Northern Ireland Bill

HL Deb 27 October 1998 vol 593 cc1818-81

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 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 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.

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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 moved Amendment No. 225:

Page 43, line 36, after ("and") insert ("the Republic of").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 226:

Page 43, line 38, leave out from ("arrangement") to end of line 45 and insert ("entered into—

1. ("(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
2. (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—

1. (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
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 237A:

Page 44, leave out lines 11 to 14 and insert—

("10. The following matters—

1. (a) national insurance contributions;
2. (b) the control and management of the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund and payments into and out of that Fund;
3. (c) reductions in and deductions from national insurance contributions;
4. (d) national insurance rebates;
5. (e) payments out of public money to money purchase pension schemes:
6. (f) contributions equivalent premiums;
7. (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—

1. (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
2. (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—

1. (i) section 172(1)(b), (2)(a) or (7)(c) of the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993; or
2. (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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 239:

Page 44, leave out lines 21 and 22.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 242:

Page 44, line 30, at end insert ("; the subject-matter of—

1. (a) the Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1920;
2. (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
3. (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 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—

1. (a) section 3(5) to (7) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (emission limits); or
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) Parts I and II;
2. (b) Part III except sections (Junior Ministers), (Statutory functions), 18(2) and (3) and 21;
3. (c) Part IV except sections 32, 35(7), 36(8) and 41 and Schedule 6;
4. (d) in Part IVA, sections (North-South Ministerial Council and British Irish Council) and (British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference);
5. (d) Part V except section 44(1);
6. (e) Part VI except sections 58, 59(1) to (4) and 60 and Schedules 9 and 10;
7. (f) in Part VII, sections 68 to 70 and Schedule 11.

This paragraph does not apply to—

1. (i) any matter in respect of which it is stated by this Act that proy be made by Act of the Assembly;
2. (ii) any matter to which a description specified in this Schedule or Schedule 3 is stated not to apply; or
3. (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 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—

1. (a) the Equal Pay (Northern Ireland) Act 1970,
2. (b) the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976,
3. (c) the Fair Employment Act 1976,
4. (d) the Fair Employment Act 1989,
5. (e) the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and
6. (f) the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997,

but excluding—

1. (i) the encouragement (other than by prohibition or regulation) of equal opportunities, and in particular of the observance of the equal opportunity requirements; and
2. (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 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 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 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 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.

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 moved Amendment No. 250:

Page 44, line 38, at end insert—

(" . Regulation of the following—

1. (a) building societies;
2. (b) banking;
3. (c) friendly societies and the other societies to which the Friendly Societies Act 1974 applies.

. Regulation of the following—

1. (a) investment business, the official listing of securities and offers of unlisted securities;
2. (b) the transfer of securities;
3. (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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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.

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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 281:

Page 46, leave out line 43.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 282 not moved.]

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—

1. (a) in Part III, sections (Junior Ministers) and 21;
2. (b) in Part IV, sections 32, 35(7), and 36(8) and Schedule 6;
3. (c) in Part VI, sections 58, 59(3) and (4) and 60 and Schedules 9 and 10;
4. (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—

1. (i) any matter in respect of which it is stated by this Act that provision be made by Act of the Assembly: or
2. (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 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 moved Amendment No. 282C:

Page 47, leave out lines 18 to 35 and insert—

(". The following provisions of this Act shall not be modified—

1. (a) sections 71, (Provision dealing with certain reserved matters) and 72;
2. (b) in section 77, subsections (3) and (4); and
3. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) employ such staff as the Commission considers necessary;
2. (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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) does not exist at the commencement of this Schedule; or
2. (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—

1. (a) request a public authority to which paragraph 1A(1) does not apply to make a scheme;
2. (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 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—

1. (a) requests a revised scheme under sub-paragraph (1)(b); or
2. (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—

1. (a) sends a report to the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (2)(b); or
2. (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 moved Amendment No. 324A:

After Schedule 11, insert the following new schedule—