept of indirect discrimination had not been clearly defined. It is vital to bear in mind the restrictions of the Race Relations Act 1976 and of the 1995–96 legislation. The effectiveness of the Commission for Racial Equality would have been very limited but for the fact that this country has had a fundamental definition of indirect discrimination. I hope that the Minister will take those factors adequately into account when the process of consultation is defined.
Lord Blease: I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, preceded me because he dealt with the matter more succinctly than I could have done. Part VI is an important part of this Bill. It deals with matters relating to the Assembly and the United Kingdom Government. Last Friday, it was mooted in Northern Ireland that the Secretary of State proposed to set up the working group. That was generally warmly welcomed by those who were aware of it. I know from information I received today that the equality bodies—that is, those organisations dealing with such matters on the ground—generally welcome the establishment of the working group. I am sure that when they read in Hansard the Minister's opening remarks they will recognise the great opportunities that it represents.
However, there is concern about the working group's report being available in January and about whether that gives the group sufficient time. Although it can be argued that we are coming up to the Christmas holiday period and that meetings cannot therefore be held, the bodies that have been in existence for some time want to know more about the timetable. This represents a wonderful opportunity for the Government to meet members of the working party who are to deal with the provisions of Part VI, which relates to equality and to issues that really matter in Northern Ireland. There should be the opportunity to talk to those who want to bring equality of opportunity and fairness back into society. I believe that the establishment of the working group is a great step forward in resolving a number of problems. However, I am concerned about the timescale and I ask the Minister to be flexible. I am sure that what he has said today will be warmly welcomed when it is read in Northern Ireland.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Dubs: This has been an interesting debate ranging over many aspects of the work of the equality commission. There has been something of a clause stand part debate about it. For the avoidance of doubt, perhaps

1707
I may restate what I said earlier. The existence of the equality commission as an institution is a reserved matter. The Secretary of State has the power to appoint its members. I repeat that I am referring to the existence of the equality commission. The bulk of its day-to-day activities will continue to be concerned with the existing anti-discrimination legislation. So it will be funded by the Assembly and will be under the departmental oversight of the Department of Economic Development. I have also said that that makes the commission something of a hybrid but that the Bill achieves a balance which preserves an important role for the Secretary of State. I believe that to be clear although I understand where the potential for confusion has arisen.
A number of speakers are concerned about the merger of the four bodies into one—
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I apologise for interrupting the Minister. I am grateful to him for giving way so soon in his speech. The Minister said again, very clearly, that the existence of the commission is a reserved matter. That means that potentially it can be transferred at some time; it is not an excepted matter. Perhaps paragraph 17 of Schedule 2 does not apply for some reason—I do not know—but if this is a reserved matter, that means that the expectation is that it will be transferred to Northern Ireland at some point. Am I correct in thinking that? If so, is it to be in a long time, or is it expected to be in a year or two?
Lord Dubs: First, perhaps I should say that I shall have something to add about paragraph 17 of Schedule 2 in a few minutes. However, the fact that a topic is a reserved matter means that there is a possibility that at some point it will pass to the Assembly. There is no way in which I can foresee when that will happen; nor can I guarantee that it will happen at all. This is, however, certainly one of the powers which has the possibility of being transferred. Perhaps I may deal with Schedule 2 in a few moments—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. Perhaps I may press him because of our concerns. Does the noble Lord accept that there would be very widespread concern if the basic core guarantee of equal treatment without discrimination were to be diluted in one part of the country, namely, Northern Ireland, as a result of the matters being transferred by this Government or a future government? Does the Minister accept that that would be quite wrong and that we should have a basic, core, minimum standard of treatment throughout the United Kingdom so far as non-discrimination is concerned?
Lord Dubs: Perhaps the noble Lord will bear with me for a short while. I shall try to deal with his point in a few moments. Perhaps I may first take up a point made by my noble friend Lady Turner regarding support for the proposal to merge the four organisations into one. Yes, I can tell my noble friend that there was consultation and, indeed, 45 per cent. of the comments were against. But that was not a majority: some people were in favour, some did not have an opinion and others
1708
had reservations. It is important to point out that both the Fair Employment Commission and the Northern Ireland Council of Voluntary Action, which is the largest umbrella group for the voluntary sector, were both in favour of the particular change. The Government took the view that this was an important change.
Let us remind ourselves that the population of Northern Ireland is a small one; indeed, it comprises 1.6 million people. There is a danger that the effectiveness of work against discrimination may actually be hampered by having too many bodies, all of which have to have their own administrative set-up, their research facilities, statistics, and so on, rather than using the money on the actual work that they intend to do. I suggest that there are good arguments for having the bodies merged together.
I was also asked about certain assurances. The equality commission will certainly have the power to establish consultative councils which will allow links with voluntary organisations in any of the fields covered by the commission. There will be a requirement on the commission to aim to secure an appropriate division of resources between the functions previously exercised by the four statutory bodies. Moreover, that is to be demonstrated in the commission's annual report so that there will be transparency in the way that the commission is to proceed. As many noble Lords said, a working group is being established in November to advise on the format and structures of the new commission. It will comprise the chairs of the four bodies, plus an independent working group chairman, although that individual has not yet been selected.
I understand the force of the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholalkia, that perhaps the period proposed for consultation is not a very long one. However, I am reluctant to allow that period to stretch out for too long. After all, the bodies which will be consulted and which will have an input are the same ones that have already been consulted and, I suggest, are those which are already lobbying Members of this Chamber very assiduously. Therefore, I should not have thought that there would be very many new issues coming forward. I note what the noble Lord said, but I do not want to concede that I will extend the consultation period. In my experience, extending consultation periods in Northern Ireland simply gives people more and more time and I am not sure that it actually leads to a more effective consultation process.
I hope that those assurances will make Members of the Committee realise that the Government are very committed to the different elements which will make up the new equality commission. I repeat: we certainly do not want to see a hierarchy of work or a hierarchy of priorities. Indeed, that is not the way we want to move forward. I can assure my noble friend Lady Turner that the question of sex equality will in no way be marginalised. We do not want to marginalise any of the areas of responsibility of the new commission—far from it. We want the new commission to have as much effectiveness as is possible.
I was asked a number of detailed questions and I shall try to deal with them in the order in which they were put. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, quoted the west Cork

1709
anecdote—namely, that if one was trying to get somewhere one would not start from where one was. We are at the Good Friday agreement; we are at the point that we have reached. I appreciate that that causes some difficulties in terms of understanding how everything will operate.
I believe that the noble Lord suggested that, somehow, local politicians would renege on the commitment to tackle discrimination and achieve equality. He certainly did not have the sort of confidence in the equality commission, because it will be under the Assembly, that I believe he would feel if it came under Westminster. I believe that that was the thrust of the noble Lord's argument. I simply tell him that responsibility for the functions of government will be with the Assembly. It seems to me that it would be wrong in principle to then take the oversight of those functions as regards equality away from Northern Ireland and have them here. That would suggest that we do not have confidence in the way that the Assembly is to operate and oversee its functions. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the Minister. I promise to try to abbreviate my later comments in these debates. However, this is a most important issue. The problem is not about whether we trust politicians. For example, under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights we are bound to ensure that there is equal protection of the laws throughout the whole country and that the basic core guarantee of equality without discrimination is observed in practice equally throughout the kingdom.
Therefore, I still do not understand whether what is being said is that the responsibility for the content of the statute book and for the content of the fair employment, sex discrimination, disability discrimination and race discrimination legislation will be a matter which will remain within the protection of the Secretary of State so as to secure one common minimum standard throughout the whole country, or whether the Government's position is that the Assembly may, if it so wishes, amend that legislation and dilute the minimum standard of protection. That is what I am seeking clarification upon. All these arguments about the equality commission and whether it should have the same status as the human rights commission are, in a sense, ancillary to that basic concern. We wish to ensure equal effective protection of the same standards of equality throughout the whole country. I am seeking to find out whether the Government share that desire and whether it can be achieved during the course of our debates.
Lord Dubs: The noble Lord is getting a little ahead of me. I was going to deal eventually with some of the points that he has just mentioned, but I was trying first to deal with some of the earlier points. I shall restate what I said earlier. The existence of the equality commission as an institution is a reserved matter but the bulk of its day-to-day activities will continue to be concerned with existing anti-discrimination legislation. Indeed, there is no intention of changing the
1710
responsibilities of any of the four organisations which will be merged into the new body. Those four organisations and their powers will not be changed by these processes. I do not quite know what further point the noble Lord is making. However, perhaps I may deal with that later.
My noble friend Lady Lockwood asked about keeping the prohibition of indirect discrimination. That is the subject of an amendment which will be considered later. However, for the moment, perhaps I may reassure my noble friend that the existing prohibition on indirect discrimination in respect of religion, sex and race and in matters of employment will be retained. So, too, will be prohibition on indirect discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services in respect of sex and race. Indeed, the Government will soon bring forward legislation to extend this to the field of religious and political discrimination. I hope that that gives some assurance to my noble friend. As I said, the question of indirect discrimination is the subject of another amendment with which we shall deal later. However, in all these respects, the equality commission will inherit the powers and duties of the current bodies under present legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, asked a specific question about disability. The Government published proposals in a recent White Paper for the creation of a disability rights commission in Great Britain. The noble Lord suggested that similar functions could be given to the equality commission in Northern Ireland. If a disability rights commission is established in Great Britain, we hope that the Northern Ireland Assembly will give similar powers to the equality commission and resource it appropriately. In the meantime, the equality commission will be no less well resourced than the existing Disability Council which it subsumes. The working group planning the new commission will meet to consider training needs of staff, including disability awareness training.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, asked about titles. I am not quite sure what is the significance of the changes that the noble Lord suggests, but the reason for the change of nomenclature is absolutely simple; namely, we wanted to bring the titles into line with those suggested for the human rights commission and during consultation there were a number of approving comments on that proposal.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked about changes to the agreement. The position is clear. The agreement is what is to be implemented. That is what was agreed by the parties and approved by the people of Northern Ireland, and indeed by the people of the Republic. I have referred to my next point on a previous occasion. The agreement itself provides for various mechanisms of review, for example on page 9 at paragraph 36 and on page 26 at paragraphs 5 to 8. Perhaps changes will arise from such a careful, considered and inclusive process of review, but I do not think we should anticipate them now. The position is clear. The agreement is to be implemented in full. If the noble Lord cares to look at the review procedures in the Good Friday agreement, he will know to what I am referring. I repeat that the Government's position is

1711
clear. We have a Good Friday agreement which has been subscribed to by virtually all the political parties in the Assembly. We expect them and this Government to implement the agreement in respect of those items that are within their powers.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: It is quite clear that some of the review procedures are entirely in the hands of the Assembly. Therefore, with cross-party participation and agreement, a review cannot only be carried out, but also substantive changes can be made. The question is, what changes?
Lord Dubs: I do not think it is appropriate at this stage to get drawn into hypothetical questions as to what may happen at some point in the future. However, I read from paragraph 8 on page 26 of the agreement which states,
"In addition, the two Governments and the parties in the Assembly will convene a conference 4 years after the agreement comes into effect, to review and report on its operation".
We have a procedure there, although that is a long way ahead of us. The key point is to get the agreement implemented in all its respects. That is what this Government are committed to doing.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked a number of questions. He asked about reserved matters. I mentioned my next point earlier. He said that reserved matters are matters which are not devolved yet, but which soon will be devolved. I agree that they are not devolved yet, but unlike excepted matters they can be devolved in the future, if the Assembly, with cross-community support, agrees and both Houses of Parliament approve. However, it is wrong to assume that reserved matters definitely will be devolved. That may be the case, but that will be for decision at the appropriate time.
The noble Lord also asked whether Clauses 58 and 60 are in the reserved or the excepted field. The answer is to be found in government Amendments Nos. 245A and 282A to Schedules 2 and 3, which we shall probably reach tomorrow. That will clarify the position. However, paragraph 17 of Schedule 2 is being re-written. Therefore, if he hangs his argument on that, I fear that we may take the ground from under his feet.
I believe I have dealt with all the main points that have been raised. I believe that merging the four bodies into one is a positive step. Their functions will be taken over by the new commission. In addition, the equality commission will have the important functions which are now in clause 60 of the agreement. There will be a new statutory duty on public authorities. It is surely better to have one body to give effect to that statutory duty; otherwise, we would have difficulty in giving effect to that new duty, which has been widely acknowledged to be an important one.
Baroness Lockwood: I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for clarifying the responsibilities and the powers of the four existing agencies. However, when one is dealing with issues of discrimination—the Northern Ireland Equal Opportunities Commission, by a
1712
1976 Order in Council, has the same responsibilities and functions as the British Equal Opportunities Commission—it is often important that you can quote the Act to the people you are suggesting may be infringing it. In dealing with sex inequality and other inequalities, will it be possible for people to invoke the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act, or will they have to invoke this Northern Ireland Bill, or Northern Ireland Act as it will become?
Lord Dubs: The four bodies which will form the new equality commission will retain their existing powers. Therefore the statutory basis for their powers will be unchanged, except in respect of the new responsibility of the equality commission as regards public bodies. Therefore it is perfectly proper for the new body to base its work on the statutory support which comes from the legislation which formed the existing four bodies. Therefore the answer, in short, is yes.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I apologise for having to return yet again to this matter, but it is so important and there is something I still do not understand. The Minister said that the position will remain unchanged. In the Good Friday agreement the promise that we are given under rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity is that the parties affirm—that is to say, both Governments for both countries affirm—
"the right to equal opportunity in all social and economic activity, regardless of class, creed, disability, gender or ethnicity".
Then we are told there is to be United Kingdom legislation—which is this Bill—and legislation in the Republic of Ireland. I am afraid I still do not understand whether the Assembly will have the power to dilute the underlying code of equality law so that—to take the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood—it will be able to amend, subject to Community law (which is a safeguard only in respect of employment and social security) the sex discrimination order so as to weaken that, or it will be able to amend the race relations order so as to weaken that, or the disability discrimination order. Will the Assembly have the power to weaken the equality code as part of the scheme which we have in front of us? I can understand the arguments about machinery, funding and the commission, but it is that core question I have mentioned which concerns us.
Lord Hylton: I think I may be able to help the noble Lord, Lord Lester. The Assembly will not be able to weaken the provision because it is a reserved matter. I may also be able to help the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. She will have to look up the Act to see whether it extends to Northern Ireland. If it does, it can be quoted, but if it does not, she and her friends must rely on the relevant order.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am not certain that we are being terribly helpful to the Minister, although we are not trying to make life difficult for him. I come back to the central question which has been asked but not, if I may say so, satisfactorily answered, or at least not clearly answered to my rather dim understanding.

1713
What is the advantage of providing for the possible transfer of authority and power to the Northern Ireland Assembly? Is there any good reason for assuming that at the present time or at any stage in the future the Assembly would want to be given such power? Would it not much prefer to remain governed in all of these matters by the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom?
The Minister mentioned the proposed disability council for Great Britain. Will it automatically extend to Scotland and Wales when they have their devolved administrations?
Lord Dubs: I shall have to look into the last point because I am not qualified to speak about devolution matters in Scotland and Wales, at least not without notice.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: As I understand it, the Scottish parliament will not have the power to deal with the equality code because that is not to be devolved to Scotland; nor, for that matter, is employment law generally.
Lord Dubs: As to the main question asked a few moments ago by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, Clause 20 gives the Secretary of State power to enforce international obligations on the Assembly. That is the reply to the first part of the question.
The second part of the question concerned the codes. The Assembly would have the power to amend or revise the codes if it thought fit. However, international obligations would come under the Secretary of State or the Secretary of State would be able to enforce such obligations on the Assembly. The basic principle remains clear. The existing body of equality law is transferred and the Belfast agreement clearly requires those matters to be devolved.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, asked what happens if the Assembly does not want to take on any powers which are now reserved but which might eventually be transferred. I suggest that that should be a matter for future discussions and consultation. It is not for me to say at the moment what would be the position at some future date.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Can the Minister explain why the Government are prepared to say in the case of Scotland that the devolved government of Scotland cannot vary equality obligations, whereas in Northern Ireland they potentially can?
Lord Dubs: It is the codes that come under the legislation that could be revised, not the legislation.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: If that is right, then it is not the answer as I understood it to be. When I used the word "code", I was referring to the legislation. That is why I referred to the sex discrimination order, the race relations order and the others. When I say "code", I mean the legislation, primary and subordinate: the fair employment legislation (primary), the sex and race
1714
discrimination and disability (subordinate). Can the Assembly amend those? As I understood the Minister, he said: "Yes, it can", subject to the need to comply with the international covenant on civil and political rights with the political overrides. That is how I understood him and that is how the question put by my noble friend Lord Holme arises, asking why Scotland would not have the power but Northern Ireland would, in potential breach of our international treaty obligations.
Lord Dubs: I am sorry if I have inadvertently misled the noble Lord and other Members of the Committee. The Belfast agreement states that those matters are to be devolved. If I said "codes", the noble Lord is right. The whole basis for the equality commission's work will be a devolved matter. I suggest the possible reason that the appropriate procedure is different in Northern Ireland from that in Scotland is that the original basis for the legislation in Northern Ireland is different in that it goes back to the old Stormont regime. We began in a different place and hence we have a different process. However, in any case we are sticking by the agreement. If the Good Friday agreement indicates that as the way forward, then it is the way we go, even if there are differences from the approach in Scotland.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I apologise for coming back to this, but the Minister keeps stressing the agreement and I go along with it. But, after all, the agreement states that:
"The new …; Human Rights Commission …; will be invited to consult …; [about] defining, in Westminster legislation, rights supplementary to those in the European Convention on Human Rights".
So on human rights, Westminster legislation will supplement the international obligations but on equality that is evidently not to be so.
Lord Dubs: That is the case. I commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 151 B to 151 D:
Page 28, line 11, leave out ("member as chairman") and insert ("Commissioner as Chief Commissioner").
Page 28, line 12, leave out ("member as deputy chairman") and insert ("Commissioner as Deputy Chief Commissioner").
Page 28, line 14, leave out ("Commission's members") and insert ("Commissioners").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 59 [The Commission's principal functions]:
[Amendment No. 152 not moved.]
Clause 59 agreed to.
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester moved Amendment No. 153:
After Clause 59, insert the following new clause—

THE DISABILITY RIGHTS COMMISSION FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
(".—(1) There shall be a body corporate to be known as the Disability Rights Commission for Northern Ireland (referred to in this section as the Commission).
(2) The functions exercisable by the Northern Ireland Disability Council shall instead be exercisable by the Commission; and that Council is hereby dissolved.
(3) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument make—

(a) further provision about the Commission's membership, staff, funding, functions, procedure and status; and

(b) such supplemental, incidental or consequential provision as appears to him to be appropriate as a result of subsection (2).

(4) An order under subsection (3) shall not be made unless it has been laid in draft before, and approved by resolution of, both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 153, and will not detain the House more than momentarily. I addressed this amendment and all my others to the Bill in a speech in Committee on 19th October which is reported at cols. 1236 to 1238 of the Official Report.
Since then I have heard nothing that persuades me to revise the review I expressed in our earlier debate. Nor is Disability Action, representing as it does 180 member groups that cover every aspect of disability in Northern Ireland, any less concerned than it was when I gave the Committee its view on 19th October.
My good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who is also a signatory to Amendment No. 153, has raised important questions today which deserve further consideration by the Government. I hope very much that the Minister will now be able to reassure him and Disability Action about its deeply felt concerns in relation to this part of the Bill. Refreshingly, our new Government are strongly committed to fashioning their policies on disability in close consultation with disabled people. This is an extremely important issue for them to do so.
Lord Rix: I spoke to Amendment No. 153 a week ago, on the first day of the Committee stage and, indirectly, prior to the amendment being moved just now by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester. The Minister is fully aware of my questions and the need for reassurances. I believe that they are now recorded in Hansard. No doubt they will be fully considered and answered in the shortness of time, rather than the fullness of time.
Lord Renton: I hope that I may be forgiven for being a little puzzled as to exactly what we are doing at the moment. I assumed that Amendment No. 152 was a necessary paving amendment to Amendment No. 153. If I am wrong, I hope that I shall be corrected, in order to save time.
Lord Morris of Manchester: I tabled eight amendments to the Bill and they were intended to be
1716
considered as a whole. That was why I addressed them together on 19th October. Amendment No. 153 provides an opportunity to stress again today the importance of a sympathetic response to the concerns put to me by Disability Action and other organisations of and for disabled people in Northern Ireland. I moved the amendment briefly. It was not my intention to excite lengthy debate, but to give my noble friend a further opportunity to reply as positively as he can.
Lord Renton: I am very grateful for that explanation. Perhaps I may now briefly express my views upon this matter which are in agreement with those of the noble Lord. I believe that to disband the various bodies mentioned in Clause 59(2) and group all of their responsibilities together under one body to be known as the equality commission is to take a risk. Disability is a very large and delicate subject that needs attention in Northern Ireland. Both I and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, are aware that there is very strong MENCAP representation and other forms of disability in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord is right to express the view that there should be a separate body to consider matters relating to disability and that is why in principle I support his amendment. I should like to know whether the Government have a satisfactory answer. To link disability with the various other matters to be considered by the equality commission, including fair employment, equal opportunities—that subject goes right across the board—and the Commission for Racial Equality for Northern Ireland, is to take the risk of subordinating disability to these other problems. I hope that they can be considered by a separate body as the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Dubs: I pay tribute to the distinguished record of dedication by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, to the cause of equality for people with disabilities and his contribution both as a legislator and a Minister. Many years ago before I was elected to the other place I recall speaking almost with awe of the contribution my noble friend had made to changing the law on behalf of disabled people. I also know well the long and distinguished record in this field of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. He has been very diligent in attempting to further the cause of people with disabilities. Like both noble Lords, the Government are anxious that disability issues should not be sidelined within the new equality commission. We believe most emphatically that that will not be the case.
The fact that the chair of the Northern Ireland Disability Council is on a new working group to plan the structures of the equality commission will help to ensure that disability issues receive proper attention in the work of the new commission. It is the view of the Government that the proposed equality commission for Northern Ireland is the appropriate body to exercise the functions that are currently exercised by the Northern Ireland Disability Council. Every noble Lord who has spoken has expressed concern that the particular organisation or body of the four to be merged is the one

1717
that will suffer in the process. I do not believe that that will be the case. I believe that the new body will be more effective than the component parts.
I turn to the specific issue of disability. If, following initial consultation on the White Paper promoting disabled people's rights, enhanced functions are given to a new disability rights commission in Britain we believe, as was said in an earlier debate, that the equality commission will be the appropriate body to undertake those enhanced functions in Northern Ireland. As is now understood, I believe that following devolution this will be a matter for legislation by the Assembly. In the circumstances, and with the assurances that I have been able to give, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Desai: Before my noble friend decides whether to withdraw the amendment I should like to make a short interjection. I intended to speak on the clause stand part. We have heard that, basically, whatever structure is set up, the disquiet of the various bodies in Northern Ireland should be addressed very thoroughly and sympathetically. When the working group meets it should take on board the disquiet of the various constituent bodies. People are genuinely worried. Whatever consultations for or against have taken place is not the point. The point is that there is disquiet about the separate identity of these bodies and funding. I hope that my noble friend can give an assurance that that will be addressed. I suggest—he may not agree with me—that one obvious answer is to include among the commissioners some of the people who already deal with this matter now.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: Is it possible for the working party to be made aware of the fact that presumably, as it turns out, only England will have a disability council? Can one try to persuade the working group and the Northern Ireland Assembly not to legislate in advance of the establishment of the disability council now that one knows that it is for England and not Great Britain?
Lord Dubs: As to the last point, I am reluctant to advise the Assembly about anything. We must be very careful not to seek to tell the new Assembly what to do. But no doubt the Assembly will pick up the drift of what the noble Lord said.
In reply to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Desai, I shall ensure that the full account of the debate today and on earlier occasions on disability is made known to every member of the working group so that they are fully up to date as to the concerns expressed today and on other occasions.
Lord Morris of Manchester: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 60 [Statutory duty on public authorities]:
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 29, line 11, at end insert—
("() The duties imposed by this section shall be without prejudice to any law, programme or activity which has as its object the amelioration of conditions for individuals or groups disadvantaged in terms of gender, race, disability, age, marital status, dependants, sexual orientation, religious belief or political opinion.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 154. It may be for the convenience of the Committee to debate also Amendment No. 162. These amendments are about substantially the same point; that is, what is often called affirmative action. I say at once that they are not about reverse discrimination. The distinction is an important one. Old Northern Ireland hands will remember the debates on this subject in the early 1980s. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the clause shall not render unlawful any action that is taken to promote the very objectives of the clause itself; namely, that it shall not be self-defeating.
I offer an example. It may be that this matter has already been canvassed in the course of earlier debates today. I apologise that I was unable to be present for the first debate. If, in a room to which the public has access—perhaps a waiting room for people administering some service waiting their turn for interview—the space will not permit the provision of seats for everyone and the authority provides seats specifically for people with disabilities it may risk falling foul of subsection (1). Someone who is not disabled may say that the authority has provided a seat for a disabled person but not for him. These amendments would meet that objection. This is not about quotas. To refuse a job to a person who would otherwise have been offered it in order to redress a balance is not within the expression "amelioration of a condition"—at least that is my view. To bring an advertisement to apply for a job to the notice of a group of people who may not otherwise have been aware of it may well fall within that expression. I believe that the distinction is clear and it will not be improved by repetition on my part. No doubt the Committee anxiously awaits the reaction of my noble friend.
5 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am in sympathy with the purposes underlying the amendment described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and of Amendment No. 162. I do not think that anyone could be out of sympathy, in particular with the example he gave of a seat in a waiting room. However, are all the categories listed in the two amendments within the responsibilities of the four bodies about which we speak? Some seem less likely to be so. I do not have the

1719
relevant legislation to hand. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether, for example, age, marital status and sexual orientation are included in the legislation.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to the noble Lord. He will find those categories in Clause 60(2). I sought at least to follow the wording that was already there.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: We, too, have full sympathy with the objective of the amendment; namely, to permit affirmative action. I am hesitant about what I am about to say because I believe that much of the inspiration for the amendment comes from Professor Christopher McCrudden, than whom there is no greater authority in the country on anti-discrimination legislation. I believe that it is based on the affirmative action clause in the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms.
Something has gone wrong with the grouping of amendments. Amendment No. 154 gives one approach; and Amendment No. 164, standing in the name of myself and my noble friends Lady Turner of Camden and Lord Rix, gives a slightly different approach. I wish to explain my reservations on Amendment No. 154 as it stands. There have to be some limits to affirmative action, otherwise the exception will swallow the principle of equal treatment without discrimination. The limit normally placed upon affirmative actions is a notion of proportionality: that affirmative action must be necessary, reasonably proportionate, or something of that kind. That limitation is in the Canadian charter of rights but not in Amendment No. 154. Amendment No. 154 simply refers to affirmative action as being the object of the exception rather than being reasonably necessary or proportionate. Amendment No. 164 is our attempt to permit affirmative action provided that the measures are,
"designed and reasonably necessary to protect or advance individuals or groups of persons disadvantaged",
and so on. We fully share the objective of Amendment No. 154 but are simply concerned about the safeguards against abuse.
I pray in aid the South African constitution. When framing its 1996 constitution, there was great concern in South Africa that an open-ended affirmative action provision would be abused. That is why the words "designed to" were put into the South African constitution. They mean "intended to and having that effect". Therefore, with those reservations we support the aim of the amendment and hope that the Government will be able to do so. However, we suggest that there needs to be some limiting language to prevent abuse of this exception.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: In the unavoidable absence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, we discussed the parallel amendment.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. I am not absent.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: It was at an earlier stage. I then expressed general agreement with the thrust
1720
of both amendments. However, perhaps we should provide some mechanism for adding to the list further groups which come to our notice rather than to have to produce legislation.
Lord Dubs: Perhaps I may first clarify the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, about the different groups covered. Clause 60(1)(a) and (d) indicates groups additional to religion, political opinion, race and gender. The noble Lord will note that the other four are covered there also.
Perhaps I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. We have a number of groups here. The possibility of adding others to them does not immediately appeal. Unless there is good argument—at present we are dealing with the specific proposals in the Bill—I would not wish to be tempted to go into further categories.
Perhaps I may deal with the substance of debate on the two amendments. Amendment No. 154, in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer and my noble friend Lord Morris, proposes an exemption from the statutory duties under Clause 60 for affirmative action measures. We do not believe that this is necessary. The statutory obligation requires that a public authority should have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity. Promotion of equality of opportunity is not therefore an overriding consideration but must be set alongside other considerations such as the need to reduce disadvantage. The obligation relates to equality of opportunity, not equal treatment, so it is hard to see an incompatibility between it and addressing disadvantage among women, travellers or people with disabilities. The amendment also poses certain difficulties of interpretation as we would have to see to what extent an individual was disadvantaged because of his or her membership of a social group, or disadvantaged merely for normal economic reasons.
The Government are fully committed to tackling disadvantage wherever it is found through major policies such as targeting social need, recently relaunched. The statutory obligation under Clause 60 will not constrain or hamper such initiatives.
Amendment No. 162 is a similar exception for affirmative action in relation to Clause 61. I do not wish to pre-empt later discussion of that clause. Amendment No. 162 is closely bound up with Amendments Nos. 160 and 161, but extends the scope of Clause 61 to cover indirect discrimination and will also extend its scope of action beyond religion and political opinion. We shall explain subsequently why we think that Clause 61 should remain restricted to religion and political opinion. The Government do not envisage circumstances in which public authorities should be able to discriminate directly on the ground of religious belief or political opinion even if their intentions are honourable. Such an amendment would, however, be necessary if we were proposing to extend Clause 61 to cover indirect discrimination.
An exemption for affirmative action measures would become necessary in relation to indirectly discriminatory effects. Again the relationship between

1721
that amendment and indirect discrimination will be dealt with shortly. As we do not propose to extend Clause 61 in that way, there is no need to include an exemption for indirect discrimination motivated by a desire to redress disparities between the two communities.
I hope that in the circumstance the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I apologise for coming back to the Minister. My question was not whether the other groups fell within Clause 60. I realise that they do. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, explained that he had taken the wording from Clause 60. My question was whether those groups were covered by the equality commission's functions defined in Clause 59 by reference to the functions of the existing four bodies. I am not sure whether all those functions are covered by existing bodies, and hence by the new equality commission.
Lord Dubs: My understanding is that the functions of the bodies in Clause 59 do not cover all the groups covered by Clause 60. However, the new, additional responsibility of the equality commission is to oversee the new statutory duty on public authorities. That new statutory duty covers all the groups listed in Clause 60.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am grateful to the Minister for setting that out. I understand that as regards sexual orientation the new equality commission will have responsibility for ensuring that there is no discrimination within public authorities, but will have no authority in that regard relating to private bodies or individuals.
Lord Dubs: Yes, that is my understanding. The legislative basis for the four component bodies does not include sexual orientation.
Lord Monson: Will the Minister clarify the ban on discrimination on grounds of political opinion? Does it cover the expression of every political opinion, however extreme or bizarre? Let us suppose that during the course of an interview a job applicant mentioned that in his opinion not nearly enough people had been killed in Omagh. Would someone be running foul of the law if they declined to put that individual on the short list?
Lord Dubs: I am reluctant to discuss such a hypothetical example. I would have thought that such an opinion would sit uneasily with the functions of almost any job. My understanding is that political opinion means adherence to a political party. I need to take further advice because I am not too confident about my answer. If I am wrong I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have participated in the debate. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that Clauses 60 and 61 impose duties on public authorities and are not directly concerned with the equality commission. The duties imposed on public authorities
1722
embrace a whole spectrum of those rights. Exactly what will be the interface in practice between the public authorities and the equality commission is a matter on which my noble friend is much better qualified to pronounce. I hope that the noble Lord is clear about why I included the list within the amendment.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and I did not have an opportunity to discuss the amendments. We both had other commitments and events overtook us. I readily confirm what I should have said at the outset; that I am grateful to Professor McCrudden for this amendment and many others. I attempted to pay that debt of honour in our debates last week. He could speak for himself if he were a Member of your Lordships' House, but I must try to speak for him. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that there ought to be some concept in our ultimate text about proportionality or necessity. Certainly, I would not go to the stake for my amendment as opposed to his. There may be opportunities for us to discuss the matter further before the Report stage.
As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, I shall be the last to seek to deny power to anyone to add to the list of rights which we are seeking to protect. However, I understand his point that we may not wish to rush into everything at one leap.
I turn to my noble friend's reply. It is not the first time in the long years I have been in this Palace that I have heard a member of the Government say, "We wholly agree with the purpose of these amendments, but they are not necessary". I can say only that I remember the early 1980s when in a similar situation we had long debates on whether such words were necessary. At that time, when someone took affirmative action, people said, "Look, you are doing something for him which you are not doing for me". They said that majorities had rights as well as minorities, and of course they have. If we fail to clarify the matter now there will come a time when we bitterly regret it. It will not be the first time a Government have had to say, "It is a pity we did not get it right at the outset".
I do not believe that we can take the matter much further in the course of this debate. I hope that between now and Report it will be possible to discuss it again.
Lord Dubs: Perhaps I might be permitted to clarify a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. "Political opinion" has been interpreted by the courts in Northern Ireland to mean "legitimate political opinion"; that is to say, non-violent political opinion. That is a court interpretation which I did not have to hand earlier.
Perhaps I might comment on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and my noble and learned friend Lord Archer, concerning the duties imposed on public authorities under Clause 60. The equality commission monitors and approves quality schemes put forward by public bodies to give effect to their duties under Clause 60, but it also has a role in hearing and determining complaints against a public body on these matters.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to my noble friend for that clarification, as I am sure is the

1723
noble Lord, Lord Cope. I will study carefully what my noble friend said, as I always do. I hope that in return he will look closely at the example which I gave and, perhaps with his advisers, consider whether it might give rise to future problems. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 29, line 11, at end insert—
("() Each public authority shall—

(a) make appropriate arrangements for ensuring that its functions and responsibilities are carried out with due regard to the duties imposed by this section; and

(b) submit an annual report to the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland setting out the measures and policies adopted to comply with the duties imposed by this section.").

The noble and learned Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss with Amendment No. 155 Nos. 157, 308A, 309, 309A, 310 and 310A to 310H. I shall speak only to Amendment No. 155.
The purpose of Clause 60 is to impose on public authorities a duty to implement so far as they can the equality provisions. That was the intention of the agreement and this is the attempt by those who introduced the Bill to implement the agreement. No doubt most if not all the public authorities intend that that shall happen. But good intentions disperse into the mist unless there is in place a regime which directs people's minds to them in the course of daily administration, particularly of daily decision making.
A concern for human rights is not a separate step at the end of a decision-making process. It has to be a constituent part of every stage in the process. No one would suggest that in learning to drive we introduce safety as a distinct operation; for example, lessons one to nine on how to drive and lesson 10 on how to drive safely. It is an integral part of each stage of the process. Equally, a concern for human rights is part of the chemistry, not a device which we add to the machine at the end. That is the purpose of paragraph (a).
Paragraph (b) provides that, in addition, an authority shall pause sometimes and look backwards to examine what it has achieved and what it has failed to achieve. It simply provides for an annual stocktaking. It was urged on me to add a third paragraph; a duty at intervals of more than one year to review whether the aims with which the authority began the journey were sufficient. I refer to those which will be implemented under subsection (1). Aims, aspirations and visions may well expand as time goes on and perhaps they should be reviewed, too. But that paragraph is not in my amendment and therefore I cannot invite your Lordships to discuss it today. I await my noble friend's reply to the proposals I have set down, and I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: We support Amendment No. 155 because it makes public authorities consider
1724
how they will comply with the duty and requires them to submit an annual report to the new equality commission explaining what they have done. It would make public authorities establish effective internal mechanisms for the enforcement of the equality of opportunity duty. Therefore, for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, we support Amendment No. 155.
I shall speak now to Amendments Nos. 156 and 157 which have been grouped awkwardly with this amendment because they deal with a wholly separate subject. The purposes of Amendments Nos. 156 and 157 are to incorporate the definition of "public authority" in the Human Rights Bill into the Northern Ireland Bill instead of having the list system listing public authorities.
The Government have been astute in sticking to the definition of "victim" in the Human Rights Bill and to read it across into Clause 56(1) of the Northern Ireland Bill so as to have that narrow, crabbed definition of "victim" which applies right across the board, and there is nothing we can do about it. But for reasons I do not understand, the Government are unwilling to be similarly consistent when it comes to the public authority which is placed under a duty to promote equality of opportunity under Clause 60 and not to discriminate on religious grounds under Clause 61.
I have paid frequent tribute to the creative, poetic and imaginative drafting of the Human Rights Bill and that Bill defines "public authority" very sensibly in a broad, inclusive way. It states:
"In this section, 'public authority' includes …; any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature".
We believe that that broad definition should apply to the statutory duty under Clause 60 of the Northern Ireland Bill and the duty not to discriminate. In other words, any person,
"certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature"
in Northern Ireland should have a duty to promote equality of opportunity and not to discriminate on religious grounds.
Instead, Clause 60 paragraph 3 provides that "public authority" means:
"The First Minister and the deputy First Minister …; a Northern Ireland Minister …; a Northern Ireland department …; any body listed in Schedule 2 to the Commissioner for Complaints (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (bodies subject to investigation) …; any other person designated for the purposes of this section by order made by the Secretary of State".
Therefore, the matter is to be dealt with by subordinate legislation by order rather than the broad, workable, inclusive test for the purpose of the Human Rights Bill.
We find that quite bizarre. A person endowed with public functions and responsibilities plainly should have the twin duties in Clauses 60 and 61. Under the Human Rights Bill, the broadly defined public authorities will in any event have a duty not to discriminate under Article 14 of the European human rights convention read with other convention rights. Therefore, there will be the broad definition of "public authority" in the Human Rights Bill but there is to be a different definition of "public authority" for the purposes of Clauses 60 and 61.

1725
We can see absolutely no good reason for having that list system. I believe that it comes from the Government's White Paper on freedom of information where they had the idea of using a prescribed list system. That is not integrated into the fabric of the Human Rights Bill, as is this legislation.
Therefore, we very much hope that we can achieve a workable general definition of "public authority" which will not catch anybody in the private sector. It is made clear in the Human Rights Bill that it does not catch people who are performing functions of a private nature. However, the Bill will deal with people who are within the public sector within that broad definition. Therefore, I have tabled Amendments Nos. 156 and 157 to make it workable and user-friendly.
Perhaps I may add to the plea made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. Surely we wish to have legislation which is intelligible to ordinary men and women so that the whole of the law within the Bill can be understood, with schedules which set out the equality legislation and a definition of "public authority" which is consistent whether one is dealing with discrimination under the Human Rights Bill or under the Northern Ireland Bill. We need to have an internal coherence and consistency; otherwise, people like me will earn a lot of money pointlessly advising on this gobbledegook style of legislation where Bills are not on good speaking terms one with the other. That is why we seek to include one common, simple intelligible definition of what is meant by a "public authority".
Lord Rix: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. As I understand it, the Human Rights Bill will be fully workable within the next 18 months; that is, according to the leader in The Times this morning. That being so, because the general definition of which body carries out functions of a public nature is stated clearly in what will become the Human Rights Act, surely it would be much simpler and more sensible for the Government to adopt that terminology now rather than having to adopt it in 18 months' time.
Baroness Lockwood: I support Amendments Nos. 155 to 157. Amendment No. 155 in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell seems to me to be very practical. The equality agencies which exist at present advise organisations of any kind, including public authorities, to make appropriate arrangements for ensuring that their responsibilities under existing legislation are carried out.
It is often a safeguard to those organisations if they are subsequently accused of discriminating, if they can prove quite clearly that they have appropriate arrangements. If they have not discriminated, it is often easier to establish that fact.
It is appropriate for public authorities to know on the face of the Bill that they are expected not just to observe the general principle but in practice to make certain that they have in place appropriate procedures and
1726
programmes to meet their obligations under the Act and then to submit a report to the equality commission. Therefore, I support that amendment.
The two amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, seem to me very logical. Clarity and consistency in our legislation helps those of us who are trying to ensure that such legislation is adhered to.
Lord Skelmersdale: I agree that we should have clarity but not necessarily consistency. After all, as has been pointed out not once but twice in this short debate, the human rights legislation will not come on to the statute book for a little while and will not be operative for some time afterwards. Therefore, the phrase which has been praised today that a public body is one which carries out acts of a public nature has not yet been tested in the courts. Until it has, I suspect that we should be rather previous to include it in this legislation.
The definition of "public authority" seems to me to be quite clear, with the possible exception of paragraph (e) which refers to:
>"any other person designated for the purposes of this section by order made by the Secretary of State".
I have no doubt that sooner or later we shall be given an inkling of the Secretary of State's thinking in this regard. Nonetheless, I would have thought that this comprehensive list was a happier position than a phrase which, as I say, has not yet achieved respectability, as I understand it, in British law.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Meston: I hesitate to interrupt a debate in which I have not participated. Since the passage of the Human Rights Bill I have spent a lot of time studying the question of what is or is not a public authority within the context of that Bill. As my noble friend, Lord Lester, said, it is clear that the Bill provides a partial but nevertheless comprehensive definition and it would be a great misfortune if there were inconsistency in the approach that the courts had to take to the definition of what is or is not a public authority.
In the Human Rights Bill it is clear that there are certain bodies which are undoubtedly public authorities. Certain other bodies are more hybrid and they will be treated as public authorities in respect of their public functions, but not otherwise. Inevitably, this will generate a body of case law to deal with the grey areas.
At one stage in the passage of the human rights legislation through your Lordships' House I recall the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, saying, in terms, that there would be certain areas in which the courts would have to develop the law to decide whether or not certain bodies or certain functions were to be regarded as public. I suggest that it cannot be right that there should be uncertainty elsewhere as to what is or is not a public authority, particularly if a narrower definition were to apply in the context of Northern Ireland.
The matter cannot simply be left to the courts to develop. With respect to the suggestion that the matter can be shelved because the Human Rights Bill will not come into full operation possibly until the end of the

1727
century, I would simply point out that the whole thrust of the debate on the Human Rights Bill has been to the effect that all authorities should now be educating themselves as to their duties under the human rights legislation. Moreover, it seems to me that Clause 22(4) of the Human Rights Bill applies at least part of the obligations retrospectively under what will become the Human Rights Act. I do not think it is sufficient to say that the matter can be left in abeyance until the Human Rights Bill becomes fully operational.
Lord Skelmersdale: I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Meston, was referring to what I have just said when he talked about leaving it in abeyance, but that was certainly not the point I was trying to make. I was trying to say that until these grey areas, which the noble Lord admitted would be bound to exist, had been comprehensively dealt with by case law, we could be in a difficulty as far as this Northern Ireland legislation is concerned. I do not believe that that is desirable.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before the noble Lord sits down, would he accept that bodies like Railtrack and British Gas would plainly be public authorities on the definition in the Human Rights Bill but that they would be covered by Clauses 60 and 61 only if they were designated by the Minister? That is the kind of mischief we seek to tackle in these amendments: that there will be public authorities in the ordinary meaning of the term "public authorities" that would be outside Clauses 60 and 61, yet inside the Human Rights Bill.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am sure that the noble Lord is absolutely right, and that is why it is important to know what is in the Secretary of State's mind. That is a point I made when I first spoke.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The more I listen to the discussion about the grey areas, the more I am inclined to favour what has been called the "closed list" system, at least for this purpose. For example, Railtrack sells indirectly to the public a particular service while the train operating companies sell the service directly to the public, but Railtrack does not seem to me to be in a different position from a shop that sells other forms of goods, or other people who provide services to the public, including lawyers, providing the public can pay. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, rightly and admirably, was trying to cut down the amount paid by the public to lawyers earlier, which obviously is to be commended.
The phrase "functions of a public nature" seems to open itself up to a good deal more argument which I do not think is desirable in the Northern Ireland context at this stage. In future, when case law has had time to be settled, it may be right to put the definition contained in the Human Rights Act 1998, as stated in this amendment, into this legislation. For the time being I favour the "closed list" system.
On the lead amendment about public authorities arrangements, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, touched on an interesting suggestion for making those bodies which are defined as public authorities answerable to the equality commission. We have to test
1728
it in our minds, as it were, against the proposals of the Government which are about to be amended substantially. There are a lot of amendments in this group which amend them.
I am inclined towards the Government's view of the "scheme" proposal, as opposed to the "annual report" proposal. They do not necessarily rule out one another. They could proceed in tandem. To have both of them at once may be overdoing it. My preference at this point, subject to further debate, is for the "scheme" system rather than the "annual report" system, if I can express it that way.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Perhaps I may speak to Amendments Nos. 156 and 157 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. There may be several advantages in them. The first is an important one. The amendments considerably shorten the provision and that is no mean consideration when we are gradually adding to the volume of the Bill as we go through it.
The second point is that made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston. It can only cause trouble if we have two different definitions in relation to what is substantially the same subject matter. The definition in the Human Rights Bill is likely to be the one that passes into law. Many of us wanted to extend it, but my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, would not have it and so we must be content with it as it stands. It is not a dangerously wide definition from the point of view of those who fear that human rights are going too far. As I say, it does not go as far as many of us would wish it to.
If we have two different criteria, as the two noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches said, it can lead only to argument in court comparing one code with the other. That is a second advantage that speaks strongly in favour of the amendment. I hope that the Minister will at any rate agree to consider the matter further.
Lord Dubs: These amendments all deal with the obligations on public authorities in carrying out their functions to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity. I am happy to inform the Committee that today's government amendments include one which addresses the point raised by several commentators in recent months; that is, the need for a direct requirement on public authorities to prepare schemes.
The March 1998 White Paper—Partnership for Equality—first proposed such an obligation which should supersede the existing guidelines. The White Paper proposal was radical. It proposed the implementation of the new statutory obligation for equality schemes which would detail procedural steps to be taken by each public authority in carrying out its functions. Those ideas of a statutory obligation and equality schemes were taken up in the Good Friday agreement.
Consultation on those proposals indicated widespread acceptance of them in principle. But inevitably there has been considerable debate in relation to the principle.

1729
During the summer my colleague, the Minister responsible for political development, held discussions with various interests on those details. Reflecting a point made in the other place, we decided that, in the first instance, public authorities should be required to produce equality schemes without prompting by the commission. Government Amendments Nos. 308A, 309A and 310B are the appropriate amendments. Public authorities will be required to produce schemes within six months of the commencement of Schedule 10. Special arrangements are included for public authorities which come into existence in the future and for cases where the commission believes a revised scheme to be necessary; for instance, if the public authority's functions change significantly.
Those amendments essentially meet the purposes of Amendment No. 310. We do not agree with his proposal in Amendment No. 309 that the commission should be able to revise a scheme. That should be for the public authority, if necessary, after a request from the commission. I therefore invite my noble friend not to move those amendments.
Government Amendment No. 310A extends the detail on the content of equality schemes in paragraph 2 (2) of Schedule 10 to include arrangements for ensuring and assessing public access to information provided by the authority, information as well as services in the agreement. That may require a public authority to set out its arrangements for ensuring that people with disabilities or members of ethnic minority groups have access to information which it provides to the public. Amendment No. 310C extends the potential range of consultation on a draft equality scheme.
Amendments Nos. 310D to 310H ensure that the Assembly is kept informed when the commission finds difficulty with the public authority's equality scheme and refers the matter to the Secretary of State. Similarly, the Secretary of State must keep the Assembly informed when making a decision on a problematic scheme or on the report of an investigation referred to him by the commission. Given the Assembly's responsibilities for Northern Ireland departments and a wide range of local public authorities, it is right that it should be kept informed in that way. As I mentioned, we expect to have further amendments to Schedule 10 at Report stage.
Amendment No. 155 from my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell would impose a duty on every public authority to make appropriate arrangements to fulfil its statutory duty under Clause 60. It also calls for an annual report to be submitted to the equality commission by each public authority.
The Good Friday agreement referred to the implementation of the statutory obligation through equality schemes. This is the format described in Schedule 10. Government Amendment No. 309A will impose a direct obligation on a public authority to prepare a scheme showing how it proposes to fulfil its duties under Clause 60. Schedule 10 describes how the equality commission will have oversight of each public authority's equality scheme.
1730
We are also considering an amendment for Report stage which would require that each public authority review its scheme every five years and inform the commission of its conclusions. The arrangements under Schedule 10, together with the amendments to which I referred, should meet many of the objectives of Amendment No. 155, though within the context of equality schemes to which we are committed by the Good Friday agreement.
Amendments Nos. 156 and 157 from the noble Lord, Lord Lester, would delete the current definition of public authority and replace it with a definition used in the Human Rights Bill—also an amendment supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. During the summer we looked at the different definitions of public authority in Clauses 60 and 61 and we hope to bring them more closely into line. Amendments to be brought forward at Report stage will broaden the definition in Clause 60 to include UK-wide departments and public authorities, which may require special arrangements for dealing with complaints. However, full harmonisation between Clauses 60 and 61 seems impossible.
The idea of an all-purpose definition of public authority based on the human rights legislation may seem attractive, but the European Convention on Human Rights defines public authority very widely, including authorities only some of whose functions are public. The definition of "public authority" which appears in the Human Rights Bill would take in a much broader range of bodies exercising statutory and public functions.
Clauses 60 and 61 impose duties over and above those under the Human Rights Bill and the fair employment legislation. Those additional duties will entail further costs which it is only appropriate to impose on carefully selected bodies. Adopting the Human Rights Bill approach would cast the net too wide and run counter to the need to be selective.
The obligations under Clauses 60 and 61 are difficult ones for public bodies and we must consider carefully to which public bodies they might refer; hence the problem in relation to definition. Accordingly, we do not believe that the human rights legislation definition is appropriate for either Clause 60 or Clause 61. I therefore invite my noble and learned friend to withdraw the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I can ask for elucidation on one point. I seem to recollect that "public authority" under the Human Rights Bill—we were assured—covered broadcasting authorities, certainly the British Broadcasting Corporation. That is a powerful organ and obviously one that ought to comply with the human rights obligations. I am not conversant with the broadcasting arrangements for Northern Ireland but

1731
perhaps the Minister could clear that up or otherwise look into the matter and let me know before the next stage.
Lord Dubs: It is a fairly complicated point. Perhaps I can take up the latter suggestion. I shall look into the matter and write to the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. Perhaps I may say at the outset that I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that the grouping in relation to this amendment is somewhat eccentric. I follow what my noble friend said; that is, that all the amendments deal with the duties imposed on public authorities. I should have thought that that was a somewhat slender logical thread for grouping the amendments. However, as I was not here to contribute an input to the groupings this morning, it hardly lies in my mouth to complain.
In relation to Amendment No. 157, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and those noble and noble and learned Lords who supported him. Nothing further from me at this stage will improve the occasion.
As to Amendment No. 155, it does not seem to me—the noble Lord, Lord Cope, agreed—in any way inconsistent with the proposal for the schemes to say that, in addition, public authorities shall build into each stage of their decision-making process a structure of thinking about human rights at that point. It is not inconsistent; in fact it would add something for the reasons I attempted to give earlier. If in addition there was an annual report, it would mean that annually the authority would look at what it had achieved in the previous 12 months and would not have to wait for a period of five years before it took stock. I wholly agree with the point made by my noble friend Lady Lockwood that it might be a protection for local authorities to say, "Well, we have done our best. At every stage we have built into the decision-making process an instruction to look at the human rights situation."
However, this is not the occasion to divide the Committee. It may be a springboard for discussing the matter further and I am sure that my noble friend will be open minded about it. It may be that I did not express myself as effectively as I should have done when I opened the debate. Perhaps when he reads what I said my noble friend may think about it again. For the moment, I am content to ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 156:
Page 29, line 12, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: I thank all noble Lords who participated in the debate on Amendments Nos. 156 and 157—those who disagreed with the amendment as much as those who agreed. It is heartening to have the wisdom of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on this subject. I sometimes ask myself why we bother and why we take such care in scrutinising legislation. Who are we trying to address? It is not the wider public
1732
who never read our debates and it is not the newspapers. In this case—I hope I do not embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—I direct my remarks in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and his advisers because he has responsibility for the Human Rights Bill as well as an input into the present Bill.
Before I explain what I intend to do on the amendment, perhaps I may try one last effort to explain why I think the Government might reconsider. I shall give a hypothetical example. I give the example of a body, say, British Gas or Railtrack, which would plainly be a public authority for the purposes of the Human Rights Bill if it were to discriminate in breach of Article XIV of the convention in a field covered by the convention. If a public authority of that kind were to discriminate directly under Clause 61—we are talking about direct religious discrimination under Clause 61—it is clear that, as a result of the recent decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, that body would be breaching the common law principle of equal treatment. It is also clear that it would be a public authority covered by the common law administrative law requirement to give equal treatment.
So far—I hope your Lordships follow the way I am trying to explain the position—the hypothetical gas or railway body would be bound by the European Convention on Human Rights under the Human Rights Bill; it would be bound by the common law; and it would be a public authority for the purpose of judicial review and supervisory jurisdiction. It would also be bound by European Community law in an area where equality directives apply. But under Clause 61 it would only be bound if it had been designated by the Minister specifically in subordinate legislation.
That, I suppose, is done for the purpose of clarity. But it would not be clear at all, for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, because one would have different definitions in respect of the same subject matter—the same subject matter because the Human Rights Bill covers discrimination in some areas and because Clause 61 does as well. We would be in breach of our international treaty obligations were we to create a gap of that kind. It is perfectly clear from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the discrimination against women convention and the discrimination based on race convention that bodies like Railtrack or British Gas must be bodies with a duty not to discriminate on religious grounds or any other grounds.
I appeal to the Government to think again and to make sure that there is no gap between the definition of a public authority in Clause 61 and the definition of a public authority in the Human Rights Bill. Otherwise, I think we will be in breach of our international legal obligations and we will create a great deal of legal uncertainty for bodies like British Gas, which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, rightly indicated will be concerned to know their legal position. They will not be much the wiser as a result of the impact of common law and the Human Rights Bill and the mere absence of a designated order under Clause 61.
For those reasons I hope very much that further consideration will be given to the matter. We take some comfort from the Minister's words indicating that there will be an attempt to widen the definition in Clause 61. I was dismayed when he said that there will be a different definition of public authorities in Clause 60 from Clause 61. That would produce another form of uncertainty and inconsistency. After all, sex discrimination, race relations and fair employment legislation does not draw a distinction, as far as concerns respondents, between the positive duty to promote equal opportunity and the negative duty not to discriminate. We urge that both the definitions should be moved in the same direction and made consistent with the Human Rights Bill.
There has been a good debate. I am grateful to everyone who has taken part. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): The noble Lord has already spoken at some length to Amendment No. 156 and I must therefore give others an opportunity to speak.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: As this will be a debate to which the Minister may reply, perhaps I may give yet a third reason why the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is preferable. The Government give flexibility to their proposed definition under paragraph (e):
"any other person designated for the purposes of this section by order made by the Secretary of State".
We have had far too much of that kind of skeleton legislation which gives extra power to the executive to legislate by order and is not subject to normal and full parliamentary scrutiny. As the Minister is looking at this matter further, I should be grateful if he would also consider that point.
Lord Hylton: The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has drawn our attention to the fact that the list of what constitutes a public authority is different in Clause 60 from the list in Clause 61. He has drawn my attention to the fact that Clause 60(3)(e) has this catch-all saving for what the Secretary of State may do in future whereas Clause 61 does not. That anomaly needs some explanation.
Lord Dubs: I think that I have already replied to the debate. I am not sure that I have very much to add. As I said, the Government are looking at some of these points and we will bring forward amendments at Report stage.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 157 not moved.]
Clause 60 agreed to.
6 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 158:
After Clause 60, insert the following new clause—

IMPACT STATEMENTS
(" .—(1) Where a public authority to which section 60 applies proposes to take any action that may have a significant adverse impact on its ability to comply with the provisions of that section, it shall first prepare a statement of that impact (an "impact statement").
(2) An impact statement shall also include—

(a) the aims and purposes of the action proposed;

(b) alternatives to the proposed action which may achieve those aims and purposes but which are less likely to have such an impact, together with reasons for rejecting those alternatives;

(c) proposals to mitigate that impact; and

(d) a description of steps to be taken to monitor that impact.

(3) Before taking the action proposed, the authority shall—

(a) consult those likely to be directly affected;

(b) publish the impact statement in sufficiently good time to allow members of the public to make representations; and

(c) where appropriate, consult the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, which may publish any response they make to the authority.

(4) If, following such consultation, the authority decides to proceed with the action proposed, it shall publish its decision together with its reasons.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment relates to what has come to be called policy appraisal. The agreement, as I understand it, envisaged that it would happen. At the moment I do not think it appears in the Bill in the form in which it was envisaged. The Bill is now going to provide for the arrangement of schemes. I had argued that it ought also to provide for the consideration of human rights, step by step, in decision taking. This amendment suggests that there should also be an appraisal of human rights, proposal by proposal, from a local authority.
It would require that a local authority, when it was making a proposal, would draw up a statement assessing the likely impact on people in terms of human rights, setting out the aims of the proposal, setting out the possible alternative ways of addressing the same matter and setting out any steps it proposed to take to mitigate any adverse effect in relation to human rights. It would then require the local authority to consult with those likely to be affected, and with the equality commission.
It is easy to speak of human rights as though they are something which we the legislators, and then the authorities, confer on the public. The public just sits there and receives them as they are handed down. Historically and very frequently conceptually, human rights are principally about empowerment and about giving people a voice in their own destiny. That, I believe, is what many in Northern Ireland still feel is lacking, so I hope that my noble friend will understand what the amendment is trying to achieve. If there is a better way of achieving it, then of course I will listen to what my noble friend says, but until then there is

1735
something lacking in the Bill which many people over the years, waiting for a Bill like this, have been hoping to see. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: This amendment stands in my name too, and I should just like to say that I agree with every word of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. We strongly support this.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I go along with the thinking behind the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, but he did say that he thought it flowed from the Belfast agreement. My reading of the relevant bit of that agreement on page 16 is that an assessment of the impact of the actions of a public authority had to provide part of the scheme for carrying out the obligations which they are to be obliged to put forward. His new clause seems to me to go further than that in that every time there is an alteration in policy, as it were, or a new course of action being entered into, a further impact statement would have to be produced, as opposed to a modification of a scheme if it were a big matter requiring such a modification.
I also notice that the Government rejected earlier the proposal for impact statements in other circumstances, which was requested by the CBI in connection with the impact on companies of government actions. Those sorts of impact statements were rejected, but we wait to see what the Government's view will be on these sorts of impact statements.
Lord Dubs: In our March White Paper proposals and in the Good Friday agreement, equality schemes, prepared by public authorities and approved by the equality commission, were seen as a key means of implementing the statutory obligation to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity.
In recent months there have been many suggestions for detailed changes to our ideas about equality schemes. Over the summer, my colleague, the Minister for Political Development, has discussed how to bridge the gap between the Government's position and these alternative suggestions. As a result, we propose to make changes which will reflect the noble Lords' new clause in several respects.
I have already mentioned the direct obligation on public authorities to prepare schemes. We also intend to bring forward amendments at Report stage which will make further changes. These are: a requirement on the commission to report on the promotion of equality of opportunity in its annual report, which will be laid before Parliament as well as the Assembly, and an expansion of the details of impact assessments at paragraph 2(2)(b) of Schedule 10 to include consideration of alternative policies, measures to mitigate adverse impact and monitoring the outcomes of policies after introduction.
The latter changes, together with the details of equality schemes already contained in paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 10 should match the most significant features of the noble Lords' new clause. These changes which we are proposing to the detail of impact assessments will be in the context of equality schemes
1736
and policy assessment, to which we are bound by the agreement. I therefore invite noble Lords not to support the new clause.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for his support. I think that possibly the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and I will not add to the debate if we embark on a discussion as to the construction of what the agreement said. I am cheered by the announcement which my noble friend has just made. I think he accepts that what is now being proposed, the impact assessment, is not in any way inconsistent with the schemes. In fact, as I understand it, he wants to make this part of the schemes.
I would add two factors to that. One is that it ought to be an on-going matter and not something which is incorporated in the schemes once and for all. The other—an essential constituent—is the matter of consultation: that it should be concerned with empowerment of the people and not something which legislators and others hand down from somewhere on high. I cannot at the moment assess whether what my noble friend proposes is going to contain those factors, because we have not seen the proposal. However, we look forward in hope, and "they can't hurt you for hoping", as someone once said to me. Meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 61 [Discrimination by public authorities]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 159:
Page 29, line 27, leave out ("discharging) and insert ("carrying out").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 29, line 29, after ("discriminate,") insert ("directly or indirectly").
The noble and learned Lord said: With this amendment it may be for your Lordships' convenience to discuss Amendments Nos. 161, 163, 164 and 169.
Amendment No. 160, I may be told, is unnecessary. It is an amendment to deal with a situation where a public authority do not set out to discriminate against a particular person or group, but where they do something of which the inevitable consequence is discrimination. It is a necessary by-product of something done for a different reason. If they build public buildings to which the only approach is by a flight of steps, it may be said that access is by means of those steps whether someone is in a wheelchair or not. There is no discrimination. In fact the necessary consequence is to impose a disadvantage on persons in wheelchairs. If my noble friend replies that this is unnecessary because making discrimination unlawful is to make indirect discrimination unlawful, I think I can only add that this is not the view which has always been taken either in the courts or in debates in your Lordships' House and in another place.

1737
If the Government intend to make indirect discrimination unlawful, then I ask rhetorically: what is the objection to saying so? Can it be that the draftsman has taken the words from Section 19 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973?—because those are certainly the words to be found there. But of course in those days people were not giving much thought to indirect discrimination. We have come a long way since 1973. Since then we have learnt a great deal about the forms which discrimination can take, so I hope that when my noble friend replies, his response will be a sympathetic one.
Turning to Amendment No. 161, the Government are well seized of the point that what everyone wants to be protected is the whole range of matters in respect of which in the past they have suffered discrimination. As my noble friend pointed out a short time ago, that is now the scheme of Clause 60. It is not clear why such provisions should not be in Clause 61 when we turn to the question of incitement.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, reminded us a few moments ago, last Monday we were told that the Government seek consistency. I believe that the burden is now on the Government to explain why there is inconsistency in this respect. It seems to me that further elaboration from me would not assist. I believe that the onus is on the Government to explain why inconsistency is permissible in this respect. I await the reply of my noble friend. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: I do not know whether this is the right moment to mention this point. When speaking to Amendment No. 154 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, was sympathetic to those who might in due course want to add to the list of characteristics against which it should be illegal to discriminate, although he was not in favour of anything happening immediately.
I wonder what those additional characteristics might be. Is it envisaged that discrimination on the grounds of height and weight might be outlawed, as I understand it is in two or three American states? What about discrimination on the grounds of physical appearance, other than physical appearance relating to race or disability which is already outlawed? After all, discrimination on the grounds of physical appearance is also illegal in a couple of American states, and logically so if all other forms of discrimination are banned. Survey after survey has revealed that good-looking people, be they male or female, have a much better chance of getting a good job and being promoted than those who are less well favoured, if I can put it in that way. I understand that it has also been established that the life-time earnings of those who might fall into the category of good-looking people are at least 10 per cent. higher than the life-time earnings of those who are not in that category. It will be interesting to hear, when the noble Lord comes to wind up—
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Before he sits down, perhaps I should make it clear that I was simply responding to a
1738
suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. I was responding with some sympathy because we are now sensitive to discrimination in a number of matters where 20 years ago people thought that the whole thing was a joke. These things are no longer jokes. I do not know what will or will not be a joke in 30 or 40 years time. I would not venture to make a prediction.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer. That was exactly the point I had in mind. I think that it is not wise to have in legislation what you might call a closed list, for the very reasons given by my noble friend, Lord Monson. It would probably be bad draftsmanship to add an "etcetera". However, I think that we should not close our minds, not to the possibility but the probability, that we will be required to add to this list quite frequently in years to come.
Baroness Lockwood: I support the principles behind these amendments. As my noble and learned friend Lord Archer said, our knowledge of discrimination is far beyond what it was some 20 years ago. There is already an enormous amount of court interpretation of the concept of indirect discrimination. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that is a safeguard against irresponsible use of legislation and bringing irresponsible cases under the legislation.
However, the court cases and the interpretation of indirect discrimination have been very educative in the ways in which people can be discriminated against. There is some discussion at present about whether or not there is institutional discrimination in the police force. Institutional discrimination usually relates to the way in which processes have been developed over time. Such processes can accidentally discriminate against individuals or groups of individuals. Therefore, I think it is important that the concept of indirect discrimination is incorporated in the Bill. In the light of our discussion on the first group of amendments and the assurances that were given, can my noble friend the Minister tell us whether the concept of indirect discrimination will be embodied in the Bill and whether it will be applicable in the case of public authorities in the same way as against individuals?
6.15 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: The grouping here is somewhat eccentric. Quite different subjects have been grouped together. In speaking to Amendment No. 160 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 161 and 163. I shall not speak to Amendment No. 164 because that deals with affirmative action, which we have already covered. I shall not speak to Amendment No. 169 because that deals with the definition of "public authority", which we have already covered.
Amendments Nos. 160, 161 and 163 are particularly important and I shall, therefore, take a few moments to explain our position. In the Belfast agreement, one of

1739
the points agreed was that the human rights commission would consider a clear formulation of the rights not to be discriminated against and of equality of opportunity in both the public and private sectors. That was obviously an important commitment, which we welcome. However, there is no reason why Parliament cannot meanwhile do its best to give a clear formulation of the rights not to be discriminated against and of equality of opportunity in both private and public sectors.
Amendment No. 160, which stands in my name and those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, seeks to do two things. First, it seeks to widen the types of forbidden discrimination beyond religious and political discrimination in respect of the public authorities exhaustively listed at present in Clause 61. We are seeking to widen the obligation so that not only is direct religious and political discrimination forbidden, but also indirect religious and political discrimination, and direct and indirect discrimination on the other grounds set out in the amendment, including, for example, disability and sexual orientation.
Those are important because there is no reason in principle—I doubt whether the Government would disagree—why any public authority should discriminate directly on any of those grounds, nor is there any reason why there should be unjustifiable indirect discrimination on any of those grounds. Public authorities are already covered by the obligation not to discriminate directly or indirectly under sex and race discrimination legislation and under fair employment legislation in respect of religion.
It is important that public authorities, in discharging their public functions, should not discriminate directly on any of those grounds or indirectly without good cause. In other words, they should not apply rules which are equal in a formal sense but unequal and unfair in their impacts against members of particular groups; namely women, ethnic minorities, religious groups, the disabled and so on. That is the purpose of Amendments Nos. 160 and 161.
Amendment No. 163, which stands in my name, is confined to extending the scope of Clause 61 to indirect discrimination on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion. So, that amendment is narrower than the others.
When the concept of discrimination came out of the Van Straubenzee report and into, first, the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and then the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976, the concept of discrimination was not well understood and it was considered to apply only to purposive or intentional direct discrimination. It was only later, in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, that the wider concept of indirect discrimination was included. Nothing in the Belfast agreement, as I read it, suggests that the concept of religious and political discrimination is to be frozen into the mind-set of the framers of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. I would be astonished if anyone suggested that that was the point of the Good Friday agreement.
1740
It is extremely important, first, in dealing with religious discrimination that this Bill covers indirect as well as direct religious discrimination. Just as in the fair employment legislation, the provisions should similarly apply to public authorities under Clause 61. That is absolutely vital. It is equally important that public authorities should be under the wider duty.
Some of your Lordships may be wondering why the existing equality legislation does not cover the ground in respect of gender and race discrimination. The answer is the decision of the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House in the case known as Re: Amin, which decided that the relevant provisions of the Race Relations Act and therefore of the Sex Discrimination Act applied only to marketplace activities, not to the public activities of public authorities. That is why the existing provisions do not adequately cover the area of Clause 61. They cover private employers. A private employer cannot directly or indirectly discriminate on grounds of sex or race, but a public authority, in the exercise of its functions, is, for the reasons that I have just given, not caught at the moment. I do not think that there is, or should be, anything controversial about the notion that a public authority should not discharge its functions in an arbitrary or discriminatory way on any ground.
As I said earlier, the Privy Council has made it quite clear that English common law would in any case require that kind of standard in respect of any public authority. We are seeking to spell out on the face of the statute what the common law requires—and to do it in a way which is within the well-known tests of the fair employment, sex discrimination and race relations legislation. Those are my reasons for supporting Amendments Nos. 160 to 162.
The Earl of Dudley: Before the noble Lord sits down, does he consider that, as a matter of legal interpretation, the Ministry of Defence would fall within the category of a "public authority", having and discharging functions relating to Northern Ireland?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I cannot think of any authority more likely to be a public authority than a ministry of the Crown. The Bill states so specifically. The Ministry of Defence would undoubtedly be such an authority. If the Ministry of Defence were to discriminate against women, ethnic minorities or any other group arbitrarily or unfairly, directly or indirectly, it would undoubtedly fall within the scope of Clause 61. I say that subject to correction from Ministers.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I had intended to speak to this group of amendments because I have put my name to Amendment No. 164, which we seem to have dealt with already in relation to Amendment No. 162. Nevertheless, I should like to join my voice to those who have been supporting Amendments Nos. 160 and 161 for the simple reasons that I support everything that has been said about the need to refer to the important issue of indirect discrimination and I cannot see that that is provided for elsewhere in the Bill.

1741
As my noble friend Lady Lockwood said, the fact that we have been able to move on indirect discrimination in the United Kingdom has meant that a whole range of issues has been dealt with on behalf of women which might not otherwise have been dealt with. Such provisions will enable the commission to tackle rules or policies which appear neutral but which, in practice, may impact unfairly on one particular minority or disadvantaged group.
Amendment No. 161 seeks to extend the grounds of prohibited discrimination (in a way which I support) to include discrimination on the grounds of,
"gender, race, disability, age, marital status, dependants, sexual orientation".
My noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell referred to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 which prohibited religious and political discrimination. It seems to me that the Belfast agreement provides an opportunity to move forward beyond those rather narrow discriminations and to broaden the horizon of discriminations which can be dealt with by the new equality commission and to impose on public authorities the duty not to discriminate in such a way. I have pleasure in supporting the amendments.
Lord Rix: I apologise for being absent from the Chamber when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, moved Amendment No. 160 and spoke to Amendment No. 161. Perhaps I may support those amendments briefly. Indirect discrimination means imposing a requirement or condition on a job which makes it harder for disabled people to gain access to it. The effect may be unintentional, but it can be just as damaging as the effect of overt discrimination. Indirect discrimination on the basis of disability can, in most cases, be grasped easily without the need for detailed statistics. Therefore, Amendment No. 160 is important to disabled people who face many systematic barriers.
On Amendment No. 161, I hope that the Government can give some reassurance that issues of religious or political discrimination will not overshadow other equality considerations. The Government have the opportunity to entrench equality within the culture of the new administration. If they are serious, as I believe they are, in their intent to promote equality, they should ensure that a public authority does not discriminate on other grounds which, of course, include disability.
Lord Hylton: I notice that Amendment No. 161 includes "dependants". I have a suspicion that that may be going just a little too far.
However, my main point relates to Clauses 60 and 61. We understand that those clauses impose additional duties, over and above those in the Human Rights Bill. We have already touched on the fact that the two clauses contain different lists of what constitutes a public authority, but I have now noticed that there is yet another discrepancy within and between the clauses. I refer specifically to lines 3, 4, 11, 29 and 30 on page 29 which list different kinds of groups. It is not apparent why that should be so either on the face of the
1742
Bill or in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. I should like to know the answer. If the Minister does not want to reply now, perhaps he would be kind enough to write to me and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Dudley: I wish briefly to follow up my question to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and his reply. As I read Amendment No. 161, if the question of discrimination against "sexual orientation" is accepted it seems that no one in the Armed Forces will be able to serve in Northern Ireland. As I understand it, at present the Armed Forces—that is to say, the Army—have set their faces against homosexuality. Surely it would mean that no regiment could be sent to Ireland and, indeed, no regiment could serve there. I may be wrong. Perhaps the Minister will elucidate the point.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): I can perhaps help Members of the Committee. The groups of amendments are in danger of becoming somewhat disoriented. Under the sixth group we were intending to discuss Amendments No. 159, which has already been passed, Amendments Nos. 165 to 168 and 169A. So we shall now have to return to them. I am not complaining about that; I am simply indicating that perhaps things have gone astray.
We are presently discussing the seventh group. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, rightly pointed out, a large number of the issues in the group—namely, Amendments Nos. 160 to 164 inclusive, and Amendment No. 169—have already been discussed. The noble Lord is quite right again. These amendments were discussed when we had extensive discussion on Amendment No. 162. I do not wish to appear discourteous, but I do not believe that Members of the Committee want me to flog over old ground more than two or three times.
If I may respectfully say so, the real point is what my noble friend Lord Dubs has pointed out on many occasions. This Bill is not designed or calculated to right all wrongs of inequality or discrimination. It is a Bill which will put into effect—and the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, has made the point on a number of occasions—as closely as may be, the Belfast agreement. If one asks why X, Y or Z is not in the Bill, quite often the answer, as both the noble Lord opposite and my noble friend have said, is that it is not part of the context in which we are operating; namely, the Belfast agreement.
A question was raised about consistency and inconsistency, first, as regards Clause 60 as opposed to Clause 61 and, secondly, as opposed generally to the over-arching inconsistency that is claimed by virtue of the fact that the Human Rights Bill, which will become an Act on Thursday of this week, will be different again. The answer is quite plainly to be found on page 16 of the agreement. It is worth requoting it for one last time:
"The British Government will complete incorporation into Northern Ireland law of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), with direct access to the courts, and remedies for breach of the Convention, including power for the courts to overrule Assembly legislation on grounds of inconsistency".

1743
I respectfully repeat what my noble friend Lord Dubs has so often said; namely, that that remains the case.
However, we now come to this particular Bill which, as I have said previously, is to deliver the goods following the Belfast agreement. It is quite plain. Subject to the outcome of public consultation, which is under way—my noble friend Lord Dubs referred to this earlier—the British Government,
"intends, as a particular priority, to create a statutory obligation on public authorities in Northern Ireland to carry out all their functions with due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity in relation to religion and political opinion; gender; race, disability; age; marital status; dependants; and sexual orientation".
Then we come to the following:
"Public bodies"—
not public authorities—
"would be required to draw up statutory schemes showing how they would implement this obligation. Such schemes would cover arrangements for policy appraisal, including an assessment of impact on relevant categories, public consultation, public access to information and services, monitoring and timetables".
So there is not a pure consistency; it is designed lack of pure consistency because the Belfast agreement was couched in that way. Paragraph 2 on page 16 of the agreement deals with the ECHR and paragraph 3 deals with matters of "particular priority". The matter of particular priority is therefore to be found, first, in Clause 60. That clause is virtually a re-recitation of what I read out earlier from the agreement; in other words, it covers religious belief, political opinion, racial group, age, marital status or sexual orientation, men and women, persons with disabilities and those without as well as persons with dependants and those without. There was no stratagem to include the word "dependants" in the amendment as one can already find it in Clause 60.
Clause 60 requires a particular duty to be discharged by public authorities in Northern Ireland. That is covered in Schedule 10. As was observed earlier, the duties are quite onerous. The equality commission will have to carry out various duties. The "public authority" in paragraph 2 of the schedule has to draw up equality schemes and thereafter there is a rigid mandatory obligation on the commission to approve it or refer it to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State then has various obligations. The commission will also have to deal with complaints and carry out investigations. Indeed, paragraph 8(3) of the schedule says:
"If a report recommends action by the public authority concerned and …; the action is not taken within a reasonable time—

(a) the Commission may refer the matter to the Secretary of State; and

(b) the Secretary of State may give directions".

So there are quite severe sanctions involved for a breach of Clause 60 at any stage, with the related obligations under Schedule 10. That has been done deliberately to bring about a consequence which, by and large, I believe we all want.
I turn now to Clause 61. My noble friend Lord Dubs has already dealt with Amendment No. 159, which was accepted, but I am dealing with these matters generally because the groups have become rather muddled. Here we are dealing with a public authority carrying out
1744
functions relating to Northern Ireland on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion. That is limited and has been limited for the obvious historical reason that we all recognise; namely, that this has been a particular cause of vice, unhappiness and wrongdoing in Northern Ireland. That is why one has different lists in Clause 60 as opposed to those in Clause 61. We have not sought to be absolutely consistent because we are dealing with different circumstances.
Perhaps I may deal with this group as quickly as I can. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the Minister. I am sure that the noble Lord does not wish to construe the Belfast agreement with what has been called the "austerity of tabulated legalism". However, where in the Belfast agreement does he find the obligation to introduce Clause 61 and confine it narrowly to direct religious discrimination?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: One does not find it in those terms. One finds it in Clause 60 in the way I have mentioned but one does not find it in Clause 61. However, permeating the Belfast agreement, one does find the particular concerns of certain types of discrimination, not least by allegations made against—and I am talking at random—the Police Authority or the RUC. We want to put into effect the Belfast agreement and its spirit; we are not launching in this Bill on a whole-scale reconstruction of inequality discrimination law.
The noble Lord and I have discussed this matter both inside and outside the Chamber. He takes the view, as others do, that there is a legitimate case for a wide review of all aspects of law within this general compartment. I afford this no disrespect by calling it the "general inequality discrimination law". I am not guilty of subscribing to the doctrine of unripe time for which the noble Lord has sometimes rebuked me gently. I am simply pointing out that this is not the occasion to do so. I am not suggesting in the slightest that any of the very well-marshalled and moderate arguments like those put forward by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell, by my noble friend Lady Turner or by the noble Lords, Lord Rix and Lord Lester, are not valid; I am saying that this is not the context in which to deploy them. If we get to that stage—I am not being discourteous in saying this—we will have really argued ourselves to a standstill. I recognise the moral and philosophical virtue, as it were, behind the points that have been put. I do not disagree with their validity but, as I said, this is not the occasion to deploy them.
We intend to bring forward an Order in Council to extend the law to indirect discrimination on the provision of goods and services. That is an extension. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has already said on a number of occasions, I do not believe these are matters for consideration on this occasion. We shall certainly give the observations that have been made tonight a fair hearing, but I do not think we shall come back to your Lordships on Report with anything satisfactory other than by way perhaps of marginal amendments.

1745
We do not want to extend "public authority" in Clause 61 to the ECHR Human Rights Bill public authority. We have specifically included lists. The lists are not, of course, set in stone; they could be varied in the future. I accept this is a different conceptual approach from the one we adopted on the Human Rights Bill. In the context of Great Britain generally, I think we acted correctly on the Human Rights Bill—I think the noble Lord, Lord Lester, agrees with this—in not having a list because we wanted the law to develop organically. We are dealing with much more specific problems in the context of Northern Ireland—the noble Lord, Lord Cope, knows that from experience far better than I—and we have designed particular remedies for specific wrongs. Accordingly, I stress that I am not at all dismissive of the thoughts behind Amendments Nos. 160, 161 and 163. I simply indicate that we are not able to accept them.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before the noble Lord sits down, as regards Amendment No. 163, he has indicated helpfully that nothing in the Belfast agreement seeks to confine the definition of religious discrimination only to direct religious discrimination. The noble Lord has also indicated that religious discrimination is a matter of particular concern in Northern Ireland, as everyone knows. Can he tell the Committee what is the policy reason—if there is nothing in the Belfast agreement—for confining the definition of forbidden discrimination by public authorities only to direct religious discrimination and not including indirect religious discrimination?
6.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The policy conclusion was that Clause 61—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, mentioned this—simply reproduces Sections 17 and 19 of the 1973 constitution Act. That is a policy conclusion that we have reached. I do not believe that this is the right occasion to go beyond that. I do not mean that reply to be dismissive. I simply have to say what the facts are.
Lord Monson: In the light of the interesting explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for which we are grateful, I hope I may put one question to him. Just as Scotland was the experimental testing ground for the poll tax, to the great annoyance of the Scots, is there not a danger that Northern Ireland is set to become the experimental testing ground for outlawing forms of discrimination which will not be illegal on the British mainland, such as discrimination on the grounds of age and sexual orientation, to the probable annoyance of the people of Northern Ireland?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I entirely disagree with that. The agreement is the product of much heartache and compromise. There has been careful consultation upon the Bill. I do not think that anyone in Northern Ireland could conscientiously—nor have I found this expressed—think Northern Ireland was being used as a testing ground. In fact, quite the opposite used to be the
1746
case in that friends and colleagues in Northern Ireland used frequently to complain that our legislation was often applied to them too late. I refer to the Children Act by way of example. I have never heard it suggested by anyone in Northern Ireland that we were not doing our utmost to provide a regime to deal with their particular problems. After all, the problems described in Clauses 60 and 61 occur in England and Wales but not to anywhere near the same extent and have not—we also need to bear in mind—brought about more than 3,000 deaths in a relatively short period of time.
Lord Monson: Is the noble Lord, Lord Williams, saying that there is much more discrimination on the grounds of age and sexual orientation in Northern Ireland than in England, Scotland and Wales, because I do not think that is the case?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: One needs to be quite careful about one's suggestions on these occasions. What I am saying—I think fairly—is that Northern Ireland has been an unhappy, divided society. It has been divided sometimes on the basis of true discrimination, and sometimes on the basis of suspicion. What we are trying to do is to set a new map for Northern Ireland in changing circumstances. As the circumstances develop, the map may, of course, need to change. I am not suggesting for one moment that ageism is more rampant in Northern Ireland than here; what I am saying is that we are trying with our colleagues there to set a new opportunity for change to do away with suspicion, which is sometimes just as corrosive and dangerous as real fact.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: Before the noble Lord sits down, I should say that his comments have encouraged me greatly. I do not distort the words of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, but for the first time the belief has been encouraged that Northern Ireland will be the trend setter. It would be no bad thing if Northern Ireland blazes the trail for all the protections to be introduced here. I would welcome that.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I entirely agree with the noble Lord's comments. I am most grateful for his generosity. This has been the position in the past, of course, not simply in the context of law but in the context of industrial development. I refer to remarkably imaginative schemes to which both governments have been party. I am most grateful to him for that support.
The Earl of Dudley: Will the noble Lord, Lord Williams, confirm that there is no legal difficulty posed by the Bill standing in the way of service by the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not believe there to be any.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I find myself much in sympathy with what the Minister has said. As he said, the purpose of the Bill is to implement the agreement. Indeed, if we were to accept some of these amendments,

1747
which go way beyond it, desirable though they may be in extending the protection as regards various rights, we would step outside the Long Title of the Bill, or at least we would be in danger of doing that.
I am reassured to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that the other forms of discrimination are already outlawed as regards public bodies and others by the common law and by other statute law. The Minister is quite right to say that the nub of what we are trying to do is to tackle the religious and political discrimination which has led to 3,000 deaths and untold other agony. That is why this matter is given a high priority within the agreement and within the Bill. The other forms of discrimination, important as they are, need to be tackled in other ways. I do not believe in using this measure as a vehicle to seek a huge extension of those rights at this stage.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: On one matter at least my noble friend Lord Williams and I are totally at one. As he said, the groupings have been somewhat disorientated. Unlike many of our decisions, that is not irremediable and no doubt in due course we can rely on the Chairman of Committees to assist us in sorting that out. For the moment I am content to say that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for his great assistance in the course of this debate and for the support of my noble friends Lady Lockwood and Lady Turner and of the noble Lord, Lord Rix.
I respectfully add my voice to that of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. In this respect Northern Ireland is a trend setter. The people of Northern Ireland know of some of the problems which can occur when matters of this kind go wrong. That may not be anyone's fault. It may be due to the inevitability of certain historical processes. They know better than most that that can happen. It is perhaps fitting that one day history will accord to them the label of pioneers in this respect.
For that reason, I accept what my noble friend says. There is a limit to what can be achieved in any one piece of legislation. We cannot put right every human wrong; we cannot dry every human tear. I would be content if what we achieved was to implement what was in the agreement.
It seems to me that there are some things which are so obvious that if someone were asked, "Why aren't they in the agreement?", the answer would be, "Because they are too obvious to need saying". I should have thought that that was true of two matters in particular. One is indirect discrimination. If my noble friend will allow me to say so, it is rather curious that it is proposed to include indirect discrimination, as I understand it, in relation to goods and services, but it is perfectly all right, so far as this legislation is concerned, to discriminate indirectly in relation to the provision of other matters which are within the control of public authorities. That is something I do not understand. The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and others are better placed than I to say whether it is the case. I should have thought that if you had said to those who gathered at the table to produce the agreement, "You have not mentioned indirect discrimination. Is that because you think indirect discrimination is all right?" the answer
1748
would be, "Of course we are not in favour of indirect discrimination, we want to abolish it. But surely you don't have to say it in the agreement. When we come to the more precise draftsmanship of legislation, we would expect to see it there". That is what I should have thought they would say.
In relation to the distinction between the duty not to discriminate in Clause 60 and the duty not to incite other people to discriminate in Clause 61, I confess again that that is a distinction which, first, I find hard to follow, and, secondly, I find difficult to envisage as arising from the agreement. I cannot believe that those who sat down to produce the agreement would have said, "Of course we don't believe public authorities should discriminate, but we don't care if they incite other people to discriminate". They would have said, "That is something which we expect to be included in the legislation". If the Government do not address that, they will miss one of the essential underlying points of the agreement. It is perfectly all right to incite people to discriminate on grounds of race, gender or dependency, but you must not incite them to discriminate on grounds of religion. It is a curious distinction and I believe that the alibi that it does not arise from the agreement does not hold water.
I appreciate that my noble friend has a difficulty. The matter does not lie entirely in his view of the logic of the legislation, but I hope that the Government will be able to think again about this. I propose to give them that opportunity. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 161 and 162 not moved.]
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 163:
Page 29, line 30, at end insert—
("() For the purposes of subsection (1), a person ("person A") discriminates against another person ("person B") on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion if—

(a) on either of those grounds person A treats person B less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons, or

(b) person A applies to person B a requirement or condition which person A applies or would apply equally to persons not of the same religious belief or political opinion as person B but—

(i) which is such that the proportion of persons of the same religious belief or of the same political opinion as person B who can comply with it is considerably smaller than the proportion of persons not of that religious belief or, as the case requires, not of that political opinion who can comply with it,

(ii) which person A cannot show to be justifiable irrespective of the religious belief or political opinion of the person to whom it is applied, and

(iii) which is to the detriment of person B because he cannot comply with it.").

The noble Lord said: We had a full debate on this issue and the matter needs to be reconsidered when we see the Government's amendment relating to goods and services to the public. I deal now with indirect religious discrimination.
As I have tried to explain, the case of Re: Amin—a 3:2 decision with strong dissent from Lord Scarman among others—decided that the goods and services to the public provision did not apply to public authorities. Therefore, if the Government are to introduce a goods and services amendment and regard Re: Amin as good law, we will have a situation where there will be an obligation not to discriminate directly or indirectly in providing goods and services to the public except in relation to the non-marketplace functions of public authorities. That would be bizarre and would certainly annoy the Catholic bishops who have made representations in the educational field about the need for indirect religious discrimination to be covered. It would annoy the minority community on the receiving end of religious discrimination by public authorities if there was a narrow definition.
I cannot believe that the politicians in Northern Ireland or in the Irish Republic would wish that. I hope that they will be able to reconsider the matter in the light of this debate as well as the Government. I shall not move the amendment, but leave it at that and hope that further consideration can be given to it.
[Amendment No. 163 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 164 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 165 to 168:
Page 29, line 44, leave out from ("to") to end of line 45 and insert ("any act or omission 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 30, line 1, after ("making") insert (", confirmation or approval").
Page 30, line 8, after ("making") insert (", confirmation or approval").
Page 30, line 10, after ("to") insert ("the").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 169 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment 169A:
Page 30, leave out lines 14 to 20 and insert—
("() any department, corporation or body listed in Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (departments, corporations and bodies subject to investigation);
() any body (other than a Northern Ireland department) listed in Schedule 2 to the Commissioner for Complaints (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (bodies subject to investigation);
() any department or other authority listed in Schedule 2 to the Ombudsman (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (departments and other authorities subject to investigation);").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment which deals with the question of public authorities, bringing the matter into line with Clause 60. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 170 to 173 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 62 [Unlawful oaths etc.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 174:
Page 30, leave out lines 34 to 36.
The noble Lord said: The group consisting of government Amendments Nos. 174 to 178 all relate to Clause 62. Amendment No. 174 is a simple technical amendment which removes from the Bill provisions which appear elsewhere.
Amendments Nos. 175 and 176 ensure that the ban which the clause imposes on the making of certain oaths applies to both authorities and departments. Amendment No. 177 is a technical amendment which reduces the number of words used to describe those Ministers who are subject to the clause. The term "Minister" is now defined elsewhere in the Bill. Amendment No. 178 confines actions for breach of the clause to Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I was unclear as to the origin of this clause about taking oaths and making declarations. In particular, it seemed to me that to take an oath or make a declaration is not that different from giving a pledge, which the members of the Executive and others are required to do in the terms of Schedule 5. That is taken directly from the Belfast agreement.
However, it seemed to me that under Amendment No. 174, in taking out the references to an oath or declaration installed by the Bill we were taking out the protection that would otherwise be given to that pledge, if it might be regarded as an oath or declaration. I do not know what the difference is between those three types of statement. Obviously, the pledge in Schedule 5 goes beyond the requirements of Clause 62(3). It seems to me that Amendment No. 174 is in danger of rendering the pledge unlawful under that clause. That is clearly undesirable.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Perhaps the noble Lord could help those of us who do not have the back-up that he has to identify where in the Bill the definition of "Minister" referred to in Amendment No. 178 is to be found, so that we can establish whether we support it.
Lord Dubs: I understand that lines 34 to 36, which are the subject of Amendment No. 174, are already covered by Clause 77(4)(b). All the amendments in this group relate to Clause 62 which prevents specified authorities and bodies from requiring persons to take an oath or declaration as a condition of employment of services or appointments except in certain circumstances. It largely re-enacts Section 21 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 which in turn was designed to implement paragraph 64 of the 1973 White Paper Northern Ireland Constitutional Proposals.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I had not appreciated the effect of Clause 77(4). On the face of it, we do not need either subsection (2)(a) or (b).
Lord Dubs: Amendment No. 50, agreed by the Committee last week, added a new clause before Clause 18. I believe that that is the explanation but I am not totally certain.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: That is probably the answer to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, rather than my question. Perhaps noble Lords will have the opportunity to return to these matters on Report.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 175 to 178:
Page 31, line 4, after ("any") insert ("department or").
Page 31, line 5, leave out ("(authorities") and insert ("(departments and other authorities").
Page 31, line 8, leave out from beginning to ("a") in line 10 and insert ("a Minister and").
Page 31, line 11, after ("actionable") insert ("in Northern Ireland").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 175 to 178 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 63 [Removal of restrictions on investigation into maladministration]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 179:
Page 31, line 30, after ("discrimination") insert (", or aiding or inciting any person to discriminate,').
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks slightly to widen the circumstances in which restrictions on investigations into complaints should not apply. As a result of the amendment the restrictions will not apply to investigations into aiding and inciting discrimination and investigations into discrimination itself.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 64 negatived.
Clause 65 [Participation in NSMC and BIC]:
[Amendment No. 180 not moved.]
Clause 65 negatived.
Clause 66 [Attendance at BIIC meetings]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs: I beg to oppose the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lord Hylton: Is one to understand that there will be government amendments at Report stage to replace all of the three clauses that are in process of being deleted?
Lord Dubs: If they are not dealt with elsewhere there will be further amendments.
Clause 66 negatived.
Clause 67 [Recognition etc. of implementation bodies]:
[Amendment No. 181 not moved.]
Lord Dubs: I beg to oppose the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I wonder whether this is an opportunity for the noble Lord to refer to cross-border bodies, which are the subject of this clause and which we discussed earlier when inserting the new clause to replace this one. There was some confusion at least in my mind, and perhaps in the mind of others, as to the exact legal status of cross-border bodies. If the noble Lord is not in a position to respond now, clearly there will be other opportunities at later stages of the Bill, but here is one opportunity.
Lord Dubs: I appreciate the opportunity that the noble Lord gives me, but I am not sure that there is very much to add to what I said last time. If there is, I should like to take a future opportunity to do so.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am very grateful for the assurance given by the Minister because some noble Lords have had second and third thoughts on these matters. It would be very helpful to have a debate at a later stage of the Bill.
Clause 67 negatived.
Clause 68 agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 182:
After Clause 68, insert the following new clause—

LEGISLATIVE POWER TO REMEDY ULTRA VIRES ACTS
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may by order make such provision as he considers necessary or expedient in consequence of—

(a) any provision of an Act of the Assembly which is not, or may not be, within the legislative competence of the Assembly; or

(b) any purported exercise by a Minister or Northern Ireland department of his or its functions which is not, or may not be, a valid exercise of those functions.

(2) An order under this section may—

(a) make provision having retrospective effect;

(b) make consequential or supplementary provision, including provision amending or repealing any Northern Ireland legislation, or any instrument made under such legislation;

(c) make transitional or saving provision.").

Lord Renton: I do not know whether this matter has already been discussed. My reading of the Marshalled List is that this matter is due for discussion along with Amendments Nos. 168A and 205. I had hoped that the Committee would receive an explanation from the noble Lord. If one compares the powers given in this clause with those given to the courts in deciding legislative matters that may be ultra vires it is very strange. Amendment No. 182 gives the Secretary of State a very

1753
unusual power. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide full justification for it; I do not believe that he will find that very easy.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I have very great sympathy with the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton. It is an extremely powerful provision whereby the Secretary of State can overrule anything that he believes is not or may not be within the legislative competence of the Assembly. Amendment No. 186A which is grouped with this amendment is a matter of discrimination against a small but distinguished body of persons. It provides that no member of the Judicial Committee shall be a person who is or has been Lord Chancellor. I believe that a little explanation is required as to why not only the present Lord Chancellor but all former Lord Chancellors are being discriminated against in this way. I do not know that many of them would often wish to sit on the Judicial Committee, but it is a very direct piece of discrimination against a small but distinguished class of person.
Lord Desai: I too am rather puzzled by Amendment No. 182. Not being a lawyer, I should explain my puzzlement. We have debated the Scotland Bill and understand what the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council does. We now come to this Bill and the same provision is to be applied except that the Secretary of State has much greater powers in this respect than in the Scotland Bill. I had thought that one of the distinctions between the Scotland Bill and anything to do with Northern Ireland was that we were not devolving powers to Northern Ireland but simply reviving what happened long ago and has lain dormant.
The question I wish to ask the Minister is this. Were these the provisions applicable to the 1973 Act or the 1920 Act; or is it a modification of the previous powers of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Perhaps I may express our misgivings on Amendment No. 182 as regards the powerful terms—I use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Cope—in which the provision is worded and the strength of the powers it gives to the Secretary of State to overrule ultra vires Acts of the Assembly or Ministers of the Assembly. I find myself deeply unhappy with the requiring of a power to make retrospective legislation. If I read the amendment aright, there seems no requirement that the Secretary of State's order should be directly linked to an ultra vires Act, and no reference to who determines what is ultra vires. It would be helpful if the Minister will clarify why the provision is so strongly worded.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred to Amendment No. 186A. I made it plain earlier to the Committee that we shall not move Amendments Nos. 184 to 189, which should have included Amendment No. 186A. It has popped out of the grouping. We shall return to that
1754
matter on Report. On the fascinating point about the Lord Chancellor, the noble Lord will have to await the next thrilling instalment on Report.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he or the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has applied his mind to the conflicts that could arise between the judicial powers given in the detailed Schedule 11 and the powers—I would call them dictatorial—in the new clause we are now discussing.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My noble friend Lord McConnell confirms my recollection that this kind of power never seemed to be exercised during the period of the Stormont Parliament. I wonder whether the power resided, although it may not have been used, in the Government of Ireland Act 1920. The only body which could have exercised any such power would have been the Government, the Parliament and possibly the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I was not going to speak, but since the noble Lord, Lord Renton, invites me to do so, I shall not resist. I, too, am troubled about Amendment No. 182. I am troubled because I had thought that the scheme of the Act was to give to the courts the function of deciding what was or was not within the devolved legislative competence of the Assembly; and, sensibly, to depoliticise the matter by way of judicial review.
I find this puzzling about Amendment No. 182. It states that:
"The Secretary of State may by order make such provision as he considers necessary or expedient"—
"expedient" being a notoriously vague term—
"in consequence of any provision of an Act of the Assembly which is not, or may not be, within the legislative competence of the Assembly".
I can understand the phrase,
"which is not…;within the legislative competence of the Assembly".
If a court of competent jurisdiction—let us say the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—decided that an Act of the Assembly was outside its competence, if it were necessary (I do not think that it would be) one can imagine a ministerial consequential order. But I do not understand why it is envisaged that it is to be left to the Minister to speculate without a court ruling as to whether something is within legislative competence, and then to make an order which will immediately cause huge political controversy between the central government and the devolved government and Assembly. I should have thought that that would be a most unwise power to keep.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. If there were a decision by the Secretary of State that some matter were not within the legislative competence, and an order flowed from that, could it be the subject of judicial review?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: If the individual acted perversely, completely arbitrarily, it might be capable of

1755
being subject to judicial review; and if he made an order with retrospective effect that breached the Human Rights Bill, that also could be subject to review.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am so sorry for any apparent discourtesy. I had not realised that the Committee would progress quite so swiftly. I was taking detailed instructions on a later amendment because something seemed to have gone wrong. Bearing in mind the indication of the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, I shall not speak to that matter which will be dealt with on a later occasion.
The provision is to deal with the possibility that the devolved Assembly may have acted beyond its power. In the circumstances we have tried to follow the Scottish and Welsh examples for dealing with issues arising under the Bill's provisions, in particular the framework in Clauses 68 to 70 and Schedule 11.
The Committee is quite right. Amendment No. 182 inserts a new clause directly equivalent to Clause 94 of the Scotland Bill providing a legislative power to remedy ultra vires Acts. Where an Act of the Assembly, or an exercise of executive functions, is found to be legally defective I have to remind Members of the Committee that there may need to be the opportunity take action to ensure that third parties who may have acted in entire innocence and good faith, and relied on the legislation or the action subsequently impugned, do not suffer unjustly. There could be wide, harsh, consequences in the circumstances envisaged.
We wished to be sure that this was appropriate in our present context. Having reflected on it, we think that it is justifiable here, as it was in the Scotland Bill. I recognise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. This is a power of substantial significance and an order under this clause by virtue of Amendment No. 205 would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure at Westminster.
In answer to the specific question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, I believe that this was not the power which existed in 1920. If I am wrong about that—the research had to be done rather quickly—I shall correct it of course.
Lord Renton: Can the Minister give me some guidance? There is obviously a dual opportunity of putting right ultra vires legislation of the new Northern Ireland Assembly. Under Clause 68 and Schedule 11, the courts are given considerable powers to deal with such a matter. Is there to be any kind of division of function between the power of the Secretary of State under the new clause and the power of the court under Schedule 11? It seems to me wrong to have both systems available. What would be the justification for having that with the possibility of conflict between the decision of the court and the decision of the Secretary of State when using this power?
Lord Desai: Perhaps I may pursue the point I made. From what my noble friend said, it is clear that these powers did not exist under the 1920 or 1973 legislation. My understanding has been throughout the Bill, and as regards the parallel question on the Scotland Bill, that
1756
we are not devolving power to the Assembly; we are restoring something that was suspended some time ago. If I am wrong, I shall stand corrected. Suddenly, a drastic new power has been given to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I should like to hear stronger justification for it than I have heard so far. It is a troublesome matter and politically sensitive.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I heard what the Minister said about the Scotland Bill. I am by no means an expert on it, but a quick glance reinforces my understanding that, if a Bill in the Scottish parliament is thought to be outside the legislative competence the Advocate General, the Lord Advocate or the Attorney General will refer it to the Judicial Committee for decision. Furthermore, that must be done before the Bill becomes an Act so that the matter can be clarified before the legislation comes into force. Perhaps I have missed a provision to which the Minister will draw my attention.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I have been puzzled because we have been told that the Scotland Bill is a separate devolution settlement and that this Bill springs from the Good Friday agreement. I see nothing in the agreement which authorises or requires the Secretary of State to have these draconian powers. Perhaps I have not read the relevant part of the Belfast agreement, but I have looked in particular at the role of the Secretary of State in paragraph 32 and at the role of the Westminster Parliament in paragraph 33 and elsewhere.
Given that it is a tailor-made devolution settlement for Northern Ireland rather than a read-across from Scotland, will the Minister indicate where in the Belfast agreement it was thought necessary to give political override powers to the Minister without guidance from the courts or an opinion that an issue is outside legislative competence, or simply that it might not be within legislative competence?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Those are all reasonable questions. One cannot find spelt out in the Belfast agreement either the ultra vires judicial remedy or the Secretary of State remedy. Perhaps I may draw together one or two thoughts, in particular the most interesting question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I may be responding per incuriam because I am wondering whether there is an answer to the question.
Speaking immediately, it seems to me that one should look at Clause 68, which states "Schedule 11 …; shall have effect". Turning to Schedule 11, it seems that one has the opportunity for a judicial determination as to whether a particular Act of the Assembly, or a purported or proposed exercise of a function, is intra vires or not. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, is right is saying that that would be a judicial determination. However, I tried to point out that if there had been a legislative action in the Assembly and widespread adverse consequences to individuals who had acted in good faith one might need the Secretary of State's power to give effect retrospectively to the determination of Parliament following the affirmative resolution procedure.
I do not believe that it would be open to the judiciary to put things right retrospectively. Therefore, I shall think and take advice carefully on these points, because

1757
they are not light points. It may well be that the Secretary of State, on the affirmative resolution procedure, may need the opportunity to introduce an order having retrospective effect. In answer to the theme developed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, it may be that it would be more apt to leave questions of compensation to the Secretary of State to deal with by affirmative order rather than asking the judges to do something which they would not necessarily have the power to do. That is a thought and I need to think about it further.
Lord Renton: I am grateful to the Minister for the consideration which, without previous notice, he has given to this important constitutional question.
As I mentioned at the outset, I am concerned about the possibility of a conflict of decision between the judiciary acting under Schedule 11 and the Secretary of State acting under the proposed new clause. There is a serious possibility which must be considered. It becomes even more important, and perhaps could lead to a difficulty, bearing in mind that the power given to the Secretary of State under the new clause is to be retrospective.
In view of what the Minister has said and the views expressed on all sides of the Committee, I suggest that, instead of passing the new clause now, the Government should take it away and consider the matter still further. It is quite clear that the Minister has not had an opportunity of considering all the implications.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I support the noble Lord, Lord Renton. There is a lack of connection between Clause 68 and Amendment No. 182. I understand that a judicial decision under Schedule 11 would trigger the use of these exceptional powers by the Secretary of State. However, there is no connection between the two as we are being invited to pass them. There is a raft of extensive new powers for the Secretary of State which are not connected to the trigger which would make him choose to exercise them under Clause 68. I am delighted to hear that the Minister wishes to consider the matter further and that is well worth while, but would it not be sensible to withdraw the amendment now?
Lord Hylton: I believe that I have found in the Belfast agreement the passage that is relevant to the amendment. It appears on page 8 at paragraph 26(d) and refers to:
"mechanisms, based on arrangements proposed for the Scottish Parliament, to ensure suitable co-ordination, and to avoid disputes, between the Assembly and the Westminster Parliament".
I believe that that would call on the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland to refer a suspect Act or work of the Assembly while it is still before the Assembly as a Bill. I hope that that would prevent the kind of damage to innocent and unsuspecting third parties that has been referred to by the Minister.
Lord Renton: I am glad that the noble Lord has quoted the Belfast agreement, but, with great respect,
1758
the power suggested for the Attorney General to exercise does not resolve the conflict mentioned by me and other Members of the Committee under the Bill. It is the conflict between the powers given to the judiciary under Clause 68 and Schedule 11 and the powers proposed to be given to the Secretary of State under the new clause. I do not believe that that potential conflict is resolved.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I do not believe that it resolves that potential difficulty. If we are, under the agreement, to rely on the Scottish precedent, we need more detail on exactly what part of the Scotland Bill it is that we are supposed to be reproducing with this new clause.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It is Clause 94.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I shall study that but if the noble Lord is going to accede to the very sensible suggestion of my noble friend Lord Renton, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, we shall all have an opportunity to reconsider the position and discuss it on a subsequent occasion.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for pointing out page 8, paragraph 26(d). That refers to mechanisms to avoid disputes. It may well be that the noble Lord is absolutely right. His example was a Bill in course of passage. I must try to be as helpful and as candid as possible with the Committee. Amendment No. 182 deals with,
"any purported exercise by a Minister or Northern Ireland department of his or its functions".
The answer is in Clause 94 of the Scotland Bill, which has already been approved by this Chamber. However, Members of the Committee have been quite courteous in asking me to think again. In all scruple, the proper course is to withdraw the amendment at this stage. That is an unusual course to take but that does not matter because I am indicating, I hope fairly plainly, that I shall bring back something in this form perhaps with an explanation which will satisfy your Lordships. However, it is better for me to withdraw the amendment at this stage; to have a further thought; to take further advice; and, as I have said without discourtesy, I am making it plain that I am likely to bring back an amendment in virtually this form but it is only courteous to the Committee to do that.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: That is an extremely wise and sensible decision at this stage, particularly bearing in mind that Clause 94 of the Scotland Bill does not give any equivalent powers to the Secretary of State or anybody of that sort at all. It is all to do with the legislative power to remedy ultra vires acts within Scotland. However, as the Minister said, we shall return to that at a later stage. We look forward to receiving a similar but no doubt improved proposed new clause in due course and improved arguments in support of it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 69 [Powers of courts or tribunals to vary retrospective decisions]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 33, line 42, leave out subsection (7).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage of this Bill begin again not before 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Housing in England
7.33 p.m.
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take to improve the quality of the housing stock following the recent publication of the English House Condition Survey for 1996.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am both delighted and disappointed to see so many noble Lords taking part in this dinner hour debate. I am disappointed because I know many noble Lords taking part could say a great deal more if they had more than four minutes in which to do so. But I am delighted, because housing is often rather low on the agenda, in particular on the political agenda. Therefore, I am delighted that we have so many people taking part, although I am disappointed that there is to be only one contribution from the Conservative Benches.
For too long there has been a lack of what I would call a truly comprehensive housing strategy. The survey that we are debating this evening, which was undertaken in 1996—the English House Condition Survey published earlier this year—shows only too clearly that lack of cohesion across all sectors of housing policy.
The reports are published every five years. They not only outline the state of our houses but also the characteristics of the people living in them. Therefore, they provide us with a very clear picture of who is living in the poorest housing in this country and why.
I intend to highlight some of the findings. Although I have 10 minutes and your Lordships only have four, I shall still be rushed. I want to focus in particular on health and housing and, if I have time, I wish to touch upon social exclusion and also on the particular problems of the elderly who are living in poor housing. My noble friend Lord Ezra will deal in some detail, because he is an expert in the area, with problems in the private sector, which are very great.
The most outstanding aspect of the report is that it shows that between 1991 and 1996 very little changed. I shall highlight some of the problems which we are facing. The report says that 1.5 million dwellings in England—that is one in 13—have failed the statutory standard of fitness for human habitation. One million of
1760
those houses were the same houses referred to in 1991. Although 0.5 million have been improved, another 0.5 million now fall into that category, so the total is the same. To do anything meaningful about it, the backlog of money that needs to be spent is in the region of £8 billion. The private rented sector remains of very serious concern, with one in five dwellings unfit for human habitation.
What is also slightly disturbing is that the majority of the unfit dwellings are owner-occupied. In the social housing sector—local authorities and housing associations—there are 300,000 dwellings which are unfit, with a bill to accompany that of £1 billion. But empty properties of whatever tenure tend to be unfit properties.
The other really serious aspect demonstrated by the survey is that the problem is much worse in the private rented sector, where nearly two-thirds of private rented sector dwellings have at least one problem requiring urgent action.
It is interesting to note who lives in that worst housing. Six groups have been highlighted. The six groups of people most likely to live in poor housing include households where the head of household is unemployed, a student or in part-time employment; lone parent households; households with people under 60 with a long-term sick or disabled person present; ethnic minority households with people aged under 60, especially those from Pakistan and Bangladesh; younger households aged 16 to 24, particularly those living in the private rented sector; and older people living alone or those headed by a person aged 75 or over.
The findings show clearly that the most disadvantaged in our country live in the poorest housing. I should have liked time to talk about social exclusion because the findings in the report suggest that many of those people suffer social exclusion. I know that the Government have recognised that, particularly in relation to homelessness. I hope that as the Minister has slightly longer than me to reply, he may mention that in his winding-up speech.
I wish to turn now to the connection between poor health and housing. The very first public housing in this country and the legislation to deal with housing was born out of people's concern for health. There is a growing call to return to a closer link between health and housing. It has been suggested that changes in health and local government responsibilities when local government was reorganised in 1974 led to a distancing of the relationship between health and housing. I know that health visitors, who face some of those problems daily, are particularly voicing that view.
Joint working across a variety of departments and agencies is essential if we are to attack the health problems which arise from our poor housing in this country. Studies by health visitors—and I acknowledge my gratitude to Marie Vickers from the Community Practitioners and Health Visitors' Association for the information—have shown and highlighted the cost to the health service and to society of the emotional stress which is suffered by people living in poor housing.
For children living in poor housing there are implications for their development. There are the implications of poor arrangements for the preparation and eating of food, particularly in the poorest private rented sector housing. There is also the connection between damp and mould and respiratory conditions. That has recently been highlighted by detailed studies by Peter Ambrose of Sussex University who has looked at problems in Stepney.
In addition to looking at more cross-departmental working at all levels of government, there is clearly also a need for the Government to look more closely at the revenue costs of health and other public services because we have failed to invest enough in decent housing in this country. The longer we put off taking a closer look at this, the longer we continue to try to keep up with the ever-growing revenue costs which are due to the lack of past capital investment.
I now turn to the particular problem of the number of elderly people living in poor housing. I am grateful to Age Concern for information that it has gleaned from the English House Condition Survey. Warm homes are particularly important to elderly people. Elderly people can be particularly susceptible to illnesses caused by damp and cold housing, such as bronchitis and hypothermia. This country has the worst record of deaths arising in winter, with people dying from hypothermia in their hundreds every year.
Although we now know from the House Condition Survey that 90 per cent. of homes in this country have central heating, looking at pre-1990 homes, 20 per cent. of owner-occupied homes and 40 per cent. of private tenants do not have central heating. That figures rises to 44 per cent. if you look at the private rented sector. In addition, 93 per cent. of homes have loft insulation, but only 14 per cent. actually meet the current building regulations on loft insulation.
Perhaps I can give your Lordships some of the statistics about where elderly people are living to illustrate the importance of this problem. Of the 2.7 million households living in poor housing over a million are older households. Single older people are more likely to live in poor housing. One in five over the age of 75 live in poor housing and nearly a quarter of people over 75 who live alone are in poor housing. Thirty per cent. of people over 85, some of the poorest in our country, live in very poor housing. Older people are significantly more likely to live in homes requiring essential modernisation.
As regards heating and insulation, I applaud the announcement made by the Government this morning that they are looking at holding a campaign to encourage people to save energy. That is important, but I ask the Government whether they will greatly increase the support for action under the Home Energy Conservation Act and under the home energy efficiency schemes? The amounts spent on those are small, considering the costs to the health bill for elderly people and environmental costs.
I end where I began. It is the most disadvantaged who live in the worst housing. Tonight I hope that we can have assurances from the Government that as we go into the new millennium the situation will rapidly be reversed and that we shall not have a standstill each time we have a report about house conditions in England. It is a situation that concerns the people in our society who are most disadvantaged.
7.44 p.m.
Baroness Goudie: My Lords, housing is an issue with which I am very familiar, both from my experience as a local councillor in Brent and from my work with an inner city housing association. It is a distressing and shameful fact that as we approach the millennium one home in 13 in England is officially classified as unfit for human habitation. As a direct consequence of housing policies pursued for the past two decades, one and a half million homes are uninhabitable. Half a million of those homes fell into that state between 1991 and 1996. The cutbacks in direct government support for housebuilding and renovation over the past 20 years have left us with a housing stock of rotting social housing, most of which is in the private rented sector, and an enormous backlog of maintenance. The longer those properties are left, the more it will cost to make them habitable.
We cannot disregard the social consequences of the situation. The 1996 English House Condition Survey showed how poverty and poor housing go together. There is also a strong association between poor housing and poor health. It is disturbing to discover that during the 1990s lone parents and people from ethnic minorities were increasingly being housed in sub-standard accommodation—minorities condemned to live in condemned homes. That is not the basis for social cohesion or social progress.
The Government's priorities on health and education are capable of achievement only if families have decent housing. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken to tackle the crisis. The release by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister of capital receipts held by local authorities will provide a massive boost to public housing. That initiative will provide more than £800 million for local authorities over two years. As part of the Government's comprehensive spending review, a further £3.6 billion will be provided to help councils refurbish and repair at least 300,000 houses.
However, there is a particular problem in inner London. It is only since 1986 that building regulations, which apply throughout the rest of England and Wales, have covered inner London. Before 1986 many houses built for single-family occupation were converted into flats without provision for sound insulation, so tenants cannot avoid hearing the normal activities of their neighbours. Yet, even after 1986, inner London social housing continued to suffer because of the lack of capital resources for improvements.
While the previous government cut back on capital investment in housing, they also stopped councils from finding alternative means of funding housing projects. Their changes in relation to housing benefit prevented revenue from being raised through rents at a time when

1763
ring-fencing of the housing revenue account prevented this from being utilised for house repairs and investment. So inner London housing continues to be in desperate need of soundproofing to bring it up to an acceptable standard.
I welcome the start that the Government have made to remedying the situation and I look forward to further measures which will accelerate this remedial action.
7.47 p.m.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for bringing this matter before your Lordships' House as it affords me an opportunity to raise a number of points about my own experience as a councillor in Tower Hamlets. Many of your Lordships will be aware that about 90 per cent of councillors' surgeries are taken up by housing-related issues, and as a councillor I often felt paralysed, despite the desperation suffered by families.
Poor housing is defined in the English House Condition Survey 1996 report as that which is unfit, in substantial disrepair or requires essential modernisation. The report states that households which are the most likely to live in poor housing are—not to my surprise—those detailed by the noble Baroness. Among others, it mentions that the Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities are suffering in desperate conditions. The report says that since 1991 there has been a reduction in the proportion of households living in unmodernised homes, but it states that during the same period no significant changes have occurred to the situations experienced by the same group of people.
Many of your Lordships will be aware that during the period 1986 to 1990 the housing allocation in Tower Hamlets became synonymous with race. I wish to talk about that for a minute or two. Policies were deliberately initiated to keep out specific parts of the communities. Many of your Lordships will remember vividly the impact of the sons and daughters scheme based on residency points, thereby discriminating against Bangladeshis. Also, the council only agreed to newbuilds consisting of smaller properties—again discriminating against the Bangladeshi families; and there was selective targeting of resources for environmental improvements away from where Bengali families lived. Of course, who can forget the proposal to ship the homeless on the shore of the river Thames? The final impact felt was in the election of the National Front councillor in the Isle of Dogs.
Although somewhat belated, I bring this matter before the House because the housing crisis was significantly worsened by the policies enacted by the then Liberal council's stringent and discriminatory period of office and the impact is still felt. Since taking charge in 1994, the Labour council has worked extremely hard to repair some of the past damages. Our 1,000 homes promise was so welcomed by the housing associations in the borough that the council was able to deliver well in excess of that. Also, we were even able to re-negotiate with the LDDC to assist us in building new properties which had previously been said to be unthinkable. That was in exchange for land. The question is obvious: had
1764
we worked effectively as a team in previous years our part of the survey in the report may have told a different story.
There are approximately 76,000 dwellings in Tower Hamlets for which substantial investment is required; that is to say, around £450 million. The estimated disrepair costs only take account of the external repair needs of the council stock. Nothing is said about providing modern kitchens, bathrooms, installing central heating and so forth.
Tower Hamlets has a significant problem of overcrowding—exacerbated by the eight years of stringent and discriminatory housing policies by the then Liberal council, as I indicated earlier. And for many in the community the appearance of the LDDC ushered new hope of having access to a larger housing stock. However, while some of Docklands is characterised by new modern private apartments, other areas of the borough remain with old, run-down private housing.
With over 20,000 families on the waiting list and the historical baggage of which my noble friends and I have spoken, it is of extreme importance that this Government begin to address the housing crisis in the public and private sectors.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this is a timely debate. Like many others in this Chamber, I feel passionate about housing and am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing this Unstarred Question before us today.
The English House Conditions Survey is an important quinquennial audit of social and economic trends in housing. This one, which features five of the six years of the last government, indicates that home ownership growth is slowing; that a disproportionate number of unemployed people live in the private rented sector; that lone parents are over represented and that the economically inactive are finding themselves pushed into that sector of housing.
The good news is that the stock is not getting worse. Only 1 per cent. lack basic amenities and 90 per cent. have access to central heating. Sadly, unfitness levels remain at the 1991 level. We need to get behind the Government's programme for reinvestment and renewal. I would argue that it is not just for government to act; we must all take responsibility. Government locally and nationally and both the public and private sectors must act together as partners.
That said, the Government's record to date makes impressive reading. They set out a framework for action and investment. Over the lifetime of this Parliament almost £5 billion-worth of extra investment will take place—£800 million of that from capital receipts, nearly £4 million released as a result of the CRS review. But it is not just about money; it is the freedom to act and invest across all sectors that is so valuable. It is also a restatement of councils' strategic housing purpose that is important. That is something that was taken away by the last government. There is also a continuous

1765
commitment to improvement through HIP/Best Value, private finance initiative and the new housing inspectorate to come.
I am heartened too by action on rents. The promise of action to prevent growth in the gulf between local authorities and the registered social landlord sector is extremely welcome. We are promised matched action in the private sector, all of which will make an important and significant difference.
The English House Condition Survey points the way to better targeting of resources and a clearer focus to public policy. Coming from Brighton and Hove, I believe that we need stronger and firmer action on leasehold reform and the creation of commonhold. All too often in my borough we have had to put up with second rate and third quality private sector housing, perhaps best epitomised by the treatment of that once beautiful Grade 2 starred listed building, Embassy Court, designed by the art deco builder Wells Coates. In that dwelling reside 73 tenants in appalling conditions fit only for the owner of the company to make a tidy profit—perhaps £1 million over the past decade. They live in housing which is not fit to benefit from that name.
In my borough 18 per cent. live in the private rented sector; 50 per cent. occupy pre-1990 housing; 13 per cent. of that housing is unfit; and 35,000 people live in homes of multiple occupation. The conditions in which those people live should not be tolerated in the present day and age. We have a strategy to deal with it. We have managed to generate enthusiasm from landlords in the private sector, estate agents, solicitors and mortgage companies to act to arrest that decline. We need more of that strategy nationally. Since 1993 we have brought back into use 1,800 properties from the private rented sector and prevented 400 families from being evicted and becoming homeless.
If we can see that translated into national and effective action as the Government intend, the future for the private rented sector and private housing generally will be far brighter, especially in light of the Government's new and determinedly interventionist strategy.
7.56 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, for tabling this Unstarred Question. It is obviously based on her many years' experience and interest in this sector. I declare an interest as chairman of the Housing Corporation, which regulates the registered social landlords.
In that capacity, in the past year since I was appointed, I have been going around the country seeing some of the appalling conditions in which we expect our citizens to live, usually the most vulnerable groups. The environment in which they live affects their whole lives. Indeed, the noble Baroness referred to the health situation. Today, coming up to the millennium, 1 million children in Britain live in housing declared by the survey to be unfit for occupation. That is quite an indictment of today's society.
1766
The Housing Corporation regulates 1 million homes and, as the survey shows, they are in the best condition, need the fewest repairs and have the lowest number of faults. That is perhaps not too surprising; it is the newest sector within the whole housing field. But we require—I believe rightly—that maintenance of stock should take preference over expansion and new build. We must install a maintenance programme. We need greater freedom to spend money on major repairs on pre-1988 housing. Around £350 million will be spent over the next four years, plus an annual amount of between £80 million and £90 million.
It is true that bad stock condition is at the heart of much of our inner city decay. When we look at where we have a grip on those issues, we see that it has a profound effect on the quality of people's lives. I shall refer to the Holly Street development in London—everyone seems to know about it. Some of us perhaps get a bit fed up of it being held up as the one shining light in this sector. There is much more going on throughout the country, but not enough, as the survey shows.
The housing association put £20 million into the Holly Street development, being only one of the partners. There is also the local authority and the developers. The result of that investment meant that calls to the police dropped by two-thirds; crime itself dropped; calls to the hospital dropped by 20 per cent. and GP appointments time needed from the families of that community dropped by 30 per cent. That is a very good return on investment in the condition of the stock in any specific sector. We can see that if that was repeated throughout the country it would have a very positive effect on the lives of our citizens and their communities.
In view of the enormous amount of money which has been spent by all governments over the years, it is an appalling indictment that there has not been money available for repairs. Councils were not able to use their capital receipts to invest in repairs to their property. Of course, we all know of the release of the £5 billion capital receipts and the New Deal for Communities; and we welcome that. I welcome too the fact that we have a guaranteed, approved development programme for the Housing Corporation over the next three years. That is something we have not had before. We shall be targeting that money on areas where it is needed. The private sector is the one most strongly indicted by the report. Around 18 per cent. of all private rented households are worse in terms of unfitness compared with 6.7 per cent in the local authority rented sector.
It is an enormous problem. It has not arisen overnight and we shall not put it right overnight. But we have to get to grips with the problem because the conditions in which in too many areas our people are living are unacceptable in any modern society.
8 p.m.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, for raising this very important subject. As a councillor and vice-chairman of the housing board in Rotherham, I pose these questions.

1767
How useful is the stock condition survey? Is it value for money? Clearly, it provides national information across tenures, and this informs national policy and resource allocation. To a certain extent the information supplies local authority associations, local authorities and registered social landlords with benchmarks against conditions in their districts. But are those benchmarks useful?
Local authorities are becoming expert at housing strategy across tenures and have to collect local information through local stock condition surveys, housing needs assessment and local market observations, and report much of this information through the housing investment programme process. They have immense difficulty bargaining for resources to address small areas of concentrated poverty, poor health and had housing, which are typically at estate or sub-ward level.
My point is that the national stock condition, housing need and deprivation data do not depict the real problems that local authorities and local communities face. For example, the national stock condition survey is based upon a sample of 12,100 properties from the national housing stock. The sample size would barely be adequate to define stock condition in my home town of Rotherham. Certain of its assumptions are not relevant to everyday life. For example, the report's definition of four dwellings with a central heating system is:
"A housing system with a distribution system sufficient to provide heat in at least one room, in addition to the room or space containing the boiler. In this report, the definition also includes electric storage heaters which run on off-peak electricity, and programmable gas convector heaters".
I think noble Lords will agree that this is a level of heating that most people would not regard as adequate heating and does not give an accurate picture of investment needs or an appropriate benchmark. With affordable warmth being such an important factor in the health of people, surely this definition is inappropriate.
However, returning to my main theme, I question the relevance of the national survey on a regional basis. An important study by the Northern Consortium of Housing Authorities has drawn attention to the north-south divide as far as concerns housing condition, demand and vacancy rates. In low demand areas, property of all tenure is vacant and, in the language of the report, there is a high proportion of problematic void properties, many of which are unfit for human habitation through criminal damage, deterioration or lack of maintenance. It seems to me that the scale of importance of this problem is entirely missed by the report.
The attention of the House has already been drawn to the survey's finding that there has been an increase in the proportion of ethnic minorities occupying housing in the private rented sector and that others tend to be housed in local authority flats. I must ask why, in spite of equal opportunities legislation and an income maintenance system, there is apparently a failure in national housing policy which ensures that ethnic minorities tend to gain access to inferior housing.
1768
Finally, returning to the question of the survey informing the national picture and supporting the Government's thinking on addressing social exclusion, health inequalities and joined-up thinking for regeneration, I express doubts that the stock condition survey is either relevant or necessary in its present form.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I join other colleagues in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this subject. She began by expressing disappointment and pleasure. One of the pleasures is that we have increased the membership of the repertory company interested in housing. We have double figures. The noble Baroness and I remember times when housing was debated by only four or five speakers.
The noble Baroness said that housing is way down the political agenda. Sadly, by comparison with earlier days—I can go back some time—housing appears to be less important in the totality of the political agenda. But that is not true for the people who are affected by poor housing. I make the claim that good housing is not only the right of everyone but that lack of good housing is the cause of more misery in terms of family break-up, disease, ill-health, and so on. We have a national stake in improving the quality of the housing in which our people live.
I welcome the widening owner-occupied sector of the community, but, sadly, that has led to local councils and housing associations being deprived of a stock of housing that would be useful at any one time for housing those in need. Fortuitously, last week I received a letter from a former constituent, a Mrs. Howard, of 62 Chamberlain Road. I shall read the letter without embellishment. She states:
"My daughter is and has been living in damp flat for 10 years. Her ceilings had fallen down, her electricity had blown because of damp and wet walls and ceilings. She has four children …; Kane is 11 years…; Mellissa is 9, Abbey is 3, and Matthew is fifteen months. They have been in hospital, having asthma, and have cold and flu all the time. The wallpaper has fallen off every time she decorates. She has had damp course and was told it was unfit for anyone. She has a convector. Water has run down the walls from the roof".
She goes on to say:
"My daughter has pains in her legs, back and arms through the damp. I have sat there of a night and been wet and gone home and been ill myself. The children should not have to live like this. She has letters. Please would you see her flat".
Letters like that make me weep real tears, as they did when I was a Member of Parliament and met people living in those conditions. We need to do something about it. I say to the Minister, who has our goodwill, that he and his colleagues should attempt to improve the grants and the moneys given to the Housing Corporation.
The Housing Corporation was the main housing instrument of the previous government, who denuded and deprived local councils. All of their work was done through the Housing Corporation. Yet, over the past five years the money given to it was reduced from in excess of £2 billion to below £700 million. That is a scandal and a disgrace. The position is in the process of being

1769
reversed and, by the release of council housing receipts, councils will get more money. However, at the end of the day, more money needs to be found by the Government in one way or another to enable the Housing Corporation and councils to do their job.
Today I received a press release from the Federation of Master Builders. In it, Mr. Derrick Ovington, the Federation's national president, says:
"Public sector workloads reported by our members are in decline compared with a year ago…; This has been the trend for the last six months, yet we read about increased orders by the public sector. It prompts me to ask just where is the money going?".
I want to encourage the Minister to recognise the breadth of knowledge displayed in the debate. He has some good friends behind him in this matter—but not so many in front of him—and I ask him to look upon the debate as a launching pad for providing more money to improve the housing stock of this country.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as a friend in front of the Minister, I should like to add my four minutes' worth to this important debate. I should declare an interest. I am president of the National Home Improvement Council. Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I am indebted to my noble friend Lady Maddock for introducing this subject so effectively. I have been much impressed by the speeches of other noble Lords from their experience in this subject.
What is quite clear is that the survey has shown that there has been no improvement in the quality of England's housing stock. The use of the poor housing standard to which the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, referred, shows that there are 2.8 million dwellings in this country which come in the poor housing category out of the 20 million in total, or approaching 15 per cent. This is a horrific total and, as far as I can tell, far worse than in any other Western European country.
It seems to me that the situation in which we are with this relatively high level of poor housing must have led successive governments to decide that we need to build another 4.4 million houses in order to meet housing needs. Here I must say that I fully share the views expressed so effectively by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, that too little regard has been paid to refurbishment and repair and too much resource has been put, and is still being put, into new house-build which is bound to spill over into rural communities, whatever efforts are made to limit it. This is a crucially important issue.
At the present time something like £3 billion of public expenditure is devoted to housing, and this £3 billion more or less keeps the situation under control but does not improve it. The Government have committed themselves under the spending review to raise this progressively over the next three years to £5.5 billion. This will undoubtedly help the situation and will enable us, I hope, to see when the next review is carried out that some improvement has at long last been achieved.
However, the difficulty is that the bulk of the expenditure has been devoted to public sector housing: yet the bulk of the problem lies in the private sector.
1770
Seventy per cent. of the homes in this country are owner occupied and a further 9 per cent. is private rented property. It is in that last category, as many noble Lords have said, that the worst problems arise. So far as I can tell, only about 25 per cent. of the expenditure on housing committed by the Government is going to go into the private sector, whereas well over 80 per cent. of the problem lies there. I think this is the essential problem. Something serious has got to be done to try to stimulate, incite and support the owner-occupiers and landlords to improve the standards of their housing.
It seems to me that the progressive reduction in the level of discretionary grants is something that needs to be reversed very urgently. I feel also that fiscal measures need to be taken to stimulate private householders to improve their properties, and I think that a great deal of thought needs to be given to the thorny problem of how to stimulate private landlords to do likewise. I know it is not going to be easy, but unless a variety of measures of this sort are devised to deal with the problem where it essentially lies, in the private sector, we shall continue to have a very large proportion of poor housing in this country.
8.13 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, for giving us the opportunity to have this debate tonight. If she did have a slight swing at the fact that I was the only one on this Bench at that stage, perhaps I may remind her that the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, who cannot be here tonight, has in fact consistently put down Questions on empty houses and on other housing matters.
Perhaps I may now—because time is short—turn quickly to the report. It has highlighted many issues covered already by other speakers tonight, so I shall not go over the same ground. I should like to touch on one or two matters. One is the increased number of vacant dwellings, which was highlighted in the report. Secondly, I should like to refer to the conversion of flats which are in bad repair. I think that the whole issue of flats is one particular item that we need to look at. The report was also critical of the housing stock held by local authorities, as well as of the fact that, with local authorities, re-lets take up to eight weeks to complete, whereas registered social landlords turn round their housing within six weeks. There is also the fact that 80,000 council houses are in fact vacant.
I do understand what other noble Lords have said: there is a big problem within our housing provision. I should also like to raise one or two other issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, spoke of the importance of housing associations and the role that they play. I should like, if I may, to highlight—because I come from Leicester—the very exciting project which has happened on Bede Island, where government money put up by the previous government in City Challenge, the local authority, the housing association and the builders all came together to take on board this Bede Island site. It was a brownfield site and now there is social housing, a business park and also student accommodation, along with other housing. It is a good example of what can happen if there is the will. I think that in this House

1771
tonight we are talking about the will to get better housing for everyone. We are not just concerned with certain aspects of certain housing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, also touched on the ageing population, who tend themselves to live in ageing housing. I should like to ask the Minister who is to respond whether the Government have any particular projects to bring forward on this issue. The White Paper which has just come out will link strands not only of housing but of education, employment, health, social exclusion and transport. They are all interlinked and I believe that this debate tonight has shown that it is not just a matter of housing but also includes other issues.
Certainly one of the areas in my home town of Loughborough very much reflected the need to ensure not only that the housing is good but that other issues are considered as an important part of regeneration there. So, in thanking the noble Baroness, perhaps I may also raise with the Minister one or two other matters. In looking to this new housing which is going to be provided, will he please look with all seriousness at brownfield sites? By brownfield sites, I do not mean just contaminated sites but building sites which were formerly used for industrial purposes. I think that local authorities have within their own bounds a lot of land and property that is not actually contaminated but which could and should be used. I wonder whether perhaps the noble Lord would like to touch on that.
Finally, may I say to the noble Lord that there is much concern on these Benches about the possibility of all this new housing coming along on greenfield sites? I hope that when responding he may also touch on that.
8.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I very much welcome this opportunity given to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, in initiating this debate and using as her text the English House Condition Survey. The results of the survey are seen by the Government as providing a valuable and, as far as possible, up-to-date indication of the state of the housing stock. I certainly take some of the points which were raised by my noble friend Lord Ahmed; I shall come back to those in a moment.
The survey gives an overall picture, and the big picture is that between 1991 and 1996, although there was an improvement in the provision of facilities and services such as central heating and modern kitchens, there was actually no overall change in levels of unfitness or disrepair. That is a problem for us all. Half a million houses did improve but half a million deteriorated. As my noble friend Lady Goudie and others indicated, the local authority stock did, in that process, show a relative deterioration, reflecting reductions and changes in emphasis in public expenditure and other policies by the last government. We have now estimated that in this sector alone there is a backlog of some £10 billion in terms of repairs. My noble friend Lord Graham and others gave telling examples of people having to live in this sort of housing, both in the public and private sectors.
1772
As far as the local authority sector is concerned, this Government are determined to tackle the backlog. The severe lack of resources in the past meant poor housing conditions as well as failures in delivery by many local authorities. Substantial investment in the renovation of the stock is key to future housing policy and is a top priority for this Government. We should not tolerate poor housing conditions in any tenure, least of all that for which the public sector is directly responsible. The Government have already acted to improve the condition of the housing stock. We are making available an additional £5 billion for investment in housing over the lifetime of this Parliament.
Most of this money is being routed through local authorities, who are expected to direct resources mainly, but not exclusively, towards improving their own local authority stock. The resources made available last year and this through our capital receipts initiative are already delivering improvements to around 300,000 homes. We expect improvements to be delivered in a further 1.5 million council homes over the next three years. It is important to recognise that our general approach has been that local authorities will prioritise their own stock. This is in part a reflection of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. However, they will also have scope to invest in renovating the private rented and owner-occupied sectors or in the provision of new social housing where that reflects their own local housing priorities.
To reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, the majority of housing is indeed privately owned in Britain and the prime responsibility must remain with the private owners. However, it is true that not everyone is able to afford to provide the necessary level of repairs. Renovation grants need to continue to be available to those who are most in need. This year we have allocated £168 million to local authorities in England for private sector renewal. There is a separate ring-fenced allocation of £60 million for disabled facilities grant expenditure in this area. We expect this to support, in practice, around £280 million worth of expenditure on private sector renewal. We have also allocated an additional £2.7 million for the home improvement agency programme over the next three years.
As I think my noble friend Lord Bassam was hinting, we need to look at scope for bringing private finance into activities which have traditionally been paid for solely from public funds. I am pleased that a number of authorities and other bodies, including lending institutions, are working together to make affordable loans available to, for example, elderly home owners for whom the noble Baronesses, Lady Maddock and Lady Byford, indicated their concern, for repairs and improvements in their houses, using the equity in their own homes. Those institutions and authorities are still considering ways, including the possibility of setting up partnerships, through which this assistance may be made more widely available.
In proportionate terms the greatest problem is in the private rented sector. If the housing market is to work in the interests of all, we must see an improvement in quality and accessibility in the private rented sector. I noted what my noble friend Lord Bassam said about

1773
the actions of the Brighton and Hove authority in tackling some of the deep-seated problems in that area. There are many other authorities which must make similar provisions and will be supported by the Government.
Some of the worst conditions are in houses in multiple occupation. The Government are firmly committed to introducing a mandatory national licensing scheme for multiple-occupation properties to provide better protection for the tenants who live in them. We are examining the options for such a system and will shortly be issuing a consultation paper.
There is still, frankly, too much sub-standard accommodation, not only in the multiple-occupier sector but in other areas of private rented accommodation at the lower end of the market. While the Government would prefer to see this dealt with by a voluntary approach where landlords recognise their own responsibilities without the need for further regulation, bearing in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, says, we would give consideration to taking further powers and re-directing resources should such an approach not work.
Local authorities already have statutory enforcement powers in this area. We are looking at the effectiveness of those powers. The comprehensive spending review dealt with housing in a broader context. Many noble Lords have referred to that—the relationship between housing, regeneration and social policy. In addition to the increased resources for housing, the new spending plans provide over £3 billion over the next three years for a new deal for regeneration. My noble friend Lady Uddin referred to Tower Hamlets. The noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, referred to other parts of inner London. They are in desperate need, as are many other areas of the country, of a comprehensive approach to regeneration. The package we are proposing includes £800 million under the new deal for communities. That aims to bring together investment in buildings, people and better job prospects as well as in improved neighbourhood management and better delivery of local services in some of the most deprived neighbourhoods of our country.
Regeneration is a wide problem. It involves aspects of personal and community health as well as problems of social exclusion. My noble friend Baroness Dean and others referred to the problems of social exclusion. The Social Exclusion Unit published its report Bringing
Britain together: a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal last month. That report describes the problems of deprived neighbourhoods, such as the greater prevalence of dereliction and high unemployment and low educational achievement. As part of the way forward, we have set up 18 action teams across government and focused the £2.3 billion single regeneration budget on those problems. Eighty per cent. of the new resources will be concentrated on major regeneration schemes in the most deprived areas. The remaining 20 per cent. will fund schemes tackling smaller pockets of deprivation outside those areas.
On health, the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, referred to the elderly. My noble friend Lady Dean referred to the health of children. Housing and health are interrelated. I am tempted to remember that Nye Bevan's ministry was
1774
the Ministry of Housing and Health. We must recognise again the association between housing and health, particularly in relation to cold and damp housing. Our work on the development of the new fitness rating will help to target action. The extra resources we have provided for tackling the problems of the worst housing will help in that regard. We are working closely with the Department of Health.
One of the other social problems mentioned several times by my noble friend Lord Ahmed, the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, my noble friend Lady Uddin and probably others is the disproportionate effect on ethnic minorities of poor housing. That is partly a wider problem of the concentration of ethnic minorities within the poorer districts of our land. But even taking that into account, there is a much higher concentration, particularly of families of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin, in areas of poor housing.
My noble friend Lady Uddin referred to the sorry story of Tower Hamlets in certain previous eras which, being generous, I would say brought some embarrassment to the leadership of the Liberal Democrat Party as well as to the citizens of Tower Hamlets. Any local authority which aggravates those social divisions, particularly in the housing area, causes graver social problems across the board.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and my noble friend Lord Graham both referred to the Housing Corporation and housing associations. They are responsible for keeping their stock in good order. The Housing Corporation's resources are being reversed. Approved development programmes of the Housing Corporation will provide some assistance for major repairs and improvements among registered social landlords who have not been able to build up sufficient provision to repair stock which was built prior to 1988.
Although the majority of the stock which the registered social landlords and Housing Corporation have may be new stock, there is a substantial backlog there as well.
The corporation has given RSLs greater freedom to use their rent surplus to fund reserves for carrying out work in a flexible way to eliminate the problems they have in their pre-1988 stock. I take the points made by my noble friend Lord Graham about resourcing the Housing Corporation and better allocation and follow through of those resources, but we have made a beginning.
My noble friend Lady Dean and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, reported on particular schemes where there is a clear and large social return as a result of action in terms of renovation and repair undertaken by social landlords.
The health problems caused by cold and damp have been mentioned. Reference has also been made to those who suffer from fuel poverty, as has the degree to which that leads to much larger problems. There is an inter-relationship between tackling that problem and tackling the problems of the global climate. Better insulation and more fuel-efficient housing will tackle both problems at the same time. We have been reviewing our policy in that area, including the operation of the home energy efficiency scheme. We have already allocated an

1775
additional £150 million to that following the Comprehensive Spending Review. When we came into office—
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister a little on this point. If one looks at the cost to the health service of treating people who suffer ill health because of damp housing—it has been estimated to cost billions of pounds—one realises that £150 million is but a small sum. Is there any prospect of the Government getting to grips rather more with this issue?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, some of the broader housing repairs will probably improve problems caused by dampness and cold. Therefore, we are talking about more than the £150 million which has been allocated specifically to deal with those problems. I believe that I said that we are reviewing our whole policy in that area and that we hope to report back relatively soon.
A number of technical points were raised. My noble friend Lord Ahmed referred to the basis of the survey. Any survey has its drawbacks and it is important that this survey is supplemented by individual local authorities making detailed assessments of their own housing needs. We are considering the development and testing of a new fitness rating to replace the current standard. That will obviously have an effect on the statistical sample.
The question of empty property was also mentioned. We are attempting to tackle that in both the private and public sectors. We are now pressing some 200 local authorities to take action in areas where there are substantial numbers of empty properties.
In the time available to me, I think that I have covered most of the points raised. This survey reveals the extent of the problem. For the sake of the social and physical health of those who live in poor housing, I hope that this debate has given an indication of the Government's determination to reverse the decline in investment in housing and, in particular, to tackle the problems of poor housing in our poorest neighbourhoods and among our poorest communities.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.32 to 8.35 p.m.]

Northern Ireland Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 70 [The Judicial Committee]:
[Amendments Nos. 184 to 189 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 34, line 17, at end insert—
("() A statutory instrument containing an Order in Council under subsection (3)(a) or (b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 190 requires an order under the provisions of Clause 70(3)(a) and (b) of the Bill, by which powers can be conferred on the Judicial Committee, and the Judicial Committee Act 1833 applied to proceedings under the Bill, to be subject to the negative resolution procedure at Westminster. This follows a recommendation of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation which was in line with our own developing thinking, and which we are pleased to accept.
We will take account of the committee's other recommendation, which relates to Schedule 6, on Report: we may have other changes to propose to that schedule. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley: I think that the Government are wise to accept the recommendations of the Select Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 191 not moved.]
Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 192 not moved.]
Clause 71 [Provision with respect to certain matters relating to Northern Ireland]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 192A:
Page 34, line 23, leave out ("the following matters").
The noble Lord said: This new clause, and the three consequential amendments to Clause 71 and one consequential amendment to Clause 80 which I am taking with it, will enable the Government to continue to make primary legislation in Northern Ireland for any reserved matters specified in paragraphs 8 to 15 of Schedule 3. These are matters chiefly relating to core Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Court Service functions.
The clause will also introduce a statutory consultation procedure with the Assembly for all non-urgent orders and enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of such orders based on the consultation procedure in Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Bill.
The clause also provides for the making of orders by means of an urgency procedure.
While those matters designated as being excepted will be dealt with by Bill here at Westminster and those that are transferred will be dealt with by the Assembly, some means must be found of bringing forward provision on those matters within the reserved category.
The Government remain committed to seeking to legislate by Bill on any reserved matter of special significance or contentiousness; for example, serious consideration will be given as to whether any legislation resulting from the independent commission into policing in Northern Ireland that will report in the autumn of 1999 should be by Bill; and, of course, with the consent of the Secretary of State and the approval of Parliament, the Assembly itself will also be able to legislate for certain reserved matters.
There remains, however, a requirement for legislative provision on some reserved matters, deemed to be best dealt with at Westminster, where programming constraints or the limited size of the provision means

1777
that a government Bill is inappropriate or unfeasible. It is in those circumstances that we shall seek to bring forward an Order in Council.
The Government are aware of criticisms of the shortcomings of the Order in Council procedure and it is only because it is not possible to be sure that provision can be brought forward by Bill that we have sought to retain these powers. In an effort to alleviate the criticism of the Order in Council procedure, we have decided that additional statutory consultation should be offered. We have concluded that all orders that are regarded as non-urgent should be subject to a 60-day consultation period before the order is formally laid and approval is sought. At the same time as this Chamber is presented with a document containing drafts of our proposals, we shall refer the same document to the Assembly, seeking its comments within the same time-scale as that given to this place.
Due consideration will be given to any comments and consultation documents that are presented during that time. We hope that these additional steps will make the Order in Council procedure more palatable. I believe that Members of the Committee, like the Northern Ireland parties, will acknowledge that this legislative route will be needed by the Government and that there may be serious difficulty if we only have the Bill route open to us after devolution. It is to be hoped that our need to use the Order in Council procedure will diminish as and when items listed in Schedule 3 are moved into the transferred category to be dealt with by the Assembly.
If we could dispense entirely with the Order in Council procedure, we would do so. However, without it, the Government might have difficulty in bringing forward provisions for Northern Ireland and the latter might be put at a disadvantage. It is on these grounds that we seek by means of this clause to continue the Order in Council procedure but with the much improved consultation process. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I think it is necessary to continue with the Order in Council procedure. Direct rule has functioned through this mechanism for quite a long time. In so far as direct rule continues over reserved matters, I believe that it is necessary to continue with the procedure. I see that the Orders in Council will require the approval of resolutions of both Houses of Parliament. I am not quite sure, but I believe that that probably extends the control of Parliament over such Orders in Council. Many of them are not subject to the affirmative resolution procedure at present, although I believe that more will be as a result of the way in which this clause is drafted. What I am saying is really in respect of Amendment No. 192D, which forms part of the group under discussion at present.
It is true that many matters which are at present reserved will during the course of the next few years be devolved and transferred to the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, as we heard earlier, some matters which are currently reserved are expected to be
1778
reserved for the foreseeable future, if not for all time. It is possible that, at some point, it would not be right to continue with the Order in Council procedure when such matters have been reduced to but a few, and that the procedure should perhaps be abandoned. However, we have not as yet reached that point.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: We regard the retention of the Order in Council procedure as a regrettable or, as I believe the Minister put it, an unpalatable necessity. I believe that the hope and expectation of devolving power to Northern Ireland is that the number of issues that would need to be dealt with by Order in Council would be very limited and by exception. The one example that the Minister gave of something that would probably not be appropriate for an Order in Council—and I agree with him—would be any change or variation to the police powers and arrangements in Northern Ireland.
When responding, and just to clarify my mind, I wonder whether the Minister could give the Committee some examples of matters that he thinks will be dealt with by Order in Council in future. I sincerely hope that it will be very few and that, as powers are transferred to the new Assembly, Parliament will not find itself, as it often has in the past, doing too much too often by Order in Council. Of course, the notice period will help somewhat in that respect.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: Having piloted a minority opposition party through this very inadequate process of Order in Council, I naturally would have preferred to see its abolition. However, for the reasons given by those noble Lords who have already spoken, retention is inevitable. I am encouraged by the contents of subsection (5) of the proposed new clause (Amendment No. 192D), which gives the Assembly, if not the right, at least the option of reporting to the Secretary of State,
"the views expressed in the Assembly on the proposed Order".
I hope that notice will be taken of the Assembly's views.
We had such an experiment during the lifetime of what was called the "rolling devolution" experiment during the reign of the noble Lord, Lord Prior. Members of that Assembly were greatly disillusioned when, after having spent hours and days producing a submission in response to an invitation from the then Secretary of State, they found that every single one of their representations was rejected. I know that we are entering into a new age. I am sure that the present Government would not want to follow that path.
Lord Skelmersdale: I too, hope that Orders in Council will continue to be necessary on, as everyone has said, rarer and rarer occasions. However, as someone who has the honour to be one of your Lordships' representatives on the statutory instruments

1779
committee, I am intrigued by Subsection (11) of the proposed new clause, which says:
"Orders in Council under this section may be omitted from any annual edition of statutory instruments".
I ask, why?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I apologise for returning to the debate, but I forgot to mention a point which came to my mind during the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. When the Assembly makes a report to the Secretary of State on its views on a particular order, can the Minister say whether it will be possible for such views to be laid before Parliament as well as being given to the Secretary of State?
Lord Dubs: We have had a short debate but I understand the concerns expressed about the use of the Order in Council procedure. As I made clear, we intend to use the procedure as little as possible, although there may be occasions when it would be appropriate to do so. Perhaps I may give Members of the Committee a few examples while replying to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. I have in mind matters to do with court administration, such as technical changes in the legal aid system. There might also be detailed matters dealing with criminal justice. Indeed, we recently had an order on juvenile justice. Some of those matters may be very significant while others may not. Clearly, if they are fairly routine matters, I should have thought that the Order in Council procedure would be acceptable. Alternatively, if they are not large enough to justify a full Bill, I believe that Members of the Committee will appreciate that there may be occasions when we need to use the Order in Council procedure.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked me whether the Assembly's views in response to its consideration of a draft Order in Council could be made public or could be made available to Members of this Chamber. I am afraid that I do not have the information with me, but I can assure the noble Lord that I will look into the matter.
Lord Skelmersdale: Is the Minister in a position to answer my question as to why subsection (11) should exist in this new clause?
Lord Dubs: Yes, I am. Because we are dealing with legislation on the Northern Ireland statute book, such statutory instruments would appear, like those under the current Order in Council powers, in the Northern Ireland collections and not in these. In other words, they would be available but not in the form requested.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 192B and 192C:
Page 34, leave out line 26.
Page 34, line 39, leave out subsections (5) to (9).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 192D:
After Clause 71, insert the following new clause—

PROVISION DEALING WITH CERTAIN RESERVED MATTERS
(".—(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision dealing with any matter falling within a description specified in any of paragraphs 8 to 15 of Schedule 3 (a "relevant matter"), including—

(a) provision having retrospective effect;

(b) provision for the delegation of functions;

(c) provision amending or repealing any provision made by or under any Act of Parliament or Northern Ireland legislation.

(2) An Order in Council under this section may—

(a) make provision ancillary to provisions (whether in the Order or previously enacted) which deal with any relevant matter;

(b) make such consequential, incidental, supplemental, or transitional provision as appears to Her Majesty to be necessary or expedient.

(3) No recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty to make an Order in Council under this section unless a draft of the Order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(4) No draft may be laid under subsection (3) unless—

(a) the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a document which contains a draft of the proposed Order;

(b) the Secretary of State has referred the document to the Assembly for its consideration; and

(c) the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the document was laid before Parliament has ended.

(5) The Assembly may report to the Secretary of State the views expressed in the Assembly on the proposed Order and shall do so if the Secretary of State so requests.
(6) The draft laid under subsection (3) must be accompanied—

(a) if representations have been made during the period mentioned in subsection (4), by a statement containing a summary of the representations;

(b) if a report has been made to the Secretary of State under subsection (5) during that period, by a copy of the report; and

(c) if, as a result of any representations or report so made, the proposed Order has been changed, by a statement containing details of the changes.

(7) Subsection (3) does not apply to an Order in Council which declares that it has been made to appear to Her Majesty that by reason of urgency the Order requires to be made without a draft having been approved as mentioned in that subsection.
(8) Where an Order in Council contains a declaration such as is mentioned in subsection (7)—

(a) the Order shall be laid before Parliament after being made; and

(b) if at the end of the period of 40 days after the date on which the Order is made it has not been approved by resolution of each House, it shall then cease to have effect (but without prejudice to anything previously done under it or to the making of a new Order).

(9) In reckoning the periods mentioned in subsections (4) and (8), no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
(10) References to Acts of the Assembly in any enactment or instrument shall, so far as the context permits, be deemed to include references to Orders in Council under this section.
(11) Orders in Council under this section may be omitted from any annual edition of statutory instruments made by virtue of section 8 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946.
(12) In this section "representations" means representations about a proposed Order in Council under this section made to the Secretary of State and includes—

(a) any relevant resolution of either House of Parliament or of the Assembly; and

(b) any relevant report or resolution of any committee of either House of Parliament or of the Assembly.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 72 agreed to.
Clause 73 [Consultation and co-ordination]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 192E:
Page 36, line 24, leave out ("and for making any necessary financial adjustments").
The noble Lord said: These amendments represent a further working through of arrangements, the basis of which is in Clause 73 and Clause 74, by which the future relationship between the social security, child support and pension systems in Great Britain and Northern Ireland can be co-ordinated. Social security is necessarily a transferred matter under the agreement, as it lies within the responsibilities of the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland. But parity has generally been observed between the systems in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and their interrelationships are complex. The amendments are technical elaborations of the provisions in Clauses 73 and 74 for consultation and other aspects of the interrelationship between the two systems. I beg to move.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: As the wording is rather technical, I wish to be clear about the intention of the Government in this important area. We know that the Government are contemplating large-scale reform of the welfare system. Should we assume that, as a result of these consultations, Northern Ireland will have substantially the same social security policies as the rest of the United Kingdom?
Lord Dubs: Yes, that is correct.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 192F to 192Q:
Page 36, line 27, leave out ("and for making any necessary financial adjustments") and insert—
("() Such arrangements as are mentioned in subsection (2)(a) or (b) may include provision for making any necessary financial adjustments, other than adjustments between the National Insurance Fund and the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund.").
Page 36, line 42, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("department having responsibility for social security").
Page 37, line 14, at end insert—
("() the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 and the Social Security Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1975;
() the Social Security Act 1989 and the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1989;").
Page 37, line 17, at end insert—
("() the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act 1994 and the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (Northern Ireland) Order 1994;").
Page 37, line 23, at end insert—
("() the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997 and the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997;").
Page 37, line 25, at end insert—
("(5A) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make any modifications of subsection (5) which She considers necessary or expedient.").
Page 37, line 36, at end insert—
("() section 29(2) to (4) of the Child Support Act 1995 (co-ordination with Northern Ireland);
() Article 20 of the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (co-ordination with Great Britain).").
Page 37, line 41, at beginning insert ("The power conferred by subsection (4) shall be construed as if it had been conferred by an Act of the Assembly; and").
Page 37, line 42, leave out ("the power conferred by subsection (4)") and insert ("that power").
Page 37, line 44, at end insert—
("() A statutory instrument containing an Order in Council under subsection (5A) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 74 [The Joint Authority]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 192R:
Page 38, leave out lines 6 to 8.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 192S:
Page 38, line 9, leave out ("other").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 192T:
Page 38, line 10, at end insert—
("() The Joint Authority shall also have power to make any necessary financial adjustments, including adjustments between the National Insurance Fund and the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 192U:
After Clause 74, insert the following new clause—

INDUSTRIAL INJURIES ADVISORY COUNCIL.
(".-(1) For subsection (1) of section 149 of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (Social Security Advisory Committee) substitute—
"(1) The Department may from time to time—

(a) refer to the Social Security Advisory Committee for consideration and advice such questions relating to the operation of any of the relevant enactments as the Department thinks fit (including questions as to the advisability of amending any of them);

(b) refer to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council for consideration and advice such questions as the Department thinks fit relating to industrial injuries benefit or its administration."

(2) After subsection (2) of that section insert—
"(2A) Subject—

(a) to subsection (3) below; and

(b) to section 150 below,

where the Department proposes to make regulations relating only to industrial injuries benefit or its administration, it shall refer the proposals, in the form of draft regulations or otherwise, to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council for consideration and advice."
(3) At the end of subsection (3) of that section insert "; and subsection (2A) above does not apply to the regulations specified in Schedule 5A to this Act".
(4) After that subsection insert—
"(3A) The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council may also give advice to the Department on any other matter relating to industrial injuries benefit or its administration."
(5) In subsections (1), (2) and (5) of section 150 of that Act (cases in which consultation not required), after "the Committee", in each place, insert "or the Council".
(6) In subsection (3) of that section—

(a) after "the Committee", in the first place, insert "or the Council"; and

(b) after "the Committee has made its report" insert "or, as the case may be, the Council has given its advice";

(7) In subsection (6) of that section, after the definition of "the Committee" insert—
""the Council" means the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council;".
(8) After Schedule 5 to that Act insert—

SCHEDULE 5A

  REGULATIONS NOT REQUIRING PRIOR SUBMISSION TO INDUSTRIAL INJURIES ADVISORY COUNCIL
  1. Regulations under section 120(1)(b) of the Contributions and Benefits Act.
  2. Regulations which state that they contain only provisions in consequence of an order under section 129 or 132 above.
  3. Regulations made within a period of 6 months from the date of any Act passed after this Act and directed to be construed as one with this Act, where—

  (a) the regulations state that they contain only regulations to make provision consequential on the passing of the Act; and

  (b) the Act does not exclude this paragraph in respect of the regulations;

  and in this paragraph "Act" includes an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  4. Regulations which state that they contain only regulations making with respect to industrial injuries benefit or its administration the same or substantially the same provision as has been, or is to be, made with respect to other benefit as defined in section 121(1) of the Contributions and Benefits Act or its administration.
  5. Regulations which state that the only provision with respect to industrial injuries benefit or its administration that is made by the regulations is the same or substantially the same as provision made by the instrument with respect to other benefit as defined in section 121(1) of the Contributions and Benefits Act or its administration.
  6. Regulations made for the purpose only of consolidating other regulations revoked by them.
  7. Regulations making only provision corresponding to provision contained in regulations made by the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor in relation to Great Britain."
  (9) In section 192(5) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, after the entry relating to section 170 (with Schedule 5) insert—
  "section 171 (with Schedule 6):".").
  The noble Lord said: The new clause after Clause 74, for which this amendment provides, imposes a requirement on the DHSS for Northern Ireland to refer matters to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, in circumstances equivalent to those where the Department of Health in London would be obliged to do so.
  This amendment is very much in the spirit of those we have considered already, ensuring the best degree of co-ordination possible between the social security systems in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, while respecting the fact that these matters are, under the terms of the agreement, transferred. By an amendment to Clause 3, the obligations to refer matters to the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council become reserved matters. I beg to move.
  Lord Skelmersdale: I am sure I am not alone in finding the drafting of this new clause extremely difficult. I refer to subsection (3) of the new clause which states,
  "At the end of subsection (3) of that section".
  I hope the noble Lord can elucidate exactly what that subsection or what "that section" is.
  Lord Dubs: I do not think I would venture to do that offhand. I prefer to write to the noble Lord if he is kind enough to accept that.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 192V:
  After Clause 74, insert the following new clause—
  ("Discrimination: certificates by Secretary of State

  EFFECT OF CERTIFICATES
  .—(1) This section applies where in any proceedings—

  (a) a person claims that an act discriminated against him in contravention of section 19 or 61; and

  (b) the person against whom the claim is made proposes to rely on a certificate purporting to be signed by or on behalf of the Secretary of State and certifying—

  (i) that an act specified in the certificate was done for the purpose of safeguarding national security or protecting public safety or public order; and

  (ii) that the doing of the act was justified by that purpose.

  (2) The claimant may, in accordance with rules made by the Lord Chancellor, appeal against the certificate to the Tribunal, that is to say, the tribunal established under section (The Tribunal)").
  (3) If on an appeal under subsection (2) the Tribunal determines—

  (a) that the act specified in the certificate was done for the certified purpose; and

  (b) that the doing of the act was justified by that purpose,

  the Tribunal shall uphold the certificate; in any other case, the Tribunal shall quash the certificate.
  (4) If—

  (a) the claimant does not appeal against the certificate; or

  (b) the certificate is upheld on appeal,

  the certificate shall be conclusive evidence of the matters certified by it.
  (5) In this section "act" does not include the making, confirmation or approval of a provision of subordinate legislation.").
  The noble Lord said: This grouping also contains Amendments Nos. 192W, 192X, 205A, 212A, 324A, 347A, and 213A. Clause 80(4) and (5) as drafted restates Section 23(3) and (4) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. This enables the Secretary of State to issue a national security certificate, the purpose of which is to be conclusive evidence that an act was undertaken for national security reasons. A similar power exists in Section 42 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976. The United Kingdom was, this summer, found to be in breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights because there is no right of appeal against the issue of a certificate under Section 42. Clause 80 is therefore deficient. The government amendments are simply intended to rectify that. The Minister of State undertook in another place to review Clause 80 in the light of the ECHR's ruling; and, in addition, the Belfast agreement requires the Government to review existing national security certificate powers.
  There are similarities between these arrangements and the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, established by the Bill I introduced in your Lordships' House in June 1997. Although this Tribunal is slightly different in character, there is a common link in that both are aimed at protecting and upholding national security, while always recognising the rights of individuals. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, put it well in the debate on the earlier Bill but pointed out
  "that it is compatible with the rule of law to adopt a special procedure …; fairly to determine appeals in these exceptional cases without prejudicing the interests of justice or of national security and to do so by means of a special procedure".
  That is exactly what we have done today.
  Amendments Nos. 192V and 192W establish a tribunal and give effect to a new schedule. The tribunal will exist to hear appeals against certificates issued under Clause 80 and it will, in doing so, consider two issues. First, it will consider whether the original act—which might, for example, be a decision not to appoint an individual to a public body—was taken for the reasons certified in the certificate. Secondly, it will consider whether that act was justified—that is, to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, a reasonable and proportionate response.
  The amendments build on Section 23 of the 1973 Act in two key areas. First, at present, a certificate can be given as conclusive evidence of national security grounds. The requirement that the act should be justified is, therefore, new and the Government believe that this is an important new provision to protect the rights of individuals.
  Secondly, these amendments will also enable certificates to be issued, and challenged before the tribunal, on the grounds of public safety or public order.
  1786
  The purpose of that is to ensure consistency with Section 42 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 which allows certificates to be issued on those grounds.
  To test the grounds and the proportionality of the original act, the tribunal may need to have before it sensitive intelligence information. The Government remain convinced however of the need to protect that intelligence information and it is important to note here that the ECHR judgment did not require its disclosure.
  But to balance this, we must have a suitable method of ensuring that the appellant's interests are fully represented. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission—established in the light of the ECHR ruling in the Chahal case—provides a model for this in the form of special advocates, appointed by the Attorney-General, to represent the interests of the appellant. We follow that model in subsection (7) of Amendment No. 192W. This ensures that an appellant's interests will be fully represented in proceedings before the tribunal by a suitably qualified person. We believe that the special advocate provisions are central to the aim of balancing the legitimate rights of an individual to challenge a certificate and the equally legitimate rights of national security.
  The tribunal will have two options before it. It may uphold the issue of the certificate on both grounds, in which case there is no further action to be taken. The tribunal will have confirmed that the original act was indeed taken for national security reasons and that it was justified.
  The tribunal may, of course, decide not to uphold the certificate on either or both of the grounds before it. In those circumstances, it is right that the appellant can continue his discrimination case before the courts. In those circumstances the tribunal will have disposed of the national security defence and that would not be further relied upon by the respondent. There may, of course, be other grounds on which the respondent would wish to defend the discrimination allegation, for example, lack of suitable qualification. But we do not expect intelligence information to be disclosed in discrimination proceedings if national security is no longer a relevant issue.
  We are considering whether further amendments are necessary to these provisions to reflect properly the interests of the Secretary of State as the certifier of the act and her responsibility and accountability for national security, though she may not have been a party to the original proceedings. We may need to return to this issue on Report. I can signal our intention to bring forward further amendments to safeguard national security. That is a vital responsibility of government, of course. So we need to protect defence, national security, public safety and public order in Northern Ireland.
  Turning to subsection (2) of Amendment No. 192W, the Lord Chancellor is by this provision required to make procedural rules for the tribunal. They will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
  The schedule in Amendment No. 324A ensures that the tribunal will consist of three members, all appointed by the Lord Chancellor, one of whom will hold high

  1787
  judicial office. The other two will be from a panel appointed by the Lord Chancellor and I can tell the Committee that we are working towards a mix of legally qualified and publicly appointed members.
  Finally, some transitional provisions are required to save the power to issue certificates between the appointed day and the establishment of the tribunal. I should tell the Committee that certification powers in other Northern Ireland statutes will also be made ECHR-compliant. Section 42 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 was the power in question in the ECHR ruling. I give that assurance. We intend that the fair employment and treatment order will bring Section 42 and the other certification powers contained in race and gender legislation within the remit of the tribunal.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, is not here but this group includes his amendment to delete the existing power to issue certificates. That would have been an appropriate response if we had not brought forward the right of appeal. I hope that I have satisfied the Committee that the government amendments, modelled as they are on the special immigration appeals tribunal, are the right way forward. I beg to move.
  9 p.m.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: I had intended to oppose the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, and I am relieved that the Government's own amendments go far to reassure me. However, intelligence is the one resource available to the authorities which enables them, though to a limited degree, to guard against attack. The IRA and its surrogates operate in an international dimension. Valuable intelligence, for example, on proposed purchases of arms may come to the intelligence services from sources needing the utmost protection, not least because they may be supplying equally valuable intelligence on other threats to the UK.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, demonstrated the difficulty of making statements without backing them up with detail. He pointed out how difficult it would be to proceed with the proposed legislation on statements by an RUC officer. It seems to me that the Secretary of State might be in a rather similar position. That could result in the collapse of his case.
  I believe that we shall continue to need intelligence sources, and the Irish Government at least have recognised in their latest legislation that the collection of intelligence by terrorist groups on possible targets can and should be an indictable offence.
  The time may be coming—it may not be far off—when the IRA, having got as much as it can through the political phase of the struggle, may return to the armed struggle. We must do nothing now that could jeopardise the successful operation of intelligence gathering. The Secretary of State must retain special powers in the field of national security which Clause 80(5) provides. That, of course, is equally true of paragraph 4 (defence of the realm) and paragraph 16 (national security) of the list of
  1788
  excepted matters under Schedule 2. Those vital areas of work would be at risk if we were to accept the full amendment.
  I welcome the Government's amendments. They reassuringly reinforce the provision safeguarding national security. But they add a new provision for a tribunal which, as the Minister explained, will have the power to consider appeals against the Secretary of State's decision and power to quash the certificate. I feel great unease about that. If the Secretary of State had to produce chapter and verse on the intelligence basis for a decision, it could make it very difficult to protect men and women working in highly vulnerable and dangerous situations. I believe that there are times when the Secretary of State must be able to make decisions without having to justify them in detail.
  We have to balance a possible injustice against a certain threat to the security of everyone. Increasingly, as we withdraw troops and dismantle the whole apparatus of security, we shall be dependent on reliable advance intelligence, inside knowledge of the intentions and capabilities of those who remain hostile and have not given up the use of force. I hope therefore that there will be no question of relinquishing the Secretary of State's eventual unquestioned power to give priority to national security when choices have to be made. I feel that that would be very difficult to do if a tribunal is constituted and has the power proposed by the Government.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I strongly support the points made by my noble friend Lady Park. The security issues remain extremely important in Northern Ireland. Of course, we all hope that the war is over, that peace will follow. But it has not happened yet. We all know of the punishment beatings, shootings and so on that go on. We all know that all the semtex and guns remain in terrorist hands and that the main Provisional IRA is capable of returning to violence at short notice. A day or two ago in our deliberations I was accused of being pessimistic about the outlook, but we must be realistic, in my view, and realise that that is a possibility.
  However, what is much nearer to a certainty—though nothing is certain—is that small groups from within the terrorist organisations on both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland are entirely likely to indulge in violence once again, because they dislike some parts of the settlement which the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland as well as all of us in this House support. That is why I believe that provisions such as are being made here are necessary. However, they should have running through them the importance of the preservation of security in the interests of the vast majority of the population of Northern Ireland from all sides.
  The Minister will realise that he will find us very willing to support further amendments on Report which he suggested might be required in support of national security.
  As to the provisions presently before us, I should like confirmation—although I feel sure that it is true—that the tribunal may, and probably normally will, sit in

  1789
  secret and not in public. I note that provision is made under subsection (4) of the clause to be inserted by Amendment No. 192W for matters to be considered ex parte, if I have the legal term correctly; that is, in the absence of one or other of the parties to the proceedings. I believe that to be wise.
  I also believe it wise to insert the provision in subsections (7) and (8) under which the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland is able to appoint a person to represent the interests of a party to proceedings before the tribunal. Although I believe that to be novel in the context of Northern Ireland, it is a wise provision. One of the difficulties faced occasionally by lawyers who look after terrorists from both sides of the divide is that they have not been trusted by the security authorities. Sometimes there is very good reason for it, although it cannot be said that that happens necessarily in all cases. In these circumstances if the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland can appoint the legal representative of an individual who makes representations to a tribunal of this kind it may permit arguments to be advanced in private to which a reasonable degree of security can be applied. The lawyer who does this job will have a very difficult duty to perform. He will need to maintain the trust of the individual whom he represents while being unable to tell that person the basis of the supporting arguments on which the judgment is being made. Nevertheless, it is wise to insert these two subsections into the provision.
  The new clause inserted by Amendment No. 192X makes provision for appeal from the tribunal to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland on a question of law. That is less likely to require proceedings to be held in secret, but presumably that is also a possibility that must be considered by the Court of Appeal when the particular matter comes before it. As it would be an appeal on a matter of law, that is perhaps less likely to occur. However, in general I support the insertion of these clauses into the Bill.
  Lord Holme of Cheltenham: As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn said, there is a balance to be struck between human rights and liberty of the subject and the demands of national security which we all understand in Northern Ireland. As the noble Lord said, the European Convention on Human Rights, to be incorporated into our law, provides an exception on the ground of national security. I look forward to seeing the later amendments proposed by the Government to make sure that the security situation is well covered. Can the noble Lord assure the Committee—he may already have dealt with this and, if so, I apologise for missing the point—that the amendments that we are presently considering are in conformity with the European convention?
  Lord Renton: I apologise for not intervening before those on the Front Bench commented on the amendment. I ask the Government to consider the
  1790
  following point. I do not ask for a reply this evening. In Amendment No. 192W subsection (7) provides:
  "The Attorney General for Northern Ireland may appoint a person to represent the interests of a party to proceedings before the Tribunal in any proceedings from which he and any legal representative of his are excluded".
  Subsection (8) (b) provides that a person appointed under subsection (7) shall not be responsible to the party whose interests he represents. That is a very unusual situation in which to place a member of the Bar. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has never found himself in that position; I hope he never will, if he ever returns to practise at the Bar, which is unlikely. I believe that this is a rather unusual matter that should have his consideration.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: It is unusual and deliberately so for the reasons indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. Both stressed—I absolutely agree—that very careful regard should be had to state security. I was careful to say that not only individual rights but state security were a legitimate concern. In fact I believe that to be a legitimate obligation. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that it is not unprecedented. I shall develop that point in a moment.
  However, perhaps I may respond to the general themes. First, I believe that we shall have a scheme which is ECHR compliant. That is the whole purpose. This scheme is modelled on the Special Immigration Appeals Tribunal which itself arose out of the exclusion on national security grounds, as Members of the Committee will know, of someone called Chahal. All I say about Mr. Chahal is that the assertion—I put it neutrally—was that his presence in the jurisdiction was not conducive to the public interest on security grounds.
  I turn from his case to put the net a little wider. We know perfectly well that some international terrorists, who may now be significantly more dangerous than the IRA, need to be excluded from our jurisdiction. The ruling of the ECHR in the case of Chahal was that a right of appeal needed to be provided.
  Accordingly, I introduced the Bill in your Lordships' House in June last year to deal with that lacuna. But no one is going to throw away responsibilities lightly. We therefore drafted a scheme which met with general approval. I mentioned earlier the noble Lord, Lord Lester. It is right, if at all possible, that an appellant should be legally represented. It is the normal duty of counsel—as I and the noble Lord know—to take instructions from his client to whom he has responsibilities about the detail of what is disclosed. That simply cannot be done in these circumstances and we would set our face firmly against it. Therefore what we did in the case of Chahal, and what is mirrored here, is to offer fully qualified legal "representation" for a person who is excluded. So the appellant will not be able to be present on all occasions. The in camera point is made. He will not have access to the information, deliberately, because he cannot. And the person is there to "represent" his interests without having the professional responsibility that a member of the Bar normally has towards his client. He is there not as a

  1791
  creature of the tribunal but as a consequence of our desire to maintain a balance which is extremely sophisticated and subtle so that we do not lose sight of individual rights in our ECHR obligations, but abundantly we do not lose sight of our duty to safeguard national security with all the dangers consequent upon any breach.
  I think that we have got this about right. I think that we did in Chahal. I think that we have here. It is important to reassure the Committee that I fully understand the question of public interest. Indeed, if one considers Amendment No. 192W the point is made plain.
  In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, if one considers subsection (6) of the amendment following the illustrations of ex parte and in camera hearings, it is made plain that,
  "In making rules under this section"—
  that is about the operation of the tribunal—
  "the Lord Chancellor shall have regard, in particular, to"—
  I omit paragraph (a) and go to paragraph (b) which gives the reassurance that the noble Baroness wants—
  "the need to secure that information is not disclosed contrary to the public interest".
  9.15 p.m.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: I fully accept and believe in the intention of the Government. However, I cannot see how it will be possible for the Secretary of State to give the tribunal the background, the reasons for the certificate, without having to disclose. It is the same problem as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, raised, as I said in my remarks. But it is not possible to justify a decision with evidence in the normal way if one does not give chapter and verse. I cannot see how one can. It seems a complete circle.
  That is what concerns me. I do not doubt the intention, but I cannot see how it can work.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: It can work quite easily because the nature of the tribunal is a High Court judge and a special panel, and no one will appoint someone to a special panel without there being some sensible vetting in place. No one will be chosen as counsel except on the determination of the Attorney-General in Northern Ireland. Therefore the ambit of disclosure will be very limited. It does not have to be in public; and the Secretary of State can come to her own conclusion, obviously on security advice, as to precisely what appropriately can be disclosed.
  We have thought about these problems quite carefully. The representation is not perfect but it is as good as can be achieved in circumstances where one has to be cautious and careful about national security. In a sense it is a scheme which has been taken from Chahal,
  1792
  which had similar problems in similar circumstances. I make no apology for saying again that I think we have got it right.
  Lord Renton: The Minister gives a convincing answer to the point I made.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I apologise for the fact that I could not be present for the earlier discussion on this amendment. In support of the position taken by the Government on the amendment, perhaps I may say that I was in the case in Strasbourg of Tinnelly where the issue arose. During the deliberations on the Special Immigration Appeals Tribunal legislation, I supported the Government on what is a compromise between the need to protect national security and the need for due process of law. Indeed, it was argued in Strasbourg that precisely a compromise of this kind would meet the needs of both public interests. Although I would much prefer an entirely open adversarial system, I do not think it realistic in the context of national security claims of this kind to go as far as that. Therefore, although I like to think of myself as entirely liberal, I support the compromise represented by the amendment.
  Lord Desai: I wish to ask a question as an amateur. I am satisfied with Amendment No. 192V, but wish to know whether Amendment No. 192X represents the end of the appeal process? Can the appellant go on to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council? If the court of appeal in Northern Ireland rejects an appeal, can an appellant go to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, invoking Schedule 11?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: On a question of law, an appellant's normal avenue of appeal would be to this House.
  I am grateful for the support given by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I cited his words on Chahal. He is not being liberal. I do not think liberal means being unrealistic about the true balance between the two interests which are legitimate.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 192W and 192X:
  After Clause 74, insert the following new clause—

  THE TRIBUNAL
  (".—(1) There shall be a tribunal in relation to which Schedule (Tribunal established under section (The Tribunal)) shall have effect.
  (2) The Lord Chancellor may make rules—

  (a) for regulating the exercise of rights of appeal to the Tribunal;

  (b) for prescribing the practice and procedure to be followed on or in connection with appeals to the Tribunal, including the mode and burden of proof and admissibility of evidence on such appeals; and

  (c) for other matters preliminary or incidental to or arising out of such appeals.

  (3) Rules under this section may provide that a party to any proceedings before the Tribunal on an appeal has the right to be legally represented in the proceedings, subject to any power conferred on the Tribunal by such rules.
  (4) Rules under this section may, in particular—

  (a) make provision enabling proceedings before the Tribunal to take place without a party being given full particulars of the reasons for the issue of the certificate which is the subject of the appeal;

  (b) make provision enabling the Tribunal to hold proceedings in the absence of any person, including a party and any legal representative appointed by a party;

  (c) make provision about the functions in proceedings before the Tribunal of persons appointed under subsection (7); and

  (d) make provision enabling the Tribunal to give a party a summary of any evidence taken in his absence.

  (5) Rules under this section may also include provision—

  (a) enabling any functions of the Tribunal which relate to matters preliminary or incidental to an appeal to be performed by a single member of the Tribunal; or

  (b) conferring on the Tribunal such ancillary powers as the Lord Chancellor thinks necessary for the purposes of the exercise of its functions.

  (6) In making rules under this section, the Lord Chancellor shall have regard, in particular, to—

  (a) the need to secure that certificates which are the subject of appeals are properly reviewed; and

  (b) the need to secure that information is not disclosed contrary to the public interest.

  (7) The Attorney General for Northern Ireland may appoint a person to represent the interests of a party to proceedings before the Tribunal in any proceedings from which he and any legal representative of his are excluded.
  (8) A person appointed under subsection (7)—

  (a) shall be a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland;

  (b) shall not be responsible to the party whose interests he represents.

  (9) In this section and section (Appeals from the Tribunal) "party", in relation to proceedings an appeal, means the appellant or the person proposing to rely on the certificate which is the subject of the appeal.").
  After Clause 74, insert the following new clause—

  APPEALS FROM THE TRIBUNAL
  (".—(1) Where the Tribunal has determined an appeal under section (Effect of certificates), any party to the appeal may bring a further appeal to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland on any question of law material to the Tribunal's determination.
  (2) An appeal under this section may be brought only with the leave of the Tribunal or, if such leave is refused, with the leave of the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland.
  (3) The Lord Chancellor may make rules regulating, and prescribing the procedure to be followed on, applications to the Tribunal for leave to appeal under this section.
  (4) Rules under this section may include provision enabling an application for leave to appeal to be heard by a single member of the Tribunal.").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 193:
  After Clause 74, insert the following new clause—
  ("European Community matters

  BUSINESS IN COUNCIL OF MINISTERS: CONSULTATION WITH AND PARTICIPATION OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
  .—(1) Before any Minister of the Crown attends a meeting of the Council of Ministers of the European Community at which consideration is to be given to any issue relating to transferred matters, the Secretary of State shall consult the Executive Committee and seek its views on that issue.
  (2) When a Minister of the Crown attends such a meeting of the Council of Ministers, he may permit members of the Executive Committee to attend with, and participate in, the United Kingdom delegation.").
  The noble Lord said: We move away from the technical legal matters with which we have been struggling for some time and on to a more overtly political and obvious matter. It concerns the way in which Northern Ireland interests are in future to be represented at meetings of the Council of Ministers of the European Community and its constituent bodies.
  The basis of the amendment is to be found in the Belfast agreement at page 8, paragraph 31. It states:
  "Terms will be agreed between appropriate Assembly representatives and the Government of the United Kingdom to ensure effective co-ordination and input by Ministers to national policy-making, including on EU issues".
  It is important to provide for that. Many of us who have had experience in the Northern Ireland Office know that the way in which Northern Ireland's affairs are handled within the Community is a matter of great interest within Northern Ireland, particularly because of the comparisons between the treatment of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom and the treatment of the Republic of Ireland.
  Sometimes there have been difficult divergences for Ministers to explain—I speak from experience—and it has been awkward for the Northern Ireland Office to ensure that within the United Kingdom's negotiating position full weight is given to Northern Ireland's affairs. Generally speaking, we managed to achieve full weight, but sometimes we were criticised. That is part of political life, but we are now moving into a different situation. Many of the issues which are important in EU negotiations, particularly agriculture, fishing and so forth, will be the responsibility of the Assembly and the executive within Northern Ireland. That makes it more important and difficult to achieve the right balance between the representation of Northern Ireland interests and the representation of United Kingdom interests as a whole.
  Of course, that is not unique at this time to Northern Ireland. The same point has arisen in connection with both Scotland and Wales. The White Paper in the case of Scotland, called Scotland's Parliament, the measures within which have since been incorporated into the Scotland Bill, had a very important passage which set out extremely clearly what was intended to happen in Scotland. I take it that that is what the Government intend to happen in Northern Ireland.
  The White Paper stated:
  "The UK Government wishes to involve the Scottish Executive as directly and as fully as possible in the Government's decision making on EU matters. It is part of the Government's intention that Scottish Executive Ministers and officials should be fully involved in discussions within the UK Government about the formulation of the UK policy position on all issues which touch on devolved matters. This will require, of course, mutual respect for the confidentiality of those discussions and adherence to the resultant UK line, without which it would be impossible to maintain such close working relationships".
  There is something of an implied threat about confidentiality. Nevertheless, it seems to express the position very clearly.
  The White Paper went on to explain that from time to time, Scottish Ministers and officials would need to go with UK Ministers to meetings within the European Union and to be part of the UK team. I presume that that is the case also in relation to Northern Ireland. Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause provides for just that eventuality.
  I have provided only for Ministers from Northern Ireland to attend and not officials. We all know that some of the meetings, including some very important ones at European level, take place between officials and representatives of the UK permanent representation in Brussels rather than between Ministers. I should perhaps have included that in drafting the proposed new clause. However, there is an important element of confidentiality in these matters. Therefore, it occurs to me to wonder whether, and if so how, the Official Secrets Act will apply to Ministers from Northern Ireland and members of the executive there. I believe that it should do so in respect of these matters if not in relation to many other matters. Provision is made in the other Bill and in the Government of Wales Act for the Official Secrets Act to apply to members of the respective executives in those two parts of the United Kingdom. It needs to apply also in Northern Ireland. If it does not, then the necessary confidentiality will be dubious, I believe.
  At the same time I recognise that it may sometimes be difficult to expect members of the Northern Ireland executive to abide by the Official Secrets Act when they are being pressed in their own legislature, their own Assembly, to answer questions about why it is that Northern Ireland interests have not been represented as fully as members of the Assembly may wish. One hopes those occasions will be rare but they will occur and may not be quite as rare as we should wish.
  Generally speaking, it is important, as the new clause suggests, that when UK Ministers go to meetings of the European Union and its various councils they should ensure that they understand the position of the Northern Ireland Ministers in forming a UK policy line and a negotiating line to be taken at a particular meeting.
  I also believe it is important that, where matters are discussed which are of great importance to Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland representatives should be present. We all know that these negotiations sometimes go on for a long time, well into the night, and it can be necessary to take decisions and come to conclusions that were not necessarily envisaged in full when the negotiating position was worked out. Those of us who have been in that position know of the experience of telephoning Whitehall in order to get clearance for some move that had not been anticipated. That will be reinforced by devolution to the three parts of the United Kingdom where powers are being devolved. That situation will be made much more difficult—not impossible—and the new clause is intended to provide the framework within which these kinds of things can happen. I beg to move.
  9.30 p.m.
  Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I rise to support the new clause of the noble Lord, Lord Cope. It is good to hear him recognise how central the European Union is to the progress of all parts of the United Kingdom.
  In introducing the new clause, the noble Lord mentioned page 8, paragraph 31, which talks about preparing the approach to the European Union. That is also mentioned at two other points in the Good Friday agreement, and that is apropos Strand Two and Strand Three. Strand Two is on page 13 at paragraph 17 and Strand Three is on page 14 at paragraph 5.
  In supporting the clause, I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that there is also an important Irish dimension. It is possible that to have the Republic of Ireland fighting in the same corner on the issues that most closely affect Northern Ireland would be a positive benefit. Quite apart from the merits of the United Kingdom delegation taking Northern Ireland Ministers with them, I believe that it is good to get the Irish on side as well.
  I believe that the noble Lord's clause is absolutely necessary. We have only to imagine what would happen if we were to have the BSE crisis in two years' time rather than two years ago, and what the feelings would be in Northern Ireland with a healthy herd, well documented, if British Ministers were to go to Brussels to discuss the situation without the Northern Ireland Minister at their elbow, able to put the Northern Ireland point directly. I believe that it is a strong clause and well worth supporting.
  Lord Hylton: This amendment is on the right lines. It deals with the relationship between the European Union and its regions. Your Lordships will be aware that special arrangements are already working for such regions as Catalonia in Spain and Alto Adige or the South Tyrol on the Austrian/Italian border. I presume that Northern Ireland may already be represented in the Committee of the Regions or, if not, soon will be.
  The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, was right to mention the vexed question of BSE, where in the early stages Northern Ireland undoubtedly lost out compared with the Republic. Now, thankfully, no doubt due to the efforts of the noble Lord the Minister, the position has been more or less recovered, and about time too. I welcome this amendment.
  Lord Renton: It seems to me that my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley, in drawing attention to the difference between the fairly elaborate arrangements in the Scotland Bill for dealing with matters concerning the European Union and the absence of such arrangements in this Bill, confirmed them as being very temporary. It is a stark contrast.
  I support subsection (1) of my noble friend's amendment. It is right that there should be such consultation with the Secretary of State about matters in which he will be representing the United Kingdom. However, I am not so sure about subsection (2). That goes at least as far as what is to be found in the Scotland Bill.

  1797
  Perhaps I will be corrected if I am wrong, but I have some doubt as to whether it is possible for any representative other than the Secretary of State who represents the United Kingdom to speak at or attend the Council of Ministers. I should welcome clarification of that point. Broadly, I warmly support my noble friend's amendment.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I too support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, it is important that the agriculture Minister representing the United Kingdom should be aware of the detailed differences in the Northern Ireland region just as he would be aware of the views of a Minister from the Scottish parliament. There will undoubtedly be a Minister responsible for agriculture in the Assembly. It would be an easy matter in a time of emergency or in the event of something cropping up suddenly for that Minister to join his UK colleague in Brussels in a matter of hours to give first-hand advice. That is important.
  With regard to subsection (2) which states,
  "he may permit members of the Executive Committee to attend with",
  it may be appropriate at a later stage to toughen that provision and, where necessary, provide for a representative of the Assembly to be present.
  Returning to the difference between Northern Ireland on the one hand and Scotland on the other, while it may appear that they have equal claim, the problem for Northern Ireland agriculture since 1920 has been that we are the only part of the United Kingdom with a long frontier with another nation, albeit that other nation is within the European Union. It would therefore be optimistic to believe that the Irish agriculture Minister would line up with his opposite number in Belfast and fight their corner jointly. The Irish Minister, with a large, powerful agricultural constituency behind him in the south of Ireland, may well differ from his Northern Ireland counterpart and from the interests of Northern Ireland.
  It is interesting that under the previous government and now under the present Government we made some small headway in recognising Northern Ireland's special case—not based on any political or geographical grounds, but because we are the only part of the entire British Isles with a mechanism for recording animal health. That is unique and, oddly enough, we owe that to the Irish Republic. I can remember that in my schooldays there was a tendency for people to smuggle cattle across the frontier—I believe they still do, though the inducements are perhaps rather less now. In those days, the animal health provisions in the south of Ireland were practically non-existent. I remember whole herds of cattle in my locality being wiped out—this happened to my father—because of infection by imported cattle. At that time TB was a real threat to animals in the south of Ireland. Following that we had brucellosis and then we had the BSE problem as well.
  1798
  While I would hope that the Irish and Northern Ireland Ministers could in the context of Europe make common cause, I fear that on many occasions on very important matters they would be looking after their own; and who would blame them?
  Lord Dubs: I do not think there is very much between what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, wants to achieve and what the Government want to achieve, except that we believe it is unnecessary to put it on the face of the Bill. It is certainly the Government's intention that the Northern Ireland authorities shall be fully involved in domestic discussions about the formulation of the UK's policy position in European Union matters, but it is essential that the United Kingdom can negotiate with a single voice in the Council of Ministers. That goes without saying.
  The arrangements proposed in the new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult Northern Ireland Ministers and seek their views before any UK Minister attends a meeting of the Council of Ministers. Statutory requirements of the kind set out in the new clause would in this context prove over cumbersome and inadequate to ensure that the Government are able to respond quickly, sensitively and with one voice to any points raised, possibly at short notice, in meetings of the Council of Ministers. The Government are wholly committed to involving Northern Ireland Ministers fully in the formulation of the United Kingdom's policy position. Our proposal is continuing involvement of Northern Ireland Ministers as negotiations proceed but that arrangements will be covered in a non-statutory concordat. Providing assistance to Ministers of the Crown in international relations is incidental to the various statutory powers and functions of a Northern Ireland ministerial post. That makes specific provision to replicate the Scotland Bill in this area superfluous.
  I was asked a number of specific questions. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, mentioned the Official Secrets Act. If he cares to turn to paragraph 4 of Schedule 13 he will see that there is a reference to the Official Secrets Act. It states:
  "This Act shall apply to the following as it applies to persons falling within the definition of Crown servant",
  the following being the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and Northern Ireland Ministers. So I think we have that point quite well covered in Schedule 13.
  I was asked about parity of treatment with Scotland. Yes, that is the intention so far as the different responsibilities of the two administrations permit. But there are some differences, and that accounts for the fact that we have to approach these matters slightly differently. So far as concerns the different responsibilities of the two systems, we intend that Scotland and Northern Ireland shall have equal participation in the affairs of the European Union. Here, as elsewhere, the Scotland Bill and our Bill take a different approach because they are set against different legal backgrounds. But we are committed to equal treatment. We have great sympathy with the spirit of the amendment but it is not necessary to achieve the effect that the noble Lord seeks.

  1799
  As I said at the outset, there is nothing between us in what we want to happen but I believe it is unnecessary to put this on the face of the Bill. The intention can be achieved without such a cumbersome procedure.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am grateful to the Minister for that positive response to the thinking behind my amendment, even if he suggests that it will be best achieved outside the terms of the Bill. I accept that view. As long as we can rely, as I am sure we can, on the statement of the intentions of the Government in this respect, then I suppose it is not necessary to have a clause of this kind in the Bill entirely.
  I am also grateful to the Minister, for drawing my attention to Schedule 13, paragraph 4, in respect of the Official Secrets Act, particularly as it seems to be the only part of the Bill where he has not yet put down an amendment to tidy up the definition of Ministers. No doubt he will be able to achieve that during the course of our deliberations.
  A number of points have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, referred to the co-operation of the Republic of Ireland with Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom in negotiations within the European Union, and I accept his correction of the nomenclature. My experience, when I had some responsibility in these matters, was that it was sometimes quite difficult to get the Republic of Ireland on the same side as ourselves in arguments within the Community. In those days there were 12 members: one could summarise them as the Big Four, the Little Four and the Poor Four. The Republic of Ireland was among the Poor Four and we were among the Big Four and that was the way the split usually went. So it is not always easy to achieve co-operation because interests are different. The Republic of Ireland has after all achieved very considerable financial transfers to its own economy in different ways over the years by pursuing this policy. I do not say that is unjustified, but it is more difficult to justify it in the context of Northern Ireland than it is for the United Kingdom as a whole—
  9.45 p.m.
  Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. My point was not that it is easy but that the Belfast agreement explicitly envisages in Strand Two and Strand Three that one of the objectives is more co-operation apropos the affairs of Northern Ireland between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. I do not think we should let them off the hook; they should be encouraged.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am certainly not for letting them off the hook. I hope that we shall achieve, as a result of the agreement, greater co-operation. As a matter of fact the present Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, was the employment minister when I was at the Department of Employment carrying out most of the European business for the department. I had good co-operation with him at that time on many matters which did not involve too much money. I have every hope therefore that the co-operation will be good. However, the Northern Ireland representation in Europe, as the Minister said, has to be within the context of the United Kingdom position as a whole.
  1800
  In response to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, of course there are other members of the Community who have either minority groups within their countries, such as he suggested, or, for that matter, a great deal of devolution. The German l¤nder is one obvious example. Those countries do their best to achieve a united front for their country when they come to negotiate in the councils, and on the whole they are very good at it. If they stray they certainly get short change from the other people round the table, and not much notice is taken of a country which argues simply on the basis of one little part of its own framework if that is not thought to be in the interests of the country as a whole.
  It is a difficult balance to keep but it is important that representatives attending the councils from the United Kingdom, whether they are Westminster Ministers or Ministers from Edinburgh or Belfast, should be arguing in support of the United Kingdom line as a whole: otherwise we certainly weaken the whole of our case. I think the Minister is seized of that, and certainly the paragraphs which I read out from the White Paper on Scottish government reflect that.
  My noble friend Lord Renton made polite references to myself and the Scotland Bill. The extract that I read out was from the White Paper rather than the Bill and described what was to happen. The Bill follows it a little but, basically, these arrangements are not incorporated in the Bill. That rather supports the Minister's suggestions that we should deal with this matter outside the Bill rather than inside it. I am inclined to go along with that.
  With those comments, I am grateful to all those who have taken part in the debate and I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 75 [Assembly property]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 193A:
  Page 38, line 30, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
  ("(1) Subject to subsection (2), all property such as is mentioned in section 31(4) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 (property held in trust for Parliament of Northern Ireland etc.) shall on and after the commencement of this section be applied for the purposes of the Assembly or such other purposes as the Department of the Environment ("the Department") may determine.").
  The noble Lord said: The Government amendments in this group are an assortment of technical and drafting amendments.
  Amendment No. 193A to Clause 75 is intended to correct a defect in the current provisions relating to Assembly property. The clause is intended to bear on the property, essentially concerning the Stormont Estate, covered by Section 31 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. The clause, however, at present mis-describes this, referring to property held for the purposes of the Assembly established in 1973. The property is in fact held, according to the terms of the relevant trusts, for the Parliament of Northern Ireland abolished in 1973. All this property will, by virtue of Amendment No. 199A, vest for the future in the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland. Since we are proposing in Amendment No. 282A that the issues in this clause should be reserved

  1801
  matters, rather than excepted ones as at present, the possibility will be open of the Assembly legislating on them, although with the consent of the Secretary of State and subject to parliamentary control.
  Amendment No. 200 is a pure drafting amendment. The intention of Clause 77 is that no legislation made under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act or the direct rule powers in the Northern Ireland Act 1974, nor the instruments mentioned in the clause, should lapse because of the repeal of the power under which they were made. The amendment better achieves the purpose.
  Amendment No. 201 omits a reference in Clause 77(1) to Section 70 of the Government of Ireland Act which is redundant, no relevant order-making power existing under that section.
  Most of the amendments to Clauses 78 and 80 are consequential on earlier changes in the Bill. We have touched on some, but not all, in the course of discussions on earlier amendments. Amendment No. 202 is consequential on the new clause in relation to ministerial offices that the Committee has approved after Clause 14 of the Bill, transferring into the new clause the requirement of the negative resolution procedure in respect of the order-making power it contains.
  Amendment No. 207 in Clause 80 is a matter of drafting. It substitutes a new definition of international obligations in line with the Scotland Bill but without change to the substance.
  Amendment No. 209 is consequential on the omnibus definition of "Minister" in the new clause before Clause 18 on statutory functions—an area where, as I have said before, we shall need to do some tidying up on Report.
  Amendment No. 210 is part of the package of amendments we discussed last week in relation to fisheries.
  Amendment No. 211 corrects the drafting of the definition of subordinate legislation so as to take in not only orders made under Acts of the Assembly but also those made under previous Northern Ireland primary legislation.
  Amendment No. 212 ensures that the definition of discriminatory legislation in Clause 80(2) catches subordinate legislation as well as primary legislation.
  Amendment No. 216 brings into force immediately on the passing of the Bill our proposed new paragraph 12 to Schedule 13, set out in Amendment No. 342, which the Committee will consider tomorrow, by which statements in the Assembly, and their publication under the Assembly's authority, will have absolute privilege in defamation in relation to Assembly business. That will, in any event, be the position under the Bill after the appointed day.
  I turn to Amendments Nos. 217 and 218 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. The establishment by the Irish Government of a human rights commission and the bringing into force of employment equality and equal status legislation, to which the amendments refer, are important commitments under the agreement. I am aware that the Irish Government are moving
  1802
  energetically to give effect to them. But these are different from the Irish commitments in relation to constitutional amendments, which we discussed last week, because the agreement does not set a deadline for them. The whole agreement must of course be progressively implemented, but it is certainly not a requirement that all of it must take effect at the establishment of devolved institutions; for example, the policing and criminal justice elements of the agreement move on a different time-scale. I do not think we should impose a time-scale where the talks participants did not impose one.
  The House will be able to consider 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. But I do not think we should set any other requirements that do not feature in the agreement. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am content with the government amendments and seek only to address the two amendments which stand in my name, Amendments Nos. 217 and 218. As the Minister said, both seek in different ways to delay the coming into force of parts of this Bill until the equivalent parts of the Republic of Ireland legislation are also brought into force. I have drafted both these amendments so as to avoid the accusation that they are preconditions. In both cases, my intention is that their provisions should come into force at the same time as the relevant legislation in the Republic of Ireland.
  When the House returned during the Recess to discuss the emergency legislation following the Omagh bombing, a great deal was made by the Minister and by his government colleagues elsewhere of the fact that both parliaments—that in the Republic of Ireland and the Parliament here in the United Kingdom—were acting together at the same time in response to the same incident. At other times during the course of the application of the agreement, it has been made clear that the two governments acting together, and the two parliaments acting together to a degree, are important parts of the way in which the agreement is being implemented as a joint effort. We very much value the support of the Irish Government and of the Dail for the measures which are being taken with regard to the agreement. In the agreement, they entered into commitments to take comparable steps to those taken in the United Kingdom with regard to both human rights and equality. We have discussed both points many times earlier today and previously in Committee with regard to the detailed steps that we are taking in this jurisdiction.
  The agreement sets out comparable steps to be taken by the Republic of Ireland. It is much to be desired that both in terms of human rights and equality—separately, if necessary, because the timetables may not be the same—the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland should move together. Paragraph 18 of the agreement is

  1803
  very precise in terms of the commitment with regard to human rights. The Irish Government are to,
  "establish a Human Rights Commission with a mandate and remit equivalent to that within Northern Ireland".
  It is not to be absolutely the same in every provision—no doubt Irish law is different from ours—but people in Northern Ireland want the reassurance of equivalent provisions with regard to human rights. There are also to be commitments from the Irish Government to,
  "implement enhanced employment equality legislation; introduce equal status legislation; and
  continue to take further active steps to demonstrate its respect for the different traditions in the island of Ireland".
  The Minister will know that there has been criticism over the years of the fall since the foundation of the state in the 1920s in the proportion of the population of the Republic of Ireland who are Protestants. The way in which Protestants in the Republic have been treated has also been criticised from time to time—sometimes no doubt fairly and sometimes unfairly. Nevertheless, the criticism is there and it is strong. It is important in both jurisdictions that we also move together as regards the equality legislation.
  All I am suggesting in my amendment is that, when we finally settle what should happen about human rights and about the equality commission, those sections of the Bill which implement such provisions should, in each case, come into force on the same day, in step with the same legislation in the Republic. That seems to me to be a relatively modest request to make. I hope the Minister will at least give it some consideration.
  10 p.m.
  Lord Hylton: I should very much like to see a human rights commission established in the Republic at the earliest possible date. Nevertheless, I have considerable doubts about this group of three amendments. I believe that it probably goes a good deal too far, notwithstanding whether or not it may be thought to constitute a precondition. First, I should like to know why we should subordinate our legislation to progress in the Republic. Secondly, if we were to accept such amendments, it seems to me that we would tie the hands of the Secretary of State in an unnecessary way.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I did not gain the impression that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, in moving his amendment, was thinking in terms of dates in the calender. As I understood him, he seemed to be concerned with the principle of reciprocity. As the Good Friday "secret scrolls", as I call them, were assented to by paramilitary representatives and some political parties, but signed only by two governments, the latter undertook to introduce and support in their respective parliaments in broad terms the various elements of legislation with the declared intention that they should become Acts in their separate jurisdictions.
  Her Majesty's Ministers have insisted that the Good Friday package must remain intact and must not be unpicked or unstitched. Those of us who have sought to introduce a degree of common sense into some of the rather loose and confused wording of the agreement
  1804
  have, in the view of some members of the Government, been on the wrong side of the fence. Therefore, I should have thought that it was very logical that both sovereign governments would feel bound to deliver the package intact. Again, like the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I emphasise that we are not talking about preconditions or dates in the calender; we are simply recognising the necessity of the principle of reciprocity and of moving roughly in the same time frame.
  The latter is particularly important in regard to the amendment of the Irish constitution. We must recognise this and defer to the Irish Government. Irish governments are subject to the judgments of the Irish Supreme Court, which sometimes has the tiresome habit of striking down government legislation if it runs counter to the basic written Irish constitution. In this case, I understand that an application has already been made to the Irish Supreme Court regarding the compatibility of the Good Friday agreement with the Irish constitution, so there could be some delay or a hitch in that respect. However, that should not be used as a reason for delaying progress in the Irish Republic within its jurisdiction on all those matters to which it has set its hand. For example, it would be natural to agree that powers should not be transferred to the Northern Ireland Assembly until the promised changes are well under way, without the danger that the Irish Supreme Court might obliterate them.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: I, too, feel that we ought to consider the matter in the context of the reassurance of the people of Northern Ireland. I say that because, under the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference section of the Belfast agreement, reference is made to the,
  "recognition of the Irish Government's special interest in Northern Ireland and of the extent to which issues of mutual concern arise in relation to Northern Ireland".
  There is also a reference to the conference addressing, in particular,
  "the areas of rights, justice, prisons and policing in Northern Ireland",
  that is, until responsibility is devolved to a Northern Ireland administration, which may be some time hence.
  I believe that in view of the constant recognition in the Belfast agreement of a special right of interest accorded to the Republic of Ireland in the affairs of Northern Ireland, it is necessary to redress that balance a little and reassure Northern Ireland by showing that the Republic of Ireland also has made binding commitments on which this agreements rests. I feel that it is a question of reciprocity and of reassurance and is important for that reason.
  Lord Dubs: I believe that the Irish Government have made important progress in this matter but I do not think it is right while awaiting similar or comparable legislation in Dublin to delay introducing measures into Northern Ireland which will be of benefit to the people of Northern Ireland. I believe that the benefits of what we seek to do stand on their own and we ought to get on with implementing that.

  1805
  I wish to indicate to the Committee what progress has been made in Dublin. The Irish employment equality Act has been passed. Equal status legislation is in preparation, to be introduced later in the year. The Irish Government will ratify the Council of Europe framework convention on national minorities by the end of the year. They will publish before the end of the year a human rights commission Bill which they hope to bring into operation early next year. The all-party commission on constitutional matters is looking at the question of further constitutional protection for human rights. It seems to me that that represents quite some progress. The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, used the phrase "well under way". I should have thought that, if one applies that test to what is happening in Dublin, one can say they are well under way, even if perhaps they are not moving as rapidly as we are. My limited knowledge of legislative processes in Dublin suggests that once legislation is presented to the Parliament there, it goes through much more quickly than is the case in Westminster. Therefore perhaps they can catch us up, even if the legislation is started somewhat later.
  However, there is another point which relates to the wording of the Good Friday agreement. The agreement refers to comparable steps by the Irish Government and states,
  "The measures brought forward would ensure at least an equivalent level of protection of human rights as will pertain in Northern Ireland".
  It seems to me that if the Good Friday agreement has suggested that there should be equivalent protection in Dublin as will pertain in Northern Ireland, clearly we have to move first in order that they can match us; otherwise, they will not know what to equal. Therefore even by the test of the Good Friday agreement, I think it is right that the Dublin Government should see which way we are moving before they move themselves.
  But, frankly, the most important argument—as I have indicated under five different headings—is the progress that is being made in Dublin. I believe that the Dublin Government are as committed to implementing all parts of the Good Friday agreement as we are. Their time-scale may not be identical but they are clearly indicating that they intend to make rapid progress. Therefore I believe that the noble Lord's two amendments are not appropriate.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am interested to hear of the important progress being made on this kind of legislation in the Republic of Ireland. I agree with the Minister that sometimes that Parliament manages to pass measures more quickly than does ours. That is probably primarily because it is much smaller.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: Will the noble Lord also concede that one of the reasons why we take a little longer is because your Lordships' House—as opposed to the other end of the building—improves legislation and scrutinises it carefully in a way that is not possible elsewhere?
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: That is correct. I also believe that the small size of the Irish Parliament
  1806
  contributes to that effect. The Minister set out the progress which the Republic has made. That encourages me to think that, if my amendments were to be included in the Bill, that would not long delay the coming into force of the measure. If the Irish Parliament is making progress, there will be no delay at all in the provisions coming into effect.
  As regards their need to see our legislation before they draft theirs, it is amply available to them. The only difficulty is that our legislation is constantly on the move. I have lost count of the amendments which are being passed. I believe there are more than 260 government amendments to the Bill, including whole clauses. Some of the amendments which the Government tabled have already been withdrawn before we have reached them. There is a little block of amendments (Amendments Nos. 194 to 199) which have been withdrawn by the Government.
  I agree that it is difficult to know how our legislation will turn out at this point, or even how the Government intend it to turn out. Nevertheless, the Minister has explained why he does not wish to support these two amendments. Regardless of the legislation, it is important that, in the matter of human rights and equality, the two jurisdictions move hand in hand, stride by stride, with one another. It is important for the reassurance of people on both sides of the border in the island of Ireland.
  However, this is not a time to push the amendments, and therefore when we reach them I shall not seek to press them.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 194 to 199 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 199A:
  Page 38, line 44, at end insert—
  ("() In so far as any of the property mentioned in subsection (1) was not immediately before the commencement of this section vested in the Department it shall vest in the Department at that commencement; and subsections (1) and (2) shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any deed or other instrument relating to the property to which those subsections apply.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 76 agreed to.
  Clause 77 [Savings for existing laws]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 200:
  Page 39, line 12, leave out from ("the") to end of line 13 and insert ("operation in or in relation to Northern Ireland of any law in force on the appointed day or passed or made before that day,").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 201:
  Page 39, line 15, leave out ("or 70").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 78 [Orders and regulations]:
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Cox): If Amendment No. 202 is agreed to, Amendment No. 203 must read differently. That is why I did not call the amendments en bloc.
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 202:
  Page 39, line 34, leave out ("15(3),") and insert ("(Ministerial offices)(4),").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I now call Amendment No. 203 which, I am informed from my briefing note, would now read: Page 39, line 34, after the words last inserted, insert the new words printed on the Marshalled List.
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 203:
  Page 39, line 34, after ("15(3),") insert ("(Excepted and reserved matters),").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 204 to 205A:
  Page 39, line 34, after ("20,") insert ("(Quotas for purposes of international or Community obligations),").
  Page 39, line 37, leave out ("60(3)(e) or 67") and insert ("(Implementation bodies), 60(3)(e) or (Legislative power to remedy ultra vires acts)").
  Page 40, line 7, at end insert—
  ("() Rules under section (The Tribunal) or (Appeals from the Tribunal)—

  (a) shall be made by statutory instrument; and

  (b) shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 79 agreed to.
  Clause 80 [Interpretation]:
  [Amendment No. 206 not moved.]
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 207:
  Page 40, leave out lines 34 to 36 and insert ("to observe and implement Community law or the Convention rights").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 208 not moved.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I understand that if Amendments Nos. 212 and 212A are agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 213A.
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 209 to 212A:
  Page 40, line 38, at end insert—
  (""Minister", unless the context otherwise requires, has the meaning given by section (Statutory functions)(3);").
  Page 41, line 9, leave out ("71(1)(b)") and insert ("(Provision dealing with certain reserved matters)").
  Page 41, line 9, at end insert—
  (""the Northern Ireland zone" means the sea within British fishery limits which is adjacent to Northern Ireland;").
  Page 41, line 20, leave out ("an Act of the Assembly") and insert ("Northern Ireland legislation").
  Page 41, line 22, at end insert ("or of subordinate legislation").
  Page 41, line 31, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
  ("(4) No provision of an Act of the Assembly or of subordinate legislation, and no making, confirmation or approval of a provision of subordinate legislation, shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as discriminating if the provision has the effect of safeguarding national security or protecting public safety or public order.
  (5) No other act done by any person shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as discriminating if—

  (a) the act is done for the purpose of safeguarding national security or protecting public safety or public order; and

  (b) the doing of the act is justified by that purpose.").

  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 209 to 212A en bloc.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 213 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 214:
  Page 41, line 38, at end insert—
  ("(6) Her Majesty may by Order in Council determine, or make provision for determining, for such purposes of this Act as may be specified, any boundary between—

  (a) the waters or parts of the sea which are to be treated as adjacent to Northern Ireland; and

  (b) those which are not,

  and may make different determinations or provisions for different purposes.
  (7) No recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty to make an Order in Council under subsection (6) unless a draft of the Order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 80, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 81 and 82 agreed to.
  Clause 83 [Short title and commencement]:
  [Amendment No. 215 not moved.]
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 216:
  Page 42, line 5, after ("4") insert (", paragraph 12 of Schedule 13").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 217 to 219 not moved.]
  Clause 83, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 1 agreed to.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, 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 ten o'clock.