HL Deb 26 October 1998 vol 593 cc1793-808

.—(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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 203:

Page 39, line 34, after ("15(3),") insert ("(Excepted and reserved matters),").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

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)—

  1. (a) shall be made by statutory instrument; and
  2. (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 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 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—

  1. (a) the act is done for the purpose of safeguarding national security or protecting public safety or public order; and
  2. (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 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—

  1. (a) the waters or parts of the sea which are to be treated as adjacent to Northern Ireland; and
  2. (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 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.