Lords Sitting of 27 October 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

The Lord Bishop of Southwark
Thomas Frederick, Lord Bishop of Southwark—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Chichester and the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

Care of the Mentally Handicapped
2.40 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the quality of care in the community for people with learning difficulties or mental handicaps.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, a recent inspection by the Department of Health's Social Services Inspectorate found that services for people with learning disabilities are more responsive to individuals' needs and wishes than they have ever been. Many people with learning disabilities now enjoy a good quality of life in the community, where previously their only choice would have been care in the old long-stay hospitals. The quality of services does, however, vary both within and between areas and we have initiated a programme of work to ensure that the local statutory authorities continue to improve the services they provide for people with learning disabilities.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply, which contains some good news. Is the Minister aware of recent research published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation which shows that the majority of mentally handicapped people or those with learning disabilities still live with their families and an increasing number are surviving to old age and therefore are being cared for by elderly relatives whom they may well survive? Does the noble Baroness accept that many of these elderly relatives find it hard to provide that care, often do not receive the support that they need from social services, and are also deeply worried about what will happen when the relatives for whom they are caring survive them? What can the Minister say to these people who have spent their lives looking after dependent mentally handicapped relatives, both to reassure them about the care that is needed now to look after them and what will happen to those relatives who survive them?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am aware of the research to which the noble Baroness refers and also the immense contribution that is made by many carers who look after those who are mentally handicapped or
1810
who have learning disabilities at home. She rightly pinpoints the issue of older parents in particular, and their concerns. Since family carers play a crucial role in the lives of people with learning disabilities it is important that authorities plan ahead so that older carers can be given the assurance they need that their children will be cared for when they can no longer look after them and that crisis admissions to residential care, which can be so distressing, are avoided. As to general support for carers, last June the Government announced a wide review of measures to help carers. The National Strategy for Carers will bring together a range of initiatives designed to address carers' concerns and give them support. A study is currently being undertaken to establish how the problems that carers face can be tackled by new government initiatives and policies. The strategy will be ready for consultation early next year.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some local authorities still seem unaware that provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act apply as much to people who are mentally ill or handicapped as they do to the physically disabled? Is this a timely moment for a further circular about their statutory responsibilities?
Moreover, does my noble friend agree that one effective way of reducing the pressure on hospital beds is to increase the availability of adequate local services for chronically sick and disabled people generally?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend's longstanding commitment and contribution to the cause of the disabled is well known. He rightly points out the need for and advantages of sensitive and locally based services.
As regards provision for those with learning disabilities and the possibility of new guidance, we are currently funding an independent evaluation into the costs and outcomes of various forms of residential provision for people with learning disabilities. When we see the results of that, it will tell us whether we need to issue further guidance.
Lord Rix: My Lords, does the Minister agree that flexible short-term breaks and appropriate housing are essential elements in the long-term care of people with learning disabilities and their elderly carers? Can my noble friend inquire what has happened to the Disabled Persons and Carers (Short-Term Breaks) Bill which I introduced through your Lordships' House in 1996? It received all-party support, and since that time has lain alone and palely loitering in another place.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I can think of other candidates for that description, but perhaps I should not go down that road.
The issues raised in the noble Lord's Private Member's Bill are important. They are important contributors to the ability of relatives caring for people with learning disabilities to continue in that role.

1811
Looking at support for carers will perhaps be a most useful element to address in the strategy. I am certain it is one of the issues that will feature in the report.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, on a related point, is the Minister aware of the problems and uncertainties that currently surround the commissioning of mental health services? I refer in particular to the provisions and responsibilities between commissioning by NHS regions, local authority social services and primary care groups. Will the noble Baroness's department issue clear guidance on the division of responsibilities in that area?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the guidance issued on national priorities was clearly focused on the responsibilities of both the health service and social services to work together, and to find mechanisms for working together whether through joint commissioning or pooled budgets, in order to provide the necessary cohesive services.
On the commissioning of mental health services, the mental health national service framework which is currently being drawn up will provide a template against which services can be commissioned and provided. It will be essential that health authorities, trusts and PCGs work together to manage that commissioning process.
With the introduction and establishment of primary care groups we have a unique opportunity for the key partners—they include social services and other branches of local authority services—to test new approaches to joint commissioning and more integrated provision.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, given the Government's official recognition that there is already a shortage of some 25,000 residential places for people with a mental handicap, is the Minister aware that the Government's excellent policy of encouraging a genuine range of provision is often thwarted at local level? In those circumstances, can the Government do anything directly to encourage new village communities for people with a mental handicap? They are in great demand and are cost-effective and care-effective.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord points out the need for an increasing number of residential places. An additional 11 per cent. was provided between 1994–95 and 1996–97, but we need still more. He rightly says that the Government's policy is that a range of options should be available. We have recently written to all health and local authorities reminding them that they should continue to offer that range of residential provision and respect the rights of individuals to make informed choices, including placements in village communities, wherever the preferred choice is likely best to meet their needs within acceptable costs.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, as we have reached nine minutes I am afraid that we must move on.

Agriculture: Discussions with NFU
2.50 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm Lord Monro of Langholm asked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions they have had with the National Farmers Union about the present plight of agriculture.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, we hold regular meetings with the National Farmers Union. The Minister and I last met NFU representatives on 8th October when a wide range of issues was discussed as a follow-up to the list put forward by the NFU rally at the Labour Party Conference in Blackpool.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, is the Minister aware that throughout the countryside in the United Kingdom generally, but particularly in livestock areas, the rural economy is in crisis? Is he also aware that incomes have plummeted and that all the good work done by previous governments to enhance the countryside, the environment, wildlife and rural employment is gravely at risk? Does he appreciate that we cannot wait for the reform of the CAP? What action are the Government proposing to take in the next few weeks to stave off disaster?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we are acutely aware of the serious difficulties facing all areas of the agricultural industry. We are not so aware of all the good work done by previous administrations. I assume that the noble Lord has in mind issues such as BSE and the beef ban. The situation is serious and we are looking at it most urgently. We are investigating what actions can be taken to mitigate it. Of course, that is not wholly for MAFF, which does not have funds to assist the sector further than the large amounts it already gives. Other departments are involved and it is a matter for the Government to decide on their priorities.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that his colleagues in the Scottish Office are having similar talks with the National Farmers Union of Scotland where the situation is every bit as dire? Many farmers in Scotland have not yet finished their wheat harvest and we are, after all, at the end of October.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, severe difficulties face all the nations of the United Kingdom. They are slightly worse in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales than in England. I believe that Ministers in the Scottish Office, which is well represented in this House, are currently holding talks to discuss the situation.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Welsh farmers are going through a particularly difficult time? Is his department meeting the Welsh farmers' union? What action is being taken by the Welsh Office to help the Welsh farmers?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, yes, the situation in Wales is acute. My right honourable friend the Minister

1813
went to Wales in order to meet representatives of the Welsh farmers. We have had talks and the Welsh Office is involved in investigating the situation. There are in Wales more highland and fragile upland areas with sheep and similar farming, which is particularly affected by the present situation and did not benefit proportionately during the bonanza enjoyed by British farming from 1992 to 1995.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, the Minister described the Government as considering the matter urgently. They have been considering it urgently for more than four months. Are they aware of the desperate situation in certain of the hill areas, including those in Wales, while they give no promise of real action? One thing they could do immediately would be to increase the headage in relation to sheep because many farmers cannot afford to send their sheep to market. They could also remove the necessary burden on abattoirs for killing sheep, which adds £8 to the cost of every lamb killed in this country. What do the Government intend to do in this urgent situation?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the Government have properly been considering the situation seriously. Many departments are involved, including the Treasury. Some of the possible actions which would help farming will involve the co-operation—indeed, the approval—of the European Commission. It is not a case of providing one-off, quick help; we must view the whole situation to ascertain what strategy would be best for farming.
Lord Davis of Coity: My Lords, I appreciate the difficulties facing the British agricultural industry, but is it not the case that agriculture already receives more taxpayers' money than any other sector of the economy?
Noble Lords: Reading!
Lord Davis of Coity: Therefore, does it not follow that if more money is directed to agriculture less is likely to be directed to other areas of the productive sector?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, it is certainly the case that agriculture, although one of the smallest sectors, amounting to 1.1 per cent. of the economy, receives by far the greatest help; greater than any other sector of the economy. It receives two and a half times more than the next sector and nearly four times more than the whole of manufacturing. However, our view is that the importance of agriculture and the seriousness of the problems justify major aid. We believe in the long-term welfare of British agriculture.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, in the opinion of the Government, is the deplorable state of agriculture at the present time primarily the fault of interest rates and the Bank of England, or the CAP, or the undoubted efficiency of the British farmer?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, in looking at fault, one is looking at a most complex subject. What is particular
1814
about the present situation is that all the factors which can have a detrimental effect on a sector have affected agriculture at the same time. There is no doubt that the high rate of sterling is probably the most significant factor, and there occurred at the same time the secular decline in commodity prices throughout all sectors.

The National Lottery: Plans
2.57 p.m.
Baroness Sharples Baroness Sharples asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their present and future plans for the funds generated by the National Lottery.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we expect the National Lottery to raise £10.6 billion for good causes during the current licence period, which is £600 million above previous forecasts. The arts, sport, heritage and charities will each receive an additional £50 million and are each guaranteed 16⅔ per cent. of National Lottery revenues beyond 2001. The other £400 million will go to initiatives on health, education and the environment. We will publish a consultation document outlining our proposals next month. The New Opportunities Fund will inherit the millennium stream of funding after 2001
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he agree with the headline in the Guardian of 7th October, "Government raids lottery funds"? Does he further accept that many charities are expressing considerable concern about their future because of the Government's raid on the lottery funds?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no, I do not agree with the headline in the Guardian. The Government are not raiding any lottery funds; lottery funds are going to a wide range of good causes, including the arts, heritage, sport and charities, health, education and the environment. The National Lottery's Charities Board has a particular role above and beyond its monetary allocation in that we have charged it with bringing together volunteers and opportunities for volunteering throughout the range of lottery funding. It is already consulting on a strategic plan for that purpose.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is £3.62 billion still in the distribution fund which has not been distributed? I know that the Minister will say that that has been put to some use but, of that, nearly £1.54 billion has not been committed to any project at all. The fund is increasing by nearly £33.5 million per month which is hardly a satisfactory situation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not agree. The fact is that £4.8 billion has already been committed and only £1.5 billion remains to be committed. That is exactly what one would expect bearing in mind that there is still money to come in. Money is not drawn down before it is needed. It goes

1815
into a tax-free fund; it earns interest; the interest goes into the good causes; and the National Lottery Distribution Fund has already brought in £500 million for good causes. Therefore, we are not losing out. Nobody is losing out.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, given that the surplus on that fund is not immediately required and in view of the long list of beneficiaries which my noble friend announced, will he kindly consider whether agriculture might be added to that long list?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, are not health, education and the environment the responsibility of the Government? Was not the National Lottery set up to give money to matters which are not the responsibility of the Government?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is the noble Earl arguing that health, education and the environment are solely the responsibility of the Government and that arts, sport, culture and heritage are not at all the responsibility of the Government? I challenge both views. The definition of "additionality", which is what the noble Earl is talking about, has not changed since before the election. Indeed, the last Prime Minister, Mr. Major, said after the election that he was considering whether lottery funds should be used to put sports teachers back into schools. That money is still additional to core government expenditure, as it always was.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is some criticism because some of the people on the board distributing lottery money are members of bodies in the field of the arts and so on which are receiving the money? Is it not the case too that there is some legitimate criticism that some of the more affluent areas of the United Kingdom are receiving very large sums of money from that fund whereas some of the poorest areas are being almost ignored?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have not heard any allegations that any members of the distribution boards have been acting in any way improperly. If my noble friend has any such evidence, I am sure that he will wish to give it to me. But the whole purpose of the broadening of the distribution of lottery funds is to make sure that social needs which are additional to core government expenditure, which affects poor people as well as richer people, should benefit from lottery funds.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, will the Minister tell us something of the new criteria for the funding of film production which is expected from the new film council, rather than the distribution of lottery moneys being decided by the Arts Council, some of which has been criticised in the past? What does the
1816
Minister expect to come from the new participation of the film council in terms of the performance of British films?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am very glad to have that question but I am not glad to have it now. As the noble Viscount knows, we are consulting on our proposals for film funding. We have received responses from various parts of the industry. They are generally in favour of the proposed film council but the details of that have yet to be announced. We shall make the public and parliament aware as soon as we have reached a final conclusion.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, will the Minister inform the House what opportunities were given to the distributing bodies to put forward their case before announcing the share of lottery money currently given to the Millennium Commission which, after 2001, is to go to the New Opportunities Fund?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the distribution bodies are in constant contact with Ministers and officials in my department. There is no inhibition whatever on them expressing their views. But ultimately the Government must decide between them.

Headship Qualifications: Progress
3.5 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the progress being made with the national professional qualification for headship.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, this Government acknowledge the crucial role played by heads in our drive to raise standards in schools. Last week we announced our plans to establish a new national college for school leadership and that £25 million would be available next year for the training of new heads and to improve the skills of existing heads.
Meanwhile, 4,900 candidates are currently undergoing training, of which some 80 have already qualified. A number have been appointed to headship posts. The new qualification has been subject to careful evaluation throughout its development. The feedback has been positive in showing the training has developed candidates' management and leadership skills. I believe the qualification is well on track.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the warm welcome which has been given to that long overdue training qualification? However, is there not a danger that its requirement for applicants for headships may be implemented too soon, having regard to the large number of early retirements which have been taken by head teachers? In addition, will my noble friend give an assurance that all the

1817
teachers' unions are being properly and consistently consulted on all the changes that are taking place in relation to that matter?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am aware of the warm welcome which has been given to this new qualification. Indeed, an evaluation carried out by the National Foundation for Educational Research endorses the fact that many people are strongly in favour of that new approach.
The teachers' unions have been consulted about the new arrangements. The Government are well aware of the need to monitor the introduction of the new qualification. They will not introduce a statutory requirement for all head teachers to have that qualification until they are confident that the pool of teachers available with it is sufficiently large to meet the vacancies for head teachers.
Lord Tope: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that it is still the Government's intention to make the NPQH compulsory before the next general election? Will she agree that rather than backing down on that commitment, it would be better to take practical steps to make headship a much more attractive proposition, particularly at primary school level?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I confirm that the Government intend to introduce this qualification by the year 2002, before the end of this Parliament. I accept entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said about the need to do all we can to encourage good teachers to become head teachers. The Government are looking at various approaches to that end. They have also asked the School Teachers' Pay Review Body in particular to consider the position for primary head teachers where there is a greater shortage than at secondary level.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, does the Minister agree with an editorial in The Times last week that, while school heads must indeed be properly trained in personnel and budgetary management, everything depends on the job description "Head Teachers" and that nothing must diminish the role of teaching if we are to have heads who retain the respect of their fellow teachers and their pupils?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Quirk. The new training has four modules to it, some of which are concerned with resource allocations, strategic leadership and management matters; but there is also a module which deals with teaching and learning. It is extremely important that head teachers are a model for the rest of their staff in relation to those questions of teaching and learning.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in applying the welcome new policy of training head teachers to do a job which has changed out of all recognition in the past 15 years, will the Government avoid falling into the trap of making requirements for primary heads of single entry forms the same as for heads of multiple-entry secondary schools?
1818
Will they further consider, in those big multiple entry schools, recreating something like the bursarship which existed in the private sector, so that some academic responsibility can remain with academically qualified head teachers?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is the case that the job of being the head of a small primary school is rather different to the job of being the head in a large comprehensive school. The training programmes devised under the new scheme will take that into account. Indeed, each applicant will be assessed according to their existing qualifications and experience. The programme that they follow will be modelled according to their specific needs.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does my noble friend consider it desirable that those employed by Ofsted to inspect our schools should possess or be encouraged to possess that qualification?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it would not be appropriate for everybody who carries out Ofsted inspections to go through a training designed for head teachers. However, I entirely agree with my noble friend that it is desirable for many Ofsted inspection teams to include people with experience as heads or deputy heads.

Northern Ireland Bill
3.11 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.]
Schedule 2 [Excepted matters]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 220:
Page 43, leave out lines 24 to 26.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 220 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 221 to 223 and 253A. Members of the Committee will see that several of these amendments are tabled in my name, though Amendment No. 222 is in the name of the Minister. At this point I propose only to refer to the amendments in my name.
Amendment No. 220 is concerned with ministerial functions. The whole of this schedule relates to which functions are to remain excepted matters; that is to say, matters which will remain permanently under the

1819
control of Westminster and Whitehall and Ministers of the United Kingdom Government. The amendment addresses paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 2 which states:
"functions of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, the Northern Ireland Ministers or the Northern Ireland departments, or functions in relation to Northern Ireland of any Minister of the Crown",
shall not be excepted matters; that is to say, they shall be the responsibility at once of the Assembly and the Executive in Northern Ireland.
I agree that some of the functions of the Northern Ireland Ministers need to be transferred now. Clearly, it will also be within the responsibility of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to distribute the portfolios of the Northern Ireland departments among their colleagues in the Executive. It is right that they should do so. But there are also some functions, particularly of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, which should not be open to variation by the Executive or the Assembly. Apart from anything else, they are the functions laid on the First Minister and Deputy First Minister by the Belfast agreement. The wording of that paragraph suggests that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister could vary even their own functions as laid down in the agreement with the permission of the Assembly, which is not desirable.
The provision also says that the new administration in Northern Ireland will be responsible for,
"functions in relation to Northern Ireland of any Minister of the Crown".
I believe that means Whitehall Ministers, Ministers of the United Kingdom Government. It does not seem to be right that the Assembly should have responsibility, as a result of that provision, for the functions of United Kingdom Ministers, even in relation to Northern Ireland. One can see all sorts of difficulties arising over a period of time if that were so and the Assembly was attempting to keep the United Kingdom Ministers out of their bailiwick by restricting their functions through the use of the power given to them by that provision.
Amendment No. 221 relates to paragraph 1(b) which refers to,
"property belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown or belonging to a government department or held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of a government department".
There are a number of government departments—Whitehall departments—whose writs will still run in Northern Ireland. They occupy property at the moment over there for the purposes of their duties and will need to retain it. Obvious examples are the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. Customs and Excise is intended to hand certain responsibilities to the Executive and the Assembly, but the bulk of its responsibilities for tax-raising and so forth will remain answerable to the Westminster Parliament, UK Ministers and the Treasury. The property which they occupy for the purposes of carrying out their functions should remain the property of the United Kingdom Government and not be transferred to the government of Northern Ireland.
Amendment No. 223 transfers to the Northern Ireland administration responsibility for the foreshore and the seabed or subsoil or their natural resources. That presumably refers, among other things, to oil or gas which may be found in the seabed off Northern Ireland. I am not sure that it is wise to have a separate regime, should that eventuality occur, for the waters of the United Kingdom off Northern Ireland from that off the other areas of the United Kingdom.
But other questions arise which I hope the Minister will be able to answer. The first is in connection with contamination in the Irish Sea. At times there has been trouble from the fact that waste has been dumped in the Irish Sea and caused contamination. Presumably responsibility is being slid across to the Assembly and the Executive for dealing with that contamination, even though it arises from the actions of the United Kingdom government of many years ago and, in some cases, the actions of the Ministry of Defence which dropped material into the Irish Sea.
My last point relates to undersea cables and connections. A proposal was made some time ago for an electrical interconnector between Northern Ireland and Great Britain so as to assist the supply of electricity to Northern Ireland and, hopefully, make it cheaper. That would now become partially the responsibility of the Assembly and the Executive. I do not object to that, but would like to be clear that that is what paragraph 1(c) of Schedule 2 in fact does. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): I must tell the Committee that, as Amendments Nos. 221 and 222 are also being spoken to, if Amendment No. 221 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 222.
Lord Skelmersdale: It is a great relief after a whole string of government amendments—and we are about to have a whole string more—to have an amendment from my noble friend on the Opposition Front Bench. I have no doubt—indeed we have had warning thereof—that there will be vast numbers of amendments again at Report stage and, who knows, probably at Third Reading as well.
As to this group of amendments, I, too, find it extremely odd that there is an exception to the excepted matters in paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 2, namely,
"functions in relation to Northern Ireland of any Minister of the Crown".
The Secretary of State is "any Minister of the Crown"—I suspect that the current one is a rather special Minister of the Crown but, nonetheless, she is a Minister of the Crown—and not a Northern Ireland Minister. What on earth will the Assembly do mucking around with her functions?
I was extremely confused by paragraph 1(c),
"the foreshore or the seabed",
which my noble friend Lord Cope referred. I look a little further and, in Schedule 3, paragraph 4, "Reserved Matters", we find "the foreshore and the seabed". You cannot have both, surely.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I shall be very brief. Surely the remarkable speech of my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley shows that there is a need for definition and clarification. There are so many questions that arise that need to be dealt with. On the question of definition, it is all very well to use the word "functions" without any definition at all but it is not very acceptable. Some functions—and I am not going to take time—are clearly within the remit of the United Kingdom Parliament and other functions are within the remit of the Assembly.
As to the matter of the seabed—which is a very difficult question in any form of international contract, international agreement, territorial claims, and so on and so forth—the Government need to clarify exactly what paragraph 1(c) means. If the Government are not prepared to, or are unable to define and clarify—I am sure they possibly are—then I shall support this amendment.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I wholeheartedly agree that there is a need for clarity in respect of those matters which will remain permanently under the control of Westminster. It is very important to establish a clear understanding of those matters because, through no fault of the Minister and his colleagues, we are told that clauses as yet unseen will be brought forward, perhaps at Report stage. That is not a criticism of the hard-working draftsmen or the Minister supervising them. I am sure the Minister will ensure that in the course of drafting the various new clauses and amendments great care will be taken so that they do not conflict with the position as we perhaps understood it, even when we finished last evening.
I am glad that mention has been made of the waterways. It is important to ensure that, for example, the control of the foreshore is not overlooked. In some places in Northern Ireland, in certain waterways, the international boundary does not take the expected line of mid-distance between two portions of land. In some cases the international boundary is on the high water mark on the other side of the inlet.
Lord Dubs: Yesterday I wrote to a number of your Lordships giving some background information as to the Government's thinking on some matters which we discussed yesterday and today. I learned this morning that some of your Lordships did not receive that letter until earlier today. I apologise that it was not with you yesterday before we started the proceedings.
It may be helpful if, before I deal with the detail of the amendments by the Government and other noble Lords to Schedules 2 and 3, I give a brief account of our general approach to these schedules. This will set the context in a more helpful manner.
Our primary concern, here as everywhere else in the Bill, is to give effect to the agreement. Several passages of the strand one section in particular set out the broad framework we are to follow. They are drafted against the background of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which is still in force, though overlaid by the provisions for direct rule.
1822
Paragraph 3 makes clear that the Assembly will exercise full legislative and executive authority in respect of those matters currently within the responsibility of the six Northern Ireland government departments. Those responsibilities correspond very largely to matters that are at present transferred by virtue of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, as it has been amended.
Paragraph 27 provides that the Assembly will have authority to legislate in reserved areas with the approval of the Secretary of State and subject to parliamentary control.
Accordingly, our starting point has to be the 1973 divisions. But some tidying up has been required. It is the nature of the model that we have chosen that new subjects for legislation arise in the transferred field. In one or two such cases where the matters concerned fall naturally to be handled at national level, and in one or two other cases where transferred matters have come under UK-wide legislative regimes, we have moved matters into the reserved or excepted categories.
The reserved category includes a number of matters which the agreement envisages as being suitable for transfer in the fields of policing and justice. But not all reserved matters are, or were in 1973, envisaged as suitable for transfer. A number of factors have led us, as they did our predecessors, to prefer the reserved to the excepted field where a decision has been needed.
It may at times be useful for the Assembly to legislate on some of these matters, especially where there is existing Northern Ireland legislation. Such legislation would be subject to the consent of the Secretary of State and the system of parliamentary control set out in Clause 13 of the Bill.
Putting matters in Schedule 3 also preserves the flexibility to transfer parts of them, in circumstances unforeseen at present, so long as there is general agreement at Westminster and in the Assembly. Under the Scotland Bill, there is a greater flexibility to change the constitutional categorisation of matters; under our Bill, there is no mechanism for moving matters out of the excepted field.
It is right to stress here the point I have previously made to your Lordships about the inevitable differences between our approach and that of the Scots. Whereas they start with a clean sheet, we are building on a legal foundation of arrangements for devolution in Northern Ireland that goes back to 1921. The dissimilarity in our starting points shows through in the key matter of drafting style; that is, the way in which matters to be reserved are set out in the Scotland Bill and the listing of excepted and reserved matters in our Bill.
Schedule 5 to the Scotland Bill sets out in substantial detail the matters to be reserved. Schedules 2 and 3 to the Northern Ireland Bill, on the other hand, approach the matter in a broader brush way that is consistent with the approach in the 1973 Act. It is right that this should be so for policy reasons. The agreement is set against the backdrop of the 1973 legislation.
It is also desirable in legal terms because the Northern Ireland system has operated in this context—and in particular the legislation has been drafted consistently

1823
with it—and a change in approach could throw up many uncertainties. But these differences in approach mean that a comparison between the two Bills may sometimes be deceptive.
I hope this explanation may be of some assistance to your Lordships in fathoming what may at times seem an arbitrary division. Even against the principles I have outlined, the categorisation of particular matters is not always clear cut, and we shall of course, as always, listen with care to your Lordships' views.
I turn to the detail of the amendments. There are a large number of government amendments.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Before he comes to the detail, I wonder whether he will deal with one point. He has given an extremely clear explanation of the Government's thinking on what is to be reserved and what is to be excepted and the difference from the Scottish devolution settlement. In view of the similarity—in fact, the almost identical nature—of the legislation dealing with gender discrimination, race discrimination and disability discrimination in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland, I do not understand, from what he said, what is the impediment to putting those subjects either in Schedule 2 or in Schedule 3 so that there can be some protection on the statute book where there are core equality rights. His explanation on matters of principle does not explain that. I know that we dealt with it yesterday, but without the benefits of the explanation today, I wonder whether he can deal with that point before he comes to the detail.
Lord Dubs: I should have thought that the explanation I have given today reinforces the arguments I used yesterday in favour of the scheme adopted in the Bill as regards equality legislation. It is partly history and it is partly the Good Friday agreement. As regards history, as I argued yesterday, given that responsibility for the departments is a matter that has been transferred to the assembly, it is right and proper that the equality commission, which has an oversight of the way in which some of those departments operate, should also come under the assembly. I should have thought that that is fully in keeping with what I have just said about the general approach.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: It is my fault. I am not dealing with the equality commission at all. I am dealing with the state of the substantive law. I am putting it to the Minister that there is no difference in substance between sex discrimination law on this side of the Irish Sea and sex discrimination law in Northern Ireland. The same is true of race discrimination, and the same is true of disability discrimination. That is all post the 1973 constitution. It is not dealt with in the Good Friday agreement. What I do not understand is why, given the identical nature of legislation on both sides of the Irish Sea, the Government do not think it necessary to reserve the fabric, scope and content of that law so that it is in complete harmony on both sides of the Irish Sea.
Lord Dubs: I do not wish to brush aside the noble Lord's argument, but I feel we have been here before over the past three Committee days. However, I shall certainly do my best to deal with the point.
We are dealing with departments, the work of which comes under the assembly. We are then dealing with an equality commission which is part of the body of law to which the noble Lord referred. The equality commission oversees the way in which those departments carry out some of their functions. It seemed to us wrong in principle that that oversight should be carried out from London, thereby weakening the responsibility of the Assembly to legislate for these matters in Northern Ireland. That would be an attempt to keep a grip on the Assembly when what we are trying to do is to give the Assembly a certain independence in these matters so that it can exercise full responsibility. Otherwise, it is still being tethered to Whitehall.
I should have thought that, in the interests of giving the Assembly freedom of action on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, it is right and proper that it has that freedom as regards its responsibilities. I am not sure that I can persuade the noble Lord. All I can say is that that is the argument as the Government see it. I appreciate that he takes a different point of view. I am not sure that we are going to be able to persuade each other—at least I may still be able to persuade him although I am afraid that he is not going to be able to persuade the Government—but I have listened carefully to his arguments and I shall go on doing so.
I turn to the detail of the amendments. There are a large number of government amendments. However, a large proportion of them are purely technical and are intended to improve or clarify the drafting to bring definitions up to date where technology has moved on, and to improve consistency. There are some on which I shall touch in rather more detail.
Amendments Nos. 220, 221 and 222 would have the effect of moving a number of issues into the excepted field from the transferred and reserved fields. Amendment No. 220 would except the functions of the First and Deputy First Ministers and Northern Ireland Ministers as well as the functions in relation to Northern Ireland of any Minister of the Crown. I am not sure that I really understand the noble Lord's intention in this amendment since the functions of Northern Ireland Ministers and departments could not be excepted matters. But the Committee will note that the Government are bringing forward Amendment No. 253, which will reserve the conferral of functions of a Minister of the Crown in relation to Northern Ireland.
Amendment No. 221 would except Crown and government property, whereas we consider it right that, for the most part, it should be a reserved matter. As I said in my opening remarks, there are a number of areas where we have preferred the reserved field to the excepted field, and this is one such area. However, government Amendments Nos. 222 and 253A are relevant to this point since they provide that Crown property used by the armed forces of the Crown and the Ministry of Defence police will be an excepted matter. This is in line with the exception of both the armed

1825
forces of the Crown and the Ministry of Defence police in paragraph 4 of Schedule 2. Amendment No. 253A also has the effect of ensuring that the property of the Northern Ireland departments is a transferred matter. We think that anything other than that would place an undesirable fetter on the Assembly.
Finally in this group, Amendment No. 223 would except the foreshore, seabed and subsoil and their natural resources. Again, this is a matter where we consider it appropriate to allow for the possibility of the Assembly being able to legislate, with the Secretary of State's consent. This amendment would also have the effect of casting doubt on the reservation of the foreshore and seabed and other matters in paragraph 4 of Schedule 3. I appreciate that the categorisation is not always clear, but, as I have said, putting matters in the reserved field does not necessarily mean that we consider them suitable for transfer. However, it does allow us a little more flexibility.
Perhaps I may deal with some of the specific questions that were asked during the course of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked whether the important functions of the First and Deputy First Minister provided for in the Belfast agreement are transferred under the Bill. The answer is, no. Government Amendments Nos. 243A and 282A are drafted to ensure that the Assembly cannot do away with any of the important functions of the First and Deputy First Minister as conferred under the Bill.
I was asked about Ministers of the Crown. Amendment No. 253 makes conferring the functions on Ministers of the Crown a reserved matter. As regards property, government Amendment No. 253A makes UK government property a reserved matter. As regards the foreshore, the seabed and so on, that is reserved in paragraph 4 of Schedule 3.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, asked a question about boundaries at sea. Under Clause 6, the Assembly can legislate for Northern Ireland. Under Clause 80(1), this extends to so much of the internal waters and territorial sea of the UK as are adjacent to Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 214, which was agreed yesterday, allows Her Majesty by Order in Council to prescribe the boundaries of Northern Ireland waters, so there can be no doubt about that.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked about contamination at sea and submarine cables. The intended reservation, not exception, of the foreshore, seabed and so on, aims to allow the Assembly to legislate for them so far as this does not deal with other excepted matters. The Secretary of State will then be able to exercise control over this.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked some questions about paragraph 17. Despite the exception, the Assembly can only confer functions within its legislative competence. Paragraph 17, as we propose it should be amended, will prevent it from interfering with the functions of Ministers set out in the Bill. As for the conferral of functions on a Minister of the Crown, to which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred, even in the transferred field that will, under a later amendment, Amendment No. 253, be a reserved matter and so will need consent.
1826
I think that I have dealt with all the points that were raised. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Before the noble Lord sits down, I am afraid that I wish to press him further on those matters which are or should be excepted. I think it would be understood by these Benches, and it is the Government's obvious wish, that international obligations prevent us being able to devolve such matters as must by definition be excepted. So when he replied to my noble friend just now on questions of equality, whether sex, disability or race relations, is he absolutely satisfied that in devolving to the Northern Ireland Assembly—quite unlike Scotland—the ability to vary that legislation, the Government are in compliance with their international obligations such as the international covenant on civil and human rights? Taking off from that, even if the Government are in compliance with international obligations on all these equality matters, how can it be right to say—and I am afraid we have to press this—that in Scotland those are matters for the British Parliament to decide? We have good protection of equality in British law, and we have decided that that shall continue to obtain in Scotland. But in Northern Ireland, the Assembly, if it wishes—and this should be understood by people who have worked so hard to stop discrimination on disability and also sex discrimination in Northern Ireland—can potentially undo it. I want to be clear whether it is the Government's intention that the Northern Ireland Assembly, unlike the Scottish Parliament, could undo the provisions of British law that look after sex discrimination, disability and race relations. Is it really the Government's intention that the Northern Ireland Assembly can, international covenants permitting, undo those if it wishes?
Lord Dubs: As regards international obligations, clearly, if the Assembly has the discretion to legislate in areas where there are international obligations, it will have to do so in the light of those obligations, as does this Parliament. As I said at an earlier stage, international obligations will be paramount and all that the Assembly does will have to be in line with them. If the devolved Assembly attempted to contravene the international obligations of the United Kingdom, then Clauses 12, 5 and 20 allow the Secretary of State to prevent it so that it is not an unfettered power, provided that international obligations are at stake.
As regards other obligations not connected with international obligations, I suppose I could turn the question round and say to the noble Lord that it might well be that Westminster weakened the equality laws. The noble Lord assumes that only the Northern Ireland Assembly would wish to weaken them. I do not think that that is necessarily the right assumption. I repeat that if we want the Northern Ireland Assembly to legislate properly and effectively on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland there need to be known parameters. The noble Lord seeks to limit the scope within those parameters and I say, and the Government say, that we have every confidence that the Assembly will handle things properly. We shall give it the freedom to do so.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I am the first to accept that the Northern Ireland constitution emerging here does not have to be on all fours with that of Scotland. The Minister made the case very well. It is a different case and the constitution or the rules we are constructing for the Northern Ireland Assembly derive from the Good Friday agreement. However, I am quite clear that there is no drive or imperative in the Good Friday agreement to say that the Northern Ireland Assembly should be on a completely different basis from Scotland when it comes to the question of varying the standards set by the Westminster Parliament on equality. Why is that? Why do the Government want to give the Northern Ireland Assembly powers which the Scottish parliament does not have in this respect?
Lord Dubs: As I said earlier, the historical basis for the way we are approaching the Northern Ireland Assembly powers is different from that which applies to Scotland where there is not that sort of historical basis. We have moved on accordingly. After all, we have a body of legislative practice which is based upon the Northern Ireland situation going back to Stormont and before, and we have tried to proceed in the Bill in conformity with that as far as possible.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I do not want to bore the Committee any more on this subject today. However, I wish to put one question, if I may, to the Minister. We ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1976, three years after the Northern Ireland Constitution Act was passed. That covenant obliges us to secure equal protection of the law without discrimination throughout the United Kingdom. The Government must know from their legal advisers that that is the obligation imposed by the covenant and therefore they must know that the Assembly will have no power to pass legislation to weaken the equality law because that would lead to unequal protection throughout the country. If that is so, why on earth are the Government not protecting this subject either by putting it into the excepted category or into the reserved category rather than waiting for some ghastly political row in 10 years' time—heaven forbid—in which the Minister has to use an over-ride power because we have not produced the right schedule to the Bill now?
3.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs: I believe I have answered that question more than once today. The Government's position is clear. The noble Lord does not agree with the Government's position, I think that is also fairly obvious to everyone who is listening. We have taken the view that the Assembly has to have powers and has to act within the transferred area. We regard these powers as being more properly within that area.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I accept the Government's position. I accept the thrust of the argument. I accept that the whole idea is that the Assembly should have the greatest freedom to legislate, but I am still concerned about the functions. I believe, though I am not sure, that the noble Lord was saying
1828
that the functions could be retrieved by reference to previous legislation or from the Belfast agreement. If it is one or the other, or both, then there can be no objection to seeking to define them at some later stage of the Bill. If they are not derived from the Belfast agreement or from previous legislation, there is all the more reason why they should be clarified and defined.
Unless some attempt is made to define those functions, it will be a source of trouble without doubt. If the situation is so plain from previous legislation and from the Belfast agreement, it would be very helpful if the Government could consider seeking to formulate the functions before some later stage of the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his patience. I accept the thrust of his argument, but I am still a bit foxed about paragraph 1(c) and the oil position. I do not think it is at all clear how that will work out in practice.
Lord Dubs: I am not sure I can help the noble Lord, much as I would wish to be able to do so. If I understand his argument correctly, he would like some elaboration of what we mean by the functions of the various Ministers indicated. My immediate response is that the functions which the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister would have in the context of the Belfast agreement and the powers that are being transferred to the Northern Ireland Assembly would cover the particular responsibilities attaching to those posts as well as to the Ministers of Northern Ireland departments.
I am not sure how useful it would be to spell that out in more detail. I would have thought that in one sense it is fairly clearly understood. After all, the functions of Ministers of the Crown in relation to British Government matters are not spelt out as far as I am aware. Yet they are readily understood in relation to their statutory and other powers and responsibilities. So, although I would like to help the noble Lord, I do not think I am able to.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, made a "final" contribution—at least for today—on the matter of responsibility for equality. The noble Lord and his colleague on the Liberal Democrat Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, seemed to be straying on to the subject matter of Amendment No. 224, so perhaps we shall not need to debate that amendment when we reach it.
These matters have been the responsibility of Northern Ireland Office departments. Legislation on fair employment has been Northern Ireland legislation and, therefore, under the agreement, falls into either the reserved or the transferred category as a result rather than into the excepted category.
My amendments relate particularly to functions of Ministers of the Crown—that is, Westminster Ministers—and to the property of departments of the Crown—that is, Westminster departments—in Northern Ireland. Why are those potentially to become the responsibility of the Assembly and the Executive in Northern Ireland? I accept that, as the Minister said, the amendments ensure that both the functions and the property are in the reserved category rather than

1829
the transferred category. However, essentially the reserved category covers matters which at some point could be transferred.
I regard it as unthinkable that the functions of the Treasury Minister responsible for the Inland Revenue should ever be transferred to the Assembly and the devolved government. I also regard it as unthinkable that the property from which the Inland Revenue functions in Northern Ireland as it collects income tax and goes about its other business there should ever be transferred to the Northern Ireland government. To me, those are essentially matters which should remain with the Whitehall/Westminster Government. Therefore, they should be in the excepted category. To put them into the reserved category is to say that at some time in the future the Government may want to transfer them.
That not only seems to me to be wrong—I do not think that they are ever likely to be transferred—but also has the danger that it might encourage some people in Northern Ireland and elsewhere to think that those matters might be transferred at some point; that there might be a separate taxation regime and that we might move to a different structure. There are people who say that taxation in Northern Ireland should be run in such a way as to match the taxation in the Republic of Ireland in every respect. Comparisons need to be made. Indeed, we shall draw attention to them later because one needs to have regard to them, but the idea that the Inland Revenue will be run from Ireland seems wrong.
I have used the Inland Revenue as only one example—although I think it a good example. Other central government departments would similarly be covered, but the Inland Revenue provides a clear example of a power and a function which should not be transferred and which should remain in the excepted category.
If the Minister will consider the matter further, I shall not press the amendment today. However, it seems to me that there is a real point to be answered which he has not yet really addressed.
Lord Dubs: I should like to make just one further comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has said. He suggested that everything that is in the reserved category is in that category with a view to it becoming transferred at some point in the future. I think that I made it clear earlier this afternoon and on other occasions that that is not necessarily so. One advantage of responsibilities and functions being in the reserved category is that, with the Secretary of State's consent, the Northern Ireland Assembly can legislate upon them. That is useful additional flexibility in our approach. If a matter were excepted, the Northern Ireland Assembly would not be able to play any part in considering it. It is an advantage of the reserved category that that is possible without necessarily saying that the matter will eventually be transferred.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I think it unlikely that the United Kingdom Government would wish the Assembly to pass any law relating to the Inland Revenue and its
1830
property. However, we have discussed this matter for long enough this afternoon and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 221 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 222:
Page 43, line 29, at end insert ("(other than property used for the purposes of the armed forces of the Crown or the Ministry of Defence Police)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 223 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 224:
Page 43, line 34, leave out from ("relations,") to ("but") in line 35 and insert ("including relations with territories outside the United Kingdom, the European Communities (and their institutions) and other international organisations, and international development assistance and co-operation,").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 224 modifies the list of matters at the beginning of paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 which are defined as being included in the exception for "international relations". Our original definition was based on the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. Your Lordships may recognise that the new one is based on the definition in Schedule 5 to the Scotland Bill.
Amendment No. 226 alters the definitions of matters which are taken out of the international relations exception by virtue of paragraph 3(b) and (c) of Schedule 2. As it relates to North/South and East/West bodies, the amendment reflects earlier changes to the Bill; it also makes absolutely clear, as on reflection we think is necessary in drafting terms, that legislation concerning implementation bodies as envisaged in the agreement is not an excepted matter, which would take it outside the legislative competence of the Assembly.
The final part of the amendment again reflects a move towards the drafting of the Scotland Bill from the 1973 Act, making clear the Assembly's competence to legislate to observe international obligations, and those arising under the human rights convention and under Community law.
The first limb of Amendment No. 227, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is similar to the final part of our amendment, Amendment No. 226, so I can say that we accept that part of the amendment in principle and are grateful to the noble Lord. The second part of the noble Lord's amendment would remove from the exception assistance given to the Secretary of State by the devolved institutions in respect of the observance of international obligations and those arising under the ECHR or European Community law. We are again in sympathy with the principle but are advised that under the terms of our Bill this part of the amendment is unnecessary. According to our advice, no further provision is required to ensure that the Assembly will be able to confer and that Ministers and departments will be able to exercise functions which are exercisable in ways that assist the Crown in relation to international relations. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel it unnecessary to press his amendment.
Amendment No. 225 was discussed previously along with a related amendment to Clause 1. On that occasion, the proposed amendment to Clause 1 was resisted on the proper grounds that it would have changed the agreed wording which had been set out in the Belfast agreement, but I undertook to reflect on the points made by noble Lords in respect of that amendment.
As noble Lords are aware, the Belfast agreement for the first time unites the British and Irish Governments in their recognition that the future constitutional status of Northern Ireland can be changed only with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. This has also enabled the two governments to agree to address one another by their favoured titles for the first time; namely "the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and the "Government of Ireland". These titles were set out in the British-Irish agreement which was sent to every house in Northern Ireland as an annex to the Belfast agreement. However, the Government have made it clear that, where appropriate, we shall still refer to the "Republic of Ireland" if that is necessary to avoid any misunderstanding about the geographical place which is being described.
Paragraph 3 of Schedule 2, which deals with the surrender of fugitive offenders, is one such case where it is important that there is no misunderstanding. It is in our view clear that that paragraph is intended to refer to the movement of offenders between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Nevertheless, in view of your Lordships' comments and for the avoidance of all possible doubt, I am glad to say that we propose to accept the noble Lord's amendment. That does not, of course, alter the understanding in relation to the titles of the two governments. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I hope that the Minister will forgive me but I am not quite clear whether he was referring to taking on board the point made by my noble friends Lord Monson and Lord Cooke in their amendment, which relates to what he said about fugitive offenders. I am not in the business of snubbing the Irish Government, but the Minister explained at an earlier stage, and repeated it just now, that the terminology and the titles of the two sovereign states were reached by agreement as a kind of deal—I do not say an unworthy one—in the drafting of the agreement.
However, were the Irish Government consulted about the contradiction in the line in the schedule that my noble friends are attempting to amend in which the term "Northern Ireland and Ireland" is used in the one sentence? As the Minister will know, the constitution of the Republic of Ireland lays claim to the whole island of Ireland and, therefore, it is difficult to understand how either Government can condone such a contradiction.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: When we were debating an earlier amendment on the first day of the Committee stage I made it clear that I support Amendment No. 225.
1832
As the Minister said, it is necessary in order to make paragraph 3(a) of the schedule clear. I accept what the Minister has said about the other amendments.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: We strongly support Amendment No. 226. I am most grateful for that large crumb which has fallen from the table. I am also most grateful that the spirit of our amendment has been accepted. The great advantage of it—and I shall be corrected if I am wrong—is that it means that under Schedule 2 the obligations contained, for example, in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in the various discrimination conventions will all be excepted matters in so far as they are international obligations. On that basis, we will not find it necessary to move Amendment No. 227.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I have one comment to make about Amendment No. 224. We believe that the change in wording is appropriate as all the items specified are part of Westminster's responsibilities on behalf of the UK as a whole. However, there appears to me to be a drafting error. Perhaps I have read it wrongly, but it seems to me that the amendment deletes the penultimate word "but" which is needed to make sense of the exceptions that follow. As I said, it is only a drafting point. Nevertheless, I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether I am right or wrong in that respect.
Lord Dubs: I do not think that I can comment instantly on that point. I shall have to think about it. However, in the meantime, I shall deal with the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. The answer is yes. The Irish Government were consulted and they expressed their agreement with the approach indicated where any doubt arises. Therefore, I do not believe that there is any disagreement between this Government and the Irish Government on that point.
I turn now to the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I should point out that Amendment No. 226 makes it clear that implementation of such international obligations is a transferred matter.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the Minister. However, I take it that the Government will remain responsible with their override powers if the international treaty obligations are breached by the Assembly.
Lord Dubs: Yes, that is correct. As I indicated earlier, the Secretary of State has such a power and it is set out in the Bill.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Before we vote on the amendment, I should be grateful to know whether I am wrong in thinking that Amendment No. 224 will delete the word "but", which is required to make sense of the wording.
Lord Dubs: I am advised that the noble Lord is not right and that the word "but" remains in the way that the amendment has been drafted. That is the advice I have just received. It is difficult for me to go into more detail here and now, but that is my present advice.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 225:
Page 43, line 36, after ("and") insert ("the Republic of").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 226:
Page 43, line 38, leave out from ("arrangement") to end of line 45 and insert ("entered into—

("(i) by a person participating, by reason of a nomination under section (North-South Ministerial Council and British-Irish Council), in a meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council or the British-Irish Council; or

(ii) by, or in relation to the activities of, any body established for implementing, on the basis mentioned in paragraph 11 of Strand Two of the Belfast Agreement, policies agreed in the North-South Ministerial Council;

(c) observing and implementing international obligations, obligations under the Human Rights Convention and obligations under Community law.
In this paragraph "the Human Rights Convention" means the following as they have effect for the time being in relation to the United Kingdom—

(a) the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, agreed by the Council of Europe at Rome on 4th November 1950; and

(b) any Protocols to that Convention which have been ratified by the United Kingdom.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 227 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 228:
Page 44, line 1, after ("realm;") insert ("trading with the enemy;").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 228 and 271 clarify that trading with the enemy and other defence-related trade are excepted matters and are not included in the more general reservation of trade in Schedule 3. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 229:
Page 44, line 1, leave out from ("Crown") to ("; the") in line 2.
The noble Lord said: In moving the above amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 261. Amendment No. 229 refers to paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 which deals with the Armed Forces of the Crown. The amendment suggests that any matter within paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 to the Act should come under Westminster rather than under the Northern Ireland administration. Those matters are the powers given to the Armed Forces of the Crown when involved in the "maintenance of public order". It seems to me that the Armed Forces of the Crown should always remain under the direction of the Westminster
1834
Government—that is, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Westminster Government—even when they are engaged in the maintenance of public order.
We all know that the Armed Forces of the Crown had, of necessity, to do a great deal in support of the civil power over the past 30 years. We also remember that direct rule, and the changes in the government of Northern Ireland nearly 30 years ago, came about as a consequence of British troops being employed on the streets and the necessity therefore—as it was seen then—for Westminster to take control of the situation rather than leaving it in the control of the then Stormont government. It seems to me that by leaving as initially a reserved matter the maintenance of public order when carried out by the Armed Forces, and the powers which the latter use in that respect, we are going against that and permitting the Armed Forces to be used by the devolved government or at least controlled in part by the devolved government.
There is another point which arises from this schedule. We have been told that we must be careful about quoting from the Scotland Bill as a model for the wording of this legislation. Nevertheless, it refers to the Armed Forces of the Crown and then specifies that that includes the reserve forces. The words "including reserve forces" do not appear in this Bill. That gives me some cause for concern in respect of the Territorial Army in particular because of what is happening to it at present both in the country as a whole and in Northern Ireland. I understand that there are considerable proposals to reduce the size of the Territorial Army and to sell off drill halls in the Province, just as there are for the United Kingdom. Indeed, alarm bells rang in my ears when I noticed that the reserve forces were not specifically being included in the excepted matters which are to be retained by Whitehall. I should be most grateful if the Minister could reassure me on that point. If the noble Lord cannot do so off the cuff—because he has received no notice of this question—perhaps he could respond in some other manner a little later. I beg to move.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I certainly support the noble Lord's amendment in the sense that it deals with the Armed Services. I believe that he is right and that there cannot be any argument about it. However, when it comes to the maintenance of public order in Northern Ireland, we must be careful not to pre-empt, for instance, the findings of the Patten Commission on police. It is possible to imagine a day when Northern Ireland will have a larger responsibility for the maintenance of public order than has been the case during the emergency period through which we have lived recently. I sympathise with what he said about the Armed Services. I want to be quite certain that the effect of his amendment will not prevent growing involvement by the Northern Ireland Executive and the Assembly as regards matters of public order that do not deal with the deployment of the armed services in future.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: May I at once reassure the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that it is certainly not my intention—I do not believe that it is the effect of any of

1835
my amendments—to rule out the transfer of responsibility in due course for the maintenance of public order and other policing functions to the Assembly when the time is right. Obviously, the Patten Commission and, for that matter, the review of criminal justice and so forth, will all have a bearing when the time is judged to be right. Part of the way in which I would judge that the time is right depends on whether the armed forces are still being employed to the extent that they have been recently, and are now. It will depend on whether they still need to be employed in the maintenance of public order. I hope that they will not be and that will enable the switch to take place in due course, if everything else is all right. So long as the armed forces are involved they should remain the responsibility of Whitehall and the Ministry of Defence and not of the local administration.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I support the noble Lord, Lord Cope, in his request to the Minister to clarify the position with regard to the reserve forces. To the best of my knowledge forces such as the TA have never been used in support of the civil power. It is very important that their position is clarified.
Lord Dubs: The noble Lord's amendments bear on paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 and paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 and deal with the position of members of the armed forces of the Crown in carrying out functions for the purpose of the maintenance of public order.
Under the Bill the armed forces of the Crown are an excepted matter expect as regards the conferring on them of powers, authorities, privileges and immunities with regard to the maintenance of public order. In those circumstances, these matters are reserved, in the same way as in respect of police officers. We consider that it is right that this should be the case.
In Northern Ireland, members of the armed forces work alongside, and in support of, members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, exercising powers which are conferred on both of them. The effect of the noble Lord's amendments would be to remove that distinction, so that the armed forces of the Crown would be an excepted matter in all circumstances. The maintenance of public order is itself a reserve matter. For as long as it is considered necessary for the armed forces to operate in support of the RUC in Northern Ireland in maintaining public order, we believe that it is proper to ensure that these matters are dealt with consistently. For that reason I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Perhaps I may comment specifically on the question that the noble Lord asked about reserve forces. That question was also asked by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. They are covered by paragraph 4 because the drafting of the schedule, unlike in the case of Scotland, defines general categories rather than precise details.
Government Amendments Nos. 262 and 263 also bear on paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 to the Bill. Amendment No. 262 has the effect of excepting the Ministry of Defence police from the more general reservation
1836
of public order powers, etc. conferred on police officers and members of the armed forces. The Committee will recognise the similarity that this bears to the noble Lord's amendment in respect of the armed forces. But I believe that the Committee will understand the distinction between the two bodies. It is our view that the Ministry of Defence police should not fall into the reserve field by virtue of this paragraph. The role of the Ministry of Defence police is to protect the property of the armed forces. They do not have a conventional policing function nor do they have the function of the armed forces. In practical terms the MoD police do not have a public order function in contrast to the role of the Army in Northern Ireland who operate alongside the RUC and exercise powers and functions which are conferred on both.
Amendment No. 263 makes the Parades Commission for Northern Ireland a reserve matter. That means that the Assembly would not be able to legislate in respect of the Parades Commission, including its membership and activities, without the consent of the Secretary of State. The Parades Commission is a statutory body set up under the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1988, which has important executive functions with a wide-ranging remit. Public order is one factor which the commission must balance against others, including relationships within the community, in reaching its decision on disputed parades. Since public order is a reserve matter, it is consistent for the Parades Commission also to be reserved.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I believe that Amendment No. 263 is very wise at this stage. The Parades Commission had a very rocky start in a difficult atmosphere. Were it a matter for the Assembly to deal with and were there to be a coalition, all those who objected to particular decisions of the Parades Commission might come together on a cross-community basis and sink it. In the long term this provision may not be necessary and we all sincerely hope that it will not. In the short term, I believe that it is wise to keep that matter reserved and we support the Government's amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I, too, agree with the amendment as regards the Parades Commission. It is right for it to be in the reserved category. As regards my own amendments, if I heard the Minister aright, he seemed to be saying that as long as the armed forces are serving alongside the police in the maintenance of public order, it will remain a reserved matter and not be transferred. In that case it seems to me that the powers given to the members of the armed forces and their other responsibilities in maintaining public order, should rightly remain with Whitehall as an excepted matter. It is right that the Ministry of Defence and Whitehall should retain responsibility and that that should be clear in the Bill itself. The Minister said that the Government will retain that power because it is not proposed to transfer it until the particular provisions are no longer required. In that case, why not accept it in the first place

1837
and make the position very clear? I do not suppose that anything I say now will convince the Minister otherwise. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 230:
Page 44, line 2, after ("Act;") insert ("war pensions;").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is necessary to ensure that war pensions fall into the excepted field. The pensions of former members of the armed forces clearly fall within the exception in paragraph 4 of Schedule 2, which covers the armed forces of the Crown. However, war pensions are also paid to persons who may not have been members of the armed forces of the Crown, such as civilians, merchant seamen, coastguards and former Polish airmen.
We estimate that around 120 of the 4,000 or so war pensioners in Northern Ireland receive their awards other than in respect of service in the armed forces. We therefore consider it important to ensure that their war pensions are treated in the same way as those who served in the armed forces. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: And quite right too!
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 231:
Page 44, leave out line 7 and insert—
("8. Nationality; immigration, including asylum and the status and capacity of persons in the United Kingdom who are not British citizens; free movement of persons within the European Economic Area; issue of travel documents.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment will update the definition of nationality and immigration, which is an excepted matter in Schedule 2. The amendment brings the definition into line with the reservation in the Scotland Bill. It uses the term "British citizen", which was introduced in the British Nationality Act 1981. It also reflects the principle of free movement of persons within the European economic area. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 232:
Page 44, line 8, leave out ("Taxes") and insert ("The following matters—
(a) taxes or duties").
The noble Lord said: We are proposing these amendments to make it clear that the broad range of taxes and duties such as customs duties and agricultural levies are excepted matters. The amendments are purely technical and reflect our view that the term "taxes and duties" is preferable in the interests of clarity. Therefore I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendments, which have the same effect. I refer to government Amendments Nos. 232, 236 and 237. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: As the Minister has indicated, I attempted to re-write this provision so as to make it clear. The Government have also done that.
1838
Therefore I should accept their drafting rather than impose mine. However, their drafting still retains the words,
"levied in Northern Ireland before the appointed day",
even after the Government's amendments have been included in the Bill. Does that prevent the United Kingdom from inventing a new duty? I was at the Treasury at the time that airport duty was introduced. I should not like to think that future Chancellors of the Exchequer were prevented from introducing such measures in respect of Northern Ireland because that would not, of course, have been levied in Northern Ireland before the appointed day.
Lord Dubs: That is certainly not the intention.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 233 not moved.]
Lord Rathcavan Lord Rathcavan moved Amendment No. 234:
Page 44, line 8, after ("whole,") insert ("except Corporation Tax levied within Northern Ireland,").
The noble Lord said: This amendment and Amendment No. 265 flag up what is becoming an increasingly important issue for inward investment in manufacturing in Northern Ireland; that is, the huge difference between corporation tax rates in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. The figure is 10 per cent. in the Republic of Ireland and 31 per cent. in Northern Ireland. That matter greatly concerned those on the recent North American roadshow to attract inward investment headed by the Assembly First Minister, David Trimble, and his deputy, Seamus Mallon, and joined at several stages by the Secretary of State, Mo Mowlam.
At Second Reading of this Bill the Minister said that there was little support for fiscal powers in the discussions leading up to the agreement. He also said,
"We would not seek to introduce such a significant change in the package unless there were widespread support for it".—[Official Report, 5/10/98; col. 227.]
I believe that that widespread support, while not perhaps apparent in the political discussions before the agreement, has since become clear in the political establishment of Northern Ireland since the agreement. For example, the Alliance Party's manifesto states,
"Alliance supports power for the Assembly to reduce and increase tax".
The SDLP manifesto calls for,
"fiscal powers for the Assembly".
The Ulster Unionist Party has called for tax incentives to match those available in the Republic of Ireland. Even Sinn Fein advocates tax harmonisation, which is hardly an argument for the status quo. These parties account for a clear majority of seats in the new Assembly.
I am also acutely aware that there is widespread concern in the Northern Ireland business community about these corporate tax levels. It is well known that many Northern Ireland manufacturing companies have created or purchased subsidiaries in the Republic of Ireland where they can complete a manufacturing process and maximise their profits with the low rate of

1839
corporation tax. This is done quite legally but at the expense of corporation tax levied in Northern Ireland. The Treasury is losing out on tax receipts to the Republic of Ireland.
The current strategy review put in place by Mr. Adam Ingram, the Minister responsible for the economy in Northern Ireland, was established to find out the views of the business community on the development of the Northern Ireland economy. It will report soon. I believe that if the views of the CBI and the Chamber of Commerce are representative, the strategy review will come out strongly in favour of giving the Northern Ireland Assembly some fiscal responsibility for corporation tax and the ability to design a package for inward investment in manufacturing which is visibly competitive with that available across the land border.
I know of a large American pharmaceutical company already present in the Republic of Ireland. People in that company have told me there is no way in which they would set up a manufacturing plant in Northern Ireland with the current differential in corporation tax rates.
That was the message that participants in the Northern Ireland/North American roadshow were getting and they were concerned about the negative response and views expressed by First Minister, David Trimble, and his deputy, Seamus Mallon, in a recent article in the Irish News.
This issue will not go away. I fear that if it is not dealt with in this Bill it will become an even bigger issue in a year's time. I hope that the Minister has a more open mind today. The development of the Northern Ireland economy and new jobs are essential to the success of the peace process. These amendments highlight a matter which I am sure the new Assembly will wish to follow up. As the Minister confirmed earlier today, they will also give the Assembly the flexibility to play a part in such powers and responsibilities in due course. That cannot be done if corporation tax stays as an excepted matter. I beg to move.
Lord Desai: I have previously supported the spirit of the noble Lord's amendment. Clearly it will be difficult for the Government to have within the UK fiscal regime two different rates of corporation tax. The problem is that there are two fiscal regimes on the island which comprises Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Some way will have to be found to soften the blow of the higher corporation tax upon Northern Ireland business. I presume that my noble friend will say we cannot grant such powers to the Assembly. I hope that he and his colleagues will explore other ways which are, as it were, legally permissible under the single market legislation—or more surreptitious ones, if that is necessary—which will make up the difference. Whether one calls this danger money, special exclusion grant or whatever, one has to compensate inward investment for the 20 per cent. difference in corporation tax as that inward investment is badly needed in Northern Ireland. I hope that my noble friend will give a sympathetic answer to the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I, too, wish to support the spirit of the noble Lord's amendment. It is timely
1840
and I am quite certain that the recent mission to North America has found that as regards investment on the island of Ireland this differential, if weighed on the scales in a marginal decision, will weigh against the north versus the Republic of Ireland. Therefore the noble Lord is absolutely right to bring this matter to our attention. This discrepancy can do a great disservice to Northern Ireland industry as it tries to get into good shape in a competitive era. Certainly the United Kingdom as a whole has benefited from inward investment and, as we all know, it is very much needed in Northern Ireland and the right incentives are needed to attract it.
There is a further point that I wish to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, has said. I agree with him that the method we are discussing is probably not the right way to achieve our aim, but is there not some other way within the ingenuity of the Government to compensate for this discrepancy? There is another point as regards strand two and strand three institutions. Is this not a matter for co-operation with the Irish Government? They must realise this situation is potentially a zero sum gain. In the end it could invite a competitive response from Northern Ireland, and instead of the island of Ireland as a whole benefiting from the considerable good will in the United States in particular but in other investment areas too, the danger is the situation will become competitive and everyone will lose out. This is exactly the kind of issue that ought to be dealt with in the new cross-border bodies and in strand three.
So I support the spirit of the amendment, while not supporting the substance. I hope that the Government's response will show some imaginative sympathy for the predicament in which Northern Ireland industry finds itself, at a competitive disadvantage to the Republic.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I support the case made by my noble friend Lord Rathcavan. As the Committee will know, he is an outstanding figure in the world of commerce and industry in Northern Ireland and further afield. He will share my view that for many years we have been far too dependent on government employment. Sooner or later some sectors will disappear, so that it is important that there should be a compensating factor.
I derive a good deal of encouragement from the sympathy shown by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, particularly as he is a former Treasury Minister. I am sure that he will do all he can to persuade his successors to be equally sympathetic.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Encouraged by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, I support the spirit of the amendment. Taxation decisions on corporation tax and the other main taxes discussed in the previous amendment should remain in the Treasury, in the central government of the United Kingdom. I support the proposition that the Treasury and everyone else need to address the discrepancy in corporation tax between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. I am in no doubt that it has an increasingly serious effect on inward investment and that that in turn will be damaging to the

1841
economy of Northern Ireland. That economy is important for itself, but also for its contribution to bringing peace and good order to the Province. It will be much more difficult to achieve the kind of atmosphere we want in Northern Ireland if people are under great economic pressure. They continue to have high unemployment. There is extremely high unemployment in some areas of the Province, particularly in the west where it is among the highest in the European Union.
That discrepancy needs to be addressed. I am sure that the Assembly will wish to discuss it as well and make its points known. As I understand it, the Assembly can do so under the Bill. I hope that that is correct.
Lord Fitt: This is one of the most sensible amendments that we have had to the Bill since its introduction in the House. I am not in a close relationship with the business community or commerce but I know from discussions that I have had in Northern Ireland that there is full support for the recommendations made by the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan.
There is another way to look at the problem. The British Government have put a great deal of energy into making the Belfast agreement, first, come on to the books and then ensuring, even within the past 24 or 48 hours, that it continues down the road to success. That is one way that the British Government could prove their intent, that they want to help Northern Ireland, that they want to see outside investment being attracted to it, that they want to see a reduction in the unemployment figures there.
If there is a reduction in the tax and it attracts industry, not only from America but also from other places, to Northern Ireland, it would lead to a consequent reduction in unemployment. It would mean that those who are at present unemployed and in receipt of welfare benefits would no longer claim welfare benefits from the state, so there would be a claw-back into the coffers of the British Government. It would not be all one-way traffic, it would not be regarded as a welfare gesture. If people are unemployed then the attraction of investment would mean that they would possibly pay tax back to the Exchequer if they had jobs.
In view of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, which is supported by the vast majority of elected representatives in Northern Ireland—and it will meet with total unanimity from Northern Ireland representatives in this House—the Government should give serious consideration to the amendment.
Lord Goodhart: Like all the speakers in the debate other than those who come from Northern Ireland, I recognise that there is a problem, it is serious and needs attention. But I must agree that it is not best dealt with by this proposal. Corporation tax, among all kinds of taxation, is one of the least suitable for the creation of differential rates within one jurisdiction. It is not just a matter of tax rates between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, but potentially of tax rates between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. The reduction would have to be very substantial in order for it to be effective, given the extremely low rate of tax in the Republic of
1842
Ireland. It would merely shift the discrepancy from one between the north and south of Ireland to one between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, with all the problems to which that would give rise.
If Northern Ireland were to achieve tax haven status for corporation tax within the United Kingdom, it would open up all the problems of transfer pricing and so on within this one jurisdiction. For that reason, while it is clear that something should be done so that Northern Ireland provides no less favourable an opportunity for inward investment than the Republic of Ireland, I am unable to support the amendment.
Lord Dubs: This has been an interesting discussion and in reply to my noble friend Lord Fitt I must say that the Government are totally committed to getting levels of unemployment down, creating more jobs and encouraging inward investment. That is why the Secretary of State and other Ministers have been on the 11-city tour in the United States. It is all intended to encourage inward investment and to tackle unemployment.
But corporation tax is not the only area where there are possibilities of encouraging inward investment. I appreciate that corporation tax in the Republic of Ireland is significantly lower than in the United Kingdom. But there are other ways in which countries develop a package of incentives to encourage inward investment. For example, we have the IDB in Northern Ireland which helps with inward investment. No doubt there are other ways in which the Secretary of State, on her 11 -city tour, encouraged potential North American investors to look at Northern Ireland as an attractive investment opportunity.
I ought to say that on the disincentive side, I believe that the events at Drumcree in July were probably a greater disincentive to inward investment than any other factor. If only people would show more sense in relation to Drumcree next year, maybe some North American companies that have been deterred in the past from coming to Northern Ireland will proceed to do so.
I understand that the purpose of Amendments Nos. 234 and 235 is primarily to enable the Assembly to discuss corporation tax in Northern Ireland. It is important to note that corporation tax provisions are determined centrally by the Treasury in the context of the United Kingdom's overall fiscal policy. To do otherwise might produce undesirable distortions within the UK single market. For that reason, it is important that corporation tax, like other taxes, remains an excepted matter. Despite the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, my understanding is that there was no consensus in the talks for the Assembly to have the power to vary taxes. There is certainly nothing in the Belfast agreement about tax-raising powers.
However, I should also make it clear that keeping corporation tax as an excepted matter does not rule out the possibility of a differential regime in the future within different parts of the United Kingdom. It simply means that it can only be introduced by a Westminster Bill. There are such Finance Bills each session. But lest the comments I made just now are likely to be

1843
misunderstood, I should make it clear that the Government have no plans to introduce a differential regime. All I am describing is the theoretical possibility of achieving the noble Lord's end through Westminster legislation rather than through changing the Bill.
Equally, I should also add—and I have mentioned this before—the agreement has provisions for regular reviews. If a proposal emerged from such a review, we would consider it carefully.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, mentioned increased co-operation with the republic as regards attracting inward investment. That is certainly an attractive possibility, although I am bound to say that there is some tension, given that Northern Ireland would be competing with the republic. Nevertheless, co-operation is interesting. I hope that the noble Lord will treat that, as well as the other remarks I have made, as suggesting an element of imaginative sympathy, which is what he asked for. I reassure the Committee, as I sought to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that the Government want to do everything possible to encourage inward investment. However, we do not believe that the amendment of the noble Lord is the right way to proceed.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Before the noble Lord sits down, I thank him for his very generous response to my suggestion. We must get over to our friends in the Republic of Ireland that there is a price to be paid by them as well as by the United Kingdom to ensure that the future of Northern Ireland is as prosperous as can be. I feel no compunction about making those representations as strongly as possible in the new bodies that have been established. If they regard their mission as to take a larger and larger share of the Irish inward investment cake then it will be at the expense of Northern Ireland. Therefore, although I agree with the noble Lord that it takes a little leap of the imagination it is a case that we should make quite strongly to them.
Lord Dubs: Even though corporation tax in Northern Ireland is an excepted matter there is nothing to prevent the Assembly discussing that matter and putting proposals to the Government. To address the point just made by the noble Lord, equally there is nothing to prevent that issue being discussed in the North South Ministerial Council or the British-Irish Council. All of these are contexts in which the point made by the noble Lord can be given an airing in the interests of Northern Ireland and co-operation between Northern Ireland and Dublin, but responsibility for taxation must rest with Her Majesty's Government. More generally, the promotion of Northern Ireland trade under paragraph 16 of Schedule 3 is a transferred matter. Therefore, the Assembly can take a whole range of actions to promote such trade.
Lord Rathcavan: I hope that following this short debate the Minister is even more aware of the widespread concern in Northern Ireland about the disadvantages with which inward investment must contend. Further, I hope that the Government will give
1844
the Industrial Development Board of Northern Ireland every possible support so that it can produce a visibly competitive package in the future. In the light of what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 235 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 236 and 237:
Page 44, line 9, leave out ("taxes") and insert—
("(c) taxes or duties").
Page 44, line 10, leave out ("that duty") insert ("those mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) or (b)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 237A:
Page 44, leave out lines 11 to 14 and insert—
("10. The following matters—

(a) national insurance contributions;

(b) the control and management of the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund and payments into and out of that Fund;

(c) reductions in and deductions from national insurance contributions;

(d) national insurance rebates;

(e) payments out of public money to money purchase pension schemes:

(f) contributions equivalent premiums;

(g) rights to return to the state pension scheme.

Sub-paragraph (a) includes the determination, payment, collection and return of national insurance contributions and matters incidental to those matters.
Sub-paragraph (b) does not include payments out of the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund which relate to—

(i) the benefits mentioned in section 143(1) of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992, or benefits substantially of the same character as those benefits; or

(ii) administrative expenses incurred in connection with matters not falling within sub-paragraphs (a) to (g).

Sub-paragraphs (b) and (e) do not include payments out of or into the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund under—

(i) section 172(1)(b), (2)(a) or (7)(c) of the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993; or

(ii) Article 202, 227, 234 or 252 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.

In this paragraph "contributions equivalent premium" has the meaning given by section 51(2) of the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 237A seeks to replace the current paragraph 10 of Schedule 2 with a more detailed and accurate exception for national insurance contributions. Amendments Nos. 267 and 268 to Schedule 3 make reservations for the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council and for the subject matter of the vaccine damage payments scheme. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I merely draw attention to the fact that under this amendment national insurance contributions and the management of them will be excepted matters but the property from within which

1845
civil servants manage them will not belong to the department but will be under the control of the Assembly unless the earlier amendments are discussed.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord replies to my noble friend, can he explain whether the mass of detail that is proposed to be inserted into the Bill exceeds the more general description in paragraph 10 of Schedule 2 which is pretty comprehensive?
Lord Dubs: The noble Lord, Lord Renton, states that paragraph 10 of Schedule 2 is pretty comprehensive. I am trying to understand the extent to which it is not sufficiently comprehensive. My present understanding is that it is not sufficiently comprehensive, hence the amendment now proposed. I am advised that the matter properly remains with the DSS. The Assembly can legislate to touch on the property of United Kingdom departments, but that does not change the ownership of them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 238:
Page 44, line 16, after ("Ireland,") insert ("holders of offices listed in column 1 of Schedule 3 to the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978,").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment to include as an excepted matter in paragraph 11 of Schedule 2 statutory officers appointed by the Lord Chancellor under the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. These include the Official Solicitor and the Legal Secretary to the Lord Chief Justice. This brings them into line with other judicial appointments. Government Amendment No. 239 is a technical improvement to remove the explicit exception in Schedule 2 of the appointment and office of the Director and deputy Director of Public Prosecutions. This is unnecessary because Section 34 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which provides for the appointment and office, remains in force. The reference in Schedule 2 duplicates that provision. It therefore follows that the Government do not believe that Amendment No. 259 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, is necessary and I shall therefore invite him to withdraw it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 239:
Page 44, leave out lines 21 and 22.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 240:
Page 44, line 24, leave out ("; the registration of political parties") and insert—
("13A. The registration of political parties.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 240 is a drafting amendment to make the registration of political parties the subject of a separate paragraph in Schedule 2. This is in anticipation of future legislation on the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I believe this to be a very wise move on the part of the Government, but it may be
1846
very unwise for me to draw a comparison with the Scotland Bill. However, the Minister does so when he feels it right to do so. In the Scotland Bill the registration and funding of political parties are excepted matters or, in the terms of that Bill, reserved matters. I would not have thought that funding came within registration given the wider interpretation that is used in this Bill in comparison with the more specific wording in the Scotland Bill. It is important that funding should be an excepted matter, not least because it is believed that some of the political parties in Northern Ireland, not the leading ones, have benefited from the rackets of paramilitary organisations at different times. In those circumstances, the funding of political parties can be an even more serious matter than in the rest of United Kingdom.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I support the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. Like him, I inquire whether the amendment would be better worded if it made reference to registration and funding. Do the Government envisage that that is material because presumably it is accepted that the projected election commission to deal with these matters in future will, in looking after the registration of political parties and their funding, by definition also be excepted?
Lord Dubs: I am advised that the funding of political parties is covered. However, as I cannot put my finger on the exact point to justify what I say, perhaps noble Lords will accept that I shall look into the matter further and write to them accordingly.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 241:
Page 44, line 27, at end insert—
(". The subject-matter of the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 241 will make extra-territoriality an excepted matter by excepting the subject matter of the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980. The Protection of Trading Interests Act is used to counter foreign assertions of jurisdiction and give Ministers power to instruct persons in the UK not to comply with instructions from foreign courts in certain circumstances and makes foreign judgements unenforceable in such cases in United Kingdom courts. That is in line with the reservation of that Act in the Scotland Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 242:
Page 44, line 30, at end insert ("; the subject-matter of—

(a) the Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1920;

(b) the Interception of Communications Act 1985, except so far as relating to the prevention or detection of serious crime (within the meaning of that Act); and

(c) the Official Secrets Act 1989, except so far as relating to any information, document or other article protected against disclosure by section 4(2) (crime) and not by any other provision of sections 1 to 4.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment makes it clear that the subject matter of the Official Secrets Acts and the Interception of Communications Act 1985 is in the excepted field. This would arguably already be covered by the national security exception, but the amendment clarifies the position. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 243:
Page 44, line 30, at end insert—
(". Nuclear energy and nuclear installations, including nuclear safety, security and safeguards, and liability for nuclear occurrences, but not the subject-matter of—

(a) section 3(5) to (7) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (emission limits); or

(b) the Radioactive Substances Act 1993.").

The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 281. In the 1973 Act, nuclear installations were a reserved matter. That is the current entry in paragraph 34 of Schedule 3 to the Bill. However, we have looked at the matter again and consider the reservation to be inadequate. We accordingly propose to expand the category to include nuclear energy, nuclear safety, security and safeguards. That is in line with the reservations in the Scotland Bill. By including those matters in the category, we have gone some considerable way beyond the matters which were reserved in the 1973 Act. Indeed, we believe that the category concerns fundamental matters of national interest and as such should be excepted matters rather than reserved. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 244:
Page 44, line 30, at end insert—
(". Regulation of sea fishing outside the Northern Ireland zone (except in relation to Northern Ireland fishing boats).
In this paragraph "Northern Ireland fishing boat" means a fishing vessel which is registered in the register maintained under section 8 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and whose entry in the register specifies a port in Northern Ireland as the port to which the vessel is to be treated as belonging.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 245:
Page 44, leave out lines 31 to 38.
The noble Lord said: I tabled the amendment in order to find out the meaning of paragraph 17 of Schedule 2. It seemed to contain considerable complexities and did not appear to be clearly worded. However, the Minister subsequently tabled Amendment No. 245A. He has knocked out the whole clause and replaced it with clearer wording which I believe does the job more accurately. The clearer wording is to be preferred.
As the words used in my amendment are repeated in the noble Lord's amendment, I shall withdraw my amendment in order to support Amendment No. 245A.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): In the grouping with Amendment No 245 are Amendments Nos, 245A, 282A, 282B and
1848
282C. The noble Lord is right. His amendment jogged us into reconsideration and I am grateful to him for that.
There were deficiencies in paragraph 17 of Schedule 2. We seek to produce a degree of clarity although it is at the expense of brevity. In this group we propose amendments to Schedules 2, 3 and 4. They concern the extent to which the Bill and its subject matter are preserved from encroachment by the Assembly. In principle we wish to safeguard the main provisions of the Bill, reflecting, as they do, the agreement.
Not all provisions of the Bill are of the same nature. We had difficulty on the equality provisions. I mention the word "equality" with some diffidence because I believe that we have beaten it vigorously into the ground. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, is not present. He has already told me that he will not move the amendments in the next group. We were legislating in an area presently a transferred matter in general. We want to give protection to the key features of the equality provisions. The Assembly will have to be intimately involved in this field. The anti-discrimination codes the equality commission will be operating must, under the agreement, be transferred matters. We have consulted the Northern Ireland parties. In the light of their reactions we propose that most of these matters should become reserved and therefore included in Schedule 3.
There are other provisions where there is no real policy reason for the matters concerned to be completely preserved against Assembly modification. We have therefore included in the reserved category, for instance, the provisions relating to the Assembly commission and Assembly property. Those categories will be open to modification by the Assembly but only with the consent of the Secretary of State and subject to parliamentary control, as in Clause 13.
There are elements in the Bill from previous legislation. Even this degree of protection seems unnecessary. There are the provisions relating to land purchase annuities in Clause 76. There is no reason of principle why the Assembly should not deal with those. There are technical reasons for retaining some flexibility. There must be scope for amendments to update a statutory reference where the Assembly, within its proper domain, makes changes that affect it—for instance, by reconstituting a body to which it refers.
The Bill as presented followed the 1973 Act in making excepted any matter for which provision was made by the Bill, so that any change beyond that ancillary to other provisions would be outside the competence of the Assembly. It followed the Scotland Bill in entrenching most of the Bill in Schedule 4 so the Assembly could not modify its provisions textually. We did not get all the provisions exactly right before presentation, as I said when I began to introduce the amendments. Under our amendments, most provisions of the Bill remain in the excepted category. We have moved a number of matters to reserved matters. I have mentioned some already, and there are others we have felt obliged to make reserved so as not to prevent the Assembly from legislating legitimately in associated fields. It is important, as a matter of principle, that the Assembly is able to develop

1849
matters and to feel that it has a legitimate interest in various sections which do not need to be specifically removed from it. That is true in particular of the new clauses and schedule on certificates relating to national security and other matters which it will be necessary to apply in the forthcoming equality legislation.
Entrenchment of the Bill's provisions would largely duplicate the safeguards I have outlined but would add unwanted rigidities since it permits of no textual modification. It would cut across our wish to make matters reserved or transferred. We propose therefore that the Bill generally should not be entrenched. We have not entirely abandoned that concept. It would still apply as in Scotland to the Human Rights Act 1998 (as it soon will be) and the European Communities Act 1972. We have left entrenched a small number of provisions of the Bill where exceptional reservation appears to entail unwanted restrictions on the devolved authorities but where we do not want to see the Bill modified.
The Scotland Bill has undergone a number of modifications. I cannot say that I am confident even today that we have the final wording absolutely right. I have to tell the Committee that there may be some further fine-tuning on Report. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, has courteously indicated his stance. I repeat my thanks to him again for bringing this firmly into the topic of our discussion.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 245A:
Page 44, leave out lines 31 to 38 and insert—
(" . Any matter with which a provision of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 solely or mainly deals.
Any matter with which a provision of this Act falling within the following sub-paragraphs solely or mainly deals—

(a) Parts I and II;

(b) Part III except sections (Junior Ministers), (Statutory functions), 18(2) and (3) and 21;

(c) Part IV except sections 32, 35(7), 36(8) and 41 and Schedule 6;

(d) in Part IVA, sections (North-South Ministerial Council and British Irish Council) and (British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference);

(d) Part V except section 44(1);

(e) Part VI except sections 58, 59(1) to (4) and 60 and Schedules 9 and 10;

(f) in Part VII, sections 68 to 70 and Schedule 11.

This paragraph does not apply to—

(i) any matter in respect of which it is stated by this Act that proy be made by Act of the Assembly;

(ii) any matter to which a description specified in this Schedule or Schedule 3 is stated not to apply; or

(iii) any matter falling within a description specified in Schedule 3.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 246 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 247:
Page 44, line 38, at end insert—
(" .—(1) Equal opportunities, including the subject-matter of—

(a) the Equal Pay (Northern Ireland) Act 1970,

(b) the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976,

(c) the Fair Employment Act 1976,

(d) the Fair Employment Act 1989,

(e) the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and

(f) the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997,

but excluding—

(i) the encouragement (other than by prohibition or regulation) of equal opportunities, and in particular of the observance of the equal opportunity requirements; and

(ii) the imposition of duties on any public authority in Northern Ireland to which section 60 of this Act, to make arrangements with a view to securing that the functions of the authority are carried out with due regard to the need to meet the equal opportunity requirements.

(2) In this paragraph, "equal opportunities" means the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination between persons on grounds of sex or marital status, on racial grounds, or on grounds of disability, age, sexual orientation, language or social origin, or of other personal attributes, including beliefs or opinions such as religious beliefs or political opinions; and "equal opportunity requirements" means the requirements of the law for the time being relating to equal opportunities.").
Lord Goodhart: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Lester, I point out that Amendments Nos. 247 and 265A relate to whether the substance of the equality legislation as opposed to its implementation should be an accepted matter. That was debated at length yesterday and will no doubt reappear on Report. In the circumstances, we believe that no useful purpose would be served by moving the amendment now and on behalf of my noble friend I do not do so.
[Amendment No. 247 not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 248:
Page 44, line 38, at end insert—
(" . Regulation of activities in outer space.").
The noble Lord said: This is the first of several amendments which I have tabled in order to move certain issues from the reserved category to the excepted category. Earlier today, the Minister said that the fact that a matter appears in the reserved category does not necessarily mean that it will never be the responsibility of the Assembly and executive in Northern Ireland. However, I believe that that is how it will be read by some people.
I believe that there are some activities which it is right to say now will never, so far as we can see, be transferred to the devolved administration. Obviously, primary legislation could change that in the future. However, we could say that such matters will remain within the province of the Westminster Government and administration. One such matter is the regulation of activities in outer space.
I believe that a Northern Ireland space programme is unlikely, although I am second to none in my admiration of the activities of Shorts in the missile and space field. However, so far as I know, it has no ambitions to launch its own space programme based in Northern Ireland. I believe that in those circumstances the regulation of activities in outer space should be an excepted matter and not a reserved matter. That is what Amendment No. 248 proposes and I beg to move.
Lord Fitt: I am intrigued by the wording of the amendment and the notion that a reserved matter is the regulation of activities in outer space. Anyone who knows anything about Northern Ireland will know that during the past 30 years there have been a lot of spacemen running around the place. Many of the actions could have been carried out only by spacemen and a lot of the reporting of the actions in the media and the press could have come only from outer space.
Is the wording meant to be taken seriously? It is highly unlikely that there will ever be a space programme in Northern Ireland. Before tabling the amendment, did the noble Lords discuss the possibility of an outer space programme in the Northern Ireland Assembly? Did any of the political parties in Northern Ireland make any representations to the noble Lord to table the amendment? I conclude in the way that I began; there are a lot of spacemen running around in Northern Ireland.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: No, I received no representations on this matter. I observed the fact that in Schedule 3 the Government propose that the regulation of activities in outer space shall be a reserved matter potentially available for transfer to Northern Ireland. In believing that it was better that it should be an excepted matter, I did not consult representatives of the Assembly.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I support the amendments, particularly those dealing with postal services and wireless telegraphy and the provision of programme services within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990. It is important that we should not put ideas into the heads of entrepreneurs who might put under pressure their Assembly representatives. Such pressure would be unfair because perhaps for many years to come there will be doubt about whether the issue should be under the jurisdiction of the Assembly. It would be preferable to make clear now that such issues will not be overseen by the Assembly. I believe that most Members will accept that and welcome it.
Lord Dubs: I did not entirely understand the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. I believe that we are discussing the regulation of activities in outer space.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am sorry, I understood that we were discussing the entire list.
Lord Dubs: I understand that we are talking to Amendments Nos. 248 and 282. Perhaps I may try to be
1852
helpful yet again to the noble Lord, Lord Cope. Amendments Nos. 248 and 282 address the matter of the regulation of activities in outer space and whether it should be in the reserved or accepted field. I am in full agreement with the noble Lord that it should be a matter for Westminster alone. The regulation of activities in outer space was not a matter with which the 1973 Act concerned itself and we do not therefore have difficulties with historical precedent. Nor do we have any existing body of Northern Ireland law on the matter.
I cannot foresee any circumstances in which we would envisage the Assembly having to involve itself in these matters. However, there is a technical problem with the point in Schedule 2 at which the noble Lord's Amendment No. 248 would insert the provision. If the noble Lord will kindly withdraw the amendment I shall undertake to bring forward a government amendment on Report to move that matter to the accepted field.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am gratified by that reply and hope that it sets a precedent for matters that I am about to raise. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 249:
Page 44, line 38, at end insert—
(" . Postal services, including the issue, transmission and payment of money and postal orders issued by the Post Office; designs for postage stamps.").
The noble Lord said: This is one of the matters for which I hope the previous amendment has proved a precedent. The provision of postal services, including the designs for postal stamps and other matters dealt with by the Post Office, are intended by the Government to be among the reserved matters. It is undesirable that postal services should be broken up by devolution and given separately to Northern Ireland. My amendments propose that such responsibilities are kept at Westminster.
There was discussion recently about the possible privatisation of the Post Office. I am not sure what stage the proposal has reached because we have heard only rumour and hints, making it difficult to follow the matter. However, if the Post Office, or some part of it, were to be privatised it would be extremely difficult if by then the Assembly were responsible for its Northern Ireland aspect. I believe that it would be better left in the excepted category so that the future organisation of the Post Office is the same throughout the United Kingdom and its universal nature is retained.
One of the issues referred to in the Government phraseology, which I have transferred into my amendment, is the design of postage stamps. We all know that there have been and are Northern Ireland postage stamps showing different designs from those used elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The same is true for other parts of the country. That has happened under a unified Post Office with no difficulty and I see no reason why it should not continue. However, to give the

1853
responsibility at some future date to the Assembly for the design of postage stamps seems to me a recipe for the most difficult debates one could possibly imagine.
To begin with, under international agreements, the words "United Kingdom" or any other indication of nationality do not appear on our stamps. Instead, by ancient right, the Queen's head alone appears. That would be the first point of contention in relation to the design of postage stamps for Northern Ireland if it were the responsibility of the Assembly. In my opinion, it is much better to leave those matters undisturbed and to place the postal services, including all those matters referred to, in the excepted category so that it is clear that they remain the responsibility of the central government of the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I find what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, says persuasive but I have some concern about moving matters to the excepted category so that they can never—never is a dangerous word in politics—in any period of contemplation be something on which the Assembly could legislate.
For example, in the context of a reformed or semi-privatised Post Office, the issue of sub-post offices—extremely important to rural life in Northern Ireland—may arise. It may be something on which the Assembly—and the Secretary of State may agree—would wish to make its wishes known. Therefore, although the noble Lord is absolutely right to raise the contentious issue of the design of postage stamps as a matter which is unlikely to produce harmony if left to the Assembly, I am reluctant to see a whole category moved into permanent exceptions, as it were.
Lord Dubs: Amendments Nos. 249 and 255 would have the effect of moving postal services from the reserved to the excepted field. In introducing the amendments to these schedules, I set out for the Committee the thinking behind our general approach.
As I said, our primary concern is to give effect to the agreement set out against the background of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. Our starting point in the schedules has been the divisions between excepted and reserved matters in the 1973 Act. Those are historical precedents which we cannot ignore.
As I also mentioned earlier, where a decision has been needed about whether a matter should be reserved or excepted, a number of factors have led us to prefer the reserved to the excepted field. There may be times, possibly in circumstances yet unforeseen, when it would be useful for the Assembly to legislate on some of those matters or at least at the fringes and subject to the consent of the Secretary of State. By keeping those matters in the reserved field, we retain that flexibility. Otherwise, if we put them in the excepted category, the possibility of flexibility is lost.
These amendments would move the Post Office and postal services into the excepted field. For the reasons that I have outlined, it is our considered view that it would be preferable to keep those matters in the reserved field, as in the 1973 Act. On the basis of that, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
1854
The government amendment updates the definition, in paragraph 6 of Schedule 3, of postal services and the Post Office. It brings the definition into line with the Scotland Bill.
As regards the particular point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, about postage stamps, it is not the Government's intention that the Assembly should legislate about postage stamps. But we consider it appropriate to reserve the whole matter of postal services for wider reasons; for example, carrier services.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: It is interesting that the Government are falling back on the Scotland Bill as a precedent at this stage, having rejected it earlier. It is interesting also that in talking about designs for postage stamps, the Minister says very firmly that the Assembly will not be allowed to design postage stamps but, nevertheless, he does not want that in the excepted category. He is leaving it in the reserved category so that the Assembly can have ambitions to do so because that is the point of the reserved category.
However, I do not seem able to make progress with the Minister. I have registered the issue as one of some importance and I have obtained at least the statement that some of those matters will never be transferred but will remain reserved. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 250:
Page 44, line 38, at end insert—
(" . Regulation of the following—

(a) building societies;

(b) banking;

(c) friendly societies and the other societies to which the Friendly Societies Act 1974 applies.

. Regulation of the following—

(a) investment business, the official listing of securities and offers of unlisted securities;

(b) the transfer of securities;

(c) insider dealing.

. The subject-matter of the Money Laundering Regulations 1993, but in relation to any type of business.
. Regulation of anti-competitive practices and agreements; abuse of dominant position; monopolies and mergers.
. Trade marks, service marks and design, copyright, patent and topography rights.
. Units of measurement and United Kingdom primary standards.").
The noble Lord said: It is rather extraordinary that this is another category which it is proposed to put in Schedule 3, the reserved part of the Bill, as opposed to Schedule 2, the excepted part. It concerns the regulation of building societies, banking and so on and investment businesses.
It is not desirable that there should be a different regime for the regulation of banks and building societies, friendly societies and the transfer of securities in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. The same regime should apply. That would

1855
be the best approach. I cannot see a time when we should wish to have different regulations. In those circumstances, it seems right to put them in the excepted category.
Also within this amendment I have referred to trade marks, service marks and designs, copyright, patent and topography rights. Again, according to the Bill, they are headed for the reserved category. That opens up the possibility that in order to register a trade mark, one would have to register it not only in Great Britain but also separately in Northern Ireland. That is not desirable. I believe that those matters should remain in the excepted category.
Insider dealing is one of the matters which is to be reserved for possible future transfer. Money laundering regulations are also covered by the amendment. Therefore, we are beginning to touch once again on the question of rackets. I have made it clear on numerous occasions over many years that I regard the rackets as extremely serious within the whole position of Northern Ireland. There is a certain political momentum to terrorism. It is obviously the aim of the agreement and everything that goes with it to take out that political momentum and to deal with the political momentum for the violence that has occurred.
However, there is also a certain economic momentum to the violence. There are people within the circle of the paramilitary whose economic benefit it is to keep the violence going. That is a very dangerous feature of the matter which must be taken extremely seriously. I do not suppose that the Assembly and the executive will not take the matter seriously but I believe that the authority of the United Kingdom Government, particularly on issues like money laundering and so on, needs to be brought to bear and to remain the authority in charge of those matters.
Lastly, at the bottom of the amendment, I have attempted to move from Schedule 3 to Schedule 2 units of measurement and United Kingdom primary standards. I am not sure what we are measuring here. Whether we are dealing with pints and litres of a particular liquid or yards, feet and inches, it seems to me highly desirable that units of measurement should remain consistent throughout the United Kingdom and should remain the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government. The idea of the Assembly arguing about what units of measurement should be introduced seems to be a mistake. I should include that in the excepted category. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said in detail in introducing the amendment. The remarks which I made somewhat prematurely apply equally on this amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: When the matter of measurement is raised I, too,—possibly like the Chief Whip opposite—think in terms of rods, poles and perches. The idea of a rod, a pole or a perch being of different length in terms of feet and inches in Northern Ireland compared with, say, an allotment in Southsea,
1856
fills me with horror. How would one know whether or not one's rod was fair in whichever part of the counpry one lived?
That is not a serious point. But my noble friend is right to say that the subject of rackets is serious. The Minister made the point over and over again that nothing will happen in the Assembly—I am paraphrasing and he will leap to his feet, as he has done before, if I paraphrase wrongly—unless there is a substantial measure of cross-party agreement. Given that, if a future government make the mistake of transferring some functions to the Assembly, it is quite likely that nothing will happen. In some areas, especially on the subject of rackets, that is extremely undesirable and that is why rackets in particular should remain under the United Kingdom Government.
Lord Fitt: The noble Lord, Lord Cope, mentioned the question of measurements. I am not sure whether or not he is aware that there is indeed a difference. Measures in a bar in Ireland are different from the measures we get here. Everyone knows that, though it depends on how many one has been drinking.
Also, I am almost certain that there is something called an "Irish mile", where there is a difference in the number of yards involved. So there are differences, especially in relation to ale, gin, whisky or whatever. It has been accepted in Ireland for many years. In fact, when some of my guests come over here and I buy them a drink—no later than yesterday—they look at it and say, "That is very small compared to home". So the measures are larger in Belfast. I wonder where the permission came from to differentiate in measurements and when it came about. But there is certainly a difference.
Lord Howie of Troon: My noble friend would be well advised to take his guests to Glasgow; they would be quite happy t`ere.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: All of us defer to the noble Lord's experience on the matters about which he has just spoken.
I find myself being particularly persuaded by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, without being persuaded in general. In general, if our ambition is to have devolved government in Northern Ireland, as it is, we have to make a strong case for moving functions from a category of reserve where they might potentially, at some point in the future if it is sensible, be moved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and putting them in the "excepted" category, which means that we cannot contemplate any future in which they would be something to be dealt with by the Assembly.
In relation to most of these matters, I find it difficult to envisage a future in which they would be dealt with by the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I agree with the noble Lord on that point. However, I do not want to cut off that possibility. I agree strongly in regard to money laundering to the extent that it funds terrorism. I would regard it as a great achievement if we obtained the political will on a cross-community basis in Northern Ireland to cut off those funds as well as talking about it

1857
in the Westminster Parliament. Therefore, though I see the case he is making, the wholesale transfer does not appeal to me.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cope, on including trade marks, service marks, copyright, patents, and so forth. There are multi-national companies with worldwide patents which have overlooked, "including the Republic of Ireland". In many important cases the patents have not applied to Northern Ireland and much confusion, difficulty and loss of money has resulted therefrom. It is therefore important that Northern Ireland should be included as part of the United Kingdom.
Lord Dubs: Let me deal first with the comment made by my noble friend Lord Fitt. I have extremely limited experience of the matter, but so far as I have experience, I can confirm that Northern Ireland alcohol measures are much larger than they are in England and certainly larger than they are in the bars in the Palace of Westminster.
I am in the difficulty that throughout the afternoon we have been dealing with different amendments and I am tempted to make the same speech on each occasion. I shall try to make the same speech sound slightly different now for the sake of not being tedious.
Amendment No. 250 would move a number of further matters which are currently reserved into the list of excepted matters in Schedule 2. The amendments address a range of issues including the regulation of financial services and markets, of anti-competitive practices, trade marks and units of measurement. Those matters were all reserved in the 1973 Act and, though legislation in those areas in the main has been taken forward on a UK-wide basis, I do not consider that it would be appropriate to rule out the possibility of at some stage allowing the Assembly to legislate in some aspects of those matters, but with the consent of the Secretary of State and subject to the system of parliamentary control.
As regards financial services and markets, I ask the Committee to note that we anticipate the need to come back to the definitions of those provisions at Report stage. All we are asking is for an element of flexibility. In relation to the specific point on racketeering, that is a matter of criminal law and is already a reserved matter as has been the subject of earlier debate. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I understand that racketeering is a matter for the criminal law. We may be told later that we should not separate out some matters from within the criminal law and put them into different categories. At the same time, the fighting of the rackets should be a matter for the whole of the United Kingdom and we should obtain as much co-operation as we can from the republic. We have had a good deal of co-operation in that matter in the past.
I am not sure whether I included too much in this single amendment. I seemed to receive support on the matter of trade marks and so forth. Perhaps if I had left that as a
1858
separate amendment I would have received more. Units of measurement only draw attention to the differences that seem apparent when looked at in some respects.
On the other hand, in some ways I have been modest in only suggesting that the regulation of banks and building societies and other matters should be moved into the excepted category. I notice that the Scotland Bill is called in aid by the Minister from time to time and I am overcoming my inhibitions about referring to it myself. That excepts not only these matters, but also specifically fiscal, economic and monetary policy.
I hope we do not need to except fiscal, economic and monetary policy here. We are in the position that anything that is not specifically excepted or reserved is automatically transferred. Some people may read the Bill as automatically transferring fiscal, economic and monetary policy and all that goes with it to the Assembly from day one. I am sure that is not what the Government intend. However, having aired the subject, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 251:
Page 44, line 38, at end insert—
(" . Wireless telegraphy and the provision of programme services (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990).").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 251 seeks to move broadcasting from Schedule 3 to Schedule 2, broadly speaking. Therefore, I want to rely primarily on the arguments put forward by the Secretary of State for Scotland when the proposition was put to him and received some support; that is, that broadcasting should be the responsibility of the Scotland parliament.
The Secretary of State for Scotland used the argument that the pace of technological development in broadcasting and the spread of services beyond national borders meant that it made sense to organise the regulatory and legislative framework at United Kingdom level. The implication was that it would become more so as technological advance takes us further in that field.
He also argued that there was little to devolve since the Government's involvement in broadcasting on a day-to-day basis was minimal. Acceptance of the amendment would not necessarily stop or advance the breaking up of the BBC into different pieces; as I understand it, a Northern Ireland broadcasting corporation, a Great Britain broadcasting corporation and, for that matter, a Scottish one as well, would ensure, in the words of the Secretary of State for Scotland, that the regulatory and legislative framework remained at a UK level and was consistent throughout the UK. As we can all hear each other's broadcasts to a certain extent, that seems to be wise. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Dubs: For the reasons I have explained on several occasions this afternoon, there are a number of matters which are in the reserved field where we would wish to maintain the flexibility that the reserved field provides. These amendments would move

1859
telecommunication matters into the excepted category. For the reasons I have just outlined, our preference is to keep them in the reserved field. I would therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. The government amendment updates the definition, including matters such as the Internet.
Perhaps I may add one further point about the reserved field. It has been made clear to your Lordships that the Assembly, with the consent of the Secretary of State, would be able to legislate in the reserved field. There might be occasions when the subject matter of proposed legislation would be partly in the reserved field and partly in the transferred field. One of the justifications for flexibility is that there would then be no constraint on the Secretary of State giving her consent and, indeed, the Assembly would then have no constraint in dealing with the matter. The point about flexibility has quite a wide bearing on a number of these amendments, including this one.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I understand the Minister to mean that there might be occasions where legislation could be partly United Kingdom legislation and partly Assembly legislation to cover a certain point. If that is so, primary legislation would be required in the United Kingdom and permission could be given at that time for the Assembly to deal with its element of the matter.
However, the noble Lord has made out a case for flexibility and, at this stage of our discussions, I shall not press the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 252:
Page 44, line 38, at end insert—
(" . Domicile.").
The noble Lord said: This is the last of this series of amendments, attempting fruitlessly to move, at least for today, matters from Schedule 3 to Schedule 2. This amendment concerns the matter of domicile.
I am not a lawyer, as I have made clear frequently in the past, but domicile comes into taxation, with which I have had something to do—both in a professional capacity as an accountant in days gone by, and when I had political responsibility for taxation. Domicile is a very important concept within tax law. Alongside residence and ordinary residence it can very much affect a person's tax liability and where it falls, whether within our jurisdiction or within somebody else's jurisdiction. It seems that it is a matter which, whatever other importance it may have, has a crucial importance in tax law and, as such, should not be in the reserved category but alongside the rest of the tax law within the excepted category.
I do not know whether domicile has any other great legal significance of which I am not aware, but, in so far as this is a tax matter, it should be excepted, just as the other matters to do with taxation are excepted.
Lord Goodhart: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. I speak as a lawyer who has
1860
some familiarity with tax law. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, is familiar with it from the point of view of an accountant. As matters now stand, the main function of domicile in the law of the United Kingdom is to determine the extent of liability to certain kinds of tax, in particular income tax. It therefore seems to be wholly inconsistent to treat domicile as a reserved matter while taxation, under paragraph 9 of Schedule 2, is an excepted matter.
The other field in which domicile is significant—in fact there is an entirely different test for a domicile in this matter—is under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act, which applies in the United Kingdom the Brussels and Lugano Conventions on the jurisdiction of the courts of the various member states of the European Union and the European Economic Area. That test of domicile seems to be—again, a matter within paragraph 3 of Schedule 2—a matter of international relations, and in particular international treaties. There again, the treatment of domicile as a reserved matter, where international treaties is an excepted matter, seems wholly inconsistent. Between now and Report stage, will the Government look again at the treatment of domicile?
Lord Dubs: The argument I shall put forward will be the same as I have put forward on other occasions in relation to other amendments. We do not intend that the Assembly should have the power to change the law of domicile as it applies to tax matters. That would generally bring any such legislation into the excepted field. However, in view of the points that have been made this afternoon, will the noble Lord consider withdrawing his amendment to give me time to reflect upon it? If my reflection does not alter my opinion, I will give him good notice and he can bring the amendment forward again. I would like to consider it because I am not sure that I have dealt with all the key points that have been raised.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: That seems to be a very fair offer. The Minister also said that, so far as the use of domicile for tax purposes is concerned, he believes that it is already an excepted matter as a result of the other taxation provisions.
Lord Dubs: We would prefer to keep domicile in the reserve category. If I said otherwise it was a slip of the tongue. As I said, I would like to reflect on the points that have been made this afternoon. It may be that I cannot change my mind, but at least I would like time to think about them.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I entirely understand that the Minister needs time to reflect and take advice. I thought I understood the Minister to say that, in so far as domicile affects taxation matters, the fact that taxation matters are excepted under other provisions means that it is, in any case, excepted in that capacity. Perhaps I misunderstood the Minister. I do not wish to press the matter in view of the fact that he will consider it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Reserved matters]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 253:
Page 44, line 40, at end insert—
(". The conferral of functions in relation to Northern Ireland on any Minister of the Crown.").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment to ensure that functions in the transferred field in relation to Northern Ireland cannot be conferred on a Minister of the Crown without his consent. This is necessary because the functions of a Minister of the Crown in relation to Northern Ireland are excepted from the exception of the Crown in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2, but it would not be appropriate for the Assembly to be able to confer new functions on a Minister of the Crown without prior consultation and consent. There might, for example, be propriety or financial considerations which would need to be taken into account before such agreement could be given. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 253A:
Page 44, leave out lines 41 and 42 and insert—
(" . Property belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown or belonging to a department of the Government of the United Kingdom or held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of such a department (other than property used for the purposes of the armed forces of the Crown or the Ministry of Defence Police).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 254 and 255 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 256:
Page 45, leave out lines 5 and 6 and insert—
(". The Post Office, posts (including postage stamps, postal orders and postal packets) and the regulation of postal services.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 257:
Page 45, line 11, leave out ("including the creation of offences and penalties") and insert—
("() the creation of offences and penalties;").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 257, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 260. These amendments bear on paragraph 8 of Schedule 3. The first is a technical amendment to avoid confusion and to ensure that the criminal law is contrasted with the civil law. The second amendment has the effect of ensuring that the reservation of the criminal law and creation of offences and penalties does not include matters within paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 which excepts national security and provisions to do with terrorism, subversion and so on. Thus the amendment ensures that these matters are excepted rather than reserved. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 258:
Page 45, line 11, at end insert ("but not the law relating to abortion;").
The noble Lord said: There are two aspects of this amendment. One is the moral issue, which was the subject of debate on many occasions during my 27 years in the other place. It was noticeable that on all those occasions the elected representatives of Northern Ireland made common cause right across the traditional divide. It would be true to say that that same unity will be found in the recently elected Northern Ireland Assembly. Thus there remains broad opposition to abortion and I have detected no wavering on the part of any of the main parties in Northern Ireland.
Since Stormont was abolished in 1972, successive governments, Labour and Conservative, have proclaimed their willingness to take heed of, and to act upon, proposals and suggestions if they had the support of both sides of the community. But, surprisingly, when the Northern Ireland parties spoke with one voice, successive sovereign governments pretended not to hear. One typical example is the education Bill which gave us all so much trouble and which ended up with all of us supporting the Roman Catholics bishops in Northern Ireland in seeking a judicial review. In this Bill, your Lordships have another example.
The modest amendment before your Lordships moves us on from the rights and wrongs of abortion, as was the case in our deliberations on the Scotland Bill on 27th July this year. We have a problem in convincing the people of Scotland and the people of Northern Ireland that there is some justification for applying different standards and rules to two forms of killing—abortion and euthanasia. The latter is to be devolved to local assemblies in Scotland and in Northern Ireland while the other is not.
Few people will find any comfort in the assertion that abortion is to be a reserved matter, with the implied possibility that it may be devolved to the Assembly at a later date. For most people, whether they be in Scotland or in Northern Ireland, the implication is that after a span of five or perhaps 10 years their elected representatives will be not quite mature enough to be entrusted with power to deal with subjects like abortion. That is an unfair reflection upon those representatives.
I remember that in the debate on this very subject during proceedings on the Scotland Bill the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said that abortion had been placed in the list of reserved matters—and then added,
"which … can be reviewed by agreement between the two parliaments".—[Official Report, 27.7.98; col. 1305.]
Those are the sovereign Parliament at Westminster and the Scottish parliament. If the possibility of reaching agreement is clearly within the Scotland Bill, is it also within the present Northern Ireland Bill? Surely we ought now to make a decision in principle to devolve the power to the Northern Ireland Assembly as soon as possible. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Fitt: In associating myself with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, I am all too conscious from many years experience at both ends of this building that when the subject of abortion is raised great passions are generated and friendships are lost.

1863
Of a number of controversial subjects that have been debated in both Houses, this is by far the most personal to many people.
As the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, said, it cuts across religious boundaries. Abortion is not only opposed by Roman Catholics but by Protestants as well. As we have seen in Northern Ireland, many people are opposed to abortion. I am aware that if this debate is to continue at Report stage it will become more heated as the days go by. In America last weekend a doctor who supported abortion was cruelly murdered by someone who opposed abortion. As I say, this issue generates great passion among those who support it or reject it.
When I was in Northern Ireland last week I talked to many people. I did not say, "Are you in support of abortion or are you opposed to it?" I said, "Do you think that the elected representatives of the Northern Ireland people, the people for whom you voted in the elections which followed the referendum, should make the decision one way or the other on abortion?" I put that question to a cross-section of the community in Northern Ireland, people of all religions. They all said that it was a matter that should be decided by the people whom they elected in the recent elections.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Dubs that this Government want to give as many powers as they can to the newly elected Northern Ireland Assembly. They want to give it responsibility for bringing Northern Ireland into a new era. They want to give it responsibility for taking decisions which will affect the people of Northern Ireland—decisions involving matters of life and death. Over the past number of years we have had matters of life and death decided by murderers and terrorists.
All I would say to my noble friend the Minister is that I believe that the people of Northern Ireland who have voted for their representatives should not deny the right of those representatives to take a decision on this very crucial and emotional subject. I was speaking to people last week and I asked them: "Do you think it is right that people within the august atmosphere of the House of Lords should take a decision as to whether or not there is a right to legislate on abortion?". Your Lordships' House is very remote from the everyday concerns of people in Northern Ireland. Therefore I would ask the Minister, in view of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, that whether a private opinion may be held for or against abortion, this is a matter which should be legislated for in the newly-elected Northern Ireland Assembly.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: At Second Reading we had a debate on the general matters contained in the Bill and I took the opportunity of raising the issue of whether abortion would be a reserved or an exempted power. I will not weary your Lordships with all the arguments I put forward then. Suffice it to say that I support very strongly the amendment to which the noble Lords, Lord Fitt and Lord Molyneaux, have so eloquently spoken from their respective Benches today.
1864
This is an issue which unites politicians in Northern Ireland and which unites the community. Therefore, we should tread extremely sensitively in being prepared to try to impose our view, whether it is for or against abortion, on the community in Northern Ireland. This surely is exactly the type of matter that ought to be properly debated there. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, and I, for instance, would disagree on the fundamental question of abortion, but when we came to consider the Scotland Bill we both put precisely the same view: that this is a matter to be decided in Scotland.
Indeed we are in danger of opening up a number of contradictions because in the Scotland Bill we say that euthanasia may be decided in Scotland, but not abortion. That, we have said, will always be a power retained at Westminster. Yet we have taken one criminal justice question and placed it in the hands of the Scottish assembly and taken another criminal justice question and said that it must be retained here at Westminster.
The argument is being advanced in the case of Northern Ireland that the abortion issue will for now be reserved to Westminster but may eventually be resolved in Northern Ireland. I think it would be much clearer if all these questions such as euthanasia and abortion—the big moral and social issues—which do predominate in the minds of many people in parts of these islands, far more so than many of the economic and other constitutional questions which so preoccupy us in our Chamber here, should be decided on the ground in both places.
That would be a much more straightforward way of looking at these things and it would accept the principle of devolution because devolution should carry with it the responsibility that goes with a grown-up assembly which can make up its own mind on these matters. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, since our debate not only answered a Parliamentary Question which I tabled on 15th October, but in correspondence on 19th October and in a letter dated 27th October to me has gone a long way to address some of the concerns which I raised at Second Reading. I should like to thank him for the way in which he has gone about trying to conduct this debate. It is in nobody's interest that we should need to have a Division on this question and it is in everybody's interest that we should try to find some rational and reasonable way forward in resolving what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has quite rightly described as a sensitive issue which raises passions. Those passions should be raised in the new Northern Ireland Assembly and, in my opinion, resolved there.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, when dealing with the question of whether parliamentary time would be made available for a Private Member's Bill from this place until such time as this matter is exempted to the Northern Ireland Assembly, said in his letter to me today:
"I should explain that while additional time was allowed for the passage of controversial legislation on social issues in the 1960s, more recent Governments have made it plain that such Bills will have to proceed only during the normal time available".
I welcome that statement and I think the whole Committee should dwell on it, because it effectively means that if the Government say they will remain

1865
neutral on questions of this sort and will not provide Private Members' time between now and whenever Northern Ireland has this matter exempted to it, then the status quo would be maintained in Northern Ireland until that moment is reached.
In other words, we would not then seek to impose a change in the law—a law which was after all crafted with the deliberate intention of recognising that different circumstances prevailed in Northern Ireland, which is why the 1967 Act deliberately exempted Northern Ireland in the first place. It would mean that the status quo could be preserved in the interim. I welcome the statement that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has made and I hope that he might go slightly further in that respect. I recognise why the noble Lords, Lord Molyneaux and Lord Fitt, tabled this amendment today and I hope that in the period between now and Report stage the Government will try to become firmer in giving a timetable of when they would anticipate that this matter will be exempted to the Northern Ireland Assembly and that they will also recognise that they need to unravel the inconsistencies that they are building into these two respective pieces of legislation.
In the meantime, I welcome the position of the Opposition Front Bench and that of the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, who made their position clear on the Scotland Bill. The Official Opposition, I think, have tabled a further amendment for the Report stage of the Scotland Bill to the effect that these are properly matters which should be devolved to those respective assemblies.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I rise with hesitation, because this is a very emotive issue and the last thing I wish to do is to contribute to an emotive debate. However, this has not been an emotive debate; it has been conducted with conspicuous moderation by the three noble Lords who have spoken so far.
I should like to say one or two things, if I may. First, the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, has referred to his speech at Second Reading, when he put to me a number of questions about whether or not there was discrimination in this area. He said, among other things, that 1,300 United Kingdom women die every year because of breast cancer directly caused by abortion. I have been written to by Mr. David Paintin, Emeritus Reader in Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the Imperial College School of Medicine, who, in a very learned paper on behalf of the Birth Control Trust has suggested that the noble Lord was misinformed. He has given me a great wodge of articles and studies, suggesting that the statement made by the noble Lord has the potential to cause women a great deal of unnecessary anxiety and also that the medical research does not support that proposition. I mention this because it is important that the Committee should always be well informed on these matters. I am not competent at all to be able to choose between the medical studies but, having said that, I shall say something now which will please the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and those—
Lord Alton of Liverpool: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but I did not realise he was going to raise
1866
that particular point. It was not a throwaway remark on my part in the last debate. Indeed the noble Lord will recall that I cited 30 pieces of research, of which 24 say that there is a link and although Mr. Paintin may take a contrary view, this is empirical research and not just personal opinion.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I will give the noble Lord the other studies and then leave him to go through them. I am sure that is the best way of proceeding. I have a great deal of sympathy with the view that this is a subject which is sufficiently protected by the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act to safeguard women in Northern Ireland against some extreme and fundamentalist legislation hypothetically enacted there, because the European Convention fairly balances the right to life with the right to respect for private life. This is caselaw which the Northern Ireland courts would have to follow and is very balanced. The Northern Ireland Assembly, were it foolish enough to pass extreme legislation, would find that legislation struck down by the courts, having regard to Strasbourg caselaw.
I am also impressed by the argument that it is illogical to devolve that aspect of the criminal law dealing with euthanasia in Scotland, but not abortion in Scotland. That seems extremely odd.
My other point—I am sorry to have to say this—is that I find the Government's values strange in that they will fully devolve equality law and place that utterly at the mercy of the Assembly but will not devolve abortion law. I find that an odd sense of priorities, so I have great sympathy for the speeches that have been made. As for the medical matters, I leave those for outside the Committee and another occasion.
6 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I do not want to take any view today on the question of what the law on abortion in Northern Ireland or, for that matter, anywhere else should say. I am on record on that elsewhere over the years if anyone wants to know my position. The question now before us is not what the law on abortion should state, but who should settle the law on abortion with regard to Northern Ireland and where the responsibility should lie. The Bill provides that the responsibility remains in the reserved category. When we began discussing the Bill, it seemed that the matters listed in Schedule 3 and the reserved categories would be transferred to the Assembly in due course. Certainly, some of them will be so transferred although during our debates on other matters we have discovered that the fact that a matter is within the reserved category does not necessarily mean that responsibility for it will ever be transferred to the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive. In that sense, the debate on whether abortion should be in this category takes on a more permanent character than it originally seemed to have.
It has also been pointed out to us on other amendments dealing with these categories that a matter that is within the reserved category can be legislated on by the Assembly with the approval of the Secretary of State and the Westminster Parliament. That is a partial

1867
loaf, as far as the Assembly is concerned. However, we must consider whether the approval of the Secretary of State and the Westminster Parliament is wise in this case. I do not think that it is. I think that the people of Northern Ireland and their representatives should decide what the law on abortion should state in Northern Ireland. I cannot see any reason to hold back on giving them that power on day one when we are giving them huge powers on the many matters we have discussed.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, spoke of the Government unravelling the inconsistencies between the Scotland Bill and this Bill and, for that matter, the Government of Wales Act. There is no hope of that. As we have discovered in discussing other parts of this Bill, there are many inconsistencies between those three pieces of devolution legislation—and the likelihood of unravelling those inconsistencies has reduced as we have proceeded. That is because the approach taken in the drafting of the Bills and on the various issues has differed. That is well demonstrated by the fact that the matter of criminal justice is being divided in Scotland so that responsibility for abortion is kept at Westminster. However, we have also been told that it is impossible to divide criminal justice so as to remove responsibility for abortion to Northern Ireland. That is only one of the inconsistencies.
I see no reason why criminal justice cannot be divided in this way either in Scotland, where that is what the Government propose to do, or in Northern Ireland, which is what this amendment seeks to achieve. I cannot see a reason of principle or a reason relating to the administration of justice to explain why such a division should not be made. After all, once the law has been passed by whoever is responsible, the police will have to enforce it. The police in Northern Ireland will have to implement laws made by both the Assembly and the Westminster Parliament. There is no doubt about that.
As far as I am concerned, the matter of abortion can be transferred now. I see no reason for delaying it and for putting it in the reserved category. Therefore, I have a great deal of sympathy for the amendment. I should add that because of the complexities surrounding Private Member's Bills, which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned, it may be right for the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, not to press his amendment to a Division today but to carry over the discussion to Report stage. I would not object to that. However, in principle, it seems to me right that the question of abortion should be settled in Northern Ireland by the Assembly and not here by the Westminster Parliament.
Lord Dubs: I think we are all agreed that we are not discussing what abortion policy should be in Northern Ireland; we are simply discussing whether retaining or changing such a policy is the responsibility of Westminster or ought to be the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I think that that is clear.
Amendment No. 258 bears on paragraph 8(a) of Schedule 3 to the Bill. It would have the consequence that the whole of the law on abortion in Northern Ireland would become a transferred matter. Under the Bill as it stands, any reform of the law on abortion, such as the
1868
1967 Act which has never applied in Northern Ireland, would be a reserved matter since it concerns the criminal law. The agreement is clear that no criminal justice matters should transfer at present. Paragraph 3 of Strand 1 of the agreement makes clear that the new authorities will exercise full legislative and executive authority in respect of those matters currently within the responsibility of the six Northern Ireland government departments, with the possibility of taking on responsibility for other matters detailed elsewhere in the agreement in due course. It follows that I cannot support the amendment.
At a future time when we consider the transfer of criminal justice responsibility in the light of the review now under way there will need to be a decision as to which parts of the criminal justice field should transfer. Any change in the status of any reserved matters could, under the Bill, be brought about if, but only if, there were agreement in the Assembly based on cross-community support and after the approval of an appropriate resolution in each House here at Westminster.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has written to me. Indeed, the noble Lord referred to the recent correspondence. He sought an assurance that time would not be made available for a Private Member's Bill to change the law on abortion in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord quoted parts of that letter, but I hope that he will permit me to develop the theme more fully. It has been very rare for such a time to be made available. Although we can all recall cases in the 1960s, they have been rarities since. So I do not think that there is any expectation that such time will be made available.
I hope that the noble Lord will understand why, as a matter of general principle, we would not wish to give absolutely open-ended guarantees of that sort about any matter. We cannot commit ourselves in unforeseeable future circumstances when the position might be completely transformed. I want to make it clear, however, that, as we have said before, we are aware of the strength of feeling on this issue in Northern Ireland. We are aware in particular that there is little support among the political parties there for a reform of the law on 1967 lines, but any change at all in the law relating to abortion would need the most careful consultation in Northern Ireland. We have no wish to foist anything on the people there that is against their will. I think that that is a clear statement.
I believe that I have indicated how, in the fullness of time, such matters as abortion can become transferred matters. However, my noble friend Lord Fitt suggested to me that all the Northern Ireland parties wanted the Assembly to take immediate responsibility for abortion. All that I can say to him is that had the Northern Ireland parties wanted that, surely they would have argued the case in the Good Friday agreement, but it is not there. Therefore, I do not think it appropriate in the main Bill giving effect to the Good Friday agreement to depart from what the agreement says. It says that in the future at some time this is a possibility. It does not say here and now.

1869
If I understood him correctly, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, suggested that the matter should be for here and now. I have to point out that we have stuck consistently by the Good Friday agreement and I intend to continue to do so. I believe that it is right and proper for criminal justice matters to be reserved matters at this stage. Then, if we consider such matters in the future, there will be scope for making changes either for the whole criminal justice system or for parts of it. I repeat: I do not believe that that is a matter for now. I urge the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate and for the constructive way in which they have approached the subject. Perhaps I may assure Members of the Committee that there is no danger whatever—and certainly no intention on the part of any elected representatives in Northern Ireland—to introduce any new draconian legislation. There would simply be a determination to preserve the situation as it presently exists; that is to say, the position as it existed in Great Britain prior to the 1967 Act.
In regard to what the Minister said about those who participated in the drafting of the agreement, I am quite confident that if this very question had been put to them as representatives of both ends of Ireland—indeed, practically every party in Northern Ireland was represented—there would have been a resounding victory along the lines of the amendment that I have tabled this evening.
I have great sympathy with the views expressed from the Front Bench opposite by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that we should withdraw the amendment and then reflect upon what has been said and what the position ought to be before we reach Report stage. Because some noble Lords may have entered the Chamber after this debate commenced, I remind the Committee that in the debate on the Scotland Bill on 27th July the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said that abortion had been placed in the list of reserved matters and that that decision could be reviewed by agreement between the two parliaments—that is, the Westminster Parliament and the Scottish parliament. So, in fairness, I think that the same ought to apply in regard to the position of the Northern Ireland Assembly vis-à-vis what it recognises, and what we all recognise, as this sovereign Parliament.
I hope—indeed, expect—that the Minister will reflect on what has been said in the debate and on that statement made by his noble friend from the Scottish Office and thereby perhaps find a way of bringing forward a modest amendment on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 259 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 260:
Page 45, line 18, at end insert—
("Sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) do not include any matter within paragraph 16 of Schedule 2.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 261 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 262 and 263:
Page 45, line 23, after ("persons") insert ("(other than the Ministry of Defence Police)").
Page 45, line 24, at end insert ("; the Parades Commission for Northern Ireland").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 264:
Page 45, leave out lines 30 and 31 and insert—
(". The subject-matter of the Emergency Powers Act (Northern Ireland) 1926.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment and Amendments Nos. 272 and 279 are drafting improvements to achieve more consistency in referring to the subject matter of legislation. They do not affect the substance of the reservations. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 265 and 265A not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 266:
Page 45, line 39, at end insert—
(". The functions and procedures of the Civil Service Commissioners for Northern Ireland.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment will make the functions and procedures of the Civil Service Commissioners for Northern Ireland a reserved matter for the purposes of Schedule 3. The appointment of persons to the Office of the Civil Service Commissioner for Northern Ireland will remain an excepted matter under the control of Her Majesty. We believe that it is right to continue to protect such appointments in this way. However, we felt that there was a gap in respect of provision to protect the functions and procedures of the Civil Service Commissioners. We therefore consulted all the parties about making this a reserved matter and none has objected.
The effect of the amendment will be to allow the Assembly to legislate on this matter while reserving for the Secretary of State a degree of control when considering the question of consent under the Bill. By taking the commissioners out of the transfer field, it also slims down very slightly the nature of Her Majesty's prerogative powers as respects transferred matters and prevents them from being dealt with under Clause 18. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 267 and 268:
Page 45, line 43, at end insert—
(". The subject-matter of sections 149 to 151 of and Schedules 5 and 5A to the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (Social Security Advisory Committee and Industrial Injuries Advisory Council).").
Page 45, line 43, at end insert—
(". The subject-matter of the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 269:
Page 45, line 44, at beginning insert ("Import and export controls and").
The noble Lord said: This amendment extends the reservation in paragraph 16 of Schedule 3 which deals with trade in any place outside the United Kingdom to include to non-trade import and export controls. This is to cover situations where goods are being imported or exported otherwise than in the course of trade—for example, if the goods are for the importer's or the exporter's own use rather than pursuant to a commercial transaction. The areas in which there would be controls on such imports and exports include conventional arms and endangered species. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I rise briefly to point out that this amendment means that Customs and Excise will in this respect and in one or two others ultimately come under the jurisdiction of the Assembly and the executive because the latter have the responsibility of carrying out import and export controls of this kind. That is not necessarily a knock-down argument for making this an excepted matter rather than a reserved matter, but it is something that should be reflected upon within government circles.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham moved Amendment No. 270:
Page 45, line 46, at end insert—
("() the furtherance of trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland;").
The noble Lord said: I shall be brief in what I have to say. In a sense this is a probing amendment because the matter was raised on Second Reading. The reason I wish to return to it is that at that time the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that this was specifically a matter for the single European market and that was why it could not be a transferred matter. However, if it is a matter for the single European market, why then is it not an excepted matter?
I believe that the furtherance of trade between the Republic and Northern Ireland is an extremely important issue fully in tune with the Good Friday agreement, and that there is a substantial bonus available from greater trade in terms of prosperity for the people of both parts of the island. One would hope to see much activity in Strand 2 and strand 3 to make sure that bonus is realised. I hope the Minister can answer my next point. If this is a matter for the single European market, why is it not excepted rather than being, as the Bill proposes, reserved, or as I propose, transferred? I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: If the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, is right—namely, that matters which come within the single market of the Community ought to be excepted—presumably paragraph 16 of Schedule 3 should refer to trade with any place outside the European Union because the measure affects not only the Republic of Ireland but also other countries within the European Union. That is a slightly wider point, but like the noble Lord, Lord Holme, I too hope that the
1872
British/Irish bodies will do their best to encourage the trade we are discussing. I hope too that the arrangements we make within the law will enable that to happen.
Lord Monson: I take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, and his noble friend on employing the correct term "Republic of Ireland" in their amendment rather than the incorrect term "Ireland" which is used elsewhere in the Bill.
Lord Dubs: Amendment No. 270, which has been proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Holme and Lord Lester, deals with the reservation in paragraph 16 of Schedule 3 of trade with any place outside the United Kingdom. The noble Lords propose that the furtherance of trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland should be removed from that reservation, making it a transferred matter.
I fully agree with the noble Lords that the Assembly should be free to take measures to promote the trade of Northern Ireland. Indeed, I am sure that the Assembly will be keen to do all it can to promote Northern Ireland's exports. That is quite right. But I consider it vitally important that the Assembly should be able to promote Northern Ireland's trade, not only with the Republic of Ireland but throughout Europe and worldwide. The Bill already allows for this: subparagraph (a) of paragraph 16 carves out from the general reservation,
"the furtherance of the trade of Northern Ireland".
The proposed amendment is not therefore necessary. I hope the noble Lord will not press it.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I thank the noble Lord for those comments. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 271:
Page 46, line 2, at end insert—
("() any matter within paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to this Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 272:
Page 46, line 3, leave out ("matters dealt with by") and insert ("subject-matter of").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 273 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 274:
Page 46, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert—
(". Intellectual property but not the subject-matter of Parts I and II of the Plant Varieties Act 1997 (plant varieties and the Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal).").
The noble Lord said: This amendment updates the definitions in Schedule 3, "Reserved matters". Amendment No. 274 updates the terminology to reserve the whole subject of intellectual property. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 275:
Page 46, leave out lines 25 to 27 and insert—
(". Telecommunications; wireless telegraphy; the provision of programme services (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990); Internet services; electronic encryption; the subject matter of Part II of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 (electromagnetic disturbance).").
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Lockwood): If this amendment is accepted, I cannot call Amendment No. 276.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 276 not moved]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 277:
Page 46, line 34, at end insert—
(". Research Councils within the meaning of the Science and Technology Act 1965.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 277 will reserve Research Councils within the meaning of the Science and Technology Act 1965 and follows a similar reservation in the Scotland Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 278:
Page 46, line 34, at end insert—
(" . Areas in which industry may qualify for assistance under Part III of the Industrial Development Act 1982.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 278 makes a designation of assisted areas within the meaning of the Industrial Development Act 1982 a reserved matter. This is in line with a similar reservation in the Scotland Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 278A:
Page 46, line 35, at end insert—
(" . Technical standards and requirements in relation to products in pursuance of an obligation under Community law but not standards and requirements in relation to food, agricultural or horticultural produce, fish or fish products, seeds, animal feeding stuffs, fertilisers or pesticides.").
The noble Lord said: The effect of this amendment is to reserve various matters relating to product standards and requirements in pursuance of an obligation under Community law but not in relation to food, agricultural and horticultural produce, fish or fish products, seeds, animal feed-stuff, fertilisers and pesticides.
The imposition of specified requirements and standards relating to goods, such as labelling and certain environmental aspects, is intended to reduce barriers to trade by harmonising essential requirements in order to provide a high level of protection in the field of product standards. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I was interested to note that several of these amendments have been recommended to us on the sole ground that they are in line with the Scotland Bill, which is not quite the message we were hearing earlier. However, as regards this amendment, I was not quite clear whether the standards and requirements in relation to food and other matters are
1874
therefore to be transferred matters. From the Minister's comments just now it sounded as if they might be excepted matters, but I do not think that is the case under the Bill.
Lord Dubs: The effect of the amendment is to reserve various matters relating to product standards and requirements in pursuance of an obligation under Community law. I have listed products which were not covered. The rest would be reserved.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Are the matters which are not covered transferred or are they excepted?
Lord Dubs: Yes, I understand that is the case.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Which does the Minister understand is the case: that they are reserved or that they are excepted? It may be a moment before inspiration hits the Minister. He appeared to be saying that they were excepted matters. Perhaps inspiration has now arrived.
Lord Dubs: Inspiration has hit me suddenly. They are transferred matters.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 279:
Page 46, line 36, leave out ("making and revision of plans under section 3(5)") and insert ("subject-matter of section 3(5) to (7)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 280:
Page 46, line 40, after ("1984;") insert—
("() the Data Protection Act 1998;").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment to update the reservation in respect of data protection in order to take account of the 1998 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 281:
Page 46, leave out line 43.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 282 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 282A:
Page 47, line 3, at end insert—
(" . Any matter with which a provision of this Act falling within the following sub-paragraphs solely or mainly deals—

(a) in Part III, sections (Junior Ministers) and 21;

(b) in Part IV, sections 32, 35(7), and 36(8) and Schedule 6;

(c) in Part VI, sections 58, 59(3) and (4) and 60 and Schedules 9 and 10;

(d) in Part VII, sections (Effect of certificates), (The Tribunal), (Appeals from the Tribunal) and 75 and Schedule (Tribunal established under section (The Tribunal)).

This paragraph does not apply to—

(i) any matter in respect of which it is stated by this Act that provision be made by Act of the Assembly: or

(ii) any matter to which a description specified in this Schedule or Schedule 2 is stated not to apply.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Schedule 3, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Monson: Before we leave this schedule, perhaps I may put a question to the Minister. Why is civil defence a reserved matter? After all, unlike defence pure and simple, there is nothing remotely contentious or political about civil defence. On the contrary, it is just the sort of activity which tends to draw together people from different backgrounds and possibly create a sense of community when none has existed hitherto. Therefore, is this not just the kind of activity which ought to be devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly?
Lord Dubs: I believe the position is that civil defence is part of the United Kingdom-wide system of defence. Therefore, it is more appropriately a reserved matter than a transferred matter. It links in with civil defence throughout the United Kingdom.
Lord Monson: I understand that that argument would apply to Scotland and Wales because there are land frontiers which are easy to cross. But Northern Ireland is separated by water from the rest of the United Kingdom and, therefore, it is unlikely that many civil defence units would cross the water unless there was a particularly grave emergency. Nonetheless, I float the idea and perhaps the noble Lord will think about it before the next stage.
On Question, Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Enactments protected from modification]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 282B:
Page 47, leave out lines 7 to 14 and insert—
("1.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), the European Communities Act 1972 shall not be modified.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not prevent an Act of the Assembly or subordinate legislation modifying section 3(3) or (4) or 11(1) of that Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 282C:
Page 47, leave out lines 18 to 35 and insert—
(". The following provisions of this Act shall not be modified—

(a) sections 71, (Provision dealing with certain reserved matters) and 72;

(b) in section 77, subsections (3) and (4); and

(c) section 80.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 5 and 6 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Standing orders: further provision]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 283:
Page 50, leave out lines 32 to 36.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 8 [The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission]:
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 284:
Page 51, line 20, leave out from beginning to ("to") and insert ("There shall be paid").
The noble Lord said: We now come to the schedule dealing with the new Northern Ireland human rights commission. I start by pointing out that the marginal notes on the Marshalled List are not correct. These amendments standing in my name were not debated previously. I did not speak to them and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, did not respond to them. In speaking to Amendments Nos. 284 and 285, it is very important that I emphasise that these amendments are solely concerned with the remuneration of the full-time paid commissioners who will oversee the human rights commission.
Amendment No. 284 is a paving amendment. Amendment No. 285 provides, in paragraph 3A, that the Assembly will set the level of remuneration of the commissioners in a similar way as is laid down for the funding of the commissioners of the Equal Opportunities Commission. If the Government preferred that the Secretary of State should make provision for the human rights commissioners I shall be equally happy since she is referred to in paragraph 3B. Paragraph 3C is the key matter in my opinion. It provides that commissioners' pay shall come from the Consolidated Fund, thus reinforcing their independence vis-à-vis the Northern Ireland Office and any ups and downs in its internal budgeting. If the Government would like to extend that principle to include the other staff of the commission, apart from the commissioners, I would be delighted.
My minimum objective is to put the commissioners in a clearly defined position of independence similar to that held by the ombudsman in Northern Ireland. I realise that as regards Schedule 8.11 the commissioners are not Crown servants. But I suggest that more needs to be done to assert their financial independence. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: I am in some difficulty about these amendments. We have debated them previously and I understand that we have already passed them. Will the noble Lord permit me to write to him about them because I do not have with me the notes that I had a few days ago dealing with the substance of these matters. I was not aware that they were going to be raised today.
Lord Hylton: If the Minister will consult with his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, he will find out that the latter agreed last Wednesday to de-group these amendments and to deal with them when we came to the appropriate schedule. The Minister will also discover that I mentioned this point again to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in conversation this afternoon so I am a little surprised that there is not 100 per cent. liaison between Ministers. However, I shall be happy to receive a letter from the noble Lord on this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 285 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 286:
Page 51, line 24, at end insert—
("(2) Where a person who by reference to any office or employment is a participant in a scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 becomes a Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner, the Minister for the Civil Service may, notwithstanding any provision made under sub-paragraph (1)(c), determine that the person's service as Commissioner or Chief Commissioner shall be treated for the purposes of the scheme as service in that office or employment.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 287:
Page 51, leave out lines 28 and 29 and insert ("numbers and as to remuneration and other terms and conditions of employment.
(2) Employment with the Commission shall be included among the kinds of employment to which a superannuation scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 can apply, and accordingly in Schedule 1 to that Act (in which those kinds of employment are listed) after "Commission for Racial Equality" insert—
"Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission".
(3) The Commission shall pay to the Minister for the Civil Service, at such times as he may direct, such sums as he may determine in respect of any increase attributable to sub-paragraph (2) in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under the Superannuation Act 1972.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 288:
Page 51, line 37, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, it may also be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendments Nos. 289 and 290. These amendments place a duty on the Secretary of State to fund the work of the human rights commission. They do so as follows: Amendment No. 288 changes "may" to "shall" and Amendment No. 289 is consequential. Amendment No. 290 is an attempt to make sure that the commission receives adequate resources to carry out its functions which are much wider and more far-reaching than those at present conducted by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights.
I would consider it to be quite wrong if the new commission were to prove to be a poor relation of the equality commission. Can the Minister give any guidance on the likely share of the estimated overall cost of £5.6 million per annum given on page vii of the Financial Memorandum attached to the Bill which will go to the human rights commission?
At present the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights with only five staff costs about £250,000 a year. I doubt very much whether a sum even three times greater than that would be sufficient for a fully effective new commission armed with the necessary powers. I therefore remind the Government that the political parties in Northern Ireland were quite unanimous, prior to the Belfast agreement, that a strong human rights commission was required. That view must surely still be correct. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs: It is the Government's intention that there should be proper funding for the human rights commission. We believe in what it is to do and, within the limits of the usual financial constraints, we wanted to have the resources to do that job properly. The Secretary of State has the responsibility to provide proper funding for the commission and I doubt whether any further provision on the face of the Bill is necessary. If the noble Lord prefers it, however, I shall elaborate on that point when I write to him about the matter which we discussed under the previous amendment.
I wish to refer to another amendment in the noble Lord's name, Amendment No. 289. I do not believe that in drafting terms the amendment takes us forward. It is not acceptable. The word "such" does not seem to add anything to the meaning of paragraph 6 of Schedule 8. Indeed, I fear it might create uncertainty.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: When the noble Lord writes to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, I hope that he will look at Amendment No. 288 sympathetically. As the Bill stands at the moment, commissioners are provided for financially but the staff are contingent on the word "may". That seems anomalous in the light of the intention which the noble Lord has just declared.
Lord Dubs: I thank the noble Lord. I shall look at the point.
Lord Hylton: What the Minister said on the substance of the amendments gives me considerable encouragement. As to the drafting point, he is more likely to be right than I. Taking into account his kind offer to write still further on this group, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 289 and 290 not moved.]
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 9 [The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland.]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 290A to 290D:
Page 52, line 37, leave out ("member of the Commission") and insert ("Commissioner").
Page 52, line 40, leave out ("chairman") and insert ("Chief Commissioner").
Page 52, line 42, leave out ("member, as the chairman or as a deputy chairman") and insert ("Commissioner, as the Chief Commissioner or as a Deputy Chief Commissioner").
Page 53, line 1, leave out ("member, chairman or deputy chairman") and insert ("Commissioner, the Chief Commissioner or Deputy Chief Commissioner").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 291 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 291A to 291C:
Page 53, line 12, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may with the approval of the Department of Finance and Personnel").
Page 53, leave out line 13 and insert ("Commissioners—").
Page 53, leave out line 17.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 292 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 292A:
Page 53, line 19, leave out ("employ staff subject to") and insert ("with").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 293 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No: 293A:
Page 53, leave out lines 21 and 22 and insert ("numbers and as to remuneration and other terms and conditions of employment—

(a) employ such staff as the Commission considers necessary;

(b) employ the services of such other persons as the Commission considers expedient for any particular purpose.

(2) The Commission may, in the case of such of its staff as may be determined by it with the approval of the Department of Economic Development and the Department of Finance and Personnel, pay such pensions, allowances or gratuities, or provide and maintain such pension schemes, as may be so determined.
(3) Payments made or expenses incurred under this paragraph shall be defrayed out of money appropriated by Act of the Assembly.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 294 to 297 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 297A:
Page 53, line 35, at beginning insert ("Expenditure defrayed under this paragraph shall be defrayed out of money appropriated by Act of the Assembly and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 298 to 307 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 307A to 307K:
Page 54, line 7, leave out from ("shall") to ("the") in line 8 and insert ("lay a copy of the statement of accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General's report before").
Page 54, line 17, leave out ("non-members)") and insert ("persons who are not Commissioners)").
Page 54, line 22, leave out ("chairman or deputy chairman") and insert ("Chief Commissioner or Deputy Chief Commissioner").
Page 54, line 23, leave out ("member") and insert ("Commissioner").
Page 54, line 25, leave out ("III") and insert ("II").
Page 54, line 26, leave out ("(other disqualifying offices)") and insert ("(bodies whose members are disqualified)").
Page 54, line 27, leave out ("Member of").
Page 54, line 28, leave out ("III") and insert ("II").
Page 54, line 29, leave out ("(other disqualifying offices)") and insert ("(bodies whose members are disqualified)").
Page 54, line 30, leave out ("Member of").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 307A to 307K, with the exception that there is no Amendment No. 307G.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Equality: enforcement of duties]:
[Amendment No. 308 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 308A:
Page 55, leave out lines 8 to 10 and insert—
("(c) carry out the functions conferred on it by the following provisions of this Schedule.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 309 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 309A:
Page 55, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert—
("1A.—(1) A public authority to which this sub-paragraph applies shall before the end of the period of six months beginning with the commencement of this Schedule submit a scheme to the Commission.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) applies to any public authority except one which—

(a) does not exist at the commencement of this Schedule; or

(b) is notified in writing by the Commission that that sub-paragraph does not apply to it.

1B.—(1) Where it thinks appropriate, the Commission may—

(a) request a public authority to which paragraph 1A(1) does not apply to make a scheme;

(b) request any public authority to make a revised scheme.

(2) A public authority shall respond to a request under this paragraph by submitting a scheme to the Commission before the end of the period of six months beginning with the date of the request.
2.—(1) A scheme shall show how the public authority proposes to fulfil the duties imposed by section 60 in relation to the relevant functions.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 310 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 310A to 310H:
Page 55, line 23, after ("access") insert ("to information and").
Page 55, line 29, at end insert—
("() In this paragraph "the relevant functions" means the functions of the public authority or, in the case of a scheme submitted in response to a request which specifies particular functions of the public authority, those functions.").
Page 55, line 32, at end insert ("; and
(b) such other persons as may be specified in the directions.").
Page 55, line 35, at end insert—
("() Where the Commission refers a scheme to the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (1)(b), it shall notify the Assembly in writing that it has done so and send the Assembly a copy of the scheme.").
Page 55, line 41, leave out ("1(c)") and insert ("1B(1)(b)").
Page 55, line 41, at end insert—
("() Where the Secretary of State—

(a) requests a revised scheme under sub-paragraph (1)(b); or

(b) makes a scheme under sub-paragraph (1)(c),

he shall notify the Assembly in writing that he has done so and, in a case falling within paragraph (b), send the Assembly a copy of the scheme.").
Page 55, line 45, leave out ("1(c)") and insert ("1B(1)(b)").
Page 56, line 28, at end insert—
("() Where the Commission—

(a) sends a report to the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (2)(b); or

(b) refers a matter to the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (2)(c),

it shall notify the Assembly in writing that it has done so and, in a case falling within paragraph (a), send the Assembly a copy of the report.
() Where the Secretary of State gives directions to a public authority under sub-paragraph (3)(b), he shall notify the Assembly in writing that he has done so.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Devolution issues]:
[Amendments Nos. 311 to 324 not moved.]
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 324A:
After Schedule 11, insert the following new schedule—

SCHEDULE

  TRIBUNAL ESTABLISHED UNDER SECTION (The Tribunal)
  Introductory
  1. In this Schedule "the Tribunal" means the tribunal established under section (The Tribunal).
  Members
  2.—(1) The Tribunal shall consist of such number of members appointed by the Lord Chancellor as he may determine.
  (2) A member of the Tribunal shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment and shall, on ceasing to hold office, be eligible for re-appointment.
  (3) A member of the Tribunal may resign his office at any time by notice in writing to the Lord Chancellor.
  Chairman
  3.—(1) The Lord Chancellor shall appoint one of the members of the Tribunal to be its chairman.
  (2) The chairman may nominate a member as deputy chairman to act in his absence.
  (3) A member may not be appointed as chairman or nominated as deputy chairman, unless he holds, or has held, office as a judge of the High Court, the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, the Court of Appeal or the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland.
  (4) The chairman may resign his office at any time by notice in writing to the Lord Chancellor.
  Payments to members
  4.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may pay to the members of the Tribunal such remuneration and allowances as he may determine.
  (2) The Lord Chancellor may, if he thinks fit in the case of any member of the Tribunal pay such pension, allowance or gratuity to or in respect of the member, or such sums towards the provision of such pension, allowance or gratuity, as he may determine.
  (3) If a person ceases to be a member of the Tribunal and it appears to the Lord Chancellor that there are special circumstances which make it right that the person should receive compensation, he may pay to that person a sum of such amount as he may determine.
  Proceedings
  5. The Tribunal shall sit at such times and in such places as the Lord Chancellor may direct.
  6. The Tribunal shall be deemed to be duly constituted if it consists of the chairman or deputy chairman and two or more other members.
  7. The chairman or, in his absence, the deputy chairman, shall preside at sittings of the Tribunal.
  Staff
  8. The Lord Chancellor may appoint such officers and servants for the Tribunal as he thinks fit.
  Expenses
  9. The Lord Chancellor shall defray the remuneration of persons appointed under paragraph 8 and such expenses of the Tribunal as he thinks fit.
  Disqualification of Tribunal Members
  10. In Part II of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies of which all members are disqualified) at the appropriate place insert—
  "The Tribunal established under section (The Tribunal) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998".
  11. In Part II of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies of which all members are disqualified) at the appropriate place insert—
  "The Tribunal established under section (The Tribunal) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998".").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 325 and 325A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  [Amendment No. 325B not moved.]
  Schedule 12 [Construction of references in existing laws]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment Nos. 326 to 334:
  Page 61, leave out lines 21 and 22.
  Page 61, line 24, at beginning insert—
  ("() A reference to an Act or enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall be construed as including a reference to an Order in Council under section 1(3) of the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972.").
  Page 61, line 29, leave out ("established under section 1 of the Northern Ireland Assembly Act 1973") and insert ("so established").
  Page 61, line 31, at end insert—
  ("() A reference to a Measure of the Assembly so established shall be construed as including a reference to an Order in Council under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974.").
  Page 62, line 1, leave out ("4") and insert ("5").
  Page 62, line 27, at end insert—
  ("() References to Northern Ireland Executive authorities shall be construed as references to Ministers and the Northern Ireland departments.").
  Page 63, line 1, after ("shall") insert (", in relation to a function,").
  Page 63, line 2, leave out ("that department") and insert ("the department which exercises that function").
  Page 63, line 10, leave out ("in") and insert ("of").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 326 to 334 en bloc. These amendments concern the construction of references in existing laws. The government amendments to the clause are consequential, drafting or technical.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 13 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 334A to 342A:
  Page 64, line 22, leave out ("71(1)(b)") and insert ("(Provision dealing with certain reserved matters)").
  Page 64, line 23, at end insert—
  ("Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I.12))
  . In Part II of Schedule 1 to the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (rule-making authorities), for "section 40 of and paragraph 4 of Schedule 5 to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973" substitute "section 77(5) of and paragraph 8 of Schedule 12 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998".").
  Page 64, line 23, at end insert—
  ("Mental Health Act 1983 (c.20)
  .—(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In section 134(3)(a) (correspondence of patients), after "Parliament" insert "or of the Northern Ireland Assembly".
  (3) In section 141 (members of the House of Commons suffering from mental illness), after subsection (9) insert—
  "(10) This section also has effect in relation to members of the Northern Ireland Assembly but as if—

  (a) references to the House of Commons were to the Assembly and references to the Speaker were to the Presiding Officer; and

  (b) in subsection (7), for "provided by Parliament" there were substituted "appropriated by Act of the Assembly".").

  Page 64, line 23, at end insert—
  ("Insolvency Act 1986 (c.45)
  In section 427 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (members of the House of Commons who are adjudged bankrupt etc.), after subsection (6B) insert—
  "(6C) Subsection (1), as applied to a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly by virtue of section 28(4) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, has effect as if "or Northern Ireland" were omitted; and subsections (4) to (6) have effect in relation to such a member as if—

  (a) references to the House of Commons were to the Assembly and references to the Speaker were to the Presiding Officer; and

  (b) in subsection (4), for "under this section" there were substituted "under section 28(4) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 by virtue of this section"."").

  Page 64, line 23, at end insert—
  ("Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c.48)
  .—(1) The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In section 12(9) (duration of copyright in literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works), for "166A" substitute "166B".
  (3) In section 153(2) (qualification for copyright protection), for "166A" substitute "166B".
  (4) In section 163(6) (Crown copyright), for "166A" substitute "166B".
  (5) In section 164(1) (Crown copyright in Acts of Parliament, etc.), after "Scottish Parliament" insert ", Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly".
  (6) After section I 66A insert—
  "Copyright in Bills of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  166B.—(1) Copyright in every Bill introduced into the Northern Ireland Assembly belongs to the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission.
  (2) Copyright under this section subsists from the time when the text of the Bill is handed in to the Assembly for introduction—

  (a) until the Bill receives Royal Assent, or

  (b) if the Bill does not receive Royal Assent, until it is withdrawn or rejected or no further proceedings of the Assembly may be taken in respect of it.

  (3) References in this Part to Parliamentary copyright (except in section 165) include copyright under this section; and, except as mentioned above, the provisions of this Part apply in relation to copyright under this section as to other Parliamentary copyright.
  (4) No other copyright, or right in the nature of copyright, subsists in a Bill after copyright has once subsisted under this section; but without prejudice to the subsequent operation of this section in relation to a Bill which, not having received Royal Assent, is later reintroduced into the Assembly."
  (7) In the definition of "parliamentary proceedings" in section 178 (definitions), the words ", of the New Northern Ireland Assembly" shall cease to have effect.
  (8) In section 179 (index of defined expressions), in column 2 of the entry for "Parliamentary copyright", for "and 166A(3)" substitute "166A(3) and 166B(3)".").
  Page 64, line 38, at end insert—
  ("() In section 9(6) (approval of Code of Practice), for "section 27(2) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973" substitute "section 24(1) or (2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998".").
  Page 65, line 12, at end insert—
  ("Environment and Safety Information (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 (S.I. 1993/3159 (N.I. 14))
  In the second column of Schedule 1 to the Environment and Safety Information (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 (enforcing authorities), for "section 43(2) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973" substitute "section 4(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998".").
  Page 65, line 12, at end insert—
  ("Olympic Symbol etc. Protection Act 1995 (c.32)
  . In section 4(16) of the Olympic Symbol etc. Protection Act 1995 (definitions), in the definition of "Royal Commission", for "by the Secretary of State in pursuance of the prerogative powers of Her Majesty delegated to him under section 7(2) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973" substitute "by a Minister, within the meaning of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, or Northern Ireland department in pursuance of the prerogative powers of Her Majesty exercisable by the Minister or department under section 18 of that Act".).
  Page 65, line 40, at end insert—
  ("Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998 (c.12)
  12. In Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998 (the Assembly), for paragraph 8 substitute—
  "8.—(1) For the purposes of the law of defamation, absolute privilege shall attach to—

  (a) the making of a statement in proceedings of the Assembly; and

  (b) the publication of a statement under the Assembly's authority.

  (2) In this paragraph "statement" has the same meaning as in the Defamation Act 1996."").
  Page 65, line 40, at end insert—
  ("Data Protection Act 1998 (c.29)
  .—(1) In paragraph 4 of Schedule 7 to the Data Protection Act 1998 (miscellaneous exceptions), for "Northern Ireland department" substitute "Northern Ireland authority".
  (2) Renumber that paragraph (as so amended) as sub-paragraph (1) and after that provision as so renumbered insert—
  "(2) In this paragraph "Northern Ireland authority" means the First Minister, the deputy First Minister, a Northern Ireland Minister or a Northern Ireland department."").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 334A to 342A. This series of amendments deals with minor and consequential amendments following on from the Bill. The grouping list does not include a number of amendments to the schedule which were covered in earlier debates. The main one was Amendment No. 342 which the Committee may recall provided the shadow Assembly with full privilege from the date of Royal Assent rather than the qualified privilege provided for in the elections Act. The other amendments are, as the title

  1885
  to the schedule suggests, purely minor and consequential. Perhaps the most important is Amendment No. 338 which confers on the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission copyright in Bills of the Assembly.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 14 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 343:
  Page 66, line 10, at end insert—
  ("Ministerial offices
  . Any determination of—

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

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

  made before the appointed day shall on and after that day have effect as if it had been made under section (Ministerial offices).").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 343 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 343A, 343B, 344, 345, 346, 347A and 348. These amendments are transitional and are designed to ensure a smooth transition between direct rule and devolution. In some cases, for example Amendments Nos. 346 and 344, the amendments make clear that appointments or agreements under earlier enactments made during the period of direct rule will continue to apply after devolution. A number of the other amendments, for example Amendments Nos. 343 and 345, concern appointments, elections or arrangements made during the shadow period of the Assembly. The agreement is clear that the institutions it establishes should seek to meet and make progress during the shadow phase of the Assembly's life. Clearly, it would be strange if useful progress made during the shadow phase was not able to be carried forward after devolution but had to be revisited after the appointed day. Accordingly, I commend the amendment to the Committee.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 343A to 346:
  Page 66, line 32, leave out ("by the Secretary of State") and insert ("or elected").
  Page 66, line 33, after ("1998") insert ("who holds office immediately").
  Page 66, line 35, at end insert—
  ("Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland
  . Any appointment made by Her Majesty under section 36(1)(d) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 before the appointed day shall on and after that day have effect as if it had been an appointment made by Her Majesty on the nomination of the Assembly under section 51.").
  Page 66, line 40, at end insert—
  ("Civic Forum
  . Any such arrangements as are mentioned in subsection (1) of section (Civic Forum) which are made and approved before the commencement of that section shall have effect, after that commencement, as if they had been made and approved under that section.").
  Page 67, line 4, at end insert—
  ("Relations with Republic of Ireland
  . The repeal effected by this Act of section 12 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 shall not affect the operation of any agreement or arrangement made under that section.").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 347 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 347A and 348:
  Page 67, line 14, at end insert—
  ("Discrimination by public authorities
  .The repeals effected by this Act shall not affect the operation of section 19 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 (read with section 23 of that Act)—

  (a) so far as section 19 relates to a member of the Northern Ireland Executive or other person appointed under section 8 of that Act or a Northern Ireland department, in relation to any act done before the appointed day;

  (b) so far as section 19 relates otherwise than as mentioned in sub-paragraph (a), in relation to any act done before the commencement of section 61.

  . Section (Effect of certificates) shall have effect—

  (a) in relation to any act done before the appointed day, as if the reference to section 19 were a reference to section 19 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 so far as relating to a member of the Northern Ireland Executive or other person appointed under section 8 of that Act or a Northern Ireland department;

  (b) in relation to any act done before the commencement of section 61, as if the reference to that section were a reference to section 19 of that Act so far as relating otherwise than as mentioned in sub-paragraph (a); and

  (c) in relation to any such act as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) or (b), as if—

  (i) the reference in subsection (1)(b) to a certificate were a reference to a certificate purporting to be signed by or on behalf of the Secretary of State and certifying that an act specified in the certificate was done for the purpose of safeguarding national security; and

  (ii) subsection (3)(b) were omitted.").

  Page 67, line 14, at end insert—
  ("Members' Pensions
  The repeals effected by this Act shall not affect the operation of the Ministerial Offices Act (Northern Ireland) 1952, the Ministerial Salaries and Members' Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 1965 or the Members' Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 in relation to service completed before the appointed day.").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 14, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 15 [Repeals]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 349 to 378:
  Page 67, line 23, at end insert—

  ("14 & 15 Geo 5 c.11 (N.I.).

  Ministers (Temporary Exercise of Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1924.

  The whole Act.")

  Page 67, line 26, at end insert—

  ("1 & 2 Eliz 2 c.3.

  Public Works Loans Act 1952.

  Section 6.

  1 & 2 Eliz 2 c.15 (N.I.).

  Ministerial Offices Act (Northern Ireland) 1952.

  The whole Act.

  2 & 3 Eliz 2 c.33 (N.I.).

  Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954.

  Section 13(2). In section 46(2), in the definition of "the constitutional laws of Northern Ireland", the words "the Government of Ireland Act 1920, and" and "amending or extending it or otherwise".

  1887

  1965 c.18 (N.I.).

  Ministerial Salaries and Members' Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 1965.

  The whole Act.

  1969 c.7 (N.I.).

  Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969.

  Section 4.")

  Page 67, line 33, column 3, at end insert—

  ("Section 33(1).")

  Page 67, line 41, at end insert—

  ("1975 c.24.

  House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.

  In Schedule 1, in Part II, the entries relating to the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland, the Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Disability Council; in Part III, the entries relating to the Additional Commissioner of the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland.

  1975 c.25.

  Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975.

  Section 5(1). In Schedule 1, in Part II, the entries relating to the Commission for Racial Equality for Northern Ireland, the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland, the Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Disability Council; in Part III, the entries relating to the Additional Commissioner of the Commission for Racial Equality for Northern Ireland and the Additional Commissioner of the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland. Schedule 2.")

  Page 67, line 42, column 3, at end insert—

  ("Section 58 (1).")

  Page 67, line 43, column 3, at end insert—

  ("Schedule 6.")

  Page 67, line 43, at end insert—

  ("S.I. 1976/426 (N.1.8).

  Members' Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1976.

  The whole Order.")

  Page 67, line 44, column 3, at beginning insert—

  ("In Article 2(2), the definition of "the interim period".")

  Page 67, line 45, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In Schedule 6, paragraph 2.")

  Page 67, line 46, at end insert—

  ("S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I.12).

  Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979.

  In Article 7(1), the words from "subject to" to "1974". Article 11(4). In Schedule 4, paragraph 14.")

  Page 67, line 47, at end insert—

  ("S.I. 1982/713 (N.I.10).

  Probation Board (Northern Ireland) Order 1982.

  In Schedule 1, paragraph 1(2).")

  Page 68, leave out lines 6 and 7.
  Page 68, line 10, at end insert—

  ("1986 c.56.

  Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986.

  In Schedule 3, paragraphs 1 and 2.")

  Page 68, line 12, at end insert—

  ("S.I. 1986/595 (N.I.4).

  Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.

  In Schedule 5, in Part II the amendment of the Ministerial Salaries and Members' Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 1965.")

  Page 68, line 22, at end insert—

  ("S.I. 1987/2203 (N.I.22).

  Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.

  In Schedule 4, paragraph 1.")

  Page 68, line 24, column 3, at beginning insert—

  ("In section 21(1), the definition of "the Commission".")

  Page 68, line 24, column 3, after ("paragraphs") insert ("2,").
  Page 68, line 30, at end insert—

  ("1990 c.42.

  Broadcasting Act 1990.

  In Schedule 20, paragraph 19.")

  Page 68, line 33, column 3, at end insert ("and (5)").
  Page 68, line 34, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In Schedule 5, paragraph 2.")

  Page 68, line 49, column 3, at beginning insert—

  ("In section 167(2), the words "section 177 (co-ordination with Northern Ireland)".")

  Page 68, line 49, at end insert—

  ("1993 c.49.

  Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993.

  In section 163(2), the words "section 153 (co-ordination with Great Britain)".")

  Page 68, line 49, at end insert—

  ("S.I. 1993/1252 (N.I.5).

  Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1993.

  Article 8(6A).

  1994 c.26.

  Trade Marks Act 1994.

  In Schedule 4, the entry in paragraph 1(2) relating to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.")

  Page 68, line 49, at end insert—

  ("1995 c.34.

  Child Support Act 1995.

  Section 29(2) to (4).

  S.I. 1995/2702 (N.I.13).

  Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1995.

  Article 20.")

  Page 68, line 49, at end insert—

  ("1996 c.11.

  Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc.) Act 1996.

  The whole Act.

  1996 c.22.

  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996.

  In Schedule 6, paragraph 1.")

  Page 69, line 10, column 3, after ("of") insert ("sections 19 to 22 of").
  Page 69, line 17, column 3, leave out ("paragraph") and insert ("paragraphs 1 and").
  Page 69, line 21, at end insert—

  ("1998 c.00.

  Northern Ireland Act 1998.

  In Schedule 13, paragraph 12.")

  Page 69, line 21, at end insert—

  ("S.I. 1998/749 (N.I.4).

  Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1998.

  Article 7.")

  Page 69, line 21, at end insert—

  ("1998 c.00.

  Registration of Political Parties Act 1998.

  In section 2(2)(e) the word "New".")

  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 349 to 378. This schedule contains a whole series of repeals necessary for the smooth running of devolution. The repeals are made for a number of reasons. Often the provisions in the earlier enactments have been replicated or replaced in this Bill, thus making them redundant. A number of earlier pieces of legislation dealing with political development in Northern Ireland will no longer be needed after devolution, hence the Northern Ireland (Entry into Negotiations) Act 1996 and the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998 are repealed in their entirety. Other amendments are much more minor, for example reflecting changes in the names of organisations as a result of the Bill and other such consequential effects. I do not believe that any of the changes has political significance, but they are important for the smooth running of the devolution process and the integrity of the statute book. Accordingly, I commend them to the Committee.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: As this is the last group of amendments on the Marshalled List to be dealt with in Committee—the group comprises 30-odd amendments—I believe it only right to record that the Government have been sufficiently flexible to move in
  1890
  the course of the Bill. I lost count at 270 amendments, some of which were withdrawn before we got there. That leaves out of account the fact that on half a dozen occasions the Government have opposed that clauses stand part in the course of the Bill. That shows great flexibility of mind which we hope will continue at Report stage when we are promised a good number of further amendments.
  The Minister has had a long stint in moving these amendments. I only hope that at least he has now got more of them right than when the Bill left the Commons. It is the most wonderful advertisement for the existence of a second Chamber.
  Lord Dubs: I thank the noble Lord. I am glad he recognises that the Government have, as ever, been flexible. We have certainly listened to the arguments. As I have said before, there will be further amendments at Report stage. I appreciate the very helpful way in which he and other noble Lords have contributed to these debates.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, since the debate that follows is at the conclusion of the whipped business rather than a debate in the dinner hour, the debate can last for an hour-and-a-half and there is no restriction on the length of speeches other than the general restriction in the Companion which advises that speeches should be confined to 15 minutes.

  Salmon Diseases
  7 p.m.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take to prevent the spread of infectious salmon anaemia and gyrodactylus salaris into and within the United Kingdom.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for the advice he has given. I shall try to keep within the 15 minutes. As I planned to keep within 12 minutes, that might not be too difficult.
  The Question relates to two problems regarding salmon. One is infectious salmon anaemia which is a viral disease; and the other is gyrodactylus salaris which is a parasite. Both are present in Norway: one has spread to Scotland; and the other must not. Neither should have done so, but one has.
  I start with the infectious salmon anaemia. I am a long time supporter of fish farming. It has brought jobs to many sensitive and remote areas of the West Highlands and Islands. I understand from the latest figures given only yesterday in another place that there are 1,100 direct full-time and 200 part-time jobs on the coastal sites, and some 6,500 jobs downstream or upstream of farm sites involved in, I imagine, smokeries, fish processing, construction of cages, and so on. The

  1891
  coming of fish farming has led to a drastic reduction in the price of salmon. That has had a beneficial effect on wild salmon by reducing the temptation to poachers and by making netting uneconomic and easier to buy out.
  However, nothing is all good and unfortunately over the years the downside of fish farming has become more and more evident. As the industry has grown in the lochs of the West Highlands, so the population of salmon and especially sea trout has declined in the adjacent rivers, in certain cases almost to the point of extinction. Tonight is not the occasion to speak of the dramatic impact made by the population explosions in the sea cages of sea lice which then spread to the wild population with devastating results, especially for sea trout.
  We are tonight talking about infectious salmon anaemia. I have before me an excellent leaflet published by the Scottish Office outlining the problem. Infectious salmon anaemia is a disease which causes anaemia, visceral haemorrhaging and high mortality in salmon in cages. Until earlier this year it had been confined to Norway and Canada. Suddenly it has appeared in Scotland. On 1st September in answer to questions from me, the Minister told me that ISA had been confirmed in eight sites in Scotland. Can he update that answer? I think that there are some more. I believe that one more site in Shetland has now been identified. Can he tell us how many sites have now been affected by infectious salmon anaemia?
  Can the Minister confirm that almost all the sites are owned by a Norwegian company, Norsk Hydro? As I now have a few more minutes, perhaps I can share some slight amusement—it would be amusing if the subject were not so serious—by reading a press release from Norsk Hydro about the problems faced by GSP, its Scottish subsidiary, which states:
  "The financial performance of GSP is the result of the poor competitive position of the Scottish salmon farming industry, made worse in its case by the consequences of the discovery of infectious salmon anaemia … in Scotland, including a number of GSP farms".
  I like the way it states that it has been discovered in Scotland as though the company somehow has nothing to do with it. The fact is that it has by and large been in Norsk Hydro farms. I think that I am right in saying—the Minister can confirm it—that the first outbreaks were identified in Norsk Hydro farms. I ask the Minister, as I ask the House: is it a coincidence that a disease which has been in Norway for 10 years now appears in Norwegian-owned cages in Scotland? Is it Norwegian husbandry which is wrong, or has the disease been brought from Norway? That is a matter we should address.
  In answer to another of my questions, the Minister said that the Government have not yet established how the disease spread to Scotland. Frankly, it seems to me, that there is a prima facie case that it has spread from Norway. I understand that well-boats move between Scotland and Norway. Why do they move between Scotland and Norway? There is a total ban on the movement of live salmonoids into this country. Well-boats cannot legally bring in any live salmonoids, either smolts, parr or small salmon ready for ongrowing.
  1892
  They cannot bring them into this country. It is illegal. So why do the well-boats commute between Norway and Scotland? I cannot believe that it is a pleasure trip.
  Even if the boats have not been slipping live fish into the country—I have no evidence of that; and one assumes that they have not because it would be illegal—have they been disinfecting their boats correctly when they move from Norway to Scotland? If not, the virus could be brought in the water held in the well-boats, or perhaps at the bottom of the well-boats. If there is a little moisture left, the virus can live.
  Given the seriousness of the disease, there should be a ban on well-boat movements between Norway and this country. That seems a sensible precautionary step to take. I know that the Government have taken steps to stop the movement of live fish from any site where the disease is found or suspected; and that all salmon in an infected site are slaughtered. Is the Minister satisfied with the disposal of the blood and carcasses from a large tonnage of slaughtered fish? Is he sure that the movement of the blood and carcasses thereafter is sufficiently safe so that there is no contamination of other waters, either coastal waters where there are salmon farms, or rivers? Can the Minister assure me that he has no intention of changing his slaughter policy which seems to me to be the only sure way to prevent the spread of this disease to other fish farms and to the wild stock which is absolutely free of ISA?
  On 30th July the Minister told me that there were some 106 farms sharing the same sea area—sea loch, or whatever—as those infected. Has that changed? I suspect it has because if new outbreaks have been reported then new farms in the adjacent area will be affected. I understand also from the Minister's answers to me that official approval is needed if any live fish are to be moved from any of the sites to other sites. I should have thought it would be more sensible to ban the movement of live fish from a site which may be in close proximity to an infected site. There is no problem about marketing the fish because, as no doubt the Minister will say, the problem does not affect humans. So fish in an adjacent cage where the outbreak has not been confirmed, or where there is no sign of the outbreak, can be marketed. But just in case in three, four or five months' time it transpires that the disease is in that cage too, I should have thought that there should be no movement of live fish to other sites that are currently unaffected.
  My final point on cage sites concerns the fallow period before restocking. The Minister told me that no final decision had been taken, but that a six-month period was being considered. Has any hard and fast decision been taken? Is six months enough? Should we not make the fallow period unlimited until we know more about this disease?
  I turn now to wild salmon which, as your Lordships will know, is of slight interest to me. I am grateful to the Minister for the full Answer he gave me on

  1893
  3rd September to the Question of whether ISA could spread to wild salmon. As I have time, I will read his reply. He stated:
  "Wild salmon populations are potentially susceptible to infectious salmon anaemia in the same way as farmed salmon; the disease may therefore be transmitted in either direction.
  "There are no known case's of infectious salmon anaemia in wild salmon".
  I wish to underline that because there is some suggestion from people who wish to disguise the source of the disease that it may have come from the wild salmon stocks in Scotland. The Minister was clear in stating that there are no known cases of infectious salmon anaemia in wild salmon. He continued:
  "However, the effects of diseases on wild populations are difficult to determine because unhealthy fish are normally rapidly removed by predation. There is no experimental evidence that sea trout can carry the ISA virus without being affected by the disease and that sea trout carriers can infect salmon".—[Official Report, 3/9/98; col. WA55.]
  Therefore, there is a question about the transfer of this disease from farmed salmon to wild salmon.
  I understand the problem because it is easy to see the disease quickly in a fish cage. It is not easy to see it in the wild. The Minister said in his Answer that predators take any sickly fish. We are not seeing large quantities of fish in one place—at least, I have not—and we do not see them in the same way in cages. But I wonder what monitoring there is of wild stocks, especially in rivers adjacent to infected sites. For example, two of the infected sites are in Loch Creran, an area I know well. The River Creran enters at the top. It contained wild salmon and I wonder whether they are being monitored to see whether there is any effect. There are other places where the disease has been identified in fish cages and there are adjacent rivers with salmon stocks, probably much reduced, as has the run of salmon in the River Creran. Nonetheless, they ought to be monitored.
  I am sure that every time the Minister hears about the disease he is told that the industry demands compensation. I could not help notice that Norsk Hydro was in the same kind of boat, looking for something like £10 million in compensation. The Minister will be refreshed to hear a different view. If the industry has brought the problem on itself I see no reason why taxpayers' money should be used. If there is evidence that the disease was introduced by Norsk Hydro I do not believe it merits any compensation.
  However, the people I feel sorry for are shellfish farmers because they have been caught up in the problem quite accidentally. A friend of mine who farms in Loch Creran has been caught because he is not allowed to move his stock from one area to another. That is an essential part of the project, because it is very much a hatchery/nursery operation and small scallops, oysters or mussels are moved to other sites where they are grown on. He has not been allowed to do that because of fears that inside the shellfish there will be some water containing the virus. That is understandable and I commend the Scottish Office for being careful. However, I believe that shellfish growers who are caught in this dilemma deserve a great deal of sympathy. It is the second time they have been caught on the
  1894
  downside of salmon farming. Many were caught by the use of anti-fouling on fish cages, which had a dramatic effect on nearby shellfish farms. I hope that the Government are considering help for any shellfish farmer who has been affected by the problem.
  I turn to gyrodactylus salaris. It is a parasite which affects salmon parr and other fish in fresh water. It was introduced into Norway from the Baltic where Baltic salmon are tolerant of the parasite. Atlantic salmon are not and between 30 and 40 Norwegian rivers have completely lost their salmon stocks. The Scottish Office has produced an excellent leaflet, as has MAFF. A poster has been promised for ports of entry. I wonder whether it is available and is being shown at the ports of entry.
  I understand that in Iceland any visiting angler must show evidence that his gear has been disinfected. Although I have not been able to confirm it, I understand that he has to show a vet's certificate. Should we not do the same? Should we not ban the movement into this country of the angling gear of anglers who have been abroad. Furthermore, I believe that we should be in touch with our friends in the Republic of Ireland to ensure that we have a co-ordinated response to the danger in these islands. If the disease reached the Republic of Ireland it would reach here, too, as it would the other way round.
  I return to the question of well-boats because they may have a role, too. I am concerned at the possibility of the disease being brought in from Norway by well-boats. I know that it is illegal to bring in live fish, but I can see a temptation to bring in to this country smolts or parr, which would be freshwater, in the well. If that were to happen and the fish were to be put into freshwater sites here, the parasite could easily be introduced. Indeed, during the Shetland business the Minister in a press release stated:
  "Evidence is to hand which suggests a possible link involving well-boats between the confirmed Shetland site and one of those already identified as affected on the west coast".
  That is concerned with ISA, but my worry also encompasses gyrodactylus salaris. If the disease were introduced into this country it would be a disaster not just for salmon anglers and salmon fishing, but for salmon farmers, too. It would affect the hatchery stage in fresh water. Salmon angling employs just as many people as salmon farming. I am sure that the three speakers who are to join me in the debate will agree. Perhaps it has a greater downstream effect on many rural economies with shops, hotels, petrol stations and so forth drawing trade from visiting anglers. So whether it be the ISA here already or the danger of gyrodactylus salaris spreading here, we must control and regulate salmon farming in order to protect our stocks.
  My noble friend Lord Nickson, who would dearly have loved to be here but cannot, in his Salmon Strategy Task Force Report called for a single regulatory body for all aspects of the installation, development and operation of salmon farms and for the strengthening of bodies such as the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Frankly, although people worry about planning controls and the siting of cages, my worry is the simple

  1895
  one of the need to control disease and parasites both within and outwith the cages as it may transfer to wild salmon and sea trout.
  In fairness, I should conclude by saying that the Scottish Office has moved quickly on the two problems of ISA and gyrodactylus salaris. I hope that this short debate will persuade it to move further and constantly to have before it the precautionary principle that if we do not know let us be sure. Let us "mak siccar", to use an old Scottish expression. I can assure your Lordships that it will have the support of all of us who are interested in salmon stocks and salmon angling and I believe also the support of all those involved in fish farming.
  7.18 p.m.
  Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. My main concern is the infectious salmon anaemia in the Scottish fish farms. I shall not wander into the many problems raised by the noble Lord, especially from his local knowledge gained during his pursuits in the Scottish salmon rivers.
  This is the first time we have debated ISA and it is to be hoped that we shall have a full explanation from my noble friend the Minister. First, how has the disease come about? What are its origins? When was it first detected? It may well have been established that it came from Norway and possibly Canada. Unbelievably, after it had affected and closed fish farms in those countries, it came across to Scotland. Will the Minister say when it was detected in Scotland. Was it not possible to do more to control the spread of the disease?
  It would appear that now 10 salmon farms have been closed; another 11 are on the endangered list; more than 3,000 tonnes of fish have been destroyed; and 179 fish farms have been placed under control. It is having a devastating effect on the output of farmed salmon and the income of the salmon farmers. I took note of what the noble Lord said about the fact that they may be mainly from the Norwegian fish farms but there could be others. Is there to be a compensation scheme either from Her Majesty's Government or from the European Union? Will there be any financial assistance at all? There has not only been loss of stock but also one must take into account cleaning, the disinfection of the site and the six months during which it must lie fallow before further use.
  But now and most important, what is the Government's stated position on the safe consumption of that diseased salmon? I know that some supermarkets are refusing to stock it. But the public are entitled to know that there is no public health risk. Let us not go through a salmon fish BSE crisis. The Government must clear the air as a matter of urgency.
  To what extent and for how long have we been importing salmon from Canada and Norway? Those of us who take an interest in these matters—we have debated them in the past—believe that Norway in particular has been guilty of dumping salmon and even
  1896
  undermining the fish farms in Scotland. But do we believe that any of those salmon imports from Norway were diseased and sold in our supermarkets?
  I came across the phrase, "It is not believed to affect human health." That is not good enough. We must be certain, especially when it is noted that some of the diseased farms are Norwegian owned. There is the suspicion also that live fish from those farms have been introduced to a Shetland farm, spreading the disease much wider in Scotland. Indeed, it would appear that reports indicate that more than 200 sites are now being placed in quarantine. Is that infectious disease out of control? Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether any proceedings are being taken in relation to what may be regarded as the illegal movements of diseased fish. Has the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—I emphasise "and Food"—become involved in frank discussions with the Scottish Office on the matter of diseased food? What advice is being given to supermarkets?
  The Salmon and Trout Association, of which I am a council member, has been concerned by the growth of salmon farming and the lack of proper planning controls. For some years now it has called for independent regulation of the industry. Indeed, we debated that in the House on the report of the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, on the Scottish salmon strategy task force over a year ago. Have the Government given any thought to that?
  Finally, we are now fully aware that ISA is highly infectious; that there is no known cure; and that it is spreading so rapidly it could very seriously affect the whole of the industry. Thousands of jobs are threatened; many redundancies are being declared; and with escapes of diseased salmon, the wild salmon, with cross-infection, are in jeopardy. If Norway's fish rabies—gyrodactylus salaris—comes to Scotland, then the industry and all our salmon, farmed or wild, are likely to be severely diminished.
  This is a major question for my noble friend and for the Scottish Office in liaison with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We shall want to know more about protection and prevention. I should like to know what the Government are going to do about it.
  7.25 p.m.
  Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow such well-known fishermen as my noble friend Lord Mackay and the noble Lord, Lord Mason. I have been fascinated to listen to their account of the current situation.
  I speak as a former fisheries Minister in Scotland. I visited our fish farms on many occasions. I also took the Norwegian Minister around our fish farms in Scotland to show him how important the industry is to Scotland in terms of employment, as noble Lords have said, and to bring home to him the great difficulties that Norway was causing Scotland by over-production and by the requirement to bring in a minimum import price in order that there was some degree of fairness between Norway and Scotland. The strong pound, which is the Government's responsibility, has certainly not helped

  1897
  the position as regards the minimum import price but that is a matter other than the one which we are discussing this evening.
  I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mason, that other issues like planning and the position of the Crown Commissioners relative to planning have caused many Scottish Office Ministers a great deal of concern over the years since the war.
  I ask the Minister how urgently and seriously he takes this situation to be. I was speaking only yesterday to the chairman of the Scottish Salmon Smokers Association which looks after the smoking of Scottish salmon. He said that he wrote to the Secretary of State on 1st October impressing upon him that the situation is getting out of hand. And yet, as of last night, he had not received an answer. It does not seem to me that that shows any great degree of urgency on the part of the Scottish Office.
  It is serious for fish farms. If it is not eradicated, it will be very serious for fresh salmon and smoked salmon, not because of the health risks, with which I shall deal in a moment, because there is absolutely no risk to health for humans, but because of what will inevitably be a lack of supply.
  Those farms which have ISA have been culled. That applies to all sizes of fish—the whole lot—and the whole cycle of reproduction of the salmon goes back to the start. That means that, inevitably, it will be some years before those farms which have been closed are able to produce fish again in reasonable quantities.
  There are two aspects of this situation which I wish to highlight. As the noble Lord, Lord Mason, said, 10 farms have ISA and have been completely culled; 11 are being monitored and may be culled in the future if it turns out that they have ISA. That leaves 339 unaffected farms. Therefore, as at this moment, because the farms which have ISA have been culled and the rest are being monitored, we can say that there is no known ISA in Scotland. But from what has happened and in the light of the developing situation, it looks as though that will not hold for very much longer.
  Because of the fact that at the moment there are 339 unaffected farms, we must not over-react in terms of publicity which has such a damaging effect on the consumption of salmon, both fresh and smoked, in the United Kingdom.
  As my noble friend Lord Mackay said, ISA is common in Norway. I was extremely concerned about what he was telling us as to the possibility that the infection has come to Scotland from Norway. Salmon in the sea, sea trout and herring certainly carry ISA in UK waters. Therefore, I ask the Minister what the Scottish scientists are doing. At Pitlochry and Aberdeen, we have extremely skilled scientists in the laboratories. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what recommendations they are making in order to halt the spread of ISA and indeed, it is hoped, to prevent it happening in the future other than by the drastic impact of culling.
  We all know what that can mean in terms of any form of livestock. One remembers the problems of foot and mouth and, of course, brucellosis in cattle. But then there was compensation. However, I share the view of
  1898
  my noble friend Lord Mackay that if this disease has been self-imported from Norway we must be extremely careful about offering compensation to fish farmers to cull, clean and disinfect cages.
  The Minister and his colleagues are keen to regenerate industry in Scotland. It is therefore important that we get this right in relation to fish farms which provide a high percentage of employment in areas where it is difficult to find alternative jobs. It is becoming even more serious in relation to what is happening on the hill farms today. As I mentioned in the Question I raised in the Chamber this afternoon, hill farming is facing a serious crisis at the present time.
  It is unlikely that those who lose their jobs or are made redundant on fish farms in the western half of Scotland will obtain jobs in farming at the present time. They will be a serious drain on the local economy if they are out of work. The Minister will appreciate the importance of getting this right and preventing the drain on employment from fish farms should this disease spread rapidly and the 300 plus fish farms which are unaffected at the moment come within the ambit of suspicion.
  It is important also that this House sends a message to the public—the noble Lord, Lord Mason, was not too certain about this, but from my inquiries over the past day or two I am confident—that this disease cannot affect human beings. The virus can only survive at temperatures far below that of the human body. It is really therefore no threat to the public and we should be confident to continue to purchase and eat both smoked and fresh salmon whether it comes from fish farms or from the wild.
  I have watched my near neighbours in Annan in the development of Pinneys. They are the largest smokers of salmon in Scotland. They have a big industry and only a few months ago opened a new facility in Annan where they employ several hundred people. They in turn will become concerned about their future when they see in the press scandalous headlines indicating that ISA is on a par with BSE and that their jobs will be at risk because of the possibility in the future of a ban on selling smoked salmon to the public. That is not true. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the only problem will arise from the supply of salmon rather than whether or not it is fit to eat.
  I hope therefore that producers of high quality smoked salmon—we have them in numbers in Scotland—are able to continue to produce their high quality goods and find a market for them. I hope that they are not hindered by bad publicity which, quite frankly, is inaccurate and causes unnecessary anxiety. As the noble Lord, Lord Mason, said, it involves 5,000 or 6,000 people in the industry throughout Scotland.
  It is important that tonight we build up consumer confidence in the consumption of salmon, whether smoked or fresh, and that we work hard to find a cure. I hope that the Minister will be able to point us in the right direction in that regard tonight. There is no cause for alarm and I am highly critical of those in the media who caused a great deal of disquiet by falsely indicating that it is something that can affect humans when it certainly cannot.

  1899
  I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish for initiating this short debate. It gives us the opportunity to hear the views of the Scottish Office, and perhaps a chance to indicate that there is no danger to human life. However, there is an extremely serious danger in the spread of this disease to salmon farms in Scotland. The sooner we can find a cure or a prevention, certainly of bringing live salmon from elsewhere in the world, the better.
  7.33 p.m.
  Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I should like to declare an interest inasmuch as I am the owner of land on which a salmon farm works. It is in fact owned by Norsk Hydro. It is a hatchery and has not yet been affected by the disease.
  I should like to point out that salmon farming in this country is now a major industry producing many hundreds of tonnes of salmon a year. It is a large employer in depressed areas—mostly the west of Scotland. It has also changed the eating habits of this country to a large extent in that salmon has now dramatically gone down in price. In fact, at Leadenhall Market today one can buy a marvellous side of smoked salmon for just £10, whereas 20 or 30 years ago it would have been considerably more.
  All I ask is that the Government take this threat extremely seriously and, if necessary, impose quarantine. But they should not treat it like the BSE scare which, as my noble friend Lord Monro said, caused such an over-reaction. As has been stated by other noble Lords, this disease constitutes no danger to human health. Nevertheless, it should be taken extremely seriously.
  7.36 p.m.
  Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I first declare my interest—though it is well known to your Lordships—as chairman of Thurso Fisheries Limited and therefore beneficial owner of Thurso River. We do not have any fish farms near us and therefore I have no worries on that score other than some of those expressed this evening. I also have no axe to grind in that regard.
  I have one other interest to declare in that it is my mother-in-law's 70th birthday tonight and I am supposed to be there. I shall therefore be remarkably brief. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for the full and excellent way in which he put his Question to the Government. He and I probably share similar sources of information; there is little that I saw in my brief that he did not cover in his and I shall not repeat it.
  It is pleasant to be in the Chamber with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, asking the Question and the Minister responding on a subject in which there is a common bond of concern and to be largely in agreement. We are normally dealing with the Scotland Bill and are not nearly so consensual.
  Before total harmony breaks out between us, perhaps I may pick up on one matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I thought this evening in
  1900
  your Lordships' House I would get away with not talking about netting. However, the noble Lord managed to mention it: he said that salmon farming has been beneficial in helping to reduce the price and consequently reduce poaching and netting action.
  There is considerable evidence that with netting stations being removed from the north coast poaching has actually increased. I ask only that those involved in netting be given the same rights and treatment as the rest of us in all the aspects of salmon fishing. Also, in relation to consumption, I believe the actual amount of salmon consumed compared with the old days has greatly increased. That is therefore a dangerous argument to follow.
  However, from now on let a reasonable amount of harmony break out between us. I thank the noble Lord for raising this matter and doing it so well. I just want to cherry pick one or two of the points he raised. First, he spoke of compensation. I know that a number of people feel strongly that it would be wrong, if it is proved that the disease is the result of illegal importation of fish, for those who committed that act to be compensated for their folly by the taxpayer.
  One should also have regard to the many people who have operated within the industry perfectly legally and legitimately and who now stand to suffer from the illegal activities. In supporting the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, in his call for sympathy for the shellfish growers, I would also say that those salmon growers who have been involved and who have not been part of any illegal or incompetent action should not also be penalised. Perhaps the way to deal with that is to make sure that jobs are kept until such time as we have the facts before us. If and when we have the facts we discover that the problem has been caused by illegal acts or incompetence, then we can go after the perpetrators rather than punishing everybody.
  As to the question of regulation, with this grave problem facing us—and it is an extremely grave problem—there is a natural tendency to want the highest possible order of regulation. But I am not wholly convinced. When I was speaking in a debate that the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, introduced, I had question marks over the way he wished to see the industry regulated. I am not wholly convinced that strong, heavy-handed regulation is the right way to go. But it is absolutely necessary that regulation should be effective, however it is put forward. I am sympathetic to introducing more regulation—clearly we have a big problem—but I would need some convincing.
  As one noble Lord said, this is rather like foot and mouth. As with foot and mouth, there are ways of dealing with diseases. The key is to ensure that powers exist at the Scottish Office—I presume that this will be a devolved matter in the Scottish parliament—to enable it to take such action as necessary at government level. That does not mean that we have to create a regulatory body to do it. There is a balance to be struck between what we need to achieve the objective and the correct amount of regulation.
  Like the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, I too heard that there is an attempt to blame this disease on our indigenous Scottish salmon. That is not only a

  1901
  dreadful slur but is quite incorrect. When infectious pancreatic necrosis—that horrible disease—struck it was eventually moved from being a class 1 disease, once it had infected wild salmon, and it became a big problem in rivers for many years. I would be most disappointed if the same were to happen in regard to infectious salmon anaemia.
  The control of well boats is crucial. I said at the beginning of my speech that Thurso is probably safe because it is an area with no salmon farms. But, as I said that I wondered what would happen if a well boat put into Scrabster harbour and discharged over the side. There could well be a problem. That is a serious point and one which we should take on board.
  A number of noble Lords mentioned the disposal of the carcasses of diseased fish. I have heard reports of them being disposed of at sea. That is clearly wrong. I hope that those reports are incorrect and that the Minister can reassure me about that. It would be worrying if carcasses were being disposed of at sea.
  There is also a report—this is second-hand information so I am not sure of its accuracy—of carcasses being transported across Scotland. Clearly dangers exist.
  Turning to the dreaded parasite gyrodactylus salaris, there are two dangers. One is the unwitting danger of importation by anglers because the parasite can live on in damp equipment and therefore be imported into the country. There is an excellent leaflet on that and I am concerned with a number of organisations that have been making sure that everybody involved is aware of the danger. On the Thurso, my river superintendent now speaks to every angler to ask whether they have been abroad and, if so, offers to disinfect their kit for them free of charge. I do not know whether other proprietors do things like that, but I suggest that it is worth while.
  The second danger is illegal importation—if indeed there has been illegal importation. If that is happening, it is a huge danger. By its very nature it will be going on in a clandestine way and therefore be impossible to regulate and deal with. I hope that the Minister can assure us on that point. It would be an unmitigated disaster in the salmon industry if gyrodactylus salaris came anywhere near us.
  Let me now go slightly off the subject and speak to one small point. I welcome the planning guidelines that have been sent out for consultation by the Scottish Office. I think it is a two-month consultation at the moment. As I read it, there is a presumption against farms on the east coast, there are very sensitive areas on the west coast and sensitive areas. We are moving in the right direction to get the proper balance between the important commercial imperative of preserving jobs on the west coast and not spreading the dangers that we now know about across to other areas of Scotland.
  The noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, mentioned cross-contamination and the possibility of there being a possible salmon BSE. The noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm, assured us that it could not become a human variant BSE, as it were. After the BSE experience I would not like to be the Minister who made that assertion from the Front Bench. One thing that BSE has
  1902
  taught us is that we need to be extremely careful whenever we have imported diseases from one area to another, as we witnessed with Baltic salmon being immune to gyrodactylus salaris and the devastation in Norway. What would happen if that came here? The best scientific advice is that it absolutely cannot come to humans; but never is a long time in cross-contamination.
  I await the response of the Minister. I urge above all that we adopt a highly precautionary approach to try to stop this as nearly as possible dead in its tracks.
  7.46 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important issue. I also thank all Members of your Lordships' House who have participated in this short debate for the positive and constructive way in which they have approached the issue. As the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, indicated, there is a common objective and shared purpose to ensure that we deal with the problem of infectious salmon anaemia and do whatever we can to prevent gyrodactylus salaris from ever reaching our rivers.
  Let me talk first about infectious salmon anaemia, which we all recognise is an extremely serious disease of salmon in sea water. It is a disease which is transmitted by contact between fish through blood, urine, faeces and body fluids, though there is some evidence to suggest that it might also be carried by other salmonids, including sea trout. It is caused by a virus. It has characteristic visual symptoms, which include darkening of the liver, severe anaemia and visceral haemorrhaging which assist in its diagnosis.
  I recognise and share the dismay which has been expressed about the advent of ISA in Scotland. This is not just a major disappointment; it also raises anxieties that another disease, gyrodactylus salaris, might also appear one day. I hope, however, that what I have to say will provide some reassurance on that issue.
  ISA was first identified in Norway in 1984. In 1996 it was found in Canada. Prior to the present outbreak there had been no reports of the disease in European Community waters.
  There is a clear legal framework for dealing with any ISA outbreak. Let me briefly describe the measures which the Government are obliged to take. Any suspicion of the disease must immediately be notified to the authorities. Once such a report is received, restrictive measures must be put in hand to reduce the risk of the outbreak spreading—by controls on the movement of fish and equipment onto and off the suspected farm and other farms in the same catchment area. Subsequent confirmation of the disease requires the removal of all fish from the farm and full disinfection. Fish not showing clinical signs of the disease may be marketed. All other fish, eggs and gametes must be destroyed in an approved manner. There must then be a fallowing period before the farm can be restocked. The clearing of an infected farm and the disposal of infected fish is subject to inspection by our fish health inspectorate.

  1903
  The first outbreak of ISA in Scotland was confirmed at a site in Loch Nevis in May. Since then the disease has been confirmed at a further nine sites, the last on 18th September. Eleven other sites are suspected but this needs to be seen in the context of some 340 salmon farms which comprise the Scottish industry. The common denominator between these sites appears to be site-to-site contact of personnel and equipment, including well-boats, which are used for the movement of fish. Due to the movement restrictions, which are also imposed for 40 kilometres around suspected or confirmed sites, almost 180 other fish farms are under regular surveillance and need the department's approval to move their fish. That is the precautionary framework and the legal framework in which the policy operates.
  Approximately 3,000 tonnes of fish have had to be slaughtered on the confirmed 10 sites. About one-third have been destroyed and safely disposed of. The other two-thirds have displayed no clinical signs of the disease and, as permitted by European fish health legislation, they have been marketed. Again, to put this into perspective, the total of 3,000 tonnes is equivalent in weight terms to about 3 per cent. of this year's expected production.
  I hope it will be clear from what I have said that the response to the ICA outbreak by the Scottish Office has been immediate and rigorous. I take note of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, when he referred to the actions of the Scottish Office, and thank him for it. As the Minister, I have been greatly impressed by the work and effort put in by the various civil servants. It has been exemplary.
  We have reinforced our fish health inspectorate to undertake the extra work required. Our aim—indeed our obligation under Community law—is to eradicate the disease and the measures put in place are designed to that end. The objective is the eradication of the disease. We remain committed to that policy, but we are keeping that objective under review in the light of our growing knowledge and experience of this disease. It is fairly well known that the disease expresses itself at times of stress; in particular, temperature changes. The next few months will be critical in terms of our being able to reach a view on whether the disease has spread on the basis of site-to-site contact or whether there is something more general and, unfortunately perhaps, more endemic in its presence.
  Ever since the first outbreak was confirmed in May we have kept in close contact with the European Commission and the Community Fish Health Laboratory in Denmark, which have expressed themselves content with our actions to date. We are liaising with the Norwegian authorities which, as has been pointed out, have longer experience of the disease. We have also worked closely with the industry itself. I have had a whole series of meetings with representatives of the industry—from the major companies to the small producers—and I know that my officials are in virtual day-to-day contact with all aspects of the industry. The noble Lord, Lord Monro, referred to a failure to respond. I shall make sure that that is taken up and will get back to the noble Lord as quickly
  1904
  as possible. But I emphasise that not only the Scottish Office but the industry as a whole see this as a major challenge. We need to have a robust and effective response to that challenge. I am quite sure that the industry recognises the serious threat posed by ISA and I am satisfied that it is co-operating with the various restrictions and controls that are in place.
  I am conscious that three main questions arise in relation to this outbreak. How did the disease arrive? What are the risks of it spreading? And what are the implications for human health? Some of those questions have almost been answered by those who have participated in the debate. However, as the Minister, I think I had better answer them as well.
  On the first point—how did the disease arrive—we are required under Community legislation to seek to establish the cause. Considerable effort is being put into this but I have to say that, as yet, it has not been possible to reach any firm conclusions. I say purely as a theoretical point that it is possible that the virus arrived through wild fish. That is a theoretical possibility—I make no more of it than that—and I do have to say that no imports of live salmon or eggs from Norway are permitted. We have no evidence that any illegal import of salmon has occurred. Our work is still continuing. We wish very much to be able to tie down the cause of the disease's arrival in this country.
  Concern has been expressed about possible transmission to and by wild stocks. ISA is a disease specific to salmon and it follows that it could exist in wild stocks. I mentioned earlier that certain wild fish, such as sea trout, could be carriers of the virus. As part of the mandatory investigation into the cause of the outbreak, samples of salmon, sea trout and whitefish have been tested from the areas around infected farms, with, I am happy to say, negative results. We will be continuing our surveillance of wild fish both in the waters around suspect and confirmed farms and beyond.
  For reasons which I well understand, noble Lords have raised the question of the possibility of risk to human health arising from this viral disease of salmon. I hope I may add to the reassurance already given. This very question was considered on 18th September by the Government's Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food. The committee noted that there was little evidence of cold water pathogens, particularly viruses, causing disease in humans. Further, it noted that host range was narrow. Only Atlantic salmon are known to be susceptible to ISA, although the virus can survive and replicate in some species of trout. In addition—this is a fundamentally important point—the virus is unable to replicate at temperatures above 25 degrees centigrade. The committee concluded that there was currently no evidence of a risk to human health. Inquiries have also been made through our embassies in Ottawa and Oslo—because Norway and Canada both have experience of the disease—and I am happy to report that neither country has any evidence of the ISA virus causing illness in humans. There would appear to be a general consensus on this point both in terms of experience and of science.

  1905
  A number of other points relating to ISA were made during the debate and I will return to those a little later, point by point. However, before doing so I should like to say something about gyrodactylus salaris. This is a freshwater parasite of salmon, which appears to have originated in the Baltic. Baltic salmon seem to have developed an immunity to it but Atlantic salmon are vulnerable. From the Baltic it spread to Norway, where it spread rapidly and, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, indicated, it devastated salmon stocks in many of the Norwegian rivers.
  In response to the threat posed by gyrodactylus salaris, it was made a notifiable disease in the United Kingdom in 1988, and in 1996 the United Kingdom was able to persuade the European Commission to impose temporary safeguard measures prohibiting the import of all live salmonoids into Great Britain and Ireland. Earlier this year the United Kingdom put forward an alternative proposal for strengthening the national measures that member states can take under EU rules to prevent the introduction of diseases from which they are free in their territory. I am pleased to say that this proposal was adopted by the council this summer. It will enable us to adopt permanent measures replacing the existing temporary safeguards to guard against the introduction of gyrodactylus salaris into this country.
  There is a remote risk that gyrodactylus salaris might be introduced into this country by another route, for example, on anglers' clothing or equipment. This is a point which has been referred to by earlier speakers. The parasite can survive for up to eight days in damp conditions. To guard against this possibility, both the Scottish Office and MAFF have issued advice to angling and other organisations about this risk, emphasising the need to disinfect or thoroughly dry all equipment after returning from an angling trip abroad.
  I should like now to refer to some of the specific points which were made earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, referred to the possibility of tightening up controls generally—a point which was also made by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. I welcome any ideas for tightening up controls. We have set up a working group with the Scottish Office and salmon farmers to consider all such ideas, and I will certainly want to consider any specific proposals put forward this evening.
  Controls of the movements of well-boats are being actively reviewed by the working group. We recognise that this is an area where we very much want to focus our concerns. Another point was made as to how far we were satisfied about the disposal of blood and carcasses and whether this was being done safely. The situation is that all disposals of infected material are monitored by the Fish Health Inspectorate, local authorities and others. At the moment we are satisfied that the industry is co-operating fully. Indeed, both the disposal and the general husbandry policies in the industry are being addressed by the industry. They recognise that in some cases improvements have to be made.
  1906
  I very much accept the point about shellfish farmers. I cannot promise compensation at all: it has not been the case in the past to compensate shellfish farmers when they have been subject to movement restrictions. However, I have been able to lift all movement restrictions in relation to shell-fish farmers at the moment. I hope they will now be able to resume their activity relatively untroubled.
  We have also, in response to the threat, increased the number of our field inspectors. A total of 14 extra staff have been taken on to ensure that we are able to maintain the necessary inspectorate effort. I am not saying that the inspectors are there all the time, but there is a very good and thorough coverage by inspectors. That is absolutely right and proper, and I very much want to pay tribute to the hardworking staff who are working long hours to maintain proper supervision.
  Throughout the debate there has been the odd reference to Norway as the possible origin of the present infection. I just want to inject a word of caution in relation to the source of this outbreak. I have to take a balanced view of this matter and my scientific advisers do not rule out the possibility that this virus has reached Scotland through wild stocks. I say that only because that is what the scientists tell me. It is indeed the case that the disease was first identified at a Norsk-Hydro farm and is generally confined to Norsk-Hydro farms. Beyond that, however, we can link all infected sites to the movement of fish and personnel or equipment from that site—movement, I should say, that took place before our movement controls took effect. So I think the way in which it has spread so far we have been able to identify. It is by site-to-site contact, and we have then imposed the restriction orders which should contain the problem, I hope. As I mentioned earlier, we are moving to a period in the year when we will soon know whether the virus and the disease have been contained or whether we are facing a much more difficult problem.
  Very briefly, regarding gyrodactylus salaris, there is a specific point about posters. It has been mentioned that leaflets are already available. I can confirm that we are in the process of arranging for such posters to be placed in ports of entry, and the posters have actually been printed. I think, speaking to fishermen, that there is a very high level of recognition among that community of the danger posed by gyrodactylus salaris and I feel that people are behaving responsibly. I applaud that.
  I hope I have answered all the points raised in the debate. I shall want to read what has been said by noble Lords, and if I have missed anything I will endeavour to reply in writing. I stress that the Government will continue to take the current outbreak of ISA extremely seriously. The policy that we are committed to is one of eradication. We want to overcome this disease, and that drives everything we have done. Similarly, we remain resolved to keep gyrodactylus salaris out of this country.
  House adjourned at nine minutes past eight o'clock.